Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

Rising Sea Levels bas? But what about our grandchildren?

It is certainly good news for one of my grandchildren who runs a business making surfboards.

Droll Callipope.. quite droll.

Sort of hope he is not actually living by the seaside though ? Might get a bit damp.
And I'm not sure how good the surfing will be picking your way through the ruins of sea side cities.
But hey it'll just make it more interesting won't it ?

 

[Calliope]

Droll Callipope.. quite droll.

Sort of hope he is not actually living by the seaside though ? Might get a bit damp.
And I'm not sure how good the surfing will be picking your way through the ruins of sea side cities.
But hey it'll just make it more interesting won't it ?

I think it would be fun. It's a pity you and i won't be around to see it. Grandchildren have all the fun.

 

[basilio]

Interesting to see that being a Conservative doesn't necessarily make you an idiot on Climate Change.

Tony Abbott's government is 'recklessly endangering' the future on climate, says UK chief

Date
July 8, 2014 - 12:51PM


Tony Abbott’s plan to axe the carbon price this week has come in for some withering criticism from his own side of politics, with a former head of the UK’s Conservative Party declaring it to be an “appalling” move that “recklessly” endangers the future.

Lord Deben, who served in Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet and is now chairman of the independent UK Committee on Climate Change, said the Abbott government “appears to be more concerned with advancing its own short-term political interests” than dealing with global warming.

“Australia’s actions are appalling,” Lord Deben said in a statement. “While the 66 countries that account for 88 per cent of global emissions have passed laws to address global warming, Australia is repealing them.”
Coalition MPs celebrate carbon repeal bills passing through the House of Representatives.

Coalition MPs celebrate carbon repeal bills passing through the House of Representatives. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

“Australia’s carbon price was already working. It was reducing emissions without any of the economic damage that people feared.''

"Australia is changing Britain's climate as we are changing yours. It is not just a national matter. We are all in this together and Mr Abbott is recklessly endangering our future, as he is Australia's.”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ys-uk-chief-20140708-zszx4.html#ixzz36sJb8pev

 

[sptrawler]

,

Interesting to see that being a Conservative doesn't necessarily make you an idiot on Climate Change.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ys-uk-chief-20140708-zszx4.html#ixzz36sJb8pev

A quick google and you find Drax Power station in the U.K

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_power_station

They are trying to make a token gesture to clean it up, by importing biomass from the U.S. lol

Fanatics are just as dangerous as deniers, IMO
The world economy is geared to present technologies, to enforce implimentation of new technologies at the cost of existing, will cause a disaster.

This is already being seen, with the reduction of system demand, in our electrical distribution system.
The distribution system is still required for industry, but the shared cost is becoming skewed, as domestic demand falls due to household solar instalations.
However the households with solar, still require the network to supply their power, when their solar output is low, they just aren't paying for it.

The economical and social upheaval, that will occur when petrol engines become defunct, will be unprecedented.
Managing this shift from fossil fuel to renewable energy will be massive, if it isn't structured, it could well end up in a catastrophe.

Imagine the problems in the middle east, when there isn't a market for oil.

Imagine the local problems when an all electric car is viable, no gearbox, no cooling system, no engine.
That is a lot of workshops, coolant suppliers, engine oil, air and fuel filter suppliers not to mention mechanical shops, transmission shops, petrol stations, fuel tankers and drivers, refineries all will lose their jobs.

Tires will last longer due to less weight, government speeding revenues will drop, because it will be easier to intergrate speed limiting to an electric propulsion sytem.

Brake companies will go broke because electrical dynamic braking will be used.

Radiator manufacturers, supliers and fitters will be out of busines.

Yep we really need to rush headlong with a kimikazy aproach, save the planet and cause anarchy.

That's a childlike aproach ,to what the climate change believers say is a serious issue.

Fortunately I believe there are better brains than ours working on this transition.

 

[Knobby22]

I would have thought as a share investor you would not promote such a spurious argument.Disruptive technologies are always occurring. The advent of LED Has caused Australia's incandescent globe factory to close down. Computers have led to the end of typing pools. The problem with solar is the failure of government regulation. The world is moving into 21st Century power technologies and us resisting just means we will be paying the rest of the world to access their knowledge and skills like any 3rd world country. The Usa, India, China and Europe haven't got this blind spot. We are pathetic here.

