Terry McCrann leaps back to top of the class for climate denial

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Long time Murdoch business commentator Terry McCrann has for some years been one of the most thunderous deniers of climate change science in the public arena, but he’s had some stiff competition of late.

Emboldened by the election win of Donald Trump, and the president elect’s apparent prerequisite that every appointee to his administration have form on climate denial, the naysayers have been out in force. They’ve even managed to secure a Senate debate on the issue, led of course by conspiracy theorist Senator Malcolm Roberts.


This week, a commentator on Murdoch’s Fox News – the climate change ridiculing KT McFarland – was appointed to Trump’s national security team. And McCrann, perhaps sensing an opportunity, is back on the war path.

The source of McCrann’s outrage on Tuesday was the recent report by the conservative International Energy Agency, and its apparent new found enthusiasm for wind and solar.

Many, such as Professor David Stern, from the ANU Energy Change Institute, think that the IEA continues to underestimate the potential of wind and solar. But not the indefatigable McCrann, who lamented its transformation from a “sober” agency with “real energy experts” to one that had succumbed to “Global Warmism”.

In a column titled “The experts lie about renewable energy” McCrann says he is horrified by the latest World Energy Outlook, and its emphasis on wind and solar.

“The first and most important thing to understand about global warming true believers and the pushers of so-called ‘renewable energy’ is that they lie,” McCrann thundered.

“They lie effortlessly, seamlessly, continuously and without the slightest sense of shame. They lie deliberately and carelessly and casually, and even when they don’t realise they are lying. They lie without the slightest sense of self-awareness and with all the pomposity of stupidity aforethought.

“We’ve just seen a stunning, but all-too characteristic example: a lie as big as it was stupid and undoubtedly a product of an overdose of the warmist Kool-Aid cocktail of choice — denial of reality and fevered embrace of global warming theology.”

On and on it went, matching and echoing the usual suspects at Murdoch central – Andrew Bolt, Rowan Dean, Miranda Devine, Tim Blair, Gary Gray, Maurice Newman, and on and on it goes.

Bolt even found time to write: “Terry McCrann is right. Global warming crusaders and green carpetbaggers lie. They lie about the problem, lie about the fix, lie about the cost.”


McCrann attacked “propagandists like the Climate Media Centre” and even lambasted The Economist, which he said  “used to be a substantive publication located in factual analysis and reality. But in the past decade or so it’s succumbed to its own unique cocktail of pomposity, political correctness and, yes, warmism.”

He then hoes into the IEA’s predictions for wind and solar, which as readers might remember, suggests that if the world does try to cap global warming at around 2°C, will likely see wind and solar become the largest sources of energy in he world, overtaking coal, oil and gas.

Of course, the IEA’s central scenario is the one that assumes the world pays lip service to global warming and locks in temperature rises of 3°C to 4°C, with the catastrophic results that this would entail.

Not that this phases McCrann: “The evidence is clear and undeniable: more CO2 means a greener planet.” Perhaps he could be the new US ambassador to Australia.  

  • AllanO

    Malcolm Roberts won’t like Terry McCrann’s argument about evidence for increasing CO2 greening the planet. Our delusional Senator claims that CO2 levels are not increasing and anyway even if they were it couldn’t possibly be due to fossil fuel combustion!

    • john

      Yes indeed he is now very busy teaching the Chief Scientist physics as it seems the Chief Scientists does not have Malcolm Roberts extensive knowledge from his extensive readings of WUWT and other members of the select band, who are the only ones knowledgeable of the real truth.

    • DevMac

      That’s an interesting point. Those who agree generally have consistent arguments, whilst those who deny do so inconsistently.

  • john

    It is predictable every time a report is published anywhere, it is all part of this terrible lie being propagated by evil people if it does not say FF are the answer to energy.
    How these people can come out with the rot they say with a straight face is unbelievable.
    I am of course wrong, we live in the age of made up news; “Post Truth”; under this new thinking, you can claim anything and it will be the new truth.
    Newspeak which was coined in 1948 i believe in that little book, oh how much foresight did Orwell have!!!!

