PDA

View Full Version : Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Desmond
03-07-2017, 05:21 PM
Do you think I need lessons from you about how to work out the vibrational modes of CO2, H2O, CH4, etc.? They are child's play compared to what I had to work out in my own research (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0584853994001766?via%3Dihub), with much more complicated molecules and Davydov splitting in the crystal (measured wavenumbers below in cm<sup>-1</sup>):


CO2 (D∞h symmetry): Σg+ 1373.01 (symmetric stretch), Σu+ 2438.1 (asymmetric stretch), Πu (doubly degenerate bend)—the first IR inactive, Raman active; others IR active (the stretch much more intense than the bend), Raman inactive (since the molecule has a centre of symmetry, no mode can be both).
H2O (C2v symmetry): A1 3703.03 (symmetric stretch), A1 1711.15 (bend), B1 3851.06 (asymmetric stretch, the most intense IR absorber)—all IR and Raman active.
CH4 (Td symmetry): A1 3054.37 (symmetric stretch, IR inactive, Raman active), E 1597.55 (doubly degenerate bend, IR inactive, Raman active), T2 (triply degenerate antisymmetric stretch, IR and Raman active), T2 (triply degenerate bend, IR and Raman active, and by far the more intense IR absorber)
Great, so CO2 has a warming efect. I wonder what's causing the current warming.

https://skepticalscience.com/images/co2_10000_years.gif

Ian Murray
03-07-2017, 05:49 PM
Good, which means that the pro-alarmists here now have a better idea what they're talking about, now that I've explained some basics of IR spectroscopy.

Your explanation is unintelligible to a layman. Mine makes some sense (my first climate change lecturer was an oceanographer by trade).

Ian Murray
03-07-2017, 08:45 PM
So much for 'clean coal'

Major Blow to 'Clean Coal' as 11- Year, $7.5 Billion Flagship Project Fails (https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-coal-project-fail-2450386749.html)
EcoWatch
28.6.17

In a major blow to proponents of "clean coal" technology, Southern Co., parent company of Mississippi Power, announced in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing Wednesday that it's throwing in the towel on efforts to generate electricity from coal and will instead use only natural gas at its flagship Kemper County, Mississippi power plant.

The project, which relied on a "gasifier" to turn a cheap and common grade of coal into fuel, is over, at least for now, Southern said.

"On June 28, 2017, Mississippi Power notified the Mississippi PSC that it is beginning a process to suspend operations and start-up activities on the gasifier portion of the Kemper IGCC."

Further, Southern warned that it may record a $3.4 billion loss for the project in the second quarter of 2017, depending on how negotiations with state utility regulators unfold....


The Kemper plant has received $382 million in federal Energy Department grants, according to the company. http://www.salon.com/2017/06/30/failure-of-americas-flagship-clean-coal-plant-proves-it-was-always-a-myth/

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2017, 01:46 AM
Your explanation is unintelligible to a layman.
Maybe, but it's accurate. I would be happy to explain anything that was too hard.


Mine makes some sense (my first climate change lecturer was an oceanographer by trade).
But it's wrong. IR activity has nothing to do with odd- or even-numbered molecules.

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2017, 01:48 AM
The IR spectroscopy is irrelevant to understanding the physics of AGW - all you need to know is that carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas.
But why does it? And what should we do about it?


And the so-called 'pro-alarmists' here all have scientific training, unlike their opponents - apart from you, of course.
They do? I wasn't aware that rr or IM are scientists. You I know about.


After all, Abbott infamously claimed that carbon dioxide is weightless!
He did? What was the context?


Of course there are. But most opponents of restricting warming (like Abbott) don't understand the physics.
True enough.

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2017, 08:17 AM
The Economist explains
How fracking leads to babies
An uptick in economic output boosts fertility rates (https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/07/economist-explains-0)
S.K., 2 July 2017

Ian Murray
04-07-2017, 08:32 AM
Maybe, but it's accurate. I would be happy to explain anything that was too hard.

You're just showing off how clever you are. We don't need the technobabble to understand the effect of GHGs


But it's wrong. IR activity has nothing to do with odd- or even-numbered molecules.

But it's a simple rule of thumb to describe which significant atmospheric gases are greenhouse gases and how they warm the planet.

Ian Murray
04-07-2017, 08:41 AM
He did? What was the context?

While addressing a public meeting. You acted as an apologist for Abbott at the time, suggesting that not many people would know CO2 is not weightless. (The speech was given in the context at the time of a carbon tax of $x per tonne, which would make no sense at all if had no weight). Abbott of course was a Rhodes Scholar, and should at least have had the sense to ask someone for the facts.

Ian Murray
04-07-2017, 12:16 PM
They do? I wasn't aware that rr or IM are scientists. You I know about....

Pat's right, I do have scientific training, although I don't claim to be a scientist

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2017, 12:36 PM
You're just showing off how clever you are.
Call it what you want, although I have nothing to prove. Don't blame me because you got some things wrong, and I showed that I am no ‘science denier’.


We don't need the technobabble to understand the effect of GHGs.
Without that technobabble you don't really understand it.

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2017, 12:42 PM
I'd have thought someone with some background in chemistry would have some idea of the heat involved in tiny temperature increases of a planet. Let's hear it from the people at NASA (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php), who know a bit about science:


A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.
That has it backwards. Rather, because of the enormous heat capacity of the ocean, lots of heat energy causes a small temperature rise.


President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement puts him at odds with the Pentagon, which has been warning for years that climate change poses a critical national security threat.....
Just big government supporting itself. But who needs frogs and other international bureaucrats to become more energy efficient and less GHG emitting. You can diss Lomborg all you want, but he has proposals to do just that without needing all the leftists dreams of taxes and regulations.

And that Hansen is a fascist calling for punishment of dissenters from the alarmism + leftist solutions bandwagon (http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/christ_gnostic.htm), which would include his former supervisor, retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon (https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320).

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2017, 12:45 PM
Pat's right, I do have scientific training, although I don't claim to be a scientist
You do? Evidently oceanography at least.


While addressing a public meeting. You acted as an apologist for Abbott at the time, suggesting that not many people would know CO2 is not weightless. (The speech was given in the context at the time of a carbon tax of $x per tonne, which would make no sense at all if had no weight). Abbott of course was a Rhodes Scholar, and should at least have had the sense to ask someone for the facts.
Where was that? Could have been a point that CO2 ≠ C.

Patrick Byrom
04-07-2017, 02:13 PM
You do? Evidently oceanography at least.Which is much more useful in understanding atmospheric physics than IR spectroscopy!


Where was that? Could have been a point that CO2 ≠ C.He's on YouTube here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIBX8_hUplM). I can't recall Rudd or Gillard ever making that stupid blunder.

Rincewind
04-07-2017, 03:13 PM
Abbott of course was a Rhodes Scholar, and should at least have had the sense to ask someone for the facts.

His Rhodes Scholarship comprised completing a BA in Philosophy and Politics at Queen's College, Oxford. He was a stronger student in politics but fairly middling in philosophy. He did no science, not even the philosophy of science, in his studies at Oxford.

Rincewind
04-07-2017, 03:18 PM
Without that technobabble you don't really understand it.

You don't need the wavelength and symmetry group details to understand it well enough to appreciate that different GH gases have different roles in global warming.

Patrick Byrom
04-07-2017, 03:25 PM
... You can diss Lomborg all you want, but he has proposals to do just that without needing all the leftists dreams of taxes and regulations.You mean like his call for carbon taxes (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-professor-who-claims-the-global-warming-fight-is-too-expensive/article24950894/):

And, instead of holding steadfast to the goal of keeping global temperatures within 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels, Dr. Lomborg advocates the elimination of subsidies on fossil fuels and the introduction of carbon taxes. Neither measure would be a solution, he said, but would at least “nibble away” at the problem.
It's a pity he doesn't understand the physics, or he'd realise why allowing temperatures to rise is so dangerous.

Ian Murray
04-07-2017, 09:28 PM
You do? Evidently oceanography at least.

Perhaps I should have said scientific education rather than scientific training - not sure if there is a subtle difference. I've been doing MOOCs for years, with an emphasis on climate change.


Where was that? Could have been a point that CO2 ≠ C.

16.7.11
''It's actually pretty hard to do this because carbon dioxide is invisible and it's weightless and you can't smell it,'' Abbott began, projecting frankness.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/he-says-she-says-in-a-faux-election-campaign-20110715-1hhx3.html

29.7.11
“I mean this is a draconian new police force chasing an invisible, odourless, weightless, tasteless substance,” Mr Abbott told Nine's Today Show.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-cop-handed-tough-new-powers/news-story/8f661bc565fce8e3c22de1ba8abb9648

Patrick Byrom
04-07-2017, 10:24 PM
That has it backwards. Rather, because of the enormous heat capacity of the ocean, lots of heat energy causes a small temperature rise.So what happens as the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to increase, as road runner has shown? Won't the temperature continue to rise as more heat is radiated back to the surface?

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2017, 12:07 AM
You mean like his call for carbon taxes (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-professor-who-claims-the-global-warming-fight-is-too-expensive/article24950894/):

And, instead of holding steadfast to the goal of keeping global temperatures within 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels, Dr. Lomborg advocates the elimination of subsidies on fossil fuels and the introduction of carbon taxes. Neither measure would be a solution, he said, but would at least “nibble away” at the problem.
It's a pity he doesn't understand the physics, or he'd realise why allowing temperatures to rise is so dangerous.
Where is the evidence that he doesn't understand the physics? Who says he doesn't think that temperature rising is dangerous, just because he doesn't agree with the Left's proposed remedies? That's typical of leftist argumentation though: if you oppose their policies, you must hate the people or be indifferent to the problem that the policies are ostensibly aimed to help.

I agree with elimination of fossil fuel subsidies.

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2017, 12:17 AM
Perhaps I should have said scientific education rather than scientific training - not sure if there is a subtle difference. I've been doing MOOCs for years, with an emphasis on climate change.
Seems like a efficient way to learn things (had to look up that initialism).


16.7.11
''It's actually pretty hard to do this because carbon dioxide is invisible and it's weightless and you can't smell it,'' Abbott began, projecting frankness.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/he-says-she-says-in-a-faux-election-campaign-20110715-1hhx3.html

29.7.11
“I mean this is a draconian new police force chasing an invisible, odourless, weightless, tasteless substance,” Mr Abbott told Nine's Today Show.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-cop-handed-tough-new-powers/news-story/8f661bc565fce8e3c22de1ba8abb9648

Seems off the cuff more than anything else. One could quibble about CO2 being odorless and tasteless if you want as well, although it's true at atmospheric concentrations. At high concentrations it will taste sour because of the reaction:
CO2 + H2O ↔ H+ + HCO3–.

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2017, 12:18 AM
Which is much more useful in understanding atmospheric physics than IR spectroscopy!
Not at all. The latter is foundational to GHG theory.

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2017, 12:34 AM
You don't need the wavelength and symmetry group details to understand it well enough to appreciate that different GH gases have different roles in global warming.

The wavelength details show that the combination of gases absorbs a wider range of frequencies. It might also have application if people object to a hydrogen economy or some batteries because they emit H2 gas. If they claim it's a GHG, you can now reply: “Are you serious? Don't you know that a symmetrical diatomic molecule is infrared inactive?”

Ian Murray
05-07-2017, 08:08 AM
Seems like a efficient way to learn things (had to look up that initialism).

I've just reviewed my first lecture about molecular vibration modes. My memory/understanding was flawed - nothing to do with even/odd number of atoms :doh:

That particular MOOC was Climate Literacy: Navigating the Climate Change Conversation out of Uni of British Columbia (no longer being offered). I did it twice, once as a student and once as a Teaching Assistant. For interest, this is the relevant lecture, by Sara Harris (https://www.edx.org/bio/sara-e-harris) who presented the science half of the course.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQsh8tIv2R8

Ian Murray
05-07-2017, 08:22 AM
Seems off the cuff more than anything else. One could quibble about CO2 being odorless and tasteless if you want as well, although it's true at atmospheric concentrations. At high concentrations it will taste sour because of the reaction:
CO2 + H2O ↔ H+ + HCO3–.

They were the only examples I could find, but the first time I read a report of his calling CO2 weightless was when he was standing at a podium delivering an address to an IPA audience or similar. A prepared speech - no way off the cuff.

Nowadays he's advocating socialism. He's urging the government to build new coal-fired power stations (nobody else is likely to).

Tony is an embarrassment to everyone. As The First Dog on the Moon says, he's a unifying force - everyone wants him to go away.

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2017, 08:31 AM
Nowadays he's advocating socialism.
He was never much of a free marketer. Before he was PM, he wrote an article "In defence of middle-class welfare."


He's urging the government to build new coal-fired power stations (nobody else is likely to).
Should be private investment, not taxpayer-funded.


Tony is an embarrassment to everyone. As The First Dog on the Moon says, he's a unifying force — everyone wants him to go away.
Maybe, but still it would be good to have a conservative party to provide a choice rather than an echo to Labor.

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2017, 08:44 AM
I've just reviewed my first lecture about molecular vibration modes. My memory/understanding was flawed - nothing to do with even/odd number of atoms :doh:

That particular MOOC was Climate Literacy: Navigating the Climate Change Conversation out of Uni of British Columbia (no longer being offered). I did it twice, once as a student and once as a Teaching Assistant. For interest, this is the relevant lecture, by Sara Harris (https://www.edx.org/bio/sara-e-harris) who presented the science half of the course.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQsh8tIv2R8

A good lecture.

Rincewind
05-07-2017, 09:31 AM
The wavelength details show that the combination of gases absorbs a wider range of frequencies. It might also have application if people object to a hydrogen economy or some batteries because they emit H2 gas. If they claim it's a GHG, you can now reply: “Are you serious? Don't you know that a symmetrical diatomic molecule is infrared inactive?”

I'm not arguing is explanatory value from a physical perspective I am claiming you don't need that to appreciate that different GH gases behave differently. In the same way you don't need complex numbers to solve real roots of quadratics but you could argue you don't "really understand" solving quadratics without that knowledge. The second position has a point but people without any knowledge of complex numbers may still understand perfectly well how to find the real roots of quadratics. The issue with technical details is you can always argue that you don't really understand XYZ without this or that technical nuance. This is a fallacy since everyone's knowledge of every subject is limited in some way.

Patrick Byrom
05-07-2017, 12:17 PM
Where is the evidence that he doesn't understand the physics? Who says he doesn't think that temperature rising is dangerous, just because he doesn't agree with the Left's proposed remedies? That's typical of leftist argumentation though: if you oppose their policies, you must hate the people or be indifferent to the problem that the policies are ostensibly aimed to help. ...
But he does agree with the remedies proposed by the 'Left' - as I quoted! It's just that he doesn't realise how serious a 2C rise could be. He could be an expert on IR spectroscopy, but you need to understand physics :)

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2017, 12:53 PM
But he does agree with the remedies proposed by the 'Left' - as I quoted!
Only one, from what you say. He rejects most of the Leftist solutions, as should be clear:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgm3QOWt6Tc


It's just that he doesn't realise how serious a 2C rise could be.
He says it's a problem, but doesn't agree with leftist remedies, and he also thinks there are other priorities that would do more good for humanity.


He could be an expert on IR spectroscopy, but you need to understand physics :)
What more do you want? An understanding of heat capacity as well?

Ian Murray
05-07-2017, 02:11 PM
A good lecture.

And that's all I really need to know. Raman spectra etc are overkill, unless there is a need to delve deep into the molecular physics

Patrick Byrom
05-07-2017, 02:36 PM
Only one, from what you say. He rejects most of the Leftist solutions, as should be clear: ...He wants a carbon tax and elimination of fossil fuel subsidies. Most people on the 'Left' would be more than happy with that. And once you have both of those, you don't need a RET, or renewable energy subsidies.


He says it's a problem, but doesn't agree with leftist remedies, and he also thinks there are other priorities that would do more good for humanity.But he does agree with the "leftist remedies", as I've already shown.

Patrick Byrom
05-07-2017, 02:46 PM
What more do you want? An understanding of heat capacity as well?What Lomborg (and you) fail to understand is this:

So what happens as the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to increase, as road runner has shown? Won't the temperature continue to rise as more heat is radiated back to the surface?

Desmond
05-07-2017, 03:56 PM
So what happens as the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to increase, as road runner has shown? Won't the temperature continue to rise as more heat is radiated back to the surface?The world warms.

Ian Murray
05-07-2017, 03:58 PM
AGL will close Liddell power station and switch focus to clean energy (http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4767385/fall-from-power-for-coal-poll/)
Newcastle Herald
4.7.17

Liddell Power Station is in the middle of a fierce battle over the future of Australia’s electricity supply, while its owner AGL is adamant that it is getting out of coal.

Of Australia’s remaining 23 coal-fired power stations, the Liddell plant – which is between Muswellbrook and Singleton – is the next slated to close, a federal government report said.

Ten coal-fired power plants have closed in Australia since 2012, including Munmorah on the Central Coast’s northern end.

As residents brace for a 20 per cent rise in electricity prices this financial year, the Turnbull government is under pressure to secure the country’s energy future.

The Coalition is considering using taxpayers’ money to help build new, more efficient coal-fired plants, while Labor is backing renewable energy, battery storage and gas as a transition fuel. ....

AGL will close its Liddell plant in 2022 and its Bayswater plant in 2035.

The company said it would “not build, finance or acquire new conventional coal-fired power stations”.

“Instead, our business will prioritise investment in renewables and complementary near-zero emission technologies,” it said. ....

Ian Murray
05-07-2017, 04:00 PM
The world warms.

Maybe that's what they mean when they talk about global warming?

Capablanca-Fan
06-07-2017, 12:34 AM
Maybe that's what they mean when they talk about global warming?

I thought it was now "climate change", as per the newish title of this thread, agreed to by both sides of the debate.

Capablanca-Fan
06-07-2017, 03:34 AM
Moon landing sceptics and flat-earthers are generally regarded as idiots so those are not really useful comparisons.
Unfortunately a growing band of idiots.


For anti-vaxxers there will be cases of people arguing against them with evidence and also cases of pointing to scientific consensus, and cases of both. A quick google search turns up many examples of reference to scientific consensus on vaccines and even a paper seeking to scientifically test whether referring to scientific consensus on vaccines works (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4669673/).
Thanks for that paper. I admit that this approach and the results surprised me though.


Crichton would presumably have accepted vaccination science; if so his claim that consensus is only invoked when the science is wrong is

I presume so, but probably not because of a consensus that vaccinations work safely, but because of the evidence. After all, he obtained an MD from Harvard Medical School, and was an emergency room resident physician at Boston City Hospital, the basis of the long-running TV series ER. I don't think the medical school or hospital are known as hotbeds of anti-vaxism.


refuted by counterexample and exposed as a sloppy generalisation from cherry-picked cases.
A paper that was published years after his death, so perhaps Crichton's ignorance of it is partly excusable. Also, the ‘scientific consensus’ approach seemed to be a new idea to add to presenting evidence, and this paper was testing how effective it was. Although the authors admit:


The current study has a number of limitations. Particularly, our findings rely on a relatively small and non-representative sample of the American public.

They still conclude that the consensus approach could be more effective.


Reference to consensus should never be a substitute for debate but it can be a useful addition to it.
The paper authors make a good case for that.

Ian Murray
06-07-2017, 08:01 AM
I’m a climate scientist. And I’m not letting trickle-down ignorance win (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/07/05/im-a-climate-scientist-and-im-not-letting-trickle-down-ignorance-win/?tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.9de8c7d07403)
Washington Post
5.7.17

...Most Americans have an investment in the future — in our children and grandchildren, and in the planet that is our only home. Most Americans care about these investments in the future; we want to protect them from harm. That is our prime directive. Most of us understand that to fulfill this directive, we can’t ignore the reality of a warming planet, rising seas, retreating snow and ice, and changes in the severity and frequency of droughts and floods. We can’t ignore the reality that human actions are part of the climate-change problem, and that human actions must be part of the solution to this problem. Ignoring reality is not a viable survival strategy....

Desmond
06-07-2017, 08:45 AM
I thought it was now "climate change", as per the newish title of this thread, agreed to by both sides of the debate.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
There have long been claims that some unspecificed "they" has "changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'". In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming 'skeptic'.

Global Warming vs. Climate Change

Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature...

'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc. ...

Thus while the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not the same thing. Human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which in turn is causing climate change. However, because the terms are causally related, they are often used interchangeably in normal daily communications.
...

MichaelBaron
06-07-2017, 11:23 AM
I’m a climate scientist. And I’m not letting trickle-down ignorance win (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/07/05/im-a-climate-scientist-and-im-not-letting-trickle-down-ignorance-win/?tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.9de8c7d07403)
Washington Post
5.7.17

...Most Americans have an investment in the future — in our children and grandchildren, and in the planet that is our only home. Most Americans care about these investments in the future; we want to protect them from harm.

Typical ''big words''. Reminds me of a certain chess player at Melbourne Chess club who was explaining to me that he is too busy to get a job because he needs to fight for justice and raise many kids of his as good human beings. The very way in which the article is written suggests that its nothing but ''emotional appeal''
'

Capablanca-Fan
06-07-2017, 11:44 AM
Typical ''big words''. Reminds me of a certain chess player at Melbourne Chess club who was explaining to me that he is too busy to get a job because he needs to fight for justice and raise many kids of his as good human beings. The very way in which the article is written suggests that its nothing but ''emotional appeal''
'

That's about right. He is a good example of how the Greens are really the Watermelons: the Green is really a covering for the same old Red policies of more taxes and regulations and less individual freedom.

Rincewind
06-07-2017, 11:50 AM
That's about right. He is a good example of how the Greens are really the Watermelons: the Green is really a covering for the same old Red policies of more taxes and regulations and less individual freedom.

We have tried the individual freedom idea. I led to alarming global warming.

Ian Murray
06-07-2017, 12:07 PM
That's about right. He is a good example of how the Greens are really the Watermelons: the Green is really a covering for the same old Red policies of more taxes and regulations and less individual freedom.

