Liddell Future Land Use and Enabling Works Project

I have already objected to the closure of the Liddell Power Station in a personal email to the CEO of the relevant department, Mr Andrew Lewis, pointing out to him that his suggestion that the
power station might be replaced by a grid-scale battery is totally flawed.
As renewables penetration increases, the NSW government will find that there is an ever increasing requirement for fully dispatchable generation.
The only way that this requirement may be met in the short term is that the present Liddell coal-fired power station be restarted.
Any strategy that presumes that a "grid-scale battery" might replace Liddell will end in disaster.
The Liddell site must be preserved so that either:
the present power station is capable of being restarted as I believe will be required,
the existing infrastructure remains available for use in replacing the existing power station
with a fully dispatchable new power station, whether this be a low-emissions coal- or gas-fired powerstation, or a nuclear power station once the Commonwealth government realises that it must adopt nuclear generation if it is to realise low-CO2-emissions generation.
I reserve the right to add to this submission beyond the date for the closure of submissions.
I request that this submission by marked as "Confidential" as it is a personal submission, and I have already been harassed in certain quarters for daring to express views that are counter to the prevailing views regarding the value and the viability of renewables.
I understand that to maintain confidentiality I may not include personal details here.
Yours sincerely.

Liddell’s Future Land Use & Enabling plans have neglected to accurately address all of the following:-
 **Food Security + Australian Energy Security = National Security
**Australian Independent Energy = Coal, Gas & a clean, safe, Nuclear SMR Power future.
**Which companies involved & all of their Solar/Wind/BESS connections are subject to the CCP’s National Intelligence Law?
**Public Health & Safety Risks - Electric Force & Electromagnetic Radiation, Soil/Food/Water Contamination, Energy Deprivation.
**Proper Research Needed - No Scientific Rigour.
** Engineering Facts Have Been Ignored.
**Connecting Subsidised, Mandated Weather Dependent - Intermittent Solar/Wind to the Grid is the Worst Policy Failure in History.
**Fake Green - Not Clean & Green or Sustainable at all - as the Full Lifecycle of Solar/Wind/BESS has to be accounted for.
At least 1,000% more Mining + intensive energy & toxic pollution during processing.
**Power Sources Needed in major City areas instead - avoiding long distance transmission loss, ruination of rural Australia & harming Agricultural productivity.
**Unconscionable scale of Industrialised Solar/Wind land mass required.
Michael Shellenberger says it's approx 300-800 times more land required for Solar/Wind than for far superior conventional power generation.
**Massive Toxic Waste Burden being intentionally created for future generations that will NEVER be economically viable to recycle - if ever even possible.
**Energy Security risks from inferior, unreliable, weather dependent, Dunkelflaute based Solar/Wind which will NEVER be base-load power available on demand.
**Economic Suicide - Skyrocketing Energy Prices = Cost of Living Crisis. The more Mandated, Subsidised Solar & Wind in the system = the Higher the Prices.
**National Security Risks - we need to rely on our own AUSTRALIAN Energy Sources rather than our Most Hostlie Enemy - the CCP.
**Fake Green Wokeness = Weakness
**Unethical Slave Labour Supply Chain Reliance - Solar’s cruelly tortured Xinjiang Uyghurs & Cobalt for Wind Turbines + Batteries reliant on shocking treatment of the Congolese - with Child Labour - children as young as 6 years old forced to mine toxic cobalt in the Congo with their bare hands!
**No Social Licence - Failed Consultation process by the NSW/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AGL, TRANSGRID & AEMO.
**Immediate Moratorium & Independent Federal Inquiry Needed.

I DO NOT CONSENT TO MY FAMILY OR MYSELF BEING HARMED IN ANY WAY BY LIDDELL’S FUTURE LAND-USE & ENABLING PLANS OR ANY OTHER CONNECTED SOLAR/WIND ELECTRICITY GENERATING WORKS, BESS & ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE IN NSW/AUSTRALIA - including but not limited to:-
**Public Health & Safety Risks - Personal Discomfort & Health Impacts from Electrical Force/ EMR & Deprivation or Contamination of Life Sustaining Food Resource Land, Food Supplies & Water Supplies.
**Unplanned for, Not Even Researched & Not Appropriately Assessed, Toxic Carcinogenic & Teratogenic Fire/Smoke Hazard Risks.
**Energy Deprivation - Lack of Reliable, Affordable Electricity - Resulting from Inferior, Unreliable Solar/Wind Generation causing Austerity, Suffering, ill Health & Loss of Basic Services.
**Consequential Skyrocketing Electricity Prices - Causing Cost of Living Crisis, Hardship & Potential Death from Hyperthermia.
**Unjust Mistreatment of Landholders & Rural Communities Forced to Endure Such Detrimental Plans - Causing Extreme Distress, Anxiety, Depression, Grief, Family/Social Fracturing & Loss.
**Deprivation of Rural Outlook & Quality of Life - With Unhealthy, Distressing Noise, Infrasound & Visual Pollution.
**Emotional Distress, Depression & Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - Caused by Unjust Mistreatment by the Government & their Self Inflicted, Cruel Torture from Skyrocketing RenewaBULL Energy/Cost of Living Crisis.
**Detrimental Consequences of increased SF6 emissions.
**Increased Economic Hardship due to Failure of Councils to do their Due Diligence, to Address Compliance, to be Transparent & to be Honest, to Address the Facts & Community Concerns, ie. Additional Council charges for Flawed Assessments & Wrong Approvals - Leading to Unplanned for Clean up & Remediation Costs for Abandoned, Derelict, Contaminating Solar/Wind EG Works & BESS.
**Any Detrimental Cost Implications for Ratepayers from the Council's & any NSW/Federal Government Body’s Persistence in Ignoring Their Duties Regarding the Unethical Hosting, Procurement & Power Purchase Agreements With Energy Generation Reliant on Unethical Slave Labour Supply Chains.
**Loss of Productivity & Income Due to Contamination, Increased Fire Risk & Heat Island Impacts from Solar/Wind EG Works & BESS.
**Any Cyber Security Breaches or National Security Threats & Harm Caused.
**Any Costs Incurred for Ratepayers & Taxpayers by Dealing With the Obvious, Economic Suicide - the Financial Consequences for the Future of Making Seriously Retrograde Decisions by Hosting & Approving Such Harmful Solar/Wind EG Works, BESS & Associated Unnecessary Transmission Infrastructure.

