9524 replies to this topic

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

With so much Uranium ore in the back yard we also be installing fission reactors right now. - for base load, Although the ore here is low grade, there's also the possibility that we have high grade deposits not yet discovered.

Fission is a bad choice, for a whole bunch of reasons:

* There is around 100 years' of easily available supply left, making it a medium term solution, at best.
* Disposal of waste is politically unpalatable and poorly developed. We can't even find a place for the relatively small amounts of waste from Lucas Heights.
* Fission reactors are not a cheap option. No insurance company will touch them. They must be underwritten by taxpayers. I wonder what the final cost to Japan will be?
* PV Solar is rapidly falling in cost, such that it will rival coal in a year or two. Fission cannot hope to equal that feat.
* Geo-thermal is relatively reasonably priced and politically far more palatable. Far fewer insurance issues.

Edited by Zaphod Beeblebrox, 27 March 2012 - 06:49 PM.

[surfpurple]

Irrelevant. An AUSTRALIAN carbon tax is designed to deal with AUSTRALIA'S CO2 emissions. A German carbon tax deals with GERMAN CO2 emissions. And so on. Each nation MUST do it's part to reduce their own CO2 emissions. Australia will be doing it's part. Which is how it should be. Eultimately, any nation that does not do it's part, will be a pariah nation and trade sanctions (such as those we have already seen against Qantas) will be implemented. Australia has been at the vanguard of things like seat belt laws, drink driving laws, tobacco labelling laws and now CO2 taxation laws. I ma saddened that we are so far behind so many nations in this respect (30 other nations have already implemented carbon tax legislation).



What? Like the GST did? The carbon tax will have vastly less impact than the GST.



That's down to the strength of the Aussie Dollar. Making out mining companies slightly less successful will be a good thing. Our Dollar will fall and we can become more competitive.



If you are truly concerned about your kids' future, then you should support any means necessary to reduce Australia's CO2 emissions. Your kids will have to deal with some very serious climate change issues, if we do nothing.



People SAY lots of things. The fact is that the planet is warming (no one disputes that). It is warmgin because there is too much CO2 in teh atmosphere (no one disputes that). What is under dispute is whether the effect can be contained, after CO2 concentrations hit 500ppm. The vast majority of climtaologists feel that after 500ppm, there is no chance of containment. This prediction has been cited with a confidence level of 95%.

Think of it this way: If you lived in a bushfire prone area and the bushfire authorities told you that there is a 5% chance that your house will burn down in any given Summer, would you bother with insurance?

It's like that with the carbon tax. Science tells us that there is a 95% chance of disaster, if we do nothing. IOW: There is a 5% chance that there will be no problem.

What are YOU going to do for your kids?



Wrong. Australia is #14. There are 163 nations that emit less CO2 than we do. We are a MAJOR CO2 emitter. Either way, sticking your head in the sand will not make the problem go away. EVERY nation on Earth must face the problem and implement changes. That includes Australia.



He was referring to the rampant disregard shown by politicians, talk back radio hosts and mining people. Science has shown us that there is a major problem. Disinformation from vested interests has skewed public debate away from the real problem.



Did you read where the guy (Dr Seitz) who set up the Oregon Petition (the scientists who claim there is no problem) worked for the tobacco industry? Despite a $45 million budget, Dr Seitz was unable to find a link between smoking and cancer. That's a real good scientist.

I suggest you read the IPCC AR4 sometime.



Of course it is. You have no care about the future planet your children will inheret. We are all aware of that.

I must correct you on one point, I DO care about the future planet my children will inherit.

But I do not want MY kids (and other Australians), future work prospects jeopardised by what we are doing now and continue to do to our manufacturing and competitiveness with the rest of the world. Too many industries are shutting down (and our jobs are going overseas). I am for limiting our impact on glabal warming BUT not necessarily by the means with which we are using.

A lot of us here are in business and we know first hand how taxes and other factors can affect our business. And we see SO many jobs being cut in our country.

I have seen first hand how some of these environmental schemes have been manipulated and also seen overstated 'efficiency' of some schemes.

You cannot tell me that installing a solar hot water system in a house , and NOT setting it up correctly can still be classed as being environmentaly efficient?
You say that the sun heats up the water and that HAS to be more efficient than just using electricity. Well why are lots of peoples electricity bills just as high (after they install a solar hot water system? OK, electricity prices have increased. But if people leave their tank on off-peak, it will heat up every night. that means wasted power. And if people are still using a lot of electricity to heat up hot water PLUS the cost to the environment for the manufacture of the tank, the panels or tubes, the pipework, the cabling atc, then the cost to the environment is still there.

There is also problems with 'heat pumps', but I won't bother going into that one.

I am just highlighting the issues with some environmental schemes that we have today and these are areas which need consideration if we want to 'maximise' our efficiency.

I am not here to debate the topic of 'is climate change real'? (I have never said it is not real),because that has turned out to be along the lines of Religion and evolution. I have got better things to do with my time than those debates that go round in circles for ever.

[Art Vandelay]

Dr Dennis Jensen.

It strikes me as strange that the solution the Gillard government has enacted to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is simply to impose a tax. The reality is, in order to achieve reductions, real alternatives are required. For baseload power supplies in Australia, the only alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power.

You need only look at the penetration of renewable energy supplies in the world market to see that these are not genuine alternatives, they are simply wishware. Take away generous subsidies for the renewables sector, and the picture is even worse.

