News Alert: Smelting and refining of Mount Isa copper in Queensland to cease
The recent Xstrata decision to phase out their world class copper smelting and refining operations in Australia tells us that the taxes, processing, transport and energy costs that Xstrata expects in Australia are already uncompetitive.
The dreamers in the Canberra cocoon always drool about “value adding”. Their carbon tax will surely cause all mineral processing plants in Australia to lose value, and some will surely close. Low cost coal and diesel power will no longer support our high wages. The value adding will take place in Asia.
We are watching a slow tragedy unfold – the end of an era. Once the mineral processing plants leave, they will never come back. We will be back to the pioneering era of mining – dig it out and ship it off.
And the final tragic irony of the Isa story is this – sending partly processed copper concentrate overseas, instead of smelting it at Mount Isa, will about triple the transport burden and do the same to carbon dioxide emissions.
The first industries of Australia were farming and mining and these two have been the backbone of the nation ever since. Both are threatened by the taxaholics in Canberra.
Shorthorn and Brahman cattle arrived with the first fleet and coal was discovered by convicts at Newcastle in 1791, just three years after the First Fleet arrived. The first Merino sheep arrived in 1797 and coal mining started in 1798. Since then mining and farming have earned the majority of Australia’s income.
Wool and wheat, gold and silver, butter and cheese, copper and lead-zinc, leather and tallow, iron and steel, sugar and wine, coal and hydro-carbons, meat and mutton, aluminium and uranium, timber and fish, nickel and titanium – these comprise Australia’s Magic Pudding.
But the Gillard/Green/Garnaut Carbon Tax Coalition hate our primary industries because they all depend on carbon fuels and produce the carbon dioxide that feeds our crops. Our backbone industries are seen as dreaded “polluters” and treated like noxious weeds and serpents to be removed from the green Garden of Eden.
Our pioneering squatters and prospectors blazed the trails which Cobb and Co turned into the roads of Australia. Wool from the merinos, almost alone, carried the nation until the 1850’s when metals started to create wealth – lead, copper and gold were discovered in the 1840’s and 1850’s. Mining started soon after and then cattle raising became profitable to feed the miners. Better roads, towns and then railways were built to move our primary products to the smelters, spinners, millers and tanners in Europe. Ever since, our great primary industries and the industries dependent on them have supported all Australians.
Mining is largely a materials handling operation, and it needs a lot of energy for mining, crushing, grinding, smelting, refining and transport.
The first copper mines extracted only high grade surface ore. They mined it selectively using human muscle power, packed it to the coast using camels, donkeys, horses and bullocks, and shipped it on sailing clippers to smelters in Europe. All stages used politically correct “green” energy.
But “green” transport moves slowly. Some loads of ore that looked profitable when they left the Peak Downs Copper Mine in central Queensland on donkeys, were sold at a loss, months later, when they landed at the copper smelter in Wales. Mining was thus an intermittent business – booming when metal prices were high, closing when prices fell.
But the high grade surface ores never last long, and the deeper primary ore is generally much lower grade. It was OK to send 40% copper ore from Cloncurry to the coast using horses and drays, but ore containing just 2% copper would not cover the costs.
So the first metal processing started with primitive on-site smelters (often using wood and charcoal, both “green” energy). Smelters removed most of the impurities leaving crude metal with +95% copper which was exported to overseas refineries. Later, Australians developed the flotation process to produce metal concentrates to feed the smelters. And trucks and trains started to carry value-added products to the coast.
The great Mount Isa Mine was discovered in 1923 – lead smelting started in 1931 and metal smelting at Mount Isa has continued ever since – 80 years of value adding in Australia.
Early in World War II, Australia found itself short of copper and Mount Isa was asked if it could produce copper. A crash program took place to convert the lead smelter to producing copper and the first blister copper was poured at Mount Isa in1942. Refining of blister copper started in Townsville in 1959.
Mines can only be where the deposits are found. But smelters and refineries can be located anywhere between the mine and the ultimate customer for the metals. And just three factors dictate where metal processing is located – political costs, processing costs and transport costs. The political cost (tax burden) depends on the common sense of the electorate and their knowledge of where the real wealth is created. The processing and transport costs depend mainly on the local costs of wages and energy.
The first trains and power stations all used steam engines burning low cost local coal. Then came cheap diesel transport for trucks and trains. Now electric trains are again running on cheap Australian coal. This low cost carbon energy supported our high wages and ensured that mineral processing became a big business in Australia – iron and steel, lead-zinc-silver, copper, nickel, aluminium, gold, uranium, limestone, coal, oil and gas are all processed to some extent in Australia.
There is no point introducing a carbon tax that does not increase the cost and thus reduce the use of coal and diesel energy. Mining and mineral processing and transport probably consume over 50% of Australia’s electricity, which is mainly coal powered with minor gas. And they are huge users of diesel for utes, trucks, shovels, dozers, scrapers, mobile power and drilling rigs. Therefore, no matter what they say, all of Australia’s mineral processing advantages are threatened by their carbon tax.
Viv Forbes
May 2011
Viv Forbes is a geologist, mineral economist and farmer. He has spent a lifetime working in government, mining and farming in Queensland and Northern Territory, from field geologist in the Bowen Basin, to uranium exploration at Rum Jungle, to mill clerk at Mount Isa, to mining investment analyst in Sydney and Brisbane and to company director of gas, oil and coal companies. He should be retired but refuses to. He and his wife Judy live at Rosevale harvesting solar energy from natural pasture using beef cattle and meat sheep.
*******
Reference – Xstrata to phase out copper smelting and refining:
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/147308/20110518/xstrata-to-phase-out-copper-smelting.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Thanks for pointing this out, Viv.
Some people know how important it is to have a strong country capable of producing our fundamental requirements but sadly most of us are happy to sit and sip coffee al fresco and watch it all pass by, feeling good because we pay for it by exporting our pollution overseas.
Viv done a Faustian bargain in his ambition to protect the national quarry and farm. He sprouted reams of recycled sceptic talking points about climate change science for years in a valiant attempt to repel boarders.
So we haven’t been served well by our cold war warriors now out of luck and out of time. Unable to steer us beyond the quarry and the farm mentality into a new generation of energy technology and production.
Should have realistically embraced the climate science and positioned us for a better technological position. So they have politically corralled the Federal opposition into the ludicrous denier category, when a superior energy solution should be the policy response.
Strange that Viv also wants to deny his fellow farmers any credit for carbon sequestered in trees and soils.
http://bravenewclimate.com/ is on the pace – its about new energy systems. How do we refine Thorium Viv ? Where are our rare earth deposits?
We are living in the era of Catastrophic Global Ingratitude. Everything produced, owned and enjoyed is to be taken for granted or disparaged. What is ineffective or non-existent is to be glorified.
What’s worse, genuine innovation and research is left threadbare by the self-loathers. The vision being displayed by our self-appointed betters has as much value as Malcolm Fraser promising a Betacord video and a Commodore 64 in every schoolroom by 1995.
Trouble is it’s very hard to run any manufacturing business today in Australia and it will only become more difficult after these useless labor clowns are finished with us.
The Bolter has pulled apart the ludicrous CC report and shown what a fraud it is.
This has to be the greatest con in the last hundred years to descend on us and must lead to the decimation of any party that tries to introduce this stupid penalty on Australia.
Barry O’Farrell railed against this tax in NSW and according to Bob Hawk and others it certainly was a factor in Labor’s wipeout.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/alarmist_report_short_of_er_alarms/#commentsmore
“..And the final tragic irony of the Isa story is this – sending partly processed copper concentrate overseas, instead of smelting it at Mount Isa, will about triple the transport burden and do the same to carbon dioxide emissions…”
I support Dodgy Geezer’s comment over at Watts, we shouldn’t even be discussing CO2 emissions as its irrelevant.