All we seem to be good at is digging stuff out of the ground and making dodgy art. Other countries put their money into science as a driver of future prosperity while we reduce spending despite our previous success.

 

[Calliope]

,
Fortunately I believe there are better brains than ours working on this transition.

+1. Excellent post SP

 

[orr]

,



Fortunately I believe there are better brains than ours working on this transition.

Good; name the ones in our current Government...?
I'll give you some help, just start with the science minister.

 

[overhang]

Sptrawler that’s a strange argument from a supposed capitalist.
Do you have these same concerns with BHP and the driverless trucks they’re producing that are putting people out of previously very high paying jobs?
Any jobs for that matter that have been automated?
Would have you had concerns when Henry Ford introduced the assembly line and vastly increased efficiency that now took less man-hours to produce the same car which subsequently would result in less jobs available for that workforce to produce the same amount of cars?

Some of your EV car points have merits but whole other industries will be created, cars will still be serviced at the same intervals, battery’s will need replacing and cars will require more electronic engineers to work on them. The battery in the Telsa model S weighs about 550kg so they aren’t light cars by any means which will still put wear on the tyres. But yes from a consumer standpoint an EV car is much more efficient and requires less maintenance. Probably the biggest thing you missed imo is that without the fuel requirements where will the government make up the billions in shortfall from the fuel excise, one would suspect rego’s might be hit a lot harder to compensate this.

I don’t think anyone apart from the greens wants to see an instant transition to EV cars and renewable energy. But some of us don’t want to see this government’s war against renewable energy that they seem to be waging either (this isn’t about the carbon tax). All of what you mentioned is the way of the future, fossil fuels will run out eventually so the sooner we can wean ourselves off our dependency the better.

 

[Smurf1976]

A key point is that practically all previous transitions are to something inherently more efficient or otherwise better.

Steam locomotives to diesel = cheaper to operate and more efficient in every way.

Typewriters to computers = not cheaper but certainly more efficient and versatile and dramatically so.

Whale oil lamps to gas, then incandescent then discharge and low LED lighting = cheaper and better lighting with each step.

But in the case of EV's, with present technology it's actually a step backward in most regards. EV's are less practical than petrol in an operational sense. And compared to cheap oil at $20 per barrel as we used to have, EV's are not a cheaper option.

Much the same with power generation itself. Generating intermittent power from wind at $80 - $100 per MWh is not cheaper or inherently better than generating firm, dispatchable power from coal, gas or hydro at half that cost.

There are exceptions of course, but as a whole intermittent power generation and EV's aren't better as such than firm, cheaper sources of power or vehicles running on high energy density and relatively easy to handle liquid fuels. They have an "advantage" only in the context of business as usual not being able to continue, or in terms of things like CO2 emissions. But then typewriters have a definite advantage over computers in terms of energy use too. And whilst gas lighting is inherently inefficient, a few dim gas lights here and there still used a lot less energy overall than having "night turned into day" by much higher output electric lights.

But we ultimately have to face reality whether we like it or not. 50 years from now Hazelwood and Yallourn power stations will exist only as images, a few pieces of machinery preserved in a museum somewhere and perhaps some kind of monument at the site noting the historical significance of these operations. They sure won't be generating electricity 50 years from now, not a chance of that, and it's unlikely that Loy Yang will be around then either. Meanwhile the Longford gas plant and Bass Strait oil and gas fields will also have been abandoned. So in roughly half a human lifetime, we're going to lose practically the entire present energy supply in Victoria.

Globally it's similar. How long Saudi Arabia can sustain present oil production is anyone's guess, but even their own figures (likely to be somewhat optimistic) give them no more than one human lifetime until it's Most likely, it'll happen a lot sooner than that.

With the exception of hydro, our present energy sources are all relatively short lived in terms of the infrastructure. A coal plant lasts 60 years tops, many closing at half that age. Same for any other fossil fuel power station or nuclear. Wind turbines have a projected lifespan of 25 years. Oil and gas fields deplete in a generation or two and are in due course abandoned. Apart from the largest mines it's the same with coal.

So ultimately, we have to rebuild practically the entire energy infrastructure in due course. The question is with what to replace it, and how to go about an orderly transition? Apart from some hydro schemes, all the present infrastructure has a remaining lifespan of less than one human lifetime.

