Tag Archives: renewable energy certificates

Solar power at midday is so useless, they plan to start charging homeowners for generating it

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

The glut in solar power in Australia is so big that next year solar panel owners in Sydney will have to pay 1.2c a kilowatt hour to offload their unwanted energy between 10am and 3pm. Nearly a million homes in Sydney have solar panels, but only 7% of them have batteries, which means basically, thousands of homes installed hi-tech generators that aren’t very useful. Worse, other homes were forced to pay part of the costs for them. The only winner was China.

Finally, a tiny part of the strangled free market is re-asserting itself, which might slow down future installations, or trick a few people into installing a $9,000 battery. Naturally this unpredictable rule change will hurt the poorest solar owners, but benefit those wealthy enough to afford a battery.

Solar panel owners slugged by Ausgrid for generating too much power

by Caitlin Fitzsimmons, Sydney Morning Herald

The biggest electricity distributor on the east coast plans to charge households with solar panels to export their electricity to the grid during the middle of the day.

Ausgrid will impose a penalty of 1.2¢ a kilowatt-hour for any electricity exported to the grid between 10am and 3pm above a free threshold that varies by month. During peak demand times, between 4pm and 9pm, Ausgrid would pay 2.3¢ an hour as a reward to customers exporting solar to the grid.

The tariff will be charged by Ausgrid and the retailer will decide how to package it. It is opt-in from July this year, and mandatory from July next year.

The Sydney Morning Herald naturally thinks this is backwards and unfair, and in a sense it is, homeowners were led up the garden path. No one was given realistic information before they purchased another useless panel. But where was The Sydney Morning Herald? — it was selling the garden path. If they interviewed a few skeptics they could have told the hapless homeowners that the forced transition was artificial, unmanageable, and the conditions were doomed to be “adjusted” sooner or later.

Solar power at noon is electrical sewage

The wholesale market was trying to send the message. Negative spot prices show that solar is essentially a waste product at lunchtime which needs to be disposed off, a bit like electrical sewage.

Negative spot revenues didn’t really occur until we installed the last two million solar panels that we didn’t need. It is obviously a growing problem now, which suspiciously peaks in spring and summer and falls in winter months –matching the solar output profile by month.

https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/negative-prices-and-revenues-in-the-nem-over-the-past-decade/

You might wonder why any generator would keep generating during a glut so bad they had to pay for every watt they generated. But it’s logical in a screwed market — the negative prices are close to the value of the “Renewable Energy Certificates” the government forces us all to pay to solar and wind operators.  So solar owners can produce a product the market essentially doesn’t want, but the government forces us to pay to make it profitable. See how this works?

The point of a free market is that stupid ideas are supposed to be free to lose their own money. That’s a signal to stop doing it.

And if there was some use for solar power at midday, negative prices would have found it. If there was an AI supercomputer that needed to sleep 18 hours a day and only work at lunchtime, the owners would have been beating down the door to get paid to use that solar juice. It didn’t happen.

Here’s the solar power contribution to the NSW grid this month.

https://anero.id/energy/2024/may

During the solar spikes, hundreds of tons of exquisitely tuned infrastructure that could have kept running, just sits around and waits in case a cloud rolls over. And efficiency gained by solar is lost by the rest of the system.

h/t David of Cooyal in Oz

Hostility Mounts: Offshore Wind Power Disaster Attracts Serious Onshore Opposition

From STOP THESE THINGS

There’s no real argument in favour of offshore wind power, and plenty of serious arguments against. Start with the absolutely staggering cost, which has major proponents demanding even greater subsidies from taxpayers and/or higher prices in the guaranteed power contracts they ink with governments. With governments increasingly refusing to play ball, proponents are simply dropping their grand offshore projects.

The knock-on effect for wind turbine manufacturers such as Siemens is little short of catastrophic: Siemens Energy shares plummeted 40% last week, slashing 3 billion euros ($3.16 billion) off its market value, after Siemens revealed it was demanding billions in government backed guarantees from the German government. In short, things have never looked worse.

Then there is the mounting opposition to offshore wind, coming from sensible energy advocates, situated onshore. As to which, here’s a story from the Great Lakes Advocate about plans to spear hundreds of these things off the New South Wales coast.

Dr Gillespie recently joined close to 2000 people, and addressed an anti-wind farm rally in Port Stephens
Great Lakes Advocate
22 October 2023

Wind farms are not the solution for retiring baseload generators, Member for Lyne, David Gillespie says.

Sharing his opposition to a proposed offshore windfarm in Port Stephens, Dr Gillespie said they would increase grid instability, destroy the environment and result in an increase in electricity costs.

