Climate change another name for Weather

[Calliope]

Thanks. I needed a good laugh - but it's not going to distract me from the fact you haven't put forth any evidence regarding your view that CO2 does not cause climate change. You're starting to sound like one of those god bothering nut jobs as well, which isn't helping your cause.

Praise Jesus

Inane comments like that do not enhance your cause, whatever it is. You are trying to impress your elders, 2020 and Rederob... "look at me - see how smart I am".

You did say once;

They can pin it on CO2 because there is historical evidence of it causing big climate shifts in the past. Global warming is the wrong label for it as well because some parts of the world will actually get colder.

So you think it is not man-made, but a natural phenomenon. So what are you banging on about?

 

[Smurf1976]

Well it looks like the Greens are going to find themselves pretty stretched with all these renewable energy developments here in Tassie. They won't have enough protesters to man all the picket lines and wave the banners...

Musselroe - wind farm planned by the Hydro in NE Tas. Environmentalists have struggled to find anything wrong with it thus far, probably due to the political implications of opposing development in a region with high unemployment following closure of a major timber mill.

Cattle Hill - wind farm privately funded planned for Lake Echo, an existing power generation site (hydro) in operation since 1956. It appears (seriously) there's already a search to find an endangered something or other in the area for obvious reasons.

Gunns Bell Bay - biomass power plant (baseload operation) as part of the proposed pulp mill. Environmentalists have been flat out fighting it for 5 years (with most of their objections relating directly to the power station, not pulp production per se - Tas already having two operating pulp mills which haven't caused much of a fuss). But of course we'd better not have anyone using waste wood to generate power, the very idea first promoted by environmentalists...

Hydro expansion project - another 1000 GWh annual output from various hydro-electric sources is planned. This ought to give the greens something to do for a while...

Geothermal - lots of indications the resource is there and there is private money exploring with, in principle, the idea of developing a significant power station.

Now, if all this gets built then we're going to end up with an integrated hydro / wind / biomass / geothermal system meeting 100% of local demand (net) plus baseload exports to Victoria equivalent (annual generation, not peak power) to half the output of the entire Snowy scheme.

TOLD YOU IT COULD BE DONE. And this is actually planned, not one of Smurf's wild ideas. Integrate geothermal / wind / biomass with hydro and there you have baseload renewable energy cheaper than nuclear and without the risks.

Now just wait for the greens to try and stop key parts of it so it all falls in a heap and we're stuck with fossil fuels...

 

[2020hindsight]

... TOLD YOU IT COULD BE DONE. And this is actually planned, not one of Smurf's wild ideas. Integrate geothermal / wind / biomass with hydro and there you have baseload renewable energy cheaper than nuclear and without the risks ...

Well done smurf -
So are we talking a plan for Tasmania, or Aus wide ?

 

[Smurf1976]

Well done smurf -
So are we talking a plan for Tasmania, or Aus wide ?

We're talking proof of concept that could be implemented for most of the country in the future with actual implementation in Tasmania now.

I won't deny that Tas is absolutely a special situation with energy, we already have 89% renewable energy in the grid (long term average) and for decades had 100%, but nonetheless this is proof of a workable concept if other locations substituted pumped storage for the natural flow hydro used in Tas. And there's plenty of pumped storage sites in NSW especially.

It's more significant in terms of proving that the idea works than actually displacing fossil fuels at this stage. Integrate geothermal, wind, hydro and anything else that's available locally and the individual variabilities can be balanced out to produce baseload power.

This is the key concept that makes an all-hydro system work and it's very well understood by a handfull of people. There's no reason at all why it shouldn't work with geothermal, biomass and a significant percentage of wind added to it just as it already works fine with intermittent (ie unreliable) gas-fired generation and intermittent off-peak power imports added. As long as you have the guaranteed, fast start generation from hydro (or some other source of storage - compressed air, batteries...) then you can handle the variations in everything else without much fuss.

