MEDIA RELEASE
10/8/2010
Liberals Hijack The Climate Sceptics on Google
This week has seen the Liberal Party seek to leverage their campaign on the back of momentum generated by The Climate Sceptics. Following the launch of a hard-hitting TV blitz in South Australia, Liberal strategists have recognised the level of public interest in the new kid to the Australian political landscape, led by South Australian senate candidate Leon Ashby.
A google search for any of The Climate Sceptics senate candidates reveals a paid link to the Liberal campaign site.
Beau Woods, West Australian senate candidate for The Climate Sceptics, points out that the Liberal party was only one vote away from capitulating to Labor’s ill-conceived ETS. “There is a select group of multinational banking corporations that stand to make huge profits trading in carbon credits, paid for by Joe Consumer. The Liberal party is attempting to walk both side of the street in regard to both the man-made global warming theory and carbon trading. The Australian public cannot be sure that plans for a carbon tax or artificial trading scheme have truly being shelved for good. The interests of Goldman Sachs* lie waiting in the shadows.”
“This blatant hijacking of our fledgling party shows that we are well and truly on the radar. There are a number of marginal seats in the lower house that will probably come down to preferences from The Climate Sceptics.”
*Source: http://www2.goldmansachs.com/services/advising/environmental-markets/business-initiatives/trading-and-cap-markets.html
–
Beau Woods
WA Candidate for the Australian Senate
The Climate Sceptics
So now I get to add google adwords to the increasingly long list of things the Climate Sceptics know absolutely nothing about.
Oh, and “There are a number of marginal seats in the lower house that will probably come down to preferences from The Climate Sceptics.”
How do you guys even manage to function when you are this delusional?
David; a typical and very cheap-shot; “delusional”; delusional would be believing that renewable energy can power anything let alone replace fossil fuels. I’m more than happy to discuss the lack of ‘science’ supporting AGW and the utter, delusional folly of the proposed measures to ‘solve’ it; are you? In the mean time it has to said that a carbon tax would have to be the silliest, most peurile idea in the history of dumb ideas but at the very least it now has some starting to question the moral high ground of Green ideology and seeing it for what it is: cultish and misanthropic.
Oh my! A live climate change denier seen in the wild… This is too exciting. Wow.. where do I start?
Here’ll do :
“delusional would be believing that renewable energy can power anything let alone replace fossil fuels”
Tell that to Iceland where 100% of their energy production is from renewable sources.
“I’m more than happy to discuss the lack of ‘science’ supporting AGW and the utter, delusional folly of the proposed measures to ‘solve’ it; are you? “
OK. Since you have assumed the burden of proof to disprove the work of thousands of peer-reviewed scientists, go for it. I’m going to love to see what you think are cogent arguments. I’ve actually got my fingers crossed that you’ve got a semi-new one, or at least one that I haven’t already seen debunked thoroughly dozens of times.
“In the mean time it has to said that a carbon tax would have to be the silliest, most peurile idea in the history of dumb ideas but at the very least it now has some starting to question the moral high ground of Green ideology and seeing it for what it is: cultish and misanthropic.”
I’m actually going to defer my answer to someone who can more clearly annunciate my feelings regarding this piece of text : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M
i’ve also seen the small battery of wind turbines that power most of, if not all of, the aeir peninsula, so um, eat your words on renewables. but until then, i’ll wait for your discrediting of all of the climate science, since all of the ‘climate change isn’t man made’ “science” i’ve seen never passed a reveiw.
tic, toc, tic…
How pathetic; Iceland which is on a tectonic fault and has more active volcanoes than just about anywhere else and relatively cheap hydro; but even given these unique advantages the cost of their “renewables” are still much more expensive then an equivalent fossil fuel or nuclear based grid. How about talking about California, Spain, Italy and let’s not forget the brilliant test case of the “world’s greenest island”, Eigg in the inner Hebrides, which has had a complete failure of all its super dooper modern renewables. In Australia the Australian Energy Management Operator [AEMO], which certifies the actual capacity, as opposed to installed capacity, of all energy sources contributing to the grid, will only certify actual capacity of wind farms at 10% of installed capacity. Solar is no better because battery storage is at best 15 hours [ie remember brainiac, the sun doesn't shine during the night or on rainy days so the power [sic] generated during the day has to be stored for nightie nights], and that 15 hours is useless for the sustained power needed for the grid; ie simple maths; 100% storage; 20% drawdown for grid per unit of time; what happens after the first 20% is gone and another 20% [of the original storage] is needed and so on.
As for refutation of the computer virtual reality that is AGW ‘science’; these 2 papers kill it:
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
And I haven’t assumed anything; AGW is your belief system and we all know religion and science don’t mix.
“It doesn’t work, except for the places where it does, and they don’t count”
Also, solar thermal can provide baseload power. You say look at California, yet fail to look at the sites in California where they’re building baseload solar thermal plants.
had a look at those two articles of yours. from what i saw, most of the stats looks extreamly cheery picked; and quite a number of things didn’t fit (like a blatently incorrect trendline)… are you sure those two passed peer reveiw?
also, if i recall anything about what evey one has been telling me about our potential for geothermal, it was that we’ve got copious numbers of ‘hot rocks’ sitting around somewhere.
