This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Global Cooling????

Jump to new

Gr8 m8 - I see you agree with me after all
Problem is when a post says two statements - one agreeing and one disagreeing, then you have to weight the relative weight of words for each argument - I figured you had disagreed with me.

By the way if you (in your turn) had read what I said about the farmers "grapes etc" - it was clearly tongue in cheek.

Let's all lighten up here - Only Monty Python has this kind of "Complaints Dept"
 
BTW Bunyip - I have grandfathers and greatgrandfathers who both prospered and went broke on the land - going back to about 1890, so :-
a) you're right - it isnt as if it hasnt happened before, and
b) let's have some sympathy for country folk who are doing it hard - while we argue about whether or not Kyoto has any merit. - and in the end don't do anything.
Do they care less that it's happened before. No
Do either of us argue that mankind aren't doing enough to remedy global warming - No.
I just wish there was some action here.
A single jetplane taking off uses all the oxygen that Sherwood forest makes in an hour - or is it a day. Either way its a one way ticket to disaster in the eyes of thinking people. :bier:
 
Irrespectively of how we treat our planet and if we reduce pollution or increase it, our Sun is going to expand at the end of its life, gobble up our planet for sure and collapse.

Surely, we have few billion years to wipe out ourselves sooner, but we better in parallel with our planet preservation to extend its life until expiry date, look for other places in the universe to live in or to adapt to our requirements.
 

Um, the Greens original goal was to save the franklin river or something like that. That's where they got started, as far as I'm aware. Also they have been anti-nuclear and pro-renewable energy when ever anyone's asked them to take a stance on these issues. Please if I'm wrong supply me with some evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you are talking about international green parties, of which I know very little about (unlikely since you started that paragraph by singling out the Australian Greens, but maybe that was unintentional). If so then it's still a bit of a wild generalisation to suggest that these parties all have the same single goal and stance on energy production. Even here the Greens are a little more flexible in there structure than the major parties, and I only know about the Tasmanian and NT senators/candidates (of whom I've met and they are all certainly well anti-nuclear). Maybe you're state candidates have a different point of view on the matter or something. Please show me what you base your views about the Greens on. Where did you last check?
 
Smurf - what happened to the concept of being proactive. - Of managing things even.
As someone once said "the world would be a much better place if , when Noah was collecting the animals, Man (the self proclaimed "managers" and Lords of Creation) had missed the boat."
I also suspect that we can only get a proper perspective if we've spent a bit of time in the third world, maybe even in Africa on the border of the (galloping) Sahara. My daughter plans to go there for 6 months or a year in an aid project. I just hope she doesn't come back totally heartbroken about the inequalities of human existence.
IMHO, Better to overreact (to this threat- like we did with Y2K) than not to act at all.
And if you say that any action is token at best then, irrespective of whether or not I agreed with you, I would say better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
 

I think we are even being genetically dumbed down, with the use of chemicals in our food and air. Who knows what humanity will become in the future. Thanks to google, I don't need to actually know anything anymore so maybe it's all good. We'll just need to get a google implant. As for thinking, didn't they get rid of that in the 70's?
 
moola said:
Um, the Greens original goal was to save the franklin river or something like that.
Click to expand...

Doh, I couldn't edit it because I posted something else already. I've just realised what you're saying, that by trying to protect the rivers and other unique natural assets they are "opposing large scale renewable energy production". That may be true but your statements are highly misleading. You haven't directly stated that the Australian Greens are pro-nuclear either, but it's implied since that was the topic. You're just as bad as the media in that you're effectivly suggesting that even our own green movement is pro-nuclear.

The only reason that renewable energy production would need to be on a large scale is for the centralisation issue I was talking about earlier. If you can't trust the people and you don't want them to be able to participate in energy production. Centralised energy production is very inefficent. It's a fascist concept, not a democratic one.
 

Sympathy for country folk who are doing it hard?
Nobody on this forum understands better than me what country folks are going through as a result of this drought. Nobody has more sympathy for them than I do.

