Open Thread 16

Recently Dear Senator said that “The so-called Climate Commission is a Labor government-appointed committee of known climate alarmists, selectively appointed … to further the cause of global warming alarmism” (from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/make-carbon-tax-hurt-julia-gillard-advised/story-fn59niix-1226061007488).

I wrote to him and said that I have yet to see a case why we should not be alarmed about the predicted effects of climate change. I asked him to direct me to resources that demonstrate that this risk is so minimal that it can be safely ignored.

He suggested I read a book by Professor Robert M Carter called Climate: The Counter Consensus, which he claims demolishes the theory of anthropogenic global warming!

I replied saying I have looked at the Australian Climate Science Coalition website (www.auscsc.org.au) in the past and didn’t notice a case that ‘demolishes the theory of anthropogenic global warming.’ I also wrote that I did not believe that it is possible to make this case and that it would need to point out fundamental flaws in the approach to the science used by climate scientists. Further, I wrote that if this case does exist, many of us would have reason to be relaxed and confident about the future of our planet. Indeed, there would be reason for optimism rather than alarm (provided we ignore other effects of burning fossil fuels such as pollution and acidification of the oceans).

Senator Minchin replied that he had read Carter’s book at found it persuasive.

I was wondering if any BNC readers were familiar with the case that ‘demolishes the theory of anthropogenic global warming’?

LikeLike

Following

LikeLike

John Newlands, I would hazzard a guess that Treasury modelling did NOT warn of the GFC which is more in their bailiwick than energy of any sort.

Even the Greens think that a carbon tax will not be sufficient and further measures will be required.Of course,their idea of further measures would be renewables only.

BTW,cloudy day here in SE QLD and my 5.4 kw PV system has generated 6.3 kwh for the day. This is about half of what I could reasonably expect for a fairly sunny day at this time of year.

It’s no problem for me but I wouldn’t like to be depending on this sort of performance for base load power.

LikeLike

EN the article doesn’t say what chemicals are in the flow battery electrolyte, The 4-valent vanadium used in the shed sized battery on King Island is supposed to be particularly toxic. The thing about synthetic hydrocarbons if they burn to CO2 and H2O those products get recycled within the biosphere.

On the other hand piston engines and gearboxes are inefficient compared to electric drive. I think flushing fresh electrolyte is going to be easier than a Better Place style battery swap, particularly if you can then drive out to the country for a few hours.

Re Germany I think they are confident right now since their economy grew in the last quarter, If they tank after ditching NP I think they will reconsider as early as next year.

LikeLike

Kirk Sorensen is an engaging speaker. Various talks and excerpts from talks are available at http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/06/04/adventures-with-gordon/. The very long talk at Protospace includes a broad overview of nuclear power history and options, including a discussion of the technical issues with fast reactors. Comments welcome.

Also: I guess that 2050-2100 there won’t be a big mix of energy for electricity. Instead the cheapest will dominate, as coal does today, with small bits of other stuff. So I’m trying to get a feel for what that will mean for various options. The rules are: (a) Everything electric, (b) 10 billion people; (c) European level average energy use (80 kWh/d in MacKay SEWTHA units); (d) Assume that we are in a steady state. For your preferred energy source (e.g. IFR): (1) How many power stations for the whole world, and rough cost and how long do they last; (2) what fuel and other resources do they consume; (3) issues like preparing fuel, waste management. Suggest post as comments on this thread or send to robert.kenneth.smart@gmail.com.

LikeLike

Also, on big anything builds, it seems like the world debt crisis will not fuel dramatic infrastructure builds.

if the u.s. actually tries to pay its debts, it won’t build anything.

LikeLike

http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175400/

Michael Klare is always interesting even though he’s REALLY BAD ON NUCLEAR.

what this article reveals is the pinch we face without nuclear.

and I would call attention to one area in particular. That France voted to ban fracking, the first country to do so. But of course, THEY ARE JUST ABOUT THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT CAN DO (assuming countries have anything to frack) SO BECAUSE OF THEIR NUCLEAR SUPPLY.