You obviously haven't read the piece

Ian Murray
06-07-2017, 12:11 PM
Typical ''big words''.'

Doctors take an oath to do no harm. Typical ''big words''?

Capablanca-Fan
06-07-2017, 12:11 PM
We have tried the individual freedom idea.
When?


It led to alarming global warming.
More likely, government interference did that, as Lomborg has often argued:


Instead of political hot air and ever-larger government subsidies of today's inefficient green technologies, those who want to combat climate change should focus on dramatically boosting green energy innovation.

The U.S. already shows the way. With its pursuit of fracking, making it safer and more efficient every year, America has drastically reduced the cost of natural gas. This momentous switch from coal to lower-CO2 gas as a source of energy has done far more to drive down carbon-dioxide emissions than any recent government climate policy.

Turns out that those politicians who gathered in Paris, France, could learn a lot from Paris, Texas.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47bNzLj5E_Q

Capablanca-Fan
06-07-2017, 12:12 PM
You obviously haven't read the piece

I did. Typical bashing of Trump and Republicans. Shows where his true allegiance lies.

Ian Murray
06-07-2017, 01:35 PM
...Lomborg has often argued:


Instead of political hot air and ever-larger government subsidies of today's inefficient green technologies, those who want to combat climate change should focus on dramatically boosting green energy innovation.

The U.S. already shows the way. With its pursuit of fracking, making it safer and more efficient every year, America has drastically reduced the cost of natural gas. This momentous switch from coal to lower-CO2 gas as a source of energy has done far more to drive down carbon-dioxide emissions than any recent government climate policy.

Coal seam gas from fracking is still a fossil fuel. The US is fortunate to have such CSG reserves, but it only reduces emissions and so is viewed as a transition energy source on the way to zero carbon energy. In any case Trump wants to go back to coal



Turns out that those politicians who gathered in Paris, France, could learn a lot from Paris, Texas.

Texas - a national leader in the wind energy boom

'The wild west of wind': Republicans push Texas as unlikely green energy leader (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/20/texas-wind-energy-green-turbines-repbublicans-environment)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47bNzLj5E_Q

His 'calculations' are absurd

Bjorn Lomborg's Climate Analysis Is A Hot Mess (https://www.forbes.com/sites/edfenergyexchange/2016/07/19/bjorn-lomborgs-climate-analysis-is-a-hot-mess/#4685fcf92826)
Forbes
19.7.16

...Lomborg makes two basic assertions: that implementing the Paris Agreement will have a negligible impact on global temperatures, and that it will be exorbitantly costly. But a careful review of his work and its underlying studies reveals significant flaws in Lomborg’s analysis. Here are some of the most glaring examples....

Desmond
06-07-2017, 03:05 PM
That's about right. He is a good example of how the Greens are really the Watermelons: the Green is really a covering for the same old Red policies of more taxes and regulations and less individual freedom.Shaun Micallef had a good one this week: capsicums, red on the outside and empty in the middle.

Rincewind
06-07-2017, 03:14 PM
When?

Basically everyone until relatively recently have had the individual freedom to emit as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as they like without penalty. That how we went from 250 to 400 ppm in less than two centuries.

Ian Murray
06-07-2017, 04:42 PM
I did. Typical bashing of Trump and Republicans. Shows where his true allegiance lies.

I guess you've forgotten what it was like to work as a research scientist, if you ever did. Let alone in a field where the frontline scientists are subjected to endless vilification by a vocal minority

Capablanca-Fan
07-07-2017, 01:58 AM
I guess you've forgotten what it was like to work as a research scientist, if you ever did.
How do you get that? Proper research scientists don't kowtow to one particular political party, but these environmental activists have weaponized science to try to destroy any opposition to radical leftard politics.


Let alone in a field where the frontline scientists are subjected to endless vilification by a vocal minority
So it's OK for him to vilify the current US president and half the voters in the USA, then squeal when they hit back belatedly?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_RuverrEZ4

Capablanca-Fan
07-07-2017, 02:14 AM
Coal seam gas from fracking is still a fossil fuel.
But still greener, in that there is a higher hydrogen to carbon ratio (methane CH4, so 4:1; ethane C2H6 3:1; petrol represented by ‘iso-octane’ or 2,2,4-trimethylpentane C8H18; diesel representated by ‘cetane’ or hexadecane of C16H34 both approaching a mere 2:1 ratio as n becomes larger in the generic alkane formula CnH2n+2). If I must drive behind a bus, it was better to be one of Brizzy's natural-gas–powered buses.

So it's no accident that USA is one of the few countries to cut CO2 emissions—"by about 12 percent over the last decade (according to the Energy Information Administration) (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449248/fracking-industry-united-states-energy-independence-oil-middle-east-venezuela)"—thanks not to Obamov regulations but to the market development of fracking, allowing natural gas to replace low-grade coal. Much better than all the Greenstapo gesture politics like banning inandescent lightbults that didn't make a detectable dent in world CO2 levels.


The US is fortunate to have such CSG reserves, but it only reduces emissions and so is viewed as a transition energy source on the way to zero carbon energy. In any case Trump wants to go back to coal
Not surprisingly, because modern coal plants are very efficient, even the majority that just use the Rankine Cycle, let alone those that use the even more efficient combined cycle.


Texas—a national leader in the wind energy boom:
'The wild west of wind': Republicans push Texas as unlikely green energy leader (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/20/texas-wind-energy-green-turbines-repbublicans-environment)
Interesting that a Republican state is "green" but of course gets little credit from the Left. OTOH, NY and the unlamented Teddy Kennedy claim to support green energy but NIMBY.


His 'calculations' are absurd

Bjorn Lomborg's Climate Analysis Is A Hot Mess (https://www.forbes.com/sites/edfenergyexchange/2016/07/19/bjorn-lomborgs-climate-analysis-is-a-hot-mess/#4685fcf92826)
Forbes
19.7.16

...Lomborg makes two basic assertions: that implementing the Paris Agreement will have a negligible impact on global temperatures, and that it will be exorbitantly costly. But a careful review of his work and its underlying studies reveals significant flaws in Lomborg’s analysis. Here are some of the most glaring examples....
Oh, this Keohane, an Obamov stooge, who is not without his own critics (http://naturalgasnow.org/skeptical-environmentalist-right-paris-accord/):


Lomborg states on his website:


“Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.”

This money would be much more effective being used to invest in research and development of sustaining green energy that could survive without being propped up with subsidies. I tend to agree, as I support green technologies as a whole, but am skeptical why private markets cannot support them without us all paying out such huge subsidies. Worse, too many of these endeavors fail even with the big subsidies. Investing the money instead into more efficient self-sustaining technologies makes the most sense and is supported by the CATO Institute. Perhaps this is the capitalist or the libertarian side of me, but private innovation will always solve these problems if we just let it.

Of course, Bjorn is not without his critics. One such critic is Nathaniel Keohane, from the Environmental Defense Fund. This time last year, Keohane penned a harsh critique of Lomborg, calling him a “hot mess” that purposely lays information out in ways to be deceitful. Talk about projection! Another is the Union of Concerned Scientists which, of course, was also involved in the New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s RICO scheme to target and shakedown ExxonMobil for not being sufficiently politically correct on climate change and a coverup of this sordid affair.

There is something else driving me crazy about the Paris Accord and it’s the utter shallowness of those discussing it in popular culture. I came across a parody video where Brad Pitt plays weatherman (that’s the upper limit of his acting ability if you ask me) giving a weather forecast telling viewers it’s hot everywhere and there is “no future.” It’s not that I don’t like parodies, but this one is more political than funny and serves merely to reinforce suppositions about which none of the participants have the foggiest clue – a theme all too familiar in the case of the Comedy Central fan base that get its news from Jon Stewart.

From my chair, I still see Lomborg as an activist, but one who may have a more sensible approach to climate change. It is his critics who interest me the most, though, as they are the ones funded for their radical stances. In the case of groups such as EDF and the Union of Concerned Scientists, my level of skepticism has no reached full-blown cynicism.

But IM and his ally Keohane show that they are not just after greening the environment—it must be the left-proposed solutions that they have always wanted.

Patrick Byrom
07-07-2017, 02:15 PM
How do you get that? Proper research scientists don't kowtow to one particular political party, but these environmental activists have weaponized science to try to destroy any opposition to radical leftard politics.So there is a huge scientific conspiracy, involving 90% of scientists? You sound exactly like a vaccine denier. An just like them, you refuse to discuss the empirical evidence, which I presented.


So it's OK for him to vilify the current US president ... If the President vilifies him first, it is.

Patrick Byrom
07-07-2017, 02:25 PM
So it's no accident that USA is one of the few countries to cut CO2 emissions—" ... —thanks not to Obamov regulations but to the market development of fracking, allowing natural gas to replace low-grade coal. Much better than all the Greenstapo gesture politics like banning inandescent lightbults that didn't make a detectable dent in world CO2 levels.Who was President in that decade? So maybe Obama had something to do with the reduction!? And fracking is not a long term solution, as Ian pointed out.


Interesting that a Republican state is "green" but of course gets little credit from the Left. OTOH, NY and the unlamented Teddy Kennedy claim to support green energy but NIMBY.New York doesn't have a lot of wind energy, or room for wind plants. And Texas is often mentioned by the 'Left' as an example of green power.



Lomborg states on his website:
[INDENT]“Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.”
Which is an extremely stupid assumption, because obviously the Paris agreement will not be the final agreement this century.

Capablanca-Fan
07-07-2017, 02:32 PM
Who was President in that decade? So maybe Obama had something to do with the reduction!?
Nope, he opposed it. Fracking was done with private enterprise, no thanks to Obamov.


And fracking is not a long term solution, as Ian pointed out.
It's done more good than banning lightbulbs, which is neither a long nor a short term solution.


New York doesn't have a lot of wind energy, or room for wind plants. And Texas is often mentioned by the 'Left' as an example of green power.
Teddy infamously opposed the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound, because it might have spoiled the sea view of the Kennedy clan’s vacation home. Windmills are supposed to spoil only the views of the masses, not trust-fund Lear-Jet leftards like him and his buddies.


Which is an extremely stupid assumption, because obviously the Paris agreement will not be the final agreement this century.
You mean it might be as effective as Kyoto?

Capablanca-Fan
07-07-2017, 02:36 PM
So there is a huge scientific conspiracy, involving 90% of scientists?
A figure bandied about a lot, but what do the relevant ones really agree on? That we need lots more regulation and taxation?


You sound exactly like a vaccine denier.
You sound exactly like a climate alarmist with guilt-by-association cheap shots.


An just like them, you refuse to discuss the empirical evidence, which I presented.
What, do you dispute the spectroscopic data I presented?


If the President vilifies him first, it is.
This pillock plays politics, and then whinges that he's "vilified" by those he vilifies.

Patrick Byrom
07-07-2017, 02:46 PM
Nope, he opposed it. Fracking was done with private enterprise, no thanks to Obamov.Fracking was only a small part of the reduction, so Obama deserves most of the credit.


You mean it might be as effective as Kyoto?The Paris agreement is already proving effective, as most nations (but not the US) accept the science I've presented.

Patrick Byrom
07-07-2017, 02:53 PM
A figure bandied about a lot, but what do the relevant ones really agree on? That we need lots more regulation and taxationThey agree that more carbon dioxide leads to more warming. Do you?


You sound exactly like a climate alarmist with guilt-by-association cheap shots.You were the one who criticised appeals to consensus, which, as Kevin and I pointed out, would also apply to consensus appeals with regard to vaccines. So you are implicitly a vaccine denier, as long as you continue to criticise consensus appeals in science.


What, do you dispute the spectroscopic data I presented?I assume it's correct, since it appears to be copied from a website :)

Do you dispute that increasing carbon dioxide leads to increasing temperatures?


This pillock plays politics, and then whinges that he's "vilified" by those he vilifies.Trump vilified his science - he has a right to point that out.

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2017, 01:04 AM
They agree that more carbon dioxide leads to more warming. Do you?
That part is right as far as it goes. Do they agree that we must lose all coal-fired electricity generation?


You were the one who criticised appeals to consensus, which, as Kevin and I pointed out, would also apply to consensus appeals with regard to vaccines. So you are implicitly a vaccine denier, as long as you continue to criticise consensus appeals in science.
Not serious. Yes, there was one paper that admitted using a limited sample that argued that telling people about a scientific consensus on the benefits of vaccination would be persuasive. It didn't claim that vaccine efficacy and safety depended on the consensus, or even that people should always trust a consensus.


I assume it's correct, since it appears to be copied from a website :)
Various websites provided the wavenumbers, intensities, and assignments to the normal modes. But it's not hard to derive the vibrational modes from the molecules' point groups, at least, not for someone who did that for much more complicated systems than small molecules. Working out the point groups of simple molecules and using character tables to work out the number of vibrational modes (after subtracting translations and rotations) and their IR or Raman activity is something one does when first starting out in vibrational spectroscopy.


Trump vilified his science — he has a right to point that out.
No, vilified the alarmist extrapolations used to weaponize science in the service of their long-held political leftist agenda.

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2017, 01:30 AM
Q: How could you tell that I am a chemist and IM is a Labor supporter?
A: Ask us to pronounced "unionized".

Patrick Byrom
08-07-2017, 09:12 AM
Not serious. Yes, there was one paper that admitted using a limited sample that argued that telling people about a scientific consensus on the benefits of vaccination would be persuasive. It didn't claim that vaccine efficacy and safety depended on the consensus, or even that people should always trust a consensus.
But you quoted Crichton as saying:

Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/)
… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. …
Until you explicitly reject this position, you are effectively claiming that since the consensus was invoked with respect to vaccine science in that paper, vaccine science is not solid. That makes you a vaccine denier.

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2017, 09:20 AM
But you quoted Crichton as saying:

Until you explicitly reject this position, you are effectively claiming that since the consensus was invoked with respect to vaccine science in that paper, vaccine science is not solid. That makes you a vaccine denier.
Typical warm-monger, twisting everything. That paper was claiming only that to a limited sample, a consensus argument can be persuasive. But even if I don't think that the consensus approach is the best, it doesn't follow that I deny vaccine efficacy and safety (I don't know anyone who is a "vaccine denier"). But until that paper, the best anti–anti-vax arguments were evidential, and I still think that should be the first approach. I have used such an approach to win a few young mothers over when they had been concerned about the anti-vax agitprop in certain circles.

Ian Murray
08-07-2017, 09:21 AM
But still greener, in that there is a higher hydrogen to carbon ratio ....

Fossil fuels are not green energy. Coal seam gas (coal bed methane in the US) , like all fossil fuels, emits carbon dioxide when burned – simply put:
CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O + energy

It is cleaner than coal or oil, in that it emits fewer impurities, but it is still a GHG and is merely a bridge to a carbon-free future. However, when released into the atmosphere without combustion it is a much more potent GHG than CO2 (although not as long-lived). Leakages are a significant problem, due in no small part to the cowboy drillers in the industry


Coalbed Methane: Boom, Bust and Hard Lessons (http://www.wyohistory.org/encyclopedia/coalbed-methane-boom-bust-and-hard-lessons)

Today Wyoming’s coal-bed methane gas play in the Powder River Basin is a bust. Few of the 24,000 wells drilled during the heyday of the 2000s produce much gas, many sit idle and approximately 3,000 wells are left orphaned—a liability for the state to clean up....


So it's no accident that USA is one of the few countries to cut CO2 emissions by about 12 percent over the last decade (according to the Energy Information Administration)—thanks not to Obamov regulations but to the market development of fracking, allowing natural gas to replace low-grade coal.

Not “low-grade” coal – all coal production (https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.php?t=ptb0702) is in decline


Much better than all the Greenstapo gesture politics like banning inandescent lightbults that didn't make a detectable dent in world CO2 levels.

One of the simplest ways to reduce emissions (and save money) is energy efficiency (note also that CFL lamps have now been superseded by more efficient LEDs)


Every year, much of the energy the U.S. consumes is wasted through transmission, heat loss and inefficient technology -- costing American families and businesses money, and leading to increased carbon pollution.

Energy efficiency is one of the easiest and most cost effective ways to combat climate change, clean the air we breathe, improve the competitiveness of our businesses and reduce energy costs for consumers. The Department of Energy is working with universities, businesses and the National Labs to develop new, energy-efficient technologies while boosting the efficiency of current technologies on the market.
https://energy.gov/science-innovation/energy-efficiency


Not surprisingly, because modern coal plants are very efficient, even the majority that just use the Rankine Cycle, let alone those that use the even more efficient combined cycle.

Ultra-supercritical plants are still less than 50% efficient. They are also much more expensive to build


The upfront cost of ultra-supercritical (USC) HELE [high efficiency low emissions] technology is 20–30% more expensive than a subcritical unit, but the greater efficiency reduces emissions and fuel costs. [cf lower construction costs, zero emissions and zero fuel costs for renewables]
http://cornerstonemag.net/setting-the-benchmark-the-worlds-most-efficient-coal-fired-power-plants

And how good are they at reducing emissions?


The problem is just how much CO₂ emissions can be reduced. Emissions from coal power are the largest contributors to Australia’s total emissions.

In 2013-4, coal generators emitted 151 million tonnes of greenhouse gas, generating 154 million kilowatt-hours of electricity. ... This is 29% of Australia’s total emissions in 2013-14 of around 523 million tonnes. ...

If we then replace the entire [fleet of coal generators] with ultra-supercritical generation, according to the assumptions included in the Australian Power Generation Technology Report, emissions would total 139 million tonnes. This would represent a 16% reduction in coal emissions, but a mere 5% reduction in Australia’s total emissions in 2013-4.

And then we would have those ultra-supercritical power stations for the next 30-40 years, incapable of reducing our emissions further as global targets tighten.
https://theconversation.com/is-clean-coal-power-the-answer-to-australias-emissions-targets-71785


Interesting that a Republican state is "green" but of course gets little credit from the Left.

Not so. Texas is held up as a shining Lone Star example of a renewables success story


...Lomborg states on his website:


“Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.”...

To bolster his modelling, Lomborg makes the most outlandish assumptions to feed his negligible-results outlook. Even a layman like me can spot some of them. Some examples from his actual paper (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full#gpol12295-bib-0002):


Here I use the RCP8.5, which is regarded as a worst-case scenario

RCP8.5. is the IPCC’s worst-case Business-as-Usual pathway scenario – the Paris Accord is far from BAU. “The RCP8.5 combines assumptions about high population and relatively slow income growth with modest rates of technological change and energy intensity improvements, leading in the long term to high energy demand and GHG emissions in absence of climate change policies. Compared to the total set of Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), RCP8.5 thus corresponds to the pathway with the highest greenhouse gas emissions. “
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y


...for this paper, I will investigate policies that have practical political implications soon and have a verifiable outcome by 2030, but not policies that promise actions only or mostly starting after 2030...

Cherry-picking, which just happens to exclude China’s INDC to peak emissions by 2030


The baseline scenario runs to 2040 and almost stabilizes. Here we will assume that power emissions would have remained stable at 2040 level for the rest of the century.....

No reductions for another 60 years. No reason offered why progress would come to a dead halt


China's INDC has made two significant promises (China INDC, 2015). One is a promise to peak its emissions around 2030. That is a promise, which will only start having a policy impact around and after 2030, which falls outside the 2030 time limit for policy promises set in this article.

Apart from the fact that there are more than two significant pledges in the INDC, again the cherry-picking. The reality is that China’s peak may have already arrived – coal consumption has been in decline for the past three years.

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2017, 09:49 AM
Fossil fuels are not green energy. Coal seam gas (coal bed methane in the US) , like all fossil fuels, emits carbon dioxide when burned – simply put:
CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O + energy
Wow, you even wrote a balanced equation. Very good. :clap:


It is cleaner than coal or oil, in that it emits fewer impurities,
It's more than that: it's that during combustion, a lower ratio of CO2 to H2O is produced. I.e. in your correctly balanced equation, that was 1:2 ratio. Octane has a higher energy density, but its combustion is:

C8H18 + 12.5O2 → 8CO2 + 9H2O (and no, I'm not saying that there are half-molecules, but giving the ratio. Heats of combustion and such are worked out from moles of the fuel molecule). See, here, only 8:9 ratio.


but it is still a GHG and is merely a bridge to a carbon-free future. However, when released into the atmosphere without combustion it is a much more potent GHG than CO2 (although not as long-lived).
I wouldn't have thought so, because CH4 is non-polar molecule with relatively non-polar bonds, I would expect it not to be as potent, and that seems to be shown in the spectra on that lecture you posted. The main issue is that it absorbs IR that CO2 lets through (the light H atoms mean much higher frequencies at comparable bond strengths).


One of the simplest ways to reduce emissions (and save money) is energy efficiency (note also that CFL lamps have now been superseded by more efficient LEDs)
I like them actually. I've replaced quite a lot in my house, mostly 5000K colour temp that I prefer to the yellowish tinge of incandescent bulbs. Fluoros are just not very good, and have Hg in toxic amounts.



Every year, much of the energy the U.S. consumes is wasted through transmission, heat loss and inefficient technology -- costing American families and businesses money, and leading to increased carbon pollution.[INDENT]
Right you are. Fracking helped USA towards energy independence, which meant not needing tankers full of oil from Islamofascist countries.


[INDENT]Ultra-supercritical plants are still less than 50% efficient. They are also much more expensive to build
I wasn't talking about supercritical Rankine cycles, but combined Brayton cycle turbines with the waste heat powering a Rankine cycle steam engine. The leftists' favorite source, Wiki, says that combined cycle plants are >50% efficient. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle#Efficiency_of_CCGT_plants) But just plain coal-fired Rankine cycle plants can be over 40% efficient. Still a lot more than solar PV.


[INDENT]The problem is just how much CO₂ emissions can be reduced. Emissions from coal power are the largest contributors to Australia’s total emissions.
A negligible proportion of the world's total emissions.



Apart from the fact that there are more than two significant pledges in the INDC, again the cherry-picking. The reality is that China’s peak may have already arrived – coal consumption has been in decline for the past three years.
So China builds like crazy, so then they can claim to have reduced building by a lot, but starting from a high place.

