by Chris Morris & Planning Engineer (Russ Schussler)
What they are doing and what issues are occurring
Australia is transitioning from a coal fired generation system to one based on solar and wind. There is an accelerated program to do this driven by both major political parties. There has been a lot written about the developments, mainly as advocacy, and many relevant facts are not mentioned. The proponents see the transition as world-leading while the skeptics believe the country will become the crash test dummy proving it won’t work. Already there have been major issues. Those in themselves and the remedial actions needed are harbingers that increasing penetration is likely to lead to a very expensive and unreliable electrical energy system.
The country isn’t the image the travel posters promote. More than 80% of Australians live within thirty miles of the coast and an even bigger percentage in urban areas. The big cities are hundreds of miles apart around the continental edge. These factors have had a major influence on their grid. Until quite recently, the system was primarily supported by large multi-unit coal fired power stations, located next to the coalfields. The transmission lines ran from them to the cities they served. There was very little interconnection. This was influenced by the very parochial political system.
Australia is a federal system, with six States and several Territories. The States jealously guarded their rights and had regular disputes with both their neighbours and the Federal Government. Interstate rivalry can go beyond a joke. Each State originally ran their own electricity system. Gradually this expanded and interconnectors between States were put in. As well as the AC lines, there are three DC interconnectors including a near 200 mile undersea cable joining Tasmania to the mainland. The interconnectors are ties between the State grids allowing interstate flow, but they often act as chokepoints.
In the 90s, the National Electricity Market (NEM) started. The name is a misnomer. Western Australia, about a third of the country, isn’t a part of it as it is too far away to link. Neither are the numerous isolated towns not connected to anywhere. Part 1 deals with grid as it is now in the Eastern and South-eastern States.
The management and operation of the electrical system is complex and mainly market driven. At the top is the Energy Regulator, a federal agency enforces the rules, monitors the markets, sets the revenue for the monopolies and is the arbitrator for disputes. Together with them is AEMC (Australian Energy Market Commission) who make and amend the rules but they can’t propose them. The federal AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operator) is the System Operator, running their electricity (and gas) markets. The market is run on a merit order dispatch, subject to load requirements and constraints. Negative pricing is allowed to ensure must run generation. For every trading period, originally half an hour but now five minutes, the generators submit a power and price. This can be graduated. This is arranged in increasing price forming a total MW versus price stack. The price paid to all dispatched resources is where the load line crosses this merit order stack. Some plant may be constrained on or off, regardless of their place in the merit order. There are also a number of secondary markets for services like reserves and frequency control.
Most of the generators are owned by companies which seek to run at a profit. They can connect to the grid if they comply with the rules. There can be problems connecting if there are no local lines or the ones there are overloaded. They generate when dispatched. For those like wind and solar who are semi-scheduled (a euphemism for unreliable) there are special rules around their bids.
Each State has a transmission grid company that owns and operates their high voltage network. There are distribution companies for the low voltage networks that have territories for which they are responsible. For example, NSW (New South Wales) has three of these. Both Transmission and Distribution are natural monopolies so are run as regulated ones.
There are a myriad of electricity retailers. Some are generator based retailers (gentailers), providing a customer load for their generation. Most retailers have longer term contracts with generation companies for their load requirements. There are niche suppliers who run on spot market prices but have backup hedges for their load requirements. Some market gas or internet as a package. The NEM supplies around 9 million customers – they are the group that ultimately pay the cost of both operation and capital development.
To this market has to be added the uncontrolled domestic generation by solar panels. These make up a significant and increasing part of the generation base. In one state one day, they provided over 90% of the instantaneous generation. The installations are supported by subsidies and generous feed-in tariffs. Most households do not have batteries.
AEMO does the forecasting. They look at factors like government policy, load predictions, generation development plans, system security requirements and the like. They use these to put out a variety of regular reports; some general, some specific, detailing what changes need to be made. The transmission companies are responsible for execution and to get funding approval from the regulator. As well as these, if a major incident occurs, they will put out a report detailing what happened, why and what changes need to be made. These often feed back into the other reports.
That is how it all fits together. Needless to say, the bureaucracy cost is high and there is a lot of employment for administrators and lawyers. The maps here show the location in each State of the transmission system and generators, both existing and proposed ones. The NEM supplies around 9 million customers – they are the group that ultimately pay the cost of both operation and capital development.
Cost to consumers
The renewables are subsidised to varying extents. Because it can be present at different levels and through different forms right down to the domestic level, it seems no one is exactly sure how much renewables are subsidized. However, the power price has risen over the 40 years at twice the rate of inflation with prices really taking off in 2007, coincident with increased renewable energy target. The authors are unaware of any detailed breakdown of exactly what has caused this rise other than the corelation with RET (Renewable Energy Target). The power price is still going up. We note the Ukraine war was blamed for part of the rises, even though Australia imports no electricity or thermal power station fuel. In contrast with reality, the AEMC just two years ago, and others more recently, predicted power would be getting cheaper by now. Even if it is not in the power bill, the price of these subsidies comes from somewhere and eventually are paid for by the taxpayer.
Where the Renewables are currently at
Wind and solar, the unreliables, are now a significant part of the current NEM generation but the backbone is still coal – over 60% of the energy. Wind is less than 15% and grid solar 5%. The snapshot below when the sun wasn’t shinning shows the contribution coal still makes. There is also the significant presence of domestic PV. Because it is mainly behind the meter, there is no accurate data on its precise magnitude. But scaling up the contribution of grid solar and allowing for less efficient installations, it would be in the order of another 10%. However, even at those levels, the intermittency and unpredictability has had major detrimental impacts on power stability. Note the instantaneous power contribution can be a lot higher that the numbers quoted above. This article mainly looks at just the broader problems of its unpredictability. Later postings may cover a more detailed analysis of some specific problems that have occurred so far.
Management of the grid on a day-to-day basis depends on reliable generation and dispatchability. The renewables offer neither. For wind, there is often the mantra that the wind is blowing somewhere. The actual data does not back that up. A skeptic has for a number of years compiled the daily wind generation on the NEM. The results are revealing. The graph shown below is for just one month, June 2022. There is a synchronicity in the output of all the windfarms. To cope with the drop in those declines from wind, that is a lot of power that needs to be quickly ramped up. If the wind isn’t blowing and it is night-time, where will the energy to make up the dip come from? The mainstay 400MW+ coal units that form the background of the energy supply can take three days to get to full load if cold.