Klare does not realize this of course, which is infuriating.

LikeLike

@Robert Smart – The Kirk Sorensen videos are great – I was at Protospace and his energy is amazing.

Barry – I look forward to seeing your presentation in the TVO coverage of Equinox. I note that they only seem to be dealing with electricity. Industrial heat should be in there as well – IIRC it’s the other half of our energy requirements.

I’ve only started watching the Plugging in the Planet: Building Capacity for the Future video, and am very impressed. The first speaker, Jay Apt, presents results from real studies of time variability of wind and solar electric power generation. This is the kind of ‘ground truth’ I’ve been wanting to see. I think renewables advocates won’t be happy with the research; he says the variability is non-Gaussian with uncomfortably high frequencies of extreme events. The variability also results in strongly diminishing returns when combining output from geographically separate facilities.

I know Barry will have a lot to report once he’s able, and I look forward to his posts.

LikeLike

Robert Smart a global per person energy consumption of 80 kwh per day or 3.3 kw average times 10 billion people is 33 Tw. Current world energy use is 15 Tw. That’s where the Gen 4 vision starts to mist over; it’s hard to see that many reactors running in a world riven by conflict.

Sean De Boo SA premier Mike Rann is inordinately proud of the State’s 867 Mw of nameplate windpower. Shame it only contributes 80 Mw or so during runs of successive 40C days when electrical demand is highest. I note in Machiavellian fashion Rann has deposed some of his colleagues. His new minerals industry minister Koutsantonis advocates a uranium enrichment industry. This cannot happen nor can the mining industry expand without a major new dispatchable power source. Thus the major connection between Rann and the wind is that he’s whistling into it.

LikeLike

Treasurer’s slight of hand?

The Treasurer used two slights of hand in his Press Club speech yesterday:

1. He accused the Opposition of scaremongering about the economic consequences of the proposed carbon price. Meanwhile he used scaremongering to say if we don’t implement a carbon price the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu will die and the Murray Darling Basin will lose half its water. This is scaremongering nonsense. The Carbon Tax will make no difference to world emissions and no difference to the climate. So the Treasurer is the one conducting the scare-mongering.

2. The Treasurer quoted selectively from Treasury modelling to support his argument that a Carbon Price will not do much damage to the economy. However, he did not say the figures he quoted do not apply to the case where Australia achieves the 2020 emissions targets it has committed to, unilaterally. But, not surprisingly, and as a slight of hand, he says the Coalition’s policy would cost more to achieve the 2020 emissions targets. The Treasurer is not comparing equivalent policies. His figures are not the costs of achieving the 2020 targets but he says the Coalitions costs for doing so are higher. This is misleading and dishonest.

My simple analysis persuades me that the Government’s carbon price would have to force Australia into a deep, 8-year recession if we are to achieve the 2020 emissions targets. The only way we can cute emissions sufficiently to achieve the targets is to cut GDP growth to negative.

LikeLike

Of general interest:

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has created an online interactive timeline where you can learn about Canada’s nuclear history.

LikeLike

Households bear green scheme costs

Consumers are paying $128 a year for myriad federal and state climate-change programs that already cost more than Julia Gillard’s proposed carbon tax to cut greenhouse emissions.

New figures, … show that typical customers in NSW are paying $82 a year for federal green schemes and a further $46 a year for state schemes.

This comprises a cost of $55 a tonne of carbon reduced – far more than the $20 to $40 a tonne expected under a carbon tax.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/consumers-already-paying-to-cut-carbon/story-e6frg6nf-1226071288454

Ah but …. The deceipt here is … ‘$20 to $40 a tonne is a “honeymoon rate”. That price cannot achieve the 2020 emissions targets. The carbon price would have t o increase to the point where it causes a deep recession, lasting to 2020, if we want to cut our emissions to achieve the 2020 target.

