Resisting Climate Hysteria

luutzu · 21 April 2017

noco said:
The $5billion tag is the construction cost......Th supply of coal is a production cost which is passed on to the consumer.

Cheaper solar panels means a cheaper and perhaps inferior quality to meet competition.

Once a solar plant is built it becomes less reliable if the Sun does not shine for one day or more.

There is lots of R and D taking place to reduce pollution from coal power and in time will be perfected.

Coal is 35% efficient as opposed to solar at 15%......Then, as I have said before solar panels have a life span of 25 years and their efficiency drops even further than 15%.

So the cost of the coal will be passed onto the consumer? Together with the costs of building the plant, running it, maintaining it... Wouldn't that mean more expensive electricity to consumers? And that's ignoring the costs to those who live near coal mines, did the mining, or breathing in the fumes.

I'm sure engineers know where to put the panels. We're quite lucky in Australia that we got a massive outback with plenty of Sun. So it can spread across regions. But yea, idea is to have a mix. It doesn't need to be just solar farm and those massive roof panels. They're already incorporating solar roof tiles and wall tiles in some European country.

An average car now is pretty cheap yet it's definitely much safer and more luxurious than way back when. So when there's high demand, things will get better and a lot cheaper too.

Solar panels powers the International Space Station up there. Sure they use more efficient (and expensive) material in a cloudless environment... but solar tech barely got off the ground until maybe 15 years ago. It's been discovered since the 50s or 60s, but the oil cartel was too powerful.

Ves · 21 April 2017

SirRumpole said:
You must be joking if you suggest that the only knowledge worth having comes from direct personal experience.

He's a David Hume fanboy, let him go, he still thinks the British rule the world.

cynic · 21 April 2017

SirRumpole said:
You must be joking if you suggest that the only knowledge worth having comes from direct personal experience.

I can read a graph of the global temperature increase, I don't have to physically be at every point on the globe to experience it personally.

By all means stick your head in the sand if you find the truth upsetting, but don't presume that others are so stupid.

What I am suggesting, is that when reading/viewing sensationalised media headlines, it pays to exercise some discernment.

My questions were also alerting you to the need for the application of science, or some method of enquiry, for the purposes of assessment of the situation and determination of likely causation.

How is viewing only the charts that support one's preconceived opinion, whilst disregarding data to the contrary, going to help the progression of this discussion?
(I note that you have completely disregarded the questions challenging your assertion that science wasn't required.)

As to your final sentence, I can assure you that I am no ostrich, but believe that I would have been quite justified in saying "Right back at you!"

However, although my posts seldom convey this, I happen to have a little more respect for your intelligence than you might realise, hence my reason for exercising a modicum of restraint on this occasion.

luutzu · 21 April 2017

cynic said:
What I am suggesting, is that when reading/viewing sensationalised media headlines, it pays to exercise some discernment.

My questions were also alerting you to the need for the application of science, or some method of enquiry, for the purposes of assessment of the situation and determination of likely causation.

How is viewing only the charts that support one's preconceived opinion, whilst disregarding data to the contrary, going to help the progression of this discussion?
(I note that you have completely disregarded the questions challenging your assertion that science wasn't required.)

As to your final sentence, I can assure you that I am no ostrich, but believe that I would have been quite justified in saying "Right back at you!"

However, although my posts seldom convey this, I happen to have a little more respect for your intelligence than you might realise, hence my reason for exercising a modicum of restraint on this occasion.

You feeling alright man? You sound a bit upset. Not just over the usual greenies conspiring with the trees to ruin your day kinda bad mood.

cynic · 21 April 2017

luutzu said:
You feeling alright man? You sound a bit upset. Not just over the usual greenies conspiring with the trees to ruin your day kinda bad mood.

Thanks for your concern. Pretty much, just my usual cantankerous self, so nothing to panic about!

noco · 21 April 2017

luutzu said:
So the cost of the coal will be passed onto the consumer? Together with the costs of building the plant, running it, maintaining it... Wouldn't that mean more expensive electricity to consumers? And that's ignoring the costs to those who live near coal mines, did the mining, or breathing in the fumes.

I'm sure engineers know where to put the panels. We're quite lucky in Australia that we got a massive outback with plenty of Sun. So it can spread across regions. But yea, idea is to have a mix. It doesn't need to be just solar farm and those massive roof panels. They're already incorporating solar roof tiles and wall tiles in some European country.

An average car now is pretty cheap yet it's definitely much safer and more luxurious than way back when. So when there's high demand, things will get better and a lot cheaper too.

Solar panels powers the International Space Station up there. Sure they use more efficient (and expensive) material in a cloudless environment... but solar tech barely got off the ground until maybe 15 years ago. It's been discovered since the 50s or 60s, but the oil cartel was too powerful.

