23 thoughts on “C’mon – add your vote at this Canberra Times online poll”
Can I just add these again – thanks – any other contenders ?
Gillard/Swan/Rudd Govt. Top 50 Lemons
1. Carbon Tax – “There will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead.”
2. NBN – $50 billion but no cost-benefit analysis – will be a shambles bigger than AUSSAT.
3. Building the Education Revolution – The school halls fiasco
4. Home Insulation Plan (Pink Batts) – Dumped
5. Citizens Assembly – Dumped
6. Cash for Clunkers – Dumped
7. Hospital Reform – Nothing
8. Digital set-top boxes – Cheaper at Harvey Norman
9. Emissions Trading Scheme – Abandoned
10. Mining Tax – Continuing uncertainty for our miners as version 1 morphs into version 2 – and what other mad scheme could emerge.
11. Livestock export ban to Indonesia – Over-reaction
12. Detention Centres – Riots & cost blow-outs – hunger strikes – professional self-harming – Millions of dollars of compensation claims in the courts – driven by taxpayer funded lawyers.
13. East Timor ‘solution’ – Announced before agreed – never went anywhere – dead.
14. Malaysia ‘solution’ WHAT A JOKE IT IS – who dreamt this up – we send back 800 and get 4,000 in return – only GreenLabor could agree to this – now bogged in the High Court.
15. Manus Island ‘solution’ – no shame – simply recycling what the Howard Govt did.
16. Computers in Schools – $1.4 billion blow out; less than half delivered
17. Cutting Red Tape – 12,835 new regulations, only 58 repealed
18. Asia Pacific Community – Another expensive Rudd frolic. Going nowhere
19. Green Loans Program – Abandoned. Only 3.5% of promised loans delivered
20. Solar Homes & Communities plan – Shut down after $534 million blow out
21. Green Car Innovation Fund – Abandoned
22. Solar Credits Scheme – Scaled back
23. Green Start Program – Scrapped
24. Retooling for Climate Change Program – Abolished
25. Childcare Centres – Abandoned. 260 promised, only 38 delivered
26. Take a “meat axe”‘ to the Public Service – 24,000 more public servants and growing!
27. Murray Darling Basin Plan – back to the drawing board after a wet 2010
28. 2020 Summit – Meaningless talkfest
29. Tax Summit – Deferred and downgraded
30. Population Policy – Sets no targets
31. Fuel Watch – Abandoned
32. Grocery Choice – Abandoned
33. $900 Stimulus cheques – Sent to dead people and overseas residents
34. Foreign Policy – In turmoil with Rudd running riot
35. National Schools Solar Program – Closing two years early
36. Solar Hot Water Rebate – Abandoned
37. Oceanic Viking – Caved in – big win for taxpayer funded “Asylum-seeker Industry”
38. GP Super Clinics – 64 promised, only 11 operational
39. Defence Family Healthcare Clinics – 12 promised, none delivered
40. Trade Training Centres – 2650 promised, 70 operational
41. Bid for UN Security Council seat – An expensive Rudd frolic
42. My School Website – Revamped but problems continue
43. National Curriculum – States in uproar
44. Small Business Superannuation Clearing House – 99% of small businesses reject it
45. Indigenous Housing Program – way behind schedule – tangled in Govt and Indig red tape.
46. Rudd Bank – Went nowhere
47. Using cheap Chinese fabrics for ADF uniforms – Could not spell – ditched
48. Innovation Ambassadors Program – junked
49. Six Collins Class Submarines – none operational – too noisy when they do sortie – cost $6Billion – The Hon Kim Beazley, AC was the genius Defence Minister I seem to recall.
50. Debt limit to be increased to $250 billion – to pay for all of the above and much more by us and our grandchildren.
(and these thanks to Tony from the Climate Sceptics Party)
1. Carbon Tax – ‘There will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead.’
2. NBN – $50 billion but no cost-benefit analysis
3. Building the Education Revolution – The school halls fiasco
4. Home Insulation Plan (Pink Batts) – Dumped after 3 deaths, and x house fires.
5. Citizens Assembly – Dumped
6. Cash for Clunkers – Dumped
7. Hospital Reform – Nothing
8. Digital set-top boxes – almost redundant technology that is cheaper at Harvey Norman
9. Emissions Trading Scheme – Abandoned
10. Mining Tax – Continuing uncertainty for our miners
11. Livestock export ban to Indonesia: – an Over-reaction, without trouble-shooting, that almost sent an industry broke
12. Detention Centres – Riots and cost blowouts
13. East Timor ‘solution’ – Announced before agreed
14. Malaysia ‘solution’ – In shambles
15. Manus Island ‘solution’ – On the backburner
16. Computers in Schools – $1.4 billion blow out; less than half delivered
17. Cutting Red Tape – 12,835 new regulations, only 58 repealed
18. Asia Pacific Community – Another expensive Rudd frolic. Going nowhere
19. Green Loans Program – Abandoned. Only 3.5% of promised loans delivered
20. Solar Homes & Communities plan – Shut down after $534 million blow out
21. Green Car Innovation Fund – Abandoned
22. Solar Credits Scheme – Scaled back
23. Green Start Program – Scrapped
24. Retooling for Climate Change Program – Abolished
25. Childcare Centres – Abandoned. 260 promised, only 38 delivered
26. Take a “meat axe”‘ to the Public Service – 24,000 more public servants
and growing!
27. Murray Darling Basin Plan – back to the drawing board
28. 2020 Summit – Meaningless talkfest
29. Tax Summit – Deferred and downgraded
30. Population Policy – Sets no targets
31. Fuel Watch – Abandoned
32. Grocery Choice – Abandoned
33. $900 Stimulus cheques – Sent to dead people and overseas residents
34. Foreign Policy – In turmoil with Rudd running riot
35. National Schools Solar Program – Closing two years early
36. Solar Hot Water Rebate – Abandoned
37. Oceanic Viking – Caved in
38. GP Super Clinics – 64 promised, only 11 operational
39. Defense Family Healthcare Clinics – 12 promised, none delivered
40. Trade Training Centres – 2650 promised, 70 operational
41. Bid for UN Security Council seat – An expensive Rudd frolic
42. My School Website – Revamped but problems continue
43. National Curriculum – States in uproar
44. Small Business Superannuation Clearing House – 99% of small businesses reject it
45. Indigenous Housing Program – way behind schedule
46. Rudd Bank – Went nowhere
47. Using cheap Chinese fabrics for ADF uniforms – Ditched
48. Innovation Ambassadors Program – Junked
49. Six new Submarines – none operational
50. Copenhagen Climate Summit:- Rudd took 112 advisors on a big “carbon footprint”; for nothing.
50+. Took a $20 billion surplus and turned it into a $57 billion deficit:- a
$77 Billion turnaround. Took the $60 billion ‘Futures Fund’ and turned it into a $100 billion debt:- a $160 Billion turnaround.
a case of a Govt expert only in mindless activity and then self serving it up as ‘historic’ achievement
Some to add to Beachgirl’s list:
51. Drought. Why has labor done nothing to prevent droughts?
52. Flood. See 51.
53. Paranoid delusions. Why are there not enough to go around.
54. T.A.’s fashion sense. Surely they can legislate against this!
55. GST. The libs introduced it after promising they wouldn’t. Why hasn’t Labor repealed GST?
56. Beverage equalisation tax. Why is it that only Labor and Green supporters can drink Latte and Chardonnay? We all deserve this chance at a better life.
