What’s The Best Electric Vehicle For Me?

Pictured: Hundai Ioniq

So, you’re thinking about whether to get an electric car.  You’re worried about the cost of fuel, and you know you should be concerned for the environment.  Will it be practical for you?

Are you single, or have a partner but no kids, and live and work in the south-east of Queensland, or one of the other metropolitan areas of Australia?  If so, then you may take advantage of state subsidies and choose from a range of smaller EVs that may suit.

You have no doubt heard about the latest Queensland subsidy scheme:

“Queensland offers $3,000 subsidy to EVs priced under $58,000, excludes Tesla”

Unfortunately this policy is pure political window dressing, and is deliberately aimed at metropolitan voters (not necessarily drivers), as the only cars that can theoretically be of practical use outside Brisbane are outside the scheme.  Unlike other states, Tesla, the car best suited to roads outside the suburbs, is specifically excluded.

“The Queensland government said that cars that will qualify for the rebate include the Nissan Leaf, the MG ZS EV, the Hyundai Ioniq, the Hyundai Kona, the new Atto 3 model being released by BYD, and the Renault Kangoo.”

Never mind, I’ll attempt to list the pros and cons of a range of vehicles, including Tesla.

Car	Base price	Claimed Range
Hyundai Ioniq	$49,970	311km
Hyundai Kona	$54,500	305km
Nissan Leaf	$49,990	270km
MG ZS EV	$40,990	263km
Renault Kangoo	$50,290	?
Atto 3	N/A	N/A
Not subsidized in Qld
Tesla Model 3	$59,900	491km
Tesla Model S	$162,559	652km
Kia EV6	$62,990	484km

Remember that these prices do not include on-road costs.  However, with the subsidy taking $3,000 off the base price of the smaller ones, they are within reach of many people.

If you are serious, you should check reviews at reputable sites such as carsguide. Here most are described as, for example, “easy-going, comfortable, and has plenty of range to work with for city drivers, so charging doesn’t become much of an inconvenience…” (the Nissan Leaf).  They are nice small cars, ideal for the city.  Except the Kangoo.  It’s a van.

If you sometimes escape the city, for example to the Sunny Coast, beware.  The range shown above may not be achieved in practice.  You will need to plan your trip very carefully including possible recharging stops.  At a 50 kW DC charger, you will need from 45 minutes to just over an hour to charge from 20% to 80% of battery capacity.  Well, I suppose you could have lunch while you wait, but the Cooroy train station with its one 50 kW chargepoint might not be your desired destination.  And why 20% to 80%? Apart from not wanting to be stranded with a flat battery (“range anxiety”) you should be aware that lithium ion batteries degrade if the charge is allowed to be above or below these levels too often or too long.  So to protect your battery, the vehicles able to get the subsidy will have a range between charging of from 180km (the MG) to 290km (the Kona)- maximum.  Keep your wits about you.

You can also recharge at home of course, where charging times can be from 6 hours for the Kona, to 25 hours for the MG, to “up to 60% overnight” for the Leaf.  Oops.

If you have a family, or if you live outside the south-east corner of Queensland or other metropolitan area, or if you would like to take a road trip from time to time, none of these vehicles are for you.  They are too small for a family, have limited luggage space, and limited range.  No subsidy for you.

The cheapest EV option would be the Tesla Model 3, at $59,900, plus on road costs.  For that you get a beautiful car that will fit a small family, with a range of 491km (or 296km if you want to protect your battery). More options will cost $84,900, for a range of 614km (or 368km if you want to protect your battery).  It will take 60 minutes to charge at a fast charger, but if you charge at home the quoted figure is “10km per hour”.  And at the moment in Queensland Tesla has superchargers at Brisbane, Gold Coast, Maroochydore, Toowoomba, and Gympie.  One is planned for Rockhampton- but you might not get to Rockhampton from Gympie (467km).    Wider travel in regional areas is out of the question unless you use much slower recharging stations.

If you have a spare $162,559 plus on road costs you could buy a Tesla Model S, with a range of from 637km to 652km which means you could get from Brisbane to Rockhampton in one go (theoretically) if you started out with 100% charge.  But you should know that an EV performs worse on the highway, and the stated range is the upper limit on a full charge on average- so I would still recharge at Gympie, taking from 40 to 60 minutes.