** TWO NEW PRECEDENTS HAVE BEEN SET by Oxley Bridge Rd Uranquinty NSW Solar Determination 24th Nov 2022:-
https://apps.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/DocMgmt/v1/PublicDocuments/DATA-WORKATTACH-FILE%20PEC-DPE-EP-WORK%20PPSSTH-149!20221124T045856.774%20GMT
(*Including Audio of Professor Ian Plimer’s Presentation on Solar Contamination.)

1. NEW MODERN SLAVERY CONDITION- requiring proof prior to construction that NO Slave Labour supply chain components be used in construction.
**New Condition Inserted C4A - Dealing With Modern Slavery.
Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act 2018

*NSW Local Council Act 1993
428 Annual Report
438 ZE Duty to Ensure Goods & Services Are Not Procured From Modern Slavery.

This applies to all NSW Government Bodies - including Council Hosts, to those Procuring & those who have a Power Purchase Agreement with Solar/Wind Energy generation + BESS whose construction has used Modern Slavery Supply Chain Sourced Components.
eg. City of Sydney, the Opera House, Kiama/Shellharbour/Shoalhaven Councils, Westpac, etc. all have an unethical PPA via Flow Power with Spark Infrastructure’s Xinjiang Jinko Solar based Bomen Solar - unethically Hosted by Wagga City Council.
REROC has an unethical PPA with Iberdrola - with Xinjiang JA Solar based Avonlie Solar - unethically Hosted by Narrandera Shire.

Dr James Cockayne
NSW Anti-slavery Commissioner
M: 0455 255 453
[email protected]

Carolyn Kitto ‘Be Slavery Free’
Ph: 0438 040 959
[email protected]

Ramila Chanisheff
Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association - AUTWA
Ph: 0402 531 706
Email: [email protected]

2. AMENDED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CONDITION re-CONTAMINATION – QUALIFIED TESTING/REPORTING, CONTAMINATION RESPONSE PROCEDURE, etc.

**Amended Condition C8.
Prior to Commencement of Any Works - Storm Water Management Plan.
On Site & Discharge From the Site.
Testing Points & Regular Water Samples, Suitably Qualified Person.
Response Procedures if CONTAMINATION
is Found.
Availability of Results.

I totally object to the unreliable, weather dependent, inefficient, unethical - Slave labour based, anti-Australian, CCP benefiting future land use & enabling plans for Liddell.
Taxpayer funds will be completely wasted subsidising this Fake Green Solar/Wind/BESS Grift & Ponzi Scheme/Scam which does nothing to replace Liddell’s 24/7, reliable, efficient, affordable, base-load power - leaving NSW in power deficit!
Climate Change Zealotry with Religious Fervour - is Torturing Australian People!
Blackouts have already occurred since the closure of Liddell & I have since received ridiculous pleas from AGL to turn my major appliances off to help keep the lights on during their Peak Event 5:30 -7:30 p.m!
*AGL Peak event starting at 5:30 PM and ending at 7:30 PM
“Get ready by delaying the use of large appliances.
For more tips on what you can do now: https://discover.agl.com.au/saver-centre
If you haven't already done so, reply Y by 5:30 PM to take part and be rewarded.
AGL Peak Energy Rewards: The Event is over.
Thank you for being a part of it. Feel free to use your power as normal.
By participating, you are helping to keep energy affordable and reliable." 25th May 2023.

This is non-sensical & cruel torture - when we are being forced to suffer skyrocketing Energy Prices = Cost of Living Crisis - due to mandated, subsidised RenewaBULL junk that’s wrecking the Electricity Grid & Australia’s prosperity - causing ECOCIDE -
being intentionally deprived of reliable, affordable power in a country SO blessed with far superior, natural energy resources - Coal, Gas & Uranium - the envy of the world!