The reality is that, by 2020, by the government's own figures, our carbon dioxide emissions will increase by more than 5 per cent; the ''reductions'' are ''achieved'' by the purchase of carbon credits from overseas. This is simply smoke and mirrors, the reality is that our emissions go up.

Nuclear power is a genuine, economic and technical alternative (if it were not economic, why go to the lengths of applying a legislative ban to its generating electricity, as no generator would go this way on a level playing field?). I also find it strange that the Labor government believes that it is fine to export a fuel for a method of generating electricity that is deemed, by this government, as too dangerous for Australia. This stance is irresponsible, illogical, hypocritical and incredibly unethical and immoral; if nuclear power is that bad, the sale of uranium overseas should be banned.

In conclusion, if this government is to be consistent in a policy sense, it should move to remove the legislative ban on nuclear power.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1qItqgInT

[warren2503]

Basic learning behavior theory say put a punishment in place for the wrong behavior and a reward for the despaired behaviour and people will modify there behavior accordingly .
governments all over the world have used taxes this way , eg cigarettes
Theory is push up the cost and demand will reduced . It is a very blunt tool but effective

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Dr Dennis Jensen.

It strikes me as strange that the solution the Gillard government has enacted to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is simply to impose a tax. The reality is, in order to achieve reductions, real alternatives are required. For baseload power supplies in Australia, the only alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power.

You need only look at the penetration of renewable energy supplies in the world market to see that these are not genuine alternatives, they are simply wishware. Take away generous subsidies for the renewables sector, and the picture is even worse.

The reality is that, by 2020, by the government's own figures, our carbon dioxide emissions will increase by more than 5 per cent; the ''reductions'' are ''achieved'' by the purchase of carbon credits from overseas. This is simply smoke and mirrors, the reality is that our emissions go up.

Nuclear power is a genuine, economic and technical alternative (if it were not economic, why go to the lengths of applying a legislative ban to its generating electricity, as no generator would go this way on a level playing field?). I also find it strange that the Labor government believes that it is fine to export a fuel for a method of generating electricity that is deemed, by this government, as too dangerous for Australia. This stance is irresponsible, illogical, hypocritical and incredibly unethical and immoral; if nuclear power is that bad, the sale of uranium overseas should be banned.

In conclusion, if this government is to be consistent in a policy sense, it should move to remove the legislative ban on nuclear power.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1qItqgInT

Come on Arty. Check out this:

http://www.geodynami....aspx?CPID=1464

[surfpurple]

Basic learning behavior theory say put a punishment in place for the wrong behavior and a reward for the despaired behaviour and people will modify there behavior accordingly .
governments all over the world have used taxes this way , eg cigarettes
Theory is push up the cost and demand will reduced . It is a very blunt tool but effective

But what if the costs are pushed up and the industries CAN sustain the costs?

It's after all just another tax, which could be 'budgeted' into a companies expense. And if the company can afford to continue operations, then it is not 'reducing' carbon emissions!

The way I see it (and I will probably get the usual opposition), is that our manufacturing is going to continue to expand (after all, every business HAS to grow to be successful), which means they will continue to produce more emmissions. Now if these companies can start to use alternative energy then it will cost them, so they will have to pass the costs onward. And if they don't use alternatives then they get taxed more, but that will be passed on also!

And even if our industry does comply and seeks to use alternative methods of production, that production is always going to increase as industries 'grow', so we are still going to be producing more and more emmitions over time.

So how do we actually 'reduce' emmitions (compared to what we use today) over a period of time when (as the world economy MUST grow in order to sustain itself). If our economies are set up (and our societies) to 'consume' then it seems rather 'hypercritical'.

Most climate advocates are looking towards 'reducing' emmissions but others are looking more towards the BIGGER picture of actually reducing CONSUMPTION!

If we truly want to look after the future of our planet, then why adopt a 'band aid' solution? Reducing emmissions is one thing, but the resources in our Earth are FINITE, so there will come a time when they run out!

I stand more for reducing 'consumption' and moving away from our 'throw-away' society. That's part of the reason we are losing jobs to overseas, because we live in a throw away society and we want everything and want it cheap.

How much carbon emmissions are being pumped into the atmosphere because of this?

[warren2503]

The tax will work manufacture may well expand but with the biggest tax in the world being placed on australians the expansion may well entail manufacturers expanding off shore

Only inelastic goods can survive a massive price rise without effecting demand greatly


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?2uppcv

[Art Vandelay]

Come on Arty. Check out this:

http://www.geodynami....aspx?CPID=1464

Yes, Zaphy, a very nice glossy marketing brochure.

I don't deny that there's potential for geothermal generation but there are one or two obstacles and risks. Here's part of a US assessment, and noting that we share many of the same difficulties.

To be both usable and economical a site must have an adequate volume of hot water or steam that is not too impure to use, a surface water source to cool generating equipment, and close proximity to power transmission lines. So, even in promising areas, economically usable sites are few and they are difficult to locate.

The U.S. Geological Survey Circular 790 estimates a hydrothermal resource base in the U.S. of between 95,000 and 150,000 MW (Megawatts), of which 25,000 MW are known resources.
While that is a significant amount, it’s roughly one fourth of our current electrical need, less if we start plugging our cars into the electric grid. And most of that geothermal resource is way out west. That’s good for the West Coast, Hawaii, and the few people who live in Alaska, but it falls far short of being able to serve our Nation or the world.

