Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

And for another simple and very practical reason why countries like China will be moving ASAP out of coal and

Beijing residents told to stay inside as smog levels soar

Air pollution in the Chinese capital has reached more than 15 times the safe level as smog engulfs large parts of the country


Saturday 28 November 2015 17.21 AEDT


Beijing’s residents have been advised to stay indoors after air pollution in the Chinese capital reached hazardous levels.

The warning comes as the governments of more than 190 nations gather in Paris to discuss a possible new global agreement on climate change.

China, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, is suffering from serious air pollution, largely attributed to smog from coal-fired power plants.

The onset of winter and the need for more heating of homes means the problem has intensified in the capital, which has an estimated population of 20 million.

At noon on Saturday, the US embassy in Beijing reported the level of the poisonous, tiny articles of PM2.5 at 391 micrograms per cubic metre.

The World Health Organisation considers the safe level to be 25 micrograms per cubic metre of the particulates.

Since Friday, the city had been shroud in grey smog, reducing visibilities to a few hundred metres.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...dents-told-to-stay-inside-as-smog-levels-soar

 

[trainspotter]

basilio .. go and read post #6817 by Smurf1976. He sums it up the best

I retain my view that we need an orderly, gradual transition to energy sources that do not emit significant CO2 but that a panic response would, at best, lead to a raft of unintended consequences that won't be nice.

 

[basilio]

Thirty years ago I would have totally agreed that we needed "an orderly gradual transition to renewable energy". It would have resulted in a relative minimum of stranded assets and not overstressed engineering capacities and so on.

But that boat has sailed. If we are talking about a crash program of moving to renewable energy it is because the evidence of CO2 caused CC is now raising concern that we have left our run too late to prevent catastrophic results. And in that context the unintended side effects will have to be swallowed.

 

[Logique]

basilio .. go and read post #6817 by Smurf1976. He sums it up the best

And Bjorn Lomborg agrees.

Although a believer in AGW, he was still run out of the country by the academic establishment. Most of whom persist in their ridiculous, research grant-inducing scare campaigns. There's an old fable about the Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Lomborg's crime? To recommend a sensible and measured approach.

 

[SirRumpole]

I'm firmly in the "truth is somewhere in the middle" camp on the whole issue.

Changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere likely would have an effect on something, that's just commonsense, and the best scientific knowledge suggests that the effect would most likely be an increase in temperature.

On the other hand, we're not going to burn in hell by the end of next week. And even if we were, closing a coal mine or two won't stop it.

I retain my view that we need an orderly, gradual transition to energy sources that do not emit significant CO2 but that a panic response would, at best, lead to a raft of unintended consequences that won't be nice.

Any sensible action on CO2 also needs to focus attention on the many other environmental problems we face. Turning crops and forests into fuel is a truly terrifying prospect if done on a large enough scale. Then there's all the non-energy things and we've got a lot of very real problems there already and some are likely more urgent than CO2

We are told we have potentially thousands of years of base load non polluting geothermal energy (http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/geothermal-energy-resources), and yet there seems to be very little effort on the part of governments to determine whether this can be extracted in an economic manner, with the little efforts that are being conducted being left to private enterprise.

Surely this is one of those projects that should be driven by governments in the long term 'national interest' , and not just left to private enterprise who are traditionally scared by the risk/reward equation and seem to demand billions in government guarantees before they commit any serious money.

Slavish submission to the free enterprise ideology is robbing this country of advancement, we wouldn't have had the Snowy Mountains scheme or Telstra if everything was left to the private sector.

 

[Smurf1976]

Slavish submission to the free enterprise ideology is robbing this country of advancement, we wouldn't have had the Snowy Mountains scheme or Telstra if everything was left to the private sector.

No argument from me there, we've gone from world leaders in this stuff to "cut and paste" after someone else has done it.

There's a long history in the energy industry of too much conservatism standing in the way of progress or at least trying to.

1914 - Australian government gave the Tasmanian state government a pretty stern warning that investing in power generation was unwise, since there was only one significant use of electricity (the zinc works) and if that went belly up then the state would be broke (noting that private enterprise had already run out of money trying to build the Waddamana hydro scheme). The state persisted and the rest is history - Waddamana was up and running in 1916, coal-fired power generation came to an end and hydro-electricity ended up being the single greatest driver of economic development in Tas during the 20th Century and still of relevance today. A century later and both the Hydro and the zinc works are still in business.

