HOW FOREIGN INFLUENCE HAS SHAPED AUSTRALIA’S ENERGY POLICY

Posted on by

This post follows my earlier post “Australia Needs to Learn from Germany’s $500 billion Mistake” ( based on renewable energy). It is important our politicians see that video as well as this one, so do what you can to get the message out.

Zoe Booth speaks with Gerard Holland, CEO of the Page Research Centre and founding member of the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, about the hidden forces shaping Australia’s energy transition. Holland argues that foreign money, green-lobby astroturfing, and political restrictions are distorting Australia’s energy strategy. The conversation covers new research revealing more than $108 million in foreign-funded efforts to influence energy policy, the economics of renewables, nuclear power, and the growing cost-of-living crisis. They explore why the renewable transition is struggling to deliver cheap and reliable power, how subsidies shift costs onto lower-income households, and why Australia’s policy direction risks worsening strategic and economic vulnerabilities. This episode asks: Who benefits from keeping Australia nuclear-free and energy-dependent? What if net zero isn’t achievable through renewables alone? And what does this mean for Australia’s economic and national security future?

As I believe Jesus is returning with the glorified Saints to rule the nations with a rod of iron, maybe as early as 2035, poor decisions on energy supply will be quickly put right. Nuclear Fission or even Nuclear Fusion will be possibly on the table at that time. God has given us many prophetic scriptures on Jesus coming Millennial Kingdom you can prepare to rule and reign with Jesus by going to http://www.millennialkingdom.net

“He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also have received authority from My Father” Revelation 2:26-27

THE COALITION STAKES ITS CLAIM ON AFFORDABLE ENERGY

Posted on by

The claims supporting the global climate reset have persistently lacked predictive validity, a necessary pre­condition in the physical sciences. Rarely has the modelling convinced; and the scare campaigns, such as the nonsense from media creation Greta Thunberg, are just public relations pantomime. It is increasingly obvious that the routine threats that “time is running out” are just cynical scare mongering.

Previously the fact that it was blatant deception did not matter because the climate proponents enjoyed the support of the financial institutions and governments, which meant reasonable debate was suppressed. They are losing that support.

Financial fads usually disappear with great speed as the money moves elsewhere. It will be slower with governments. They are deeply ideolo­gically committed to net zero with a vast array of government regulations and funding for renewables, green government bureaucracies, local and global environmental organisations and agencies.  They will not reverse this easily.

Sadly, cheap and stable energy is essential for any economy to survive, particularly for industry. now that robotics and AI are essential components. Moreover, Australia has heaps of natural gas, oil and coal. We should have the cheapest energy for our industry and peope of any country in the world. AI Data Centres and robotics require lots of energy that is consistent not like wind and solar. Who can predict when the wind will blow, and the sun shines only during the daytime with no heavy cloud cover. With robotics and AI Amazon warehouses operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

In the end, it is always about the money, and I believe the financial sentiment is turning. The markets are realising that the massive investment returns in renewables will never materialise. Moreover, wind turbines and the transmission infrastructure needed are an eyesore.

Undoing the economic damage will take time, but eventually reality will even filter down to Australian policymakers. But don’t expect any among them to take responsibility for their delusions and errors.

After six months of vacillating over whether or not they should simply ape the government’s energy policies, the Coalition has come up with an alternative. Instead of destroying the Australian economy in pursuit of Net Zero, hopefully they’re going to prioritise providing Australians with affordable power. Whether they have the people to formulate the right strategy and communicate it to the public is debatable.

Fortunately, Jesus Millennial Kingdom is not too far distant. Biblical end times prophecies are playing out now and we may be in the last seven years of Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy. For Christians this is wonderful as we know God will rapture us to heaven before He pours out His wrath on an unrepentant world with the Trumpet (Revelation 8) and Bowl judgements (Revelation 16). Following the Trumpet and Bowl judgements Jesus and the glorified Saints return to rescue Israel at the battle of Armageddon. Jesus and the Saints will rule the world for 1,000 years so that God fulfils the covenant He made with Abraham and confirmed with Isaac, Jacob and David that Israel’s Messiah, Jesus will rule the nations of the world from a magnificent new Jerusalem. During the time God pours out His wrath upon the earth He reconstructs the geomorphology of the world so that Jerusalem is on the highest mountain in the world.

