The ‘No Carbon Tax’ rally in Sydney today was the first item on the ABC television news tonight. According to the ABC it was attended by 4,000 people. Others claim 6,000.
http://www.2ue.com.au/blogs/2ue-blog/passions-run-high-at-carbon-tax-rally/20110402-1cs8x.html
Well done and congratulations!
Organisers tell me they are learning much about how to organise, how to put on events, the politics and media management. They say that these rallies are only the beginning and that more actions, media events, fund-raisers and rallies will be organized in due course.
http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/?p=602
I will be speaking at the Brisbane rally on Saturday May 7, 11.30am to 1.30pm, outside Queensland Parliament House – Cnr George and Alice Streets.
Facebook: Brisbane Anti Carbon Tax Rally http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=187575497948860
I hope to see you there.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
All good, steady as you go, victory will be ours.
a short article http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/thousands-demonstrate-for-and-against-climate-tax/story-fn7x8me2-1226032488943
(lead in para)
A PETITION containing 25,000 signatures has been presented to Senator Eric Abetz during a large anti-carbon tax rally in Sydney’s Hyde Park.
Thousands of people turned up for the event this morning, many waving derogatory banners and placards aimed at Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Greens leader Bob Brown
….
Don’t forget to vote on that page as to whether you would be prepared to pay a carbon tax
and here’s another article by Gavin Atkins who went to both (with photos)
http://asiancorrespondent.com/author/gavinatkins/
Globalwarmingsceptic picked up another win today, we’re on a roll.
http://globalwarmnsceptic.kennewellracing.com.au/
MSN News is blocked by the overwhelming audience on this note:
“Thousands Demonstrate For and Against Climate Tax”
Why they say “For and Against”?
Best,
NSN
Finally, I got it! Here the link:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8231916/thousands-demonstrate-for-and-aga
Could we bring some of those Aussies to Mexico? 🙂
NSN
Hi Jen, good luck with your upcoming rally. I’m stuck here in sleepy Adelaide, and I’m not the rallying type anyway. But it’s good to see that the CAGW position does not merely dominate the news by default. My bottom line is that it is pointless for us to adopt a carbon tax when we only emit 1.4% of global CO2, unless the really big emitters adopt similar restrictions.
Very good to see real workers retirees and business people rallying in Sydney in such numbers.
Leftwing idiots rally every week of the year so their numbers are easily made up no matter what the cause.
Jennifer I hope your rally in Brisbane is as successful on may 7th and you have a great time.
David we also export 3 tonnes of coal for every tonne used in Australia, so how does reducing our emissions by 5% of every tonne help the world’s emissions at all?
That reduction of 5% in our emissions is a corrupt, fraudulent con job, so how do the labor liars get away with it?
http://www.2ue.com.au/blogs/2ue-blog/passions-run-high-at-carbon-tax-rally/20110402-1cs8x.html
Quoting from the ‘for the carbon tax rally’
AT the Belmore Park event organised by GetUp, the social action group’s national director Simon Sheikh encouraged protesters by saying “we are closer than ever to the future that we demand”.
“We are the last line of defence for Mother Nature,” he said.
ROTFL!!!!!
I wonder who he thinks Mother Nature is?
If she was actually a person, wouldn’t she be the one who put us through a prolonged and crippling drought and then followed that up with a series of destructive floods?
I think , if she was actually a person, she was also involved in those recent earthquakes in NZ and then the horrible destruction in Japan wasn’t she?
I’ve got a funny feeling that MAYBE we should be defending ourselves against her!
I also can’t see how these people think that a carbon tax will ‘defend mother nature’.
Even people who are staunch AGW ‘believers’ don’t necessarily believe a ‘carbon tax’ will do anything for the climate at all.
It’s a very strange argument that is being advanced: In short:
If you don’t support a carbon tax then you don’t believe in climate change and you don’t care about “mother nature”
Methinks we have a mixed up agenda and a strange association of arguments here.
One does not necessarily exclude or include the other does it?
Hi, I’m a train Driver who transports coal, we have huge reserves which we giving away far to cheap. As a supplier of coal, we the citizens of this once great nation should have some of the cheapest power bills on earth! What happened to Gov. owned power companies?, supplying power at cost to the public, hell we did own the coal once upon a time.
The same goes for natural gas, we sell it off for a pittance. At least 90% of cars, trucks, buses etc should have a C.N.G.(compressed natural gas) tank instead of petrol or diesel. Check out the price citizens in oil producing Arab nations pay for petrol, dirt cheap! Brisbane city council is one i know that has a fleet of buses powered by C.N.G., why not the general public.
I know why, iff the governments of the day made cheap fuel & power available they would pannic with loss of tax revenue. Revenue which does not get injected into transport infrastructure, roads etc. Cull 30% of federal & state polititians & we may have a chance. Beaty had half an idea when he amalgamated the councils in Qld., the only problem was it should have been the sate Gov. which got the chop. I feel better now!
wasn’t even mentioned on Insiders.
BTW Nasif – do you remember me? I was the one that dragged you over to The Harmony Central Political forum a few years ago. 🙂
Of course you realise across town there’s another group of people planning a rally in the other direction. I wonder how many people change sides in these debates, and how many don’t give a stuff.
El Gordo – you’re never going to have “victory” unless the climate suddenly returns to 1900 levels and Nasif publishes in Nature. Wanking yourself about winning skirmishes does not win hearts and minds.
Interestingly nobody is talking about Abbott’s climate policy.
Abbott’s a political opportunist and doesn’t matter. The majority will be voting conservative because of the carbon tax and a bunch of other things Labor got wrong.
The climate debate will be overshadowed by political reality, it’s the hip pocket nerve which drives the electorate, and we should know within five to ten years who is correct about the climate.
Giving us many fun years to argue the toss.
Luke,
globalwarmingsceptic is a race horse and he did win!
Can I ask why the climate has to return to 1900 levels?
I don’t think ‘mother nature’ is all that cooperative about which year we would like to tag as the ideal or normal year as far as climate is concerned.
What’s so special about 1900?
Am I missing something here?
I Agree with el gordo about ALL of the climate policies.
They all look rather bi polar and hypocritical to me.
They ALL seem to have more to do with political opportunism ,or, a newly discovered term (after looking at the list Tony posted) ‘Deliberative Global Governance’
I think El Gordo may be right about the hip pocket nerve too. That probably has more to do with what’s happening than whether people ‘give a stuff’ about climate change.
You would probably agree that it’s not mandatory to BELIEVE in a ‘carbon tax’ if you BELIEVE in the science of AGW? OR Vice Versa for that matter?
There’s a serious case of ‘mixed up agendas’ in that particular approach.
Luke it doesn’t matter about Abbott’s policy on CC as long as it’s not Gillard’s idiot, useless co2 tax.
I suspect Abbott is like Howard, ie he’s a genuine agnostic on the subject of AGW and I might fit in there to a slight degree as well.
But I’m sure as hell that we can’t change the climate and should only adapt to the weather/climate and not waste money on taxes or ETS’s or whatever.
Well it’s gonna cost ya one way or another. Atmosphere doesn’t give a rats arse what yo’all think or how yo’all vote.