I grew up on a farming and grazing property in inland Queensland. Throughout my childhood we copped drought after drought after drought.
We'd have one or two good years, then four or five years of drought. Another two or three good years, then several more years of drought. On and on and on, year after year. Carting water for cattle because our dams and our river had gone dry. Mixing molasses and urea and taking it out to the cattle paddocks where it was put in roller drum lickers to give cattle a protein supplement so they had a better chance of surviving on dry pastures that were almost eaten bare and were virtually devoid of protein.
Pulling bogged cattle out of dams that were soupy mud patches. Then having the bloody crows peck the eyes out of some of those cattle that were too weak to stand up once we got them out of the bog. Shooting those that we couldn't get back on their feet.
When I had three weeks holiday from boarding school at the age of 14, spending every day of those three weeks on horseback droving our cattle along a stock route because we didn't have enough grass to keep them on our property.
Mustering cattle and turning them into our paddocks of wheat and sorghum because the crop was so badly drought-affected that it would never produce grain, but would at least provide some much needed feed for the stock.
Having to move cattle all the way from Queensland to agistment at Dubbo in central NSW in 1970, because the Queensland drought was so bad that it was impossible to find agistment for cattle in Queensland.
Shooting baby calves, or killing them by hitting them on the head with the blunt side of an axe, so as to increase the chance of their mothers surviving the drought. (Lactation places an enormous strain on a cow already weakened by drought. The severely restricted amount of protein available to her is used for milk production rather than for maintaining her body weight. Consequently, drought-stricken cows lose weight rapidly and can actually die, as a result of suckling a calf).

Considering all the droughts I went through as a kid, it's surprising that I opted for a career on the land, but I did. Soon as I finished school, home to the land I went. I stayed on the land until my early forties, during which time I copped many more droughts, some of them just as severe as the current one.
A couple of times we bought properties in new areas hundreds of kilometres away, hoping our new location would give us a better run of seasons. But it never did.
Finally my wife and I decided we'd battled droughts long enough. We sold out, bought a hobby farm near a major city, and invested our money into real estate and stocks. Anyway, that's my story of life on the land. It was in many ways an enjoyable life, despite the hardships.
I mention it here not to complain about it. I chose the life and I could have chosen to leave it much sooner than I did. I mention it make the point that drought has always been, and will always be, a normal part of the Australian climate. Another reason I've outlined my life on the land is to give some of you city born and breed folks an insight into what it's really like for country people who are doing it hard because of the weather.
Not only do they have to battle drought, but many of them at the same time have kids away at boarding school at huge cost because secondary education is not available locally)

During my life in the bush I knew many crusty old farmer/grazier types who always claimed that the seasons were getting drier every year. They'd name a creek that always ran 40 years ago, or a waterhole that used to be permanent, and point out that now they were dry. The fact is that it was probably no drier or wetter or hotter or colder than it had been historically.....it just seemed that way after a run of severe drought years.
Hence my comment that the farmers west of Katoomba wouldn't have a clue......they, like the farmers I grew up amongst, would have plenty of theories, but the reality is that they were/are only experiencing the normal climatic extremes that Australia is renowned for.

I don't dismiss the greenhouse effect and its possible adverse effects on our climate. I think it's wise to continue researching it and to take whatever measures we can to combat it. One day we might find out it's not near the problem we thought it was. Or we might find that it's a far more serious problem than we ever imagined. I really don't know. What I do know is that it's naive to suggest that every drought or cyclone or extreme weather event is proof of climate change resulting from the greenhouse effect. While at the same time, we ignore the fact that severe droughts etc have always been part of Australia's climate, and always will be.

Talking of cyclones, below is some information I pulled off the net. The research done by Jonathan Nott suggests that when it comes to cyclones, we 'ain't seen nothin yet'....the cyclones recorded in the last couple of hundred years were only babies.
If there were mega cyclones before European settlement in Australia, it's a fair assumption that there were bigger droughts than any we've experienced so far.
And probably bigger floods as well.

Narration: North Queenslanders beware - a supercyclone, bigger than anything you've seen before, is coming your way. And Cairns may not be able to cope with a cyclone from hell.

Jonathan Nott: Generally Europeans haven't been in north Queensland since the last super cyclone but one is definitely going to occur in the future.

Narration: Cyclones are regular visitors to Cairns. Cyclone Steve hit in 2000 causing extensive damage. It was one of the strongest storms recorded in the area. But this is not the worst that can happen.

Steve was a pup. If a small cyclone can cause this much damage, imagine what a really big cyclone could do. Dr Jonathan Nott from James Cook University at Cairns has been looking into the geological record to figure out how often cyclones hit the North Queensland coast.

Today he's taking me to one of his study sites on Fitzroy Island, just off the coast from Cairns.

Jonathan Nott: Out there is the Great Barrier Reef so the beaches here are not made of sand, they're made of broken coral. This coral shingle is washed onto the beach during storms.