I Object to the Environmentally Vandalising Demolition of Liddell. It must instead be refurbished for Coal Power usage or the site & infrastructure retained for a new HELE Coal Power Station or Nuclear Power Plant.
Australian Independent Energy is an essential priority for National Security - instead of AGL’s foolish, contaminating, unethical & sabotaging plans to ENABLE BEIJING TO TURN OUR LIGHTS OFF!

Renewable Energy is the Antithesis of Caring for Country!
Solar/Wind/BESS is NOT clean, green or sustainable at all - it’s Environmental Vandalism - creating a mountain of toxic waste for future generations & Fake Green Hydrogen is an explosive pipe dream - pedalled by subsidy driven, Fake Green Gravy Train - Snake Oil Salesman!
The natural biodiversity/environment - including vulnerable threatened Fauna & Flora species will be harmed, when the positive, superior, future alternative is definitely Nuclear Protects Nature!
“I’ve been clear I will have zero tolerance for businesses who refuse to provide adequate information about the impact their projects will have on nature,” Plibersek said.
“If companies aren’t willing to show how they will protect nature, then I’m willing to cancel their projects – and that’s exactly what I’ve done.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/05/tanya-plibersek-rejects-two-queensland-coalmines-over-failure-to-provide-detail-on-environmental-impact

This whole RenewaBULL Con can be exposed with a couple of basic technical questions:

1. How do you propose to provide reliable fill-in power generation when the average capacity factor of wind and solar systems CANNOT exceed approximately 30%?

2. If your answer is storage (any and all forms) how do you propose to re-charge spent storage facilities on a cloudy windless morning? (which could last for days or weeks)

3. What is the REAL cost of solar and wind systems - which MUST include ALL peripheral establishment and operational costs, that is :" manufacturing, transport, ALL subsidies, fill-in generation by whatever means, construction, land reclamation, disposal and treatment of toxic fail units, recycling of battery materials, grid batteries (that are useless for storage), the list goes on BUT MUST include ALL costs for a realistic estimate.

CONNECTING SUBSIDISED & MANDATED, INTERMITTENT SOLAR & WIND POWER TO THE GRID IS THE WORST POLICY BLUNDER IN OUR HISTORY!!
DUNKELFLAUTES WILL
BE POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC!!
https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/11/the-voice-of-energy-realism/
Solar/Wind utilities cannot be maximised simutaneously & should never be interfering with our once reliable & efficient electricity grid.
Any Power Generation Source That Can’t Deliver Electricity On Demand is Pointless!
Hideous ecosystem-wrecking industrial Solar/Wind EG Works, BESS, associated infrastructure & invasive, unnecessary multiplication of Transmission Lines for such a costly, contaminating & wasteful form of electricity generation is illogical lunacy!

Just like Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek’s claims that increased renewables mean “CHEAPER, CLEANER ENERGY, LOWER POWER BILLS & LOWER POLLUTION” (SMH 10th April 2023,) these empty promises are totally false!

The demand for ‘green’ power hurts the environment - with an appallingly huge environmental footprint, only rendered worse by their ineffectiveness at meeting basic power needs.
Inferior, intermittent, Fake Green renewaBULL energy disturbs our independent way of life, denies us modern conveniences, affects our security, economic prosperity, our health & wellbeing & destroys Intergenerational equity for future generations.

References:-
**Energy Drowning in Subsidies
https://www.regulationeconomics.com/_files/ugd/b6987c_91012ad6a64b401e8e915a45c79911b4.

**https://www.regulationeconomics.com/_files/ugd/b6987c_91012ad6a64b401e8e915a45c79911b4.pdf

 **China's Dream - Patricia Adams
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/12/Adams-Chinas-Energy-Dream.pdf

**President Trump Signs Executive Order Securing the United States Bulk-Power System | Department of Energy - 1st May 2020
https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-executive-order-securing-united-states-bulk-power-system

**Does China’s rapid rise in the Australian car market pose a security risk? | The Strategist
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/does-chinas-rapid-rise-in-the-australian-car-market-pose-a-security-risk/

**Ukraine war: The Russian ships accused of North Sea sabotage - BBC News
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65309687

**Simon Orme - IEEFA Report
https://ieefa.org/media/3234/download?attachment

**AP news is not news, it's paid for marketing
boriquagato.substack.com

**CONNECTING SUBSIDISED & MANDATED, INTERMITTENT SOLAR & WIND POWER TO THE GRID IS THE WORST POLICY BLUNDER IN OUR HISTORY!!
DUNKELFLAUTES WILL
BE POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC!!
https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/11/the-voice-of-energy-realism/

**Energy Vandalism and Impossible Dreams – Peter Smith - Quadrant Online 16th April 2023
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2023/04/energy-vandalism-and-impossible-dreams/

**“I’ve been clear I will have zero tolerance for businesses who refuse to provide adequate information about the impact their projects will have on nature,” Plibersek said.
“If companies aren’t willing to show how they will protect nature, then I’m willing to cancel their projects – and that’s exactly what I’ve done.” 5th May 2023

