cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

208 posts in this topic

23 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Google, Apple, MS$ and others were started and took off because of governments?!! The difference between private enterprise and governments is that with the former it is their money that gets spent and they go bankrupt if they fail. With the latter, it is not their money, so no real pressure and the tax payer can always bail them out. I see it just about every day in a tertiary institution and a NSW state department I contracted to in the past.

Yep. They commercialised existing technology developed by governments. If governments hadn't developed computers and the internet which originally a defence project then Google, Apple and MS$ wouldn't have had a product. Not to mention CSIRO's invention of wireless. Or the telephone wires that carry the signal. 

Commercialisation is the role of private enterprise. R&D is more often the role of government either directly or more recently through industry subsidies and/or PPP's. (tors link aside) And you are correct that some projects fail. R&D is expensive which is why if industry do any of it at all they usually have their hand out to government. Government oblige as the subsidy can generate significant ROI.

The point I'm making is that governments that don't invest in new technologies economies' fall behind. The US was once a powerhouse of innovation. Japan took over through a large government programme in technology investment and now China/India are doing the same. 

Renewable energy falls into the category of needs investment. Governments already recognise that Global Warming is a problem that needs a solution. Even if you don't. This government of ours is prepared for example to lob money at "clean coal". The term is anathema to me but if I thought it would work I would support the spending. What I'd rather see is investment in making renewables more reliable. The country that develops that tech will make billions.

Here's an example from todays conversation:

Crisis? What crisis? How smart solar can protect our vulnerable power grids

 

Share this post


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

When we have a cost effective home battery solution, I'll be keen to look into it. Right now, I've done the sums and cannot justify the cost of solar panels for a family of four, as it would take me around 10 years to pay for itself. The house uses gas for hot water & the stove. The rest electric, including ducted A/C. My quarterly electricity bills are around $250-270 (though this summer I expect to be substantially more).

The South Australian experiment has shown the weakness of renewables, unless you have the infrastructure and 'dirty' energy generators to back it up. If Victoria (and others) had gone renewable to the same extent as South Australia, then where would the back up exist?

You also have the issue of higher costs to the consumer, which will impact most those who can least afford it. The government can subsidise it, but then how much? NSW subsidised solar panels and it become so popular and expensive that the scheme was stopped as it was costing squillions. Good, effective technology should not require endless subsidies, if any at all, as it should justify itself on its own merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/02/2017 at 8:56 PM, cobran20 said:

When we have a cost effective home battery solution, I'll be keen to look into it. Right now, I've done the sums and cannot justify the cost of solar panels for a family of four, as it would take me around 10 years to pay for itself. The house uses gas for hot water & the stove. The rest electric, including ducted A/C. My quarterly electricity bills are around $250-270 (though this summer I expect to be substantially more).

The South Australian experiment has shown the weakness of renewables, unless you have the infrastructure and 'dirty' energy generators to back it up. If Victoria (and others) had gone renewable to the same extent as South Australia, then where would the back up exist?

You also have the issue of higher costs to the consumer, which will impact most those who can least afford it. The government can subsidise it, but then how much? NSW subsidised solar panels and it become so popular and expensive that the scheme was stopped as it was costing squillions. Good, effective technology should not require endless subsidies, if any at all, as it should justify itself on its own merits.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21716599-film-worth-watching-how-keep-cool-without-costing-earth

Funded by the government it looks like and probably accelerate the global cooling you believe is happening but surely your feelings on that won't stop you using it after mentioning you air con costs.

Share this post


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

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21716599-film-worth-watching-how-keep-cool-without-costing-earth

Funded by the government it looks like and probably accelerate the global cooling you believe is happening but surely your feelings on that won't stop you using it after mentioning you air con costs.

I've got a far more low tech solution. No air conn as I'm a filthy renter but a big f*ck off indutrial fan and a bunch of soaking wet towels on a drying rack. It's 40 outside and 29 in. And a 10ft square kids pool for wallowing when it gets unbearable... with a built in stubby holder so maybe it's not actually a kids pool.