And remember, this is all pain for no gain. There is no benefit. An Australian carbon price, in the absence of an international agreement between the main emitting countries and in the absence of a strong bilateral resolve to implement nuclear at a LCOE less than coal, will have no effect on world emissions (it may actually increase them) and no effect on the climate.

LikeLike

Peter as the OECD’s biggest per capita emitter and the world’s biggest coal exporter (possibly the biggest LNG exporter in future) I think Australia is morally obliged to set an example. It’s like a fat person getting on a bus and hoping all the other passengers are skinny so as not to be inconvenienced. The bus being a metaphor for global emissions.

At 20 tonnes of annual CO2 per man woman and child Australia can hardly ask other countries with 4-7t to cut back on our behalf. I agree that economic growth is highly correlated with primary energy use and major cuts imply recession. But fossil fuels are going to run out eventually and most of us believe climate costs will continue to escalate. If we don’t to force the process of decarbonising then we will have a worst of both worlds situation, namely energy shortages combined with climate chaos. Thus I agree with carbon pricing just not on the practical details.

LikeLike

John Newlands,

Further to my previous comment, as long as the “Progressives” want to maintain the ban on nuclear, want to subsidise and mandate renewable energy, want to avoid a serious discussion about the economic consequences of the proposed Carbon Pricing need to achieve the 2020 emissions targets, and want to avoid having to admit that a Carbon Price in Australia will have no effect on world emissions or the climate, then clearly the “progressives” are arguing from an irrational point of view. They are, as always, trying to push their morals and beliefs on to those who clearly and correctly are not persuaded by their moralising.

LikeLike

So, BNC Moderator, how about this:

But will the deniers of anthropogenic GW listen -Peter Lang etc?

I’ve found a great demonstration for the less-informed Denialists,

Aren’t these the sort of comments that are made continuously, one way or another, on BNC and allowed to pass by the Moderator? Doesn’t this show a “Progressive” bias?

Look back of the comments by a few of the BNC contributors and note how they respond to rational arguments. The response is frequently to resort to name calling and jibes.

There is a continual stream of anti-Conservative comments, but when a Conservative responds the Moderator names (sometimes bans) the conservative contributor while the ‘Progressives’ comments are allowed through – unless or until they attract a response. You may not see it, but I do and I’d suggest that explains why BNC attracts largely a “Progressive” audience. There are few Conservative contributors. The result is that BNC is devoid of balance and unable to understand why Conservatives find much of the “Progressive” arguments not persuasive. The moralising and name calling, like “Deniers”, is seen by many as simply the call of the ignorant who are devoid of rational argument. Their opinion is seen as religious, ideological and political dogma. Most of them haven’t a clue wah tthey are talking about. They’ve read stuff, learnt it parrot fashion and then assume they understand and anyone who doesn’tr swallow the tripe and dogma they accept they consider to be uninformed.

I interpret the recent stream of antagonistic comments by some of the BNCers as a response to not having any rational arguments to support their belief in a Carbon Tax.
MODERATOR
Peter – I have deleted your name from Ms Perps comment but I see no problem with leaving generalisations about various “camps” in the AGW debate. Please point out where people have in your words “resort(ed) to name calling and jibes.” if this was directed at individuals.
As to “The moralising and name calling, like “Deniers”” I believe you have, yourself, used similar terminolgy (e.g alarmist) against those who have differing opinions. Indeed, previously you have attacked the blog host in this manner. Have a good look at some of your own comments, including this one- there is considerable bias in them and yet they stand. In response to this from you “while the ‘Progressives’ comments are allowed through – unless or until they attract a response.” I have told you before that I am not constantly on-line(being a part-time volunteer) and may not see comments for some hours – so moderation will be delayed. Naturally, if someone complains that I have missed something, I will immediately check that out first and respond with action if deemed necessary.