The Mt Isa story is indeed a tragedy but before these green and labor morons are finished with us it will get much worse.
The Greens will hold the balance of power in the senate in a little over a month, so what are their secret dreams of a carbon price?
A Victorian Green’s MP won’t even rule out a level of $500 a tonne.
Luke and Gav will be smacking their chops at such a proposition.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_price_too_high_for_the_greens/
Terry McCrann further pulls apart the BS of this idiot report and the mess Juliar could find herself in.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/carbon-debate-a-no-win-situation-for-pm/story-e6frfig6-1226061435866
“Luke and Gav will be smacking their chops at such a proposition.”
You verballing little grub. Piss off.
Face it guys it’s all good theatre – this operation Mt Isa was gone a long a time. And it could also reappear just a quick. Ding ding – pull the cow-bells. Spook the punters.
Hey guys maybe there are reds under the bed. I heard that the greens are goings to overthrow the constitution and form a police state.
Yo’ll will have to dig up the semi-autos you buried in the back paddock after Howard banned them. Yee ha ! Get those Confederate flags out boys – your country needs you in this darkest hour for a revolution. Form local militias. Dad’s armies.
Luke you’ve wounded me deeply with your cruel remark, I don’t think I’ll ever recover. (SARC)
But seriously we don’t need guns on our side to fight this fraud ,all we need is a real genuine debate shown live on TV with say 3 speakers for and 3 against the motion.We all know the result would be a disaster for the alarmist side because over an hour or so we could present real facts about past and present climate.
When people understand the facts about CC we know they are very reluctant to squander billions that won’t change the climate in the slightest, but will export our industries and jobs overseas.
So bring on a real debate, what are they afraid of?
“Face it guys it’s all good theatre – this operation Mt Isa was gone a long a time. And it could also reappear just a quick. Ding ding – pull the cow-bells. Spook the punters.”
Luke, you just don’t get it. Not so long ago a govt would have bent over backwards to encourage and keep such industries. Even subsidised them if it was economical.
In case you haven’t noticed we use the odd bit of copper and if we are to put solar panels in the red centre to feed the coast energy, we’re gonna need millions of miles of it. And we already have this industry yet we are happy to let it go without so much as a backward glance. To reinstate it under an ever-greening govt will be near impossible. To think that it died on Labor’s watch is a travesty.
This attitude, plus the implementation of a carbon tax will hobble everything we want to do in Australia and the flow-on effect will make us the joke country of the world.
She says; you Neanderthals worried about jobs should open another cigarette factory.
I say it’s good to have a big resource rent tax to cover any multi spinning up a bigger profit by value adding OS.
btw SD; I’ve seen a lot of mines, towns, railways and large manufacturing plants close down because shareholders had their fair pick including the copper smelter at Queenstown in Tasmania. Ive even got a loco style hand lamp marked “MLM 2” up on the bookcase in my study. They apparently had an auction just after closing down the historic Abt Railway line to Strahan (1960’s).
Nev; these things happen, get over it.
Gav,
When these industries closed in the past it was almost always because the mine was petering out or the extraction was no longer a proposition.
Copper has one of the most certain futures you could imagine.
Here the mining co can see the the mad PC future here and is going because it’s the smart thing to do.
Get every possible industry out of Australia ASAP!
And this is just the tiny end of the wedge.
Gav I think it will be you and Luke who will have to learn to” get over it”
Juliar is about as popular as a lavatory rat at the moment and I’m sure most voters around Australia will give her a NSW scale send off the first chance they get.
But like all Labor idiot govts the legacy of debt and hopelessness left in her wake will take years of hard work and perseverance to overcome.
Gav,
For someone who always comments from his own long experience of what he has seen, you have a remarkably warped sense of history.
Comparison between the successes of private enterprise and taxpayer funded bureaucracies throughout history have always shown that neither are perfect but private enterprise has always been the most successful in supplying the best service at the most competetive price.
More problems with SLs, not rising but falling.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/sea-level-decline-during-the-hottest-year-ever-with-record-greenland-melt/
So Debs since they have privatised electricity retail my power bills have gone up and up. I guess I have to pay for all those call centres efficiently marketing to me.
And who commissioned the building of our power stations? Private enterprise?
Neville I assume you have seen the opposition spokesman on climate change – Hunt accepts the science.
ROTFL,
reread what you just posted.
Just as a little hint.
Who was ‘they’ in your sentence about privatisation? When you figure that one out, check out how ‘they’ privatised it.
Deb; I offer you a great resource and a glimpse at my past employers and our joint sense of history re manufacturing value adding etc. These pages “Technology in Australia” outline where we are coming from as most traditional manufacturing goes offshore.
Note; I opened in the Pulp & Paper section and suggest you seek info on Papermakers Ltd. APM, APPM, Bowater- Scott and Smorgens. Today the APPM complex including Papermakers where I began is an empty shell like Kodak and some of the old petro chemical complex at Altona or for that matter Botany. We could as as easily looked at a few mining companies. I once helped re commission process control gear from Mt Morgan in QLD at another mine on King Isl. Both closed when the going got difficult. Please find the Index on TIA
http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/246.html#989
Now I’ve always said if only we could fully process our rare minerals, none of us would need to worry about income again. But it goes on, I got alarmed when we lost Ajax nuts and blots. Yes I can read a thread and determine the difference in that Zenith lot from China via Bunnings. Whit threads and Met hex! So the tool pool gets muddied.
An electric young lawyer recently told us at a w/e market it was Menzies who shut down our budding tool industry after the war when he shut down tariff barriers so our farmers could get cheaper items from else where. As it turned out S E Asia in the main, hence I collect the old ones probably all made with BHP steel.
A former employee from NSW tipped us about their zirconium alloys and thats probably why anything branded Stanley made in Australia was as good as the local names they acquired here then lost with the exception of perhaps Sidchrome. Then we also had the best in plastic handles also made in Melbourne like good old Tupperware.
So Deb, who is it that sells our soul?
I would like to highlight something Luke said above, just to accentuate a small difference, and a clever ploy on behalf of State Governments.
Luke mentions:
…..since they have privatised electricity retail….
and the word I would like to accentuate here is ….. retail.
All they have privatised is the retail collection arm for your electricity bills.
In the main, those large power plants that provide the vast bulk of electrical power supply to the grids are owned by the State Governments, as is all the infrastructure, the grids, the HT towers and wiring, the sub stations, the street wiring etc.
Those Government owned plants still provide the electricity.
The private bill collection Companies collect the money from the bills, and then forward to the Government the amount that the Government sets as the unit price for electricity.
The Governments own the Plant, and all the infrastructure to get the power to consumers, so any of those extra costs are the domain of those State Governments. If Government money is spent on plants infrastructure etc, it is paid by the Government, who then add the extra onto the cost of each unit of electricity you consume.
However, and here’s the clever part of it, people see their electricity bills increasing and, obviously, blame the Company whose name appears on top of the bill, thinking they are the ones putting up the price.
Those bill collection agencies are not to blame.
Perhaps now you can gain some sort of inkling why State Labor in NSW so desperately wanted to get rid of all those Government owned power plants.
The ‘perception’ is of those money gouging electricity Companies.
Some large scale plants are in fact owned by private concerns, but it is the State that sets those unit prices for electricity.
Tony.
