Home
Wind home


Mr Taylor's first statement (on the right) also made it as lie of the month for December 2012


On this page...

Out of touch
Gross exaggeration
Cherry picking
Lost argument
Stop These Things
Failed anti-wind farm rally
Fantasy Land
Minister Taylor
Criminal
Mr Taylor's background
Related pages
Index

Angus Taylor, a gobsmackingly dishonest minister

A page of the Wind Power Ethics group*

Mr Taylor has made the demonstrably ridiculous statement that wind power is "gobsmackingly inefficient" and "it is also clear that there are much cheaper ways to reduce carbon emissions". I went to his Facebook page and challenged him to justify the second statement. After a bit of to-and-fro, he realised he was losing the argument and deleted the conversation. Fortunately I had recorded it and have published it below.

South Australia went from near zero renewable energy in 2003 to over 50% in 2018; most of this being wind power. Contrary to the lies of people like Mr Taylor South Australia's adoption of renewable energy has been a huge success, there have been no power failures due to the variable nature of renewable energy in SA.

The fact that more than 70% of electricity generation installation world-wide in 2017 was renewable, and 29% of that was wind power, shows that renewables in general and wind power in particular are viable and very competitive to the fossil fuelled power that Mr Taylor likes and supports.

Written 2012/12/07, modified 2018/10/08 – ©
Contact: email daveclarkecb@yahoo.com (David Clarke)
Wind home


On 2018/08/26 Mr Taylor became Australia's Energy Minister. Has there ever been, anywhere, a Minister for Energy so dishonestly biased against renewable energy? While Mr Taylor is Energy Minister how can any Australian have any pride in their nation?

Related pages...

Wind energy opposition
Liberal's war on renewables
Other politicians
Senator Ron Boswell
Senator Chris Back
Senator Sean Edwards
Senator John Madigan
Rowan Ramsey


Google search this site


Waterloo Wind Farm
Wind farm
One of the wind farms that Mr Taylor loves to hate.


Mr Taylor is out of touch with the Australian people, out of touch with reality, shamelessly
dishonest and doing his best to stop Australia from grasping a huge economic opportunity.

 
Wind generation overtakes nuclear in China
Nuclear and wind in China
Wind is overtaking nuclear, next one to go will be coal.
Graph credit Earth Policy Institute
 
Warren Buffett's $1B wind purchase
Bloomberg Businessweek reported, 2013/12/17, that Warren Buffett's utility company MidAmerican Energy Holdings had ordered 1050 megawatts of Siemens AG (SIE) wind turbines for projects in Iowa; apparently the largest order to date for land based wind power.

Perhaps Mr Taylor should tell Mr Buffett that he's making a big mistake because of the "gobsmacking inefficiency" of wind turbines?

What do the Australian people want?

A Lowy Institute poll carried out on 1,200 Australian adults on 2018/06/20 showed that 84% of Australians wanted the government to "focus on renewables, even if this means we may need to invest more in infrastructure to make the system more reliable".

A poll of the people in Mr Taylor's electorate showed that almost twice as many wanted to see Australia decrease its emissions faster, rather than slower.

Blind Freddy could see that there is no future in the coal industry and that Australia's energy future is in renewables but Mr Taylor is trying to deny this great opportunity to Australia.

Plainly the Australian people want renewable energy, not more coal power.
Plainly the Australian people want action on climate change.
Plainly Mr Taylor is out of touch with what the people in his electorate want.
Plainly the world's and Australia's future is with renewable energy not fossil fuels.

Has there ever been a federal minister more out of touch with what the Australian people want, what is best for Australia and what the world needs?

I've written about who wants renewable energy? elsewhere on this site.


The potential for economic growth in the energy sector is with renewables, not fossil fuels

The world outside of the Australian government recognises that renewable energy is the future, fossil fuels are the past.

A consortium has proposed the Asia Renewable Energy Hub in Western Australia's Pilbara to install 11 GW of wind and solar power and export electricity to Indonesia and possibly Singapore via undersea cables. They have secured funding from the Macquarie Group. The total value of the development is likely to be around Aus$20 billion.

As Parkinson wrote, "The scale of the project is enormous – equivalent to more than the entire capacity of large scale wind and solar projects being built for the national renewable energy target."

