Resisting Climate Hysteria

basilio said:

And exactly which world are you living in Weatsop? Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair have absolutely no interest in understanding what scientists are saying. Never have. Never will.

They are willfully ignorant deniers. The bigger issue is that the papers that employ them allow such lying distorted rubbish to be printed.

Click to expand...

Apparently you can tack the word "opinion" to something, and suddenly journalistic standards - and basic integrity - no longer apply.

That linked article from Blair sneered at someone's sign that said "millions will die". Fact is, millions WILL die from climate change. Some almost certainly already have.

Not that it's going to be Armageddon - a few million in a population of billions isn't the end of the world, and Australia's cost will be mostly monetary - but with all the people who will die, and the suffering of their loved ones, Blair's little sneer - from a feller I'm pretty sure actually knows better - has to earn him a nice warm spot in hell.

Weatsop said:

- - has to earn him a nice warm spot in hell.

Click to expand...

Now he's a catholic, that option available to him.

Weatsop said:

Uh, you understand that we ARE locked into 2 degrees now, right? The time frame all the projections run on is "by the end of the century". When they give projections for temperatures, they're talking about what we expect it to be in 2100.

It will now be at least 2 degrees hotter by 2100. We can't stop that.

Click to expand...

No i dont think Logique understands at all, I dont think that denial and understanding are on the same page...the fact that anyone could quote that blog post clearly demonstrates that understanding plays no part in their thinking.

So the interpretation is (IPCC) that we need to get out of fossil fuels by the end of the century. What a load of crap. Every human will be burnt by then.

And Hunt talks about coal cleaning up
Its act, it cannot be done, again crap.

We have to go to windmills, solar panels, wave power and tap volcanoes.

My worm farm cannot survive more than 30c.

NSW springtime bushfires on us again. When are we going to get real.

The earth began as a fireball 5 billion years back. Its supposed to be cooling.

But I'm sure the Rabbit will have an answer tomorrow.

explod said:

So the interpretation is (IPCC) that we need to get out of fossil fuels by the end of the century. What a load of crap. Every human will be burnt by then.

And Hunt talks about coal cleaning up
Its act, it cannot be done, again crap.

We have to go to windmills, solar panels, wave power and tap volcanoes.

My worm farm cannot survive more than 30c.

NSW springtime bush fires on us again. When are we going to get real.

The earth began as a fireball 5 billion years back. Its supposed to be cooling.

But I'm sure the Rabbit will have an answer tomorrow.

Click to expand...

This Global warming crap is the biggest con job I ever seen in my whole life.

The IPPC puts out a tailor made report as requested by the UN....Bank-ki-Moon is a devout Greenie and walks hand in hand with Al Gore who has invested millions of dollars in some 40 companies around the world to cash in on ETS....I wonder how much money the UN Secretary General has invested in Gore's con job?

They are still pushing their barrow on the bad burning of coal and every time you see their propaganda they use old photos of stations pumping out hugh billows of nasty black smoke when in actual fact modern power station have anti pollution units capturing the gases and all you see is an emission of steam....so it can be done and is being done....so why do they tell porkies?

Renewable energy is OK to a point but it is only 15% efficient, it is costly, it cannot stand on its own two feet without Government subsidies where as coal fired power is 35% efficient and much cheaper.....How can you have base load power with the unreliable wind or solar power?

Bush fires have been going on for centuries but you hear more about it today due to media beat up and the stupid people who build their houses in high density bush....they take the risk and get caught.

It has been proven, there has been no global warming for 17 years so what are these alarmist still persisting with such rubbish...there are hundreds of scientist who are skeptics but they are not allowed to voice their opinion.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...hance-of-success/story-e6frg6n6-1227110187635

Rubbish noco. Just a few years back along Belcolm creek at Mount Martha, near where I live, a heat wave hitting 48 degrees took out all the ring tailed possums, never to return after having evolving there over many millions of years.

Recent enquiries, particularly La trobe valley show that coal is exceedingly toxic and health benefits of not using coal is not being factored in.

explod said:

Rubbish noco. Just a few years back along Belcolm creek at Mount Martha, near where I live, a heat wave hitting 48 degrees took out all the ring tailed possums, never to return after having evolving there over many millions of years.

Recent enquiries, particularly La trobe valley show that coal is exceedingly toxic and health benefits of not using coal is not being factored in.