Solar can be just as bad. On 1st and 4th July, 2022, the power from solar those days in Queensland was only a small fraction of what it had been the previous week or so. On the 4th, there was a cloud bank over all of eastern half of state all day and little wind production as well. The interconnectors from NSW were at rating with imports and the market price was at the maximum $15,000/MWh.
Proponents of the renewables boast about how places like South Australia (SA) achieved near 100% renewable energy generation, often around the middle of the day, implying they could do it all the time. What they don’t say, because it spoils the narrative, is a lot more instructive. Look at the generation profile below of one such day. They had to keep the gas turbines on to provide inertia. These had to generate most of the load before dawn and at dusk because the wind wasn’t there. Battery provided very little. The balancing interconnectors to Victoria that allowed near 20% export or coal fired power to come in were important if not essential. Without the gas power and the Heywood line, SA would have been in real trouble.
Even on a “normal” day, the merit order in SA is akin to a switch. When the sun is out and the wind is blowing, the merit order is in negative pricing. When it’s not, prices go up, often around $400/MWh. That raises costs for the distribution companies which pass it on their customers.
Heywood’s interconnector play a lot bigger everyday role in buffering SA’s erratic generation than renewables proponents will admit. In the right conditions, up to 40% of the State’s load come in through its lines. That stabilises its voltage as the frequency is locked onto that of the NEM. There is a smaller interconnector from north-western Victoria, but this is DC so it has a lot less of a role. Heywood’s benefit was demonstrated during an islanding outage in November. During the outage it cost the grid operators in just two days $22M just to provide Frequency Control services. These are what used to be called governor control on grids with a lot of inertia and big steam turbines. On modern grids, many thermal plants, especially gas turbines can run in this mode. Things often happen a lot faster with less conventional generation, so the corrections of frequency control have to be sped up. Grid operators promote batteries are capable of this function, but that is making a virtue out of a necessity. All those islanding costs will need to be paid by either the power consumer or the taxpayer. That is why SA has the most expensive power of any of the mainland States in the NEM.
The examples above show the unpredictability NEM grid operators have had to regularly cope with. It is relatively easy to match load and generation when conditions are just right. However, that it generally takes a very fine balance backed up by a lot of very expensive plant infrastructure. Much of it is not needed for day-to-day operations. However, when things go wrong, they can turn catastrophic in a very short time. The grid power supply to major infrastructure within a city may be 99.99% reliable, but can it cope with the power unpredictably being out for an hour a year which that number is? Reliable electricity isn’t just a nice to have for modern life, it is essential.
Forty years ago, Australia had an electricity system delivering cheap, reliable power. That is no longer the case. Development and change have been driven by politics and dogma, not engineering and economics. Things that work are being replaced by that which looks good to virtue signallers, especially to those that don’t understand the issue. Prices have risen a lot faster than inflation. Even then, the number on the power bill is probably not the full cost as there are hidden ones. The authors are unaware of any recent study of the price that takes into account or even identifies all the subsidies. However, for the money expended, they should have had a capable, robust, gold-plated system. It isn’t. The system staggers from crisis to crisis, the solution usually being more rules, market interventions and invariably, a subsidy. The price of electricity fluctuates between glut and scarcity, even on a daily basis. Large industrial users like smelters are downsizing, offshoring, or getting another subsidy. Australia used to be referred to as the lucky country. That may no longer be the case.
Next up: “Australia Part 2; A Grid revolution around the Corner? Or Just the Madness of a Crowds?” Will look at efforts within Australia to reduce the need for synchronous generators and allow for high penetration of renewables. Additional posts may follow covering other issues within Australia.
Bio: Chris Morris is a long-time but irregular commenter on Climate Etc. He is a semi-retired power station engineer in New Zealand.
Making a complex system more complex is creating a “bug looking for a windshield.”
A very informative post. Looking forward to the next episodes.
Thank you both. Very interesting.
PE’s comment from the article – “For wind, there is often the mantra that the wind is blowing somewhere. The actual data does not back that up. ”
Also part of ” The manta is the sun is shining when the wind isnt blowing”
The Energy Information Association – EIA.gov is a wealth of info. One of the data links for the US is electric generation by source. That data site shows that the mantra is often not the case, but the lack of wind is a continental issue, typically happening for 2-3 days at a time across the North american continent usually twice a month.
Same with Germany’s electric generation. Note that I havent been able to find comparable real time electric generation by source data for any country except germany or Australia.
Note also that Jacobson’s 100% renewable feasability studies/claims rely on that manta with a need of only 4-6 hours of battery backup.
This was written:
with a need of only 4-6 hours of battery backup.
We already have battery systems that back up huge grids, some for a few seconds, some for a very few minutes. They are gaining, but none of us will live long enough that it can stabilize the grids.
… so all of this economic damage is being done for what reason? Ah yes, now I remember. A key driver is the illusion that the trace gas CO2 controls our water planet’s climate, not withstanding the complexity of the movement of the sun’s energy around the globe. Worse, is the delusional belief that mankind can control the planet’s CO2 levels.
Trillions of dollars wasted while making life even more miserable for the poor and middle class.
About 200 worldwide scientific organizations hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action:
http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html
I think I’ll go with their expertise instead of your’s.
impressive list of scientific organizations
Curious if any have done any actual studies on the cause of the warming?
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of Mozambique
american academy of pediatrics
EPA – has the EPA ever done any actual science studies
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
american public health association
nation academy of science Sri lanka – same society that promoted agriculture that caused the famine in Sri Lanka
Usual Appellations crabwalk.. None of those organisations held any sort of comprehensive canvassing of their members.
Just activists leveraging themselves onto the boards and committees and then using the umbrella integrity.
Ianl’s comment – ianl | March 3, 2023 at 9:12 pm |
Usual Appellations crabwalk.. None of those organisations held any sort of comprehensive canvassing of their members.
“Just activists leveraging themselves onto the boards and committees and then using the umbrella integrity.”
appleman’s comment – “Thanks, but I don’t put any stock in your opinions about the subject of climate science, or my replies here about it. I’m comfortable with the state of my knowledge, while always trying to learn more.”
