Bloomberg —- Australian Renewables Are Cheaper Than Fossil Fuel Generation — Because We Said So



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!

In Australia, Wind Power Is Already Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels, And Solar Is Right Behind

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….

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,


James Sexton

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. 

This entry was posted in Energy. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Bloomberg —- Australian Renewables Are Cheaper Than Fossil Fuel Generation — Because We Said So

  1. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Bishop Hill has some more here.

    I’ve been costing electrolytic recovery of metals for 20 years and the wholesale price per kW has been 4c for a very long time, even without discounts. That reflects the cost of coal production and plant depreciation. Cost increases have pretty much been balanced by efficiency increases, which is the case for most commodities. With the carbon tax and high recent construction costs maybe the net cost would be 6c/kWh now. Certainly not going to be 14 c, no way.

    They have to be adding stuff on, CCS or really big taxes or something stupid. Here in Newcastle a large aluminium industry was established precisely because of the cheap coal fired power generation. The coal is not getting any more expensive to mine (we can export it all the way to China and make a big profit after all), and coal fired power stations aren’t special bits of kit.

    • suyts says:

      Nice to know someone else picked up on this garbage. The red flag is that they won’t show their work.

      It’s pretty funny. In the past, whenever one would make such an absurd proclamation people would check the work and find the fundamental errors. Apparently, they’ve given up on that approach.

  2. PhilJourdan says:

    Translation: “Unfortunately, the paper is only available to the right thinking individuals and organizations”.

    The problem is, the news release is merely another example of the cold fusion hoax.

    • DirkH says:

      Fermi thought LENR were possible…

      MIT, Nanor

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Cold Fusion (I believe) IS possible. However the claims of its existence have been greatly exaggerated.

        In other words, the possibility of wind power being cheaper is TOTALLY possible. However the claims of its existence are greatly exaggerated.

        • Bruce says:

          I haven’t been keeping track of Rossi, but apparently he’s supposed to kick off a 1 MW unit in the US this month. Be interesting if it works. I’m not convinced, but after seeing a lot of ‘that is impossible’ things proved possible during my time at bat, and end up as patents, I’m open minded.

        • kelly liddle says:

          I think wind power being cheaper is likely now and a certainty over time. The problem is that the wind blows when it wants to meaning that it can’t provide cheaper energy to the end user although this might be overcome with storage methods or cheap ways of backing the supply up in the future.

        • Bruce says:

          Wind power can be very expensive if you are a bird or a bat.

          Technologies such as thorium or conventional uranium fission aren’t. In fact the birds have done quite well out of Chernobyl, and the same is probably true of Fukushima. And neither of those would’ve happened if the engineers had bothered to put their brains in when they got up in morning.

        • suyts says:

          Kelly, the storage problems are still light years away. In a manner of speaking, I can generate electricity cheap than coal by static electricity. But, like wind energy, it is of no practical use.

  3. kim2ooo says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:

  4. kim2ooo says:

    On CBS’s Face the Nation, Graham said that the nominations of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense and John Brennan to be CIA director should not go forward until senators know more about what Obama did on the night of Sept. 11.

    “We know nothing about what the president did on the night of Sept. 11 during a time of national crisis, and the American people need to know what their commander in chief did, if anything, during this eight-hour attack,” Graham told CBS on Sunday.

    “I don’t think we should allow Brennan to go forward for the CIA directorship, Hagel to be confirmed to secretary of defense until the White House gives us an accounting,” said Sen. Graham. “What did he do that night? That’s not unfair. The families need to know, the American people need to know.”

  5. Pingback: Well, Well, Well…… Maybe Bloomberg Did Have A Reason For Not Sharing Their Data….. It Was A Crock | suyts space

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s