If Mr Taylor has anything to do with it he would probably stop the development because of his hatred for wind power.

I have written more on Australia's likelihood of missing economic opportunities because of Mr Taylor's prejudices elsewhere on this page.




Mr Taylor misrepresented the reasons for the recent reductions in electricity prices

In a piece in The Guardian, 2018/09/30, journalist Katherine Murphy states:
"... while there is evidence from market analysts and analysis from the government's energy bodies that renewables has led the price drop because of a big increase in supply contracted into the market courtesy of the renewable energy target, Taylor attributed the recent reductions to the government's intervention in the gas market, and regulatory reforms, including forcing retailers to be more transparent about their pricing."

And Origin Energy

In a piece titled Origin says solar cheaper than coal, moving on from base-load in RenewEconomy, 2018/10/02, Giles Parkinson reported Greg Jarvis, the company’s head of energy trading and operations as saying:
"I have been in this game for so long … the one thing I have seen is just the cost of renewables really change the game. It is amazing what we have been seeing."

"Renewables are cheaper than the marginal cost of black coal at the moment. They are very cheap."

And

"... with China now mulling a dramatic lift in its 2030 renewable energy target to 35 per cent from 20 per cent, the chances are that the costs of both wind and solar will fall dramatically again."
Giles Parkinson also wrote:
"Jarvis also made it clear that Origin Energy has moved on from thinking about new generation in terms of “base-load”, which stands in sharp contrast to current government thinking and the conservative commentariat."

And British Billionaire Sanjeev Gupta

Sanjeev Gupta, the man who saved Whyalla's steel works and is investing a billion dollars in renewable energy developments in Australia was reported by Sophie Vorrath on RenewEconomy, 2018/07/23, as saying "Renewables are cheaper than coal."; "It's obvious".

Mr Gupta is investing in renewables because he can see that is where the future of energy lies. If Mr Taylor was as canny as Mr Gupta and we using his own money rather than the taxpayers' money he would also be going with renewables rather than fossil fuels.






Mr Taylor's statement about wind power being "gobsmackingly inefficient" is obviously absurd

The Chinese installed 13 000MW (about 5000 wind turbines) in year 2012, the year in which Mr Taylor made his statement. For the ten years to 2012 the Chinese economy has grown by about 9 per cent per year. This suggests that the Chinese know what they are doing, but perhaps if the Chinese had our Angus Taylor to tell them how "gobsmackingly inefficient" wind turbines were they would manage a growth rate of 15 per cent per year? Angus, do China Australia a favour; move to China.

Unlike Mr Taylor, the people in charge of the Chinese economy believe that wind power is very efficient. (I've written about the efficiency of wind turbines elsewhere on these pages.)

Wind energy is recognised world-wide as being a highly viable form of renewable energy and it is growing exponentially. Mr Taylor is right in one thing; we should be looking at all the possible ways in which we might reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but perhaps Mr Taylor does not realise that most of the strategies he recommends are already being pursued. In his opposition to wind power he is out of touch with almost all those who want to reduce emissions.

PJM, the independent grid operator for all or parts of 13 US states produced a report that confirmed that wind energy is decreasing both the price of electricity and emissions of harmful pollutants. (See Into The Wind.) This totally contradicts Mr Taylor's stance on the 'inefficiency' and 'high cost' of wind power.

Mr Taylor's association with Alan Jones and the ignorant anti-wind power blog Stop These Things would be enough to make the more perceptive of the public sceptical of his utterances, but this is probably not the audience he is aiming at.






Gross exaggeration

 

A crime against humanity

I have argued on another page that to knowingly and dishonestly oppose action on minimising climate change is a crime against humanity.

Mr Taylor is standing in the way of the fight against climate change and is therefore condemning future generations to a much inferior planet. Surely that is a crime against humanity, and not just against humanity, but against all life on earth.

In a letter to the Editor of the Goulburn Times (published 2013/08/10) Mr Taylor wrote "The exorbitant costs of the RECs flows through to the cost of electricity, making it much higher for every electricity consumer in the nation."