Key messages of the CC “science” report:
http://climatecommission.govspace.gov.au/files/2011/05/Climate-Commission-Science-Report-Key-Messages1.pdf
The full report is here:
The Critical Decade: full report (PDF 8 MB).
TonyfromOz
Indeed yes, the state governments own the coal powered stations and the infrastructure, and it is therefore government itself that is the main polluter via the coal powered elecricity generating plants. The aluminimum smelters etc are needed to allow the base load to operate, (but correct me if this is wrong) but when all said and done, the very ones who want to stop the pollution are the one ones creating the pollution.
And given the royalties government get from the mining of coal, it is clear that there is more to it than meets the eye.
Luke I couldn’t care less what Hunt thinks about anything , I can make up my own mind thanks very much.
So do you think Goddard is making this stuff up, the raw numbers are available if you doubt him.
Oh come on Tony – we’re besieged by hordes of telemarketers trying to make us switch retailers – who pays for this unwanted service. I do. Before retail was privatised we paid less – the end.
Beattie assured us we’d be better off under privatisation – we aren’t.
Same with water. One entity was heaps cheaper.
The Big Lie about privatising assets statewide and a prime reason Bligh will be kicked out.
Sorry don’t believe.
Debs herself knows how to snuggle up to a one-desk marketing outfit. Why would she be promoting a pluralistic market?
Neville – I just kacked at Goddard’s post – are you really that stupid. Get some sea level data over a long period. You are a numb nuts if you think that is a science argument. You’re a wiggle watcher.
But here’s where I get really pissed off with the PMs position.
“We know we must cut carbon pollution and the cheapest, most efficient way to do it is to make big polluters pay.”
“When big polluters pay, every cent of that money can be used to help families, protect jobs and fund programs to tackle climate change.”
This is bullshit. Everyone is in this together. Big polluters unluckily are merely big energy users. Why are we demonising big industry. What a Robin Hood con act.
Sorry – decarbonising will cost. Investment in new energy systems research is the way forward.
The Federal Opposition need to get the fuck out of science denial mode and start leading with some positive initiatives.
Luke here’s a new study that finds zero SL rise over the last 80 years, in fact a small deceleration.
I hope SD has a look at this, very interesting stuff.
If true it just about wrecks any theory of unusual or unprecedented temp increase for 80 years.
I mean if there is an increase in SL to be found why can’t they find it?
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
Thanks Tony from Oz.
Excellent description of a bureaucracy’s definition of ‘privatisation’.
….. hordes of telemarketers …..
I moved to Rockhampton from the Gold Coast, telemarket target central.
In the six years prior to moving, I had three door to door visits asking me to switch billing providers, and maybe two or three phone calls.
I have been here in Rocky for ten months, and because this is in a different district, I had to change my billing provider, even though the electricity was still provided by the same State Government.
Not one call since moving.
Telemarketers would add so little to the overall bill as to be almost unnoticed.
The main increases are the unit costs for the supply of electricity, and that is set by the State Government.
All that was privatised was the billing.
The cost increases are not down to the Billing Companies, but the owner of the infrastructure.
And yes you do have one part right.
If those ‘big polluters’ (and how I hate that term, as they provide what is now a staple of life) pay, then that is those State Government owners of the power plants, who, now taxed for the CO2 they emit, will pass on that charge as an increase in the unit price for electricity to the Billing Company, who then increase their bills accordingly.
People see the increase in their bill, and blame the name on the top of the Bill, hence it is now easier to label them as the big polluters, cleverly deflecting the blame away from the State Government owners of the plant.
Be very aware that 35 to 40% of all CO2 emissions come from the electrical power generating sector, which will become a captive target, as people will always require electrical power.
Tony.
Tony, it is extraordinary how government has simply used private business as a retail franchisee for its energy industries. This reduces wholesale pricing restraint but eliminates direct responsibility to consumers.
Equally extraordinary is that there are educated people who haven’t noticed.
Still, I’ve met educated people who use terms like “carbon pollution”…so what hope?
Hi TonyOz; a query; the NSW feed in tariff brawl made me wonder what the net community cost is. For instance:
X number of panel owners get 60c Kwh
Fossil fuel cost is 3.5-5c Kwh.
Difference between what panel owners get is ~ 50-55c Kwh
Are those power price figures correct and do you know what number X is to give a total cost to the community of subsidising the panel owners?
And that is without factoring in the subsidy by the feds to the capital purchase of the panels!
cohenite,
this may not provide a direct answer to your question, but it does provide some insight.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/household-solar-power-dont-believe-the-hype/
Tony
Let’s pretend it’s a large Billing Provider Company with one million accounts on its books, and here I’m not talking residential consumers but commercial and industrial consumers as well, keeping in mind the ratio Res 38% Com 37% and Ind 24%, so a million consumers is conservative.
They employ 50 new telemarketers, on a salary of $40K, hence an added wage bill of $2 million, so an increase on your power bill of $2 a year or 50 cents per quarterly bill.
The State increases the cost of electricity by just one cent.
The average residential consumption is 2000KWH per quarterly bill, hence an increase on just your residential account of $20.
Telemarketers are not adding all that much to your electricity account.
Tony.
Hey Tony – while you’re here can you check out http://www.zerocarbonplan.org/ and give me the full ream out critique pls.
Luke,
You are operating under the misconception that my business only produces one product and we only work in one market.
You must be confusing farmers with public servants and/or empolyees who do indeed work in a narrow, regulated and sheltered world.
I agree with your comments about demonising industry but not with your assertation about the urgency or the necessity of either side of politics putting a price on carbon and interfering in the natural development of alternative energy supplies.
So far, their interference has created more problems than we can afford.
But it’s not just the telemarketers Tony – it’s all the excecs and duplicated staff at every level. It’s simply ridiculously inefficient. Same with all the multiple levels in water supply.
And these bastards are now responsible for fixing leaks in the street not the council. So they make huge excavations which are not restored properly and turn them into ongoing massive potholes that the council then fixes. I hate privatisation.
Bunk Debs “So far, their interference has created more problems than we can afford.” they haven’t done anything yet dearie – it’s business as usual on carbon. You’ve got your air-con and plasma TV, expresso machine and dishwasher – stop whinging.
Thanks TonyOz, it would be good to get an exact figure as to how much the feed in tariff is costing the community; I’ll keep checking and let you know.
No Luke,
Business as usual in the govt world has already cost taxpayers a fortune even though they haven’t done anything yet. It has also created an enormous amount of angst and uncertainty amongst the industries who are being demonised with their stupid ‘Robin Hood’ circular propagandist clap trap.
The amount of money that has already been spent on this insanely expensive obsession is truly mind boggling. You’re right however, they haven’t actually done anything worthwhile.
ooooooo – angst – ooooooo – and call yourselves stoic. Big business suffering “angst”. Well gee how do they cope with competition, market forces, new technologies and the value of world currencies. Poor dears – you go along and hold their hands Debs while they’re suffering “angst”. Pullease.
Debs I have suffered “angst” pouring billions of drought aid into your unsustainable agrarian socialist gain capitalising, loss socialising, hobby farms.
Oh the angst of it all….. oooooh ….ooooh ….
Luke,
thanks heaps for the link.
That’s where I get some of my stuff these days, people referring me to new ‘stuff’.
It’s going to take more reading than what I can reply to at short notice here, but, er, perhaps in the interim, you might wish to read this.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/bcost-of-replacing-australias-coal-fired-power-210-billion-minimumb/
And Jennifer, sorry for getting so far off topic like this. My humblest apologies.
Tony.
They usually cope with competition, market forces, world currencies, new technologies etc.
Perfectly?
Of course not. The real business world is not for sooks.