ER
08-07-2017, 10:31 AM
Keep on ratifying European bullshit artist agreements


EnergyAustralia follows AGL by announcing electricity price hikes across the country

nice huh?


EnergyAustralia blamed the impact of higher wholesale power prices following the closure of large coal-fired generators,
increased demand for gas by liquefied natural gas projects in Queensland, and reliability issues with some big generators.

Shut up and pay now! alternatively keep on dreaming about renewable energy solving your problems (as it did during the heat wave in Sth Australia of course) LOL :P :D

The whole ABC article

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-15/energyaustralia-electricity-price-hikes-across-country-after-agl/8621204

Patrick Byrom
08-07-2017, 11:20 AM
Typical warm-monger, twisting everything. That paper was claiming only that to a limited sample, a consensus argument can be persuasive. But even if I don't think that the consensus approach is the best, it doesn't follow that I deny vaccine efficacy and safety (I don't know anyone who is a "vaccine denier"). But until that paper, the best anti–anti-vax arguments were evidential, and I still think that should be the first approach. I have used such an approach to win a few young mothers over when they had been concerned about the anti-vax agitprop in certain circles.So you now reject Crichton's claim that consensus is invoked "only" when the science is not solid? That paper definitely referred to the consensus, which - according to Crichton and Capablanca-Fan (quoting him) - means that vaccine science is not reliable.

If you have rejected Crichton's argument, why not just say that you have, instead of obfuscating?

Patrick Byrom
08-07-2017, 12:36 PM
Keep on ratifying European bullshit artist agreements

nice huh?

Shut up and pay now! alternatively keep on dreaming about renewable energy solving your problems (as it did during the heat wave in Sth Australia of course) LOL :P :D

The whole ABC article

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-15/energyaustralia-electricity-price-hikes-across-country-after-agl/8621204But the article doesn't blame renewable energy or any 'European' agreement - the Paris agreement is worldwide, and includes every major country (although the US is planning to withdraw).

Ian Murray
08-07-2017, 12:49 PM
Wow, you even wrote a balanced equation. Very good. :clap:

Winning the Year 11 chemistry prize was no fluke :)


...I wouldn't have thought so, because CH4 is non-polar molecule with relatively non-polar bonds, I would expect it not to be as potent, and that seems to be shown in the spectra on that lecture you posted. The main issue is that it absorbs IR that CO2 lets through (the light H atoms mean much higher frequencies at comparable bond strengths).

The weight of evidence says otherwise, e.g.


Methane burned vs. methane leaked: Fracking’s impact on climate change (https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/methane-burned-vs-methane-leaked-frackings-impact-on-climate-change/)

...Including the way methane interacts with aerosols involved in cloud formation, the latest research puts the pound-for-pound greenhouse potency of methane at about 105 times that of CO2 over a 20 year timeframe. Consider the difference over a century, however, and the multiplier drops to about 33 times....


I like them actually. I've replaced quite a lot in my house, mostly 5000K colour temp that I prefer to the yellowish tinge of incandescent bulbs. Fluoros are just not very good, and have Hg in toxic amounts.

Right, they're great. Mine is all-LED now. They also light up instantly.


Right you are. Fracking helped USA towards energy independence, which meant not needing tankers full of oil from Islamofascist countries.

Energy independence and energy efficiency are not the same thing


I wasn't talking about supercritical Rankine cycles, but combined Brayton cycle turbines with the waste heat powering a Rankine cycle steam engine. The leftists' favorite source, Wiki, says that combined cycle plants are >50% efficient. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle#Efficiency_of_CCGT_plants) But just plain coal-fired Rankine cycle plants can be over 40% efficient. Still a lot more than solar PV.

You said "modern coal plants are very efficient, even the majority that just use the Rankine Cycle, let alone those that use the even more efficient combined cycle". Gas turbines use combined cycle; USC is the most efficient coal-fired type


A negligible proportion of the world's total emissions.

The ratios are comparable with other developed countries, with a very high cumulative proportion of global emissions


So China builds like crazy, so then they can claim to have reduced building by a lot, but starting from a high place.

China hasn't claimed anything. It is simply apparent to western observers that China is changing (e.g. coal imports are in decline; 103 planned (or under construction) power stations have been cancelled this year).

Patrick Byrom
08-07-2017, 01:05 PM
Right, they're great. Mine is all-LED now. They also light up instantly.The handheld LED torches are good too.

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2017, 01:18 PM
Winning the Year 11 chemistry prize was no fluke :)
Congratulations! :)


The weight of evidence says otherwise, e.g.

[INDENT]Methane burned vs. methane leaked: Fracking’s impact on climate change (https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/methane-burned-vs-methane-leaked-frackings-impact-on-climate-change/)
But this paper was subtitled:


Despite its problems, the fracking boom is still better than burning coal.

And ended:


But there’s little doubt that it’s a good thing for the climate when that natural gas displaces coal-burning power plants.


Right, they're great. Mine is all-LED now. They also light up instantly.
We agree on something then. I also want to go to all-LED. I tried fluoro even while living in Brizzy, but that was always disappointing.


Energy independence and energy efficiency are not the same thing
Oh, definitely not. But if America became totally energy independent, then the huge oil tankers that transport oil from OPEC countries to the USA would not do so any more, and they must release lots of CO2 and sometimes leak or crash.


You said "modern coal plants are very efficient, even the majority that just use the Rankine Cycle, let alone those that use the even more efficient combined cycle". Gas turbines use combined cycle; USC is the most efficient coal-fired type
Gas turbines are not always combined cycle, although it would be better if new ones were made that way. Some combined cycles can use gas generated from coal (syngas, coal gas).


China hasn't claimed anything. It is simply apparent to western observers that China is changing (e.g. coal imports are in decline; 103 planned (or under construction) power stations have been cancelled this year).
Out of how many?

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2017, 01:20 PM
The handheld LED torches are good too.

We agree on something!

Would be good for car headlights too for the most part, because they are certainly easier on the battery. The only problem is that their very efficiency means, by definition, much less waste heat, so they are not self-demisting and de-icing—not an issue in Brizzy I suppose.

Ian Murray
08-07-2017, 04:10 PM
But the article doesn't blame renewable energy or any 'European' agreement - the Paris agreement is worldwide, and includes every major country (although the US is planning to withdraw).

I think it was MB who said we would miss Elliott's learned and valuable contributions to the forum

Ian Murray
08-07-2017, 04:33 PM
Congratulations! :)

Enough of it rubbed off to let me follow stuff on inorganic chemistry fairly easily


But this paper was subtitled:


Despite its problems, the fracking boom is still better than burning coal.

And ended:


But there’s little doubt that it’s a good thing for the climate when that natural gas displaces coal-burning power plants.

Absolutely. Gas is better than oil is better than coal.. But gas doesn't prevent climate change


Oh, definitely not. But if America became totally energy independent, then the huge oil tankers that transport oil from OPEC countries to the USA would not do so any more, and they must release lots of CO2 and sometimes leak or crash.

How will you become petroleum independent, and stop the tankers? (You could ask Tony Abbott for advice - stopping boats is one of his specialties) Eventually the transportation sector will have to electrify, of course


Out of how many?

China coal power plant approvals fall by 85% (http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/03/02/china-coal-plant-approval-fall-2016/)
...Completion of under construction capacity will already drive capacity to the 2020 target, meaning that there is no space for new construction initiations, unless the retirement target is increased substantially....

Ian Murray
08-07-2017, 08:13 PM
Elon Musk's big battery brings reality crashing into a post-truth world (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/07/elon-musks-big-battery-brings-reality-crashing-into-a-post-truth-world?)
The Guardian
8.7.17

Elon Musk’s agreement to build the world’s largest battery for South Australia isn’t just an extraordinary technological breakthrough that signs coal’s death warrant. It’s potentially a game changer in the way we do politics, reinserting the importance of basic reality into a debate which has been bereft of it for too long....

ER
08-07-2017, 10:01 PM
Facts about coal 1.

Or what the hysterical pseudo-environmentalists (incl. of course the members of the local deplorable quintet or is it a sextet these days?) :D :P will never tell you!



41,000 jobs, directly employed in the coal industry.

$6b in wages paid in 2013-14 by the coal industry

$37.8b company tax & royalties paid by the coal industry between 2007 -08 and 2013-14

71% Grid Electricity in Australia provided by black and brown coal.

65 Mt export volume. Australia's projected increase in coal export volume between 2016 - 2020

0.1% effective rate of government assistance to all mining!

120 Mt - the primary destination for Australia's coal export in 2014

13% coal exports. Coal has averaged more than 13% of Australia's total exports over the last five years to 2014.

$300 m industry fund. Total committed to the COAL 21 fund supporting low emissions technologies.

40% Carbon dioxide reduction with HELE (high efficiency, low emissions coal power plants.

90% Carbon dioxide reduction from carbon capture and storage.


(To be continued)

Source: Coal Hard Facts. A Mineral Council of Australia publication - 2nd edition.

From the extensive bibliographical notes I provide the following mainly for temporal reference

Department of Industry and Science, Resources and Energy Quarterly – June Quarter 2015: Statistical tables, released on 30 June 2015, Canberra.

For further reference

http://www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/files/publications/Coal_Hard_Facts_2nd_Edition_FINAL.pdf

MichaelBaron
08-07-2017, 10:36 PM
Facts about coal 1.

Or what the hysterical pseudo-environmentalists (incl. of course the members of the local deplorable quintet or is it a sextet these days?) :D :P will never tell you!



41,000 jobs, directly employed in the coal industry.

$6b in wages paid in 2013-14 by the coal industry

$37.8b company tax & royalties paid by the coal industry between 2007 -08 and 2013-14

71% Grid Electricity in Australia provided by black and brown coal.

65 Mt export volume. Australia's projected increase in coal export volume between 2016 - 2020

0.1% effective rate of government assistance to all mining!

120 Mt - the primary destination for Australia's coal export in 2014

13% coal exports. Coal has averaged more than 13% of Australia's total exports over the last five years to 2014.

$300 m industry fund. Total committed to the COAL 21 fund supporting low emissions technologies.

40% Carbon dioxide reduction with HELE (high efficiency, low emissions coal power plants.

90% Carbon dioxide reduction from carbon capture and storage.


(To be continued)

Source: Coal Hard Facts. A Mineral Council of Australia publication - 2nd edition.

From the extensive bibliographical notes I provide the following mainly for temporal reference

Department of Industry and Science, Resources and Energy Quarterly – June Quarter 2015: Statistical tables, released on 30 June 2015, Canberra.

For further reference

http://www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/files/publications/Coal_Hard_Facts_2nd_Edition_FINAL.pdf

But wait...the Left surely want to keep the jobs as well...just hit us with another stupid tax :)

Patrick Byrom
08-07-2017, 10:49 PM
But wait...the Left surely want to keep the jobs as well...just hit us with another stupid tax :)I'm sure that there will be plenty of new jobs created in the renewable energy industry.

Patrick Byrom
08-07-2017, 10:53 PM
Facts about coal 1.
Or what the hysterical pseudo-environmentalists (incl. of course the members of the local deplorable quintet or is it a sextet these days?) :D :P will never tell you!
...I'm not sure that the coal industry is an unbiased source of facts about coal.

But the industry is dying because it can't compete with cheaper forms of energy - the free market is killing it. Banks won't finance new coal mines because they're not economical.

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2017, 02:03 AM
I'm not sure that the coal industry is an unbiased source of facts about coal.

But the industry is dying because it can't compete with cheaper forms of energy - the free market is killing it. Banks won't finance new coal mines because they're not economical.

Free market killing it? If that were so, I would have no problem. But instead, it's increased costly regulation on coal and subsidies for unreliable "renewable" power, which is working oh-so-well for South Australia.

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2017, 02:22 AM
Elon Musk's big battery brings reality crashing into a post-truth world (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/07/elon-musks-big-battery-brings-reality-crashing-into-a-post-truth-world?)
The Guardian
8.7.17

Elon Musk’s agreement to build the world’s largest battery for South Australia isn’t just an extraordinary technological breakthrough that signs coal’s death warrant. It’s potentially a game changer in the way we do politics, reinserting the importance of basic reality into a debate which has been bereft of it for too long....

As Musk says himself, you need some sort of electrical storage system to cope with the inherent intermittency of "renewables" like solar and wind. And it's not all it seems, as usual for Musk (https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2017/07/07/megahype-over-tesla-battery-capable-of-providing-nameplate-power-for-less-than-80-minutes/#12c5477b4919):


On Twitter, Musk had made an attractive, but guardedly qualified price estimate of $250/kw-hr for installations larger than 100 MWhr. He quickly admitted that price does not include shipping, installation, taxes or tariffs. He failed to state that the price likely does not include site specific engineering, site appropriate cooling systems or site specific grid connection infrastructure.

Adequate cooling systems are important for high power, energy-dense battery installations. High discharge rates generate enough heat to damage the battery and its supporting electronics. Fires and explosions are more frequent occurrences than desired and are a high risk for improperly cooled or controlled systems.

With those additional installation investments, an estimate of $500-$600 per kilowatt-hour of storage is probably closer to reality. An installed 100 MW/300 MWhr lithium-ion power station would cost somewhere between $150 million -$180 million (200 million Australian dollars to A$240 million)

Within the context of addressing South Australia's electric power system stability needs, a 300 MW-hr installation appears to have been unaffordable. Premier Jay Weatherill has a total of A$550 million available, and Tesla's massive battery is only a part of the necessary capability.

As Gizmodo has reported, the system that Tesla will be installing will provide 129 MW-hr of energy storage capacity, less than half of what Rive originally hinted could be delivered. At a discharge rate of 100 MW, the battery will be totally depleted in less than 80 minutes. As all cell phone, tablet or laptop computer owners should know, it isn't advisable to fully discharge a Li-ion battery. It can dramatically reduce battery lifetime.

And the SA government is planning to spend $360 million on a fast-start 250MW gas turbine station (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-government-announces-who-will-build-100mw-giant-battery-as-part-of-its-energy-security-plan/news-story/9f83072547f41f4f5556477942168dd9) (combined cycle?) as backup. The need for fossil-fuel backup stations to cope with the inherent intermittency of "renewables" should be a reductio ad absurdum of the proposal.

Ian Murray
09-07-2017, 10:35 AM
Free market killing it? If that were so, I would have no problem. But instead, it's increased costly regulation on coal and subsidies for unreliable "renewable" power, which is working oh-so-well for South Australia.

Coal production subsidies cost Australians $1.8bn a year (http://reneweconomy.com.au/coal-production-subsidies-cost-australians-1-8bn-a-year-77543/)

That's $5.22 per tonne in direct government support

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2017, 10:42 AM
Coal production subsidies cost Australians $1.8bn a year (http://reneweconomy.com.au/coal-production-subsidies-cost-australians-1-8bn-a-year-77543/)

That's $5.22 per tonne in direct government support

That's bad too.

Ian Murray
09-07-2017, 11:03 AM
Facts about coal 1.

...

40% Carbon dioxide reduction with HELE (high efficiency, low emissions coal power plants.

90% Carbon dioxide reduction from carbon capture and storage....


There are no HELE plants in Australia, nor are there any CCS plants. Despite massive R&D efforts, CCS remains economically non-viable anywhere

Ian Murray
09-07-2017, 11:38 AM
I'm sure that there will be plenty of new jobs created in the renewable energy industry.

U.S. Renewable Energy Jobs Employ 800,000+ People and Rising: in Charts (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26052017/infographic-renewable-energy-jobs-worldwide-solar-wind-trump)

Twice as many Americans now work in the wind industry as in coal mining, and solar employs many more, but the U.S. still trails the EU and is far behind China....

Patrick Byrom
09-07-2017, 01:39 PM
As Musk says himself, you need some sort of electrical storage system to cope with the inherent intermittency of "renewables" like solar and wind. ... The need for fossil-fuel backup stations to cope with the inherent intermittency of "renewables" should be a reductio ad absurdum of the proposal.The key word here is "backup" - having an independent backup system always makes sense. It doesn't negate the argument for having cheap renewable energy as the main power source.

Patrick Byrom
09-07-2017, 07:03 PM
This is the problem with increasing carbon dioxide levels (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-clear-controversies-climate-science-a7830361.html):

The models, for instance, suggest that if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere were to reach double its preindustrial level, the planet would warm by anywhere from about 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit). But the warming patterns we've actually observed over the past 200 years or so would suggest that a doubling in carbon dioxide should only lead to about 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit), of warming at the most.
This problem is obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of the physics.

Even 3 degrees would be a serious problem, but recent research suggests that unfortunately 4.5 degrees is more likely.

Capablanca-Fan
10-07-2017, 12:01 AM
This is the problem with increasing carbon dioxide levels (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-clear-controversies-climate-science-a7830361.html):

The models, for instance, suggest that if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere were to reach double its preindustrial level, the planet would warm by anywhere from about 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit). But the warming patterns we've actually observed over the past 200 years or so would suggest that a doubling in carbon dioxide should only lead to about 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit), of warming at the most.
This problem is obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of the physics.

Even 3 degrees would be a serious problem, but recent research suggests that unfortunately 4.5 degrees is more likely.

That's not what your own quote says. 4.5°C is the upper limit for the models, but the patterns suggest 3°C. And that's talking about CO2 reaching 560 ppm from its current 403 ppm. which is a greater increase than from pre-industrial 280 ppm to today's. But increased CO2 would also mean better plant growth. According to the Left's favorite source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Impact_on_p lant_growth), "A 2005 review of 12 experiments (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01224.x/abstract) at 475-600 ppm showed an average gain of 17% in crop yield, with legumes typically showing a greater response than other species, and C4 plants generally showing less."

Capablanca-Fan
10-07-2017, 12:03 AM
The key word here is "backup" - having an independent backup system always makes sense. It doesn't negate the argument for having cheap renewable energy as the main power source.

The need for backup is not so pressing with constant power sources like fossil fuel, hydro, or nuclear. Backups are needed for power sources that just don't work either at night (solar) or on calm or ultra-windy days (wind).

Capablanca-Fan
10-07-2017, 05:08 AM
Ned Nikolov (Ph.D. in physical science) and Karl Zeller (retired Ph.D. research meteorologist)
New insights on the physical nature of the atmospheric greenhouse effect deduced from an empirical planetary temperature model (https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf)
Environment Pollution and Climate Change 1:112, 2017.

Abstract:
A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ≈ 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory.

We present here a new investigation into the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect using a novel empirical approach toward predicting the Global Mean Annual near-surface equilibrium Temperature (GMAT) of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres. Our method utilizes Dimensional Analysis (DA) applied to a vetted set of observed data from six celestial bodies representing a broad range of physical environments in our Solar System, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve relationships (models) suggested by DA are explored via non-linear regression analyses that involve dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent variables.

One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin. Our analysis revealed that GMATs of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere.

The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it.

Our empirical model has also fundamental implications for the role of oceans, water vapour, and planetary albedo in global climate. Since produced by a rigorous attempt to describe planetary temperatures in the context of a cosmic continuum using an objective analysis of vetted observations from across the Solar System, these findings call for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ as a fundamental property of climate.

Ian Murray
10-07-2017, 01:36 PM
That's not what your own quote says. 4.5°C is the upper limit for the models, but the patterns suggest 3°C. And that's talking about CO2 reaching 560 ppm from its current 403 ppm....

Daily peaks: https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

2017 (so far)

412.63 ppm on Arpil 26, 2017 (NOAA-ESRL)
411.27 ppm on May 15, 2017 (NOAA-ESRL)

2016

409.44 ppm on April 9, 2016 (Scripps)
409.39 ppm on April 8, 2016 (Scripps)

2015

404.84 ppm on April 13, 2015 (Scripps)


But increased CO2 would also mean better plant growth. According to the Left's favorite source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Impact_on_p lant_growth), "A 2005 review of 12 experiments (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01224.x/abstract) at 475-600 ppm showed an average gain of 17% in crop yield, with legumes typically showing a greater response than other species, and C4 plants generally showing less."

Which is no secret - there is a large body of research on the effects of CO2 fertilisation. However gains in plant growth do not offset the negative effects of climate change, e.g. extreme weather events, sea level rise, ocean acidification, increasing range of disease vectors (human, plant and animal).

Patrick Byrom
10-07-2017, 01:52 PM
That's not what your own quote says. 4.5°C is the upper limit for the models, but the patterns suggest 3°C. And that's talking about CO2 reaching 560 ppm from its current 403 ppm. which is a greater increase than from pre-industrial 280 ppm to today's. But increased CO2 would also mean better plant growth. According to the Left's favorite source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Impact_on_p lant_growth), "A 2005 review of 12 experiments (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01224.x/abstract) at 475-600 ppm showed an average gain of 17% in crop yield, with legumes typically showing a greater response than other species, and C4 plants generally showing less."The article explains my concern in more detail. But it doesn't really matter, as if we continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we will soon reach 4.5 anyway.

Have another look at the graph road runner posted! You are assuming a linear increase, while the graph clearly shows an exponential one - the amount has increased by about 100ppm in the last 50 years.

Increased carbon dioxide levels would mean increased plant growth only if there was no other effect. In reality, the increased temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns would be more significant.

Ian Murray
10-07-2017, 01:52 PM
Ned Nikolov (Ph.D. in physical science) and Karl Zeller (retired Ph.D. research meteorologist)
New insights on the physical nature of the atmospheric greenhouse effect deduced from an empirical planetary temperature model (https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf)
Environment Pollution and Climate Change 1:112, 2017.

Abstract:
A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ≈ 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory.....

The validity of this paper is questionable on several grounds:

...Whatever its scientific merits, the paper doesn't look very good upon meta review. First off, the authors used fake names to publish the paper in an open access site. In fact, it is the same two authors of the paper you linked, except that they spelled their names backwards (Nikolov -> Volokin; Zeller -> ReLlez). Ummm...what? Also, they later retracted the paper. Also also, the journal they published in is now defunct. All in all, this is not a sign that the paper is good science....