As bravenewclimate said recently – it’s either nukes all round or climate change – so I guess it’s climate change. In which case you need the science more than ever.
You see not a lot goes away after a climate rally …
Of interest for those who like their climate variation…. mm mmmmmmmm yumbo !
Tree ring record chronicles major Mesoamerican droughts
A new tree ring record chronicles major Mesoamerican droughts in the past millennium that may have contributed to the decline of some pre-Hispanic civilizations. Although there is other evidence of droughts during the past millennium, the paleoclimate record had gaps. Stahle et al. (2011) used core samples from Montezuma bald cypress trees found in Barranca de Amealco, Querétaro, Mexico, to develop a 1238-year tree ring chronology. They reconstructed the soil moisture record from the tree ring growth patterns. The new record provides the first dated, annually resolved climate record for Mexico and Central America spanning this time period. The record shows that a drought known as the Terminal Classic occurred from 897 to 922 and extended farther than previously thought into central Mexico; this drought has been associated with the decline of the Mayan civilization. They also documented prolonged droughts that occurred during the decline of the Toltec state (1149–1167) and during the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs (1514–1539). This is the first record to provide accurate dates for these droughts. Although other factors clearly contributed to the decline of these civilizations, the tree ring record helps nail down exactly when droughts occurred, and the improved chronology could help researchers better understand the factors involved in the cultural changes these civilizations underwent.
Citation: Stahle, D. W., J. V. Diaz, D. J. Burnette, J. C. Paredes, R. R. Heim Jr., F. K. Fye, R. Acuna Soto, M. D. Therrell, M. K. Cleaveland, and D. K. Stahle (2011), Major Mesoamerican droughts of the past millennium, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L05703, doi:10.1029/2010GL046472.
What a lot of shallow, selfish, narrow minded, tight fisted group the disciples of conservatism are. If it means that an asylum seeker, an aboriginal, a dole recipient and god forbid somebody looking to the future for the generation ahead they are easily whipped into a frenzy by the lowest common denominator shock jocks. All Alan Jones and the gardians of our morals and democracy have to do is tell them it will hit their hip pockets. These are the same greedy and gullible people that John Howard conned into buying Telstra shares. Thank god everyone does’nt think like you lot
Neville, I’m shocked to hear you are agnostic on AGW. After all we have discussed here and around the traps… I may have to bring back a graph to set you straight.
“you’re never going to have “victory” unless the climate suddenly returns to 1900 levels”
I wonder how we’ll know? The old data has been adjusted down so much we could be there at the moment and no one would be any the wiser.
BTW, does it strike anyone how bizarre it is that people people would hold a rally so as to pay more tax?
Is it because a/ it will solve the “problem”? b/ it would ease their consciences? c/ they could then emit all they like and have more fun? d/ it is cheaper than carbon credits or e/ that they have simply been brainwashed for the past few decades and they are blind to all reason?
Luke, that is all very interesting. The drought occurred in the early Medieval warming period which, from my limited knowledge, was felt in the Americas before it reached Europe.
It won’t happen again anytime soon, now that regional cooling has commenced and our Modern Climate Optimum draws to a close.
“– it’s either nukes all round or climate change – so I guess it’s climate change.”
Got that wrong too Luke. Nukes won’t stop climate change as won’t zero ACO2 emissions.
You sure learn slow.
But nukes will stop ACO2 emissions but that isn’t what the loonies want.
And a carbon tax will have the same effect as those Mayan blood sacrifices.
And that’s really what the loonies want.
EG my position on AGW is like Lindzen’s or Spencer’s.
I can accept a 0.5c to 1.0c increase in temp due to co2 increase in the last 100 years but I think the feedback after this is probably negative, not positive.
I’m sorry I shocked you and I’m fascinated what sort of graph you could show me that could prove/disprove anything?
Luke you never ever give us the full monty, you just always seem to fall short when trying to make your point.
If nukes means nuclear power, well Christy has shown in his paper to the house that even building a thousand replacement nuclear plants would only drop the temp by 0.05C after 100 years. But could this even be measured?
To finish your argument you must give us YOUR remedy to fix the climate and how much it would cost over what period of time and how much you could drop the temp and when.
@John Sayers…
Hah! Of course; I remember you! Glad to meet you again.
I also remember that thread.
What’s up, John? 🙂
NSN
Neville, here’s that graph from Eaterbrook, which you will remember from the time Jo Nova gave it a big splash.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210klarge.png
See the Younger Dryas around 8,300 years ago, where temperatures fell sharply. The cause is still hotly debated, but for my money it looks like an asteroid strike in the North Atlantic.
Take a look at the 1300 AD event, it was most probably an asteroid which splashed down just to the south of NZ.
Then we reach the end, the beginning of the industrial revolution to the present. It doesn’t look like much, but if AGW is responsible then we have no reason to be concerned.
Tree ring reseach can be interesting, but is fraught with many potential errors. In Australia the eucs would seem good candidates but in older specimens the key core centre record is usually decayed (in the good old days we used to say “all old men have pipes”). In the tropics/sub-tropics C3 plants (trees) can respond to rainfall whenever it occurs. This can mask ‘annual’ rings and confound dating – a common problem with tree rings in mulga trees. Of course a necessary corollary of any long term tree ring chronology, highlighting long major droughts, is that the same record no doubt also highlighted periods of exceptional rainfall. I suppose that that implies that the climate is always changing – whatever your particular timespan of interest. Hopefully the paper (cited by Luke) which I have not read did not gloss over the non drought periods as if they were not a significant component of the long-term climate as well.
Dave Hood ,
They wouldn’t listen in Cant berra mate, you make too much sense.
Personally ,I am hanging out for Julia’s $500 tax rebate on the $200 or so worth of petrol I burn ,just to get to work, each week. HOLD IT -it’s only for low income earners.
The myth of lower costs in China has much to do with cost of fuels etc. Remember little Johnny going to China to welcome the shipload of Oz gas -4c a litre, big export coup, when it is $1.20 a litre for a factory in the Riverina.
Now the dopes want a new tax on that.
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/physicist-proves-co2-emissions-irrelevant-in-earth%E2%80%99s-climate
Luke,
“Interestingly nobody is talking about Abbott’s climate policy”
I will Luke.
Abbott hasn’t got a climate policy. He’s the consummate politician with a foot either side of the fence. He pays lip service to a climate (enviromental) policy by pretending to give incentives to the energy industry to clean up its act and change to alternatives but it dosn’t take a whizz kid to realise it’s unrealistic; so it actually means doing nothing.
At the same time he maintains “credibility”with the general brainwashed media and public by declaring…….
” I’m a believer!” “I’m a believer!”
He’s worse than the Monkees.
and ears to match.
Oh Glorious Victory!
The shock jocks rock the planet with not one but two protests in different cities against the carbon tax and nearly manage to get the same number of people as did one rally in one city calling for clean energy.
What a pathetic rabble!
Based on a $30 ton carbon price, I calculated that after government rebates and my own efficiency measures, I’d be up for less than a dollar a day. Blimey! Now I know why you think it’s more important to let future generations stew in their own juices. We’ll all be rooned by a dollar a day! Who’s the Henny Penny again? If you bludgers got a job it wouldn’t be an issue.
