Resisting Climate Hysteria

[sydboy007]

As I have said , you will just have to wait and see.

You have to agree, Labor's big Carbon dioxide tax has done nothing to reduce CO2.....The biggest tax in the world......All it did was to increase the cost of living by $550 to the working families of Australia.

So instead of trying to bring down the COALITION...why can't you give it a fair go?

Please note the COALITION is spelt with a "C" and not an "N".....That spelling of yours is becoming monotonous to say the least.

Back in Feb 2014 - Australia's greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are down about 7.6 per cent since the carbon tax was introduced in July 2012, or the equivalent of about 14.8 million tonnes.

Not bad for Labor's big Carbon dioxide tax has done nothing to reduce CO2.

 

[sydboy007]

Yes, sorry mate.
But whatever we do, no matter if it was with the best intent, it has an adverse effect on someone.

The argument a lot of people stated re voting for Abbott was he was the least bad option.

Possibly taking action to minimise our resource use and reduce our carbon footprint is also the least bad option. Certainly we should at least stop our spoiling of other countries trying to come up with global agreement. To say that climate change is not an economic issue when even the US military is starting to view it as a major cause of conflict in the future, seems very far from the centre of current high level opinion.

Certainly I see a much better employment path via moving away from coal and fostering green tech companies in Australia. Considering the massive oversupply in thermal coal more stoppages like what has been done by Glencore are going to have to occur to stop the free fall in price. Why fight a losing battle to support an industry that is likely to be on the decline?

We prob don't have the market size to produce a lot of green tech, but royalties from IP are a good substitute, and distributed energy helps to remove the need for massive infrastructure investments like the east cost has been through. $45B in 5 years or so in the distribution network. I bet if some of that money had been invested in distributed power generation, along with energy improved efficiency and demand shifting from the peak, we would be in a much better situation as energy consumers, with the flow on benefit of improving our international competitiveness.

The health benefits of not mining and burning coal also need to be accounted for. Anything that helps slow the rise in healthcare costs has to be good for us.

 

[Smurf1976]

Yep, China's going to increase the amount of non-fossil energy they use. No doubt about that.

Just wait until environmentalists realise that they're running around celebrating plan to build dams, dams and more dams plus a few reactors here and there too. Plus some wind farms and solar to keep everyone happy, but hydro and nuclear is the key to what they're doing overall.

 

[herzy]

Yep, China's going to increase the amount of non-fossil energy they use. No doubt about that.

Just wait until environmentalists realise that they're running around celebrating plan to build dams, dams and more dams plus a few reactors here and there too. Plus some wind farms and solar to keep everyone happy, but hydro and nuclear is the key to what they're doing overall.

Not all environmentalists are created equal. I much prefer nuclear to coal. Bring it on. Dams on the other hand... not so great.

That was Merkel's worst decision in an otherwise fairly stellar career in my opinion.

 

[Smurf1976]

but royalties from IP are a good substitute

The trouble with "IP royalties" is that it employs virtually nobody and provides benefits to very, very few.

Someone mines or manufactures something then that employs a lot of people on an ongoing basis.

Someone designs something, once, then collects the royalties for the next 20 years - that benefits basically nobody on an ongoing basis.

So there's a broader social issue there. Nobody who sold their IP then needs to employ process workers, truck drivers, tradesmen or even a manager in order to collect the royalties.

 

[Smurf1976]

Not all environmentalists are created equal. I much prefer nuclear to coal. Bring it on. Dams on the other hand... not so great.

Agreed that opinions differ. Personally, I consider nuclear power based on uranium as too dangerous to contemplate since we have no plan to deal with it properly when the inevitable happens and it goes wrong. We still haven't cleaned up the last two yet and the whole industry just doesn't stack up economically.

That said, a thorium reactor appears to be, in theory at least, a sensible and reasonably safe option and I see no real reason to be concerned about that idea. It's a much better option than uranium that seems reasonably clear and it gets around the CO2 problem too.