A recent report from the Clean Energy Council gave a very different picture. The following was extracted from the CEC report:

  • The NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal put the cost of the RET at "around 5 per cent of the average annual bill in NSW".
  • The Queensland Competition Authority put the cost of the RET at "approximately 3.5 per cent of the total bill".
  • The Australian Energy Market Commission "estimates that the RET is around 3 per cent of the current unit cost of electricity and that this will drop to 2.5 per cent in the coming years.
 
Top
Wind home
Index





Mr Taylor picks some cherries

 
Median prices for Cape Bridgewater/Cape Nelson – commissioned 2008/09
Median prices
 
Median prices for Challicum Hills – commissioned 2003
Median prices
 
Median prices for Codrington – commissioned 2001
Median prices
 
Median prices for Toora – commissioned 2002
Median prices
 
Median prices for Waubra – commissioned 2009
Median prices
 
Median prices for Wonthaggi – commissioned 2005
Median prices
 
Median prices for Yambuk – commissioned 2007
Median prices
This example of Mr Taylor's activities in trying to discredit wind power shows how he is willing to quote any 'evidence' at all, no matter how dubious its value, if he believes it might be useful to him.

Cherry picking is the selection of evidence that suits ones preconceptions, while ignoring all the evidence that is contrary. Wind power opponents often use cherry picking.

The overwhelming bulk of the evidence on land prices and wind farms tells us that the presence of a wind farm has very little effect on land values. For example, the US Berkeley Laboratory analysed more than 50 000 home sales near 67 wind facilities in 27 counties across nine US states, yet was unable to uncover any impacts to nearby home property values. See Into The Wind, 2013/08/26.

The graphs on the right were created using data from propertyvalue.com.au by Victorian Greens MP Greg Barber (see here). Each is in an area where a wind farm has been built. The graphs clearly show that there are no long-term declines in land values associated with wind farms. I have produced similar graphs from South Australian property values (using realestate.com.au), but as they all show the same trend as Greg's graphs it seems superflous to display them here.

Peter Reardon's 'study' of land values

Mr Taylor chose to ignore this and many other major professional studies coming to similar conclusions and grasped a study by a lone real estate valuer that claimed to show big falls in land prices near wind farms. The study that Mr Taylor liked, because of its conclusions, concerned three properties; those that Mr Taylor did not like concerned tens of thousands of properties.

The Financial Review on 2013/10/14 published a piece on registered land valuer Peter Reardon who produced a report stating that land values can fall by 30% or even 60% due to nearby wind farms. Not surprisingly this report has been spread around by those who oppose wind power, including Mr Taylor. A critique of the study can be read on Renew Economy.

How many properties near wind farms were involved in Mr Reardons study? Three.

How were the properties chosen? We were not told.

What other factors might have been involved in the perceived values of the properties?

Mr Reardon tells us that one of them, 'Cullerin' (lots 21, 22, 24 and 25, Hume Highway and Lerida Road), has the Hume Highway passing through it. This is probably the busiest interstate highway in Australia, with trucks going through at all hours of the day and the night. Certainly any sound from the wind farm would not be a problem, no-one would hear the turbines because of the traffic noise. Mr Reardon writes about the properties in the area being attractive to 'tree changers' and people looking for a country 'retreat'. Who would want a hobby farm within a few hundred metres of the noisiest highway in the nation?

Since the original writing of this piece further information has come to me via a third party and apparently from the new owner of the 'Cullerin'. It seems that it is bisected by not only one (as Reardon stated) but two high voltage power lines; not only is the highway passing through, but there are also two truck parking bays (so there would be trucks starting and stopping, with all the noise associated, at any time of the day and night) and 30% of the block has water-logging and drainage problems. Is it at all surprising that this block had a low market price?

Mr Taylor used Reardon's study in an article published in the Goulburn Post on 2013/10/21 as sufficient evidence to claim that:

 
Top
Wind home
Index
"The study shows potentially dramatic negative impacts on the value of property located near wind farms. In some cases, land has been identified as dropping up to a staggering 60 per cent in value."
Well, not actually in 'some cases' Mr Taylor, Mr Reardon's study claims a 60% lower value in one case (Taylers Creek Road). One of the three cases showed no change in value.

