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 > Environmental acts of faith are seriously misdirecting public investment in our electricity sector > Comments

Environmental acts of faith are seriously misdirecting public investment in our electricity sector : Comments

By Brendan O'Reilly, published 1/2/2021

Environmentalism, complete with fear of global-warming (a modern day reincarnation of Hell?), has now established itself as a major religion in developed countries.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
I think the author wishes Australia and the western world to follow the Chinese Communist Government down the path of more coal fired generators, when we should be going in the commonsense direction of NO coal fired generators. A person only needs to look at the smog in Chinese cities and Indian cities, and to know the simple fact that the health of the citizens of these cities is badly affected by the smoke from the coal.
I lived in Mount Isa for two years and breathed the sulphur dioxide fumes from the mine, which badly affects the health of children (and adults).
I don't want the world to choke on the gases caused by greed.
Posted by Cyclone, Monday, 1 February 2021 7:55:41 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
Bravo Brendan.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 1 February 2021 8:03:33 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
...breathed the sulphur dioxide fumes from the mine.
Cyclone,
My guess is you didn't go to Mt Isa for the scenery, you'd have gone there for the mone
Posted by individual, Monday, 1 February 2021 8:27:04 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
Actually, sulphur dioxide fumes come from the copper smelter.
Brendan, the rate of increase of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is consistent with the amount of fossil fuel that has been burnt since the start of the industrial revolution. Australia's main problem is going to be that the rate of closure of fossil fueled electricity generation is going to be faster than whatever other means of electricity generation is built to replace it. Bring on a succession of hot summer days in the eastern states after Liddell is closed down and see what happens
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 1 February 2021 8:51:40 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
My goodness are we still rehashing this stuff in 2021.

Most people have accepted the science, got on with driving toward renewables which are continuing to come down in costs in leaps and bounds, and have left this little corner of the internet with its raft of now discredited talking points well behind.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 1 February 2021 9:19:55 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
My understanding is that the increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are consistent with the increase in global average temperatures due to the solar cycle. CO2 concentrations FOLLOW an increase in average temperatures, particularly the temperature of oceans. Uptake of CO2 in the oceans increases with cooler water (according to ‘soda King’ manufacturer) and de-gassing of the ocean increases with warmer water. Whichever way you look at it, CO2 concentrations is a result of increasing global temperatures.
Posted by Pete S, Monday, 1 February 2021 9:28:23 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 climate crooks "accept the science" that suits them; they ignore the findings of well qualified scientists who have debunked the religion of climate hysteria.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 1 February 2021 9:30:48 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
Pete S,
Your understanding is wrong. Although it is true that cooler water can hold more CO2, the release of huge amounts of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (increasing its atmospheric concentration by 50%) has resulted in more CO2 going into the sea than coming out. This is known as ocean acidification, as it lowers the pH of the ocean. Though it's still far less acidic than pure water, it's causing problems for some sea creatures.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 1 February 2021 9:42:57 AM
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
Dear Pete S,

Nope.

Here is the empirical data.

http://oceanacidification.noaa.gov/OurChangingOcean.aspx
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 1 February 2021 9:54:24 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
I agree with what Brendan has written.
Only one point I would pick him up on;
Peak Crude Oil occurred in 2005.
When the oil industry realised what had happened they went for an old
process called fracking.
This and its improvement now possible, horizontal drilling, enabled
our "happy motoring" to continue, up to now.
No longer, the economics of fracking is being reflected in bankruptcies,
A straw in the wind is the Royal Dutch Shell CEOs announcement of
setting up a group to study how Shell should exit the oil industry.
It is not a coincidence that motor manufacturers have all discovered electric cars.

To get back to the subject, the one factor that stuffs up the wind
and solar process is the performance of wind turbines.
If a wind turbine has a nameplate rating, for arguments sake of
100 Mwatt over a year it will produce 35Mw/year of power.
(Some later turbines are reputed to produce 50Mw/Year.)
This means that to get the full output you have to install two more
turbines. However you cannot install them alongside the first one so
you have to have at a minimum two more sites in different wind systems.
But even then the wind might not blow in two sites of the three.
Do you see where this is leading ?
The cost of wind and solar is much higher than the advocates pretend.
More later, lunch now !
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 1 February 2021 11:07:35 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
Bird's fur. Horsefeathers, Bullshine and bah humbug!

As our bone dry world was ablaze in the worse firestorm in living memory This dunderhead was possibly filling in his footy coupon? Doing the hula on a Hawaiian beach or some such? Buffing bumbling Boris's boots?

The public are not as ill-informed on the climate or actual cost of generating carbon-free energy?

