Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Calliope]

Put Australia's Interests First

Aside from heavy job losses and economic meltdown, there would be much to lose environmentally by Australia scaling back mining, minerals processing or heavy industry through overly punitive measures.

Shortfalls in production would be made up quickly by rapidly industrialising nations and rival raw material exporters.

Global production and consumption of Australia's largest export, coal, for example, is increasing. Any fall off in production would be replaced by coal extracted in such nations as Indonesia, Colombia, South Africa and Russia -- often less cleanly than in Queensland.

Giving the planet the benefit of the doubt will require a far more sophisticated, global approach than the asinine "cut Australian emissions by 40 per cent" mantra chanted by Greens leader Bob Brown, who has dealt himself out of the rational debate.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-interests-first/story-e6frg71x-1225812568952

 

[Calliope]

Now that's a Turkey! Merry Xmas

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I have no intention of joining an in depth debate on climate change.....I'll leave that to all you folks who relish a good argument!

One thing I note though, is that Rudd has been pointing to certain extreme weather events recently and claiming they're proof of man made global warming...e.g. the dust storm across Eastern Australia back in September, the recent heatwave, the heatwave and associated bushfires in Victoria earlier this year.

I wonder if Kev will have anything to say about the cold snap currently gripping Europe and the USA (with some US centres setting new records.)
Will the silly bastard come out and tell us this is proof of man made global cooling?
Of course not....it doesn't suit him to think that way so he'll keep his mouth closed and say nothing. This Rudd character is shaping up to be the biggest joke Australia has ever had for a Prime Minister.

I agree, bunyip, I am just back from Copenhagen and it was as has been described , the despicable negotiating the inexplicable.

An old mate with the US delegation got me a pew and believe me Herr Rudd is persona non grata with the movers and shakers in Washington at the moment.

gg

 

[Chris45]

the cold snap currently gripping Europe and the USA (with some US centres setting new records.)

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm

March 5, 2004: Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze, possibly within only a few decades.

The view from orbit clearly shows a long-term decline in the "perennial" Arctic sea ice (the part that remains frozen during the warm summer months). According to a 2002 paper by Josefino Comiso, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, this year-round ice has been retreating since the beginning of the satellite record in 1978 at an average rate of 9% per decade. Studies looking at more recent data peg the rate at 14% per decade, suggesting that the decline of Arctic sea ice is accelerating.

That was published 5 1/2 years ago so I wonder if we're now starting to see the effects of the slowdown of the thermohaline circulation?

 

[darnsmall]

I'm no scientist, but for a theory, a hypotheses, you have to be able to test the your theory, with experiments that prove the theory to be true/law no?

Is there any way to test the impact of man on global warming? And are we in a cooling or warming period? does anyone know when we'll reach the next apex of warming/cooling naturally?

Personally I think the ski fields are getting warmer because I can't ski for as long as I used to when I was a kid. I can remember decent snow well into September...now that only happens in a bumper season. I don't think that proves the globe is warming, just that the conditions for making snow that used to last from Easter to September have changed.

I agree with the idea of a Carbon tax to keep up country a little cleaner/tidier. But it just sounds like a good idea...I'd want a hell of a lot more analysis to go into it first.

Is there such a thing as credible climate change science/biology/chemistry?

 

[Julia]

Personally I think the ski fields are getting warmer because I can't ski for as long as I used to when I was a kid.

I'm sure we can all remember anecdotal instances like this. What I remember is the opposite, i.e. as a kid in NZ I was always into summer clothes in October. Now it's pretty much winter clothing all year round in Christchurch barring the occasional warmish day.

Does anyone think there's any chance of the government negotiating with the Greens re the ETS being re-presented in February? How do the numbers stack up if the Greens and Labor came to an agreement and the Coalition continued to vote against it?

It seems like an impossible alliance philosophically.

 

[wayneL]

FYI:

Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming

Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth’s ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.

In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs – compounds once widely used as refrigerants – and cosmic rays – energy particles originating in outer space – are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions

 

[Knobby22]

FYI:

Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming

The interesting thing about this article is that Qin is predicting cooling for the next 50 years. If cooling does occur over the next 5 years then this will break the present hypothesis as it will be testable. I hope fervantly he is right.

He is really talking about polar warming though. I wouldn't be surprised that even if he is right, that there will be a warming effect from greenhouse gases over the temperate zones. Still the effect may be climate change but completely different to the models espoused at present.