Dams I'm quite comfortable with, largely because (1) I've seen an awful lot of them first hand and know pretty well what's involved and (2) the environmental effects are largely reversible within one human lifetime. I consider them as a "less bad" option than fossil fuels or uranium for that reason.

Suppose that in 2020 someone decided to simply abandon all current power sources. How quickly can we deal with the ongoing consequences of past use?

Wind, solar etc - however long it takes to physically dismantle and remove the turbines and panels, noting that apart from aesthetics there would be no necessary reason to remove most of it anyway.

Hydro - come back in 80 years, roughly one human lifetime, and only those who have studied history will know it was ever there since minimal physical evidence would remain after that time unless someone consciously chose to preserve some items for historical reasons.

Coal - a change to the composition of the atmosphere that seems likely to last centuries at least. On a positive note, at least we do know how to remove the actual power stations, decommission the mines and so on.

Uranium - effectively permanent, at least on any "human" timescale. We don't even have a real plan to decommission the power stations themselves as they wear out and we certainly haven't come up with anything decent in terms of dealing with the waste or cleaning up contamination.

 

[Julia]

- it's not true that 'all of our trading partners weren't doing anything remotely similar'

Right. I should have said 'most', rather than 'all'.

- Our economy is absolutely fine. I'm not saying we should unduly punish it (I'm not even suggesting we do anything), but I do think Australian concerns about our economy and national debt are a bit overblown.

It's the forward trajectory that's the concern. I can't be bothered looking for charts etc but if costs continue at present level (interest bill on borrowings etc etc) we will be in considerable trouble down the track if some pulling in of heads doesn't occur.

We are the only developed country not to have gone into recession.

Because the economy was artificially propped up with borrowed money. We are now needing to deal with that splurge.

We're still going strong. Aussie dollar has fallen. Unemployment very low. I think you would be extremely hard-pressed to find a country doing better than us... If anyone can afford to take action, we can.

Assuming you believe the threats of catastrophic warming.
-

I didn't think the statistic included our imports (that would be hugely misleading).

I was talking about our exports, not imports.
I'm also not sure whether our bushfires are included in our 'emissions'. Someone who is more interested in the topic of climate change than I am will know.

The argument a lot of people stated re voting for Abbott was he was the least bad option.

Yep, or simply that people would vote for anyone who wasn't Labor after six years of their bungling.
Mr Abbott is not a charismatic or inspiring person. The very fact that people did vote for him nonetheless is an indication of having had quite enough of Labor.

If it had still been a government something like the Hawke Keating years Mr Abbott would not have stood a chance imo.

 

[herzy]

It's the forward trajectory that's the concern. I can't be bothered looking for charts etc but if costs continue at present level (interest bill on borrowings etc etc) we will be in considerable trouble down the track if some pulling in of heads doesn't occur.

Because the economy was artificially propped up with borrowed money. We are now needing to deal with that splurge.

I was talking about our exports, not imports.
I'm also not sure whether our bushfires are included in our 'emissions'. Someone who is more interested in the topic of climate change than I am will know.

Sorry, yes, I meant exports - I don't think they (or bushfires) are included, but am not certain.

The borrowed money argument doesn't really hold, considering we STILL have one of the lowest national debt levels. We're really one of the richest companies in the world - which is why I say that, from a financial perspective, we're the best placed to take a drastic measure.

Not saying we should, but I'm saying we're the country that could most afford it.

 

[Smurf1976]

we're the country that could most afford it.

Trouble is, a good deal of Australia's prosperity is itself derived from fossil fuels.

Coal exports. LNG exports. Iron ore (needs someone else using coal to be processed). Aluminium and other metals smelting (energy-intensive) or the export of those ores. Etc.

Australia has a vested interest in fossil fuels, both in terms of the actual production of coal and gas (we're a net importer of oil) and in terms of continuing the demand for energy-intensive metals production either domestically or using Australian ore.