The big key to universal use of geothermal resources is the development of deep, hot dry rock resources. The key to that is drilling technology. Due to the hot, often corrosive, environment of geothermal resource areas, drilling for geothermal resources is far more expensive than any other kind of drilling.
Even in relatively shallow hydrothermal wells, drilling costs can amount to half of the price of a new generating plant.

[bhobba]

Nuclear power is a genuine, economic and technical alternative (if it were not economic, why go to the lengths of applying a legislative ban to its generating electricity, as no generator would go this way on a level playing field?). I also find it strange that the Labor government believes that it is fine to export a fuel for a method of generating electricity that is deemed, by this government, as too dangerous for Australia. This stance is irresponsible, illogical, hypocritical and incredibly unethical and immoral; if nuclear power is that bad, the sale of uranium overseas should be banned.

In conclusion, if this government is to be consistent in a policy sense, it should move to remove the legislative ban on nuclear power.

Correct. 4th generation power plants are extremely safe, require very little fuel because they breed quite a bit, and easily last over 100 years. The waste is much less and easily disposable because it is designed to burn the nasties – the actinides – recovered from used fuel. However it is simply not a politically sensitive decision to make especially for a Labor government - which just simply confirms my theses - politics and science often do not mix.

And I believe the chances of not solving the Fusion dilemma well before their useful life is over is virtually zero.

Thanks
Bill

Edited by bhobba, 27 March 2012 - 08:10 PM.

[surfpurple]

The way these two parties are going at each other, they are never going to agree on any policy. So what chance does our country have?

Just watching the 4 corners doco showed how bad politics can be in clouding the judgment of Australians. Some of those politicians should be ashamed of themselves for using such topics to get a political advantage.

Some of thes Politicians are as bad as 'used car salesman'.

[davidsss]

I am not here to debate the topic of 'is climate change real'? (I have never said it is not real)

No, you have said very little. You imply that you don't fully agree with the scientific findings on climate change but never tell us in what way you disagree. You claim to have a view on this issue yet you seem to want to keep it to yourself.

This stance is irresponsible, illogical, hypocritical and incredibly unethical and immoral; if nuclear power is that bad, the sale of uranium overseas should be banned.

Art, finally we agree on something, this position is grossly irresponsible. Nuclear power is dangerous and creates waste which no country has worked out a way to deal with. We should cease uranium exports immediately.

[/left]

Correct. 4th generation power plants are extremely safe, require very little fuel because they breed quite a bit, and easily last over 100 years. The waste is much less and easily disposable because it is designed to burn the nasties – the actinides – recovered from used fuel. However it is simply not a politically sensitive decision to make especially for a Labor government - which just simply confirms my theses - politics and science often do not mix.

And I believe the chances of not solving the Fusion dilemma well before their useful life is over is virtually zero.

Thanks
Bill

Can you name a commercially operational 4th generation nuclear reactor? The real reason they require very little fuel is because they do not exist.

Fusion is a great idea, maybe one day . . .

Meanwhile, solar, geothermal, wind etc are viable and happening now. Not tomorrow, not next week, not in 20 years, not when we solve a few technical problems, NOW.

While I agree with the carbon tax as a first step, and also take the view that a carbon tax is a nice simple incentive to lower CO2 emissions, I think the most logical first step would have been to remove subsidies for fossil fuels, but that does not seem to be an option. Then we would have some idea of the real comparative costs of the various energy options.

The idea of a carbon tax is that the tax will eventually cease to exist. It offers an incentive to move to carbon free power sources, so if you use carbon free power sources you don't pay the tax.

If you want to look at a good way to make Australian industry more competitive then tax the crap out of the mining industry so it stops pushing the value of the $AU up to unsustainable levels.

DS

[surfpurple]

I HAVE been adding to this topic, but not in the way others want to draw me in to.

And yes I don't fully agree with all the scientific findings (in general), but that debate is useless ( like evolution). And I have nothing further to add (which I feel is frustrating some around here).

My views now are to do with what WE are doing (in regards to environmentally efficient power schemes). It is an area that I have some knowledge in.

And It is a perfectly valid subject in regards to 'climate change lies'.

Not all talk has to do with the actual 'science.!

[rantan]

Yes, Zaphy, a very nice glossy marketing brochure.

That was my impression also.

[davidsss]

I HAVE been adding to this topic, but not in the way others want to draw me in to.

And yes I don't fully agree with all the scientific findings (in general), but that debate is useless ( like evolution). And I have nothing further to add (which I feel is frustrating some around here).

My views now are to do with what WE are doing (in regards to environmentally efficient power schemes). It is an area that I have some knowledge in.

And It is a perfectly valid subject in regards to 'climate change lies'.

Not all talk has to do with the actual 'science.!

How can you say that you don't fully agree with all the scientific findings then say you have nothing to add? That is just illogical, if you don't agree then have the guts to come out and say what you disagree with, if you have nothing to add, then add nothing.

What we are going to do in terms of environmentally efficient power is very relevant and has been a topic discussed here. I agree that badly designed and/or installed solar systems (hot water or PV) are not the way forward. But there is a good debate to be had about what is the way forward. Well designed solar, especially solar collecting power stations, is certainly a way forward we should be seriously looking into as a nation. Unlike 4th gen nuclear they are being built now and there is a fair possibility that something like Desertec in the Sahara will be built to provide power to Europe (gee, now there's an idea, maybe we could do the same with our deserts and export renewable power to Asia, won't run out like minerals). This is what measures such as the carbon tax are supposed to encourage, not only encourage the alternative caron neutral power sources but also encourage a debate about sources of energy.

