THE price of petrol could soar to a crippling $8 a litre over the coming decade, according to CSIRO-sponsored research to be released today.
The nightmare scenario says the weekly family fuel bill for a medium-sized passenger vehicle could rise to $220 by 2018 – taking $12,000 a year out of family budgets.
couriermail.com.au: ‘Get ready for $8-a-litre petrol’
CSIRO Media Release: ‘Fuel for thought’ on transport sector challenges
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
If that’s $8 a litre in 2008 equivalent dollars, then it’s big, although probably inescapable.
But if the figure has not been discounted for inflation (depreciation of actual monetary value) over the next 10 years, it may be a derisory increase. Anyone like to guess what else $8 will buy in 10 years’ time?
If the CSIRO are so good at these pridiction`s maybe they can give me next weeks lotto numbers some share market tips or an easy one,this years Melbourne cup winner.
Richard
Excellent point and how can the CSIRO predict this?
1. Econometrics, (the same technical expertise which Garnaut used to cast doubt on the measured MGT). Econometrics is the modelling of human behaviour using “prices” as a fundamental factor, including the idea of an evenly rotating economy. It assumes that human reactions to prices are, in aggregate, predictable in a statistical sense. They are not. (Acolytes of the Austrian School might comment here).
2. Petroleum reserves – based on what is known but not knowing what new technology, let new theoretical advances could occur to increase those reserves.
The scientific basis for only drilling in sedimentary basins, and not the crystalline crust, for oil is well entrenched in the theory of petroleum geology, but as this theory has no basis in empirical fact, one wonders what opportunities lie to find more oil in rocks no one thought of.
Hence, the CSIRO prediction rests on the assumption that nothing changes in the interim.
It is, in other words, a brain dead prediction.
Louis – “one wonders what opportunities lie to find more oil in rocks no one thought of.”
Well here is your chance. As you are so sure of your theories then how about you hire a drilling rig and start drilling. Anywhere should do.
Really it is amazing, given your ideas, that any well comes up dry.
Ender
Prove to all here that Abiogenic oil is my theory’
Some interesting names:
Future Fuels Forum partners include: Australian Automobile Association, Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, Australian Conservation Foundation, ARRB Group, Biofuels Association of Australia, Caltex, Engineers Australia, Future Climate Australia, Heck Group, GM Holden, NRMA, National Transport Commission, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Queensland Rail, Sasol Chevron, South Australian Government, Victorian Government and Woolworths.
This is yet another example of how completely vacuous and useless the CSIRO has become. They should be disbanded and the money wasted on it put towards reducing Rudderless’ ETS tax.
What they completely ignore is that alternative sources of oil would become economically viable long before we get to $8/litre.
The Athabasca oil sands in Canada are the second biggest oil reserve in the world (after Saudia Arabia) and become viable at $60-$70 per barrel.
Coal-to-oil becomes viable slightly above that.
D’ya think maybe someone might wake up to that well before we get to $8 a litre?
Just what are these CSIRO morons smoking at the moment? “Brain-dead”? Don’t you have to have a brain first?
Ender – if Louis was any good he wouldn’t be spending his retirement grubbing around the Kimberley in 3rd world conditions – he’d already be an oil billionaire.
Well Ivanovich – all their forum partners must be dopes too eh?
“all their forum partners must be dopes too eh”
Speaking of brain dead! Has the concept of ‘self interest’ ever been explained to you (in words of one syllable or less) ?
sheeesh – you have a world standard research organisation, you privatise it and it turns into a monster that believes it can predict anything – let’s nationalise it back…..please!!!
$8 a litre would put a whole new economic perspective on fuel.
Ender would even settle for nuclear to charge his batteries and there’d be home made charcoal burners everywhere.
Bassa Obama might even drill Alaska!
As much as the greens relish the thought of it, the reality would be drowned in their screams.
“sheeesh – you have a world standard research organisation, you privatise it and it turns into a monster that believes it can predict anything – let’s nationalise it back…..please”
According to CSIRO’s budget statements, the gubmint contributes $660M of its $1B budget already – so (unfortunately) we’re already paying for these drongos.
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pkg8.pdf
What sort of impact would $660M p.a. make on Rudderless’ ETS, I wonder?
Ender has not yet replied to Ianl’s question of where all the lead has to come from to supply his batteries.
Blinking tailigits seem to have gathered here to drop their wee POV’s.
Lukeisms, a wee wee one.
The CSIRO have become the lap dogs to Govt propaganda.They are now constantly coming out with alarmist statments with no rersearch to back it up.Guess who has just funded their cause so they will now tow the official Govt line of imminent global destruction.
Kevin Rudd is shaping up to be the most vacuous leader in our history.He is totally consumed with his own image.
Ivan – “The Athabasca oil sands in Canada are the second biggest oil reserve in the world (after Saudia Arabia) and become viable at $60-$70 per barrel.”
So they say, however the oil sands is just a method of converting natural gas to synthetic crude oil and losing about 50% of the original energy that you would get if you just used the natural gas in the vehicle in the first place. First of all it would be cleaner as NG releases far less pollutants than oil and second you would not turn Alberta into a moonscape and use all their water.
“Coal-to-oil becomes viable slightly above that.”
Right so instead of reasonably efficiently gasifying the coal and using it at 55% efficiency in an 90% efficient electric car you would rather turn 40 tons of coal into 1 barrel of oil that is then used at 15% efficiency in an IC car and releasing about 4 times the CO2.
Good plan so far. Junkies often are reduced to desperate measures to get their fix.
I think I’ve found most of the ‘research data’ that the CSIRO (and probably Tim Flannery, for that matter) has been basing it’s outrageous claims on:
http://neviditelnypes.lidovky.cz/p_absurdarium.asp?f=WAG244020_global_warming1.htm
http://neviditelnypes.lidovky.cz/p_absurdarium.asp?f=WAG2445d9_global_warming2.htm
http://neviditelnypes.lidovky.cz/p_absurdarium.asp?f=WAG244b5f_global_warming3.htm
Louis – “Ender has not yet replied to Ianl’s question of where all the lead has to come from to supply his batteries.”
Apart from the fact that lead is almost endlessly recyclable and is quite abundant is supply it is very unlikely that future electric cars will use lead-acid batteries. They are all based around Zebra sodium and sodium salts, Nickel Metal Hydride and Lithium batteries.
Between these 3 different technologies there are more than enough resources to supply batteries for a very large number of electric cars.
“Good plan so far. Junkies often are reduced to desperate measures to get their fix.”
Which, as usual, completely misses (or rather, sidetracks) the point. Whatever approach you take, you wind up with fuel at significantly less than $8/litre.
“you would not turn Alberta into a moonscape”
So – it’s OK for us to turn vast areas of our remote countryside into ‘moonscapes’ to supply the factories of Asia, but we look down our noses when another country proposes to support their standard of living by doing similar? Wasn’t aware that Athabasca was all that flash to begin with:
http://newsdesk.si.edu/images_full/images/museums/cfch/alberta/photo_3.JPG
Of course rabid denialist refugees still full of rant – $8/litre was one scenario – funny how nobody reads before they rave eh?
“$8/litre was one scenario”
Yeah, yeah – very coy. Only a moron would be taken in by this.
$8/litre was the HEADLINE scenario.
As usual, this alarmist tactic is the AGW stock in trade.
“funny how nobody reads before they rave eh”
I would have to accept your acknowledged leadership on this particular issue!
Naturally it is the ‘headline’ scenario – since when has the Australian media ever published anything that was attention grabbing?
It is, after all, the point of a headline. . .
I always enjoy reports that start with
“The results and analyses contained in this report are based on a number of technical, circumstantial or otherwise specified assumptions and parameters. The user must make its own assessment of the suitability for its use of the information or material contained in or generated from the report.”
Why doesn’t the media also put this warning on its reporting of the report?
“It is, after all, the point of a headline. . .”
Groan!
Let me spell it out for the slow learners.
