"......none of us ever anticipated a technology revolution so extreme in it's productivity that it can reduce....marginal costs to near zero, making energy and then goods and services nearly free and abundant." - Jeremy Rifkin, Author of "The Third Revolution"
- Jeremy Rifkin, Author of "The Third Revolution"
(To jump to “The War Against Solar Energy – Enter Chemtrails and Covert Tyranny” click here.)
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
Solar Revolution and the Theft of our Sunlight.
45 minutes of sunlight can power the world seven times over for a year........
There is a revolution happening right now.
It is not an armed conflict in the sense that there are two sides clashing with violence. There is violence, covert and misrepresented violence that is never what it appears to be, but it is entirely one-sided. The violence belongs to those who are determined to keep the unjust and undemocratic status quo power structure at any cost, even if that means destroying the Earth we (and they too) all depend upon for our lives. It is a power lust and greed that defies rationality. It is utterly evil or it is utterly stupid or it is utterly cowardly. There are no other alternatives. On the side of non-violence the only weapon is irrefutable good sense and technological know-how and a determination and courage to do things differently and better and to save our Earth from its current path and the unthinkable disaster that lies at the end of it. It is the battle for what men will depend upon for their energy in the time to come. As such it is also a battle for democracy – whether our fuel is to be free and the energy infrastructure decentralised and de-monopolized, or whether we are going to continue to rely on greedy corporate monopolies for the dirty fuel we are forced to continue digging from deeper and deeper in the rock and earth until the bitter end.
"Australia's the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy. There's so much sun; there's so much wind off the coast, and so it makes absolutely no sense when you have an abundance of renewable energy, why would you rely on a depleting supply of fossil fuels with all of the attendant consequences to society and the planet?”
- Jeremy Rifkin, Author of 'The Third Industrial Revolution'
But before we go into any further detail, let's be clear about the need to shift to 100% renewables immediately. There are three chief reasons for this. And while the first might be deemed to be controversial, it matters very little, as the other two are good enough reasons in and of themselves – that is, they are each reason enough even without the other two. Taken together they put the matter beyond any doubt whatsoever.
In 2008 an Australian study by Graham Turner of the CSIRO found that:
"30 years of historical data compare favourably with key features of a business-as-usual scenario.....which results in collapse of the global system midway through the 21st century.”
Similarly, at around the same time Professor Dr. Hartmut Grassl, Former Director of the World Climate Research Programme of the World Meteorological Organization wrote the following:
“The model projections for scenarios without co-ordinated global climate change policy...can be condensed into one sentence: Warming in the 21st century will be more rapid than ever experienced by homo sapiens......”
They are only two voices (from the scientific community) in an ever increasing chorus world-wide telling us we need to act and we need to act now. And things, we are told, are getting worse.
For what it is worth, here is the international scientific community's consensus opinion in a nutshell:
The world's climate system is warming. This warming is anthropogenic, that is, it is man-made. It is directly and predominantly related to the increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere (from pre-industrial levels of 285 ppm to the current level of 400 ppm and rising) due largely to the use of fossil fuels in the energy sector. As a result of this warming, ice in the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica is melting. Particularly alarming at present is the Arctic situation as illustrated by the graph below.
|Above: The red line shows actual observations moving steeply away from even the most pessimistic of models by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.)|
Besides the fact that large scale melting of land ice such as the ice on Antarctica and Greenland would lead to flooding of biblical proportions (great coastal cities world-wide being particularly vulnerable), the problem is compounded further in that as the ice at the North pole vanishes (see graph left), a feedback loop ensues as less sun is reflected back into space by the highly reflective snow and ice. The energy would then be largely absorbed by the exposed land and ocean, contributing even further to warming and threatening the permafrost layer (frozen soil) both on land and sub-sea close to the shore. In and beneath this permafrost layer is trapped billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than CO2. If even a fraction of this enormous methane store were to enter our atmosphere the result could be truly cataclysmic, and on an unprecedented scale, as world-wide temperatures rose dramatically in a short space of time due to the extreme greenhouse effect.
In places like the East Siberian Arctic ice shelf, for example, there are many billions of tonnes of methane gas trapped in and underneath the permafrost layer. Russian Scientists have recently admitted that the thawing of the permafrost has already begun in some places and that they cannot rule out worst case scenarios in the short term.
The chief problem, apparently, is our dependence on fossil fuels for stationary energy (electricity), industry and transportation. In Australia, agricultural (livestock) emissions of methane are also significant, but fossil fuel activity makes up more than ¾ of the total Australian greenhouse gas emission. In fact, despite being a potential renewable energy powerhouse, Australia has instead the ignominious status of having one of the highest per capita CO2 emissions in the world at the moment, higher even than one of the world's chief culprits, the USA, which is second only to China in overall emissions. Both nations, the US and Australia (not to mention China and others), need to reduce to zero emissions in the very short term if we are to have a good chance of keeping global warming below the two degrees above pre-industrial levels recommended by climate scientists world-wide. That is a statistical fact.
World population is expected to reach 10 billion, give or take a billion, by 2050, when it is expected to stabilise at more or less that figure.
The trouble is that as things are presently, and if they remain unchanged with regards our use of fossil fuels in particular, the earth's population capacity is expected to be much, much less than 10 billion. There are several reasons for this, among them being energy scarcity due to depletion of fossil fuel resources, and subsequent reduction of capacity for intensive food production.