Narration: Cyclones create storm surges and these walls of water push the shingle into ridges at the back of the beach. The bigger the cyclone, the bigger the storm surge, the bigger the shingle ridge it leaves behind.

Jonathan Nott: We have a small ridge here that is deposited by a relatively moderate size cyclone. A ridge behind that what was deposited by an earlier cyclone that was bigger again and then back into the rainforest we have another deposit that was deposited by a very large or very intense cyclone.

Narration: By measuring shingle ridges Jon's been able to build up a 6,000 year history of cyclones in North Queensland. He's found dozens of super cyclones - enormous storms the likes of which have not been seen within historic times.
 
moola said:
Doh, I couldn't edit it because I posted something else already. I've just realised what you're saying, that by trying to protect the rivers and other unique natural assets they are "opposing large scale renewable energy production".
Click to expand...
With regard to the Franklin, the power available from that source and other dams that could be built in the are immediately surrounding it is equivalent to saving about 1,300,000,000 litres of petrol each year in terms of the fossil fuels otherwise used to produce the same power. About 5 million tonnes of brown coal would do the same job.

If you add in other hydro schemes opposed by the Greens (in Tasmania alone) then it comes to about 1,750,000,000 litres of petrol or 6.7 million tonnes of brown coal per annum.

Whether it is wrong or right is not my point. It is a FACT that the Greens position on that issue was to support, in practice, the burning of more fossil fuels. Initially oil, now gas and mostly coal being the alternate power sources actually used.

The amount of renewable energy in the above figures is roughly double that saved by every solar hot water heater in Australia.

It is also a fact that the Greens have opposed the construction of wind farms in Tasmania, the construction of which would have directly displaced coal-fired generation (via Basslink). This was as recently as 2005. "We oppose industrial scale wind farms." In other words, "We oppose any wind farm large enough to make a difference."

If you put wind farms near people then problems are guaranteed. Noise for a start. Visual objection being another. Hence the need for remote "industrial scale" wind farms if it is to be a meaningful source of energy.

As for Basslink itself, the Greens did support it as an alternative to other (renewable) sources of energy. That is, they supported the concept of a link to import brown coal-fired power from Victoria to Tasmania. However, they promptly reversed position when the idea of building wind farms and using the link predominantly to export that power to Victoria was proposed. I am in possession of original letters from the Greens supporting Basslink (1993) whilst their recent position of opposing it is well known.

It is also a fact that Bob Brown proposed building a coal-fired power station in Tasmania, which would necessarily use coal mined from the Douglas-Apsley National Park (there being no other sufficient coal resource in Tas) and dismantling an existing hydro-electric scheme. Other supporters of that idea proposed oil-fired power or relocation of industry to the mainland (in order to use coal-fired power). The plan fell apart when it became known that even most Green voters opposed it.

That was 1995 and the plan was subject to a Commonwealth inquiry that year which came to the conclusion that basically nobody actually supported the plan apart from the proponents themselves. There was an attempt to exclude all local representation from the Inquiry (whatever happened to democracy?) although this was reversed when it was pointed out that the Commonwealth would be in breach of UN regulations if it allowed this to occur.

Regarding the history of the Greens, what is now the Australian Greens was first formed as the United Tasmania Group (UTG) in the early 1970's to oppose hydro-electric development. Nuclear energy was viewed as the realsitic alternative at the time with discussion of a nuclear power station on the NE tip of Tasmania. That plan was unsuccessful and the hydro power station proposed, which is the largest single source of renewable energy in Australia, was built.

The party continued in various forms and a new organisation, The Wilderness Society (TWS) emerged alongside several independent candidates during the Franklin saga. With Bob Brown being elected to the Tasmanian Parliament during that time, they effectively became the world's first Green party to actually have a sitting member in parliament.

Despite Bob's election to parliament, it is worth noting that a referendum on the issue gave majority support to building the dam. With 7 members per electorate at the time (now 5) and a Hare-Clark voting system there is no need for majority support to be elected in Tasmania - it is quite possible with anything much over 10% (though to be fair Bob did do considerably better than this).

What was then The Independents became The Green Independents which became the Tasmanian Greens and ultimately the Australian Greens which exists today.

Since the Frankin issue was settled, the main focus of the Greens has been (1) denying that it was ever needed (a point they have been forced to back down from, though not in those words, in 2005 when the Greens accepted the need for additional fossil fuel power generation to be built as a matter of extreme urgency (ie forget planning processes etc) to overcome shortage). (2) Opposing the forestry industry and (3) promoting tourism.