This CSIRO “report” is political propaganda – nothing more, nothing less. If you take the time to read through it, it becomes clear that they are using the (unsubstantiated) $8/litre “headline” scenario to deflect heat from the proposed $40/tonne 10c/litre impact of the ETS. You can see that bit 2 paragraphs down, can’t you? Not the least bit surprised by the timing of this garbage in the same week as the Guano report, perhaps?
The sole purpose of this “report” from the ethically and morally bankrupt CSIRO is to do the gubmint’s dirty work and frighten the $hit out of people over a mythical $8/litre (i.e. a ridiculuous $800/barrel in 10 years time), so they feel relieved about an additional 10c litre.
Well Ivanovitch – of course it’s timely as it’s relevant to the debate. Duh !
The press went for the sensationalism and you didn’t read before ranting did you.
Are the commercial players involved also on the take. Some big names. Seems you’re swinging at everyone !
Cinders – standard legal paff after smarty Hong Kong laywers tried to take them to the cleaners.
Oh look most coporations (so loved her on blog as “the free market”) have brochures with comments like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-looking_statement so let’s not bung it on too much.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/07/11/2301156.htm
Sounds less than alarmist and just the sort of research needed unless of course you’re a denialist luddite.
Here’s the “periodic table” for some leading commodities, starring crude oil from 1999 to 2007, however 2008 is another story, starring, coal.
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Holmes/holmes_jul092008.html
The Magambo Guru reckons “the golden rule” has given way to “the rule of crude”, whereby foreign holders of $US would rather limit their exposure to the $US, and thus hold commodities, such as oil, instead.
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Daughty/2008-06-241.html
This is happening in your countries, too?! Why, the media keeps telling me that George Bush is to blame…and now he has affected you too. Sorry.
$8 a litre is contrary to the laws of economics.
Renewable energy costs a lot less than that. By gradually replacing the demand for petroleum, renewables will keep the price of petrol steady, give or take the inevitable speculations.
An interesting consequence of this equation is that more than a quarter of the petroleum reserves will never be extracted as they will be non-profitable by then.
I’m hanging out for one of these 🙂
http://www.teslamotors.com/
Ivan, my point was that ‘Headline’ was cherry-picked from the report by the media – not by the CSIRO.
Their media release (the source for the majority of the media reports) had this in the 8th paragraph:
““The future price of oil is uncertain,” Dr Wright said. “The Forum’s scenario modelling shows that if oil production peaks, prices could climb as high as A$8 per litre by 2018 in the most extreme case. This outcome could result in significant social impacts that are likely to adversely affect low income Australians.”
So CSIRO clearly stated that this was an ‘extreme’ model and this was halfway into the press release – hardly the act of an organisation on a mission to ‘beat-up’ I’d contend.
And the title of their evil press release?
“‘Fuel for thought’ on transport sector challenges”
Yes indeedy, drama all through that one. . .
Ivan – “Which, as usual, completely misses (or rather, sidetracks) the point. Whatever approach you take, you wind up with fuel at significantly less than $8/litre. ”
It is not sidetracking the point at all. The Oil Sands are not a reserve in the same sense that an oil reserve is. With oil fields you can only ever recover 50% or so of the oil in place. With the oil sands because of natural gas and water restrictions the ultimate yield may only be 5% of the in place reserves. Also as fuel costs rise the cost to produce the oil sands synthetic crude also rises so when petrol is $8 per litre then oil sands petrol may well be more than this.
The problem is that the Energy Return of the oil sands is very low as is the EROI of coal to liquids. We are only doing these desperate things to try and preserve the status-quo.
Even using ALL of Canada’s natural gas reserves they think that they might get the Oil Sands up to 10 million barrels per day by 2025. This gas presently gos to the US to generate electricity and heat homes so they face a choice. Do they want their SUVs or electicity and heat?
Janama – “I’m hanging out for one of these :)”
The Tesla is good however this is more my sort of car:
http://www.aptera.com/
It is more a motorcycle that I want to get back into anyway.
I nearly bought one of these
http://www.vectrix.com/live/uk.php
Some op eds on Peak Oil Theory
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bainerman/bainerman083105.html
“Well Ivanovitch – of course it’s timely as it’s relevant to the debate. Duh !”
Not even remotely relevant to any “debate” – or anything worthwhile, for that matter.
The $8/litre projection is a complete distraction – it’s only purpose is to soften the blow for a 10c/litre ETS tax.
There is no rational basis presented for arriving at this figure – scientific, economic, or political, so the whole thing is a scurrilous beatup by the CSIRO/Ministry of Truth in support of the Guano report.
Talk about “Duh!” — if Dick Cheney & Halliburton were prepared to invade Iraq to drive the price of oil up from $30/barrel, do you think they would sit back and just let the price drift up out of control to $800/barrel?
If you believe that, you’re a bigger moron than we all give you credit for.
Ender, spewing your nonsense as usual aren’t we? Water is unlikely to be a factor in restricting oil sands development. Current mining activity uses only 0.4% of the average river flow of the Athabasca River and the mining companies are getting much better at limiting usage of water and recycling. Each barrel of oil extracted today only takes a fraction of what was used 20 years ago and efforts continue to be much more frugal with water usage.
As to energy, that is unlikely to be a factor either. New methods that utilize some of the unwanted heavy elements of the bitumen have been developed and they are also looking at using nuclear power (gotta love that eh Ender?).
Newly developed mines and SAGD in-situ facilities are currently looking at a production cost of $36-40 per barrel including amortization of capital. Mining the oil sands is going to be very vaible for a long time to come at current oil prices.
However, a would agree that $8 a litre gasoline is a daft notion. We will be seeing the introduction of plug hybrids in the next 2-3 years and once their viability is demonstrated it will take away the pressure of supply vs. demand and I wouldn’t be surprised to see oil prices drop, ultimately to a level consistent with the cost of electricity production for an equivalent amount of utilized energy (what actually drives the wheels of a car). If they stay high enough, the oil sands will continue to be mined for decades to come along with other newly identified sources such as the Bakken formation. No shortage of oil here!
Luke and Ender,
It seems according to this article/opinion (http://memes.org/abiotic-oil-nutshell) you two are shills for Halliburton and hence the US.
Apparently Peak Oil is the reason the US went into Iraq (and don’t lecture me on that topic as one my nephews, a Lt Cmdr in the RAN, was part of the 5 Oz team at Qatar Centops under general Tommy Franks, so I have an advantage of insider knowledge).
Bit of a turnabout, isn’t. Amazing what a bit of careful Googling can bring up if the right search terms are specified.
No wonder both of you jump down my proverbial throat when I mention abiotic oil.
Me I stick with empirical science, not belief based science which you subscribe to.
Also seems the Russians can bore wells down to 40,000 plus feet – no wonder the US wanted the Russian deep drilling technology.
So come on you shills, ‘fess up.
“So come on you shills, ‘fess up.”
Louis — you give them credit for way…way…way too much intelligence!
Ivan,
I must do so in our tolerant society in which we allow all to prove, beyond all certainity, their silliness in a sensitive way.
Personally the two should have been subject to a gully job years ago.
Louis – “Apparently Peak Oil is the reason the US went into Iraq (and don’t lecture me on that topic as one my nephews, a Lt Cmdr in the RAN, was part of the 5 Oz team at Qatar Centops under general Tommy Franks, so I have an advantage of insider knowledge).”
Yeah and they tell Lt Cmdrs all the secret plans as a matter of course.
You really must be getting desperate to try to draw this bow. Good luck with it BTW.
Mark – “Ender, spewing your nonsense as usual aren’t we? Water is unlikely to be a factor in restricting oil sands development. Current mining activity uses only 0.4% of the average river flow of the Athabasca River and the mining companies are getting much better at limiting usage of water and recycling.”
Water and pollution are critical factors. Current mining activities may us little water however the refining and conversion process uses bucket loads and releases pollutants into the river transforming it into a polluted nightmare.
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/553568-p4.html
“What’s causing such problems is unknown. But some scientists suspect a family of chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons associated with oil refining and linked to deformities, reproductive problems and cancer.