The days of oil, gas and coal are numbered, of that there is no doubt at all. Oil and gas are expected to have three or four decades at most and coal perhaps until the end of the present century at the latest, but in any case the ecological limit needs also to be considered. The question is whether the life support system of Earth can tolerate the emissions from a 'last drop' scenario. According to the international climate science community the answer to that is a resounding no, with some predicting possible catastrophic results of our continued dependence on fossil fuels in the very short term.
However seriously one takes these warnings, clearly the shift from exhaustible and dirty fossil fuels to inexhaustible, clean renewable energy, and in particular solar energy, is the safest route for the future, especially when one considers how relatively easily that transition might be made in countries like Australia.
Australia now imports 91% of its liquid fuel. That means we are depending on factors largely outside our control for something without which just about everything in the nation would grind to a halt. Meanwhile 25 billion dollars a year are spent on defence forces which are put more or less at the service of other large fossil fuel dependants and their utterly corrupt governments and power structures. More than a third of the enormous US defence budget is used for protecting oil and energy importation lines. That is a fact.
What is far worse, however, are the often unseen and not generally understood costs of a military whose role in society is inflated out of all reasonable proportions by completely inappropriate allocations of enormous sums of tax payer money. The impropriety is never more so evident to those who know than when those funds are used domestically in covert operations against citizens themselves - where dissension, common sense or innovation is seen as a threat to energy 'security', that is, fossil fuel tyranny, and dealt with as such without public knowledge. (Chemtrails for example.) The methodology is hideous, to say the least. And the sums are considerable.
These are the hidden costs. The cost to our humanity, decency and democracy. If a truly good use cannot be found for the funds we give them, you can rest assured they find other uses. And this shapes the nature of the society we live in. There is no doubt that the Australian military is simply a tool of the status quo power structure (which includes fossil fuel and other special interest groups), and that public funds allocated to it will be used not in the best interests of the people, but for the purposes of those who presently control it, and our government. If you don't believe it then I suggest you try living and thinking in a manner that is independent of conventionally offered paradigms, like according to the actual teachings of the Gospel for instance. Because if you do you will not have any doubts for long about how our defence forces budget is being deployed in this country I can assure you. Their methods will both shock and disgust you.
We all need to be aware of this, we have come to the point where denial is not only deplorable but deeply contemptible. Most importantly we need to understand that despite the way our defence forces are currently being used they are, when all is said and done, our defence forces, not the mere lackey and mindless tool of selfish special-interest-group tyrants. They are our sons and fathers and brothers, not theirs. And it is our funds and know-how that give our defence forces the power they have, not theirs. Who then do you think our defence forces should be serving?
A world without energy scarcity or centralisation is a much more secure world. And a secure world is one in which defence forces play a much lesser role with a much smaller budget. And this makes for a saner, happier and more truly democratic world for everyone.
The word democracy is, sadly, probably one of the most misused words in human language, at least in the developed world. It is so often a mere cover for various forms of tyranny, technocracy or despotic rule. Even when it is used to refer to majority vote elections (as if that alone guarantees a genuinely democratic society) it can be misleading. After all, elections, per se, are a relatively shallow affair. True democracy must exist at the very structural level of society. Without that it is nothing but appearance and rhetoric.
The democratisation of our energy supply, however, is a genuine example of democracy at the structural level. That is why it is so fiercely opposed. It is a movement away from monopolistic ownership and control of our energy supply by very few, as necessitated by the fossil fuel infrastructure (only large and/or multinational companies can bring us our oil from the Arabian peninsula or our coal and gas from the coal and gas fields), to a system where ownership can be decentralised into the hands of the many (photovoltaic solar panels for instance). Energy consumption is always decentralised. Renewables allow for both supply and consumption to share the same nature.
Below I will bring to your attention two different branches of the renewable energy movement. The two may be in fact complementary, with the storage technology of the first utilised only to the extent that the second requires. But in any case I think it is helpful to familiarise oneself thoroughly with both approaches/perspectives. The first is a guarantee that solid baseload power can be provided to the Australian public by 100% renewables with the same reliability or better as conventional power, and with a transition period that is both feasible and affordable. ('Baseload' power means power supply at all times.) The second is the movement alongside this (already taking place despite many attempts to discourage and undermine it) to what is effectively the creation of vast numbers of micro-power stations all over the country via photovoltaic (PV) solar panel technology. It is particularly the latter movement where the democratisation of energy supply is made most manifest.
“The first point is to show that it is possible to meet all energy needs with renewables. And to show that this is a big economic chance for many, many jobs in many, many industries; showing the general possibility is in no country easier than in Australia. Because such a continent, such a big country, with so many square kilometres and so many people in contrast with that, and so much solar radiation, and so favourable wind conditions in many coastal regions where the big cities are, no other country has a better opportunity to shift to renewable energies in the very short run.”
- Dr Hermann Scheer speaking to Geraldine Doogue on ABC radio February 2006. Click here for full transcript.
What is the Zero Carbon Australia Project?
“The Zero Carbon Australia Project (ZCA2020) is an initiative of Beyond Zero Emissions and the University of Melbourne's Energy Research Institute and is supported by Climate Emergency Network, (CEN), Climate Positive and many generous Australians from all walks of life." [From the Beyond Zero Emissions website – www.bze.org.au]
It was estimated in 2010 by the ZCA2020 team that Australia's total electricity consumption in 2020 would be 325 Terawatt hours per year [TWh/y]. (A Terawatt is one billion kilowatts.) This was based on expected decreases of demand due to proposed energy efficiency measures on one hand and also, on the other hand, some expected increases in demand due to the transitioning of the transportation sector in large part to electricity.
