Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Max Carnage

Did 1970s scientists predict global cooling?

53 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, staringclown said:

Did you actually watch the video? 

Leaving aside the guy is a physicist with expertise in superconductors rather than climate science, he says at the beginning that he googled climate science for half a day to examine the topic. No published papers. Just google. For half a day. He must be be some kind of savant.

I'll see your Nobel laureate and raise you one. Only mine won theirs for climate science.

http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/31236/atmospheric-chemistry-and-climate-in-the-anthropocene-2012

http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/31331/the-science-and-policy-of-climate-change-2012

 

Most definitely watched it. He is not a climatologist, but he is qualified to question the quality of the science undertaken. Whilst on the subject, since when only a climatologist could be a guru on global warming (oops now changed to 'change' since we haven't fried to death). Our own beloved guru, Tim Flannery does and many believe him and his track record is unquestionable (that article makes great reading).

So, whilst nobody can give certainty that the warming theory is absolute (as was the case 40 years ago), what is the certainty that what is being proposed is the most effective approach IF the theory proves to be correct in the future and that a future technological breakthrough will not provide a more cost effective approach IF the theory proves correct. The difference between 40 years ago and now, is that governments did not jump on the bandwagon and force major economic upheaval.

But what we do have certainty about  now is that:

  • cost of electricity has risen (though partially caused by crap government policy) as renewables are not cost effective solutions, requiring fossil fuel energy sources to properly support cities,
  • The above has resulted in those least able to afford it, struggling to pay their bills. Being a key component to businesses, the costs are naturally being passed to consumers via higher prices for good & services (sorry but financial lunches are never free!),
  • large scale renewables sources would most likely not exist without government subsidies. Hence those 'billionaires' jumping on the juicy gravy train,
  • large research grants being are offered in climate science by governments who are 'believers', for academics to jump on that gravy train, likely putting pressure on the results in a similar manner as monies provided by big pharma, oil & tobacco companies.

But the above does not matter as Tor gets to play with his 'cool new sh!t', which is the main thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Father of Global Warming Skepticism: An Interview with S Fred Singer

Quote

Singer: Yes, we have been successful. Twenty years ago, Al Gore claimed existence of only a couple of dissenters. Fifteen years ago, there was general agreement among politicians that the “science is settled.” Just a few years ago, in the 2004 Science magazine, Professor Naomi Oreskes proclaimed loudly that she could not find any dissenting views in nearly 1,000 scientific abstracts. Sloppy scholarship caused her to overlook 11,000 others, forcing her to publish a quiet correction. Even though 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences signed a letter in Science recently, affirming belief in AGW, only a handful of these have any demonstrated expertise in climate science. On the other hand, the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cobran20 said:

But the above does not matter as Tor gets to play with his 'cool new sh!t', which is the main thing.

Dude, I have no kids, high income and live a wildly destructive lifestyle. Climate change is unlikely to affect me unless I choose to let it. Unless we get some really cool sh*t which makes me immortal. I have zero vested interest in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, tor said:

Dude, I have no kids, high income and live a wildly destructive lifestyle. Climate change is unlikely to affect me unless I choose to let it. Unless we get some really cool sh*t which makes me immortal. I have zero vested interest in this.

You also exited Australia, avoiding amongst the world's highest electricity prices with a potential spike ahead this summer, unless those polluting & expensive to run diesel generators (and more $squillions to keep old coal stations) can make up the shortfall. Good move to exit an incompetently managed state & federal governments who favour PC energy decisions ahead of competent ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you disagree with a governments choices and then you stay there paying for their bad choices. That seems stupid to me.

Oh except you have kids and work for a uni so I guess you pay f*ck all tax to begin with. Fair enough reason to stay, you get to complain about your $20 badly spent and it isn't enough to make it worth leaving.

