if you dont believe in global warming sign this [Archive] - Page 2

johnc

26th November 2009, 08:22 AM

Firstly the sky wont fall in, in the short term the impact will be less than the GST, secondly for many businesses the concessions granted will mean little impact on pricing. It was only ever going to be energy intensive industry that would feel the brunt of an ETS and in most cases we don't actually have a lot of heavy industry, the standouts are companies such as those producing aluminium which we subsidise heavily anyway.

The aim of an ETS is to reduce the amount of harmful emissions into the atmosphere. The sky didn't fall in when the poms banned coal as a heating fuel in the 1950's, generally the more efficent and modern the plant the less pollution it emits and the more power produced per tonne of coal as the combustion process is better designed,

The fallacy is the belief that other sources can't produce cheaper power, they will in time, humans aren't stupid and the brightest amongst us will come up with cleaner more sustainable processes that will eventually replace coal as the major source of power. Nothing says we can't have some coal fired generators, its the quantum of emmissions that's a problem we need to reduce the coal we burn. The idea is to reduce the six major greenhouse gasses we create each year, no one suggests we can eliminate them.

Those advocating their prices will shoot up because of the ETS are overlooking one major point, you don't actually know what effect this will have on your inputs. There is as much given in concessions as taken, the economic impact will see some but not all costs impacted, for many price setters the impact will be so minor as to not be noticed. If you look at how much the price of materials like steel have soared in recent years as a result of demand created increases you would need to have rocks in your head to suggest that an ETS is going to destroy markets and business, if it was going to happen it would have happened during the mining boom. If demand lessens under an ETS we could even have price falls.

You can indulge in idle threats about price increases all you like, all it high lights is that there is a deep lack of understanding of how this is meant to work. The mechanism means if we can lower our domestic use of power and bring on lower polluting generating capacity the ETS will become redundant, this is not a permanent scheme, it is a lever that will last quite a few years but if we get on top of the problem it will be phased out. The economic system we operate under will allow that, it is also worth mentioning that transport costs are one of this countries greatest cost barriers, yet no one is complaining about massive taxes on fuel effecting our international competitiveness, but they do and the ETS is a drop in the bucket in comparrison.

I'm not suggesting we all agree, but I am suggesting that the last few posts show a level of emotion filled ignorance that serves no constructive purpose.

robbo266317

26th November 2009, 09:11 AM

I agree john, most people/politicians are just too short sighted and put profits first.
I was recently made redundant from One of the Steel companies primarily because they only made $270 million profit.
When/If I get another job I will be putting solar panels on the roof to reduce my energy demand (and bills).

.RC.

26th November 2009, 10:01 AM

When/If I get another job I will be putting solar panels on the roof to reduce my energy demand (and bills).

Then you have to go without something else to pay for that..Solar panels are not cheap, in fact they are extremely expensive..

So what will you go without??? Maybe a night out on the town.. This then hits the likes of restaurant owners or pubs.. See the slippery slope you get on... The ultimate ending is a lower standard of living for the people who have to pay..

Why is it poorer households are not responsible for their emissions and in fact will be compensated to the tune of 120%??

Not one of the pro ETS people will answer that question...

The legislation is a complete failure....It has been politicised that much that it is bad legislation and will be the downfall of australian society..

johnc

26th November 2009, 10:35 AM

Then you have to go without something else to pay for that..Solar panels are not cheap, in fact they are extremely expensive.. They are a fraction of the cost of replacing the family car and have a pay back period of under 10 years on some of the plans.

So what will you go without??? Maybe a night out on the town.. This then hits the likes of restaurant owners or pubs.. See the slippery slope you get on... The ultimate ending is a lower standard of living for the people who have to pay.. An interesting view but don't make baseless assumptions of peoples spending patterns to support your own bias.

Why is it poorer households are not responsible for their emissions and in fact will be compensated to the tune of 120%?? Where on earth do you get this from. Poorer households are compensated so they can maintain basic services and are the least able to adjust to price pressure. who said this has anything to do with responsibility.

Not one of the pro ETS people will answer that question...

really? maybe that's because they would prefer to answer questions of people who actually appear to have a basic understanding of the issue rather than those who simply push nonsensical and baseless rubbish.

The legislation is a complete failure....It has been politicised that much that it is bad legislation and will be the downfall of australian society..

A sign of those with worthless opinion is to demonise others by using names for the PM like Dudd this is usually done in the absense of anything substantial to support a claim, the other is that the world will end, economies collapse or in your case the downfall of Australian Society. In reality upward price pressures create inflation, we have had it with commodity pricing and housing in recent years but society doesn't seem to have collapsed as a result. No one is talking about punitive punishment or marginalisation of sectors of the community. We are talking about a pricing mechanism allowing community and business based change. This is not the grounds for anarchy, it is the base for change we can all take a part in. sensible discussion should be reasoned and balanced not emotive and hysterical.

damian

26th November 2009, 11:01 AM

Kiwigeo: It sounds to me like you were doing some interesting stuff there, and that makes me question my own sanity :D

Johnc:Less impact than the GST ? Good luck with that. I'll check in in 5 years and see how everyone is getting on.

