Jedimaster - I'm glad you were at the world solar congress in Beijing in 2007, where you heard the China solar water figure which Wikipedia also quotes - very likely from the same source.

But I'm not doubting it (although I could) because it reinforces the very point I've been making. Despite trying to pout a positive spin on the Chinese efforts activists still come a long way short of explaining away the vast increase in conventional coal powered plants.

But in any case, this is wild-eyed delusion. Solar water heaters haven't made any real difference in Western economies, let alone in China. Germany has gone through a craze for PV panels and out the other side, without making a dint in its power supply.

Even the power generated from dams (of which China has a zillion) hasn't made a difference - and that would add up to far more than anything from alternate sources. take a look at the Aus experience on www.abare.gov.au ,the energy report mentioned in the story, and the next time you're in Beijing skip the congresses and take in the sights..

Leave it with you

Thanks, Martin N, for getting the conversation back on track. I look forward to reading your paper- I hope that it is publicly available.

The basic concern that I have is that, while a carbon tax will shift preferences in energy supplies, it may not decrease carbon use. To restate the basic premise: The increased price means that alternative forms of energy, which were previously too expensive, become competitive because they use less carbon in the operational phase of their life cycle and thus are subject to less carbon tax. So far, so good?

The "alternatives" were not competitive before the tax because their total life costings were higher than the present systems due to higher up-front (capital/construction) costs. Are we still in agreement?

But the carbon implications of these capital/construction costs are not taken into account, as the carbon might be used elsewhere (take, as an extreme example, a skid-mounted gas turbine that is imported from China- no apparent local carbon in its construction, except for the truck that brought it from the wharf).

However, the carbon is still spent, and to extend the extreme example above, the gas turbine was manufactured mainly using present high-carbon energy sources- and more of them than would be used making one more high-carbon generators before the tax. Are you still with me?

I keep returning to the "net energy analysis" issue, because it hasn't been resolved. Carbon taxes might help shift generators onto a better learning/cost curve, but in themselves, they are only sweeping the problem under the carpet- or back along the life cycle. For example, when PVs (yes- I know- they won't solve all the problem) achieve grid parity (without subsidies) they will use about as much carbon in their life cycle as the present grid. Subsidising them will increase demand and thus help drive the price down. Unless the subsidy does that, then we are simply using the carbon elsewhere.

Mark- are you still with me?

Mark/Curmudgeon

I don't think that we are as far apart as your rhetorical style is trying to force us.

There is no doubt that China is going gangbusters with high-carbon generators, which make a mess. But they are also working on a lot of other energy fronts that are serving to reduce their "average energy intensity"- ie energy per money unit. They have been upfront that they are not going to reduce their total energy output a la Kyoto etc- they have said many times that this would force them to remain third world. I agree with their analysis, but it doesn't relieve the problem in the short term.

As to water heaters- ask Israel what they think of them- they have a chronic energy problem that they addressed and I think that you find their exported water heaters in Bunnings- cheaper than the Aussie ones. As I said, domestic water heating is a big contributor to energy demand. Solar could do more if they could be purchased at the same interst rates as power authorities can borrow for carbon generators.

PVs at present are a piddling proportion of the total- lost in the rise and fall of demand. But, the long-term learning curve analysis has them at grid parity at a cumulative production of about 100 GW- which at present production rates is at about 2015. That is still less than 5% of total global electricity production. Maybe PVs will not solve base load, but a 20% contribution could be handy.

BTW- Germany is building manufacturing capacity by subsidising PV production in the name of energy alternatives as a way of getting around GATT decrees on subsidising and dumping. If the PVs that we install aren't made in China, they'll be made in Germany.

And I did visit the Great Wall- the last 20 km of road was lit by PVs on every post- great way of boosting an industry eh?

Jedimaster, assuming I have understood your point, you are correct that the carbon price will only apply to "stack" emissions - emissions created while generating electricity. All the other emissions created in manufacturing and constructing the plant and operating the plant are technically not included.

The only way they can be included is with a global carbon price on everything and then they are captured at the point of creation (making the cement and steel etc) and get passed on in increased prices to the generators (a bit like the GST).

In our paper (which will be public when published) you will see that we have used the LCA emissions which is the only proxy we have to address this issue. In the short-term the generators will only pay for the stack emissions. In the long-term planning they should factor in the LCA emissions which they will eventually pay for and impacts every technology.

I hope this answers your question.

Thank you, Martin N.

You are clearly are on top of this issue.

I also agree with your analysis that without a global ETS then the impact will be limited, but possibly useful.

My concern is that we will be deluded by the lack of local emissions, when we have outsourced them all to China. I was impressed a couple of months ago when I was in New York as to how clear the skies were. On a boat trip around Manhattan Island, it was obvious that all the industry that had been there has gone- mainly to China.

Maybe that's a good thing. We can all beat up on a country we love to hate, while enjoying the inexpensive, high quality fruits of their in-sourced carbon burning industriousness.

Not what I asked Jedimaster. Whatever question you answered it was not mine, which I will set out clearly for you, again.

Where is the scientific evidence that human emissions have anything but a negligible effect on global warming?

The effect is so small, if in fact there is any effect, that it is not measureable.

Remember when the IPCC put forward their pathetic opinion that it was "very likely", and the satellite data would show a "hot spot" in the troposphere, which would be the "signature" for AGW?

There was some speculation that there may be a problem with the satellite instruments, when this did not occur, but it is crystal clear that the IPCC's expectations were based on inflated estimates.

Human activity has both warming and cooling effects, both very small. The possibility is that they balance each other out.

The effects are local and there has not been shown to be any global effect.

Be careful with your answer, if you try again, as your last attempt could have had a misleading effect, without my clarification.

Martin N, should we not consider on what basis this iniquitous tax on the emission of a benevolent, life giving gas can be justified, before looking at the mechanics of perpetrating it?