I left over the gay marriage / immigrant thing really seemed to me a sign of things going to hell. Seems so far I was right.

f*ck I am not even Australian, I have Australian citizenship because your country f*cked up some stuff dealing with the darker skinned types over the two decades I lived there and also the locals predilection for f*cking kiddies oh yeah and your insurance system was corrupt as f*ck plus your train drivers were fat and had unions which said killing people was sort of okay.

Apparently the government you hate needed me to help try to even start sorting that out (not that your country is the only one with those issues, just that is the only reason I got citizenship). But it is okay I wandered off so you could read that as me agreeing with you I guess.

Heh I worked with one of the power companies too but I am sure that your opinions are more valid than anyone working in the problem solving field.

You really do epitomise, to me, the australian mind set . Take that as you will, the votes seem to support my point of view in some ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tor said:

So you disagree with a governments choices and then you stay there paying for their bad choices. That seems stupid to me.

Oh except you have kids and work for a uni so I guess you pay f*ck all tax to begin with. Fair enough reason to stay, you get to complain about your $20 badly spent and it isn't enough to make it worth leaving.

I left over the gay marriage / immigrant thing really seemed to me a sign of things going to hell. Seems so far I was right.

f*ck I am not even Australian, I have Australian citizenship because your country f*cked up some stuff dealing with the darker skinned types over the two decades I lived there and also the locals predilection for f*cking kiddies oh yeah and your insurance system was corrupt as f*ck plus your train drivers were fat and had unions which said killing people was sort of okay.

Apparently the government you hate needed me to help try to even start sorting that out (not that your country is the only one with those issues, just that is the only reason I got citizenship). But it is okay I wandered off so you could read that as me agreeing with you I guess.

Heh I worked with one of the power companies too but I am sure that your opinions are more valid than anyone working in the problem solving field.

You really do epitomise, to me, the australian mind set . Take that as you will, the votes seem to support my point of view in some ways.

Since you've never had the issue, having kids to support and getting on in age has a severe limit on one's ability to freely migrate anywhere. I suspect that you can't fathom the thought of having to consider the wishes and responsibilities of others, before packing your bags and flying elsewhere.

 I contract 100% of my time to a Uni. As you may know (though it probably never applied to you), the tax law means I pay income tax on all monies I invoice. I would not be surprised, if I paid my income tax/year than you who earns way more, but has all the advantages of incorporation.

So keep enjoying your 'cool sh!t' and keep supporting massive deployment of renewables, whilst many struggle to pay their electricity bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/09/2017 at 8:10 AM, cobran20 said:

Most definitely watched it. He is not a climatologist, but he is qualified to question the quality of the science undertaken. Whilst on the subject, since when only a climatologist could be a guru on global warming (oops now changed to 'change' since we haven't fried to death). Our own beloved guru, Tim Flannery does and many believe him and his track record is unquestionable (that article makes great reading).

So, whilst nobody can give certainty that the warming theory is absolute (as was the case 40 years ago), what is the certainty that what is being proposed is the most effective approach IF the theory proves to be correct in the future and that a future technological breakthrough will not provide a more cost effective approach IF the theory proves correct. The difference between 40 years ago and now, is that governments did not jump on the bandwagon and force major economic upheaval.

But what we do have certainty about  now is that:

  • cost of electricity has risen (though partially caused by crap government policy) as renewables are not cost effective solutions, requiring fossil fuel energy sources to properly support cities,
  • The above has resulted in those least able to afford it, struggling to pay their bills. Being a key component to businesses, the costs are naturally being passed to consumers via higher prices for good & services (sorry but financial lunches are never free!),
  • large scale renewables sources would most likely not exist without government subsidies. Hence those 'billionaires' jumping on the juicy gravy train,
  • large research grants being are offered in climate science by governments who are 'believers', for academics to jump on that gravy train, likely putting pressure on the results in a similar manner as monies provided by big pharma, oil & tobacco companies.

But the above does not matter as Tor gets to play with his 'cool new sh!t', which is the main thing.

He certainly has the right to question the science as a Nobel laureate. So do the other Nobel laureates. The same year he decides to express his view, 36 others expressed theirs via the Mainau declaration.