Ygfi; great, side-splitting mirth! “most of the stats looks extreamly cheery picked”; the McKitrick PEER REVIEWED paper [what is with you warmists, after the CRU scandal, where it came from the horse's mouth that the pr system was tainted, you still genuflect to it] is a response to the Santer 2008 effort which was hailed by the warmists as indisputable evidence that the models correctly predicted temperature; the McKitrick paper [MMH] conclusively shows that the Santer paper could only achieve its phony correlation because he ended his data stream at 1999, despite having a full stream up to the date of his paper; when the full data is included Santer and the model correlation is rejected; in other words Santer cherry-picked, not MMH; Santer is a serial offender and one of the most egregious members of the ‘crew’; the Santer expose with its fraudulent reporting, its manifestation, again, of the rotteness of the pr system and the deceit of AGW ‘science’ is typical of the AGW industry and religion; the whole sorry episode is reported here:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/09/mckitrick-et-al-2010-accepted-by-atmos-sci-lett/#more-11745
Chris intones; “Also, solar thermal can provide baseload power”; oh yeah, sure; Professor Brooks, a noted warmist, disagrees with you;
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/16/solar-power-realities-supply-demand-storage-and-costs/
The Lang articles which Brooks links to are particularly revealing about whether “solar thermal can provide baseload power”. And you may care to comment on the Spain experience with solar; Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of Juan Carlos University in Madrid found that the Spanish experiment failed to produce jobs, cost jobs and did not provide the claimed power; his report was confirmed in Italy where the effect of renewable subsidisation was worse. Of course there are plenty of smarties out there hopping on the renewable gravy train; in Spain for instance there is evidence of solar power being produced at night; preliminary evidence shows some solar stations may have run diesel-burning generators and sold the output as solar power, which earns several times more than electricity from fossil fuels. The power grid received 4,500 megawatt-hours of power from midnight to 7 a.m. in the months audited! Honest brokers?!
As for California; it receives 86% of its power from fossil fuels despite banning them in the state boundaries; neat trick, eh? And typical of the hypocrisy of the AGW warmists and spruikers for renewables; the only renewable which works is nuclear and the troglodyte greens don’t want that. What a joke!
Let’s recap :
Me : Climate Sceptics thinking that their preference flow will mean diddly shows their incredible lack of insight into the electorate.
You : Suggesting that replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy is folly and delusional. Also, climate change is a hoax.
Me : Proves that one country at least runs entirely on 100% renewable energy. Asks for evidence proving that climate change is a hoax.
You : Iceland doesn’t count and it’s too expensive everywhere, so ner. Also, solar only runs in the day, therefore I win. Links to two articles that do not prove climate change is false, rather that the mathematics models may need further refinement.
What you’re trying to do is obfuscate the argument. You’re moving the goal-posts and hoping that no-one notices. At no point have I said that Australia can/should run on renewable energy, but you are projecting that assumption on me in order to use what you think are strong arguments against renewable energy. And when I’ve demonstrated that another country has used 100% renewable energy for its power production, you say “that one doesn’t count because I said so” as if that negates the fact that Iceland runs entirely on renewable energy.
It boils down to this – You are ignorant of the advances in renewable energy technology that are driving down the costs and making it more reliable and more feasible to implement worldwide. You conveniently ignore tidal and geothermal energy sources which generate power at night in order to beat down your “solar only work in day lol” strawman.
You are this guy :
And I feel very sorry for you.
Another cheap shot David; the goal posts are that human emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels are causing catastrophic climate change [CAGW] and the only way to avoid this is to replace those fossil fuels with renewables and to take massive reductions in living standards. What other goal posts do you have?
Iceland is a sport, a freak, the other countries which don’t have Iceland’s unique ‘advantages’ prove that; you don’t discuss them; why not; you also don’t discuss the only renewable which does work, nuclear. Do you support nuclear?
You say this: “Links to two articles that do not prove climate change is false, rather that the mathematics models may need further refinement.” This is disingenuous because it ignores the deliberate manipulation of data used by Santer in what was a seminal attempt to validate the model predictions; you also ignore the primary problem with the models, which is not mathematical; it is attributive; the models assume a level of climate sensitivity which has been proven to be wrong:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
http://www.legnostorto.com/allegati/Lindzen_Choi_ERBE_JGR_v4.pdf
The original Lindzen and Choi paper and its revised form must be regarded as definitive because the 2nd paper addresses the Trenberth critique about methodology used in the 1st and still reaches the same conclusion about a climate sensitivity which is much less then is relied on by the models and CAGW. If this sequence of papers from arguably the world’s premier climate scientist is not sufficient rebuttal of the basic tenent of CAGW for you then it is you who has to look at your own motivation in continuing to support a failed concept and its attendent ideological solutions which threaten the world more profoundly than CAGW would even if real.
Your cartoon is a typical strawman and more evidence of the tactics used by warmists; noone, certainly not me, objects to the list in the cartoon, except sustainability, which is a foolish notion [read Norman Borlaug and the true green revolution] and green jobs which are a tautology. We all want a healthy environment but that is profoundly different from the gaia worship concept which you appear to be alluding to; in that respect, answer these questions; do you think people are the problem and that nature should be left pristine? Do you believe in Malthusian principles? Do you think human population should be drastically reduced?
And I appreciate your sympathy; I have to put up with the likes of you; here are some better cartoons back at you:
http://cartoonsbyjosh.com/
“This one guy’s methodology was wrong, so his conclusion must also be wrong, as must the conclusions of the majority of the scientific community, regardless of the integrity of their methodology”
What’s disingenuous?
He brought up Iceland because you claimed renewables couldn’t replace fossil fuels. Iceland is evidence they can. He does not need to talk about anywhere else because you spoke in absolutes. You said it was not possible, he demonstrated that it is.
“sustainability, which is a foolish notion”
How do you figure that?
“green jobs which are a tautology”
[Citation needed]
It wasn’t Santer’s methodology which was wrong; he cherry-picked, as simple as that; and he has form:
http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm
“Spoke in absolutes”; nice sophistry Plato. So, answer me this, do renewables work anywhere in the world at comparable prices nad under comparable conditions to fossil and nuclear?
