Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Smurf1976]

Redbank was interesrting because it was one of the newest plants in the country (relatively speaking). It was also relatively small. I thought the bankers would keep it running but it turned out not to be the case. It spent most of this year running at near capacity.

It actually spent most of its (relatively short) life running at full capacity. A true baseload operation, offline only for maintenance really.

There's a big problem brewing in the generation industry in the longer term. Under current circumstances there are few opportunities to build anything new unless you're planning to give money away. Even with currently operating plants, there are quite a few which are viable only until something breaks in a big way. That is, they are profitable on a pure short term cash cost basis, but it wouldn't make sense to invest anything beyond basic maintenance. Once a major overhaul is required, that's it, game over unless the owner isn't seeking much of a return on their investment.

So we've basically got a situation where we're running down capital in the industry. We're heavily reliant on plants that were designed and built by people who have long since retired, and those power stations themselves are in some cases now well past their original design life.

We'll end up with an energy crisis in Australia at some point. The only questions relate to the details of exactly what and when. But we're clearly heading towards it at some point. No amount of investment into transmission and distribution, be it gold plated or not, is of use if you don't have power to transmit and distribute in the first place.

Anyway, we've got another public power station tour running tomorrow, this time at Tarraleah. 76 years (and still very much an ongoing operation) of baseload renewable power generation from that place. But as with most of the industry, I very much doubt it would be financially viable to build it from scratch today.

 

[SmellyTerror]

A little sanctimonious there Weatsop.

'We know climate change will kill poor people..' Unlike prohibitively expensive electricity I suppose.

Uh, well, it's true that climate change will kill poor people. Is it sanctimonious to point that out? Are YOU being sanctimonious to say that expensive electricity will kill poor people? Are we having a sanctimonious-off?

No-one (apart from some crackpot fringe) is suggesting that we end electricity production. Economically, solar is already cheaper than carbon if we factor in the costs of the damage from carbon. "Cheap" electricity is a lie - we're shunting the costs to 50-100 years down the line. We are borrowing, with heavy interest.

You could say that living off your credit card is the only rational way to do it, since everything is free - but eventually it will bite you on the ****.

Not sure why this obvious cost-benefit analysis defies all the people who supposedly hate the "lefties" love of socialism.

You don't get to profit by socialising your debt. Should be obvious, no? Yet that's exactly what "cheap" electricity means.

...not that the economic costs of avoiding the wost of climate change is all that much anyway, as I mentioned earlier.

 

[SmellyTerror]

This large solar plant is frying rare birds which may become extinct, just like those wind farms in Australia.

Where are the Greenies including Ban-ki-Moon...why aren't they screaming from the roof tops.....get rid of those solar plant....we must save the rare birds.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/alte...-solar-power-plant-scorching-birds-140219.htm

Bye-bye birdies. The world’s largest solar power plant that recently opened in the Mojave Desert has a gruesome effect: birds are getting fried to death when they fly near its towers

1. Climate change is largely about *economic* costs. People who want to avoid it are not necessarily tree-hugging greenies. I don't really give a crap about dead birds.

2. Almost anything humans build kills birds. My kitchen window kills birds. This report talks about "dozens". Wow. Dozens. That's world-ending, right there.

Many millions of birds die every year to powerlines, windows, cars, all sorts of stuff.

You've linked to an article that basically says: "Really hot thing can kill critters stupid enough to fly into it: report just in from the Ministry of No-Kidding, Sherlock".

 

[noco]

1. Climate change is largely about *economic* costs. People who want to avoid it are not necessarily tree-hugging greenies. I don't really give a crap about dead birds.

2. Almost anything humans build kills birds. My kitchen window kills birds. This report talks about "dozens". Wow. Dozens. That's world-ending, right there.

Many millions of birds die every year to powerlines, windows, cars, all sorts of stuff.

You've linked to an article that basically says: "Really hot thing can kill critters stupid enough to fly into it: report just in from the Ministry of No-Kidding, Sherlock".

Up in North Queensland a few farmers erected electric barricades to stop the flying foxes from eating the fruits like leeches and Mangoes, the Greenies protested because it was killing the flying foxes and the Government made the farmers dismantle them to appease the bloody Greenies.......OMG you can't kill the flying foxes say the Greenies, which in mind are a menace.....So the flying foxes are all so stupid.