LikeLike

That’s the thing about green groups. As Tony Blair wrote in his memoir, moderation is not in the lexicon of the NGO culture. Its raison d’etre depends on a continual crisis.

Nothing the Prime Minister does will satisfy the green groups momentarily supporting her carbon tax. Conversely, anything Gillard does with her tax – short of dumping it – will attract from voters deep scepticism about policy outcomes, not to mention political motives. If the overwhelming majority of people who fly are refusing to pay less than $2 for a carbon offset, you can see why Labor backbenchers are nervous about Gillard’s determination to appease the Greens and press on with a carbon tax. After all, the PM who promised there would be no carbon tax under a Gillard government cannot even claim to have the bad poet’s genuine feeling.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/mind-the-gap-on-climate/story-e6frgd0x-1226071255005

This might help to explain the Progressives’ vitreole when their irrationality and avoidance of the substance of the discussion becomes obvious, as has happened in the series of comments about the proposed carbon Tax – e.g. here: https://bravenewclimate.com/2011/04/16/open-thread-15/#comment-129226

LikeLike

Here’s one for you, Peter Lang.

Geologists and climate change denial

No one has left a comment yet, you could be the first.

I disagree with the way John Cook attempts to characterise the type of person who holds a certain belief, in much the same way I disagree with your (recently re-emerged) barrage of comments assigning political motives to people here.

LikeLike

The difference between a “sceptic” and a “denier” – a good explanation which shows why “denier” may be the most appropriate term for some. Naming no names:-)

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/theres-no-room-for-a-climate-of-denial/2189162.aspx

LikeLike

I come from a small town in South Australia (though I don’t live there anymore). Like most rural communities its composition is, as a generalisation, very conservative. That said, I know first hand that many farmers there are extremely worried about climate change – their entire livelihood (and that of their children and grandchildren who will inherit their properties) depends upon being able to grow food or run stock on productive land. How do they feel about a carbon tax? I have no idea – probably mixed opinions, much the same as the rest of the population.

Trying to boil these questions down to one’s supposed political position is simply lazy argument, by subscribing to an artificial dichotomy which itself was born largely out of lazy journalism and lazy work from political operatives.

LikeLike

@Zach Wegner, Your uncle is categorically wrong, Bruce Power, who owns and operates the largest nuclear power station in the world in Ontario, Canada, is a for profit company that does not depend on subsidies in the least. Nor as a mater of fact are most of the nuclear power stations U.S. dependent on government help, unless you chose to believe that the politically motivated, and highly unnecessary Price-Anderson Act constitutes government support.

I will remind you that as a matter of policy here, statements like the one you made are expected to be referenced by something more substantial than ‘my uncle says.’

LikeLike

Terry Krieg, nice work. Maybe you should get Ben Heard along too.

LikeLike

2 issues vis-a-vis the Carbon Tax (CT) and misc issues.

While Peter Lang may not like my comparison, I find the CT to be a very *capitalist* answer to climate change and promoting of non-carbon/low-carbon alternatives. It’s capitalist because it uses a capitalist method, taxation, to ensure social policy and *accepting*, not challenging, the existence of capitalist corporations and *control* over energy resources.

But I actually agree with Peter about the problem of the CT and I oppose it outright as something that will generally *increase* the cost of energy, and thus slow down general development since the history of human civilization is based on the development of ever abundant, denser and CHEAPER energy.

I also think it’s irresponsible on one level as well. It avoids something I know Peter and other would oppose (who have libertarian/free trade perspectives) which is to make carbon effluent *illegal*. I’m for direct gov’t intervention to *mandate* the use of nuclear energy in the same way that government was used to 100% finance most of the worlds hydro units (98% I believe), using eminent domain to acquire right-of-way for rail roads and highways, and to generally be the the general contractor and credit banker for all large civil engineering projects. Capitalism *economically* really didn’t play much of a role in terms of financing civil engineering programs and projects, they simply held the credit and cashed paychecks. Albeit it was *FOR* the capitalist system that the state intervened to save it and provide the needed credit for it’s expansion.