DS

[surfpurple]

You make some very good points.

But you are still getting frustrated by the content that I wish to post.

I know when it is pointless debating certain topics, and as I said before , Climate change science, religion, evotution, and to some extent politics are all topics where some think they are always 'right' and can put it over others and can't handle when they don't get the response they want.

I don't have to go into why I don't fully agree with the science. It is a lose-lose argument as far as I'm concerned.

But I am still viewing all the posts and I am learning more here all the time.

[davidsss]

Yep, I'm frustrated by your posts. I'm not asking why, I'm asking what?

You mention evolution and religion. 2 very different subjects but in the case of evolution the science is pretty much settled on evolution being the way species have come about, although there is considerable debate on whether Darwin was wrong on genes changing within a lifetime and the ability to pass this on. Religion is a funny one, because it is not about science, rather it is about faith. As such, a scientific argument will get nowhere, it ain't about science. That said, I have no faith in the religious context and therefore no religion!

DS

[Dustin]

IF we are heading into one, no one knows. It could be 2 years or 2 millenia.

OK.

OTOH, it has been credibly argued that we SHOULD be in the middle of a real ice age right now.

No one knows. What we do know, beyond any doubt, is that the planet is warming right now. All the rest is speculation.

No no, you're missing the point.

If we don't know the causes of the last LIA, it follows that we don't know if we might now be heading into another one. It also follows that we don't know the duration nor how deep the temperature drop might be.

With that in mind, everything is speculation.

[Dustin]

. . . (with a high degree of confidence) . . .

Just a word on this since it comes up fairly regularly.
When submitting something like, for instance, a 95% confidence level, the percentage level in isolation is meaningless without qualification of the context or the error bars employed.

For instance:
If I were to make a weather prediction for tomorrow, I know something about the temperature today, the season, my location etc. and can form a rough idea of what will happen.

I might say that given the max. temperature today was 22ºC, and the trend suggests it's likely to be a bit warmer tomorrow, I might predict:
Tomorrows max temperature will be between 20ºC and 26ºC with a confidence level of 85%.

Now, if we were to take a similar scenario and attempt to predict the temperature of the planet in a hundred years time, we could express it a number of ways.
I could say the expected temperature in 2112 will be between 0.5ºC and 6.5ºC warmer with 99.999% confidence level (the same 6ºC temperature spread)
OR:
I could say the expected temperature in 2112 will be between 0.5ºC and 4.0ºC warmer with 85% confidence level (a tighter temperature spread).

Whilst ignoring the actual math (because I did! . . . apologies to Bhobba), obviously the level of confidence is inextricably linked to the context, so quoting merely a confidence level can be highly misleading and probably belongs more under the heading of 'spin and propaganda' rather than credible science.

It's no big deal for a light debate on a HiFi forum, I suppose, but thought it worth a mention for anyone that might not be familiar.

[surfpurple]

Yep, I'm frustrated by your posts. I'm not asking why, I'm asking what?

You mention evolution and religion. 2 very different subjects but in the case of evolution the science is pretty much settled on evolution being the way species have come about, although there is considerable debate on whether Darwin was wrong on genes changing within a lifetime and the ability to pass this on. Religion is a funny one, because it is not about science, rather it is about faith. As such, a scientific argument will get nowhere, it ain't about science. That said, I have no faith in the religious context and therefore no religion!

DS

I could ask you 'why' don't you believe in 'religion'. For if man has believed in religion for thousands of years, and every corner of the globe has 'believers' and churches, then what is your basis for not believing? (because it can't be proven with science?)

With 'evolution' , the followers don't want to acknowledge there could be a 'driving force' behind all species evolvement. (because it can't be proven with science).

And with 'climate change', humans have only been collecting data for a hundred years, and they are forming conclusions for the Earth's demise. There are many arguments that contradict the evidence of global warming, some are being talked about right now (by people who know a lot more than I do), and I am saying (as I have every right to) that I don't necessarily believe all the evidence (of only a hundred years or so).

You are either a 'believer', a 'non-believer' or 'on the fence', and that would be me, (open mind).

[bhobba]

With 'evolution' , the followers don't want to acknowledge there could be a 'driving force' behind all species evolvement. (because it can't be proven with science).

I think the followers of evolution have a continuum of views with guys like Dawkins at one end who is openly atheist and people like Dr. Lamoureu who is a biologist/evolutionist and Evangelical Christian. I personally believe in the God of Spinoza which would place me a little towards the religious side of center on that continuum but a fair way from Dr. Lamoureu.

Thanks
Bill

Edited by bhobba, 28 March 2012 - 08:33 AM.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I could ask you 'why' don't you believe in 'religion'. For if man has believed in religion for thousands of years, and every corner of the globe has 'believers' and churches, then what is your basis for not believing? (because it can't be proven with science?)

How many religions are there? 100? 500? 2,000? I reckon it is in the several thousand. They all believe in different things. Some believe in a single God. Some believe in multiple Gods. Some believe that Darwin was right. Some believe he was wrong. ALL those religions cannot be right. It may well be that they're all wrong (which, BTW, it what makes sense to me). I don't care if religion has 1 follower or 7 billion follwers. Science has told/will tell us the answers, not religion.

With 'evolution' , the followers don't want to acknowledge there could be a 'driving force' behind all species evolvement. (because it can't be proven with science).