Stupid ‘robin hood’ politics with their band of merry bureaucrats, bankers, brokers and very sadly, govt funded academics is another monster all together.
I didn’t know you were a billionaire Luke.
Congratulations & half your luck 🙂
We actually provide a positive net profit to govt coffers in agriculture. They don’t usually mind helping agriculture when exceptional circumstances occur.
They know we’ll pay them back.
Historically, it usually works out OK.
Seems to be this time too 🙂
Luke
“I hate privatisation”
I agree with you Luke, when G Kenneth and co. privatized our “essential”, I call them, services
I shuddered at the overhead imposed, instead of one set of admins now we probably have three or four as the maintenance, service and accounting are handled by different companies.
The notion of private companies with a profit motive do better is a myth, all one has to do is to pick a good manager and staff to run publicly owned enterprises, and restrict the militant actions of unions.
I downloaded your pdf re. renewable power generation, I know it’s not aimed at me but it’s the answer I asked of you a day or so back.
It’s a long study and just started reading, but 99% of the principles of what is suggested had been known for many years, and are sound. I ‘m not sure I mentioned here before but my grandfather used to listen to the wireless with the power coming from a stove top power module.
(thermocouples)
The reason these power options were ignored this far, is that they are too expensive and limited in what they can deliver.
It’s the limitations of scale, I was and still am worried about, While you can say we have plenty of room to do it in, the individual sizes of the plants are limited by the losses introduced by the distance of the mirrors from the collecting tower.
Whatever you may think, I, and I’m sure most of us here are for less pollution and more renewables, but statements like $8 a week is all it will cost are a bit misleading and optimistic, $8 a week on top of the bill or $8 a week, period?
You probably can manage that but most people won’t.
Anyway we shall see.
Cox and Stockwell’s reply to ABC unleashed at Jo Nova’s.
First blogger reply is from Len and carries an email reply to him from Gillard. Oh well if you don’t cry at these Labor loons I guess you have to laugh.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/abc-rejects-hansen-admit-the-models-are-wrong-but-alarmism-gets-the-last-word-on-the-abc/#more-14963
Here is Watts graph showing how hopelessly wrong Hansen was in his 1988 paper that started this expensive idiotic fraud.
Even scenario C is way above the measured temp up to 2010.
Of course this is what Juliar is forcing on us and using this type of fraudulent modeling that we can now show is completely wrong.
But this sort of failed modeling is great according to Luke and Gav and they just turn a blind eye.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/13/is-jim-hansens-global-temperature-skillful/
Nova’s for loonies and ranters like you Neville – what you would some ex-TV chick know about anything? Pullease.
Luke, what in the hell are you complaining about electric rates for? Perhaps they bumped yours because they know you are a warmist and would be unlikely to complain about high electric rates since that is a primary goal of warmists.
You should be happy to pay more, hold it as a badge of honor, describe how you are working to live without, etc. I think that unlikeliy given the volume of your posts, you probably run twice the electric bill of most.
I see that the village idiot still peddling his frenetic nonsense and forever demonstrating what a miserable life he must lead.
… and still too stupid to be able to separate what is being said from who is saying it.
Must be another one dimensional academic on day release.
Thank you dummy Luke, I wouldn’t have expected any better from you.
This fraud is based on looney nonsense as a FACTUAL assessment of Hansen’s 1988 con and scribblings shows. Through your blind eye(s) or not Luke his 1988 modeling is crap, see even scenario C above. ( Watts link)
The Bolter has a very good take on Flannery and Steffen’s garbage in todays column although Juliar, Luke and Gav think its GOSPEL TRUTH.
But I’ll give you a tip, not even the Gospel truth is Gospel either. Unbelievable to think of wrecking our economy on this fraudulent flim flam rubbish.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_climate_commission_now_short_of_scares/
Luke – The zerocarbon proposal is fantasy – the 7MW wind generators are still in trial stage and the solar thermal systems can’t seem to get above 50MW per unit but the main flaw is in the backup.
They do admit that the solar and wind power stations are subject to weather, i.e no wind or sun, so they offer a backup system, burning biomass!! They want to burn the wheat stubble and the cane waste. Apart from it being contrary to modern farming techniques it also has the problem of emitting CO2 just like burning coal.
So we end up with what we already have, inefficient wind and solar supported by coal power!
You do know that the Condong and Broadwater mills have gone broke burning cane waste for their meagre 60MW of power.
Bolts hilarious RAPTURE watch and this isn’t supposed to be a religion. What a hopeless fraud.
What is it that story about the little boy crying wolf, no wonder the people are turning their backs on Labor.
Come on Luke and Gav get ready for the next rapture, it’ll probably be just six months away.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/rapture_watch/
It’s the beginning of the end.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/
Or perhaps it’s just the end of the beginning.
Labor has entered the fabulous 20’s in NSW and I’m sure Qld is in the 20’s as well.
Both are important because there are big numbers of seats in those states, so there should be rich pickings for the coalition.
Of course they are traveling so well in Vic as well. (SARC, SARC)
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abbott_already_sniffs_a_win/
Woops, Neville is running just ahead of me, I see.
Go Jo go. Steffen says he’s really not sure. But who could care less, it’s only going to cost billions and wreck the Aussie economy, plus send more industry and jobs overseas.
These numbats mightn’t believe their own nonsense but we’ll still cop it in the neck.
I mean the consequences are so miniscule, just like Spain and California with their soaring energy costs and mega unemployment cues. (SARC)
Let’s see for every million tonnes of coal we burn at home we export 3 million tonnes so other countries can produce 3 times the emissions, so how does that work?
Why not just reduce our exports by 1.7% per annum on that 3 million rather than cause chaos and hardship at home by reducing the 1 million by 5% ?
Exactly the same result for co2 emissions and very little pain, except we reduce our exports by1.7%
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/the-climate-commission-report-promotional-material-that-they-dont-even-believe/#more-14961
Neville,
Thanks for that link on decelerating SLRs.
In a reply to a letter from Julia Gillard this morning re the critical decade, I pointed exactly that out to her.
Luke,
once again, thanks for that great link:
http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/uploads/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf
I’m comfortable with understanding most of it, but I can see the average punter not educated in that electrical generating area being taken in by a lot of technical information that ‘sounds’ great, but is not really feasible.
I’m still barely 20% into it, but I would like to make a couple of early observations.
All they are asking for is $28 Billion each year for the next ten years, and even if the whole plan is adopted, nothing will eventuate for at least 6 years.
So, as good as it ‘sounds’, I have very serious doubts that in any political climate, even with the Greens in 100% control of Australian politics.
I also have serious doubts that their data tells the whole truth.
They quote that their Concentrating Solar has a Capacity Factor equivalent to 17 hours of supply. The best so far anywhere in the World is 13 hours, so it will still need backup, which they haven’t (as yet) explained. The largest plant in existence now has a 150MW Nameplate Capacity, and they are quoting they can get around 220MW.
With Wind, they quote a Capacity factor of 30%, or just on 7 hours a day, and the best technology in the World where there are the most of them, in the U.S. the best they are getting is 24%.
All of this is just what it says it is.
As it says, this is just ‘A Plan’.
A plan that has zero chance of getting off the ground.
Incidentally, before I even became aware of this, I made my own Post that I linked you to, and the costings I made were in fact very close to theirs.
Tony.
Tony – but what can be achieved with some directed research investment even if not there right now. Get a list of issues and we’ll email them.
