Crisis

Global Coal-fired power statistics – Diary of a Wimpy Kid

What is it with the self-flagellation over coal-fired power? The announcement that the Morrison government intends underwriting “ONE” coal-fired power plant brings with it the hysteria of publicly force-feeding kindergarten kids with highly radioactive sludge at recess time. Naturally, none of this outrage is based on facts. It is all tokenism.

Here are the stats for coal-fired power stations globally:

Coal Capacity

Australia has only 2.5% of the coal-fired capacity of China. Versus our total of 58, China has almost 3,000 in service.

Coal Operation

Coal-fired plants that have been announced, are under construction, permitted and pre-permit stage around the globe total 1,046. Where are the climate activists in China, India, Vietnam, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Philippines, Japan, Russia, Mongolia, Botswana, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, South Korea, Thailand, Malawi, Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Turkey, Egypt, Poland and South Africa?

New Coal

The mt CO2-e output of each country is as follows. Note China produces 36x more CO2.

Coal CO2

So China and India are responsible for 58% of coal-fired power generated emissions and will be 50% of all new capacity additions going forward.

Coal CO2 Contrib

China has 100x more coal-fired power on the drawing board than Australia yet we behave as though we are the biggest climate sinners on the planet! China and India have consistently been 70%+ of all new coal-fired plant capacity additions since 2006.

Coal Capa

So do Australian activists honestly think that canning one domestic new coal-fired power plant will have the slightest effect on global temperatures when our Asian and African neighbours are full speed ahead?

There have also been arguments made by activists that our coal exports should be counted against our totals in terms of emissions. Fine. Then by that logic, FNF Media expects the total emissions of every car sold in Australia (including fuel consumed) to be charged back to Japan, China, Korea, America and Europe. Every aircraft, every electronic device, every imported building material, crane, bulldozer, wind turbine, solar panel and truck that transports it. It would equal itself out pretty quickly.

Our global neighbours seem to be prioritizing national growth over climate alarmism. For it would appear they do not have the same level of brain-washed fanatics telling our kids that they have inherited a planet that will make them the last people on earth to survive.

The quickest route for Australia to end its prosperity is to cower to this insanity. To fall in line to the idea that renewables are cheaper (they aren’t) and more green is preposterous. Wind turbine blades are being put into landfill and solar panels are toxic to recycle and likely to end in the same place. Germany is giving us a great beta test case of how renewables are failing them. Indulge yourself here.

Coal-fired plants in Australia are forced to run sub-optimally to cater to the demands of the fluctuations in renewables which must be given priority to the grid. Ask anyone in large scale manufacturing how being forced to run at fluctuating levels destroys efficiency. It really is that simple.

Coal Price

Thermal coal prices are far from going out of control. So our power plant electricity generation isn’t becoming pricier due to input costs.

We have to stop becoming emotional about numbers and data and look at what they are telling us rather than build a narrative and reverse engineer the results. It always catches up to us in the end.

Our government needs to show some backbone and provide easy to understand data about reality. Rather than fold at the confected outrage which appears backed by crony capitalists.

Now that former PM Turnbull is weighing in on the debate (contradicting comments made while PM) saying that it is lunacy to pursue coal. Given his record of poor judgment, it stands to reason building cleaner coal-fired power plants is a sensible way to lower energy prices and remain a competitive global economy.

As FNF Media likes to say, the numbers will always be right in the end. Fiddle them at your peril.

Brad Pitt attacks GOP senators at Oscars

They told me I only have 45 seconds up here, which is 45 seconds more than the Senate gave John Bolton this week…I’m thinking maybe Quentin does a movie about it — in the end, the adults do the right thing.”

Thanks Brad. If only the adults in Hollywood gave 45 seconds to stop the well known issues surrounding the Harvey Weinstein saga years before. These sorts of award ceremonies used to openly joke about Weinstein’s unethical antics.

Perhaps we should ponder why Adam Schiff didn’t call John Bolton as a witness during the Democrats own impeachment trial when they had the chance, especially after he blurted all over Twitter that he had the “backstory” evidence back on November 22nd, 2019.

The House voted 15th January 2020 to send articles to the Senate.

Open letter to Michael Mann

Dear Professor Mann,

I saw your performance on ABC Q&A last week.