Amazing, I look away for 5 minutes and another 3 pages :) To those who object to this thread going on and on and on...perhaps you should just...not...read ...it ?

You know it occurred to me this morning that the gas companies are the logical people to finance bluegen units. I am sure they could make the numbers work to pay for the purchase and installation of the units in clients houses and sell them electricity, hot water and gas below current levels and make a profit on the whole shebang. It'd aleviate the upfront costs to consumers and of course reduce pollution. Might even make the grid less prone to failure...

Maybe I should send some letters to some gas companies and see if they are looking at it.

Waldo

26th November 2009, 12:26 PM

secondly for many businesses the concessions granted will mean little impact on pricing. It was only ever going to be energy intensive industry that would feel the brunt of an ETS

How the heck to do you get that one? :?

There have been no concessions made for small business, I turn on a switch to fire computers on etc. and it will cost me. Watch the likes of Lateline Business and you will hear that, and rightly so, that those who produce our energy will not be able to continue to bear their costs of an ETS and will have to pass them on. That means you and I will be paying more, which means everyone will pay more. As my operating costs go up so does what you get charged.

Logic dictates the outcome. A wise man wrote something along the lines that, to every cause there is an affect.

johnc

26th November 2009, 12:41 PM

The reference is to large businesses, at the moment it looks as if the heaviest users of power are not really going to have their bottom line effected, certainly not in the near term anyway. As a small business owner I know how much our electricity bill is in relation to other business costs. Even if it doubles the impact on final prices is fairly minor, wages costs and the like are where the real money goes. If large business is largely uneffected we shouldn't seem any of our business input costs rise.

The main ones effected will be middle income earners, and most will be in a position to bring about changes to minimise that impact. That's what it is about.

I actually am not that keen on the proposed ETS myself, its just that a number of people seem to be writing ill informed and unsubstantiated rubbish about its impact. All this does is raise the fear factor when what we all need is to understand what it means to us. That is still to be set out in a manner we can apply to our daily lives.

The worst outcome is that the power companies may use this as a lame excuse to jack up prices, and that is something to watch for.

Waldo

26th November 2009, 12:54 PM

Yes, but cost increases from electricity have an affect which flows on for the short term they are exempted (from what I understand) but for how long will the $7 Billion dollars last. It can't go up the chain and it has to come down, as to will any other industry affected by the ETS - be it coal, desal, oil etc. Any product or service, which in some part of it's manufacture or delivery of relies on the above in the transportation or other will see those costs rise.

No-one can be expected to wear the costs and not pass them on.

The only one thing exempted from the ETS is primary producers, which was the only one smart thing that has been done - but for how long. And why should they have been included at the start of all this, because their cow :badair: ?

Gingermick

26th November 2009, 02:20 PM

We would have to put the cows out to pasture to feed on grass to curtail their emissions. That would mean we wouldn't get the steroids and antibiotics and other crap the feed livestock. We'd have to pay more though, and I'm happy to for meat that's better for you.

.RC.

26th November 2009, 03:49 PM

T

The main ones effected will be middle income earners, and most will be in a position to bring about changes to minimise that impact. That's what it is about.

The only position they will be in will be broke..

Why do the bogans get compensated by 120%... Cmon John, why are the bogans not responsible for their emissions???

I wonder where the $7 billion in compo is coming from??? Oh that's right krudd is going to pull it out of his ####...:no:

Sebastiaan56

26th November 2009, 03:54 PM

Why is it poorer households are not responsible for their emissions and in fact will be compensated to the tune of 120%??

Not one of the pro ETS people will answer that question...

Thats the first time Ive seen the poor blamed for anything in this debate, who are the poor? The Vets who fought and died for us? Those troublesome pensioners who paid taxes all their lives? Those irresponsible scurrilous disabled people? The infirm, hospitalised, etc. The poor are being compensated as they have the least resources to face the price rises Waldo has identified. I think it is pathetic to resent those who have less than us. :((

Solar systems can be had for $7k, see here Solar Power Systems (http://www.solazone.com.au/SOLPOWER.htm) as the price of electricity goes up this will lead to a shorter payback period per installation. No, I havent done an NPV but here in NSW it is becoming compelling.

Both of the "L" parties went to the last election with a carbon trading system. If Howard would have won and kept an election promise (a dodgy if... ) his system would look very similar to Rudd's as they are both beholden to basically the same donors. In politics the piper must always be paid. But at least St Steve Fielding isnt making the decision for the country.

