Resisting Climate Hysteria

explod said:

whenever global warming is touched on

It is as if one can make it go away out of a fear that it is correct and by apposing it one can stop its existence.

Click to expand...

Today's New York times, a lot more nefarious activity exposed by oil and coal buying Republicans. It's a fairly lengthy read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Nobel Laureate and Former US Secretary of Energy, Dr Steven Chu addresses the National Press Club in Canberra on energy policy.

This was an interesting talk, a highlight for me was his idea that a carbon tax could be de politicised by simply passing on all/most of the money raised directly to the tax payers, suggesting that a carbon tax distribution could be added to the household power bill.

Then simply let the generation and polluting industry's adjust slowly as the tax is increases by small amounts every year...starting small and ending big over a 25 or 30 year period...this would result in a slow switch to less carbon intense operations and generation.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/national-press-club/

So_Cynical said:

Nobel Laureate and Former US Secretary of Energy, Dr Steven Chu addresses the National Press Club in Canberra on energy policy.

This was an interesting talk, a highlight for me was his idea that a carbon tax could be de politicised by simply passing on all/most of the money raised directly to the tax payers, suggesting that a carbon tax distribution could be added to the household power bill.

Then simply let the generation and polluting industry's adjust slowly as the tax is increases by small amounts every year...starting small and ending big over a 25 or 30 year period...this would result in a slow switch to less carbon intense operations and generation.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/national-press-club/

Click to expand...

That idea has much merit. It just sends a price signal to the marketplace that carbon based energy will be progressively dearer and then redistributes all raised funds to citizens on a prorata basis

If you are a careful energy user you can easily come out ahead. If you are not so careful -- you won't .

Ironically the idea has been proposed by many people including Climate Scientist James Hansen
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...es-hansen-climate-change-carbon-tax/17317173/

Well worth listening to his story

Seems like a reasonable idea as such.

Just as long as there's no loopholes in the name of "globalisation" and therein lies the problem. It won't work if the tax doesn't apply equally to Australia, US, Russia, Iran and so on. Easy in one country, probably doable in the context of the OECD, a bit harder in the context of the likes of Russia and China. Leave a loophole, and emissions simply migrate from a taxing country to an untaxed one.

Smurf1976 said:

Seems like a reasonable idea as such.

Just as long as there's no loopholes in the name of "globalisation" and therein lies the problem. It won't work if the tax doesn't apply equally to Australia, US, Russia, Iran and so on. Easy in one country, probably doable in the context of the OECD, a bit harder in the context of the likes of Russia and China. Leave a loophole, and emissions simply migrate from a taxing country to an untaxed one.

Click to expand...

One can use border tax adjustments on import from countries that don't apply a carbon tax.

Get the USA China EU to agree on the rate of tax, and agree on border adjustment tax rates and pretty much there's not much of the global markets left in which to get a free kick from not applying a carbon tax. You'd be losing out on revenue.

Border adjustment taxes are also WTO compliant.

All it takes is enough countries agreeing to a particular framework and the rest basically have to fall in line or face market access restrictions.

So_Cynical said:

Nobel Laureate and Former US Secretary of Energy, Dr Steven Chu addresses the National Press Club in Canberra on energy policy.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/national-press-club/

Click to expand...

The take home from Prof Chu was new build power supply contracts for wind and Gas power in the US today with their gas price at $4/ mill BTU are level pegging. If only they could of cut to McFarlane's face at that point. And Every Fossil Energy Major is factoring in a future pollution cost of CO2, re his High Court comments. I'll go back and listen again, did I hear $60/tonne by 2035 ?

And in the Q and A, SKY news always there for comic relief... on this occasion with the dunce cap.

sydboy007 said:

One can use border tax adjustments on import from countries that don't apply a carbon tax.

Click to expand...

I wonder how that applies in practice?

Eg a manufacturer uses components from a global supplier, actual country of origin unknown or variable. And the raw materials going into those components are also from various sources and variable or uncertain.

How do you work out what rate of tax to apply? And who gets the money, noting that nobody is sure who incurred the costs in the first place?

I'm trying to get my mind around how this would be implemented in practice given that nobody really knows what is going where these days?

Queensland is a safe haven from climate change, where sea levels will not rise it seems:

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/seeney-writes-off-tide-rises/2481884/?ref=hs

And another one goes....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-...orrens-island-power-plant-jobs-threat/5958604

Swanbank E (Qld) 385MW mothballed, Bell Bay (Tas) 240 MW permanently closed, now it's Torrens Island A (SA) 480 MW to be mothballed in 2017.

There's no future in gas-fired generation it seems, which leaves coal and renewables as the means of powering Australia (a point Smurf has been making for years.... ).

What next? Well I suspect that there's going to be a decent gas-fired plant for sale fairly soon for relocation. That is, physically pull it down and relocate somewhere else (likely outside Australia). The idea is certainly being evaluated. No comment as to which plant, but it's not one of the above.