It can be DISPROVEN with science. Many of the observed evolutionary mechanisms have been explained by science. With each passing year, more mechanisms are uncovered, thus enhancing the understanding that a mysterious outside force is less likely to have been driving evolution.

And with 'climate change', humans have only been collecting data for a hundred years, and they are forming conclusions for the Earth's demise.

Utter nonsense. Data has been collected (directly) for tens of thousands of years. The ancient Egyptians have excellent records of their climate conditions in various places. As do more ancient peoples. DIRECT, ACCURATE temperature measurements is what I assume you refer to. Since the thermometer was invented in the 16th century, that gives us several hundred years of hard temperature measurements. However, that only tells a very small part of the story. Proxy measurements are sophisticated, accurate and have been cross-checked for quite some time. Ice core data gives us quite accurate temperature and CO2 concentration figures for the last 600,000 + years.

There are many arguments that contradict the evidence of global warming, some are being talked about right now (by people who know a lot more than I do), and I am saying (as I have every right to) that I don't necessarily believe all the evidence (of only a hundred years or so).

The evidence of global warming goes back considerably more than 100 years. What has been noted over the past 100 years, is the rapid rise in CO2 levels AND temperatures. Rises that are more rapid than at any time in the past 600,000 years. Does that concern you? Here's a pretty picture or two:

http://en.wikipedia...._Petit_data.svg

http://www.daviesand...nning/New_Data/

Note the rapid rise on the far right.

Here is that rise, expanded for clarity:

http://www.daviesand...Look/index.html

Let there be no more talk of "100 years' data" or some other such nonsense. Science has a very good picture of past climatic conditions going back around 600,000 years. In a couple of years, that data will stretch back to more than 1 million years, as the Chinese dig the deepest hole in the Antarctic.

You are either a 'believer', a 'non-believer' or 'on the fence', and that would be me, (open mind).

No, you don't have an open mind at all. A person with an open mind reads all sides of an issue. You have not read all sides of the issue. You only read what already meets with your expectations.

Edited by Zaphod Beeblebrox, 28 March 2012 - 08:50 AM.

[MC240]

How many religions are there? 100? 500? 2,000? I reckon it is in the several thousand. They all believe in different things. Some believe in a single God. Some believe in multiple Gods. Some believe that Darwin was right. Some believe he was wrong. ALL those religions cannot be right.

Fairy stories for adluts.

If and it's a big if.
If one of those religions is true, there's sure gunna be an awful lot of disapointed people standing in line, in the after life.

Edited by MC240, 28 March 2012 - 09:06 AM.

[surfpurple]

So science can 'disprove' that there is a 'driving force' behind the evolvement of all species?

So you say you don't care how many people in the world believe in religion (even though they all believe in a 'higher power'), isn't that why your'e believing the (majority) of scientists who's evidence shows global warming? What if only a few scientists showed evidence?

So if the evidence of global warming goes back much futher than 100 years, then that would show that global warming is a continuation of 'climate' on earth!

And you don't have to I'm 'wrong, incorrect, don't have an open mind etc etc, ' to everything I post!

You only say I don't have an open mind because I don't necessarily agree with all you say and people like you don't like 'resistance' to a movement.

You can rant and rave all you like but the truth is, not everyone is going to see things the same way, and we all have our different reasons for doing so. I think you should go back and read the 38 points that Alan Jones uses to win an argument! You might find some of them apply.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I must correct you on one point, I DO care about the future planet my children will inherit.

I don't believe that you do. Your words betray you. Your children and their children will live on an increasingly hot planet and all the ettnedent problems that entails (if you think boat people are a problem today, wait 'till 100 million Bangladeshis take to their boats, because their lands are no longer productive due to seawater rise).

But I do not want MY kids (and other Australians), future work prospects jeopardised by what we are doing now and continue to do to our manufacturing and competitiveness with the rest of the world. Too many industries are shutting down (and our jobs are going overseas). I am for limiting our impact on glabal warming BUT not necessarily by the means with which we are using.

Ok, then think about these things:

* The carbon tax is claimed to reduce the competitiveness of the mining industry. That will cause our Dollar to fall (allegedly), thus making Australian industry and service more competitive.
* The mining tax is claimed to reduce the competitiveness of the mining industry. That will cause our Dollar to fall (allegedly), thus making Australian industry and service more competitive.
* If CO2 emissions are not addressed, temperatures on this planet will contrinue to rise, making life either extremely uncofortable, or impossible in many regions. IOW: Your children may have a planet that is barely survivable, let alone industrious.

A lot of us here are in business and we know first hand how taxes and other factors can affect our business. And we see SO many jobs being cut in our country.

I have been running my own business for more than 30 years. I've seen many ups and downs. The GST cost me 17% to my bottom line. The rise of the Aussie Dollar was worse. MUCH worse. It has cost me around 40% of what was left after the GST. The carbon tax is likely to cost me 5%. Compared to the other shocks, 5% is peanuts. If the Aussie Dollar moves down by (say) 10%, then my business is likely to benefit be more than the lost 5%. Roll on a falling Aussie Dollar. The carbon tax furore is a distraction foisted on moronis Australians by the Lieberal Party and their controllers (Rhinehart, Palmer, et al).

I have seen first hand how some of these environmental schemes have been manipulated and also seen overstated 'efficiency' of some schemes.