In concurrence with ianls comment – Apple gets a tremendous amount of his knowledge from activists sources and is unable to distinguish solid science from activist science. Yes – everyone of the boards of those organizations endorse the AGW theory, though Apple is probably unaware that the endorsement of the theory by the respective members is substantially thinner. Common activists problem – no effort to do any due diligence on the underlying data to ascertain the validity of the conclusion.
The feasibility of ‘nett zero’ is …… zero!
ianl wrote:
None of those organisations held any sort of comprehensive canvassing of their members.
“AGU Position Statements Now Open for Member Comment,” By AGU, 13 September 2019.
https://eos.org/agu-news/agu-position-statements-now-open-for-member-comment
“Just activists leveraging themselves onto the boards and committees and then using the umbrella integrity.”
Leveraging themselves…how? By a Union-wide vote of the members? Some leveraging :-)
Appleman’s comment in response to Ianl -“Leveraging themselves…how? By a Union-wide vote of the members? Some leveraging :-)”
Appleman – you might want to become familiar with how things are done in the real world.
You might also try some basic due diligence
Joey – an (lol) account, wrote:
“Just activists leveraging themselves onto the boards and committees and then using the umbrella integrity.”
There isn’t a climate scientist in the world who doesn’t accept anthropogenic climate change.
Oh, maybe a goofball like Joe Bastardi.
Now a mere accountant is going to set these tens of thousands of professional scientists straight and show them why they are all wrong.
Been watching…but haven’t seen anything.
joey the (lol) accountant wrote:
Curious if any have done any actual studies on the cause of the warming?
You’ve just told us you have never read the science and know nothing about the history of climate science.
You are ignorant and irrelevant.
Again, why should I pay attention to you?
joe wrote:
impressive list of scientific organizations
You cherry-picked a few you must think are meaningless, as if they don’t have scientists in Africa or Pakistan. (Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons, do you know.) Typical.
Of course, you know there are many very prestigious organizations on that list. You ignored them all.
Perhaps these will be talked about in Part 2:
1) curtailment amounts and costs per year?
2) percent of year which NEM prices are negative or zero?
3) what are the types of peaker pricing and generation capacity? If Australia doesn’t have natural gas – my understanding is that coal is generally not good for peaker use. So is Australian peaker generation, diesel? I would also note that AU$15K per MWh max system price is pretty damn high; even with the AU$ vs. US$ exchange rate delta, it is significantly higher than say, Texas maximum system price.
Apologize if this is a repeat – the first try seems to have disappeared. Also weirdly – I first saw 6 comments; after the failed post – I now see 5 comments!?
What I tried to post:
Perhaps these will be answered in Part 2:
1) What are curtailment payments and amounts per year?
2) What percent of the year are NEM prices zero or negative? (if at all)
3) What are the types of peakers used in Australia’s grid? As I understand it, coal is not well suited for peaker use. Australia doesn’t have much natural gas(?), so unless it is hydro – peakers might actually be diesel. The peak system pricing is also really high: AU$15K/MWh, even with the 3 to 2 conversion vs. US$, is much higher than the Texas max system payment of US$5K/MWh – although this is a recent drop from the prior $9K/MWh.
Australia does have natural gas. We are one of the biggest exporters of LNG.
…exporters of LNG. At the expense of the domestic requirements.
Thanks for the note. I looked it up and Australia does indeed produce a large amount of natural gas. But only 20% of electricity is produced from natural gas – why?
Nor does this appear to be a regional issue; there seems to be natural gas production both in East and North Australia as opposed to the low population West.
Pipeline NIMBYism?
There is no coal in the West and they have a domestic hold imperative on LNG found in the west which may impact (with other green legislation) on future gas investment. The south east where most people live (Sydney, Melbourne) is a long way from new LNG sources in the north and leftist/activist govts in the south are bizarrely discouraging new fields. SNAFU for sure
At this point warnings will not be heard, much less heeded. The interesting questions are (1) when and (2) how the renewables bubble will burst? I have seen nothing on this.
The feed in tariffs in Western Australia for solar went from 26 cents a kw/h to about 6 cents now, and they are talking about charging people for contributing. Recently they closed our coal mines but realising they still need the coal fired power stations to run because of inherent instability in solar, are shipping coal from NSW.
Andrew – can you elaborate / explain in better detail what “feed in tariffs” means 26c to 6c. I just need some clarification
thanks
“A feed-in tariff (FiT) is a credit you can receive for any unused electricity sent back to the grid. Also known as a buy-back rate.”
https://www.energyaustralia.com.au/home/solar/feed-in-tariffs
Terrific summary of the state of the NEM and the political issues. During the COVID lockdowns the Queensland Premier stated that Queensland Hospitals are for Queenslanders. I wonder when we have some serious power generation issue the next proclamation might be Queensland electrons are for Queenslanders and to hell with the NEM!
How interesting, as an Australian, to read this post. It confirms much of what I have suspected. One obvious source of power would be nuclear, especially as Australia has the raw materials and is a vast, stable continent … so, of course, that is totally off the table even for discussion.
“driven by both major political parties.” The previous government was a Liberal (mainly city based)-National (mainly country and towns away from the metropolises) Coalition. The Liberals support for Net Zero definitely heavily reduced their support and perhaps cost them the election. They are a mixture of warmists and rationalists, several of the Nationals are anti-emissions reductions. The Greens and related groups have a major impact because of their numbers in the Senate, and are very extreme warmists.
The two slivers of hope are that (1) the Greens are so extreme that they might not back the ALP’s very warmist plans and (2) the ALP has made several stuff-ups, has launched many extreme policies which it denied or hid before the election, and we have inflation levels and falling house prices/rising repayments which will turn many against the ALP government – not on the warming issue, but if the Coalition see sense there might be a slight hope of less damaging policies. (I am a former economic policy adviser to federal and State governments.)
I have posted your last two paras at The Australian online, with a reference to Climate Etc (links generally get booted); but it’s still “Pending” after more than an hour. Fingers crossed.
Chris & Russ,
You have described the wilful destruction of a professional system into a basket case as Australia’s activists, greens and befuddled bureaucrats inserted themselves unasked by the people into a largely a free enterprise system that was a global leader.
It cannot be easy to be so comprehensively bad.
Then, we endured more amateur hour ignorance with Covid directives that were often contrary to the experienced advice of proper medical professionals acting doctor to patient and n the old way.
This double whammy will now be tested if the war in ancient Russia will suck Australian amateurs into sending our youngsters to their deaths. Wait for it.
You authors do valuable work by highlighting the threats from turning decision trees upside down. Is it worth noting that among the alphabet soup of authority acronyms, not one has been given the specific task to warn governments about unsafe companions•? Geoff S
The authors says they are uncertain of the amount of subsidies that renewables receive. At least they’re honest. They forget to mention that fossil fuels received $11.6billion in subsidies in Australia in 2021/22.
They also say of the electricity price rises since 2007 that they “are unaware of any detailed breakdown of exactly what has caused this rise” other than – wait for it – it correlates with the implementation of the renewable energy target. This is very poor science that I’m sure the authors themselves would condemn if someone else made this casual connection. They may wish to see when Australian coal and gas started to be priced at world parity prices.
The transition to renewables will undoubtedly be a rocky one, even AEMO recognises that, and they are planning the requirements to make it happen.
I believe this trend is common internationally. The comparison of “subsidies” for fossil fuels to renewables is typically skewed by what’s counted and ignored by advocates. Typically many indirect subsidies to renewable are ignored, while he kitchen sink gets thrown in for fossil fuel.
https://energyinformationaustralia.com.au/research/loose-with-the-truth/
US Federal and state taxation is my field with a moderate emphasis on oil and gas taxation. The advocates claims of fossil fuel subsidies rely heavily on distortions, basic logic errors and massive arithmetic errors. The most fundamental logic error is claiming a tax deduction for an out of pocket cash expenditure is a “subsidy”. As PE noted, the advocates ignore actual costs charged to oil industry that is ignored by the advocates such as higher rates of royalty interests retained by the federal government on federal leases or the 4-7% state severance taxes imposed on oil and gas, the severance tax which is a tax on gross revenue, not net income. Note that the severance tax massively exceeds the combined total of the supposed subsidies. Frequently added into the subsidy column are those externalities (what ever they maybe).
I will state that the percentage depletion allowance in excess of basis can legitimately be called a subsidy, though it is limited to non integrated oil companies, individuals, certainly not the majors. That is the only tax deduction that can even be remotely considered a subsidy under any definition. All the other “tax subsidies” claimed by the advocates are purely fiction in the advocates minds.
What is disappointing is that these distortions and mispresentations of subsidies persist in advocates minds and get repeated over and over. Its a poor reflection of basic analytical skills of those who continue to repeat the fiction.
joe wrote:
US Federal and state taxation is my field with a moderate emphasis on oil and gas taxation. The advocates claims of fossil fuel subsidies rely heavily on distortions, basic logic errors and massive arithmetic errors. The most fundamental logic error is claiming a tax deduction for an out of pocket cash expenditure is a “subsidy”.
The biggest subsidy is the damage costs of fossil fuel products that are not paid by the industry — due to air pollution, acid rain, and climate change. Profits are privatized, costs are socialized. Nice work if you can get it.
David Appell | March 3, 2023 at 11:11 am |”The biggest subsidy is the damage costs of fossil fuel products that are not paid by the industry — due to air pollution, acid rain, and climate change. Profits are privatized, costs are socialized. Nice work if you can get it.”
Appleman – it would be nice if your knowledge of science and economics wasnt stuck in the 1980’s.
Acid rain has largely non existent due to better technologies being used.
Air quality has greatly improved since the mid 1900’s. One of those bogus talking points from advocates – Advocates claim death rates from air pollution is increasing as the air gets cleaner.
Claiming the fossil fuel companies dont pay for those externalities is akin to claiming farmers dont pay the cost of their waste product after human consumption. hint that is consistent through all industries
Joe
Thank you for weighing in. The oil and gas depletion allowance has long been a whipping boy by the left. But they aren’t the only ones who have laws affecting their taxes encouraging more investment and business expansion and more jobs. Every corporation in every field receives some form of favorable tax treatment. Thank God for that, otherwise we would look like Venezuela.
This link is to IRS Publication 16 for all active Corporations. Pages 35-36 show that all Corporations had receipts of $35.9 Trillion and $33.6 Trillion in deductions, some of which affect the oil and gas industry.
There are reasons businesses get deductions. If we diminish incentives to invest in expanding their operations and the resultant jobs everyone is less well off. Some never see the connections between businesses making profits and more jobs.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p16.pdf
joe wrote:
Appleman
Let me know when you are able to show a decent amount of maturity and decorum — something above a 5th grade level — and I’ll address the points you raised in your reply.
David Appell | March 3, 2023 at 11:44 am |
joe wrote:
Appleman
Let me know when you are able to show a decent amount of maturity and decorum — something above a 5th grade level — and I’ll address the points you raised in your reply.
My apologies – perhaps a mirror would be appropriate.
On a more serious response – you get mocked for your comments because you display such a myopic delusional knowledge of basic science. Your then extrapolate from the disinformation of science and reach conclusions which have no relationship with reality.
Virtually every response you have given shows a complete lack of the basic knowledge of the subject matter and yet from that lack of basic knowledge you inject a meaningless response.
joe wrote:
My apologies
Apology accepted, thanks.
Virtually every response you have given shows a complete lack of the basic knowledge of the subject matter and yet from that lack of basic knowledge you inject a meaningless response.
Thanks, but I don’t put any stock in your opinions about the subject of climate science, or my replies here about it. I’m comfortable with the state of my knowledge, while always trying to learn more.
joe – the non climate scientist | March 3, 2023 at 9:11 am |
About what a subsidy is.
I understand that for many years, there has been a tax in Australia on diesel fuels, to help pay for road repair and renewals.
If you have a vehicle that does not go on the roads, then its user should not have to pay this tax.
Therefore, such users are able to claime a rebate from their initial pump cost of purchase. They include many farmers and miners.
…..
Some people who have come to hate hydrocarbon fuels are now arguing that this rebate is a subsidy. Clearly, it is not a subsidy, but one can show this time after time and they will continue to class it as a subsidy.
I call that fibbing. Geoff S.
Geoff – my field is US federal and state taxation, so I am not familiar with australia. The US does have a federal excise tax on gasoline with a refundable credit for non road use, primarily farmers, which appears similar to your description of the Australian fuel credit. Since the tax is a tax on road use, rebating the tax for the portion of tax not used on the road shouldnt be considered a subsidy, though it may get included in the subsidy bucket.
I havent seen this item included in the usual lists of subsidies published by the activists in the US.
I will say, the activists use great amount of distortions of the facts / reality of computing the $’s to be considered subsidies along with basic mental gymnastics to characterize tax deductions for cash expenditures as subsidies. Even with the assumption that a specific item is a “subsidy”, there are huge basic math / arithmetic errors in the computation.
joe …
> Geoff – my field is US federal and state taxation, so I am not familiar with australia. The US does have a federal excise tax on gasoline with a refundable credit for non road use, primarily farmers, which appears similar to your description of the Australian fuel credit. Since the tax is a tax on road use, rebating the tax for the portion of tax not used on the road shouldnt be considered a subsidy, though it may get included in the subsidy bucket.
What about including as a subsidy that EVs use the roads but don’t pay into the highway tax fund via gasoline/diesel taxes at the pump? There was talk about raising registration fees, but I haven’t seen where those/any plans have been initiated. Have you?
Bill F – yes EV’s not paying a road use tax would be a subsidy. Especially since the amount of wear and tear on a road is heavily related to the weight of the vehicle. EV’s have tend to be relatively heavy vehicles due to battery weight, where as gas powered vehicles are somewhat lighter , along with the weight drops as fuel is used, compared to EV’s whose battery weight doesnt drop and electricity is discharged.
PE’s comment above hits the nail on the head – “Typically many indirect subsidies to renewable are ignored, while he kitchen sink gets thrown in for fossil fuel.”
Joe – in the US mining companies, including oil production, get a tax break called the depletion allowance. This is often called a subsidy for fossil fuels, but applies to mining any sort of ore or depletable resource. Obviously, it takes into account that as a ore body is mined, there is less value in the remaining ore. But Climate Doomers persist calling it a subsidy.
Jim2
In response to your comment regarding depletion – please note my prior comment addressing depletion.
“I will state that the percentage depletion allowance in excess of basis can legitimately be called a subsidy, though it is limited to non integrated oil companies, individuals, certainly not the majors. That is the only tax deduction that can even be remotely considered a subsidy under any definition.”
section 613A of the internal revenue code. Cost depletion is not a subsidy.
I dont work in the area of hard mineral ores, so I cant comment on the depletion allowance for hard minerals, thought the concept is similar.
One of the largest “subsidies” in Australia is the Fuel Tax Credit. It is actually a reduction in taxes paid on fuel. It applies to all businesses, including fossil fuel producers. Mining or and oil production consume fossil fuels, so they also get a tax break. I don’t consider a tax break a subsidy. It’s still a tax and you still have to pay tax. It’s more an Albatross than a subsidy. You really have to research anything that matters to you. Spin is the new Truth. And the old Truth is Hate Speech.
>”It is actually a reduction in taxes paid on fuel. It applies to all businesses, including fossil fuel producers.”
Nope, nowhere near the truth.
There is a public road tax use imposed on diesel fuels, mostly used in heavy transport machinery, but including road-going passenger vehicles that use diesel fuel. The legislated purpose of this tax is for maintenance of public road damage caused by heavy transport.
Primary producers (designated mostly as farmers, miners, fishers) are entitled to refunds of diesel tax paid on an annual basis, generally during financial end-of-year returns. The logic for this is that those categories of enterprises do not use public roads to produce, rather they generate and maintain their own road systems. In the case of the professional fishers, I have rarely seen a fishing trawler sailing down a major city road.
Courtotge
I am not a scientist. I am an engineer. I deal in facts.
Australians have regularly been promised renewables will make for cheap energy if they convert to all renewables faster but the prices have continually gone up. Why is that? What is I believe the most recent inquiry put the price rises down to increasing network costs (aka the costs of incorporating renewables) and wholesale (but no new coal stations). Why has SA got the highest wholesale cost when it has the least fuel use? https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Retail%20Electricity%20Pricing%20Inquiry%E2%80%94Final%20Report%20June%202018_0.pdf They didn’t state it was renewables so I didn’t include it.
Most recent price rise applied for which was greater than rate of inflation was blamed on the Ukraine war. How did that affect things? Then there is Snowy 2 price has gone from $2B to about $20B when all the transmission needed is factored in. Was supposed to be running now wasn’t it?
Which are the thermal stations that are supplied coal at minehead prices less than what the miners could get shipping it overseas?
As others have pointed out, your subsidy statements have no basis in facts. The same could be said for the rest of your comment.
Chris Morris,
You ask why South Australia (SA) has the highest wholesale cost. The answer is simple. Its not because of the high penetration of renewables. Its because SA has always had a high wholesale price going back to the 1990s when it was reliant on fossil fuel generators. And the reason is what engineers call “economy of scale”. SA is the smallest of the mainland states being 2x to 4x smaller than the other states. Tasmania is smaller still but it has the advantage of long term hydro generators with zero fuel cost.
You fail to respond to my point that the reason for power price increases can be attributed to the shift to world parity pricing of domestic coal and gas. For example, wholesale gas prices have more than doubled since 2010.
You ask how Ukraine war affected electricity prices? Gas prices spiked four-fold! And those coal plants exposed to world coal prices saw similar jump in fuel costs.
With regard to the subsidy amount, I accept the comments made, so I withdraw the comment and replace it with the approach used by the article’s authors:
“Fossil fuels are subsidised to varying extents. Because it can be present at different levels and through different forms right down to the domestic level, it seems no one is exactly sure how much fossil fuels are subsidized.” There, fixed it!
The manta the fossil fuels get huge subsidies is a delusion myth repeated non stop by advocates who have zero comprehension of what they are talking about
Courtoge
Which Australian coal plants are exposed to world steaming coal prices when they have minehead supply? Or is that another one of your imaginary facts? The coal price rise started May 2021. When did Ukraine War start?
In 2018 (the last complete breakdown data I have) SA had the highest wholesale electricity and network costs 41% and 38% of 36.5c/unit), yet it had the most renewables. Of course, now they have $4000/MWh because the sun stops shining, no wind and they have to fire up all their diesel engines. Or is that a fossil fuel subsidy so the price should be higher?