Check Facebook and shared vids to understand, what we could actually do about energy, if we just had a modicum of actual intelligence at the helm! [More to follow! And all peer review science! It's not easy but stay with it! It may take as much as two whole hours out of your entire lifetime?

Your kids will explain the parts you don't understand or get!]

Understand, reliable carbon-free energy can be cheaper than coal! 1.98 cents PKWH?

Instead, we have a parliament of Baboons/murder of crows? At least, doing its best to look like the above at question time? Little wonder we get (smiling Jackass, climate change is crap) articles like this published and taken seriously in some quarters?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 1 February 2021 11:15:52 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
Pete S. You're right inasmuch as there's a (200-year pulse) solar cycle! But the waning phase we've been in since the mid-seventies (NASA) should have produced a cooler phase and advancing ice! Not the very opposite!

Action on very real climate change doesn't have to tank the economy but rather, give it a turbo boost on steroids!

Check Facebook and several shared vids. More to follow and all peer-reviewed science they don't want you to know!
Cheers, Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 1 February 2021 11:30:08 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
It's too late to fix the problem of anthropogenic global warming and its consequential climate change.

It should have been addressed 50 years ago.

And now the problem is just too big too fix.

Especially now that China is using action on climate change as a political weapon to get the US to kowtow to its demands.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 1 February 2021 12:13:43 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
Relax Alan, most of us understand that ultimately nuclear of one form
or another is the ONLY solution.
Incidentally the next cold period is coming according to the cycle
timing in about 300 to 500 years for the cold minimum.

to continue
As additional turbines are added they have to be spread around the
area covered by the grid. The grid has to have a high capacity and
a very good communications network to enable the switching of power
from anywhere to anywhere. A country the size of Australia might well
be able to do it, but at what cost ?

The grid has to work from winter 4pm to winter 8am which time includes
the time of maximum demand, so the capacity of solar is irrelevant
to some extent.

Batteries are promoted as the solution and they can be a big help
in stabalising the grid. However there is no way they can be
considered to be a backup supply because of cost.
Assume a cold winter late afternoon, and as usual the wind dies off
and the batteries come on as backup. It goes all night with little
or no wind.
The next morning sun up and wind blowing and a set of flat batteries.
Now we need to recharge them ! Where to get the power ?
Not off the grid, it is flat out supplying the country anyway and
the power needed is almost the same as the days need anyway.
Just hope tonight is not a cold still night !
Therein lies the crux of the problem of solar and wind and batteries.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 1 February 2021 12:41:04 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
SR, "... got on with driving toward renewables which are continuing to come down in costs in leaps and bounds..."

Without subsidies, targets and mix-mandates, their cost is high. How can it not be with the enormity of materials required per watt-hour produced? Storage sufficient for 100% renewables (excluding hydro where it's possible) is astronomically expensive.

If it's all so cheap and projected to get cheaper, why is Germany preparing for decades of fossil-fueled backup? It even has the advantage of extension cords to French nuclear and Nordic hydro. Why is it that Japan is building so many coal-fired power plants for its future needs?

Hydrogen is needed for synfuels for shipping and long haulage. Efficiencies of energy conversions from its production through to final use don't look good without high temperature electrolysis, industrial heat which only nuclear can cleanly and viably provide.

The article hits all the nails on the head. The examples of Germany, California and South Australia don't convince politicians of the stupidity of the path we're going down with intermittents and gas. There are no cheap storage solutions, just faith in their 'continuous' price reduction towards affordability through unwise extrapolation beyond the date set. We obviously need a crisis to realise we've screwed up.

I can only hope that Biden's impact here stirs the Coalition to tout nuclear as the solution, but I doubt it. One reason I voted for it was thinking nuclear would get a bigger guernsey than an enquiry, but no, we get gas as our saviour. Gas doesn't cut it, nor HELE coal.

With a trillion dollar debt, high energy prices to consumers, energy-intensive industries emigrating, more frequent droughts affecting primary production, an embargo on coal-exports at some point, and China flexing it's muscles, our grandchildren are in for har, hard times.
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 1 February 2021 1:23:15 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/ to operate any modern coal-fired power plant with something else mall one needs is a heat source and efficient heat transfer!! Waste heat could be tasked at almost costless desalination!

#2/ the Chinese are installing thorium reactors in their warships and subs!?

#3/ Anyone reckon it's time we had a serious look at thorium reactors and all their many advantages? One of which has to be the unlimited production of medical isotopes! And the rejuvenation of the bush, airlines, hotels, motels as millions of medical tourists that would follow this production out to the myriad day clinics we could build out there!