**Australia’s Self Inflicted Wind/Solar Calamity Demands Permanent Nuclear Power Solution!
https://stopthesethings.com/2023/04/30/australias-self-inflicted-wind-solar-calamity-demands-permanent-nuclear-power-solution/

**Wind Energy's Absurd | Facebook
“Cobalt Red -
How the Blood of the Congo Powers our Lives” - Siddharth Kara
https://www.facebook.com/100064419293322/posts/thanks-to-wea-friend-peter-for-pointing-us-in-the-direction-of-the-video-of-the-/601970201960284/

**The Rising Chorus of Renewable Energy Skeptics | The Tyee
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2023/04/07/Rising-Chorus-Renewable-Energy-Skeptics/

**The Unbearable Lightness of Renewables – In Time – Watts Up With That?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/the-unbearable-lightness-of-renewables-in-time/

Liddell Power Station should be mothballed and maintained as it will likely be required for future power generation. Renewables have been a disaster in Europe, but at least countries such as Germany did not demolish their power stations, and were able to reopen them when wind and solar regularly failed. The German greens were sensible enough to vote to reopen more than 20 coal fired power stations. If renewables had worked well, Europe would not need Russian oil and gas.
Demolishing Liddell is beyond reckless, it is potentially a national security threat.

Allowing AGL's demolition of Liddell Power Station will be an economic and environmental disaster for NSW. The vast land clearing currently taking place in NSW for "renewable" power plant construction is both a disaster for the environment and the State's energy security. Nowhere in the world do wind and solar provide base load power. Yet AGL are seeking permission to demolish Liddell Power Station without any plan in place to replace base load power. Take away the renewables subsidies and AGL will most likely focus elsewhere. It appears AGL is only interested in profit. Surely the NSW Government is interested in energy security.

UTLA objects to the Liddell future land use. Is Australia the only country in the world that destroys their own power stations with no working solution that will produce base load power? AGL's goal is not NSW energy security but rather how best to maximise profits. Take away the renewables subsidies and AGL will shift its focus. What successful business destroys it's assets without having a superior working replacement? Liddell should be maintained for future base load power generation should the "renewables" prove unreliable, uneconomic and environmentally destructive.

I object to the “Liddell Future Land Use and Enabling Works State Significant Development”

AGL’s intention to transition towards a low-carbon future including a commitment to the closure of its coal fired power stations is insane.
Wind and solar are not viable alternatives for an industrial and modern world.
Hydrogen is just too stupid to consider, so I will not refer to it further.
No one has ever proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, so the whole exercise of transition is pointless to begin with.
In 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. This shows that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.
That being said, Anthropogenic Global Warming has been unequivocally disproved!
Net Zero policies will only increase the cost of living and bring additional degradation to the environment on a scale 1000% worse than the current fossil fuel based sources. At least 3x the area of Tasmania would need to be clear felled , with the ecosystem permanently destroyed, to provide enough “potential” wind and solar to power our nation today. Even then that power would only be available when the sun shines and the wind blows. The actual output of, so-called, renewables is usually 20-30% of rated capacity, so realistically we would need 9x the size of Tasmania destroyed. If you think that is “environmentally friendly” the only thing green about you is to be found behind your ears. Batteries you say? To provide enough storage for one day you would need container sized batteries back to back from Sydney to beyond Perth! Look at the cost of south Australia’s Tesla installation (that only provides a few minutes supply..) and I’m sure your mathematical ability is more than enough to see that our current woes with rising electricity cost will seem miniscule.
Net Zero is Madness and this madness is bringing about such disastrous actions as the closure of Liddell with no viable alternative to replace the loss of supply to the grid.
There is no global warming climate emergency, the only emergency is the problems brought about by Net Zero policies trying to fight a non-existent threat.
Expensive and unreliable energy will, and is already, killing people.
The planet is now in a cooling phase, there has been no warming since 1998!
To now start to transition to an unreliable, weather dependant energy grid is complete madness.
If you are concerned about the weather, installing weather dependant energy sources is a pathetically dumb policy.
We need cheap, reliable energy now!
The claims of renewable energy being the cheapest source neglect the cost of production, the long term destruction and poisoning of the ecosystem and are based on, as mentioned, the “potential” output. Renewable energy being cheaper is a blatant lie.
The policies and vision of AGL will only exacerbate this unnecessary travesty being inflicted upon humanity.
It is appalling to see such naive and unrealistic assumptions, as follows, written into your proposal.
“A number of these projects are currently at the feasibility analysis stage and are likely to focus on energy generation, storage/dispatch, waste to energy, solar thermal, and other emerging technologies associated with electricity generation (or other beneficial uses).”
This amounts to you really have nothing yet viable to replace it with.
Any solar installation would result in the sterilising of the lands which become contaminated with poisonous selenium, tellurium and lead.
Any wind generation would result in widespread pollution around wind turbines by the toxin bisphenol A, decimation birds, bats and insects, vital to the food chain and local eco system and the sterilising pastures and ultimately dumping of toxic turbine blades to poison soils and waterways because there is no viable way to recycle or dispose of them otherwise.
There is currently no viable industrial capacity battery storage technology.
Waste to energy just means burning stuff so why not coal or gas?
The only cost effective, long term and sustainable option is to build a modern gas or coal fired power station with the view to add nuclear power at a future date.