1918 - Victoria set up the SECV because imports of black coal had become unreliable and were crippling the Victorian economy. The SECV was given responsibility for extending electricity supply state wide and "applying the resources of the state" in doing so in order to end reliance on imported fuel. In short, the SEC promptly turned its attention to means of generating power, there being no point extending the network if they couldn't feed anything into it, and came up with brown coal and hydro. Within a decade later they had brown coal and hydro stations supplying two thirds of the load, had greatly extended the distribution system, and were also manufacturing briquettes as a partial replacement for black coal in industry and the other third of electricity supply. In due course the SEC ended up as the world leader in the use of brown coal, pioneering various things along the way.

1946 - Noting the success in other states and that South Australia was also being crippled by problems obtaining fuel imports which private enterprise refused to address, to the point if refusing to use local coal mined by the SA government despite the shortages, SA followed and set up ETSA. Some use of local resources commenced almost immediately, and in 1954 a major (at the time) power station based entirely on local resources commenced operation. By 1969, the use of black coal for SA's electricity and gas supplies had ceased entirely.

1968 - the lights very nearly did go out in Tasmania that year, the system was under a huge degree of stress and rationing was enforced. But amid all that the Hydro got 3 new hydro stations, two gas turbine plants (oil-fired) and a generator ship up and running that year. Plus river diversions into an existing scheme. Plus the temporary pumps. Plus another two hydro stations in 1969 although by that point the rationing was over. It's amazing what you can get done, and how quickly you can do it, if there's a perception of urgency and everyone's on the same side.

1970's - SECWA received international attention for the speed at which they shifted Western Australia's electricity production from oil to other fuels (mostly coal) amidst the 1970's oil crises. They'd done it before most others had even come up with a plan that still needed to be implemented. A key point is that they used the "anything that works" approach - they cut a few corners given the urgency and limited funds available, aimed for whatever could be done rather than insisting on 100%, and ended up with a much faster transition than just about anyone, anywhere.

So we've been down this track before. We've had crises in the supply of energy and we've dealt with them by applying engineering, project management and physical construction to the task and getting on with it.

What's holding us back now is that we've become obsessed with finance, risk aversion and a short term focus to the point of crippling any real progress. Nobody wants to do anything if it's not going to make a profit whilst they're still CEO or which carries even the slightest risk of going wrong and not being able to blame someone else.

 

[trainspotter]

The stooopid part about this is we are actually transitioning to eco friendly, tree hugging, planet saving, not Co2 polluting, solar passive generation of energy

In recent years, Esbjerg has adopted a new role and has developed into Europe’s leading port for shipping offshore wind turbines. The port has accounted for two thirds of the 3 GW (gigawatts) of offshore wind power so far installed in Europe. 65 percent of all Danish wind turbines have been shipped from Esbjerg, which has also been used to ship components to a number of offshore wind farms including the UK’s Lincs, Gunfleet Sands and London Array.

http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/wind-energy/an-ocean-of-wind-turbines/

There are currently more than 2,262 solar companies at work throughout the value chain in California, employing 54,700 people.
In 2014, California installed 4,316 MW of solar electric capacity, ranking it 1st nationally.
The 11,535 MW of solar energy currently installed in California ranks the state first in the country in installed solar capacity. There is enough solar energy installed in the state to power 2,891,000 homes.
In 2014, $11.773 billion was invested on solar installations in California. This represents a 66% increase over the previous year, and is expected to grow again this year.
Average installed residential and commercial photovoltaic system prices in California have fallen by 5% in the last year. National Prices have also dropped steadily- by 6% from last year and 53% from 2010.

http://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/california

The CEO of Chinese solar giant Yingli Green Energy has told analysts that China’s solar target of 100GW installed by 2020 could be viewed as a minimum, due to the number of factors currently driving demand in the developing country.

The comments were made in a conference call with analysts, after Yingli – now ranked as the world’s second-largest solar panel producer, behind compatriot Trina Solar – reported its 14th consecutive quarterly loss.