Such compounds have been measured at levels harmful to aquatic life in sediment from the Athabasca River and the delta, said Jeff Short, research chemist with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
“Anything that tried to lay eggs in it and reproduce would have a very difficult time.” said Short, known for his work on the environmental impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
Ferreting out the source is difficult because the area is rich in natural bitumen that can be released through natural erosion. As Syncrude’s Gaudet put it: “I fish the banks of the Athabasca with my son and we’ve walked through natural tar seeps all along there.”
But Short pointed to peer-reviewed research showing “quite large biochemical responses” to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in fish downstream from the oil field. “It’s a red flag indicating exposures are almost certainly mobilized from tar sands mining activity,” he said.
In his survey of industrial contaminants, Timoney – the Alberta ecological consultant – found data gaps.
“There has been a terrible trend over the last 15 years in Alberta to privatize most of the monitoring,” he said. “At a time when we need more publicly available data, we now have less than ever.”
The solution, he said, is more rigorous research not linked to industry or Alberta’s provincial government.”
“New methods that utilize some of the unwanted heavy elements of the bitumen have been developed and they are also looking at using nuclear power (gotta love that eh Ender?).”
So you want a nuclear reactor that normally costs say 2 billion dollars. Double that for building it in Alberta and modifying it for in-situ steam injection and then add some for the increase in costs due to shortage of nuclear materials and you end up with an investors dream.
Forget for a moment that I vehemently oppose nuclear power and consider this. What is better?
An unmodified off the shelf nuke built close to population centers generating electricity for 90% electric cars or a modified nuke built in a remote place to turn tar into oil to burn at 15% efficiency?
“If they stay high enough, the oil sands will continue to be mined for decades to come along with other newly identified sources such as the Bakken formation. No shortage of oil here!”
Peak Oil does not mean running out of oil. The question is do we want to use polluting, CO2 intensive Tar Sands oil or do we change to non polluting transport that can be powered from renewables. The entire output of the tar sands will only make up for depletion of other conventional reserves.
Tar Sands and the incredibly overstated Bakken Oil reserves only prolong the problem and prevent change.
Ender
Since when has CO2 become a pollutant?
Ender,
Not desperatem, just privy to…..
You, on the other hand, seem to spend too much time trying to estimate the voltages over the banks of batteries you use by placing your penis on one terminal and your head onto the other terminal, to measure the potential ZAP.
Ender: “The question is do we want to use polluting, CO2 intensive Tar Sands oil or do we change to non polluting transport that can be powered from renewables. The entire output of the tar sands will only make up for depletion of other conventional reserves.”
The answer is yes! That will not change until there is an economically competitive alternative. Renewables are not currently there!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080710.wreynolds0711/BNStory/energy/home
Louis – “You, on the other hand, seem to spend too much time trying to estimate the voltages over the banks of batteries you use by placing your penis on one terminal and your head onto the other terminal, to measure the potential ZAP.”
Is there any other way?????
Mark – “That will not change until there is an economically competitive alternative. Renewables are not currently there!”
From your reference:
“Mr. Lodge says it is not practical to turn coal-fired plants off and on as winds rise and fall – because ramping them up consumes more fuel (and emits more carbon dioxide) than running them at a constant rate.”
So wind is a problem because the 19th century coal plants cannot turn off and on fast enough – and you think the problem is with wind turbines. Also have you noticed how small Denmark is?
You can spin this anyway you want – try this:
Denmark’s antiquated stone age coal fired power plants, because they cannot interact with the non greenhouse gas emitting and efficient wind turbines, cause this power to be sold at a loss. If modern IGCC plants were built instead and Australian power controls installed the wind could interact with the IGCC plants saving millions of tons of greenhouse gases emissions thousands of tons of fuel.
Lets see how economically viable $8.00 per litre petrol is.
1) “Apart from the fact that lead is almost endlessly recyclable and is quite abundant”
There goes dipstick2 again. First it needs to be mined from commercial deposits (not abundant at all), then smelted (oooh, the energy !!), then fabricated (oooh, again), then transported/distributed etc … and the point of my question was the GROWTH in worldwide demand, as usual not addressed by dipstick2.
2) “Zebra sodium and sodium salts, Nickel Metal Hydride and Lithium batteries”
same comments – billions of these things and growing
3) “reasonably efficiently gasifying the coal and using it at 55% efficiency in an 90% efficient electric car”
Notice that dipstick2 does not quantify “reasonably efficiently”. This is because the efficiency is quite low from CSG (coal seam gas) at about 30%. UTG (underground coal to gas) has an efficiency of about 70% but presents the sort of environmental mining problems that the Watermelons go absolutely apeshit about
And the renewabubbles ?
Fact (Ministry of Energy, Germany December 2007):
0.5% of Germany’s baseload is from solar
25% is from nuclear power stations (17 at this point)
50% is from lignite (brown coal) power stations
almost all the remainder is gas – bought mostly from Russia (irony, anxiety about reliability etc …)
Wind renewabubble is so low it is not measured.
And Germany is quoted endlessly by the dipstick Watermelons as “so renewabubble advanced”.
CO2 capture is feasible (CO2 scrubbers of varying efficiencies have been around for a very long time), but transport and storage for the volume required is mind-bogglingly expensive, let alone the dedicated infrastructure required for this.
Nuclear power is an obvious interim to medium energy source if the Watermelons are to have their way and reduce CO2, or living standards plummet. That this energy source is so hated by them is a tribute to the intensity of their dipstick zealotry.
Count the number of nuclear power stations across the globe now, the total TWh output, modern safety record and most specifically, methods for dealing with nuclear wastes. I mean specifics. Then ask how renewabubbles can equal this reliable baseload supply. An interesting question and one which Watermelons will not address.
Ender: “Lets see how economically viable $8.00 per litre petrol is.”
That will never happen! If the damn watermelons would get out of the way, if necessary the world would be building coal to gasoline conversion infrastructure at $40-60 per barrel!
Ianl – “There goes dipstick2 again.”
Funny how the brownshirts resort to insults. Usually means that intimidation is substituting for facts.
“Notice that dipstick2 does not quantify “reasonably efficiently”.”
No I don’t however it is better to use coal in this way rather than just lumping it in and burning it like you Victorian Age people would like to.
“And Germany is quoted endlessly by the dipstick Watermelons as “so renewabubble advanced”.”
Brownshirts who do not understand electricity and the type of power stations would be surprised at this however did they quote how much of Germany’s peaking demand was met by solar or wind? Again as before just because thermal coal and nuclear cannot interact with 21st century power generation is not the fault of the advanced power. The sooner Germany can get rid of Victorian age power and move to storage and intermediate power generation that can interact with solar and wind the higher these figures will be.
However as usual the brownshirts would rather return us to the age of steam where they feel comfortable and safe.
“Nuclear power is an obvious interim to medium energy source if the Watermelons are to have their way and reduce CO2, or living standards plummet. That this energy source is so hated by them is a tribute to the intensity of their dipstick zealotry.”
No we ‘watermelons’ would rather not leave a dangerous legacy for future generations and also not die in a nuclear attack from weapons derived from peaceful nuclear power. Stupid I know however it’s just the way we are. Brownshirts obviously cannot think beyond the next Big Mac.
“Count the number of nuclear power stations across the globe now, the total TWh output, modern safety record and most specifically, methods for dealing with nuclear wastes. I mean specifics.”
Sure and count the number that are free market and how many are socialist and state run. Obviously you are now joining the socialist revolution – welcome aboard comrade.
Oh and nuclear waste. Approx 95% of it is stored above ground where the current owners are simply waiting to die whereupon it will cease to be a problem.
It would be an easier and quicker job to list the waste that is stored in geological storage – that would only take a few seconds.
Wind is 21st Century power generation? When were windmills invented? Several centuries ago I think.
