Stop the stupidity – green power generates red ink
It’s time to end the mollycoddling of wind and solar energy toys before this stupidity does irreversible damage to Australia’s electricity supply and costs.
The mindless green dream of producing serious base load power from whimsical breezes and intermittent sunbeams has caused a halt to new low-cost coal power, a boom in expensive gas power, a national debate about nuclear power and no effect at all on global climate.
The frivolous wind and solar generators already installed have caused a surge in electricity prices, a bonanza for Chinese manufacturers and well founded doubts about our future ability to keep the lights on.
Provision of cheap reliable energy is a basic requirement for modern civilisation and is the engine that lifts people from poverty. It is far too important to be left to green dreamers, anti-industrial zealots, vote seeking politicians, engineering illiterates and guilt-ridden millionaires.
It is already obvious from Denmark, Spain, California and Germany that subsidising green power creates very little power but much red ink in the accounts. It always causes massive burdens for tax payers, electricity consumers and industry. Tax payers and investors will rue the day they allowed politicians to waste their savings on chimeras.
Get rid of all the mandated markets, subsidies and tax breaks for all energy generators, and leave power engineers and business managers to work out how best to supply our future energy needs in a free competitive market.
Subsidised power must collapse under its own dead weight. But every day’s delay increases the eventual cost.
Viv Forbes is Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian organisation which opposes pollution and waste of energy, and promotes rational carbon energy policies.
i hasten to add… During the Bush administration, Democrats discovered that they could score political points by accusing Bush of being anti-science. I said; Well, he was a creationist, wasn’t he? But in all seriousness, in what way was this done?”"”"”" On February 18, 2004, 62 preeminent scientists including Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, former senior advisers to administrations of both parties, numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences, and other well-known researchers released a statement titled Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making. In this statement, the scientists charged the Bush administration with widespread “manipulation of the process through which science enters into its decisions.” This statement has now been signed by more than 12,000 scientists.
Hey folks in Australia, ignore blowhards like “James”, he wears rose coloured glasses and believes pinwheels and hotair balloons will save the earth because the wind never stops blowing, there are never any cloudy days. Australia is one of the worlds largest exporters of uranium, shouldn’t you folks have your own reactor by now…
Fast Nuclear Waste Facts
In Canada’s 46-year history of operating nuclear reactors, no member of the public has been harmed due to a radiation leak from a nuclear power plant or waste storage facility
Eight pellets of uranium, each smaller than an average adult thumb, contain enough energy to power a typical home for about one year
Fuel bundles are used in a reactor for about 18 to 24 months before being removed
Used nuclear fuel has only about 0.05 per cent of its initial radioactivity within 10 years of being removed from a reactor
After used nuclear fuel has been stored in water-filled bays for at least 10 years, it is put in special storage containers weighing more than 70 tonnes
Fuel storage containers are made of reinforced, high-density concrete about 510 mm (20 inches) thick, with steel-plate linings inside and outside
The used fuel produced in a year from all the world´s 439 reactors would fit in a structure the size of a soccer field to a depth of 1.5 metres
More than 18,000 citizens provided input into federal public consultations about long-term storage solutions for used nuclear fuel
Sources: Canadian Nuclear Association, Ontario Power Generation, Bruce Power, Natural Resources Canada, International Atomic Energy Agency
If it gets rid of the Labor government it will be a good thing. Any pain inflicted on the voting public is well worthwhile if it gets rid of the Labor government for another 10 years.
Greg
Well before I start I just want to say I dont know anything at all about global warming, which is rather embarrassing, but to be honest I simply cant be bothered, but I will inevitably have to begin some form of research as the growing call for more taxes begins, and we all know how government’s are with taxes. Any way I just wanted to see if any holes could be poked in this comment;
@ Steven z
You said;
For 20 years, evidence about global warming has been directly and explicitly linked to a set of policy responses demanding international governance regimes,
I said;
What do you mean by this? Yes the UN has attempted to coordination but that isnt an example of ‘demanding international governance’, or perhaps you refer to increased US unilateralism which has also infected global warming policy?
You said; large-scale social engineering,
I said; Such as? I’m sure you can explain your meaning with some examples attached?
You said; and the redistribution of wealth.
I said; Well to an extent yes that is true.
You said; These are the sort of things that most Democrats welcome, and most Republicans hate.
I said; Really? So which parts go to which group? Sure Republicans have been slow to respond to global warming policy but in terms of global governance and social engineering Republicans and Democrats have led the way both domestically and internationally by way of foreign policy.
I said;
No wonder the Republicans are suspicious of the science.
You said;
I am also suspicious, but as I say I cant really comment.
You said;
Think about it: The results of climate science, delivered by scientists who are overwhelmingly Democratic,
I said;
Really? You can prove this?
