boyo
Mark Ella (57)
Is it really super cheap?
I've read that fuel costs, factory/plant building costs, waste-disposal costs, political costs, etc. are far from super cheap.
The Climate Change Thread
- Thread starter Scotty
- Start date
- Status
Is it really super cheap?
I've read that fuel costs, factory/plant building costs, waste-disposal costs, political costs, etc. are far from super cheap.
lewisr
Bill McLean (32)
We have a heap of Uranium supplies so the fuel is extremely cheap in Australia. Factory/ Plant building and waste disposal are the most expensive aspects. But as we get more efficient in its use, the waste disposal becomes less and less of an issue.
But it's a good point, saying it is "super" cheap was
The biggest problem is that every power source is expensive compared to burning coal in power stations that already exist.
We as a society have to accept that the cost of burning coal extends beyond the cost of the actual coal to the impact that behaviour has on our climate. As the continent most susceptible to climate change, this should be a primary concern for us. Pricing carbon is the simplest way to deal with this. It is really just human stupidity to not accept that something that is invisible might be harming our environment. These same people seem to readily accept that we can't just dump waste products into rivers or dump rubbish in the bush and forget about it and subsequently there is a cost to dispose of rubbish and other waste products.
I have no issues with nuclear power as I agree that Australia is a good place for it. Primarily because we have a very stable continent in a geophysical sense and a ready supply of uranium. We also have a lot of desert that could be used as safe options for storage of nuclear waste.
Australia is also the continent that receives the most sunshine. Solar power should be a much bigger thing here and will continue to develop as more investment happens, solar technology continues to improve and the will to stop burning coal increases.
Australia is one of the wealthiest nations on Earth with our population enjoying close to the highest standard of living in the world.
We are also the highest per capita emitters of carbon dioxide. I think we have an obligation to fix this.
A carbon tax was introduced with really minimal impacts on our standard of living. In a short period of time there was a noticeable drop in our carbon dioxide emissions primarily because increased power costs made people consciously monitor their electricity usage. The lowest income earners who have the least ability to change their behaviour were compensated to cover for this.
There is no silver bullet to fix this. It needs to be a combination of our population reducing their environmental impact and investing in better technologies. Until you provide a disincentive to people using the cheapest and most polluting forms of electicity generation then nothing will change.
We as a society have to accept that the cost of burning coal extends beyond the cost of the actual coal to the impact that behaviour has on our climate. As the continent most susceptible to climate change, this should be a primary concern for us. Pricing carbon is the simplest way to deal with this. It is really just human stupidity to not accept that something that is invisible might be harming our environment. These same people seem to readily accept that we can't just dump waste products into rivers or dump rubbish in the bush and forget about it and subsequently there is a cost to dispose of rubbish and other waste products.
I have no issues with nuclear power as I agree that Australia is a good place for it. Primarily because we have a very stable continent in a geophysical sense and a ready supply of uranium. We also have a lot of desert that could be used as safe options for storage of nuclear waste.
Australia is also the continent that receives the most sunshine. Solar power should be a much bigger thing here and will continue to develop as more investment happens, solar technology continues to improve and the will to stop burning coal increases.
Australia is one of the wealthiest nations on Earth with our population enjoying close to the highest standard of living in the world.
We are also the highest per capita emitters of carbon dioxide. I think we have an obligation to fix this.
A carbon tax was introduced with really minimal impacts on our standard of living. In a short period of time there was a noticeable drop in our carbon dioxide emissions primarily because increased power costs made people consciously monitor their electricity usage. The lowest income earners who have the least ability to change their behaviour were compensated to cover for this.
There is no silver bullet to fix this. It needs to be a combination of our population reducing their environmental impact and investing in better technologies. Until you provide a disincentive to people using the cheapest and most polluting forms of electicity generation then nothing will change.
No4918
John Hipwell (52)
Despite Australia supposedly experiencing a "conservative tide" following the three years of minority government under Labor, Abbott's relentless campaign against the carbon price resulted in a paltry 1.7% swing to his Liberal National party coalition. In the Senate, Australia's house of review, the LNP saw a swing against it.