...The Earth's actual atmosphere and biosphere are much more dynamic than the bare model they are presenting; the formation of high-albedo clouds by equatorial rainforests,and the presence of high-albedo sand in the sunniest places on Earth are just two non-greenhouse related effects that account for temperature differences between the author's ideal bare Earth and the real Earth. ...

,,,It is interesting, and it is certainly novel (from everything I've read). It just doesn't have great conclusions. And that's fine! Most research probably doesn't lead anywhere useful. At least they tried something. People seem to be mad at them just because the results are contrary to the general climate change consensus. Research should be appraised on its merits (or lack thereof) and [not?] whether its conclusions match preconceptions....

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/10511/is-the-unified-theory-of-climate-nikolov-zeller-compatible-with-the-agw-ghg/10513

Ian Murray
10-07-2017, 02:05 PM
The need for backup is not so pressing with constant power sources like fossil fuel, hydro, or nuclear. Backups are needed for power sources that just don't work either at night (solar) or on calm or ultra-windy days (wind).

Baseload power is so 20th century!

Baseload power is a myth: even intermittent renewables will work (https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210)
The Conversation
10.4.13

The future of civilisation and much biodiversity hangs to a large degree on whether we can replace fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – with clean, safe and affordable energy within several decades. The good news is that renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures have advanced with extraordinary speed over the past decade....

The renewable energy deniers rehash, among others, the old myth that renewable energy is unreliable in supplying base-load demand....

Our latest research, available here and reported here, finds that generating systems comprising a mix of different commercially available renewable energy technologies, located on geographically dispersed sites, do not need base-load power stations to achieve the same reliability as fossil-fuelled systems....

Patrick Byrom
10-07-2017, 02:08 PM
Ned Nikolov (Ph.D. in physical science) and Karl Zeller (retired Ph.D. research meteorologist)
New insights on the physical nature of the atmospheric greenhouse effect deduced from an empirical planetary temperature model (https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf)
Environment Pollution and Climate Change 1:112, 2017.
... Let me know when their research is published in a proper physics journal - I think I'm going to be waiting a long time :)

Patrick Byrom
10-07-2017, 02:21 PM
The need for backup is not so pressing with constant power sources like fossil fuel, hydro, or nuclear. Backups are needed for power sources that just don't work either at night (solar) or on calm or ultra-windy days (wind).All power sources need backup, as you admit. So it makes perfect economic sense to mainly rely on cheaper renewable power sources plus battery storage, and keep the more expensive sources for backup.

ER
10-07-2017, 03:31 PM
Facts about coal 2.

Or what the hysterical pseudo-environmentalists (incl. of course the members of the local deplorable quintet or is it a sextet these days?) will never tell you!

In Australia we have four HELE plants. All of them In QLD.

High efficiency, low emission (HELE) technologies allow power generators to operate at higher temperatures and greater pressure while at the same time reducing by up to 40% emissions generated per watt of electricity.
HELE supercritical and ultrasupercritical coal technologies are operating throughout the world with a current capacity of 518GW and a further 286GW planned or under construction. In total, this is over 16 times Australia’s coal-fired generation capacity.

The Australian Government and the Australian coal sector use the term ‘clean coal’ to refer to HELE technology.

Kogan Creek Power Station is Australia’s fourth super-critical coal-fired plant. It has the capacity to power up to a million homes (provided with 2.8 million tonnes of coal a year from the Kogan Creek mine) using less water through its dry cooling technology, and producing fewer emissions

Australian HELE plants and output.

3502

Kogan Creek Power Station is Australia’s fourth super-critical coal-fired plant. It has the capacity to power up to a million homes (provided with 2.8 million tonnes of coal a year from the Kogan Creek mine) using less water through its dry cooling technology, and producing fewer emissions


Sources:
http://mininglink.com.au/site/kogan-creek
http://reneweconomy.com.au/clean-australias-clean-coal-power-stations-14224/

Patrick Byrom
10-07-2017, 04:06 PM
From Elliot's second link above:

However the economics are unconvincing and getting worse. Massive investment is required to make a technology that is marginally less polluting but more expensive than current coal technology — a technology that is being undercut by renewable energy by ever increasing margins. Coal power generation in Australia has peaked and there are many reasons (beyond the scope of this piece) why the decline is terminal. HELE has been touted by some as the saviour of the coal generation sector, yet the technology’s only hope for a strong future is very high carbon pricing. Somewhat ironically, the key cheerleaders for HELE — the Australian Government and the coal industry — have been the lead players in killing off all efforts to properly price carbon pollution.My italics!

Ian Murray
10-07-2017, 05:39 PM
Facts about coal 2

...In Australia we have four HELE plants. All of them In QLD.

High efficiency, low emission (HELE) technologies allow power generators to operate at higher temperatures and greater pressure while at the same time reducing by up to 40% emissions generated per watt of electricity.
HELE supercritical and ultrasupercritical coal technologies are operating throughout the world with a current capacity of 518GW and a further 286GW planned or under construction. In total, this is over 16 times Australia’s coal-fired generation capacity.

The Australian Government and the Australian coal sector use the term ‘clean coal’ to refer to HELE technology.

Kogan Creek Power Station is Australia’s fourth super-critical coal-fired plant. It has the capacity to power up to a million homes (provided with 2.8 million tonnes of coal a year from the Kogan Creek mine) using less water through its dry cooling technology, and producing fewer emissions...

Supercritical plants are obsolescent - ultra-supercritical is the current HELE standard, with Advanced USC under development, although dependent on new alloys to handle the higher temperatures

The chemistry involved dictates that burning one tonne of coal will emit 2.3 tonnes of CO2, whether or not the coal is 'clean' or 'dirty'. The new generations of generators burn less coal, but will always emit CO2 (and other GHGs unless scrubbed from the smokestack).

Desmond
10-07-2017, 07:34 PM
Facts about coal 1.

Or what the hysterical pseudo-environmentalists (incl. of course the members of the local deplorable quintet or is it a sextet these days?) :D :P will never tell you!



41,000 jobs, directly employed in the coal industry.

$6b in wages paid in 2013-14 by the coal industry

$37.8b company tax & royalties paid by the coal industry between 2007 -08 and 2013-14

71% Grid Electricity in Australia provided by black and brown coal.

65 Mt export volume. Australia's projected increase in coal export volume between 2016 - 2020

0.1% effective rate of government assistance to all mining!

120 Mt - the primary destination for Australia's coal export in 2014

13% coal exports. Coal has averaged more than 13% of Australia's total exports over the last five years to 2014.

$300 m industry fund. Total committed to the COAL 21 fund supporting low emissions technologies.

40% Carbon dioxide reduction with HELE (high efficiency, low emissions coal power plants.

90% Carbon dioxide reduction from carbon capture and storage.


(To be continued)

Source: Coal Hard Facts. A Mineral Council of Australia publication - 2nd edition.

From the extensive bibliographical notes I provide the following mainly for temporal reference

Department of Industry and Science, Resources and Energy Quarterly – June Quarter 2015: Statistical tables, released on 30 June 2015, Canberra.

For further reference

http://www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/files/publications/Coal_Hard_Facts_2nd_Edition_FINAL.pdf

A reality check on coal (http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/PageFiles/728009/Reality%20check%20on%20coal%20report.pdf)
Greenpeace Australia, 2016

1. Executive summary
The Australian coal industry’s contribution to the economy is rapidly shrinking – even as its contribution towards global warming is spiralling out of control. The coal industry claims to be an indispensable part of the economy and labour market, but the truth is very different. Although the amount of coal Australia produces continues to increase, albeit slower than expected, its economic contribution and significance to Australia’s economy is diminishing rapidly. ...

2. Shrinking value
Since the peak in the resources boom, the contribution of the coal industry to Australia’s economy has plummeted. The value of coal exports has fallen by 30% from $54bn to $38bn.2 At the same time, coal exploration expenditure has plunged from nearly $1bn a year to just over $200m.3 What was an industry worth around nearly 4.5% of GDP has shrunk to 2%.4 In other words, the coal industry is less than half as important to the economy as it was just a few years ago. ...

3. Fewer Jobs
Since the boom peak in 2012, nearly 20,000 jobs have been lost in the coal industry. Low coal prices have forced cutbacks and led to the shelving of numerous projects. ...

4. Less federal revenue
Taxes and royalties collected from the coal industry by governments have also shrunk dramatically in the past five years. As the Queensland Resources Council has admitted publicly, a third of coal mines in that state are not profitable at current coal prices, with that figure as high as 50% for thermal coal mines.24 Nil profit means nil company tax. So, perhaps not surprisingly, the federal government receives a tiny fraction of its revenues from the coal industry. ...

5. Less state revenue
At the state level, governments are also relying less on the coal industry to fund government services. Most Australian states get no significant revenue from coal. With the abolition of the carbon tax and the MRRT, there is even less prospect that non-coal producing states will share in any significant benefit. The state governments that do benefit from coal are Queensland and New South Wales, and to a much lesser extent Victoria (which has no black coal or coal export industry). Yet, even in Queensland and New South Wales coal’s contribution has crashed in spite of rising production volumes. ...

6. A changing equation
Australia’s economy is already moving on from coal, and our political leaders need to catch up with that reality. In spite of slavish bi-partisan support for the coal industry, the nation’s prosperity is depending less and less on coal. For every tonne of coal produced Australia is receiving less income, fewer jobs, and lower royalties and taxes. Coal exports are now a minor contributor to the nation’s economy, providing 2% of GDP, less than 1.5% of tax revenue, and less than 1% of jobs.37 Other industries now account for over 88% of exports too. ...

Ian Murray
10-07-2017, 07:56 PM
A reality check on coal (http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/PageFiles/728009/Reality%20check%20on%20coal%20report.pdf)
Greenpeace Australia, 2016...

Facts about coal and jobs in Queensland:

Coal mining now employs less than 1 percent of people who work in Queensland.
Coal mining currently employs around 20,000 people in Queensland. This has fallen from a highpoint of 30,000 in 2013. There are 2.36 million people in work in Queensland.
Nationally, coal mining is projected to cut its workforce by 21 percent by November 2020, according to Commonwealth Department of Employment projections.
In Queensland, all parts of mining (coal, as well as gas and other resources) are projected to fall by 7,400 jobs to 2020.

http://www.tai.org.au/content/facts-jobs-coal-and-queensland

Capablanca-Fan
11-07-2017, 02:38 AM
The chemistry involved dictates that burning one tonne of coal will emit 2.3 tonnes of CO2, whether or not the coal is 'clean' or 'dirty'.
I don't know how you get that. Clean coal means purer carbon. Lignite ("brown coal") has only 60–70% C, and quite a lot of moisture and ash. Anthracite has >90% carbon, so burning of that will produce more CO2 for a given mass. What you might be getting at is that the same energy release will produce about the same amount of CO2, if we assume that C is the only combustible.

Also, this is a point in your favour: C has a relative atomic mass (Ar) of 12, and combines with two oxygen atoms (Ar=16), so CO2 has a relative molecular mass of 44. The ratio between these is 1:3.66... which is thus also the ratio of C to CO2 mass, assuming complete combustion.


The new generations of generators burn less coal, but will always emit CO2 (and other GHGs unless scrubbed from the smokestack).
But new generations are still less emissive for a given power output than old ones, and let's face it, Rankine cycle steam engines are responsible for about 80% of world electricity generation, and most are still powered by fossil fuels, and a lot are powered by nuclear fission. Intermittent sources like solar and wind are not going to over on a sufficient scale.

Ian Murray
11-07-2017, 06:02 AM
I don't know how you get that. Clean coal means purer carbon. Lignite ("brown coal") has only 60–70% C, and quite a lot of moisture and ash. Anthracite has >90% carbon, so burning of that will produce more CO2 for a given mass. What you might be getting at is that the same energy release will produce about the same amount of CO2, if we assume that C is the only combustible.

The average for coal is 2.3:1. Of course the coal quality, ash, sulphur and/or other impurites etc make a difference


Also, this is a point in your favour: C has a relative atomic mass (Ar) of 12, and combines with two oxygen atoms (Ar=16), so CO2 has a relative molecular mass of 44. The ratio between these is 1:3.66... which is thus also the ratio of C to CO2 mass, assuming complete combustion.

Right. Burning a tonne of carbon gives you 3.67 tonnes of CO2


But new generations are still less emissive for a given power output than old ones, and let's face it, Rankine cycle steam engines are responsible for about 80% of world electricity generation, and most are still powered by fossil fuels, and a lot are powered by nuclear fission. Intermittent sources like solar and wind are not going to over on a sufficient scale.

That sort of complacency doesn't cut it anymore. Electricity generation is the greatest source of GHG emissions and is the source which has to be slashed. It can be done, e.g. California has virtually no coal generation and is producing more renewable energy than in can use - the surplus goes to the Western grid.

“Base load” power: a myth used to defend the fossil fuel industry (http://reneweconomy.com.au/base-load-power-a-myth-used-to-defend-the-fossil-fuel-industry-96007/)
ReNewEconomy
2.3.16

Last week, leading lights of the global fossil power industry gathered at a conference in Houston, Texas, for CERA, known in the sector as the “Davos of Energy”. They reportedly got the shock of their professional careers.

They had invited the most senior executives from the biggest network owner (Chine State Grid Corp) in the biggest energy market in the world (China). The organisers fully expected their Chinese guest to endorse the “all of the above” marketing pitch, which is underpinning the “keep coal” campaign.

No such luck. Despite prodding by leading oil industry commentator Daniel Yergin, the chairman of State Grid Liu Zhenya reportedly said the “fundamental solution was to accelerate clean energy, with the aim of replacing coal and oil.”

Gasp number one. And then to more stunned silence, he and State Grid’s R&D chief Huang Han dismissed coal’s claim to be an indispensable source of “base load” generation.

As the network operator builds out its clean power sources, they noted, coal-fired generators could only serve as “reserve power” to supplement renewables.

"The only hurdle to overcome is 'mindset'," Liu said. "There's no technical challenge at all."....

Ian Murray
11-07-2017, 09:24 AM
China and India Lead Global Renewable Energy Transition (http://newsroom.unfccc.int/climate-action/china-and-india-lead-global-renewable-energy-transition/)
Allianz/ Germanwatch/ New Climate Institute Report
21.4.17

...China and India Overshoot their Renewable Energy Targets Regularly and Are Exiting Coal

China and India are currently well on track to achieve their climate targets set for the Paris Agreement.

China aims to increase the renewable energy capacity by 38% in 2020 compared to2015 levels, equaling 680 Gigawatt (GW) of installed capacities and investments of USD361 billion in renewable energies. For comparison: Germany, which ranked first in the Allianz Climate & Energy Monitor 2016 for its renewable energy policies, currently has roughly100 GW renewables installed. A new park of 10 wind mills has around 0.04 GW of capacity.

India is also developing its renewable energy capacity at a rapid pace. In 2016, solar and wind installations exceeded the annual goal by 43% and 116% respectively. For 2022,India plans 175 GW of installed renewables. With market forces set into action by a clear policy intent, India is expected to comfortably achieve its climate targets.

Both countries are looking to exit coal-based power generation: China is cancelling plans for new fossil-based power plants and swiftly decommissioning existing coal power plants, while India is considering plans to stop building new coal power plants after 2022.

Staunch Support for Renewables in Individual US States

In the US, renewables are booming with more than 16 GW of wind and solarcapacities installed in 2016, accounting for 60% of all new capacity (27 GW). This has been driven by ambitious Renewable Portfolio Standards in various US states and tax credit schemes on federal level as well as the decline in costs for renewables....

ER
11-07-2017, 10:22 AM
Facts about coal 3.

Or what the hysterical pseudo-environmentalists (incl. of course the members of the local deplorable quintet or is it a sextet these days?) will never tell you!

OK as the time of my departure for my European summer break approaches,
I better start adding point by point some important realities about coal and its impact on our society.

1. DEMAND FOR COAL IS STRONG

Over the last decade, coal use has grown more strongly than any other energy source.
The demand for both metallurgical and thermal coal is increasing as highly populated emerging economies urbanise and industrialise.
In 2019 the world will use 1 billion tonnes more coal than today – more than 9 billion tonnes a year. By 2040, the global coal trade will increase by 40 per cent.

2 CHINA & INDIA ARE NOT SHUNNING COAL

China will consume more coal than the rest of the world over the next two decades.
Demand may plateau in the 2020s, but China’s coal imports will still be higher than today in 2040.
The International Energy Agency says ‘China will be the coal giant for many years in the future.’
Indian coal demand is also increasing. India will overtake China as the world’s largest importer of coal in 2025,
with exports more than tripling by 2040. There is currently 113 GW of coal-fired generation capacity under construction or approved – an amount twice Australia’s total capacity today.

3 WORLD ENERGY DEMAND CAN’T BE MET WITHOUT COAL

World primary energy demand will increase by 37 per cent between 2012 and 2040.
Under all climate action scenarios, coal remains an important part of the global energy mix.
There is no credible scenario in which all coal reserves remain in the ground.

(to be continued)

SOURCE

http://www.newhopegroup.com.au/files/files/150625%20Coal%20-%20The%20Hard%20Facts%20-%20information%20sheet.pdf

Includes extensive list of names, addresses and phone nos.
of services which can provide you with all scientifically proven information you need.

Rincewind
11-07-2017, 11:19 AM
Includes extensive list of names, addresses and phone nos.
of services which can provide you with all scientifically proven information you need.

The New Hope Group is a coal energy company and none of the contacts are impartial or scientists. Not a very convincing appeal to authority.

Ian Murray
11-07-2017, 01:25 PM
The New Hope Group is a coal energy company and none of the contacts are impartial or scientists. Not a very convincing appeal to authority.

The three "realities" of Elliott's are all pipe dreams - coal is in decline everywhere it counts

Capablanca-Fan
11-07-2017, 01:34 PM
The New Hope Group is a coal energy company and none of the contacts are impartial or scientists. Not a very convincing appeal to authority.

But Elon "I adore government subsidies" Musk is the epitome of objectivity? Remember Solyndra that cost American taxpayers half a billion dollars?

Rincewind
11-07-2017, 02:34 PM
But Elon "I adore government subsidies" Musk is the epitome of objectivity? Remember Solyndra that cost American taxpayers half a billion dollars?

Where was I quoting Elon Musk? Contrast that to the following quote


Includes extensive list of names, addresses and phone nos.
of services which can provide you with all scientifically proven information you need.

Where Elliott is making an explicit appeal to authority.

Desmond
11-07-2017, 02:41 PM
Where Elliott is making an explicit appeal to authority.I might not have any fancy science degrees or PHDs, but I'm pretty sure counting goes 1 2 3 not 1 2 2.

Rincewind
11-07-2017, 02:53 PM
I might not have any fancy science degrees or PHDs, but I'm pretty sure counting goes 1 2 3 not 1 2 2.

Opinion is divided. Most everyone thinks it goes 1, 2, 3. But I have an alternative fact sheet from the 1,2,2 lobby group who disagree which includes an extensive list of names, addresses and phone nos. of non-mathematicians who can provide you with all the mathematically proven information you need.

Ian Murray
11-07-2017, 07:27 PM
Remember Solyndra that cost American taxpayers half a billion dollars?

Fruitlfess carbon capture and storage projects have cost taxpayers much more

ER
11-07-2017, 09:02 PM
Facts about coal 4

Or what the hysterical pseudo-environmentalists (incl. of course momma superior and the members of the local deplorable quintet or is it a sextet these days?) will never tell you!


4

COAL IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF STEEL AND CEMENT – & DEMAND IS GROWING
Energy and steel consumption in emerging economies has grown rapidly in the past decade but many of these countries still use much less energy and steel than advanced economies.8 For example, China’s rail network is still one-third that of the United States and one-sixth of the European Union despite its larger land mass and population. Moreover, it is not possible to build a wind turbine without coal. There is more than 220 tonnes of coal in every wind turbine.

5 AUSTRALIA DOESN’T HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN COAL & A LOW-EMISSIONS FUTURE

High efficiency, low emissions (HELE) coal-fired generators emit 20-25 per cent less CO2 than the average of existing power stations and up to 40 per cent less than the oldest technology in place. With carbon capture and storage (CCS), a 90 per cent reduction in emissions can be achieved. This technology is working now: • CO2 emissions from modern ultra supercritical coal plants are comparable with those from open cycle gas fired generation. • There are 13 large-scale CCS projects in operation around the world capturing 40 million tonnes of CO2 a year • Canada’s SaskPower launched the world’s first commercial scale, coal-fired power plant with CCS in 2014. It injects 90 per cent of the CO2 emissions produced.

6
LOW EMISSION COAL TECHNOLOGY IS BEING DEPLOYED IN AUSTRALIA

Since 2007, the Australian coal industry has committed more than $300 million in a range of projects, with tens of millions of dollars more. Projects supported by the industry have successfully captured CO2 at a coal-fired power plant at Callide in Queensland’s Bowen Basin, sequestered 65,000 tonnes of CO2 in a depleted gas field in Victoria’s Otway Basin and intensified the search for storage sites for future CCS projects with exploration work underway or planned in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia.

SOURCE

http://www.newhopegroup.com.au/files...on%20sheet.pdf

Includes extensive list of names, addresses and phone nos.
of services which can provide you with all scientifically proven information you need.

Rincewind
11-07-2017, 09:43 PM
Wow. Coal is amazing. According to MMG Limited, Glencore, Newcrest Mining, Paladin Energy, Wesfarmers Resources, Anglo-American Coal, Rio Tinto Australia, AngloGold Ashanti Australia, Toro Energy, BHP Billiton, Peabody Energy, EDI Mining and Newmont Asia Pacific. That is the mining companies whose job it is to dig up, sell and/or burn coal.

ER
11-07-2017, 10:02 PM
Meanwhile back in Australia

Barnaby Joyce has dismissed South Australia’s plan for the world’s biggest lithium ion battery as a good idea but too small to make much difference. Billionaire investor Elon Musk’s company Tesla will build the 100 megawatt battery — paired with a new wind farm from French company Neoen — within 100 days, or deliver it for free after signing a deal with the SA government.