Define sustainability Chris so I know what branch I’m dealing with.
Green jobs tautology; I’ve already referred to it but here it is again:
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
“This one guy’s allegedly lied, so his conclusion must also be wrong, as must the conclusions of the majority of the scientific community, regardless of the integrity of their methodology”
Uh, it’s not fallacious. You said “delusional would be believing that renewable energy can power anything let alone replace fossil fuels”. That’s a direct quote. A specific example was provided of renewable energy powering an entire country, in place of fossil fuels. That disproves your statement.
“do renewables work anywhere in the world at comparable prices nad under comparable conditions to fossil and nuclear”
That’s not what you originally said. Currently, no. Within the time it would take to get nuclear power up and running in Australia, yes. There is a distinct technological lag in the renewables sector, thanks to suppression of funding and support by the fossil fuel industry. But the science for equivalent or cheaper generation of energy from renewable sources is valid, the research is being done, and the technology will become available.
Sustainable: not dependent on a non-renewable fuel. And I know that in a few billion years the sun will run out, so solar power isn’t technically renewable, but I’m talking human time-scale renewable.
That study seems to be about government subsidies in the green sector. Also, I can’t believe I didn’t notice it the first time around (put it down to the flu), but… you do realise you said tautology right? You know what a tautology is?
Don’t patronise me Chris; Iceland gets all of its ‘renewable’ energy from geothermal [as I said it is on a volcano] and hydro; the Greens and CAGW acolytes promote wind and solar; so let me clarify what I said: “delusional would be believing that renewable energy can power anything let alone replace fossil fuels”; for renewable substitute “wind and solar”.
You say: “Within the time it would take to get nuclear power up and running in Australia, yes.” That is a statement of faith which like the IPCC computer models has no foundation in fact; in short it is an extrapolation untethered to reality and is just like the canards of CAGW; that is, there is no evidence but we’ll apply the precautionary principle; with renewables [remember wind and solar] there is no track record despite 20 years of grossly subsidised R&D but no matter, you say, it will work in the future. Why don’t you apply the same standard to nuclear which has a track record [ie France] and vast potential and at the very least will do until fusion.
Green jobs and tautology; ie ‘a statement that is unconditionally true by virtue of its form alone; for example, you either have the flu or you don’t; or, Green jobs get created with massive government subsidies or don’t without massive government subsidies.
Perhaps you only feel patronised because, deep down, you’re aware of just how absurd your position is.
I’m still struggling to see whether you think you’re talking about logical or rhetorical tautologies, and how that is supposed to be a really bad thing in regard to green jobs. If the extent of your point in relation to this is that “it is or it isn’t”, isn’t think kind of, well… redundant?
So now you want to talk about cost being the determining factor, rather than the feasibility of actually going 100% renewable, which is an entirely different argument. It takes as a fundamental truism to have that argument that 100% renewable energy is possible and the only thing we’re arguing about is the cost.
Which one do you really want to argue about? Cost? Or feasibility? Remember that if you choose to argue about cost, you are acceding that it is feasible. And if you want to talk about feasiblity… well, I’ve already demonstrated that one country has done it. They took advantage of their natural resources and have 100% of their energy production sourced from renewables.
Are you going to posit that Australia, with its tens of thousands of kilometres of coastline and literally millions of square kilometres of land, much of it uninhabited and sun-drenched, can’t harness enough tidal, solar, wind and geothermal energy to power the entire country? Or are tidal and geothermal not renewables because you don’t know how to argue against their use?
No David, I don’t want to talk about the cost of renewables, that is wind and solar; they don’t work at any price, certainly not in Iceland which still gets about 20% of its energy from fossils; I have made this plain with references, proofs and links; are you obtuse? Silly question; if you were you wouldn’t know it, would you? I suppose this is in the nature of a rhetorical question; that’s for Chris’s benefit who is still struggling, pointlessly so, about what type of tautology I meant; it’s pointless Chris because there are no green jobs without public funding; that means they are not jobs but the dole; is that a tautology or maybe an oxymoron? I’m sure there’s some sort of antithesis in there, possibly irony and definitely hyperbole.
I’ll leave with this observation; geothermal has a high CO2 emission level; do you know why? How ironic.
So, someone who installs solar hot water systems does not have a green job?
What about someone who works in a privately funded nature preserve?
Or all the people that work in the renewable energy sector in Iceland, for that matter?
No wonder I couldn’t understand what you meant, it was nonsense.
how did no one call you on this “you also don’t discuss the only renewable which does work, nuclear” before? do care to explain how nuclear is renewable? (on a level where you don’t lose 3x as much when trying to take it back a step (probably an underestimate))
“which still gets about 20% of its energy from fossils” we’re talking about electricity here, so their fuel for cars and whatever really doesn’t come into it, since electric cars have been stonewalled so hard by fuel comanies…
“that is wind and solar; they don’t work at any price” don’t work as in, your brain can’t think of them working? because clearly, they work. like i said, aeir peninsula uses them, so theres an example of solar and wind for you to fail at debunking.
Eyre, fyi.
You guys are hopeless; but let’s look at solar panels and solar power; a few scams to get the ball rolling:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/shoddy-solar-power-work-poses-risk-of-another-subsidy-debacle/story-e6freqmx-1225874203000
And solar blinds people:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland-solar-power-project-in-cloncurry-may-burn-up-taxpayer-dollars/story-e6freon6-1225904103874
As for the green jobs involved in placing solar panels; a typical NSW family spends about $1200 a year buying 8000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity, which results in about 7.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere. Installing a 1 kW photovoltaic system costs about $12,000. Over its 20-year working life, the $2000 inverter will need replacement at least once.