Share this post


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

Maybe we need an enquiry?

I agree. Governments are ever so happy to increase immigration to record levels, but what about the infrastructure to support it - public transport, roads ... and energy!

Considering that NSW gets the bulk of the new immigrants, I can see blackouts ahead irrespective of the weather conditions, purely due to the lack of investment in electricity generation.

Share this post


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

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21716599-film-worth-watching-how-keep-cool-without-costing-earth

Funded by the government it looks like and probably accelerate the global cooling you believe is happening but surely your feelings on that won't stop you using it after mentioning you air con costs.

If it is cost effective, it will eventually be taken up without taxing the public to force them to use that technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a few years ago that thousands of people died in France during a heat wave. This was largely due to building design (as well as the heat).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

Build quality in Australia is sh*te. The philosophy to heat is to just throw an air conditioning system into the house rather than look at insulation properly.

As fellow rental scum I can only use what's available so we have a couple of fans and only use a/c for bedrooms at night. We don't use a/c much as I don't like the expense of running it. It looks like QLD uses 50% more energy than VIC yet has a smaller population, I think that says a lot about attitudes to how to respond to heat in Australia - more power, less brains.

Power wouldn't be a major issue if governments invested in nuclear energy but that's a touchy subject politically.

Share this post


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

If it is cost effective, it will eventually be taken up without taxing the public to force them to use that technology.

So R&D funding by the government is okay? Sorry I thought you were against that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Medved said:

I remember a few years ago that thousands of people died in France during a heat wave. This was largely due to building design (as well as the heat).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

Build quality in Australia is sh*te. The philosophy to heat is to just throw an air conditioning system into the house rather than look at insulation properly.

As fellow rental scum I can only use what's available so we have a couple of fans and only use a/c for bedrooms at night. We don't use a/c much as I don't like the expense of running it. It looks like QLD uses 50% more energy than VIC yet has a smaller population, I think that says a lot about attitudes to how to respond to heat in Australia - more power, less brains.

Power wouldn't be a major issue if governments invested in nuclear energy but that's a touchy subject politically.

 

Possible explanations for QLD using more power: QLD has a few smelters that use a huge amount of power. Does vic have industries that use mega amounts of power? There is almost no gas connected to houses in QLD. So heating is almost solely electric - Vic uses gas more. Although we don't heat our homes for long.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tor said:

So R&D funding by the government is okay? Sorry I thought you were against that.

No. I said any energy efficient 'solution' (irrespective of its funding) needs to stand on its own merit rather than forced via higher taxes. When electricity was discovered and applied in things like electric motors, I don't recall governments forcing it on the public via taxes - there was no need to as it was superior & cost efficient to the alternatives.

Nice attempt at misquoting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr Medved said:

Power wouldn't be a major issue if governments invested in nuclear energy but that's a touchy subject politically.

I'm ambivalent about Nuclear power. Australia has lots of uranium and is geologically stable for storing the waste and the plant not being subjected to an earthquake. But it seems to need lots of water for cooling. If the reactors could be built in the desert, away from the population, I'd be much more comfortable with it. I can't understand how countries along the Rim of Fire allow building of Nuclear reactors. I read a report that Japan wants to build more of them. Indonesia wants it as well and their maintenance standards are not the greatest.

Share this post


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

I'm ambivalent about Nuclear power. Australia has lots of uranium and is geologically stable for storing the waste and the plant not being subjected to an earthquake. But it seems to need lots of water for cooling. If the reactors could be built in the desert, away from the population, I'd be much more comfortable with it. I can't understand how countries along the Rim of Fire allow building of Nuclear reactors. I read a report that Japan wants to build more of them. Indonesia wants it as well and their maintenance standards are not the greatest.

