#wind

A worthwhile 20 minutes on nuclear

Michael Shellenberger makes a sensible case for nuclear power. A worthwhile 20 minutes with a lot of interesting statistics especially in comparing nuke power to renewables in terms of life cycle costs.

Some interesting stats are as follows:

Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.

“Consider California. Between 2011–17 the cost of solar panels declined about 75 percent, and yet our electricity prices rose five times more than they did in the rest of the U.S.”

Building a solar farm is a lot like building any other kind of farm. You have to clear the whole area of wildlife…Thanks to its energy density, nuclear plants require far less land than renewables. Even in sunny California, a solar farm requires 450 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant.”

“Solar panels require 17 times more materials in the form of cement, glass, concrete, and steel than do nuclear plants, and create over 200 times more waste…We tend to think of solar panels as clean, but the truth is that there is no plan anywhere to deal with solar panels at the end of their 20 to 25-year lifespan…Experts fear solar panels will be shipped, along with other forms of electronic waste, to be disassembled—or, more often, smashed with hammers—by poor communities in Africa and Asia, whose residents will be exposed to the dust from toxic heavy metals including lead, cadmium, and chromium.

Greta & Obama

A propaganda picture which would have had a place in Soviet times. A socialist leader Obama looking down on a brainwashed teenager, Great Thunberg, who is unbeknownst being exploited by the intelligentsia.

The picture, while excellent as a stand-alone photo, has a patronizing overtone. The disdain held against those wicked climate skeptics. Had NZ PM Jacinda Ardern been in it, the leftist dream team would have been fully assembled. Although her 2050 zero emissions plan has been independently costed and its outrageous.

Obama better not tell Greta Thunberg about the disastrous Solyndra scandal otherwise those crossed arms might end up being for him.

Solyndra was an Obama era solar darling that the Inspector General’s Office, after more than four years of investigation, concluded that company’s senior management used inaccurate information to mislead the Department of Energy (DoE) in its $535 million loan. Soon after the fees landed, Solyndra declared bankruptcy.

Perhaps Greta should be speaking to Bjorn Lomborg to get a proper education on the real price of costing her plans for climate change.

AOC is at it again with feelings over facts

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is at again. She thinks she can put solar panels on 25% of Rikers Island and dispense with every toxic (presumably fossil fuel) power plant in New York built in the last two decades.

It takes around 32 acres of solar to power 1,000 homes. 25% of Rikers Island works out at 103 acres so by the maths it could power 3,000 homes.

Given that New York gets 42.3% of its power mix from evil natural gas that might be a problem for some of the 3.159mn households if she closes them down. Although taking out gas power leaves her to look after the 1.34m households (42.3%).

Expanding it out she would need to think the following equation

25% Rikers Island x 4 x (1,336,000 / 3000) =

To carry out her plan she’d need at least 445 entire Rikers Islands to meet that demand. Or 1,781 times her initial plan.

Even if she were to look after the 503,000 households in the Bronx her plan would still be only 0.15% of the way there.

Perhaps she should pave solar panels to Hawaii in order that we won’t have to fly there…

Actually, vote on the political emergency

No surprise to see The Guardian parrot on about a climate emergency. The editorial completely misses out on the political emergency we face. The economic climate is a massive issue facing Australia. When Bill Shorten tells us that he “will change the nation forever” we shouldn’t view that positively. It is probably the honest thing he has said. Labor’s policy suite is the worst possible collection one could assemble to tackle what economic headwinds lie ahead. Our complacency is deeply disconcerting.

First let’s debunk the climate noise in The Guardian.

The math on the climate emergency is simple. Australia contributes 0.0000156% of global carbon emissions. No matter what we do our impact is zip. If we sell it as 560 million tonnes it sounds huge but the percentage term is all that is relevant. Even Dr Finkel, our climate science guru, agrees. What that number means is that Australia could emit 65,000x what it does now in order to get to a 1% global impact. So even if our emissions rise at a diminishing rate with the population, they remain minuscule.

Bill Shorten often tells us the cost of doing nothing on climate change is immeasurable. He’s right, only in that “it is too insignificant” should be the words he’s searching for.

Perhaps the saddest part of the Guardian editorial was to say that the Green New Deal proposed by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was gaining traction in the US. It has been such a catastrophic failure that she lost an unsolicited vote on the Senate floor 57-0 because Democrats were too embarrassed to show up and support it. Nancy Pelosi dismissed it as a “green dream.” At $97 trillion to implement, no wonder AOC says feelings are more important than facts.