Quote

Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change

We undersigned scientists, who have been awarded Nobel Prizes, have come to the shores of Lake Constance in southern Germany, to share insights with promising young researchers, who like us come from around the world. Nearly 60 years ago, here on Mainau, a similar gathering of Nobel Laureates in science issued a declaration of the dangers inherent in the newly found technology of nuclear weapons—a technology derived from advances in basic science. So far we have avoided nuclear war though the threat remains. We believe that our world today faces another threat of comparable magnitude.

Successive generations of scientists have helped create a more and more prosperous world. is prosperity has come at the cost of a rapid rise in the consumption of the world’s resources. If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy. Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity.

In response to the possibility of human-induced climate change, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide the world’s leaders a summary of the current state of relevant scienti c knowledge. While by no means perfect, we believe that the e orts that have led to the current IPCC Fifth Assessment Report represent the best source of information regarding the present state of knowledge on climate change. We say this not as experts in the eld of climate change, but rather as a diverse group of scientists who have a deep respect for and understanding of the integrity of the scienti c process.

Although there remains uncertainty as to the precise extent of climate change, the conclusions of the scienti c community contained in the latest IPCC report are alarming, especially in the context of the identi ed risks of maintaining human prosperity in the face of greater than a 2°C rise in average global temperature. e report concludes that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the likely cause of the current global warming of the Earth. Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase the Earth’s temperature over the coming century by more than 2°C above its pre-industrial level unless dramatic reductions are made in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades. 

Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. is endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scienti c assessments. Failure to act will subject future generations of humanity to unconscionable and unacceptable risk. 

Mainau Island, Germany 3 July 2015 

That's 36 to your one. Thats 36 Nobel laureates that don't believe it's pseudoscience after a half day googling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other problem with gieaver is that his rant is factually wrong on several points. He says weird things like:

Quote

Water vapor is a much much stronger green[house] gas than the CO2.  If you look out of the window you see the sky, you see the clouds, and you don't see the CO2."

CO2 is invisible. Clouds aren't water vapour, they're water droplets. What's more water vapour isn't a driver of climate change as the warmer the atmosphere the more water vapour is held, and the more precipitation occurs. 

Quote

"Is it possible that all the paved roads and cut down forests are the cause of "global warming", not CO2?  But nobody talks about that." 

Yes they do. The IPCC report deals extensively with the urban heat island effect. He hasn't done his homework and it shows.

He is very old though. Not meant as an ad hom, he is not a fool. He just knows nothing about climate science and given his own ad hom attacks against Obama and al gore seems to have a political axe to grind. He is paid by the heartland institute which lessens his claims of being independent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Since you've never had the issue, having kids to support and getting on in age has a severe limit on one's ability to freely migrate anywhere. I suspect that you can't fathom the thought of having to consider the wishes and responsibilities of others, before packing your bags and flying elsewhere.

 I contract 100% of my time to a Uni. As you may know (though it probably never applied to you), the tax law means I pay income tax on all monies I invoice. I would not be surprised, if I paid my income tax/year than you who earns way more, but has all the advantages of incorporation.

So keep enjoying your 'cool sh!t' and keep supporting massive deployment of renewables, whilst many struggle to pay their electricity bill.

I just can't fathom having such strong opinions and not acting on them is all. Mostly it sounds like excuses. I train people every day, I hear a lot of excuses. Excuses are for the people that don't know why they are doing what they are doing. Generally people with excuses are not happy and therefore should change either their desires or their actions so they can be happy is my feeling.

For the rest:

I still probably now pay more effective tax in Australia as I have investments there and receive no benefits whatsoever from Australia. We are divesting from Australia though. Better places to put money I think.

And I will keep enjoying my cool sh*t, especially because it comes with the bonus of staying alive. Two things I am going to trust the scientists on and my risk analysis skills on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, staringclown said:

He certainly has the right to question the science as a Nobel laureate. So do the other Nobel laureates. The same year he decides to express his view, 36 others expressed theirs via the Mainau declaration.