Nuclear is the obvious solution. The distribution infrastructure is already in place, unlike wind which requires lots more transmission infrastructure at vast expense for little power transmitted. BTW you do know that modern windmills are built out of concrete, steel, carbon fiber and epoxy don’t you? They aren’t about to get much better either. Modern airfoils are about as good as they can be. We’ll see what the lifetime is. Gearboxes seem to need replacement every 4 to 5 years, the concrete and steel towers suffer from fatigue and I’m not going anywhere near a 100,000 hour plus carbon fiber wing that’s rotating. Wonder how the skins stand up to a good hailstorm also(also applies to solar – very vulnerable to natural disasters)? Delamination and failure at less than the assumed strength?
Nuclear doesn’t need to leave a dangerous legacy for future generations. After the useful isotopes for power generation are removed and used again the waste isn’t all that long lived. Anyhow, long lived nuclear waste(Pu 239, U235,Unused U238) isn’t all that radioactive.
As for dying in a nuclear attack from weapons derived from peaceful nuclear power, you need to be aware that all the weapons today are the result of deliberate government military programs. Any *government* which wants nuclear weapons badly enough will acquire them, civilian nuclear program or not.
The last thing I want to do with nuclear waste is bury it in geological storage. Current nuclear waste still has most of the potential energy in it. It should be recycled and energy produced. Some can be burned in Gen 4 reactors. When done properly nuclear waste is a complete non problem. It is also, compared with any other energy production waste, tiny in volume.
Done right, fission could be a viable energy source for thousands of years. It will even run your electric cars when they stop being hobbyist level devices.
It is going to be really interesting to see how often the battery pack in the Tesla car needs replacement. They are laptop batteries. How’s your laptop holding up? I’ve got a 3 year old one with similar batteries which hasn’t done a lot of work and there is a detectable loss of capacity already like maybe 30 – 40%.
As for brownshirts, they were Nazi’s Ender, so by Godwin’s Law you lose.
I have a contact in Climate sceptics who used to work for the UK Coal board and they managed to extract gas from coal to 95% efficiency, but at the time HM Government was dealing the Coal unions and shutting the mines down, so the process was shelved and the Official Secrets ACt still applies. Some sort of fluidised bed or something.
In terms of future energy, if you think of the earth as some sort of homopolar motor, then work out the source of that energy, then we have a problem? Sure do if most of scientists continue with a belief based science rather than an empirically based one.
Just like there’s no oil under the crystalline basement, hey Ender, but the Russians would tell you that your fossil fuel theories are not worth even considering.
Watermelon science – that is what it is.
Eyrie – “Wind is 21st Century power generation? When were windmills invented? Several centuries ago I think.”
Sure and they all had composite blade, permenant magnet alternators and IGBT power ontrollers.
“BTW you do know that modern windmills are built out of concrete, steel, carbon fiber and epoxy don’t you? They aren’t about to get much better either. Modern airfoils are about as good as they can be. We’ll see what the lifetime is. Gearboxes seem to need replacement every 4 to 5 years, the concrete and steel towers suffer from fatigue and I’m not going anywhere near a 100,000 hour plus carbon fiber wing that’s rotating. Wonder how the skins stand up to a good hailstorm also(also applies to solar – very vulnerable to natural disasters)? Delamination and failure at less than the assumed strength?”
Sure then I guess you will stop flying in commercial airliners then as some of them are suning composites for their wings now. Also wind turbines are moving to the variable speed speed that have no gearboxes. These use recent advances in power electronics so all the 50Hz stuff can use moving electrons rather than moving hardware.
Nuclear power plants have 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more moving and dangerous componenets than wind turbines.
“Nuclear doesn’t need to leave a dangerous legacy for future generations. After the useful isotopes for power generation are removed and used again the waste isn’t all that long lived. Anyhow, long lived nuclear waste(Pu 239, U235,Unused U238) isn’t all that radioactive.”
Keep telling yourself this and then click your heels together and repeat after me “there is no place like home”.
“Done right, fission could be a viable energy source for thousands of years.”
Yes and so could solar and wind without the nuclear waste and the nuclear weapons that you think are ineviable
“As for brownshirts, they were Nazi’s Ender, so by Godwin’s Law you lose.
Actually I didn’t think of Nazis at all so thanks for the reference and losing the argument. I was just thinking of a derogatory term for hidebound, oonservative idiots that want to keep the world in a fantasy OZ land and “brownie” is too cute. I think the “brownshirts” is far better counter to watermelons. So I am sticking with that one.
Mind you after having invoked the Nazis, images of ignorant skinhead thugs intimidating poeple with violence seems to fit you people like a glove.
Interesting hearing Ender referring to others as “Brownshirts”.
This from the man who wants to force people out of their Prados and SUVs at gunpoint??
“images of ignorant skinhead thugs intimidating poeple..”
I didn’t realise Luke was a skinhead.
Ender: “Lets see how economically viable $8.00 per litre petrol is.”
Indeed it will never happen. Dick Cheney and Halliburton invaded Iraq at $30/barrel. They are now setting up to do the same to Iran as we approach $200/barrel. They will do the same to Saudi Arabia well before we get to $800/barrel.
On OPEC production alone, $800/barrel represents $8.7 Trillion p.a. (more than half the US annual GDP). Include the non-OPEC supply and that accounts for the entire US GDP.
Get into the real world, Ender!
My hair style – what’s it to ya Ivan. Do you want a go do ya? I suppose you don’t like my kicker boots or piercings either? If AGW types have to get rough to get the point across to denialists that what it takes. Besides as soon as we get in charge there will be no talking back and you’ll be on carbon rations.
10 uses of the filthy word watermelon gets 30 uses of denialist scum as reprisal.
A derogatory term for hidebound, conservative idiots that want to keep the world in a fantasy OZ land?
So deniers has lost its impact and we need to go for stronger language and Ender insists he did not know the meaning of “brownshirts”? A Google search will answer Ender’s dilemma – the first extract is clear on its derivation and meaning.
But Ender has lost the argument on this otherwise why libel us with ad hominems?
Incidentally Ender, the Lt. Cmdr had access to raw uncensored “intell” as they say, so your sneering remark was as accurate as an Iranian Missile launch.
The Peak Oil link I gave above, while based on some facts, is associated with some quite bizarre ideas – usually associated with the anti-US groups under the Greeny umbrella.
The US has an oil problem because the environmental groups killed oil exploration on the continental US, and the private oil companies, Exxon Mobil, etc, are finding it harder to get access to new reserves, sovereign governments shutting the door on them by allowing the state owned oil companies monopolysing the oil reserves.
So it’s no wonder the US is in the middle east, but not because of the Zionist-Wall Street cabal but because of the environmental movement.
So who is really behind the Peak Oil theory movement?
NO ! “usually associated with the anti-US groups under the Greeny umbrella.” – pulled straight out of the air. Evidence? As usual Hissink makes shit up. Typical denialist creep.
WTF !! “Exxon Mobil, etc, are finding it harder to get access to new reserves” – but abiogenic oil is everywhere isn’t it – surely Louis you’re on contract helping them out.
“oil reserves” – but there are no reserves according to you – the stuff is everywhwere.
What a con artist you are mate.
Luke
You are quite barking mad.
Oil companies need to have the sovereign state grant them exploration permits to explore – and that approval is not forthcoming, then they are locked out.
But I seem to have hit a nerve – must keep it up – your mouth frothing is part of the entertainment here.
“10 uses of the filthy word watermelon gets 30 uses of denialist scum as reprisal.”
Hmmm… Remind me again – what was the quote?
“My intention is to debate. Or is that not what you want?”
Oh this is terrible, this is a catastrophe – American scientists can manufacture methane from compressing water, marble and iron oxide in a diamond anvil.
“For Herschbach, these exciting research questions have “given me a second scientific childhood.” He and his colleagues are eager to return to the lab and find out if even higher pressures will create more complex hydrocarbons, such as butane or propane. The research raises fundamental questions about how scientists determine if a material has living or nonliving origins. It also validates the work of previous scientists. “The fair conclusion,” Herschbach says, “is that the views of Thomas Gold and Russian scientists all the way back to Mendeleev need to be taken more seriously than they have been in the Western world.”
http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/03/rocks-into-gas.html
How can we cope with this confirmation of Tommy Gold’s idea that oil comes from the mantle!