Good find Wayne but I wish to note that it is "peer reviewed". Scientists are people and so have human weaknesses but science still continues. This article was peer reviewed and published showing that scientists really are still about trying to work out how things work and generally have an open mind.

 

[spooly74]

If cooling does occur then this will break the present hypothesis.

The present hypothesis, according to the IPCC, was for specific warming in the first 2-3 decades of this century.
It has been falsified.

Seasons Greetings from a baltic Baile Ãtha Cliath :alcohol:

 

[basilio]

The present hypothesis, according to the IPCC, was for specific warming in the first 2-3 decades of this century.
It has been falsified.

Hang on Spooly we havn't finished the first decade of this century let along the second or third. Do you think it might be a bit premature to bury the current story?

_________________________________________________________________

It will be interesting to see the response to that paper which suggests that cosmic rays and fluorocarbons are the culprits in Global warming. I think there should be a real flurry of checking and replicating the work amongst other scientists.

 

[Purple XS2]

...
Does anyone think there's any chance of the government negotiating with the Greens re the ETS being re-presented in February? How do the numbers stack up if the Greens and Labor came to an agreement and the Coalition continued to vote against it?

ALP + Greens + Xenophon are still short of a senate majority. Fielding (the gift to the nation from the Victorian ALP) obviously would never contemplate anything remotely (shudder) 'Green'. Ditto the Nationals, although funnier things have happened. What if a National senator come to the conclusion that global warming is a threat to his/her constituency?

Otherwise it would need 1 Liberal to cross the senate floor (and of course none the other way).

I'm not so sure that there aren't a couple of ALP senators who wouldn't cross the floor stage right to the opposition side, should it ever seem likely that a Liberal senator would cross stage left. Easy to stick with the party line when it doesn't matter.

It seems like an impossible alliance philosophically.

Greens + ALP? Improbable, at least on those matters of greatest weight to the Greens. Liberal + ALP is a much more compatible match philosophically, just impossible under the rules of the game.

In conclusion: there is almost zero prospect of the current parliament passing an ETS, short of a compete meltdown of coalition party discipline (again, with feeling this time).

Disclosure: I am a greenie.

 

[bunyip]

The list below was sent to me before Copenhagen......presumably all this mob did in fact go, at the expense of the Australian tax payer of course.
And it's a pretty safe bet that they would have flown 'business class', and stayed at five star hotels.

Rudd is throwing money around like a drunken sailor - our money of course, not his.
So far he personally has spent 100 grand a month on overseas travel since he won office.
He reminds me of the principal of the private school my kids attended....every year he headed overseas on a school-funded 'study tour'. Meanwhile, the school fees went up every year by well in excess of the inflation rate.
This clown Rudd is no different.....he's having a high old time touring the world at our expense

Below is a list of the 114 Australians going to Copenhagen. We (you and I) are paying for all their travel, accommodation and meals and we thought Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong were genuine about trying to cut greenhouse gases!
Read on and marvel:
Australia
H.E. Mr. Kevin Michael Rudd Prime Minister
H.E. Ms. Penelope Wong Minister, Climate Change and Water Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water
H.E. Ms. Louise Helen Hand Ambassador for Climate Change Department of Climate Change
Mr. David Fredericks Deputy Chief of Staff Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Mr. Philip Green Oam Senior Policy Adviser, Foreign Affairs Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Mr. Andrew Charlton Senior Adviser Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Mr. Lachlan Harris Senior Press Secretary Prime Minister’s Office Office of Prime Minister
Mr. Scott Dewar Senior Adviser Office of Prime Minister
Ms. Clare Penrose Adviser Office of Prime Minister
Advisor PMO

 

[bunyip]

Here's some more of the list.....I had to divide it into three because the post exceeded the maximum number of words allowed.

