Resisting Climate Hysteria

[luutzu]

Okay! That answers my question! You are indeed, deliberately missing the point! (However, religion does tend to have the effect of rendering some people unwilling or unable, to entertain challenges presented by science.)

The point you keep overlooking is the scientific significance of the fact of any oil being discovered in that location. You have also overlooked other pertinent discoveries mentioned in the same article.

This and other discoveries were of huge scientific significance because they challenge the validity of the fossil fuel theory!

Those discoveries illustrate that the "scientists", you keep blathering on about, have gotten some very important facts totally wrong!

Any conclusions premised upon scientific fallacies (as opposed to scientific facts) will very likely prove to be seriously amiss!

The discovery of faulty assumptions, about the origins of fossil fuels, threatens at least one of the major foundations of your climate religion!!!

ermmm...

Has the oil companies of the world know about this? Better let them know so we might have peace in the world.

This discovery is almost as awesome as that other discovery of clean Hydrogen energy from water I once saw in a Keanu Reeves movie.

Anyway, call around and have that tree prune dude.

 

[cynic]

ermmm...

Has the oil companies of the world know about this? Better let them know so we might have peace in the world.

This discovery is almost as awesome as that other discovery of clean Hydrogen energy from water I once saw in a Keanu Reeves movie.

Anyway, call around and have that tree prune dude.

I am really not that much of a fan of Keanu.

From the facetious nature of your response, I can see that you are reluctant to embrace the profound significance of the scientific findings mentioned in the linked article .

I note that you have attempted to make light of that dangerous situation, mentioned earlier, where the safety of people and their domiciles was threatened by a tree, on my land, that I was legally prohibited from removing.

I detest any law that gives the welfare of trees precedence over the welfare of humans.

The existence of such laws is certainly nothing to joke about. Based upon the justifications cited in the council's brochure on canopy trees, I can see that the Carbon Crusade was most certainly responsible for the precipitation of these oppressive laws, giving me yet further reason to view the Carbon Crusade (and the Crusaders eagerly joining its ranks) with the utmost contempt.

 

[basilio]

Well Cynic I thought your initial foray into the windmills of Carbon Crusaders was a brave and valiant effort.
Umpteen posts later your still rabbiting on with unrelenting determination - if little sense.

Do you have any sense of balance or perspective ? The efforts to move from a carbon based fossil fuel society to a clean renewable energy environment has many interrelated reasons. Somehow you have dismissed or ignored them all.

1) The current scientific understanding says that the excessive CO2 produced by fossil fuels is trapping extra heat in the atmosphere, increasing temperatures world wide and threatening to take the worlds climate to situations that won't support current eco- systems.
2) Fossil fuels produce pollutants (other than CO2) that kill hundreds of thousands of people around the world. Air Pollution from cars, coal fired power stations and industrial processes are killers.
3) Energy production from renewable energy sources is now more cost competitive than traditional fossil fuels. Essentially that's it Cynic. Wind farms, 2/3rd Gen solar panels, wave energy, pumped hyro are all cheaper energy sources than new coal or gas fired power stations. Why would you go in that direction when it isn't economically viable?
4) On all our current understandings fossil fuels are finite. They will run down in the foreseeable future. When they do our current society will disappear - unless it has migrated to an ongoing clean, renewable energy source.

Could you be right about about global warming being a hoax or scam ? Could you be right in showing that CO2 isn't in fact any cause of any possible warming anyway ? Could you be right in discovering that oil is actually being produced all the time and only needs 5klm drills through granite to bring them to the surface ?
There is always a possibility your right Cynic. But I'm more inclined to see this as a risk assessment activity and accept the current best scientific understandings and current observations.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...il-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249

 

[basilio]

Our Energy Future.

Queensland company to build Australia's largest solar farm, creates 450 jobs
By Frenalyn Wilson on April 19 2017 6:12 PM

An employee walks on solar panels at a solar power plant in Aksu, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region May 18, 2012. Reuters/Stringer

A Queensland company proposes to build the largest solar farm in Australia amounting to $2 billion. The facility is expected to eventually supply at least 15 percent of power needs in south-east Queensland and would create 450 jobs during construction.


Solar Q lodged a development application with the Gympie Council in order to build a solar farm and battery storage facility 30 kilometres north-west of the city. According to ABC, the project would be built in stages. A350-megawatt facility is expected to be built initially as soon as approval is granted.