“The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nation’s fell, and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath. And every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.“ Revelation 16:19-20

The millennial Jerusalem sits on the highest plateau and has two rivers flowing out of its east and west sides. The mountain’s great height emphasizes Jerusalem as the centre of world authority, for all the nations will flow to it. A totally new construct. The millennial Jerusalem is nine times larger than the current city. All the land of Israel round about Jerusalem, which was encompassed with mountains, but now these mountains shall become a plain.

For more on Jesus coming Millennial Kingdom go to http://www.millennialkingdom.net.

AUSTRALIA: NUCLEAR POWER IS THE ONLY SOLUTION TO OUR ENERGY DILEMMA

Posted on by

Article by Chris Kenny in The Australian, November, 16th 2024.

Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen have long argued that renewable energy is the cheapest form of electricity. However, while tens of billions of dollars in subsidies and investments flow into renewables, prices keep going up. A reckoning must come, and it will be ugly.

Not only is Labor’s plan to reach its net-zero goal by switching the electricity grid to 90 percent renewable energy physically impossible (it has committed to get to 82 percent within 6 years), but the attempt is sending us a broke. At some stage, the facts will break through the delusion.

The unavoidable logic behind firming up a renewable energy grid makes additional costs unavoidable – a renewables grid demands two grids. You need to construct an expansive network of wind and solar generation plants, enough to cover about three times peak demand spread across vastly different microclimates in the hope that wind or sun will be available somewhere when you need it.

On Friday, the Coalition released estimates from Frontier Economics putting the total requited spend for the renewables transition at $642bn – that is $500bn more than Labor has estimated, and about five times what we have already spent. All of this must be recouped with profit, so our power price pain can only ­increase.

The catch with renewables is that they will always require backup, in effect another electricity grid, perhaps using much of the same transmission lines, but capable of generating peak demand without wind or solar. Most likely this backup grid would be powered by gas.

Once we know there is enough backup to supply peak demand, we can understand that the entirety of the renewable asset build is an additional and unnecessary energy cost we have chosen to impose on ourselves. It alienates land, increases complexity, and escalates costs without providing additional power, all so we can meet emissions reduction targets that other countries are not meeting, and which will make no discernible difference to global emissions or, therefore, the climate, anyway.

And whenever gas is needed to firm up the grid, the price the gas generators can charge will determine the cost of electricity. Two grids, a vast and inefficient renewable grid we could well do without, and an effective and reliable fossil-fuel grid are needed to guarantee the energy that underpins our society.

The lies being told on renewables costs have been brilliantly exposed by simple observations and arguments run by entrepreneur Dick Smith in an, until now, private debate with The Guardian Australia. Smith responded after The Guardian ran a piece slamming him for running “ill-informed claims” about renewable energy costs and practicality.

Smith does not contest the need to reduce emissions. His arguments are about whether renewables can power a modern economy and whether nuclear might not be a crucial part of the energy mix. In his letter, Smith says the underestimates from the CSIRO allow it to “falsely claim that renewables with storage is the cheapest form of energy”.

The electronics entrepreneur, adventurer, and environmentalist made a killer observation that exposes the ruse. “No doubt you have noticed all the wind and solar farms that exist around our country,” Smith wrote to The Guardian. “If the CSIRO claim that wind, solar, and storage is the cheapest form of energy is correct, these facilities would include batteries to supply power 24/7 – or at least for five hours. None of them do.”

This connects to a point I have made for a decade or more – instead of subsidising the installation of unreliable renewable energy, we should have made any subsidies or targets contingent on generators firming up their own supplies, either with batteries or dispatchable generation. Smith provides a clear explanation for why this is impossible: “That is, the cost of even limited storage results in solar and wind power being so expensive it is unaffordable.”

Dick Smith has also pointed out that when Broken Hill went dark last month because the main transmission line from Victoria was taken out in a storm, neither the nearby solar factory, wind farm, or big battery were able to keep the Silver City in power. He cites the real-world example of Lord Howe Island where despite a $12m grant for a renewables grid with storage, they have ended up with higher power prices and a reliance on diesel generators for 100 percent of their electricity at times.