The main reason why gas got so expensive was Victoria and NSW governments banned natural gas exploration.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-18/gas-australia-crazy-policies-renewables/101543822
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-20/aemo-triggers-emergency-gas-powers-for-victorian-supplies/101254300
Because they then had to get gas from Queensland where the LNG exports are from, it exposed the other states to world prices. So it was an own goal – blaming Ukraine was just to hide their own incompetence.
Just like SA dynamiting their coal station but are happy to import power from the Latrobe lignite stations.
Chris,
Now and then I have used Aust Bureau of Statistics Consmer Price Index numbers to compare moves over the years in some sectors. Graphs of movements depend on a few factors, here especially that date or year at which a conparison is chosen to start.
An example graph is below. I am reluctant to use these (not my specialty) but will simply note that other readers can easily access this data and present it how they wish. It is free, comprehensive, presumanly ‘unadjusted’ for woke purposes and not all that hard to use once you get the hang of it (1 hour or so). The break at 2006 or so is prominent and possibly needs more description from those more expert than I am.
Thank you for your articles to data.
Geoff S
http://www.geoffstuff.com/cpi2022.jpg
Chris Morris,
You ask which Australian coal-powered plants are exposed to world prices. May I suggest you study this article by the peak body representing power generators. https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/cost-of-coal-most-important-but-overlooked-factor-in-power-prices/
which quotes Bloomberg report that “shows that the cost of coal power generation in the NEM has doubled from 2016 levels, in line with seaborne thermal coal prices.”
You might also ask why the government is proposing to cap coal prices to generators in yet another ‘subsidy” as a result of spiking prices caused by the war. (Don’t mention the war!)
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/13/coal-fired-power-plants-could-receive-bulk-of-price-cap-compensation-treasury-briefings-suggest
You say that you work on “facts”. So I decided to check the “facts” for myself. And what did I find? The Australian Energy Regulator data shows that in 2021/22 and 2022/23(YTD) the highest wholesale prices in the NEM were in Queensland and NSW not South Australia as you claim. Queensland and NSW have the lowest penetration of renewables in the NEM.
https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-statistics/annual-volume-weighted-average-30-minute-prices-regions
As I said before, the transition to low emissions will be full of bumps and missteps. I think AEMO recognizes this as you can see from their most recent paper on operating the NEM with 100% renewables. There are still plenty of unknowns to be sorted out..
Your reports seem to be opposite to those in Wattclarity,
https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2022/11/market-players-are-poking-the-bear/
Canstar says SA has the highest domestic prices – the power consumer which is what I wrote
https://www.canstarblue.com.au/electricity/electricity-costs-kwh/
If SA has cheaper wholesale, why is their retail so expensive?
Pingback: Australian renewables integration: Part 1 - Climate- Science.press
By “subsidies” what do you mean? Cash, unique tax advantage, or anything actually tangible which historically has been the meaning of subsidy.
If by subsidy you mean a cost which should have been applied and wasn’t I think it is worth pointing out this is the other type of subsidy – the imaginary type.
It is frequent in Australia to hear that there were 11bn or 40bn in government subsidies. Common sense would smell a rat if you know that we spend about 60 on health and about the same on Defence. You would definitely notice even one billion in direct subsidies. The reality is we heavily tax fossil fuels but we hand out taxpayer cash for solar panels.
Pingback: Australian renewables integration: Part 1 | Watts Up With That?
The Morris/Schussler article here is reasonably accurate. It is indeed a mess and will in a considerable number of experienced views, kill people. Those of us who have been part of the power system, and perhaps still are, are of the view that even resulting deaths (possibly from the inevitable rationing) will likely be insufficient to force reversion.
It is also true that heavy industry such as smelters are actually paid to reduce or cease production during periods of power shortages brought about by lack of wind. The ABC news report linked to by the Morris/Schussler article [Large industrial users like smelters are downsizing, offshoring, or getting another subsidy] crabwalks this by refusing to detail how such a subsidy is administered. The end result of that deliberate sleight of media hand is that most people simply do not believe that producers are paid large sums of tax to *not* produce.
Pingback: Australian renewables integration: Part 1 - USA weather forecast
Pingback: Australian renewables integration: Part 1 - Lead Right News
Pingback: Australian renewables integration: Half 1 - news page
Pingback: Y2Kyoto: Blunder Down Under – Small Dead Animals
America was discovered by both the Vikings and Spain using renewable energy. So, we know it’s possible but currently only by subsidizing China to manufacture windmills and solar cells but, to do so, China uses supplied by the making coal, gas, atomic energy, central planning and forced labor, no?
The people who believe we can provide our energy needs with solar power are the same people who believe humanity and not the sun is responsible for all global warming.
And they are the same people who believe the Federal Government, the Tooth Fairy, Tinkle Bell and Elf on the Shelf create national wealth by dropping it down from Heaven.
Wagathon commented:
….are the same people who believe humanity and not the sun is responsible for all global warming.”
All the science shows that humanity is responsible for global warming, and not the sun.
And there’s a huge consensus on this among scientific societies:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Wag’s comment – “America was discovered by both the Vikings and Spain using renewable energy.”
True – though it took 2 months 9 days for columbus to cross the atlantic. Now it takes approx 7 days.
Smil has written two Excellent books about the history of energy use throughout human history.
How the World Really Works: The Science Behind How We Got Here and Where We’re Going Hardcover – May 10, 2022
by Vaclav Smil .
both books to a good job explaining the basics.
The Energy Realists of Australia have done a mountain of work on this, Anton Lang (Tony of Oz) is one of use, this is a list of the resources on out site (still a work in progress). https://www.flickerpower.com/index.php/search/categories/general/list-of-briefing-notes
Chris & Russ, I’ve got a technical question. Recently in both articles and promotional videos it’s been mentioned that the stability of Australia’s grid, with its flood of solar, wind and batteries, can have its inertia maintained by the widespread application of synchronous condensers. Is this feasible? Can the inertia lost with the loss of coal-fired power stations, be replaced by the inertia allegedly gained by a fleet of condensers?
Part 2 will discuss synchronous condensers. They provide inertia. I would say it’s possible, feasibility is more uncertain.
When you do, can you discuss repurposing old coal turbines to be used as inertial condensers? It’s one of the things that’s been floating about.