You cannot tell me that installing a solar hot water system in a house , and NOT setting it up correctly can still be classed as being environmentaly efficient?
You say that the sun heats up the water and that HAS to be more efficient than just using electricity. Well why are lots of peoples electricity bills just as high (after they install a solar hot water system? OK, electricity prices have increased. But if people leave their tank on off-peak, it will heat up every night. that means wasted power. And if people are still using a lot of electricity to heat up hot water PLUS the cost to the environment for the manufacture of the tank, the panels or tubes, the pipework, the cabling atc, then the cost to the environment is still there.

There is also problems with 'heat pumps', but I won't bother going into that one.

I am just highlighting the issues with some environmental schemes that we have today and these are areas which need consideration if we want to 'maximise' our efficiency.

Those issues are real and tiny by comparison. If an installer puts an innapproriate HWS in place and/or the consumer fails to do their homework, then there are methods to redress these things.

I am not here to debate the topic of 'is climate change real'? (I have never said it is not real),because that has turned out to be along the lines of Religion and evolution. I have got better things to do with my time than those debates that go round in circles for ever.

Of course. Climate change is real. No one denies that. Global warming is real. No one denies that. That global warming is caused by excessive CO2 is real. No one denies that. The best way to address the issue is under serious debate. Here in Australia, we will be implementing a 'carbon tax', followed by an ETS. Tony Abbott has proposed an alternate system, whereby YOU, ME and all the other taxpayers will give money to large polluters. Those polluters can promise to do stuff with the money (but actually do nothing). The government will then need to employ thousands of people to oversee the whole silly system.

Your choice. What do you want? A carbon tax that will probably work and cost you 5%. Or a stupid system that will probably not work and cost you XX%?

Edited by Zaphod Beeblebrox, 28 March 2012 - 11:49 AM.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Yes, Zaphy, a very nice glossy marketing brochure.

It's a whole lot more than that. They have an operational plant. Geo-thermal energy has already put runs on the board and has done for many years.

I don't deny that there's potential for geothermal generation but there are one or two obstacles and risks. Here's part of a US assessment, and noting that we share many of the same difficulties.

No argument from me. Nothing is perfect and free from risk. Nukes are far from free of risk and, at best, are a short term solution.

The point is that there are viable alternative to nukes. Those alternatives are safer, insurable (nukes aren't) and as fast to commission.

[surfpurple]

Fairy stories for adluts.

If and it's a big if.
If one of those religions is true, there's sure gunna be an awful lot of disapointed people standing in line, in the after life.

Yep, sure will be!

I will add that I'm not a true believer in religion, but (don't laugh too loud) I still have an open mind on the subject.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

So science can 'disprove' that there is a 'driving force' behind the evolvement of all species?

Science has pointed out, over the years, many methods by which evolutionary pressures operate. With each passing year, more of those evolutionary pressures are uncovered. Eventually, so much evidence will exist (IMO, it already does exist) to disprove the notion that some kind of supernatural influence exists over evolutionary pressures.

So you say you don't care how many people in the world believe in religion (even though they all believe in a 'higher power'), isn't that why your'e believing the (majority) of scientists who's evidence shows global warming?

No. Unlike you, I HAVE read as many sides of the issue as I am able. After weighing the evidence, I find that the lack of science behind those who claim that AGW is non-existent condemns the idea.

What if only a few scientists showed evidence?

I'll be happy entertain compelling evidence. I've yet to see any.

So if the evidence of global warming goes back much futher than 100 years, then that would show that global warming is a continuation of 'climate' on earth!

Did you even bother to check the links I posted?.

And you don't have to I'm 'wrong, incorrect, don't have an open mind etc etc, ' to everything I post!

Then examine the links I posted.

You only say I don't have an open mind because I don't necessarily agree with all you say and people like you don't like 'resistance' to a movement.

I NEVER claimed to have an open mind. YOU claim to have an open mind. I merely claim that I have examined the evidence on as many sides of the issue that I can and find the lack of evidence from those who deny AGW as seriously lacking.

You can rant and rave all you like but the truth is, not everyone is going to see things the same way, and we all have our different reasons for doing so. I think you should go back and read the 38 points that Alan Jones uses to win an argument! You might find some of them apply.

Never in dispute. I ain't perfect. Far from it.

Edited by Zaphod Beeblebrox, 28 March 2012 - 10:04 AM.

[proftournesol]

another climate lie - renewables are impractical here

by Giles Parkinson, editor of RenewEconomy.com.au safari-reader://www.energymatters.com.au/images/news/images_med/giles-parkinson.jpg
It's hard to have a conversation about energy for more than about 30 seconds without tripping over some sort of acronym. The one for what could be the most important document for the year is DEWP. It stands for the Draft Energy White Paper that was released last December.

But no-one, particularly those involved in renewable energy industries and with an interest in the design of new energy grids and low carbon electricity, is too sure whether DEWP is an acronym or a verb.

Those most aggrieved by the DEWP come from the solar industry, which the DEWP document suggested doesn’t really exist. They were astonished by a range of predictions and assumptions, based on modeling that seems hopelessly out of date, and threatens to make the energy industry hopelessly unprepared for what lies ahead.

DEWP does not think that solar will have much role to play in Australia’s energy future at all. This in contrast to the Chinese, Indian and US governments, who all think that utility scale solar PV will be cheaper than fossil fuels before the end of this decade, and private analysts who think that India and China will be installing between 10GW and 20GW a year by that date, and the US between 5GW and 10GW.