TonyOz, I see luke has given you the BZE garbage; don’t bother reading any further; read this instead:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/09/trainer-zca-2020-critique/
The BZE spivs ponce around and write rubbish for the abc about how great its going to be, just trust us. We’ve had this conversation before:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/03/the-base-load-misconception-part-1/#comments
Then as now, luke was buzzing around doing his Jekyll and Hyde silly and sincere routine.
cohenite,
thanks also for your links.
I spent an hour or so this morning organising my Bookmarks, because now I have almost four screens of bookmarked links, and every time it gets to around a page and a half, I then move them all into sub folders.
I’ll look at the BNC links, but I really would like to read the whole document myself, just to see how many assumptions they really do make.
I’m almost up to a third the way through, and it just gets wilder and wilder.
It’s a Plan all right.
But a plan for what I’m not really sure.
What worries me is that documents like this make it all sound so feasible, and unless you really know about what they are actually talking about, it becomes easier to believe for the average punter.
Just on one thing, again about what they hope to use to replace large scale coal fired power plants with, their Concentrating Solar Plants, they say that by judicious use of the way the power is consumed, then from their 220MW plant, they can actually get 50MW constant for almost 21 hours.
50 MW?????
What the!
Just take one plant, say, er, Bayswater.
2640 MW for 24 hours of every day.
Their reply. 50MW for 21 hours.
Gee, that means 50 of these plants just to replace Bayswater. They then sanguinely say that ‘if’ they construct as many of these plants that they say they will, it will make the cost of electricity ‘close’ to what we already pay for current power. Yeah! Right. We also won’t need that Bayswater scale of power because what they produce will be used more effectively.
These sized Concentrating Solar plants are currently running at $1.5 Billion each. They’ll need to recover those costs, and the only way they can do that is by selling the electricity, eg to consumers, hence, well you can guess, and the cost of electricity will not be cheap.
They also sanguinely claim that the plants will have a lifespan of 50 years. The best I’ve heard quoted is 25 to 30, so that means less time to recover those costs, also meaning higher electricity costs.
This is, quite literally ‘pie in the sky’ stuff, and it won’t really drive R and D either.
The total all up cost they think may be in the vicinity of $370 Billion, and that’s in 2010/11 dollars.
Wow!
The trouble is that Greens and their urgers will point at this and say, believable, reputable, they are all experts, all peer reviewed, so this is doable, and me, well I’m just a nobody with nothing, and quite obviously sponsored by ‘big carbon’.
Average punters see this and say, why not.
I see this and a shiver runs up my spine!
Tony.
Any’ow, it was all s’posed to happen last Saturday.
How long’s it bein’ postponed for now?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/apocalypse_later.html
And so you guys would have never invented the first power plant, steam engine – out, no man on the moon, no satellites, no sequenced human genome. All too hard.
And not a squeak from yo’all about billions spent on fusion research.
It’s good old Aussie no can do.
So we’ll just sit here and the world will innovate around us.
Cohenite’s claim to fame will be gingering Nova up to sue public scientists, while himself unpublished pretentiously writing 10 worst paper posts – pullease your slip is showing.
OK Tony so what about nuclear? New nuclear or old?
Verballed again by luke; I have always spoken cautiously in favour of nuclear, and thorium; fusion is great, anything which will supply base-load; wind and solar will not and after all the money invested and cutting edge R&D the current energy sourced world-wide from W&S is less than 0.5%; W&S are a joke, a bad, sick joke which take valuable resources away from productive areas. You might as well have mice running in circles in a cage.
I’m perfectly comfortable with Nuclear electrical power generation.
As to which type, gee, any fourth Gen PWR
As for BWR’s say ABWR, SBWR, ESBWR, again fourth gen
Fast Breeders, Pebble Beds, when they are finally up and running.
Say, maybe even these might be the go:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos
However, whilst ever that word ‘Nuclear’ is in front of the words ‘power plant’, there’s snowballs they’ll ever be part of any mix at all.
Tony.
Tony; I suggest we shut down Bayswater along with Hazelwood and a few others without substitution after warning consumers we can’t afford the alternative power sources given “Carbon Monitoring for Action estimates this power station emits 19.80 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year” (Wiki).
Btw I collect older aluminium utensils as a token memento from an era when we must have that industry here at any price. Last century’s luxury was having this light weight metal everywhere, indoors, outdoors and high in the sky. This form of “frozen electricity” my never be so abundant again. Perhaps I can get a spot on ABC collectors soon with my current assortment.
I spent most of today getting ready for another shot in a long running campaign, using and reserving renewables of the material kind and that is despite my keen interest in metals and their use in manufacturing.
I got to tour some our aircraft industry when we made state of the art jet fighters and their engines all in Melbourne. The key words then were “Duralumin” and “Anodizing”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duralumin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anodizing
Dare I say what happens next re electricity and sources won’t be influenced by a few blogs
gav, you are truly an idiot.
Fusion is great is it – no it’s not – we’ve wasted billions haven’t we? Net result – zip ! So how can you defend fusion Cohers? And why would you be against thermal storage solar research in the same vein?
Tony – so the solar thermal storage story by the enthusiasts isn’t there yet. So would a concerted research effort change that?
Luke
“And so you guys would have never invented the first power plant, steam engine – out, no man on the moon, no satellites, no sequenced human genome. All too hard.”
Yes we would, and the people of the time saw a need for it and they did strive to invent those things.
There has to be a genuine NEED for it Luke not just a feel good political desire!
————————————————————————————
“Tony – so the solar thermal storage story by the enthusiasts isn’t there yet. So would a concerted research effort change that?”
No it would not.
There is an inherent problem, ie the difference of density of power between fossil fuels and solar radiation.
No matter how you look at it, this difference will always be the determining factor of being viable at an affordable price or not.
Of course governments can regulate but that does not change the facts.
The whole premise of the zero emission proposal rests on reducing the power consumptions of everyone.
To a certain degree it can be done, I would say no lighting of corporate buildings at night would be a start, but at present it makes no difference since the base load power stations still have to run.
So what is your suggestion Luke?
Where can we save or adjust our lifestyle to suit the available power proposed?
Fusion is not dead; I have sent Jennifer an article David Stockwell put together on an intriguing new ‘fusion’ process:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Cold-Fusion-It-May-Not-Be-Madness-71916.html
It actually isn’t fusion:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece
Jonathan, here’s Agent Smith alias Luke’s solution:
“I’ve realised that you are not actually mammals. Every mammal on the planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area … Human beings are a disease, a cancer of the planet. You are a plague. And we are … the cure”
https://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/5/the-personal-costs-of-spurning-green-misanthropy
BTW Luke, nuclear fusion may not be any further away than than functional solar or wind, maybe closer. But functional nuclear fission is already here.
Also Luke, care to answer the question on the “Gallileo Movement” blog?
Luke
addendum
re. “steam engine”
The need for an alternate power source was so great, the steam engine was taken up and used well before it was developed to its full potential.
Solar has been around for many decades and is still a sideshow.
How come?
Cold fusion – ROFL
So Johnathon – you ought be outraged about fusion research – no need according to you. But you’re not outraged are you.
More dogshit from Quack-rant. What a quality journal for chipmunks.
Johnathon – shouldn’t you be out in front of the steam engine with a red flag?
It’s not cold fusion you ratbag; god, what a pair, gavin and luke.
Luke
you are really pathetic, you know that don’t you?
What a stupid come back!
Spanglers- what question – what blog?
This focus on household costs by the dinosaur mob is just a political stunt little guy.
IMO household electricity use is the easiest to reduce in the short term, particularly if we target both embodied and ongoing energy use as we go on. Redesign may be as simple as the kitchen I inspected today.