Different story or are they being hypocritical?....they can't have it both ways.

 

[SmellyTerror]

I know this will bring some flack from the lefties being a Bolt report but what he says is correct.

I recommend those critics read the comments at the end.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...their_warming_stupidity_less_money_for_super/

I particularly like this comment :-


Tasco replied to Keith
Fri 07 Nov 14 (01:03pm)

Socialist strategy is always to bankrupt the economy and to over-promise to the sheeple. That way they get a guaranteed share of votes to get re-elected. The problem comes as we see in Europe and USA that when the debt becomes unsustainable they have to rob from the savers until the whole system collapses. The left has a lot to answer for!

Do you not doubt, even for a moment, your own bias, when you link to such god-awful screeds?

ONLY CLIMATE SCIENTISTS EVER LOST INVESTMENT MONEY.

Oh wait...

We get it. The desal plant was a bad idea. GOTCHYA. We know. It was a bad idea. Bolt, you totally picked that one. Desal plants are really expensive, and preparing for lengthy droughts with a facility that costs lots to maintain is ... um.... going to cost lots to maintain.

Mark one up for Bolt!

Now, for the love of god, can we please stop talking about the bloody desal plant?

Do you see what Bolt does?

He rarely even mentions the science. He instead finds his half-dozen pressure points, and hits them over and over and over. He ignores the vast bulk of the science, and keeps on digging at the couple of things that might hint that he's right.

I mean, the article here doesn't even say anything about the science. Flannery said some dumb things, and yes, some cities probably jumped the gun by a decade or two on desal plants. GREAT. So what?

Climate change is still happening.

----
Oh, and that comment has so much wrong with it, I half-suspect it's a parody of a right-wing nutjob.

 

[SmellyTerror]

Up in North Queensland a few farmers erected electric barricades to stop the flying foxes from eating the fruits like leeches and Mangoes, the Greenies protested because it was killing the flying foxes and the Government made the farmers dismantle them to appease the bloody Greenies.......OMG you can't kill the flying foxes say the Greenies, which in mind are a menace.....So the flying foxes are all so stupid.

Different story or are they being hypocritical?....they can't have it both ways.

THE GREENIES are not a hive mind. Some "greenies" are idiots. Some aren't. Some people working on the science of climate change - shock - haven't even heard of the mango-farmers of north Queensland, or their flying-foxes.

I could point out that electric fences that kill flying foxes sound bloody uneconomical, compared with nets. Were they doing it to save money, or just because they like killing bats?

I should also point out that bats carry a lot of diseases, some of which can kill you very dead. Healthy bats don't tend to scratch people, but injured ones lying on the side of the road might.

Without any information other than your own, probably third hand, account, can we be sure it was greenies being idiots, or just someone being cranky about their pet project getting knocked on the head?

Either way, how is this relevant to anything?

 

[noco]

THE GREENIES are not a hive mind. Some "greenies" are idiots. Some aren't. Some people working on the science of climate change - shock - haven't even heard of the mango-farmers of north Queensland, or their flying-foxes.

I could point out that electric fences that kill flying foxes sound bloody uneconomical, compared with nets. Were they doing it to save money, or just because they like killing bats?

I should also point out that bats carry a lot of diseases, some of which can kill you very dead. Healthy bats don't tend to scratch people, but injured ones lying on the side of the road might.

Without any information other than your own, probably third hand, account, can we be sure it was greenies being idiots, or just someone being cranky about their pet project getting knocked on the head?

Either way, how is this relevant to anything?

You obviously have a one sided view.......I am giving some comparisons of how the Greenies love renewable energy irrespective of the fact that wind farms and solar are expensive and only 15% efficient and also the fact that it is killing millions of birds of which they will turn a blind eye to but when it comes to building a new dam to store rain water, the Greenies will put up all the objections in the world as to why a new dam should not be built.

Healthy flying foxes eat plenty of fruit which in turn gives less profit to the farmer.

Your argument in this case does not hold water......dams do!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SmellyTerror]

You obviously have a one sided view.......I am giving some comparisons of how the Greenies love renewable energy irrespective of the fact that wind farms and solar are expensive and only 15% efficient and also the fact that it is killing millions of birds of which they will turn a blind eye to but when it comes to building a new dam to store rain water, the Greenies will put up all the objections in the world as to why a new dam should not be built.