The proposal is that 40% of this power will come from wind power and the remaining 60% from Concentrated Thermal Solar plants. There will be also a 2% back up allowance provided by biomass fuel heaters and hydro.
Biofuel back up energy would be sourced from a fraction of Australia's already existing wheat crop residue.
The costs of the plan are summarised in the table below. 'Transmission' refers to the cost of new High voltage AC and DC lines and transmission towers required by the plan.
“...a solar thermal power plant has no fuel cost, but it does have a high initial cost because you basically, once you build the plant, you have all the fuel for the 30 or 40 years of the design life. If you had to buy 30 or 40 years of coal, along with your coal plant, the price might be quite a bit different...”
- Dr. Fred Morse, Senior Advisor US Operations, Abengoa Solar Inc Chairman, CSP division, US Solar Industries Association.
|Above: summary of costs of the ZCA2020 plan. 'Transmission' refers to the cost of new High voltage AC and DC lines and transmission towers required by the plan.|
“The Plan would require only a fraction of Australia’s existing construction and manufacturing workforce, and yet would create more ongoing jobs in renewable energy than would be lost in old fossil fuel industries.” [p. 111, Full Report]
“The strategic investment of $37 billion per year required to transition Australia’s stationary energy sector to renewable sources, is equivalent to a stimulus of just 3% of GDP over 10 years. In the long term, however, the lower fuel costs of renewable energy recoup the upfront investments. Achieving the ten-year transition is well within Australia’s existing industrial capacity. Adoption of this plan promises health benefits, long-term energy security, and significant economic benefits. The ZCA2020 Plan will position Australia as a global leader in the zero carbon economy of the 21st century – the economy required for effective mitigation of climate change.” [p. 126, Full Report]
What about power during the night and cloudy periods? To understand how solar power can provide power reliably even in the absence of
sunlight we need to understand the basics of CST.
"The proposed CST power towers consist of a central tower receiver surrounded by a field of 18,000 heliostats, as shown in [the figure left]. The heliostats are two-axis tracking mirrors that follow the sun, reflecting focused sunlight on the receiver heating it to at least 565oC......The receiver is similar to conventional boiler tubes, except that instead of water as the working fluid, molten salt is used. The molten salt flows through the receiver accumulating thermal energy from the focus and then flows into the hot salt tank (shown in red). When there is a demand for electricity, the hot molten salt is passed through a heat exchanger to generate high-temperature steam for the turbine. The steam spins the turbine to generate the required amount of electricity. The heat extracted from the molten salt cools it to 290oC (still molten), and it is returned to the cold tank (shown in yellow) where it waits to be pumped up the tower again for heating. These power towers are able to operate at 70-75% annual capacity factor, similar to conventional fossil fuel plants. They are capable of dispatching power 24 hours a day, and are as reliable as conventional 'baseload’ power. Furthermore, they are in fact more flexible to meeting varying demand. The steam heat-exchange and turbine systems are specifically designed for rapid start up, allowing CST to balance changing electricity demand patterns, and providing ‘firming’ power to more variable wind generation." [ZCA2020 Stationary Energy full synopsis, pp. 6 &7]
The Australian Government is not telling the truth about this
The fact that CST towers “are capable of dispatching power 24 hours a day and are reliable as conventional 'baseload' power” puts lie to all the politicians who have continually used baseload unreliability as an argument against a significant shift to renewable energy in Australia. For example, in July 2014 we had this statement on 2GB radio from prime minister Tony Abbot:
“The difficulty with renewable energy is that when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, well the power doesn't flow. We've got massive supplies of coal; we've got massive supplies of gas; we should, we should be making the most of our natural advantages.”
Now Mr. Abbot was either lying, that is, misrepresenting the true situation deliberately, or he was ignorant of technology such as CST, or he is all too aware of weather modification methods (cloud cover generation) that can block the sun relatively cheaply over vast areas and for long periods. In the latter case we must presume either that he was also aware of his own impotence (or that of any other Australian politician) to put a stop to it in Australian skies (or why not simply do so?), and/or that he and the government were/are complicit in its use. None of these possibilities are worthy of our nation's prime minister, goverment, or political leaders, especially when we are dealing with as grave an issue as the future of life and liberty on Earth.
The fact is that Australian politicians have forsaken the source of the only Power that can really save us, by kow-towing to anti-Christian and atheistic elements that have infiltrated Western society for some time precisely for the purpose of undermining it. Abbot would have done better by his fellow Australians by addressing seriously our nation's spiritual deficit and the dire need for genuine Christian revival, instead of disingenuously pursuing policies antagonistic to renewable energy investment and growth. (More on the effect of such policies below.)
"The Government has an ideological agenda. They want to carve out the impact of renewable energy on the network and they want to stop renewables in their tracks."
- John Grimes, Australian Solar Council, July 2014
Update January 2016: Abbot is out, but all pre-election posturing, rhetoric and empty promises aside, will Goldman-Sachs man, Malcolm "Turncoat" Turnbull (the Zionists' newest stooge in the Lodge), make any significant changes to Government energy policy? And, if not, is there any viable opposition at the moment with the intelligence, courage, honesty and integrity to do so? That is to say, is there an opposition that can manage to see the necessity and justice of a complete shift to renewable energy in Australia while steering clear of those irreligious, anti-Christian policies so often (needlessly) associated with it? Because at the moment, unfortunately, the only thing going for Turnbull is the opposition*.
*Turnbull hung on to his job, but only just, at the federal election in July 2016.
Just how complicit is PM Malcolm Turnbull in the Chemtrail atrocity?