The system typically generates 1400 kWh a year, less than a fifth of the household’s electricity consumption. This would reduce the green jobs supporting family’s emissions by 1.3 tonnes a year and its annual power bill by $250.
Over 20 years, 26 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions will have been avoided at a net cost of $9000 (upfront cost less power-bill savings).
That’s about $350 a tonne, far more than the carbon price envisaged under any Federal Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme. But the cost would be a lot more if you factored in the time value of money, which works against solar because of the upfront cost and likely future improvements in the emissions intensity of grid power. I should also point out that it’s worth noting that the most efficient solar panels currently in use (on the space station) are costly, and their conversion efficiency is about 20 percent, which is not very much. Solar is like wind, a dud and a plaything for onanistic urban greenies and spivs.
Let’s look at nuclear being a renewable: it’s called enrichment; google fast breeders and Integral Fast Reactors; these plants create energy.
Finally, a comparison between solar and nuclear/fossil is instructive; for instance, a 1,000-MW solar conversion plant – the same size as an equivalent coal or nuclear plant – would cover 50 to 100 square miles with 35,000 tons of aluminum, two million tons of concrete, 7,500 tons of copper, 600,000 tons of steel, 75,000 tons of glass, and 1,500 tons of other metals such as chromium and titanium – a thousand times the material needed to construct a nuclear plant of the same capacity. These materials are not cheap, and real estate doesn’t come for nothing. Moreover, these materials are all products of heavy, energy-hungry industries in their own right that produce large amounts of waste, much of it toxic. So much for “free” and “clean” solar power.
The comparison doesn’t end there. When a power engineer talks about a one-thousand-megawatt plant, he means one that can deliver a thousand megawatts on demand, anytime, day or night. A nuclear plant can do this; so can a conventional fossil-fuel plant. But a solar plant can only operate when the Sun is shining, which straightaway gives it a maximum availability of 50 percent – low enough to be considered prohibitively uneconomic for any other type of power plant. To ensure supply when the demand is there, some kind of regular supply would have to be available as a backup anyway, making the whole idea of solar as a replacement unrealistic; especially since the most efficient storage facility is only good for about 12-15 hours.
Renewables, like AGW, is a con, pedalled by either deluded hypocrites or conmen.
Let’s see. You say green jobs don’t exist without government subsidies. Then I demonstrate jobs that exist without government subsidies, one of which includes solar hot water systems. You go off on a rant about how PV panels are not good value for money. That has nothing to do with whether green jobs exist outside government subsidies. Some people would (and do) happily choose to pay extra to reduce their emissions.
Again, solar thermal can provide baseload power.
I would dearly like to see some figures backing up the claim of “a thousand times the material”. Pilot plants for solar thermal are operating at 3 times the cost (probably even lower, but figures are scarce) or fossil fuels – marginally cheaper the nuclear in most cases. Let’s say nuclear power’s cost is 10% construction, and 10% of that is materials. So only 1% of the cost is materials. Let’s, for agrument’s sake, say 100% of solar power’s cost is materials. In this scenario, if your 1000x claim was right, solar power would cost 10 times more than nuclear (despite 3 being demonstrated). But most of nuclear’s cost comes from construction, let’s say 50%. That would mean 50x, not the 3x demonstrated. And materials tend to be much more than just 10% of construction costs… I could go on, but I think I’ve demonstrated just how absurd your claim is.
Talking about real estate prices for a solar plant in Australia is stupid. The best place for solar power is in the middle of the desert. Real estate prices, not much of an issue.
Oh very good Chris, you link to a BBC gush piece which includes this in its objective reporting:
“The effect is to give the whole place a glow – even an aura – and if you’re concerned about climate change that may well be deserved.”
Mate, you don’t have one iota of capacity to critically examine this topic do you; you have swallowed it holus bolus; your BBC puff piece claims that the Solucar solar farm in Spain [I linked to a University report on solar power in Spain above which shows that the solar industry in Spain is defunct but that obviously went through to the keeper] is capable of producing 11 megawatts; don’t you get it? That is installed capacity; solar and wind are certified as only being able to produce 10% of their installed capacity; 10%! And that 10% is an average, usually over a 1/4; many times, with wind there will be nothing [check out the Australian wind farm monitor: http://windfarmperformance.info/?date=2010-07-11 ; how would you like to be relying on that series of power hiccups if you were having an operation?] and I have explained the problems with solar.
And as for the Australian desert being a great place for a solar farm, you’d better have lots of water:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4756/when_renewable_is_not_sustainable
As for construction expenses of nuclear this is slightly more accurate than your guesswork:
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheBenefitsOfNuclearPower
Renewable energy is like no hazard reduction and preservation of pristine nature; both are green wetdreams, expensive, impractical, unrealistic and will inevitably end up hurting someone. And the only justification is AGW; which is just a scary bed-time story.
Objectivity of presentation is one thing. They’re figures though. Or, you could look here.
I like how you keep coming back to wind power. It must be because it’s easiest to harp on about arguably the weakest renewable than look at the entire issue.
Re desert and water: that link also points out that it’s possible to do without the massive water use. Beyond that, have you noticed how much coast line Australia has? Australia has coastal desert and a whole lot more that’s not *technically* desert, but for the purposes of sun exposure may as well be.
That link about the construction cost of nuclear says nothing about the proportion of the total cost. It also says that there are a lot of claims about how it’s going to be wonderfully cheap, but none have any support to that. You also entirely miss the point. Even *if* 1% of total nuclear cost is materials, and even *if* 100% of solar cost is materials, your 1000x claim would still require it to cost 10 times more. That’s on the ends of the scale extremely favourable to your position. If you can find sources that say that materials account for less than 1% of the cost of nuclear power (or, somehow, more than 100% of solar), please, let me know.