Warwick I tried to comment yesterday but think I got meshed in your spam technology
Anyway go the Convoy!
Patrick,
It may have escaped your notice that the GST was implemented AFTER we had an election to vote on it.
Where were you all? The convoy made hardly a dent in Canberra this morning. There were more participating in the counter-convoy protest on bicycles than there were in the convoy. A flop. Despite a grab-bag of demands that right wing loonies could tie their colours to… only about 300 people turned up at the rally according to Channel 7 news.
Even so, what a waste of resources. Burning all that diesel fuel to drive from Broome or Perth is hardly environmentally responsible is it?
Patrick,
that the protest wasn’t huge was entirely predictable. After all, how many people own trucks, let alone can afford to take a week off to protest (even if some were not working because of this Government’s actions)? That others could organize 400 or so people in Canberra to ride a bicycle around the streets in front of TV cameras for an hour is equally predictable.
Anyway, what makes you think that those in the convoy are worried about environmental responsibility (whatever that is)? They were protesting to get on nationwide TV, which they did; and in much greater numbers than Greenpeace etc. usually manage to get. They are not convinced that the Carbon Tax will do any good, either for themselves or their country.
Perhaps you would do better to show that they are wrong. Bear in mind-
1. There is no evidence that carbon dioxide controls the Earth’s temperature.
2. There is no evidence that even if it did, that the temperature would rise as much as claimed.
3. There is no evidence that even if the temperature did rise, that it would be a problem.
On the other hand there is evidence that a small group of scientists have been manipulating data and making statements which they know are untrue in the hope of convincing the gullible.
Apparently a lot of the convoys were not allowed to the protest area according to this broadcast:
Patrick, tens of thousands have offered support on convoy websites, many more thousands offered their support along the way, and many more tens of thousands added their support to news polls. And this from Working people in Australia.
The convoy was careful not to disrupt Canberra’s workforce, unlike any usual lefty protest.
Kuhnkat: Thats a fiction.
Graeme: There is plenty of evidence that carbon dioxide affects temperature. Did you fail high school science?
reginald: Please read what I wrote.
There is NO evidence that CO2 CONTROLS the Earth’s temperature. If you know of any, please point me towards it.
I refer you to the Cambrian/Ordovician era when with over 4,000 p.p.m. the temperature varied +8 to -7 from the current temp.
More recently, during the last interglacial (variously said to be between 2.5 & 4 degrees warmer that now) the climate in the Thames Valley was at least sub-tropical, as shown by the fossils of lion, elephant, giraffe and hippopotamus; yet with 390 p.p.m. as at present I don’t think anyone could claim that London is experiencing sub-tropical weather, especially these last few winters.
This doesn’t mean that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and has SOME effect on temperature. The debate is over the magnitude of that effect on this planet (as distinct to the planet where some others seem to live). I refer you to Lindzen & Choi’s recent paper claiming that a doubling of the CO2 level would result in a temperature increase of 0.7 degrees, and there have been others claiming/calculating similar or less rise. One can go as far back as Fred Hoyle in 1980, who calculated an increase of 0.5 for a doubling of the concentration then.
On the other hand we have the IPCC view that there is a positive feedback effect by increasing levels of CO2 and water vapour. I suggest that you think about what is the result of positive feedback.
Look I don’t care what your beliefs are. I can’t unconvince you even with iron clad evidence. Otherwise the atheists would have been able to convince the christians, or the christians would have been able to convince the muslims, or the muslims the jews or the jews the atheists… faith and internal belief are almost unshakeable even with well reasoned argument.
What I do object to is the belief that it is OK to overthrow the rule of law, to “blockade” a city until the government is “forced” to resign. Not my words, the words from the convoy web site. This is sedition. Treason.
You had your vote and you’ll get another one in a couple of years. Don’t forget for every person with your view there is another with an equally strongly held view that is the complete opposite. If you think that your opinion is more valid than someone else’s you’ve got a Messiah complex that needs seeing to.
The left had to put up with interminable years of a backward looking, right leaning leader who told untruths. So now you have to put up with a forward looking, left leaning leader who is equally likely to tell untruths as far as I can figure.
Get over it. Go back to work. Kiss your children. Enjoy music, food and sunshine.
Yes Australia is changing. It has always changed and will always change. We managed to get off the “sheep’s back” of the 1960s without breaking a leg. We’ll get over the addiction to fossil fuels with a similar small amount of pain. We can’t go back. We can’t go back. We can’t go back. That world isn’t there anymore.
Thought for the day… latest data shows that China leads the large nations in the deployment of green energy. 1bog.org/blog/infographic-why-china-is-kicking-our-ass-in-clean-tech/ Yes that’s right, far more wind power and renewables, far more investment in green energy than the USA. The USA gave up world leadership position in the design and manufacture of solar panels… now China controls this market. Why is China doing this? What does it mean for the future of Australia’s coal exports?
So do we want to look back to when coal mining was a really nifty idea or forward to where we (and the rest of the world) don’t depend on dirty energy? In some senses it doesn’t even matter about CO2 emission. Burning coal and oil is burning the solar energy of millions of years ago. Plants captured the sun’s energy and those dead plants became coal and oil. So what we are doing is burning our energy capital, not living off the interest. We can’t keep doing this forever (ask your accountaint about a lifestyle that burns not just the interest but the capital).
Things must change. Things will change. Does this mean a lifestyle change for farmers, truckers, musicians, poets, carpenters and ministers? Yes it does. Living in denial just won’t cut it. I personally feel sorry for those who are so challenged by change that they react with anger and denial, but trust me – if you sit down you’ll get run over.
Good luck to each of you individually and I hope you can find peace in a changing world.
Patrick – you are welcome to view China as some world beating leader re Green energy.
The facts of their emissions increase tell another story.
Yes that’s right. China’s population is almost 1.5 billion. If China ever got to Australia’s per-capita figure it would be a total disaster. However they are investing in renewables at a rate greater than any other large country. Why? Is it because the communist government has suddenly been taken over by latte-drinking middle class greenies? No. It is because China plans not one year ahead, not one election cycle ahead, not even just one decade ahead. They want energy self sufficiency at the same time they want a standard of living more comparable to what Australia has today. The answer they they see is not buying more coal an LNG from Australia (although of course they will do that) but more renewable energy.
They have a long way to go but at least they are headed in the right direction. What about us? If we don’t go forward then we’ll be the “white trash” of the 21st century. Slowly, slowly the terms of trade with China will reverse until we are in the same economic position as the USA… crippling debt, jobless rates in double figures and owing China a lot of money. Of course they’ll prop up our economy buy buying Australian mines, farms, hotels, trucking companies… is that what you want?
All change is painful but we must make it!
Patrick,
you make some good points, but what you haven’t offered is any evidence (iron clad or otherwise) that switching to “renewables” right now is of any benefit.