I think an extensive study will find that agriculture and especially forestry would be carbon sinks. The question is how do you measure it. CSIRO Is doing work to reduce bovine flatus, did you know most comes out of their mouths..... Cow kissing, a whole new kinky pastime.

Vernonv

26th November 2009, 04:15 PM

Solar systems can be had for $7k, see here Solar Power Systems (http://www.solazone.com.au/SOLPOWER.htm) as the price of electricity goes up this will lead to a shorter payback period per installation.Sorry but I don't think you would get much for your $7k. The system they had there for $7600 (after rebates) will only supply about 50% of the needs of an energy efficient house and how much extra will it cost to make your house energy efficient?. To fully run a house off solar you are looking at well over $20k and that is assuming you already have an energy efficient house.

Sebastiaan56

26th November 2009, 04:43 PM

johnc

26th November 2009, 05:26 PM

Vernon,

My house isnt energy efficient and Im getting some quotes to see how the numbers stack up. I havent done it for few years so I will be curious to see how much has changed. Last time it would have cost $12k based on our household consumption. I am also counting on Reese keeping his promise of wholesale input tariffs. We dont have air con but have insulation, we run gas, solar hot water, etc.

Just pondering, if the rebate to the "poor" is 120% is that the expected inflation rate? At least the inflation will keep interest rates down and the money collected will pay of the deficit.... great silver lining huh..

The only information I can find with any credibility show low income earners subsidised 100% not 120 % and food prices going up 5%.

As for the offensive notion that low income earners are bogans that takes us back to demonising a section of the community for no valid reason. Bogans are across all income sectors and will pay according to their income levels. I think the subsidy will be more like
the family payment, so if you make improvements you could make a profit.

A home once you calculate the feed in tarrifs should be cost positive at 2kw or around $12,000 installed when I last looked. But I stand to be corrected however I wonder if you get more bank for your buck if you look at improved insulation and draft control along with fluoro and LED lighting solutions. Retro fitting double glazing is an interesting concept, and one we are about to commence ourselves.

.RC.

26th November 2009, 06:21 PM

Why doesn't the government force people to recycle??
Why doesn't the government cut paper usage and move to online transactions??

I am not against doing something to reduce emissions, but letting market forces dictate what happens is plain wrong and a cop out by the government..

hughie

27th November 2009, 12:26 AM

Why doesn't the government force people to recycle??

I seem to recall Keating wacked a 30% tax on recycled paper, I wonder if we still have? it

Why doesn't the government cut paper usage and move to online transactions??
Too simple and too hard, beside the govt probably is led around by its bureaucracy.Plus not enough votes in it I suspect

I
am not against doing something to reduce emissions, but letting market forces dictate what happens is plain wrong and a cop out by the government..
[/QUOTE]

Cop out maybe, most govt view point goes as far as the next election and how much they need to promise it get back in. Once in the generally do whatever their own agenda dictates.

If you want change then do what the big end of town does. Lobby and Lobby hard or if you cant afford it get as many people as possible on the your side to make contact via phone, email,fax , letter etc to all pollys in Canberra. Polly are swayed by votes and or the lack of them.

'She'll be right" is perhaps the the greatest asset for those in Power, it is in some ways a form of apathy.

artme

27th November 2009, 05:02 AM

Just a point on this issue. Here in Brasil recycling is a way of life and has been for years. There are no government sticks or carrots - it just happens. Maybe this is a good example of "market forces".

The bulk of the population is poor. The Social service set up is barely adequate so people have to do whatever they can to earn a living.

The first time I came here 22 years ago I was staggered to see fellows in Rio pulling carts around in the crazy traffic. These were loaded with cardboard cartons for recycling, Saves the city council huge amounts in rubbish collection and disposal costs.

This still happens.

here where we are living at the moment there are scroungers who walk the streets everyday, collecting cans, plastic and glass bottles. They raid your rubbish but don't spread it to the winds.

A couple i have seen fairly frequently does the nature strip along the beach.

kiwigeo

27th November 2009, 05:34 AM

To my knowledge South Australia is the only state where a deposit is charged on bottles and cans.

Incentives to recycle and use renewable energy sources in this country are generally way behind the rest of the world.

Sebastiaan56

27th November 2009, 07:36 AM

A home once you calculate the feed in tarrifs should be cost positive at 2kw or around $12,000 installed when I last looked. But I stand to be corrected however I wonder if you get more bank for your buck if you look at improved insulation and draft control along with fluoro and LED lighting solutions. Retro fitting double glazing is an interesting concept, and one we are about to commence ourselves.