With the 12-year time limit to act before we reach the moving feast known as the tipping point, it gets confusing for climate sceptics. Extinction Rebellion wants things done in only 6 years. The UK House of Commons still can’t get a Brexit deal done inside 3 years but can act instantaneously to call a “climate emergency” after meeting a brainwashed teenager from Sweden. It speaks volumes of the desperation and lack of execution to have to search for political distractions like this.

The ultimate irony in the recent celebration of no coal-fired power in the UK for one week was fossil fuel power substituted all of it – 93% to be exact. Despite the energy market operator telling Brits that zero carbon emissions were possible by 2025 (40% of the current generation capacity is fossil fuel), it forgot that 85% of British homes heat with gas. Presumably, they’d need to pop on down to Dixon’s or Curry’s to buy new electric heaters which would then rely on a grid which will junk 40% of its reliable power…good luck sorting that out without sending prices sky high. Why become beholden to other countries to provide the back-up? It is irrational.

Are people aware that the German electricity regulator noted that 330,000 households (not people) were living in energy poverty? At 2 people per household, that is 1% of the population having their electricity supply cut off because they can’t afford to pay it. That’s what expensive renewables do. If the 330,000 could elect cheap electricity to warm their homes or go without for the sake of the climate, which would they choose? 100% cheap, reliable power. Yet Shorten’s plan can only push more into climate poverty which currently stands at 42,000 homes. This is before the economy has started to tank!

If one looks across Europe, it is no surprise to see the countries with the highest level of fossil fuel power generation (Hungary, Lithuania & Bulgaria) have the lowest electricity prices. Those with more renewables (Denmark, Germany & Belgium), the highest. That is Australia’s experience too. South Australia and Victoria have already revealed their awful track record with going renewable. Why did Coca-Cola and other industries move out of SA after decades? They couldn’t make money with such an unreliable

Ahh, but we must protect our children and grandchildren’s futures. So low have the left’s tactics sunk that using kids as human shields in the fight for climate change wards off conservatives calling out the truth because it is not cool to bully brainwashed kids. We should close all our universities. As the father of two teenagers, CM knows they know everything already so there is little requirement for tertiary education!

The Guardian mentioned, “But in Australia, the Coalition appears deaf to the rising clamour from the electorate [on climate change].” Really?

CM has often held that human consumption patterns dictate true feelings about climate change. Climate alarmist Independent candidate Zali Steggall drives a large SUV and has no solar panels on her roof! Her battleground in the wealthy seat of Warringah is probably 70%+ SUV so slapping a Zali bumper sticker does nothing but add to the hypocrisy.

Why do we ignore IATA forecasts that project air travel will double by 2030? Qantas has the largest carbon offset program in the world yet only 2% elect to pay the self-imposed tax. Isn’t that telling? That is the problem. So many climate alarmists expect others to do the heavy lifting.

SUVs make up 43% of all new car sales in Australia. In 2007 it was 19%. Hardly the activity of a population fretting about rising sea levels. In Warringah, waterfront property sales remain buoyant and any bank that feared waves lapping the rooves of Burran Avenue would not take such portfolio risk, much less an insurance company.

Shorten’s EV plan is such a dud that there is a reason he can’t cost it. Following Norway is great in theory but the costs of installing EV infrastructure is prohibitively expensive. It will be NBN Mark II. Will we spend millions to trench 480V connectors along the Stuart Highway?

Norway state enterprise, Enova, said it would install fast chargers every 50km of 7,500km worth of main road/highway. Australia has 234,820km of highways/main roads. Fast chargers at every 50km like the Norwegians would require a minimum of 4,700 charging stations across Australia. Norway commits to a minimum of 2 fast chargers and 2 standard chargers per station.

The problem is our plan for 570,000 cars per annum is 10x the number of EVs sold in Norway, requiring 10x the infrastructure. That would cost closer to $14bn, or the equivalent of half the education budget.

The Guardian griped that “Scott Morrison’s dismissive response to a UN report finding that the world is sleepwalking towards an extinction crisis, and his parliamentary stunt of fondling a lump of coal”

Well, he might doubt the UN which has been embroiled in more scandals related to climate change than can be counted. Most won’t be aware that an internal UN survey revealed the dismay of unqualified people being asked for input for the sake of diversity and inclusion as opposed to choosing those with proper scientific qualifications. The UN has climbed down from most of its alarmist predictions, often citing no or little confidence of the original scare.

Yet this election is truly about the cost of living, not climate or immigration. The biggest emergency is to prepare for the numbers we can properly set policy against.