But the acting prime minister said people shouldn’t think this is going to be the power solution for the state.

Source: The Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/barnaby-joyce-dismisses-south-australias-lithium-ion-battery-plan-as-too-small-to-make-a-difference/news-story/1fbd0b67a0ae5a66a7b82beed05188ec

The Australian's Environment Editor (Sydney) Graham Lloyd gives the whole thing a band aid effect! LOL :D

South Australia’s battery band-aid for a serious power problem

The best way to consider Tesla’s “world’s biggest battery” for South Australia is like a baby sitter who will soothe a troubled infant until the grown ups get home.
The baby has been wailing in South Australia since the state was plunged into darkness when all power was lost following storms in September.
The nappy rash is showing all over state Labor’s political hide.
The pain is explicit in Premier Jay Weatherill’s motherly advice to critics: “Don’t say anything if you can’t say something positive.”

SOURCE: The Australian

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/south-australias-battery-bandaid-for-a-serious-power-problem/news-story/aa19ddeb3a376cd7d0ef8606806a2eef

ER
11-07-2017, 10:13 PM
Actually, the situation in SA is not a laughing matter at all!

As Elizabeth comments in The Australian

"Weatherill is desperate, he knows soaring summer temperatures are only a few months away and the power system in his state will not cope, a situation he created".

Desmond
11-07-2017, 10:17 PM
Opinion is divided. Most everyone thinks it goes 1, 2, 3. But I have an alternative fact sheet from the 1,2,2 lobby group who disagree which includes an extensive list of names, addresses and phone nos. of non-mathematicians who can provide you with all the mathematically proven information you need.

Great to see Elliott is one to correct his mistake, even if it is after being pointed out in posts he supposedly isn't reading!

Patrick Byrom
11-07-2017, 10:17 PM
Meanwhile back in Australia ...The Australian newspaper and their environment reporter Graham Lloyd have a dismal record of misreporting on environment issues. You can safely assume that anything negative they say is probably wrong. Here are just (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3596892.htm)two (http://www.readfearn.com/tag/graham-lloyd/) examples of their rubbish.

Capablanca-Fan
11-07-2017, 11:56 PM
Great to see Elliott is one to correct his mistake, even if it is after being pointed out in posts he supposedly isn't reading!

Typo flames now? Don't you have anything better to do?

Capablanca-Fan
11-07-2017, 11:58 PM
Actually, the situation in SA is not a laughing matter at all!

As Elizabeth comments in The Australian

"Weatherill is desperate, he knows soaring summer temperatures are only a few months away and the power system in his state will not cope, a situation he created".

Typical: the anti-coal jihad combined with crony capitalist "renewables" has left a Leftist-run state without adequate power. Similarly, the Victoria leftists refused to build a dam, so the state alternately floods and thirsts.

Capablanca-Fan
12-07-2017, 02:19 AM
Fruitlfess carbon capture and storage projects have cost taxpayers much more

I don't like any government subsidies, but how so? Mind you, presumably the carbon capture and storage projects at least results in lots of electricity generation that can recover costs, unlike Solyndra.

Capablanca-Fan
12-07-2017, 02:23 AM
Wow. Coal is amazing. According to MMG Limited, Glencore, Newcrest Mining, Paladin Energy, Wesfarmers Resources, Anglo-American Coal, Rio Tinto Australia, AngloGold Ashanti Australia, Toro Energy, BHP Billiton, Peabody Energy, EDI Mining and Newmont Asia Pacific. That is the mining companies whose job it is to dig up, sell and/or burn coal.

Yes, coal is amazing. Without this concentrated stored solar energy source, the Industrial Revolution would never have happened. Without coal, people chopped down trees for fuel, or worse, used dung, which still happens in places without coal or reliable electricity sources. Similarly, oil from the ground saved the whales, since whale oil was no longer needed for lamps. Even better was the much-maligned incandescent light bulb. And the motorcar saved cities from being drowned in horse sh!t in the 1890s—The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 (http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/), by Ben Johnson, Historic UK:


This huge number of horses created major problems. The main concern was the large amount of manure left behind on the streets. On average a horse will produce between 15 and 35 pounds of manure per day, so you can imagine the sheer scale of the problem. The manure on London’s streets also attracted huge numbers of flies which then spread typhoid fever and other diseases.

Each horse also produced around 2 pints of urine per day and to make things worse, the average life expectancy for a working horse was only around 3 years. Horse carcasses therefore also had to be removed from the streets. The bodies were often left to putrefy so the corpses could be more easily sawn into pieces for removal.

The streets of London were beginning to poison its people.

But this wasn’t just a British crisis: New York had a population of 100,000 horses producing around 2.5m pounds of manure a day.

This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted… “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”

This became known as the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’.

The Left usually fail to ask the simple question, "Compared to what?" That is, they compare the current situation with Heaven, instead of with the realistic alternatives here on earth. OK, at least there is now a real superior alternative to the incandescent bulb: white LEDs.

Desmond
12-07-2017, 08:32 AM
Typo flames now? Don't you have anything better to do?

Just commending Elliott on fixing his mistake, that's one up on yourself.

I did post some research if you want something substantive to address (won't hold my breath).

Ian Murray
12-07-2017, 08:56 AM
The streets of London were beginning to poison its people.

But this wasn’t just a British crisis: New York had a population of 100,000 horses producing around 2.5m pounds of manure a day....

In the US burning coal leaves 19 million tons of ash every year, a major environmental problem in its disposal. Renewables leave no waste

Ian Murray
12-07-2017, 09:07 AM
I don't like any government subsidies, but how so? Mind you, presumably the carbon capture and storage projects at least results in lots of electricity generation that can recover costs, unlike Solyndra.

The failure of the Kemper carbon capture plant alone lost $378 million in DOE subsidies. Being on wifi out of town at the moment limits my searching, but there are more - feel free to google

http://www.elp.com/articles/2016/11/report-warns-against-further-kemper-power-plant-subsidies.html

Rincewind
12-07-2017, 10:43 AM
The Australian's Environment Editor (Sydney) Graham Lloyd gives the whole thing a band aid effect! LOL

Wow. If someone as unbiased at Graham Lloyd who publishes for a anti-business outlet like the Australian doesn't like it, then it must be bad.

Honestly Elliott you have added nothing to this discussion except verbatim quotes from obvious propaganda outlets like the Mineral Council and now outspoken critic of renewable energy Lloyd. Perhaps try to do some fact checking before spreading fertiliser around.

Patrick Byrom
12-07-2017, 01:25 PM
...The Left usually fail to ask the simple question, "Compared to what?" That is, they compare the current situation with Heaven, instead of with the realistic alternatives here on earth. OK, at least there is now a real superior alternative to the incandescent bulb: white LEDs.Except that there are superior alternatives to coal, which has been pointed out to you many times. This is why the demand for coal is dying.

MichaelBaron
12-07-2017, 01:27 PM
Wow. If someone as unbiased at Graham Lloyd who publishes for a anti-business outlet like the Australian doesn't like it, then it must be bad.

Honestly Elliott you have added nothing to this discussion except verbatim quotes from obvious propaganda outlets like the Mineral Council and now outspoken critic of renewable energy Lloyd. Perhaps try to do some fact checking before spreading fertiliser around.

Very typical - you are questioning validity of ALL sources ..that do not show your viewpoint. By the way, you may be aware that it is acceptable for academics to refer to reputable non-academic sources (such as white papers). Dismissing viewpoint of the industry will not contribute to portraying an objective picture.

Rincewind
12-07-2017, 02:40 PM
Very typical - you are questioning validity of ALL sources ..that do not show your viewpoint. By the way, you may be aware that it is acceptable for academics to refer to reputable non-academic sources (such as white papers). Dismissing viewpoint of the industry will not contribute to portraying an objective picture.

Typical of climate denialism to try to create a false balance. The Minerals Council of Australia is a mining lobby-group. They spend millions every year promoting the benefits of burning coal which is lucky because if people stopped burning coal they would be financially disadvantaged since they make money by digging up and burning coal. Scientists don't make money from convincing people to burn more or less coal. They make money by presenting the best argument of what we know and the implications that has on how we should live. In the last 200 years the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from ~250 ppm to ~400 ppm and continues to rise. This is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal and it has caused climate change and if we continue it will cause even more sever climate change. This worries everyone, most people because if they screw up the planet we will have nowhere to live. But it worries coal companies because they may be left with reserves of coal they were not able to sell before they killed the planet.

Ian Murray
12-07-2017, 02:45 PM
Very typical - you are questioning validity of ALL sources ..that do not show your viewpoint. By the way, you may be aware that it is acceptable for academics to refer to reputable non-academic sources (such as white papers). Dismissing viewpoint of the industry will not contribute to portraying an objective picture.

Keywords are "reputable" and "objective". The Australian and the coal industry self-promoting beat-up are neither

Ian Murray
12-07-2017, 03:06 PM
...OK, at least there is now a real superior alternative to the incandescent bulb: white LEDs.

You see, that's technological advancement! That's what's happening in the energy industry along with everywhwre else. Coal replaced wood as a fuel, and now there are better ways and we're moving on

ER
13-07-2017, 10:09 AM
Facts about coal. 5

Or what the hysterical pseudo-environmentalists (incl. of course momma superior and the members of the local deplorable quintet or is it a sextet these days?) will never tell you!

7 COAL WILL REMAIN A SOUND INVESTMENT

Coal remains a sound investment, with banks continuing to lend to new and existing projects. Global financing for coal mining rose to US$66 billion in 2014, up from US $55.28 billion in 2013 and a 360 per cent increase from 2005. Anti-development activists want investors to divest their holdings of fossil fuel assets. Analysis by Rice Warner Actuaries found that ‘socially responsible’ superannuation investment options (including those that screen out fossil fuels) tend to cost more in management fees and deliver less in net long-term returns than conventional funds.

8 COAL WILL CONTINUE TO UNDERPIN AUSTRALIA’S PROSPERITY

Coal is Australia’s second largest export. It contributed $40 billion to national income in 2013-14 and will contribute $47 billion a year by 2019-20.12 Coal mining employs 45,800 people directly and supports the jobs of another 123,660. The industry paid $3.1 billion in royalties last financial year – $1.8 billion in Queensland, $1.3 billion in New South Wales. Over the four years, black coal royalties will total $18.1 billion – $11.3 billion in Queensland, $6.8 billion in New South Wales.


9 THE AUSTRALIAN COAL INDUSTRY DOES NOT RELY ON SUBSIDIES

The Productivity Commission’s independent analysis of government assistance found ‘The estimated effective rate of assistance from tariff and budgetary assistance for mining has been negligible.’15 At a global level, the International Monetary Fund has found that just 1.25 per cent of so-called ‘fossil fuel subsidies’ are directed to the coal sector.

ER
13-07-2017, 10:19 AM
SOURCES & REFERENCES

1 BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2015, data workbook.

2 International Energy Agency, Medium-Term Coal Market Report 2014, released on 15 December 2014, Paris, p. 13. NB that these projections are based on the IEA’s core scenario, which takes current and prospective climate-change policies into account, not a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario.

3 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2014, pp. 180, 184, 191.

4 International Energy Agency, Medium-Term Coal Market Report 2014, p. 13.

5 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2014, p. 198f.

6 ibid., p. 53.

7 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2014, p. 56.

8 McKinsey & Co., Resource Revolution: Tracking global commodity markets, Trends survey 2013, September 2013, p. 14f.

9 Department of Industry and Science, Resources and Energy Quarterly, March Quarter 2015, Canberra, p. 23.

10 USGS, Wind Energy in the United States and Materials required for the land based wind turbine industry from 2010 through 2030.

11 Michael Rice, Chief Executive Officer, Rice Warner Actuaries, Analysis of ‘socially responsible investment’ options, presentation prepared for the Minerals Council of Australia, 18 August 2014.

12 Department of Industry and Science, Resources and Energy Quarterly, March Quarter 2015, Canberra, p. 18.

13 Sinclair Davidson and Ashton de Silva, The Australian Coal Industry – Adding value to the Australian Economy, paper commissioned by the Australian Coal Association, April 2013, p. 7.

14 Queensland Government, State Budget 2014-15, Budget Paper No. 2: Budget Strategy and Outlook, p. 176; NSW Government, Budget 2014-15: Budget Paper No. 2, p. 6 – 29.

15 ibid., p. 73.

16 International Monetary Fund, Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications, 28 January, 2013, p.11.

17 Manhattan Institute http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/eper_14.htm#. VXppTPnzqUk

18 Bill Gates, Two Videos That Illuminate Energy Poverty, 25 June 2014.

Rincewind
13-07-2017, 10:37 AM
Success people. Elliott has discovered the Ctrl key and how it can team up with the C and V keys.

MichaelBaron
13-07-2017, 10:41 AM
Typical of climate denialism to try to create a false balance. The Minerals Council of Australia is a mining lobby-group. They spend millions every year promoting the benefits of burning coal which is lucky because if people stopped burning coal they would be financially disadvantaged since they make money by digging up and burning coal. Scientists don't make money from convincing people to burn more or less coal. They make money by presenting the best argument of what we know and the implications that has on how we should live. In the last 200 years the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from ~250 ppm to ~400 ppm and continues to rise. This is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal and it has caused climate change and if we continue it will cause even more sever climate change. This worries everyone, most people because if they screw up the planet we will have nowhere to live. But it worries coal companies because they may be left with reserves of coal they were not able to sell before they killed the planet.

All Industry bodies are ''lobby groups'' in a way as they represent interests of a particular industry. However, this alone is no reason to question validity of their research/statements. On the other hand, re scientists making/not making money on their statements and papers...:) :) :). So what about research grants they get? what about ''getting their name out''? scientists can not be lobby groups or represent lobby groups? We can see a lot of research around the world being ''commissioned''.

Patrick Byrom
13-07-2017, 01:07 PM
All Industry bodies are ''lobby groups'' in a way as they represent interests of a particular industry. However, this alone is no reason to question validity of their research/statements.Of course it is. Any journalist would be aware that it's wrong to just 'cut-and-paste' a press release as Elliot is doing.


On the other hand, re scientists making/not making money on their statements and papers...:) :) :). So what about research grants they get? what about ''getting their name out''? scientists can not be lobby groups or represent lobby groups? We can see a lot of research around the world being ''commissioned''.Rincewind was referring to university research, not research for lobby groups. Scepticism should be applied to scientific papers too, but scientific success depends on disproving the work of other scientists, so there is a built-in self-correction mechanism.

Patrick Byrom
13-07-2017, 03:19 PM
This is real journalism. Greg Jericho does a critical analysis of a government report (https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2017/jul/11/no-wonder-the-government-tries-to-hide-its-emissions-reports-they-stink), and concludes that the carbon tax was effective in reducing emissions, while Direct Action has not been.

His final conclusion is also interesting:

Right now the government won’t even commit to a clean energy target, even though the Finkel Review found that it would lead to lower electricity prices as well as lower emissions compared to business as usual. A report by energy analysis firm RepuTex this week also showed that that a more ambitious target of 45% below 2005 levels would see even lower electricity prices by 2030 due to the increase in renewable energy production and a lower reliance on gas – which is the main cause of a 10% rise in electricity prices in Sydney over the past year and a 7.7% rise in Melbourne.

ER
13-07-2017, 04:14 PM
Meanwhile in the real world..

The price of spot cargoes from Australia’s Newcastle port, the world’s largest thermal coal export harbour, have jumped 23 percent since mid-May to close on Wednesday at $87.90 a tonne.

From various sources incl

https://www.europebreakingnews.net/2017/07/column-weather-plays-havoc-with-china-coal-imports-prices-russell/

Ian Murray
13-07-2017, 04:35 PM
SOURCES & REFERENCES

1 BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2015....

Rely heavily on IEA 2014 WEO which of course preceded the Paris Accord of 2015. Afted COT21 totally altered the global energy outlook IEA reworked its models in line with the Paris pledges. Its 2017 Energy Technological Perspectives project that the 2degC target is achievable by 2050 with existing technology, with electricity generation met by a mix of 74% renewables, 15% nuclear, 7% fossil fuels with CCS and 4% natural gas.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4080934-iea-models-paris-agreement-grim-news-fossil-fuels-good-news-renewable-energy

Patrick Byrom
13-07-2017, 06:42 PM
Meanwhile in the real world..
The price of spot cargoes from Australia’s Newcastle port, the world’s largest thermal coal export harbour, have jumped 23 percent since mid-May to close on Wednesday at $87.90 a tonne....Down from a high of $US130 a tonne only a few years ago. (http://reneweconomy.com.au/nine-reasons-why-thermal-coal-is-struggling-and-will-continue-to-do-so-20342/)

Rincewind
13-07-2017, 06:59 PM
All Industry bodies are ''lobby groups'' in a way as they represent interests of a particular industry. However, this alone is no reason to question validity of their research/statements. On the other hand, re scientists making/not making money on their statements and papers...:) :) :). So what about research grants they get? what about ''getting their name out''? scientists can not be lobby groups or represent lobby groups? We can see a lot of research around the world being ''commissioned''.

Tier one grants are generally government funded and highly competitive making the best science usually winning out. Some scientists are funded by lobby groups which is why good journals always require authors to disclose conflicts of interest.

Desmond
13-07-2017, 08:04 PM
Just wondering if we can pause the coal worship for long enough to notice a One trillion tonne iceberg breaks off Larsen C Ice Shelf in Antarctic (http://www.smh.com.au/world/one-trillion-tonne-iceberg-breaks-off-antarctic-peninsula-20170712-gxa273.html).

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2017, 04:37 AM
Just wondering if we can pause the coal worship

Could some of the coal-haters tell us why Australia exports coal at all if it's so satanic? According to an Australian government website (https://www.industry.gov.au/resource/Mining/AustralianMineralCommodities/Pages/Coal.aspx):


Coal is Australia's largest energy export earner. In 2010–11, Australia exported 283 million tonnes (Mt) of metallurgical and thermal coal to world markets worth A$43.7 billion. Total coal (black, saleable) production in Australia in 2010–11 is estimated to have been 345 Mt. Over the medium term, total Australian metallurgical and thermal coal exports are forecast to increase by nearly 72 per cent: from 283 Mt in 2010–11 to 486 Mt, valued at $56.5 billion, in 2016–17.

What do they think the other countries use the coal for? Surely coal burning overseas increases world CO2 levels just as much as if it were burned in Australia—except that most of the other countries would probably burn coal less "cleanly" than Australia.

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2017, 05:26 AM
In the US burning coal leaves 19 million tons of ash every year,
Not so much an issue with anthracite.

a major environmental problem in its disposal. Renewables leave no waste

Debatable. Wind turbines kill rare birds. Even the Smithsonian said (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-wind-turbines-really-kill-180948154):


The giant spinning turbines are basically bird death traps—and often they cut through prime flying space making the carnage even worse. (2013)

And even National Geographic asked, "How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/)" (2014)


Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.

Then there is Kang et al., Potential Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Rechargeable Lithium Batteries in Electronic Waste (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es400614y), Environ. Sci. Technol. 47(10):5495–55032013 | doi:10.1021/es400614y:


Our results demonstrate that according to U.S. federal regulations, defunct Li-ion batteries are classified hazardous due to their lead (Pb) content (average 6.29 mg/L; σ = 11.1; limit 5). However, according to California regulations, all lithium batteries tested are classified hazardous due to excessive levels of cobalt (average 163 544 mg/kg; σ = 62 897; limit 8000), copper (average 98 694 mg/kg; σ = 28 734; limit 2500), and nickel (average 9525 mg/kg; σ = 11 438; limit 2000). In some of the Li-ion batteries, the leached concentrations of chromium, lead, and thallium exceeded the California regulation limits. The environmental impact associated with resource depletion and human toxicity is mainly associated with cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, and silver, whereas the ecotoxicity potential is primarily associated with cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, and silver. However, the relative contribution of aluminum and lithium to human toxicity and ecotoxicity could not be estimated due to insufficient toxicity data in the models.

Desmond
14-07-2017, 08:14 AM
Could some of the coal-haters tell us why Australia exports coal at all if it's so satanic? According to an Australian government website (https://www.industry.gov.au/resource/Mining/AustralianMineralCommodities/Pages/Coal.aspx):


Coal is Australia's largest energy export earner. In 2010–11, Australia exported 283 million tonnes (Mt) of metallurgical and thermal coal to world markets worth A$43.7 billion. Total coal (black, saleable) production in Australia in 2010–11 is estimated to have been 345 Mt. Over the medium term, total Australian metallurgical and thermal coal exports are forecast to increase by nearly 72 per cent: from 283 Mt in 2010–11 to 486 Mt, valued at $56.5 billion, in 2016–17.

What do they think the other countries use the coal for? Surely coal burning overseas increases world CO2 levels just as much as if it were burned in Australia—except that most of the other countries would probably burn coal less "cleanly" than Australia.

I don't believe in Satan mate.

Ian Murray
14-07-2017, 08:47 AM
...What do they think the other countries use the coal for? Surely coal burning overseas increases world CO2 levels just as much as if it were burned in Australia—except that most of the other countries would probably burn coal less "cleanly" than Australia.

What do you think the NoNewCoalMines, KeepItInTheGround and StopAdani movements are all about?

Patrick Byrom
14-07-2017, 09:46 AM
Could some of the coal-haters tell us why Australia exports coal at all if it's so satanic?Because we have an LNP government that doesn't understand the physics of global warming :(

Patrick Byrom
14-07-2017, 09:49 AM
Debatable. ... Not if you accept the physics of global warming - the effects of increasing carbon dioxide are far worse.

Rincewind
14-07-2017, 10:37 AM
Debatable. Wind turbines kill rare birds. Even the Smithsonian said (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-wind-turbines-really-kill-180948154):


The giant spinning turbines are basically bird death traps—and often they cut through prime flying space making the carnage even worse. (2013)

And even National Geographic asked, "How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/)" (2014)


Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.