This is why I think any gov’t should follow China’s example and “just build the f*ckers*. If it’s *that* important, and that reliable, and fulfills the ‘abundent, denser and cheapers’ criteria, then ideological precepts need to be shoved and true national programs need to be discussed and proposed. Of course I’m against the totalitarian Chinese approach in terms of the complete lack of democratic input, but the national will, backed up by state credit and expertise, is simply superior when it comes to great projects like nuclear and hydro. One has to wonder how the Snowy Mountains hydro system could ever of been built using “libertarian” thinking.

I said all this to to point out that I believe the CT is sort of the “cowards way out” of the climate change debate. If we believe climate change is real (I do…we’ve just experienced, locally in No. Cal rains in June that we’ve never had since 1884, and it’s going to ruin our wine crop if it continues – avoid 2011 Cabs and Syrahs, please) then we need to confront it *directly* and dovetail it with direct national programs around energy.

LikeLike

Zach Wegner, on 8 June 2011 at 2:19 PM said:

My uncle has told me that every nuclear power plant on the planet is subsidized by the government of the country it is in

Here’s the annual operating budget for Columbia Generating Station is Washington State.

Click to access Final%202011%20Columbia%20Generating%20Station.pdf

It indeed will receive about $1 million this year in bond subsidies(part of the economic stimulus package) out of it’s $600 million budget Including capital improvements.

LikeLike

Some nuclear power stations receive subsidies does not prove the original statement that ALL nuclear power stations in the world receive subsidies.

This is also a subject that has been done to death on these pages before, and it has been shown that all energy sectors receive some form of subsidies, ether direct or indirect, and the argument will eventually boil down to definitions.

Direct financial subsidies; preferential tax treatments; trade restrictions; energy-related services provided by government at less than full cost; direct investment in energy infrastructure; research and development funds; demand guarantees and price controls; preferential access to resources; failure to impose external costs; depletion allowance, and the list could go on I’m sure if I had more time, all can be considered subsidies, or not depending on where one draws the line.
Ultimately the debate become sterile, and is not likely to yield any new insights.

LikeLike

DV82XL, I just want to make it clear that I was never arguing that all power plants receive subsidies and I think the point of the subsidies in WA was that the subsidies are minuscule/unnecessary. I was just pointing to an argument I was having trouble finding information on and was asking for some links. Sorry to have bothered you so much.

LikeLike

We only have to kill 14 million outback camels a year and the emissions from Hazelwood power station would be nixed.

LikeLike

European pissants, humbug hypocrisy

Australians should kowtow to the Europeans on carbon? Not bloody likely.

SO that’s decided, then, is it? Australia is a pissant nation of tossers, too afraid to throw in its lot with European carbon traders and open its borders to boatpeople.

Australia’s critics – among them the BBC, The Economist, Ross Garnaut, Julian Burnside QC and Michael Grubb of Cambridge – have really had a field day in the past fortnight.

Apparently, we are pissants because we are in the middle of deciding public policy responses to two particularly tough issues: climate change and boatpeople.
Our elders and betters worry we may be coming down on the “wrong side” of those issues.

By the way, pissant is an offensive term meaning regarded as being of no importance, significance or consequence. And tosser is an offensive term meaning a person (usually male) regarded as unintelligent or contemptible.

Well, let this pissant tosser explain what is happening in Australia.

Read on the article …
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/european-pissants-humbug-hypocrisy/story-fn59niix-1226071958175

Seems our progressive media outlets (ABC, Fairfax press, Crickey, Get up! And many more) have similar views to their UK equivalents. I’d suggest it would be wise to be aware of the agenda of the “Progressives” and at least be open to hearing what the Conservatives have to say, and why they are not swallowing the “Progressives” beliefs.