As I've said a few times here, Smurf wants to eventually run the whole country this way. Massive geothermal plants in SA, Qld and wherever else we can make them work. Pumped storage schemes in Qld, NSW. Wind in SA, Vic and Tas. Natural flow hydro and use of biomass everywhere it's available (Qld, NSW, Vic, Tas). And a whole lot of transmission lines plus centralised control to turn all that variability into constant, reliable power. That'll fix energy and CO2 issues for most of Australia and I'm pretty confident we can do it cheaper than the nuclear alternative once all the costs are included.

So I see this situation in Tas as hopefully the first real step in the right direction. Proof that we can integrate renewables and end up with something that works reliably. It won't be running the whole country that's for sure, but overall we'll end up with a system (including existing hydro and wind) that's equivalent in most respects to two large nuclear reactors. But, and here's the point, it will have cost no more to build in today's money than recent overseas experience with nuclear, costs less to keep running than nuclear and there's no toxic legacy.

Now, we're talking about plans here and not things that are physically under construction so there's no certainty of it all happening. But these are actual projects at the stage of development applications, financing or under proper financial scrutiny so it's not just some wild idea.

We could make a proper start on this at the national level simply by building some baseload geothermal plants. Stop blowing money on plasmas, coal and everything else and just take the risk, make that investment as we did a century ago with brown coal and hydro but this time do it with geothermal. We could get a decent % of non-fossil energy just by doing that alone. It'll never happen if we don't make it happen...

 

[2020hindsight]

As I've said a few times here, Smurf wants to eventually run the whole country this way.

Smurf for PM !
thanks btw

 

[2020hindsight]

smurf, you aware that they are gonna have the ability to run the desal in Sydney 24 hrs as necessary, and pump the water back to reservoirs. (there's a bit of concern that the dirt caught in the joints due to unidirectional flow will be dislodged - but surely a short term problem that one)

Hence (I'm thinking) why not have nuclear running full time - pumping uphill by night - and hydro by day (during peaks) - nice way to flatten out the demand.

PS that desal can fill a 6 foot diam pipe with a massive flow rate - we're talking a serious pump here.

 

[Buckeroo]

Was watching a David Attenborough wild life program about the plankton growth every year around Alaska.

He sounded worried because the winter up there was one of the coldest (at the time of making) & it could mean the plankton growth would not be enough to feed the poor sea lions & whales.

Aaargh - the affirmative or negative argument is only used when it suits someone to gain advantage!! Its just another example of the sham this all is.

Cheers

 

[2020hindsight]

Was watching a David Attenborough wild life program about the plankton growth every year around Alaska.

He sounded worried ....

yeah mate ,
he's worried all right

He's worried he's been slow to learn ...
(link to video) :-

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=314744

Sir David Attenborough ..
admitting that , in making his documentaries, he contributed to the problem ....

"what happens next is up to us"
"man himself is now a destructive force"
"we are fortunately flexible, and can change our ways - and must change our ways" etc

 

[Smurf1976]

Hence (I'm thinking) why not have nuclear running full time - pumping uphill by night - and hydro by day (during peaks) - nice way to flatten out the demand.

Without knowing the details, it does seem plausible in theory to do that.

I should explain the reason why I'm so keen in using hydro / pumped storage rather than total reliance on nuclear / geothermal even though the latter is technically possible.

It comes down to cost and reliability. Slow ramp up and ramp down for nuclear, very long transmission lines for geothermal. Both are potential troubles. Contrast that with almost instant starting for hydro plant and relatively shorter transmission lines to suitable sites.

But it comes down to peak capacity. Look at Victoria, for example. Demand stays in the range 4500 - 6500 MW most of the time but it goes as high as 10,000 MW at the peak. It's simply uneconomic to build the 12,000 MW of nuclear / geothermal that would be needed (allowing for maintenance shutdowns etc) and then have half of it sitting there doing nothing most of the time.

The capital cost of such plant is just to high for this. Same with brown coal - that's why we ended up with only 6367 MW (summer rating) of brown coal generation but it supplies most of the power used in Vic. That's the generation, from coal, that we'd substitute with geothermal / nuclear.

But what about the rest? Well at the moment it's gas and hydro in Vic. But in a non-fossil fuel world we'll want to get rid of the gas or at least use gas for something else (eg transport). And Smurf's plan is to run baseload generation (nuclear, geothermal) harder plus build some more hydro to fill the gap.