PE – perhaps you can give an explanation on how synchronous condensers work to supply inertia. They dont supply power (at least not as I understand ).
Are they simply there to modulate the electron flow in that critical 60mhz frequency as wind electric production bounces up and down during the day (often by minute by minute due to gusting). Are they simply a variation of a voltage regulator?
thanks for any insight.
Joe, the key is to understand what inertia is…
It is the same when considering the stability of the grid as it is in classical physics. Synchronous condensers are large rotating machines, just as large steam driven turbine-generators are large rotating machines. Since they will not be steam driven, they will also require power to keep them spinning. So they will consume real power and provide reactive power and inertia.
They maintain grid stability by resisting a change in frequency, just as the inertia in a car resists a change in speed.
If you analyze the short circuit response of a system containing large motors you will see that a large amount of the short circuit fault current is being fed from the large motors on the system. This is an example of the large motors inertial energy supplying fault current. That same energy helps maintain grid stability.
Agnostic2015 – Already written. Free preview below:
To be clear, synchronous condensers are great things to have on a grid. They were infrequently used in the past because so many synchronous generators were typically present to support the grid. Wind and solar are creating need and synchronous condensers have been rebranded as “syncons”. One of the authors has made recommendations in the past at various times to convert retiring plants to operate as synchronous condensers to better support the grid. The structures of ownership and cost sharing doomed such strategic considerations. As Australia is judging it worthwhile to incur the full costs of new synchronous condensers, perhaps policy changes could be made to allow even more economic conversion especially as asynchronous renewables are increasing their penetration levels most everywhere. Often it would make sense to keep old coal plants around to provide both emergency generation and synchronous resources when needed. If that’s not possible, consideration should be given to at least keep them as synchronous condensers. Part of why neither is being done is that many are proud to virtuously claim that they are shuttering coal plants. When multiple plants are closed by a solitary action, you know little thought is going into the specifics. Beyond that, flawed market and cost recovery schemes are causing many opportunities to be missed. If others learn from Australia the value of synchronous condensers (especially at low cost from retiring plants), that will be a great thing.
PE & Doug & Agnostic
I am going to need better explanation of how Sychro condensers help stabalize the grid.
In the case of a fossil fuel plant, when the flame goes out, the motor’s inertia is still spinning so, there is some level of electric generation such that there is not a sudden shift in frequency.
Not sure how that is accomplished with the synchro condensers since they dont generate any power. Are they simply moderating the frequency? Are they simply consuming some level of power which has the effect of maintaining frequency. If so, are they not a drain on electric generation vs actual generation of power in a fossil fuel plant
Thanks for more complete explanation of the mechanics
Joe
There will be more of an explanation about inertia in Part 3
chris thanks – just wanting to be sure I understand the mechanics
Joe (the non climate scientist)….Chris Morris has a website where he goes into this. Basically my understanding is that the grid has to be maintained at cycle rate within very small tolerances. The demand fluctuates from second to second and the inertia of the large spinning turbines convert prevent the rate dropping to low in the case of greater demand, or too high in the case of reduced demand.
Because renewables are asynchronous, meaning they do not synchronise with the grid, there needs to be some way for them to match or follow the grid frequency. One way is to actually build big “condensers” that are powered by renewables and have the necessary kinetic inertia, and another is to repurpose coal turbines to convert energy into kinetic inertia.
It’s something like that though no doubt they will explain it properly.
Synchronous condensers consume energy. They just contribute one of many “green” energy schemes that add cost to producing and distributing electricity. Just because something can be done does not mean it is a good idea to do so. Especially if it hurts the poor.
Pingback: Australian renewables integration: Part 1 | ajmarciniak
Sadly, the rush to replace fossil fuel power with unreliables by virtually all western woke “leaders” is a serious global – not just national – security risk. Neither Russia, China, or any of our enemies are reducing their use of fossil fuels, much less trying to replace them with a non-solution to a non-problem. We are in dangerous times, and the western “leaders” in Australia, the UK, the EU, and too many in the US (although there are some in congress who are pushing back, just not sure if it will be enough) along with a completely corrupt media and completely corrupted educational system are at fault for this risk. Imagine how well the US could defend itself once the SPR is completely drained and our refining capacity has been seriously curtailed. The western world is becoming weaker and weaker due to the idiotic climate policies and our enemies are just biding their time until they know that we are effectively defenseless.
Barnes Moore commented:
Sadly, the rush to replace fossil fuel power with unreliables by virtually all western woke “leaders” is a serious global – not just national – security risk.
And what’s the risk of not replacing fossil fuels with non-carbon sources?
There is zero risk except in the demented minds of true believers. And, if your “solution” is to replace fossil fuels with unreliables, how do you plan on mining for the raw materials which requires the use of a lot of heavy machinery, process those materials (e.g., separate the overburden from the ores needed), transport the materials to a manufacturing facility, power the energy intensive manufacturing process, transport finished products to their ultimate destination, prepare sites for wind turbines/solar panels, maintain them, decommission, and dispose of them without using fossil fuels.? The net is that unreliables don’t produce enough energy to power the machinery required to reproduce themselves. I doubt you have any idea of how much mining activity is required to produce the raw materials required to produce wind turbines or solar panels. Here is a hint – per unit of energy produced, roughly 10 times the amount of raw materials is required for unreliables.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-reality-check
Barnes Moore commented:
There is zero risk except in the demented minds of true believers.
Tell me you don’t understand the first thing climate change without telling me….
This is such a poor, silly, unrealistic and unscientific claim. It’s not even worth my time trying to debunk.
Barnes Moore wrote:
Here is a hint – per unit of energy produced, roughly 10 times the amount of raw materials is required for unreliables
How much energy is required to produce coal, oil and natural gas, compared to the energy they produce in raw form?
PS: The raw materials for renewables only have to be mined once, unlike the fossil fuels.
After they are mined once they go on to produce energy for a long time. Show your calculations.
A virtual trove of verbal flatulence coming Appell yet again. He cites an article from 2017 that claims “China’s unnecessary clinging to coal seems to be a temporary, transitional phenomenon that will gradually wan …”
So, when can we expect to see the waning begin? A clip found in several recent articles referencing 2022: “China approved the construction of another 106 gigawatts of coal-fired power capacity, the equivalent of two large coal power plants per week and its highest in seven years, new research has shown”.