Click to expand...

I believe La Trobe Valley uses brown coal which has always been recognized as dirty coal but the other power stations are now clean and efficient....so please do not use La Trobe Valley as an example for the rest of coal fired power stations....that is being totally deceptive on your part

Mate, I don't what era you have lived in but I can recall horrific heat waves over 70 years ago in south west Queensland and even worse in Western Australia where Marble bar was over 50 c....I am old enough to have been through many extreme heat waves.....horrific storms in Brisbane...drought... floods...you name it.

Bush fires every year emit more CO2 from fossil fuel plus volcanoes than coal fired power stations but nobody wants to talk about it.

But we all have our own opinions and if you like mine.....too bad.

I worked throughout south west Qld in the 60's as a shearer. The difference between there and western victoria where I grew up on a farm, is chalk and cheese. I saw qld go down the tubes when they trucked the sheep out in 68/69.

From 5 generations back when my.GG/Grand Father for survival moved his family from the Irish potatoe plague, my family have been enviorentmental hysterics "if u like".

I do agree it is not just coal. It is expansionism and money making. AND I AM AFRAID NOCO, as u have been around for awhile too, surely you must see, that IT HAS TO bloody STOP.

explod said:

I worked throughout south west Qld in the 60's as a shearer. The difference between there and western victoria where I grew up on a farm, is chalk and cheese. I saw qld go down the tubes when they trucked the sheep out in 68/69.

From 5 generations back when my.GG/Grand Father for survival moved his family from the Irish potatoe plague, my family have been enviorentmental hysterics "if u like".

I do agree it is not just coal. It is expansionism and money making. AND I AM AFRAID NOCO, as u have been around for awhile too, surely you must see, that IT HAS TO bloody STOP.

Click to expand...

I think most agree with you, the issue a lot have, is Australia taking the lead at a huge cost to our economy.

When we represent such a miniscule part of the World stage, we have to be sensible, in our aspirations.

We could have just as much effect on the CO2 emmissions by banning the purchase of any Chinese product.

We could have more effect by just shutting down all our coal mines, but then we wouldn't have enough electricity.

Realistically a global plan has to be enacted, blowing both our feet off and cutting our throats in front of the world, will only make them look at us with a degree of wonderment.IMO

Still it would open up markets for novelty souvenirs "the lost continent" where they sacrificed themselves to turn left, when everyone else turned right.

It may be noble, but it may smack of a degree of arrogance, or stupidity.

Good post Sprawler.

Have we built ourselves into the corner.

Have you read "Back From The Brink " by Peter Andrews, trainer of Melbourne Cup Winner "Rain Lover"

The change we have to make for any sort of real quality of life for our people is great, but so is living basic, off the land. Back to bush parties my friend. Cummoorrn let go.

noco said:

But we all have our own opinions and if you like mine.....too bad.

Click to expand...

One of the things about science is that opinion doesn't really play a part. You can have a different opinion, but that doesn't mean you're right.

What's too bad is people who confuse science and opinion, and still get to vote.

sptrawler said:

When we represent such a miniscule part of the World stage, we have to be sensible, in our aspirations.

Click to expand...

We pollute more, per person, than any country on earth. We are also one of the richest countries in the world, per capita, AND we will be least affected by climate change.

Why should we be asking much poorer people to contribute, when we won't do it ourselves? Why should be so greedy that we'll let poorer countries suffer the effects?

When did we get to be so bloody gutless?

As the biggest polluters, surely any other country who wants to do nothing needs only point to us, just like we point to china. Instead of leading, we're dragging.

And we *don't* need to cut all emissions - coal power can still have a role. The changes we need to make aren't drastic. Look at the actual effect the carbon price had on electricity: it was bugger-all, especially compared with the rapid increases that occurred *before* the price came in. Now sure, that was a half-arsed measure, but all the economic models of a decent effort show it won't cost much at all.

There's a good discussion here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy-advanced.htm

And I especially like this bit (my bold):

For example, a new paper by Johnson and Hope 2012 evaluates the overall cost of carbon emissions via climate change damages, and finds that when these costs are taken into consideration:

• current estimates of the overall costs of carbon emissions (via damage from climate change) are generally too low
• when those costs are taken into account, solar energy is already cheaper than coal, and wind is probably cheaper than natural gas
• by failing to put a price on and reduce carbon emissions, and by continuing to rely on fossil fuels, we are damaging the economy

Click to expand...