Ms. Fiona Sugden Media Adviser Office of Prime Minister
Ms. Lisa French Office of the Prime Minister Office of Prime Minister
Mr. Jeremy Hilman Adviser Office of Prime Minister
Ms. Tarah Barzanji Adviser Office of Prime Minister
Mr. Kate Shaw Executive Secretary Office of Prime Minister
Ms. Gaile Barnes Executive Assistant Office of Prime Minister
Ms. Gordon de Brouwer Deputy Secretary Prime Minister and Cabinet
Mr. Patrick Suckling First Assistant Secretary, International Division Prime Minister and Cabinet
Ms. Rebecca Christie Prime Minister̢۪s Office
Mr. Michael Jones Official Photographer Prime Minister and Cabinet
Mr. Stephan Rudzki
Mr. David Bell Federal Agent Australian Federal Police
Ms. Kym Baillie Australian Federal Police
Mr. David Champion Australian Federal Police
Mr. Matt Jebb Federal Agent Australian Federal Police
Mr. Craig Kendall Federal Agent Australian Federal Police
Mr. Ian Lane Squadron Leader Staff, Officer VIP Operations
Mr. John Olenich Media Adviser / Adviser to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water
Ms. Kristina Hickey Adviser to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water
Mr. Martin Parkinson Secretary Department of Climate Change
Mr. Howard Bamsey Special Envoy for Climate Change Department of Climate Change
Mr. Robert Owen-Jones Assistant Secretary, International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Clare Walsh Assistant Secretary, International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Jenny Elizabeth Wilkinson Policy Advisor Department of Climate Change
Ms. Elizabeth Mary Peak Principal Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change
Ms. Kristin Tilley Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change
Mr. Andrew Ure Acting Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Annemarie Watt Director, Land Sector Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Kushla Munro Director, International Forest Carbon Section International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Kathleen Annette Rowley Director, Strategic and Technical Analysis Department of Climate Change
Ms. Anitra Cowan Assistant Director, Multilateral Negotiations Department of Climate Change
Ms. Sally Truong Assisting Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Jane Wilkinson Assistant Director Department of Climate Change
Ms. Tracey Mackay Assistant Director International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Laura Brown Assistant Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Tracey-Anne Leahey Delegation Manager Department of Climate Change
Ms. Nicola Loffler Senior Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change
Ms. Tamara Curll Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change
Ms. Jessica Allen Legal Support Officer Department of Climate Change

 

[bunyip]

And here's the final part of the list.....impressive eh? And all at our expense - you and me, the Australian taxpayers.
Nice one Kev!


Mr. Sanjiva de Silva Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change
Ms. Gaia Puleston Political Adviser Department of Climate Change
Ms. Penelope Jane Morton Policy Adviser, Multilateral Negotiations (UNFCCC) International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Claire Elizabeth Watt Policy Advisor Department of Climate Change
Ms. Amanda Walker Policy Officer, Multilateral Negotiations Department of Climate Change
Mr. Alan David Lee Policy Adviser, Land Sector Negotiations Department of Climate Change
Ms. Erika Kate Oord Australian Stakeholder Manager Department of Climate Change
Mr. Jahda Kirian Swanborough Communications Manager Ministerial Communication Department of Climate Change
H.E. Mr. Sharyn Minahan Ambassador DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Julia Feeney Director, Climate Change and Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Chester Geoffrey Cunningham Second Secretary DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Germany
Ms. Rachael Virginia Cooper Executive Officer, Climate Change and Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms. Rachael Grivas Executive Officer, Environment Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Moya Elyn Collett Desk officer, Climate Change and Environment Section Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Rob Law Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Robin Davies Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Group Australian Agency for International Development
Ms. Deborah Fulton Director, Policy and Global Environment Australian Agency for International Development
Ms. Katherine Renee Ann Vaughn Policy Advisor, Policy and Global Environment Australian Agency for International Development
Mr. Brian Dawson Policy Adviser Australian Agency for International Development
Mr. Andrew Leigh Clarke Deputy Secretary Department of Resources Development, Western Australia
Mr. Bruce Wilson General Manager, Environment Energy and Environment Division Department of Resources Development, Western Australia
Ms. Jill McCarthy Policy Adviser Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism
Mr. Simon French Policy Adviser Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Mr. Ian Michael Ruscoe Policy Adviser Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Mr. David Walland Acting Superintendent, National Climate Centre Bureau of Meteorology
Mr. Damien Dunn Senior Policy Adviser The Australian Treasury
Ms. Helen Hawka Fuhrman Policy Officer, Renewable Energy Policy and Partnerships
Mr. Scott Vivian Davenport Chief Economics NSW Department of Industry and Investment
Mr. Graham Julian Levitt Policy Manager, Climate Change NSW Department of Industry and Investment
Ms. Kate Jennifer Jones Minister, Climate Change and Sustainability Queensland Government
Mr. Michael William Dart Principal Policy Advisor Office of the Hon. Kate Jones MP Queensland Government
Mr. Matthew Anthony Jamie Skoien Senior Director, Office of Climate Change Queensland Government
Mr. Michael David Rann Premier, South Australia Department of Premier and Cabinet, Southern Australia
Ms. Suzanne Kay Harter Adviser Department of Premier and Cabinet, Southern Australia
Mr. Paul David Flanagan Manager, Communications Government of South Australia
Mr. Timothy William O̢۪Loughlin Deputy Chief Executive, Sustainability and Workforce Management Department of Premier and Cabinet South Australian Government
Ms. Nyla Sarwar M.Sc student Linacre College University of Oxford
Mr. Gavin Jennings Minister, Environment and Climate Change and Innovation, Victorian Government
Ms. Sarah Broadbent Sustainability Adviser
Ms. Rebecca Falkingham Senior Adviser Victoria Government/Office of Climate Change
Mr. Simon Camroux Policy Adviser Energy Supply Association of Australia Limited
Mr. Geoff Lake Adviser Australian Local Government Association Sridhar Ayyalaraju Post Visit Controller DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. Tegan Brink Deputy Visit Controller and Security Liaison Officer Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Melissa Eu Suan Goh Transport Liaison Officer and Consul DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Lauren Henschke Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Maree Fay Accommodation Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Patricia McKinnon Communications Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Eugene Olim Paasport / Baggage Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Belinda Lee Adams
Ms. Jacqui Ashworth Media Liaison Officer Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Patricia Smith Media Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. Martin Bo Jensen Research and Public Diplomatic Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. Mauro Kolobaric Consular Support DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Susan Flanagan Consular Support DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. Stephen Kanaridis IT Support Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. George Reid Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Ashley Wright Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Jodie Littlewood Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. Thomas Millhouse Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. Timothy Whittley Support Staff Driver DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Julia Thomson Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. Donald Frater Chief of Staff to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water
Ms. Jacqui Smith Media Liaison DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. Greg French Senior Legal Advisor, Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Jeremy Hillman