That's 36 to your one. Thats 36 Nobel laureates that don't believe it's pseudoscience after a half day googling.

 Wait 40 years and see how many of them get the Tim Flannery prize for contributions to accurate forecasting in climatology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, tor said:

I just can't fathom having such strong opinions and not acting on them is all. Mostly it sounds like excuses. I train people every day, I hear a lot of excuses. Excuses are for the people that don't know why they are doing what they are doing. Generally people with excuses are not happy and therefore should change either their desires or their actions so they can be happy is my feeling.

For the rest:

I still probably now pay more effective tax in Australia as I have investments there and receive no benefits whatsoever from Australia. We are divesting from Australia though. Better places to put money I think.

And I will keep enjoying my cool sh*t, especially because it comes with the bonus of staying alive. Two things I am going to trust the scientists on and my risk analysis skills on.

I wouldn't leave the country on that issue alone. I'd rather convince people that we should embrace the old swiss model of having referendums on any major issue and let people vote on it.

If you're deriving income (I presume rent) and presumably capital appreciation, then why shouldn't you pay tax? The government is still providing services (sewerage, garbage cleanups) that your tenants use. If the place is empty then it is your fault not to divest unless you're sitting on it purely for capital appreciation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2017 at 2:50 PM, cobran20 said:
  • the poorest and most vulnerable are struggling to pay for electricity due to ever rising prices, when this country is blessed with having natural resources which should translate to having amongst the cheapest and reliable energy countries. Other countries know this, which is why they keep buying those natural resources from us, leaving our economy at a competitive disadvantage due to higher energy costs,

I wonder what the cost of electricity will be in Japan using these plants...

Japanese government planning to build 45 new coal fired power stations to diversify supply

Quote

The Japanese government is moving ahead with its plans to build up to 45 new coal fired power stations.

Japan plans 45 new high-energy, low-emissions HELE coal fired power plants.
The power plants will utilise high energy, low emissions (HELE) technology that use high-quality black coal.

Japan is the largest overseas market for Australian coal producers, taking more than a third of all exports...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill to prop up green power hits $3 billion a year

Quote

Taxpayer subsidies to meet state and federal renewable energy ­targets have reached $3 billion a year and include spiralling hidden subsidies paid for by business and household electricity customers which go unreported in government balance sheets.

The true cost of subsidising ­renewable energy generation is estimated to have almost doubled since 2011 and is forecast to continue rising as Labor states set even more ambitious targets.

The first study to investigate the complex range of renewable energy subsidies across the country has found that at least $2.95bn was spent by the state, territory and federal governments last ­financial year, primarily on wind farms and the cost hangover of excessive and now largely obsolete solar roof top schemes.

scaletowidth#tl-884888358038274050;1043138249'

At least 75 per cent of all subsidies was being collected from electricity consumers in the form of higher prices passed on by ­energy retailers due to the requirement on generators to source a mandated percentage of wholesale power from renewables. This, the report said, meant much of the subsidies remained hidden as they did not appear in government budgets or accounts, with the remainder being borne directly by the taxpayer.

With parliament due to return tomorrow for the first sitting week of the year, the findings of the report are likely to sharpen the Turnbull government’s ­attacks on Labor leader Bill Shorten’s policy of a 50 per cent renewable energy target, with the report warning that such targets would require ever increasing subsidies.

The report from BAEconomics was commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia and conducted by Brian Fisher, a former executive director of the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics under the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments and adviser to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report warns that state government feed-in tariff schemes to subsidise roof top solar are still costing other electricity consumers up to $1bn a year and would continue for years to come despite most being closed to new entrants due to their spiralling costs.

While the report confirms that the Coalition’s own policy of a 23.5 per cent target by 2020 will also push up the price of subsidies, and therefore power prices, it will strengthen the government’s case to fund the construction of clean coal-fired generation — estimated to be about the same cost as the $3bn paid annually to prop up ­renewable generation — through mechanisms such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or public-private partnerships.