This is just the reality. No developed country has even attempted to run on a 90 percent renewables model, and unless there is a watershed development in energy storage no country ever will – so what is Australia playing at?

A clue for a secure, prosperous, and clean energy future comes from our defense force—not the inane net-zero strategy but their plan to run nuclear-propelled ­submarines.

Instead of wasting government subsidies and burdening consumers with the investment costs of unproven renewable models and other “green energy superpowers” hyperbole like green hydrogen and pumped hydro, the time is ripe for nuclear power. It is dense power with a small land footprint that can use existing transmission infrastructure,

Remember the Whyalla wipeout? A decade or more on, it is still on the way with grave doubts about the future of the steelworks, delayed only by taxpayer subsidies and green energy posturing.

A steel manufacturing centre established with the advantage of cheap and reliable coal power is struggling again, as it awaits some kind of “green hydrogen” saviour. Yet a couple of hours up the road is one of the world’s largest uranium mines, and Whyalla and Port Augusta are linked to the national transmission grid because of the now-demolished coal-fired power plants in the region.

A nuclear power station near Port Augusta would buttress power supplies for Whyalla, South Australia and the national grid. Any excess power at times of low demand could be used for desalination or hydrogen production.

It is a much more logical and efficient solution, with proven technology, than our current renewables-plus-storage experiment. The only thing stopping the nuclear option is an honest and truthful appraisal of our options – and the political will.

ALBANESE HAS BEEN WARNED BY DR ADRIAN PATERSON: HE SAYS, NUCLEAR WILL PROVIDE THE LOWEST ENERGY COST

Posted on by

Why is Dr Adrian Paterson, the former chief executive of the Australian Nuclear ­Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), which operates the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney being ignored.

Dr Paterson has written to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese demanding urgent action to keep the nation’s lights on.

Paterson asks: “Why are we as a modern democracy banning nuclear at the federal and state level when low-carbon nuclear provides the cheapest consumer costs? Nuclear would transform an electricity grid which is getting … less reliable plus getting very, very expensive.

“Your electricity plan, for a massive expansion of the grid with wind and solar sources is deeply flawed and expensive. It will fail to deliver quality, 24-hour electricity,” Dr Paterson warned.

Dr Paterson said nuclear energy production stands apart from wind and solar because it doesn’t require a “massive expansion” of the grid – the cost of which would easily fund the first nuclear power plants.

Regarding a CSIRO report that claims nuclear will be too expensive, Paterson says: “CSIRO has no expertise in the cost of generation.

“What they do is take publicly available figures of the construction costs of nuclear power plants – usually in countries that have got regulatory environments that are kind of designed to stop nuclear – and convert them into a generation cost using an algorithm which is provided to them by a private sector firm that is not an expert in the nuclear industry,” he says.

“I’ve engaged the CSIRO for several years both directly and also through the press to say that we can work together to sort this out and they have no inclination to do it. People don’t know that to build all of the planned solar panels and wind turbines we’re going to have to double the size of the grid, which is 40 percent of electricity bills.

“The eastern grid in Australia is the most complex machine in the southern hemisphere. The policy of this government is to make it twice as big as it is and twice as complex if you have to integrate intermittent sources into it.

“How do people believe that we can create a grid that’s double the size with lower energy density and still have the current quality of life?

“The current policy is based on a failure to get proper engineers in the room. Engineers are being banned from giving talks as we speak,” Paterson says.

Commenting on his letter to the PM, Dr Paterson said Australians should be given a choice in how their electricity is generated.

“We shouldn’t be making decisions based on the personal preference of Anthony Albanese. This ‘Captain’s Pick’ mindset is stuck in the 80s when he was an antinuclear campaigner at Sydney University.

“It’s time Australia had the option to join the rest of the world, who are already using nuclear to stabilise the grid and power their economies.

“Why should Australia miss out on cheap, clean fuel? Why should Australians pay more to keep the lights on at home? Why not keep businesses doors open and unemployment low?”

Dr Paterson served as chief executive of ANSTO for 12 years, has degrees in chemistry and engineering, sits on the board of HB11 Energy, a company developing laser hydrogen fusion technology, and is now the principal and founder of energy advisory Siyeva Consulting.