It will go as high as 800 megawatts after four years. It aims to produce enough electricity that could power at least 315,000 homes.


Managing director Scott Armstrong said the facility is set to be the biggest in the country, but "the way the market is going is that there will be bigger projects that will come on.” He said the project will meet at least 15 percent of south-east Queensland's energy requirements from the 4,000 megawatt hours of energy storage, as well as solar panels.

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/queenslan...s-largest-solar-farm-creates-450-jobs-1550827

 

[noco]

Our Energy Future.

Queensland company to build Australia's largest solar farm, creates 450 jobs
By Frenalyn Wilson on April 19 2017 6:12 PM

An employee walks on solar panels at a solar power plant in Aksu, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region May 18, 2012. Reuters/Stringer

A Queensland company proposes to build the largest solar farm in Australia amounting to $2 billion. The facility is expected to eventually supply at least 15 percent of power needs in south-east Queensland and would create 450 jobs during construction.


Solar Q lodged a development application with the Gympie Council in order to build a solar farm and battery storage facility 30 kilometres north-west of the city. According to ABC, the project would be built in stages. A350-megawatt facility is expected to be built initially as soon as approval is granted.


It will go as high as 800 megawatts after four years. It aims to produce enough electricity that could power at least 315,000 homes.


Managing director Scott Armstrong said the facility is set to be the biggest in the country, but "the way the market is going is that there will be bigger projects that will come on.” He said the project will meet at least 15 percent of south-east Queensland's energy requirements from the 4,000 megawatt hours of energy storage, as well as solar panels.

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/queenslan...s-largest-solar-farm-creates-450-jobs-1550827

The cost now is $2billion.....The cost to replace them after 25 years for the next generation will most likely be $5billion....And don't forget Solar panels lose a lot of their efficiency with age.
A 1600 MW coal fired power station could have been built for $5billion now and lasted for 50 years...A great saving for the next generation I would say.

 

[Ves]

The cost now is $2billion.....The cost to replace them after 25 years for the next generation will most likely be $5billion....And don't forget Solar panels lose a lot of their efficiency with age.
A 1600 MW coal fired power station could have been built for $5billion now and lasted for 50 years...A great saving for the next generation I would say.

I'm not sure if you've ever made any investment decisions on this scale, but generally, and it's a given since there is a private company involved, there are not only costs to build something, but things such as return on investment to consider.

Since you seem to know everything, how do these compare for the two projects? How do the net present values compare?

 

[Klogg]

The cost now is $2billion.....The cost to replace them after 25 years for the next generation will most likely be $5billion....And don't forget Solar panels lose a lot of their efficiency with age.
A 1600 MW coal fired power station could have been built for $5billion now and lasted for 50 years...A great saving for the next generation I would say.

There's so many things wrong with this statement, even ignoring the climate change component...

1) The cost of solar panels, in real (inflation adjusted) terms will have decreased as technology progresses.

2) At an interest rate of 3.8% over 25 years, $2bn becomes $5bn. Inflation won't run at 3.8% per annum, nor will wage increases. Not sure where you got this number.

3) Over and above the initial cost, what does it cost per MW to run (opex)? Perhaps solar is cheaper...? (I genuinely don't know, but it's a consideration)

4) Even if burning coal doesn't cause global warming/climate change, why would you keep a dependency on a finite resource, when the sun is basically infinite and free? (infinite as far as the human race is concerned)

 

[cynic]

Well Cynic I thought your initial foray into the windmills of Carbon Crusaders was a brave and valiant effort.
Umpteen posts later your still rabbiting on with unrelenting determination - if little sense.

Do you have any sense of balance or perspective ? The efforts to move from a carbon based fossil fuel society to a clean renewable energy environment has many interrelated reasons. Somehow you have dismissed or ignored them all.

1) The current scientific understanding says that the excessive CO2 produced by fossil fuels is trapping extra heat in the atmosphere, increasing temperatures world wide and threatening to take the worlds climate to situations that won't support current eco- systems.
2) Fossil fuels produce pollutants (other than CO2) that kill hundreds of thousands of people around the world. Air Pollution from cars, coal fired power stations and industrial processes are killers.
3) Energy production from renewable energy sources is now more cost competitive than traditional fossil fuels. Essentially that's it Cynic. Wind farms, 2/3rd Gen solar panels, wave energy, pumped hyro are all cheaper energy sources than new coal or gas fired power stations. Why would you go in that direction when it isn't economically viable?
4) On all our current understandings fossil fuels are finite. They will run down in the foreseeable future. When they do our current society will disappear - unless it has migrated to an ongoing clean, renewable energy source.

