Renewables NOT Renewable

by Viv Forbes

Horse Hollow wind farm

 

There is an incessant chorus from the green gospellers glorifying “renewable” energy and warning disbelievers that continued use of carbon fuels will damn the world to eternal fires of global warming.

Their ire is focussed on carbon dioxide, one very minor but beneficial atmospheric gas which is accused of causing more of everything bad: pollution and extreme weather, droughts and floods, snowstorms and hurricanes, malaria and mosquitos, icebergs and glacier retreat, heat waves and blizzards, declining polar bears and multiplying cane toads.

 
 

We are told that using “renewable” energy will prevent all these disasters and produce cheap “clean” electricity. Four points are relevant:

First, carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, oil, gas, diesel, petrol or wood is not a pollutant in the atmosphere, not the key driver of global warming or climate change, but a boon to all plants (and thus all life). It is clean and green. There is thus no environmental or climate justification for punitive taxes on carbon dioxide, or for really silly stuff like emissions trading or carbon capture and burial.

Second, wind and solar power have a role in remote or mobile applications and in domestic hot water generation, but are an unreliable and high cost addition to grid power. Because of their intermittent and unpredictable supply characteristics, the large areas of land required to collect significant energy, and their need for back-up generators or huge batteries, they can seldom compete in a fair market with coal, gas, nuclear or hydro power. Nothing anyone can do will change these natural characteristics.

Third, those who wish to use “renewable” energy or to become independent of the grid are free to do so, and this should continue. But green energy should not be molly-coddled with subsidies from taxpayers or other users, nor protected by extra taxes on carbon energy, taxpayer loans, mandated market shares or propped up prices.

Finally, there is one killer point that has recently emerged.

The data collected shows that renewables will barely generate sufficient energy over the life of the facilities to recover the energy used to manufacture, construct and maintain those facilities.


Google has long supported green energy and had a dream to power all of their energy-hungry computers and air-conditioned data centres with “renewables”. It was revealed recently by their own technical advisers that this dream is a delusion. The fatal flaw discovered is that wind/solar energy may not reduce life-time emissions of carbon dioxide and is unlikely to ever be cheaper than coal. The data collected shows that renewables will barely generate sufficient energy over the life of the facilities to recover the energy used to manufacture, construct and maintain those facilities.


Most so called “renewable” energy relies on the sun, and is better referred to as “in-exhaustible”. But at any point on Earth, wind/solar is more accurately called “intermittent energy”. And to build plants to extract electricity from the sun using wind or solar collectors is a zero-sum game or worse – they may not produce enough energy to recoup the energy cost of replacing those facilities.

Wind/solar energy thus fails its central justification – it is not renewable.



Viv Forbes,
forbes@carbon-sense.com


For those who would like to read more:

Google Green tried hard to make green energy work:
http://www.google.com/green/energy/

But Google Engineers now say renewable energy won’t work:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/11/22/Renewable-energy-so-useless-that-even-greenie-Google-gave-up-on-it

Troubles at world’s largest solar plant: production down, gas usage up:
http://breakingenergy.com/2014/10/29/at-ivanpah-solar-power-plant-energy-production-falling-well-short-of-expectations/

The Catch22 of Energy Storage:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

Large amount of steel & concrete used for a wind turbine base. photo sourced [here]

BACK TO THE START

By Bill Dahlheimer



Photo sourced here



 

Sixty nine Christmases, I’ve seen go by.

Oh, how those years have seemed to fly!

Primary school, Secondary and Correspondence helped me stand tall,

Then shearing and contracting; working at all.

 

Born on the land, my life I would spend,

until the day came when the Bank said they’d lend!

The farm and community; they were my whole life,

And then I met this fine girl, and now she’s my wife.

 

Photo sourced here

For four years I chaired the school P & C board;

our children with apprenticeships was my reward.

The tennis club, bus runs and for the Hall;

We served on committees for them all. 



Our community and local industry; our time we did lend,

Then we moved to our new farm and we started again.

Our farm we selected twenty seven years ago;

A fertile, quiet place where Cobb and his coaches did go,

on the Condamine River where mostly good waters flow

 

 

Pork and beef production; they were our ‘call’,

Three times Champion at the Australia Pork Fair

These wins made us feel that we had done it all.

And our beautiful Brahmans they too shone through

all over Australia and New Caledonia too!

 

The demand for our breeders it was so strong…

But now it’s all gone …. we know what went wrong.

our bacon you see; it now comes from abroad,

And so pig producers have gone in great hoard.

 

And the live cattle exports, as we all know

Were shut down by a man we all know as Joe!

He and his cronies insulted our trading mate,

So they in their turn simply closed the import gate.

 

And I wonder how cruelly those unsold cattle did die,

In the drought that followed, beneath the clear sky.

And the people who watched their whole herd perish,

They took their lives too that they did once cherish.

Tangalooma Brahman Stud; photo sourced here 

Now at the end of our toils we hope in our twilight years,

for some reward for all of that blood, sweat and tears.

But when a buyer he did finally come,

One look to our south and he sure did a run!

 

The Mine, to our south means our farm just won’t sell.

We ask for fair compensation; a fair swing of the bell?

But their answer seems to tell us, “go to bloody hell!”

We are just ‘whingers’, but I don’t think that’s right,

They aren’t the ones, who lie awake at night,

And pray to the Lord, “don’t let That Dog bite!”

 

They send in some cleaners to wipe down our wall,

And a filter for drinking, they also install,

While sadly our bank balance continues to fall.

Very soon now, there will be none left at all!

For banks, they won’t lend on a farm you can’t sell,

I can hear echoes; they are starting to yell.



 

Now the company could buy us if they had the will,

They’ve got country that’s surplus just over the hill.

It’s not that this farm will just disappear;

When the mining is finished it still will be here.

Kogan Creek power station Photo sourced here

 You ask me how I feel, my very good friend.

When I think of my wife who I have condemned?

For Lynn, too, waits for the banker to knock.

And the two of us may soon walk away from our block

….with nothing to show but hard work and our age.

We worked for retirement; not for this rage!

Now we both know how the other does feel,

And we know in our hearts we have got a raw deal.

 

We worked ninety-five hours each week,

So at the end of our labours, some pleasure we seek.

Now we hold each other so that black dog won’t come;

And we pray that tomorrow a miracle is done;

That we will have laughter, good cheer and great fun;

Because without one, we will be out in the street,

Among many, like us we are sure we will meet.

 

                                  The bureaucrats you see, they don’t understand.

They think you must be indigenous to have love for the land.

Our forefathers who lie in Flanders Field,

or who fought in trenches on Gallipoli’s steep hills

Turn in their graves at the ‘democracy’ instilled.

 

Their descendants they thought would have honey and milk;

Their beds; they would be sheeted in silk!

They never allowed for the power of the dollar to come,

And that the morality they fought for would be given the bum.

 

Now the directors of companies should take a close look

at the courage and commitment that these diggers took.

Then maybe just maybe, they could open their heart?

Because we are too old to go back to the start!

Environmental approvals - How does the current system work?

Extract from an article by Chris McGrath first published at The Conversation about the proposed one stop shop for environmental approvals. This section clearly explains the current system.




One of the major obstacles to creating a one-stop-shop for environmental approvals is that Australia’s federal system of government is more like a scrambled egg than a neatly layered cake.
Within this scrambled egg relatively few day-to-day decisions about development that will affect the environment are made by the Commonwealth government. The vast bulk of decisions are made by local, state and territory governments.    

For instance, there are around 250,000 applications a year under state and territory planning laws, most of which are decided by local governments.In contrast, the main Commonwealth environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), deals with only around 400 referrals each year. The EPBC Act mainly regulates actions affecting World Heritage properties, listed threatened species, and other “matters of national environmental significance”. The projects that it regulates closely tend to be big projects.