Healthy flying foxes eat plenty of fruit which in turn gives less profit to the farmer.

Your argument in this case does not hold water......dams do!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again, not all greenies are the same person, so they can hold different views. And once again, climate change isn't necessarily about being a greenie - most discussions ignore species loss, and focus on economics and physics. Neither of which are especially left wing.

As I've explained, and you haven't bothered to try refuting, the economics of climate change mean that solar is actually cheaper, even with today's technology, because carbon isn't costing in the damage. Coal power is, in effect, heavily subsidised by future taxpayers - something I would have thought economic rationalists would be against.

And, once again, basically all human activity kills birds. Powerlines kill them right now. Buildings do. We don't get to NOT kill birds. Everything we do will kill birds. But what activity will kill FEWER birds?

If we fail to avoid climate change, that will kill a lot more birds, and make more species extinct, than all the solar power stations in the world. What is more rational (yes, some greenies ARE rational): ignore climate change and see multiple species go extinct, or fight it and - yes - see some birds die as part of our activity to avoid the worst effect (in comparable numbers to pretty much anything we do, anyway), to end up with fewer deaths overall?

Regarding the economics of flying foxes: most people use nets on a small scale, or just grow enough to muscle through the loss. Nets are made from simple materials and don't require power, and I'm not aware of any large-scale use of electric fences to stop bats, even in countries that don't have "political correctness gone mad".

I'm not a mango farmer, but it seems to me the bat-killing electric fence idea has two problems: 1. it seems less cost-effective than nets, being (surely?) vastly more expensive to install, maintain, and run than nets (I'm happy to hear reasons for why it's not, though); and 2. wounded bats represent an actual threat to the health and safety of humans, something that I would have thought your humanist anti-greenie impulses would be against.

Without knowing what actually happened and why decisions were made as they were, you have simply assumed the worst regarding the dreaded greenies.

...and ONCE AGAIN, what some local people who call themselves greenies say or do isn't necessarily representative of the entire green movement. Searching the country for a few examples of greenies being idiots isn't exactly proving anything. There are idiots in any group.

And this is also my problem with Bolt's writings. He puts up poorly sourced third hand accounts with no actual details, waggles his textual eyebrows, and lets the biases of his audience do the rest. Here, you've heard a vague story that basically goes "hur hur, greenies are dumb", and you not only buy into it without hesitation, without needing to know anything much about it at all, you actually seem to think it's convincing enough to use in an argument.

 

[Smurf1976]

The situation in Brazil right now says it all really. They're in drought, serious drought, and the water supply is now failing in some parts of major cities. That's about as bad as things can get really (well, it is until the power runs out too).

Meanwhile, incredible as it sounds, they still keep cutting down trees in the Amazon.

So long as we keep thinking like that as a species, we're doomed really. And no, the solution isn't nuclear power and desalination plants. The solution is to stop wrecking nature in the first place then trying to find workarounds for the mess we've made.

 

[Smurf1976]

but when it comes to building a new dam to store rain water, the Greenies will put up all the objections in the world as to why a new dam should not be built.

From a purely rational perspective, if someone believes that climate change is happening then logically they'd be strongly in favour of increased water storage and, where necessary, tapping of additional catchment areas since that is a very logical response to a changing climate.

Ideologically however, Greens supporting dams is comparable to Liberals supporting unions. It's not impossible, it may well happen someday, bit it's a difficult bridge to cross no matter what the arguments for or against. Hence the desal plants built as a politically acceptable workaround, albeit one that's inferior both economically and environmentally.

 

[burglar]

It actually spent most of its (relatively short) life running at full capacity. A true baseload operation, offline only for maintenance really ...

Cannot convince the landlord that switching lights off won't save the planet.
I tell him that the power station has to shed the power we don't use.
He chooses to "not understand".

I pay his power bill !!! He gives half back to me.







Just weird!

 

[noco]

The situation in Brazil right now says it all really. They're in drought, serious drought, and the water supply is now failing in some parts of major cities. That's about as bad as things can get really (well, it is until the power runs out too).

Meanwhile, incredible as it sounds, they still keep cutting down trees in the Amazon.