With regard to forestry, I must point out that wood was seriously promoted as an energy source by environmentalists during the Franklin debate. The words being "put more pressure on the forests" (to take pressure off the rivers). There were various figures around at the time, mostly along the lines that forest "waste" should be burnt for power rather than left to "rot on the forest floor". As was stated at the time, most of this "waste" was naturally occuring and not as a result of logging. That is, there would be a need to enter then untouched forests in order to recover this wood so as to be able to burn it.

It came to the point of one prominant environmentalist going into business manufacturing wood burning heaters. As anyone who has ever visited Launceston during Winter will know, these were an environmental disaster in terms of air pollution. Launceston (population under 100,000) being officially more polluted than Melbourne at the height of wood heater popularity. Launceston still consistently fails to meet national air quality standards, with various studies showing 94-96% of all air pollution in the region comes from domestic wood heaters. Other studies have shown lung damage in children growing up in the area.

With regard to tourism, it is undeniable that promoting tourism is promoting oil consumption. Tourism quite literally means simply moving more people around in more oil-powered aeroplanes, ships and road vehicles. A "tourism dependent economy" is an OIL dependent economy.

The great claim of the Greens, in Tasmania at least, is to have transformed the state's economy from dependence on hydro-electricity to dependence on tourism. That is, to have transformed the economy from dependence on renewable energy to dependence on oil. It may have saved a river, and I am not opposed to that goal in itself, but it is absolutely unsustainable to depend on oil.

I am not opposed to the Greens or their objectives. I spend more time in the bush for recreation than most and I strongly support the objective of conservation. But when it comes to energy, we are stuck with the basic reality that fossil fuels are both limited and polluting. In that context I note the Greens' recent position of calling for an end to tourism subsidies and, wait for it, they are now using the term "clean, green hydro-electricity".

Yes, that's right, the party orignally formed to oppose hydro development is now concerned with the notion that the state is using any source of power other than "clean, green hydro-electricity". Various comments over the past 2 years being to the effect that they don't want what was a 100% hydro-electric grid "tainted" with other forms of power. Hmm...

They have also revisited their position with regards to wood waste. They are opposed to burning it at high temperature with electrostatic precipitators (so no smoke) but are actively avoiding commenting on the question of slow combustion (tar-emitting) heaters.

The pendulum of public opinion seems to be swinging away from "No Dams" as far as I can tell. Water shortages in the mainland cities are becoming real and Queensland has already decided upon a new dam. I expect Sydney will be next to embark on some form of major water infrastructure.

As far as dams for power are concerned, I do think the Greens' not so subtle change in attitude is paving the way for the future. With present technology, the only way to make intermittent sources of energy (wind, solar etc) work is to balance them either through batteries (which means huge amounts of toxic materials, high cost and low efficiency - the problem with distributed generation) or through centralised hydro. The Greens are quite good (far better than Labor or Liberal) on technical matters and I have no doubt whatsoever that they are very much aware of this. Indeed I've had some very technical discussions with various Greens candidates on this and related topics.

I contend that conservation and sustainability are conflicting objectives in many cases. Wild rivers and distributed generation with storage batteries being brilliant as far as conservation is concerned, albeit at high cost in terms of pollution. Big dams being more sustainable, albeit at high cost as far as conservation is concerned.

I contend that this is all somewhat missing the point however. The real problem at the seat of all resource and environmental issues is the concept of unlimited economic growth and the associated notion of continually rising population. If we do not confront that issue then saving one forest, keeping one river wild or even ratifying Kyoto is simply condemning another tree somewhere else to being cut or ensuring the use of some other source of power, which will also pollute in some way, either here or somewhere else.

But "No Dams", "No Mill" or anything else that fits on a trinagle is a lot more electable than "No Children" or "No Growth".
 
I agree Bunyip

Although this year has been the driest here for some years (I am a fertilizer contractor in the WA wheatbelt and my own turnover has been 10% of my average for the last 3 months) there certainly have been drier times in the past.
In the arborial record here there are signs of fairly significant climatic changes. We know the area was only lightly forested before being taken up for farming about 1880, with the largest trees recorded chopped or sawn off about 3 to 4 foot in diameter but in the surviving woodlands there is evidence of trees two and tree times this size that have grown and died in times previous to that.
So while I agree that is in the planets best interest to limit our impacts on climate lets not overreact to every event that comes along.
John
 