The EPBC Act approval process has three stages: referral, assessment and approval.

At the referral stage the Commonwealth decides whether a proposed action triggers the Act and requires approval under it. This has proved to be a very efficient process of screening out many projects and providing certainty to proponents that their projects do not trigger the Act. On very rare occasions, projects have been refused as “clearly unacceptable” at this first stage, thereby avoiding further costs and delay in carrying out an assessment.

Experience over the first decade of the Act’s operation showed that over 75% of projects referred under it were decided within weeks and dropped out under this first stage. This fact is normally omitted by individuals and organisations such as the Business Council of Australia, who rail against the costs and delays caused by EPBC Act. Only around 22% of referrals are determined to be controlled actions that proceed through the assessment and approval stages. For these actions the EPBC Act has mechanisms to avoid duplication with state and territory assessments known as “bilateral agreements”.

There are two types of bilateral agreements.
Assessment bilaterals allow state and territory assessment processes to be used under the EPBC Act but the final decision on whether to approve a project remains with the Federal Environment Minister. Assessment bilaterals have been in place with all states and territories for years and have proved to be effective in reducing unnecessary duplication and delay.
In contrast, approval bilaterals delegate the final decision on a project to the state and territory government. While this mechanism has existed in the Act from the outset, it has been virtually unused.

An example of how efficiently the existing assessment bilateral system works to avoid duplication or delay due to the EPBC Act is the Alpha Coal Mine. That project began its assessment under Queensland law in 2008 and has not yet been approved, despite claims to the contrary in 2012 by the Queensland Premier. The project was referred under the EPBC Act in 2009, assessed under the bilateral agreement and approved by the Commonwealth in 2012. The state approvals are unlikely to be granted before early to mid-2014. That is, state approval may come some 18 months after the Commonwealth approval.

Author

Chris McGrath           Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland

To read this article in full at The Conversation, go to - Explainer: one-stop-shop for environmental approvals

Previous related post

Watch for the 1,999 hectare footprints

. 

Free speech in the company town

 

Apparently criticism isn’t welcomed at Middlemount, a coal mining town in Central Queensland roughly 240km’s west of Mackay. The story of the post office's licensee, Louise Hawkins and husband Chris Griffiths being evicted from the shopping centre which is owned by Anglo American coal has received media attention. This article was published in the APN chain of regional newspapers, Middlemount Post Office couple evicted over sign.

“The sign copied the local telephone directory featuring a child's drawing that said everyone was welcome at Middlemount.

Mr Griffiths added, "except families, except children, except visitors" prompting the breach of lease notice.

"They are limiting the number of families and children who can live here and making it hard for them," he said.
"The media is partly to blame for what's happening in small mining towns…no one is prepared to ask the hard questions and they get away with it."

Mr Griffiths, who has lived in the area since 1971 and served his apprenticeship at Utah Mine said he was pro mining.

"But I'm pro Middlemount as well and pro Dysart and Tieri, and pro agriculture.”

It’s my view that the core issue here isn’t pro or anti mining; in the quote above Chris Griffiths has said that he is pro mining. There is a debate to be had over a fly in, fly out (FIFO) workforce whose effects was what the post office operators were offering an opinion about. No the core issue is the basic right of freedom of speech.

 The sign offered an opinion, you may not agree with it as have some other locals as quoted in this follow up news story; but was it offensive, racist or sexist, did it denigrate any individual, and was it 1metre high spray painted graffiti next to the shopping centre entrance? No it was an A4 piece of paper stuck on a notice board in front of their own business. The message could have been presented childishly, perhaps, but is that a crime? Why has Anglo American got such a corporate glass jaw over this issue?  

 

Although this web page is obviously designed to offer a positive view of family life in mining towns it does provide an insight into who Anglo American are and just how much they do own the town of Middlemount.

“Anglo American’s Metallurgical Coal business owns most of the 700-odd houses in town and rents the accommodation back to employees at subsidised rates, so the town is a great place to save money.