The American system encourages very short term thinking, it is why their economy is in such bad shape. The Chinese are anxious for rapid growth in electricity right now, and can plan ahead. They are subsidizing the “renewable” energy sector with billions of dollars, partly because of that want, partly because they also see (or saw) a large market opportunity in the west because of the rush to dump conventional generation methods. In view of the economic mess the West is in the anticipated demand may not eventuate, as governments have to concentrate on necessities not “luxuries”.
Neither the cost of wind power nor solar power is anywhere near that of conventional means. The only way you can persuade people to put up with the extra cost is to generate hysteria about the coming “end of the world as we know it”. That approach has failed as the general public starts to realize that much of the hysteria has no basis in fact, and that much of the “scientific” evidence is slanted or even fraudulent. They can’t see the necessity for their electricity, food, transport etc. bills to rise, especially when they perceive their jobs may be under threat. This last may not seem a problem to those paid by the various Governments who seem to think that there is a never-ending stream of money available, but see Greece, Ireland, UK, Spain etc.
I have no faith in wind power ever be worthwhile in Australia. Firstly it is not dropping in cost (it has gone up in the last 10 years), secondly the bigger turbines are going to be more costly, and thirdly because Australia is much closer to the equator than Europe. Since the average wind speed rises as you move towards the poles, and vice versa, and Macquarrie Island is closer to the Equator than Copenhagen, that might be the best place to put them. Conversely you get more solar power the closer you get to the Equator because the rays pass through less atmosphere depth, so we should be looking at solar power as one option for the future. PV solar may eventually become cheap enough, but I doubt it. I would put more faith in the use of sunlight to generate hydrogen. Concentrated Solar heat also looks more promising. Already it seems from work in the USA and Spain that it would generate electricity in Australia at a similar cost to wind, i.e. 3-4 times that of coal.
At the risk of restating the bleeding obvious, the wind doesn’t blow all the time and the sun doesn’t shine at night. The use of renewable energy on its own relies on finding some means of storage. The only large scale one proven and available is hydroelectricity, which the Greens have ruled out of contention, and in any case it would push the cost of renewables up by a third. Long term heat storage is not yet either proven nor cheap enough. The various methods of conversion (e.g. ammonia type) are still experimental. They will need years of effort to bring them into use (those that work). I point out that the current Government’s plan is to reduce ACTUAL CO2 emissions by 6% by 2050.
The cheapest and most reliable way to reduce CO2 emissions from electric power stations is to convert them to natural gas. That would easily give us that 6% reduction.
Then we could wait until either fusion power is a reality (if ever) or we look at what amount of nuclear, preferably thorium, we can accommodate (around 30% maximum), or the arrival of some practical means of storing large amounts of renewable electricity.
But I repeat my comments above. There has been NO EVIDENCE put forward that CO2 will drive temperatures up nor, if it does, that the rise in temperature would be disastrous. On the other hand, imitations of Chicken Little aren’t likely to produce desirable results.
Graeme,
You are right that there is no 100% proof either way. My personal belief is that on the balance of proabilities, increased CO2 results in increased temperature, however the biosphere and climate interact in very complex ways, so that is why I do not hang my hat on either extreme position.
My belief that we should have more renewable energy is driven by two lines of thought.
First is a risk management / portfolio theory view. That is: we don’t know what will happen with climate change and we don’t know what will happen to our mining export markets, so it is important to invest in a portfolio of energy choices over the next ten years. I’m no expert but I’d like to see us get to something like one third splits of renewable, gas and coal within the next decade. You are right that coal will be the cheapest but with the highest environmental risk whereas renewable will be most expensive but with the lowest risk. So tilting the economic balance by something like a carbon tax will redirect investment to gas and renewables, making my one third split a possible outcome. Let’s use this period where there is a mining boom to make this investment. We will probably never be in a better time to afford it.
The second argument is also in some senses a risk management approach. Right now we are living a lifestyle that is based on consuming our energy capital. That is why WSH’s graph above looks so alarming: as China moves to a standard of living comparable to ours then their per-capita energy consumption is risking to be comparable to ours. This economy is based on digging up and consuming stored “energy capital” in the form of coal and oil. But this can’t continue forever. You’ve probably read books or seen movies that are “post apocalyptic” in a world where fossil fuels have been exhausted and energy is much more expensive. Now these are fiction but like all good fiction are based on a grain of truth. We have the option of a sudden energy crash or a well managed transition to a more energy efficient world. Yes I know that fission reactors can delay this and fusion reactors (if they ever worked) could delay it almost indefinitely but that is a risky strategy to bet the farm on.
Right now Australia does not lead the world in dealing with these issues. We’re kinda middle of the pack amongst developing countries. However I think that renewable energy is a strategic advantage for Australia because of solar, our low population density, our ability to adopt new technologies and so on. We won’t be able to play this card any time soon but we should at least be preparing for it.
Patrick,
we seem to agree on what would be desirable, but not on what is practical. Firstly, to get your program underway would need a change in thinking by all our political class, something which would require something stronger than a whip and a chair.
Secondly, the outcome you want would mean a doubling of electricity costs, even if that industry alone was targeted. The gain would be a reduction in our total emissions of 20% (that would be reduced by the rise in consumption). There is the political need to convince the public that it is in their best interests, which I cannot see anyone doing for 2 reasons. The first is the likely cooling effect of the quiet sun over the next 20-30 years. The second is that many people are “doing it tough” at the moment. OK, life isn’t as tough as for, say, an asian peasant, and some of their difficulties are self induced by their consumption, but many are struggling. Not me, and I doubt you are either, but anyone who lives outside Canberra must be aware of it.
I always divide the public into 2 classes, the “Savers” and the “Spenders”. The first will respond to your appeals as they think ahead. The second class live in the present (that’s put as politely as I can). From your attitude you belong to the first, as I do (mostly). The best illustration of the difference I can give was my mother’s experience when the company where my father worked was taken over and a number of his contemporaries were made redundant too. My mother had known hard times when she was young and through the depression and the war, so she was a saver. She was talking to her friend (the wife of one of the others going) who said “all that money; we will get a new car, a boat, an overseas trip etc.” but when my mother pointed out that this was the end of the money coming in and she and her husband would have to live on what they had, she just couldn’t comprehend at all. My mother was shocked – “I looked into her eyes and they were blank, she just couldn’t understand. There was money there and you spent it”. A surprising number of people are like that, and you won’t convince them to spend money now for future benefit, even if it is theirs.
Thirdly, you are presupposing that the present methods will be the only ones available in the future. A few years delay might well result in a better choice. While my preference would be for solar heat, there are problems with it, particularly that of cost and availability. There has been renewed interest in this in the USA, and work is underway to cheapen the process, but unless there is a breakthrough in storage then it only makes sense to use gas as a partner/backup. The demand by the Greenies for renewables only is quite impractical and based on nothing more than wishful thinking.
Fourthly, you think that any increase in temperature must be bad. Why? In the last 200 million years (at least) those times when the Earth has been warmer (even 7 or 8 degrees higher) and the CO2 has been higher (even 5-600% more), have been times of lush vegetation supporting a large (and varied) animal population. Even a vegetarian would approve of that.
Patrick,
since you can offer no solid science to back up your claims, you might reconsider your “MAGICAL” thinking that wants to destroy the world’s economic stability. As wealth decreases we will return to uneducated peoples who have high birth rates and have to rape their local environments for wood and dung and everything else they can get to support themselves. Is that what you really want??
There are two current excellent examples ongoing. In Israel the country has literally BLOOMED from border to border with a modern educated exploitation of the land compared to nomadic destruction. In the Sayhel, with people moving out partly due to the drought and partly due to their overuse destroying the ecology, we see it recovering and regreening at a very nice clip. I think if the scientists looke more closely they could find other examples. Even here in the US with our modern farming we have hugely increased outputs from smaller cultivated areas and much of our environment restored from earlier ignorant exploitation.
I believe if you pulled your head out long enough you would find similar results in Australia. You went through a period where greed and ignorance raped the country. With modern techniques and education you are no longer doing this and, in fact, are restoring the country.
If you break the system you can’t control it. Ignorance, greed, and desperation are what destroy the environment. Greed will always be with us but can be controlled. The other two cannot if you break our economy.
Patrick,
I did write yesterday but my response must have been so boring that the moderator fell asleep, and forgot to post it.
I think we agree on most things except timing. There are some problems with rushing into change based on guesses not facts.
Firstly, to deal with the rising CO2 causing big temperature rises. I have indicated my (and more importantly those better qualified to judge) belief that any temperature rise will be limited, and with the complexity of the climate system possibly unnoticed. If I am wrong, then I point out that for at least the last 200 million year higher temperatures (and CO2) have resulted in lush vegetation supporting many animals. Even in the last 10,000 years in the Holocene Climatic Optimum the Sahara had rivers and the centre of Australia was savannah (or even more timbered) with greatly enlarged rain forest areas near the coasts. I don’t accept the Bogeyman story that more CO2 will make the Earth unlivable.
Secondly, the mix you suggest would certainly reduce our CO2 emissions by 20% overall (reduced by any rise in demand) but at the cost of doubling the cost of electricity. You would have to persuade the public to go along with this, and many are “doing it tough” at the moment (not me, and I would guess not you, and apparently no-one in Canberra). Persuasion would be even harder if the climate turns cooler over the next 20-30 years, as seems likely with the quiet sun.
Thirdly, there are discoveries being made and refinements to existing processes (e.g. concentrating solar heat and storage) which may change what we do. Getting to a third of renewable energy is unlikely at the present stage. If we “replaced” our entire coal fired generation with an equal capacity of wind power, we would have to keep the coal fired plants going as backup because that wind capacity would only supply 17% of our needs). Solar is the better bet, but the cost is high and the extraction rate is low. You’ve probably seen those area statements (” all Australia’s energy could be supplied by an area X by X”) which don’t take into account that the best level of overall conversion achieved so far is 2.6%. Sure, we should experiment with solar but the major change has to be to gas. Nuclear is limited by the public perception and by the standalone nature of our grid. (One of my gripes is the meaningless parrot cries of “X in Europe does this, so can we” which ignores the integrated grids in Europe).
Fourthly, getting our political classes to extend their view of the future longer than the current week will be a herculean task. A whip and a chair wouldn’t be enough. This might be the best case for the use of nuclear ‘power’ you could make.
Reginald,
“Kuhnkat: Thats a fiction.”
Please point me to video or some other relatively trustworthy source, I believe you as much as anyone else on the internet.
Patrick
I don’t know how people continually fall for the lala land belief that solar & wind can keep Australia in enough energy to maintain Australia’s standard of living.
Perhaps you should look at the hard & as yet unchallenged figures put together by “TonyfromOz”.
We had Fabian Barbie all dolled up in HiVis & hardhat singing the praises of the Solar Dawn solar thermal plant for Chinchilla along with the Moree Solar PV & the Toowoomba Ra. Windfarm. All 3 together have a name plate capacity of 13% of just one coal thermal plant at Bayswater . Bayswater has a real conversion factor (real output /nameplate capacity) of 90%+ & the alternatives are in reality in the 10-20% area. Solar Dawn alone has a price tag of $1.3B.
Now the Rainbow coalition wants to shut down Hazelwood which at present produces 30% of Victoria’s power ( & sells a bit into SA to keep the lights on in Adelaide when the brown-outs come every summer) A figure cam up which puts the Solar Dawn type solar thermal plant equivalent replacement in excess of $300B. Now call me a cynic, but I do not think the non-PS tax payers will be able to stump for that any time soon.
Being cognizant of the needs of modern society, how do you reckon the insurance/OHS bunnies will view the risks of high rise buildings if the lifts stop because the wind does not blow or the sun goes behind a cloud? How do you reckon Bob Brown’s high speed Mag-lev train(let alone all the trams & electric trains in the capitals) will stay floating?
More importantly what will all the unemployed from Woolongong, Mt Isa, Geelong , Elisabeth…………………… do ? My guess is we have seen a pretty good example recently in Britain.
My advice is dig up some good rabbit recipes
“Get over it. Go back to work. Kiss your children. Enjoy music, food and sunshine”
Yeah Patrick get back to work, Kiss your children & don’t let them get sick, enjoy the music ( you make with an antique empty petrol drum) & if you can find an indigenous person willing & able to teach you how to get fat on bush tucker , STUDY HARD!!!
Pattoh,
Please reread my postings and don’t put words in my mouth:
I did not say that “solar & wind can keep Australia in enough energy”. I explicitly suggested only about 1/3 of our energy should come from wind and solar. Much of your argument is based on an absolutist, black vs white view of the world. It isn’t like that. The real answers are normally found in some shade of grey.
I did not suggest maintaining our standard of living. I explicitly said that the world can’t afford this standard of living. Does this mean the doomsday scenario that you have suggested? No. Even adopting the lifestyle of Australia in the 1960s (a golden period in some people’s eyes) would dramatically, dramatically reduce our energy consumption.
I did suggest that improving energy efficiency was important, as well as living smarter in many other ways. Yes I have rabbit recipies. Yes I eat rabbit and kangaroo and goat. Your doomsday projections of standard of living do not align with my argument and really only serve as “Mad Max” theatre. Indeed the very possibility of such a scenario in the future should be sufficient reason to be more prudent with our energy portfolio today and tomorrow. You only get to dig up each tonne of coal once, and today we get little benefit from it because it goes overseas, the profit goes overseas and we don’t use the energy efficiently anyway.
I’ll put it simply. I have not claimed any “scientific” position. I make no claims about global warming. I don’t have to support or refute any specific set of numbers or any published paper or any pseudo-scientific clap trap. Not one way. Not the other. I am suggesting that taking a black or white position is high risk. I am suggesting that there is no need to. I am suggesting that you could spend your emotional energy more profitably.
Oh well, it appears that throughout history some people feel the need to take an extremist position, make extremist claims and persue an extremist agenda. I can’t change that, and in the end the extremist positions on climate change will probably do less harm than religious extremism, nazism or communism have done. So my only advice is “Get over it. Go back to work. Kiss your children. Enjoy music, food and sunshine”.