Another option is the Kia EV6 ($62,990 to $82,990) with a range from 484km to 528km (290km to 317km if battery saving), but you will still need recharging stops of over 70 minutes.  Fortunately there are charging stations at Cooroy, Gympie, Maryborough, Childers, Miriam Vale, and Rockhampton (and all the way to Cairns).   If you wish to go west they are at Gatton and Toowoomba.  Another 18 are planned in the inland.

Existing and planned charging stations in southern Qld

I drive a Hyundai Tucson.  I can easily drive between Rockhampton and Brisbane (621km) on one tank, with 100km of range to spare.  With rest stops it usually takes well under 8 hours.  If we do choose to refuel on the way it takes about 15 minutes.  The 2022 price is $36,500 plus on road costs.  That is still $1,490 cheaper than the smallest of the subsidized vehicles (the MG- which would need three or four recharging stops, and is still $16,000 dearer than the petrol MG, even with the subsidy.) At my average economy of 7.5 litres/100km, petrol at $2.10 a litre, and including service charges it would take 4 years and 4 months for the cheaper Tesla 3 to be better value than a Tuscon- and it would need at least two recharges to go 621km .

Now, about emissions.  The only benefit to the environment of an EV is less exhaust fumes in the city.   Unless you are completely off grid with solar panels and batteries, no matter where or when you recharge your emissions will be no less and no more than the whole electricity grid- and if you recharge at night there is no solar.  An EV is just another (expensive) electrical appliance.

Your choice (for now).  But I won’t be going electric.

Advertisement

The Challenge Ahead For Renewables: Part 3

In Part 1 I showed how the low Capacity Factors of wind and solar mean enormous wastage of resources and money has been incurred over the past 20 years. 

In part 2, I showed the impact of the policies of the major parties, with the costs of replacing fossil fuels in electricity generation, and the enormous cost of using renewables for all our energy use.

However, Net Zero is the goal of the whole developed world, not just Australia.  There are many, and not just the Greens, who say that replacing fossil fuel for all energy is not enough.  We must also ban all exports of coal and gas.

We produce far more energy than we consume- mainly coal (cue wailing and gnashing of teeth).  Most is exported.

According to the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (2021) total energy production (for domestic consumption plus exports of coal and gas) in 2019-2020 was 20,055 PetaJoules. 

Figure 1:  Australian energy production 2019-2020

All renewables and hydroelectricity amounted to a little over 2% of energy produced in Australia.

Figure 2:  Relative share of energy production

Therefore if we are to maintain our role as an energy exporter (of electricity or hydrogen), and thus our standard of living, then just to keep up with our 2019-2020 production, renewables will have to produce 48 times current production- an EXTRA 19,636 PJ. 

Figure 3: All renewables compared with energy consumption and production

Can this be achieved?

19,636 PJ is 5.45 billion MegaWattHours, which will need 622,227 MW generation (at 100% capacity).

If the extra generation is to come from solar (wind would require far too much land- over 6% of Australia’s land area), we will need an extra 4.149 million MW- 290 times 2020 solar capacity.

Therefore the cost would be at least

$7.47 TRILLION (if all solar).

And that figure doesn’t include storage, extra infrastructure like transmission lines and substations, charging points for vehicles, building hydrogen plants, and losses involved in electrolysis of water, conversion to ammonia and back again, and conversion of hydrogen to motive power.  Neither does it include the costs of decommissioning and replacement, safe burial of non-recyclable solar panels, turbine blades, and used batteries, nor the human costs of child labour in Congolese mines supplying cobalt for batteries.

(Australia’s nominal GDP will be around $2.1 trillion in 2022.)

Figure 4 shows the comparison between Australian GDP and the cost of solar generation needed.

Figure 4:  Cost of extra solar generation needed for Net Zero compared with the whole of the economy

So can it really be achieved?

In the minds of some, yes.

The report from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) containing the Draft 2022 Integrated System Plan (ISP) makes interesting (and scary) reading.  The favoured scenario is called “Step Change” which involves a rapid transformation of the Australian energy industry (rather than “Slow Change” or “Progressive Change”), which relates more to my analysis in Part 2.

However the scenario called “Hydrogen Superpower” received 17% of stakeholder panellists’ votes in November 2021 and must be considered a possible political goal.