Then there is Kang et al., Potential Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Rechargeable Lithium Batteries in Electronic Waste (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es400614y), Environ. Sci. Technol. 47(10):5495–55032013 | doi:10.1021/es400614y:


Our results demonstrate that according to U.S. federal regulations, defunct Li-ion batteries are classified hazardous due to their lead (Pb) content (average 6.29 mg/L; σ = 11.1; limit 5). However, according to California regulations, all lithium batteries tested are classified hazardous due to excessive levels of cobalt (average 163 544 mg/kg; σ = 62 897; limit 8000), copper (average 98 694 mg/kg; σ = 28 734; limit 2500), and nickel (average 9525 mg/kg; σ = 11 438; limit 2000). In some of the Li-ion batteries, the leached concentrations of chromium, lead, and thallium exceeded the California regulation limits. The environmental impact associated with resource depletion and human toxicity is mainly associated with cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, and silver, whereas the ecotoxicity potential is primarily associated with cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, and silver. However, the relative contribution of aluminum and lithium to human toxicity and ecotoxicity could not be estimated due to insufficient toxicity data in the models.

All modern technology is not without some cost. However all the issues above are much more manageable than the carnage of global warming which if left unchecked would inundate vast areas of land and exterminate entire ecosystems comprising thousands of species. Or the like the patient who declines to have life-saving surgery because it will leave a scar.

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2017, 11:16 AM
Because we have an LNP government that doesn't understand the physics of global warming :(

Not if you accept the physics of global warming - the effects of increasing carbon dioxide are far worse.

One can accept the obvious spectroscopic fact that two of the three vibrational modes of CO2 absorb IR without being an alarmist.

I wasn't aware that Labor halted the export of coal. I trust you agree that even under your alarmist premise, there is no difference between Australia burning Australian coal and other countries burning it.

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2017, 11:19 AM
All modern technology is not without some cost. However all the issues above are much more manageable than the carnage of global warming which if left unchecked would inundate vast areas of land and exterminate entire ecosystems comprising thousands of species.
Or it could be a prosperous time like the Medieval Warm Period, which saw a flowering of art, logic, proto-science, universities, Gothic cathedrals … And without all the nasty pollutants and bird shredding of ‘renewables’.

Patrick Byrom
14-07-2017, 01:24 PM
One can accept the obvious spectroscopic fact that two of the three vibrational modes of CO2 absorb IR without being an alarmist.I'm talking about atmospheric physics, not spectroscopy.


I wasn't aware that Labor halted the export of coal. I trust you agree that even under your alarmist premise, there is no difference between Australia burning Australian coal and other countries burning it.I don't know if a Labor government has the power to halt the export of coal. What it can do is eliminate the subsidies the LNP is currently supplying to that export. And, ideally, no coal will be burned in Australia or overseas.

Patrick Byrom
14-07-2017, 01:27 PM
Or it could be a prosperous time like the Medieval Warm Period, which saw a flowering of art, logic, proto-science, universities, Gothic cathedrals … And without all the nasty pollutants and bird shredding of ‘renewables’.If you don't accept that increasing carbon dioxide leads to increasing temperatures, then there's nothing to worry about :(

Rincewind
14-07-2017, 02:04 PM
Or it could be a prosperous time like the Medieval Warm Period, which saw a flowering of art, logic, proto-science, universities, Gothic cathedrals … And without all the nasty pollutants and bird shredding of ‘renewables’.

So you would support abatement to limit global warming to MWP levels?

ER
14-07-2017, 02:41 PM
Meanwhile in the real world...

Andrews government calls for new brown coal projects, including in the Latrobe Valley


http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/andrews-government-calls-for-new-brown-coal-projects-including-in-the-latrobe-valley-20170707-gx737d.html

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2017, 02:44 PM
I'm talking about atmospheric physics, not spectroscopy.
Spectroscopy underlies the atmospheric physics involved.


I don't know if a Labor government has the power to halt the export of coal.
If it's going to be burned anyway, let it produce electricity for Australia.


What it can do is eliminate the subsidies the LNP is currently supplying to that export.
Eliminating subsidies is good.

Did LNP introduce them or just continue them from Labor?


And, ideally, no coal will be burned in Australia or overseas.
That's consistent at any rate.

Patrick Byrom
14-07-2017, 02:45 PM
Because we have an LNP government that doesn't understand the physics of global warming :(They don't even understand the laws of mathematics :( :(

Asked by reporters how legislation would prevent users simply moving to encryption software not controlled by tech companies, Turnbull said Australian law overrode the laws of mathematics. “The laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only laws that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.”
(https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/14/new-law-would-force-facebook-and-google-to-give-police-access-to-encrypted-messages)

ER
14-07-2017, 02:46 PM
Could some of the coal-haters tell us why Australia exports coal at all if it's so satanic? According to an Australian government website (https://www.industry.gov.au/resource/Mining/AustralianMineralCommodities/Pages/Coal.aspx):


Coal is Australia's largest energy export earner. In 2010–11, Australia exported 283 million tonnes (Mt) of metallurgical and thermal coal to world markets worth A$43.7 billion. Total coal (black, saleable) production in Australia in 2010–11 is estimated to have been 345 Mt. Over the medium term, total Australian metallurgical and thermal coal exports are forecast to increase by nearly 72 per cent: from 283 Mt in 2010–11 to 486 Mt, valued at $56.5 billion, in 2016–17.

What do they think the other countries use the coal for? Surely coal burning overseas increases world CO2 levels just as much as if it were burned in Australia—except that most of the other countries would probably burn coal less "cleanly" than Australia.

But Capa-Fan, don't ask them real life questions like the financial benefits we gain from the coal exports.
All they think is the petty cash subsidies the Govt provides to mining industries!
They don't care about jobs loss and creation of new dole bludger armies.
All they think about is their leftard agendas! :P :D

Patrick Byrom
14-07-2017, 02:48 PM
Meanwhile in the real world...
Andrews government calls for new brown coal projects, including in the Latrobe Valley
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/andrews-government-calls-for-new-brown-coal-projects-including-in-the-latrobe-valley-20170707-gx737d.html
From Elliot's link: "However, it is unlikely the new policy would result in new power generators using brown coal. Instead, it is expected the coal would be considered for hydrogen and fertiliser."

ER
14-07-2017, 02:49 PM
Wind turbines kill rare birds. Even the Smithsonian said (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-wind-turbines-really-kill-180948154):


The giant spinning turbines are basically bird death traps—and often they cut through prime flying space making the carnage even worse. (2013)

And even National Geographic asked, "How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/)" (2014)


Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.

Then there is Kang et al., Potential Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Rechargeable Lithium Batteries in Electronic Waste (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es400614y), Environ. Sci. Technol. 47(10):5495–55032013 | doi:10.1021/es400614y:


Our results demonstrate that according to U.S. federal regulations, defunct Li-ion batteries are classified hazardous due to their lead (Pb) content (average 6.29 mg/L; σ = 11.1; limit 5). However, according to California regulations, all lithium batteries tested are classified hazardous due to excessive levels of cobalt (average 163 544 mg/kg; σ = 62 897; limit 8000), copper (average 98 694 mg/kg; σ = 28 734; limit 2500), and nickel (average 9525 mg/kg; σ = 11 438; limit 2000). In some of the Li-ion batteries, the leached concentrations of chromium, lead, and thallium exceeded the California regulation limits. The environmental impact associated with resource depletion and human toxicity is mainly associated with cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, and silver, whereas the ecotoxicity potential is primarily associated with cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, and silver. However, the relative contribution of aluminum and lithium to human toxicity and ecotoxicity could not be estimated due to insufficient toxicity data in the models.

That's excellent information Capa-fan, thanks for sharing!

Patrick Byrom
14-07-2017, 02:54 PM
Spectroscopy underlies the atmospheric physics involved.But you don't need to understand spectroscopy to understand atmospheric physics. While you do need to understand atmospheric physics to properly understand global warming.


If it's going to be burned anyway, let it produce electricity for Australia.Or - better yet - replace it with cheaper renewables, here and overseas.


Did LNP introduce them or just continue them from Labor?The proposed subsidies for the Adani mine were introduced by the LNP.

ER
14-07-2017, 02:56 PM
Facts about coal. 6

Or what the hysterical pseudo-environmentalists (incl. of course momma superior and the members of the local deplorable quintet or is it a sextet these days? :D :P) will never tell you!

10 COAL IS ALLEVIATING GLOBAL POVERTY

Between 1990 and 2010, about 830 million people – the vast majority in developing countries – gained access to electricity due to coal.

Twice as many people gained electricity from coal as natural gas and for every person who obtained electricity from non-hydro renewable sources such as wind and solar, about 13 gained access due to coal.

Affordable, reliable energy is a precondition for economic growth and an escape from poverty.

The cheapest, fastest way to provide that electricity is through cheap, modern, lower emissions coal generation power.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates has stated that poor nations ‘desperately need cheap sources of energy now to fuel the economic growth that lifts families out of poverty.
They can’t afford today’s expensive clean energy solutions, and we can’t expect them wait for the technology to get cheaper.

Patrick Byrom
14-07-2017, 03:04 PM
But Capa-Fan, don't ask them real life questions like the financial benefits we gain from the coal exports.
All they think is the petty cash subsidies the Govt provides to mining industries!
They don't care about jobs loss and creation of new dole bludger armies.
All they think about is their leftard agendas! :P :D
The coal industry employs about 50 000 people (http://www.minerals.org.au/resources/coal/employment), so even if the industry vanished tomorrow, and nobody found alternative employment, we'd hardly notice the extra unemployed. And the industry is dying because nobody is buying our coal - which has caused the price to drop by 50%.

Patrick Byrom
14-07-2017, 03:09 PM
[B]Facts about coal. 6[B]
Recycling press releases again? Maybe you should quote an expert instead of Bill Gates.

MichaelBaron
14-07-2017, 05:06 PM
But the best part is...the same people who are attacking the coal industry are worried about ''workers in Australia becoming unemployed due to bla bla bla factors'' :)

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2017, 12:22 AM
But Capa-Fan, don't ask them real life questions like the financial benefits we gain from the coal exports.
All they think is the petty cash subsidies the Govt provides to mining industries!
They don't care about jobs loss and creation of new dole bludger armies.
All they think about is their leftard agendas! :P :D

Yes, they want more unemployed people dependent on government and because it means votes. Hence destruction of the coal industry which still provides about half the world's electricity.

It's hard to believe they really care about the environment. First, see the dismissals of the real here-and-now pollution and bird shredding by renewables in favour of what might happen in a century. Second, many of the most vocal warm-mongering alarmists certainly don't live as if there is a crisis, e.g. travelling all over the world in their private jets that spew more CO2 in one trip than an SUV produces in one year. E.g.:

To fight climate change, start with Leonardo DiCaprio's private jet lifestyle (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/04/some-modest-proposals-to-fight-climate-change-glenn-reynolds-column/102489538/)
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Opinion columnist, USA Today, 4 June 2017


So last week President Trump pulled out of the Paris climate agreement — to the extent that one can pull out of an agreement that’s not actually legally binding, anyway. This left some people upset.

But if climate change is really such a crisis, and if sacrifice on our part is needed to stop it, then why aren’t we seeing more sacrifice from people who think it’s a problem?

If you want to talk it, you have to walk it. And really, expecting hard-working America to swallow hook, line and sinker a climate change, greenhouse gas emission regulatory accord like the one billed in Paris requires the holders of the hooks, lines and sinkers to go first.

Give up the private jets — maybe we’ll give up some cars. But once again: You first.

That’s what one person asked on Twitter: "What if climate scientists decided, as a group, to make their conferences all virtual? No more air travel. What a statement!” And what if academics in general — most of whom think climate change is a big deal — started doing the same thing to make an even bigger statement?

It would be big. And what if politicians and celebrities stopped jetting around the world — often on wasteful private jets instead of flying commercial with the hoi polloi — as a statement of the importance of fighting climate change?

And what if politicians and celebrities lived in average-sized houses, to reduce their carbon footprints? What if John Kerry, who was much put out by Trump’s action, gave up his yacht-and-mansions lifestyle?

These proposals are just the beginning, and I’m sure that enterprising members of Congress and various state legislatures can come up with more. But the important thing is to set a good example: Treat climate change like the crisis you say it is, and maybe more people will believe that it really is a crisis.

Tesla’s Elon Musk flies private jet — rips Trump on pollution (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/2/teslas-elon-musk-flies-private-jet-rips-trump-poll/)
Cheryl K. Chumley, The Washington Times, 2 June 2017


Elon Musk, the billionaire chief executive of Tesla, ripped into President Donald Trump for pulling America out of the Paris climate change accord.

But the skinny is this: He did it all the while flying here and there, out and about, aboard his private jet. His private, greenhouse gas emitting jet.

“Am departing presidential councils,” Musk tweeted, in an apparent snit over Trump’s refusal to commit the United States to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26-to-28 percent of 2005 production levels.

He went on, as Breitbart noted: “Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.”

How about jetting about from business meeting to business meeting in a private fuel-consuming, pollution emitting jet? Is that good for America?
Is that good for the world?

Sen. Ted Cruz was quick to note the hypocrisy.

“In support of Paris, CA billionaires pledge to never again fly private, will only fly commercial. J/K — will quit symbolic councils instead,” Cruz tweeted.

Bingo. That’s the problem right there with leftists — and particularly, with leftists of the environmentalist in nature. Few, if any, abide by their own preachings.

Note to left: The whole climate change movement would probably be easier for Americans to stomach and digest if it wasn’t being sold from the gas-guzzling insides of a Democratic Party pol’s tinted-window SUV caravan.

Climate alarmists, I can’t take you seriously until you start living like the Amish (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/matt-walsh-climate-alarmists-i-cant-take-you-seriously-until-you-start-living-like-the-amish/)
Matt Walsh, 1 May 2017


Over the weekend, the Planeteers converged on Washington to hold a “Climate March.” I know what you’re thinking: didn’t they already do that, like, last week? Also, how will marching and holding signs improve the climate? And how many trees were slaughtered to make those signs, anyway? And how much CO2 was emitted by the cars and planes they took to get to this march? And how many of D.C.’s pigeons and squirrels were rudely disrupted from their daily routine because of all the extra humans traipsing through the street? Isn’t organizing a march to fight climate change a bit like organizing a hot dog eating contest to fight obesity?

Most of all, your overblown, hysterical doomsday prophecies are lies. The world is supposed to already (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430380/al-gore-doomsday-clock-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again)be over by now, according to you. At the very least, New York City should be under water (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june). We should have all been dead from global warming or global cooling or overpopulation dozens of times over. Around the time of the first Earth Day (https://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/), we were told that hundreds of millions would be starving to death per year within ten years of that date. Human civilization should have crumbled into dust and the few remaining survivors should be floating through a vast water world, locked in a struggle of survival against Dennis Hopper. Yet, here we are, standing on dry land. How many times are you allowed to be wrong about the end of the world before we are justified in not taking you seriously anymore? I’d say that threshold, whatever it is, has long since been reached.

Second, your sincerity. Here’s the real issue I have with you. Even if you’ve been wrong about the Environmental Apocalypse 100 times, you still insist that this 101st prediction will surely pan out. You tell us that we could be looking at an extinction event within a generation or two. Our planet will turn into Venus (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-game-over-global-warming-climate-sensitivity-seven-degrees-a7407881.html) sooner rather than later if we don’t drastically change the way we live. Major world cities will be lost (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11092015/climate-change%E2%80%99s-worst-case-scenario-200-feet-sea-level-rise-antarctica-ice-sheet-melt)into the sea, and this will happen within decades (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3504667/New-York-London-underwater-DECADES-Scientists-say-devastating-climate-change-place-sooner-thought.html). And even those not drowned in the depths of the ocean will face mass starvation (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/apr/13/climate-change-millions-starvation-scientists) or worse. What’s more, you tell us that Armageddon may already be happening (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805). Even now, whenever there is a hurricane, or a tornado, or a thunderstorm, or even a snowstorm, you tell us that this is a direct result of global warming caused by our modern lifestyle. This is all quite traumatizing, so it’s good for your emotional well being that you don’t really believe any of it.

It’s become a cliché to point out how all of the major environmental mouthpieces, like DiCaprio and Gore and all the rest, also happen to fly private jets in between the several mansions they own. This fact alone does not disprove the environmentalist narrative, but it is a curious fact that none of its most vocal proponents seem to have taken their own words to heart. Imagine, by comparison, if almost every major pro-life activist also happened to sit on the board of Planned Parenthood. If one or two were exposed as hypocrites in this way you might overlook it, but all of them?

Now, please understand that I’ve cut you some slack here. I’ve assumed that you don’t believe your own tales of civilizational destruction. The less flattering interpretation is that you do believe everything you say, yet you’re so unbelievably selfish and lazy that, even staring at Armageddon on the horizon, you still cannot stir yourself to make any noticeable changes to your life. One shudders at the moral baseness required for a person to sincerely say to himself, “Yes, my vehicle is melting the ice caps and inching humanity ever closer to liquidation, but, screw it, I don’t feel like walking.” I have faith that you are not so cold and heartless. I have faith that you are merely disingenuous hypocrites. Let’s hope I’m right.

Ian Murray
15-07-2017, 08:30 AM
The coal industry employs about 50 000 people (http://www.minerals.org.au/resources/coal/employment), so even if the industry vanished tomorrow, and nobody found alternative employment, we'd hardly notice the extra unemployed. And the industry is dying because nobody is buying our coal - which has caused the price to drop by 50%.

Coal exports account for about 4% of Australian GDP. We could stop exporting coal next Tuesday and cause a slight dip in the economy for a year or so. We don't depend on coal

Ian Murray
15-07-2017, 08:55 AM
10 COAL IS ALLEVIATING GLOBAL POVERTY
...
Affordable, reliable energy is a precondition for economic growth and an escape from poverty.

The cheapest, fastest way to provide that electricity is through cheap, modern, lower emissions coal generation power.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates has stated that poor nations ‘desperately need cheap sources of energy now to fuel the economic growth that lifts families out of poverty. ...

But not from Australia. We export primarily to Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan and India (coking coal to India, very little thermal coal). No poverty-stricken markets for us

Patrick Byrom
15-07-2017, 09:14 AM
Yes, they want more unemployed people dependent on government and because it means votes. Hence destruction of the coal industry which still provides about half the world's electricity. It's hard to believe they really care about the environment. First, see the dismissals of the real here-and-now pollution and bird shredding by renewables in favour of what might happen in a century. Second, many of the most vocal warm-mongering alarmists certainly don't live as if there is a crisis, e.g. travelling all over the world in their private jets that spew more CO2 in one trip than an SUV produces in one year. E.g.: ... Translation: I can't handle the physics (we won't need to wait "a centrury"), so I'll resort to ad hominem attacks instead!

MichaelBaron
15-07-2017, 11:59 AM
But not from Australia. We export primarily to Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan and India (coking coal to India, very little thermal coal). No poverty-stricken markets for us

What about our economy? if its a profitable industry, shall we scale it down nevertheless?

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2017, 01:09 PM
Translation: I can't handle the physics (we won't need to wait "a centrury"), so I'll resort to ad hominem attacks instead!

Nonsense. I'm probably the only one here who CAN handle the physics of specific IR absorption. And where was the ad hominem, unless you count the circumstantial version that many leading alarmists certainly don't live as if there is an imminent crisis? Lead by example!

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2017, 01:10 PM
But not from Australia. We export primarily to Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan and India (coking coal to India, very little thermal coal). No poverty-stricken markets for us

And what do you think these countries do with the coal or coke? Turn it into diamonds?

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2017, 03:10 PM
Recycling press releases again? Maybe you should quote an expert instead of Bill Gates.

I didn't notice you point out any actual error. It is easily documentable that coal-fired stations have provided electricity to millions of people who didn't have it before. If CO[sub]2 is being produced, it's far better that it comes from generating electricity for poor people than from the private jets of warm-mongers like Elon Musk, Leonardo DiCaprio, alGore, etc.

Ian Murray
15-07-2017, 03:45 PM
And what do you think these countries do with the coal or coke? Turn it into diamonds?

They make steel to feed their export markets

Ian Murray
15-07-2017, 03:59 PM
What about our economy? if its a profitable industry, shall we scale it down nevertheless?

Profitable for who? The companies profiting from Australian coal are Alcoa, Xstrata, Rio Tinto, Anglo American, BHP Mitsubishi and Peabody

Mining jobs are unhealthy, dirty and dangerous. And transitory - whenever the market slumps, mines are mothballed and the workforce laid off. The only attraction is the high wages offered, without which there would be no miners.

Patrick Byrom
15-07-2017, 04:04 PM
Nonsense. I'm probably the only one here who CAN handle the physics of specific IR absorption. And where was the ad hominem, unless you count the circumstantial version that many leading alarmists certainly don't live as if there is an imminent crisis? Lead by example!I've never claimed you don't understand IR absorption. It's atmospheric physics you don't understand. And even if those celebrities are as hypocritical as you claim, that doesn't prove that global warming isn't dangerous - it's just a meaningless ad hominem attack, as I said.

Ian Murray
15-07-2017, 04:35 PM
Debatable...


Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.

...


Our results demonstrate that according to U.S. federal regulations, defunct Li-ion batteries are classified hazardous due to their lead (Pb) content (average 6.29 mg/L; σ = 11.1; limit 5). However, according to California regulations, all lithium batteries tested are classified hazardous due to excessive levels of cobalt (average 163 544 mg/kg; σ = 62 897; limit 8000), copper (average 98 694 mg/kg; σ = 28 734; limit 2500), and nickel (average 9525 mg/kg; σ = 11 438; limit 2000). In some of the Li-ion batteries, the leached concentrations of chromium, lead, and thallium exceeded the California regulation limits. The environmental impact associated with resource depletion and human toxicity is mainly associated with cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, and silver, whereas the ecotoxicity potential is primarily associated with cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, and silver. However, the relative contribution of aluminum and lithium to human toxicity and ecotoxicity could not be estimated due to insufficient toxicity data in the models.