Once again, this is a weird disconnect from people of the right. Here we have a large portion of the risks and cost of carbon being nationalised, while the profits remain private. Renewables can't compete because the true cost of carbon is being subsidised heavily by the massive costs to governments and taxpayers down the line.

Price carbon correctly, level the playing field, and let the free market work out what to do next.

noco said:

I believe La Trobe Valley uses brown coal which has always been recognized as dirty coal but the other power stations are now clean and efficient...

Click to expand...

That one's largely an environmentalist and media beat up.

From a chemistry perspective, Latrobe Valley coal is actually pretty good in terms of toxic nasties. It's a lot cleaner than some of the other coal we're using in Australia, and very much cleaner than some of that used overseas.

Where the problem lies is water content, LV coal being two thirds water "as mined". In short, this cuts the efficiency of use, the major power stations in the LV have efficiencies between 27% and 30% roughly, versus mid to high 30's for plant in other states with better coal.

That isn't a design flaw in the Victorian power stations, it's just the reality of having to use a fuel that's two thirds water to start with. If there was a useful amount of better coal in Vic then they'd never have bothered mining all that water. But brown coal's what they've got so there hasn't been any real choice historically.

Vic only developed brown coal in the first place because supply of black coal from NSW was far too unreliable. Same reason why SA developed Leigh Creek mine and the Port Augusta power stations - supply from NSW just wasn't reliable.

Where it gets complex is that brown coal is actually pretty good in some regards. With a bit of processing it's clean enough to cook directly over it - no chance of doing that with most of the coal mined in other states. And it's also low in methane emissions during mining, meaning that its' overall climate impact isn't as bad as looking only at CO2 would suggest - methane emissions adding quite a bit to the impact of black coal and natural gas.

Somewhere I've got an old photo, a photo as in film not digital, taken on a blue sky day in the LV back in 1995. There are 8 stacks visible in that photo, 4 of which are in operation and 4 of which are not. Now, I've shown that photo to a lot of people over the years and I've never had anyone correctly state which stacks are active and which aren't. I'll see if I can find it and scan it. LV power stations are cleaner than is commonly believed.

Weatsop said:

The changes we need to make aren't drastic. Look at the actual effect the carbon price had on electricity: it was bugger-all

Click to expand...

It was in the order of a 100% increase at the wholesale level.

So it's a real problem for manufacturing industry, where a power price rise of that magnitude is very much "game over" economically, but agreed it's not a massive issue at the household level.

Smurf1976 said:

That one's largely an environmentalist and media beat up.

From a chemistry perspective, Latrobe Valley coal is actually pretty good in terms of toxic nasties. It's a lot cleaner than some of the other coal we're using in Australia, and very much cleaner than some of that used overseas.

Click to expand...

Hazelwood Power Station

wiki said:

Hazelwood produces 2.8% of Australia's CO2 emissions and 0.057% of world emissions. The station was listed as the least carbon efficient power station in the OECD in a 2005 report by WWF Australia

Click to expand...

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

That's not a beat up.

Smurf1976 said:

It was in the order of a 100% increase at the wholesale level.

So it's a real problem for manufacturing industry, where a power price rise of that magnitude is very much "game over" economically, but agreed it's not a massive issue at the household level.

Click to expand...

It is a shame people can't understand that concept smurph, most want Australia to be a first world country, with a first world standard of living.

Well they had better get over that concept.lol

So_Cynical said:

That's not a beat up.

Click to expand...

I was responding to a comment relating to toxic pollutants. CO2 is arguably a pollutant, but it's not normally considered to be a toxic one as such.

A "perfectly clean" coal as such, would ideally emit nothing but CO2 when burned. The greater the quantity of other things, such as metals or sulphur, the "dirtier" the coal would normally be considered to be.

Latrobe Valley coal has a lot of water, leading to a substantial gap between HHV (higher heating value) and LHV (lower heating value) and hence higher CO2 emissions than a drier fuel would have. But it's not particularly "dirty" in a chemical sense - it doesn't have anywhere near the levels of toxic nasties that some other coal contains.

That isn't to say that burning brown coal is good for the planet or human health. It's not good. But Latrobe Valley coal is no worse, in terms of its' chemical composition, than a lot of other coal that's used both domestically and overseas.