 

[Smurf1976]

Some of your EV car points have merits but whole other industries will be created, cars will still be serviced at the same intervals

Most current car servicing is related directly to the internal combustion engine itself with EV's requiring dramatically less maintenance.

Looking at the Mitsubishi i-MiEV as an example, after 50,000 km it does indeed require some maintenance. There's a filter in the air-conditioner that needs to be replaced. After 70,000 km it needs some more maintenance - change the brake fluid. Apart from that, it's inspection only unless something actually breaks.

EV's will see the end of most current motor vehicle servicing. At a guess, I'm thinking that selling tyres will be the main form of car servicing so far as EV's are concerned. Eg the car needs new tyres, so the owner takes it in for new tyres and gets them to inspect and service the car while they're at it. They won't be back until they need new tyres once again, since they just don't need a lot of maintenance.

 

[sptrawler]

Great posts Smurph, I don't think a lot of people understand the massive industrial and social disruption, this change is going to cause.

The jobs that will be displaced will be enormous, the cost of electricity/gas will mean living in a 'normal brick,wood,fibro house' will become expensive.

The amount of jobs that will be lost, when the internal combustion car is superceded, will be unprecedented.IMO

I don't know where the taxes will come from to support the displaced workers, Overhangs post shows people aren't really aware of the issues.

Combine this with the demise of power stations, that provide cheap electricity and require workers to run and maintain them, being replaced by high cost generation and minimal workforce.

I hope tourism picks up.

 

[sptrawler]

Good; name the ones in our current Government...?
I'll give you some help, just start with the science minister.

Unlike you, I don't think just because someone is voted in to office makes them a genius. That goes for all sides of politics.

If you believe the answers are going to come from politicians, you must be from middle earth.lol

 

[basilio]

What a mixed bag of observations from Smurf and SP trawler !

Let's cut to chase of Smurfs main point - we have to rebuild our entire energy system in the next 30-50 years and it will have to be largely based on renewable energy sources. If we can't or don't our current industrial society will collapse. It just can't be sustained without the massive current energy input.

In that context arguing that renewable energy will cost more than current coal fired power stations is IMO a very moot point. We have to change - let's work out the most long term cost effective way to do it.

SP is concerned that when we go to EV transport the motor industry will practically collapse and all those jobs will go. My thought is "And exactly why do we need to keep producing an endless streams of cars (mostly for vanity) that cost us an arm a leg to buy, run and service ? " I can understand why car makers want to sell us an endless stream of cars - clearly it's to provide millions of jobs for the proletariat

IMO opinion the inescapable conclusion of facing an energy poor /resource limited future is we have to downsize our society to live within the limits. If we don't we will go in the the same direction as a score of other civilizations that outgrew their resource base.

Extinction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_Towns_(network)
http://www.wri.org/publication/great-balancing-act

 

[basilio]

On a more positive note I just came across a discussion on what is happening with solar power in America. It's worth highlighting the main points

The video is excellent. You get to hear the Tea party and The Greenies singing in unison off the same hymn sheet !!

Coming from a range of highly respected energy analysts, the new Yale Climate Connections “This Is Not Cool” video is powerful, the words and “sound bites” striking:

Solar energy is “a truly disruptive technology.”
…in the past 10 years, “the precipitous drop in the pricing for solar, especially utility grade solar.”
“I’m extremely confident” that solar energy will produce a plurality of the energy, and most likely a majority,” used in the U.S. — more than any other single energy source — “in less than 20 years.”
“That single relationship is going to change — the old model of a generator selling to a customer. The customer’s going to be able to produce their own energy.”
For electric utilities, a future in which “the less electricity you sell, the more money you make.”
“After all, people don’t really want to buy electricity; they want the services that electricity provides.”
“For the first time, we’re going to buy solar for under five cents per kilowatt hour, and that puts solar competitive with wind, competitive with natural gas, competitive with coal, and competitive with nuclear. In fact, it beats them all, and that’s a revolution.”
“…buildings getting their own power on site…meters running backward, generating more electricity than they’re using.”
“…a giant distributed utility…instead of a utility monopoly.”
“The old model’s going to not work anymore.”
“This is what happened with file sharing of music, with Wikipedia, with YouTube, when millions of small players come together and they create the software and the connections, their power overwhelms…It isn’t even a competition .”