Here is a summary of the Step Change and Hydrogen Superpower scenarios:

• Step Change – Rapid consumer-led transformation of the energy sector and co-ordinated economy-wide action. Step Change moves much faster initially to fulfilling Australia’s net zero policy commitments that would further help to limit global temperature rise to below 2° compared to pre-industrial levels. Rather than building momentum as Progressive Change does, Step Change sees a consistently fast-paced transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy in the NEM. On top of the Progressive Change assumptions, there is also a step change in global policy commitments, supported by rapidly falling costs of energy production, including consumer devices. Increased digitalisation helps both demand management and grid flexibility, and energy efficiency is as important as electrification. By 2050, most consumers rely on electricity for heating and transport, and the global manufacture of internal-combustion vehicles has all but ceased. Some domestic hydrogen production supports the transport sector and as a blended pipeline gas, with some industrial applications after 2040.

• Hydrogen Superpower – strong global action and significant technological breakthroughs. While the two previous scenarios assume the same doubling of demand for electricity to support industry decarbonisation, Hydrogen Superpower nearly quadruples NEM energy consumption to support a hydrogen export industry. The technology transforms transport and domestic manufacturing, and renewable energy exports become a significant Australian export, retaining Australia’s place as a global energy resource. As well, households with gas connections progressively switch to a hydrogen-gas blend, before appliance upgrades achieve 100% hydrogen use.

Household gas switching to 100% hydrogen? What could possibly go wrong?

Here are the AEMO projections:

“The ISP forecasts the need for ~122 GW of additional VRE by 2050 in Step Change, to meet demand as coal-fired generation withdraws (see Section 5.1). This means maintaining the current record rate of VRE development every year for the decade to treble the existing 15 GW of VRE by 2030 – and then double that capacity by 2040, and again by 2050.”  (VRE= Variable Renewable Energy)

 “In Hydrogen Superpower, the scale of development can only be described as monumental. To enable Australia to become a renewable energy superpower as assumed in this scenario, the NEM would need approximately 256 GW of wind and approximately 300 GW of solar – 37 times its current capacity of VRE. This would expand the total generation capacity of the NEM 10-fold (rather than over three-fold for the more likely Step Change and Progressive Change scenarios). Australia has long been in the top five of energy exporting nations. It is now in the very fortunate position of being able to remain an energy superpower, if it chooses, but in entirely new forms of energy. “ (p.36)

Figure 5:  Projections of different renewable needs from the draft report

And capacity factors have not been considered!

And here are the “future technology and innovation” ideas for reducing emissions:

Figure 6: How to achieve emissions reductions

I’m glad I won’t be around to see this play out.

The Challenge Ahead For Renewables: Part 2

In Part 1 I showed how the low Capacity Factors of wind and solar mean enormous amounts of wastage of resources and money have been incurred over the past 20 years. 

I also said that the wastage can only get worse.  Here’s how.

In Part 1, I only looked at historical electricity generation.  What of the future according to the major political parties? (The Greens don’t count because they can’t count.)

The major parties are committed to Net Zero emissions by 2050, which will require massive changes to our energy use.

I use data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2021, the National Energy Market website, and the report of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (2021).

To replace 2020 fossil fuel electricity with renewable electricity will require an extra 200.6 TeraWattHours:

Figure 1:  Total Electricity Generation

That’s an extra 22,884 MegaWatts of renewable capacity at 100% capacity factor.  Remember, wind’s capacity factor is about 32%, and solar is about 15%.  At $1.8 million per MW, that will cost somewhere between 129 and 275 billion dollars. 

That is of course entirely achievable.  Costly, but achievable.

However, electricity makes up only a small part of Australia’s total energy use.  Transport alone uses much more.  That is why there is a push for more electric vehicles: the ALP wants 89% of new car sales to be electric vehicles by 2030.

Australia’s 2020 energy consumption was 5,568.59 PetaJoules, a decrease of 5.25% on 2019.  One PetaJoule is the equivalent of 0.278 TeraWattHours, or 277,778 MegaWattHours, which is the power generated by 31.7 MW over one year.

Figure 2:  Total Energy Consumption in Australia

Renewables of all sorts accounted for just 8% of energy consumed in Australia in 2020.  Include hydro and that rises to 10.4%.  Figure 2 shows the amount for each.

Figure 3:  Energy Consumption by Type

Note the complete absence of nuclear energy.

If Australia is to be completely fossil fuel free (with no increase on 2020 consumption, which was reduced because of Covid), renewables will have to produce an extra 4,990.9 PetaJoules.  Our consumption will look like this:

Figure 4:  Energy Consumption without Fossil Fuels

4,990.9 PJ is 1.387 billion MegaWattHours, which will need 158,152 MW generation (at 100% capacity)- only 27.8 times 2020 generation.

If this is to be supplied by wind alone, we will need an additional 494,225 MW of installed capacity in wind farms- 52 times 2020 wind capacity- at 24 Hectares per MW.  An extra 118,600 square kilometres of suitable land for wind farms will be difficult to find.

Solar at 2-3 Hectares per MW would probably be a better proposition.  If the extra generation is to come from solar, we will need an extra 1,054,357 MW- 60 times 2020 solar capacity.

Therefore the cost of meeting our current energy consumption- transport, domestic, commercial, and industrial- with no allowance for growth, and ignoring the cost of converting our entire domestic, commercial, industrial, mining, and air transport capacity to some form of electric vehicles, would be between:-

$ 889.6 BILLION  (if all wind)

and

$1.898 TRILLION (if all solar).

(Australia’s nominal GDP will be around $2.1 trillion in 2022.)

That’s up to $73,700 for every man, woman, and child in Australia.

Figure 5 shows the comparison between Australian GDP and the cost of solar generation needed.

Figure 5:  Cost of extra solar generation compared with the whole of the economy

How much of that investment would be in wasted capacity? Between 68% and 85%-from $605 Billion to $1.613 Trillion.

Moreover, the life of a wind turbine is 20 to 25 years, and 25 years for solar panels, so we can look forward to more expense in decommissioning and replacement in the future.

(By the way- do you think that “future technology and innovation” will be any cheaper?)

That’s just what would be the result of the major parties’ commitment to Net Zero.

But wait- there’s more. Stand by for Part 3.

The Challenge Ahead For Renewables: Part 1

As we are committed by all major parties to the goal of Net Zero emissions by 2050 perhaps we need to reflect on the scale of the challenge ahead.

I shall first deal with electricity, as that is the only thing that renewables such as wind and solar can produce (except perhaps for a warm inner glow in those who love them.)

Being less of a romantic, I prefer facts and figures.  In this post I use data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2021, the National Energy Market website, and by tracking down opening and closing dates for various facilities.

Figure 1 shows the total generating capacity for coal, wind, and solar electrical generation for the last 20 years.  (Gas is excluded as it makes up less than 8% of generation over a year.)  This is the maximum possible output if all plants are operating at 100% of their rated capacity.

Figure 1: Generating Capacity 2021 – 2020

Note how coal fired electrical capacity fell below 25,000 MegaWatts (MW) with the closure of power stations in SA, WA, and Victoria.  Meanwhile from a very low base wind capacity rose steadily and accelerated from 2018.  Solar generating capacity has exceeded wind since 2012 and really took off in 2019 and 2020.  Wind and solar combined now exceed coal generating capacity.

Now let’s look at how much electricity was actually produced

Figure 2: Coal Capacity and Generation 2021 – 2020

Note how coal generation is falling steadily.  The gap between generation and capacity may be regarded as wasted resources (and money).  This has remained fairly constant over the years.

Figure 3: Wind Capacity and Generation 2021 – 2020

Despite the large increase in capacity, generation is not increasing as fast.  The gap is widening.

Figure 4: Solar Capacity and Generation 2021 – 2020

Again, the gap (i.e. waste) is increasing even faster.  More on this later.

Here’s another way of looking at this problem, for solar.

Figure 5: Solar Generation as a Factor of Installed Capacity 2021 – 2020

Over the last 20 years there has been a fairly constant and close relationship between the amount of electricity generated and the installed capacity it is produced from.  This illustrates the low capacity factor of renewables.  Capacity factor is average actual generation divided by the nameplate capacity, usually expressed as a percentage. 

Figure 6: Capacity Factor 2021 – 2020

Coal has a capacity factor of between 65% and 80%.  Hydro depends on rainfall and has averaged 21% over the last 10 years.  Wind averaged 32% over the last 10 years, but solar struggles to get above 15%- mainly because it sits idle at night, there are large losses in conversion from DC to AC, and also because it produces more than the grid can handle in the middle of the day so supply is curtailed. 

Investors take heed: for every MegaWatt of solar electricity you may wish to generate, you will need to install 6.7 MW.  Every 1 MW of wind electricity needs 3.125 MW installed.  But wind takes up about 24 Hectares of land per Megawatt as against 2-3 Hectares for solar.