Built in the middle of a large modern home there was virtually no natural light available so the original owners had about a dozen downlights installed in the general area.
My solution after working on the oven was, immediately add another 32w circular fluro to the lonely ceiling illuminating light above the bench. then have a skylight tube installed asap.
Cold fusion – giggle….
Well Johnathon – you’re obviously anti-science and anti-research – so you’d do well back in the day
“The 1865 act required all road locomotives, which included automobiles, to travel at a maximum of 4 mph (6 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3 km/h) in towns and have a crew of three travel, one of whom should carry a red flag walking 60 yards (55 m) ahead of each vehicle. The 1896 Act removed the need for the crew of three and raised the speed to 14 mph (23 km/h).”
This is what denialists are all about – keeping science in the dark ages – and having a good old wank on pretentious blogs like “Galileo (bowel) movement” barf !
Just listen to these pseudo-Galileo turds – “Belonging to the human community – rediscovering choice, responsibility, protection, hope.” – “Discover for yourself peace, fairness, ease and trust by really caring for the environment.” how sickening – truly stomach churning stuff.
What a complete con !
What religious zeal …. barf !
Luke
Research and inventions are going on all the time ad infinitum. just look at the records in the patent office.
Some are useful and taken up, some are ahead of their time, some way past their use by date.
The ones needed are taken up and become successful if they satisfy the needs at a price affordable, if not, they fail. That’s how markets and the world in general works, if you want to mandate, say so.
I can’t understand why a man of your alleged intellect can be so dumb.
gav
no, forget it!
“Spanglers- what question – what blog?”
This question, this blog.
Could whatever caused those earlier warm periods also cause this one?
Simple answer, yes or no?
I’m still a fan of hydro power.
It is proven technology and has the extra advantage of creating long term storage.
SHL is in serious need of upgrading and new technology could produce so much more power with less water.
Solar and wind still have potential but they’re not good enough to take over yet.
No !
No?
Why not? Care to elaborate?
There is no solar driver.
It isn’t the PDO
There is a very good measured greenhouse forcing mechanism.
The warming won’t be monotonic and will wiggle about with inter-annual and inter-decadal climate variability.
In the geological past the Earth has warmed or cooled for a variety of reasons – solar output, orbital, greenhouse, volcanism
It’s not the warming per se – it’s a mere metric – the warming will/has changed atmospheric circulation, changes in extremes, and rapid changes in natural ecosystems.
With Earth’s population at 6B going to 9B we’re especially exposed in food production.
Uncontrolled growth of atmospheric CO2 is a major risk with mild to wild consequences depending on feedbacks. Risk management urges caution with both ill-considered short term solutions and long term dithering.
“There is no solar driver”; how bizarre. Shaviv is a good place to start; here he is beating up your buddies at rc, from 37 onwards.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/thank-you-for-emitting/
Then we can look at Courtlliot.
Luke writes “There is a very good measured greenhouse forcing mechanism.”
Alright Luke, please post the measurement data that show the greenhouse gas forcing. Not some model’s theorized crap, but the actual measurements. If there was measurement data that showed this then the IPCC would not have had to fudge confidence numbers.
Godd grief – Luke is a Malthusian.
Luke, More power to you, but I don’t know why you are bothering with a bunch of “google galileos”.
Luke is a closet Malthusian and this is the first time I’ve seen his true colors.
As you all know I stand with the heretics, Archibald and Minchin, who think regional cooling in North America will begin to have a detrimental effect on food production, but we are too smart and hungry for the filthy dollar to allow mass starvation to occur on our watch.
For heavens sake you lot are kooky – not even Nova, Lindzen or Spencer doubts the basic greenhouse mechanism.
Archibald’s stuff – how laughable. Good grief.
And just to complete the nutty chipmunks musical – Sinkers has been roughing it over at Nova saying – oh yes there’s definitely downwelling but it comes from the electric universe. ROFL.
What a bunch of clowns – 20 mechanisms from you lot in 5 mins. You’re denialist harlots who’ll get on anything.
Hum – are you some sort of Johnny-come-lately weener – get your butt over to SoD http://scienceofdoom.com/ and get edumuckated – you want measurements – go into your backyard in a clear night with a pyrgeometer
My money is on Archy for a two degree drop in temps in New hampshire by 2020, but I digress.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/radical-approach-changes-basin-plan/story-fn59niix-1226062982434
el gordo
Quoting your link
“The authority had adopted a radically different scientific approach to determine how much water is needed to be returned to the environment, outgoing MDBA chief executive Rob Freeman and executive director Fraser MacLeod told a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra yesterday.”
So there are many scientific approaches? Might that include Lukianism?
Luke.
way back up the page at 7PM last night you asked if a concerted research effort would change the Concentrating Solar ‘story’.
They’ve been working on this all across the World now for donkey’s ages, so nothing here will add to that all that much.
The maximum they can now get from this process is around 250MW with that 50MW firm, just from Solar for around 21 hours of the full 24 hour a day.
They can get around 150MW for around 12 hours, but to supply the full 24 hour power, which is now part of the deal if they want the Government subsidy, then they need to also employ an on site auxilliary turbine driving mechanism, which is Natural gas fired, and to achieve that 24 hour power delivery, then there is an emission of around 1200tons of CO2 each day.
With that research, the output power is slowly rising, and they hope to be able to generate possibly up to 500MW in around five years, (hoped for, and theorised) but again, the total delivery drops off if they divert the heat to the storage facility so they can get more hours out of the total Solar component, hence the large drop off in total power output.
The problem lies in keeping the compound molten enough to boil water to the steam required to drive the turbine enough to actually be able to drive the huge weight of the generator which is required to produce the large amounts of power.
Generator technology is in fact getting better, and why it actually is getting better is mainly being achieved in China, where they are developing generator technology to produce more power from smaller generators, this technology mainly being driven by the ramping up of coal fired power, where they can now burn less coal to make that steam to drive those now smaller generators.
The main inherent problem is always going to be the weight of the generator, so everything must work backwards from that.
You can have all the mirrors you like focussing the Suns heat onto the compound, but the weight of that generator REQUIRES a certain amount of steam to drive the turbine to actually be able to turn the weight of that generator for anything up to 3000 RPM, or 50 times a second.
Generator technology has developed to a point where they can make lesser RPM, but the weight factor is always the problem.
I know this has been technical and I hope I have explained it as simply as can be understood, and also, I apologise for taking up so much space here, when the mantra should always be to keep the Comments short.
So, sorry about that.
Tony.
Another Lukeprop unceremoniously kicked away:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/25/snowball-earth-ended-by-methane-now-an-impossible-theory/#more-40570
On the contrary Tony, I find your posts highly informative.
Tony, if we were to replace all the turbines in our generators how much more power could we produce? Surely we could simply cut our CO2 output by 5% (relatively) by installing state of the art turbines as China is doing. The snowy could definitely be improved surely.
The Snowy could definitely be radically improved.
The technology being used there is over 40 years old!
They have made a few minor improvements with storage and diversion, but the real bang for our bucks would have to be in improving and updating the technology involved in producing the actual power.
New hydro power technology is way, way more efficient!
There are other places where we could employ the use of Hydro Power if we so chose.
I would guess that Tony would have the technical answers to that question?
Interestingly, it is China again which has some of the most up-to-date hydro technology.
Zero Carbon Australia solar guys back in the news
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/26/3227776.htm?section=justin
John,
It’s not the turbines, (which is the drive mechanism)
It’s the generators.
Smaller generators, especially those in China, are about half the size of most of Australia’s generators in existing coal fired plants and can produce more power.
Those ones currently in use here in Australia are all old technology, mainly from the 70’s.