DEWP’s predictions for 2030 allow for 2GW of solar PV and solar thermal in Australia, despite the fact that 1.4GW has already been installed (almost entirely on rooftops) and another 400MW in utility scale solar should occur by 2015 through the Solar Flagships program alone. Then there is the ACT government auction will see at least 40MW, and possibly as much as 200MW, installed in the region in coming years.

Private analysts in Australia believe that 3GW a year may be installed in this country by the end of the decade - and its total installed capacity could be more than 12GW - but there is no mention of solar PV in the planning document of Australia’s energy policy makers.

Equally astonishing is the DEWP document prediction that the installation of solar PV on household rooftops will grind to a halt after the renewable energy target ceases in 2030. This prediction is based on the assumption that renewable energy certificates are the only economic driver for the uptake of the technology. There seems to be little understanding about the economics of household energy consumption, about the inevitability of grid-based retail electricity price rises, and the attraction that solar PV offers as a hedge. In some parts of Australia, solar PV has already reached parity for residential and commercial users.

Mostly, this is because the forecasts on technology costs are hopelessly wrong.

Nigel Morris, from Solar Business Services, notes in his submission to the DEWP that the document depicts "flat plate PV" at an LCOE of $340-750 per MWh in 2030. He notes that the average price of residential PV is currently in the range $150-175 per MWh and is forecast to be below $120MWh by 2020. He notes APVA modeling suggests the current LCOE for Large Scale PV is currently around $200MWH and likely to be below $120MWh by 2020, which are consistent with current project costs particularly in the US and Germany.

DEWP does not see this. Its forecasts for technology costs for 2020-2025 predicts scenarios which have already been met, such as the $1/w panel price, which is already commonly available. “These (forecasts) have the potential to blindfold decision makers to the true potential of PV, and the upcoming market shifts that will result from its continued deployment,” says Warwick Johnston, the head of leading solar industry analysis firm Sunwiz.

Indeed, modeling by SunWiz and Solar Business Services predict that between 5GW and 11GW of solar PV could be installed in Australia by the end of the decade, even on modest growth patterns. By 2022, there could be 15GW of capacity and it could be providing up to 30 per cent of capacity and up to 7 per cent of energy consumption.

Other recent forecasts have also put solar PV deployment in the same ballpark. Last year, Suntech, the world’s largest PV module manufacturer, said solar PV capacity in Australia could reach 10 gigawatts by 2020, when it would be growing at 2GW a year. Bloomberg New Energy Finance as predicted that 5GW of solar PV could be installed by 2020 - particularly as solar PV matches wind on costs and accounts for some of the capacity required by the Renewable Energy Target. Advice to the Office of the Renewable Energy from three reputable consultants forecasts that 1.1-1.4 GW of small scale PV will be installed in the next three years alone. Solar thermal could add another gigawatt or two.

Suntech said its forecast were based on rapidly declining costs, which meant solar PV had already reached parity for many residential users, will reach parity for commercial users around 2015, and parity for utility-scale developments towards the end of the decade. Martin Green, from the UNSW school of photovoltaics, late last year made a similar prediction about utility scale parity by the end of the decade.

As Johnston notes, such levels of deployment will threaten incumbent stakeholders - "those that can will embrace PV due to an inevitable demand from their customers, but business models will need to change radically."

It seems incumbent on the federal government to get this right. In almost all their scenarios, out to 2030 and 2050, the International Energy Agency, the European Energy Commission, and the US Department of Energy predict significant roles for solar energy. The Australian government, advised by out-of-date modeling and a refusal to countenance anything other than the current hub and spoke energy model, seems to be the only one that doesn’t see this. Perhaps there is a case for an update DEWP, so then the industry as a whole can be encouraged to respond to the challenges that clearly lie ahead.

Giles Parkinson is the founder and editor of RenewEconomy.com.au, a website providing news and commentary on cleantech, climate and carbon issues. He is a journalist with three decades experience, a former Business Editor and Deputy Editor of the Financial Review, a columnist for The Bulletin magazine and The Australian, and the former editor of Climate Spectator.

[surfpurple]

As I have said before, 'we will have to agree to disagree'.

[proftournesol]

another lie - we'll lose employment without the fossil fuel industry

A major new jobs study from Scottish Renewables to be released later today states over 11,000 people are employed in the country's domestic renewable energy sector.
The industry group says the report, "Delivering the Ambition: employment in renewable energy in Scotland," is the first comprehensive study of the impact growing investment in renewable infrastructure such as wind, solar power, hydro and tidal energy has had on equivalent posts in Scotland to date.

According to Niall Stuart, Chief Executive of Scottish Renewables, "The report shows that renewables are not only a major part of our energy mix, they are now a major part of our economy and our daily working day lives, supporting more than 11,000 jobs across Scotland."

The study examined jobs growth from throughout the sector, with the results showing 1,526 employees in renewable energy development and a further 8,701 employed in the direct supply chain. 909 jobs are involved in academia and the wider public sector.

Scotland has previously committed to cutting its carbon emissions by 42 percent by 2020 and to an ambitious goal of expanding renewable electricity capacity to the equivalent of at least 80 per cent of demand by the end of the decade. Even by 2009, renewable energy contributed over 27 percent of Scotland's electricity consumption.

There are currently 20 gigawatts of renewable energy projects under way in the country with offshore wind power featuring heavily, which Mr Stuart says is proof the industry is vital to Scotland’s economy by providing a buffer against the global downturn.