There's a fairly balanced mix of residential families and FIFO/DIDO workers and at the last count the population was 3,500.

Anglo American has seven mines in the area: Capcoal, Foxleigh, Central, Southern, Bundoora, Grasstree and Lake Lindsay mines. They're all located within about 15 minutes from town.

Macarthur Coal has Middlemount Mine and their workers also live in town.

If you're thinking of buying a house, think again. There's only a very small number of privately-owned homes so it's hard to live in the town if you're not employed by the mines.”

It may have not entered their calculations, but by evicting the couple Anglo American has created the opportunity for them to enlarge on their opinion about the effects of FIFO to a now interested media. In the Australian Mining magazine Chris Griffiths expanded by saying:

“Griffith said he is “pro-Middlemount” but growing up in the area he is concerned about the effects mining camps are having on the region.

“We think [the sign] is true, families and children aren’t welcome,” he stated.

He explained the increasing number of mining camps and the transient nature of the workers means there’s “not a lot of families and children here”.

“It’s creating a culture that denigrates the region.”

Alan Jones interviewed Chris Griffiths on his high profile national radio program where Griffith having lived in the area since 1971 said that once FIFO camps were once only for temporary construction and only used as single workers quarters on a permanent basis. Nowadays there are camps everywhere; families no longer move to the mining towns rather the mine worker is housed in a camp while the rest of the family stay behind usually in urban centres on the coastal strip. With fewer families and children in the likes of Middlemount, Griffiths believes it creates a social dysfunction. Those few families that do try and move to Middlemount find this prevailing culture too hard and often move away again.

This CFMEU statement says in part:

The sign was a reference to the explosion of temporary worker accommodation camps in Middlemount and Anglo’s preference for housing workers in camps over family housing.

“Instead of addressing the concerns raised in the sign, Anglo’s heavy-handed approach is to shut down the post office,” said Mr Pearce.

“There are currently about 160 company-owned family homes sitting empty in Middlemount, while the company packs people into camps.

“This is severely undermining the social fabric of the town.

“The company is housing married couples in single men’s quarters. It is dissuading families from moving to Middlemount to settle.

“It is pocketing tax concessions for using FIFO workers and housing them in camps, rather than supporting the local community.

 

I have done no research into if it’s true as the union maintains that tax concessions have influence the rise in using FIFO camps. If you read the comments in the various links above there are people involved in the mining industry offering differing views. It’s the ability to offer a different view that I wish to return to; surely even in a company owned town we still have freedom of speech

 

 



PRA: Case Study, Changes for expediency

Case study Xstrata Wandoan coal mine lease application; Queensland Coordinator-General, November 2010, reclassification of land types for the advantage of the mining company.

Prepared by Property Rights Australia

Image sourced from Xstrata EIS. The mining lease area covered approximately 30,000 ha with 70 land titles belonging to 42 owners. Each little pink square represents a farming family to be removed, which they nearly all were, for the mine to proceed.  


Agricultural land in Queensland has been classified using the simple classification system called Good Quality Agricultural Land (GQAL)[i] of A, B, C and D class soils.
Class A is top cropping country
Class B is land suitable for cropping and grazing
Class C is grazing only; unsuitable for cropping;
and D is unsuitable for agriculture or reserved for environmental purposes.

This land classification system was developed from decades of work by soil scientists who were unimpeded from any other agenda other than good science. QGAL is clearly defined; it has been used as standard in resolving matters in the courts. It has stood the test of time. 

Property Rights Australia (PRA) is very concerned where policy, legislation, planning schemes and ministerial decisions have been implemented without giving priority to good soil science.  

A very blatant example in recent years is where the Coordinator-General’s department in November 2010 reclassified lands in the Xstrata Wandoan coal mine lease application from A & B to C for the advantage of the mining company. This project was subsequently granted conditional environmental approval in March 2011.

 

It is important to review what occurred at that time not only to be vigilant in ensuring it doesn't happen again but also to facilitate improved outcomes in future policy and legislation. Throughout 2013 the Qld government has been making changes to many planning laws, the latest being the Darling Downs Regional Plan which makes mention of the Xstrata Wandoan coal mine project on page 17.[ii] 

With any mining or petroleum lease application, a resource company is required to produce an environmental impact statement (EIS)[iii] where a consultancy firm is hired to write a document (best measured in kilograms rather than pages) to shed the best possible light on the project proceeding. The Xstrata Wandoan coal mine addressed quality of soils in the lease application in volume 1, chapter 9.3.6 and land suitability and agricultural lands in chapter 9.3.7.[iv]  

Despite including the pre-existing GQAL mapping as Figure 9-11-V1.3, the EIS provides inconsistent mapping of soil quality in Figure 9-9-V1.3. The EIS states that this second map uses the classification system of Land Suitability Classification for Cropping and Grazing in the Semi-arid Sub-tropics of Queensland (Department of Mines and Energy, 1995). The result is that under GQAL the land was considered to be either, Class A, top cropping country or B, land suitable for cropping and grazing and in the classification system favoured by Xstrata the very same land overnight became either

• Class 3 – suitable land with moderate limitations; land which is moderately suited to a proposed use but which requires significant inputs to ensure sustainable use; or
• Class 4 – marginal land with severe limitations which make it doubtful whether the inputs required to achieve and maintain production outweigh the benefits in the long term.  

The accuracy of the information and the methodology used to reach the conclusions in the relevant chapters within the EIS is questionable and was challenged by those with local knowledge. In response to these submissions the Supplementary EIS (SEIS)[v] spent many pages justifying the obvious anomalies without varying its conclusions. 

The most disappointing aspect about Xstrata Wandoan coal mining lease application was not the information paid for by Xstrata and prepared by consultants but the almost unreserved acceptance of this material in the Coordinator-General’s evaluation report on the EIS.[vi]

In Chapter 5.2.1 - Good quality agricultural land, strategic cropping land and rehabilitation, the Coordinator-General makes the following statements 

The EIS outlined that, under Section 2 and Attachment 2 of the associated SPP 1/92 Planning Guidelines: The Identification of Good Quality Agricultural Land (Department of Primary Industries and Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning Queensland 1993), Class A, B and C agricultural land in the former

Taroom Shire does comprise GQAL [emphasis added] 

The Taroom Shire Planning Scheme classified the MLA areas as GQAL—Classes A, B and C. The land suitability assessment undertaken in the EIS and SEIS, however, concluded that Class 3 and Class 4 land suitability—which approximates to GQAL Agricultural Land Class C—occurred on the MLA areas. Therefore, indications are that the MLA areas are unlikely to be classified as strategic cropping land.  

It beggars belief that the Coordinator-General could accept without question the downgrading of this land classification by the party with an economic interest in having it downgraded, without considering the possible cost to Queensland agriculture and the past production history of that land. 

PRA strongly believes land classifications must be based on established science and the production history of that land. No benefit to the immediate community or the citizens of Queensland can be identified in altering soil classifications for the expediency of the resource sector, as in the Xstrata Wandoan coal mine where A and B GQAL was changed to C class. Nor should it be the case where a process could be influenced so as C and D class land could be changed to A and B to stop a resource project.

 

---

[i] http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/policy/plng-guide-identif-ag-land.pdf

 

[ii] http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/plan/darling-downs/draft-darling-downs-regional-plan.pdf

 

[iii] http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/environmental-impact-statement-eis.html

 

[iv] http://www.wandoancoal.com.au/EN/PublicationsandMedia/Pages/VolumeOneEIS.aspx

 

[v] http://www.wandoancoal.com.au/EN/PublicationsandMedia/Pages/VolumeOne.aspx

 

[vi] http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/project/wandoan-coal-project/coordinator-general-report.pdf