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...lution-powerful-insights-from-energy-experts/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnUNnW2DH_M

 

[Smurf1976]

The current situation at Queenstown (Tasmania) is a good if unfortunate illustration of the dilemma we all face.

It's one of the best known mines in Australia for a number of reasons and has been going since 1883. Mention "Queenstown" and most think of the mine and the town as effectively the same, indeed that's a pretty accurate reflection of reality.

But now it's closed. Shut. Gone. Kaput. The news came this week, and with the demise of the mine things are looking about as grim as one can imagine in Queenstown.

Whilst the trigger was a number of safety incidents, resulting in 3 deaths, followed by another more recent rock fall it was always going to close at some point. It's a finite resource and the mine in the "mountain" now extends 600 metres below sea level (1000m below the original surface level). Maybe they'll find more ore, enough to make fixing and re-opening the mine viable, but it can't possibly go on forever. Even if it does manage a revival, at some point the game really is over.

Now leaving Queenstown and heading north you'll find the turn off to Lake Margaret power station. It's not much newer than the mine, the power station being literally 100 years old this year. It still runs the original machines but this "working museum" isn't closing anytime soon that's for sure. With a nice new wooden pipe (to keep it authentic....) built in 2010 it's going to be around for a very long time yet.

Therein lies the difference between renewable and non-renewable resources. The mine can run only as long as there's ore left in the ground to extract. And the clock was ticking on its' eventual demise from the day it opened - even if they do get it going again, at some point it will close forever.

But a hydro power station, on the other hand, has no such limitations. As long as it keeps raining on the notoriously wet West Coast then there's "fuel" to keep those turbines roaring away. If there's still a need for electricity a century from now, then there's no real reason why we can't keep using Lake Margaret as one source of it (albeit a relatively small one). The wood pipe will wear out again by then, but the resource itself isn't going to run out. And we can always cut a few trees (renewable) and do some more fancy woodwork when the need arises.

So today we have a century old power station that's running incredibly well, indeed it's producing more electricity right now than it was originally intended to. 100 years later it still rains and the wheels are still turning. Meanwhile the mine isn't producing anything. One is renewable, the other is finite.

Mt Lyell isn't a fossil fuel mine (primarily copper and gold) but the situation is ultimately where we're headed with coal, oil and gas. Pick an oil field, any oil field, and eventually it stops producing oil. Same with gas. Same with a coal mine. No matter how big it is, it's still a finite resource that eventually runs out.

The question is thus how to deal with a transition. That it must happen at some point is inevitable.

 

[sptrawler]

SP is concerned that when we go to EV transport the motor industry will practically collapse and all those jobs will go. My thought is "And exactly why do we need to keep producing an endless streams of cars (mostly for vanity) that cost us an arm a leg to buy, run and service ? " I can understand why car makers want to sell us an endless stream of cars - clearly it's to provide millions of jobs for the proletariat


IMO opinion the inescapable conclusion of facing an energy poor /resource limited future is we have to downsize our society to live within the limits. If we don't we will go in the the same direction as a score of other civilizations that outgrew their resource base.

Extinction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_Towns_(network)
http://www.wri.org/publication/great-balancing-act

Your point is? Smurph and I, were comenting on the need for a structured transition from established technologies, to make light of the social implications is ridiculous.

Your comment of " And exactly why do we need to keep producing an endless streams of cars (mostly for vanity) that cost us an arm a leg to buy, run and service ?
Is easily answered, because we don't currently have the technology to replace them on mass, and it's too far to walk in Australia.


Yor other observation.
IMO opinion the inescapable conclusion of facing an energy poor /resource limited future is we have to downsize our society to live within the limits. If we don't we will go in the the same direction as a score of other civilizations that outgrew their resource base.

Extinction.

Wow I would never have guessed, thanks for the heads up.

 

[Craton]

Disclaimer: I'm neither pro/con Climate Change and a <rant>

That's the real crux of the issue isn't it?

The transition from the old way of doing things and at the same time, keeping the status quo, so to speak.