GERMANY FAILED TO ACHIEVE CLEAN ENERGY TRANSITION WITHOUT NUCLEAR

Posted on by

Germany was already reducing its greenhouse gas emissions before 2011, so it came as a surprise when Merkel announced that her government would “end the use of emissions-free nuclear energy and reach the age of renewable energy as fast as possible.” The Energiewende’s goal of reducing emissions 80 to 95 percent by 2050 was ambitious, but it was the prospect of achieving this goal without nuclear energy that truly turned heads. By shuttering nuclear plants and scaling wind and solar, Merkel made a poor bet that a green economy could run on wind and sunshine alone. 

After a swath of decrees and guidelines, as well as tens of billions of euros in subsidies for, and investment in, renewable projects, Merkel boasted about creating hundreds of thousands of green-collar jobs. Many Germans embraced this vision for the future, taking pride in their nation’s turn toward an economy powered by nature. Yet it quickly became apparent that while the Energiewende plan offered vision, it lacked sound strategy. 

Bureaucracy slowed the construction of necessary infrastructure for storing and transporting new renewable forms of energy. And suddenly Dunkelflaute—a term used to describe periods of low energy production when the sun failed to shine or the wind didn’t blow—entered the German vernacular. By 2019, the Federal Court of Auditors declared that the 160 billion euros ($180 billion) spent over the last five years were “in extreme disproportion to the results.”

By the tenth anniversary of the Energiewende, the scope of the project’s failure became clear. The year before, German leaders had celebrated renewables reaching 46.2 percent of national electricity consumption due to favorable weather conditions and lower demand. But in 2021, this trend reversed. During the COVID economic bounce back, energy demand exploded while wind power production decreased by 25 percent—leaving coal and natural gas generation to fill in the gaps. 

German households have the highest electricity prices in the world, but many Germans are still committed to their utopian vision. Last fall, voters pushed out Merkel’s center-right Christian Democrats in favor of a coalition led by the center-left Social Democrats. This wasn’t a refutation of the Energiewende though, since it appears that Chancellor Olaf Scholz will double down as he has expressed interest in being known as the “climate chancellor” and supports policies including an EU-wide carbon price.

The Energiewende has consequences beyond German borders too. The country can’t meet its energy needs with domestic wind, solar, and coal production. So Germans are eagerly awaiting the completion of Nord Stream 2, a pipeline that will deliver natural gas from Russia. It will pump fossil fuel into Germany while lining the pockets of Russian oligarchs with cash. Those excommunicated nuclear plants would have provided emissions-free energy without any reliance on Russia. 

Meanwhile in Brussels, Germany’s new Economy and Climate Protection Minister Robert Habeck wants to force the Energiewende plan on the rest of Europe. He recently rejected the European Commission’s plan to label nuclear energy “green,” saying the move “waters down the good label for sustainability.” As long as Germany is miscategorized as the global climate leader, other nations will follow its mindless model including Australia.

The European Union’s REPowerEU Plan, initiated in May 2022, has put nuclear energy at the forefront of its strategy to secure energy and achieve climate goals. France continues investing heavily in nuclear power, whereas Germany has moved away from it.

Rolls-Royce SMR Ltd

The Small Modular Reactor (SMR) business is one of the ways that Rolls-Royce is helping to ensure the UK continues to develop innovative ways to tackle the global threat of climate change.

With the Rolls-Royce SMR technology, we have developed a clean energy solution that can deliver cost-competitive and scalable net zero power for multiple applications – from grid and industrial electricity production to hydrogen and synthetic fuel manufacturing.

The need for clean energy has created a global demand for our SMR as countries look for ways to provide reliable ways to achieve net zero. Our SMR has been designed in direct response to that enormous global challenge and our ambitions are set to match that global market as we build a world-class global product.

DIGITALISATION, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, AND ROBOTICS

Posted on by

THE SWITCH TO RENEWABLE ENERGY IS A MASSIVE DISRUPTER TO GOVERNMENTS, COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS TO MANAGE CHANGE BUT ADD DIGITALISATION, A.I. AND ROBOTICS AND WE HAVE CHAOS.

“But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.” Daniel 12:4

How about this prophecy given to Daniel about the time of the end. In addition, we have many prophecies that in the “last days” chaos and lawlessness will abound.