Nothing like experimental evidence to confirm a theory but we are still waiting for Ender to provide the experimental evidence that oil is the result of buried biomass.
Of course as http://www.gasresources.net details, the Russians knew this a long time ago.
So is the present high oil price due to supply restrictions, or due to an expansion of the money supply?
This is an interesting quote:
“Western geologists do not bother to offer hard scientific proof of fossil origins. They merely assert as a holy truth. The Russians have produced volumes of scientific papers, most in Russian. The dominant Western journals have no interest in publishing such a revolutionary view. Careers, entire academic professions are at stake after all.”
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2007/0925.html
This is the deductive method at its best – they assume it has to be biotic because they find biological detritus in it, and from consensus agree to make it a fact.
So how did the kerogen form in oil shales and tar sands? How do biological organisms transform into extremely heavy carbon compounds at the near surface?
Or are the oil shales and tar sands surface deposits of the oil and tar that rained down from the skies as related by ancient civilisations during some global climatio catastrophy as summarised by Velikovsky?
So there are two scenarios – spontaneously generate kerogens from biomass at near surface pressures and temperatures no greater than those associated with diagenesis, or accept that maybe, these sedimentary accumulations of kerogens etc originated as Velikovsky proposed, as hydrocarbon deposits from some earlier global catastrophe.
This should start a lively discussion I suspect.
Louis – “Incidentally Ender, the Lt. Cmdr had access to raw uncensored “intell” as they say, so your sneering remark was as accurate as an Iranian Missile launch.”
So did I at one stage however I never made the mistake of repeating it to anyone. Your Lt Cmdr obviously is a security risk – hope no-one knows who he is because you may have got him into very hot water. Ever heard of the Official Secrets Act?
“So deniers has lost its impact and we need to go for stronger language”
You people started with the watermelons slur and dipstick. I guess it goes back to the same thing if you can’t take it don’t dish it out.
Every time the watermelon term reappears out will come the brownshirts. BTW brownshirts refer to the anti renewable nuclear and coal people not climate change deniers.
Ender,
Security risk? Goodness me which bit of intell have I divulged? Believe me Ender, you have no idea at all of this area – no secrets were leaked to me but observation of primary intell caused a conversion of anti US to pro US, sop I gather. You live in a fantasy world. Sure the float voltage is correctly set in your cranium?
No Ender you and your mates started it with the slur of “denier” – so cut the holier than thou cant please. Stop callins us deniers and you will get reciprocation. Continue with vilification and ad homs, and you will reap what you sow.
But name calling us from the start meant you lost the argument from the start.
And no, the term Brownshirts is forever associated with the German National Socialist Sturmabteilung, but your last sentence is definitely a howler – Brownshirts means anti renewable nuclear and coal people. What about oil or is that now exempt?
Or have you started to realise what a foolish feory fossil fool is.
“Continue with vilification and ad homs, and you will reap what you sow.” after about 3 years we’re still waiting mate !
Luke, Phil Done, El Creep, he with a multiple personality disorder, waits on what, pray tell? For 3 years?
Which of your malignant personalities are you going to use to explain your last nonesense?
Excoriating climate sceptics by verballing them with slurs and libel to win an argument isn’t succeeding, is it, El Creepo, or is it Phil Done.
Perhaps we should address you hence forth as Medusa? Would you like that? 🙂
“lumping it in and burning it like you Victorian Age people would like to.”
There goes dipstick2 again, with his straw men. There was nothing I posted to suggest that was how I wished coal to be used. My point was the efficiency ratings. You really don’t know what a straw man is, do you ?
You completely ignored the FACT that Germany and France (not socialist states)supply power to a heap of surrounding countries from their nuclear stations. Again, count them rather than sneering at the politics. That doesn’t suit dipstick Watermelon propaganda. Straw men do that.
“Approx 95% of it is stored above ground”
Of course you can demonstrate that silly piece of nonsense. A few years ago, a French farmer in the middle of unpopulated land scored EUD40,000/m^2 from the nuclear power station conglomerate to sell underground storage space. The geology of it was as good as it gets.
Dipsticks and Watermelons – answer the question:
“Count the number of nuclear power stations across the globe now, the total TWh output, modern safety record and most specifically, methods for dealing with nuclear wastes. I mean specifics. Then ask how renewabubbles can equal this reliable baseload supply”
No straw men, no evasions – just answer the question.
Ianl
France is not a socialist state? Que? Pardon? Und Chermany is not also?
Socialist states are recognised by the dominance of central planning of policy, not by the anarchy of masses.
If the market price of fuel will be $8/litre then the global economy must be set for boom times!
Louis – sometimes I think you’re not very bright at all. So how long have you had cognitive perception difficulties? Mate we have seen enough of your rampant irresponsibility to last a life time. “Grenades into the blogosphere”. So spare us the phoney pretension eh?
BTW Phil sends hugs…
some of the name calling that is meant to be offensive, in fact is what some people actually like to be known as; take Pete Hay and Richard Flanagan who are well known advocates of the Tasmanian green movement.
They have proudly identified themselves as watermelons, here’s an extract from an interview:
Hay: “And as for you and me, we’re the Pariah Dog Party.”
Flanagan: “Watermelon Greens, Hazy.”
Hay: “Watermelon Greens mate.”
Flanagan: Green on the outside, red on the inside.”
for the full interview see http://walleahpress.com.au/FR12interview.html
Louis
I had meant to add for you that you had left out “denialist criminal scum” as another epithet from our resident dipsticks.
You will notice that each time I ask a direct question on exactly how “renewabubbles” will supplant coal, gas, nuclear etc for reliable baseload power in cities, there is no attempt at an answer. TWh what ?? is the courageous reply. So who is the “criminal”, one wonders.
This is because such questions go into the Applied Science realm, the hard practical areas of modern civilizations. Reliable, affordable power is the very core of our modern civilization (mass refrigeration, water, sewage, hospitals, homes, transport, manufacturing etc). Watermelons have evaded this issue for over 15 years. Our resident AGW zealots just continue that tradition. That’s why I refer to them as Mickey Mouse dipsticks.
The hard stats on Germany’s current power source mix remain as fact, of course. Merkel had agreed to phase out nuclear power as the price she payed for political power, but has since negotiated stasis because she found the question I asked above too hard to answer with just renewabubbles. And she does not like having to buy essential gas supplies from Russia … but renewabubbles just don’t cut it.
BTW, I’m just waiting for the “Barrier Reef is doomed” line to regurgitate itself. The Palaeocene experienced CO2 atmospheric levels of over 3000ppm, but the corals have survived since the beginning of the Palaeozoic. Yes, I have hard references for these comments, although I admit they are in the geological literature (not a proper branch of Science, you know).
Rog,
the problem reduces to supply of tradeable oil,and the quantity of money. Both are controlled by government, not the market. Prices are therefore contrived.
Ianl
While I agree with your analysis, I suspect other factors are in play.
Casting doubt of the science I regard as a ploy to deflect criticism of the policies behind the CO2 lobby.
Like Jason Bourne, of the fictional movies, and based on my own personal experience with De Beers, things may bot necessarily be what they appear.
Well Ianl – that’s because you’re “exclusivists” – it must be THIS or THAT. No mixes are allowed !
Make your bed and lie in it !!
No progress is possible. No investment will be considered.
Outfits like Ausra http://www.ausra.com/ would never come into being with coal sniffers like you guys in charge. Actually we’d still be stuck in Dickensian England.
And Ianl – which corals ? – all depends on the rate of change doesn’t it. If you’re happy without a tourist industry for a few hundred years while the reef sorts itself out that’s OK.
Again more denialist loopy thinking – compare a million year rate with 100 years, compare a world with a few million humans with same concern as 6 billion ! Stoopid …
I actually don’t really know what the story is with the reef – but I hope the research keeps going and tells us soon. Suitable zooanthellae and all that jazz.