Govts'. and certainly the big end of town wouldn't want the change to happen to quickly and probably neither do we. Inter/multi-generational (whatever the word is) change is something that is hard to fathom, let alone stomach but this must be the way forward. Implementation of the change must start sometime and Howard's 20% renewables target by 2020 recognises the fact that change we must and is, inevitable.

I know it, you know it, we all know that change must come, whether we embrace it or not doesn't matter. It's how our govt's going about this transition and the spiralling energy costs that sticks in most people's craw. I'm certain, as most people would be, that if the implementation of renewables was cost neutral to business and consumer alike, there'd be a far more favourable acceptance and a stronger will to change and to change at a faster pace.

Carbon tax, mining and rent resource tax (or whatever it's called) and ETS are simply glossing over the issues and our eyes.

Big biz and The Street, want to cash in on it but we plebs are made to feel there's a more ulturistic reason for change. Playing the guilt card on earth's citizens is morally unjust when it's the bean counting money grabbing, unethical, money hungry power brokers that have created the issues in the first place.

In simplistic terms, we, all of earth's citizens need to take a long hard look at what we are creating, we need to transition from our current culture of neglect. Govt's shoud be taken to task for allowing this current "way of life" to continue, govt's should legislating and taxing the hell out of the big end of town along with their financing partners for creating such degradation of our water ways, oceans, land and environment in the first place.

It's appalling the state of our oceans, the amount of plastic that is in it. The way we farm simply for quick bucks and the quality of the food that is grown and distributed is all geared in the same way, for quick easy profit. Yes, the earth's population is growing and all the associated issues that this issue alone has.

Yes, I do acknowledge we are far more aware of the issues both in macro, micro and individual terms but collectively I see a big disconnect between all tiers of our society. So much so that even here locally, the local council no longer has Green Bin days. It all goes into the same fill citing costs and the stumbling block. Another issue right there, the disparity between the have's on the coastal corridors and the have nots of remote/regional areas.

Surely if we are to address this so called Climate Change issue, we need to address it across all levels and make it equitable, cost neutral or positive and address all aspects in the way we "do" things. Simply putting a price on Carbon and/or having an ETS is simply poppycock and doesn't tackle the real underlining issues.

</rant>

 

[Knobby22]

Excellent points.

 

[sptrawler]

Disclaimer: I'm neither pro/con Climate Change and a <rant>

That's the real crux of the issue isn't it?

The transition from the old way of doing things and at the same time, keeping the status quo, so to speak.>

Absolutely

Govts'. and certainly the big end of town wouldn't want the change to happen to quickly and probably neither do we. Inter/multi-generational (whatever the word is) change is something that is hard to fathom, let alone stomach but this must be the way forward. Implementation of the change must start sometime and Howard's 20% renewables target by 2020 recognises the fact that change we must and is, inevitable.>

Yes Howard was forward thinking and is probably the reason he is seen as our greatest Prime Minister.
No flipping PM's when he was in the big chair.

I know it, you know it, we all know that change must come, whether we embrace it or not doesn't matter. It's how our govt's going about this transition and the spiralling energy costs that sticks in most people's craw. I'm certain, as most people would be, that if the implementation of renewables was cost neutral to business and consumer alike, there'd be a far more favourable acceptance and a stronger will to change and to change at a faster pace.

Carbon tax, mining and rent resource tax (or whatever it's called) and ETS are simply glossing over the issues and our eyes.>

Yes again you have nailed it, we all want renewables, but don't want to become a third world country to achieve it.

Yes, I do acknowledge we are far more aware of the issues both in macro, micro and individual terms but collectively I see a big disconnect between all tiers of our society. So much so that even here locally, the local council no longer has Green Bin days. It all goes into the same fill citing costs and the stumbling block. Another issue right there, the disparity between the have's on the coastal corridors and the have nots of remote/regional areas.

Surely if we are to address this so called Climate Change issue, we need to address it across all levels and make it equitable, cost neutral or positive and address all aspects in the way we "do" things. Simply putting a price on Carbon and/or having an ETS is simply poppycock and doesn't tackle the real underlining issues.

</rant>

You really have nailed it.
I did use a bit of basilio's editing tehnique, but we get the point you were trying to get across.
Thanks for the rant, it had some great points.

 

[Craton]

@Knobby22
@sptrawler

Thanks for the comments.