With regards to whether the variations in World Climate is mainly caused by CO2 and there is a desperation to switch to renewable energy, I would state the following; the principle members of the Labor-Green alliance now in charge of the Commonwealth Federal Government have all been supplied with a copy of my 65 years work regarding and titled Matter and Associated Mysteries Explained. As a result of the physics involved hopefully explaining the fundamental dynamic nature of gravity and gravitation, the work provides an instant by instant description of a presently unknown phenomenon described as a Gravitational Thermal Effect that and due to changes in gravitation, (present changes to climate resulting from the recent and present position of the great Planets) cause changes – warming and cooling – to climate. The varying position of the moon as the earth rotates is also more generally involved with small variations of climate.
The work has an ability to provide an automatic explanation of the two anomalies regarding the Pioneer Spacecraft, and also for the excess volcanic activity of Jupiter’s moon Io. The out-gassing from the central interior of comets as they accelerate towards the Sun is also inclusively explained.
Contained within and towards the end of the work (on page 155) is a description of an inexpensive – perhaps $8 to 10000 dollars – experiment that can either prove or disprove the veracity of the work. Although the Opposition stated if they were elected to government, they would have the work evaluated, the present government prefers to ignore it.
Regarding the need to switch to renewable energy, and although that is desirable if the relatively rapid growing world population is to have essential energy, the reason given for the urgent need being the avoidance of catastrophic runaway global warming is not scientifically established by any political stretching of the imagination or desperate need for money
Leave a Reply
Primarily exposing faulty methodologies behind global temperature trend compilations
Can I just add these again – thanks – any other contenders ?
Gillard/Swan/Rudd Govt. Top 50 Lemons
1. Carbon Tax – “There will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead.”
2. NBN – $50 billion but no cost-benefit analysis – will be a shambles bigger than AUSSAT.
3. Building the Education Revolution – The school halls fiasco
4. Home Insulation Plan (Pink Batts) – Dumped
5. Citizens Assembly – Dumped
6. Cash for Clunkers – Dumped
7. Hospital Reform – Nothing
8. Digital set-top boxes – Cheaper at Harvey Norman
9. Emissions Trading Scheme – Abandoned
10. Mining Tax – Continuing uncertainty for our miners as version 1 morphs into version 2 – and what other mad scheme could emerge.
11. Livestock export ban to Indonesia – Over-reaction
12. Detention Centres – Riots & cost blow-outs – hunger strikes – professional self-harming – Millions of dollars of compensation claims in the courts – driven by taxpayer funded lawyers.
13. East Timor ‘solution’ – Announced before agreed – never went anywhere – dead.
14. Malaysia ‘solution’ WHAT A JOKE IT IS – who dreamt this up – we send back 800 and get 4,000 in return – only GreenLabor could agree to this – now bogged in the High Court.
15. Manus Island ‘solution’ – no shame – simply recycling what the Howard Govt did.
16. Computers in Schools – $1.4 billion blow out; less than half delivered
17. Cutting Red Tape – 12,835 new regulations, only 58 repealed
18. Asia Pacific Community – Another expensive Rudd frolic. Going nowhere
19. Green Loans Program – Abandoned. Only 3.5% of promised loans delivered
20. Solar Homes & Communities plan – Shut down after $534 million blow out
21. Green Car Innovation Fund – Abandoned
22. Solar Credits Scheme – Scaled back
23. Green Start Program – Scrapped
24. Retooling for Climate Change Program – Abolished
25. Childcare Centres – Abandoned. 260 promised, only 38 delivered
26. Take a “meat axe”‘ to the Public Service – 24,000 more public servants and growing!
27. Murray Darling Basin Plan – back to the drawing board after a wet 2010
28. 2020 Summit – Meaningless talkfest
29. Tax Summit – Deferred and downgraded
30. Population Policy – Sets no targets
31. Fuel Watch – Abandoned
32. Grocery Choice – Abandoned
33. $900 Stimulus cheques – Sent to dead people and overseas residents
34. Foreign Policy – In turmoil with Rudd running riot
35. National Schools Solar Program – Closing two years early
36. Solar Hot Water Rebate – Abandoned
37. Oceanic Viking – Caved in – big win for taxpayer funded “Asylum-seeker Industry”
38. GP Super Clinics – 64 promised, only 11 operational
39. Defence Family Healthcare Clinics – 12 promised, none delivered
40. Trade Training Centres – 2650 promised, 70 operational
41. Bid for UN Security Council seat – An expensive Rudd frolic
42. My School Website – Revamped but problems continue
43. National Curriculum – States in uproar
44. Small Business Superannuation Clearing House – 99% of small businesses reject it
45. Indigenous Housing Program – way behind schedule – tangled in Govt and Indig red tape.
46. Rudd Bank – Went nowhere
47. Using cheap Chinese fabrics for ADF uniforms – Could not spell – ditched
48. Innovation Ambassadors Program – junked
49. Six Collins Class Submarines – none operational – too noisy when they do sortie – cost $6Billion – The Hon Kim Beazley, AC was the genius Defence Minister I seem to recall.
50. Debt limit to be increased to $250 billion – to pay for all of the above and much more by us and our grandchildren.
(and these thanks to Tony from the Climate Sceptics Party)
a case of a Govt expert only in mindless activity and then self serving it up as ‘historic’ achievement
Some to add to Beachgirl’s list:
51. Drought. Why has labor done nothing to prevent droughts?
52. Flood. See 51.
53. Paranoid delusions. Why are there not enough to go around.
54. T.A.’s fashion sense. Surely they can legislate against this!
55. GST. The libs introduced it after promising they wouldn’t. Why hasn’t Labor repealed GST?
56. Beverage equalisation tax. Why is it that only Labor and Green supporters can drink Latte and Chardonnay? We all deserve this chance at a better life.
Warwick I tried to comment yesterday but think I got meshed in your spam technology
Anyway go the Convoy!
Patrick,
It may have escaped your notice that the GST was implemented AFTER we had an election to vote on it.
Where were you all? The convoy made hardly a dent in Canberra this morning. There were more participating in the counter-convoy protest on bicycles than there were in the convoy. A flop. Despite a grab-bag of demands that right wing loonies could tie their colours to… only about 300 people turned up at the rally according to Channel 7 news.
Even so, what a waste of resources. Burning all that diesel fuel to drive from Broome or Perth is hardly environmentally responsible is it?
Patrick,
that the protest wasn’t huge was entirely predictable. After all, how many people own trucks, let alone can afford to take a week off to protest (even if some were not working because of this Government’s actions)? That others could organize 400 or so people in Canberra to ride a bicycle around the streets in front of TV cameras for an hour is equally predictable.
Anyway, what makes you think that those in the convoy are worried about environmental responsibility (whatever that is)? They were protesting to get on nationwide TV, which they did; and in much greater numbers than Greenpeace etc. usually manage to get. They are not convinced that the Carbon Tax will do any good, either for themselves or their country.