The report said that with the spot price for large-scale generation certificates likely to remain high, it was inevitable that electricity prices would have to rise significantly to meet the higher targets being pursued by mainly Labor state governments.

“The renewable energy target, with its large-scale and small-scale components, is by far the costliest subsidy scheme,” the report says. “In aggregate, Australian electricity customers paid more than $2.1bn to subsidise large-scale power station developers and small customers with rooftop solar installations. Looking forward, and given that the RET will progressively increase until 2020 and given high prices of renewable generation credits, these subsidies are likely to ­increase.”

Commonwealth subsidies for large-scale renewable generators, predominantly wind farms, amounted to $1.42bn during the 2015-16 financial year.

Federal grants and subsidies for rooftop solar panels totalled $726 million while the state government feed-in tariff schemes for rooftop solar cost $707m for the same period. These subsidies had direct benefits for consumers who took up the schemes before they were closed but the burden would continue, the report claimed, for the majority of electricity consumers though the higher prices for the indirect subsidies.

Direct funding for renewable energy projects through programs such as ARENA also totalled ­almost $100m. The total figure did not include that spent by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg yesterday said the Coalition had been upfront about the cost to its 23.5 per cent target, which would add $60 a year to the average household bill, but the opposition had so far refused to reveal the cost of its aspirational target.

“The battlelines have been drawn. Labor with its 50 per cent RET, forced closure of coal plants, 45 per cent emissions reduction target and an emissions intensity scheme will smash household budgets, send investment offshore, destroy jobs and undermine energy security. All in the name of ideology,” Mr Frydenberg told The Australian.

“In contrast, the Coalition has a technology-neutral approach where lower emissions coal and gas together new developments in storage will play a big role for years to come.”

Opposition environment spokesman Mark Butler denied Mr Frydenberg’s claims that Labor was now seeking to backtrack on its 50 per cent target, claiming it would remain opposition policy.

“If we were elected last year we would have put in place a process with business and with the electricity industry about the best possible design of a mechanism to get to 50 per cent,” he said. “I’ve got an open mind about that, the Energy Market Commission and the Climate Change Authority tell us the best way to do that is through an emissions intensity scheme which is also part of Labor’s policy. Other groups have different views about the best policy mechanism.”

The report blames the legacy feed-in tariff schemes introduced by state governments to subsidise household rooftop solar for a large part of the burden.

“(Feed-in tariff) schemes introduced by state and territory governments some years ago also represent a major cost to jurisdictional electricity customers who paid more than $700m in subsidies to the (then) participants of these schemes,” it says. “A number of these schemes will continue to subsidise participating customers for many years to come. The amount of these subsidies is not transparent. Almost three quarters of aggregate subsidies originate from government mandates that are paid for by electricity customers and collected by third parties. The key implication of how the LRET and the SRES are designed is that while the subsidies paid through these schemes originate from a government mandate, they are generally collected from electricity consumers by third parties (electricity retailers).

“These subsidies therefore do not appear in government ­accounts and their magnitude is not transparent.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2017 at 11:31 PM, tor said:

I am sure those exceedingly rich guys are doing it for altruistic reasons or something, or maybe they are stupid and all their money is just because they got lucky...

How will people afford those cool new toys without taxpayer support?

Tesla Is Quickly Running Out of Government Subsidies and It Could Present a Massive Challenge

Quote

The short sellers have good reason to think they will be rewarded.

In April, Tesla saw a massive drop in sales of its electric vehicles in Hong Kong after Chinese officials slashed a tax credit that made it significantly cheaper to buy the company's cars. Without the tax break, the price of a Model S four-door sedan rose almost 60%, jumping to $130,000 from $75,000.

Tesla didn't sell a single car in Hong Kong in April after the tax cut was reduced, according to The Wall Street Journal. By comparison, there were 2,939 Tesla vehicles registered in Hong Kong in March.

