GrahamY: "rstuart, those links ... doesn't offer any evidence."

A 120 Watt solar panel sell on Australia's ebay for $500. Assume that price is _all_ for electricity which cost 0.15/kw Hr, meaning it took 3333 kW hr's to build the panel. Solar panels average 5 hours peak each day, so in 15 years the panel would produce those 3333 kw hr's. The panels minimum lifetime is 25 years.

So a back of the envelope calculation based on facially conservative assumptions shows the things are energy positive and hence will save CO2. Anybody saying otherwise is trying to scam their own product/ideology - nothing more.

JediMaster: "it does not take into account the energy cost of the infrastructure, or what energy is consumed in making the things purchased by the wages etc."

You appear to be trying to trace the flows of carbon through the labyrinth of commercial transactions that occur within our economy's, and then allocate it to each activity. Yes, that is complex. But why bother? It looks to be like you are just making an easy problem hard. The only thing that matters is the emissions from the entire system. So yes you get a temporary spike in CO2 when you make the replacement energy sources, than a permanent drop when they are commissioned. That is clear. The minutea of what causes the spike isn't obvious - maybe it is purification of silicon, maybe it is employees driving to work. But who cares?

More to the point, I agree with Bazz. The only reason you might care is if you are a government making the decisions in a Abbott 'esk fashion. In that case you are trying to micromanage the economy, and your analysis might prove useful in deciding whether we are better off heavily subsidise solar with feedin tariffs or force the country to go nuclear. But if instead your strategy is to raise the price of CO2 emissions via a carbon tax or ETS, and reply on the capitalise economy to pick a good strategy then I don't see the point.

rstuart
I agree that "trying to trace the flows of carbon through the labyrinth of commercial transactions" is complex- and it might be unnecessary with an ETS with no exemptions. The problem of the "temporary" spike is not trivial. All other issues aside, under a cap-and-trade there is no place for temporary spikes. By making a solar panel- or a nuclear reactor for that matter- one needs to go into energy deficit for longer than a coal or gas electric generator. I can't say "please give me 20 years carbon emitting permits over the next 10 years and then I wont emit any carbon for the next 20 years". Cap-and-trade seems to assume that the future should be like the present- only using a bit less carbon each year. The Rudd Govt insulation scheme would not have been possible because the insulation manufacturers wouldn't have been able to buy enough permits from the carbon power stations while they were making their batts. When the batts are installed and saving energy, the power stations would have spare permits, but then it is too late.

That's why we need to know about net energy content-because the energy usage over a product's life cycle has to be considered.

Jedimaster, you seem quite competent on Google.

Why not find the relevant basis upon which this thread depends?

1. Any scientific proof that human emissions contribute to global warming.

2. Any scientific proof that global warming is detrimental. Something that has happened, not ridiculous predictions from the IPCC or the secretary of the UN, but a paper by someone qualified and truthful, someone the opposite of Al Gore.

3. Any proof that the globe is warming. This is in extreme doubt, now that we know that even NASA GISS, and NOAA are compromised. The data cannot be relied upon.

4. Any proof that a benign gas like CO2 has any detrimental effect, on the climate or otherwise to offset its undoubted benefits, in the stimulation of plant growth, the reduction in the need for water of plants stimulated by increased CO2, the greater crop yields, forest regrowth and greening of millions of hectares of the Sahara.

Even if the globe is warming, it does not matter, unless you can show any detriment.

If you cannot show that human emissions have any measureable effect, then none of this conversation is pertinent. It is nonsense.

So see if Google is able to give you the means to show you are not making baseless assertions. Tell us what your base is. Unlike Al Gore, we do not believe that facts are irrelevant.

Yes 'Leo'.

Scenario 1. According to the Green faction and ads on TV declaring
"Even if we cut all CO2 emissions, the methane emitted by farm animals
is enough to still create 'Global' Warming Eat Veg not Meat and Save
the Planet..'

My comment: A load of bulshh. Methane is a trace gas in Greenhouse
gases, and is not just produced by cow's and sheep's burps or farting.
Think of the result if meat became twice as expensive to buy as Milibrand stated that we wouldn't have meat as such, maybe soy meat,
and people in undeveloped countries would also be stopped producing
meat products, like milk etc...Such as the Mesia in Kenya, they depend
on cows blood, milk. However, animals manure helps encourage micro
biology and bio diversity in our soils and pastures, all that depend
on CO2 to keep plants alive.

Scenerio 2. Solar panels: Earlier ones (I can't say the recent ones) broke down and were too expensive to replace. At the cost of householder, not the electricity main grid supplier. Greece has been using them for hot water since the 80s. Tried them out in UK, they didn't work properly. In cold countries they don't compute at all. Like those subject to the land of the midnight sun. In Australia, they are too expensive to buy and I know people who have them, one broke down and cost the householder $3000 to replace, just for hot water? Lucky they had electricity back up.

There still isn't a case to install them as if they break down (past their warranty) they are the responsibility of the homeowner.

Nuclear power? Expensive 5 billion for one reactor. In Australia
we would need heaps say 50 at least. Think of the States with their
large population and demography.

The electricity commission have stated they will not be able to keep
Sydney's consumption up to target. Sydney is going it alone, and installing solar panels on public buildings. Well they don't get
too cold in Sydney. But think of all those neon lights?

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! I've been going on about climate change and ethics forever (and NO ONE has debated me on it)" next week Peter Simnger is doind a piece on Big Ideas about climate change and ethics!
Of course I imagine Singer will get the same indifferent response Squeers got.

It is even a bit pointless now as the wx experts are talking about
going back to square one and starting again.
It appears there was a conference of weather/climate experts somewhere
and the UK's Metrological Bureau has moved for a restart of AGW study.

Even Prof Phil Jones has admitted in a BBC interview that there has
been bo significant warming since 1995, so it gives the experts the
time needed to go over it all again.

Considering the amount of money involved this seems like a very
sensible move.