More news 2013/10/28; It seems that Mr Reardon reported an incorrect selling price

The property at 243 Taylers Creek Road, Tarago, that Mr Reardon reported was sold for $250 000 is listed in Tarago Real Estate as having been sold for $295 000.

Another update; 2013/11/06

This came to me indirectly and I was told it was from the agent that sold one of the example properties, 243 Taylors Creek Road:
"I was the selling agent for the Taylors creek road property and can confirm the sale price of $295,000. I have seen Peters report before and upon reading it I phoned him to point out the mistake. He said that he would correct it, but I guess some original publications are being used?

The property in my opinion was overstocked and generally in a bad state of repair including fencing/weeds and, mains power connection would be expensive, due to distance. I had the property on the market for 4 months and of the 3 genuine inquiries, none were concerned about the close proximately of the turbines to the western boundary. All were concerned about the cost to improve the pasture, fencing and rubbish removal."

And what did Mr Taylor say about all the studies that show negligible negative impact on land prices? Nothing.

The graphs on the right were created using data from propertyvalue.com.au by Victorian Greens MP Greg Barber (see here). Each is in an area where a wind farm has been built. The graphs clearly show that there are no long-term declines in land values associated with wind farms.

 
House prices at Edithburgh
House prices at Edithburgh
Edithburgh is the closest South Australian town to a wind farm, Wattle Point, which was completed in 2005.
The graphs above were all from Victoria. This graph of house prices in a South Australian town uses values from realestate.com.au and shows that prices there were not adversely affected either. No other sizeable town in SA is within 3km of a wind farm.



Subsidies? Cheaper ways of reducing carbon emissions?

In the same Financial Review article Mr Taylor
"vowed to continue his campaign against 'the bad economics' of heavily subsidising wind energy developments, when there were 'far cheaper ways to reduce carbon emissions'"
Mr Taylor has made these statements before; they do not stand up to scrutiny.

Mr Taylor has listed 'changes in building practices', 'home solar water' and 'household energy efficiency' as some measures that are much cheaper options for reducing emissions than wind energy. It is quite true that these things should be pursued and they are being pursued, but they are not enough, and it is not easy for governments to make people or businesses save energy.

Mr Taylor is unable to specify any cheaper ways of reducing emissions that are both practical and are not already being pursued.


Are wind farms really subsidised? What about fossil fuels?

Utility scale wind power is not generally subsidised but the operators do receive a bonus on the electricity that they produce. This adds about 1¢ to the price that consumers pay for each kilowatt-hour of electricity (typically around 25¢).

On the other hand, the highly polluting fossil fuel industry is heavily subsidised and is a major cause of climate change and ocean acidification, but this does not seem to concern Mr Taylor.

 
Top
Wind home
Index





Mr Taylor loses an argument, cuts and runs

This section records an exchange between Mr Taylor and me that was held on his Facebook page in late 2012. When it became clear that Mr Taylor was losing the argument he deleted the Facebook record.

 

Other contributors

There were three other contributors to the discussion. I did not record what these people wrote at the time. I retrieved two contributions later, but at least one was lost and I was not sure where and in what order the two I had fitted in. For the sake of simplicity and brevity I have included only the statements from Mr Taylor and myself here. Apologies to the other contributors.

Cost of reducing emissions

Mr Taylor's figure of $60-100/tonne as the cost of reducing carbon emissions via wind turbines seems excessive. While it is difficult to be sure, it seems that the cost of wind-generated electricity is around $80/MWh; Wikipedia puts it at around $100/MWh. I believe that the cost of coal-fired electricity from an existing power station is around $40 (Wikipedia puts coal-fired electricity for a new power station at around $100/MWh). It seems from these figures that coal is only cheaper than wind if the old power stations are kept going, not if you have to build new ones.

Fugative emissions from coal-seam gas

Mr Taylor referred to 'non-conventional' gas; this is a 'weasel word' for coal-seam gas (CSG), which is methane. Methane is weight-for-weight over a hundred year period 20 times more efficient at trapping radiation than carbon dioxide. There is increasing concern that fugitive emissions from CSG operations could be a major problem.