As for Spain, you alluded to a study, but did not link to it as far as I could see.
Let’s give a non-exhaustive rundown of your demonstrated bullshit so far:
1000x more materials for solar v nuclear. (as above)
Renewables can’t replace fossil fuels (Iceland)
Renewables can’t run anything (Iceland)
Green jobs don’t exist without subsidies (solar hot water etc)
I’m not moving the goalposts. (See renewables can’t run anything)
I’d also suggest that the shift away from fossil fuels/nuclear is justified also by a desire to limit non-greenhouse pollutants which cause serious health problems, particularly for major population centres, not wanting to continue digging massive holes in the ground when there’s no need to, and to use power sources that aren’t going to continue becoming more expensive over time thanks to dwindling fuel reserves. To name a few.
” arguably the weakest renewable”!! Ha!Ha! That’s like comparing cockroaches. As I’ve tried to explain to you it is not installed capacity with renewables which counts but the actual output or capacity factor; here are the results from the world’s most advanced and successful wind farms in California; Tables 2.1-2.4 are the relevant ones:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-185/CEC-500-2005-185.PDF
These are world’s best and they max at 28.9% but like I say it is the unreliability; one minute the CF could be 80% the next minute zero; try running a grid on that; this is more typical and real time:
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/marketdata/windpower.asp
When I looked at it was churning out 99 MW from an installed capacity of 1100 MW; weakest renewable indeed; the tragedy is it is not.
From your puff piece on Trough and Tower solar technology [do you really read and believe this stuff?] from 2003 no less;
Capacity Factor, % 56.2%
This is not real but a projection; what is the reality with solar; this is Andosol, in Spain, where else;
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/largest-solar-thermal-storage-plant-to-start-up
They give a storage life of 7.5hours; in effect this is the installed capacity for dark running but it is a fallacy explained in simple maths; for the IC to last 7.5 hours there must be a regular drawdown of power of 13.33% arrived at by 100/7.5; this would fall into disarray if the drawdown exceeded this for any reason such as a cold/hot spell so if there were a drawdown of 25% [not unusual to have a doubling of power demand]; this would reduce the IC to 5.6 hours [75/13.33]. But all this is by the by because solar farms do not run continuously; actually I don’t know why I’m bothering; the most succinct, exhaustive and clear analysis of why solar will never be able to meet any civilised nation’s power needs is in this paper:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/solar-realities.pdf
For what its worth the Spainstudy is in my August 11, 1.08pm comment.
I have already said Iceland is a sport which cannot be extrapolated from and does not use wind or solar, that is RENEWABLES; so to your dumb list:
1 cost of solar cf nuclear; Figure 10 of the above linked paper by Peter Lang proves my point.
2 Iceland is a junk argument because it does not use wind, solar or any of the other pixie renewables; they harness a volcano; basically they sit around dangling their sausages in a roaring fire; it is typical of the deceit of the AGW/renewable nutters that they would see Iceland as an exemplar for renewables.
3 As above
4 Name a green job which isn’t subsidised; I gave you a detailed example of the level of subsidisation in my comment at August 12, 9.47am above but that was obviously too complicated for you so this should be simple enough:
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/lib-climate-schemes-costly-inefficient-20100420-srrg.html
Approved the one with the links, removed the de-linked one for tidyness.
Spain: Ah, yes. You linked that in defence of your “green jobs: tautology” statement, so I missed it when looking for the Spain-related stuff. However, the only reference to “thermal” and thus solar thermal in that entire document is to say that it is not included in the data. That’s a study on photovoltaic solar, not solar thermal. And no-one here is suggesting that PV plants are a good idea.
Wind power: Again, I didn’t say you could run a grid on wind power alone. I know that it’s practically impossible. You’re just arguing the point on that because it’s a convenient strawman.
Andasol: Yes, the tech could be better, and I have previously acknowledged that. But what you’re basically saying is along the lines of dial up modems couldn’t stream HD video, so we should have given up and never bothered with the internet.
“Solar will never work”: Again, that’s a study on PV. The only references to thermal are to say they’re not discussed. And the author has a lifetime of work on fossil fuel and nuclear. Hardly an unbiased source.
1) He says capital cost 20x more. That’s very different to 1000x materials. And that article only talks about PV solar which, again, no-one here is suggesting as viable for grid power.
2) It’s renewable. It does not rely on digging stuff out of the ground and burning it. Just because it doesn’t fit neatly behind your strawman doesn’t invalidate the point. You said it wasn’t possible. You were wrong.
3) ^^
4) You talked about subsidies for PV cells. I never mentioned PV cells, I said solar hot water, which is not PV. You’re also moving the goalposts again. You first said they couldn’t exist without subsidies, now you want one that isn’t currently subsidised. Most ‘green’ industries are currently subsidised to some extent or other (as are many non-green, for that matter), which has certainly been a boost for them. But those industries existed before the subsidies, and would if they were removed – solar hot water is one where I know a lot of people – myself included – would happily buy one without the current subsidy because it’s still cheaper than an electric or gas system in the long-term. Then there were the other examples you ignored.