 

[bunyip]

Sent to me by a friend who, like me, thinks Rudd is a lunatic with his ETS ideas.
Thought I'd pass it on for the interest of the forum.....make of it what you will.

Subject: Coal Driven Power Stations and Carbon Dioxide.

This article appeared in the Rockhampton morning Bulletin on 22.12.09. Although I have never ever met the author I was, after some difficulty, able to contact him by phone. He knew of me from my letters to the press. So we palled up over as long phone conversation.

This is an excellent piece for my friends to send to their politicians or to anybody who needs to be educated about Australia's Coal driven power houses.

Terry is now retired and is in excellent health at age 69. Nobody paid him to write the article which was, (to their credit), published by the local press.

Terry told me I could distribute his article as I saw fit.




Written By Terence Cardwell <terrycar@iinet.net.au>


The Editor
The Morning Bulletin.

I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.

Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.



Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.

Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.

And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.

First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers.

The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.

Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.

The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.

As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.

We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia - exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.

The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future.

Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist.

Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.

The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.

The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can pump it back but it cost to do that. (Long Story).



Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.

Based on a average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.

As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.

Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts instead of going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)

We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.

Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.

According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.

To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.

Australia emits 1 percent of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions.

What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?

By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.

Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent.

Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).

Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.

Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.

That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!

For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc.

How ridiculous it that.

The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller business.

T.L. Cardwell


To the Editor I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.



Ronald Kitching
Rockhapmton

QLD

Australia.

 

[Knobby22]

I won't pull apart the article all together but his main point of modern efficient coal power stations maybe true in Queensland but doesn't hold up in Victoria's case.

Our powerstations are very old, very inefficient and also burn brown coal which is also very inefficient. They are probably the most inefficient large generators in the world.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I won't pull apart the article all together but his main point of modern efficient coal power stations maybe true in Queensland but doesn't hold up in Victoria's case.

Our powerstations are very old, very inefficient and also burn brown coal which is also very inefficient. They are probably the most inefficient large generators in the world.

Don't forget the NOx. They don't mention the NOx.

 

[Dowdy]

What they should of done at Copenhagen was agree to fund new technology that would reduce carbon emissions to 0.

All they did was talk alot of crap about reducing emissions to below 1990 levels without actually telling how...