You cannot simply just replace the generator.
A smaller generator requires a smaller driving turbine, and with that smaller turbine, you then a smaller steam boiler, and for that you will then need a new critical furnace to burn the coal, and a new coal loader.
Retrofitting existing plants, and for this purpose that means retrofitting it backwards from that generator would be almost the same cost as constructing a whole new coal fired plant, and one of those would never even get out of the ‘thought bubble’ stage.
The process is explained at this Post of mine, and keep in mind this is from three years ago, and I’ve learned a lot more since then. Click on the image and it will open in a new window for a larger view.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/kyoto-a-perspective-part-11/
Tony.
debbie and John, and others,
if you want to see Hydro, especially in China, see this link, again also mine.
The link is to a four part Series I made on the Three Gorges Scheme in China.
The link shows all 4 parts, just click on them one at a time.
This one single project produces 22,500 MW, the equivalent of 11 large scale coal fired plants, and in total, 45% of all the power produced here in Australia from every source.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/?s=ThreeGorgesTony
Keep in mind in China, almost 22% of all their total power generation is from Hydro, and most of that has been constructed in the last ten years. Their Hydro technology is also the best on the Planet.
Also, and read this carefully. Here in Australia, 38% of all electrical power being generated goes to the Residential sector.
In China, barely 8% of all power goes to that Residential sector.
With a population of 1.35 Billion, only one household in six has access to electricity, so, effectively, almost one billion people have no electricity in their homes at all, let alone a constant and reliable supply that we have here.
That is why China is constructing power plants (of every sort) in such a rush, and that of itself is what is driving the technology in that Country.
They’re not doing it out of disrespect for the environment, but to actually bring any form of electrical power to their vast masses.
So, mindlessly calling for China to cut back its emissions is effectively denying one billion people something that we take so utterly for granted, access to electricity.
And that’s no agenda on my part.
Tony.
Thanks for the info Tony – there’s no way the greens would allow us to add further hydro power.
I noticed the big new chimney at the Condong Sugar Mill biomass generator was quiet when I drove past it yesterday.
Luke – that ABC article is verging on the criminal.!! sure they are getting cheaper, but NOT better. If all the 110,000 houses in NSW with government subsidised 1.5kW solar panels are operating at full power they will contribute a measly 165 megawatts to the grid’s 14GW capacity.
It’s a joke!! – I was checking all the solar panel setups at Byron Bay yesterday, there were houses with their solar panels on the roof facing SW!!
JS…someone should tell those householders, we need all the megs we can muster.
“So, mindlessly calling for China to cut back its emissions is effectively denying one billion people something that we take so utterly for granted, access to electricity.
And that’s no agenda on my part”
Agreed, Tony.
I spend about 40% of my professional time in mainland China now, so I’ve observed the development process in detail since 2004
And anyone in Aus who has delusions that the Chinese Govt will stop developing their electricity grid because Greenies in Aus want them to in order to save the planet is genuinely both abysmally ignorant and utterly stupid … like Brown, who professes to think that if Aus stops selling coking coal to China, the Chinese will not purchase the coal from somewhere else. In every mainland Chinese city (and there are > 1.3bn people in a geographic area about 10% larger than Aus), there are literally hundreds of thousands (collectively) of high-rise apartment blocks being built. The skylines are choked with cranes EVERYWHERE – this needs steel and power. End of story
BTW, both myself and my wife viewed an Obama oracle about 7 months ago on the TV, wherein he opined that the mainland Chinese cannot be allowed to attain our standard of living because this would destroy the planet. The stench of hypocrisy here achieves depths I had previously believed unachievable by any politician – I was wrong, of course
Hi John Sayers; you say “If all the 110,000 houses in NSW with government subsidised 1.5kW solar panels are operating at full power they will contribute a measly 165 megawatts to the grid’s 14GW capacity.”
Do you have accurate information about how many NSW homes are getting the maximum 60c per Kwh, and what is the total they produce so a comparison with coal’s ~ 5c per Kwh can be done to see how much the NSW taxpayer is actually funding this scheme?
Tony, I’m interested to know if you have an opinion on the potential value of a hydro scheme on the Franklin and Gordon Rivers. I realise that the rivers’ special fetish status, world heritage listing etc would make this a political no-go, but I’m curious as to whether it is a good idea from a technical point of view. Sorry to add to your overload of questions, but you’ve made this a very interesting thread. (I’m biased: I love the sight of a great engineering feat in a great wilderness setting, but I want to keep a cool head and learn more about the viability.)
I got it from radio, they argued about it for a day or so but seemed confident it was around 110,000 – there were another 50,000 waiting connection.
http://www.australiancoal.com.au/the-australian-coal-industry_coal-exports_coal-export-details.aspx
Brown and other commentators should stop fretting about China burning most of our exported coal, because they are not our biggest customers.
Japan and Korea are…and we the majority of Australians are grateful for their custom, despite what the Brown eyed Greens et al may think.
Gillardis shaping up to be the most incompetent PM and Govt of any in 100 years
Robert; “I want to keep a cool head and learn more”.
I recommend you first visit Tasmania and see the place by river and air then contemplate where the scheme’s designers, builders, lenders and customers should come from today as all the old HEC work force have retired or moved on.
My guess is you would be hard pressed to find any of these pre recqusites just floating around so why not start another hydro power development up in say North QLD, WA, NT or something else directly water driven near Tully where the rain likewise pelts down much of the time?
Tony, are there many suitable sites for hydro in your opinion? And which ones, if any, stand out as having potential for a major scheme?
Gee, any talk of new Hydro is a little academic really, because it has virtually no chance whatsoever of getting up.
In Tasmania, luckily they got the Gordon Dam in, but any talk of a Hydro on the Franklin is just dead in the water. Gordon Dam Hydro at 430MW supplies around 15% of Tassies power, so had they got in earlier and got Franklin done, maybe Tassie would have least CO2 emissions of any State.
As to anything that could be done now, again, moot, because nothing ever will.
Perhaps some foresight might have included hydro at Wivenhoe, well, larger anyway, Fairbairn and Burdekin if Burdekin 3 every gets done, again all too late now.
A really prime site would be on the Mitchell, and kill 3 birds with the one rock. Water supply, flood mitigation and hydro to replace brown coal plants, but again moot, as Vic Labor killed that off by declaring the site, well, whatever they declared it to be.
Maybe salt water pumped storage for Peaking Power but you’d need cliffs close to Ocean for that.
We can only thank heavens they started Snowy Hydro after the War, because there would be snowballs trying to get that up now.
Consider this.
16 Dams, 2 huge pumping Stations, 7 major power plants and 12 tunnels, and those tunnels are the real engineering marvel.
2 of them are 15 miles THROUGH mountains, 26 feet wide. All done in the 50’s and 60’s with what they had available at the time.
Now someone is laying fibre optic in existing trenches with 2011 technology, and Federal Labor compares the NBN to the Snowy Scheme.
Its like comparing the Pyramids to Lego.
Naah! New Hydro’s a dead duck in Australia, and gee, have you noticed a pattern here.
Reliable 24/7/365 Coal fired power – Poison.
Reliable 24/7/365 Nuclear Power – Poison.
Reliable Hydro Power – Poison.
Wind and Solar – great.
It would seem the ‘loonies’ really have taken over the asylum.
Tony.
Malcolm
“… China burning most of our exported coal, because they are not our biggest customers.