Unfortunately, you may not have been aware that this is one of Australia’s worst media platforms for balanced debate or reasoned argument. The show has been raked over the coals (excuse the pun) countless times for its shockingly poor standards whether it be inviting radical feminists hurling profanity while openly calling for the murder of men, giving platforms to convicted terrorists or allowing tweets that suggested the then sitting prime minister enjoys anal sex. Without knowing its dismal editorial history, you can be forgiven for heaping praise on the show. Don’t worry, the program has made countless promises that it will do better in the future. We’re still waiting. Forewarned is forearmed.

You said you enjoy “taking climate deniers to task” but I believe it is this type of attitude that creates the very problems that get in the way of convincing them.

While you might have found it necessary to appropriate the aphorism that “you should keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out,” why didn’t you just educate Senator Molan with a list of specific hard data points instead of resorting to the one size fits all ‘consensus’ line? As much as his gaffe will be replayed on a loop, I sincerely doubt those words came out as he intended.

On the subject of consensus over the science being settled, why do we still have such poor governance practices in the scientific community?

Let’s face it. There have been many controversies that have come from climatologists based on fraudulent data or lax governance in the peer-review process. Unfortunately with next to no risk of repercussions for falsifying/homogenizing data or ‘you scratch my back, I scratch yours‘ endorsements, scientists can make outlandish claims at will with no lasting consequences.

Take this example.

A major scientific paper, which claimed to have found rapid warming in the oceans as a result of manmade global warming, was withdrawn after an amateur climate scientist found major errors in its statistical methodology.

The authors sheepishly said,

Shortly after publication, arising from comments from Nicholas Lewis, we realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors. In addition, we became aware of several smaller issues in our analysis of uncertainty. Although correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming, it led to a roughly fourfold increase in uncertainties, significantly weakening implications for an upward revision of ocean warming and climate sensitivity. Because of these weaker implications, the Nature editors asked for a Retraction, which we accept.”

It was pulled only because it was caught. Peer-reviewed? Have the people responsible for giving their blessing been struck off the list as gurus for future papers given the lazy approach to miss such basic errors? Surely to have the same names appear on future academic work risks diminishing potentially important content as sub-standard. There do not appear to be consistently high enough standards to ensure the studies are always top drawer, which they need to be if debt-ridden governments are to deploy more of our taxes effectively.

Nicholas Lewis said after the retraction that,

“This is just the latest example of climate scientists letting themselves down by using incorrect statistics. The climate field needs to get professional statisticians involved upfront if it is going to avoid this kind of embarrassment in future”.

At the very least, Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, said

Climatology is littered with examples of bad statistics, going back to the infamous Hockey Stick graph and beyond. Peer review is failing and it is falling to amateurs to find the errors. Scientists in the field should be embarrassed”.

It would be much better if people who possess high profiles in the scientific community such as yourself to become much more active in criticizing these shortcomings.

Put it this way. I, like many others, would like to get to the truth in climate science but because of the actions of a few bad apples, the rest of the value-added that might come from the majority of the scientific community gets diluted in the process. Fraudulent behaviour is reprehensible on any level in any industry. Yet the public have little scope to make these determinations of which science passes muster until it is exposed for failing to be up to standard. Yet they won’t roll over and accept ‘settled science’ given the levels of crony capitalism in the system.

If the climate activist movement wants to win over climate sceptics (not deniers) without shutting down the debate, start by cleaning house first. Advocate for scientific bodies to come down hard on cheaters amongst your own flock. They need to be exposed so that such works are discredited which has the added effect of improving the pool of best-in-class data and research. It would be helpful if the media helped spread the message that such bad behaviour will no longer be tolerated.

Countless people who have been non-compliant in the financial industry have faced harsh punishment in terms of fines and jail sentences. Companies have lost trading licenses and faced fines in the billions of dollars. I have yet to see any scientists face such risks when caught out for highly unethical behaviour.

Perhaps we could get far more sensible outcomes in convincing sceptics were the bad apples prosecuted. Furthermore, whistleblower protections would accelerate a cleanout of the dodgy scientists that game the system and ruin it for the rest. It has worked very successfully in your homeland with financial sector prosecutions up 16x since whistleblower laws were introduced in 2011. Better still, honest scientists have nothing to fear because such legislation acts as an insurance policy which protects their hard work.

That is how you’ll bring trust to the table.

I would be highly surprised if most scientists haven’t seen or heard of unethical practices conducted in the field of climate science.

You also mentioned that, “My view is the view of the world scientific community, every scientific institution in the world that’s weighed in on this matter – climate change is real, it’s human-caused, it’s already leading to disastrous impacts here in Australia and around the rest of the world. And it will get much worse if we don’t act.