” YOUR remedy to fix the climate” – go nuclear.
Great Big New Tax!!!!!
DOLLAR A DAY!!!!
And I’ll bet you clowns all voted for the GST that is costing me at least $10 a day.
Ahhh the GST, what a master stroke. There’s no black economy anymore is there? And tax law was “simplified” by turning 3000 pages of tax law into 9000 pages of tax law.
The pensioners just love it. Now that their luxuries are exempt, they only have to worry about GST on utility bills, food and all of that other discretionary spending where the GST is added to the GST is added to the GST is added to…
GST… a fairer tax system…unchain my heart… (GREAT BIG NEW TAX anyone?)…..
If ‘state of the art’ nuclear and coal power stations had equivalent start up costs, the electorate will still go for coal. Especially when they realize CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.
Debbie’s link is interesting, what do you make of this quote, Luke?
Dr. Zagoni explains:
“Earth type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and sufficient reservoir of water; maintain an energetically uniquely determined, constant, maximized greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by emissions. The greenhouse temperature must fluctuate around this theoretical equilibrium constant; [change] is possible only if the incoming available energy changes.”
Luke,
“….remedy to fix the climate ” go nuclear.
you mean like take the climate, stick a nuclear needle in its arm, and give it a fix?
Leaked document shows how Australian government planned to “sell the idea of a carbon dioxide tax to the public”
document and article at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/02/leaked-document-shows-how-australian-government-planned-to-sell-the-idea-of-a-carbon-dioxide-tax-to-the-public/
It will surprise none of you that the strategy paper is filled with pragmatic political advice on how to run down the opposition and to spin the government’s policy in a favourable light. But what may (or may not!) surprise you is the simply breathtaking inaccuracy, dishonesty and partiality of the content
also at Quadrant Online http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/climate-change-facts
Mmm, a couple of nasty little twerps have popped in; and I don’t mean luke who has demonstrated his cred with his brave little effort at Deltoid.
AJ is easily dismissed; it is the supporters of AGW who don’t care about the future well-being of this nation and indeed people around the world; the simple fact is that the 3rd world will continue to wallow in poverty and all the misery that entails without cheap power; cheap power only comes from coal, gas and nuclear, although hydro can be used and of course the greens and AGW supporters oppose the building of dams in Africa as well as any other cheap efficient power source.
The fact is the opposition to AGW is being driven by a green ideology which at its heart believes this Earth would be better off without people; it is misanthropic.
This RW nong sqwarks about the cost of living; there has been a lot of talk about how little or much a carbon tax will add to the cost of living; that was resolved some time agao in a report secretly commissioned by the then NSW labor government which was concerned about the effect of the ets;
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/ets-to-shrink-regional-growth/story-e6frg6nf-1225691476399
And look who wrote the article, that green shill Taylor; so RW, take her advice to Bolta, thank you.
To RWFOH:
You must not be a small business owner as you would find that $10 a day G.S.T. cost is cheap compared to small businesses being the tax collector for the government . The cost of compliance has sent many small businesses to the wall and created a massive black economy. Another liberal con similar to Telstra and that they are good money managers. They sold off our gold reserves @ $400 an ounce now it is over $1400 an ounce. There are to many more to mention to dispell the myth of their economic management
To val majkus:
It might be an idea for you and other conservative lemmings to read a book by David Brock, Blinded By The Right. Like Alan Jones and David Flint, Brock was a gay conservative. Unlike Jones and Flint, Brock exposes the conservative agenda that uses the conservative owned media networks he set up throughout America to brain wash the public. Be enlightened and have a read.
Latest climate change information captured in new CSIRO book
Reference: 11/30
CSIRO today will launch Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia to help inform business, government, and the community about the many issues that need to be addressed in response to climate change.
http://www.csiro.au/news/New-Climate-Change-book.html
So Luke says go nuclear, but Christy says if you build 1000 new nuclear power plants the drop in temp after 100 years would be 0.05C or five one hundredths of a degree.
Beside his crude language and downright infantilism Luke is certainly a fighter for the CAGW cause, but I’ll accept the Christy calculation this time.
But of course that 0.05C reduction in 2100+ would be unmeasurable and beyond proof anyway.
Thanks for the link Val,
I guess CSIRO got their funding because one of their main bullet points in the summary of their new book is:
(sorry Gavin and El Gordo I cut and paste again!)
Action within the next decade to lower greenhouse gas emissions will reduce the probability and severity of climate change impacts.
Of course our present Government will be happy about that because they can use it to argue that imposing a carbon tax is taking “action to lower geenhouse gas emissions”.
I’m sure it looks like taxpayers’ money well spent by them!
Debbie, there is nothing wrong with cut and paste, just not reams all at once. I have a short attention span.
Rule of thumb, no different to the daily rag, brevity, brevity, all is brevity. Keep in mind that you are talking to a broad audience, locally and overseas, so break up whatever you have into small paragraphs consisting of two sentences.
Think of yourself as a trainee journalist in the new media, I certainly do.
Latham thinks the Greens are a bunch of nutters.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/latham-calls-greens-nutters-20110404-1cuap.html
One poll I saw had 60% of people agreeing with his sentiments.
and here’s something worth watching again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk
The Great Global Warming Swindle
and Debbie I don’t care how much you cut and paste; I have a reasonable attention span
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/ChristyJR_written_110331_all.pdf
And here’s yet another climate scientist seriously questioning whether the ‘science is settled’.
His creds look OK to me but I’m sure someone (Luke maybe?) will let us know if they’re not.
BTW AJ, if you would like to seriously engage with people on blogs, can I suggest you don’t start off with sweeping, unfounded and vitriolic statements about the personalities of the people whose opinions may not necessarily agree with yours?
It isn’t a good look. It tends to say more about your personality than anything else.
It’s OK Val. I think El Gordo’s point is valid. Even as I started cutting and pasting that long list of grantees I realised that it was way too much information. I had already committed myself however.
It doesn’t change the fact that there is SOOOOO MUCH taxpayers’ money being spent on ‘climate change’ and ‘environmental’ projects. I can’t help thinking that millions of that money could be spent in far better places with far better outcomes. You know, boring stuff like health, education, upgrading some of our seriously neglected infrastructure, indigenous health etc etc etc….
Some money spent on helping to protect ourselves against the extremes of our climate would also be better spent.
We seriously need to get over this very expensive obsession!
Cristy goes back a long way in his fight with the ‘warmists’ and his academic credentials are of the highest order.
Reading through the paper I noticed the expression ‘bulk atmospheric temperatures’, which is from the surface ‘up to about 35,000 feet.’
Christy relies ‘on observations from satellites and balloons, is more systematic and global than the estimates provided in the surface-temperature studies.’ He claims that the troposphere as a whole tends to lag behind rising surface temperatures.
That makes good sense.
Christy works with Spencer at UAH and they both work with NASA’s Aqua satellite to provide a seperate dataset of temps.
Christy also appeared in the Great Global Warming Swindle.
A very decent and measured person and always comes over as genuine in all the debates I’ve seen him engaged in.