Figure 7 shows how much investment has been wasted over the years.

Figure 7: Wasted Capacity

Waste costs money.  In the case of wind and solar, $1.8 MILLION per MW.

I hate waste- but it can only get worse. 

The Renewable Energy Transition

The Australian Greens’ number one aim in their Climate Change and Energy Policy is:

“Net zero or net negative Australian greenhouse gas emissions by no later than 2040.”

And the Lowy Institute believes that Australia can set an example for the rest of the world.  In their article ‘An Australian model for the renewable-energy transition’ published on 11 March 2019, they assert that across the world “A very rapid transition to renewables is in process” and that “Most countries can follow the Australian path and transition rapidly to renewables with consequent large avoidance of future greenhouse emissions.”

Time for a reality check.

In this assessment I use energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions data from the 2019 BP Statistical Review of World Energy.

First of all, greenhouse gas emissions.  In the BP Review,

…carbon emissions … reflect only those through consumption of oil, gas and coal for combustion related activities, and are based on ‘Default CO2 Emissions Factors for Combustion’ listed by the IPCC in its Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006).  This does not allow for any carbon that is sequestered, for other sources of carbon emissions, or for emissions of other greenhouse gases. Our data is therefore not comparable to official national emissions data.

Excluded sources would include for example cement production and land clearing.  However, given that we are focussing on the transition away from fossil fuels towards renewables, that is not a problem.

Figure 1 shows the growth in carbon dioxide emissions (from fossil fuels) since 1965.

Fig. 1: Global CO2 emissions in millions of Tonnes

The big hitters are China, the USA, and India, who together account for more than half of the world total.

Fig. 2: CO2 emissions by the Big Three and the rest

Note that America’s emissions peaked in 2007 and have since declined.  China’s emissions rose rapidly from 2002 to 2013.  From a low base, India’s emissions growth rate is practically exponential.

Figure 3 shows how Australia “compares”.

Fig. 3: CO2 emissions by the Big Three and Australia

Australia’s emissions from fossil fuels peaked in 2008.

The BP Review’s CO2 emissions data are based on fossil fuel combustion, so I now look at energy consumption since 1965.  Energy units are million tonnes of oil equivalent (MTOE), from the BP Review, “Converted on the basis of thermal equivalence assuming 38% conversion efficiency in a modern thermal power station.”

Fig. 4: Global energy consumption by fuel type in millions of tonnes of oil equivalent

(Note:

Apart from 2009 (the GFC) gas has risen steadily, especially the last five years.

Since the oil shocks of the seventies and early eighties and apart from the GFC, oil has mostly enjoyed a steady rise.

Coal consumption increased rapidly from 2002 to 2013 (mostly due to Chinese expansion) followed by a small decrease to 2016.

Hydro power has seen a steady increase.

Nuclear power peaked in 2006 and declined slightly before increasing over the last six years.

Wind and Solar are in the bottom right hand corner.  Both are increasing rapidly but are dwarfed by other forms of energy.)

How close are we to the renewable energy transition?  Figures 5 to 9 show 1965 – 2018 energy consumption for conventional sources (fossil fuels plus hydro and nuclear) and the total.  The gap between conventional and total energy use is filled by renewables OF ALL TYPES- solar, wind, geothermal, bio-waste (e.g. sugar cane bagasse), and bio-mass used for electricity production, (but excluding firewood, charcoal, and dung).  I have highlighted the gaps with a little green arrow.

Fig. 5: Total and conventional energy consumption in millions of tonnes of oil equivalent

In 2018, renewables of all types accounted for just 4.05% of the world’s energy, fossil fuels 83.7%.  So much for rapid transition to renewables.

The next three plots show energy consumption of the big emitters.

Fig. 6: Total and conventional energy consumption- China

4.38% of Chinese energy came from renewables in 2018.  Nuclear and hydro power have increased enormously over the past 15 years and make up 10.35% of usage but fossil fuels (mostly coal) make up 85.3% of energy consumption.

Fig. 7: Total and conventional energy consumption- USA

Renewables accounted for 4.51% of US energy.  Fossil fuel and total energy consumption peaked in 2007 but has recently started increasing mostly due to gas and oil use.   (Coal has slipped from more than a quarter of the fossil fuel total in 2007 to less than a sixth in 2018.)  Fossil fuels make up 84.3% of energy use.