Every institution? Even if we were to take this as gospel, it is highly likely that the majority have distinctly different takes on the ‘extent’ of human impacts made more disperse by varying timelines. Some no doubt say there are very minuscule impacts to others that paint more extreme scenarios. Therefore to imply there is one united view seems a bit far fetched. Despite the position of more conservative scientists, the only view that is pedalled appears to be the alarmist one.

We constantly hear noise from the media, egged on by alarmists, that extreme weather events are becoming more widespread. However, the UNIPCC’s March 2018 report on weather extremes (with respect to anthropogenic induced global warming) notes:

“…There is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systemsin some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods…low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences..low confidence in projections of changes in extreme winds.. low confidence in projections of changes in monsoons…low confidence in wave height projections…overall low confidence because of inconsistent projections of drought changes…low confidence in projected future changes in dust storms…low confidence in projections of an anthropogenic effect on phenomena such as shallow landslides.”

Where is the scientific community’s transparency in pointing out that the probabilities and confidence levels about such ‘extreme weather’ claims remaining very low? Coming from a background in statistics, such low confidence levels smack more of ‘unsettled’ science. Yet the alarmists preach it as though the evidence is irrefutable when it statistically can not be. It gets worse.

Although the media never covered it, can you please explain why so many scientists trashed the IPCC for its governance practices? The public is constantly told that the UN IPCC climate bible is the gold standard which cannot be denied.

Did you see the UN Interacademy Council committee posted a questionnaire on its website and invited interested parties to respond to the processes at the IPCC? This is what they said;

some of the lead authors…are clearly not qualified to be lead authors.” (p.16)

There are far too many politically correct appointments, so that developing country scientists are appointed who have insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful. This is reasonable if it is regarded as a learning experience, but in my chapter…we had half of the [lead authors] who were not competent.” (p. 138)

The whole process…[is] flawed by an excessive concern for geographical balance. All decisions are political before being scientific.” (p. 554)

half of the authors are there for simply representing different parts of the world.” (p. 296)

Lest anyone think that people from less affluent countries were being unjustly stereotyped,

The team members from the developing countries (including myself) were made to feel welcome and accepted as part of the team. In reality, we were out of our intellectual depth as meaningful contributors to the process.” (p.330)

Are climate deniers, as you label them, justified in questioning the validity of the processes which are relied upon to allocate $100s of billions in taxpayer money if the scientists themselves see deep flaws? This survey wasn’t conducted by a fossil-fuel lobby group but the UN itself. This is the home team exposing its own inadequacy but the media is deathly silent.

The above survey is an utter embarrassment and I would be interested to hear your response to those claims. It is alarming to know that government policy is being based on such sub-standard procedures. It would be nice for scientific bodies to come out in unison to call out these problems to ensure that properly vetted governance practices are introduced and enforced. We all win if this happens.

You said on the Q&A program that, “If we act, if we bring our carbon emissions down by a factor of two within the next 10 years, which we can do if all partners work together, then we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change.”

Do you honestly believe if Australia brings emissions from 1.3% to 0.65% that will have the slightest impact when we know that China has openly stated that its emissions (now at c.30%) won’t stop growing till at least 2030? Furthermore, Australia’s population grew by 10% since 2013. Reducing emissions in half with a growing population will mean that even more drastic measures would be required.

China will be growing an Australia every week by 2030 from every two weeks today. If we hit your target, China will still be steaming ahead at two Australia’s per week. Unfortunately, the economic pain inflicted to reach such targets is simply too steep in reality. Renewables have a very poor record in Australia despite our world-leading commitment per capita in introducing green energy.

You make the criticism about the stance taken by the Murdoch media on climate change. By that measure, The Guardian is conspicuous for its constant alarmism where it openly admits to sensationalising language.

I sincerely hope you join me in ways to close the gap between alarmists and sceptics. We live in a cancel culture society. The more this is accepted, the harder both sides dig in their heels. The only way to effectively find common ground is to tidy up the procedures, governance and practices whereby poor behaviour is summarily punished and outed so that people on all sides can have trust that investment decisions made reflect fact, not fiction.

With a heavy heart, the EU’s recent declaration of a ‘Climate Emergency’ rejected revisions to the legislation which requested, “Recalls that climate change is one of the many challenges facing humanity and that all states and stakeholders worldwide must do their utmost to measure it scientifically so that policy, and especially spending, is based on observable facts and not on apocalyptic fearmongering or unreliable models; emphasises that there is no scientific consensus on what percentage of climate change is anthropogenic and what percentage is natural.”