Debbie I noticed el gordo said he had a ‘short attention span’ (his words)
and it made me start thinking how do visitors assimilate a blog post (like those that Jen or WUWT or Jo Nova) post which are usually longer than anything I or you or other commentators would post as a comment
Is it that commentators read the comments only or do they or hopefully some of them read the post which is usually longer than the comments
AND
why should comments on a post be limited to short attention span readers
I don’t know; is this ettiquete or nettiquete? If so it’s new to me but I’m a newbie
(only been at it for a couple of years)
here’s a comment on WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/02/leaked-document-shows-how-australian-government-planned-to-sell-the-idea-of-a-carbon-dioxide-tax-to-the-public/#comments
David L says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:10 am
What do governments gain by destroying economies?
————————
well remember
its the U.N. set up IPCC.
so from the UN search our the Agenda 21 outlines. Cigiar also.
being implemented as planned in small increments starting at the very local Council and working in with state and fed goals, out of that same book.
lots of new Charges and rules and regs, increased power over the citizens.
then the select glocal banksters are on side, trading , new equipment loans etc,
the insurers plan to do very well charging heaps more for coverage of the little they pay out on anyway(ask anyone in this flood or others past if they got the payments for flood damages?) semantics, Flood , Inundation.
Unions , some, support it because they can find more reasons to be paid more, that extra Carbon assessment and training, time off to go to classes, costs of that +travel etc etc.
what they don’t sem to be grasping is that every single item going into a home, will also rise. On the thousands of items that go into any “made object” Bricks..start at the cost of even getting a sand quarry into business with all the new charges rules regs inspection fees, etc.the truck that carts it, fuel parts rego everything rises there too so his fees rise.
new Govt depts to control use,
and provide abuse to those trying to actually Produce goods.
The Eu example is about perfect, they all adjusted? their economies to suit some great One World Governments plan, or as close as they can get.
Carbon Scams got the same MOI and the same lousy outcome, lookit ! how many Eu countries are now broke?
recent mentions of SDR, a European source for International trading etc. one world currency in effect.
other proposals mooted for a One Huge Bank and tax dept too.
Insane, yes, but it has all been proposed.
–
Copenhagens hidden, and outed by Lord M after he was tipped off, finding of the planned Global payments of Carbon Credits fees exchanges etc , were slated to be paid to a UN Based central source, they would apportion it to 3rd world and maybe others? as they saw fit. Worked on GDP and a rising percentage yearly. non payment incurred hefty fines, a real bankers wet dream.
if your country signs up, you have to have a Majority Vote by all other co signers, to allow you Out, once in, anyone really think everyone else whos hurting is going to allow another mob to decamp?their input would have to rise to cover the loss.
UK is broke, so is USA , chinas rocky, Sth Koreas wobbly, Ireland Iceland Spain Portugal Greece, and now Japan got a triple whammy on top of the problems they had.
so?
How is a Carbon tax going to affect all those nations?
So far I have to say it helped drag them down.
Val Majkus
(some one sent me this e mail)
Here are some useful and enlightening articles about this TRAITOROUS and now NON SCIENTIFIC “csiro”……..
The CSIRO calls this proof?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_csiro_calls_this_proof/
CSIRO shames itself
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_csiro_shames_itself/
The BOM & CSIRO report–it’s what they don’t say that matters
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/
CSIRO suddenly feels a chill wind
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/csiro_suddenly_feels_a_chill_wind/
ABC News Watch: Sensationalist headline for CSIRO study on ocean salinity
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/04/sensationalist-headline-for-csiro-study.html
Penguins die from wrong cause; CSIRO head promoted for right one
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/penguins_die_from_wrong_cause/
The CSIRO chairman’s yacht no measure of global warming
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_csiro_chairmans_yacht_no_measure_of_global_warming/
CSIRO and the green march through our institutions
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/csiro_and_the_green_march_through_our_institutions/
CSIRO bid to gag emissions trading scheme policy attack
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291548-2702,00.html
WUWT the top scienence blog and no one has complained about the length of either
I’m prepared to clear the floor for short attention spanners if that’s what nettiquette demands
But I haven’t seen a sign of that requirement on any other blog
Just curious
If Jen wants me to go away to accommodate short attention spanners, that’s what I’ll do
What a mega-wank
Christy – credentials of highest order – including stuffing the analysis of UAH data analysis.
Debbie – no perspective as to what is spent in other sectors – sheesh
And Val assures us Bolt is source. hahahahahaha
Do wank on ! You’re talking to yourselves guys. The real (surreal?) action is at http://www.greenhouse2011.com/program#Wednesday
Debbie. Thank you for your character analysis and the tutorial on blogging ethics. I suspect you are very well versed at blogging with people that agree with you. Your “born to rule mentallity” that wont accept that labor is in power and chooses to denigrate those who have a different opinion as John Howard did by saying that those who did not agree with him were “elitists” or George W Bush’s “you are either with us or against us”.Talk about being divisive. Your “SOOOOO MUCH taxpayers’ money being spent on ‘climate change’ and ‘environmental’ projects. I can’t help thinking that millions of that money could be spent in far better places with the far better outcomes.”The fact is the millions spent on environmental projects is insignificant compared to the over $10billion spent each year on Fossil Fuel Subsidies. If you can, imagine how far down the road of efficient renewable energy we would be if this money was spent on those projects The “No Carbon Tax” lobby support the burning of dirty brown coal to produce energy. A very inefficient process. PLEEEASE EXPLAIN why you support the Tony Abbott and Alan Jones negativity that is dragging Australia backwards while the rest of the developed world embraces the possibilities that renewable energy technology can bring. Let us look to the future with an open mind.
AJ
You say:
….. the possibilities that renewable energy technology can bring.
What the!
You can’t be serious.
One large scale coal fired power plant can produce 2000MW of Nameplate Capacity power, and can provide that power on a 24/7/365 basis.
Currently, there is no, repeat NO, renewable plant on the face of the Planet that can even approach this.
The best they can achieve is around 400MW with Concentrating Solar, and even that can only be achieved with an onsite Natural Gas fired turbine to drive the generator for the (up to) 6 to 8 hours when the compound goes off the boil and cannot make enough steam to drive the turbine, a plant that still emits around 8000+ tons of CO2 a day, with an estimated life span of 25 years.
Currently a 280MW plant in construction in the U.S. (Abengoa Solana’s plant at Gila Bend in Arizona) using the same principle has a cost of 1.2 Billion, so pretending you can get this off the ground, you’re looking at 7 of those to replace the one coal fired plant.
Then, pretending you decide on that RIGHT NOW, it will be (up to) four years before the first sod is even turned at the site, and up to five to six years at the earliest before it is delivering power.
7 of them.
Wind Power, oh! let’s just choose one eh! Capewind.
140 huge towers Nameplate Capacity 420MW, with a projected Capacity Factor of 25%, meaning around 100MW deliverable Power, or around 6 hours a day at its full power total.
Cost …. $1.4 Billion and climbing. Four years so far in the planning, and still not even started, hopefully they say in ten years.
Solar PV, well forget that, best they can do is around 100MW with a Capacity Factor of 15% at Best, and around 8% in Winter. Cost there $450 Million.