    So Mr Terry McCrann has his newspeak article please file under “Post Truth”.

  • Chris Fraser

    I appreciate that Terry’s is just one view but seriously, I don’t know anyone that he particularly resonates with. Maybe Rupert keeps him as a pet to bark at strange concepts by command. Otherwise he seems to be using up expensive newspaper column inches.

    • john

      Expensive all right i cancelled my subscription years ago, and did waste the time to explain why as i once read it for articles, not opinion removed from reality.

  • trackdaze

    Perhaps murdoc should diversify* into toilet paper.

    *Quality of course would need to improve.

    • bigc

      I think you’ll find Mr Murdoch is already neck-deep in toilet papers – pre-wiped with Mr McCrann and others 🙂

      • trackdaze

        Still, the poor fella may have benefitted from some sage advice from the movie tropic thunder of all places.

        “Never go full r3tard!”


  • John McKeon

    When I got to the middle paragraph of McCrann’s spray about lying, I thought for an instant that he was plagiarising from someone else’s commentary on Donald Trump’s campaign speeches.

    For example “They lie effortlessly, seamlessly, continuously and without the slightest sense of shame.” Sound familiar?

    • Ren Stimpy

      We eventually got the admission of “President Obama was born in the United States, period”.

      So there’s hope for a similar admission on climate change when there is no place left for them to run – but probably no hope for an admission that just like the birther issue they used climate change denial for their own political (and editorial clickbait) ends.

  • Max Bourke

    I think his photo is interesting it does suggest, phenotypically, that the number of Neanderthal genes is probably well over 99% in H sapiens as many geneticists have suggested.

  • trackdaze

    The picture of the man looks like a screen grab from a hostage video.

    Helsinki syndrome perhaps?

  • DevMac

    The nature of life is to fight progressively harder the closer you are to death.

    The more “friends” desert you, the louder you have to shout so as to drown out the internal voices saying “maybe you’re the problem”.

    The IEA and The Economist have deserted him, leaving him shouting at the clouds in ever-shrinking circle-jerk with those above-mentioned News Ltd sponsored fellow jerkers.

    McCrann wasn’t even a good economist, and that’s what he studied, so why should we listen to him on something as complex as global atmospheric effects on climate? (Hint: We shouldn’t)

  • Nick Thiwerspoon

    One wonders whether these members of the denialati can possibly be sincere.

    • trackdaze

      Whats worse?

      • Nick Thiwerspoon

        Insincerity and deceit are incomparably the worse. To destroy the world through stupidity and blindness is one thing. To destroy it our of greed and for a desire for personal advancement among the fell warriors of the Rabid Right, while you know that what you say is rank lies, is quite another

  • Ren Stimpy

    Question for Mr McCrann – are the majority of farmers who are witnessing the effects of climate change firsthand also lying?

    • Basil

      Climate change YES! Global warming NO!
      To deliberately equate the two is either being disingenuous or uninformed… I guess the latter if you swallow the stuff this site serves up….

  • Damien Rogers

    So this site is where all the lefty losers hang out.

    • Peter G

      Is that you Terry?

      • Damien Rogers

        No Terry is busy, so the Russians subcontracted to me.

        • john
          • Damien Rogers

            Three dud links…lol.

          • john

            So tell me the best links to use please?

          • Damien Rogers
          • john

            You do know that the climatedepot is a delusional outfit i hope.

          • Damien Rogers

            They won the (US election) debate, you guys lost. The left should learn to accept defeat gracefully.

          • john

            Who runs a country is not going to change the facts.
            If the direction as outlined on climatedepot is followed
            then for instance it will only hasten the direction headed.

            If you believe that there is no problem i would perhaps ask you to look what the insurance industry is saying.
            Look at what the largest companies in the world are saying.
            If you think all science is incorrect and the likes of Climatedepot is the font of wisdom i would think that can not stand the test of reason.