There's at least one operating power station in Australia with SOx emissions around 10 times that of Hazelwood per unit of output. And that's a completely different plant to the two in the next paragraph. Toxics and CO2 are not directly, or even loosely, correlated in the context of different coal sources being used in different plants.

As for CO2 emissions from Hazelwood, well I think that just about everyone in the power industry knows full well that at the time those "dirtiest plant" claims were made, there were at least two other operating coal-fired plants with lower thermal efficiency (and higher emissions per unit of output) than Hazelwood. So on a per MWh generated basis, Hazelwood doesn't really top the list. It's the scale, it can hit 1700MW if pushed hard, that makes it a standout whereas the others are smaller.

There are also some gas-fired plants with lower thermal efficiency, although actual CO2 from those is lower due to the nature of the fuel itself. But then we've got the issues with coal seam gas and so on with which these plants are of course associated whereas the likes of Hazelwood aren't.

So far as the Latrobe Valley is concerned, Victoria's long term energy future is a big question really. Hazelwood and Yallourn both have a remaining life that's short enough to warrant some high level thought about replacements now given the very long lead time for such projects. But Victorian gas is running out and TasWind has just been scrapped so that narrows the options down a bit.

So_Cynical said:

Hazelwood Power Station



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

That's not a beat up.

Click to expand...

Smurphs answered your point regards Hazelwood.

What i would like to put to you is, what natural device do we have to absorb the sulpher trioxide, nitrous oxides and photo chemical smog that gas generation produces?

You keep freaking out about CO2 but that is one of the only pollutants that promote growth in vegitation.
I'm fully aware that too much isn't good, but at least we know what can absorb it and change it to oxygen.

As some keep saying, a structured reduction, is better than a knee jerk reaction.

Explod has had the only sensible idea, where we all go back to nature.
But not many want to give up the nice things in life, or the morning latte.

King Island is running 100% on wind energy right now.

That's literally 100%, the diesel engines are completely shut down and all load is being supplied from wind. Some surplus wind generation is being dumped into the battery, some is going into the flywheel and what's left is being "burnt off" via the resistor bank (basically a giant electric element, the sole purpose of which is to get rid of surplus power in the system).

Now, we can't run like that all the time, but still it's working out at two thirds wind and solar over 12 months on the island so that's not too bad. It beats being 100% on diesel as used to be the case that's for sure. Cheaper as well as cleaner.

In a technical sense, it's possible to run on 100% wind because if the wind speed drops (which does happen) then:

1. First the flow of power into the resistor is reduced or eliminated.
2. If that's not enough then the flywheel and battery can go from being a load to being a source of generation into the grid very quickly.
3. Smart grid enables direct control of some customer loads to enable a supply and demand match.

And in there's always the diesels when needed, though they don't start instantly hence the importance of the other things.

Whilst this is only a very small "grid" on an island, it nonetheless serves to prove the viability of technology etc. Two thirds wind and solar is possible if you're in a place with a decent wind resource. The problem, of course, is economic - it stacks up versus diesel and allowing for the research benefits but it's an order of magnitude more expensive than electricity from a large coal (or hydro or gas) plant.

sptrawler said:

Smurphs answered your point regards Hazelwood.

What i would like to put to you is, what natural device do we have to absorb the sulpher trioxide, nitrous oxides and photo chemical smog that gas generation produces?

You keep freaking out about CO2 but that is one of the only pollutants that promote growth in vegetation.
I'm fully aware that too much isn't good, but at least we know what can absorb it and change it to oxygen.

Click to expand...

Smurf as usual provided a well thought out and detailed answer, however the Gippsland brown coal "dirty" claims were all about CO2 and not so much other pollutants, the thinking at the time was if you shut down all 3 of the LV plants Australia's GHG emissions (Under Kyoto) would fall by around 10% thus achieving the target at the time.

Sulphur trioxide, nitrous oxides seriously, there are 6 GHG's recognized under Kyoto/IPCC and for 20 years almost nothing of any note has been done re reductions of any of those gases, Methane has been pretty much completely dropped as just to hard to do anything about it, Rudd's soft ETS and Julias CT only focused on CO2, and even that was to much to stomach politically.

I'm not freaking about CO2, never have done...I'm freaking about Noalition denial of the inevitable and the damage that causes.