One-off manufacturing effects of unknown toxicity. Compare the toxicity levels of coal, generated on an ongoing basis:

"...The 1.05 billion tons of coal burned each year in the United States contain 109 tons of mercury, 7884 tons of arsenic, 1167 tons of beryllium, 750 tons of cadmium, 8810 tons of chromium, 9339 tons of nickel and 2587 tons of selenium.."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heavy_metals_and_coal

Ian Murray
15-07-2017, 04:59 PM
Debatable. Wind turbines kill rare birds....

Field research shows few bkrd deaths over time - cf millions of birds killed by windows and cats

http://www.currykerlinger.com/studies.ht

Ian Murray
15-07-2017, 05:32 PM
Commentators who do not understand the grid should butt out of the debate (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/12/commentators-who-dont-understand-the-grid-should-butt-out-of-the-battery-debate)
The Guardian
12.7.17

Patrick Byrom
15-07-2017, 05:37 PM
I didn't notice you point out any actual error. It is easily documentable that coal-fired stations have provided electricity to millions of people who didn't have it before. If CO[sub]2 is being produced, it's far better that it comes from generating electricity for poor people than from the private jets of warm-mongers like Elon Musk, Leonardo DiCaprio, alGore, etc.Coal has provided electricity, but that's no reason why it should continue to provide it (horses were great for transport, but that's no reason to keep using them). More recent figures (Elliot's data only goes to 2010) show that investment in renewables is growing rapidly (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/renewable-energy-investment-developed-world-developing-world-ren21-report-a7058436.html):

Investment in renewable energy was higher in the world’s poorest countries than the richest ones for the first time last year, according to a major new report. A total of about £196.5bn was spent renewable power and fuels globally in what was a record year for investment in the sector, according to the Renewables 2016 report by the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (Ren21). But more than £107bn of that total, which doesn’t include large hydropower schemes and heating and cooling technologies, took place in developing countries such as China, India and Brazil.
Outdated figures are one of the potential problems of recycling a press release, of course.

And the source of the carbon dioxide is irrelevant to its effects - it's mainly the poor that will suffer from global warming.

MichaelBaron
16-07-2017, 02:17 AM
Profitable for who? The companies profiting from Australian coal are Alcoa, Xstrata, Rio Tinto, Anglo American, BHP Mitsubishi and Peabody

Mining jobs are unhealthy, dirty and dangerous. And transitory - whenever the market slumps, mines are mothballed and the workforce laid off. The only attraction is the high wages offered, without which there would be no miners.

So are you saying we should ''kill'' the mining industry?

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2017, 04:59 AM
Insanity and Hypocrisy Down Under (https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2017/07/15/insanity-and-hypocrisy-down-under-n2355240)
Paul Driessen Paul Driessen, 15 July 2017

As an Australia-wide heat wave sent temperatures soaring above 105°F (40.6°C) in early 2017, air conditioning demand skyrocketed. But Adelaide, South Australia is heavily dependent on wind turbines for electricity generation—and there was no wind. Regulators told the local natural gas-fired power plant to ramp up its output, but it couldn’t get enough gas to do so. To avoid a massive, widespread blackout, regulators shut off power to 90,000 homes, leaving angry families sweltering in the dark.

During this and other recent Aussie blackouts, valuable fish, meat and produce rotted when freezers and refrigerators shut down. Business operations were interrupted or shut down. Rising electricity prices and unreliable power impacted smelters, factories and other businesses, causing many to lay off workers.

Recognize and study reality. Dead calms occur frequently when temperatures are at their highest, or their lowest—when families, businesses, hospitals and schools need electricity the most. Clouds can blanket regions for days or weeks on end. Reliance on wind and solar is risky, and reliable backup is essential.

The justification for eliminating coal and mandating 50% wind and solar is heavily rooted in fears of catastrophic manmade climate change. But the alleged crisis has no basis in observed evidence. The 18-year pause continues apace, with the El Niño temperature spike of 2015–16 gone … and average global temperatures back down to where they were in March 2015. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts are in line with or below multi-century historic trends and fluctuations and are hardly unprecedented. Greenland just recorded its most frigid July temperature reading in history: -33°C (-27°F).

But Victoria and New South Wales have banned fracking, more are likely to follow, coal burning and nuclear are also banned—and you cannot export, use or generate electricity with energy that you are prohibited from taking out of the ground. You cannot benefit from resources you hoard and lock up.

Ban fracking, and you ensure more natural gas shortages, soaring electricity prices, ever-greater reliance on expensive, unreliable wind and solar power, more blackouts, more layoffs, more economic downturns and dislocations, more shipping of good jobs overseas. Your may get many new low-pay jobs hauling, installing, maintaining and removing wind turbines and solar panels made in China. But you won’t have smelters, foundries, turbine and panel factories, or the high-pay jobs that go with them.

Meanwhile renewable energy mandates “are pushing out the cheapest electricity provider in Australia (coal), gas prices are being set at the international level, and activists are demanding fracking bans that limit gas supplies and make gas still more expensive,” he adds. The results should be easy to foresee.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2017, 05:01 AM
Commentators who do not understand the grid should butt out of the debate (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/12/commentators-who-dont-understand-the-grid-should-butt-out-of-the-battery-debate)
The Guardian
12.7.17

Yes, we should just follow the agitprop of "a communications consultant for the renewable energy industry".

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2017, 05:04 AM
I've never claimed you don't understand IR absorption. It's atmospheric physics you don't understand.
Ipse dixit. Rather, I am skeptical of alarmist computer models predicting doom and gloom, although increased CO2 increases plant growth, and the Medieval Warm Period was a prosperous time.


And even if those celebrities are as hypocritical as you claim, that doesn't prove that global warming isn't dangerous - it's just a meaningless ad hominem attack, as I said.

It means that some of the most vocal proponents of alarmism don't really believe their own agitprop. Meanwhile, the South Australians sweltered in 40°C temps because the "renewables" couldn't keep up with the demand, and maintainance is lower on fossil fuel plants because there is little incentive to keep it up on plants that the Watermelons want to shut down.

Ian Murray
16-07-2017, 08:48 AM
So are you saying we should ''kill'' the mining industry?

I'll ignore the extrapolation. Coincidentally Richard Branson was speaking in New York yesterday:


"...Coalmining is not the nicest of jobs," Branson said, adding that in Britain miners have largely moved into jobs "far more pleasant, less dangerous and far better for their health.

"I'd suggest that rhe government should help coalminers move jnto alternative jobs, such as clean energy. Clean enegy needs hundreds of thousands of people. That would be good for the coalminers, good for America and good dor the world..."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/15/trump-paris-climate-deal-richard-branson?

Historical note: 50 years ago there were more than 500,000 deep pit coal miners working in Britain. Today there are none.

Ian Murray
16-07-2017, 09:09 AM
Yes, we should just follow the agitprop of "a communications consultant for the renewable energy industry".

And Paul Diessen knows more about the Australian energy network?

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2017, 10:04 AM
I'll ignore the extrapolation. Coincidentally Richard Branson was speaking in New York yesterday:


"...Coalmining is not the nicest of jobs," Branson said, adding that in Britain miners have largely moved into jobs "far more pleasant, less dangerous and far better for their health.

"I'd suggest that rhe government should help coalminers move jnto alternative jobs, such as clean energy. Clean enegy needs hundreds of thousands of people. That would be good for the coalminers, good for America and good dor the world..."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/15/trump-paris-climate-deal-richard-branson?

Historical note: 50 years ago there were more than 500,000 deep pit coal miners working in Britain. Today there are none.
Another jetsetter claiming to care about CO2 emissions! Run Virgin on solar or wind power, or shut your hyocritical mouth!

Ian Murray
16-07-2017, 10:58 AM
Another jetsetter claiming to care about CO2 emissions! Run Virgin on solar or wind power, or shut your hyocritical mouth!

Electric transatlantic passenger aircraft are just around the corner - Airbus and Boeing are the major players

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2017, 03:09 PM
Electric transatlantic passenger aircraft are just around the corner - Airbus and Boeing are the major players

Don't be so sure. Battery weight is a real problem, because the best now have about 20 times the mass of jetfuel of equivalent energy. And the electric propellors have low thrust, so they are much slower than jets, and even a lot slower than WW2 piston-engined propellor planes. See:

No flying Tesla? That's because electric planes are a steeper challenge than electric cars (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-electric-aircraft-20160830-snap-story.html)
Samantha Masunaga, LA Times, 9 Sept 2016

Meanwhile, Musk and Branson happily jet around spewing far more CO2 than hundreds of SUVs.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2017, 03:25 PM
So are you saying we should ''kill'' the mining industry?

It's the logical outcome of their ideas. If coal is mined, it's for converting to CO2, whether burned for power or used to extract metals from oxide ores. And whether it's done in Australia or overseas, the ostensible danger to the planet is the same.

Patrick Byrom
16-07-2017, 03:38 PM
Ipse dixit. Rather, I am skeptical of alarmist computer models predicting doom and gloom, although increased CO2 increases plant growth, and the Medieval Warm Period was a prosperous time.But computer models are not necessary to make predictions, as I've already demonstrated. Temperatures are already higher than the MWP, and carbon dioxide is only good for plant growth if the temperature increases are ignored.

You continue to demonstrate your ignorance of atmospheric physics :(


It means that some of the most vocal proponents of alarmism don't really believe their own agitprop.Even if that's true, it's completely irrelevant to the dangers of increasing carbon dioxide.


Meanwhile, the South Australians sweltered in 40°C temps because the "renewables" couldn't keep up with the demand, and maintainance is lower on fossil fuel plants because there is little incentive to keep it up on plants that the Watermelons want to shut down.I've no idea what your second sentence means. And your first sentence is just wrong - but even if it was true, the solution is obviously to increase the supply of renewable energy.

None of your arguments deal with the basic problem - they're just typical denier distractions.

Patrick Byrom
16-07-2017, 03:57 PM
Insanity and Hypocrisy Down Under (https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2017/07/15/insanity-and-hypocrisy-down-under-n2355240) Paul Driessen Paul Driessen, 15 July 2017

The justification for eliminating coal and mandating 50% wind and solar is heavily rooted in fears of catastrophic manmade climate change. But the alleged crisis has no basis in observed evidence. The 18-year pause continues apace, with the El Niño temperature spike of 2015–16 gone … and average global temperatures back down to where they were in March 2015. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts are in line with or below multi-century historic trends and fluctuations and are hardly unprecedented. Greenland just recorded its most frigid July temperature reading in history: -33°C (-27°F).
…Once again, Capablanca-Fan demonstrates, via Driessen, that he doesn't understand atmospheric physics. El Nino is a cyclic phenomenon, while AGW is not. So if Driessen wants to adjust the 2015-16 land temperatures (he's ignoring the massive heating in the oceans) by removing the El Nino spike - which is quite legitimate - he has to do so for the whole data set! If he did, the 18 year "pause" would completely disappear, as there was a major El Nino event in 1997-8.

Of course, the stupidity of selecting one temperature data point in Greenland, instead of examining the entire temperature data set, should have been obvious even to Capablanca-Fan!

Ian Murray
16-07-2017, 05:16 PM
Don't be so sure. Battery weight is a real problem...

For the moment. Storage density will only keep on improving, like everything else

https://electrek.co/2017/03/22/electric-plane-startup-150-seat-battery-powered-plane/

Ian Murray
17-07-2017, 08:09 AM
The zero-sum game

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/subsidised-queensland-coal-mines-would-be-a-10-billion-hit-to-nsw-budget-20170716-gxccq3.html

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2017, 09:09 AM
Once again, Capablanca-Fan demonstrates, via Driessen, that he doesn't understand atmospheric physics. El Nino is a cyclic phenomenon, while AGW is not. So if Driessen wants to adjust the 2015-16 land temperatures (he's ignoring the massive heating in the oceans) by removing the El Nino spike - which is quite legitimate - he has to do so for the whole data set! If he did, the 18 year "pause" would completely disappear, as there was a major El Nino event in 1997-8.
What, are you telling us that a natural phenomenon makes more difference than what man does?


Of course, the stupidity of selecting one temperature data point in Greenland, instead of examining the entire temperature data set, should have been obvious even to Capablanca-Fan!
Oh, you mean like the lawfaring Mann and his hockey-stick that ignored the Medieval Warm Period?


And your first sentence is just wrong - but even if it was true, the solution is obviously to increase the supply of renewable energy.
The fact remains that in SA they didn't, and South Australians sweltered as a result.

Typical of alarmists: you don't care about the costs here and now as long as you can impose your watermelon policies whether they make a blind bit of difference to temperatures decades from today.

Patrick Byrom
17-07-2017, 11:53 AM
What, are you telling us that a natural phenomenon makes more difference than what man does?You really don't understand atmospheric physics! Get back to me after you've looked up the meaning of the word "cyclic".


Oh, you mean like the lawfaring Mann and his hockey-stick that ignored the Medieval Warm Period?Mann isn't the only scientist to find a 'hockey-stick', and they all include the MWP.


The fact remains that in SA they didn't, and South Australians sweltered as a result.They'll swelter a lot more if the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes temperatures to increase dramatically!


Typical of alarmists: you don't care about the costs here and now as long as you can impose your watermelon policies whether they make a blind bit of difference to temperatures decades from today.Replacing coal with renewable energy lowers costs in the long run - that's obvious. And if everyone does nothing then - if you understand the atmospheric physics - it's also obvious that the problem will be far more expensive to deal with in a few decades.

Rincewind
17-07-2017, 12:32 PM
The fact remains that in SA they didn't, and South Australians sweltered as a result.

How did they swelter? The big blackout was due to a late September storm and the main problem was keeping warm not cool.

Ian Murray
17-07-2017, 03:37 PM
How did they swelter? The big blackout was due to a late September storm and the main problem was keeping warm not cool.

He's talking about the February rolling blackouts over 37 minutes, blamed by the distributor on a software error which shed 300 MW when only 100 was needed. In the meantime the gas generation plant at Pelican Point stood idle

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-15/sa-power-aemo-report-into-rolling-blackouts-during-heatwave/8273836

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2017, 03:41 PM
Get back to me after you've looked up the meaning of the word "cyclic".
No need—I've known for some time ever since beginning work in the core field of vibrational spectroscopy: a cyclic point group has an n-fold rotation axis, hence the letter C. The water molecule as discussed earlier has C2v symmetry: the 2 meaning a 2-fold rotation axis, and the v stands for vertical mirror planes containing that axis.


They'll swelter a lot more if the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes temperatures to increase dramatically!
And not if the increase is only a degree in a century's time.


Replacing coal with renewable energy lowers costs in the long run - that's obvious. And if everyone does nothing then - if you understand the atmospheric physics - it's also obvious that the problem will be far more expensive to deal with in a few decades.
You mean, I don't agree with your warm-mongering watermelon policies, which don't follow whether you understand what "cyclic" means.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2017, 03:46 PM
For the moment. Storage density will only keep on improving, like everything else

https://electrek.co/2017/03/22/electric-plane-startup-150-seat-battery-powered-plane/
I would like you to be right. Not seeing it though, because a battery must have electrodes and electrolyte, and they weigh something. I doubt that lithium will be improved upon, since it is the lightest metal and quite electropositive as well.


The zero-sum game

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/subsidised-queensland-coal-mines-would-be-a-10-billion-hit-to-nsw-budget-20170716-gxccq3.html
Of course: it involves government subsidies.

Ian Murray
17-07-2017, 03:55 PM
A simple solution to SA's heatwave woes was proposed in 2008 - instal voluntary smart meters in homes which would switch off air conditioner compressors for 15 mins each hour. There would be no effect on the home comfort level, and there would be a price incentive to join the scheme.

However the idea was torpedoed by Andrew Bolt, who penned a mindless column headed "save the planrt! Fry a pensioner"

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/column-save-the-planet-fry-a-pensioner/news-story/0dfddfc836a96f64a6a43777c83b7aeb

Ian Murray
17-07-2017, 04:09 PM
I would like you to be right. Not seeing it though, because a battery must have electrodes and electrolyte, and they weigh something. I doubt that lithium will be improved upon, since it is the lightest metal and quite electropositive as well.

Wait and see. There are a lot of smart people spending millions in R&D who thknk it's achievable


Of course: it involves government subsidies.

Right. No way should a private company get taxpayer dollars to build a private rail link

Rincewind
17-07-2017, 05:05 PM
How did they swelter? The big blackout was due to a late September storm and the main problem was keeping warm not cool.

A 40 minute blackout in hot weather is annoying but the 27 hour outage I experienced from the September incident was very inconvenient and more memorable. Still most people got by. Bunnings were even open despite the lack of power.

Patrick Byrom
17-07-2017, 06:28 PM
No need—I've known for some time ever since beginning work in the core field of vibrational spectroscopy: a cyclic point group has an n-fold rotation axis, hence the letter C. The water molecule as discussed earlier has C2v symmetry: the 2 meaning a 2-fold rotation axis, and the v stands for vertical mirror planes containing that axis.That's great, but nothing to do with El Nino. You now need to apply your knowledge of the word "cyclic" to different causes of temperature variations - some are cyclic, some are not.


And not if the increase is only a degree in a century's time.The surface temperature has already increased by one degree in the past 50 years. In another century, it will be three degrees above the temperature in 1970 - assuming the increase doesn't accelerate due to feedback, of course.


You mean, I don't agree with your warm-mongering watermelon policies, which don't follow whether you understand what "cyclic" means.You mean policies like replacing expensive coal with cheaper renewables, thus making electricity cheaper for poor people? As opposed to government subsidies for coal?

Patrick Byrom
17-07-2017, 06:47 PM
A 40 minute blackout in hot weather is annoying but the 27 hour outage I experienced from the September incident was very inconvenient and more memorable. Still most people got by. Bunnings were even open despite the lack of power.During the 2011 floods, the power was out in my block of flats for three weeks in the middle of the Qld summer! You get used to it after a while, but we (the people in the two units that hadn't evacuated) were very happy when it was eventually restored.

So I find all the right-wing moaning about how unreliable renewables are, just because power was lost for one day in SA, completely ridiculous. Major storms are going to cause disruption, and the more global warming there is, the worse they are going to be. Not to mention the threat from rising sea levels.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2017, 12:28 AM
Wait and see. There are a lot of smart people spending millions in R&D who think it's achievable
That's what I like to see—if it's their own money and not taxpayers'.


Right. No way should a private company get taxpayer dollars to build a private rail link
Certainly not!

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2017, 12:30 AM
You mean policies like replacing expensive coal with cheaper renewables, thus making electricity cheaper for poor people?
If that could be done, I'm all for it. But at present, it's replacing cheap coal with expensive renewables, thus making electricity cheaper for poor people.


As opposed to government subsidies for coal?
Definitely get rid of the latter.

Ian Murray
18-07-2017, 08:45 AM
If that could be done, I'm all for it. But at present, it's replacing cheap coal with expensive renewables, thus making electricity cheaper for poor people.

India has 50 million homes without power, and has chosen rewable energy projects to supply power to them, being cheaper than coal.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/06/15/india-renewable-energy-climate-change/102882370/

MichaelBaron
18-07-2017, 11:54 AM
India has 50 million homes without power, and has chosen rewable energy projects to supply power to them, being cheaper than coal.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/06/15/india-renewable-energy-climate-change/102882370/

If there is evidence that this can be implemented in Australia with greater economic benefits that are the ones delivered by the coal industry, it is worthy of consideration but I want to see evidence that it will be cheaper here.

One factor to consider is how much energy is required and how much can be delivered through the alternatives. Also, its worth noting that some houses in India do not use energy/energy products...cause they can not afford it :)

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2017, 12:24 PM
Defining power of climate change and ‘Al Gore’ effect (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccrann/defining-power-of-climate-change-and-al-gore-effect/news-story/a886b4658e437fb8b6ac9bcf161767b7)
Terry McCrann, Herald Sun, 17 July 2017

It is under this very broad umbrella of stupidity that all the other climate change/global warming stupidities sprout and flourish, like vegetation absorbing pure life-creating carbon dioxide.

It’s getting hotter; it’s getting (globally warmed) colder; the heat is hiding in the oceans; no it’s not: we ‘miscalculated’ the temperature, it’s still in the atmosphere; we’re getting more ‘severe weather events’ and that’s proved by much fewer global cyclones and hurricanes.

On and on you can and ‘they’ surely will go, defying and indeed denying not just the most basic facts but basic reality itself; describing the most important element for all life on earth as not just a but the “pollutant.”

Trump was identifying that the Paris Accord, supposedly dressed in ‘fighting climate change finery’, had no clothes; just as in the fairytale only one person remarked on the nudity of the emperor, with everyone else going along with ‘the consensus.’

That ‘everyone else’ included of course our prime minister, who last November rushed to declare that the ‘Paris Accord Fighting Climate Change Finery’ was, well, the finest ever seen in that city — it would have made even Louis XIV, true a king not an emperor, envious — just as ‘boy president’ Trump was about to declare its nudity.

Then there’s our rational, plain-speaking MP Craig Kelly being similarly lacerated by all and sundry of our right-thinking true believers for stating, simply and quite undeniably, that dramatically higher electricity and gas prices — brought on by climate change hysteria forcing the use of wildly expensive so-called renewable energy and banning gas exploration — would cause deaths.

As Andrew Bolt detailed on his blog last week (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/on-tonight-factchecking-al-gore-defending-craig-kelly-plus-marc-morano/news-story/377268d9f06d918e453746ff0ba7f433), the real hysterics were the ones attacking Kelly. There were endless examples around the world of people dying in winter because they couldn’t afford high heating bills.

Yes, you have to possess a really impressive cocktail of climate change obsession and stupidity not to understand that as most self-evidently obvious. But boy (non-gender specific), are there plenty in the media.

And what about the blinding, fatuous, hypocrisy: almost as Kelly was speaking, we had Al Gore declaring to around 1500 adoring Melburnian idiots, the following, and more.

Climate change killed 1200 people in a Pakistan heatwave. In the Philippines it killed thousands and caused 4.1 million ‘climate refugees.’ In one state in India it caused hundreds of farmers to commit suicide. In Russia it killed 55,000 people in forest fires. And on and on the Gorester went.