McKinsey reports

Two of the other contributors (Richard Mackie and David Perry) pointed out that Mr Taylor referred to a report by McKinsey (see on the left, at the end of Mr Taylor's statement) that was five years old and that there was available a 2012 update aimed specifically at Australia. Far from supporting Mr Taylor's claim that "there are much cheaper ways to reduce carbon emissions" than wind power, this McKinsey report stated:
"Onshore wind is currently the most cost-effective of the renewable-energy technologies after hydroelectric power. Unlike hydroelectricity, which we assume cannot feasibly be expanded, onshore wind capacity in Australia has room to grow. Barring major technological breakthroughs in other areas, it is expected to remain relatively cost-competitive through to 2030, by which point we assume it has the potential to capture over 15 percent of energy production."

Clarke:
Mr Taylor, you said in the Goulburn Post some time ago "It is also clear that there are much cheaper ways [than wind turbines] to reduce carbon emissions". Could you please tell the world what those much cheaper ways are? We desperately need to know.

Taylor:
David, wind power is a very expensive way to reduce carbon emissions. Reducing carbon emissions via wind turbines costs around $60-100/ tonne. [Questionable, see the box on the right] The current Australian carbon tax is $23, and carbon credits in Europe are less than $10. The reason these prices are so much lower than the cost of abatement via wind, is there are many other cheaper options than wind (which is why wind needs a big subsidy over an above the carbon tax). These alternatives include changes in building practices, home solar water (in the right places), household energy efficiency measures, [*] and replacement of coal with CONVENTIONAL gas to reduce emissions (and even non-conventional from the right locations). Other promising technologies include geothermal and photovoltaic cells, but these are still quite expensive. If you are interested, you will find much more detail on the cheaper options to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in this very good piece of research: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/coaltech/2007_05_mckinsey.pdf". [This is an old report, see the note in the box on the right.]

Taylor:
David, By the way, this is widely accepted amongst energy experts. It is not particularly controversial, but it is amazing how the facts don't matter when a debate gets emotive. Thanks for your interest! Angus

Clarke:
 
I was wrong here, China installed 18GW of wind power in 2011, and another 20GW in the first three quarters of 2012. China's total installed wind power at the end of 2011 was about 50GW, at the end of the third quarter of 2012 it was about 70GW; they were expected to add another 8GW in the last quarter of 2012. (See cleantechnica)
I see that the Chinese are on track to install 18GW of wind power this year, that's seven times all the wind power we have in Australia. They must think that wind is cost-effective. You would say that they are wrong? You are right that we should explore other options, but wind power has the greatest potential to replace fossil fuels, as shown by South Australia going from 0% to 26% wind power from 2003 to 2011 and its percentage of coal-power going from 42% down to 25% over the same period. You are right about the potential of solar PV (and solar thermal has a lot of untapped potential), but you should know that geothermal has been tried in Oz over the last ten years or so and has not been successful.

Taylor:
 
Mr Taylor liked statements such as "let's focus on the facts" and "no amount of spin will change that". Perhaps it was a part of his training as an aspiring politician.
Thank for your interest, but let's focus on the facts. Wind power is almost irrelevant in the Chinese grid - it is too expensive to play a real role. China CURRENTLY has around 1,000 GW of generation capacity growing at around 6-10% per year (60-80 GW per year) - 18 GW of wind turbines running at 30% utilisation (which is typical wind utilization) is irrelevant. China is using wind as a means of building an equipment supply business to the developed world - it is an insignificant as part of China's energy policy. The truth is that nearly all of the hew capacity is Coal, with some gas and nuclear. No amount of 'spin' will change these facts.

Clarke:
Angus; Irrelevant? Insignificant? Accepting your figure of 60-80GW additional electricity generating capacity in China each year, and 18GW of that being wind power, [it is easy to calculate that] from 22-30% of the power infrastructure they are installing is wind. No amount of spin will change this fact. Yes they are installing a lot of coal; it is cheap and dirty.

Taylor:
 
Actually, coal runs at around 85% availability, wind more than 95% availability, but about 34% capacity factor (in SE Australia), which is probably what Mr Taylor is referring to.

From greentechmedia: "According to the GTM Research-Azure International report, China's wind industry is on track for a cumulative 80 gigawatts by the end of 2012 and 150 gigawatts of installed capacity by the end of 2015." This is a targeted growth rate 23GW per year. Where did Mr Taylor get his figure of 8-9GW per year? (On the left) Let's focus on the facts Angus!