Surely if we are to build a sensible united front, this is a shockingly poor start. Instead of taking sceptics to task, work to put their concerns to bed via cleaning up those that muddy the waters of those with a genuine message. Questioning bad behaviour doesn’t require an open mind. Ignoring it risks one’s brains falling out.

Yours sincerely,

M. Newman

 

Nancy gets out her scotch/tape

After ripping up a speech which was largely truthful in content and contained the story of a 100 year old member of the Tuskegee Airmen who was present at SOTU, Nancy Pelosi decided to post this.

Thanks Nancy. A bit late. You should have respected them at the time but you let your petty partisanship drive your behavior.

She is a piece of work.

“Climate change” Casanova

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again.

While the alarmist media continues its attack dog mission on PM Scott Morrison over the bushfires, they overlook the most glaring hole in the argument of the fire chiefs – consistency.

If former FR NSW chief Greg Mullins truly believes that “climate change” is such a critical issue, why was the subject absent for so many years in the annual reports which were submitted to parliament that he oversaw? Surely he had the perfect opportunity to raise awareness year after year on the topic. Yet he didn’t.

Annual reports are like an opus magnum. They document the key opportunities and challenges for an organization. In Mullins’ case, the mention of climate change is conspicuous by its very absence. In the 2018/19 FRNSW annual report there is a reference to climate change by way of voluntary participation in Earth Hour. Hardly a detail oriented study on the effects of bushfires and global warming!

Now that Mullins is in cahoots with the Climate Council, it is very convenient to drum up ‘awareness’ on climate change post the bushfires for a Royal Commission (RC). Forget that 95% of a RC would probably draw on the exact same advice garnered from 57 former enquire since 1939.

Our belief is that incompetence has reigned supreme. Fire department senior management seemed more engaged on ticking the diversity & inclusion box (please see data in the above link) in annual reports than providing rich data on the core business i.e. preventing and extinguishing fires.

That is to take nothing away from the brave fireys who risk their lives on the front line. As some volunteer firefighters have made clear, they think the senior management act like a mafia.

For Mullins to use the get out of jail free card of climate change in any RC by saying it will ‘fail at the first step’ without is ridiculous.

To include it now should highlight the media by years of exclusion when he had the authority and opportunity to do something but didn’t. Why? Will anyone ask this question? Not with our powderpuff mainstream media.

Statistically speaking, to introduce climate change in the 58th review in 81 years would smack of being an outlier. Outliers shouldn’t be ignored but they must be viewed in context of the relatives of intensity, area burned, fuel loads, hazard management, weather conditions, people and machines deployed. It is likely that these fires will be less than one standard deviation off the mean which effectively would conclude that climate change wouldn’t be a driver.

Climate change is now a phrase of convenience tossed around more frequently than Casanova telling girls they are “the only one” on Valentines Day.

Which government racked up the most debt in Australia?

Irresponsible! How conservatives used to hammer the Rudd/Gillard/Swan Labor government for squandering the massive surplus left by the Coalition under Howard/Costello. Yes, it was huge, but our current Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison Coalition is supposedly responsible for over half of the total of all gross debt since 1854 according to the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM). Is this true?

A question posed from a subscriber to FNF Media was, “what has driven the Australian debt since 2013?

First, a preamble.

We’ve seen this picture before. The Obama Administration almost ran up more national debt than all 43 previous administrations combined. From $10.699 trillion to $19.976 trillion. Federal debt as a % of GDP expanded from 64.4% to 105.2%. The latest count under Trump is $22.7 trillion, or 105.4%, virtually unchanged.

It is not an uncommon trend in other countries either. EU central government debt has grown from 52.6% in 2007 to 89.3% today. Japan has jumped from 134% to 196.4% respectively.

RBA-cash-rate-changes

The RBA starts off with an interesting chart (above) which explains how the steady lowering of cash rates triggered the explosion of federal debt. From the post-2000 peak of 7.25% (2008), interest rates are now at 0.75%. Since Sep 2013, we have been sub 2.5%.

Bonds

Note the Abbott Coalition took power in September 2013. According to the AOFM, at that time, Australia had $301.8bn in outstanding federal government debt. AOFM also reports the Dec 2019 outstanding figure was $556.6bn. Mathematically, if we assume that all previous administrations to Sept 2013 summed to $301.8bn that would mean the most recent Coalition would be responsible for 46% of the total amount of all debt issued since 1854.