In response to a question from Roth Capital’s Philip Shen, Yingli chairman and CEO Liansheng Miao said that China’s continued demand for new energy capacity, its ongoing battle against air pollution and energy poverty, and its focus on economic development, meant the 100GW solar target set in Beijing’s last Five-Year Plan “could be treated as the bottom.”

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/yingli-says-100gw-by-2020-china-solar-target-could-be-minimum-60522

So RESIST the urge to club a baby seal and be a prophet of doom that we are all going to fry by next Wednesday lunch time because the polar ice caps are going to melt and we are all going to drown.

Call me pessimistic but this seems a bit over the top don't ya think? I mean let's give a country 16 billion $$$ to a country that has no way of paying it back legitimately so a few million people won't starve by 2050? Really ??

The World Bank has devised a $16bn (£10.6bn) strategy designed to help Africa adapt to climate change and prevent millions of people from sliding into poverty.

By fast-tracking clean energy, efficient farming and urban protection, the measures promise to greatly increase renewable energy across the continent, bolster food production and lead to the planting of billions of trees. It is also hoped that the scheme will improve life in cities and reduce poverty, migration and conflict.

The continent of nearly 1 billion people, which emits just 3% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, will be affected more than anywhere else by even the smallest rise in global temperatures, said Jim Yong Kim, the bank’s president, who will launch the Africa climate business plan at the UN climate talks in Paris next week.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...-bank-africa-climate-business-plan-16-billion

And that is where big business comes in and runs the show

 

[basilio]

The stooopid part about this is we are actually transitioning to eco friendly, tree hugging, planet saving, not Co2 polluting, solar passive generation of energy TS

Dead right TS. I agree that there is significant movement in the right direction. It is also very relevant that the costs of producing renewable energy are falling rapidly. (But that still doesn't stop the Government trying to say that moving to 45% renewable by 2030 is "heroically expensive.")

My observations, which simply echo all the experts in the field, is that we have reached a point where we have to accelerate this change at a rate that has never been seen short of a war time mobilisation program. That is certainly the message coming into the Paris meetings.

I hope we have collective insight to understand why we have to make the change and the capacity to redirect resources so we are successful. Certainly the process of going in that direction would create a strong sense of purpose in our society.

http://www.theclimatemobilization.org/

Maybe something like this ?

 

[luutzu]

Dead right TS. I agree that there is significant movement in the right direction. It is also very relevant that the costs of producing renewable energy are falling rapidly. (But that still doesn't stop the Government trying to say that moving to 45% renewable by 2030 is "heroically expensive.")

My observations, which simply echo all the experts in the field, is that we have reached a point where we have to accelerate this change at a rate that has never been seen short of a war time mobilisation program. That is certainly the message coming into the Paris meetings.

I hope we have collective insight to understand why we have to make the change and the capacity to redirect resources so we are successful. Certainly the process of going in that direction would create a strong sense of purpose in our society.

http://www.theclimatemobilization.org/

Maybe something like this ?

Strange how they define "expensive". Oil took millions of years to form, and only form under the right circumstances. It could be use for a lot of things, it is use in just about everything in modern society - who know what else advances in science and technology in the future could make of it... yet most of what oil is use for right now is fuel, the other stuff are mainly secondary by products.

That kind of extravagance might be understandable when there are no other alternative and none are in any distant future. But given all the alternatives that are cleaner, are renewable... it's insane to keep doing what we've been doing because switching would cost too much.

Even that argument isn't accurate if we get down to the logic of it. New investments mean new jobs, new industries might be created out of that incentive and drive to alternative sources; not having people die early death due to smog and pollution might be priceless to some people... then the thought of saving a precious, finite resource millions of years in the making, saving that for later generations to see what they can do with it rather than just burn the thing.

But anyway... when the ocean warms a bit more the ice sheets in the Artic will thin up... freeing up all those hard to get to oil they've been dreaming about all these decades. So full steam ahead she'll go.

 

[orr]

And Bjorn Lomborg agrees.

And so did a bloke called Stern of the much fabled Stern report into the economics of/and implications of AGW (that's human induced global warming) released in 2006....god this has been a long row to hoe.
Peabody Energy Shares any one??? $1000.00 bucks in circa 2010 and about ten bucks now. Thats Hysterical!!! no wonder there's been a few contributors to this thread that have gone quite if they've backed their beliefs/faith with their money.
Well, ...Caltex at $35 i hear you say; and i say mmmm i do. good luck to holders.

 

[Smurf1976]

Even that argument isn't accurate if we get down to the logic of it. New investments mean new jobs, new industries might be created out of that incentive and drive to alternative sources; not having people die early death due to smog and pollution might be priceless to some people... then the thought of saving a precious, finite resource millions of years in the making, saving that for later generations to see what they can do with it rather than just burn the thing.

This comment probably won't win me too many supporters on as stock market forum but I'll go one step further and say that renewables are cheaper outright if we measure in terms of the material and labour inputs required.

Hydro, brown coal, wind, solar and geothermal all have something in common. They require lower human inputs overall than oil, most black coal, most natural gas and most biomass (there are exceptions but in the main it is true). So with the exception of brown coal, fossil fuels are most certainly more expensive than renewables.

It is modern accounting, which has only really been applied in this context for 20 - 25 years, that makes renewables (and low grade coal) more expensive than high grade fossil fuels. From a pure engineering perspective they're cheaper for sure.

Which as with all these energy debates then leads back to an argument about capitalism versus socialism since it is the "return on investment" concept which separates what is cheap from what is expensive. Drop the rate of return and it swings the balance in favour of renewables and brown coal. Raise the rate of return and it swings first to black coal and then to gas and oil as the rate is increased.

If you want renewables to be cheaper then all you need to do is use pre-1990's accounting and industry structures to do the sums. As I said, that argument won't likely find too much support on a stock market forum though (and fair enough all things considered).

 

[luutzu]

This comment probably won't win me too many supporters on as stock market forum but I'll go one step further and say that renewables are cheaper outright if we measure in terms of the material and labour inputs required.

Hydro, brown coal, wind, solar and geothermal all have something in common. They require lower human inputs overall than oil, most black coal, most natural gas and most biomass (there are exceptions but in the main it is true). So with the exception of brown coal, fossil fuels are most certainly more expensive than renewables.

It is modern accounting, which has only really been applied in this context for 20 - 25 years, that makes renewables (and low grade coal) more expensive than high grade fossil fuels. From a pure engineering perspective they're cheaper for sure.

Which as with all these energy debates then leads back to an argument about capitalism versus socialism since it is the "return on investment" concept which separates what is cheap from what is expensive. Drop the rate of return and it swings the balance in favour of renewables and brown coal. Raise the rate of return and it swings first to black coal and then to gas and oil as the rate is increased.

If you want renewables to be cheaper then all you need to do is use pre-1990's accounting and industry structures to do the sums. As I said, that argument won't likely find too much support on a stock market forum though (and fair enough all things considered).

Dam accountants!

Could their argument also be that there's been too much sunk cost into the fossil business it's expensive to get out of it? Things like all the engines in all the planes, trains and automobiles; infrastructures to recharge and service etc.?

But yea, can't argue with the accounting gimmicks. That and if we have a costs on the damages fossil fuel and its pollutants caused - clean air, water, farmland, healthcare costs etc. It's somewhat irrational to keep going down the road we're on.

I mean, pollution, loss of lives, loss of opportunities to challenge the world to seek alternatives that might end up with better byproducts than smogs... and we might avoid a catastrophe that awaits the grandkids.. and oh, if there are alternative and they are renewables, maybe less chance of war and the Muslims might turn out to not be so evil, haha... So that and the real costs of fossil if it's accounted for properly vs renewables.

I guess if the roads and bridges are already built, might as well ride it til kingdom come.

 

[SirRumpole]

This comment probably won't win me too many supporters on as stock market forum but I'll go one step further and say that renewables are cheaper outright if we measure in terms of the material and labour inputs required.

Why so ?

Surely investors are after good deals, so why wouldn't people invest in inexhaustable clean energy rather that limited and polluting fossil fuels all things considered ?

Several large investors overseas are pulling out of fossil fuel investments and going to clean energy because they know where the future lies.

 

[trainspotter]

Dead right TS. I agree that there is significant movement in the right direction. It is also very relevant that the costs of producing renewable energy are falling rapidly. (But that still doesn't stop the Government trying to say that moving to 45% renewable by 2030 is "heroically expensive.")

My observations, which simply echo all the experts in the field, is that we have reached a point where we have to accelerate this change at a rate that has never been seen short of a war time mobilisation program. That is certainly the message coming into the Paris meetings.

I hope we have collective insight to understand why we have to make the change and the capacity to redirect resources so we are successful. Certainly the process of going in that direction would create a strong sense of purpose in our society.

http://www.theclimatemobilization.org/

Maybe something like this ?

You Sir are a zealot of the highest order. There are many more programs in place such as the ones I have mentioned and how much difference has it made? Not a damn thing. Why do you think the World Bank wants to give 16 billion to Africa? Big business.

To say that 45% is heroically expensive is actually an understatement

AUSTRALIA'S GDP is forecast to double to almost $3.5 trillion in the next 15 years, according to a league table of global economies.

The latest World Economic League Table, released by the Centre for Economics and Business Research, showed the nation's 2013 GDP of $1.66 trillion would jump to $3.48 trillion by 2028.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...trillion-in-2028/story-fni0dcne-1226790748711

3.48 trillion x 0.3% = (insert BIG number here)

 

[Wysiwyg]

This comment probably won't win me too many supporters on as stock market forum but I'll go one step further and say that renewables are cheaper outright if we measure in terms of the material and labour inputs required.

The infrastructure required for solar, wind and water energy production and energy storage to power up the whole country would be massive?

 

[explod]

The infrastructure required for solar, wind and water energy production and energy storage to power up the whole country would be massive?

Yep, create a lot of jobs.

My Brother recently disconnected from the grid using solar, wind and recycling water with a windmill which also drives a generator. He can also recharge a battery on a bycycle frame in half an hour and excercise at the same time. He does have a petrol driven generator but has only used it a couple of times during early teathing problems.

Very many others are doing it also. Power companies took a couple from near Geelong to court a couple of years back for tge same thing. The companies lost and again this couple no longer need to use the backup generator

So you are talking rubbish. We could change over in a flash with Government backing and force the industry players to assist or perish.

But the indusries, petrol etc hate the simplicity of our understanding and the taking away thier control of us.

 

[chops_a_must]

Why so ?

Surely investors are after good deals, so why wouldn't people invest in inexhaustable clean energy rather that limited and polluting fossil fuels all things considered ?

Several large investors overseas are pulling out of fossil fuel investments and going to clean energy because they know where the future lies.

Because the benefits don't necessarily accrue to the investors.

In other parts of the world they do, and there is a higher value placed on particulates and respiratory disorders and so on. In Australia, it barely gets a mention.

Ye olde socialism v capitalism debate...

 

[pixel]

Yep, create a lot of jobs.

My Brother recently disconnected from the grid using solar, wind and recycling water with a windmill which also drives a generator. He can also recharge a battery on a bycycle frame in half an hour and excercise at the same time. He does have a petrol driven generator but has only used it a couple of times during early teathing problems.

I intend to do the same, as soon as batteries become cost-competitive so I don't have to rely on Government subsidies.

But the indusries, petrol etc hate the simplicity of our understanding and the taking away thier control of us.

Even more so, the Government hates people who get something useful tax-free. If the barstuds could find a way to tax citizens for sunshine and the air we breathe, they'd implement it on some twisted logic "for the greater good".

 

[explod]

Even more so, the Government hates people who get something useful tax-free. If the barstuds could find a way to tax citizens for sunshine and the air we breathe, they'd implement it on some twisted logic "for the greater good".

And they will. Taxation" on savers off the grid" is a fair cert IMV

 

[Wysiwyg]

So you are talking rubbish. We could change over in a flash with Government backing and force the industry players to assist or perish.

Domestic power consumption is being transformed as you noted but the greater power consumption for medium to large industry and night time is something you have a solution for? No wind periods, no sun periods and night time is when energy storage becomes critical. Might need a few of your bro's mates to crank up their dynamo's for the neighborhood.