He said this trillion dollar-plus energy plan was something the country could not afford.

Dr Gillespie recently joined close to 2000 people, and addressed an anti-wind farm rally in Port Stephens.

“I can assure all of the people who have expressed their concerns about this project that I am absolutely opposed to this development which will have a significant negative impact on our region and the people of Australia,” Dr Gillespie said.

Both locally and in many locations where these developments have been proposed, communities continue to oppose them for many good and practical reasons, and it is extremely disappointing the lack of consultation in the preparation of these projects, he said.

He said the Port Stephens project would pose a serious navigational risk for local and international shipping and boating, as well as the wind farms during storms and tempest.

The feasibility studies and the eventual project would detrimentally impact whale and dolphin (cetacean) acoustics, migration and pod behaviour, while marine bird life would suffer like they have on land-based wind farms, he said.

Dr Gillespie said there would be enormous financial cost on the multi-million dollar local commercial fishing industry, commercial freighters, blue water and the tourism economy.

“On land, the significant environmental and aesthetic impact will be felt with the connecting, high-voltage grid, which is likely to travel through the pristine Great Lakes and Myall Coast native bush, environmental and agricultural land.

“This will have a very significant cost, which electricity payers will subsidise through higher grid and electricity prices.

“The whole proposal is outrageously uneconomic and relies on subsidies via Large Scale Renewable Energy Certificates, which you pay on your rising electricity bills.”

He said new baseload replacement power was urgently required to create 28,000 kilometres of new power lines through the countryside.

The landscape would resemble an industrial park of wind turbines and solar panels.

“This trillion dollar-plus energy plan is something we simply cannot afford.”

Dr Gillespie said existing power stations should be maintained until they can be replaced by new zero-emission nuclear technology.

As coal-fired power plants are retired, they could be replaced at those sites with modern modular nuclear power plants which can be plugged into the existing grid which will avoid the economic an environmental mess the federal government will create if they continue to pursue their 100 per cent renewable agenda, Dr Gillespie said.

“I will be continuing to raise this matter in parliament and do all I can to stop it and I am encouraging everyone in the community to hold all federal and state Labor ministers and MPs, Greens and Independents to account for their failure to listen and apply simple commonsense.”
Great Lakes Advocate

India Want The World To Target Per Capita Emissions

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Dennis Ambler

This statement comes from the Indian Ministry of Power:

The Union Minister for Power and New & Renewable Energy Shri R. K. Singh has called for a change in the global climate change discourse and narrative, shifting from a focus on total emissions to per capita emissions of each country. “India’s per capita emissions are one third of global average, one of the lowest in the world; despite that, the developed countries until recently had been putting pressure on large countries like India, to reduce emissions. Their per capita emissions remained 3 – 4 times the global average. The narrative was on total emissions of each country.”

“Point of comparison should be Per Capita Emissions”

The Minister asserted that the narrative and discourse should not be about total emissions. “If we talk about total emissions, the country with minimum emissions could be an island nation with small population, even though they may be consuming huge amounts of energy and emitting huge quantities of carbon dioxide per person. Hence, the point of comparison has to be per capita emissions. This is the change in discourse which is needed, and I want institutions like TERI to talk about this.”

The Minister said this, during his Presidential Address at the Twenty-Second Darbari Seth Memorial Lecture, held in New Delhi today, August 25, 2023, in memory of Late Shri Darbari Seth, the founder of TERI.

Noting that developed countries would talk about phasing out of coal, but not about phasing out of natural gas or other fossil fuels, the Minister exhorted TERI to come out with studies on climate actions by various countries. Once the global South starts controlling the narrative, the world will be a much fairer place, said the Minister, adding that India has been insisting on phasing out of all fossil fuels.

Speaking about India’s actions towards reducing carbon emissions, the Union Minister said that India has achieved its NDC target of 40% of our installed electricity capacity coming from non-fossil energy sources nine years ahead of schedule, in 2021 itself. “Today, 43% of our capacity is from non-fossil fuel sources. No other country has added renewable energy capacity at a rate at which we have done. We pledged at COP-21 in 2015, that we will reduce our emissions intensity by 33% by 2030; we did this by 2022, eight years in advance. So, in Glasgow, we have said that by 2030, we will have 50% of our capacity coming from renewables and that we will reduce our emission intensity by 45%. We will achieve that too well before time.”

“The truth needs to be told, developing countries need space to grow”

Shri Singh said that the developed countries have reached their peak of development; so, their emissions will either remain static or come down. “However, the building stock of developing countries will multiply, since we are developing; we will need more cement, steel and aluminium to construct those buildings and plants. This will lead to more emissions. So, we need space to grow. This point needs to be made by think tanks like TERI, that this is the space which is required by developing countries to grow.”