I agree with everything in the last two posts - except for the need to do something. Hard to overreact when we're not even acting. Like the one about the two old blokes playing poker machines together "Can't understand why everyone's getting excited about global warming - why don't they just buy an air conditioner?"
Sure there has been statistical scatter in temperature ranges over the years, goes without saying. Standard deviations etc etc. Mawson died during a particularly cold winter. Gotta feeling that when Burke and Wills were wandering around in the NT it was hotter than expected (certainly hotter than they expected).
I think you are saying that the jury is still out on whether the trend in temperatures is upwards. Al Gore is sure convinced. Just by the way - we could all spare a thought to speculate on where we would be now if Al Gore were President - Maybe Aus and USA would be marching together into a brighter greener future in my opinion.
As I said up there somewhere, I hope the next generation forgive us.
 
2020hindsight said:
... Al Gore is sure convinced.
Click to expand...
True I am making some assumptions here. Im assuming for instance that Al Gore at least knows how to spell "potatoes"
Sorry shouldda said up there that I agree with all THREE of the above posts.
 
Hey Bunyip - My Great grandfather settled a coupla hundred miles up the Cooper Ck from where Burke and Wills died - and only about 20 years after that event. Just arrived from Scotland, he had to head out there by bullock dray - couple of months - took his young wife out there - to manage a property. Only aboriginal stockmen. My grandfather was born there - breach birth, and only an aboriginal midwife. No European women for miiiilesss. Still he survived. So did his mother. All good. Aboriginal women know more than they let on. Thereafter as soon as she got pregnant, she headed for Brisbane.
So dont tell me about droughts mate !!!! LOL. (obviously a jest - I accept the fact that you have been through the mill on the subject of droughts). :bier:
 
Just thought I would state the underlying basis of my apparently controversial views on this subject.

1. I believe that global warming is probably real. I've done plenty of study on the theory and done some experiments in the lab. Whilst they're not perfect by any means (pretty hard to simulate an entire planet in a lab...) the results were as expected. Increase the concentration of carbon dioxide and, all other things being equal, the temperature goes up. Very simplified however.

2. I am in principle opposed to the use of nuclear energy derived from conventional fission reactors based on uranium.

They are technically incredibly wasteful of the resource (most of the potential energy being basicallly thrown away as radioactive waste).

We have no plan for long term safe storage of the waste - history shows we're lucky to go 100 years without major disaster or war so how are we going to keep this stuff safe for 100,000 years?

There is no guarantee of absolute safety for any uranium fission reactor. The consequences of an accident being absolutely disastrous. Even the technically safest reactor could be hit by a major earthquake, for example.

3. In principle I am in favour of conservation of the natural environment in general. However, I see sustainability of man's activities, species, natural resources and the planet in general as far more important than preservation of scenery, avoidance of noise or visual pollution etc. The latter are reversible in a moderate timeframe (a point publicly noted by Greens leader Bob Brown in 1995) whereas loss of species, climate damage, resource depletion etc are in practice irreversible.

4. I contend that there is overwhelming evidence that the depletion of conventional oil and gas resources is both serious and a near term problem. Discovery of oil peaked in 1963 and for gas it peaked in the 1970's. Meanwhile consumption soars and substantially exceeds the rate of discovery (oil) and is beginning to overtake it in the case of gas. With the boom in China etc this can only get far worse in an alarmingly short period. I contend that both oil and gas will be seriously depleted resources within the lifetime of a child born today. In the case of oil, I contend that the balance of available evidence points to the peaking of production being imminent at a level not much greater than present rates of production.

5. Whilst I believe the notion of perpetual economic growth to be foolish in the extreme, it is the basis of the entire world financial system and as such is unlikely to end anytime soon (unless forced). It is worth noting that if China achieves a US-style consumption of oil then that alone would double world oil demand. The world would then be using in each 12 month period a quantity of oil equivalent to 6% of all the oil ever produced to date worldwide. In view of discovery trends that is absolutely unsustainable to the point where it is highly unlikely to ever be achieved, not even briefly. There would seem to be a significant possibility of this resulting in military conflict to secure remaining supplies.

6. World food production depends heavily on chemicals and fuel derived from oil and gas. Nitrogen fertilizer, for example, is produced literally from gas and air. Tractors and trucks run on oil and oil is the basis of most agricultural chemicals. Likewise irrigation requires significant energy inputs, commonly sourced from oil or gas. Oil and gas depletion thus ultimately threatens global food supply.