So it’s OK for climate change true believers to blame the deaths of tens of thousands — and in the coming climate apocalypse not just hundreds of millions but billions — on CO2. But for somebody drawing the most direct connection between electricity and gas prices and cold-induced deaths is a wicked denying scaremonger.

Patrick Byrom
18-07-2017, 12:51 PM
Defining power of climate change and ‘Al Gore’ effect (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccrann/defining-power-of-climate-change-and-al-gore-effect/news-story/a886b4658e437fb8b6ac9bcf161767b7)
Terry McCrann, Herald Sun, 17 July 2017

It is under this very broad umbrella of stupidity that all the other climate change/global warming stupidities sprout and flourish, like vegetation absorbing pure life-creating carbon dioxide. It’s getting hotter; it’s getting (globally warmed) colder; the heat is hiding in the oceans; no it’s not: we ‘miscalculated’ the temperature, it’s still in the atmosphere; we’re getting more ‘severe weather events’ and that’s proved by much fewer global cyclones and hurricanes. On and on you can and ‘they’ surely will go, defying and indeed denying not just the most basic facts but basic reality itself; describing the most important element for all life on earth as not just a but the “pollutant.”

Trump was identifying that the Paris Accord, supposedly dressed in ‘fighting climate change finery’, had no clothes; just as in the fairytale only one person remarked on the nudity of the emperor, with everyone else going along with ‘the consensus.’
...
Once again, Capablanca-Fan is claiming that appeals to "the consensus" are illegitimate, and thus undermining vaccine science.

And for some reason, McCrann and Capablanca-Fan think that they understand atmospheric physics better than actual atmospheric physicists. It's really quite simple - just do a linear regression of the surface temperatures against time, and extrapolate that into the future. A primary school student can do it with a ruler!

McCrann claims that renewables are increasing electricity prices, but provides no actual evidence - apart from a lot of hysterical ranting!

ER
18-07-2017, 04:46 PM
Meanwhile in the real world..

Coal back in demand again, with price spike
John McCarthy | 17th Jul 2017 5:30 AM

QUEENSLAND'S dominant commodity, coking coal, is back in demand again with its price spiking to $US153 a tonne in recent weeks, a rise of almost 10%.
China's steel production growth and tighter domestic coal supplies were probably driving the rebound for coal prices, which have been on a roller coaster in the past year.
Critical shortages in China last year drove the price to record territory of $US310 a tonne and earlier this year Cyclone Debbie knocked out the Queensland coal train network forcing the price back above $US300.

https://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/coal-back-in-demand-again-with-price-spike/3201067/

So bloody busy at present, but I had to give you the good news...

Our $ 's doing great too!

:clap:

Patrick Byrom
18-07-2017, 05:53 PM
Meanwhile in the real world..
Coal back in demand again, with price spike
John McCarthy | 17th Jul 2017 5:30 AM I hope you're not investing your money in coal based on short-term price fluctuations, Elliot. The long-term future is not good, as the price has been in steady decline.

Ian Murray
18-07-2017, 06:08 PM
QUEENSLAND'S dominant commodity, coking coal, is back in demand again....

And China has imposed sanctions against North Korean coal, halting imports

Ian Murray
19-07-2017, 10:13 AM
If there is evidence that this can be implemented in Australia with greater economic benefits that are the ones delivered by the coal industry, it is worthy of consideration but I want to see evidence that it will be cheaper here.

There is mounting evidence, eg http://www.reputex.com/media-releases/rising-gas-price-falling-storage-costs-makes-renewables-cheapest-for-reliable-power-in-australia/ What's needed is clear long-term government policy encouraging large-scale investment


Also, its worth noting that some houses in India do not use energy/energy products...cause they can not afford it :)

What they need is electric light and cooking, then refrigeration. And power tools for their village industries. Electric hair dryers and can openers are not needed.

Ian Murray
19-07-2017, 10:24 AM
Defining power of climate change and ‘Al Gore’ effect (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccrann/defining-power-of-climate-change-and-al-gore-effect/news-story/a886b4658e437fb8b6ac9bcf161767b7)
Terry McCrann, Herald Sun,

A meaningless rant - renewables with storage are already cheaper than all fossil fuel alternatives

http://www.reputex.com/media-releases/rising-gas-price-falling-storage-costs-makes-renewables-cheapest-for-reliable-power-in-australia/

Rincewind
19-07-2017, 10:54 AM
A meaningless rant

Looks like Jono will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2017, 11:51 AM
A meaningless rant - renewables with storage are already cheaper than all fossil fuel alternatives

http://www.reputex.com/media-releases/rising-gas-price-falling-storage-costs-makes-renewables-cheapest-for-reliable-power-in-australia/

Would be nice if you were right. But I doubt it, e.g. Despite Claims Of 'Grid Parity,' Wind And Solar Are Still More Expensive Than Fossil Fuels (https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2017/04/04/despite-claims-of-grid-parity-wind-and-solar-are-still-more-expensive-than-fossil-fuels/#489eeb840e4f)

MichaelBaron
19-07-2017, 12:27 PM
Would be nice if you were right. But I doubt it, e.g. Despite Claims Of 'Grid Parity,' Wind And Solar Are Still More Expensive Than Fossil Fuels (https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2017/04/04/despite-claims-of-grid-parity-wind-and-solar-are-still-more-expensive-than-fossil-fuels/#489eeb840e4f)

From my perspective, economic feasibility is the main issue. All the articles pro/against alternative sources of power are interesting to read but lets also look at the practical side of things: There are homes supported by wind power...but how many large factories do we know in Australia that are using wind power? Wouldn't they want to save money...if only wind power would be cheaper plus reliable? :)

Blunderbuss
19-07-2017, 01:05 PM
I can understand advocates of renewables arguing they are cheaper than coal, and they are clearly correct (if you factor in pollution). But the stronger argument is it doesn’t matter what it costs ‘cos it doesn’t matter how much money you have in the bank if there is nowhere to spend it. Like Pete Postlewaite in The Age of Stupid. http://www.spannerfilms.net/films/ageofstupid

Desmond
19-07-2017, 04:50 PM
From my perspective, economic feasibility is the main issue. All the articles pro/against alternative sources of power are interesting to read but lets also look at the practical side of things: There are homes supported by wind power...but how many large factories do we know in Australia that are using wind power? Wouldn't they want to save money...if only wind power would be cheaper plus reliable? :)If they are buying electricity from the grid, why wouldn't some of it be generated from wind? Or are you expecting every business to put a wind farm in their driveway?

Desmond
19-07-2017, 05:02 PM
Sun Metals says new solar farm will underpin zinc refinery expansion (http://reneweconomy.com.au/sun-metals-says-new-solar-farm-will-underpin-zinc-refinery-expansion-28753/)

Korean owned zinc refiner Sun Metals says the 116MW solar farm that it began building this week will likely underpin expansion of its north Queensland refinery business – already one of the biggest energy consumers in the state – and create as many as 100 permanent new jobs.

Sun Metals CEO Yun Choi said on Wednesday that the 116MW solar farm, which is being built by First Solar 15km south of Townsville, will provide around one third of the refinery’s electricity needs, and would not only ensure the viability of the existing plant, but had underpinned the company’s plans for expansion.

“The SMC Solar Farm investment of $199 million is the first step in Korea Zinc ensuring the long term viability of the existing refinery and also underpinning the potential for its expansion using world class new technology, with an investment decision due in late 2017,” he said in comments made on Wednesday at an official ceremony.

Founded in Queensland in 1996, the refinery currently has a staff of 291 and produces 225,000 tons of zinc a year, using more than 900,000 megawatt-hours of electricity, Choi said.

“An expanded refinery would see an additional $267 million invested and is expected to support up to 827 construction jobs during peak construction and an additional 100 permanent refinery workers once operational, all within North Queensland,” Choi added.

“The …expansion will also see an increase in broader economic activity for Townsville, with significant increase in Townsville Port activities, uplift for local suppliers and contractors and also, via use of new refining technology, reduced water usage and environmental outputs.”

As we reported here, Sun Metals’ move to solar follows extraordinary price surges on Australia’s wholesale electricity markets, and particularly in Queensland, where they are about double the cost of solar in 2017.
...

MichaelBaron
19-07-2017, 06:03 PM
If they are buying electricity from the grid, why wouldn't some of it be generated from wind? Or are you expecting every business to put a wind farm in their driveway?

I would expect every business to do things cost-effectively. The fact that few if any are doing it suggests they do not think so. If you convince them its cost effective..it will happen naturally without ''prosecuting'' coal. Let the market forces prove efficiency of your idea

Desmond
19-07-2017, 07:36 PM
I would expect every business to do things cost-effectively. The fact that few if any are doing it suggests they do not think so. If you convince them its cost effective..it will happen naturally without ''prosecuting'' coal. Let the market forces prove efficiency of your ideaI just gave you an example of it happening: Sun Metals.

Patrick Byrom
19-07-2017, 08:45 PM
I would expect every business to do things cost-effectively. The fact that few if any are doing it suggests they do not think so. If you convince them its cost effective..it will happen naturally without ''prosecuting'' coal. Let the market forces prove efficiency of your ideaHow do you know that few are doing so? A business drawing electricity from the grid is already benefitting from cheaper renewable power. And a business with its own power supply is probably relying on a power station built years ago when renewable energy was more expensive than coal - it's not going to be cost-effective to build a completely new power station. So the only businesses likely to powered solely by renewable energy are new or expanding businesses, and road runner already gave you an example of one. Maybe you should give us an example of a new or expanding business that is building a new power station relying solely on coal. So far the score is renewables 1 - coal 0!

Allowing market forces to decide is an excellent idea. This is already happening, with coal being replaced by cheaper renewables. But coal is still heavily subsidised (rather than being 'prosecuted'), and coal does not cover the cost of the pollution it causes. If coal power is made to pay for the environmental damage it causes, and subsidies are removed, renewables will win easily.

ER
19-07-2017, 09:29 PM
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/07/15/turnbull-says-coal-opponents-are--delusional-.html

Meanwhile in the real world....

COAL OPPONENTS ARE DELUSIONAL!!!

Mr. Prime Minster, nice to see you joining the fun!
I have been telling this to mother superior and her silly quintet for ages!

Patrick Byrom
19-07-2017, 09:48 PM
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/07/15/turnbull-says-coal-opponents-are--delusional-.html
Meanwhile in the real world....I wouldn't confuse an LNP conference with the real world :)

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2017, 12:04 AM
I wouldn't confuse an LNP conference with the real world :)

Patrick thinks that the Labor-Greens (and the USA Democrats) are the real world.

Rincewind
20-07-2017, 12:10 AM
Patrick thinks that the Labor-Greens (and the USA Democrats) are the real world.

No the point was Turnbull was addressing a very coal friendly crowd at a LNP convention. The same crowd were apparently considering a motion to recommend that Australia withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Should not be confused with anything in the real world.

MichaelBaron
20-07-2017, 12:39 AM
Can we simply wait for the alternative energy sources to prove their value...by converting majority of companies into becoming their loyal users ;)? Lets wait and see...when it becomes cheaper and better...the conversion will happen naturally.

Desmond
20-07-2017, 06:51 AM
Can we simply wait for the alternative energy sources to prove their value...by converting majority of companies into becoming their loyal users ;)? Lets wait and see...when it becomes cheaper and better...the conversion will happen naturally.Already happening. So do you know of any businesses in the last say 24 months building new coal power stations?

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2017, 12:39 PM
Already happening. So do you know of any businesses in the last say 24 months building new coal power stations?

Of course they would be cautious because of too many politicians wanting to shut them down by force. In a free market, they would be building them, as they are in India and China.

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2017, 12:41 PM
No the point was Turnbull was addressing a very coal friendly crowd at a LNP convention. The same crowd were apparently considering a motion to recommend that Australia withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Should not be confused with anything in the real world.

Patrick does have a point with today's LNP which no longer stands for anything, except (only maybe) for being slightly less big-government than Labor.

Rincewind
20-07-2017, 12:44 PM
Patrick does have a point with today's LNP which no longer stands for anything, except (only maybe) for being slightly less big-government than Labor.

Certainly Turnbull has been accused of that before and left himself open for the same criticism again since speaking to reporters after the speech he was talking up the importance of renewables. With politicians the truth often depends on who is listening.

MichaelBaron
20-07-2017, 12:49 PM
Already happening. So do you know of any businesses in the last say 24 months building new coal power stations?

If it is happening and if this is going to happen - I have nothing against it. As long as it is commercially viable - I am not going to object to it. But only as long as it happens subject to the natural movement of the market forces rather than political pressures/subsidies etc.
I never objected to natural forces in a market economy.

Patrick Byrom
20-07-2017, 01:05 PM
Of course they would be cautious because of too many politicians wanting to shut them down by force. In a free market, they would be building them, as they are in India and China.Except that the article road runner quoted said that they were building the solar plant because it provided cheaper energy: "As we reported here, Sun Metals’ move to solar follows extraordinary price surges on Australia’s wholesale electricity markets, and particularly in Queensland, where they are about double the cost of solar in 2017."

Perhaps you can provide a list of the new coal-fired power plants being built by companies in Australia? So far, it's still renewables 1 - coal 0!

Patrick Byrom
20-07-2017, 01:06 PM
If it is happening and if this is going to happen - I have nothing against it. As long as it is commercially viable - I am not going to object to it. But only as long as it happens subject to the natural movement of the market forces rather than political pressures/subsidies etc.
I never objected to natural forces in a market economy.Do you agree that coal production in Australia is heavily subsidised?

Desmond
20-07-2017, 05:03 PM
Of course they would be cautious because of too many politicians wanting to shut them down by force. In a free market, they would be building them, as they are in India and China.Special pleading much? Michael asks for evidence of a scenario, I provide it, and it doesn't count because........

Ian Murray
20-07-2017, 06:18 PM
Would be nice if you were right. But I doubt it, e.g. Despite Claims Of 'Grid Parity,' Wind And Solar Are Still More Expensive Than Fossil Fuels (https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2017/04/04/despite-claims-of-grid-parity-wind-and-solar-are-still-more-expensive-than-fossil-fuels/#489eeb840e4f)

The US market is way behind Australia, it seems. He cites $US3/W for rooftop PV as par with the grid, available only in parts of the south-west. Here the average is $A1.50/W ($US1.18) even after the ending of the feed-in tariff subsidies.

http://theconversation.com/solar-households-to-lose-subsidies-but-its-a-bright-future-for-the-industry-63382

Ian Murray
20-07-2017, 06:40 PM
If it is happening and if this is going to happen - I have nothing against it. As long as it is commercially viable - I am not going to object to it. But only as long as it happens subject to the natural movement of the market forces rather than political pressures/subsidies etc.
I never objected to natural forces in a market economy.

Most small to medium businesses operatr in rented premises, making it difficult to get the owner to install rooftop PV
.

Ian Murray
20-07-2017, 07:51 PM
Of course they would be cautious because of too many politicians wanting to shut them down by force. In a free market, they would be building them, as they are in India and China.

India and China have cancelled planned new coal power plants.

In free markets long-horizon fossil fuel investments are a risky business on purely commercial grounds. Following future global decarbonisation in-ground reserves are likely to become stranded assets, of no value to investors

MichaelBaron
21-07-2017, 12:21 AM
Most small to medium businesses operatr in rented premises, making it difficult to get the owner to install rooftop PV
.

Are you saying that otherwise they would? Is there data available on how many do install and whether it is a drop in the ocean or a substantial number? I would imagine if savings are available would be substantial.

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2017, 12:56 AM
India and China have cancelled planned new coal power plants.
Lovely game they play: massive bulding programs, then stop and claim that they are so green.


In free markets long-horizon fossil fuel investments are a risky business on purely commercial grounds.
That's for investors to decide.

Desmond
21-07-2017, 07:28 AM
Are you saying that otherwise they would? Is there data available on how many do install and whether it is a drop in the ocean or a substantial number? I would imagine if savings are available would be substantial.

What's your average lease period? What's your standard ROI period for solar?

Ian Murray
21-07-2017, 08:11 AM
Lovely game they play: massive bulding programs, then stop and claim that they are so green.

Not something you would understand, but they are starting the process of honouring their Paris commtments


That's for investors to decide.

Which is why banks like Goldman Sachs, HSBC and Citi have eschewed all coal investments

http://theconversation.com/the-future-of-australian-coal-an-unbankable-deposit-77021

Ian Murray
21-07-2017, 08:21 AM
Are you saying that otherwise they would? Is there data available on how many do install and whether it is a drop in the ocean or a substantial number? I would imagine if savings are available would be substantial.

There is no data on small businesses renting premises, but plenty on those who own their rooftops, e.g.
https://greenmagazine.com.au/ikea-australia-announces-installation-of-solar-panel-energy-systems-across-all-east-coast-stores/
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2015/02/13/australia-commercial-sector-grows-as-et-solar-joins-ppa-segment_100018215/
http://www.sunwiz.com.au/index.php/2012-06-26-00-47-40/37-latest-offerings/337-australian-commercial-pv-database.html

Ian Murray
22-07-2017, 09:35 PM
The coal truth: how a major energy source lost its power in Britain (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/19/how-coal-lost-power-britain)
The Guardian
20.7.17

Once the engine of the Industrial Revolution and employer of nearly 1.2 million people, the fall of old king coal in the UK has been precipitous.

Only five years ago, the fuel was generating more than 40% of the UK’s electricity, but new analysis by Imperial College London reveals coal supplied just 2% of power in the first half of 2017.

More than 1,000 deep mines and nearly 100 surface ones operated until the early 1960s – today there are just 10 tiny mines left. Half a century ago it was the UK’s main source of energy, but last year windfarms provided more power....

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2017, 03:04 AM
Not something you would understand, but they are starting the process of honouring their Paris commtments
You mean, like they honoured their Kyoto commitments? Did anyone?


Which is why banks like Goldman Sachs, HSBC and Citi have eschewed all coal investments
Of course, because they know that the greenies are doing their best to shut them down with government


The coal truth: how a major energy source lost its power in Britain [from the leftist Guardian]
Of course, because "ratcheting up of the UK’s carbon tax" added to massive subsidies of windmills. All this shows is what happens when government, with force, is in the business of picking winners and losers, as opposed to the free market, another term for a population of free buyers and sellers consenting to make economic transactions.

Ian Murray
23-07-2017, 10:58 AM
You mean, like they honoured their Kyoto commitments? Did anyone?

Paris is a bottom-up agreement, with ratifying parties setting their own targets and reporting results regularly, one of the reasons it was ratified so quickly. Kyoto was a top-down attempt to set emission limits - countries, like people, don't like being told what to do.

As for China and India, the Natural Resources Defense Council, inter alia, is monitoring their policy and practice changes:
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/paris-climate-conference-China-IB.pdf
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/paris-climate-conference-India-IB.pdf


Of course, because they know that the greenies are doing their best to shut them down with government

You really think banks the size of Goldman Sachs are frightened of activists? I think you'll find their bean counters have done the sums and figured out that there is no investment future in fossil fuels (http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/new-energy-landscape-folder/report-the-low-carbon-economy/report.pdf)


Of course, because "ratcheting up of the UK’s carbon tax" added to massive subsidies of windmills. All this shows is what happens when government, with force, is in the business of picking winners and losers, as opposed to the free market, another term for a population of free buyers and sellers consenting to make economic transactions.

The days have gone when free buying and selling included total disregard for public health or environmental pollution. Sellers should pay for their externalities, not the public. A carbon tax is the fairest means of ensuring carbon emissions are paid for.

In Britain onshore wind power is now able to compete (https://cleantechnica.com/2017/04/13/onshore-wind-projects-proceed-without-subsidies-uk/) with gas and coal power, without subsidies.

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2017, 01:44 AM
The days have gone when free buying and selling included total disregard for public health or environmental pollution. Sellers should pay for their externalities, not the public. A carbon tax is the fairest means of ensuring carbon emissions are paid for.
At least the above is reasonable economics.


In Britain onshore wind power is now able to compete (https://cleantechnica.com/2017/04/13/onshore-wind-projects-proceed-without-subsidies-uk/) with gas and coal power, without subsidies.
As long as they win by fair competition, not by government subsidizing them or penalizing their competition, then fine.

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2017, 01:47 AM
The Totalitarianism of the Environmentalists (https://fee.org/articles/environmentalism-is-totalitarian)
Marian L. Tupy, FEE, 23 July 2017

While acknowledging that the available data suggests a “lukewarming (https://store.cato.org/book/lukewarming)” trend in global temperatures, I cautioned against excessive alarmism. Available resources, I said, should be spent on adaptation to climate change, not on preventing changes in global temperature – a task that I, along with many others (http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/expert), consider to be both ruinously expensive and, largely, futile.

Is it really so difficult to imagine a future in which each of us is issued with a carbon credit at the start of each year, limiting what kind of food we eat (locally grown potatoes will be fine, but Alaskan salmon will be verboten) and how far we can travel (visiting our in-laws in Ohio once a year will be permitted, but not Paris)? In fact, it is almost impossible to imagine a single aspect of human existence that would be free from government interference – all in the name of saving the environment.

These ideas might sound nutty, but they are slowly gaining ground. Just last week, a study came out estimating the environmental benefits of “having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding air travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight), and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year).”

And then there is Travis N. Rieder, a research scholar at Johns Hopkins’ Berman Institute of Bioethics, who says that “maybe we should protect our kids by not having them.” He wants tax penalties to punish new parents in rich countries. The proposed tax penalty would become harsher with each additional child.

And that brings me to my final point. Since the fall of communism, global warming has been, without question, the most potent weapon in the hands of those who wish to control the behavior of their fellow human beings. Lukewarmists like me do not caution against visions of an environmental apocalypse out of some perverse hatred of nature. On the contrary, concern for the environment is laudable and, I happen to believe, nearly universal. But environmentalism, like all –isms, can become totalitarian. It is for that reason that, when it comes to our environmental policies, we ought to tread very carefully.