Japan and Korea are …”
There is a widespread misunderstanding here: Aus sells almost NO thermal coal to China. Almost all of the China sales are coking coal (steel manufacture). Shenua (Chinese miner) has a presence in thermal coal deposits in Aus, but production as yet is not big
Japan, South Korea and Taiwan purchase the bulk of the Aus thermal coal exports. Japan and South Korea also purchase some coking coal
IanI888,
Isnt that what my reference is saying when it separates out the coal exported into
Metallurgical coal and Thermal coal and thereby, I assume.. it covers the full range.
If this is wrong, or there is another twist then please let me know.
Cheers
Luke,
I’m not sure if you’ll come back to this Thread, but thanks to you mate, I think I’ve finally ‘got it’.
I’m most of the way through the ZeroCarbon thing, and as I read each new part, I kept thinking how they made an awful lot of assumptions on not the best case scenario, but the absolute best case scenario.
I wanted to read as much as I could take in before looking at the critique at BNC, because that might have coloured my reading.
However, when I finally did go to the BNC site, they were even more critical than I would have been.
Now I can understand fully how no one’s ever going to believe anything I say, because I’m just a nobody blogger, but surely Luke, you have to believe what these guys say. The actually ‘do’ have ‘cred’.
You’re obviously a clever thinking person, so surely you must believe that BNC critique.
For others not willing to invest the serious time to read the Zero Carbon proposal which comes in at almost 200 pages of technical information, they quote a total cost of $370 Billion, while the BNC reply quotes it as $1,709 Billion with a range of $850 Billion to almost $5,000 Billion, so that $1.7 Billion is indeed conservative.
They use technology not even started anywhere in the World, and then overstate the performance characteristics.
The wholesale electricity price will increase by a factor of 10 times what it is now.
All cars to be electric. No air transport at all.
All freight and passenger movements by rail, all of that electrified, local, state and interstate.
They quote the timeline as having those solar plants starting this year and all of them completed by 2020, when there is not one in existence on the Planet right now, and not expected to be before 2020.
Wind plants of 7.5MW, and the best current is 4.5 to 5MW.
I can see how the ‘average’ punter would be taken in by something like the ZeroCarbon proposal, because they’re not technically trained, but Luke, you’re a thinking guy.
Surely you must see this.
Tony.
Luke from yesterday
“This is bullshit. Everyone is in this together. Big polluters unluckily are merely big energy users. Why are we demonising big industry. What a Robin Hood con act.
Sorry – decarbonising will cost.”
I totally agree, it’s about time the pollies were called an this furfie.
“Investment in new energy systems research is the way forward.”
Agree as well, we have to get around to this sooner or later and current solar and wind technology just won’t cut it. Making inefficient technologies artificially competitive is lazy and actually stifles innovation. We need to quickly build a bunch of nuclear power stations to secure our medium term energy requirements and then get on with the job of real cutting edge research.
Tony
Yes I suspect too good to be true. But my issue is where we might be given some investment in baseload solar as a “partial” contribution. Throw “new” nuclear into that as well.
And I say do you begrudge the fusion researchers having a go?
I would rather see this than a money cycling carbon tax. So take some off the top and invest in these technologies.
For me the long term threat of climate change is real. Need serious solutions. Time starts now.
And very interesting over at BNC – Barry Brooks has done his systems analysis – decided AGW is on – needs addressing – renewables won’t cut it and gone straight to nuclear ! Greenies would be incensed. So his blog is now about serious engineering investigation on alternatives.
Hey what happened to the wave energy guys – remember – http://www.oceanlinx.com/
Luke, both Brooks and Monbiot appear to be on the same page WRT realistic solutions to a perceived problem in direct contrast to hardcore screaming greenies. When I read what they have to say it provokes me to want to read more as I prefer to hear honest, rational debate regardless of someones position on the topic.
You seem to feel that a carbon tax is a non-solution, I wonder what Brooks Steffen and Karoly’s positions on it are?
Luke, if you’re still there you may remember that my property is off the grid and runs primarily on solar panels with generator backup. It would be interesting to see a cost benefit analysis of household wind and solar generation versus centralised power using the same technologies. Consider a 1MW industrial monolith wind turbine with all of it’s production and transport costs, placement issues and poor upgradability. If instead, 1000 homes each had a 1KW turbine coupled with a solar system perhaps connected to the grid with tariffs at parity, just think about the possibilities. You just have to look at the trouble the eastern states are in now with upgrading existing coalfired power stations, replacements are years away whatever technology is used. With micro power systems you would have off the shelf replacements, a bit like when your washing machine fritzes and you either get it fixed or buy a new one.
Imagine if instead of personal computers, everyone just had a keyboard and monitor and all of the processing was done in a giant warehouse somewhere. We’d still be using 80’s technology because it would be too costly and difficult to upgrade the warehouse every 12 months.
re the proposed Carbon (Dioxide) Tax.
We’ve canvassed here the Zero Carbon Proposal, and the costings. and how they could divert all the money raised from this proposed legislation into something like that and still not have enough, and that’s a proposal that doesn’t stack up.
What is obvious is that this new ‘Carbon Tax’ is just a platform to raise money, money that will not be used to serve any purpose of lowering those emissions.
Let’s face it, the average ‘punter’ in the street has no concept of the scale of those emissions, especially when it comes to emissions from the power plants that provide their staple of life, and from that, no concept of the amount of money this will raise for Government.
The money raised from that CO2 tax will obviously be viewed through different eyes.
The UNFCCC with their original Kyoto Protocol gave an idea where they would like to see it directed, and please don’t get the idea I do this to keep linking into my own Posts, but rather than say it all again, it’s easier just to link to what I have already said, albeit from some Posts dating back more than three years now.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/bthe-un-and-climate-change-ten-fateful-wordsb/
Now that placing a cost on those CO2 emissions has gained traction, it seems that Politics will find other, more pressing uses for the huge amounts of money that can be raised from this.
It won’t get used to send to the UN for the costs of all those Developing Countries.
It won’t get used to find ways to lower emissions from those ‘big emitters’ Bob and Christine and others keep referring to.
It won’t get used to divert to schemes like this Zero Carbon Proposal.
It won’t get used to drive R and D for new power plants to replace those coal fired power plants.
It will be used here in Australia to help keep the budget back in Surplus, while still providing a war chest for pre election giveaways to shore up the vote to ensure they get re-elected.
Now that Politics has finally cottoned on to just how much money it really can provide, those CO2 emissions become the source of supply, and the Science (that those politicians have no concept of) is being used to justify that grab for the money.
At the bottom of the Post of mine I linked to, you’ll see a further link, where the World Bank is diverting money gleaned from First World Countries to assist those still Developing Countries fight the Climate Change battle.
Trouble is that money is being approved for the construction, and wait for this, of large scale coal fired power plants.
I’ll never stop saying that this really is just about the money. When there is money to be made, the Environment just becomes the excuse!
Tony.
Malcolm
“If this is wrong, or there is another twist then please let me know”
The twist (if it pleases you to label it so, although it’s simply a fact), is that Aus thermal coal exports are much larger in volume than coking coal, so thermal exports to SE Asia are much higher than those of coking coal to China in volume, although not necessarily in $$$
The reason for this is simply the geology of Aus coal deposits – there are many more economic deposits of thermal coal than coking coal, even though the coking deposits that do exist are of very high quality. This is quite important economically: Aus and China were one continent, Panganea, during the Permian (when most of the coal-forming peat was growing across this super-continent), but after tectonic separation Aus finished with almost all the coking coal deposits and China almost none
As I’ve noted, most people are truly ignorant of geology, even though it’s been the prime driver of Aus economic success for about 200 years. This fact used to dismay me, but not any more – because no amount of ignorance alters the geology one bit 🙂