          • Damien Rogers

            There is your problem John. Your extremist friends had no ‘facts’ to back up their scare campaign. The public have now realised it was all lies. So you lost the debate, and now political control. The liars are being replaced all over the western world. The more you resist the will of the people the more you out yourselves as authoritarian frauds.

          • john

            You have put your finger exactly on the problem.
            A subsection of society has made this political.
            It is about your descendants and mine how we act here and now.
            These lies you speak of care to expand please.

          • Damien Rogers
          • john

            Each and every article on wuwt is wrong.
            You latch onto 107 examples of cherry picked information and try to make out it is somehow correct.
            The two sites you gave me are both perfect examples of Post Truth.
            They prey on people and feed to their preconceived ideas.
            Reinforcing ideas that are incorrect and filling articles with buzz words of hate frankly.
            This is not healthy for society.

          • Damien Rogers
          • Ren Stimpy

            Damien, science is defined by peer reviewed research. Your climate denying posse doesn’t bother with this wheat-chaff mechanism therefore we treat your hokey beliefs as unscientific bulls shit. In this age of progress you are the ape. You’d better get with the times Sunny Jim.

          • john

            not in wuwt they believe in fairy tales

          • Damien Rogers

            Exactly Ren, so where is the proof for your scare campaign? You have no scientific peer reviewed proof at all!
            The onus is on your side to prove your claims, and this does not include the many failed computer predictions. As the Federal Senator in this speech (who is also a climate scientist) points out very clearly.

          • john

            The senator is not a climate scientist!
            He was the boss of mine and has been going on about his misguided beliefs for years.
            The very idea that his readings from the same outlets, none of who has published anything that is remotely to do with science, makes him a qualified climate scientist is wrong.
            The so called wrong computer predictions.
            They do not predict the particular outcome each year they predict the underlying trend period.
            From the very start they have proved to be remarkably accurate.
            Who knew there were going to be 2 large volcanic events? No body in advance this is impossible to do.
            Scientific peer reviewed papers are the very basis of the very outcomes we are seeing it is extraordinary that you can not see this.

          • Damien Rogers

            lol….mate give up! Virtually every prediction you alarmists have made has been the direct opposite of reality. You are such bad liars, you are a laughing stock now.

          • john

            You laugh.
            Made up stuff on WUWT is total rubbish.

            They pander to your preconceived beliefs.
            you are be deceived.
            Not one of the people who publish articles there can get any of their papers through peer review why????
            No the earth is not heating up from cosmic rays.
            No earth is not heating up because of magnetic change.
            No it is not natural.
            No is not because of the x factor.
            No the change is happening just watch next year when 2017 is cooler than 2016 they well be saying the predictions are wrong.
            Can you not realise that you are being deceived?

            Without Global Warming Gases we could not live on earth period it would be a snowball planet.

            But when the amount of GWG is increasing the result is a warmer planet which may have some effects that will be detrimental.

            Just think about it if the mean sea level rises by say 1 meter how much will that cost us?
            As i said before in Florida you are witness to it now.
            Honest just look at the evidence.
            Higher heat at the poles.
            Ice is melting every where on earth.
            The idiot stuff your reading is incorrect please read science not made up post truth newspeak stuff i beg you.

          • john

            Once again you direct me to a non science blog site.
            Full of hate messages and cherry picks for the gullible.
            just answer the 6 questions of so i posed please.

          • Richard

            He is not a climate scientist. It’s already been proven over and over. Stop ranting here and go and take your complaints to all the meteorology bureaus in the US,UK, Europe,Japan,China,Aust,NZ to name a few. Then youy might wish to take it up with the top scientific bodies in the world aka
            Royal society and and national academy of sciences US

          • Ren Stimpy

            As opposed to your God-bothering hokey and smelly crud.