David, let's focus on facts, not rhetoric. Even if the Chinese managed to get all of those turbines up, remember that coal runs at near 100% utilisation, wind at around 30% (in a good spot!). So divide your numbers by more than three. Then recognise that to get that outcome, they have put in place large subsidies. Moreover, remember that China is targeting growth of about 8-9 GW per year between 2011 and 2015 - not 18 GW per year. I know the Chinese energy market well - wind is not playing any relevant role solving their major problems, because it is too expensive. BUT let's get back to the core issue - Stern, Guarnaut the IPCC and other leading climate change 'thought leaders, recognise that wind is an expensive way to reduce carbon emissions. Please read the article up above - it is clear, widely accepted and well researched.

Clarke:
As you said, let's focus on facts, not rhetoric.

Fact; You claim that wind power is "gobsmackingly inefficient" and "it is also clear that there are much cheaper ways to reduce carbon emissions". Yet China is building many, many wind turbines; apparently more wind power than any other form of renewable energy except, perhaps, hydro (if you can call Chinese hydo renewable, considering the environmental damage and displaced population). Are you implying that the Chinese are stupid?

Fact; coal fired power stations run at about 85% availability, not 100%; the remainder of the time they are shut down for routine maintenance or for breakdowns. (Wind in SE Australia, by the way, has an average capacity factor of 34%, not 30%.)

Fact; burning coal causes a huge health burden. A paper published in the prestigious health journal, The Lancet; "Electricity generation and health", by Anil Markandya and Paul Wilkinson (Sep 15-Sep 21, 2007; 370, 9591; Research Library pg. 979), regarding coal-fired power in Europe, stated that air pollution from coal fired power stations result in 24 deaths and 225 serious illnesses per Terawatt-hour of electricity generated. 1GW of coal-fired power station running at 85% capacity factor would generate about 7.4TWh of electricity in a year, from which, if it was in Europe, you could expect about 180 death and 1700 serious illnesses each year. You can probably imagine how much worse it would be with the laxer pollution standards in China. Yes, wind power is more expensive, but it doesn't kill people.

 
Burning fossil fuels also is causing ocean acidification.
Fact; Coal-fired power is one of the major causes of climate change and gas-fired power produces about half as much greenhouse CO2 as does coal.

Fact; Coal-seam-gas causes leakage of the highly active greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere and still produces CO2 when it is eventually burned.

Taylor:
David, I have an updated abatement curve with the same results in hard copy. I'm sure you'll find the soft copy if interested - it was central to the Copenhagen and subsequent debates. I'm sure you are well enough informed to know the core results have not changed for what is required to reach targets in the next few years. You will also find that Stern, Garnaut and others don't see abatement from $60-80 options in the short to medium term. Let's move on people, Angus"
At this point Angus Taylor deleted the conversation from his Facebook page!





Mr Taylor is a fan of Stop These Things (STT)

The fact that Mr Taylor is a contributor to, and apparently an admirer of, the anonymously authored anti wind power site Stop These Things which specialises in name-calling, abuse, ad hominem (personal) attacks and has a blatant disregard for the truth, tells us quite a lot about Mr Taylor.

I have written about and linked to several independent assessments of Stop These Things elsewhere on this site.

If the author of STT was to make his (the behaviour is difficult to attribute to a woman) identity public he would be sued for a number of libellous statements that he has made.

It is often said, with considerable justification, that we are judged by the company we keep.

 
Top
Wind home
Index





Rallies

 
The failed anti-wind rally
Alan Jones rally
The anonymous writer of Stop These Things got together with climate science denying shock jock Alan Jones and Angus Taylor to hold an anti-wind power rally in Canberra on 2013/06/18.

With much less time to prepare, a group of pro-renewable people organised a much more successful pro-wind, pro-renewables rally for the same time and the other side of Lake Burley-Griffin.

The Jones-STT rally 'crowd' is shown in the photo at the right. As can be seen, a large proportion of those who attended were from the media. A part of the crowd at the pro-renewables rally, estimated at from 500 to 1000, is in the photo below.

