And there’s that recent blowout mentioned in the first post.

What could possibly go wrong?

–excerpt—
Cleburne quakes probably related to gas drilling, expert says
12:00 AM CDT on Tuesday, June 9, 2009
By SHERRY JACOBSON and DAVID TARRANT / The Dallas Morning News
Three small earthquakes that rattled Cleburne in the past six days were probably caused by intense natural gas drilling, the state’s leading expert on earthquakes said Monday.
“Most people would probably conclude if they looked at the data that they would be related,” said Cliff Frohlich, associate director and senior research scientist at the Institute for Geophysics at the University of Texas at Austin.
Other scientists, however, were not so certain that any connection could be confirmed.
John Breyer, professor of geology at Texas Christian University, said residents need not worry that the drilling could be causing earthquakes.
“Sometimes these things just happen. It’s like the weather,” he said. “Sometimes it rains a lot and other times not at all.”
The tremors appear to be the first ever recorded in Cleburne, a city of 30,000 about 50 miles southwest of Dallas.
Cleburne sits near the heart of the North Texas Barnett Shale gas field. Since 2001, more than 200 natural gas wells have been drilled within the city limits.
Surrounding Johnson County has more than 1,000 gas wells.

–end excerpt—

I wonder how much “excess” strength would be expected in any geological strata, given how slow most areas change over time, and whether anyone’s thought through whether fracturing a whole lot of rock in an area doesn’t weaken the structure enough to set off a long process of little readjustments around it. Is there something equivalent to the “angle of repose” for the stability of areas like this

Pete Ridley, does this mean that you will maintain your opinion as long as:

1) Someone, anyone, disagrees with the AGW theory, and
2) You can’t understand their argument?

If you don’t understand Niocols’ analysis, what makes you think you’d understand a critique of it?

You are saying that addressing climate change is, “gambling with the economic well-being of deprived people around the globe”.

Firstly,not addressing climate change is a risker gamble (on both factors of propbility and impact).

Secondly, what factors have left vulnerable people deprived? How are you proposing increasing the well being of the vulnerable. I’ve some idea of what is required, do you?

Geoff Russel, “I’d be betting that Nicol’s is wrong” is adopting the same approach that the environmentalists and politicians are taking – gambling with the economic well-being of deprived people around the globe.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/10/loons-take-flight-as-halloween-nears.html

Except that G&T was actually published, as was at least one refutation:

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/04/end-of-road-thanks-to-everyone-who.html

Thermodynamics is deep magic masquerading as common sense .. if Dr Nicol’s
thinks he’s found a flaw in the usual model, then he should do as
Barry says and submit to an appropriate journal.

Pending that, I’d be betting that Nicol’s is wrong, on the
following grounds (at least):

1) Hansen’s GISS models use the “conventional” thermodynamics/physics to
model global temperature.

2) If Nicol’s is right and a trebling of CO2 would do very little
(p.24) to temperature, then Hansen’s 1988 predictions would be way off … which they aren’t …

So Nicol’s is wrong.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic

I also think that those that will financially contribute to our current target and this new target deserve some recognition. SA claims use for all renewable energy generated in the state as the electricity is used in the state. However, the underlying driver for additional renewable energy is the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target and the need for Renewable Energy Certificates by liable wholesalers and retailers to meet their Renewable Power Percentage that they need when selling electricity to their customers.

In 2009 the Renewable Power Percentage is 3.64% and some additional voluntary renewables are purchased. The rest of the Renewable Energy Certificates (the major proportion of SA’s renewable energy certificates) are largely purchased by liable wholesalers and retailers in other states.

I have not seen any concrete state by state contribution targets to the overall Australian target in the expanded RET exposure draft Bill or Regulations and unless someone can point these out to me, I assumes that the expanded RET will work just like the current MRET so it will be a case of investment flowing to where there is a natural and/or business comparative advantage.

So thankyou other states!

You are helping SA do great things. We claim use and you pay for most it.