We have household debt at a record 180% of GDP. We have had 27 years of untrammelled economic growth. Unfortunately, we have traded ourselves into a position of too much complacency. Our major 4 banks are headed for a lot of trouble. Forget meaningless stress tests. APRA is too busy twiddling its thumbs over climate change compliance. While the Royal Commission may reign in loose lending, a slowing global economy with multiple asset bubbles including houses will come crumbling down. These banks rely 40% on wholesale markets to fund growth. A sharp slowdown will mean a weaker dollar which will only exacerbate the problem.

We have yet to see bond markets price risk correctly. Our banks are horribly exposed. They have too little equity and a mortgage debt problem that dwarfs Japan in the late 1980s. Part/whole nationalization is a reality. The leverage is worse than US banks at the time of the Lehman collapse.

We have yet to see 10% unemployment rates. We managed to escape GFC with a peak of 6% but this time we don’t have a buoyant China to rescue us. Consumers are tapped out and any upward pressure on rates (to account for risk) will pop the housing bubble. Not to worry, Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen assures people not to panic if their home falls into negative equity! This is the level of economic nous on the catastrophe that awaits. It is insanely out of touch.

Are our politicians aware that the US has to refinance US$8.4 trillion in US Treasuries in the next 3 years? That amount of money will crowd out a corporate bond market which has more than 50% of companies rated BBB or less. This will be compounded by the sharp rise in inventories we are witnessing on top of the sharp slowdown in trade (that isn’t just related to the trade war) which is at GFC lows. The 3.2% US economic growth last quarter was dominated by “intellectual property”, not consumption or durable goods.

China car sales have been on a steep double-digit decline trajectory for the last 9 months. China smartphone shipments dwindle at 6 year lows. In just the first four months of 2019, Chinese companies defaulted on $5.8 billion of domestic bonds, c.3.4x the total for the same period of 2018. The pace is over triple that of 2016.

Europe is in the dumps. Germany has had some of the worst industrial production numbers since 2008. German GDP is set to hit 0.5% for 2019. France 1.25% and Italy 0.25%. Note that in 2007, there were 78mn Europeans living in poverty. In the following decade, it hit 118mn or 23.5% of the population.

Global bellwether Parker Hannifin, which is one of the best lead indicators of global industrial growth, reported weaker orders and a soft outlook which suggests the outlook for global growth is not promising.

This election on Saturday is a choice between the lesser of two evils. The LNP has hardly made a strong case for reelection given the shambolic leadership changes. Take it to the bank that neither will be able to achieve surpluses with the backdrop we are headed into. Yet when it comes to economic stewardship, it is clear Labor are out of their depth in this election. Costings are wildly inaccurate but they are based on optimistic growth scenarios that simply don’t exist. We cannot tax our way to prosperity when global growth dives.

Hiking taxes, robbing self-managed super fund retirees and slamming the property market might play well with the classes of envy but they will be the biggest victims of any slowdown. Australia has run out of runway to keep economic growth on a positive footing.

We will do well to learn from our arrogance which has spurned foreign investment like Adani. We miscalculate the damage done to the national brand. Adani has been 8 years in the making. We have tied the deal up in so much onerous red tape, that we have done nothing more than treating our foreign investors with contempt. Those memories will not be forgotten.

There will come a point in years to come where we end up begging for foreigners to invest at home but we will only have ourselves to blame.

The editorial closes with,

However you choose to exercise your democratic decision-making on Saturday, please consider your candidate’s position on climate and the rapidly shrinking timeframe for action. We have endured mindless scare campaigns and half-baked policy for too many decades. We don’t have three more years to waste.

This is the only sensible quote in the entire article. The time for action is rapidly shrinking. However, that only applies to the political and economic climate. One can be absolutely sure that when the slowdown hits, saving the planet will be furthest removed from Aussie voters’ minds.

Bill Shorten’s electric dreams are our nightmare

Image result for fuel bowser out of use

When will politicians wake up? How can they honestly believe their targets are remotely achievable if the industry is not even in the ballpark to being able to supply those promises? Take the ALP’s plan to make electric vehicles (EVs) 50% of new car sales by 2030.

In 2018, 1,153,111 new automobiles were sold across Australia. This plan is so easily destroyed by simple mathematics, something CM did in 2017 when Macron waxed lyrical about 100% EV sales by 2040. The only 100% certainty is that Bill Shorten won’t hit the 50% target by 2030. Do we need the government to tell us what cars we wish to buy?

The first problem he will encounter is overall consumer demand for EVs. Few suit the diverse needs and utilities (e.g. boat enthusiasts who require towing capacity unmet by all current EVs or parents who need 7-seaters to ferry kids to footy) of individual buyers. If the types of EVs available don’t match the requirements of the users then few will see the point to buy one no matter what the subsidy. In 2008, SUVs were 19% of Aussie new car sales. It is 43% today. So much for the climate change fearing public voting with their wallets! That is the first problem.