Do you have a lead on LED's for the home? Compact flouros are OK but at best an interim solution. Im continually messing with air flow in our place. There is a inherent refrigerator under the floor, its just a matter of using it intelligently. I will be very interested to hear how your double glazing goes.

johnc

27th November 2009, 08:21 AM

I got the bulbs from this place http://www.ledfx.com.au/ it was about $65 for a single 12v globe that gives Lumens similar to a 35W 12V halegon. They are getting in a version that reaches 50W levels and I will pick up four of those and try them as well. Can't say the result was quite what we expected, but suitable for passage and hall. At this stage we are keen but not committed. I don't think they work well for very high ceilings, but for smaller distances between light and work surfaces seem very good. It's all very new to me and I wouldn't mind finding a site that gives some independant comparisons.

artme

27th November 2009, 08:45 AM

Some years ago- in the US I think - A refrigerator was built with the motor on the top.Hot air rises from the motor to be used for clothes drying. There was also a decrease in the amount of insulation needed for the fridge and less power to operate the fridge.

Simple and effective and probably cost effective for manufacturers.

Have a look at Expat's post where he is setting up his workshop. Insulation will save a packet in in heating for him.

.RC.

27th November 2009, 11:46 AM

Do you have a lead on LED's for the home?

My local tooling supplier has gone heavily into LED lighting as a bit of a side project..He even has LED replacement fluoro tubes...Expensive at $60 a pop but they last 50 000 hours +

Engineering Tools Australasia, your online engineering tools super store. (http://www.engineering-tools.com.au/)

I would love to move to all LED lights, if we all went to them the cut in emissions would be huge..

hughie

27th November 2009, 12:39 PM

My local tooling supplier has gone heavily into LED lighting as a bit of a side project..He even has LED replacement fluoro tubes...Expensive at $60 a pop but they last 50 000 hours +

Engineering Tools Australasia, your online engineering tools super store. (http://www.engineering-tools.com.au/)

I would love to move to all LED lights, if we all went to them the cut in emissions would be huge..

I too have watched the development of LED at the moment cost and effectiveness are not quite there as to be come house items in general, but its only matter of time.

Just a point on this issue. Here in Brasil recycling is a way of life and has been for years. There are no government sticks or carrots - it just happens. Maybe this is a good example of "market forces".

With this in mind I have always maintained the recycling must be made as easy as possible, other wise in the daily busy life style we all seem to lead it wont be done effectively.

As to market forces I agree, having lived and traveled extensively in South East Asia. Its the same there, although I notice as the middle class grows in size and wealth it starts to fade somewhat.

kiwigeo

28th November 2009, 12:35 AM

For a good rundown on LED lighting and other alternative technologies check out the Australian Alternative Technology Association. The frequently do reviews of available products and they also sell LED halogen replacement units etc.

jimbur

1st December 2009, 10:49 AM

Now the libs have got the mad monk in charge - though saying "in charge" might be putting it a bit too strongly.:D
Cheers,
Jim

damian

1st December 2009, 11:13 AM

Oh good, the thread turned positive for 5 minutes. Nice to see everyone pause attacking one another to discuss some practical things. :D

jimbur

1st December 2009, 11:15 AM

Oh good, the thread turned positive for 5 minutes. Nice to see everyone pause attacking one another to discuss some practical things. :D

Couldn't resist it I'm afraid:D

jimbur

1st December 2009, 11:22 AM

Oh good, the thread turned positive for 5 minutes. Nice to see everyone pause attacking one another to discuss some practical things. :D

Going back to the positive - should the country that invented the Hills Hoist be embracing the use of electric powered clothes driers?
Cheers,
Jim

damian

1st December 2009, 12:29 PM

I dug up my clothes line and gave it to my girlfriend. Never use the things, while she hates tumble dryers.

And that is the basis of my objection to this sort of approach. Governments always answer any issue with regulation and penalty. Happens in driving, gun ownership, pollution, everything. Same solution. Suits them because it give the ignorant "someone to blame", enhances the power and control of government over the people.

So coal fired electricity generation pollutes. Don't disagree. Carbon tax ? Not the right answer. Photovoltaic rebates, great answer. Government bulk buying energy efficient systems and onselling them to consumers at wholesale prices, low cost and great solution with real measureable outcomes.

Water is another classic example. Sure they gave us subsidies for a while to put tanks on (tanks were actually banned in brisbane in the 90's thanks Labour Lord Mayor Sooley), but now those rebates have been restricted or withdrawn. The government would much rather build desal plants and recycle industrial waste into our water supply. Moreover people are suspicious that the Qld government will start taxing the water we collect off our roofs. You have to pay water rights for dams in qld, don't know about down south.

Sorry, ranting again. Just makes me cranky they won't encourage people to both save money and reduce their enviromental footprint, but would rather force new costs onto people via new bureaucracies, taxes and laws.

jimbur

1st December 2009, 01:25 PM

Down here water companies are complaining about lack of profit - people are using less water. One thing leads to another.
Jim

Sebastiaan56

1st December 2009, 05:55 PM

Sorry, ranting again. Just makes me cranky they won't encourage people to both save money and reduce their enviromental footprint, but would rather force new costs onto people via new bureaucracies, taxes and laws.