Meanwhile Pelican Point (SA) generally only operates at half capacity these days and Newport D (Vic) is idle most of the time as are many others. Both are gas-fired stations.

The amazing thing is that until very recently, government was still pinning its' hopes on a gas-fired future for Australian energy. The Qld LNG plants ensured that didn't happen. Better hope that Hazelwood, Yallourn and other coal burners keep going or we'll literally be sitting in the dark.

Smurf1976 said:

And another one goes....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-...orrens-island-power-plant-jobs-threat/5958604

Swanbank E (Qld) 385MW mothballed, Bell Bay (Tas) 240 MW permanently closed, now it's Torrens Island A (SA) 480 MW to be mothballed in 2017.

There's no future in gas-fired generation it seems, which leaves coal and renewables as the means of powering Australia (a point Smurf has been making for years.... ).

What next? Well I suspect that there's going to be a decent gas-fired plant for sale fairly soon for relocation. That is, physically pull it down and relocate somewhere else (likely outside Australia). The idea is certainly being evaluated. No comment as to which plant, but it's not one of the above.

Meanwhile Pelican Point (SA) generally only operates at half capacity these days and Newport D (Vic) is idle most of the time as are many others. Both are gas-fired stations.

The amazing thing is that until very recently, government was still pinning its' hopes on a gas-fired future for Australian energy. The Qld LNG plants ensured that didn't happen. Better hope that Hazelwood, Yallourn and other coal burners keep going or we'll literally be sitting in the dark.

Click to expand...

If the coal plants fail, do they then recommission the gas burners, are they then economically viable ?

A whole week without a red neck denial comment...200 million must have scared them away.

So_Cynical said:

A whole week without a red neck denial comment...200 million must have scared them away.

Click to expand...

If the SE Asian countries, jump on board with Fiji, you will have more to worry about than global warming.lol

So_Cynical said:

A whole week without a red neck denial comment...200 million must have scared them away.

Click to expand...

With his estimated wealth exceeding $200 million, Albert Arnold Gore has come a long way from the time he began a career in government politics. But it hasn’t all been a green path. He can thank some earlier events for paving over muddy ground, a time when his father, Al Gore Sr. met Occidental Petroleum’s CEO Armand Hammer at a cattle auction in the 1940s.

Click to expand...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/21/the-greening-of-gores-bank-account/

Yep, 200 million reasons all right.

So_Cynical said:

A whole week without a red neck denial comment...200 million must have scared them away.

Click to expand...

Who are these rednecks you keep banging on about?

This is a redneck;

macca said:

If the coal plants fail, do they then recommission the gas burners, are they then economically viable ?

Click to expand...

Potentially yes, but it's not straightforward due to a number of issues.

It's very doable to maintain a non-operating power station either "mothballed" or "ready to go" if you're willing to spend the money to do so and it has been done in the past.

But if you've got a non-operating plant, then for how long are you willing to keep enough staff available, keep maintaining the plant, keep the transmission lines in good order and so on? You're spending money "just in case" you want to run it at a future time. It's a bit like having a car in the garage that you don't drive - do you keep paying rego and insurance, servicing the car changing fluids etc, replacing the battery when it wears out and so on even though you have no plans to drive the car?

If left long enough, then inevitably problems arise. Eg is the gas industry going to maintain sufficient capacity to supply power stations which may never run again? Yes in the short term, the pipelines etc are already there, but what happens when something "big" needs doing? Is anyone going to build a new pipeline into Adelaide "just in case" Torrens Island returns to full capacity? Possible but most likely they won't. A point comes where, if you aren't using something, the capability to use it goes away by natural attrition unless a conscious decision is made to keep it all operational.

It's the same with any power station. Eg Morwell (Vic, coal) is idle at the moment and they've stopped employing sufficient staff to do anything more than basic care and maintenance. Even if there's a desperate need for electricity, it would take some time to employ and train staff, do a thorough maintenance on the plant and so on.

So the gas-fired stations could return to operation if we're talking about a few years time. But a point comes where it becomes incredibly unlikely that it would actually happen. How long do you keep spending $ to have something available which you aren't using? 5 years OK,but you're not likely to do it for 50 years. Somewhere along that way, it changes from "mothballed" to "permanently decommissioned" after which physical dismantling is the usual outcome.

At a guess, Torrens Island A will be maintained "able to run at a few months notice" or similar until there's more certainty either way. That is, they'll keep it until such time as it's either reasonably apparent that it won't run again or it is actually returned to service. But there's a limit to how long a for-profit company (AGL in this case) is likely to wait.

Another issue is maintenance. They've announced mothballing TI A station in 2017 now. Almost certainly, they'll do only the absolute minimum of maintenance to keep it running through to 2017 and by that time it will quite likely be in a fairly poor state. That's speculation on my part, but it's what usually happens to any factory, power station etc once a future closure is announced - it all starts to run down. A return to service would thus require $$$ being spent on a major overhaul - doable but only if they're sure they'll make that back in profit.

If there's a long term change in economics then yes, the gas plants can be brought back as long as they haven't been decommissioned as such.