In fact, more pro-carbon price senators were elected than anti-carbon price (35 to 33). Mr Abbott needs 39 votes to pass legislation through the senate.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...p/10/tony-abbott-carbon-price-referendum-flop
In fact, more pro-carbon price senators were elected than anti-carbon price (35 to 33). Mr Abbott needs 39 votes to pass legislation through the senate.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...p/10/tony-abbott-carbon-price-referendum-flop
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
There needs to be more work conducted on solar-thermal power production, so Australia can use this sunshine to generate baseload power (sunshine is used to heat a saline liquid, and this heat can stored and used to generate power when the sun isn't shining).
Such plants are in operation in Spain and the U.S.A.
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
I would wait and see if those newly elected are as appossed to carbon as you indicate. Car ehthusiasts would be all for a solar car.
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
A post from Cave Dweller on solar-thermal power from March 2012:-
Gema solar tower. It is up and running now while producing electrical energy 24 hours a day. This is done by heating molten salt with concentrated solar "light".
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-thermosolar-power-station-spain-night.html
Gema solar tower. It is up and running now while producing electrical energy 24 hours a day. This is done by heating molten salt with concentrated solar "light".
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-thermosolar-power-station-spain-night.html
The Torresol Energy Gemasolar plant in Fuentes de Andalucia near Seville. The unique thermosolar power station in southern Spain can shrug off cloudy days: energy stored when the sun shines lets it produce electricity even during the night.
The Gemasolar station, up and running since last May, stands out in the plains of Andalusia.
From the road between Seville and Cordoba, one can see its central tower lit up like a beacon by 2,600 solar mirrors, each 120 square metres (28,500 square feet), that surround it in an immense 195-hectare (480-acre) circle.
"It is the first station in the world that works 24 hours a day, a solar power station that works day and night!" said Santago Arias, technical director of Torresol Energy, which runs the station.
The mechanism is "very easy to explain," he said: the panels reflect the suns rays on to the tower, transmitting energy at an intensity 1,000 times higher than that of the sun's rays reaching the earth.
Energy is stored in a vat filled with molten salts at a temperature of more than 500 degrees C (930 F). Those salts are used to produce steam to turn the turbines and produce electricity.
It is the station's capacity to store energy that makes Gemasolar so different because it allows the plant to transmit power during the night, relying on energy it has accumulated during the day.
The Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi (left) with Spain's King Juan Carlos at last year's opening of the solar power plant. Torresol Energy is a joint venture between the Spanish engineering group Sener, which holds 60 percent, and Abu Dhabi-financed renewable energy firm Masdar.
"I use that energy as I see fit, and not as the sun dictates," Arias explained.
As a result, the plant produces 60 percent more energy than a station without storage capacity because it can work 6,400 hours a year compared to 1,200-2,000 hours for other solar power stations, he said.
"The amount of energy we produce a year is equal to the consumption of 30,000 Spanish households," Arias said, an annual saving of 30,000 tonnes of CO2.
Helped by generous state aid, renewable energies have enjoyed a boom in Spain, the world number two in solar energy and the biggest wind power producer in Europe, ahead of Germany.
For the Gemasolar solar product, foreign investors helped too: Torresol Energy is a joint venture between the Spanish engineering group Sener, which holds 60 percent, and Abu Dhabi-financed renewable energy firm Masdar.
It is the station's capacity to store energy that makes Gemasolar so different because it allows the plant to transmit power during the night, relying on energy it has accumulated during the day.
"This type of station is expensive, not because of the raw material we use, which is free solar energy, but because of the enormous investment these plants require," Arias said.
The investment cost exceeds 200 million euros ($260 million).
But "the day when the business has repaid that money to the banks (in 18 years, he estimates), this station will become a 1,000-euro note printing machine!," he said, recalling that oil prices have soared from $28 a barrel in 2003 to nearly $130.
For now, the economic crisis has nevertheless cast a shadow over this kind of project: Spain is battling to slash its deficit as it slides into recession and has suspended aid to new renewable energy projects.
Andalusia, hard hit by the economic crisis with the country's highest unemployment rate at 31.23 percent, holds regional elections on March 25.
"We have three projects ready but stalled" because of the aid suspension, Arias said, admitting that in a difficult global economy the group has not managed to sell the Gemasolar techology abroad despite huge interest outside Spain.