If we look at it from a % of GDP perspective, gross debt in Australia has risen from 30.5% to 41.4% of the total between 2013 and 2019. Note that in 2007, Australia’s gross debt was only 9.7% of GDP.

What ultimately matters is “net debt.” Although even that is predicated on the value of assets being fairly treated at a particular point in time. In a sharp economic downturn, assets values can implode, while liabilities remain as they are. Net liabilities can move on a dime.

The Howard Coalition lost office in November 2007. At that time, the net surplus was +A$22.1bn. When Labor lost in September 2013, net debt was $174.6bn. Therefore the net increase under Labor was $196.7bn. Since that time, December 2019 net debt now sits at $403.0bn. Inflation-adjusted, it is probably on a par with the Coalition’s scorecard.

If we calculate the net deficits between 2012-13 and 2018-19, it sums to $184.1bn. So versus the $202.6bn in debt issuance, it is largely consistent with the first chart.

Net interest payments on interest-bearing liabilities according to the Department of Finance were $14.008bn on $306.228bn of debt or 4.57% average interest rate in September 2013. The projected interest bill for the FY2019/20 recorded in December 2019 was $18.215bn on $642.5bn or 2.83% average interest rate on that debt. So double the debt with only 28% more in interest costs.

Easy money has allowed lazy deficits. Although we could just blindly believe our government that the net debt will be wiped out by 2029/30…too easy…then again this is the dream world government departments live in.

Don’t forget we’ve been told by the BIS that central banks will be the “climate rescuers of last resort” despite reckless monetary policy where, in 2019 alone, we’ve had 71 rate cuts conducted by 49 central banks, laying the foundations for over-consumption and racking up excessive debt levels. You can read more about that here.

Net Debt

Now our authorities can use the half-truth of bushfires and the Coronavirus to explain away any weakness in the current quarter. Never mind, a bit of debt-fuelled government spending will be turned on again to save us and the budget papers, which so few people read, will see the the ‘net-debt’ projection pushed out another decade in the hope we won’t notice.

Australia remains in ‘relatively’ good shape but the trend is hardly one to take comfort from if the Australian government’s thinking remains that low-interest rates can let it kick the can down the road indefinitely.

Image result for kick the can"

 

When you next fill up, consider Shell

No photo description available.

Yet more Extinction Rebellion inspired lunacy. Do yourself a favour and consider filling up at a Shell service station next time you need petrol. In the latest Shell Must Fall post, the group boasts,

“As part of the SHELL MUST FALL Everywhere! *activeweek* international action week, people across Sweden have taken several Shell petrol stations offline through a set of targeted actions that made Shell unable to process payments at the pump.

Actions have been reported across several Swedish cities, including Lund, Örebro, Uppsala, and Malmö. A spokesperson issued the following statement:

“Every transaction that happens at these pumps delivers more profit to Shell and its shareholders. More profit at the expense of the Ogoni people in the Niger Delta, more profit at the expense of our air quality, more profit at the expense of the stability of our climate, our atmosphere.

We say enough is enough. Shell Must Fall!”

Given this mob wants a socialist agenda, they should reflect on Shell’s commitment to diversity and inclusion. This from the latest annual report:

…in 2018, we were recognised as one of the top three organisations in the Workplace Pride global lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersexed (LGBTI) inclusive workplace benchmark and earned a 100% score in the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s Corporate Equality Index. In addition, the 2018 Hampton Alexander Review ranked Shell first out of the Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 350 Oil & Gas Industry index companies and seventh out of the FTSE 100 Top 10 Best Performers. We actively monitor the representation of women and local nationals in senior leadership positions and have talent-development processes to support us in mitigating any biases and delivering a more diverse representation.”

Shell thinks the Niger Delta has a far different set of risks.

In our Nigerian operations, we face various risks and adverse conditions. These include: security issues surrounding the safety of our people, host communities and operations; sabotage and theft; our ability to enforce existing contractual rights; litigation; limited infrastructure; potential legislation that could increase our taxes or costs of operations; the effect of lower oil and gas prices on the government budget; and regional instability created by militant activities. Any of these risks or adverse conditions could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, cash flows and financial condition.

Perhaps when they storm into the shareholders meeting in May 2020 that they swot up on the facts before causing the collapse of Shell.