On the day, there were far more people at the pro-renewable rally than at the anti-wind rally.

Photos credit Renew Economy, also see Weekly Times Now.

 
The highly successful and well attended pro-renewables rally
Pro-renewables rally

 
Top
Wind home
Index





Angus Taylor shares Fantasy Land with Alan Jones

Angus Taylor and Alan Jones have liked to feed each other's taste for fantasy since at least the failed anti-wind power rally, mentioned above.

An article by Giles Parkinson in Renew Economy, dated 2018/09/05, shows that the relationship is still strong.

No doubt they are talking to people who are content to be fed anti-renewable power guff and are not concerned about fact.

Anyone involved in a business that used a significant amount of energy would probably not remain long in that business if they took seriously the rubbish talked by Jones and Taylor in these sessions.

 
Top
Wind home
Index





Climate skeptic? Or not?

Wikipedia, 2018/09/29, gives two apparently contradictory quotes from Mr Taylor (reminiscent of ex PM Abbott):
  1. "I am not a climate skeptic." Said at the failed Wind Power Fraud Rally, 2013/06/18, where Mr Taylor was one of the main speakers.
  2. "religious belief is based on faith not facts. The new climate religion, recruiting disciples every day, has little basis on fact and everything to do with blind faith." Speaking about the Renewable Energy Target in June 2014
 
Top
Wind home
Index





Minister Taylor

Angus Taylor became Minister for Energy in the Liberal/National coalition Morrison Australian federal government. Like the earlier coalition Abbott and Turnbull governments Taylor and the Morrison Government are badly out of touch with what the Australian people want. While Taylor is opposed to renewable energy the Australian people are strongly in favour of much more renewables. Minister Taylor plainly is opposed to action on climate change while the majority of Australians recognise that "global warming is a serious and pressing problem" and want action even at significant costs, only 10% believe that global warming is in doubt.

Some of Minister Taylor's lies

 
Conventional LCOE estimates for selected technologies
Cost of energy graph
CSIRO report "Electricity generation technology projections 2017-2050" by Jenny A Hayward and Paul W Graham, December 2017. The report shows plainly that renewable energy is much cheaper than new-built fossil fuel power generation with carbon capture and storage; without CCS fossil fuelled power generation is cheaper, but still more expensive than wind and solar PV, and enormously polluting.
The following points were extracted from a piece in Renew Economy, 2018/09/17, written by Giles Parkinson.

Taylor claimed that more renewable energy would "drive up the price of electricity";
The fact is that renewable energy is placing downward pressure on the price of electricity.

Taylor said that more renewables would "make the whole system less reliable";
The fact is that renewables are more reliable than Australia's ageing coal-fired power stations.

Taylor blamed renewables for South Australia's high power prices;
The fact is that SA's high power prices are due to a high percentage of gas-fired generation.

Taylor claimed that more renewable energy would lead to "de-industrialisation ... and the loss of jobs";
The fact is that there are at least as many jobs in renewable energy as there are in fossil fuel energy.
The Renew Economy piece referenced above provided evidence for the fallacy of these claims by Taylor, further evidence can be found on these pages.

Minister Taylor continues to criticise South Australia's adoption of a high percentage of renewable energy in contradiction of the fact that it can be shown to be a great success.

Under Minister Taylor Australia will miss great economic opportunities

Most of the world's nations and most of the world's people recognise that the future of energy is with renewables. The world-wide market for renewable energy is growing rapidly; Australia can take part in the growth or stand aside and let other nations grasp the opportunities.

If Taylor has his way Australia will miss out on developments that will follow on from the adoption of large amounts of renewable energy. I've discussed these opportunities in a section of a page about Australia's energy future. They include:

  • The electric vehicle revolution;
  • The fast-developing clean hydrogen industry;
  • The huge potential for exporting clean electricity to South Asia by undersea cables;
  • The huge potential for exporting clean energy in the forms of hydrogen and/or ammonia.
Add to this the fact that pressure is continually mounting to take climate change seriously, anyone supporting the coal industry will find that they are backing a dying horse.

I have written about the potential for economic growth in the energy sector being in renewables rather than in fossil fuels elsewhere on this page. Fossil fuels, particularly coal, are on the way out.