The Gemasolar station, up and running since last May, stands out in the plains of Andalusia.
From the road between Seville and Cordoba, one can see its central tower lit up like a beacon by 2,600 solar mirrors, each 120 square metres (28,500 square feet), that surround it in an immense 195-hectare (480-acre) circle.
"It is the first station in the world that works 24 hours a day, a solar power station that works day and night!" said Santago Arias, technical director of Torresol Energy, which runs the station.
The mechanism is "very easy to explain," he said: the panels reflect the suns rays on to the tower, transmitting energy at an intensity 1,000 times higher than that of the sun's rays reaching the earth.
Energy is stored in a vat filled with molten salts at a temperature of more than 500 degrees C (930 F). Those salts are used to produce steam to turn the turbines and produce electricity.
It is the station's capacity to store energy that makes Gemasolar so different because it allows the plant to transmit power during the night, relying on energy it has accumulated during the day.
The Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi (left) with Spain's King Juan Carlos at last year's opening of the solar power plant. Torresol Energy is a joint venture between the Spanish engineering group Sener, which holds 60 percent, and Abu Dhabi-financed renewable energy firm Masdar.
"I use that energy as I see fit, and not as the sun dictates," Arias explained.
As a result, the plant produces 60 percent more energy than a station without storage capacity because it can work 6,400 hours a year compared to 1,200-2,000 hours for other solar power stations, he said.
"The amount of energy we produce a year is equal to the consumption of 30,000 Spanish households," Arias said, an annual saving of 30,000 tonnes of CO2.
Helped by generous state aid, renewable energies have enjoyed a boom in Spain, the world number two in solar energy and the biggest wind power producer in Europe, ahead of Germany.
For the Gemasolar solar product, foreign investors helped too: Torresol Energy is a joint venture between the Spanish engineering group Sener, which holds 60 percent, and Abu Dhabi-financed renewable energy firm Masdar.
It is the station's capacity to store energy that makes Gemasolar so different because it allows the plant to transmit power during the night, relying on energy it has accumulated during the day.
"This type of station is expensive, not because of the raw material we use, which is free solar energy, but because of the enormous investment these plants require," Arias said.
The investment cost exceeds 200 million euros ($260 million).
But "the day when the business has repaid that money to the banks (in 18 years, he estimates), this station will become a 1,000-euro note printing machine!," he said, recalling that oil prices have soared from $28 a barrel in 2003 to nearly $130.
For now, the economic crisis has nevertheless cast a shadow over this kind of project: Spain is battling to slash its deficit as it slides into recession and has suspended aid to new renewable energy projects.
Andalusia, hard hit by the economic crisis with the country's highest unemployment rate at 31.23 percent, holds regional elections on March 25.
"We have three projects ready but stalled" because of the aid suspension, Arias said, admitting that in a difficult global economy the group has not managed to sell the Gemasolar techology abroad despite huge interest outside Spain.
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
I love all these debates about alternative energy.
How much carbon does it take to make a wind turbine?
How long before the turbine repays that carbon?
What is the life of a wind turbine? Long enough to repay the carbon?
How much space does each one take?
How much oil does each one use per year to lubricate the turbine and gear boxes?
How much power does it generate without a wind?
Will it or any of the others ever be able to replace base load power?
Lets just imagine one turbine does 1000 homes and each occupies the site of a football field. Anyone good at area maths want to do that for the power needs of lets just say Sydney?
How much carbon does it take to make a wind turbine?
How long before the turbine repays that carbon?
What is the life of a wind turbine? Long enough to repay the carbon?
How much space does each one take?
How much oil does each one use per year to lubricate the turbine and gear boxes?
How much power does it generate without a wind?
Will it or any of the others ever be able to replace base load power?
Lets just imagine one turbine does 1000 homes and each occupies the site of a football field. Anyone good at area maths want to do that for the power needs of lets just say Sydney?
I couldn't be bothered googling the information for you but from memory wind turbines have the shortest return of all energy sources and could be a little as 18 months. Here a link that might help you out.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=carbon return on wind turbine
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=carbon return on wind turbine
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
https://fbcdn-photos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-AK (Andrew Kellaway)-ash4/s720x720/1000005_10151921952696255_813638004_n.png
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
It should be noted that Andrew Bolt was pushing this story in Australia as well. It's not just the.daily mail who are willing to report that the arctic ice sheet is growing.
Why journalists feel in a position to analyse the arctic ice observations for themselves and report their findings as anything other than an uneducated guess is beyond me. I suppose if they knew any better they wouldn't be shock jocks in the first place.
Why journalists feel in a position to analyse the arctic ice observations for themselves and report their findings as anything other than an uneducated guess is beyond me. I suppose if they knew any better they wouldn't be shock jocks in the first place.
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
Report gives the truth about climate at last
THE issue under public discussion is that human-related carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or will cause, dangerous global warming.
The issue is not "is climate change happening", for it always is and always has. Nor is it about whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas or not, because all scientists agree that it is.
Rather, the key question concerns the magnitude of warming caused by the rather small 7 billion tonnes of industrial carbon dioxide that enter the atmosphere each year, compared with the natural flows from land and sea of over 200 billion tonnes.
Despite well over twenty years of study by thousands of scientists, and the expenditure of more than $100 billion in research money, an accurate quantitative answer to this question remains unknown.
Scientists who advise the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) worry that a doubling of carbon dioxide over pre-industrial levels will cause warming of between 3 and 6 deg. Celsius, whereas independent scientists calculate that the warming for a doubling will be much less - somewhere between about 0.3 and 1.2 deg. Celsius.
Meanwhile, the scientific evidence now overwhelmingly indicates that any human warming effect is deeply submerged within planet Earth's natural variations of temperature.
Importantly, no global warming has now occurred since 1997, despite an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide of 8%, which in turn represents 34% of all the extra human-related carbon dioxide contributed since the industrial revolution.
Few of these facts are new, yet until recently the public have been relentlessly misinformed that human-caused global warming was causing polar bears to die out, more and more intense storms, droughts and floods to occur, the monsoons to fail, sea-level rise to accelerate, ice to melt at unnatural rates, that late 20th century temperature was warmer than ever before and that speculative computer models could predict the temperature accurately one hundred years into the future.
It now turns out that not one of these assertions is true. So who has been telling us these scientific whoppers?
The United Nations, that's who; which is not surprising given that global warming long ago gained a life of its own as a mainstream political issue, quite divorced from empirical science - politics, of course, being what the UN is all about.
The IPCC has been charged with providing advice about global warming since 1988, publishing four major summaries of the scientific literature in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007 and with a 5th Assessment Report due on September 27th. Press coverage indicates that this report will concede that many of the environmental threats attributed to global warming by the IPCC have hitherto been exaggerated.
Meanwhile, and starting in 2003, a new independent team of scientists has been on the climate job, drawn from universities and institutes around the world and called the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
In classic Green Team: Red Team tactical management style, the NIPCC has the role of providing an alternative Red Team view of the science of global warming, acting as a sort of "defense counsel" to verify and counter the arguments mounted for climate alarm by the IPCC's Green Team prosecution.
NIPCC's next report - entitled "Climate Change Reconsidered. II Physical Science", will be released on September 18th.
The report summarises many of the thousands of scientific papers that contain evidence conflicting with the idea of dangerous human-caused warming. Considered collectively, the research literature summarised by the NIPCC shows that modern climate is jogging along well within the bounds of previous natural variation.
Faced with this reality check, it is not surprising that the UN apparently intends to tone down some of its earlier over-alarmist rhetoric.
Nonetheless, it remains the case that extreme natural climate events can cause great damage to both human communities and the environment. The task ahead, therefore, is to fashion a national climate policy that prepares for and adapts to all dangerous climate events, whenever they occur and of whatever origin.
Professor Bob Carter is an Emeritus Fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs and author of the book Taxing Air
- by:Bob Carter
- From:The Daily Telegraph
- September 17, 201312:00AM
THE issue under public discussion is that human-related carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or will cause, dangerous global warming.
The issue is not "is climate change happening", for it always is and always has. Nor is it about whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas or not, because all scientists agree that it is.
Rather, the key question concerns the magnitude of warming caused by the rather small 7 billion tonnes of industrial carbon dioxide that enter the atmosphere each year, compared with the natural flows from land and sea of over 200 billion tonnes.
Despite well over twenty years of study by thousands of scientists, and the expenditure of more than $100 billion in research money, an accurate quantitative answer to this question remains unknown.
Scientists who advise the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) worry that a doubling of carbon dioxide over pre-industrial levels will cause warming of between 3 and 6 deg. Celsius, whereas independent scientists calculate that the warming for a doubling will be much less - somewhere between about 0.3 and 1.2 deg. Celsius.
Meanwhile, the scientific evidence now overwhelmingly indicates that any human warming effect is deeply submerged within planet Earth's natural variations of temperature.
Importantly, no global warming has now occurred since 1997, despite an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide of 8%, which in turn represents 34% of all the extra human-related carbon dioxide contributed since the industrial revolution.
Few of these facts are new, yet until recently the public have been relentlessly misinformed that human-caused global warming was causing polar bears to die out, more and more intense storms, droughts and floods to occur, the monsoons to fail, sea-level rise to accelerate, ice to melt at unnatural rates, that late 20th century temperature was warmer than ever before and that speculative computer models could predict the temperature accurately one hundred years into the future.
It now turns out that not one of these assertions is true. So who has been telling us these scientific whoppers?
The United Nations, that's who; which is not surprising given that global warming long ago gained a life of its own as a mainstream political issue, quite divorced from empirical science - politics, of course, being what the UN is all about.
The IPCC has been charged with providing advice about global warming since 1988, publishing four major summaries of the scientific literature in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007 and with a 5th Assessment Report due on September 27th. Press coverage indicates that this report will concede that many of the environmental threats attributed to global warming by the IPCC have hitherto been exaggerated.
Meanwhile, and starting in 2003, a new independent team of scientists has been on the climate job, drawn from universities and institutes around the world and called the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
In classic Green Team: Red Team tactical management style, the NIPCC has the role of providing an alternative Red Team view of the science of global warming, acting as a sort of "defense counsel" to verify and counter the arguments mounted for climate alarm by the IPCC's Green Team prosecution.
NIPCC's next report - entitled "Climate Change Reconsidered. II Physical Science", will be released on September 18th.
The report summarises many of the thousands of scientific papers that contain evidence conflicting with the idea of dangerous human-caused warming. Considered collectively, the research literature summarised by the NIPCC shows that modern climate is jogging along well within the bounds of previous natural variation.
Faced with this reality check, it is not surprising that the UN apparently intends to tone down some of its earlier over-alarmist rhetoric.
Nonetheless, it remains the case that extreme natural climate events can cause great damage to both human communities and the environment. The task ahead, therefore, is to fashion a national climate policy that prepares for and adapts to all dangerous climate events, whenever they occur and of whatever origin.
Professor Bob Carter is an Emeritus Fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs and author of the book Taxing Air
I think there's a typo.
That sentence should have read "Few of these facts are true."
It is sad that rubbish like this gets published. This NIPCC was established by Fred Singer who is best known for his scientific work claiming that passive smoking didn't cause lung disease.
In summary:
1. The newspaper is owned by Murdoch who is a climate change skeptic.
2. The newspaper has consistently run an anti carbon tax/climate change denial agenda.
3. The author of this article is a climate change skeptic whose career includes significant work relating to ocean drilling and is paid by the Heartland Institute whose two biggest agendas have been lobbying against the health risks of smoking and global warming.
4. He sights the work of the NIPCC which was founded by Fred Singer who is a climate change denialist famous for denying the link between passive smoking and lung disease.
Seems legit.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
That article is a classic witch hunt. Stop letting paranoid old men who think the UN and EU are out to get everyone tell you what to think. They lost touch with reality decades ago.
Par for the daily telegraph of course. Whoever edits that stuff must have brain damage in whichever brain faculty provides ability to think critically.
Par for the daily telegraph of course. Whoever edits that stuff must have brain damage in whichever brain faculty provides ability to think critically.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I cant see where you got that from - can you link it?
Thanks
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
So if its on the ABC or put out by the Greens ect its a well balanced point.
Others are part of the world wide conspiracy.
God! it must have been the CIA that did in Julia to bring back Obama's mate KR
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
- Status