Perhaps you would do better to show that they are wrong. Bear in mind-
1. There is no evidence that carbon dioxide controls the Earth’s temperature.
2. There is no evidence that even if it did, that the temperature would rise as much as claimed.
3. There is no evidence that even if the temperature did rise, that it would be a problem.
On the other hand there is evidence that a small group of scientists have been manipulating data and making statements which they know are untrue in the hope of convincing the gullible.
Apparently a lot of the convoys were not allowed to the protest area according to this broadcast:
www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9833
Patrick, tens of thousands have offered support on convoy websites, many more thousands offered their support along the way, and many more tens of thousands added their support to news polls. And this from Working people in Australia.
The convoy was careful not to disrupt Canberra’s workforce, unlike any usual lefty protest.
Kuhnkat: Thats a fiction.
Graeme: There is plenty of evidence that carbon dioxide affects temperature. Did you fail high school science?
reginald: Please read what I wrote.
There is NO evidence that CO2 CONTROLS the Earth’s temperature. If you know of any, please point me towards it.
I refer you to the Cambrian/Ordovician era when with over 4,000 p.p.m. the temperature varied +8 to -7 from the current temp.
More recently, during the last interglacial (variously said to be between 2.5 & 4 degrees warmer that now) the climate in the Thames Valley was at least sub-tropical, as shown by the fossils of lion, elephant, giraffe and hippopotamus; yet with 390 p.p.m. as at present I don’t think anyone could claim that London is experiencing sub-tropical weather, especially these last few winters.
This doesn’t mean that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and has SOME effect on temperature. The debate is over the magnitude of that effect on this planet (as distinct to the planet where some others seem to live). I refer you to Lindzen & Choi’s recent paper claiming that a doubling of the CO2 level would result in a temperature increase of 0.7 degrees, and there have been others claiming/calculating similar or less rise. One can go as far back as Fred Hoyle in 1980, who calculated an increase of 0.5 for a doubling of the concentration then.
On the other hand we have the IPCC view that there is a positive feedback effect by increasing levels of CO2 and water vapour. I suggest that you think about what is the result of positive feedback.
Look I don’t care what your beliefs are. I can’t unconvince you even with iron clad evidence. Otherwise the atheists would have been able to convince the christians, or the christians would have been able to convince the muslims, or the muslims the jews or the jews the atheists… faith and internal belief are almost unshakeable even with well reasoned argument.
What I do object to is the belief that it is OK to overthrow the rule of law, to “blockade” a city until the government is “forced” to resign. Not my words, the words from the convoy web site. This is sedition. Treason.
You had your vote and you’ll get another one in a couple of years. Don’t forget for every person with your view there is another with an equally strongly held view that is the complete opposite. If you think that your opinion is more valid than someone else’s you’ve got a Messiah complex that needs seeing to.
The left had to put up with interminable years of a backward looking, right leaning leader who told untruths. So now you have to put up with a forward looking, left leaning leader who is equally likely to tell untruths as far as I can figure.
Get over it. Go back to work. Kiss your children. Enjoy music, food and sunshine.
Yes Australia is changing. It has always changed and will always change. We managed to get off the “sheep’s back” of the 1960s without breaking a leg. We’ll get over the addiction to fossil fuels with a similar small amount of pain. We can’t go back. We can’t go back. We can’t go back. That world isn’t there anymore.
Thought for the day… latest data shows that China leads the large nations in the deployment of green energy. 1bog.org/blog/infographic-why-china-is-kicking-our-ass-in-clean-tech/ Yes that’s right, far more wind power and renewables, far more investment in green energy than the USA. The USA gave up world leadership position in the design and manufacture of solar panels… now China controls this market. Why is China doing this? What does it mean for the future of Australia’s coal exports?
So do we want to look back to when coal mining was a really nifty idea or forward to where we (and the rest of the world) don’t depend on dirty energy? In some senses it doesn’t even matter about CO2 emission. Burning coal and oil is burning the solar energy of millions of years ago. Plants captured the sun’s energy and those dead plants became coal and oil. So what we are doing is burning our energy capital, not living off the interest. We can’t keep doing this forever (ask your accountaint about a lifestyle that burns not just the interest but the capital).
Things must change. Things will change. Does this mean a lifestyle change for farmers, truckers, musicians, poets, carpenters and ministers? Yes it does. Living in denial just won’t cut it. I personally feel sorry for those who are so challenged by change that they react with anger and denial, but trust me – if you sit down you’ll get run over.
Good luck to each of you individually and I hope you can find peace in a changing world.
Patrick – you are welcome to view China as some world beating leader re Green energy.
The facts of their emissions increase tell another story.
Yes that’s right. China’s population is almost 1.5 billion. If China ever got to Australia’s per-capita figure it would be a total disaster. However they are investing in renewables at a rate greater than any other large country. Why? Is it because the communist government has suddenly been taken over by latte-drinking middle class greenies? No. It is because China plans not one year ahead, not one election cycle ahead, not even just one decade ahead. They want energy self sufficiency at the same time they want a standard of living more comparable to what Australia has today. The answer they they see is not buying more coal an LNG from Australia (although of course they will do that) but more renewable energy.
They have a long way to go but at least they are headed in the right direction. What about us? If we don’t go forward then we’ll be the “white trash” of the 21st century. Slowly, slowly the terms of trade with China will reverse until we are in the same economic position as the USA… crippling debt, jobless rates in double figures and owing China a lot of money. Of course they’ll prop up our economy buy buying Australian mines, farms, hotels, trucking companies… is that what you want?
All change is painful but we must make it!
Patrick,
you make some good points, but what you haven’t offered is any evidence (iron clad or otherwise) that switching to “renewables” right now is of any benefit.
The American system encourages very short term thinking, it is why their economy is in such bad shape. The Chinese are anxious for rapid growth in electricity right now, and can plan ahead. They are subsidizing the “renewable” energy sector with billions of dollars, partly because of that want, partly because they also see (or saw) a large market opportunity in the west because of the rush to dump conventional generation methods. In view of the economic mess the West is in the anticipated demand may not eventuate, as governments have to concentrate on necessities not “luxuries”.
Neither the cost of wind power nor solar power is anywhere near that of conventional means. The only way you can persuade people to put up with the extra cost is to generate hysteria about the coming “end of the world as we know it”. That approach has failed as the general public starts to realize that much of the hysteria has no basis in fact, and that much of the “scientific” evidence is slanted or even fraudulent. They can’t see the necessity for their electricity, food, transport etc. bills to rise, especially when they perceive their jobs may be under threat. This last may not seem a problem to those paid by the various Governments who seem to think that there is a never-ending stream of money available, but see Greece, Ireland, UK, Spain etc.
I have no faith in wind power ever be worthwhile in Australia. Firstly it is not dropping in cost (it has gone up in the last 10 years), secondly the bigger turbines are going to be more costly, and thirdly because Australia is much closer to the equator than Europe. Since the average wind speed rises as you move towards the poles, and vice versa, and Macquarrie Island is closer to the Equator than Copenhagen, that might be the best place to put them. Conversely you get more solar power the closer you get to the Equator because the rays pass through less atmosphere depth, so we should be looking at solar power as one option for the future. PV solar may eventually become cheap enough, but I doubt it. I would put more faith in the use of sunlight to generate hydrogen. Concentrated Solar heat also looks more promising. Already it seems from work in the USA and Spain that it would generate electricity in Australia at a similar cost to wind, i.e. 3-4 times that of coal.