Well, here is my solution and there's no extra tax involved -

Each country should invest a small percentage of their GDP <0.5% into an independent R&D department to invest in developing ultra efficient solar cells and/or cold fusion.

DONE! PROBLEM SOLVED.

 

[Smurf1976]

I won't pull apart the article all together but his main point of modern efficient coal power stations maybe true in Queensland but doesn't hold up in Victoria's case.

Our powerstations are very old, very inefficient and also burn brown coal which is also very inefficient. They are probably the most inefficient large generators in the world.

It's a bit of a complex issue, a few comments as follows:

The conversion of coal (or any other fuel) into electricity can be termed the thermal efficiency of the power station, hereafter simply referred to as "efficiency".

For black coal, oil and natural gas it's pretty straightforward. Burning the fuel releases x amount of heat and what happens after that is a function of the efficiency of the associated boilers, steam turbines / gas turbines / internal combustion engines, alternators and after that transmission.

In that context it's the steam turbines / gas turbines / internal combustion engines where the losses to be worried about happen - everything else is pretty efficient and not much can be done about it anyway.

Brown coal (and biomass) has a major complicating factor and that is water content. For example, some of the coal used in Victoria is up to 70% water as it comes from the ground. Put that into the boilers and the evaporation of this water ends up using a lot of energy, thus reducing the overall efficiency of generation. Go to the Latrobe Valley (Vic) during Winter and you'll see huge plumes of condensed water vapour (which most people would call "steam") coming directly from the stacks. That's water which was contained in the coal and has been evaporated as part of the combustion process.

We're not talking about a few litres here - it's in the order of 4 million litres per hour going up the stacks as steam. That's rather a lot of water - around 35 billion litres a year that was contained in the coal and ends up as steam in the atmosphere.

The problem quite simply is that all this water lowers the efficiency of the boilers as a heat source for the turbines since, unlike other fuels, the boilers are doing two jobs. One is to produce heat, the other is to evaporate water from the coal. The end result is that a 1970's - 1990's brown coal plant ends up 30% efficient versus around 38% for an otherwise identical plant using black coal (or oil or gas). That lower efficiency means you need to put more energy in (from coal) to generate the same volume of power. About 25% more in fact, and that is the source of the higher CO2 emissions.

Apart from needing to use more of it, brown coal isn't a bad fuel as such. It's actually quite "clean" in terms of a lot of non-CO2 pollutants. And if it wasn't for the efficiency, it would be no worse than black coal in terms of CO2 - the inherent inefficiency of using it is the problem, not the fuel itself.

CO2 emmissions intensity from the brown coal power stations in Australia is approximately as follows.

Plant name - nominal capacity - (commissioning dates) - CO2 emissions intensity.

Victoria
Loy Yang B - 1000 MW - (1993 - 1996) - 1.23 tonnes / MWh
Loy Yang A - 2000 MW - (1984 - 1988) - 1.3 tonnes / MWh
Yallourn W - 1450 MW - (1973 - 1981) - 1.37 tonnes / MWh
Anglesea - 160 MW - (1969) - 1.37 tonnes / MWh
Hazelwood - 1600 MW - (1964 - 1971) - 1.47 tonnes / MWh
Morwell - 170 MW - (1958 - 1962) - 1.47 tonnes / MWh

South Australia
Northern - 520 MW - (1985) - 1.13 tonnes / MWh
Thomas Playford B - 240 MW - (1960) - 1.50 tonnes / MWh

Historic (closed) brown coal plants as follows. Dates are operational dates (opened - closed).

Victoria
Yallourn A - 75 MW - (1924 - 1968) - about 2.5 tonnes / MWh
Yallourn B - 100 MW (1938 - mid-1970's*) - about 2.2 tonnes / MWh
Yallourn C - 106 MW (1954 - 1984) - about 1.8 tonnes / MWh
Yallourn D - 100 MW (1958 - 1986) - about 1.8 tonnes / MWh
Yallourn E - 240 MW (1962 - 1988) - about 1.5 tonnes / MWh

*Turbines and alternators, but not the boilers, were retained for some years as backup for operation with the remainging power station boiers. Yallourn A - E was effectively the one plant, built progressively over the years with the buildings connected to each other.

Brown coal briquettes were also used at the old Newport A , Newport B (closed 1980) and Richmond (closed late 1970's) power stations in suburban Melbourne. These were built at a time (1910's - 1950's) of fuel scarcity and over the years burnt black coal, brown coal, wood, oil and anything else the SECV could get its hands on at the time. Brown coal briquettes were orignally produced at Yallourn and later at Morwell (but still using coal from Yallourn mine).