At the moment in Vic for 2011-12 summer (when all currently planned projects should be completed):

Coal: 6389 MW
Gas : 2183 MW
Hydro: 2187 MW

So roughly 60% coal (baseload), 20% gas (intermediate and peaking), 20% hydro (mostly peaking).

There's not really enough capacity installed in Vic, hence the dependence on supply from other states (NSW, Tas, SA). But you get the picture of how a balance of base, intermediate and peaking generation looks. Coal provides most of the energy (as would geothermal or nuclear) but gas / hydro is a fairly cheap way to add lots of peak capacity that isn't used all the time (and hence contributes relatively little to total generation).

 

[Smurf1976]

And here's what gets me so upset about the Greens.

Always happy to whinge about industry. But never a word is said about that massive source of pollution down here, the one so-called environmentalists advocated in the first place.

http://www.examiner.com.au/news/loc.../ban-them39-call-on-heater-smoke/1571863.aspx

It's the one-eyed stuff I just don't get. Sure, there's a river flowing freely and we're not burning much heating oil these days and in itself that's a good thing. But there's a price being paid and all I'd like to see is that at least acknowledged, rather than repeating the constant "greens were right" mantra that just doesn't match reality.

There's two sides to everything but for some strange reason environmentalists seem to have trouble understanding that. Cut CO2 sure, but then what do we do with the nuclear waste? Burn wood for heat sure, but what about smoke? Shut down some industry OK, but what about the resultant effects overseas?

The downsides are never acknowledged, and that's the problem I have with environmentalists. Right about a lot of things I'd agree, but refusal to acknowledge the negative effects of their ideas doesn't add to credibility.

 

[kgee]

Without knowing the details, it does seem plausible in theory to do that.


But it comes down to peak capacity. Look at Victoria, for example. Demand stays in the range 4500 - 6500 MW most of the time but it goes as high as 10,000 MW at the peak. It's simply uneconomic to build the 12,000 MW of nuclear / geothermal that would be needed (allowing for maintenance shutdowns etc) and then have half of it sitting there doing nothing most of the time.

).

I hope this is a laymans thread... but wouldn't the solution be to intergrate the national power grid so we could have bigger plants running full time...I've heard that there is a lot of new tech in this area where power won't be lost over transmission of long distances?

 

[2020hindsight]

And here's what gets me so upset about the Greens. ..

well - whether you want to argue with the greens or not smurf - climate change is real

btw - How the hell did a bloke named Brown end up leader of the Greens ?

 

[Knobby22]

I hope this is a laymans thread... but wouldn't the solution be to intergrate the national power grid so we could have bigger plants running full time...I've heard that there is a lot of new tech in this area where power won't be lost over transmission of long distances?

Yes, if you run power over long distances you should run DC current rather than AC. This reduces losses substantially. The problem is making DC power and the danger of DC to people, if a fault occurs and you connect you will not be able to disconnect unlike AC which throws you away.

 

[Buckeroo]

well - whether you want to argue with the greens or not smurf - climate change is real

btw - How the hell did a bloke named Brown end up leader of the Greens ?

Like the pun and maybe climate change is real (even though no one really knows the cause) - but what the heck?

The masses are controlled - if by chance some powerful people want everyone to crap at 8:00am in morning because its better for the environment & they don't have to pay penalty rates for waste workers, then they will create a campaign to ensure this happens!

Its all so very easy. Find a whole lot of scientists to agree that its good for your health to crap at 8:00am in the morning, get someone who can make a whole lot of graphs, build a good propaganda machine to stifle negative comments and walla - it all done & dusted.

Whats maybe not so farcical, is I wouldn't be surprised if one day they ban foods that cause flatulence - there goes my Saturday lunch baked beans!

Cheers

 

[Calliope]

Like the pun and maybe climate change is real (even though no one really knows the cause) - but what the heck?

Yeah! What the heck? Everyone knows that climate change is real. That is more or less what gg said in the first post. The argument has been about whether it is our fault even though it has been going on long before we were around.

Various smart people have come and gone on this thread with arguments based on their web surfing that the "The Science" has proved that global warming is coming and that it is caused by CO2 and therefore it has to be our fault.