You said; are used over a period of decades to advance a political agenda that happens to align precisely with the ideological preferences of Democrats.
I said;
Really? So what preference is that? I dont see how this is a partisan issue. Perhaps dealing with it it, but acknowledging it is not.Coincidence—or causation?
You said; Now this would be a good case for Mythbusters.
I said;
I would definitely watch it if they did an episode on climate change.
You said;
During the Bush administration, Democrats discovered that they could score political points by accusing Bush of being anti-science.
I said;
Well, he was a creationist, wasn’t he? But in all seriousness, in what way was this done?
You said; In the process, they seem to have convinced themselves that they are the keepers of the Enlightenment spirit, and that those who disagree with them on issues like climate change are fundamentally irrational.
I said;
Well from your post so far it would seem Republicans also consider themselves enlightened and opposing irrationality. Generally they are both unenlightened and irrational.
You said; Meanwhile, many Republicans have come to believe that mainstream science is corrupted by ideology and amounts to no more than politics by another name.
I said;
Well that would be all well and good if that were the case.
Again, I am not a believer in global warming etc, I just wanted to point out how many generalized comments you have made that seem to severely overstep truth and reasonable debate, unless you can in fact answer my questions, in which case I would be quite ready to thank you.
ricardo…
Think about it: The results of climate science, delivered by scientists who are overwhelmingly Democratic,
I said;
Really? You can prove this?”"”"
is this proof enough?
A Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans; 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest “don’t know” their affiliation.”"”"”"”"
large-scale social engineering,
I said; Such as? I’m sure you can explain your meaning with some examples attached?”"”"”"”"”"
The oft-repeated charge brings out the social engineering dimension of the Kyoto process. It can be said that, for at least some, the Kyoto process became not a way to reduce global climate change, but to restructure society and its values, especially regarding the U.S. Its consumption patterns and wealth are viewed by many as immoral and unfair, and, accordingly, the Kyoto process became a way to force Americans to change”"”"”"
need more or are you ready to say thank you now?
i hasten to add…
During the Bush administration, Democrats discovered that they could score political points by accusing Bush of being anti-science.
I said;
Well, he was a creationist, wasn’t he? But in all seriousness, in what way was this done?”"”"”"
On February 18, 2004, 62 preeminent scientists including Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, former senior advisers to administrations of both parties, numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences, and other well-known researchers released a statement titled Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making. In this statement, the scientists charged the Bush administration with widespread “manipulation of the process through which science enters into its decisions.” This statement has now been signed by more than 12,000 scientists.
I’m no scientist, in fact, I never even bothered wih university. Just as well because these days most scientists have earned themselves less credibility than a used car salesman. It’s got that bad that even the CSIRO has prostituted itself to the AGW cause. How sad is that? However, I am intelligent, I can read, I can research and I can tell shit from clay. The only people who openly support the theory of AGW are those who have a vested interest in its’ acceptance. Most governments need a new, inexhaustable tax stream. Most scientists are paid by these very governments but even so, more and more scientists of varying disciplines are now coming out against AGM. As far as the Greens and other radical, hypocritical environmentalist fools go; when they start living in bark huts, wearing laplaps and chasing kangaroos around to get a feed, I’ll start taking them seriously.
Scientific input, either honest or fraudulent, is not even needed in the AGW debate. All that is needed is an open mind and the ability to read, research and correctly analyse. A 15 year old school kid is capable of that.
Most of the AGW doomsaying is dependent on “scientific data” going back in most cases, less than 150 years. All that has gone before appears to be totally irrelevent. Has anyone asked why the Vikings initially settled and farmed Greenland? Probably because at the time, Greenland was green, lush, fertile and temperate. How did man-made CO2 cause Greenland to freeze over? Does anyone read the journals of early Australian explorers? If they did, they would learn that drought is a common and natural Australian climatic phenomenon. They might even be surprised to learn that the Murray-Darling River system often dried up. Yes…dried up means just that. You could walk across both river channels. Where were the monster, CO2 spewing, world destroying, coal fired power stations prior to the 20th Century. I don’t remember ever reading about the legions of diesel trucks tearing around the Australian bush at that time. Maybe I missed that bit. Do I need to go on?
Not long ago the AGW mob were telling us, amongst other ludicrous ascertions, that the Great Barrier Reef would be dead in 50 years, the Arctic ice was melting and polar bears were heading for extinction, sea levels were rising at such an alarming rate that several Pacific islands and the east coast of Australia were going to be inundated and was all being caused by man-made CO2.
With regard to those ridiculous and fraudulent claims, how many of you have read the latest scientific evidence that has come out in the last week. I suggest everyone starts researching, analysing and thinking for themselves instead of being lead around by the nose by the AGW mob.
Craig Scholz says:
December 17, 2010 at 11:50 pm
very good comments.
For 20 years, evidence about global warming has been directly and explicitly linked to a set of policy responses demanding international governance regimes, large-scale social engineering, and the redistribution of wealth. These are the sort of things that most Democrats welcome, and most Republicans hate. No wonder the Republicans are suspicious of the science.
Think about it: The results of climate science, delivered by scientists who are overwhelmingly Democratic, are used over a period of decades to advance a political agenda that happens to align precisely with the ideological preferences of Democrats. Coincidence—or causation? Now this would be a good case for Mythbusters.
During the Bush administration, Democrats discovered that they could score political points by accusing Bush of being anti-science. In the process, they seem to have convinced themselves that they are the keepers of the Enlightenment spirit, and that those who disagree with them on issues like climate change are fundamentally irrational. Meanwhile, many Republicans have come to believe that mainstream science is corrupted by ideology and amounts to no more than politics by another name.
India’s Thorium Reactor
The head of the Mumbai reactor design and development group, Ratan Kumar Sinha, spoke to IEEE Spectrum about India’s Thorium reactor design and plans. The Thorium reactor will have less waste (unburned fuel) than current reactors and is designed to operate for 100 years instead of 30-60 years for current reactors.
In April, 2008, India started a test reactor for its Thorium design, which has a flexible configuration and allows use of a range of fuel materials; we can even physically shift the distance between fuel rods. Here we are able to simulate the reactor almost 100 percent.
one more thing about thorium reactors.
they cannot make nuclear weapons from the residual products.
“thorium promises what uranium never delivered: abundant, safe and clean energy – and a way to burn up old radioactive waste.”[15] With a thorium nuclear reactor, Dean stresses a number of added benefits: there is no possibility of a meltdown, it generates power inexpensively, it does not produce weapons-grade by-products, and will burn up existing high-level waste as well as nuclear weapon stockpiles.[15] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, of the British Telegraph daily, suggests that “Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium,” and could put “an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years.”[13]
James
where did you get the erroneous figure of 2 in 100 scientists against the man made climate change theory.
based on my research there are far more opposed to it than this.
they found many of the so called scientific reports that were pro man made climate change,were written by uni students as a thesis.
these students had no science training at all.
Swedish wind farms are an abject failure and have to be subsidized with millions of dollars a year by their tax payers.
all the experts (x is an unknown quantity,and a spurt is a drip under pressure),on man made climate change predicted horrific droughts Australia wide.
ask the people in the eastern states what it is like to be flooded out for weeks now.
my opinion is this climate change situation was invented to redistribute the wealth.
James
i forgot.
what about thorium supplied nuclear power stations?
very safe,and very little pollution.
Thorium reactors are, as far as I know, still theoretical. I understand that they are very promising technology – as are other power sources in this vein, like Fusion – but at this stage, they are just theoretical. Solar and tidal/wave power stations can be rolled out immediately.
* Thorium can also be used as a nuclear fuel through breeding to fissile uranium-233.
Thorium continues to be a tanatalising possibility for use in nuclear power reactors, though for many years India has been the only sponsor of major research efforts to use it. Other endeavours include the development of the Radkowsky Thorium Reactor concept being carried out by US company Thorium Power (now Lightbridge Corporation) with Russian collaboration.
In mid-2009, AECL signed agreements with three Chinese entities to develop and demonstrate the use of thorium fuel in the Candu reactors at Qinshan in China. Another mid-2009 agreement, between Areva and Lightbridge Corporation, was for assessing the use of thorium fuel in Areva’s EPR, drawing upon earlier research. Thorium can also be used in Generation IV and other advanced nuclear fuel cycle systems.
“A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that more than 97% of specialists on the subject (i.e. “respondents who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change”) agree that human activity is “a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”"
That’s where I got the figure of 2 in 100 scientists. It’s not erroneous – it’s the truth. The scientific consensus is overwhelming. Note that it says 97% there – the figure in the relevant study was 2.5% disagreed with man made climate change, hence 2 in 100.
James
a survey done amongst pro man made scientists doesn’t count for anything.
have you heard of the climate-gate emails?
the ones that exposed the fake figures being used in an attempt to get people to believe in man made global warming.
what about the hockey stick fraud?
you didn’t answer my question about the severe flooding in Australia.
don’t tell me,if it’s a drought ,it’s global warming,and if it’s a flood it’s global warming too.
while you are at it,ask the British why they are having record level snow falls.
and why the antarctic ice is actually getting bigger.
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.