I'll join in. Its the only real power they have... oh that and send our best and bravest to fight stupid proxy wars in third world countries. What if the military budget was spent on rejigging our infrastructure? It wont happen as every leader dreams of being a Churchill, but still.

artme

2nd December 2009, 03:31 AM

I
Water is another classic example. Sure they gave us subsidies for a while to put tanks on (tanks were actually banned in brisbane in the 90's thanks Labour Lord Mayor Sooley), but now those rebates have been restricted or withdrawn. The government would much rather build desal plants and recycle industrial waste into our water supply. Moreover people are suspicious that the Qld government will start taxing the water we collect off our roofs. You have to pay water rights for dams in qld, don't know about down south.

The issue of bot h water and electricity saving measures has been a thorn in my side for years.
When the reticulated water supply was put in at home- I was very small but remember the celebrations - you would not be hooked up until you disconnected AND removed your tanks.Dad described this as rank idiocy. How right he was!!!

When I lived in Coffs Harbour the local council forbade me putting in a tank on "Aesthitic grounds". I offered to put in an underground tank and was again forbidden.

I guess they did not want people bypassing their revenue raising.

With electricity, it would be interesting to do a cost analysis to see if subsidizing photo-voltaic arrays and solar systems is cheaper than building dams and power stations.

I Put a solar hot water system In the house I built in Leeton. The local County Council Did not want to grant me off peak rates for the times I might need it. A threat of court action fixed that.

The same thing with energy efficient housing. Wanted to build a pise or a mud brick house. Council would not allow. The Cheif Building Inspector told me this was because they had no specifications or codes to cover them and "they probably aren"t strong enough".

Year slater I realized I could have challenged this in curt but the hassle is too great.

There are many ways to save energy and cut pollution. Trouble is the greedy companies can't make money from them.

Ashore

2nd December 2009, 12:35 PM

I guess they did not want people bypassing their revenue raising.
.
and if you got the government subsidy to put a tank in you got an incresd on your sewer bill relating to the size of the tank fitted

Vernonv

2nd December 2009, 01:53 PM

and if you got the government subsidy to put a tank in you got an incresd on your sewer bill relating to the size of the tank fittedIs that fact or fiction? I've heard it mentioned before, but it was unclear if this was fact or conjecture. We've gotten the tank rebate, but as we don't have a sewerage connection (we have a septic system) there was noting to tack to charge onto.

I'm truly interested.

Sebastiaan56

2nd December 2009, 03:47 PM

I just got sent this,

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

Waldo

2nd December 2009, 04:14 PM

:brava:

And to add. If you didn't watch Lateline Business you missed a very interesting discussion. Lateline Business - 01/12/2009: Industry figures spar on emissions trading (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200912/s2759130.htm)

The views expressed by Nathan Fabian, from the Investor Group on Climate Change, especially highlighted who is really going to win from an ETS. :~ and why the big push for it.

Sebastiaan56

2nd December 2009, 07:02 PM

Listen to last nights Late Night Live as well. Senator Heffernan (spelling?) pointing to the losses in the proposed markets.

hughie

3rd December 2009, 12:15 AM

Well given the defeat of the bill in the upper house, we can most likely put this thread to bed and close it.:2tsup:

Sebastiaan56

3rd December 2009, 05:29 AM

Unfortunately it will be a back as a political issue as both "L"'s have it a part of their policy platforms. Play will recommence next year after the positioning over XMAS.

edit: both parties have climate manipulation in their platforms, not necessarily an ets

diver doug

4th December 2009, 12:43 AM

The only reason Global Warming has made it so far in the media is probably because somewhere, some person, company or country is making a metric crap-load of money ! I'll sign any petition for this myth...

As a former science teacher, I can say that the Earth goes through natural temperature fluctuations.

my two cents worth anyway...

Diver Doug

kiwigeo

4th December 2009, 06:33 AM

T
As a former science teacher, I can say that the Earth goes through natural temperature fluctuations.

my two cents worth anyway...

Diver Doug

As a teacher you should know that Politicians generally know alot less about science than Scientists. Note also the flip flop stand of The Monk over the issue. I've seen quotes from this man supporting global warming and then there are quotes where he takes a completely opposite stand on the issue. These are both good reasons for me not to sign the petition. :D

damian

4th December 2009, 12:11 PM

Darn. We had a whole page where no one was doing this :)

You gotta admit, with Tony Abbott leader of the opposition it's going to be funny, funnier than it has been in years.

And ain't Rudd happy about it...

Rudd is a nasty nasty man. Doesn't always come off that way in the media, but off camera....

Waldo

4th December 2009, 12:15 PM

Rudd is a nasty nasty man. Doesn't always come off that way in the media, but off camera....