"If we postpone the way to renewables then we create unsolvable energy problems in the future and unpayable problems in the future. If you don't postpone it, we can get for all the future energy security and clean energy. The decision is very clear. If we leave this question to the energy companies which are the vested interests against renewables itself, then they have to go to renewables at a specific time. When they are at the end of their possibilities and this will come. But this would be a postponement about three or four decades. And if we could allow that or would allow that, we would lose worldwide the race against time.”
- Dr. Hermann Scheer
Left: Sites for CST plants and windmill farms are carefully selected in the ZCA2020 plan to mitigate seasonal variations in solar and wind from place to place. The wide range of locations over great distances and diverse climate is our chief advantage over other countries in the world now also facing the inevitable move to renewable energies.
According to the ZCA2020 plan it would take a block of land only 53 km x 53 km (2760 km2) to contain all twelve CST sites needed to supply the entire Australian electricity demand (see figures below) including transition of the transportation sector to electricity. This is less than 5% of the area of Tasmania and less than 0.04% of the area of Australia as a whole. It is much less than the land area of the largest single cattle station (Anna Creek), or about the size of Kangaroo Island. And it is just over 2% of the land area of the Woomera prohibited area. What is more, the efficiency with which CST power stations utilise land to produce energy is well within an order of magnitude of large coal-fired power stations, and better if open cut coal mine expansion is taken into account.
Do Australians realize just how little land is required by renewables to meet all of our energy needs?
"The Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan represents the kind of visionary work that should be eagerly embraced. It is the first time that I have seen a plan that makes the possibility of zero emissions feasible and affordable. In particular, solar energy offers so much promise in the dry and sunny continent. Politicians have been postponing decisions in this area for too long. They, and decision-makers generally, should study Zero Carbon Australia intensely and urgently. The work is so comprehensive that it makes me eager to see the further studies that will be emerging in the near future."
For the article “Planning Australia's clean and renewable energy future” (The Age - June 13, 2009) click here.
Download the ZCA2020 Stationary Energy Plan - Free
I strongly recommend reading the full ZCA2020 Stationary Energy report, or at least the synopsis, to anyone who has the slightest doubt that a transition to a 100% renewable energy Australia can be achieved in a relatively short period of time, and in such a way that is feasible, affordable, beneficial and even pleasing to all. You can download the full report in pdf here. Or the shorter synopsis, also in pdf, here. Or visit the Beyond Zero Emissions website at www.bze.org. Please make a donation if possible – these people are doing important work on behalf of us all.
On February 25, 2000 an Act was passed by the German Bundestag, receiving approval of the Bundesrat (upper chamber) on 17 March. It was called the Act on Granting Priority to Renewable Energy Sources or just simply the Renewable Energy Sources Act.
The Act had three main principles:
1. Guaranteed access for renewable generators to the German electricity grid for each kilowatt hour with no upper or lower limit and regardless of who were the producers.
2. A guaranteed fee ('feed-in tariff') which was enumerated precisely according to the cost of production, state of technology, and pre-determined renewable energy targets. In 2004 as much as 57.4 euro cents per kilowatt was guaranteed for solar power from photovoltaics (solar panels).
3. The fee per kilowatt guaranteed for twenty years from the beginning of production.
The funding for the tariff law in Germany was (and continues) to be sourced from electricity consumers themselves according to their consumption – a 'polluter's pay' policy.
The effect of this Act was nothing less than the beginning of a paradigm shift in Germany from centralized fossil and atomic based energy to clean and decentralized energy - a movement which continues steadily to this day. It did this not through some agreement with the incumbents of the old paradigm and their lackey governments - the conventional power structure - but by circumventing them altogether and giving the people a chance to be a part of their own energy supply, by making it financially feasible and investment friendly. And perhaps, most important of all, it took the power away from the big power companies to put obstacles in the way of such a movement. They were legally obliged to give all renewable energy investors access to the grid and even to pay for any updates to the grid to make connection possible. The impact of this policy is undeniable. In short and simply put, it really worked:
“In Germany 27 % of all the electricity on the power grid.......is now green electricity, solar and wind. It will be 35 % green electricity by 2020. And what's interesting is who's producing this green electricity. It's millions of homeowners and businesses. One million buildings in Germany, homes, offices, factories have been converted to micro-power plants so that people can produce their own solar and wind generated electricity on-site and send it back to a fledgling energy internet and share it with others. The harvesting technology is becoming cheaper and cheaper and cheaper because it's on an exponential curve, just like computer chips. A solar watt of electricity cost $60 to produce in 1970. A solar watt today costs 66 cents to produce and it's going to go down, down, down just like in computing. So even though we have to pay the fixed cost to introduce solar and wind technology, the marginal costs are nearly free from the get go. The sun off your roof is free.”
- Jeremy Rifkin, Author of “The Third Industrial Revolution”
The goal for renewable energy in Germany is 40 to 45% by 2025 and 55 to 60% by 2035. What that means is that they are now perfectly placed for the renewable energy economy of tomorrow, while increasingly ensuring energy security and stability at home. Today Germany has more jobs in renewable energy than in automotive and engineering together. And they have done this by facing the facts about fossil fuels and renewable energy alternatives and fighting the vested interests and myopia of conventional power with determined intelligence. It amounts to a great victory for democracy and common sense. Actually it was only a handful of men in the German parliament that convinced a majority to pass the Act despite the opposition of the then German government. One of those stalwart men was Hermann Scheer. Speaking of the government opposition to the passing of the Act he said:
“The government behaved like all the governments behave. They feel themselves and they act as partners and assistants of the conventional power structure. This has many reasons. Some believe that there would be no alternative. They believe the arguments. Others are very closely linked, personally linked with the power companies and in different ways of corruption. The most comfortable way to corrupt a politician is the method, the legal method, to pay them later. After office.....after leaving government, then hiring him for the board, and this is a very popular, very usable way of let's say legalised corruption, and the thinking of all governments that they are dependent [on] the work of the energy supplier because no economy can work without energy, and the monopole of the conventional power, even in the thinking that there would be no alternative, this monopole gave them so much influence.....that many governments are puppets...in the hand of these power companies.”