The sales dip highlights just how reliant the company's business may be on tax credits....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The base load isn't solved yet but can be I'd guess. Probably need subsidies as with farming, coal and everything else important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tor said:

The base load isn't solved yet but can be I'd guess. Probably need subsidies as with farming, coal and everything else important.

Subsidies and tariffs were invented to protect infant industries and not to remain in place ad infinitum as has been the case with solar. After a while, the industry is expected to stand on its own feet and prove its worth when competing. The taxpayers teat is not there to be milked endlessly to protect vested interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

World building new coal plants faster than it shuts them

Quote

Nations around the world are building coal-fired power plants at a faster rate than those being ­decommissioned. The plants under construction reflect a 10 per cent increase to the total global generation powered by coal.

New electricity generated by coal-fired plants will outstrip that which was retired in 2015 and 2016 by a factor of five.

With Australia facing a policy crisis over energy security and the winding back of reliance on coal, construction of new coal-fired power plants was increasing in at least 35 countries, according to data analysis supplied to the ­Nationals by the federal parliamentary library. China has 299 new coal generation units under construction, followed by India which is building 132. Australia’s closest neighbour, Indo­nesia, was planning a further 32.

Nuclear countries, including Japan and South Africa, were also increasing their exposure to coal-powered investment, with 21 new plants between them. Vietnam was building 34.

The data was requested by ­Nationals senator and party whip John Williams, who has argued that the carbon emissions produced by the new plants worldwide would eclipse Australia’s total carbon emission profile.

“We don’t have a tent over Australia … emissions are going up around the world because of these generators being built,” ­Senator Williams told The Australian. “We are bowing down to the green agenda which will make no difference to the world’s ­emissions.

“It makes no sense. We will de-industrialise Australia and let everything be manufactured overseas with higher emissions.”

The parliamentary library paper showed that 321 gigawatts of new generation would come from coal plants under construction globally. In 2015 and 2016, total coal generation retired amounted to 64 gigawatts.

Worldwide, the paper showed, there were currently 5973 units of coal-fired power generation. There are often multiple power-generating units within a power station. The number of new units under construction totalled 621.

It would take until 2057 for Australia’s 16 remaining coal-fired power stations to reach the end of their working life, with four slated to shut in the next decade.

The executive director of the Australia Institute, Ben Oquist, said projected coal plants — those planned but not yet under construction — were in fact in decline.

“The reality is the number of coal plants projected continues to fall,” Mr Oquist said. “Furthermore, the percentage of the ­energy mix made up by coal is in steady decline.

“In modern advanced economies, coal is in steep decline.”

According to the International Energy Outlook 2016, Mr Oquist said, China and India alone ­accounted for 69 per cent of the projected worldwide increase in coal-fired generation, while OECD nations continued to ­reduce their reliance on coal-fired electricity generation. He said 18 per cent of planned new coal power plants would never be built, meaning 369GW of projects stood to be cancelled.

The IEA forecasts coal’s share of world energy will fall from 41 to 28 per cent by 2040.

“Australia’s Paris targets will require removing coal power stations,” Mr Oquist said.

“Building new ones would ­require a Trumpesque repudiation of those ­international commitments.

“Emissions cannot be cut by building new power stations. The renewables boom is unstoppable and is going to lead to lower prices for consumers.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is coming from a greenie! I personally have problems with nuclear as when sh!t happens, you would not want to be around! Same with fracking for gas as it too often seems to impact the local water supply.

Nuclear the ‘only option’ to replace coal and gas: Michael Shellenberger

Quote

One of the world’s leading new-generation environmental thinkers has said the “renewable energy experiment” with wind and solar has failed.

Michael Shellenberger, a former renewables advocate to Barack Obama when he was president, is now a global champion for nuclear energy, which he said was the only option to replace coal and gas on a global scale.

“Wind and solar are only useful for leveraging the fossil fuel mix,” Shellenberger told The Australian from California.