Could you be right about about global warming being a hoax or scam ? Could you be right in showing that CO2 isn't in fact any cause of any possible warming anyway ? Could you be right in discovering that oil is actually being produced all the time and only needs 5klm drills through granite to bring them to the surface ?
There is always a possibility your right Cynic. But I'm more inclined to see this as a risk assessment activity and accept the current best scientific understandings and current observations.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...il-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249

From your response it appears that you haven't taken the time to thoroughly understand the wider implications of all of the things I am saying.

I can see from your comments that you have either, failed to (or chosen not to) recognise, the implications of some recent discoveries of "fossil" fuels in places that it could not reasonably expected to be found (if the "fossil" fuel theory had been true). In light of these more recent discoveries, it appears that a formerly unpopular origin theory is more likely true. I understand that these discoveries present significant challenges to the validity of key components of the sacred doctrine of the Church of Carbon.

I note that the crucially important question, concerning how the atmospheric CO2 levels, appropriate to the biological needs of the increased world populace, were derived by your esteemed climate priests, remains unanswered!

I reiterate my view that the question concerning the impact (or lack thereof) from elevated atmospheric CO2 levels, within a complex system (of minerals, flora and fauna) located on a planet that is in motion, within a solar system that is in motion, within a galaxy of solar systems within motion, is far beyond mankind's current technological capacity to confidently answer. The multitude of failed climate predictions, courtesy of the esteemed Church of Carbon, have provided ample evidence to support aforesaid contention.

As for safety comparisons between nuclear power and other "fossil" fuels, I am certain that I don't need to remind you of the tragic devastation caused by a number of nuclear events throughout the past century. A person would need to reside at a considerably greater distance from a nuclear power plant, to have any prospect of survival in the event of a nuclear meltdown.

In relation to arguments about "renewable" energy. Some of those things mentioned, aren't nearly so renewable as they might at first seem. Remember that energy is neither created nor destroyed, it merely changes form!
Please spend a little time thinking about the deeper implications of that well established scientific law, and how some of these "renewable" sources might be exhausting their very own source of supply (and potentially impacting the environment in unexpected ways whilst doing so!). The words "meeting one's destiny on the path taken to avoid it" spring to mind.

One thing I do wish to emphasise, is that I am not opposed to people choosing to use solar power, if it suits their interests to do so (e.g. although now somewhat outdated, one of my solar powered calculators celebrated its 30th birthday last year!)

I am, however, with very good reason, opposed to changes being forced upon society, based upon the unreasonable demonisation of a gas, that happens to be essential to our biological needs, namely carbon dioxide.

As far as I am concerned, the questions concerning our planet, the true extent of the impacts of mankind's activities, and nature's capacity to provide a healthy response to those impacts, needs to be much better understood, before deciding whether or not a problem truly exists. Taking extreme actions, based upon misunderstandings of causation, will very likely create new problems, in places where none previously existed. As such, I consider the activism, pursuant to the vanity and selfrighteousness, of the Carbon Crusade, to represent a greater menace to our society.

Whilst I do not deny that I have become strongly prejudiced against the Carbon Crusade (I have already given my various reasons for this prejudice throughout my postings), I like to believe, that I am still capable of being receptive to sincere efforts to identify the existence and causation of any anomolous climate behaviour.

However, as many will have noticed, I do not take at all kindly to apocalyptic proselytising, especially when it is being misconstrued, by its preachers, as science!

 

[SirRumpole]

However, as many will have noticed, I do not take at all kindly to apocalyptic proselytising. Especially when it is being misconstrued, by its preachers, as science!

People don't have to prosthelyse. The reality of hurricanes, tornados, icebergs cracking, rivers drying up etc is bad enough. It doesn't need science, just the ability to look at the accumulation of weather events and realise that something serious is happening at a rapidly increasing rate.

 

[cynic]

People don't have to prosthelyse. The reality of hurricanes, tornados, icebergs cracking, rivers drying up etc is bad enough. It doesn't need science, just the ability to look at the accumulation of weather events and realise that something serious is happening at a rapidly increasing rate.

If it doesn't need science as you suggest, then why all the hullaballoo over the bogus scientific consensus?

Without some scientific research, how do you expect to determine causation?

How did you come to recognise that these events are occurring at an increasing rate?

Are you directly experiencing all the phenomena you mention? (if so I recommend you relocate)

 

[noco]

I'm not sure if you've ever made any investment decisions on this scale, but generally, and it's a given since there is a private company involved, there are not only costs to build something, but things such as return on investment to consider.

Since you seem to know everything, how do these compare for the two projects? How do the net present values compare?

Well, the difference is you are talking about a 350MW solar unit costing $2billion and then increasing the output to 800MW at what extra cost in 4 years?...And what is your estimate of replacing those solar panels after 25 years expected life?....You also know those solar panels will lose a % of their efficiency over their life span.
Solar panels are only 15% efficient in comparison to 35% efficiency of coal.
I made the comparison of 1600MW coal fired power station to cost $5 billion and last for 50 to 60 years.

 

[noco]

People don't have to prosthelyse. The reality of hurricanes, tornados, icebergs cracking, rivers drying up etc is bad enough. It doesn't need science, just the ability to look at the accumulation of weather events and realise that something serious is happening at a rapidly increasing rate.

More hear say rhetoric without back up.

 

[noco]

There's so many things wrong with this statement, even ignoring the climate change component...

1) The cost of solar panels, in real (inflation adjusted) terms will have decreased as technology progresses.

2) At an interest rate of 3.8% over 25 years, $2bn becomes $5bn. Inflation won't run at 3.8% per annum, nor will wage increases. Not sure where you got this number.

3) Over and above the initial cost, what does it cost per MW to run (opex)? Perhaps solar is cheaper...? (I genuinely don't know, but it's a consideration)

4) Even if burning coal doesn't cause global warming/climate change, why would you keep a dependency on a finite resource, when the sun is basically infinite and free? (infinite as far as the human race is concerned)

Here is the inflation rate trend calculated by economists.
1% July 2016
1.5% January 2107
2.1% January 2018
3.8% by 2020.
So you are saying inflation rate won't run at 3.8% per annum......It could go higher after 2020...So where did you get your information from?

The use of coal fired power stations are cheaper and a more reliable source of energy.....Coal fired power stations still operate when the Sun does not shine or the wind does not blow or it blows too hard as happened in SA......The cost ofpower from renewable energy has soared in SA.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/inflation-cpi/forecast

 

[SirRumpole]

Are you directly experiencing all the phenomena you mention?

My insurance policies certainly are, how about yours ?

 

[luutzu]

Well, the difference is you are talking about a 350MW solar unit costing $2billion and then increasing the output to 800MW at what extra cost in 4 years?...And what is your estimate of replacing those solar panels after 25 years expected life?....You also know those solar panels will lose a % of their efficiency over their life span.
Solar panels are only 15% efficient in comparison to 35% efficiency of coal.
I made the comparison of 1600MW coal fired power station to cost $5 billion and last for 50 to 60 years.

With coal fired power plants, you'd need to freight the coals in. To do that, you'd need to mine it first. Does the $5B price tag include those costs or are they excluded the same way the cost of carbon emission is free on the company but others will have to wear its consequences?

Then there's the improvement and further advances from Solar. As they are taken up, economy of scales mean they'll be cheaper; more work mean more competition on not just price, but quality and application from new R&D efforts.

With coal... the kind of efficiency and technological improvement on an old tech... I can't imagine it being on the same potential as solar would.

Those and the fact that once a solar plant is built, the Sun kind of deliver the raw material on a daily basis without much costs on logistics.

That and it doesn't really pollute or kill anybody under normal operation.

 

[cynic]

My insurance policies certainly are, how about yours ?

I wasn't asking about other entities, I was asking if you are directly experiencing the phenomena you cited (tornados, cracking ice bergs etc.).

So out of the four questions posed, you've chosen to reply to only the last one, and, in so doing, only by furnishing a cute little comment that fails to answer that question.

This situation speaks volumes to me about the importance of being able to distinguish between experienced reality and news media exaggerations.

 

[SirRumpole]

I wasn't asking about other entities, I was asking if you are directly experiencing the phenomena you cited (tornados, cracking ice bergs etc.).