- Dr. Hermann Scheer, German Parliamentarian
In 2010, in an interview with US current affairs website 'DemocracyNow', one of his last, Scheer made the point about people power regarding the previous ten years of German renewable energy investment:
“... in the run of ten years there was the total installation by such investments of 45,000 Megawatt [45GW] renewables, all renewables, PV, wind
power.....biogas, small hydro, independent power plants...with a total investment of more than a hundred billion Euro. And to make a comparison, in these ten years the big power companies invested less than ten.”
Click here for the full interview.
Scheer's views about government partnership and/or bias with conventional power is echoed by the ACT Minister for Energy Simon Corbell. Speaking to Stephen Long of the ABC's Four Corners program in July 2014 he said:
"Well the other state governments have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. They collect the royalties from the coal mines; they collect the dividends from the coal-fired generators; they own these assets. And, they are not interested in disrupting that business model, even though that's locking consumers into higher energy costs over the medium to long term."
And the clear bias of our federal government did not escape the notice of investors abroad. Kevin Smith, CEO of SolarReserve which owns the 110 MW Crescent Dunes Solar Thermal Plant in California made the following observation (again to Stephen Long in July 2014) regarding the Australian government's appointment of a man known to be sceptical of anthropogenic global warming (Dick Warburton), to head the (then) still ongoing review of the Renewable Energy Target:
“Well, it's a little bit hard to grasp that, kind of that concept. I mean clearly you know that appointment was made because they want to move back towards conventional fuels: coal and oil. It's pretty clear that the policy in Australia is now being centred around big coal. The coal industry clearly has rallied to move policy away from renewable energies because they view renewable energy as a threat and back toward conventional coal......That policy change pretty much took the life out of the renewable energy sector as far as large scale projects for say utility applications. Other markets around the world are advancing. Australia is going to get left behind.”
For an article on the 2015 new renewable energy target deal click here.
For the full Four Corners program “Power To The People” aired in July last year click here.
(Just how much cleaner is Solar PV than Coal? Click here for the hard data.)
More than 23,000 Australians signed an online petition for a national gross feed-in tariff.
Despite this, the 2008 Gross Feed-in Tariff bill was never passed into law in this country. On the contrary the current government is doing everything it can to discourage investment in renewable energy in Australia, both large and small scale, while actively encouraging fossil fuels. Recent years have seen a sharp turnaround in solar investment incentive and feed-in tariff policy. If feed-in tariffs are offered at all now, at the state level, it is something in the order of a pittance - 6 to 8 cents with few exceptions. This is about a 1/4 of the retail price of electricity purchased from the grid. In some cases electricity retailers are able to offer solar panel owners whatever they like including nothing at all if it suits them. And to add insult to injury, even in those rare cases when the tariff exceeds the retail price of electricity, it is invariably paid for net, not gross production.
In case anyone was in any doubt at all about the levelness of the energy playing field (or lack of it) in this country it is perhaps worth noting that
our federal government currently pays out billions of dollars a year in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. A recent assessment by Environment Victoria and Market Forces concludes that the Australian Government currently pays out over $10 billion in Federal taxation-based fossil fuel subsidies each year to the fossil fuel industry. You can download details of that assessment here. Or visit paidtopollute.org.au to join thousands of Australians in letting the government know this policy is not acceptable to the Australian people.
Meanwhile clean technology continues to develop along with economies of scale world-wide, bringing the costs of PV down and providing viable small and larger-scale battery storage solutions. This is making it increasingly feasible for communities and other small groups and businesses in Australia to set up their own micro-power stations close to home – no grid required.
In December 2014 the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA – arena.gov.au) announced funding for a residential electricity storage system that 'will allow consumers to gain more value from their rooftop solar PV installations'. Click here for more.
The advantage of micro-grids and rooftop installations is that costs to the consumer for transmission infrastructure and centralised administration are avoided. And so are significant power losses over long transmission distances. It is worth keeping in mind that the infrastructure costs for conventional power transmission are by far the single biggest contributing factor to recent power price increases. And more and more Australians are realising the need to circumvent the ability that network operators and retailers have to arbitrarily adjust grid and pricing policies to protect the centralisation of power generation on which they depend for their profits and existence.
An article in the mainstream press last year made the following observation:
“The next step, of course, is for.....households and businesses to disconnect entirely from the grid.....The truly scary prospect for coal generators, however, is that this equation will become economically viable in the big cities. Investment bank UBS says this could happen as early as 2018.”
The sooner, the better.
Battery storage, by the way, is not the only option for PV users. Another idea for filling in the supply gaps engendered by the fluctuating nature of PV generation is to couple it with Concentrated Solar Thermal technology, though the effect is perhaps not so decentralising:
“There may be a point where.....distributed PV is so prolific that there is close to zero demand for power from centralised power plants during direct sunlight hours........Solar thermal power with storage.......would offer a relatively high-value alternative, since it allows energy to be dispatched at any time during a 24 hour period, in line with demand.” [ZCA2020 Stationary Energy Report p. 29]
The Merit Order Effect - How PV enhanced peak supply offsets subsidies and reduces power prices
What most electricity consumers don't know is that the price of their electricity is substantially inflated by peak excess demand activity that only happens 1 to 5 % of the time, during heatwaves for example, when spot prices for electricity on the National Electricity Market (NEM) go through the roof.