          • john

            Old mate a little bit of advice WUWT is not science it is a person who has a blog site that panders to junk frankly.
            If you believe that every science peak body in the world is wrong do you not realise perhaps you are just a tiny little bit incorrect.
            If you believe every peak science body in the world is into some kind of dark trying to control your life conspiracy then seriously i would like to help you immediately by pointing you to the nearest help line. This is serious when you can not realise the evidence presented are you going to be be like Miami where they are building up the main roads by 1 meter with a cost of $450 million dollars but they do not believe it is caused by any thing else but natural events for peats sake mate listen to me you are seeing the effects happening before your eyes and still you have to slant it into some kind of ” political ” argument get a life mate.

            We are witness to a disaster happening before our eyes and some do not want to see it please i beg you look at that very simple example in Florida.

          • Ren Stimpy

            john, this guy obviously needs to walk his own path and learn about the regular stuff you are saying for himself. Science is reality. He should have paid attention in school. (Rescued that, phew!)

          • john

            This is a perfect example of newspeak.
            The very people say that this science stuff is a religion.
            It is very serious to think rational people can be so misguided.
            It is really a failure of education when rational explanations are ignored and made up tales taken and believed in.

          • Damien Rogers

          • john

            IPA you do know who they are do you?
            A totally awful group of fanatics who produce bogus reports that are extremely anti social in effect.
            You would not want to live in the kind of society they propose if you were not a millionaire.

          • Damien Rogers

            Thanks, but I was first in my science class. I have spoken personally to people like Professor Bob Carter, who lamented that the real scientists were being suppressed by government and their corporate media mates. Anyone who has bothered to listen to talks by such top climate scientists knows that this whole scam is politically driven and funded.
            Go to independent and open scientific sites like C3 if you want to see what real independent scientists think of this massive scam.

          • Ren Stimpy

            Bob Carter who was paid $1.6K per month by the Heartland Institute to regularly and publicly counter anthropogenic global warming?

            Cash for comment?

          • Damien Rogers

            So what? One of the worlds top Climate Scientists earns just $400 a week! That would be lucky to cover his costs wouldnt it? Lets compare that to the government scientists, paid to preach doom and gloom and scare school children. Tim Flannery for instance, on a nice little package of $316 000 dollars a year, and he made a complete jackass of himself with numerous ludicrous predictions, that all failed.

          • Ren Stimpy

            Yeah but not funding from a politically toxic ‘institute’.

            You can post all the cartoons you want (which are mildly amusing – hey I’m not a good critic) but really you are just sucking for air. Pal.

          • Damien Rogers

            The tide has turned comrade. The whole world can see who the liars are now. Its not just the UK and US. You can attack those who are not on the gravy train as much as you like, it only exposes you all the more. Your world is crumbling 🙂

          • john

            Bob Carter hooked up with his paymaster.
            He along with another of the elk Pilmer both had points but they were refuted.
            Go to the science not some Post Truth outlet.
            c3headlines does not come up as anyway a science body.

            There is a whole industry sucking in gullible people and telling them lies.
            It would appear you have fallen for that and i am sure as you said you studied physics that your extremely annoyed at being misled.
            By Physics i take it we are talking graduate level correct?
            If at high school level then perhaps you should have progressed.
            Please tell me what the scam is?
            Like lets get basic here what is causing the changes we see?
            1 It is not the sun.
            2 It is not volcanoes.
            3 It is not cosmic rays.
            4 It is not bounce back.
            5 It is not the hidden x factor.
            6 It is not the magnetic effect.

            Honestly what is it?
            Pure and simple tell me in your own words you as you said did well at physics so tell me please.

            I hope i have not come across as rude if so i apologize.

          • Ren Stimpy

            The vibe?

          • john

            Had a look
            full of cherry picks and misleading articles
            You are falling all the time for total rubbish hate sites.

          • Damien Rogers

            Another standard leftist fob off. Hey I dont care if you are part of the money laundering climate scam? or whatever your motivations are? thats your problem.