Take that away and, with manufacturing largely gone, it's debatable as to whether or not Australia would even be seen as a "wealthy" country at all or whether we'd be classified as a "developing" nation.

Even if we stop using so much coal etc locally, we desperately need others to keep using it. Just like the Saudi's need someone else to keep buying their oil (noting that they do have some programs in place aiming to cut domestic consumption, albeit not with a lot of success thus far but they're working on it).

 

[herzy]

Thanks for the interesting points on nuclear and resources in Aus, Smurf.

It reminds me of what a friend dryly noted when our PM cut funding to science, education, etc: We're essentially left with mining and tourism, which is basically the definition of a third world country.

It seems you agree.

I personally would like to see a shift away from a resource-dependent economy, partly by encouraging our already successful industries such as biotech research and education. Perhaps climate policy would assist this change?

 

[sydboy007]

The trouble with "IP royalties" is that it employs virtually nobody and provides benefits to very, very few.

Someone mines or manufactures something then that employs a lot of people on an ongoing basis.

Someone designs something, once, then collects the royalties for the next 20 years - that benefits basically nobody on an ongoing basis.

So there's a broader social issue there. Nobody who sold their IP then needs to employ process workers, truck drivers, tradesmen or even a manager in order to collect the royalties.

Silicon valley seems to be able to perpetually generate new IP and new wealth.

In Australia we're up there in a lot of Medical research, as well as comms systems and other high tech fiields.

Yes it would be good if we could turn some of the IP generated here into physical products, but so far we've not shown we have the capability to do it, and unless we're willing to take on larger amounts of risk, quite often selling the IP via royalties is the better way forward.

 

[Julia]

Thanks for the interesting points on nuclear and resources in Aus, Smurf.

It reminds me of what a friend dryly noted when our PM cut funding to science, education, etc: We're essentially left with mining and tourism, which is basically the definition of a third world country.

It seems you agree.

I personally would like to see a shift away from a resource-dependent economy, partly by encouraging our already successful industries such as biotech research and education. Perhaps climate policy would assist this change?

Your friend sounds like a realist.
I don't know what the actual figures would be but it would take an awful lot of successful, marketable outcomes from biotech research (the research in itself being hugely expensive and time consuming) to equate what resources have brought to Australia.

Smurf has summed it up well. Nuclear in Australia doesn't stand much chance for the foreseeable future imo: huge resistance to it, much for good reason including Smurf's point about capacity to manage problems.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Australia has a vested interest in fossil fuels, both in terms of the actual production of coal and gas (we're a net importer of oil) and in terms of continuing the demand for energy-intensive metals production either domestically or using Australian ore.

Take that away and, with manufacturing largely gone, it's debatable as to whether or not Australia would even be seen as a "wealthy" country at all or whether we'd be classified as a "developing" nation.

Even if we stop using so much coal etc locally, we desperately need others to keep using it. Just like the Saudi's need someone else to keep buying their oil (noting that they do have some programs in place aiming to cut domestic consumption, albeit not with a lot of success thus far but they're working on it).

Yes it would be extremely difficult to achieve "growth & jobs" without a resource driven industry. Returning to life like the era prior to the Industrial Revolution when most things were made by hand would be challenging for the "developed" countries.

Electricity production could be solar on mass scale. Production costs lower, maintenance costs lower, damage to environment lower, growth & jobs lower.
Mineral consumption could be halved. Technological advancements not consumer driven. Less steels, bricks, plasters, paints, plastics, ceramics, glass. Less growth & jobs.

The ultimatum has been delivered.

 

[noco]

Back in Feb 2014 - Australia's greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are down about 7.6 per cent since the carbon tax was introduced in July 2012, or the equivalent of about 14.8 million tonnes.

Not bad for Labor's big Carbon dioxide tax has done nothing to reduce CO2.

Where did you derive those stats?