As usual Louis projects his family politics and cold war crank stuff into every crevice.
Luke: “Outfits like Ausra .. . Blah, Blah, Blah”!
Wake us up when they have their first 2,000 Megawatts up and running – you know the equivalent of a single, midsize nuke or coal-fired facility.
Meanwhile, in the real world the economy continues to need to function!
Louis,
according to many sources incl British Gas- before they enter into new projects they allow that oil could be $30/40 bbl – they dont know which way the price will go but that is their break even point for production – the balance is speculation and other costs.
“Wake us up ” la lah la lah – we’re not listening. We only want to rant. La la la lah. Nothing must change ever. We want to sniff coal. La la la lah.
Yes wake up indeed ! The incredible nihilism of denialism.
Let me remind us blogsphere intellectuals again; we don’t have enough skilled practical people in Australia to build and operate even one nuclear power station.
Given the one with the day job also has an outburst of sarcasm every time she hears a pollie speaking on the subject we can say the whole construction industry can’t sharpen drills or pay their bills in time and it’s mostly hand to mouth at the grass roots.
Today as a new house went up in smoke I wonder why people interviewed on the news said there was a big bang near the switch board in the garage.
As a mechanical apprentice I learned something about the routine maintenance of industrial high current switch gear and something about the maintenance of super heated steam reticulation as a source of electrical energy. In the mid 80’s I learned something about networks and grids and realised my tutors and the great, mostly private industry sponsored institutional training had long gone from the scene. It was all part of that commercial smartness we had to have.
In between, as a one man band I had a lot of contact on various projects with outfits like Skilled Engineering. We all knew each other then. A tradesman’s reputation depended a great deal on his outfit. Professional engineers came and went but that construction core stayed roughly the same over decades. Oddly enough its these retired individuals that are interested in learning other crafts as the business world races by.
It’s my recommendation that every energy conscious city in this country need to build a LNG mass storage facility in their back yard before bothering with the nuclear stuff. Like Evans & Co on thes bike in France we need an experienced lead out in the team.
“we don’t have enough skilled practical people in Australia to build and operate even one nuclear power station”
That’s a bit of a defeatist attitude, isn’t it?
Check out this list:
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm
Are you saying we are less skilled / less intelligent than some of the countries on this list?
(If so, it probably explains why AGW is such a big hit in Australia)
Ivan: I’m saying the active skills have vanished at every level. If you care to look, most of Australia’s major industry was built along time ago, particularly the in easten states where most people live.
How long does it take to train practical people and advance them into say management of technology? Any change in industry direction will be hard to staff from current programs.
Louis – “No Ender you and your mates started it with the slur of “denier” – so cut the holier than thou cant please.”
Unless you are particularly sensitive the term denier refers to people that deny the scientific facts relating to global warming hence the term denier.
However dipstick2 is a ad-hom and perhaps the person referring to me in this way can stop so Louis can preserve his sensitivities.
Brownshirts is an apt term for all conservatives that wish the world to remain as it is in its fossil fuelled golden age. It implies ignorance and violence from many fascist groups of the past and I will use it whenever the watermelon is used.
“I’m saying the active skills have vanished at every level.”
Skills have vanished largely because the people who possess them see little future in a country determined to head down the “Emerging Third World Status” path. Abandon this insanity and drown the moronic Watermelons and they will return.
“How long does it take to train practical people and advance them into say management of technology?”
Those wonderful people from GE (or whoever) will manage the construction and commissioning – after that, all you really need is a few trained monkeys. GE will even supply them, if required.
Mexico can’t manage public infrastructure of any persuasion – and they have 2 nuclear power plants. It obviously isn’t an impossible task.
Ianl – “There goes dipstick2 again, with his straw men. There was nothing I posted to suggest that was how I wished coal to be used. My point was the efficiency ratings. You really don’t know what a straw man is, do you ?”
First of all if you want a rational discussion then perhaps you could drop the arsehole attitude. I do know what a strawman is and obviously you do not. I supplied oounter arguments which are not to be confused with the straw man fallacy. I did not supply a completely different unrelated argument which I then demolished, I supplied a relevant counter argument.
“You completely ignored the FACT that Germany and France (not socialist states)supply power to a heap of surrounding countries from their nuclear stations. Again, count them rather than sneering at the politics. That doesn’t suit dipstick Watermelon propaganda. Straw men do that. ”
Both the French and German nuclear power operations are state run and financed are are not private enterprise. The only completely private enterprise nuclear program is in the US where it is still only viable with huge government subsidies.
Both France and Germany do sell surplus power to neigboring states however that is the nature of baseload power. It is far more economical to run the plants flat out all the time and sell the surplus cheaply. This is one of the major reasons renewables displace less fossil fuel power then they should. Baseload plants cannot vary their output in response to fluctuations in wind.
On the flip side of this the French and German baseload power system is only viable at the prices that they charge because of Swedish pumped hydro that they both use as peaking power. If they did not have this then they would be far more dependant on expensive gas fired peaking plants running on Russian gas. None of the nuclear plants could operate without this peaking power in place.
“Approx 95% of it is stored above ground”
Of course you can demonstrate that silly piece of nonsense. A few years ago, a French farmer in the middle of unpopulated land scored EUD40,000/m^2 from the nuclear power station conglomerate to sell underground storage space. The geology of it was as good as it gets.”
The US alone has 29 000 tons of high level waste in aboveground storage.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10119&page=20
“The widespread practice of storing wastes at or near facilities where they were produced and the lack of progress toward an accepted long-term solution contradict intergenerational ethical objectives of fairness for both those who benefit from nuclear technologies and those affected by the waste. Achieving fair and equitable solutions to the waste problem has been, and will continue to be, a complex and difficult task”
Whether widespread practice is 95% you can check if you like be reading the report. For now I will retract 95% and subsitite the widespread practice of aboveground storage that I do have a source for.
“Dipsticks and Watermelons – answer the question:
“Count the number of nuclear power stations across the globe now, the total TWh output, modern safety record and most specifically, methods for dealing with nuclear wastes. I mean specifics. Then ask how renewabubbles can equal this reliable baseload supply”
I see so all I have to do is a masters level thesis and analyse the entire global nuclear industry or you are going to say that renewables cannot do it. Sorry mate this is not going to happen.
If you want this sort on information on how renewables in concert with reduced and managed fossil fuel power plants can supply reliable power the perhaps you can read some of Dr Mark Diesendorf’s work.
http://www.ies.unsw.edu.au/about/staff/mark.htm
Also nobody has ever said that there will be one sort of power plant. We need to reduce fossil fuels back to less than 30% of our electricity generation mix. At this level there is a chance that some of the CO2 might be sequestered. Also if we use ooal in IGCC plants they can then interact with storage and wind as they are intermediate power rather than baseload.
Nuclear is baseload only and is worse in this respect than thermal coal. Nuclear is the worst type of power for a smart grid as it is the most inflexibe.
Off you go to Mexico hey
“We need to reduce fossil fuels back to less than 30% of our electricity generation mix.”
Yeah … yeah.
Then we NEED to pull all those people out of their Prados at gunpoint.
Then we NEED to put all the oil company execs on trial for crimes against humanity.
You and your Brownshirts are going to busy boys, Ender. All these people out there that NEED sorting out.
Ivan – “Then we NEED to pull all those people out of their Prados at gunpoint.
Then we NEED to put all the oil company execs on trial for crimes against humanity.
You and your Brownshirts are going to busy boys, Ender. All these people out there that NEED sorting out.”
Sure but this is how you people do things. If you accept the science of global warming then reducing CO2 in imperative to try to hold the warming to 2 deg where most scientists think that dangerous climate change can be averted.
Personally I have no problems with oil companies making large profits what I do have a problem with is the campaign they sponsored to distort the science of global warming along with their efforts to delay the introduction of electric cars and plug in hybrids. These cars are only just coming onto the market now when they could have been years ago.