Happily, these times coincide largely with peak PV production when the sun is, or should be, shining abundantly. So the effect of increased availability of PV generated electricity to the NEM is to provide a relatively cheap alternative, especially at excess demand times - the so-called Merit Order Effect - effectively limiting prices to the feed in tariff of the PV generation, for that part of the excess demand it can meet. This reducing effect on wholesale electricity prices is much more substantial than one might think, because electricity from peak-power generators (so-called 'gas-peakers') is extremely expensive, sometimes going as high as $12,500/MW (the maximum permitted by the NEM) when demand is high and suppliers are few. By contrast the average wholesale price of electricity in Australia in the last 15 years has ranged between about $30 to $60/MW!
In Germany the merit order effect on wholesale electricity prices was found to offset completely the costs to consumers of the substantial gross feed in tariffs paid for renewable generation.
Click here for more on the merit order effect - “Why Generators are Terrified of Solar”.
The fact is that Australia, and the world, have benefited enormously by the German renewable example and gross feed-in tariff, as efficiencies of scale in the world-wide solar industry (a direct result of the German policy), continue to make PV solar more and more cost effective for everyone.
There is no doubt that in the long run, renewable energy electricity will only get cheaper to consumers just as fossil fuel generated electricity, due to depletion of fossil fuel reserves and infrastructural, security and carbon emission costs, must surely get more expensive. And the costs of continuing with fossil fuels, as we have seen, will not be solely of a monetary nature.
“If we look to the whole change then you can immediately recognise that this a totally new paradigm. And then you can imagine how many conflicts happen, happened and will happen, because it leads to the dissolution of the conventional energy economy. Automatically. The primary energy economy will disappear. Because it is impossible to change from being a seller of coal; gas, uranium and coal, to the role of seller of solar radiation and wind. It's impossible. Wind and solar radiation is a common good. Not owned by anyone. And this is the largest, the most....the conventional primary energy sector is the most influential, with the highest turnover, the most influential part of the world economy. And then you can imagine the dimension of the conflict which happens. They will disappear. They become superfluous. Automatically. Therefore they have the interest to postpone it. They know their own end, but they want to postpone it. For decades. And we cannot accept that, because society, the world cannot wait to the point when the last drop of oil is consumed, or the last cubic metre of gas or the last tonne of uranium or coal – we cannot wait for that.”
- Dr. Hermann Scheer
The fact is that despite the opposition and the loaded policy dice, and despite the fact that the legal framework for a national gross feed-in tariff that provides real incentive to renewable energy investment both large scale and small, is an imperative long overdue in this country, solar panels are still plodding ahead. It simply is never going to stop making sense to shift to a fuel free, clean electricity supply. Over one million Australian households now have solar panels installed. That's more than one in seven. This, coupled with wind farms, has significantly cut demand for electricity from conventional power stations, making it harder and harder to justify the super costly infrastructure that has been the chief reason for inflated power prices in this country. Coal generated power stations are increasingly only managing to break even at best. Actually, on a level playing field, even if coal were free, it cannot compete with point-of-consumption solar, due to transmission, distribution and administration costs.
“We will arrive with solar power production, with PV, we will arrive in the run of the next decade at costs, including new storing opportunities, at costs for a household which are lower than the conventional costs for buying electric power over the grid. We will arrive at that. And who will hinder people to do that? No-one can do it. Only dictatorship can do that.”
- Dr Hermann Scheer speaking in 2010
[Grid parity was reached in Germany, Italy and Spain in early 2014. It was achieved in Australia in 2011. Storage technology is developing rapidly.]
The Federal Government’s Energy White Paper of November 2012 projected that by 2035 solar PV will provide 17 per cent of Australia’s energy consumption, with that expected to increase further again to 29 per cent by 2050. Though this is shamefully inadequate given our nation's potential compared to other nations far less amply endowed by nature in terms of renewables (Germany, for example) it is still, apparently, a threat to the psychopaths currently running the atrocious and ongoing crime against humanity that is fossil fuels, as we shall see. Anyone with half an eye open in this world knows by now that there are no limits to how low these scumbags will go to preserve their power. And now, it seems, it is all out war........
“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.”
In the 1980's a young English biologist charged with measuring solar radiation over Israel in the 1960s made a startling discovery. When he compared readings from the 80's with those of the earlier period he found that there had been a whopping 22% reduction in surface sunlight. These findings were later corroborated by independent findings in both Germany and Australia. In Australia something called the 'pan evaporation rate', or simply the rate of evaporation from a pan placed in the sun outdoors, was found to be dropping. Since the key determinant for such evaporation was found to be sunlight incident on the water surface the inference that sunlight reaching the surface was also dropping was unavoidable. When the difference in energy required to evaporate the water from the pan at before and after rates of evaporation was found to match more or less exactly the drop in sunlight energy levels measured around the world, the two corroborating and completely independent findings put the matter beyond doubt. The world was getting darker. Scientists world-wide have now accepted this phenomenon as fact. They call it 'Global Dimming'.
Everything. Chemtrails work on the same principle as pollution in the atmosphere. Silver iodide cloud seeding, for example, is the deliberate infusing of the atmosphere with highly hygroscopic particles (aerosols) for the purpose (usually) of precipitation enhancement. The technique outlined in the Welsbach patent on the other hand, is the deliberate infusing of the atmosphere with highly reflective aerosols for the purpose of solar radiation management. Both techniques cause chemtrails. And both are easily adaptable to solar denial applications. (More on this below.)
