This is the story of how a fund chaired by former Labor PM Julia Gillard acquired a wind farm project just six days before Labor Energy Minister Chris Bowen underwrote its future revenues with taxpayer money. Today we've learned Julia's fund is trying to flip it. For a profit.

Chris Bowen’s ‘free energy’ plan slammed as another market blunder @FootnotesGuy points out “a desperate attempt to try to transform people’s lifestyles to fit the pattern of the weather” Read more:

Puh, puh, puh-leease follow through on this Simon! 🙏🥹 As we’ve seen globally, the whole climate-catastrophe-rush-to-renewables narrative collapses fast once challenged. The teal machine will flip all the harbour seats to dark-Nats before next election! 😆🤩

I do. Especially the quangos! 🤣😇 CCA (Climate Change Authority) CER (Clean Energy Regulator) ARENA (Australian Renewable Energy Agency) CEFC (Clean Energy Finance Corporation) ACS (Australian Climate Service) EAP (Energy Advisory Panel) NZEA (Net Zero Economy

@threadreaderapp unroll

So, happy to be covered in the Guardian. And happy to defend my research. It's flattering that in a 60-slide deck they couldn't find anything better to quibble with than the idea that heat-deaths aren't a thing, which is perfectly supported by the evidence I presented. 6/6

For completeness, this under-rated paper which was referenced extensively by the Australian Climate Service actually also confirms that heat deaths aren't a thing, compared to cold deaths. And overall, we can expect fewer temp-related deaths. 5/ https://t.co/oJffUymart

Here's the thread I wrote a couple of weeks ago unpacking this all in detail. Clearly the Guardian didn't research my earlier work on this topic. 4/ https://t.co/k68Na5CqXH

The Guardian was shocked that I didn't mention that the report found a 444% rise in heat deaths. Of course, in context, that's exactly what I explained to the coalition with that slide. A big proportional increase on basically nothing. Not worth worrying about. 3/

Here's a copy of the slide that made the headline. I stand by the heading, and the supporting evidence, which comes from the government's own technical report. The grey shading in the bottom panel, right of dashes reflects current heat-deaths. Almost imperceptible in

Delighted to finally have some of my work covered in the Guardian. It did take a member of the Coalition party-room to leak my slides in order for them to take notice of things I've been saying in public here for some time. Still great though. 1/ https://t.co/Xu4zbwFqWv

Unlike the company’s Gladstone smelter… which got a Miles-Labor underwriting deal which included forcing it to invest in renewables. They’re not cheap. They’re subsidised. It’s a big difference.

As mentioned here on Sky, I did give a briefing to the Coalition Party room on Monday. They got a good run-down on the reports from Chris Bowen’s experts named above. https://t.co/jKzJQRHvPP

The experts in the energy team at @CISOZ would also gladly make themselves available to you too Chris.

This is an important article. Overdue. It basically checks out with everything I’ve heard on the grapevine over the last year or two. One company sold more gas than they had. https://t.co/ATt3E6yX1M

PS. Link to paper: https://t.co/qy5j7DkM9G

So taking this report, which is only for 50% renewables, and some really poor assumptions on costs, as evidence that current policy (to hit 82% in 5 years, and much more soon after) is better/cheaper than an alternative is misuse of the analysis. 18/18

But still, even just assessing renewables at more realistic costs (and integration costs) a 50% renewable energy system wouldn't be lower cost than a system that built coal sensibly, which this report fails to do, by copying the discredited GenCost. 17/

Most of what this report says about gas is sadly true, due to our terrible gas policy delivering very high domestic prices. Again, that could be improved with good policy and some time. But right now, it's fair analysis. 16/

So, if coal could be built at commercial designs on brownfield sites (~ half the capital cost), with long-term contracts for coal (~half the fuel cost) it will easily beat renewables for cost in this model, which should cost at least ~30% more than modelled. 15/

A 6% annual return on a billion dollars of capital is $60million, which means an initial annual cost would be around $60k/MW installed. The Simsauser report assumes a fee less than half of that for wind, and half again for solar. I think this will be far too low. 14/