Your friends, market forces, will force Prados off the road as fuel becomes more expensive. This is a result of us running short of oil which was not caused by greenies. We did not take the oil away we just propose solutions that you people do not like and try to get you to face reality rather than the fossil fuelled fantasy land that you live in.
“You and your Brownshirts are going to busy boys, Ender. All these people out there that NEED sorting out.”
Sorry your mates the neo-cons are the ones with the guns. They have already invaded one country for oil who is next on the list as the oil addicts try to get their next fix.
“If you accept the science of global warming then reducing CO2 in imperative to try to hold the warming to 2 deg where most scientists think that dangerous climate change can be averted.”
Always that word — “IF”.
“IF” AGW were a real ‘science’ — then you wouldn’t have to always say “IF” (or “THINK” for that matter). Which is where the real problem stems from — there are too many Enders and Lukes in the world who THINK they know what is best for everyone else.
“..where most scientists think..”
Always the assertion. Most GOVERNMENT scientists, you should say. No real scientists subscribe to this nonsense.
“Your friends, market forces, will force Prados off the road as fuel becomes more expensive..”
Exactly so. So we don’t need you and your loony Brownshits interferring in our lives.
“So we don’t need you and your loony Brownshits interfering in our lives” and “there are too many Enders and Lukes in the world who THINK they know what is best for everyone else” what an arsehole you are – what a creep – yet to like to lecture us ad nauseum – am I telling you what to do mate? Do you think Ender and I are satanists? Sub-human unfeeling beings with no families or loved ones. Do you think we’re some other species? Do you think we’re fringe dwellers? Probably yes. Lordy me…
And where are the private scientists – pretty well all the scientists in the climate area receive government funding. What do you suggest we do – give money to your favourites?
Have you ever thought of listening to Ender and exploring the issues ? You don’t have to agree, you can walk away, but frankly I wonder why Ender bothers giving you quality text to receive total abuse in return.
Poor old Luke, after years of failure he now throws monkeys at the peanuts – getta job ya mug.
“And where are the private scientists..”
You are a moron, no doubt about that.
You have your head so far up your own arsehole that you have no clue how the real world operates. All you do is spend your entire day spewing your lunatic drivel all over everyone. If you took your head out once in a while to take a breath, you’d may realise that there are literally many thousands of scientists outside the government sphere of influence that do real research on real science and who wouldn’t waste their time on this AGW horse$hit.
If AGW is the ‘moral challenge of our time’, you’d think that any number of corporations that do ‘real research’ would have bought into this by now, if for no other reason than self interest.
Here are a few examples (and let’s ignore the auto manufacturers and oil companies – ‘coz – as we all know, they are tainted and can’t be trusted).
Almost all of the serious technology companies in the world maintain R&D arms that engange in research which is both central and peripheral to their core business interests. And how many of them invest in this ‘moral challenge of our lifetime’? Well – let’s take a look:
– Microsoft (research.microsoft.com/research/default.aspx)? – Nope.
– Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (www.gatesfoundation.org/default) – World’s richest man – Nope.
– GE (www.ge.com/research/grc_2.html) – Nope, even though they make money out of solar and nuclear.
– IBM (www.research.ibm.com/areas.shtml) – Nope.
– AT&T (www.research.att.com/projects.cfm) – Nope.
– Dupont (www2.dupont.com/Science/en_US/rd/index.html) – Nope.
– Nokia (research.nokia.com/research/index.html) – Nope.
You’d think that pharmceutical companies would be into this up to the hilt – after all, aren’t we all going to get malaria or worse?
– Roche (www.roche.com/home/science/sci_res.htm) – Nope.
– Bayer (www.research.bayer.com/en/homepage.aspx) – Nope.
– GSK (www.gsk.com/research/index.html) – Nope.
– etc.
All of these companies – representing billions of dollars in income and hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D budgets, with some of the brightest scientists in the world — and they don’t invest one thin research dime in the “greatest moral challenge of our time”? Are they all delusional morons too? And do we find any of their research talent defecting to the IPCC as a moral protest against this?
On the other hand – here’s a list of the oxygen thieves that feature on the front page of AR4.
Do you reckon that there is a single one of them that has ever done an honest day’s work in their entire life?
Core Writing Team:
Lenny Bernstein – L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.
Peter Bosch – Ecofys, The Netherlands
Osvaldo Canziani – IPCC Working Group II Co-chair
Zhenlin Chen – China Meteorological Administration
Renate Christ – Secretary of the IPCC
Ogunlade Davidson – Co-chair WG III
William Hare – Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Saleemul Huq – International Institute for Environment and Development
David Karoly – University of Oklahoma / Melbourne
Vladimir Kattsov – Voeikov Main Geophysical Observatory, Russian Federation
Zbigniew Kundzewicz – Polish Academy of Sciences
Jian Liu – Deputy Secretary of the IPCC
Ulrike Lohmann – ETH Zürich, Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science
Martin Manning – IPCC WGI TSU, NOAA
Taroh Matsuno – Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology
Bettina Menne – WHO Regional Office for Europe/Germany
Bert Metz – Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Monirul Mirza – Environment Canada
Neville Nicholls – Monash University
Leonard Nurse – University of theWest Indes
Rajendra Pachauri – IPCC
Jean Palutikof – IPCC Working Group II TSU, Met Office Hadley Centre
Martin Parry – IPCC Working Group II Co-chair, Met Office Hadley Centre
Dahe Qin – Co-Chair, IPCC WGI, China Meteorological Administration
Nijavalli Ravindranath – Indian Institute of Science
Andy Reisinger – TSU IPCC Synthesis Report
Jiawen Ren – Chinese Academy of Sciences
Keywan Riahi – IIASA
Cynthia Rosenzweig – GISS
Matilde Rusticucci – Universidad de Buenos Aires
Stephen Schneider – Stanford University
Youba Sokona – Sahara and Sahel Observatory (OSS) Tunis
Susan Solomon – Co-Chair, IPCC WGI, NOAA
Peter Stott – Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Office
Ronald Stouffer – NOAA
Taishi Sugiyama – Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Japan
Rob Swart – Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Extended Writing Team
Terry Barker – University of Cambridge
Review Editors
Abdelkader Allali – Ministry ofAgriculture, Morocco
Roxana Bojariu – National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology (NIMH), Romania
Sandra Diaz – National University of Córdoba, Argentina
Ismail Elgizouli – High Council for Environment and Natural Resources, Sudan
Dave Griggs – Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Office
David Hawkins – Natural Resources Defence Council, USA
Olav Hohmeyer – University of Flensburg
Bubu Pateh Jallow – Department of Water Resources, The Gambia
Lucka Kajfež-Bogataj – University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
Neil Leary – AIACC
Hoesung Lee – Korea/Keimyung University
David Wratt – National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
Dennis Tirpak – OECD
Coleen Vogel – University of the Witwatersrand
Gary Yohe – Wesleyan University
So – spare me the sanctimonious bull$hit about how you and Ender are casting pearls before swine.
Ivan – “Always that word — “IF”. ”
Well of course – I do not have a crystal ball. We run across IF all the time. All buildings do not burn down however they all have fire escapes etc IF it ever happens. Boats carry lifeboats that are only needed IF the boat sinks. What do you expect – do you have a problem with uncertainty?
“”..where most scientists think..”
Always the assertion. Most GOVERNMENT scientists, you should say. No real scientists subscribe to this nonsense.”
OK if this is what you think. Are real scientists the ones paid for by corporations? Most scientists have their work funded by someone.
“Exactly so. So we don’t need you and your loony Brownshits interferring in our lives.”
One I am not the brownshirts and second you are the ones doing the interfering. I would like to be able to buy an electric car. As far as I am concerned for people like you Peak Oil cannot come fast enough. I really will enjoy your control freak personality coming to terms with “sorry there is no petrol left”. What will you do?
“You have your head so far up your own arsehole that you have no clue how the real world operates. ”
And you do? Do you expect a company like IBM to do primary research on climate change? And you are saying you know how the world works? I used to work for IBM and they were so stingy I had to pay for a stinking IBM shirt – $70. My standard joke when confronted by yet another IBMism was “This is the biggest company in the world” They like all the others are run by bean counters.