LikeLike

This article I linked in my previous coment is interesting. It illustrates the enormous gulf between what is influencing the thinking ot the “Progressives” and the Conservatives (if I may use those two simplifying terms to label two camps that approach the important policy issues from very different perspecitves).

For those who didn’t look at the link, I’ll post a bit more, because I suggest it is worth the “Progressives” trying to understand why the “Conservatives” are cautious and not persuaded by the policy solutions the “Progressives” argue for. Continuing from previous comment:

Well, let this pissant tosser explain what is happening in Australia. Many Australians question the benefit of being part of a nonexistent global carbon-trading scheme and almost all want to control their borders to deter illegal immigration.

These are perfectly intelligent positions and are of great significance to Australians.

Australians are aware of the consequences of their actions on both issues. Australia does not want to be at the negotiating table with the important European Union or UN forums when the table involves trading its freedom for few benefits. Australians prize sovereignty. In every conceivable sense of the term Australia is a successful liberal democracy.

Australians are great joiners but they do not regard themselves as being at the arse-end of the world and therefore desperate to please important forums.

Many Australians have not been impressed by Europe’s heroic climate change response of far-fetched targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases. Australians know the only way Europe meets its target is through the displacement of manufactures to Asia.

Europeans may produce less carbon dioxide, allegedly a result of their carbon trading scheme, but Europeans consume increasing amounts of embedded carbon in their goods and services.

Indeed, it was reported in The Economist last year that emissions made on their citizens’ behalf elsewhere in the world add a third or more to most European countries’ emissions.

Pissant is Britain, by subsuming the greatest common law jurisdiction in the world under European human rights law.

…

Pissant is a Germany that has vowed to close its nuclear power stations – talk about a failure of nerve.

…

Pissant is Britain which, while announcing ever-more heroic targets to decarbonise its economy, cannot collectively boil a kettle after the evening episode of East Enders because its own power stations cannot cope. It draws on French nuclear power to fill the load. Swapping power across borders is clever; pretending the source of power is part of decarbonisation is not.

These are just some selections from an article I’d suggest the “Progressives” could gain from taking note of.

LikeLike

@Peter Lang https://bravenewclimate.com/2011/06/07/open-thread-16/#comment-129441

This kind of stuff is just a political rant. eg

Pissant is Britain which, while announcing ever-more heroic targets to decarbonise its economy, cannot collectively boil a kettle after the evening episode of East Enders because its own power stations cannot cope. It draws on French nuclear power to fill the load. Swapping power across borders is clever; pretending the source of power is part of decarbonisation is not.

Here’s the numbers – in 2010 the UK had a net import of electricity of 2.67 TWh of 367 TWh of electricity supplied. It is no doubt true that the UK needs to get on with matters to keeps the lights on, but the kind of hyperbole peddled in this piece adds a big fat nothing to debate or understanding. Throw in some ranting about purported “freedom” and EU law and it becomes abundantly clear that the piece is just ideological tosh.

I can read this stuff any day of the week in the The Australian, why do I want to read it here? This whole thread is right off the rails.
MODERATOR
This is an Open Thread – there are no rails. It is the BNC equivalent of a soapbox. Expect rants on ideology – without incivility or direct attacks upon a person, which will be deleted.

LikeLike

I find I now just skip over comments by Peter Lang.

LikeLike

Arguing against AGW is so passe, I am sorry there are people out there that cannot accept the sheer evidence behind it but they are not the people that need convincing, but rather the sheer mass of people that do not understand why.

Still I would like this expounded

“. On the other hand there is little evidence for its truth, other than wishful thinking and some self-serving tripe dished up by the usual suspect advocates.”

Come on as already mentioned few things drop in price like solar panels, only electronics do and there is similar wafer mass production. I will await the clarification though.

LikeLike

@ David B. Benson,

Thanks for the link to that article. It’s hard not to scream “I told you so!” at those who have pushed for the abandonment of nuclear power post-Fukushima. Madness.

LikeLike