If they were so good, why oh why have NO large scale coal fired power plants closed down, anywhere, other than time expiry being reached after 50 years licensing.
The best you will get out of any of the three Renewables I have mentioned here is 25 years.
The possibilities of renewable energy technology are that everybody will be doing without electrical power, at home, at work, everywhere.
You can dream all you like, but until you realise they cannot deliver, and can not be made to deliver the large scale power required, and required ABSOLUTELY, you can squawk on all day about how great it is until the cows come home.
It just does not work!
This has less than zero to do with a political point of view. These are the solid facts.
The Climate Change debate can rabbit on forever, but until you are cognizant of the ramifications, that debate is moot!
Tony.
“If you can, imagine how far down the road of efficient renewable energy we would be if this money was spent on those projects”
What Tony just said!
Luke
Wasn’t that the time he made the error with Spencer? I thought they admitted their mistake and said they were sorry?
Anyway… Christy agrees the increase in CO2 is primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels. Fair enough, but where we part company is his belief that back radiation is having an impact on the planet’s surface temperature toward a warming rate.
He is a respected scientist, but I was wrong in thinking he was against the warmists. He’s probably in the same boat as Lindzen and Spencer.
Well we’re all sorry aren’t we? You guys wouldn’t let a warmist be sorry would you?
Far from infallible and getting the calibration of one’s sensors wrong – going from cooling to warming due to platform drift doesn’t inspire confidence. At least Christy, Spencer and Lindzen don’t dispute the basic greenhouse physics and so aren’t in cloud cuckoo land.
Tony has put me back to nuclear power where Barry Brooks has also gotten to. Solution – nukes all round (“new” nuclear not near fault lines or natural hazards please) or learn to adapt (or not as the case may be).
Regardless of climate change ENSO and IPO are pretty important – and droughts and floods wreak havoc so climate science still very much worthwhile IMO.
TonyfromOz
It is just as well you were not at Tobruk with the “Rats”. You would have given up and surrendered. Australians do not give up, no matter what the odds are. We find a way.
Your operative word is “currently”. I am sure that when coal fired power plants were first mooted there were doubters like you about then and sanity prevailed. That was then and this is now and a lot has changed or maybe you have not heard of graphen. Look it up and see what its uses are and its power outputs.
Look at a timeline of technology over the last 200 years and see how rapidly it is finding new and exciting developments.
If Bill Gates thought like you IBM would still be waiting for a personal computer and where would we be if Albert Einstein thought like you. He stood by his theories and they were only that, theories, but they worked. You probably would have been a “Flat World” beleiver as that was the status quo at the time. What about Alexander Grahem Bell, The Wright brothers, Coppinicus or Galilao. The list goes on of great inventors with vision who did not surrender to the doubters
Why is BP , Chevron and most large energy companies investing in renewable energy. Answer: IT IS THE FUTURE. Dont get left behind.
‘You guys wouldn’t let a warmist be sorry would you?’ The scientists are all forgiven, except maybe Hansen, and ex pollies like the gorical who must go down for crimes against commonsense.
I would consider the nuclear option, but only if the start-up cost is on parity with coal fired stations. There should then be a general debate in the media, followed by a referendum.
They also must be built without government subsidies.
AJ,
” The “No Carbon Tax” lobby support the burning of dirty brown coal to produce energy. A very inefficient process.”
I have to totally disagree with you here.
I think this line of argument is just totally mixed up.
If you don’t support a carbon tax that doesn’t mean you don’t support the search for other forms of energy.
Neither does it mean you support the burning of dirty brown coal.
It doesn’t even mean you DON’T BELIEVE in climate change.
There are plenty of people who believe in climate change, who believe in searching for new ways to produce energy and who don’t like the burning of dirty brown coal BUT THEY DON’T SUPPORT THE CARBON TAX!
I don’t support the carbon tax because I can’t see how the tax will do anything to achieve its stated goals.
I can see it supporting the formation of a whole new government bureaucracy that will spend the majority of the collected funds justifying its own existence.
The philosophy behind the tax is almost bi polar.
We’re going to whallop the very industries we rely on with a great big financial stick and then interfere with their ability to compete in the global market,
You know, the industries that put food on your table, supply reliable and affordable power to your home, supply the steel for the roof over your head, employ a huge % of the population and contribute a huge amount to Australia’s GDP etcetera
I do not believe that the people and corporations who run these industries are saints. Far from it.
However, they are not the evil environmental monsters that the Greens and others are trying to portray them as either.
The carbon tax is just a tax. Also, the Govt is fully intending to increase Australia’s coal exports and collect revenue on that as well.
So how on earth is that going to help?
BTW, I am not taking a political party stance here.
I am no fonder of the coalition policy. It completely lacks common sense as well.
The millions or billions spent on fossil fuel subsidies is not the issue being discussed here.
I would imagine much of that should be spent in better places as well.
That doesn’t change the fact that billions of taxpayers’ money is being spent on a very expensive obsession with climate change.
We can make anything appear insignificant if we compare it to something else.
It doesn’t change the point I was making however.
In your rebuttal of Tony’s very well explained points, I’m at a complete loss how you could compare Bill Gates etc with our current line up of bureaucrats and politicians?
The type of people you say you admire and the spirit of the Rats of Tobruk etc are not residing in government departments, more’s the pity!
You will find those people out running their businesses or inventing things in their backyards or in the entrepreneurial world.
Those type of people (and I admire them too) do not sit in cushy government jobs dreaming up ways to tax people!
Those type of people would not touch government funding and do not believe in taxes.
Those type of people would prefer all bureaucrats to rac off!
Tony was not saying that it won’t happen. His point was that we are heavily (HEAVILY) reliant on power and there is not a satisfactory replacement yet.
I believe , like you, that some brilliant inventor will come up with a solution one day, probably sooner rather than later.
Being an historian I have great faith in mankinds’ ability to come up with these answers.
History also teaches us that the last thing we would need is to let bureaucrats get their greedy paws all over it.
AJ
Point taken!
While your lot talk airy fairy apple pie and motherhood statements, with references to us ‘giving up’. and referring to us as dinosaurs who ‘want’ to live in the past whenever we attempt to inject reasoned logic into the argument, my task is to make you aware of the reality you so sorely cannot see.
Currently, and yes, there’s that word again, Australia produces 93% of all its electrical power from CO2 emitting power plants, (Coal, Black and Brown 76%, Oil 1%, Gas 16%) and that’s around 42,000 MW of Nameplate Capacity (of a 45,000 MW total)
Let’s say we need that done by 2020.
It needs to be in planning now, and I mean right now, for the earliest plant of any nature to come on line delivering power within those nine years for the first plant, and you need around 15 large scale plants and around the same medium scale plants, and as I mentioned above, nothing ‘currently’ even approaches that scale, medium or large, even in thought bubbles.
The projected cost is around $250 Billion in today’s dollars, and that’s a conservative low end estimate, so that’s around $27 Billion a year for those next 9 years.
That’s just for the plants themselves, so add to that the massive tooling up of industry to cater for all that before it is constructed at the site, and then for the infrastructure to deliver that power to the grids, a probable doubling of that earlier total, so now you’re looking at around $50 Billion a year for the next 9 years.