So long as we keep thinking like that as a species, we're doomed really. And no, the solution isn't nuclear power and desalination plants. The solution is to stop wrecking nature in the first place then trying to find workarounds for the mess we've made.

And that is what the LNP Government is all about with their direct action plan.....grow more trees and assist industry with ways to cut down pollution.

 

[noco]

From a purely rational perspective, if someone believes that climate change is happening then logically they'd be strongly in favour of increased water storage and, where necessary, tapping of additional catchment areas since that is a very logical response to a changing climate.

Ideologically however, Greens supporting dams is comparable to Liberals supporting unions. It's not impossible, it may well happen someday, bit it's a difficult bridge to cross no matter what the arguments for or against. Hence the desal plants built as a politically acceptable workaround, albeit one that's inferior both economically and environmentally.

Climate change has been going on for thousands of years and trust me in my long life I have seen it many times.

If those three major Labor states had carried out some more research instead of listening to that "NUT" Flannery, there could have been three more dams constructed by now instead of those moth balled desalinization plants costing billions of dollars....typical Green/Labor waste.....and typically Flannery is still pedaling his propaganda.

There are lots of skeptic climate change scientist who are not in agreement with the alarmists...unfortunately they are rarely allowed to voice their opinion and they are more than not drowned out by the media particularly the ABC....The ABC will always entertain alarmists.

Liberals supporting unions?????????????????who in their right mind would support unions today with all the corruption that has been exposed........Unions 100 years ago were essential and did a lot of good until the 50"s and the 60's when communism became rife taking over the unions and the ALP...Unions are now past their use by date and down to something like 15% and yet they have a 50% say in how the Labor Party is run.

 

[SirRumpole]

And that is what the LNP Government is all about with their direct action plan.....grow more trees and assist industry with ways to cut down pollution.

How is paying industry with OUR money to reduce pollution better than taxing their pollution and using the money for clean energy ?

All "Direct Action" does is entrench the coal industry in power generation.

 

[noco]

How is paying industry with OUR money to reduce pollution better than taxing their pollution and using the money for clean energy ?

All "Direct Action" does is entrench the coal industry in power generation.

And the highest Carbon dioxide tax in the world did nothing for the environment but did cost the average working families an extra $550 per year....that was OUR money also.

The Carbon dioxide tax??????????There will be no carbon dioxide tax under the Government I lead....remember?
17 days later Gillard stitched up a deal with Greens just to stay in power.

So what do you say the direct action plan will cost the average family?...any idea?

 

[SmellyTerror]

And the highest Carbon dioxide tax in the world did nothing for the environment but did cost the average working families an extra $550 per year....that was OUR money also.

The Carbon dioxide tax??????????There will be no carbon dioxide tax under the Government I lead....remember?
17 days later Gillard stitched up a deal with Greens just to stay in power.

So what do you say the direct action plan will cost the average family?...any idea?

1. It did reduce our carbon emissions, and families were compensated the entirety of the cost. So in effect it cost THEM nothing. Polluters payed a fee, and that money went to families.

2. What will it cost the average family? Where do you think this government's billions of dollars for direct action come from? The fairies? And who do you think foots the bill 50-100 years from now when coastal infrastructure is going underwater and farming areas have the rain move two districts over?

3.

Julia Gillard's carbon price promise

In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step.

From the Australian. The day before the election.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...907522983?nk=4277fb2f5500c22ed7ca5785f4bb000c

Then people said a price was a tax, so she lied. In other words, if she *hadn't* put in a price, she would have lied, since she promised she would. And when she *did* put in a price, she also lied, since she promised no tax. EITHER WAY she "lied".

At the point that whatever you do is going to be a broken promise, because people choose not to understand what language means - well, that's the worst kind of semantic bull****.

...I also fail to see even remotely the same hammering at Abbott over a multitude of broken promises in his first year.

I don't have a horse in the race - I've voted for Donkey for many years now, and I don't think we've had a decent government or opposition yet this century - but this whole "Juliar" crap really gets my goat.

 

[explod]

SmellyTerror, that last is a truly an excellent post.

Unfortunately most see only what they want to and are not open to change.