How did you work out that coal fired power would be dearer.......Do you have some figures?...Are you not up to speed with what is happening in SA....Power prices have risen dramatically since the introduction of renewable energy.......Industry in SA is complaining about the added cost to their products plus they cannot rely upon it......Many are considering moving away from SA.....Why has Jay Wetheril (the SA Premier) suggesting to business in SA to install their own back up diesel power plants?

luutzu · 21 April 2017

noco said:
How did you work out that coal fired power would be dearer.......Do you have some figures?...Are you not up to speed with what is happening in SA....Power prices have risen dramatically since the introduction of renewable energy.......Industry in SA is complaining about the added cost to their products plus they cannot rely upon it......Many are considering moving away from SA.....Why has Jay Wetheril (the SA Premier) suggesting to business in SA to install their own back up diesel power plants?

Just working off of your figures noco: The Sun deliver free raw material; coal ain't free.

I haven't look at SA. Though in NSW the power prices has increased quite handsomely since last year without any renewable causing it - just greed and entrepreneurial efficiency gains I'm afraid.

luutzu · 21 April 2017

cynic said:
Thanks for your concern. Pretty much, just my usual cantankerous self, so nothing to panic about!

Weren't that concerned. Was trying to see how hard I should crack wise at your expense

wayneL · 22 April 2017

SirRumpole said:
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.

You do realise the Earth has has always had these phenomenon, don't you?

And you do realise that the observable trend is for less of most of these.

As for insurance premiums, we humans do insist on building in risk exposed locations, don't we

SirRumpole · 22 April 2017

wayneL said:
As for insurance premiums, we humans do insist on building in risk exposed locations, don't we

I certainly don't. I'm not flood prone, fire prone or earthquake prone, but in any case the premiums have rocketted over the last few years so that would indicate an increase in disasters not "situation normal" as the sceptics say.

SirRumpole · 22 April 2017

cynic said:
My questions were also alerting you to the need for the application of science, or some method of enquiry, for the purposes of assessment of the situation and determination of likely causation.

Thousands of scientists around the world have been doing just that so why do you ignore their expertise and work ?

noco · 22 April 2017

luutzu said:
Just working off of your figures noco: The Sun deliver free raw material; coal ain't free.

I haven't look at SA. Though in NSW the power prices has increased quite handsomely since last year without any renewable causing it - just greed and entrepreneurial efficiency gains I'm afraid.

Luu. you are not taking into account the 20% difference in efficiency of coal....You don't take into account what happens when the SUN does not shine or the wind does not blow.....So what do they fall back on when this takes place?

SirRumpole · 22 April 2017

noco said:
So what do they fall back on when this takes place?

Haven't you heard of storage ?

noco · 22 April 2017

SirRumpole said:
Haven't you heard of storage ?

Battery storage at what cost?.......Batteries that have a life span of 7 years and will have to replaced ...At what cost?...Then replaced again in 14 years time....At what cost?

Tisme · 22 April 2017

SirRumpole said:
I certainly don't. I'm not flood prone, fire prone or earthquake prone, but in any case the premiums have rocketted over the last few years so that would indicate an increase in disasters not "situation normal" as the sceptics say.

Perhaps the vinegar test is those who don't believe in change are not allowed to insure their homes and possessions against cluster f#@ks?

SirRumpole · 22 April 2017

noco said:
Battery storage at what cost?.......Batteries that have a life span of 7 years and will have to replaced ...At what cost?...Then replaced again in 14 years time....At what cost?

Everything has a cost. Pumped hydro has a cost but it lasts for decades and doesn't need a lot of maintenance. Even a Conservative like Turnbull has realised that renewables need storage.

noco · 22 April 2017

SirRumpole said:
Everything has a cost. Pumped hydro has a cost but it lasts for decades and doesn't need a lot of maintenance. Even a Conservative like Turnbull has realised that renewables need storage.

Tricky aren't you......Your response does not answer my question.

SirRumpole · 22 April 2017

noco said:
Tricky aren't you......Your response does not answer my question.

What question ?

cynic · 22 April 2017

SirRumpole said:
Thousands of scientists around the world have been doing just that so why do you ignore their expertise and work ?

So science is required then!

I hope that you have noticed just how quickly you've contradicted your own assertions.

Have you failed to notice that my questions regarding biological needs and their possible link to natural (as opposed to artificial) causation remain unanswered by the "scientists" to whom your question alludes?

Have you also failed to notice that those subscribing to the apocalyptic view, are themselves ignoring the expertise of scientists presenting findings not supportive to that view?

So I could rightly ask you, why are you ignoring the expertise and work of so many scientists?

noco · 22 April 2017

SirRumpole said:
What question ?

The question was asked of you my post # 9254.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

luutzu

Ves

Beyond Good and Evil

cynic

luutzu

cynic

noco

luutzu

luutzu

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

SirRumpole

SirRumpole

noco

SirRumpole

noco

Tisme

Apathetic at Best

SirRumpole

noco

SirRumpole

cynic

noco

Similar threads

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Beyond Good and Evil

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Apathetic at Best

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency