Renewable energy sources are just a power failure

I have a piece in the AFR today, paywalled but here is a version of the text.

Much has been written about the contribution that wind and solar have made to Australian energy supply, especially in the recent hot spell.  About 10 per cent of electricity supply comes from renewable sources, two thirds of this being unsubsidised hydro-electricity, with one third from wind/solar which needs subsidies to cover more than half of its costs. 

AEMO data shows that during heat wave conditions in the five days to 18 January this year, wind actually contributed 3 per cent of electricity supply across the Australian National Electricity Market.  Nobody knows the contribution of roof top solar but it could not conceivably have been more than one per cent.

Overall, wind facilities amount to 3,300 megawatts of capacity, somewhat less than the Loy Yang brown coal power stations in Victoria or Macquarie Generation’s black coal facilities in the Hunter Valley.  Windmills produced at an average of 23 per cent of their capacity during the January heat wave.  This was below their year-long average of about 30 per cent because the hot spell, as is often the case, was characterised by still air.  Fossil fuel plant is available 95 per cent of the time.  Gas plant (and hydro-electricity) can be switched on and off at very short notice to fill the peaks in demand.  As a result it generally earns more than the average plant on the electricity spot market. 

The below par performance of windmills in high demand periods means they not only require a subsidy but are also less valuable than other plant because their availability is reduced when they are most needed and when the price is highest.  Accordingly, windmills actually earn less on average than other plant in the electricity spot market.   Indeed, during the recent heat wave, wind power earned an average of $123 per megawatt hour in Victoria and $182 in South Australia while the average price was respectively $209 and $285 in the two states. 

Investments in wind and other subsidised electricity generation, according to the renewable energy lobby group the Clean Energy Council, has been $18.5 billion.  By contrast, the market value of comparable generating capacity in Macquarie Generation coal plants is said to be only $2 billion and a brand new brown coal plant of 3,300 megawatt capacity would cost less than $10 billion. 

Wind aficionados claim that such costings do not take into account that wind is free whereas fossil fuel plants have to pay for their energy. But that is also untrue.  Wind plant maintenance is about $12 per megawatt hour which is more than the fuel plus maintenance costs of a Victorian brown coal power station. 

Subsidies to renewable energy were once touted not only as a key to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide but also as paving the way to a future source of electricity that would become competitive in price and reliability with fossil fuels.  After two decades of increasing subsidies, this optimism has proven to be unfounded.  Instead we have seen subsidised renewable energy sucking capital into worthless investments. 

On present plans, a nominal 20 per cent of electricity is to be sourced from renewables by 2020.  By that year the excessive cost burden on the economy will be $5 billion a year and rising.  This entails crippling subsidies paid by consumers and businesses.  The imposition has been an important factor in the foreshadowed plant closures of Holden, Electrolux and the aluminium smelters at Kurri Kurri and Point Henry. 

Because of our readily available coal and gas Australian electricity costs are intrinsically is among the lowest  in the world. This was formerly crucial to attracting highly competitive energy intensive industries like smelting.  Australia could once again benefit from low cost electricity if deregulation freed energy supply from its renewable obligations.  The benefits would be especially welcomed across all agricultural and manufacturing industries that are subject to international competition.  

Subsidies on existing Australian renewable plant are planned to run for 15 years.  But Spain, previously the poster child of renewable subsidy excesses, has shown the way forward by eliminating all previously promised subsidies.   Australia needs to abandon its own renewable schemes and allow the energy market to operate on commercial terms.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

254 Responses to Renewable energy sources are just a power failure

  1. Tel

    Solar is good for heat wave conditions, especially the solar concentrator type with parabolic trough and steam turbine. The hottest of days are also the best days to run the solar array.

    Photovoltaic systems have the problem that they are expensive, and on really hot days the collector cell itself needs cooling. An overheating PV doesn’t generate much electricity.

    Wind is not too good for heat waves because those days tend to usually not be windy, but maybe it is windy some place else so you can transport the electricity with our new gold plated network.

    Because of our readily available coal and gas Australian electricity costs are intrinsically is among the lowest in the world.

    Only if you live next to a generator, and you have a private link so you don’t get ripped by the markup when it goes through the grid. Electricity generation costs are low in Australia (slowly rising, mostly due to ordinary inflation). Electricity transport and distribution costs are massive (monopoly power). Renewables are only a small part of what burns the electricity consumer.

  2. evcricket

    Alan I think it is just fantastic that someone that knows as little about the electricity sector as you can make a living writing about it.

    Fortunately, it doesn’t matter what you, or any of your centre-right comrades think; solar power is going to change the world and it has already started. Where you say “no one knows how much rooftop PV provided” you obviously don’t know about this recource: http://pv-map.apvi.org.au/ which tracks PV contribution in real time. During the peaks in the heatwave, solar was contributing 10% in WA and Qld, about 6 in NSW, 8 in SA and not much in Victoria and Tassie. Yet, during this peak, our most reliable, gold standard, baseload generators dropped 430MW without notice. Who knows how much that cost consumers.
    Anyway, keep pretending nothing is wrong and defending the status quo. Solar panel prices halved each year from 2011 to 2014. The commonly available panels are about 17% efficient at the moment, while panels in military use are closer to 40%, so we still have a long long way to go with solar. Prices will keep falling. Batteries are not far behind, falling 20-30% each year for the last 5.
    So keep complaining about renewables and pretending nothing is wrong. You and all the other dinosaurs are going to be crushed. Not by subsidies, or by government intervention, but by The Market, which you love so dearly.

  3. jupes

    Australia needs to abandon its own renewable schemes and allow the energy market to operate on commercial terms.

    Spot on Alan. Let’s hope that Hunt and Turnball get hit with the clue-bat when cabinet reviews the RET.

  4. Watching It Unfold

    RET – how disappointing. Does someone owe us an apology? What is Tony Abbott doing in Europe? Europe is crashing just like renewables, and I only have to walk down to my local shops to see young economic refugees from Ireland and Italy, waiting for more substantial visas to stay here – they are everywhere.

  5. Charles

    I think the author is overcooking the contribution of wind to electricity demand during the recent heat wave. Figures published in the Australian maintained that VIC wind farms contributed 0.3%, and the wind assets in SA (which have nearly enough name plate capacity to supply ~60% of daily SA demand) contributed 0.7%.

    Needless to say, wind farms and to a lesser extent solar PV’s are an additional cost on electricity users and the economy and do not reduce CO2 emissions at all. Another own goal by Global Warming zealots within the Green and ALP political parties.

  6. Percy

    Evcricket, you missed this bit

    Australia needs to abandon its own renewable schemes and allow the energy market to operate on commercial terms.

    Basically, scrap the subsidies, and let Solar and other renewables compete on an even footing. If Solar becomes as economically viable as you say it will, then so be it. Whichever is best for the consumer. Alan’s article is suggesting we do away with the government subsidies and let the consumers use whichever is the cheapest and most reliable. At the moment that is Coal.

  7. Andrew of Randwick

    Alan, your commentary is far too measured and sober. The wind/solar generators are an absolute disaster.
    .
    First, they divert scarce capital into grossly inefficient plants that generate electricity at a cost of around 60c per kilowatt hour, c.f. 4c for baseload black coal. Second, they corrupt the distribution system with their fluctuating output – a cost that is never mentioned by their proponents. Third, the only way to store fluctuating power is in a pumped storage/hyro combination which is never built and a cost never factored into renewables. Combined, they destroy a comparative advantage of cheap electricity that has given Australia an edge in global competition for the past 100 years.
    .
    evcricket – “solar power is going to change the world and it has already started”. Yes it has destroyed developed economies that were rich enough and stupid enough to divert their scarce capital. Coal is stored sunlight. Do you really think that instantaneous solar output can match tens of years of accumulated and concentrated solar output that the trees converted million of years ago?

  8. Abraham

    You and all the other dinosaurs are going to be crushed. Not by subsidies, or by government intervention, but by The Market, which you love so dearly.

    Why the name calling? If you failed to comprehend the crux of Alan’s argument, please don’t project you frustration towards those who did.

  9. James of the Glen

    Some excellent and accurate points already by Charles, Percy and Andrew of R. And rank stupidity from evcricket (as if he’d allow the free market to operate!).

    Anyone who has had dealings with wind “farm” companies knows about their inability to be straight. Capacity versus actual generation is their first lie; we’ve all heard the ludicrous “x thousand homes can be supplied” etc.

    Then comes the “no subsidies” lie. After that, the “no noise” lie. Then, the “no adjacent house/land devaluation” lie. Then, the “no despoilation of visual amenity” lie.
    After a few minutes with a spivvy project manager you feel like taking a very long shower.

    As Percy says, “Basically, scrap the subsidies, and let Solar and other renewables compete on an even footing”.

    This is the message that must be hammered home in Canberra to save Australia from the Spanish, Portuguese and Californian disasters, not to mention the developing problems in Canada, eastern US and other European countries.

    Already, wind companies are lobbying to have the shameful and nation damaging RET and REC’s (subsidies) retained. They must be countered with immediate doses of factual reality. Bypass Hunt, an ally of Labor/Greens, and ensure PM Abbott receives the information about the wind scams.

  10. Evcricket

    So when you say you want the free market to operate no doubt you support stopping all fossil fuel subsidies and making the generators pay their subsidies back?

    Also, solar isn’t subsidised any more.

  11. nerblnob

    Wind is free in the same way that oil or coal in the ground is free. The cost is in converting it to useable energy and delivering it to the user. All useable energy is essentially converted solar energy – photovoltaic is merely one of the least efficient and most costly versions. Hydrocarbons, aka “fossil fuels”, are the cheapest and crucially, the most portable, form of energy yet known. When you will take a jerrycan of wind for emergencies off-road, when you’re happy to have the ambulances that might save your life – or even the trains that might take you to work – running on solar power only – then you’ll know it’s viable.

    Solar now is the start of nothing. Its future is in the past. It’s been subsidised by the public and promoted for over forty years and it’s still a turkey that never got off the ground. Our energy future is elsewhere and whatever it is we won’t get there by penalising the most efficient forms of energy available at present.

  12. Alan Moran

    Evcricket,
    Instead of mouthing off about your opponents not knowing how electricity markets work (I’ve been in that busienss since 1992) why don’t you just go to the data on efficiency. the AEMO website is extremely comprehensive with data on prices, reliability chopped up by individual polant and plant type. You don’t need to dream up data, it’s all there.

  13. Evcricket

    Thanks for not speaking to any of my points at all Alan.

    And Abraham, I can imagine how immeasurably hurt you must be to be called a Dinosaur. Not going to defend my right to free speech?

  14. Bruce of Newcastle

    Furthermore wind turbines in particular do not save CO2 emissions on a life cycle basis. Indeed I’m reasonably sure if we shut down all wind turbines in Australia actual CO2 emissions would fall because the coal fired power stations could then run at peak efficiency, and closed cycle gas turbines could be used in place of quick response open cycle turbines. It would also save many thousands of birds and bats from being killed.

  15. Rabz

    The subsidising of ‘renewable energy’ sources that don’t work is a criminal misallocation of resources. It’s driven up power bills to ridiculous levels, in a country awash with abundant, easily accessed energy sources. The impact of these policies on commercial activity, employment and living standards has been disastrous.

    The RET must be scrapped. I’m glad those liberal numpties are at least seemingly cognisant of the rising anger about the continued existence of this insane policy.

  16. Tom

    Evcricket is straight out of the 1970s. An unreconstructed hippie. Data is unimportant. It’s the vibe, man, it’s Mabo. LOL.

  17. Rabz

    The only dinosaur on this thread is evcricket.

    How are the windmills treating your li’l birdy friends, BTW, you loathsome hippy?

  18. .

    Evcricket
    #1163518, posted on January 23, 2014 at 8:17 am
    So when you say you want the free market to operate no doubt you support stopping all fossil fuel subsidies and making the generators pay their subsidies back?

    Please list those subsidies.

    It will be a very short list.

  19. Andrew of Randwick

    Evcricket…
    1) Please specify the fossil fuel subsidies you mention
    2) Please specify the [fossil] generators subsidies you mention
    3) If solar is not subsidised anymore, why then are the feed in tariffs still 5 to 15 times greater than the comparable generated cost of coal-fired electricity (please do not confuse retail prices with generating costs)? And why does the CEFC have to provide seed capital at below market rates to get any wind/solar project up and running?
    .
    And if you have the time, can you direct me to any Environmental Impact Statement done by a wind/solar generator where the energy taken from the wind, or the sunlight diverted from striking the earth, is quantified and then demonstrated to have no deleterious effects on the local ecosystem? Because as you know when you taken energy out of any system it must change and cause a downstream effect.

  20. H B Bear

    Until an economic method of storing mass electricity is found every MW of installed solar capacity requires an equivalent amount of Gaia raping fossil fuel generation – that may itself not be run in an optimal manner due to small scale solar generation (if it is sunny) or wind generated energy. Small scale solar also distorts network charging as they lower overall network transmitted energy volumes despite needing all that gold plated network goodness to run domestic air conditioning when the heat is really on.

  21. lotocoti

    Also, solar isn’t subsidised any more.

    Queensland Solar Bonus Scheme – 44c/kWh
    Evcricket’s Soon To Be Crushed By The Market – 20c/kWh (av)
    Increase In Home Insurance Rates For Domestic Solar Panel Installations Due To The Rise In Inverter Caused House Fires – Priceless

  22. nerblnob

    The list of “fossil fuel” subsidies generally includes subsidies on the price of petrol/diesel at the pump in countries like Indonesia and Bangladesh. It’s a subsidy to consumers which makes the price of petrol/diesel , and everything transported by petrol/diesel, cheaper. It distorts the market but it would be a brave politician in these countries that would cut it.

    By comparison, in developed countries, hydrocarbon extraction and production is subject to huge taxes, royalties and windfall taxes , (not to mention OTT regulatory regimes which force the industry to employ more compliance bureaucrats, HSE firms and environmental consultants than actual engineers), which literally fund the whole country in oil-rich places like Norway.

    These reviled resources companies are where the money comes from to hand out on government-set (“market” my arse) feed-in tariffs and subsidies to grid-destroying trickle-ins like wind and solar and the charlatans who promote them.

  23. Andrew of Randwick

    H B Bear – “an economic method of storing mass electricity is found”.
    There is. It is called pumped storage/hydro, which works something like this:
    motor efficiency (95%), pump up (50%), turbine down (50%), generator (95%) – so for every kWh put in you get 22% back later – so total amortised costs for a solar generator at 60c/kWh is now up to operating costs of 265c/kWh to which the extra capital costs of the dam and the equipment need to be added.
    .
    So there is an economic way – its just a choice to waste scarce resources on a expensive solution.

  24. James of the Glen

    Rabz pinpoints a target: “The RET must be scrapped. I’m glad those liberal numpties are at least seemingly cognisant of the rising anger about the continued existence of this insane policy”.

    Wind “farm” companies know this is their weak point and hence their current lobbying.

    Greg Hunt needs tipping out of his seat unless he can display a glimmer of intelligence and willingness to do some work instead of his lazy and curious acceptance of Greens’ BS.
    The same anger that saw Turnbull turfed will be visited on Hunt.

  25. Andrew of Randwick

    Oh if Tony Abbott “the infrastructure prime minister” was looking for a flagship project – he could just commit to a new coal fired power station in NSW – the one we need for the next 40 years.
    On last looking that one power station’s capacity (1 in 3 years) would equal what the Chinese are building every fortnight.

  26. Rabz

    The same anger that saw Turnbull turfed will be visited on Hunt.