Why is the government meddling in an industry they know next to nothing about? Having a zero emissions (ZE) target is one thing they might aim for, however why not tell auto makers they need to attain that goal but will be granted complete technological freedom to achieve it? If the auto makers see necessity as the mother of invention, who are regulators to dictate the technology? If an internal combustion engine can achieve ZE does that not meet the goal?

It stands to reason we should question those with the least idea on the technology to dictate the future. The ZE appeal of EVs is an ineffective virtue signaling device to voters.

If we look at Euro emissions regulations introduced since 1993, substantial progress has been made in the last 20 years. Euro 6 started in 2015. For diesel particulate matter, emissions are 97% down on Euro 1 (1993) and NOx down by 95% over the same period.

The irony here, is that governments have these thought bubbles and then consult the industry afterwards to see if those promises can be fulfilled. CM spoke to multiple global auto suppliers in the EV space at the Tokyo Motor Show in 2018 and this is what was said,

“So haphazard is the drive for EV legislation that there are over 200 cities in Europe with different regulations. In the rush for cities to outdo one another this problem will only get worse. Getting two city councils to compromise is one thing but 200 or more across country lines? Without consistent regulations, it is hard for makers to build EVs that can accommodate all the variance in laws without sharply boosting production costs…

…On top of that charging infrastructure is an issue. Japan is a good example. Its EV growth will be limited by elevator parking and in some suburban areas, where car lots are little more than rental patches of dirt where owners are unlikely to install charging points…

…Charging and battery technology will keep improving but infrastructure harmonisation and ultimately who pays for the cost is far from decided. With governments making emotional rather than rational decisions, the only conclusion to be drawn is unchecked virtuous bingo which will end up having to be heavily compromised from the initial promises as always.

So the suppliers aren’t on board for a start. They know their car manufacturer clients rather well and if they aren’t buying it, auto makers can’t sell it. Slowing sales worldwide adds to reluctance to add to expensive fixed cost capacity at the top of a cycle.

We have proof of this. Note what we wrote in 2017:

It isn’t a big surprise to see national governments virtue signal over climate abatement. The UK swiftly followed French plans to ban the sale of petrol/diesel cars from 2040. However, let’s get real. Government proactivity on climate change may appear serious but the activities of the auto industry are generally a far better indicator of their lobby power. As a car analyst at the turn of the century, how the excitement of electric vehicle (EV) alternatives to internal combustion engines was all the rage. Completely pie in the sky assumptions about adoption rates…

…In 1999 industry experts said that by 2010  EVs would be 10% of all units sold. Scroll forward to 2019 and they are near as makes no difference 2.5% of total vehicle sales…talk about a big miss. 10 years beyond the prediction, they’re only 25% of the way there. Pathetic. 

CM also discussed in this report, 30 reasons Tesla would be a bug on a windshield;

“To prove the theory of the recent thought bubbles made by policy makers, they are already getting urgent emails from energy suppliers on how the projections of EV sales will require huge investment in the grid. [Mr Shorten, will we have all these cars recharging overnight using renewables? Solar perhaps?] The UK electricity network is currently connected to systems in France, the Netherlands and Ireland through cables called interconnectors. The UK uses these to import or export electricity when it is most economical. Will this source be curtailed as nations are forced into self-imposed energy security by chasing unsustainable products?

The UK’s National Grid said that the extra capacity required just to charge EVs would require another new Hinkley C nuclear plant to cover it. Will people choose between watching  premiership football on Sky Sports or charging their car?

Car makers can’t produce at the desired speed and energy suppliers don’t have the excess capacity required to charge. Slightly large problems. We don’t need to look at failed EV policy to show government incompetence. Germany totally fluffed its bio-fuel promise back in 2008 that even a Greens’ politician ended up trashing it.

“The German authorities went big for bio-fuels in 2008 forcing gas stands to install E-10 pumps to cut CO2. However as many as 3 million cars at the time weren’t equipped to run on it and as a result consumers abandoned it leaving many gas stands with shortages of the petrol and gluts of E-10 which left the petrol companies liable to huge fines (around $630mn) for not hitting government targets.”

Claude Termes, a member of European Parliament from the Green Party in Luxembourg said in 2008 that legally mandated biofuels were a dead end…the sooner it disappears, the better…my preference is zero…policymakers cannot close their eyes in front of the facts. The European Parliament is increasingly skeptical of biofuels.” Even ADAC told German drivers to avoid using E10 when traveling in other parts of continental Europe.