Fig. 8: Total and conventional energy consumption- India

Only 3.4% of India’s energy comes from renewables.  India’s energy consumption is growing very rapidly, and 91.6% of consumption is from fossil fuels.

What of Australia, supposedly setting an example for the rest of the world to follow?

Fig. 9: Total and conventional energy consumption- Australia

After years of building solar and wind farms, and at enormous expense, renewable energy of all types accounts for just 5% of Australia’s energy use- and the Greens aim to have zero net emissions in 21 years from now.

In the past 10 years, renewable consumption has increased by 5.5 million tonnes of oil equivalent- but fossil fuels have increased by 6.4 million tonnes.  While coal use has dropped by 12 million tonnes, this has been more than replaced by 18.4 million tonnes of oil and gas.  That’s not much of a rapid transition.

Figure 10 shows in order renewables consumption in all countries.  Remember, this includes all types including geothermal energy and bio-mass.

Fig. 10: Comparative penetration of renewables

Australia at 5 % renewable consumption is 19^th and ahead of the big emitters, the USA, China, and India.

Perhaps the Extinction Rebellion activists who are unhappy with lack of action against climate change in Germany, the UK, and Australia, could glue themselves to the roadways in China, India, or Russia.

There is no rapid renewable energy transition.   Oil, coal, and gas are cheap and readily available and are powering growth in developing economies.  At some time in the future there will not be enough accessible fossil fuel to sustain the world’s economies alone; uranium too will one day be in short supply.  However, necessity and technological innovation, not legislation, will drive the adoption of alternative fuels.

Rumours of the imminent death of fossil fuels appear to be greatly exaggerated (with apologies to Mark Twain).

Fake Survey: Is the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” a Hoax?

The “Second Notice” released last week, with 15,364 scientist signatories from 184 countries, might be a hoax or a clever student prank.

What is notable and peculiar about the list of Signatories and the follow up list of Endorsers is the omissions.  No Michael Mann.  No Gavin Schmidt.  No Naomi Oreskes.  No Tim Flannery.  No Lewandowski.

James Hansen is the only eminent name I recognise.

Following on from Jo Nova’s excellent post on the recent publicity surrounding the release by the Alliance of World Scientists of their second warning to humanity, I decided to have a closer look at the AWS warning article and its 15,362 signatories, their backgrounds, and their motivation- and also, how the survey was conducted and how the Signatories and Endorsements were collected.

What I found strange is that along with the hundreds of scientists of all descriptions are theologians, philosophers, citizen scientists, renewable energy advocates, artists, musicians, photographers, a high school student- and a homeopath.

I then turned to the Endorsers, those who agree with the warning article but weren’t amongst the original Signatories.

Along with the bona fide scientists, and assorted activists, photographers, and philosophers, we find 1 wholesaler (educated in “the school of life”); 1 elementary (primary) school teacher; and 2 naturopaths.

As with the Signatories to the article, several of these later supporters entered themselves multiple times e.g. Harvey Quamme, research scientist, entered himself 3 times; David Wood, molecular genetics, entered himself twice- there were more like him.  How many more?

So I began to wonder- how well are the respondents checked, and how difficult is it to add your name- or someone elses’s?

The answer to both is: not at all.

All you have to do, dear friends, is go to their home page:

http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/

Note the invitation to scientists “from any scientific discipline (e.g. ecology, medicine, economics, etc.)”

And the stipulation that “scientists only” are invited to Endorse the article.

Then click on “Endorse the Article”, and enter your details, not forgetting to confirm you are not a robot, then click save.  Your name will be added to the list of those who endorse the article.

(Yes, I entered Saint Nicholas.)

Just really who are these Signatories and Endorsers? I’ve never heard of any of them (apart from James Hansen).  Are they real scientists (or homeopaths)?  Or are many of them completely fictitious, but with many real concerned individuals duped into adding their names?  And have real individuals been entered without their knowledge or consent?  How would anyone know?

It is possible to copy the lists of names into a Word document and do a word search to find how many times a particular profession is mentioned.  But look more closely at the names in various professions.  In the list of original Signatories, the names appear to be credible.  However in the list of Endorsers are some very interesting names.

The article has been endorsed by some pretty heavy hitters: amongst those who include “physics” in their entry are Albert Einstein and Ernest Rutherford.   Musicians include John Lennon and Elvis Presley.  Florence Nightingale is a nurse.  Luke Skywalker is an astronaut.  Indiana Jones is an archaeologist.