The, er, ‘price on Carbon’ and what comes next, the ETS, perish the thought, is supposedly revenue neutral, eg, what gets collected is given straight back, so the economists propose, so find the money wherever you can, because no one will outlay that cash without a guarantee of return.
Call me a dinosaur all you like, but until you tell me where that money comes from, that’s all your apple pie and motherhood dream is, wishful thinking.
Oh! Someone will come good with something soon.
And, er, Graphene, for all you other guys out there is the new hoped for breakthrough in Solar cell technology. It’s other magical property is that it persuades the Sun to shine through the night, and please, there are no batteries to store the charge for distribution at night.
Also, the 2/17 give up. You must be joking.
Tony.
Tony
Good to see that you took the time to look up Graphene. The part Graphene plays in the Solar energy field is small compared to its other uses. As an example it is 100 to 1000 times more conductive than anything in use now. Can you imagine if Graphene was used in old coal powered turbines. It will make computers 100 to 1000 times faster. It is 100 times stronger than anything being used at the moment as well as being flexible. These are just a few of Graphenes uses as the technology is in its infancy. There are many more technologies at play in the renewable energy sector.
I am sure that again when coal fired power plants were first mooted there were those who said where is the money coming from.
And again to all the doubters . LOOK TO THE FUTURE .DONT BE LEFT BEHIND OR YOU WILL BE IN THE DARK.
GOODBYE?
AJ
Took the time to look it up!!!!!
Yeah, a year or more back maybe.
I started off with valve technology in the last 60’s, and watched all the advancements in semiconductor theory, and the different technologies as they advanced, almost weekly in those days.
Miniaturisation was the big advancement then, and still is and this is just a further extension of that and speed.
What is the coming thing now is the advancements the Chinese especially are making with generators, mainly in the fields of superconducting magnetic fields in a supercooled environment.
The ones the Chinese are developing are a fraction of the size, and the weight, and produce two to three and more times the power that older style generators do.
Because of that. they have smaller turbines, less steam required, more efficient boilers, more efficient super critical furnaces, burn a third to a half as much more coal more efficiently, hence emitting lass CO2, considerably less.
Still too heavy to be driven by a turbine driven by steam generated from concentrating Solar means though.
We’ve lost all that now, and gee, a coal fired plant as efficient as that would not even get past the thought bubble stage these days.
Pity, imagine actually having that power 24/7/365 instead of 2 to 6 hours at five to 11 times the cost of the favoured renewables.
Tony.
Tony – to replace ALL our inefficient coal fired power stations with new efficient, air cooled, super efficient burners etc would cost approx $72 billion. Much less than nuclear.
AJ – I’m always following any new technology that claims to be capable of replacing fossil fuels.
Remember our hero from Sydney Uni who started his experiments in the Hunter with solar support to the power stations. Complained he couldn’t get funding and had to go to the US. Formed Ausra Power company and solicited financial support from the head/founder of Sun Computing – the biz version of Bill Gates. They were interviewed on the 7.30 report and were claiming they could power the whole of the US yet 5 years later all they achieved was a 5MW power station.
Unfortunately most of these so-called new technologies are just smart businessmen cashing in on all the renewable energy subsidies that governments around the world are tossing out like feeding fish!
I’m still a fan of hydro power.
We have plenty of scope to develop that if we could get over the Green opposition to upgrading our storage and conservation systems.
The added benefit is that if done properly, it supplies both renewable power and extra insurance against ‘drought and flooding rains’.
As well as their new power stations, the Chinese have done some excellent work in hydro power as well.
Even our Snowy System, which Australians are generally proud of, needs some serious upgrades. It could easily produce twice as much power for half as much water.
The technology is available, unfortunately the ‘political will’ is not.
Same problem that Tony highlights here.
We could easily make coal fired stations better with new technology.
Neither upgraded coal power stations or upgraded hydro power can get past the thought bubble stage.
The technolgy is available and even costed.
Unfortunately there is no political will.
Definitely a pity.
Probably more a crying shame.
AJ
just wondering.
Might you explain to me where you might use (Carbon based) Graphene in ‘old coal powered turbines’, or for that fact in new coal fired power plants.
Also your statement that you capitalised at the end, that bit in the middle ….. don’t be left behind, or ….. needs to be omitted.
Tony.
Again,
sorry to link into my own posts, but for those of you with an interest in Hydro electric power, read this from August of 2008.
There’s four parts in the series, so just click on them as you wish.
There’s HALF of Australia’s power right there in the one plant.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/?s=ThreeGorgesTony
Tony.
I’m going to propose a new law similar to Godwin’s Law.
I’ll tentatively call it Bolt’s Law (after that masterful polemicist).
Bolt’s Law states that when someone uses the term “Agenda 21”, in the context of a insidious plot to install a world government, the exchange has descended into madness and no further good will come from engaging with the person who drops the “A-bomb”. Lunacy will prevail over logic and common sense.
E.G. “Carbon tax…AGW…socialism….Agenda 21” Bada Bang Bada Bing, roll out the tinfoil, shiney hats for all my friends.
Of more immediate concern for those on the left, the Bolta is going to get his own TV show on Sunday, thanks to the acting chief executive Lachlan Murdoch and no doubt Gina Rhinehart.
It will be highly influential in reshaping the political landscape.
Tony ,
Sorry to see that you are so dismissive of Graphene technology but applaud you for the article on Hydro Electric Power.
Some more reading for you: Graphene creates pseudo- magnetic fields of 300 Tesla or more. The record is 85 Tesla. A paper by Michael Crommie, a faculty senior scientist in the materials division at the U.S. Department of Energy and a professor of Physics at the University of California, Birkley.
It makes what you said of the Chinese effort insignificant . Graphene is Nanotechnology not miniturisation. Graphene does not need to be cooled, no need to be supercooled.
In 2004 Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov discovered Graphine. In 2010 they won the Noble Prize for Physics.
You are correct that Graphene is Carbon based. What better use for Carbon than to produce Graphene as I am sure you are aware there is plenty of Carbon.
Your argument that renewables are to costly and would take to long to produce does not hold water. When coal fired power plants were first considered there were similar arguments as yours as to why they should not go ahead. Well somehow they found the money and the time. Hallelujah!!!
Tony , if you are interested in Hydro Power have a look at Gravitational Vortex Hydro Turbines in conjunction with the properties of Graphine. See the future is not that far away.
To John Sayers I hope you find that the above institutions are credible enough for you if not there are plenty more.
P.S. I hope you enjoy the reading and investigation. Hang loose
AJ, science produces theories and then looks for evidence to support those theories. The theory of CAGW has been shown to be flawed because its predictions have not arisen. The theory either needs to be adjusted ( such as suggesting the effects of additional co2 will cause only minor warming…or until more evidence is found to support the C in AGW we should just pause and do more research.
So far the for the theory;
predicted hot spot has not appeared,
global temperatures have not risen for over a decade
ocean temperatures have been marginally declining
ocean rises have been increasing at a decreasing rate.
couple that with the likelihood of the medieval, roman and minoan warm periods being global and as warm or warmer than today and the theory of AGW is looking decidely weak and in need of work.