More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to http://www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
james
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
The antarctic ice is NOT getting bigger – it is receding, as is the ice on Greenland and the Arctic. No matter how many scientists sign a petition, the fact that out of all experts on climate change (that is, scientists who put out more than 50% of their papers on the subject) 97% believe it is man made indicates a very strong consensus. I’d remind you that one of the expected effects of global warming is colder weather in Europe, because the melting ice in Greenland slows the warming Gulf Stream.
I’d also like to add that the ‘Climategate emails’, though embarrassing, did not actually indicate any flaws in the science. All enquiries into the scandal found that the science was valid and that they did not indicate any serious misconduct, but this fact was largely ignored by the media because they’d much rather discuss a scandal than the facts. You also have to remember that climate change is very gradual – it’s not going to have an immediate effect in the form of more hot weather, droughts, e.t.c. What it DOES mean is a steady, gradual increase in global temperature, which we are seeing.
A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists”"”"
More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine “”"”"”"”"”
No matter how many scientists sign a petition”"
the two different petitions are both signed by reputable scientists .
the ones that agree with global warming are right,are they?
why?
The petition you cite was signed by “scientists”. No specific qualifications. The study I’m talking about was only considering experts on the subject. That’s why they’re more likely to be right.
These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia’s Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.
What about Dr. Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville US Senate Testimony that the 2007 satellite data shows a record “area” of ice cover for the antartic?
So lets assume that climate change IS incorrect. After all, 2 out of 100 scientists can’t be wrong! So, we scrap the renewable power subsidies, and we pour money into more coal power. Great. Cheap power for all!
Well, cheap power for a few decades when coal prices skyrocket because we start to run out. Coal is finite. Sun and wind and waves are not (well, at least, not until the heat death of the universe!). We have to make these investments into this technology now so that we don’t get hit hard when fossil fuels begin to run out. Of course, it’s difficult to tell when, exactly, the are likely to start running out, but it is an inevitability. As reserves diminish, the cost of extracting increasingly difficult to reach coal seams will begin to outweigh the profit to be made from doing so, and so prices will soar. The local environmental consequences of doing so will also soar, because more harmful mining techniques will need to be used to get at it. We need investment into renewable energy sources to go up, not down. Don’t claim that the investment in this technology in Europe is a failure – over 16% of Germany’s electricity now comes from renewable sources, and this figure is growing steadily. Their reliance on foreign economies producing fossil fuels is diminishing, and the hit their economy will take when we surpass peak coal production is too. Australia has huge sun-drenched deserts – our potential for producing solar power is unique. Don’t squander it.
You say you desire to leave this issue to the free market – surely you can see that these companies are forced, by the very nature of the system, to satisfy their shareholders in the short term? The leaders of these companies know that they will not be in this position when coal prices begin to skyrocket – they will have long since retired with millions of dollars in the bank. They have no incentive to invest in this essential technology because it has long term returns, not the short term ones they desire. We must give them the incentive to do this, in the form of subsidies.
James……Australia’s coal deposits have been estimated to be at least two hundred years supply on current levels of use!
Research in 2009 by the University of Newcastle in Australia found that global coal production could peak between 2010 and 2048. When the peak coal production is reached, it will cease to grow – it can only decline from there. If we construct more coal power plants instead of renewable plants, peak coal will be reached sooner and the effects of passing that point will be more devastating. Coal is only going to be the cheap option for a few more decades by many estimates.
All the more reason to go Nuclear!
James, your analysis is wrong on so mnay levels it is difficult to know where to start.
Firstly, the non hydroelectric renewable energy level in Germany is < 4%.
Secondly, there are 600 years of coal reserves available at current use levels and as each year goes by, that amount rises. This is much like oil, there are now greater known reserves of oil today than there were 10 years ago, 20 years ago and 100 years ago.
Thirdly, all the renewable energy schemes must be supported by an equivalent amount of fossil-fuelled generating capacity, which must be ramped up and down to accommodate the renewable energy source with the consequent loss in thermal efficiency which causes it to burn more fossil fuel and release CO2 than necessary. Consequently, solar and wind do not reduce CO2 emissions at all, in fact they increase it.
Lastly, the 2001 IPCC TAR report specifically states that the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is only 3.7%. Today it is 3.4% which for your information comprises only 12 ppm of the 390 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
What that means is that humans can do bu@@er all to change the level of CO 2 in the atmosphere and cannot affect the climate by one whit.
sorry.this too.
http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=19506
not exactly the same subject matter,but the greens are involved,so buy the book,
Is it ORGANIC?
By Mischa Popoff
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/is-it-organic/13572957
Nuclear power isn’t infinite either, of course. The Thorium reactors that Steven has been discussing above show great promise, as does fusion technology, but I hesitate to support conventional, uranium power. We just don’t have the means to dispose of the waste produced.