We can claim that we are doing more than you, and you pay us to make this claim.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that you pay for much of our renewable energy, your scope 2 emissions are not lower. When emissions trading starts, you won’t be receiving lower carbon costs as a result of the renewables you buy from South Australia under the proposed CPRS framework either, but we in SA can benefit so long as we don’t create a carbon economy that builds in fairness.

A better approach might be that we acknowledge the National renewable energy drive (and payment), build in a fair ‘user receives benefits’ approach into the market frameworks and then it will be fine to compete on making the conditions favourable to attract investment into regions and states.

As an agnostic regarding human-made climate change I cannot see why we should not be suppporting those energy companies who are eagerly investigating new methods of extracting further fossil fuel from the abundant resources still left. I have reviewed a lot of the debate on both sides of the argument over the past two years since reading Mark Lynas’s scare-mongering propaganda booklet “Six Degrees ..” and have been most impressed by papers by Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Tsonis and by Dr. John Nicol’s paper “Climate Change (a fundamental analysis of the greenhouse effect)” see http://www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc). These analyses strengthens my agnosticism, but in an effort to remain open-minded I searched for any scientific paper that showed in as much detail how Dr. Nicol’s analysis might be flawed. I have been unable to find such a paper. Dr. Nicol tells me that he has invited peer review but has received nothing but supporting comments. It seems to me that it is important for those scientists like Professor Brook who support the argument of human-made climate change through our use of fossil fuels carry out a thorough review of Dr. Nicol’s analysis and show precisely where he has erred (if he has done so).

Are you able or willing to do this? If not, why not? Until this is done I don’t believe that we lay agnostics, who I guess constitute by far the largest proportion of the population, will change our opinions.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic

Or solar thermal:

This is the solar radiation map for July:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/cgi_bin_scripts/solar-radiation.cgi

and summer:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/cgi_bin_scripts/solar-radiation.cgi

and annual average
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/cgi_bin_scripts/solar-radiation.cgi

There is absolutely no reason why solar thermal should not be successful in the west of NSW that can also supply Victoria. We can have large solar thermal plants long before nuclear gets off the ground

In fact we may get some of our own technology back if Ausra get the nod for this:
http://www.ausramediaroom.com/press17May09.php

and
http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/garrett/2009/budmr20090512i.html

Mind you the money of CCS in my opinion is completely wasted and would be far better spent on more solar, wind or even GEN IV nuclear.

I suggest if geothermal baseload doesn’t arrive in five years we try something else. Critics of nuclear say it is expensive and hazardous and critics of wind power say it is unreliable. But they both work unlike dry rock geothermal.

I think we have to plan for major renewables and see carbon taxes imposed at levels that make them attractive. The limitations (I’m still not convinced that large scale energy storage has really been given R&D resources in line with the enormous future need for it – it’s not currently needed, so not much effort is put into it) will make Barry’s favoured IFR Nuclear option look increasingly attractive but until that’s taken up by mainstream Australia we have no choice but to push renewables as far and as fast as possible. CSP with short term storage (Ausra style?) geographically spread out can smooth out a lot of the day/night variations and Geothermal, as baseload backup and presumably able to respond rapidly to shifting demand looks very worthwhile, deserving firmer plans for it’s large scale utilisation and serious planning of infrastructure to support it.

We commissioned some work recently from the climate change adviser to the Japanese PM who also drew on figures in Australia.

Maybe worth a look http://www.policy-network.net/politicsofclimatechange

and will definitely feed it in to a project we are doing on the politics of climate change.

Most places on Earth don’t have sufficient local hydro resources. The point I was making was more trying to address the renewables advocates who suggest that they can meet all demand.

Whatever mix is put in place over the next decade or two,the demand for power will eventually far outstrip the capacity of hydro to balance it out. We are eventually going to need some form of load-following nuclear. I don’t pretend to currently know the best technological option for that.

This very optimistic site shows the miss-match between wind resources and electricity consumption, with relatively poor wind resources in NSW, but excellent in WA and SA. Best long term hope for NSW may be nuclear.
http://www.geocities.com/daveclarkecb/Australia/WindPPotential.html#Potential%20on-shore%20wind%20development%20in%20Australia