Skip to content

Australian Power

February 10, 2017

(This article is being published from Australia. I hope to be able to publish an article each week while I am traveling overseas.)

Australia endured another blackout this week. As The Australian paper reported, the Australian Energy Market Operator said the blackout was due to “a lack of available generating capacity.”

How can a nation not have ample generating capacity?

Actually, the answer is fairly simple. Too much wind and solar generating capacity was put in place, and too much fossil fuel generating capacity was closed.

This is the second blackout caused by the inability of wind to supply electricity when needed.

Last month, the entire province of South Australia was in darkness when wind turbines had to be shut down due to storms, and the link to Victoria province broke.

This time only 40,000 people were in darkness in Adelaide.

The Australian, reported that Senator Birmingham said:

“It’s a demonstration that ad-hoc state-based renewable energy targets have gone too far.”

The left leaning current government of South Australia has imposed a renewable target of 50% by 2025.

Sydney Opera House. Photo by D. Dears

Sydney Opera House. Photo by D. Dears

The current Premier for South Australia, Jay Weathererill, has blamed both outages on the weather and the National Energy Market for the blackouts, but it’s becoming increasingly evident that wind and solar are incapable of providing reliable power when it’s needed most.

There is an ongoing battle between the left leaning Labor Party, and the Liberals i.e., conservative party, over energy issues.

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott has said, unequivocally, that the global warming, i.e., climate change, hysteria is no more than a fraud being imposed on unwary citizenry.

Generally speaking, people want to do what’s right about the environment, but don’t realize the nature of the beast being imposed on them

 

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 12, explains the futility of wind and solar generated electricity.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content

Advertisements
8 Comments leave one →
  1. February 11, 2017 3:30 am

    Donn, You do not miss much in the news of Power Generation! I have friends in PA who are faced with importing wind power from western PA to the populated east coast and therefore renewable power must compete and coexist with large coal and nuclear plants. The subsidies for Wind have made the reliability of the Grid precarious at times. At one point last year, Exelon had announced that they would be shutting one perfectly good nuclear plant each year for five years. Why? Because of competitive pressures of cheap gas and subsidized Nuke’s. I think since then, the Illinois subsidies have slowed that down. But, the coal plants have no such lifelines as the large Nuke’s do. Australia’s problems could be ours if we ever get a repeat of the 2014 January “Polar Vortex”. Back in Jan 2014, gas units has issues with gas line choking and startup problems of frozen sensing lines and normal cold weather issues. The tried and proven old coal plants however, chugged on as did the MISO system to import 2,000 MW to the Philadelphia area. Check the NCC report on the value of the existing coal fleet for more details. Thank you for your steady and reliable reporting of serious, but little understood (by the general public) power generation issues. You are at the head of the Class of the 1% of the Americans that understand power generation. Keep up the great and important work! Dick Storm

  2. February 11, 2017 3:32 am

    I meant, subsidized Renewables as the cause for the problems of uncompetitive Nuke’s, not subsidized Nuke’s….however it seems some Nuclear plants in the Midwest have obtained Regulatory relief.

    • February 11, 2017 4:53 pm

      Dick:
      Thanks for your comment. I greatly appreciate your compliments, but there are many others, like yourself, who are waging the could fight.

  3. jdonnellon11comcastnet permalink
    February 11, 2017 2:10 pm

    Donn, great reading the enlightening article.

    John

  4. February 14, 2017 8:44 pm

    Very good article .
    Thanks , Steve

  5. February 20, 2017 6:01 pm

    Donn, I saw your presentation at MAPPS in Tampa. Thanks for this. You showed a slide about the 4000 year history of CO2 levels which have stayed flat at about 280 ppm. But many sources like https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html show CO2 increasing in the last 100 years or so. Can you help me reconcile or interpret these two sources of info about CO2 levels? Thanks for your help.

    • February 21, 2017 12:37 am

      Mike:
      I reviewed the NOAA video you included in your question.
      The slide I showed covered the past 4,000 year. It showed that the atmospheric CO2 levels remained constant at around 280 ppm until the mid 1800s, at which point, due to the industrial revolution they started to rise. Today, they are about 400 ppm.
      The key point I made was that the three warm periods prior to today’s were warmer than today while CO2 remained constant, indicating there was no cause and effect relationship. I.e., CO2 had virtually no effect on temperatures. Temperatures were driven by natural causes, not CO2. NOAA, in its video, tried to show that CO2 has risen the past 100 years, but that doesn’t mean that the rise in CO2 caused the rise in temperatures. They are not linked in any substantial way, as demonstrated by the past warm periods when CO2 remained constant at 280 ppm. You probably noted the use of a suppressed zero which allowed them to show a far more dramatic rise in CO2 recently. That’s a technique used by people trying to fool other people.
      The issue is: What is causing temperatures to rise? The NOAA video doesn’t attempt to explain why CO2 is the cause, it merely assumes CO2 is the cause, while in the earlier warm periods shown in my slide it hasn’t been the cause.

      • February 21, 2017 8:50 am

        That clarifies it. Thanks very much. I really appreciate your scholarship on this material.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s