I would say it does. Watch in question time how he makes personal attacks when he has got nothing else to say and how he always turns away from the person who asked the question on the other side of the floor and always instead and addresses his own party members.

I would love the day if ever I came face to face with him.

Big Shed

5th December 2009, 01:11 PM

Just read this, IMHO rather interesting, article in The Washington Post

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120403073.html)

I particularly like the first and the last sentence:rolleyes:

Sebastiaan56

5th December 2009, 03:32 PM

The old personal freedom scare huh..... Sorry I dont see why freedom would be eroded. IMO more freedoms have been lost fighting the threat (not the reality) of terrorism. Please explain how personal freedom would be more eroded.

edit, I'll be a bit more specific, everything agreed to at the conference will be subject to the processes of the sovereign governments. The opposition just proved they can kill whatever Rudd puts up. Rudd will need to change the laws in Aust by the normal means and wont be able to now that the God coalition has the reins of the opposition. This article is from America and was preceded a few weeks ago by a thread with a bloke bemoaning the loss of American freedoms see here http://www.woodworkforums.com/f43/australia-going-down-track-107636/ It was dicussed there.

Btw the US still hasnt signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, no chance they will sign anything at Copenhagen, its all scare mongering.

Big Shed

5th December 2009, 03:53 PM

Sebastiaan, I was merely linking to an article about the Copenhagen conference, as I didn't write the article, nor necessarily endorsed its' content, I don't think I owe you an explanation for any its' content.

I will repeat however that the first and last sentence tickled my sense of humour:rolleyes:

"Cogito Ergo Simp" (My mind is...umm what's a mind? )

Sebastiaan56

5th December 2009, 04:56 PM

Big Shed

5th December 2009, 05:00 PM

No sweat, people get just a litlle too intense about this subject at times, as you say on both sides.

From where I sit Global Warming/Climate Change is rapidly becoming the McCarthy-ism of the 21st century, anyone expressing any doubts about the causes, however small, is immediately branded un-American, un-Australian etc.

mick7

5th December 2009, 06:43 PM

Sorry, having trouble reading these posts, my PC is still affected by the Y2K bug.. (which someone may have made some money from.)

hughie

10th December 2009, 08:36 AM

.....And the plot thickens with deals being done behind closed doors. The usual collection of corruption,avarice, greed and skulduggery.

Suggesting to me its got very little if anything to do the climate control, but rather power and greed.

Leaked agreement rocks Copenhagen - Yahoo!7 News (http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/6564953/leaked-agreement-rocks-copenhagen/)

Draft Copenhagen climate change agreement - the 'Danish text' | Environment | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-change)

Sebastiaan56

11th December 2009, 05:42 AM

Gonna be a lot more leaks before its done. Here is my favourite loonie getting hassled by the "Hitler" youth. Its getting personal up there.

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

Gingermick

11th December 2009, 07:46 AM

I wonder if they all walked or swan there; being so concerned with their emmisions they surely couldn't have flown in dirty jets.
They also seem quite happy to wear polyester from textile factories rather than hand woven hemp clothes.
####ing hypocrites.

Waldo

11th December 2009, 11:16 AM

hughie

11th December 2009, 12:29 PM

I often wonder if they think that far myself.

I very much doubt it, do as I say..........

Al Gore House - How Much Electricity Does Al Gores House Use - thedailygreen.com (http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/al-gore-house-47062202)

although some progress has been made

Al Gore greened his mansion, flew commercial to Copenhagen talks - Green House - USATODAY.com (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2009/12/al-gore-greened-his-mansion-flew-commercial-to-copenhagen-talks/1)

kiwigeo

16th December 2009, 07:39 PM

Waldo

16th December 2009, 08:34 PM

johnc

16th December 2009, 10:41 PM

Didn't think much of Prof Ian Plimer's performance on Lateline last night (Tuesday 15/12)..Monbiet (a journalist) ran rings around Plimer (a Geologist).

A very bad performance from someone who's supposed to be one of the heroes of the sceptic camp.

It would seem Plimer cann't measure up to the scrutiny he demands of others. His figures are dodgy and he avoids peer review. It's sad because we need decent discussion not polarised views.

Sebastiaan56

17th December 2009, 06:01 AM

Is he a hero? :shrug:

Like most people I only want to see the figures of Dudd's grande plan and it's direct impact on me, and an honest plan that is something that will work for the whole, not for the few on Wall St.

It seems the world can see through the smoke screen, ala Mr Lumumba Di-Aping Copenhagen negotiator accuses Rudd of lying - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/16/2772948.htm) but Australia as a whole can't. :no:

I dont think he can give any as there are too many variables. If he tried he would be wrong very quickly. In yesterday's paper here it was claimed that out 40% + power price rises were due to the ETS which doesnt even exist yet. Another example of gouging to keep us enslaved to their tax / monopoly services treadmill. We exist to give those disgusting types a living. The only game is power and control over the average Trev. D!ckheads, the lot of em.....