          • Damien Rogers

            The majority has spoken John, don’t you guys believe in ‘consensus’ anymore?
            The majority of people now know you guys are liars now (and not very good ones either) I just showed you 107 example lies, and you cant come up with any excuses at all?

          • Damien Rogers

   You are a slow learner John. Did you believe all these warnings too?

            1. France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos”

            When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

            Ironically at the time of Fabius’ comments, the U.N. had scheduled a climate summit to meet in Paris in December 2015 — some 565 days after his remarks. Looks like the U.N. is 65 days too late to save the world.

            2. President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming

            When Obama made the campaign promise to “slow the rise of the oceans” some environmentalists may have taken him quite literally.

            In 2012, the United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.”

            Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.” I wonder what they now think about their predictions?

            3. Remember when we had “hours” to stop global warming?

            In 2009, world leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.

            “We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”

            4. United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was only 50 days left to save Earth

            2009 was a bad year for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBC reported. According to Brown there was “no plan B.”

            Brown has been booted out of office since then. I wonder what he’d say about global warming today?

            5. Let’s not forget Prince Charles’s warning we only had 96 months to save the planet

            It’s only been about 70 months since Charles said in July 2009 that there would be “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” So the world apparently only has 26 months left to stave off an utter catastrophe.

            6. The U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world

            Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

            “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” he said.

            Well, it’s 2015 and no new U.N. climate treaty has been presented. The only thing that’s changed since then is that Pachauri was forced to resign earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers.

            7. Environmentalists warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go green

            Environmentalist write George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within “as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both.”

            In 2002, about 930 million people around the world were undernourished, according to U.N. data. by 2014, that number shrank to 805 million. Sorry, Monbiot.

            8. The “tipping point” warning first started in 1989

            In the late 1980s the U.N. was already claiming the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.

            The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

            That prediction didn’t come true 15 years ago, and the U.N. is sounding the same alarm today.

          • john

            Definition of a Cherry Pick.
            Take one line out of a speech or article.
            Then draw a conclusion from that short snippet

            “500 days” etc.
            To try and make out this had the meaning that if an agreement was not made the world would not be saved on that day, is a classic cherry pick.
            The signing of the agreement would be a start not the end of the ongoing need to reduce the ever increasing emissions of GHG’s.

            The rest of the Cherry Picks are totally pointless end of story.
            If you seriously have the idea that there is no need to look at humanity’s emissions because you feel they have no effect you are simply incorrect.
            The links i gave you were to science sites and the information does give you evidence what more do you need.

            Think about your own life experience what was the average onset of winter and of spring?
            I remember 3 months of frosts as standard now hardly 1 month.
            Ironically with the loosening of the polar vortex in the northern hemisphere sudden and heavy snow falls can eventuate further south, caused in part because of the warmer waters, when sea ice extent has lowered.

            Just remember local is not global however trends are the important aspect to look at.

          • Damien Rogers

            Hey John, if you dont believe the predictions of your own scientists who can help you with your doom phobia?

            HOURS: Flashback March 2009: ‘We have hours’ to prevent climate disaster — Declares Elizabeth May of Canadian Green Party

            Days: Flashback Oct. 2009: UK’s Gordon Brown warns of global warming ‘catastrophe’; Only ’50 days to save world’

            Months: Prince Charles claimed a 96-month tipping point in July 2009

            Years: 2009: NASA’s James Hansen Declared Obama Only First Term to Save The Planet! — ‘On Jan. 17, 2009 Hansen declared Obama only ‘has four years to save Earth’ or Flashback Oct .2009: WWF: ‘Five years to save world’

            Decades: 1982: UN official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, the ‘world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.’

            Millennium: Flashback June 2010: 1000 years delay: Green Guru James Lovelock: Climate change may not happen as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out’

            It is becoming obvious that the only authentic climate “tipping point” we can rely is this one:

            Flashback 2007: New Zealand Scientist on Global Warming: ‘It’s All Going to be a Joke in 5 Years’

          • john

            Ok let us have a fundamental dialogue.
            Do you understand why the earth has a climate that is conducive to warm blooded animals and trees and plants we need to use to live?