The Minister said that the nation is not going to compromise on the availability of energy for our growth, adding that the country is responsible for only 4% of legacy carbon dioxide load in the environment, whereas our population is around 17% of world population.

The Minister said that this discourse needs to be changed not at only at the level of world leaders, but also among the people around the world in the developed countries. “The truth needs to be told, I want institutions like TERI to step up and change the discourse.”

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1952260

If I was India, that is exactly what I would be arguing!

India’s emissions are seven times the UK’s. and have increased by 52% since 2011. Ours have declined by a third in that time.

But by focussing on per capita emissions, India would effectively be let off the hook for decades until the developed world had cut its emissions to India’s levels.

And as the Minister states, India has no intention of cutting emissions for a long time to come. Note his comment:

Shri Singh said that the developed countries have reached their peak of development; so, their emissions will either remain static or come down. “However, the building stock of developing countries will multiply, since we are developing; we will need more cement, steel and aluminium to construct those buildings and plants. This will lead to more emissions. So, we need space to grow. This point needs to be made by think tanks like TERI, that this is the space which is required by developing countries to grow.”

The Minister said that the nation is not going to compromise on the availability of energy for our growth, adding that the country is responsible for only 4% of legacy carbon dioxide load in the environment, whereas our population is around 17% of world population.

Finally let’s examine India’s renewable targets:

Speaking about India’s actions towards reducing carbon emissions, the Union Minister said that India has achieved its NDC target of 40% of our installed electricity capacity coming from non-fossil energy sources nine years ahead of schedule, in 2021 itself. “Today, 43% of our capacity is from non-fossil fuel sources. No other country has added renewable energy capacity at a rate at which we have done. We pledged at COP-21 in 2015, that we will reduce our emissions intensity by 33% by 2030; we did this by 2022, eight years in advance. So, in Glasgow, we have said that by 2030, we will have 50% of our capacity coming from renewables and that we will reduce our emission intensity by 45%. We will achieve that too well before time.”

40% of installed capacity coming from non-fossil fuels?

Needless to say, the actual generation figures are nothing like 40%. Fossil fuels accounted for 77% of India’s electricity last year, with a further 12% from nuclear and hydro, which are probably about maxed at now. Wind and solar contributed only 9%.

In terms of overall energy, the situation is even worse. Fossil fuels account for 88% of primary energy consumption, and wind and solar only 4%.

As non-OECD countries account for two thirds of the world’s emissions, we can forget about Net Zero in our lifetimes if India’s demands are met!

Most companies buying renewable energy certificates aren’t actually reducing emissions

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

I would not bother reading the whole article. It’s s statement of the bloomin obvious, making an argument I have been arguing for years:

Big companies are increasingly setting voluntary greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that are derived from the 1.5 C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement. As part of these science-based targets or longer-term net-zero targets, companies commit to rapidly reducing the emissions that come from their electricity consumption.

One approach is to purchase renewable energy certificates, which represent solar, wind and other green energies flowing into the electricity grid.

Our new study shows that companies largely rely on renewable energy certificates to report steep electricity emissions reductions and that this is unlikely to actually reduce emissions.

https://theconversation.com/most-companies-buying-renewable-energy-certificates-arent-actually-reducing-emissions-183176

Put simply, whilst companies may buy these certificates, called REGOs, the renewable electricity they are created for would have been generated anyway.

The only possible way REGOs could incentivise more renewable generation is if they were of a much higher value. Unfortunately in themselves they have very little value at all. The only value for companies, and indeed customers signing up for green energy deals, lies in virtue signalling.

And that is not something any business is willing to pay more than a pittance for.

You Pay For The Rise and Riches of Wind & Solar’s Rent-seeking ‘Entrepreneurs’

From STOP THESE THINGS

Government-mandated subsidies for wind and solar represent the greatest wealth transfer since England’s ‘Bad’ King John sought to tax himself to ultimate power and his enemies out of existence. His description as “avaricious, miserly, extortionate and moneyminded” applies with equal force to today’s crony capitalist kings – the renewable energy rent seekers.

Had King John known of mandated renewable energy targets, extortionate taxpayer funded subsidies, production tax credits, renewable energy certificates, etc, he would have, no doubt, taken delight in applying them to his fiscal advantage. His Reign ended with his death in 1216, with economic chaos, poverty and disease stalking the land.

That was then. This is now. But, for the poor, times haven’t changed all that much, in relative terms.

Greed and avarice are still the driving force behind the extortionate transfer of wealth from power consumers and taxpayers to wind and solar outfits, all by government diktat and decree.