“They have to have back-up, they are doubling the cost of electricity and they have big environmental impacts,” he said. “All existing renewable technologies do is make the electricity system chaotic and provide greenwash for fossil fuels.”

He said opposition to nuclear was “like a superstitious religious belief”. Mr Shellenberger was named a Time magazine Hero of the Environment in 2008 and is co-­author of an “ecomodernist mani­festo” that aims to decouple human wellbeing from environmental destruction.

The view of “eco pragmatists” like Mr Shellenberger is that technology should be harnessed to take the pressures of human population off the environment.

He will visit Australia in Nov­ember to promote a rethink on nuclear at a minerals industry conference. “Like most people, I started out pretty anti-nuclear,” he said. “I changed my mind as I ­realised you can’t power a modern economy on solar and wind.”

Mr Shellenberger said Germany had built more solar and wind last year but got less electricity from them because of weather conditions.

Mobile users: Click here to see PDF

He said better education was needed about advances in nuclear technology, together with “a leap forward in scientific literacy about radiation”.

One of the safety advances was new and better fuels that would not melt down for many hours after a loss of coolant.

Mr Shellenberger said there was a widespread misunderstanding about the radiation health impact of disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

“The reality is the death toll from Chernobyl in 1986, after 20 years, is less than 200 people.”

“In what other issue does the science say one thing so clearly but such a vocal group refuses to accept the evidence,” Mr Shellenberger said.

“Climate change is apparently the most important issue in the world but it is not important enough to get some pretty basic facts straight,” he said.

Mr Shellenberger has written extensively and gives lectures on how nuclear has been thwarted by environmental campaigns, often with the aid of the fossil fuel industry. He said getting nuclear right would make renewables ­redundant.

“When you do nuclear, what additional benefit does wind and solar bring?” he said.

“All they do is make the electricity system chaotic and provide greenwash for fossil fuels. ­

“Nuclear is the only technology that can lift everyone out of poverty and reverse human ­impact.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Subsidies and tariffs were invented to protect infant industries and not to remain in place ad infinitum as has been the case with solar. After a while, the industry is expected to stand on its own feet and prove its worth when competing. The taxpayers teat is not there to be milked endlessly to protect vested interests.

Nice dream I guess. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-11/coal-oil-and-gas-companies-receive-4-billion-dollar-in-subsidie/5881814

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cobran20 said:

And this is coming from a greenie! I personally have problems with nuclear as when sh!t happens, you would not want to be around! Same with fracking for gas as it too often seems to impact the local water supply.

 

To me the important bit is “The reality is the death toll from Chernobyl in 1986, after 20 years, is less than 200 people.”

You may find this of interest: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/3ug7ju/deaths_per_pwh_electricity_produced_by_energy/

I thought that was fairly well known information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, tor said:

To me the important bit is “The reality is the death toll from Chernobyl in 1986, after 20 years, is less than 200 people.”

You may find this of interest: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/3ug7ju/deaths_per_pwh_electricity_produced_by_energy/

I thought that was fairly well known information.

The clean coal technology is supposed to reduce emissions. But I think gas is cleaner and Australia has no shortage of it, providing it is not all exported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, tor said:

A lot of those subsidies are to encourage exploration. I actually agree with this statement:

Quote

The Minerals Council of Australia says Australian government funding and tax breaks for exploration are not subsidies but legitimate tax deductions for business.

The monies are not paid at the production stage, where the companies instead pay royalties (which IMO should be higher).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet these subsidies are not factored into the record high cost of electricity paid by consumers for renewables

AGL’s $500m solar boost as it shuts coal station

Quote

Australians are on track to pay more than $500 million to AGL to fund its flagship solar generators, as the energy giant prepares to shut down its Liddell coal power station, a move that has prompted warnings of a power shortfall that could lead to blackouts and price hikes.

The company has already ­secured $230m in direct grants and is forecast to gain far more under the renewable energy ­target, deepening the political divide on energy policy as the federal government considers cutting ­future aid to make coal more competitive.