Have you got a link?

 

[Wysiwyg]

The U.S. President said "worldwide this last summer was the hottest on record". The recorded data goes back 134 years. In regards to the planet's existence of several billion years, this data base is extremely lacking in evidence toward human causation. The temperature was much hotter and much colder at different stages of this planet's evolution. A factual observation of human causation to this planet getting hotter would be better from a truth perspective. I think it is a good wake up call to everyone that air, sea and land quality is affected by humans being so do something about it on an individual, community and government level. We can slow it but unless we as a species become non-existent or return to the bush & caves, there will always be an unnatural affect on the environment.

 

[sydboy007]

Where did you derive those stats?

Have you got a link?

https://crawford.anu.edu.au/news/4406/carbon-price-cut-emissions

Over the first two years of operation of the carbon price (July 2012 to July 2014), carbon emissions are down by 29 million tonnes or 8.2 per cent across the National Electricity Market compared to the two years prior.

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/eenccepwp/1411.htm

Abstract: Australia's carbon price has been in operation for two years. The electricity sector accounts for the majority of emissions covered under the scheme. This paper examines the impact of the carbon price on the electricity sector between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2014, focusing on the National Electricity Market (NEM). Over this period, electricity demand in the NEM declined by 3.8 per cent, the emissions intensity of electricity supply by 4.6 per cent, and overall emissions by 8.2 per cent, compared to the two-year period before the carbon price. We detail observable changes in power demand and supply mix, and estimate the quantitative effect of the effect of the carbon price. We estimate that the carbon price led to an average 10 per cent increase in nominal retail household electricity prices, an average 15 per cent increase in industrial electricity prices and a 59 per cent increase in wholesale (spot) electricity prices. It is likely that in response, households, businesses and the industrial sector reduced their electricity use. We estimate the demand reduction attributable to the carbon price at 2.5 to 4.2 TWh per year, about 1.3 to 2.3 per cent of total electricity demand in the NEM. The carbon price markedly changed relative costs between different types of power plants. Emissions-intensive brown coal and black coal generators reduced output and 4GW of emissions-intensive generation capacity was taken offline. We estimate that these shifts in the supply mix resulted in a 16 to 28kg CO2/MWh reduction in the emissions intensity of power supply in the NEM, a reduction between 1.8 and 3.3 per cent. The combined impact attributable to the carbon price is estimated as a reduction of between 5 and 8 million tonnes of CO2 emissions (3.2 to 5 per cent) in 2012/13 and between 6 and 9 million tonnes (3.5 to 5.6 per cent) in 2013/14, and between 11 and 17 million tonnes cumulatively. There are fundamental difficulties in attributing observed changes in demand and supply to specific causes, especially over the short term, and in this light we use conservative parameters in the estimation of the effect of the carbon price. We conclude that the carbon price has worked as expected in terms of its short-term impacts. However, its effect on investment in power generation assets has probably been limited, because of policy uncertainty about the continuation of the carbon pricing mechanism. For emissions pricing to have its full effect, a stable, long-term policy framework is needed.

 

[noco]

https://crawford.anu.edu.au/news/4406/carbon-price-cut-emissions



http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/eenccepwp/1411.htm

You have indicated a substantial drop in emissions mainly from coal fired power stations.....these stations have been installing antipollution stacks for some time before the the carbon dioxide tax came into being...they take time to design and construct and most likely came into operation after the carbon dioxide tax was introduced but of course the Labor Party would take credit for it and the naive will believe them..

What about all the other industries...we don't have many left now of course as most of them have gone overseas.....If you like to whistle, I will point to the reason why industry has left Australia.

 

[herzy]

You have indicated a substantial drop in emissions mainly from coal fired power stations.....these stations have been installing antipollution stacks for some time before the the carbon dioxide tax came into being...they take time to design and construct and most likely came into operation after the carbon dioxide tax was introduced but of course the Labor Party would take credit for it and the naive will believe them..