I make this submission to confirm my objection to the demolition of Liddell Power Station. As a professional Project Manager in the construction industry many millions of dollars have been saved by repurposing structures. In the cities many buildings that were once commercial are being converted to residential apartments. Attached are several papers supporting Small Modular Reactors including two papers on the reuse of existing coal fired power stations which reduces the construction costs for installation of SMRs to replace coal fired boilers. Nuclear energy is ideal for reducing CO2 emissions and nuclear energy is now accepted by the majority of Australians as a clean and green source of energy. The Coalition will present the lifting of the Federal prohibition on nuclear energy as an election policy at the next Federal election. I am of the opinion that when the Federal prohibition on nuclear energy is repealed many solar projects, wind projects and battery projects will become stranded assets.

I do not think that we should be destroying Liddell Power station without a viable plan for its replacement.

In my opinion we should be considering replacing Liddell with a HELE (high efficiency low emission) coal-fired power station such as Japan and China are building. These new power stations run at nearly 50% thermal efficiency.

For the HELE to function as designed, the subsidies and mandated preferences for wind and solar (e.g. the Renewable Energy Target) would have to be removed so that the new power station would be free to operate as designed and not be sabotaged as the old one was.

It is very important for Australia's productivity, national security, heavy industry, manufacturing sector, It and cloud sector, and inflation target that we have continuous power into the grid. Wind and solar cannot provide this and the batteries to store large amounts of energy are not ready yet, nor are all the transmission lines required in place, whereas a mine mouth operation to replace Liddell would have some of the best quality store of energy in the world right next to the power station as well as transmission lines in place.

The other point is that the whole life cycle of wind and solar does not save emissions. Ever since the world started to spend billions on transitioning to wind and solar emissions have continued to climb and the amount of electricity generated by fossil fuels globally has barely changed. It is still well over 80%. Worse still, the pressure to stop new fossil fuel projects has put up the price of these necessary fuels.

As for the environment, everything we do has some effect. Unfortunately the bad effects of short-lived wind turbines and solar panels that have to be recycled about three times as often as a HELE coal-fired power station and require huge quantities of minerals and power for their creation is entirely overlooked by governments such as ours.

Whatever is decided, the government should at least acknowledge how grateful many countries would be to have high grade coal, infrastructure and a trained workforce in place ready to go should a decision ever be made to build a HELE coal-fired power station. It should also be acknowledged that if such a power station were up and running we could all sleep at night knowing that energy security was assured rather than worrying about wind droughts and industries falling over through lack of reliable, affordable power. The government should also acknowledge that a HELE would be better for the environment than all these wind turbines and solar panels. All it would put out is a little extra CO2 which after all is greening the planet.

In the interests of responsible energy development the Liddell site should be upheld as a safe site being already connected to the electricity distribution network. Liddell has aged disgracefully but could reasonably convert to gas fired generation or indeed nuclear.
The replacement of coal fired generation with a battery hub ignores the litany of mining required to fulfil the operation and maintenance of the said battery plant. It is dishonest to claim a response to a low carbon economy under this proposal.

Submission regarding Liddell Future Land Use and Enabling Works Project Muswellbrook Shire
I would submit that the Liddell Power Station must not be demolished.
For New South Wales to function as a modern society all citizens, businesses, homes, public utilities hospitals, nursing homes, schools, etc. must be guaranteed a constant, reliable supply of base load electricity, 24hrs/day, 7days/week.
Any possibility of the occurrence of BLACKOUTS of the supply of electricity on a daily, intermittent basis would be catastrophic. And similar to a person having a series of heart attacks.
Rolling blackouts will affect everybody, financial systems will suddenly close down, Banks, Shopping Centres, Cafe', manufacturers, just everything will be unable to trade or operate, particularly with a lack of refrigeration leading to widespread food spoilage in both Supermarkets, cafes and homes, leading to food shortages. High rise buildings, apartments and homes would become uninhabitable. Such simple items such as garage doors would not open. Schools would need to close, traffic chaos would ensure as traffic lights would shut down, boom gates would stay down, street and all lighting would be out, TV, telecommunications and the NBN may shut down, the supply of water would be interrupted and sewerage services will backup. Hospitals, nursing homes and people relying on heating, cooling or life maintaining devices may die. The results caused by a BLACKOUT, affects everybody in a multitude of ways and must be avoided at all costs.
With the move to RELY on solar panels in all forms that has a daily SHORTAGE OF FUEL, (in that the Sun only shines in Winter for nine hours a day, leaving a black hole of fifteen hours each night with no electricity being produced). This means solar CAN NEVER PROVIDE BASE LOAD POWER 24/7.
Wind turbines which RELY on the wind for fuel (and because they can only produce electricity, when the wind speed is between 12kms/hr and 90kms/hr) they are reported to produce electricity on average for only 30% of their rated capacity or on average for eight hours per day, Again, leaving random periods of hours, WITHOUT ANY ELECTRICITY BEING PRODUCED, (occasionally in some calm periods, wind turbines produce no electricity for days at a time. This means wind CAN NEVER PROVIDE BASE LOAD POWER 24/7.
With the above concerns, that the renewables solar panels and wind turbines will prove to be unable to fill the gap created by the closure of coal fired power stations. (From the AEMO dashboard on the 31/5/2023 3pm, Coal was producing 75% of NSW electricity supply). Renewables only 23%. At 7pm Coal will be producing 85% and Renewables only 15%.
IT WILL BE ECONOMIC AND SOCIETABLE SUICIDE FOR NSW TO RELY ON RENEWABLES TO PROVIDE BASE LOAD ELECTRICITY 24/7.
The Liddell Power Station MUST NOT be demolished, but be mothballed, so it can be restarted in the event, that a shortage of electric generation requires it to be restarted. Even if this requires the Liddell Power Station to be compulsory acquired by the NSW Government.