 

[overhang]

From the Australian. The day before the election.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...907522983?nk=4277fb2f5500c22ed7ca5785f4bb000c

Then people said a price was a tax, so she lied. In other words, if she *hadn't* put in a price, she would have lied, since she promised she would. And when she *did* put in a price, she also lied, since she promised no tax. EITHER WAY she "lied".

At the point that whatever you do is going to be a broken promise, because people choose not to understand what language means - well, that's the worst kind of semantic bull****.

...I also fail to see even remotely the same hammering at Abbott over a multitude of broken promises in his first year.

I don't have a horse in the race - I've voted for Donkey for many years now, and I don't think we've had a decent government or opposition yet this century - but this whole "Juliar" crap really gets my goat.

SmellyTerror I agree on all your first 2 points there but not point 3. To continuously state she won't introduce a carbon tax during the election campaign and then 24 hours before the election she back flips is quite misleading. How many people actually saw this information before they voted? What about all the people that had postal voted including myself, we were lied to as far as I'm concerned. A carbon tax should have been taken to the electorate, we should have seen the arguments for and against it and been able to vote accordingly in the same way Howard did with the GST. I don't know why Gillard changed her mind but I suspect she knew from all the polling that it wouldn't be possible to win without a minority government and could foresee that the Greens would demand a carbon tax. Hindsight but she would have been so much better off losing that election and then having a crack at Tony in 2013, I don't believe Tony will ever be a popular PM with the public and a strong opposition leader (which Shorten doesn't seem to be) would win comfortably in an election.

 

[SmellyTerror]

SmellyTerror I agree on all your first 2 points there but not point 3. To continuously state she won't introduce a carbon tax during the election campaign and then 24 hours before the election she back flips is quite misleading. How many people actually saw this information before they voted? What about all the people that had postal voted including myself, we were lied to as far as I'm concerned. A carbon tax should have been taken to the electorate, we should have seen the arguments for and against it and been able to vote accordingly in the same way Howard did with the GST.

People forget - it had been discussed at length. I only used that one because it's as clear and unambiguous as it gets. A carbon price was part of Labor's platform for a long time before the election - remember when Turnbull got dumped for trying to side with Labor?

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Pollution_Reduction_Scheme

Gillard's post-Rudd period definitely did talk about an altered form of that scheme. In fact, from the same article: This is the strongest message Ms Gillard has sent about action on carbon pricing.

Strongest. Not first, not "OMG she's sprung it on us". The newspaper isn't explaining what it means, as they would if we'd only just heard about it. The "news" is that she's saying tomorrow's election will give her a mandate for the scheme in the next term.

(And I'd suggest the result, a Labor victory only with the support of the Greens, was about as obvious a mandate as you will EVER get for something like that. LABOR wasn't in government. Labor / Greens were).

The fact that everyone ended up thinking she DID spring it on us is the most blatant example of "spin" as you can find on this planet of earth.

 

[overhang]

People forget - it had been discussed at length. I only used that one because it's as clear and unambiguous as it gets. A carbon price was part of Labor's platform for a long time before the election - remember when Turnbull got dumped for trying to side with Labor?

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Pollution_Reduction_Scheme

Gillard's post-Rudd period definitely did talk about an altered form of that scheme. In fact, from the same article: This is the strongest message Ms Gillard has sent about action on carbon pricing.

Strongest. Not first, not "OMG she's sprung it on us". The newspaper isn't explaining what it means, as they would if we'd only just heard about it. The "news" is that she's saying tomorrow's election will give her a mandate for the scheme in the next term.

(And I'd suggest the result, a Labor victory only with the support of the Greens, was about as obvious a mandate as you will EVER get for something like that. LABOR wasn't in government. Labor / Greens were).

The fact that everyone ended up thinking she DID spring it on us is the most blatant example of "spin" as you can find on this planet of earth.

Why do you think the media asked her several times if she would introduce a carbon tax because as you correctly said Labor had talked about introducing one for some times That was her chance to confirm her agenda but she chose to lie about this and mislead the public. The media had no reason to discuss the merits of a carbon tax because both potential PM's stated they wouldn't introduce one.
So you're saying that the voting public should have been aware that by voting Labor they were also voting for the Greens and there for a carbon tax would be introduced? I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous, I don't believe Labor and the Greens were called a coalition and the Greens actually were able to take 4% from Labor and many suspect that was due to Gillard vowing not to introduce a carbon tax.