"Renewable energy development is bringing in much-needed investment to the wider economy, which is providing opportunities for businesses and people from a wide range of sectors; whether it be electricians, tradesmen, and skippers of work boats, or lawyers, consultants, civil engineers and architects."

Mr Stuart added the report didn't capture the flow-on effect of renewable energy employment.

"These numbers are actually just the tip of the iceberg, with many thousands more employees supported indirectly by the growth of the renewables sector which have not been captured by this study."

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Just a word on this since it comes up fairly regularly.
When submitting something like, for instance, a 95% confidence level, the percentage level in isolation is meaningless without qualification of the context or the error bars employed.

Fair enough. I understand and accept what you are saying. I will attempt to clarify the information in future.

Edited by Zaphod Beeblebrox, 28 March 2012 - 09:42 AM.

[Arg]

It's a whole lot more than that. They have an operational plant. Geo-thermal energy has already put runs on the board and has done for many years.

Commercial geothermal plants have been running for many years in various countries.

The challenge in Aust is that our hot rocks are so deep. The drilling and deep pressure technolgy didn't exist, but has recently advanced on the back of advances in deep water offshore oil drilling technology. It is a slow journey and still a risky investment but we are getting there.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

...Duplicate

Edited by Zaphod Beeblebrox, 28 March 2012 - 09:42 AM.

[MC240]

As I have said before, 'we will have to agree to disagree'.

I disagree that we have to agree to disagree,

[surfpurple]

Well if we disagree, we might as well accept the disagreement gracefully.

[bhobba]

If one of those religions is true, there's sure gunna be an awful lot of disapointed people standing in line, in the after life.

Not all religions are like that. The God of Spinoza I believe in equates God with Nature. Physics tells us something very deep an mysterious is going on as evidenced by stuff like Nothers Theorem:
http://en.wikipedia....r's_theorem

Why is energy conserved - because the system is invariant in time - conversely if the system is invariant in time then energy is conserved - so this very deep thing we know about the world - namely energy conservation - is really nothing more than a tautological statement about our world being basically unchanging. In other words how our world works is governed by an abstract world we only perceive by pure thought - IMHO that world is where God resides.

Thanks
Bill

Edited by bhobba, 28 March 2012 - 10:09 AM.

[surfpurple]

Thanks for that Bill. Religion is very diverse.

[rantan]

LOL.

Just the mere mention of religion or spirituality is highly likely to freak out the resident atheists here.

[surfpurple]

LOL.

Just the mere mention of religion or spirituality is highly likely to freak out the resident atheists here.

Yes, I can see that.

Any resistance seems to get magnified!

No one wants to hear that they're NOT 'right' !

Edited by surfpurple, 28 March 2012 - 10:47 AM.

[Jake]

LOL.

Just the mere mention of religion or spirituality is highly likely to freak out the resident atheists here.

[rantan]

No bites here.

Just shootin' de breeze and be tellin' de troot

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Thanks for that Bill. Religion is very diverse.

Unlike the science surrounding AGW. There is almost universal concensus that AGW theory is valid.

[MC240]

One thing that stands out to me is the hypocracy of successive Australian governments on both sides. A few years ago there was a Chinese Australian at (i think) Sydney University who developed a new ultra efficeient solar cell, and the Australian government would not offer him any assistance or incentive to manufacture it in Australia, despite him wanting to do it here, and so he took it to China, and they manufacture it over there, and apparently this solar cell he developed is used extensively.

I recall seeing the doco about the guy, he is now worth a squilillion with a varst state of the art factory ( in China of course) employing thousands and his former boss is now employed as a consultant.How many times do we have make the same mistake before we wake up and lose this cultural ethos that just because we are a small country we can't be world leaders, and just because the rest of the world not doing it, we shouldn't, when are we going to stop giving in to the ethic of trading off long term benifits for short term gain.

We were at the forefront in the areospace industry, in on the ground floor with computers, and now amongest other things we've p!ssed the pv cell industry up against the wall.

Gillard and the Greens where well on the way in trying to turn this ethos around but once again the people (as witness in QLD over the weekend) have been sucked in by the like's of those econmic daleks Abbott, Reinheart, Plamer, Forrest, Jones, Bolt and the rest of the vested intrests.

Poor bugga my country.

Edited by MC240, 28 March 2012 - 12:23 PM.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

OK.





No no, you're missing the point.

If we don't know the causes of the last LIA, it follows that we don't know if we might now be heading into another one. It also follows that we don't know the duration nor how deep the temperature drop might be.

Except for one teeny, tiny problem:

The temperature of the planet is rising, not falling.

With that in mind, everything is speculation.

Well, speculation about an impending ice age, is, well, speculation.

OTOH, we know that the planet is on a warming trend.

[lusk]

Utter nonsense. Data has been collected (directly) for tens of thousands of years. The ancient Egyptians have excellent records of their climate conditions in various places. As do more ancient peoples. DIRECT, ACCURATE temperature measurements is what I assume you refer to. Since the thermometer was invented in the 16th century, that gives us several hundred years of hard temperature measurements. However, that only tells a very small part of the story. Proxy measurements are sophisticated, accurate and have been cross-checked for quite some time. Ice core data gives us quite accurate temperature and CO2 concentration figures for the last 600,000 + years.

The equipment and method used by the Egyptians, the guys with the thermometer and what is used today would not be the same, so to say we have DIRECT ACCURATE temperature measurements is not right. We are
talking about a rise of a couple of degrees that is easily lost in error of measurement.