Chris, I’m glad we agree that PVs are a rip-off but the thermal side of the equation seems to have insurmountable problems; if you can get the info to make an informed appraisal:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/16/solar-power-realities-supply-demand-storage-and-costs/
Lang has done another paper, critiquing Zero Emissions, in which he looks at solar thermal:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/
AS I say, imo, the reason for doing renewables has not been made [AGW], although I agree that the big fossil fuel companies are bastards and I’m not going to defend them, and they should be handing more out to clean up and prevent their pollution, but if you believe AGW then you must support nuclear, although Roy Spencer thinks otherwise:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/my-favorite-renewable-energy-concept-the-solar-updraft-tower/
You provide examples of the difficulty of getting info, but not of the alleged insurmountable problems, as far as I can see.
You might want to find a better source than Lang if you want me to believe nuclear is better than renewables, given that nuclear is his pet project – as well as the pet project of the site you’re linking from.
I don’t have to support nuclear. Yes, it’s an okay way to boil water. But there are better ways.
lol, that last comment reminded me of my demands for an atomic jug to boil my water faster at school… but realistically, we might as well use something we don’t have to destroy ecosystems for, or that produces lots of toxic waste.
You guys have closed minds about nuclear; as for using “something we don’t have to destroy ecosystems for” your precious renewables, wind and solar, aren’t so innocent:
http://climatesceptics.net/?page_id=1563
Anthony you are trying to convince those who have been educated by the system, Uni fed, not much chance they will be able to look out side the square, High temp pebble bed reactors, simplex and alvis recycling, desalination and clean fuel production including Hydrogen, but these are modern innovations not taught in our education system as they are not politically correct, the sad fact is which ever government is returned, we will end up with Nuclear power, and prob old school GE plants, which is the last thing we need, what we do need is a Nuclear Industry so as we can lead the way, but I am sure you already know that
Yeah, I can’t understand the psychology; after-all the bloody French love nuclear and they winge about everything. One of the leading advocates of nuclear is Barry Brooks; he is, of course, a devout alarmist and I’ve had some stoushes with him but at least he has a realistic view of the energy requirements:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/06/10/ifr-fad-5/
The advocates of renewable on the other hand are either naive, spivs and opportunists or ideological nutters who incorporate Malthusian misanthropy and gaia reverence into a complete disregard for the future of mankind.
oh don’t get me wrong, nuclear works, but it’s again, just another finite resource that i think would be stupid to use up; we’re blind to the future, and who really knows what useing up all of it might result in later down the line. that, and it seems like it will just result in more corperations controling the government in as many ways as they can. and my point about ecosystem damage, was more about indepth, long lasting destruction; say, a gient hole in the ground, not something that animals will quickly adapt to, like ‘don’t fly near tower’.
Ygfi; envisage, if you would, the effect of a 10 square kilometer [or bigger] solar array on the little beasties. Personally, I reckon if you guys are so inclined towards solar than you should send some diamonds into orbit and microwave down the energy from a geostationary orbit.
Yes anthony, continue to link stuff about how shit wind is, despite the fact that you’re the only one talking about wind. It’s way easier than addressing the point.
anthony, an geostationary orbital focusing crystial would be pretty far away, and completely ineffective, and if it’s geostationary, then it will have to constantly be re-angled to maintain focus, and then you’d lose so much power in the long way back… and a 10km^2 array isn’t that much. for one, it’s all on the surface, 2, it’s not actually that much space, given if it’s elevated a little, it can have full (minus access paths) undergrowth, and reallasitcally, any damage done by it would be rather short term.
What point is that Chris? Anyway I reckon you renewable boys missed out in focusing on Iceland as the exemplar of renewables; Tasmania actually has more renewables:
Tasmania
Name Operator Plant type Primary fuel Year commissioned Capacity (MW)
Gordon Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1978 432.0
Poatina Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1964 300.0
Bell Bay Hydro Tasmania Steam Natural gas 1971 240.0
Reece Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1986 231.20
John Butters Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1992 144.0
Tungatinah Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1953 132.5
Tarraleah Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1938 90.0
Cethana Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1971 85.0
Liapootah Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1960 83.7
Tribute Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1994 82.8
Trevallyn Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1955 80.0
Bastyan Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1983 79.9
Mackintosh Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1982 79.9
Woolnorth Hydro Tasmania Wind Wind 2002-04 64.5
Devils Gate Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1969 60.0
Lemonthyme Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1969 51.0
Catagunyah Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1962 48.0
Fisher Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1973 42.0
Wayatinah Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1957 42.0
Meadowbank Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1967 40.0
Lake Echo Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1956 32.4
Wilmot Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1971 30.6
Paloona Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1972 28.0
Repulse Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1968 28.0
Currie Hydro Tasmania Reciprocating Engine Oil products 1952 20.0
Cluny Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1968 17.0
Butlers Gorge Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1951 12.2
Rowallan Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1968 10.4
Lake Margaret Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water 1995 8.4
Whitemark Hydro Tasmania Reciprocating Engine Oil products – 6.0
Tods Corner Hydro Tasmania Hydro Water – 1.6
Currie Hydro Tasmania Wind Wind 1998 0.8
I suppose you guys are all for bulding dams? Speaking of wind; look at it go, IC of 2.4MW; in Tasmania, the windiest state.
Ygfi; again you are too negative; Japan hope to have a space based solar power source by 2030; of course if big Al is right they’ll be under water so I guess they will have to use the steam from the boiling sea-water as power.
Ygfi, Nuclear via HT pebble bed reactors has a 90% recyclable fuel proccess via simplex systems alone, I am sure you can do better research, plus they are liquid gas cooled, even the fuel can be handled safely before and after use, and China are leading the way in research, how embarrassing for Australia
I must admit it would be nice if we could acquire all our base load power via sunshine and sea breezes
As you’ve repeatedly demonstrated that you have no intention of addressing any arguments that counter your own, there’s only one thing left to post :
@anthony:
Again, great work being the only one talking about wind power.