Any decision concerning the demotion of this coal fired power station should be delayed until technical and cost overruns of Hydro 2.0 are fully known and addressed.

Liddell should not be closed down or demolished. The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) in May 2023 (25th May) announced a 25% price hike rise in the cost of the wholesale cost of energy. This will result in a steep rise in energy costs in Victoria and Australia due to the wholesale take up of renewables so called. (Coal and gas are renewable in any case.).

According to the ABC News energy bills in Victoria will rise, on average from $1,403 in the financial year 22/23 to $1,755 in the financial year 23/23, a rise of $352.(ABC News, 25/5/23).

If Australia keeps following the trend to wind and solar power, it could well mean many thousands of Australian households shivering through winter as they won’t be able to afford to heat their homes. And this is a very real problem.

It’s hard to understand the modern obsession with building highly inefficient and expensive wind farms by virtually all Australian state governments.

From an economic and practical point of view they make no sense. The Golden Plains project here in Victoria is in the process of building 228 wind turbines scattered over prime farming land. And at a height of 230 metres these monstrosities pose a very real threat to raptors like the Wedge Tailed Eagle. The estimated cost is $1.7 billion with an installed capacity of 800-1,000MW which allegedly will provide power for 500,000 homes.

However, the governments figures are rubbery. Unlike a coal fired power plant which provides seamless baseload power, a wind turbine only provides intermittent power and one is lucky to get 20% of their rated capacity in real terms so that 500,000 homes figure reduces drastically to 100,000 at best.

Currently, average capacity factor for Australian wind turbines is around 30%, not 20% as you say above, but the best way to determine a proposed wind farm’s expected capacity factor is to look at the total GWh and convert that back to MW output.

The Golden Plains farm output is 3500GWh which converts to 400MW average output. Now if we compare this to 800W then the capacity factor is 50% which is absurd, but if we compare it to 1000MW, it is 40% which seems extremely optimistic. But it is common practice to have high capacity factors in a proposal as it makes the project look more viable and sell it to the public.

On the other hand a coal fired power station with a nameplate capacity of 2,000 MW would cost about $3.7 billion to build. It has a life span of up to 55 years and supplies baseload power 24-7 at about 90-95% capacity.

The windfarm would cost $1.7 billion and produce 400MW on average while a coal plant producing 1800MW (2000 x 90%) would cost $3.7 billion.

The Golden Plains windfarm will cost $4.25 million/MW to build
Compare this with a coal plant which costs $2.05 million/MW to build.
The build cost of a wind farm is twice as expensive per MW than a coal plant. So why is the Andrews Government going ahead with this project? Simple answer; because it’s popular with green voters, and their support is essential if Labor are to remain in power. Renewables are about politics, not the needs of the community.

The life of a wind turbine (EU experience) is 12 years plus they need replacement gearboxes and bearings every 15 months or so.
Let’s be clear about one thing - renewable energy can’t supply baseload power to run the state or the national power grid. Australian governments have taken the most affordable and reliable power (coal-fired) generation systems off the table and chosen to go with the worst two options, namely wind and solar which are not suited for baseload power – even with battery storage.

We have been warmed by AEMO that this winter we could experience power blackouts and widespread industry shut downs to in order to keep the lights on. Back in the good old days of cheap and reliable coal fired power we didn’t have this problem.

Governments are NOT elected to save the planet. This is a nonsense. We can’t save the planet and we delude ourselves if we think that by turning down the CO2 knob that we can control temperature – we can’t - it’s mission impossible.

If any government can’t guarantee adequate supply of power, or water, then they should be voted out of office.

I am objecting to any future land use of the former Liddell Power Station that involves blowing up the building. I am doing this on behalf of the members of Climate and Energy Realists Queensland (we have a database of around 300) and the 286 people who have recently signed a Petition circulated by us stating the following:- "There is NO climate emergency. Don't blow up Liddell."

Our reasons are simple, "Australia has no Plan B for future energy requirements". To see what happens when a whole country begins to rely totally (or even to a large extent partially) on intermittent wind and solar, you have to go no further than Germany or the UK as prime examples. A series of two consecutive winters with bitterly cold conditions has resulted in threats to their National power grids, such that their grid would end up totally destabilised unless they import traditional energy in the form of gas, nuclear or use the best option both countries are settling for, "re-opening their former coal-fired power stations".