7. On the basis of the above I am absolutely in favour of the development of renewable energy sources even if doing so results in loss of aesthetic values (eg wind farms in scenic areas) or radical alteration of the natural environment (large scale hydro). I hold this view on the basis that localised effects, which are generally reversible (even Bob Brown publicly acknowledges the potential to largely restore rivers used for hydro-electricity in the event that the dams are no longer needed at some point in the future). I see doing damage that takes 100 years to reverse as far less important than the benefits of avoiding the use of oil/gas (irreversible depletion), greenhouse gas emissions (in practice irreversible in a realistic timeframe), the creation of nuclear waste (an absolutely irreversible problem in practice and a dangerous one at that) and the production of fissile (bomb making) materials and their increased availability.

I am thus prepared to accept wind farms along the coast, solar panels on roofs in suburban areas (it truly amazes me that they attract criticism on aesthetic grounds) and the flooding of rivers for hydro-electricity. None of these are ideal, but they are by far the lesser of the evils that are available to us at this present time as far as I am concerned.

In saying this I note that, in the absence of either large scale hydro or some other storage medium (batteries just aren't practical - toxics, cost, scale, use of limited resources, efficiency and durability all being against them), intermittent sources of energy can provide only a portion of electricity demand. For a long term sustainable system, storage is absolutely critical and this is the reason for my stong support of large scale hydro-electricity. Only through integration with hydro does wind or solar become an alternative to coal rather than merely an uneconomic supplement. Hence I think that, in due course, we'll see several new large scale pumped storage schemes built in Qld, NSW/Snowy and Victoria as well as a return to large scale baseload hydro construction in Tasmania. This is still quite some time away however and won't happen until there is overwhelming evidence of the need for action over climate change or fossil fuel depletion.
 
Not necessarily replying to any post in particular, but ....Let's do a George Orwell and see if we can guess what it'll be like in 2050 or worst case 2100. Half as many cars, andeach about half the size maybe? Battery powered? - come home and plug into the grid originating from a few nuclear powerplants and a handful of hydro stations where they get enough rainfall to work - nuclear waste has to be guarded, but that's easier than trying to “turn back the tide” twice a day - air conditioners banned maybe? the wealthy first world no longer allowed to take so much more than their share - (don't we realise that others will suffer from our extravagance). Solar panels on all roofs – especially in Aus – (and lets not forget that only 20 years ago we said these would never be cost effective – I used to import photovoltaic cells in the early 70’s), “thrift” at all levels – now there’s a brave new word for a Brave New World.
 
How about potato powered calculators for the kiddies? Well I must say that this is an insightful thread, I can't really imagine what the future holds. I think that something positive can be done about the situation and while I must agree that about 95% of what smurf is saying is quite spot on, something deep down inside wont let me give up on the idea of actually doing things properly. It has to happen eventually (I hope sooner rather than later). It's certainly true that the REAL issue is not wether we use nuclear power or hydro-electric. There are social forces in place that need to change. And they MUST change eventually, it's impossible to continue on this course. Change will happen wether we like it or not, that's for certain.

So what are the driving forces that are sweeping us in this direction, and what is going to change? As smurf said, the concept of 'unlimited economic growth' is really a big problem, and it's a problem that's programmed into so many sytems to be ignored. Or rather imperceivable. Why can't we get it together to look after out planet right now? Well I'm just going to paste here something I just emailed to a friend earlier today about the subject because I thought I summed it up nicely (and it'll save me some time)...

The only problem with truly safe power sources is that no ones investing any cash or effort into developing them. In fact power companies, mining companies and governments have a vested interest in preventing any attempts to research these technologies, it's in their best interest to repress them. These three forces have virtually limitless resources at the moment so there's not much you can do about it right now. But this can be changed. They do have many powerful allies, since who doesn't like to invest in mining? Alternative energies mean mining shares go down and keep going down as the technology develops further so you're also up against every stock exchange in the world. The knock on effect of this means that you are basically pushing sh_t up hill, since anyone who might invest money isn't going to want to invest money in alternative energy production (maybe a wild generalisation, but you get the gist). That doesn't mean to say that it can't be done and it isn't a viable solution. Not only is it viable but we could replace all energy production with environmentally friendly alternatives in less than twenty years if we cut the crap and got down to work (prove me wrong and I'll let you sh_t in my mouth, maybe it's just my opinion, but I'm fairly certain that it's true). The real issue is removing the resistance that prevents us from being able to save ourselves. This is the REAL issue, the rest is just a smoke screen (no pun intended).