            If you do not believe those plants need a situation as they have had how on earth are we going to survive.
            You do realise that with every increasing GHG content of the atmosphere that every where on earth is going to heat up this may result in colder places some where but overwhelming every where else hotter.

            Now if you do not think this is going to happen well all i can say is your are abusing your knowledge of science.

            You and I are responsible for what we pass onto our decedents.

            If you think GHG has noting to do with climate then you are a brilliant example of why the Post Truth New Speak people luv you a person who embraces Big Brother.

            Well done you.

            I honestly beg you read the science you and I do not want to pass onto our decedents a degraded world.

            The rubbish you read on WUWT is deplorable old mate it is crap to put in politely they are telling you absolute rubbish.

            Do not take any notice of me just think about your kids and great decedents.

          • Richard

            The US election had nothing to do with climate science. That debate finished long ago and the deniers lost. It’s a shame they can’t admit defeat gracefully.

          • Richard

            “” sounds like a 2 dollar shop for climate denying crap

          • john
        • john

          So where do you get your information from ?

    • john

      You have to be another of the people who believe this big hoax thing is happening or please mate get a life read some science.

  • Basil

    For a moment i thought that I had logged into Huffpost but then I was relieved as this site is even more hilarious…..

    • john

      You do realise that WUWT is not actually a site to gain information but a total junk site full of absolutely rubbish that has a hook into the deluded.

  • John Saint-Smith

    The mark of a fanatic is to believe that if you repeating the same thing over and over it will eventually become true. (like ‘Jobson Groth’). Be gentle with Terry, by the time the poor dear discovers that isn’t true, he’ll be too late to save the world from renewable power.

  • toby robertson

    He is quite correct and you have said nothing to refute his claims in this article?! Wind is unreliable producing at about 34% of its rated capacity in Australia and 22% globally. His article pointed out that the statement that last year renewable capacity overtook fossil fuel capacity is a huge lie. Wind and solar account for less than 6% of global energy. This lie has been spread far and wide and most people do not investigate so the lie lives on.

    To get 1 unit of wind energy you need to build 3 towers. If you want storage you must allow for at least 3 days of no wind….so now you need 9 towers to create 3 more units of energy (perhaps 5 would do)… in reality you need to build 6-9 towers to get 1 unit of energy.

    Then for storage, another currently pie in the sky dream for renewable advocates, we are fed more lies and exaggerations. All teh batteries produced globally in 2014 for cars and phones and lithium tools etc would apparently power teh world for 9 seconds!

    Tesla new mega factory in 2018 will be able to churn out 50GW of batteries. That is enough to power the UK for 20 minutes!

    the group most blatantly fibbing is the renewable industry.

    Your website showed on sat/sun/mon/tues/wed/ thurs that Vict and SA were producing almost no wind energy at all. Yday at 9.00 am 13MW was the total from vict and SA. You are pushing a lie not Mcrann who has the guts to stand up scream you have no clothes on!?

    German emissions have not fallen in 5 years despite adding huge amounts of renewables. Wind in particular in a country like australia cuts few emissions because the coal that actually keeps the grid stable and viable keeps burning anyway but less efficiently.

    On top of that wind kills birds and bats and the noise is damaging to many locals (not all but many).

    All of this is true and verifiable easily but you wont read about it in many places!?

    • toby robertson

      South Australia as i type is getting 100MW from its wind capacity….try running a state on that. its got so bad BHP were told to build their own power source if they want cheap reliable energy!!??

      • No, BHP have been asked on several occasions if they would commit to buying the output of the Northern brown coal power station. They said no.