What about all the other industries...we don't have many left now of course as most of them have gone overseas.....If you like to whistle, I will point to the reason why industry has left Australia.

My understanding was that filters etc reduce other pollutants (such as sulphur dioxide) but not carbon dioxide?

 

[noco]

My understanding was that filters etc reduce other pollutants (such as sulphur dioxide) but not carbon dioxide?

Th attached link is all about the trappings of carbon dioxide.....sulfur dioxide was only mentioned once with the steam vapor and appeared to be insignificant in comparison to carbon dioxide..

You read the sub links also.


http://www.scantech.com.au/solutions/powerplant?gclid=CMqdn-_F_MECFYuSvQodIbEAUg

 

[Smurf1976]

My understanding was that filters etc reduce other pollutants (such as sulphur dioxide) but not carbon dioxide?

A modern coal-fired plant in Australia (or any other developed country) will generally have electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and/or fabric filter bags.

ESP / fabric filters trap particulates - that's fine particles of ash and the visible "smoke" that you'd otherwise have coming out the stacks if they weren't there. They're highly efficient, efficiency in the high 90's % generally, hence there's not much to be seen coming out the stacks these days (belching white clouds are just water vapour if the fuel used is high moisture - generally that's brown coal or natural gas).

So far as what constitutes "modern", well basically every coal-fired power station in Australia (there's one possible exception that I'm not certain about) has ESP and/or fabric filters. They've been around for a very long time, the SECV was fitting them to new plant at Yallourn (long since decomissioned and physically demolished) back in the 1950's so they're not a new idea. That said, they have certainly improved over the years and in a lot of cases the original equipment has been replaced in line with community expectations for improving air quality etc - those first attempts in the 50's were pretty crude compared to what's done now.

Trapping the ash means that there's also a reduction of various toxic emissions, that would otherwise be emitted as fine particles, as well as actual visible smoke.

As for sulphur, in Australia we basically don't do anything about that. Most of our coal is fairly low in sulphur although there's some that's a bit higher and one notable plant that burns high sulphur (around 3.5%) coal. Generally speaking though, it's 1% or less and we don't worry about it. In other countries it varies - generally there's a lot more attention paid to it in the EU and US. Technically, it can be removed with flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) or alternative means injecting chemicals (limestone usually) into the fire itself.

So far as other fuels are concerned, Japan is notable as having FGD on oil-fired plants but basically nobody else in the world does that. Elsewhere, it's controlled by limiting the sulphur content of the oil used in the first place. Standards there vary - EU I think it's 1% these days. Here in Tasmania we used to have a legislated 3% limit at Bell Bay power station but in practice generally used lower sulphur oil except on occasions when that wasn't available. A notable point in Japan is that they burn actual crude oil in some of the boilers whereas in most places it's residual fuel oil from the refining process that is used.

There's a certain mining company in another part of Australia that I won't name which for many years switched between high and low sulphur fuels literally depending on which way the wind was blowing at the time. And it's no secret that FGD plants in some countries are switched off late at night when nobody can see what's coming out the stacks....

For natural gas, generally nothing is done to treat the emissions beyond the use of low NOx burners in the boiler itself in some situations. But if you look at a gas-fired steam plant, eg Torrens Island (Adelaide) or Newport (Melbourne) then the white plume is basically just water vapour (visible) and CO2 plus a few oxides of nitrogen. There's not much else coming out there, at least not in any significant quantity.

As for CO2, there's the oxy-fuel project involving one unit (30MW) at Callide A power station in Qld and a few such projects overseas but that's about it. Apart from situations (particularly in the US) where there's a nearby use for CO2 to inject into oil fields (to help get more oil out), in most places CO2 just goes straight up the stack and that's it. Filters of any kind do nothing to trap CO2, indeed they tend to increase it due to increasing energy use within the plant and in some cases reducing boiler efficiency too.