At a point when Australian businesses and households are already struggling with record power prices – set to jump by 25 to 30% next month following the closure of yet another perfectly operable 2,000MW coal-fired power plant – it’s worth following the money, as Alan Moran does in the piece below.

The Rise and Riches of the Rentrepreneurs
Quadrant Online
Alan Moran
5 June 2023

CWP Renewables Pty Ltd presents as a story of successful entrepreneurship for which its owners have been rewarded with fantastic profits. But that outcome has been accompanied by a huge cost to the community.

The company, established in 2007, has been mainly involved in wind farm developments with giant Swiss holding company Partners Group, which also contributed a chunk of equity capital. Aside from some potential ‘blue sky‘ projects involving solar, wind and batteries, CWP’s main assets were five windfarms with 257 turbines erected between 2016 and 2020 at a cost of $1.72 billion. The turbines were financed by the Commonwealth’s CEFC green energy bank ($233 million), and Partners Group ($250 million). With other funding, borrowings totalled $983 million and equity was $740 million.

The outfit was acquired in December last year for $4.1 billion by Squadron, a private company owned by Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest (above). For CWP’s shareholders this was a great return: $740 in equity became 5.5 times more valuable. While Andrew Forrest is a climate fanatic, he is no idiot. There were rival bidders for CWP and his outlay represented good value to Squadron.

To grasp CWP’s appeal, begin with the main assets – those 257 wind turbines – and their two streams of revenue. The first is the return from the electricity market, almost always forward-contracted in power purchasing agreements. The second is the subsidy that wind farms receive as a result of energy retailers’ obligation to incorporate renewable energy in their total electricity supplies by purchasing Large-scale Generation Certificates (LGCs). This was billed as a temporary measure when introduced in 2002, the rationale being to give renewables a short-term fillip while they evolved to fulfil their anticipated (and ever-receding) destiny of being cheaper than fossil-fuel power.

When CWP was planning its windfarms, between 2015 and 2018, the expected energy price would have been, rule of thumb for the three-year period, about $70 per MWh. The expected price of the LGCs would have been expected to follow a downward trajectory, averaging around $30 per MWh, reflecting the assumption that the “temporary” scheme would be winding down. This combined revenue stream would offer a prospect of decent profits.

Fast forward to December 2022, by which time such price assumptions had been shown as far too conservative. The assault on coal, the predominant source of electricity, is preventing new investment and causing closures, the shuttering of the Liddell power station being the latest. The closures have been exacerbated by downtime in other stations due to stinting on maintenance as a result of the subsidised wind and solar competition driving down their profitability.

The future wholesale price is forever being forecast to fall by politicians and regulators enthralled by their love-affair with renewables. The fact of the matter is that it has zig-zaggedly increased from around $40 per MWh in 2015, prior to the closure of coal-powered stations, to its present level of $177 per MWh — an increase Prime Minister Anthony Albanese ludicrously tried to blame on the war in Ukraine.

Hard-nosed bidders for the CWP assets in December 2022 would likely have seen the wholesale price as remaining at some $150 per MWh well into the future. They would also be further encouraged by the subsidies allocated to transmission, big batteries and pumped hydro by state and federal governments.

With regard to those LGCs, subsidy seekers, who mournfully anticipated a fall in the price, have been happily surprised to see prices holding up. The current price has been given a shot in the arm by the Safeguard Mechanism forcing major outfits to increase the share of renewable energy within their electricity supplies. And there is a strong prospect of a further upward price bump resulting from an increase in general requirements for renewable energy to lift its market share from the current 30 per cent to 82 per cent of supplies by 2030 in line with the Labor government’s pledge.

All in all, Squadron would have assembled its bid on the expectation of increased revenues from these factors. Compared to the $100 per MWh expected ($70 and $30 per MWh respectively from the wholesale and subsidy streams), by December 2022 expectations would have been some $200 per MWh ($150 per MWh from a market distorted by subsidies and $50 from the subsidies themselves).

Hence, despite some political risks and the distant prospect the wind turbines will incur disposal and remediation costs, CWP Renewables’ revenue has doubled with no increase in finance and operating costs. The tragedy of all this is that the benefit to the entrepreneurs is also a cost imposed on the economy due to energy users being forced by regulation to pay around three times the underlying wholesale price for energy.

Yesteryears’ entrepreneurs profited by searching out needs and value-adding. Today’s energy entrepreneurs seek out opportunities created by government regulation, which causes higher prices and advantages particular energy sources. Those profits come at the expense of consumers landed with an inferior product at a much greater price. Put bluntly, this trend cannot co-exist with increased living standards.
Quadrant