The Welsbach technique is modelled on observed similar effects of particle release into the atmosphere both natural (e.g. volcanic eruptions) and unnatural (pollutants). The chief difference to pollution/volcanic aerosol clouds, which can have either a net warming or cooling effect depending on height, thickness and predominating aerosols, is that in the geo-engineered version aerosols are chosen, we are told, which are both highly reflective to sunlight and able also to absorb and convert near infra-red heat radiation into visible light and far infrared. In this way it is hoped that the net effect might be made a cooling one by radiating the converted radiation back into space. Though whether or not this is actually achieved, or is even the desired outcome, is by no means certain.
Unfortunately, it appears to have escaped the notice of the psychopaths currently employing this technology that when we mess with the radiative balance of the planet it wreaks the kind of havoc with hydrological cycles and Earth ecology that has been observed increasingly all over the world in recent years. Actually the truth is that the sheer extent of their hubris has rendered them incapable of caring.
- Dr Peter Cox, Hadley Centre Meteorology Office (UK)
He might have been speaking specifically about chemtrails/geo-engineering. Perhaps he was. In any case what he said applies to both incidental and deliberate infusion of the atmosphere with pollutants.
Leading climate scientist Professor Veerabhadran Ramanathan, head of the multinational INDOEX project of the mid-1990s that linked global dimming conclusively to pollution, and more specifically to the reflective properties of pollutant particles in clouds, believes that Rostayn's theory about the Sahel drought of Ethiopia might be applicable to even worse case hydrological cycle disruption scenarios in the future:
“The Sahel is just one example of the monsoon system. Let me take you to another part of the world. Asia, where the same monsoon brings rainfall to three point six billion people, roughly half the world's population. My main concern is this air pollution and the Global Dimming will also have a detrimental impact on this Asian monsoon. We are not talking about few millions of people we are talking about few billions of people”
Given that these men were speaking of the effects of incidental global pollution, consider now if you will the effect of a dedicated and deliberate effort to infuse the atmosphere with literally millions of tons of polluting particles, year after year, in the name of global warming mitigation or precipitation enhancement. Consider also the other uses a psychopath might dream up for this kind of technology. Now you may have some kind of idea of the enormity of the menace we are facing at the moment that is geo-engineering, weather modification and chemtrails.
Jet trails are causing a substantial reduction in sunlight reaching us. They are darkening our planet.
But still, and even in the light of existing patents and geo-engineering schemes known to use jet trails for precisely that purpose, we are expected to believe these are ordinary contrails. If you are tired of these increasingly transparent and tired old lies click here to get some of the facts of the matter. But for those who need no such lessons in the obvious we can jump to the next question: what is their purpose? Of course the answer is multi-faceted, some are perhaps inadvertent, but broadly speaking the effect is always some form of solar denial. And when it comes to Old Energy's megalomaniacal refusal to let go of its power base, that denial takes on a dastardly and utterly insane strategic perspective.
America has a unique role in world economy and politics. It has enormous influence. What is shown to work there tends to catch on everywhere else. Unfortunately, this makes any major developments that take place there, which are at odds with the fossil fuel paradigm, a prime target for eco-crime.
Well quite literally there is.
In a release to the press the California Energy Commission blamed the poor performance on 'clouds, jet contrails and weather'. Of course all three are part and parcel of the one phenomenon – deliberate weather modification using aerosol dispersal at high altitudes. In short, chemtrails and artificial cloud enhancement.
A spokesman for NRG, who co-owns the facility with Google and BrightSource Energy said:
“During startup, we have experienced … irregular weather patterns....”
The California Energy Commission added further detail:
“Factors such as clouds, jet contrails and weather have had a greater impact on the plant than the owners anticipated....”
For a short clip showing various stages in the construction of Ivanpah click here. Make a note of the sky throughout which is almost invariably cloudy, hazy or overcast, though the footage covers an extended time period during which construction took place. Is this normal for a desert location chosen for it's high and consistent annual insolation levels? And in case you think it might be, pay particular attention to the sky 2:37 minutes into the clip where no less than two chemtrailing eco-bandits can be clearly seen laying down their disgusting sunlight-cancelling so-called 'contrails' in a sky already full of the aerosols in various stages of dispersal. The facility was not even yet operational and they were already at it. Could it possibly be any plainer?
For those of you reading this that have already wised up to the chemtrail atrocity I need not tell you that these sun dimming jet 'contrails' are not contrails at all, but are in fact ultra toxic chemtrails the chief purpose of which is solar dimming. (If you are new to this you may wish to begin informing yourself about chemtrails and geo-engineering here). In geo-engineering terms these aerosols deliberately sprayed into our skies and the sky above Ivanpah are part of a multi-faceted technology broadly referred to as Solar Radiation Management (SRM), or sometimes also Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering/Injection (SAG/SAI). Ground based devices for ionisation of aerosols and subsequent enhanced artificial cloud formation are used, and standard hygroscopic cloud seeding technology may also play a factor. In layman's terms the jet trail part of these technologies is referred to as chemtrails. But when so-called 'solar radiation management' or 'weather modification' is applied to the skies above one of the flagships and poster-children of the world-wide solar energy movement in Ivanpah, California, the most accurate descriptive phrase for this disgraceful activity is simply theft of our God-given sunlight and the opportunities it offers for a truly just and democratic world.