If you don't believe me, think about how long it took the human race to go from the V2 rocket in 1943 (basically our first big cylinder full of rocket fuel that was able to fly straight), to putting an actual human into space in 1961 (and getting him back safely of course). That's an incomprehensible leap in technology. This was during a time of war when nations weren't even working together. They had a tiny fraction of the skills and resources that we have today. I have a lot of faith in the abilities of the human race, when we have to get something done, there's not much I would put past us.

We're in the same situation, we have the basics figured out like the Germans had with the V2. What we don't have is the motivating force to put masses of resources into developing the technology further. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the whole story about environmentally friendly power sources being impractical. I mean the only evidence on the subject that I've seen is in Germany where they have figured out how to supply 1/3 of their power from low environmental impact sources (non-nuclear and non-fossil fuel). They are currently working on building various clean power facilities but it's being funded and managed by members of the population, so it's taking a while. This is what one country can do on it's own with no support from the power companies and only legal support from the government (they made laws to allow people to produce their own power and sell it back into the grid at a reasonable price). Hmmm... now what could be achieved if we actually put some real effort into it?

The only alternative that we are being presented with is Nuclear power. It has a lot of advantages to the mining companies / power companies / governments but the disadvantages are far too horrendous. I mean, if you start leaking nuclear waste into the water table, that's not something you can clean up. You just have to live with a high risk of cancer/deformities/miscarriages/infertility in any place that comes into contact with ground water from that area, pretty much forever. In a global world market that could mean the whole world is effected. You buy items or food from another country that has a broken nuclear plant and that food or the material was grown in the vicinity, then you are going to end up with deadly toxins in you're own environment. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for this kind of poison to 'evaporate' so the problem gets seriously compounded over time. Nuclear power is not viable, unless the people who are running the power plants are extremely aware of their responsibilities to the future generations. But they are corporations, money hungry entities always looking to bypass laws and regulations. It's just a train smash waiting to happen. No member of the environmental movement is even slightly convinced that Nuclear energy is a safe alternative to fossil fuels, the concept was invented by the public relations industry. The same people who sell you your tooth paste and breakfast cereal and incidentally the same people who are paid to come up with the election campaigns.
 
Maybe nuclear energy really is not so bad after all, I found a little flash animation about nuclear waste and how it can be used productively...

http://www.ericblumrich.com/pl_lo.html

For crimes against humanity perhaps, but still, I'm sure the power companies consider it a productive application of their waste materials and they will be doing everything in their power to promote this kind of behavior. Will they ever be tried for that? Can we ever trust the corporations who impose their will upon our feeble governments with this kind of crap? What do you rekon?
 

It's relatively simple to briefly hear in a news bulletin that depleted uranium has been used and I suspect most of us give it not much thought. After all, it's not raining down on us here in Oz and it might not really be happening way over there after all.

This video is a stark reminder of the realities of what "our side" is doing.
And in the name of what really???

Julia
 
Beside all other ideas and improvements simple - use less
Is probably good idea too.
We can suffer a little bit more and run air conditioner on a little bit higher temperature in summer and set heat little bit lower in winter.
Heat sink house climate control is quite popular in Europe, not sure about Australia, but if you don’t hear adds promoting system installation, then chances are that this is not popular yet.

Thicker insulation including double or triple glazed windows should be considered a must.
Metal frame windows and doors should be at least protected from the elements so are not such an energy waster.

As to food, we could eat less too, this way we would not have to produce so much food or maybe not as many people would go hungry if surplus could be distributed.
 
If we're going to reduce emissions then simply signing a piece of paper (Kyoto Protocol) is meaningless. We actually have to stop emitting otherwise it's effectively a cheque drawn on an empty account. Worthless.

Of course, if we're going to stop emitting so much carbon into the atmosphere then we have to stop or at least reduce the things that cause that carbon to be emitted.

Unless you're seriously contemplating building a major power station or investing $millions into technology development, you are stuck with the reality that cars run on fuel produced from oil, the marginal source (that which will be increased or decreased in response to changes in consumption) of electricity practically everywhere (including Tas and NZ) is from fossil fuels and so on.

So what can you do? I suggest the following as things that will both save money and reduce emissions with minimal lifestyle impact.

1. Get an efficient hot water system when yours needs replacing. Solar boosted by gas is generally the most efficient option. Electric heat pumps come next followed by electric boosted solar (unless you're in a very sunny area in which case electric boosted solar will beat the heat pump). Then comes natural gas - not too bad but you can do better.