Radiation at Japan's Fukushima Reactor Is Now at 'Unimaginable' Levels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Queensland's electricity price spikes far worse than South Australia during 'crisis'

 

Quote

...The attempt to blame renewables for South Australia’s price volatility was quickly refuted by analysis showing the price spikes were caused by gas generators in the state that had extreme market power, and were able to game the system, gathering a $30.3m windfall as a result...

IMO, looks like more competition needs to be introduced into the market as well. There is also the issue of reliability of renewables, meaning that battery technology needs to become cost effective to store surplus electricity for when the wind doesn't blow.

If something isn't done soon, blackouts are going to become common with a growing population. Those Meriton valleys that are sprouting like mushrooms everywhere in Sydney will put added pressure on the energy networks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10 February 2017 at 9:47 PM, cobran20 said:

I agree. Governments are ever so happy to increase immigration to record levels, but what about the infrastructure to support it - public transport, roads ... and energy!

Considering that NSW gets the bulk of the new immigrants, I can see blackouts ahead irrespective of the weather conditions, purely due to the lack of investment in electricity generation.

I absolutely agree with you that high levels of immigration are being used as a lazy method of economic stimulus by government. It's not the immigration itself that irks me but the lack of planning and forethought that goes into it. There hasn't been much rationale and the result has been the rise of populism that we are now seeing.

In regard to energy policy, investment has stalled due to the lack of a consistent bipartisan agreement. Greens knocked off the original bipartisan carbon price to their eternal shame. Rudd introduced a carbon price that was probably too high. Abbott removed it. It's been a decade of ideologically driven nonsense from which  we now are seeing the result.

There is an excellent article in the graun this morning. It has a couple of links to an Australian Industry Group blog and the Australian Energy Council. The AEC link is behind a paywall on the AFR so I've linked to a copy on the climate alliance site. Both groups are calling for more certainty in policy to attract investors back to the sector. The Australian Energy Council seem to want a carbon price to provide a signal to investors. 

The AIG have some good analysis of pricing and why coal is a more expensive option than both renewables and gas. Definitely worth a read.

Quote

Energy is a business. We urgently need to start treating it like one again. For the past decade this critical multibillion-dollar sector has been held hostage in an escalating ideological and political struggle over climate change.

Last week the Prime Minister used his address at the National Press Club to position energy policy as a battleground federal issue. While many of the points he made were sensible, his speech was the latest in an escalating cold war on energy and climate between the two major parties.

We now risk rolling into a second decade of energy policy uncertainty. This could be catastrophic for the cost and reliability of energy in Australia.

We are already experiencing the consequences of energy policy paralysis for the past decade. It's not pretty. The "grid" as we know it is degrading in front of our eyes. Power stations are closing and not being replaced. Like the fleet of cars in Cuba, remaining owners are sweating remaining generators until and if the investment drought breaks.

Australian businesses and households are now feeling the results of this dysfunction via higher prices and increased unreliability. Right now, there is no respite in sight.

Of course the real pivot issue isn't energy, it's climate change. In the vacuum of credible policy to reduce emissions the debate is framed by the extremes of the ideological spectrum. We are asked to choose between impossible solutions: building more coal-fired generation (we can't finance) versus running the grid entirely on renewables (we can't, at least not yet).

Business risk

Climate change is not a belief. It's a risk. In the middle of the last decade the global business community finally made sense of the growing concerns of scientists about the risk that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities were accelerating the natural climate variation of the planet, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Unsurprisingly it was the insurance and re-insurance industry that began to calculate the potential liabilities and sounded the alarm. This flowed on to banking and finance. Climate change risks and the consequential constraints on emissions have been increasingly factored in to commercial transactions ever since.

Quote

Carbon price

We've also seen some investment in renewables, facilitated by the renewable energy target (RET). But now we are seeing signs this too is struggling. The decision by one retailer to opt for paying the penalty price cap rather than source and surrender renewable energy certificates is a symptom of a deeper investment problem.