 
Top
Wind home
Index





Mr Taylor should be charged and convicted of a crime against humanity

There should also be a new law or laws, detailing crimes against the biosphere.
Mr Taylor could also be convicted under those.

I have argued elsewhere that a person in a position of power knowingly lying in an effort to slow action on climate change is committing a crime against humanity. The burning of fossil fuels is not only one of the main causes of climate change and ocean acidification, the air pollution it creates kills millions of people each year.

Climate change and ocean acidification will cause thousands or even millions of species to become extinct and no doubt the air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels is also having a huge impact on many non-human species. A person in a position of power intentionally lying to perpetuate these damages is guilty of a crime against the biosphere.

For a person in the position of minister for energy in a nation with one of the highest per-capita rates of greenhouse gas emissions in the world and one of the highest potentials for effective action is particularly bad.


How can any decent person knowingly take actions that will cause damage to our beautiful planet?
Tumut




 
Belong Valley
The beautiful Bylong Valley in NSW is under threat of coal mining that the world doesn't need and most Australians don't want.

 
Coal loading area
We don't need to see any more scenes like the one above turned into scars like this.
 
Top
Wind home
Index





Mr Taylor's background

The Weekly Times Now, 2012/09/05, published the following: "Taylor is a director at Port Jackson Partners, a consulting firm that has worked for big agricultural companies and the Minerals Council of Australia on issues such as coal-seam gas, carbon and foreign investment."

It has been reported that the following was on the Crookwell Conversation Facebook page, although I have been unable to confirm it:

"Mr Taylor has a personal interest in wind power as the wind industry were once circling the Taylor family property at Nimmitabel. The family refused an invitation to host wind turbines."
There are few people as opposed to wind turbines as those who see their neighbours doing very well financially by hosting wind turbines, while themselves missing out. It is envy.

Mr Taylor should be careful to declare his interests when discussing things like fossil fuels versus renewable energy.

 
Top
Wind home
Index





Related pages

External pages

The 'Big 3' energy companies recognise the future is with renewables, leaders of industry like Sanjeev Gupta see it, the great majority of Australians want more renewable energy; is it only Liberals like Angus Taylor and the fossil fuel industry who are supporting the old system?

AGL: Renewables; Committed to helping shape a sustainable energy future for Australia. "We're proud to be the largest ASX-listed investor in renewable energy generation in the country."

ARENA: the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

The Australia Institute

Australian Wind Alliance

CEFC: Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

"Coal is no longer cheaper – and we'll prove it": Sanjeev Gupta, the British billionaire who saved the Whyalla steel industry knows that the future lies with renewables.

Energy Australia: Supporting "Right now, EnergyAustralia has the rights to more than 490 megawatts of electricity generated by wind farms in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia."

Origin Energy: 6 Ways Origin is Tackling Climate Change.

Renew Economy: Can Angus Taylor stop the renewables and storage revolution?

Angus Taylor signals further taxpayer investment in existing coal and gas; The Guardian, 2018/09/30.

On this site

Australia's energy future

End of coal: why the coal industry has a very limited future.

Ethics: a subject that Mr Taylor would do well to learn about.

A green or a black future

Greenhouse/climate change: the greatest threat currently facing mankind.

Killer coal: how the burning of coal kills millions of people world-wide each year.

Selfishness or altruism?: self or all?

South Australia's success in changing toward renewable energy

Stop These Things; a very dishonest anti-wind power Web site admired by, and contributed to by, Mr Taylor

Who wants renewable energy?

Why support wind power

Wind power lies; Mr Taylor features strongly

Wind power opposition: almost universally dishonest.






Index

Cherry picking
Climate skeptic? Or not?
Cost
Criminal
Failed anti-wind farm rally
Gross exaggeration
Lost argument
Angus Taylor shares Fantasy Land with Alan Jones
Minister Taylor
Misrepresented of the reasons for electricity price reductions
Missing economic opportunities
Mr Taylor's background
Out of touch
Peter Reardon's 'study'
Potential for economic growth is in renewables
Stop These Things and Mr Taylor
Subsidies? Cheaper ways of reducing carbon emissions?
Warren Buffett's $1B wind purchase


Home
Wind home
Top
Wind home
Top