Conventional electric water heaters cause the emission of more carbon dioxide than running a small car and are thus best avoided. If you must use electricity then at least go off-peak to get better efficiency (and lower emissions) from generation, transmission and distribution. It's still a big polluter however.

2. Use a heat pump (reverse cycle air conditioner) for heating the house. In cooler climates this is the single biggest saving you can possibly make in emissions (when compared to conventional electric heating). My heat pump saves more emissions each year than driving a large 4WD would produce. Natural gas and efficiently burned wood are reasonably good too (as long as the trees are regrown). If you're going to use wood then pellet heaters produce no smoke and burn very clean - a sensible option.

3. If you're in a hot, dry climate (eg Adelaide) then evaporative cooling instead of conventional air-conditioning will work reasonably well and saves 95% of the energy used. It does use some water but even if we had to get the water via desalination using coal-fired electricity it would still be a winner compared to conventional air-conditioning.

That said, since air-conditioning is a good thing for heating there's no real gain in switching to an evaporative system unless you maintain an efficient heating system (gas would make sense if you have evaporative cooling). And it's really only suitable for places like Adelaide - Sydney and Brisbane are far too humid to use evaporative systems.

4. Don't leave appliances on stand-by. Turn them off instead. We're wasting something in the order of the entire output of the Snowy Hydro scheme (though in practice it is power from coal) this way. Is it really so important to save 30 seconds every morning while the computer at work boots up? Not much chance of cutting emissions if we can't wait half a minute...

5. Cars. It's commonly believed that air-conditioners use a lot of fuel. That's true when the car is stuck in traffic but on the highway the air-conditioner will use less fuel than an open window (due to the open window wrecking the car's aerodynamics). Empty roof racks waste fuel too, as do underinflated tyres and carrying junk in the boot (since it adds weight).

On a mild day, simply turning the fan on will use far less fuel (and produce less emissions) than either opening the window or turning on the air-conditioner.

6. Fridges. Your mother was right when she told you to keep the door shut. Apart from heating up the food (risking food poisoning) it's a totally unnecessary waste to leave the door open while making a cup of tea etc.

I have my fridge tilted slightly (some models are designed to do this easily) so the door shuts itself. Of course I would shut it anyway, but having done the same at work is likely saving quite a bit.

7. Lighting. Halogen downlights use far more energy than most people realise. About 60 Watts each once the transformer is included.

I doubt that you would think it reasonable to have 6 x 100 Watt bulbs in the kitchen and yet many use just as much power with 10 or so halogen downlights. It's not as aesthetic (but does that really matter?) but a 2x36 watt fluorescent light will provide better lighting and use a fraction of the energy. And with modern tubes (get the 3000K ones) the light quality will be the same as halogen light rather than bright white. And if you get electronic starters then there will be absolutely NO visible flicker.

And of course with two tubes you'll have to change one, on average, every 7500 hours (since modern tubes last about 15,000 hours). With 10 halogen bulbs you'll be changing a bulb every 200 hours so you're going to an awful lot of inconvenience to pollute. And you say you can't wait for the computer to boot up...

8. You wouldn't try and put 10 litres of petrol in a mower that only holds 1 litre and spill the rest. So why boil 2 litres of water to make a cup of tea with 90% of it remaining in the kettle to go cold (and adding more load to the air-conditioning)? Not a massive polluter but it all adds up.

And you're waiting an extra 2 minutes every time you boil the kettle (but you can't wait for the computer to start or be bothered to turn the TV on at the set...). There's a reason why they put the element right at the bottom of modern kettles - so you only boil as much as you need.

9. Transport of any kind is a big polluter. Buy local where possible, especially fresh food.

10. Generally stop wasting things and put the money saved to good use. Many are happy to spend $2000 a year buying lunch but won't spend the same amount, once, on a solar water heater.

Also stop thinking in purely economic terms. If you have two options that cost about the same, choose the one that is kinder to the planet. And never pay more to pollute.

For those who say that one individual's actions will make no difference I say this. It is the collective sum of our individual actions that is the problem in the first place. Polluting products are made because we buy them. Millions of tonnes of coal are burned in Australia every year so we can leave appliances on standby. Millions more are burned due to our lack of enthusiasm for solar hot water.

They only cut down the trees because you and I are using the wood / paper... Either we take the easy options to reduce emissions now or we end up with no choice but to take the hard ones later on. All things considered, I'm quite happy waiting for the computer to boot up and driving an economical car. Beats climate change and wars for oil...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...