How about this FLYING CAR developed by an Israeli company that uses hydrogen and electric battery power.

For some people like me that love change and can see all the new investment opportunities that this change provides, it is an exciting time. The big challenge for me is that I can so easily get sidetracked from what God is calling me to do in the twilight years of my life. I need to make sure I continue to live eternally now knowing that there are eternal rewards for building God’s kingdom on earth.

https://youtu.be/AAm0MJNxD3s

A WORLD IN CRISIS : BANKRUPT GOVERNMENTS PROMISING THE IMPOSSIBLE

Posted on by

Everyone needs to read the article “Energy Solution Hinges on New Technology” which appeared in The Weekend Australian, Saturday June 15th 2019 by Dr Bjorn Lomborg, president of the think tank Copenhagen Consensus Centre. He has been named one of TIME magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world. I have reproduced it below in an amended form.

The reality is, today, solar and wind energy together deliver only about 1 per cent of global energy. The International Energy Agency estimates that even by 2040 these will cover a little more than 4 per cent of global energy.

The idea that we already have the needed technology to phase out quickly from fossil fuels is nonsense, so before we can establish what the solution to climate change really looks like, we first need to dismantle the faulty idea that we have the solution already.

One of the world’s leading energy researchers, Czech-Canadian Vaclav Smil, has said:

“The great hope for a quick and sweeping transition to renewable energy is wishful thinking.”

Former US vice-president Al Gore’s chief scientific adviser, Jim Hansen, who put global warming on the agenda back in 1988, agreed, saying:

“Suggesting that renewable’s will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

The recent “hoo-ha” or “brouhaha” by climate change activists, involving thousands of children skipping school to be involved in street protests in Australia, over the Adani Coal Mine, demonstrates that the belief that we already have the solutions is a delusion on a planetary scale. It may be comforting to tell ourselves that global warming is effectively solved. It’s dangerous because it leads to us taking at face value promises and vows that have no chance of being enacted. And it is reckless because it stops us from focusing on what we need to do instead.

If we do care to fix climate, we need to change course. This was clearly shown by 27 of the world’s top climate economists and three Nobel laureates who looked at the whole gamut of climate solutions for Copenhagen Consensus.

If we keep doing what we’ve done so far and make more promises to cut carbon in ineffective ways such as subsidising wind and solar, each dollar spent will avoid only 3c of climate damage.

Recently, the 10-year, $US10 billion public investment into shale gas in the US proved to be a great way to cut carbon. While it wasn’t intended as ­climate policy, it led the way for a surge in production of cheap gas, which out competed a significant part of US coal consumption. Because gas emits about half the CO2 of coal, the US has reduced emissions more than any other country in the past 10 years.

France has an extremely low level of carbon dioxide emissions per capita from electricity generation since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear (58 nuclear reactors) or hydro. Why isn’t nuclear on the table in other countries, particularly Australia with some of the biggest reserves of uranium ore?

Politicians across the world happily promise to emit net zero CO2 by 2050, knowing they will be long retired from politics when those vows are broken. Achieving this will be almost impossibly expensive, likely provoking “yellow vest” street riots long before their conclusion.

After New Zealand made its 2050 zero emissions promise, the government commissioned a report on the costs. The report found that achieving this goal in the most cost-effective manner would cost more than last year’s entire national budget on social security, welfare, health, education, police, courts, defence, environment and every other part of government combined. Each and every year.

UN Losing Credibility:

UN secretary-general ­Antonio Guterres is inviting all heads of state to New York next September to promise jointly to cut global emissions to zero by 2050. To see exactly how unrealistic this is, look at the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s five policy scenarios for the 21st century. The most optimistic “sustainable” scenario puts on green-tinted glasses to envisage a world in which the rich countries happily accept having their energy availability cut in half and people in the poor world accept they will never catch up even to half of rich-world energy availability.

We have a world in crisis with politicians living in “Lalaland”. To quote again, former US vice-president Al Gore’s chief scientific adviser, Jim Hansen “suggesting that renewable s will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

Surely, for the Bible believing Christian, this is further evidence we are living in the prophesied end times prior to Jesus return to rule with a rod of iron for one thousand years, as revealed in Revelation 20.