Renewables are fine if you can afford them , suggesting we all adjust our economies in a foolish attempt to change temperature is a sign of human insanity. Someth9ing we repeatedly show we are capable of us.
Find me a river, anywhere, where any form of hydro will ever get beyond that proverbial thought bubble, no matter what the technology is!
Using your same argument in reverse, if The Snowy Mountains scheme was proposed now, it would be but a hollow dream.
Tony.
I cannot be bothered anymore. I have tried to inject some intelligent debate into this issue. It seems I have come to the wrong place . This blog should be called “closed minds” blog. I hope you guys enjoy your smog choked world.As well as myself their are many who are looking for a cleaner alternative to pass to our children and grandchildren. We do not own the planet, it is a baton change to the next generation. Iam sure you will be proud of your effort to make things better for those who come after us. I know I will be able to look my grandchildren in the eye knowing I have no regrets.
Thanks for the memories
You’ll be back snowball!
Tony,
It is very sad that your last statement is the state of things at the moment.
if The Snowy Mountains scheme was proposed now, it would be but a hollow dream.
I don’t believe that we should give up however. I also realise that you don’t either.
For some reason AJ seems to believe that you have given up? I’m not sure how he got to that place but nevertheless:
There were massive battles fought in the political arena before the snowy hydro project got off the ground.
It was also assissted by our nation’s awareness that it did not need to be vulnerable to a world food shortage crisis or a possible world political crisis like another war.
That would still be true today if we thought about it a bit more.
It is also possible (? I Hope?) that after 10 years of crippling drought followed immediately by a series of devastating floods (the land of drought and flooding rains) that the mindset about water storage and conservation may have started to change.
It certainly doesn’t hurt to speak up about it, that’s for sure.
There is no doubt that the storage and conservation systems and the hydro systems we have now have reached their use by date.
They are in serious need of upgrading.
debbie,
“vulnerable to a world food shortage crisis or a possible world political crisis like another war.”
The much despised subsidies for European farmers, specially the German farmers, have this one simple reason behind it. They will never ever again be solely relying on the world at large to feed them, simple as that, Adenauer (remember him?) stated this clearly.
Pity we don’t think the same way, not to mention the income we could have from a vibrant farming sector. We are not only short sighted, but virtually blind.
“It will be highly influential in reshaping the political landscape.”
Um, nah. It will be reinforcing the political landscape, i.e., the golden rule – those with gold rule.
Poor little rich girl Gina, wallowing in the misery of Daddy’s mega lode. Cry me a river babe. Why is the world so cruel (RSPT/MMRT)?
And poor little Lachy, drowning in his Daddy’s cash and stuck with a trophy wife.
What can these poor kids do?
How about buy a TV station and inflict your therapy on the public! Therapeutic treatment and satiation of greed in one hit? Not bad.
And who better to officiate at the altar of avarice than Mr Blot, corporate brown nose and bum ki$$er par excellence?
It’s a conservative’s wet dream. To me it looks like a turning blue, foetal position dummy spit by spoilt brats.
RWFOH
Cry in your soup if it makes you feel any better, but the reality is that for far too long the Fairfax papers, along with the ABC and SBS, have been pushing AGW as a given. The science is not settled and Bolta will see that we get a different viewpoint.
I’m going to suggest he ask Bob Carter in for a chat.
Luke from NOAA (Hansen I think)
‘While La Niña conditions are guaranteed well into 2011, it remains to be seen whether it will indeed last into 2012, as discussed seven months ago on this page. I believe the odds for a two-year event remain well above 50%, notwithstanding the possibility of temporary weakening during boreal summer.’
A double dip, who would have guessed?
Yeah you sure debate well AJ, your first comments slander the blog and most of its writers and you continue to belittle anybody who does not agree with you.
i quote you “What a lot of shallow, selfish, narrow minded, tight fisted group the disciples of conservatism are. ……… Thank god everyone does’nt think like you lot.”
It is you who appears to have the closed mind. Symptomatic of blogs like deltoid, real climate et al.
When you can respond with a sensible and factual response to my comments then maybe you are worthy of contributing to this blog?
In case you forgot the title of this blog heading relates to the carbon tax. The fact is and is a fact that is irrefutable…without new technology there is no currently viable way that anything we do will lower global emissions and in turn alter the climate ( if it was availabel dont you think somebody would be making money out of it by making those nasty fossil fuels redundant?!). That is a FACT, you can throw around platitutudes and moral judgements as much as you like but a carbon tax will not lower temperature, will cost jobs across the economy, will raise prices and will lower living standards by at the minimum, more than they would rise with no carbon tax. What is debatable is the degree to which my statements are correct.
The science is not settled and that must be obvious to anybody who can actually think.
So is the government imposing a tax on us that will not lower emissions and not lower temperature insanity? the obvious answer to me is yes. Now you are entitled to disagree but unless you can show me how the tax creates a social/ environmental benefit ( other than redistributing income in a way that may con a few to believe they will be better off) then i can only assume you must be one of the insane?!
Now if you want to fund renewable technology, then research grants and generous tax rebates would be a much more effective approach. And if a small tax is required to fund that, then (as much as I think the chances of us finding it in Australia are slim) impose a small $1-2 tax that will raise some money but will not be wasted in admin and churn and will not damage the economy.
Have you noticed how it is invariably warmers that are rude ( just look at RWFOH …wtf?) A lot in common with many greens ….now i wonder why that is?….
Johnathon,
Couldn’t agree more.
For the life of me I can’t see why we would expose Australia to that sort of vulnerability. It isn’t necessary and it doesn’t achieve a thing.
It can all be done with a much smaller ‘carbon footprint’ than importing food and exporting coal for heavens sake.
Somehow we are being led to believe that it’s more ‘environmentally credible’ to shift our CO2 emissions overseas??????
I don’t get it.
Johnathon,
This report is highlighting issues along the same lines.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/05/3182716.htm
AJ “The “No Carbon Tax” lobby support the burning of dirty brown coal to produce energy. A very inefficient process”…Do you really believe your statement? So wind is efficient and the other so called renewables??? if you bother to do some reseach you discover that coal is very efficient at producing energy…hence its cheap price. Your renewables however come at great cost and raise everybody livings expenses whilst basically doing ntg for the environment and climate. Dont be such a zealot about your beliefs and dont put down people who by the looks of it are far more informed than you.
debbie,
Yes a good article, it shows that many are aware of the problems, existing and developing, but
somehow the people who have the power to do something about it either ignoring it deliberately or by sheer incompetence.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist and believe that it’s merely ignorance, but so what? The end result is the same.
The warning that this may happen, “put up with the food riots, or hope for a good war to reduce numbers” is chilling but all too real. I’m sure many will say it’s only scaremongering.
There are two schools of thought with respect to ‘efficiency’, and people always mix them up.
The main one that I attempt to explain to people is what is termed Capacity Factor or efficiency of the delivery of power.
This is calculated as NP X 24 X 365.25 X 1000 where NP is Nameplate Capacity, 24 hours in a day, 365.25 days in a year (leap year is the 0.25) and 1000 is the conversion from Mega to Kilo. as the resultant is expressed in KiloWattHours (KWH) or in factors of ten, MWH, GWH or TWH (Mega, Giga, Terra). I use the KWH because that’s what people will relate to best when the only time they see it is on their electrical power bill.