The Spencer Street (closed 1983) and Newport C (closed 1980) plants in Melbourne were oil-fired.

South Australia
Thomas Playford A - 90 MW - (1954 - 1989) - about 1.8 tonnes / MWh

Brown coal was also used to some extent at Osborne A (about 90 MW, closed 1968) and especially Osborne B (240 MW, closed 1990) power stations in suburban Adelaide. These plants, like those in Melbourne, suffered fuel shortages over the years and burnt a variety of fuels including black coal (the intended fuel), brown coal, oil and later natural gas.

It was the lack of black coal, due to persistent strikes in NSW, that largely prompted the development of the Victorian and SA brown coal industries in the first place. The alternative at the time was, quite literally, sitting in the dark.

To put all those figures into perspective, a typical black coal-fired plant (1970's - 1990's) in NSW or Qld, and they were very efficient plants by world standards when built, produces around 0.9 tonnes per MWh. Even for the worst, it's still only around 1.1 tonnes per MWh but for the majority it's 0.9 or less.

For a new black coal-fired supercritical plant, such as Tarong North or Callide C in Queensland, these figures can be reduced down to around 0.8 tonnes / MWh.

In theory we could do a lot better with brown coal too. Use it in an integrated gasification plant and it becomes a pretty good, efficient fuel. How clean depends on the actual technology, but we're talking 0.85 tonnes / MWh or less.

But here's the problem - to operate the existing plant at Hazelwood costs around $3 per MWh generated or $30 million a year (at 75% capacity factor) for the marginal costs. Even if you include the costs of building a mine in the first place (ie the price the coal would cost from a new mine rather than its production cost from an already developed mine), it's still only $75 million a year or thereabouts.

Just building a new power station of the same size as Hazelwood using old technology (equivalent to Loy Yang) would cost upwards of $2.5 billion in order to cut maybe $10 million a year in operating costs. $10 million isn't a profitable return on a $2500 million investment... And it gets even worse financially to go high tech given that capital cost, not operation, accounts for the vast majority of total generation cost.

So that's the real problem economically. Until they are completely worn out, it's incredibly cheap to just keep running the existing brown coal plants. That is to the point that compared to the newer plants (Loy Yang) even hydro, which is the ultimate in low running cost generation, struggles to compete. Literally free water, even during a flood, is barely competitive against the highly mechanised brown coal operations!. Brown coal is a very, very cheap fuel.

 

[noco]

For years now we have had GLOBAL WARMING rammed down our necks from daylight to dark, particularly by Rudd and Wong who believed in fraudulent modelling by dishonest scientists around the world. No matter what some 37,400 honest scientists proved them to be wrong, no matter what was revealed by CLIMATE GATE, no matter how Copenhagen became the dudd of the century, Rudd and Wong still believe in GLOBAL WARMING; many now call it CLIMATE CHANGE because it has been proven time and time again that the Globe is actually cooling.

Even as late as yesterday, Rudd was still sprouting about his children and his grandchildren missing out on seeing the Great Barrier Reef because it will be gone in a matter of a few years. Professor Peter Ridd from James Cook University in Townsville has studied the the reef for 25 years and has recently stated "it is bloody beautiful shape".

Adelaide has a heat wave of 40c for a couple of days and Rudd pushes his claim it is the result of GLOBAL WARMING.A day or two later Adelaide had a maximum temperature of 23c. The silence was deafening.

Whether its drought, floods, fire, cyclones, snow blizards or hail storms, Rudd and Wong will come out and try to substantiate claim of GLOBAL WARMING or CLIMATE CHANGE which ever suits them.

The ALARMIST will tell us if you are a CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTIC, you are a "DO NOTHING" and you are going let the world be destroyed.

Now I believe in CLIMATE CHANGE which is caused by natural phenomenons such as the SUN and and associated elements created by the Sun.

I do not believe in CLIMATE CHANGE being caused by CO2 emissions and the introduction of a massive ETS or CPRS tax on everything we buy or use will reduce these CO2 emissions.

If the Alarmist accuse me of being a CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTIC are they insinuating that I do not believe in Climate change?

So am I a CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTIC, a DENIER or a BELIEVER?????????