As for Australian disingenuous behaviour in Copenhagen, its the same claims that were made at Kyoto and are probably a negotiating tactic.

Sebastiaan56

17th December 2009, 09:22 AM

From an Indian newspaper

Organiser - Content (http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=322&page=8)

From Xinhua

Leaders of developing countries urges to reach legally binding agreement at Copenhagen climate conference_English_Xinhua (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/17/content_12658660.htm)

and finally AlJazeera (always a good read IMO)

Al Jazeera English - Climate SOS - Man-made or earthly phenomenon? (http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/climatesos/2009/12/20091215132841134624.html)

kiwigeo

17th December 2009, 10:00 AM

It would seem Plimer cann't measure up to the scrutiny he demands of others. His figures are dodgy and he avoids peer review. It's sad because we need decent discussion not polarised views.

He also made a bit of a hash of his stoush a few years back with the Creationists. Plimer is a brilliant Geologist but he has an almost fanatical hatrid of Creationists and Anthropomorphic Global warming.....it's this IMHO that trips him up.

damian

17th December 2009, 10:26 AM

Something else I've been thinking about lately. For some reason you can buy solar cells for about $1/watt but solar panels are about 3 times that, so for the sake of making a shallow box you can save considerable money.

The other big issues with off grid solar is batteries, but there is an alternative: air tanks.

If you run your solar power straight into a dc motor, couple it to an alternator (415 and take off phases as required) you get a fairly efficient converter, then with a couple of clutches an air pump, an air motor and a BIG accumulator you tap off excess PV generation then drain it back through the air motor as required. Because the process is slow you don't get unmanageable heat loss and while it's not 100% efficient, or anything like it, it's probably equivalent to the 50odd% you get with conventional batteries and the pressure vessel will probably last longer.

I haven't done the sums yet, let alone quoted the system up, but it might be feasible.

damian

17th December 2009, 10:34 AM

He also made a bit of a hash of his stoush a few years back with the Creationists. Plimer is a brilliant Geologist but he has an almost fanatical hatrid of Creationists and Anthropomorphic Global warming.....it's this IMHO that trips him up.

Yeah he's not great, but he's also fighting fire with fire.

Thing is when I did research I kept all my raw data and methodology and made it available for anyone seeking to scrutinise my work. Most of my peers did also. I am discovering that much of the raw data this stuff is based on is unavailable, and what has "leaked" into the public view is, well, confusing. I'm all for data manipulation where it's justified, but from what little I've seen the manipulation that has been applied, well, it's hard to justify or understand unless you accept an ajenda. The other day I noticed a lot of the historical data has disapeared from the bom website. I wrote to them and they not only charge for it now, for some reason it's truncated. Ipswich weatehr station was established about 1860, yet records are only available from the 1960's ??

(I just tried to check the date and the page is broken, I'm about to reboot so the 1960 thing may be wrong, I'll edit this after I reboot and get the number)

kiwigeo

17th December 2009, 10:42 AM

Yeah he's not great, but he's also fighting fire with fire.

This is not the right approach for someone who calls himself a scientist....and its just plain bad PR for the global warming sceptic camp. It's a bit like punishing someone for engaging in violent activity by thrashing the living daylights out of him/her.

Plimer makes a big thing about scientists on the IPCC not being open and attempting to supress the process of peer review. At the same time here we have Plimer refusing to answer very direct questions regarding a number of factual discrepancies in his recent book. It's this that makes him just as guilty of dodgey science as the IPCC scientists he's having a go at.

Your air tank idea sounds interesting....would be interesting to see the figures on energy loss during the process and also the implications of more moving parts.

Cheers Martin

damian

17th December 2009, 11:02 AM

The efficiency of the motor and alternator is easy, if you want to be obsessive you can get 93%ish with rare earth magnets but then you've got return on investment issues. The pump/motor has efficiency issues, but the big thing is the heat loss and the cooling as you compress and expand the gas, and this varies with the rate of pressure change.

Air reserviors have been used for storage of generated electricity before, in paris about 1900 ish and apparently the americans are employing it in some places, but both those used abandoned air tight mines and caverns to store centrally generated capacity. If you reduce scale and slow the process it _should_ be viable. I like avoiding the expense, pollution issues and the finite lifespan of batteries, but what I'm suggesting is no secret and if it were very much more efficient/cost effective it would be widespread. Also the accumulator needs to be large and probably the pressures large. You cna also do what they do with town gas accumulators, make a big heavy inverted bucket, over a body of water. That makes for constant pressure.

1965 - 2001. Very disapointing. I've written to ask about the rest of the dataset.

Yeah he doesn't debate well. This site has some fairly rational discussion:

Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/)

artme

18th December 2009, 01:44 AM

Just wondering about what is called "load shedding". I remember when Pat Hills was part of the NSW. Gov. years ago he was always talking about load shedding when we had power problems.