So, theoretically a 2000MW large scale coal fired plant can produce 17.53 Billion KWH over one year.
The actual power delivered from that plant (typically) would be 14.9 Billion KWH giving it a Capacity factor of 85% or an efficiency rate of 85%
Typically large scale coal fired plants that operate on a 24/7/365 basis are around that 85 to 87.5% Capacity Factor, the lowering from 100% theoretical being down time for maintenance over the year.
Having said that, when you look at overall total statistics, you may find the total for Coal lower perhaps, around 60%. What this takes into account is that some smaller coal fired plants only operate during Peaking Power periods, eg, for short times, say four to 6 hours a day, and some smaller and medium plants are load following, eg, ready and waiting at full burn, but not delivering power until it is required in the event of sudden excess usage.
Typically, Natural Gas fired plants are even lower in Capacity Factor, mainly because these are the most often used for that Peaking Power, only required for 6 to 8 hours a day, but while ever they are running, they are delivering at their total 100%.
The average Capacity factor for Wind is around 20 to 25%, averaged over the year for all plants. Some may deliver up to 35% during excessively Windy months, but can also be down as low as 5%. Averaged over the year it comes out closer to 20% for a World average, and the U.S. with the most recent technology is averaging around 25%.
Solar has 2 areas, Concentrating Solar (referred to as Solar Thermal or even more incorrectly as Solar Baseload. a complete fabrication) and this comes in at around 60 to 65% with the Solar Component providing around 45 to 50%.
Solar Photovoltaic comes in at around 15% at the absolute tops, and don’t ever believe anyone who tells you differently.
The best is Nuclear which just hums away all day every day, again down time only for maintenance, usually scheduled for the refuelling period, every 18 months or so. The Capacity Factor for Nuclear is 92.5%. There have been quite regular cases in fact of a reporting period falling between refuels, and some plants have recorded a Capacity factor for the year, greater than 100%, and some as high as 103%, actually delivering more power than the ‘theoretical’ maximum.
Some people will look at efficiency and use a different context, say burning coal to produce electricity is an inefficient way of burning the coal, and this is totally unrelated to that Capacity Factor for efficiency of delivering power. The two do not correlate, and in most cases that efficiency is used to make a case ‘against’ coal fired power, if you can see that point.
The ‘efficiency’ I have explained here directly equates to running time, so for wind at 20%, that equates to around 5 hours a day, Solar PV at 15% equates to around three and a half hours a day. These two are not like the others where you can quote (some) Natural Gas plants at around the same rate because those NG plants are only required for specific times, and they come on line delivering their maximum while ever they are running, while Wind is at the mercy of that Wind, and Solar is at the mercy of a cloud free bright Sunny day time period.
Again, I have used an inordinate amount of space here with this comment, but it requires a correct explanation.
Tony.
I can see people’s brows furrowing right now, especially at my comment of Nuclear power plants delivering more than 100%.
That Nameplate Capacity is a nominal figure, and in fact plants can regularly produce more than that nominal figure while they are running.
For a citation of that actually occurring see this link for the Diablo Canyon Plant at San Luis Obispo in California:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Nuclear_Power_Plant
See at the Heading Unit 1, it says that during 2006 it delivered its power at 101.2% for the whole year.
I mentioned that at one of my posts, and a few days later I was actually contacted by someone who works at that plant with an explanation, which I then added to my Post as an UPDATE.
What is interesting is that following the refuel, the reactor was brought back on line, steam was generated, and the turbine ran up driving the generator, and that Unit then ran at its maximum rate all day every day for 18 months until the next refuel.
See the Post at this link with the UPDATE at the bottom of the Post:
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/nuclear-electrical-power-generation-%E2%80%93-why-the-fuss-part-11/
Tony.
Thx Tony for your interesting post, I dont suppose AJ will bother to acknowledge the ignorance in his statements but considering he clearly only visited to throw around insults its not really a loss is it?
So, how would a proposal for a renewable plant go down if they quoted up front that they can only deliver one third of their total power. (or their total power for one third of the time, averaged over the year)
So, what they do is to hide that Capacity Factor (efficiency rate for delivery of power) and to hide it in plain sight.
How they do this is by saying that the plant can supply X number of homes with power.
You’ve all seen it. It sounds impressive because its such a large number of homes when you consider how much your own electricity use is, and then extrapolate that out to X number of homes.
That plant is connected only to the grid, and not individually to those 70,000 homes, so it can never supply all that number of homes, as the electricity is distributed to Residential at 38%, Commerce at 37% and Industry 24% across the whole grid.
They know how much an average home in that area uses, and then approximate the total power the plant can deliver for a 12 month period, and then divide to one into the other, hence X number of homes.
Case in point.
Abengoa’s Solana Plant in Gila Bend Arizona, a 280MW Concentrating Solar Plant, using the trough technology to focus the sun via mirrors to make a compound molten which then boils water to steam to drive a conventional turbine/generator.
This is the link:
http://www.abengoasolar.com/corp/web/en/our_projects/solana/
Notice how it says it can supply clean power to 70,000 homes. Sounds impressive.
In that area the users consume 1095KWH per month, at this link. Click on Residential, and scroll down to Mountain States, and it’s shown in that second column:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html
So 70,000 homes at 1095KWH X 12 (months in a year), so 919.8 million KWH per year.
A 280MW plant can theoretically deliver 2455 million KWH per year.
This gives that plant a Capacity Factor for efficiency of power delivery of 37.5%.
THIS is what is euphemistically referred to as ‘Solar Baseload’.
That 37.5% equates to 9 hours a day.
Now refer that back to the absolute requirement for 60 to 65% of every watt of power being generated by every plant being required for 24/7/365.
Also, note the cost there for that plant, which after all is only 280MW, when compared to a large scale coal fired power plant at 2000MW, and then do the Math for costings, but it’s academic, because it cannot replace that 24/7/365 delivery of power from the coal fired plant.
That supplying of X number of homes, is the plant proposers way of you not knowing where to look to find the real truth, and then after someone points it out, they can say ….. “well, we told you that right up front.”
Tony.
Tony,
Even though my brow does furrow at some of the technical information, please keep giving us the information.
It is excellent to hear from people with solid & practical experience.
Far too often we get delivered ‘airy fairy’ idealistic platitudes and theories that have no grounding in the actual practice and operation of our supply industries.
Just for a start, most people who got involved in ‘earth hour’ don’t realise that the only power stations that got switched off (and potentially lost money) were the ones that they believed they were supporting.
As you have so clearly explained on many occasions, the ‘coal fired’ stations can’t be suddenly switched on and off!
The coal fired stations weren’t affected by ‘earth hour’ it was the hydro and gas and wind and solar etc power companies that lost out from that manouvre.
Like that makes sense?
There will be no carbon tax under the government that I lead.
http://www.bankerscompliance.com/assets/images/Blogging%20Images/Fingers%20Crossed.jpg
Anyone who wants to tell the committee what they think of their this carbon tax can email them at MPCCC@climatechange.gov.au don’t expect any replies though.