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 > Abbott changing the rules at half time on Renewable Energy Target > Comments

Abbott changing the rules at half time on Renewable Energy Target : Comments

By Guy Ragen, published 2/10/2014

The renewable energy target is now being targeted by the Government precisely because it is working so well to reduce pollution.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
The main claim that the RET greatly reduces emissions is bogus. The biggest form of renewable energy in Australia is hydro built before 1997. According to BREE's July energy bulletin wind provided 2.9% of Australia's electricity in 2013 and solar 1.5%. They got renewable energy certificate subsidies of 2.5c to 4c per kwh for which the much bigger hydro was largely ineligible.

The consultant's report found the most effective form of abatement was wind power with a cost of CO2 avoided of $54 per tonne. Funny thing is we just threw out a scheme where CO2 cost $25.40 a tonne. The claim that the RET will lower retail power prices seems to need rubbery assumptions on future gas prices. If as expected gas prices rapidly escalate then wind and solar become more competitive without the need for quotas.

Then there's the 40% of primary energy needed for transport for which the RET is largely irrelevant. To get emissions way down there's no realistic alternative to nuclear baseload electricity. Dogmatic support for the RET is a weak gesture that doesn't make a big enough difference to overall emissions.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 2 October 2014 8:59:13 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
The urgent action needed on climate change is to expose the fraud perpetrated on the populace , in attempting to present the false assertion that climate is catastrophically affected by human activity, and that carbon dioxide is pollution. Carbon dioxide is an odourless, colourless gas, without which, life on earth in its current form could not exist.

Science has demonstrated that the human effect on climate is so trivial that it is not measurable. The fraud-backing IPCC says that CO2 causes warming, while, at a time when CO2 content in the atmosphere has increased, global warming has stopped, and food crop production has increased, worldwide.

The fraud promoters want this beneficial gas branded a pollutant. We need action to stop the perversion of science, and the waste of funds and resources on the basis of lies.

This is a disgraceful article.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 2 October 2014 9:28:28 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
Carbon trading schemes predicate that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a fact and humans must do something about it no matter how futile to avoid a specified catastrophe.

I claim that AGW is a paradigm on the way out.

Defenders of AGW must explain the following: Why no global warming for at least a decade and a half (some claim 18 or 19 years). This in spite of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.

Can the defenders advance data on the sensitivity of mean global temperature to CO2 levels? My guess is that the atmospheric system is insensitive to CO2.

Over the last 150 years dedicated people have conscientiously recorded local temperatures with a variety of instruments and local conditions. Weather stations have moved site but retained same name. Local environments have changed, such as building nearby, buildings, roads or even changing farm crops, etc. The met offices apparently base their historical claims not on raw data, but data homogenised (massaged) by generally unknown methodology.

Antarctic ice coverage has increased. Is the defenders explanation of this fact believable? They claim it is due to wind and water currents induced by global warming which as remarked above, has paused.

Lastly it is claimed that the excess heat has gone into the Oceans. How can this be true when accurate Ocean temperature between Latitudes 60S to 60N dates from the inception of the Argo Buoy System introduced about 15 years ago?
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 2 October 2014 11:37:16 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
Wind and solar; wind and solar; wind and solar!
Talk about head hurting, redoubtable rigid bubble thinking, within a very limited, extremely narrow, circle of ideas!
Anyone would think these wind and solar advocates, were wind and solar "shareholders", so narrow is their view of the available alternatives!
Were it down to me, I would now abandon wind and solar, in favor of cheaper than coal thorium. [If other nations want to cut their economic throats, we're under no obligation to asininely ape them! Albeit, you can put what you like on your roof; after all, it's your money!]
Also favored, the other even cheaper option, endlessly sustainable, homemade, and used exclusively onsite, biogas.
This bladder stored gas, scrubbed onsite and fed directly (no expensive pipes or wires) into onsite ceramic fuel cells, will more than provide all the power the waste maker needs, to power their homes, free domestic hot water, or collective domiciles 24/7! (Corroborating offshore high rise examples)
And given the huge energy coefficient of this combination, (80%), for just quarter of what we currently shell-out for coal fired, Wholesale electricity. Or around a cent a KW.
And given that same 80% energy coefficient, immediately able to create a 50% salable energy surplus! [And those are the very reasons the so called greens,(anti development brigade) don't want it?]
Or simply added freely to very local micro grids, to power common convenience, say traffic lights, trams and trolley buses, street lights, public common area shopping malls/playgrounds/parks and what have you, as public amenity?
And offset say, by lower local rates?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 2 October 2014 12:07:39 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
Yakitty yak, bah, blah, bah blah; yakitty yak, bah, blah, bah, blah.
That's all I hear all day, wind and solar!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 2 October 2014 12:12:03 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
"To speak no ill will, to do no harm, to practice self-restraint according to the fundamental precepts, to be moderate in eating, to live in seclusion, to devote oneself to higher consciousness, this is the Teaching of the Buddhas."

Rusty, most of the yakitty-yak emanates from you and Bigmouth.

Why don't you wrap your mind around the above, thrill us with your wisdom and intellect?
Posted by David G, Thursday, 2 October 2014 12:27:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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