Wow Max, for someone who didn't want to talk any more, that's quite the rant.

Basically, this whole thing started when I showed that world oil reserves have been increasing, not decreasing, for decades and that there's no reason to think that'll stop any time soon. Max initially agreed with that (well even he can't deny the nose on his face) but, when he realised the ramifications of it, immediately regretted his acknowledging the data. If we aren't running out of oil then one leg of his green fantasies disappears.

So he's spent who knows how many posts trying to deny that which he originally accepted

Google and the cranks who put up rubbish in it have a lot to answer for. The site is the only source of "knowledge" many posters have.

When 'green' technology ain't so green...

New Evidence Points to the Annual Slaughter of Millions of Bats by Onshore Wind Turbines

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989422001512

MHAZE,
"whole thing started when I showed that world oil reserves have been increasing"

Hooray! You used the right word! You said the RESERVES were increasing, and didn't even confuse that with DISCOVERING new reserves. Excellent. We're making progress. Good on you!

"for decades" Yes - there have been some remarkable technological leaps. But that's the funny thing about technology isn't it? It tends to come in leaps and then plateau. There's no reason to think there's a Moore's law of oil extraction. It's not like miniaturization will somehow magically make more oil. Tar sands, tight oil, oil shale, thermal depolymerization and even coal and gas conversion are fairly mature industries. Check the wiki or go on youtube and watch engineering youtubers about these technologies if you want to know more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_oil

BUT yes, there have been these remarkable advances over the last few decades in these unconventional oils. Old Hubbert would be amazed at the new tech that finally undid his 1956 prediction of peak CONVENTIONAL oil which really did peak in 1970. It's been a real industry shake up - even in the 18 years since I became aware of how fragile our energy security really was.

Your defence? Point out that I agreed with you that reserves had increased. Sure. That's a partial solution. I have said repeatedly that AS the price of oil goes up, the RESERVES increase. This has pretty much happened. The reserves growth you reference is accounted for. Everyone knows about it. Forbes accounted for it in their 50 year estimation – and you completely ignored demand increase from developing nations – let alone the extra 2 billion people expected by 2050!

<Stopping the damning of the Franklin averted a probable disaster as the damn wall site was unstable and it was intended to inject cement into the underlying rock fissures to strengthen things, for about 7 miles as I remember.>

Thanks, IsMise, but it was environmental concerns that canned the project. The engineers responsible for the planning were happy to build it, so they would not have shared those concerns.

What I don't understand is how a 180mw hydro scheme attracts international condemnation over environmental concerns, yet many gws of pumped hydro, some using seawater, are considered to have negligible environmental impact. Further, Australia could build multiple nuclear power plants up and down the country with a positive environmental impact, yet were such a move lawful it would have the greenies screaming to stop it. I guess that illogical is the norm when you are designing an ideological power generating network. I am sure it will work every bit as well as communism.

I’m against expansion of normal hydro dams. Most of the best pumped hydro sites in the world have already been used. The last sites have enormous biodiversity, ecosystems, and fisheries issues. We don't want to destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment from climate change!

But OFF-RIVER closed loop pumped hydro dams solve this, and open up a VAST range of choice. Anywhere with a decent hill or cliff can be used. They’ve used Satellites to map the topology and the world has ample sites to choose from. America has 100 times ,Australia has over 300 TIMES what we need! Choose your best third of a percent and we're done.

They also have FAST BUILD TIMES. There's no pesky river to divert! You work on the upper reservoir, the lower reservoir, the tunnel connecting them and even the turbine room all at once! They can be built in 3 years.

They’re CHEAP. First we reduce the storage required by over-building the wind and solar grid to cope with the worst winter week. Given solar is ¼ the cost of nuclear, this is economic. The final price for a 100% wind and solar and pumped-hydro storage is CHEAPER than we’re paying for electricity now – about $70 Mwh! For CLEAN power - without all those pollution health costs. For OUR power - without being tied to a global gas price or anything.

Then you have the ultimate battery. It will never generate its own energy - and just uses the solar and wind to pump water uphill. It’s expensive up front, but ultimately one of the cheapest large scale storage methods. And we’ve got over a century of experience with them. This means there are no new inventions required for a 100% renewable grids. They use a TENTH the water of coal fired thermal plants. We'll SAVE 90% of today's energy-water by switching to renewables. Check out more info here.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2516-1083/abeb5b#prgeabeb5bs6