Hydro dams: They can work, but even if you put aside the ecological impact of flooding valleys, slowing rivers, and altering flow-patterns, they are a very niche power source, being entirely dependent on geography – and particularly in Australia where river flows are already struggling (to put it mildly) in many areas.
Orbital solar: He’s being negative about the prospects of something that people “hope” to have ready in… 20 years? Yet we’re delusional because of technology that’s already being deployed? Right.
These points:
1) He says capital cost 20x more. That’s very different to 1000x materials. And that article only talks about PV solar which, again, no-one here is suggesting as viable for grid power.
2) It’s renewable. It does not rely on digging stuff out of the ground and burning it. Just because it doesn’t fit neatly behind your strawman doesn’t invalidate the point. You said it wasn’t possible. You were wrong.
3) ^^
4) You talked about subsidies for PV cells. I never mentioned PV cells, I said solar hot water, which is not PV. You’re also moving the goalposts again. You first said they couldn’t exist without subsidies, now you want one that isn’t currently subsidised. Most ‘green’ industries are currently subsidised to some extent or other (as are many non-green, for that matter), which has certainly been a boost for them. But those industries existed before the subsidies, and would if they were removed – solar hot water is one where I know a lot of people – myself included – would happily buy one without the current subsidy because it’s still cheaper than an electric or gas system in the long-term. Then there were the other examples you ignored.
@Mark:
Why is it embarrassing that a country with a larger economy, greater investment in research, larger pool of minds to draw on and just more resources to draw on in general is ahead of us? I’m serious. Is it embarrassing because they’re Chinese? O.o
“sunshine and sea breezes”: Excellent reductive dismissal there Mark. Because, yeah, sea breezes and sunshine are both such insignificant forces, what with all the hurricanes and tornadoes on the one hand and the being a gigantic fusion reaction on the other.
Fusion, now you’re talking!
http://linkbee.com/E29QF
Get this up and running then we can get onto ZPE and Casimir energy sources; as you know the Casimir force is the quantum repelllent force between 2 surfaces; I reckon we could place Jimmy Hansen’s head next to Trenberth or Jone’s head and the power generated would lift big Al into orbit where his mass would give impetus to attempts to harness the coriolis energy of the planet. See, I’m not a luddite, I can appreciate new energy types.
I’ll reiterate my consternation at your advocacy of technology that’s decades away from being useful, while criticising us for supporting technology that’s already being used.
Also, since you seem to have forgotten:
1) He says capital cost 20x more. That’s very different to 1000x materials. And that article only talks about PV solar which, again, no-one here is suggesting as viable for grid power.
2) It’s renewable. It does not rely on digging stuff out of the ground and burning it. Just because it doesn’t fit neatly behind your strawman doesn’t invalidate the point. You said it wasn’t possible. You were wrong.
3) ^^
4) You talked about subsidies for PV cells. I never mentioned PV cells, I said solar hot water, which is not PV. You’re also moving the goalposts again. You first said they couldn’t exist without subsidies, now you want one that isn’t currently subsidised. Most ‘green’ industries are currently subsidised to some extent or other (as are many non-green, for that matter), which has certainly been a boost for them. But those industries existed before the subsidies, and would if they were removed – solar hot water is one where I know a lot of people – myself included – would happily buy one without the current subsidy because it’s still cheaper than an electric or gas system in the long-term. Then there were the other examples you ignored.
Co2 caused global warming, some figures?
Do this simple maths and prove it to yourself.
Australia emits 1 percent of the world’s total carbon dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world’s total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me)
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20%
which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 CO2 in air increase per year. Or 16/10,000,000
That is the effect we would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to a area in the same room the size of a small pin.!!!
It looks like you’ve done some incomplete copy-pasting, since there’s a reference to a previously unmentioned room.
But then, leaving out important information is basically how CC deniers operate, so I shouldn’t be surprised.
Yes, the basic premise is correct. There is very little CO2 in the atmoshpere. A small proportion of that comes from us. So even if Australia was emitting zero CO2, it still wouldn’t stop the general trend.
But it ignores a bunch of basic information:
1) Small amounts of atmospheric CO2 have a big impact. Without the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet would be drastically cooler, among various other dramatic shifts. It might be small, bit it’s bloody mighty.
2) Ignoring the fact that in the last 50 years it’s more like 315 to 385ppm, the numbers you provide still make for a 12% increase in the concentration. The actual number for the last 50 years is more like 22%. And a 22% shift in something as large as the atmosphere over such a short time is very significant.
3) No single country can fix things, because there are just so many damned countries. You’re suggesting basically the same thought process that’s at the heart of “what difference can one vote make?” Alone, not much. But if everyone thinks that way, no-one will do anything. So it’s a stupid argument.
4) Those figures (aside from being wrong) are about Australia’s contribution to global CO2 levels, and say nothing about the impact of that CO2.
Let’s knock this nonsense about CO2 and AGW right on the head; the Earth has an atmosphere which contains greenhouse gases; it is trite to say that the temperature affect of that atmosphere is to produce a global mean standard temperature [GMST] which is ~ 33C above what it would be without an atmosphere. If we accept that this 33C is the greenhouse effect of the GMST of ~288C [which is profoundly dubious for reasons I'll ignore here] then the issue is what contribution does CO2 make to that 33C? That answer is also fairly uncontroversial and has been calculated by many people; the famous atmospheric scientist Ramanathan shows this:
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ramanathan-coakley-1978-role-of-co2.png
This chart measures the relative forcings of the ghgs as shown by TOA OLR; from the chart you can see:
Removing CO2 (and keeping water vapor) – 9% increase in outgoing flux
Removing water vapor (and keeping CO2) – 25% increase in outgoing flux
Therefore H2O has 2.5 times the greenhouse effect that CO2 has, also not controversial; simple calculations thus show that CO2′s contribution to the 33C greenhouse temperature is ~ 33/7×2=~9.4C.
