Something useful out of the muck

It's extraordinary how the ratbaggery of marginalised Right wing opinion know as Catallaxy is intensifying over the years.   Alan Moran too much of an anti-Islamic extremist for the IPA?  No problem - let him continue his clean energy jihad at Catallaxy; and by the way, he's now an expert on Darling River water flows too - one of the most intensely scrutinised Australian environmental issues in which I thought there was a consensus amongst virtually every interested party in the land, except for shrill, climate change denial funded, independent researcher Jennifer Marohasy; oh, and Moran too.  (Actually, if I recall correctly, Judith Sloan has commented on it dismissively in the past too.  "Climate change - as if" is her considered position on anything related to the issue.)

Sinclair Davidson, quite possibly the only academic in the land who couldn't see how calling an aboriginal man an ape could be racist, also can't see the tackiness problem with Woolworths alluding to their advertising slogan in an ANZAC poster.  Even Andrew Bolt could see that one.

Judith Sloan discovered the bold function about a year ago and now can't stop shouting at everyone in every post.  She's an expert on caesarean birth rates too, apparently.

And yet, shouting, sarcastic Judith  has done some useful - shown in comments that Catallaxy favourite (well, except when it comes to gay marriage and the conservatives) David Leyonhjelm made up a policy suggestion in ignorance of the background.  Who could be surprised - it was about clean energy, something the Bald One thinks is completely unnecessary. 

The details are here:   Leyonhjelm had a suggestion published in the AFR as to how to "fix" the RET:

With this problem looming and negotiations between the Government and Opposition stalled, late last year I developed a detailed reform package for the RET. Since most opposition to reform is based on cuts to the 41,000 GWh large scale target, my plan is to maintain this but to recognise established hydro generation in the calculations – essentially Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tasmania – which together produce about 15,000 GWh.

But as Judith notes in comments:

David, I don’t think this is going to work. Hydro is defined as renewable (see Section 17 of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 and is already counted in the 16 to 17K of MWh being produced from renewables currently. It is already being counted.

 And then Leyonhjelm admits:

After this was published I was informed that “old” hydro had been counted when the original target was established under Labor. I was told the total electricity market was estimated at 300,000 GWh in 2020, of which 20% is 60,000. Deduct 15,000 for existing hydro leaves the target of 45,000. Of this, 4,000 was allowed for small scale solar (ie roof top panels) and 41,000 for large scale (mainly wind). It is reduction in the latter target that is now the subject of dispute.

Adding back old hydro (without attracting Renewable Energy Certificates) would bring us close to 20% renewable anyway (as we won’t be anywhere near 300,000 by 2020) so the case is still arguable, but I acknowledge it would be double counting.

Quite a "whoopsie".

So thanks Judith!   Can you give me a big, bold, shouty call out?