When it was increased in 2009, the RET was designed to operate alongside and converge with a national carbon price. The idea was the RET would support early investment in renewables projects, develop capacity and skill in integration until, by around 2020 the carbon price would be high enough to take over the role as sole investment signal for the entire sector.

Instead, for the past year the renewable certificate price has been hovering right against its ceiling price, and this in a time of higher wholesale electricity prices. Conditions have never been theoretically better to build renewables, but even with these support measures renewables are now caught by the investment paralysis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I met a very interesting guy last night at a public meeting. He's worked in the legal profession for over 30 years (no longer does) and was a pastor for 30 years. He's a bit of a maverick or black sheep and knows a lot that most people don't. Apparently 15 people he knew have been sent to the grave for knowing too much. He was involved in putting together the Freedom of Information act in Victoria and talked about shenanigans the government got up to that actually makes it harder to get information. But that's another story.

He had an interesting theory about global warming - he called it the fish bowl theory.

If you put water in a fish bowl and put it out in the sun, the water will heat up. If you add effluence to the water it warms up faster.

70% of the world's population, which has grown at an almost exponential rate over the last 50 years, live near oceans so all their effluence is going into the ocean. That in turn is warming up the ocean. And that is a contributing factor to global warming. So it may be related to humans but not to carbon dioxide as the paid-for scientists may claim.

I may have forgotten one or two points but that is the basic theory put forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mr Medved said:

I met a very interesting guy last night at a public meeting. He's worked in the legal profession for over 30 years (no longer does) and was a pastor for 30 years. He's a bit of a maverick or black sheep and knows a lot that most people don't. Apparently 15 people he knew have been sent to the grave for knowing too much. He was involved in putting together the Freedom of Information act in Victoria and talked about shenanigans the government got up to that actually makes it harder to get information. But that's another story.

He had an interesting theory about global warming - he called it the fish bowl theory.

If you put water in a fish bowl and put it out in the sun, the water will heat up. If you add effluence to the water it warms up faster.

70% of the world's population, which has grown at an almost exponential rate over the last 50 years, live near oceans so all their effluence is going into the ocean. That in turn is warming up the ocean. And that is a contributing factor to global warming. So it may be related to humans but not to carbon dioxide as the paid-for scientists may claim.

I may have forgotten one or two points but that is the basic theory put forward.

Some people would say that theory is full of sh*t! :P

Edited by cobran20
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see how Malcolm reacts to Jay Weatherills' plan for SA. Initial reactions of legal action aren't encouraging. The feds have no plan at all and have sat back for six months and offered nothing but ideological bollocks to the debate. This is after 10 years of indigence over a energy policy by both major parties. The calls for a price on carbon are coming from all quarters now. The feds have been caught flat footed by the SA government. The SA policy may be flawed for not being part of a national solution but at least they have a policy. The take home message for both majors is stop dicking around with energy security lest it be taken out your hands...

Share this post


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

It will be interesting to see how Malcolm reacts to Jay Weatherills' plan for SA. Initial reactions of legal action aren't encouraging. The feds have no plan at all and have sat back for six months and offered nothing but ideological bollocks to the debate. This is after 10 years of indigence over a energy policy by both major parties. The calls for a price on carbon are coming from all quarters now. The feds have been caught flat footed by the SA government. The SA policy may be flawed for not being part of a national solution but at least they have a policy. The take home message for both majors is stop dicking around with energy security lest it be taken out your hands...

Not to be outdone, Turnbull has announced an extension of the Snowy Mountains Hydro scheme to increase power by 50% (which will take at least 4 years). Then (presumably) the gas exporters have been forced to ensure we have enough gas for our local needs, though at what price? As usual, it takes a crisis to force the issue.

I can see that this could be a repeat of the 1970's where similar issues occurred, resulting in an oversupply of power in a decade. Hopefully that will be caused, by the home solar/battery option being more affordable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this all you get for $300m+? <_<

link

Quote

...The South Australian battery scheme could last about one hour at full demand...

 

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