If there's a sudden breakdown at a couple of major coal plants then we'd just fix the coal plants instead of recommissioning something else.

I don't think anyone is in denial there is atmospheric, land and water pollution caused by the intelligent human that takes exceptionally long times to be naturally processed. The hysteria may be tact to get the ball rolling quicker toward a cleaner human existence. There are still no changes to the normalcy of 'climate' in our region but turning the ship away from burning fossil fuels inefficiently has to begin now. It is the abundance of such fuels which makes the change difficult to accept.

Hi Smurf,

So in the cold hard light of day, we will be burning coal to make electricity for a very long time to come.

I suspect that the current burst of oil price wars will be shown to be a politically driven war, reading on it today and it seems that Iran and Russia are suffering because of their oil based economies. When prices go back up the power stations using gas and oil will have much higher costs than present.

Our media may be keen to highlight the climate but overseas they seem to be merely paying lip service and a case of do as I say, not do as I do.

I still believe that pollution will prove to be the real problem not CO2, the multi nationals are quite happy to pay lip service to Co2 and keep on pumping out the smog.

Wysiwyg said:

It is the abundance of such fuels which makes the change difficult to accept.

Click to expand...

+1

Humans are slow to adapt to change, even when (in hindsight) the previous widely accepted practice seems absurd.

Tell a 10 year old that not too long ago, smoking was considered perfectly acceptable inside shopping centers, restaurants and even hospitals and they'll look at you in disbelief. But that was indeed reality, and it really was as dumb as it sounds but it took a long time to bring about change amidst all sorts of "sky will fall" type objections.

The time it took to stop using asbestos and stop putting lead in petrol are similar historical examples of stupidity. I mean seriously, we knew that asbestos was a killer long before most of it was mined and used and it's pure commonsense that spewing lead fumes into the atmosphere at ground level in cities isn't a wise idea. But we still did it until the damage was sufficient as to be beyond denial for all but those with a vested interest.

Tell someone in 100 years time that we used to drive around in 2 tonne vehicles with huge petrol engines just to get a single person from A to B and that we put water into plastic bottles, trucked it around the country and stored it in open front refrigerators in supermarkets then threw the bottle away after drinking it and both ideas will seem beyond belief.

Reality however is that we won't stop doing it until the damage is visible enough that it's beyond any reasonable argument. Just like we kept putting lead in petrol long after lead started turning up at the North Pole and other remote places and we kept using asbestos until entire streets in certain towns were home to the widows of victims. Humans aren't good at heeding the warning signs, it seems that we need a crisis before we take action.

If we only had hydro, solar, wind etc then we wouldn't be sitting around lamenting the lack of oil and gas. Just like we're not sitting around now wishing we had some mineral that doesn't exist. We just get on and use what we have, that we have so much fossil fuel being both a blessing and a curse.

macca said:

So in the cold hard light of day, we will be burning coal to make electricity for a very long time to come.

Click to expand...

In short, yes. In the context of Australia we'll continue to rely heavily on coal except:

Renewables to the extent we build them.

Gas for peak loads Qld, NSW, Vic.

Tasmania has always (since 1895) been and will likely always be predominantly hydro both base and peak loads. The coal-fired electricity phase out in Tas was completed in the 1930's apart from a couple of co-generation plants in heavy industry. As has long been the case, what happens with electricity in Tas is also about demand - if any of the "big 4" energy users, which use about half of all electricity in the state, were to cease operation then that changes everything.

NT will continue to rely primarily on gas, since it's not a good place to use coal and gas is likely to remain cheaper than oil.

WA and SA will continue to rely more heavily on gas than the eastern states as they've done for decades (using oil before gas), noting that coal costs in those states are higher than in the eastern states. The mix of coal versus gas comes down to local economics, since WA and SA both have relatively higher costs of using coal (and SA is one third renewable now). Realistically, SA will likely end up with a lot of back and forth transfer to Vic, most SA power stations running only for peak load in both states, whilst WA will be the biggest gas-fired power user.

I suspect that the current burst of oil price wars will be shown to be a politically driven war, reading on it today and it seems that Iran and Russia are suffering because of their oil based economies. When prices go back up the power stations using gas and oil will have much higher costs than present.

Click to expand...

Agreed there. Oil is only a very minor fuel for electricity generation in Australia (and most countries with a few notable exceptions) these days but I can't see oil prices staying down permanently. And even if they did drop to $30 per barrel, that's still double the cost of coal.

You hit the nail on the head Smurf...

The key point in that summary was "vested interest" . There was overwhelming evidence that smoking caused cancer, asbestos kills, leaded petol (and paint.. etc) kills. But while there are powerful interests making money from the products it took incredible social effort to make necessary changes.

Objectively we have made them too late and the effects will continue to haunt us (effects of plastic)

Global warming caused by human produced excessive CO2 and other gases is just the final nail in the coffin.. We see the same tired old lies trotted out , the same BS freedom/free enterprise arguments. But the stakes are far higher.