The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Climate change's ugly sister > Comments

Climate change's ugly sister : Comments

By Graham Young, published 14/3/2011

When banning CO2 was just a good idea it was popular, but not now that it comes with a cost.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Jedimaster,

“Supporters of wind power chant the mantra that Denmark proves that wind power works. BWEA says it “now gets 20% of its electricity from wind turbines”. This is a cynically deliberate confusion of production with consumption. The 20% is of production and applies only to West Denmark which has most of the wind turbines. For the whole country the percentage is c.13%.

More to the point, much of the electricity has perforce been exported to adjacent countries because it was produced when it is not needed. In some years over four fifths of the annual production has been exported, sometimes at zero income, thus costing the Danish public about DKK 1 billion per year although more recent estimates put annual losses at above DKK 1.5 billion.” (Approximately A$100 million).

US physicist Howard Hayden rightly remarked some years ago. “The little country Denmark has made a name in recent years with their wind turbines. No, they don’t produce much electricity, they sell them to suckers”

Source: “The Wind Farm Scam” author, Dr. John Etherington.

I think I’m with Howard Hayden.
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 11:21:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon- By no reasonable use of syllogistic logic (or any other kind) can you infer that, because I am commenting on likely CO2 outputs of PVs and nuclear, that I am saying that wind is less.

I simply present the view that total life-cycle cost is likely to be highly correlated with total life-cycle energy (therefore CO2) cost.

Wind power is no exception. Total life-cycle costs have got to take into account the costs of backup, along with all other costs. I note that Wikipedia has a well-referenced (to the IEA) article on wind power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power) which includes consideration of increases in costs due to variability, which of course increase with its proportion of the total, but are considered "manageable".

But back to GrahamY's article (we should try to keep on track): Public opinion is certainly important when it comes to winning elections. That does not mean that the public is sufficiently well informed to make a reasoned choice based on adequate data. I know (in an unquantified way), from my experience of involvement in solar energy, that most (I guess 90%) of people who are genuinely interested in solar energy do not even know that the sun's path across the sky varies throughout the year, or how much energy is received per square metre, or practically anything else in detail.

I would surmise, similarly, that very few people know anything useful about nuclear power or the proposed carbon tax. This does not disqualify them from voting and makes them prey to those who would substitute fear for facts to achieve their political ends.

And for all those who think that we have, and always will have, the best of all possible worlds, I recommend that they read Jared Diamond's "Collapse". I can't see any difference in their attitudes and those of the many civilisations that have gone blissfully into oblivion.
Posted by Jedimaster, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 11:44:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Things I believe to be true;
1. That most of the public believe that AGW is true.
2. Most politicians believe that AGW is true.
3, A majority of Labour politicians believe AGW is true.
4. A large minority of Liberal politicians believe AGW is true.
5. Liberal party policy supports some action because most voters do.
6. 90% of Green party members believe AGW to be true.
I believe the politicians genuinely hold their opinion and that there is no conspirosey.

With that as a foundation even if proof positive that AGW is not true
appeared not one top level politician would change their stance.

After all that the three PMs and Kevin Rudd have said could you see
a climb down like that happening ?
I think that is the biggest risk that we have.
The whole AGW machine has its own momentum. Even if there were
indications that the effects of AGW were to be less than expected
I think the spending and taxing would go on uninterrupted.
I asked one relative that I have what would she say if AGW was shown
to be completely a fraud.
She could not reply, even to a hypothetical. It was simply unthinkable.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 12:39:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We urgently need to start working on alternative energy systems.
Irrespective of AGW this is the most important project that the country
has before it.
Our oil imports now seem to have reached 60% of our consumption.
This js costing us about $20,000,000,000 a year on our balance of
international payments.
In two years it will exceed the total cost of the NBN every two years.
However it will not stop there as our production decline is around 5% per year.

Our coal is being shipped out at an increasing rate as the rest of the
world is declining after peak coal in China, US and Europe.
Natural gas is a buffer but when it declines it will decline very fast.

The one argument that we do not need with the AGWs is the need for
alternative energy sources. There is nothing remotely available
in the next ten years, except nuclear and geothermal that can possibly
fill the gap that is starting to open up between what we are using
now and what we will need from now on.
The failure to find an alternative will mean starvation for billions.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 1:03:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom,

all your dot points support Grahams hypothesis that

'At 30% primary vote in the latest Newspoll Labor is probably at its nadir. It will probably improve, but under Gillard, probably not be enough to win next time.'

So Gillard's tenure is terminal.

We all know that and so do the near-facelessmen.

Their problem is that 'this time' the only prospective leader who is out-polling their current PM is their former PM! The one they all knifed!

lol

So their choice is to knife Julia and install Kevin 07 for a re-run or to knife Julia and instal a Labor apparatchik like Combet or Shorten who will both be less experienced than both the knifed Julia and Kevin.

Yep not only is that laudably laughable but this current Government under their current choice is fatally farical.

now consider the labor goons in the 'mainstream' media and the near-faceless men have all invested heavily in Latham, Rudd and Gillard ... well Tony the destroyer of two labor saviours will have a good ole fashioned "turkey shoot" while serenading the labor goons in the mm and the near-faceless ones to the sounds and words of the first verse of Midnight Oil's 'Cold Cold Change'*1 or the chorus of 'US Forces.*2

*1

'Cold cold change, we were so excited
But you came and went so soon
Cold cold change, we were not invited
We smiled all the while we were taken in'

*2

'Sing me songs of no denying
Seems to me too many trying
Waiting for the next big thing'

lol labors a joke ... everywhere ... lol
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 4:37:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@JediMaster, I did read your earlier post reasonably carefully (but see below), which is why I denied your statement quite specifically. My point was that solar and nuclear are not even comparable on that basis because of the orders of magnitude difference in starting points.

However, I did miss that you'd mentioned wind; I'd like to think I'd have put up that comparison as well if I hadn't.

As for numbers, are you aware of (for instance) this collection? http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/18/tcase4/
Posted by Mark Duffett, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 9:20:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy