Okay! That answers my question! You are indeed, deliberately missing the point! (However, religion does tend to have the effect of rendering some people unwilling or unable, to entertain challenges presented by science.)
The point you keep overlooking is the scientific significance of the fact of any oil being discovered in that location. You have also overlooked other pertinent discoveries mentioned in the same article.
This and other discoveries were of huge scientific significance because they challenge the validity of the fossil fuel theory!
Those discoveries illustrate that the "scientists", you keep blathering on about, have gotten some very important facts totally wrong!
Any conclusions premised upon scientific fallacies (as opposed to scientific facts) will very likely prove to be seriously amiss!
The discovery of faulty assumptions, about the origins of fossil fuels, threatens at least one of the major foundations of your climate religion!!!
I am really not that much of a fan of Keanu.ermmm...
Has the oil companies of the world know about this? Better let them know so we might have peace in the world.
This discovery is almost as awesome as that other discovery of clean Hydrogen energy from water I once saw in a Keanu Reeves movie.
Anyway, call around and have that tree prune dude.
Our Energy Future.
Queensland company to build Australia's largest solar farm, creates 450 jobs
By Frenalyn Wilson on April 19 2017 6:12 PM
An employee walks on solar panels at a solar power plant in Aksu, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region May 18, 2012. Reuters/Stringer
A Queensland company proposes to build the largest solar farm in Australia amounting to $2 billion. The facility is expected to eventually supply at least 15 percent of power needs in south-east Queensland and would create 450 jobs during construction.
Solar Q lodged a development application with the Gympie Council in order to build a solar farm and battery storage facility 30 kilometres north-west of the city. According to ABC, the project would be built in stages. A350-megawatt facility is expected to be built initially as soon as approval is granted.
It will go as high as 800 megawatts after four years. It aims to produce enough electricity that could power at least 315,000 homes.
Managing director Scott Armstrong said the facility is set to be the biggest in the country, but "the way the market is going is that there will be bigger projects that will come on.” He said the project will meet at least 15 percent of south-east Queensland's energy requirements from the 4,000 megawatt hours of energy storage, as well as solar panels.
http://www.ibtimes.com.au/queenslan...s-largest-solar-farm-creates-450-jobs-1550827
I'm not sure if you've ever made any investment decisions on this scale, but generally, and it's a given since there is a private company involved, there are not only costs to build something, but things such as return on investment to consider.The cost now is $2billion.....The cost to replace them after 25 years for the next generation will most likely be $5billion....And don't forget Solar panels lose a lot of their efficiency with age.
A 1600 MW coal fired power station could have been built for $5billion now and lasted for 50 years...A great saving for the next generation I would say.
The cost now is $2billion.....The cost to replace them after 25 years for the next generation will most likely be $5billion....And don't forget Solar panels lose a lot of their efficiency with age.
A 1600 MW coal fired power station could have been built for $5billion now and lasted for 50 years...A great saving for the next generation I would say.
Well Cynic I thought your initial foray into the windmills of Carbon Crusaders was a brave and valiant effort.
Umpteen posts later your still rabbiting on with unrelenting determination - if little sense.
Do you have any sense of balance or perspective ? The efforts to move from a carbon based fossil fuel society to a clean renewable energy environment has many interrelated reasons. Somehow you have dismissed or ignored them all.
1) The current scientific understanding says that the excessive CO2 produced by fossil fuels is trapping extra heat in the atmosphere, increasing temperatures world wide and threatening to take the worlds climate to situations that won't support current eco- systems.
2) Fossil fuels produce pollutants (other than CO2) that kill hundreds of thousands of people around the world. Air Pollution from cars, coal fired power stations and industrial processes are killers.
3) Energy production from renewable energy sources is now more cost competitive than traditional fossil fuels. Essentially that's it Cynic. Wind farms, 2/3rd Gen solar panels, wave energy, pumped hyro are all cheaper energy sources than new coal or gas fired power stations. Why would you go in that direction when it isn't economically viable?
4) On all our current understandings fossil fuels are finite. They will run down in the foreseeable future. When they do our current society will disappear - unless it has migrated to an ongoing clean, renewable energy source.
Could you be right about about global warming being a hoax or scam ? Could you be right in showing that CO2 isn't in fact any cause of any possible warming anyway ? Could you be right in discovering that oil is actually being produced all the time and only needs 5klm drills through granite to bring them to the surface ?
There is always a possibility your right Cynic. But I'm more inclined to see this as a risk assessment activity and accept the current best scientific understandings and current observations.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...il-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249
However, as many will have noticed, I do not take at all kindly to apocalyptic proselytising. Especially when it is being misconstrued, by its preachers, as science!
If it doesn't need science as you suggest, then why all the hullaballoo over the bogus scientific consensus?People don't have to prosthelyse. The reality of hurricanes, tornados, icebergs cracking, rivers drying up etc is bad enough. It doesn't need science, just the ability to look at the accumulation of weather events and realise that something serious is happening at a rapidly increasing rate.
I'm not sure if you've ever made any investment decisions on this scale, but generally, and it's a given since there is a private company involved, there are not only costs to build something, but things such as return on investment to consider.
Since you seem to know everything, how do these compare for the two projects? How do the net present values compare?
People don't have to prosthelyse. The reality of hurricanes, tornados, icebergs cracking, rivers drying up etc is bad enough. It doesn't need science, just the ability to look at the accumulation of weather events and realise that something serious is happening at a rapidly increasing rate.
There's so many things wrong with this statement, even ignoring the climate change component...
1) The cost of solar panels, in real (inflation adjusted) terms will have decreased as technology progresses.
2) At an interest rate of 3.8% over 25 years, $2bn becomes $5bn. Inflation won't run at 3.8% per annum, nor will wage increases. Not sure where you got this number.
3) Over and above the initial cost, what does it cost per MW to run (opex)? Perhaps solar is cheaper...? (I genuinely don't know, but it's a consideration)
4) Even if burning coal doesn't cause global warming/climate change, why would you keep a dependency on a finite resource, when the sun is basically infinite and free? (infinite as far as the human race is concerned)
Are you directly experiencing all the phenomena you mention?
Well, the difference is you are talking about a 350MW solar unit costing $2billion and then increasing the output to 800MW at what extra cost in 4 years?...And what is your estimate of replacing those solar panels after 25 years expected life?....You also know those solar panels will lose a % of their efficiency over their life span.
Solar panels are only 15% efficient in comparison to 35% efficiency of coal.
I made the comparison of 1600MW coal fired power station to cost $5 billion and last for 50 to 60 years.
I wasn't asking about other entities, I was asking if you are directly experiencing the phenomena you cited (tornados, cracking ice bergs etc.).My insurance policies certainly are, how about yours ?
I wasn't asking about other entities, I was asking if you are directly experiencing the phenomena you cited (tornados, cracking ice bergs etc.).
So out of the four questions posed, you've chosen to reply to only the last one, and, in so doing, only by furnishing a cute little comment that fails to answer that question.
This situation speaks volumes to me about the importance of being able to distinguish between experienced reality and news media exaggerations.
With coal fired power plants, you'd need to freight the coals in. To do that, you'd need to mine it first. Does the $5B price tag include those costs or are they excluded the same way the cost of carbon emission is free on the company but others will have to wear its consequences?
Then there's the improvement and further advances from Solar. As they are taken up, economy of scales mean they'll be cheaper; more work mean more competition on not just price, but quality and application from new R&D efforts.
With coal... the kind of efficiency and technological improvement on an old tech... I can't imagine it being on the same potential as solar would.
Those and the fact that once a solar plant is built, the Sun kind of deliver the raw material on a daily basis without much costs on logistics.
That and it doesn't really pollute or kill anybody under normal operation.
I am really not that much of a fan of Keanu.
From the facetious nature of your response, I can see that you are reluctant to embrace the profound significance of the scientific findings mentioned in the linked article .
I note that you have attempted to make light of that dangerous situation, mentioned earlier, where the safety of people and their domiciles was threatened by a tree, on my land, that I was legally prohibited from removing.
I detest any law that gives the welfare of trees precedence over the welfare of humans.
The existence of such laws is certainly nothing to joke about. Based upon the justifications cited in the council's brochure on canopy trees, I can see that the Carbon Crusade was most certainly responsible for the precipitation of these oppressive laws, giving me yet further reason to view the Carbon Crusade (and the Crusaders eagerly joining its ranks) with the utmost contempt.
Total cost isn't important if ROI is greater on the other project. Actually.... if ROI is higher, wouldn't you want to invest more?Well, the difference is you are talking about a 350MW solar unit costing $2billion and then increasing the output to 800MW at what extra cost in 4 years?...And what is your estimate of replacing those solar panels after 25 years expected life?....You also know those solar panels will lose a % of their efficiency over their life span.
Solar panels are only 15% efficient in comparison to 35% efficiency of coal.
I made the comparison of 1600MW coal fired power station to cost $5 billion and last for 50 to 60 years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?