        • toby robertson

          probably because they never believed SA would be foolish enough to leave themseves beholden to brown coal fired power from Victoria!? Now it is obvious that power reliability and price is an issue they have been told by the SA minister to build their own if they want reliable power. How was the demand for a committment made? was there a fixed price involved?

          • So, they were asked before the closure of northern and after the closure of northern.

            Yes, they were offered a fixed price, or around $50/MWh.

        • toby robertson

          so no come back for all the significant points i just made about how dumb wind is as a power source in most instances?

          • Those comments are too stupid to bother with.

            you clearly have no idea how power systems work.

            The current centralised system has huge amounts of little used capacity, installed as back up for when coal or nuclear or whatever needs repairs, is damaged, or has sudden outages, as they had in queensland, WA, and S.A. and even NSW.

            So to build a lot of renewables, you don’t actually need extra back-up, because it already exists. The more wind power, or solar power, generated, the less that is needed from coal, nuclear and the like.

            So every electricity engineer know we are moving to a system of localised and flexible generation. You don’t need storage for every kwh of demand, so those comparisons are just nonsense.

          • toby robertson

            no they are not…if you want your model of 50-100 % renewable they are not rubbish at all. You can operate with renewables around 20% but without storage no more. Few emissions are saved from wind due to coal back up in australia, you can not predict wind accurately so the coal stays on, being used less efficiently. Coal is driven broke and we will soon be paying coal producers subsidies so we can keep the lights on!

            Further you wrote an article saying Mcrann lied….he did not the renewable industry did…he pointed out the lie.

            Further wind and solar both lie about their output, stating capacity factors that are fractions of what is stated.

            look at your own data, there are at times weeks with no wind but i was being kind saying a few days….or visit UKGRIDWATCH . In Europe there are weeks on end with little to no wind…and solar is even less efficient and wasteful and damaging.

            Everything about reneables ruins productivity. And remember we will need to rebuild them after 10-20 years (i know you will say 20 years or more but that is simply untrue)…and solar after 10-15 and both lose efficiency over time as well.

            Your own point about being over supplied makes this point clear. We are building capacity not required that will not cut emissions and will damage the environment.

            Further Victoria will no longer be over supplied with hazlewood shutting on high demand days. So we will have to import high cost energy from NSW and poor SA will suffer even more frequent blackouts and brownouts.

            Big wind is every bit as evil as big coal or big oil…indeed worse because it raises thge cost of power, reduces reliablity and wastes resources without solving the real problem.

            The only way to cut emissions and run a modern economy is new gas or nuclear.

            Why should we pay a wind producer over 800k per year in renewable credits on a 3M wind tower?! Its madness considering the damage they do environmentally and economically.

          • Your claims are so far full of rubbish.

            That 20% limit is what people thought about 20 years ago. You sound like a horse and carriage operator sounding skeptical about the automobile.

            Emissions are saved by wind, that is well documented. Coal fired power stations are switched off, they are operating at their lowest capacity factors.

            You can predict wind efficiently, certainly more than the gas outage that caused a big blackout in WA in September, and the other that last week sent prices soaring to $14,000/MWh in Qld and NSW.

            You say wind and solar lie about output. Oh, so it’s one big conspiracy is it.

            Get out of here.

          • toby robertson

            Further google themselves ran a unit with the brightest minds to find a way to make renewables cheaper than fossil fuel, they gave up. Subisiding wind via a RET is picking winners. It is stopping resources flowing to a real fix for future emissions. But we can cut emissions realistically with new coal or new gas whilst a new technology is found. As Judith Sloan wrote recently…there is not a good economist in the country who could support a RET as an efficient way of cutting emissions.

          • Google have announced a plan to 100 per cent renewable energy – all wind and solar.

  • toby robertson

    more jobs likely to be lost thanks to “reliable and cheap” renewables!?…..hazlewood is closing because they can not compete with an energy source that can actually sell its output below zero…eg pay users to take its power so it can claim a REC of currently about $90.

    So instead lets outsource production to far dirtier production methods overseas?!