There are companies that are:
http://www.iag.com.au/sustainable/other/index.shtml
http://www.westpac.com.au/internet/publish.nsf/Content/WICREVII+Climate+change
These people are spending money because they think that climate change will increase insurance payouts and therefore this is core business.
“On the other hand – here’s a list of the oxygen thieves that feature on the front page of AR4.
Do you reckon that there is a single one of them that has ever done an honest day’s work in their entire life?”
How do you know what they have done. This is yet another sweeping generalisation that your sort is famous for.
“So – spare me the sanctimonious bull$hit about how you and Ender are casting pearls before swine.”
Finally I am sick to death of your cheap insults. If you cannot talk civilly then I will not respond.
“..do you have a problem with uncertainty.”
Not in the least. That is one of the fundamental pursuits of science – to eliminate uncertainty. AGW = uncertainty. No science, no research, no certainty. You AGW loonies want a blank cheque.
“Are real scientists the ones paid for by corporations?”
No – real scientists do basic research in real science. ‘Climate Science’ isn’t real science – it is junk science, thought up by a bunch of frustrated weather watches and university professors. Real scientists receive Nobel Prizes in things like Physics. Al Gore & the IPCC received a Nobel Peace Prize, for Christ’s sake. Does a Peace Prize sound like real science to you?
“you are the ones doing the interfering”
Oh – thanks for clearing that up. I don’t want a failed ETS cap and trade tax imposed on me. I don’t want my standard of living reduced. So – not wanting someone to step on you is ‘interferring’? What kind of twisted world do you live in?
“I would like to be able to buy an electric car..”
No-one is stopping you – in fact, be my guest. As far as I can tell from your comments, you actually want someone to subsidise it for you.
“How do you know what they have done.”
As far as I can tell from their bios, the answer is – very little of any signifcance. I do know that these frustrated weather watchers and university professors want to screw over mine and everyone else’s standard of living.
“Finally I am sick to death of your cheap insults.”
You’re not Robinson Crusoe. Some of us can both dish it out and take it, however. Not my fault if you have a glass jaw.
“If you cannot talk civilly then I will not respond.”
Do you think that would be too much to hope for?
Ender: “Personally I have no problems with oil companies making large profits what I do have a problem with is the campaign they sponsored to distort the science of global warming along with their efforts to delay the introduction of electric cars and plug in hybrids. These cars are only just coming onto the market now when they could have been years ago.”
Conspiracies, conspiracies! All us deniers are in the pay of the Exxons of the world! I wish! Maybe it’s because we don’t like governments wasting potentially trillions of dollars and wrecking our economies based on the BIG LIE.
And as to delaying the intro of electrics cars, good thing! Remember the fiasco a few years back with the millions of lithium laptop batteries being recalled? How many motorists would have ended up as crispy critters in their cars if electric cars had been rushed to market? Never mind the extra $10,000+ in vehicle acquisition costs! But let’s just forget about the economics of it all!
What – a list of commercial companies in the main outside their area of expertise. LMFAO !
Although IBM have a major market share in selling petaflop supercomputers to run GCMs. I guess they’re now on your hitlist. And many of these companies have energy efficiency greenhouse related programs. All on the Ivankovitch hitlist too.
You’re about the worst frother we’ve seen. Off you go and get your rabies medicated creep. Rog will show you where to go.
“What – a list of commercial companies in the main outside their area of expertise. LMFAO !”
I can’t recall anyone who wears stupidity and ignorance as badges of honour the way you do. Put down the crayons for a couple of minutes and follow this logic chain, numb-nuts.
What does Hansen spend most of his time playing with? (No — not that, that’s the second most time). He plays with his models. What are models? Nothing more than computer games – although computer games for retards, as they always encounter the same obstacles and always produce the same (wrong) outcome.
Who are the 2 largest software engineering companies in the world? Microsoft and IBM. Do you think the company that develops the computers and software that run the computer simulations of nuclear explosions – or for that matter, Deep Blue – just might be able to contribute something to refining climate model simulations. Or that the world’s richest man – struggling to give away his billions and improve his image in the process – might not see an opportunity for his own Nobel Peace Prize? Do you think there might just be some commercial kudos attached to contributing some of their resources and scientific expertise to at least better understanding the “greatest moral challenge of our time”? Always assuming for a moment that this was a worthwhile thing to do, of course.
And if you’d bothered to look at any of those research organisations, you’d realise that – yes they do do research outside their “area of expertise” — which is a meaningless concept that only a pinhead would dream up in the first place. The only outfits that stay within their “area of expertise” (other than the gubmint, of course) are companies that no longer exist. If you look at IBM R&D, you will see that most of the Nobel Prizes (in real sciences) that their researchers have won have bugger all to do with IT per se.
“I guess they’re now on your hitlist.”
This comment shows just how delusional you really are. Why would a company that actually engages in real research, solves real problems and produces real products be on anyone’s hitlist?
Interesting – Ivan the Horrid promotes a IBM who sells supercomputers for simulation modelling. Seems to tout computer simulation of nukes as a validation.
“computer games for retards” Well it would be very nice to be retarded enough so as to develop comprehensive 3-d functioning models of an entire planet’s climate system. Sounds like retarded is where it’s at.
Gates’s philanthropy is unrelated to Microsoft’s business as an objective.
You’re a bit of a ranter Ivano-Koba.
“Gates’s philanthropy is unrelated to Microsoft’s business as an objective.”
Yet again Luke provides us with ample evidence that his ignorance and stupidity knows no bounds.
I would suggest that there is literally NOTHING that Bill Gates does that does not have Microsoft business results as its objectives.
How do you think it became the biggest company in the world? By luck?
The problem is – morons make pronoucements like yours and other morons accept it as fact. But then, I guess that’s how AGW got started in the first place.
“to develop comprehensive 3-d functioning models of an entire planet’s climate system”
Welcome to Luke’s La-La Land. You need to get out of your sheltered workshop more often.
Well fathead – how might anonymous gifts to third world countries for healthcare and reducing extreme poverty be related to selling Microsoft products. Substantial grants are not even disclosed. The sooner imbeciles like you are rounded up and carbon reduced the better. You’re a hazard to society mate. You should be under constant watch.
So do you think a retard could produce a complete simulation of the earth’s climate system. But being a rank halfwit you wouldn’t even know would you. You’d just be a pig ignorant ranting fool.
So how long have you been a frothing ranter Ivan. Do you spit all over your friends as you rant? Do you even have any friends?
Luke: “Do you even have any friends?”
The enemy of my enemy is my friend . . .
So that makes at least one!!!
“Well fathead – how might anonymous gifts to third world countries for healthcare and reducing extreme poverty be related to selling Microsoft products…”
You never continue to surprise me – I sometimes wonder if there is enough grey matter rattling around in that pin-sized head of yours to enable you to breathe without assistance.
What “anonymous gifts” ?? Do you have any clue what you are talking about?
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/Grants/default.htm?showYear=2007
Do you see any ‘anonymous’ gifts in there?
Do you see any ‘gifts’ to starving third world countries?
Do you think any of the organisations listed there would – just perhaps – buy Microsoft products?
Do you think – period ??
If you are going to masquerade to all and sundry as the world’s self-appointed authority on everything, you (and your loony associates) might get your head out of your arse once in a while and inform yourself about how the world really operates.
“So do you think a retard could produce a complete simulation of the earth’s climate system..”
I assume you are referring to Hansen?
No – I don’t.
So ranter – it’s strange that anonymous donations tend not be in lists making them non-anonymous. So how long have you actually been mental now Ivan?
“it’s strange that anonymous donations tend not be in lists making them non-anonymous”
Nope – you can’t argue with logic like that. But it makes pefect sense to morons, I guess — much like AGW.
The thing which I would concede demonstrates a lack of sanity is bothering to engange in a discussion like this with a demonstrable cretin.