At the risk of restating the bleeding obvious, the wind doesn’t blow all the time and the sun doesn’t shine at night. The use of renewable energy on its own relies on finding some means of storage. The only large scale one proven and available is hydroelectricity, which the Greens have ruled out of contention, and in any case it would push the cost of renewables up by a third. Long term heat storage is not yet either proven nor cheap enough. The various methods of conversion (e.g. ammonia type) are still experimental. They will need years of effort to bring them into use (those that work). I point out that the current Government’s plan is to reduce ACTUAL CO2 emissions by 6% by 2050.
The cheapest and most reliable way to reduce CO2 emissions from electric power stations is to convert them to natural gas. That would easily give us that 6% reduction.
Then we could wait until either fusion power is a reality (if ever) or we look at what amount of nuclear, preferably thorium, we can accommodate (around 30% maximum), or the arrival of some practical means of storing large amounts of renewable electricity.
But I repeat my comments above. There has been NO EVIDENCE put forward that CO2 will drive temperatures up nor, if it does, that the rise in temperature would be disastrous. On the other hand, imitations of Chicken Little aren’t likely to produce desirable results.
Graeme,
You are right that there is no 100% proof either way. My personal belief is that on the balance of proabilities, increased CO2 results in increased temperature, however the biosphere and climate interact in very complex ways, so that is why I do not hang my hat on either extreme position.
My belief that we should have more renewable energy is driven by two lines of thought.
First is a risk management / portfolio theory view. That is: we don’t know what will happen with climate change and we don’t know what will happen to our mining export markets, so it is important to invest in a portfolio of energy choices over the next ten years. I’m no expert but I’d like to see us get to something like one third splits of renewable, gas and coal within the next decade. You are right that coal will be the cheapest but with the highest environmental risk whereas renewable will be most expensive but with the lowest risk. So tilting the economic balance by something like a carbon tax will redirect investment to gas and renewables, making my one third split a possible outcome. Let’s use this period where there is a mining boom to make this investment. We will probably never be in a better time to afford it.
The second argument is also in some senses a risk management approach. Right now we are living a lifestyle that is based on consuming our energy capital. That is why WSH’s graph above looks so alarming: as China moves to a standard of living comparable to ours then their per-capita energy consumption is risking to be comparable to ours. This economy is based on digging up and consuming stored “energy capital” in the form of coal and oil. But this can’t continue forever. You’ve probably read books or seen movies that are “post apocalyptic” in a world where fossil fuels have been exhausted and energy is much more expensive. Now these are fiction but like all good fiction are based on a grain of truth. We have the option of a sudden energy crash or a well managed transition to a more energy efficient world. Yes I know that fission reactors can delay this and fusion reactors (if they ever worked) could delay it almost indefinitely but that is a risky strategy to bet the farm on.
Right now Australia does not lead the world in dealing with these issues. We’re kinda middle of the pack amongst developing countries. However I think that renewable energy is a strategic advantage for Australia because of solar, our low population density, our ability to adopt new technologies and so on. We won’t be able to play this card any time soon but we should at least be preparing for it.
Patrick,
we seem to agree on what would be desirable, but not on what is practical. Firstly, to get your program underway would need a change in thinking by all our political class, something which would require something stronger than a whip and a chair.
Secondly, the outcome you want would mean a doubling of electricity costs, even if that industry alone was targeted. The gain would be a reduction in our total emissions of 20% (that would be reduced by the rise in consumption). There is the political need to convince the public that it is in their best interests, which I cannot see anyone doing for 2 reasons. The first is the likely cooling effect of the quiet sun over the next 20-30 years. The second is that many people are “doing it tough” at the moment. OK, life isn’t as tough as for, say, an asian peasant, and some of their difficulties are self induced by their consumption, but many are struggling. Not me, and I doubt you are either, but anyone who lives outside Canberra must be aware of it.
I always divide the public into 2 classes, the “Savers” and the “Spenders”. The first will respond to your appeals as they think ahead. The second class live in the present (that’s put as politely as I can). From your attitude you belong to the first, as I do (mostly). The best illustration of the difference I can give was my mother’s experience when the company where my father worked was taken over and a number of his contemporaries were made redundant too. My mother had known hard times when she was young and through the depression and the war, so she was a saver. She was talking to her friend (the wife of one of the others going) who said “all that money; we will get a new car, a boat, an overseas trip etc.” but when my mother pointed out that this was the end of the money coming in and she and her husband would have to live on what they had, she just couldn’t comprehend at all. My mother was shocked – “I looked into her eyes and they were blank, she just couldn’t understand. There was money there and you spent it”. A surprising number of people are like that, and you won’t convince them to spend money now for future benefit, even if it is theirs.
Thirdly, you are presupposing that the present methods will be the only ones available in the future. A few years delay might well result in a better choice. While my preference would be for solar heat, there are problems with it, particularly that of cost and availability. There has been renewed interest in this in the USA, and work is underway to cheapen the process, but unless there is a breakthrough in storage then it only makes sense to use gas as a partner/backup. The demand by the Greenies for renewables only is quite impractical and based on nothing more than wishful thinking.
Fourthly, you think that any increase in temperature must be bad. Why? In the last 200 million years (at least) those times when the Earth has been warmer (even 7 or 8 degrees higher) and the CO2 has been higher (even 5-600% more), have been times of lush vegetation supporting a large (and varied) animal population. Even a vegetarian would approve of that.
Patrick,
since you can offer no solid science to back up your claims, you might reconsider your “MAGICAL” thinking that wants to destroy the world’s economic stability. As wealth decreases we will return to uneducated peoples who have high birth rates and have to rape their local environments for wood and dung and everything else they can get to support themselves. Is that what you really want??
There are two current excellent examples ongoing. In Israel the country has literally BLOOMED from border to border with a modern educated exploitation of the land compared to nomadic destruction. In the Sayhel, with people moving out partly due to the drought and partly due to their overuse destroying the ecology, we see it recovering and regreening at a very nice clip. I think if the scientists looke more closely they could find other examples. Even here in the US with our modern farming we have hugely increased outputs from smaller cultivated areas and much of our environment restored from earlier ignorant exploitation.
I believe if you pulled your head out long enough you would find similar results in Australia. You went through a period where greed and ignorance raped the country. With modern techniques and education you are no longer doing this and, in fact, are restoring the country.
If you break the system you can’t control it. Ignorance, greed, and desperation are what destroy the environment. Greed will always be with us but can be controlled. The other two cannot if you break our economy.
Patrick,
I did write yesterday but my response must have been so boring that the moderator fell asleep, and forgot to post it.
I think we agree on most things except timing. There are some problems with rushing into change based on guesses not facts.