We could start by simply lifting the taboo on open transparent submissions on the topic of thorium!? I could send you a dozen or more vids on the peer-reviewed science if you and Sally Neighbours would lift your (Ve don't vant to know) FB messenger embargo?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 1 February 2021 2:17:47 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
Lucerferase, the big problem with getting any change is that the
schools are turning out 18 year olds brainwashed against anythig but
wind and solar. They will start voting after they leave school.
You can see why the coalition is leaning towards wind & solar.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 1 February 2021 2:45:03 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
The sun is the driver of the planets temperature, generally recognised in an 11 year solar cycle. Yes, CO2 has a peripheral effect on planetary temperature when measured from 0 to 325ppm. Increases in atmospheric saturation by CO2 beyond this 325ppm level has a vanishingly small temperature effect, only realistically measured mathematically.
Posted by Pete S, Monday, 1 February 2021 2:57:11 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
Pete S,

Really. I don't think so.

I understand that at about 550 ppm CO2 the temp will be 6 degC above pre-industrial level (now 1.6 degC @ 390ppm) and it will be so hot that some parts of the planet will start to boil.

But don't waste your time doing anything to stop it happening.

BECAUSE IT IS TOO LATE.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 1 February 2021 3:22:19 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
BECAUSE IT IS TOO LATE
Mr Opinion,
I agree with you on that, the cleansing of the Planet is already underway !
Posted by individual, Monday, 1 February 2021 4:18:33 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
There is an 11-year cycle in both the waning and waxing phases! In the waning phase, the bottom of that cycle makes the sun the least active! And in the photos, takes on the fried egg look that is part of the 11-year cycle during the waning phase. They're two different phenomena!

Mr O/Mr defeatist, it's only too late when you are six foot under. It's something akin to base jumping. Were you say as you pass each story, so far so good as you jump pull the cord and as you wait for the chute to open.

We're being defeated by diabolically determined do nothing delay, desperate defeatism and deliberate dumbed-down debate!

There are actions we can take and all of them dependant on vast cheap clean energy! See the FB vids I've shared.

I mean, if I found myself in the Bull's paddock and he charging me? I'd find the motive power to clear the fence in a single straight arm bound! Even if that required coming face to face with my Annus, take a shower and a clean change of underwear. Oops, where are those clowns when you need one!?

Legs, if you caint go any faster? Move over an let dis year body tru.

Cape Canaveral, on the launching pad and the gas propulsion projectile system is firing, yes, we have launch with extreme prejudice, f!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 1 February 2021 5:02:26 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
individual,

What do you mean by "the cleansing of the Planet is already underway"?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 1 February 2021 6:11:59 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
Alan B.

I'm not being facetious.

It is basically too late to fix the problem because the problem is just too big to fix.

Even if you slam the brakes on right now it will take up to 100 years for the atmosphere to respond.

If it does that is, because the warming atmosphere at its current rate will begin releasing methane and ocean CO2 into the atmosphere long before 100 years from now.

So that's why I say it is too late.

Basically we are looking down the barrel at our extinction event.

Do what I'm going to do: move to a higher altitude and install lots of air conditioning.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 1 February 2021 6:21:58 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
Taking the current global average temperature to be higher than pre-industrial revolution temperatures, wherein the planet was experiencing the ‘little ice age’; you know, when they held the ‘ice fairs’ on the Thames river, one is not really surprised that there is a temperature increase as the ice age receded.

This increase could possibly be a global average increase of 1.6 degrees by today. Given the CO2 levels of that period to be around 270ppm, (anything less than 250ppm all green plants die), we can extrapolate that the increase to 390ppm (approx 1% of that increase being the result of the intervention of human a like agriculture, coal and oil usage) then that increased CO2 level could possibly have some peripheral affect on global average temperature.
Posted by Pete S, Monday, 1 February 2021 6:37:41 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
Pete S, the temperature change from the late 18th century to today is
about half the cycle which varies from about 600 to 1000 years long.
It varies in length because it is the result of three different cycles.
The sun's variation cycle, the Milanovitch cycles, and the variation
in the intensity of the peaks in the 11 year sunspot cycle.

When all these cycles coincide the earths magnetic field is disrupted
and more cosmic rays enter the atmosphere and form more clouds and so
cool the earth by reflecting solar radiation and shading.

Note the Roman warm period, Roman troops grew grapes in Scotland.
The medieval warm period around 900 when the Vikings settled
Greenland, but had to leave in the 1400s when it got too cold.
The Maunder minimum from late 18th century and the last Ice Festival
on the frozen Thames in 1814.

The warming that has occurred from the early 1800 till today was
fully expected and is on schedule. From about now there will be a warm
period of about75 to 100 years but then will start getting colder for
the next 300 to 500 years.
The Finns at Turku University are using mathematical techniques to
try and predict the actual cold and warm peaks.

It appears from the research that co2 has been given too much
sensitivity to the earth temperature. The Turku and Kobe Uni
scientists believe that the co2 change from the early 18th century
to today has resulted in 0.1 deg C. The rest of the change is the
Svenmark affect on clouds.

I think the current rigid attitude on the cause of the warming is
unshakable and we are committed to an economic collapse as we try
to defeat the sun.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton:- ITS THE SUN STUPID !
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 1 February 2021 8:57:35 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
Good article, Brendan.

Best of luck in converting our science illiterate pollies – both Coalition and Labor – who capitulate to Green-left bureaucratic groupthink.
Posted by Raycom, Monday, 1 February 2021 10:15:36 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
Yep. No difference between parties. Morrison was spruiking zero emissions by 2050 tonight on TV.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 1 February 2021 10:57:13 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
Zero emission with more & more humans ?
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 2 February 2021 7:26:23 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
Bazz. An accurate and readable description of the milanovich cycle which has been relatively well studied and documented for some time. The result of the three interacting cycles are as you describe. The 11 year cycle I refer to is the ‘active’ and ‘passive’ cycles mos evident in the ‘sun spot’ activity of our sun.
As the passive cycle occurs, less magnetic (?) radiation is released to deflect solar radiation particles from bombarding the planet. It is my understanding that these particles form the nucleus of cloud particles. Hence, an increase in planetary cloud cover. Anyone (accept a greenie) stepping under a veranda on a hot day will feel that.

The existence of these particles and their effect was mere theory until Zev Amir(?) demonstrated their presence using the hedron colliderscope in Bern some years ago. An experiment that has been independently replicated many times.

There is little wonder that Global Circulation Models are unable to replicate these either in ‘hind casting’ or ‘forecasting’

I am unaware of the Turku and Kobe studies resulting in the 0.1 degree increase. Thanks for that I will chase those studies up. To what extent this increase is the result of ‘human’ intervention is somewhat conjecture but I have read somewhere that it is about 1%.

Raycom. I could not agree more with your comment. The science deniers in the US senate advocating the ‘Green New Deal’ are a hurdle we ‘deplorables’ have no chance of deflecting at this time.

TTBN. Depressing isn’t it! Let’s watch both our major parties jump onto the Biden train as we all ride into the new Paris Climate Accord in an effort to bankrupt our economy.

This all sounds a bit depressing. Eventually, I believe that a reliance on ‘the science’ will vindicate my understanding of the uselessness of trying to use CO2 as a knob to set global temperatures to a level we would prefer. I think the ‘Roman warm period’ would be a setting I would go for. Grape vines along Hadrian’s wall and fruit and vegetables marketed from Greenland (if not subject to EU regulations).
Posted by Pete S, Tuesday, 2 February 2021 1:45:22 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
Pete S
Here are some references
Svenmark's hypothesis seems to have been the original work on the
effect of cosmic rays on clouds.
I can't find the names of the Kobe Uni scientists involved.
I kept them somewhere I know.
Kaupenin was a member of the IPCC committee until his retirement.

Helinski Times http://tinyurl.com/y3h3qpa5

http://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3b-the-svensmark-hypothesis/
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 2 February 2021 3:15:22 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
Dear Pete S,

Mate you really are making this up as you go.

"I believe that a reliance on ‘the science’ will vindicate my understanding of the uselessness of trying to use CO2 as a knob to set global temperatures to a level we would prefer."

A reliance on the science is doing the exact opposite.

I have asked this a few times of people like you. What physical property of CO2 would you like me to ignore so that I can disregard the increase in temperature that must physically result in higher concentrations?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 2 February 2021 3:40:01 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
Test
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 4 February 2021 8:02:52 AM
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
Tks Graham,
Pete S, Here are some links.

http://tinyurl.com/y3hh3qpa5

http://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3-climate-change/

That last one will lead you to Henrik Svenmark who seems to be he
who started it all by tying cosmic rays to cloud formation.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice

Google or rather duckduckgo Jyrki Kauppinen
There is a lot of entries for him.
I have lost the names of the Japanese Kobe Uni scientists but it
should be possible to find them.

Being not the conventional belief I have just among friends and
club members you can expect adverse comments on your sanity for not
just accepting what you are told. My mad Greenie daughter in law
is a typical example.
Cheers
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 4 February 2021 8:27:34 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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