While they are smart people, I doubt if they are smarter than Ian Plimer. I am sure he has read all the same stuff that they have, and yet he is a denier.

He is also a denier of Creationism. But that is another story.

 

[Timmy]

While they are smart people, I doubt if they are smarter than Ian Plimer. I am sure he has read all the same stuff that they have, and yet he is a denier.

He is also a denier of Creationism. But that is another story.

Denier of creationism? He gets my vote on that score then.

One more test for him, any idea if he is a denier of the moon landings?

 

[Buckeroo]

Yeah! What the heck? Everyone knows that climate change is real. That is more or less what gg said in the first post. The argument has been about whether it is our fault even though it has been going on long before we were around.

Don't you mean, "everyone knows changing whether is real"?

Anyway my point was, can we right now, really hope to change the direction of the argument on whats responsible?

I don't think we can until people either become tied of it or the economic impact starts to affect peoples lives. The affirmative voices have too much power & money at the moment on their side of the argument.

Cheers

 

[2020hindsight]

The masses are controlled - if by chance some powerful people want everyone to crap at 8:00am in morning because its better for the environment & ...

Whats maybe not so farcical, is I wouldn't be surprised if one day they ban foods that cause flatulence - there goes my Saturday lunch baked beans!

Cheers

1. I'm told that it's 8.12am in Switzerland. (+/- 5 minutes, in case it's difficult)
2. Then again , as Peter Ustinov used to say, everything in Switzerland is illegal - unless of course it's compulsory.
cheesr

 

[badger41]

Energy Myths and Realities.

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this link before, but it is a must read to give you a real idea of what the whole energy/climate change debate is about. Not short (7 pages), but some really good detail on the REAL implications of what is being proposed around the world. Brilliant!

www.questar.com/2009_news/UVUSpeech.pdf

or just google the title Energy Myths and Realities.

Cheers, badger

 

[Smurf1976]

I hope this is a laymans thread... but wouldn't the solution be to intergrate the national power grid so we could have bigger plants running full time...I've heard that there is a lot of new tech in this area where power won't be lost over transmission of long distances?

Doing my best to stick to layman's terms as much as possible. But any debate about CO2 is, in the Australian context, substantially a debate about power stations.

As for the grid question, yes certainly if we're going to use energy sources that can't be brought to the cities (oil and gas are pretty easy to transport) then the way to go is to turn that primary energy (wind, geothermal or whatever) into electricity which is then transmitted to where it's needed.

Long distance transmission isn't totally efficient, there are losses, but it's more efficient than most seem to think. We're talking about losses less than 10% in most situations which isn't something that would stop its use.

What we have now is basically some load centres (primarily the cities) each with some power stations within a couple of hundred km near coal mines or other fuel. Plus we have some power stations in or near the cities themselves (most notably in Adelaide and Perth but also elsewhere).

Then we have a grid connecting most of the state to this system plus some links between states. Qld, NSW, Vic, SA are all linked via AC power links. Qld-NSW, Vic-Tas and Vic-SA are also linked by DC links.

DC does have some merits, but the case for it isn't as strong as some seem to believe. Losses across the Tas-Vic DC link go as high as 5.5% of total energy transmitted at full load and it's only 250km. It's not really much better than AC (but connecting Vic-Tas via AC had a lot of other problems so it was done with DC).

Also lots of potential corrosion and environmental issues with DC - avoiding those added 80% to the cost of the Vic-Tas link which is rather significant ($780 million versus $430 million).

So overall, connecting Qld, NSW/ACT, Vic and SA to massive geothermal / nuclear plants and/or dispersed renewable sources via conventional AC transmission lines seems the way to go. The basic system is already there, it just needs some extra lines (admittedly quite a lot of extra lines) to handle some big changes in the locational source of generation. All that's very doable, it's just $.

WA and NT are in a different situation. Yes they could be connected and we could have a truly national grid, but the huge distances and existence of (at present) relatively cheap local means of generation makes it largely pointless. Losses would be pretty large over those distances, capital costs would be high and the benefits would be small. It would only make sense if there wasn't some reasonably economic means of generating power closer to Perth, Darwin and industries in those states - maybe someday but at present there's not a problem.