Firstly, to deal with the rising CO2 causing big temperature rises. I have indicated my (and more importantly those better qualified to judge) belief that any temperature rise will be limited, and with the complexity of the climate system possibly unnoticed. If I am wrong, then I point out that for at least the last 200 million year higher temperatures (and CO2) have resulted in lush vegetation supporting many animals. Even in the last 10,000 years in the Holocene Climatic Optimum the Sahara had rivers and the centre of Australia was savannah (or even more timbered) with greatly enlarged rain forest areas near the coasts. I don’t accept the Bogeyman story that more CO2 will make the Earth unlivable.
Secondly, the mix you suggest would certainly reduce our CO2 emissions by 20% overall (reduced by any rise in demand) but at the cost of doubling the cost of electricity. You would have to persuade the public to go along with this, and many are “doing it tough” at the moment (not me, and I would guess not you, and apparently no-one in Canberra). Persuasion would be even harder if the climate turns cooler over the next 20-30 years, as seems likely with the quiet sun.
Thirdly, there are discoveries being made and refinements to existing processes (e.g. concentrating solar heat and storage) which may change what we do. Getting to a third of renewable energy is unlikely at the present stage. If we “replaced” our entire coal fired generation with an equal capacity of wind power, we would have to keep the coal fired plants going as backup because that wind capacity would only supply 17% of our needs). Solar is the better bet, but the cost is high and the extraction rate is low. You’ve probably seen those area statements (” all Australia’s energy could be supplied by an area X by X”) which don’t take into account that the best level of overall conversion achieved so far is 2.6%. Sure, we should experiment with solar but the major change has to be to gas. Nuclear is limited by the public perception and by the standalone nature of our grid. (One of my gripes is the meaningless parrot cries of “X in Europe does this, so can we” which ignores the integrated grids in Europe).
Fourthly, getting our political classes to extend their view of the future longer than the current week will be a herculean task. A whip and a chair wouldn’t be enough. This might be the best case for the use of nuclear ‘power’ you could make.
Reginald,
“Kuhnkat: Thats a fiction.”
Please point me to video or some other relatively trustworthy source, I believe you as much as anyone else on the internet.
Patrick
I don’t know how people continually fall for the lala land belief that solar & wind can keep Australia in enough energy to maintain Australia’s standard of living.
Perhaps you should look at the hard & as yet unchallenged figures put together by “TonyfromOz”.
We had Fabian Barbie all dolled up in HiVis & hardhat singing the praises of the Solar Dawn solar thermal plant for Chinchilla along with the Moree Solar PV & the Toowoomba Ra. Windfarm. All 3 together have a name plate capacity of 13% of just one coal thermal plant at Bayswater . Bayswater has a real conversion factor (real output /nameplate capacity) of 90%+ & the alternatives are in reality in the 10-20% area. Solar Dawn alone has a price tag of $1.3B.
Now the Rainbow coalition wants to shut down Hazelwood which at present produces 30% of Victoria’s power ( & sells a bit into SA to keep the lights on in Adelaide when the brown-outs come every summer) A figure cam up which puts the Solar Dawn type solar thermal plant equivalent replacement in excess of $300B. Now call me a cynic, but I do not think the non-PS tax payers will be able to stump for that any time soon.
Being cognizant of the needs of modern society, how do you reckon the insurance/OHS bunnies will view the risks of high rise buildings if the lifts stop because the wind does not blow or the sun goes behind a cloud? How do you reckon Bob Brown’s high speed Mag-lev train(let alone all the trams & electric trains in the capitals) will stay floating?
More importantly what will all the unemployed from Woolongong, Mt Isa, Geelong , Elisabeth…………………… do ? My guess is we have seen a pretty good example recently in Britain.
My advice is dig up some good rabbit recipes
“Get over it. Go back to work. Kiss your children. Enjoy music, food and sunshine”
Yeah Patrick get back to work, Kiss your children & don’t let them get sick, enjoy the music ( you make with an antique empty petrol drum) & if you can find an indigenous person willing & able to teach you how to get fat on bush tucker , STUDY HARD!!!
Pattoh,
Please reread my postings and don’t put words in my mouth:
I did not say that “solar & wind can keep Australia in enough energy”. I explicitly suggested only about 1/3 of our energy should come from wind and solar. Much of your argument is based on an absolutist, black vs white view of the world. It isn’t like that. The real answers are normally found in some shade of grey.
I did not suggest maintaining our standard of living. I explicitly said that the world can’t afford this standard of living. Does this mean the doomsday scenario that you have suggested? No. Even adopting the lifestyle of Australia in the 1960s (a golden period in some people’s eyes) would dramatically, dramatically reduce our energy consumption.
I did suggest that improving energy efficiency was important, as well as living smarter in many other ways. Yes I have rabbit recipies. Yes I eat rabbit and kangaroo and goat. Your doomsday projections of standard of living do not align with my argument and really only serve as “Mad Max” theatre. Indeed the very possibility of such a scenario in the future should be sufficient reason to be more prudent with our energy portfolio today and tomorrow. You only get to dig up each tonne of coal once, and today we get little benefit from it because it goes overseas, the profit goes overseas and we don’t use the energy efficiently anyway.
I’ll put it simply. I have not claimed any “scientific” position. I make no claims about global warming. I don’t have to support or refute any specific set of numbers or any published paper or any pseudo-scientific clap trap. Not one way. Not the other. I am suggesting that taking a black or white position is high risk. I am suggesting that there is no need to. I am suggesting that you could spend your emotional energy more profitably.
Oh well, it appears that throughout history some people feel the need to take an extremist position, make extremist claims and persue an extremist agenda. I can’t change that, and in the end the extremist positions on climate change will probably do less harm than religious extremism, nazism or communism have done. So my only advice is “Get over it. Go back to work. Kiss your children. Enjoy music, food and sunshine”.
With regards to whether the variations in World Climate is mainly caused by CO2 and there is a desperation to switch to renewable energy, I would state the following; the principle members of the Labor-Green alliance now in charge of the Commonwealth Federal Government have all been supplied with a copy of my 65 years work regarding and titled Matter and Associated Mysteries Explained. As a result of the physics involved hopefully explaining the fundamental dynamic nature of gravity and gravitation, the work provides an instant by instant description of a presently unknown phenomenon described as a Gravitational Thermal Effect that and due to changes in gravitation, (present changes to climate resulting from the recent and present position of the great Planets) cause changes – warming and cooling – to climate. The varying position of the moon as the earth rotates is also more generally involved with small variations of climate.
The work has an ability to provide an automatic explanation of the two anomalies regarding the Pioneer Spacecraft, and also for the excess volcanic activity of Jupiter’s moon Io. The out-gassing from the central interior of comets as they accelerate towards the Sun is also inclusively explained.
Contained within and towards the end of the work (on page 155) is a description of an inexpensive – perhaps $8 to 10000 dollars – experiment that can either prove or disprove the veracity of the work. Although the Opposition stated if they were elected to government, they would have the work evaluated, the present government prefers to ignore it.
Regarding the need to switch to renewable energy, and although that is desirable if the relatively rapid growing world population is to have essential energy, the reason given for the urgent need being the avoidance of catastrophic runaway global warming is not scientifically established by any political stretching of the imagination or desperate need for money