“.......none of us ever anticipated a technology revolution so extreme in it's productivity that it can reduce.....marginal costs to near zero, making
energy and then goods and services nearly free and abundant.”
- Jeremy Rifkin
The resistance to the solar power revolution is happening all over the world including here in Australia. Fact. It is taking place on a massive scale. Widespread PV is also under attack, not just the more plausibly deniable, easier to target and relatively few large scale utilities. If such a scale seems to you at first glance prohibitively expensive consider how that expense might compare to the loss of revenue to Old Energy if the fossil fuel paradigm in the developed world were to completely disappear in the short to medium term as it surely must if we have any sense at all.
Consider the facts: it is estimated that there are still about one trillion barrels of oil yet to be extracted from the world's great catchments. At $100 a barrel that means that we are dealing here with a whopping $100 trillion dollars of oil business still to be done in the next few decades, not to mention contributions from other fossil fuels markets like coal and natural gas. Clearly such a stake dwarfs any geoengineering expenses measured in the mere billions. All that is required is the requisite inhumanity to overlook the, shall we say, non-monetary costs.
And now finally it is becoming increasingly apparent where the true enemy lies – the enemy of the human race - because the resistance to the solar revolution is, when all is said and done, a resistance to life. Solar denial is Life denial. Clearly. That it is happening is obvious except to cowards and numbskulls. The rest are either doing what they can to fight this or they are complicit.
Please try to understand that we are living in a world where sunlight is costing more and more money to myopic psychopaths with enormous wealth and influence on the one hand and a complete inability to comprehend or care about the consequences of their actions on the other. Every hour, every minute of sunshine is money lost to their fossil fuel power structure. That is our actual situation. Can anyone deny it? Sunlight has become a liability to these people. Is that difficult to understand? Actually it is obvious. Do you think then that possessing the technology for solar energy denial, and also the pretext for using it, these criminals are going to refrain from doing so?
Please do not attempt to judge these creeps by any decent human standards, that is a serious error which allows them to slip under the radar of our utter incredulity regarding how low anything somewhat resembling the human race can actually sink. They have one story for the general public, viz. "contrails" and another to fall back on for somewhat better informed members of the public, viz. "global warming mitigation". This is how they hope to justify their presence in our skies. Yet neither pretext makes any real sense. In the first instance these are clearly not ordinary jet contrails and in the second we are expected to believe that a technology that makes the shift to renewable energy less viable (by blocking the sun) is going to save our Earth from eco-disaster simply by putting an ultra-toxic, nano-particulate cloud shade (band-aid) over us while we continue to pump carbon emissions into the atmosphere until the very last drop or crumb of fossil fuel is consumed. In other words, the real solution, that is, the ultra-prioritised and urgent shift to renewables world-wide, is effectively denied, while the phony solution only puts off inevitable eco-cataclysm to some date in the future.
The more they spray the more dangerous it is to stop spraying, since the consequences of the increased levels of CO2 built up in the meantime come into effect suddenly and with full force once the shade is removed, with attendant spikes in climatic response. Yet stopping nevertheless continues to be the best thing we can do to avoid, among other undesirable outcomes outlined above, UV radiation levels becoming increasingly incompatible with life as aerosol activity continues to force ozone-destroying water vapour into the cold and dry stratosphere where it doesn't belong. Even if one doesn't believe in the urgency of the CO2 problem, the fact is that it is being used as a pretext for barely covert geo-engineering and weather warfare programs that are destroying our protective ozone layer, which is itself an eco-disaster of cataclysmic proportions. Does it make sense then to deal with global warming in this way? Only to the misguided and the insane.
Come now people, are we that gullible? Or cowardly? They are spraying our skies with weather modifying, ozone decimating, atmosphere and health destroying, poison aerosols, and will continue to do so until we get some leadership with enough real guts and backbone, and perhaps even more to the point, real spiritual integrity, to send these disgusting eco-bandit war criminals a clear message: desist and come down or be brought down. It's as simple as that. But the problem is that all we get for leaders these days are a spineless bunch of clueless and corrupted half men or women. Money cowards. All very politically correct of course, more or less. And while we have been busy playing pretend with our egos, fooling ourselves that we are what, in fact, we are not, things have got more than a little out of hand. The game is over and it is time to get real. Please understand this is not an option, it is an imperative.
“It makes no sense to invest in companies that undermine our future. To serve as custodians of creation is not an empty title; it requires that we act, and with all the urgency this dire situation demands.”
- Archbishop of South Africa and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Desmond Tutu, April 2014
What we are witnessing now in the world is not merely an industrial or economic or energy paradigm shift. In the bigger picture we are seeing a shift in human consciousness itself, of which all these sectors play their part. Ultimately what we are witnessing is the paradigm shift from hell on earth to heaven on earth. It's that simple. This is not mere hyperbole. And what we each do now as individuals in response to the call for action that such a shift entails will determine to which of those paradigms we belong.
Solar Revolution: Here Comes The Sun (Documentary)
Zero Carbon Australia 2020 (ZCA2020) Stationary Energy Plan. Synopsis/Full Report. (pdf)
Solar Power to the People. Four Corners ABC, aired 7th July 2014 (Documentary)
Four Corners interview with Jeremy Rifkin, author of 'The Third Revolution'. Link can be found on this page.
Clean Power from Deserts: The Desertec Concept for Energy, Water and Climate security (pdf)
Dr Hermann Scheer
Can Renewable Energy Power The World?
'Democracy Now' Interview 2010
MIT Clean Tech/GABA Lecture
Solar Revolution: Here Comes the Sun (Documentary)