And note the name of the first respondent on the list of Endorsers.

Aaskan, Yushal Raseev.  Get it?

If this was a real survey, why would that entry have been left there for all to see for many days?

Check for yourself- there are sure to be many more to find.

Has this been a well-crafted, gigantic student prank?  Have we all been fooled by this farce?

The “Second Notice” of the World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity is worthless.  At the very least the survey software- at least for the Endorsing the article, and probably for the original Signatories as well-  has no security system for preventing or checking fake entries, so no one really knows if the names are real or bogus, or how many legitimate scientists really do support the article.

We know how climate change promoters ever since Hansen in 1987 have used cunning stratagems (remember “Mike’s Nature trick”?) to fool people and convince them that global warming is real.  Perhaps the whole climate change scare is a clever student prank from the 1980s that developed into a meme with a life of its own and grew and grew- the biggest practical joke ever perpetrated.

Perhaps, but it is clear that the Viewpoint article in the journal Bioscience entitled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: a second notice” by Ripple et al. (2017) has no credibility and must be withdrawn.

It is a joke.

The Carbon Tax We Still Pay

Under Prime Minister Julia Gillard a Carbon Tax was introduced into Australia, set at $23 per tonne of CO2 equivalent, with numerous exclusions and a compensation package.  Apparently fulfilling his promise to get rid of the Carbon Tax, Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s coalition government succeeded in repealing it on 17 July 2014.

Unfortunately we still have a myriad of green schemes, solar bonus schemes, and of course our Renewable Energy Target.  How much does this cost us?  The following is based on regional Queensland, but applies Australia wide.

Ergon Energy provides electricity to all of Queensland outside the south-east corner.  With my last bill was included Ergon’s latest pamphlet for residential consumers, Issue #5 of “The Bright Side”.  Half of this issue was devoted to changes to electricity pricing and how it will affect consumers.  Ergon, and the Queensland government, have been claiming that after a couple of years of steep rises, 2015-16 will actually see a small drop in prices.  I read the information with interest, and as well checked with the Queensland Competition Authority (which sets prices).

Ergon summarises the changes to the typical Tariff 11 bill over a full year with this supposedly helpful graphic:

You will note that the cost to the average consumer of the solar bonus scheme and the Renewable Energy Target will rise by $23.  So what, you say, the average bill will reduce by $7.  Actually, it’s not so simple.   Ergon gives five scenarios of how it will affect consumers.  The QCA provides more detailed information, with percentages of the total cost.

This is based on an annual Tariff 11 consumption of 4,053 kWh, which is the average for residential customers. From this, it is possible to calculate exactly the changes and how much of this goes towards solar and RET schemes.  As well, using an estimate of 0.86 Tonnes of CO2 per Megawatt-hour (0.84 – 0.88) for black coal power stations, it is possible to estimate how much CO2 the average consumer is directly responsible for.  Of course, the 0.86 is for the generation of electricity, not consumption, and consumption is about 83% of electricity generated.  This has been incorporated in my estimates.

In 2014-15, the direct additional cost to the average consumer of the solar and RET schemes was $146.63, rising in 2015-16 to $169.63.

This represents a direct additional cost to the consumer of approximately $34.90 per Tonne of CO2 emitted, rising to $40.40.

A direct additional cost imposed through government policy is a tax.  Applied to residential consumers it is a nasty regressive tax, as it applies to all regardless of income or capacity to pay.  The Solar Bonus Scheme portion is particularly cruel, as low income consumers are subsidising those who could afford and took advantage of this scheme, which will keep paying 44c a kWh feed in tariff for original systems until 2028, now reduced to 6.348c for new systems.  This cost the average consumer $106.64 last year, and the $20 extra is an increase of 18.75%.

Not only that, the Joe Hockey argument does not apply.  Poor people who do use less than 3,800 kWh will see an increase in their bill, while those who use more than 3,800 kWh will see a decrease, and proportionately less the more they consume.

This is robbing the poor to pay the rich.  It is set to continue with the proposed increases in the RET, so the poor will be subsidising inefficient green projects well into the future.  A scheme too good to be true certainly is.  Years ago I knew the Solar Bonus Scheme was an unsustainable scam and immoral.  Now, more than ever, both the Solar Bonus Scheme and Renewable Energy Targets should be completely abolished, with compensation for Solar Bonus users limited to initial cost of installation less subsequent feed in revenue.  Poor people have better things to spend their money on.