And more: “The amount of new capacity connected to the grid had slowed in recent years after a decline in new approvals over the 2017-2020 period, but it is set to rebound over the next few years, driven by concerns about power shortages”
and “However, renewable power capacity additions have remained at record levels, with solar installations at 87GW in 2022 and that capacity is expected to rise further in 2023”.
So, let’s unpack this a bit – China is setting records for unreliable power capacity installations yet still finds it necessary to set new records for coal fired power capacity to avoid blackouts. Brilliant.
As to wind turbines and solar panels lasting a long time – their lifespan is a fraction of the life span for thermal power plants. Wind turbines are designed to last 20-25 years, yet it is not uncommon for them to fail in 15 years, or for major components to be replaced. Solar has a lifespan of maybe 25 years, and the efficiency of both deteriorates with each passing year. Thermal plants last decades and even indefinitely with proper maintenance, and their efficiency does not decrease.
And, wind and solar can’t produce sufficient energy to power the machinery used to reproduce themselves – they are 100% reliant on fossil fuels from cradle to grave.
You need to familiarize yourself with Mark Mills – from the linked article: “Compared with hydrocarbons, green machines entail, on average, a 10-fold increase in the quantities of materials extracted and processed to produce the same amount of energy” And, because those “green” machines fail far more frequently than those “dirty” machines, the amount of mining is actually far higher than what he states. Here is the link again, try reading it this time as well as other of his articles. https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-reality-check
Barnes Moore wrote:
Neither Russia, China, or any of our enemies are reducing their use of fossil fuels, much less trying to replace them with a non-solution to a non-problem
“China’s energy transition sees ‘staggering’ progress on renewables — and a coal power boom: China is recognized as the undisputable global leader in renewable energy expansion, adding new projects to the grid almost as fast as the rest of the world combined last year,” CNBC 3/8/23.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/08/energy-chinas-renewables-progress-comes-alongside-a-coal-power-boom.html
China emits half the CO2 per capita than does the US and Australia.
We’re the dirty energy hogs, not them.
If wind and solar are so great, why is China building all those coal plants? My be is because they need something to back up all those unreliables.
What a crock. China produces more CO2 than the US. Period. A per capita basis doesn’t change that fact. It also doesn’t change the fact they are building coal plants to beat the band. When China finally wages war with the West, you have to realize you are on the tribe they are attacking. Tribalism is a good thing sometimes. This is one of those times. Or maybe you plan to join the China tribe. Or maybe you already have.
Barnes Moore wrote:
If wind and solar are so great, why is China building all those coal plants? My be is because they need something to back up all those unreliables.
“China is Now the Biggest Producer of Solar Energy in the World,” Futurism, 2/6/17
https://futurism.com/china-is-now-the-biggest-producer-of-solar-energy-in-the-world/
“How China is leading the renewable energy revolution,”
Aug 29, 2017.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/08/how-china-is-leading-the-renewable-energy-revolution
“Basically, China’s unnecessary clinging to coal seems to be a temporary, transitional phenomenon that will gradually wan as the country continues its complicated, jarring transition away from sluggish, dirty state-owned industries towards leaner, more sustainable models of business and energy production.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/07/08/if-china-is-so-committed-to-renewable-energy-why-are-so-many-new-coal-plants-being-built/?sh=63c230445918
“A child born in Beijing today has a substantially longer life expectancy (82 years) than a child born in Washington, D.C. (77 years).”
– Nickolas Kristof, NY Times 4/3/19
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/opinion/trump-china-trade-deal.html
jim2 wrote:
What a crock. China produces more CO2 than the US. Period. A per capita basis doesn’t change that fact.
Jim2 greedily thinks he has a right to emit more CO2 than a citizen of China.
China emits more because, obviously, it has more people. After all, it’s a much, much older society than the US.
It emits much less per capita than do Americans. Jim thinks Americans have a special right to emit CO2.
By that silly argument England, France and Germany all have a right to emit more CO2 per capita than does the US. So does every country in the world except Canada, Australia and a couple countries in the Middle East.
What Jim won’t acknowledge is that the US has *already* emitted twice as much CO2 as has China. Per country.
The US are, and have been, the energy hogs, not China.
jim2 wrote:
When China finally wages war with the West….
Or when the US finally wages war on China…which they are doing in some ways already.
I never fail to be amused by the occasional “approving” links to my posts on WattClarity by retired engineers and other self-proclaimed experts who actually have very little comprehension of electricity markets, and a surprisingly patchy understanding of the grid physics they like to pontificate about. I’d suggest you guys go and spend more time educating yourselves and less time penning misleading screeds like the effort above.
You mean guys like mark Jacobson?
The expert who has never worked in the industry
That’s too much to unpack it all. Where is the slam on being retired coming from? Also you seem to be implying all retired engineer are self-proclaimed. Does retirement lead to the automatic loss of credibility? Who proclaims you? Who else potentially can proclaim experts? Is there something beyond professional registration? Did you apply or was it by invitation only.
I’m not sure why you are slamming the people who like your posts or parts of your posts. Rational people don’t feel reqquired to agree or disagree with everyone wholesale. If you don’t buy all my arguements, I’m happy if you accept some. Is it because they are not being lead where you want them to go? I’m thinking so, because you didn’t express concerns about deficiencies or errors in our piece, rather you just judged it misleading. Corrections are good for errors, amplification is good for improper misleading statements, but derision provides very little of value to anyone.
@ Allan O’Neil. If you are such an expert on the subject, why do you find it necessary to stoop to an ad hominem? Or is it that you are truly ignorant on the subject and just feel like complaining about the subject matter?
Where the article says:
“There was very little interconnection. This was influenced by the very parochial political system.”
it seems to imply that a more interconnected system is necessarily a good thing. Given that the states already had some interconnectors and one-to-one deals, what exactly was the expected benefit of moving to an Australia-wide regulator, operator, etc.
Strikes me that decision to federalise it was not technical, but influenced by Australia’s ever-expanding political system.
Pingback: Australian renewable energy transition. Part 3 | Climate Etc.
Pingback: Australian renewable energy transition. Part 3 - News7g
Pingback: Australian renewable energy transition. Part 3 - Climate- Science.press
Pingback: Reliability is the Fatal Flaw (and Conceit) Behind Net Zero