The scale of the subsidy is now a key question in the government’s debate on whether to ­embrace a clean energy target, as opponents of the idea challenge AGL and others to prove that wind and solar schemes can work without taxpayer handouts.

Malcolm Turnbull and his cabinet ministers are yet to decide on whether to adopt a clean ­energy target but are unwilling to continue the heavy subsidy, ­putting a priority on more reliable power supplies, including coal and gas.

The two AGL solar farms in western NSW generate a combined 359,000 megawatt hours of electricity, just 4 per cent of the ­capacity of Liddell, but have ­secured more long-term investment than the coal power station under laws that continue the ­renewable subsidy until 2030.


“AGL keeps telling everybody that renewables no longer need a subsidy — well, if that’s the case, why do we need a clean energy target?” Senator Canavan said.

The Australian understands the government is aiming to encourage more investment in reliable power with a “capacity pricing” structure that could favour coal and gas and meet Mr Turnbull’s stated aim of improving the ability to “dispatch” power at short ­notice.

Even so, AGL is seeking to shut Liddell in 2022, rejecting a ­government push to keep it open a further five years, and is planning to replace it with renewable power and “peaking” gas that can fire up when electricity supply is low.

AGL chief financial officer Brett Redman told The Australian the subsidies for the solar farms would shrink in the decade ahead as the value of renewable energy certificates declined.

Mr Redman also sent a clear warning that the government’s looming decision on a clean ­energy target would not change the company’s assessment that a new coal-fired power station was not viable.

“The economics are now somewhat overwhelming — the world of electricity generation is heading down the renewables path,” Mr Redman said.

“Even without the impact of carbon-emissions policies, we would absolutely be heading down the path of building more renewables. Coal-fired power will not be built in that world.”

The AGL solar projects at ­Nyngan and Broken Hill received $166.7m in direct grants from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and another $64.9m from the NSW government, as well as qualifying for credits under the renewable energy target.

The Australian estimates the Nyngan project receives more than $18m a year for its 233,000 megawatt hours given an $80 price for renewable energy ­certificates, while the Broken Hill project receives about $10m a year for its 126,000 megawatt hours.

While taxpayers funded the initial grants, households pay for the renewable certificates because the cost is passed on to them in their electricity bills.

TFS Green analyst Marco Stella wrote in RenewEconomy on September 4 that the spot price for these certificates rose above $85 in late August.

AGL stands to receive $589m from the original grants and consumer subsidies for the two solar projects over the period to 2030 if the price holds at $80 until 2020 and then falls to $60 for the ­subsequent decade, an outlook described as conservative by two sources familiar with the market. This falls to about $480m if the renewable certificates fall to $30 in the next decade. It drops to $375m in the unlikely event the certificates fall to zero from 2021.

AGL sold the two projects to its Powering Australian Renewables Fund last November, making no cash profit in the sale. It owns 20 per cent of the fund while 80 per cent is held by Queensland Investment Corporation for clients including the Future Fund.

Mr Redman said the two projects were built in response to government calls for early investors to demonstrate large-scale solar and when the cost of the technology was much higher than it is today.

He said “we’d build a wind farm in every backyard” if the spot price of certificates stayed at today’s levels, but added this was unrealistic and the values were likely to fall in the early 2020s as they had in the past.

The government is weighing up whether to embrace a “reliability energy target” or a “strategic reserve” to offer financial rewards to AGL and others to build gas power, given the industry belief that major new coal power stations will not be viable.

This will get a higher priority than new schemes to subsidise renewables.

However, the rewards to AGL and others for their existing solar or wind projects cannot be altered because the Senate is highly unlikely to allow a change to the renewable energy target rules that apply until 2020 and continue payments until 2030.

The government has decided it has nothing to gain from ­starting a fight over the RET that it cannot win, leading it to keep the rules as they were agreed by Tony Abbott as prime minister in 2015.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0