Starting with the basics for Australia.

If we take 50% of total car sales in 2018 as the target by 2030, Shorten needs to sell 576,556 EVs per annum to meet his bold target.

Let’s deal with the elephant in the room – note that petrol excise is currently around 4.7% of total federal tax take (c. $19bn) and likely to grow to c.$23bn by 2021. Even if we were to assume that we achieved Shorten’s targets based on a flat overall car market by 2030, Shorten’s tax receipts from the fuel excise would collapse and only be amplified by subsidies paid on 576,556 EVs. Throw the global average of $6,000-10,000  in incentives per EV and we’ve quickly racked $3-5bn per annum in subsidies.

Then will he offer cash for clunkers (C4C) for the poor owners of fossil fuel cars? Many car owners would require a hefty slug of C4C to offset the massive depreciation that would ensue on a trade in of a fossil fueled powered car. People are going to want decent trade ins, not 5c in the dollar of what they would have got had the government not attacked car owners. The changeover price matters. Shorten  may well get his 50% by halving the industry.

Should we also consider whether fuel taxes should be replaced by electricity taxes? If that ends up all we drive who is to stop it? Surely the maintenance of roads and related infrastructure which we’re told our fuel taxes pay for the upkeep will still need to be funded by heavier EVs.

Take the Tesla Model X 100D. It weighs 2,509kg, 49% heavier than an equivalent BMW 5-series. The heavier the car, the more damaging to the road. Such is the progress of the Nissan Leaf that the kerb weight has risen in the new model to 1,538kg on the original, or 400kg heavier than a petrol Toyota Corolla. EVs are fat.

Global EV sales units were 2.1mn last year. Total car sales were 79m odd. Let’s assume auto makers could conceivably increase capacity by 2m every 2 years (plants take 2 years to build and those poor Congolese child slave laborers will be run off their feet digging for cobalt to go in the batteries) then conceivably 30mn cumulative EV units could be built by 2030. Unfortunately VW gave the real answer on how they view EVs.

“Volkswagen makes an interesting case study. After being caught red handed cheating diesel emissions regulations (a perfect example of how little VW must believe in man-made global warming) they were in full compliance at the 2017 Frankfurt Motor Show telling the world of their $80bn investment in EVs out to 2030, 300 new EV models comprising 3 million units in 25 years of which 1.5mn would be sold in China. 3 million cars would be c.30% of VW’s total output today.”

However auto makers are faced with a conundrum. Chinese car sales are slowing. US car sales are slowing. European car sales are drifting and Aussie car sales are weak. Capex into EVs will be a very gentle process. They don’t want to plug in massive investments into new capacity if end demand is likely to remain soft. That is basic business sense. Note parts manufacturers need to be convinced that building new plants alongside makers is sustainable. Many are gun shy given the OEMs sent many parts suppliers into receivership the last cycle.

Ahh but EVs are less harmful to the environment. Are they?

The IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute was commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency to investigate lithium-ion batteries climate impact from a life cycle perspective.

The report showed that battery manufacturing leads to high emissions. For every kilowatt hour of storage capacity in the battery generated emissions of 150 to 200 kilos of carbon dioxide already in the factory. Regular EV batteries with 25–30 kWh of capacity will result in 5 metric tonnes CO2, which is equivalent to 50,000 km driving in a regular, fuel-efficient diesel vehicle.

Another study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) showed that depending on the power generation mix, an all EV Nissan Leaf in the US or China was no better than a 2012 Prius. Countries with higher relative nuclear power generation unsurprisingly had lower CO2 emissions outcomes for EVs. By deduction countries with higher shares of coal or gas fired power negated much of the ‘saving’ of an EV relative to gasoline power.

So pretty much on all measures, Bill Shorten’s misadventure on EVs will be a complete dud. If only he’d consulted with the industry before celebrating how “woke” he is. He’s simply not.

Who says the Germans don’t do humour?

8E1E95AA-735B-41FA-9B07-1E7D044092B7.jpeg

Mercedes-Benz has decided to showcase its least fuel efficient SUV, the G63 AMG (which has the aerodynamics of a house brick), overlooking some renewable wind power. Irony, sarcasm and humour rolled into one. Is this to champion the importance of boosting policy that encourages carbon offsets or will the car double as a back up generator when the wind doesn’t blow?

Maybe the joke is on us. Perhaps the Germans aren’t doing humour at all but providing realistic assessments on actual consumer behaviour and the inability of renewables to provide baseload power.