So out of the four questions posed, you've chosen to reply to only the last one, and, in so doing, only by furnishing a cute little comment that fails to answer that question.

This situation speaks volumes to me about the importance of being able to distinguish between experienced reality and news media exaggerations.

You must be joking if you suggest that the only knowledge worth having comes from direct personal experience.

I can read a graph of the global temperature increase, I don't have to physically be at every point on the globe to experience it personally.

By all means stick your head in the sand if you find the truth upsetting, but don't presume that others are so stupid.

 

[noco]

With coal fired power plants, you'd need to freight the coals in. To do that, you'd need to mine it first. Does the $5B price tag include those costs or are they excluded the same way the cost of carbon emission is free on the company but others will have to wear its consequences?

Then there's the improvement and further advances from Solar. As they are taken up, economy of scales mean they'll be cheaper; more work mean more competition on not just price, but quality and application from new R&D efforts.

With coal... the kind of efficiency and technological improvement on an old tech... I can't imagine it being on the same potential as solar would.

Those and the fact that once a solar plant is built, the Sun kind of deliver the raw material on a daily basis without much costs on logistics.

That and it doesn't really pollute or kill anybody under normal operation.

The $5billion tag is the construction cost......Th supply of coal is a production cost which is passed on to the consumer.

Cheaper solar panels means a cheaper and perhaps inferior quality to meet competition.

Once a solar plant is built it becomes less reliable if the Sun does not shine for one day or more.

There is lots of R and D taking place to reduce pollution from coal power and in time will be perfected.

Coal is 35% efficient as opposed to solar at 15%......Then, as I have said before solar panels have a life span of 25 years and their efficiency drops even further than 15%.

 

[luutzu]

I am really not that much of a fan of Keanu.

From the facetious nature of your response, I can see that you are reluctant to embrace the profound significance of the scientific findings mentioned in the linked article .

I note that you have attempted to make light of that dangerous situation, mentioned earlier, where the safety of people and their domiciles was threatened by a tree, on my land, that I was legally prohibited from removing.

I detest any law that gives the welfare of trees precedence over the welfare of humans.

The existence of such laws is certainly nothing to joke about. Based upon the justifications cited in the council's brochure on canopy trees, I can see that the Carbon Crusade was most certainly responsible for the precipitation of these oppressive laws, giving me yet further reason to view the Carbon Crusade (and the Crusaders eagerly joining its ranks) with the utmost contempt.

You serious about your tree being dangerous?

If the tree is a real threat to you, your family, or even your property... Council will permit you to remove it. I know because I've seen it permitted, and my own father and his friend chop one massive tree in our front yard down - with permission. I remember because while they were pruning the top, a Councillor stopped by and asked if he got a permit.

I did say you should call around right? I've been told by a few arborist that pruning a bit off does not require permission. But if your Council require permission for anything to do with the tree, get an expert report and assessment, prove to them that it's dangerous.

They did tell you it's fine as long as you replace with two smaller ones right?

Get a psychologist's assessment to show that you're losing your sleep over it. They will consider that too.

Just don't go and drop the tree down then tell them it's a dead tree. They might not believe you.

But if you have to go that way... maybe wait for a stormy weekend? I mean it's hard to tell whether the wind blew it down or a bobcat was nearby

Failing that, you can always use your Climate Change argument: Look mate, hundreds of millions of barrels are burnt every day around the world. There's god know how many coal fired power station; rubbish and methane gases from farmland and oxens... and none of that affect the world's climate so how in the heck does me cutting one tree down mean it's cut down? Man have no impact on the environment so whatever it is we do still leave it the same as it was.

It's a tree, it'll grow again.

 

[Ves]

Well, the difference is you are talking about a 350MW solar unit costing $2billion and then increasing the output to 800MW at what extra cost in 4 years?...And what is your estimate of replacing those solar panels after 25 years expected life?....You also know those solar panels will lose a % of their efficiency over their life span.
Solar panels are only 15% efficient in comparison to 35% efficiency of coal.
I made the comparison of 1600MW coal fired power station to cost $5 billion and last for 50 to 60 years.

Total cost isn't important if ROI is greater on the other project. Actually.... if ROI is higher, wouldn't you want to invest more?

For the second time, what's your ROI calculations for both projects?