Well, they’re learning not to let us have the data or methods. I guess after a few decades of getting their behinds handed to them, they’ve at least learned something.
One of the things I like to do when things are a bit slow is to pop over to the lunatics and see what they’re up to. There’s probably no better place to see what the lunatics are up to than TP…… no, not toilet paper with messages on it!! TP as in Think Progress. Once can find some of the most unimaginable stupidity at that site. Warning!!! Spending too much time there is incredibly depressing. It causes one to lose faith in humanity if you dwell there too long.
At any rate, I was perusing the site. They have a special place where the stupidity is exponentially increase even over their typical stupidity, they call it “Climate Progress“. Looking for something to write about, I found the perfect article!
I was going to have some fun with this. The notion that renewables (other than hydro) could be cheaper than coal or nat gas has been put to rest hundreds if not thousands of times. There’s no way to slice it, without some huge calculating errors, which make wind or solar cheaper. If one clicks on the link and reads the article, there’s a few questions which immediately come to mind. How did they calculate costs? What measurement did they use for electricity? Watt hours or watts? Generated, generation capacity, delivered? What? I mean, really, this is a bold statement! Let’s get to the meat of it!
Unfortunately, but, not surprisingly, TP doesn’t link to the actual paper. But, they do link to the press release! So, away I go to find the source of the claim, the numbers and the manner in which they made this calculation. It comes from none other than Bloomberg New Energy Finance. It states essentially what TP stated. But, again, no link to the actual paper!
No problem, there are emails at the bottom so one can contact for further information. In the very few times I’ve had to ask for such, I usually get a positive response and access to the data and methodology. So, I emailed one of the people asking for access. Here’s the body of my email…..
I read with interest the Bloomberg press release which stated renewables are now cheaper than fossil fueled electric generated electricity. Seen here…. http://about.bnef.com/2013/02/07/renewable-energy-now-cheaper-than-new-fossil-fuels-in-australia/
This, of course, has been a contentious issue for some time, not just in Australia, but around the globe. Sadly, the release didn’t link to the actual paper. The press release did offer some insights as to how this conclusion was reached, but, is woefully shy of actual figures and methods used to come to this conclusion. For instance, was this derived from capacitance or actual Kwh delivered? Generated? How were the costs calculated? etc…..
I was wondering if the paper is available for scrutiny or are we simply to accept these conclusions?
My thanks in advance,
Here’s the response………
Hi James. Many thanks for your interest.
Unfortunately, the paper in its entirety is only available to our clients. If you’d like to learn more about our services and/or how to become a client, just let me know where you’re located and I’ll put the appropriate commercial person in touch.
Well, this is bad. The clients are being suckered and the people of Australia are going to be harmed by this.
The only way renewables become cheaper than traditional generation is if the QOS (quality of service) standards are decreased. That is to say, if availability is replaced by intermittency, and electricity-on-demand is disregarded, then and only then can renewables eventually be cheaper than fossil fuels. Indeed, reliance upon renewables require traditional generation if electricity-on-demand is adhered to. And, must be calculated into the costs of renewables.
TP and Bloomberg believe people should simply accept their assertions without scrutiny. They proclaim their idiocy as fact when any rational person can reason it can’t possibly be true.