Applying that to temperature increase since the end of the LIA in ~ 1850 of ~0.7C we can see that CO2 will have contributed 0.7/7×2=0.2C. That is without considering Beer-Lambert which shows that there is an exponential decline of temperature effect to the linear increase of CO2, the so-called log effect shown graphically:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/co2_temperature_curve_saturation.png
And confirmed in many papers, one of the earliest being by the late S, Schneider;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138
So CO2 addition does bugger all; the IPCC and the whole AGW scaremongering campaign depends on +ve feedbacks from water to cause AGW. And guess what, H2O is not a +ve feedback; it is a moderator of temperature trend which means it will work AGAINST any trend, up or down.
You can discuss renewables and alternative energies but don’t justify the scandalous waste of subsidisation for renewables because of AGW.
288C? Really?
Do you maybe mean 288K?
“it is trite to say that the temperature affect of that atmosphere is to produce a global mean standard temperature [GMST] which is ~ 33C above what it would be without an atmosphere”
Well then, stop being trite. Considering you’re the only one that said that.
A contribution of almost 10K to the global avg temperature does bear out my statement about drastic temperature difference, which reinforces my point about how significant CO2′s impact can be despite the ‘low’ concentration.
“Applying that to temperature increase since the end of the LIA in ~ 1850 of ~0.7C we can see that CO2 will have contributed 0.7/7×2=0.2C”
That is an appalling perversion of logic. It is based on the preconception that everything in the atmosphere has stayed in balance, which even you admit is not the case.
The CO2 temperature curve saturation graph directly contradicts your contention that CO2 contributes about 10K to the temperature. And it ignores other greenhouse gasses humans are also pumping out.
Very reliable.
Also, since you’re getting really good at forgetting to address them:
1) He says capital cost 20x more. That’s very different to 1000x materials. And that article only talks about PV solar which, again, no-one here is suggesting as viable for grid power.
2) It’s renewable. It does not rely on digging stuff out of the ground and burning it. Just because it doesn’t fit neatly behind your strawman doesn’t invalidate the point. You said it wasn’t possible. You were wrong.
3) ^^
4) You talked about subsidies for PV cells. I never mentioned PV cells, I said solar hot water, which is not PV. You’re also moving the goalposts again. You first said they couldn’t exist without subsidies, now you want one that isn’t currently subsidised. Most ‘green’ industries are currently subsidised to some extent or other (as are many non-green, for that matter), which has certainly been a boost for them. But those industries existed before the subsidies, and would if they were removed – solar hot water is one where I know a lot of people – myself included – would happily buy one without the current subsidy because it’s still cheaper than an electric or gas system in the long-term. Then there were the other examples you ignored.
5) You criticise others for support of technology that exists, yet advocate technology that’s decades away from even preliminary deployment.
these fuckers don’t know shit about how chemistry works… i’ve already made a few points about small concentrations haveing massive effects… if you don’t wanna take my word for it, gargle some HCl ti change the H3O concentration in your body by a tiny bit.
i think the importent thing about out emmitions… so let’s take the estimate that we only account for 1% of total emmitions…. lets have a look at our poulation… 22mil… over ~7bil… that’s about… 0.003%
lets see what hapens when we put that in proportion… that results in ~300 times what we should be emmitting… what the fuck? i think 300x avg per person is a bit insane, yet you say it’s not our problem?
and mark, do explain how pebble bed nuclear is renewable; i’ve yet to see an efficient way to reverse nuclear reactions AND get energy out of it…. which was my entier point about them being finite…
Yes, it should be K not C; but the point holds; which is CO2 contribution to the 288K of 9K since we are rounding off so 9.4 rounds down not up. You say “That is an appalling perversion of logic. It is based on the preconception that everything in the atmosphere has stayed in balance, which even you admit is not the case” No, you willfully misinterpret; I did not say everything has stayed in balance; RH has fallen:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/globalrelativehumidity300_700mb.jpg
But the greenhouse effect has been constant: the optical depth has been ~ constant for the last 60 years:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
I’ve come across this approach before; you ignore everything you can’t rebut and go the sophistry route; I have already linked to a rebuttal of solar thermal which you ignored and parrot-like you keep repeating your little list. I gave you Ramanthan’s calculations on he comparative greenhouse contributions of H2O and CO2; you rebut them if you don’t like them.
You say the saturation or asymptotic curve for temp/CO2 contradicts my contention [actually Ramanathan's] of the limit to CO2 effect on temp; the graph I posted simply matches CO2 levels with temp without H2O; fair dinkum! Is this simplier for you;
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115707ce438970b-pi
Are you saying CO2 concentration increase does not have an asymptotic effect on temp? How much of the 0.7C increase in temp since 1850 do you attribute to CO2? Is this amount less or more than IPCC estimates of CO2/climate sensitivity? If less, why?
RH drops as temperature increases; this is a basic premice, and is why fog forms when it gets cold.
also, i looked into that article of yours, and, as i thought it would be, it’s been disreguarded as a load of shit, by assuming <<1 = 0, which is a complete load of crap.
anthony, unless you actually know how chemistry works, or can list articles that haven't been shot down and shat on, just give up the fight. there is no real climate debate. the only issue is that the HiPPOs all want there to be a debate, so they can continue making trillions of dollars a year reguardless of conciquences….
ask any real scientist, they'll tell you. (uh, make that relavent scientist… ask a thousand geophysicists and you probly won't ever get the right qualifications)