My brother has a high powered ( pardon the pun ) mate in the electricity game. He was saying that one of the massive blackouts in the States some years back was due to excess power being generated for the current needs. Rather than "shed " the load the utility companies took the view that "shedding" was wasting money. The result was action too late and the system blew apart.

Sebastiaan56

18th December 2009, 05:44 AM

Air reserviors have been used for storage of generated electricity before, in paris about 1900 ish and apparently the americans are employing it in some places, but both those used abandoned air tight mines and caverns to store centrally generated capacity. If you reduce scale and slow the process it _should_ be viable. I like avoiding the expense, pollution issues and the finite lifespan of batteries, but what I'm suggesting is no secret and if it were very much more efficient/cost effective it would be widespread. Also the accumulator needs to be large and probably the pressures large. You cna also do what they do with town gas accumulators, make a big heavy inverted bucket, over a body of water. That makes for constant pressure.

Then there is salt Sandia National Laboratories - Solar Thermal Designated User Facilities (http://www.sandia.gov/Renewable_Energy/solarthermal/NSTTF/salt.htm) Ona a related page there was a comment that 50% of US electricity was wasted being pushed around. This kind of technology would get rid of that problem but would be much harder to squeeze monopoly profits from. Worth pursuing but I am no engineer. Got to be a giant business opportunity.

hughie

18th December 2009, 08:54 AM

Then there is salt Sandia National Laboratories - Solar Thermal Designated User Facilities (http://www.sandia.gov/Renewable_Energy/solarthermal/NSTTF/salt.htm) Ona a related page there was a comment that 50% of US electricity was wasted being pushed around. This kind of technology would get rid of that problem but would be much harder to squeeze monopoly profits from. Worth pursuing but I am no engineer. Got to be a giant business opportunity.
[/QUOTE]

Tesla, the inventor of Polyphase power always said the transmission of power via wires was the most wasteful way to move it around. He advocated doing it differently and he also wanted to give it way for the betterment of mankind. I gather J.P.Morgan his then benefactor thought other wise.

damian

18th December 2009, 08:56 AM

I didn't find the article, don't ahve time right now, last day before hols...

Anyway, those sorts of analysis are easily manipulated. The reality is all grids lose power over distance, and the loss is signifigant. Initially electricity was generated close to the point of use but as the smoke from city power stations became politically unacceptable people voted to increase the pollution in order to push it out of their own backyards. Stuff like PV and bluegen are driving generation back to point of use and gleaning efficiencies because of that.

Some friends and I did an envelope calc some time back on pollution loads of trains vs cars. It is quite clear mean distance to power station was a big factor in the calc. Our ballpark figure BTW was 55 people per carraige on full size electric trains vs 1.4 per car (or 1.2 can't remember). I'm a bog fan of busses because of shared infrastructure and flexability in both routing and frequencies of service matching demand.

I can't remember the number, but something like 5% efficiency reduction on mean distance from generator to point of use in australia. That number could be wrong though.

damian

18th December 2009, 08:58 AM

Tesla, the inventor of Polyphase power always said the transmission of power via wires was the most wasteful way to move it around. He advocated doing it differently and he also wanted to give it way for the betterment of mankind. I gather J.P.Morgan his then benefactor thought other wise.

Tesla was either the most brilliant genius in human history or a nutter, depending on who's version of history you believe. :)

He certainly DID invent numerous brilliant things and his life and achievments are well worth reading up on.

Sebastiaan56

18th December 2009, 03:56 PM

I can't remember the number, but something like 5% efficiency reduction on mean distance from generator to point of use in australia. That number could be wrong though.

I'll look it up in my Renewable Energy course notes, it is a lot, I seem to remember 40% but that is averaged, eg Hunter Valley to Sydney. Interesting calcs about buses,

damian

18th December 2009, 04:20 PM

But does that include other losses ? See you've got big losses at the boiler, smaller at the turbine and generator, losses in transformers and of course lines. The number depends on which parts you include.

I'm a mech eng and I know enough to know I can't do as good an analysis as an elec engineer, but also that EVERY situation is different. Putting a generic number on it is the same sort of stuff the climate change non-scientists try on to snow everybody...

Nice segway back to the origional argument don't you think ? :D

Sebastiaan56

19th December 2009, 09:07 AM

But does that include other losses ? See you've got big losses at the boiler, smaller at the turbine and generator, losses in transformers and of course lines. The number depends on which parts you include.

so lets agree on 2% :D

I'm a mech eng and I know enough to know I can't do as good an analysis as an elec engineer, but also that EVERY situation is different. Putting a generic number on it is the same sort of stuff the climate change non-scientists try on to snow everybody...

Nice segway back to the origional argument don't you think ? :D

roflmao....