We in Australia cannot do this if we destroy them. We don't have a ready made solution for getting rid of the only things keeping the lights on and industry operating. We are foolishly refusing to use nuclear and banning future gas and coal projects that would guarantee our safety, in order to pursue a "green dream" that will never work. If it was just a small group of us saying it, you may choose to ignore it as a 'fringe issue', but I would warrant a very sizable portion of the population would agree. About the same portion of the population who will oppose 'The Voice' legislation.

What we are seeking is to have a moratorium on any decision, before there is a debate conducted by a neutral panel, with both sides of the argument properly put before the general population. They'll really want to know why they didn't have their say, when rolling blackouts and catastrophic power bills become an everyday occurrence .

Put simply, there is one chance and one chance only to achieve a workable outcome for Australia's energy security. Please don't 'blow it' by blowing up Liddell.

Neil Killion,
Organiser,
Climate and Energy Realists Queensland,
PO Box 259
Southport BC
Gold Coast, Qld 4215

Australia is following the example of Britain and Germany to attempt a transition from coal wind and solar.
Due to the problem of wind droughts the transition will not work until we have new storage technology available.
In Britain and Germany they mothballed their coal plans so they can be used in case of emergencies, which they have experienced lately,
We will want to do the same if we do not build new reliable capacity and we will have to keep the coal fires burning until nuclear power is available. Demolishing LIddell is energy suicide,

Liddell power station should not be demolished as it may be required for future energy production if the renewable energy infrastructure fails to deliver reliable power to the entire grid. This should be a process whereby there needs to be redundancy built into the system to ensure we have a backup power supply. Liddell has provided reliable power for an extended period of time and demolishing the infrastructure would be short sighted and should not be permitted to occur until the new infrastructure has been up and running for at least 3 years, the situation in Germany should have alarm bells ringing and having no backup source of energy could lead to long periods of blackouts.
Mothball the facility and wait to ensure we are not shutting critical infrastructure too early.

I object to the proposal to demolish the Liddell Power Station.

Whilst the development of replacement energy projects to replace coal is proceeding, there have been multiple lengthy delays and cost blowouts in the renewable rollout. it is evident that alternative energy generation is not at a level where the destruction of a recently operating power plant can be demolished. Since the closure of the LPS, the cost of electricity has skyrocketed and NSW has reportedly been importing a significant portion of the power it needs from Queensland. Wind, solar and battery technology is currently not an efficient use of land resources and is negatively impacting agricultural areas, particularly in renewable energy zones where it is experiencing strong push-back from communities.

It is imperative that this power station be mothballed - the "do nothing" option - until an equivalent level of alternative power generation is in place in NSW. In this scenario, LPS could be recommissioned in the future when NSW's power needs are high and demand is continually unmet, as was the case in Germany in 2022 when they reopened a major coal fired power station that had been mothballed, in response to a shortage of other energy generation.

Likewise, I would also support the retention of LPS for future Nuclear Power using the present infrastructure.

I object to the virtue-signalling demolition of Liddell power. The station should at least be mothballed and maintained in a state to be restarted when it is required, such as has recently occurred in Germany. Wind and solar CANNOT substitute for thermal power stations as evidenced by experience here and overseas - they both consume more resources and produce less, and if batteries are added environmental damage is greater still. 2022 AEMO data showed wind only delivered 29% of nameplate capacity and solar less than 20%. Australia has ample coal, gas and uranium - it is incomprehensible that we are short of electricity and prices are so high. This is an engineering, political and economic leadership failure plain for all to see. Logically the Liddell site should be redeveloped with a new coal fired plant, or a closed cycle gas turbine system, or nuclear. The site is already degraded industrial land with all the necessary utilities such as transmission lines and cooling water.

Dear Sirs,

I wish to make a comment on the options.

It may be that carbon dioxide does not cause warming, and that we need coal fired power stations on this site.
Then we will realise the madness of crowds, Mackay "Memories of Extraordinary Delusions".
There are many individuals and groups who believe this, especially professional, retired, academic, intellectual and those not beholden to an employer. You may explore all these from wattsupwiththat.
I enclose a copy of a submission by an islander, Bud Bromley, Big Island, Holualoa, to Hawaii's bureaucracy.
Regards,

Name Withheld
[New post] Human CO2 causes no global warming

You forwarded this message on Fri 26/05/2023 9:29 PM
You forwarded this message on Fri 26/05/2023 9:29 PM
budbromley








To: You
Fri 26/05/2023 4:47 PM
Site logo image budbromley
Human CO2 causes no global warming
budbromley

May 25

The following text are my comments to a very elaborate and long draft proposed plan by a commission on the island of Hawai'i island to the County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department.

You may use my comments to respond when such Net Zero proposals occur in your community. The official Hawai'i island (county) website for this draft is linked below. My comments below appear at the end of the first sentence of the executive summary.

If this Integrated Climate Action Plan (ICAP) is enacted, it would destroy the economy. We could be the next Easter Island.

Summary of my comment: There is no valid scientific evidence that human-produced greenhouse gas causes "unprecedented warming" or global climate change or global warming. Therefore, there is no need to reduce human-produced CO2. Even if we humans reduce our CO2 emissions, there will be no significant or measurable reduction in global CO2 concentration and no significant change in temperature. The consulting firm McKinsey & Co estimated the cost of the global “Net Zero” plan is $9 TRILLION per year. It would be an extremely wasteful exercise in futility.

Quoting Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (31 March 2021. Zoom call Clintel Foundation), quoted by his permission, “Stop treating it [i.e. AGW…human-caused global warming/climate change] as a worthy opponent. Do not ascribe reasonableness to the other side. It is not reasonable, not true, not even plausible.” Dr. Lindzen also said, “So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to reduce trust in and support for science.”

The scientific hypothesis that human-caused greenhouse gases such as CO2 causes global warming is "not reasonable, not true, not even plausible."

In the words of John F Clauser, BS, MA, PhD (all in physics), the 2002 Nobel Laureate in Physics, "The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world's economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world's large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science."

What is the reason to waste my tax dollars and yours on an implausible and unproven hypothesis? Doing so would be malfeasance on the part of public officials. I hereby register my complaint. CO2 is food for plants in ocean and on land. There are proven and substantial benefits of increased global CO2 concentration. (I will be happy to supply these to ICAP upon request.) But there are no substantial negatives even if CO2 concentration were ten times higher. CO2 is not pollution, it is plant food. The ONLY way carbon gets into the plants is by plants absorbing CO2 gas from the air and water. Plants then form carbohydrates in their cells by photosynthesis with sunlight and water.

There are many objections to and errors by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC.) For example, thorough analysis by Clintel shows serious errors in the latest IPCC report. This Clintel report is an analysis of the latest IPCC report AR6 and is signed by over 1500 scientists and qualified people, including me. link here: https://clintel.org/coming-soon-the-frozen-climate-views-of-the-ipcc/

To give you a feel for the extraordinary errors and omissions by the UN IPCC, here is an excerpt of the press release, so you get an idea of what was found:

"The IPCC ignored crucial peer-reviewed literature showing that normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and that human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920. The IPCC, by cherry picking from the literature, drew the opposite conclusions, claiming increases in damage and mortality due to anthropogenic climate change. These are two important conclusions of the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, published by the Clintel Foundation.”

“The 180-page [Clintel] report is – as far as we know – the first serious international ‘assessment’ of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report. In 13 chapters the Clintel report shows the IPCC rewrote climate history, emphasizes an implausible worst-case scenario, has a huge bias in favour of ‘bad news’ and against ‘good news’, and keeps the good news out of the Summary for Policy Makers.”

“The errors and biases that Clintel documents in the report are far worse than those that led to the investigation of the IPCC by the Interacademy Council (IAC Review) in 2010. Clintel believes that the IPCC should reform or be dismantled." Link here: https://clintel.org/thorough-analysis-by-clintel-shows-serious-errors-in-latest-ipcc-report/

This Clintel report is only one of many over the last several decades documenting the many problems with the IPCC. Thousands of real scientists have signed many documents, letters, and petitions in protest of the scientific and political hoax being perpetrated by climate activists and politicians, and multiple letters and petitions from multiple countries to Secretaries General of the United Nations. I will be happy to supply the ICAP with many petitions and lists of scientists and other qualified signers from around the world.

The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change is another example. Among other statements, it declares “Now, therefore, we recommend …That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth…“That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.” Since its creation in March 2008 by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change has attracted more than 1,200 signatories from 40 countries, including over 200 climate experts. https://www.icsc-climate.com/manhatten-declaration

Despite the expense of billions of dollars, UN IPCC and other proponents of the hypothesis of human-CO2-caused global warming have produced no verifiable evidence to support their hypothesis. Computer models are not evidence. Computer models are only hypotheses, and so far the computer models “substantially” overstate warming, and this is admitted by modelers and as shown by analysis of the models against actual temperature trends.

“In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble,” reads the first line of the abstract of lead author, climate scientist Ben Santer’s 2017 paper in Nature Geoscience http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/SanterEtAlNatureGeosci17.pdf In other words, the actual temperature trends were less than their models.

Their models cost taxpayers billions of dollars and they want trillions more dollars.

Michael Mann (of the infamous and repudiated “hockey stick” warming graphic in Al Gore’s science fiction movie) as well as other climate alarmists were co-authors on the paper. The abstract continues: “Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, MODEL tropospheric warming is substantially larger than OBSERVED,” (Capital letters are mine for emphasis.) In other words, their computer models substantially overestimated the global warming which has been observed in the real world.

Contrary to non-stop reports in mainstream media and government agencies, most scientists do not support the narrative that there is a climate crisis. That narrative is propaganda. Instead, the real problems are the activist proponents of a non-existent climate crisis and their use of heavily-funded, fear-based propaganda to indoctrinate citizens and children, essentially yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Following this climate alarmist agenda is not a legitimate use of Hawai’i taxpayer resources.

There is no valid evidence of unprecedented global warming. Earth has been warmer in the past. Nor is there evidence that human-produced CO2 from burning fossil fuels causes statistically significant