    James, if only. I’ve been calling for Hunt’s dumping for many years.

  27. Ant

    Great, Tel. Let’s spend a fortune on the solar concentrator type with parabolic trough and steam turbines (cough), and then sit around in the dark scratching our arse waiting for a heatwave.

  28. Ant

    When I think of Greg Hunt the word “limp” comes to mind.

  29. Andrew

    New troll hasn’t heard that the EU has demanded the abolition of wind subsidies in the UK. Poor troll – pushing 12th century tech when the rest of the world is running away. Go on, make yourself useful and dance for us, troll – tell us about how China is a world champion in carbon abatement so we can laugh at you some more.

  30. Token

    Solar is good for heat wave conditions, especially the solar concentrator type with parabolic trough and steam turbine. The hottest of days are also the best days to run the solar array.

    How much does it cost and how much power does it create?

    Does this provide benefits at a household or grid level?

    Are there more cost effective ways to achieve the same result?

  31. Token

    That new troll has a biography which is very Alene Composta-like.

  32. .

    The best renewable we have is hydroelectricity, but this is effectively banned.

    Solar is good for cutting net peak use, solar UV is good for water heating say in a factory/hydronic heating or cooling.

    Wind may be okay after the subsidies go and it is only used where it is really viable.

    There is no excuse for not extracting as much oil, coal, uranium and thorium as possible now. Gen IV nuke is safe and stops proliferation and uses waste, whilst AGW appears to be baseless.

    Here is a distributed energy system you may see in the future:

    http://www.ice-energy.com/ice-bear-energy-storage-system

    Renewables and smart grids have their place, but they will just augment what we’ve got now. There have been huge advances in nanotechnology for solar and batteries, but they lack energy density and affordability.

  33. Walter Plinge

    This is the future for wind energy:

    The US experience with wind farms has left over 14,000 wind turbines abandoned and slowly decaying, in most instances the turbines are just left as symbols of a dying Climate Religion, nowhere have the Green Environmentalists appeared to clear up their mess or even complain about the abandoned wind farms.

    http://toryaardvark.com/2011/11/17/14000-abandoned-wind-turbines-in-the-usa/

  34. James of the Glen

    The new troll seems suddenly short of wind.

  35. Gab

    There’s nothing “new” about evcricket who has been commenting here sporadically for a few years.

    But back to the “subsidies” … fossil fuel taxes generate some $15.5 billion revenue in taxes (2010), how much do “renewables” generate in taxes?

  36. Percy

    Not going to defend my right to free speech?

    Not until you understand private property

  37. Aristogeiton

    Evcricket
    #1163529, posted on January 23, 2014 at 8:24 am
    […] Not going to defend my right to free speech?

    Free speech doesn’t mean anybody has to give a fuck about what you’re saying.

  38. incoherent rambler

    Summary: Modern coal generators are cheap(est) and clean. Wind/solar would not survive in an open market.

    Question: What can we do to stop our taxes being wasted on the next “green” energy scam?

  39. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    Evcricket:

    So when you say you want the free market to operate no doubt you support stopping all fossil fuel subsidies and making the generators pay their subsidies back?

    This line is the stigmata of the know-nothing greenfilth. Hopefully, evcricket is not one of those monstrously amoral racists.
    What ‘subsidies’, evcricket? Please spell out what you view as a ‘subsidy to the fossil fuel industry’.

    Also, solar isn’t subsidised any more.

    Utter codswallop. The poor and elderly are ripped off over 20c/kwh here in QLD and the money given to rich inner city greenfilth and the middle class able to afford the capital cost of rooftop solar 9the poor end elderly can’t afford that). Naturally, the greenfilth, who are also thieves as well as racist killers (ask the 4,100+ ‘little brown people’ Rudd says their policies slaughtered – oh wait, you cannot, they are dead), rejoice at stealing from the poor to give to the well-off. It makes them feel smug, and screw the poor and elderly.

  40. Andrew of Randwick

    Just so evcricket can get real – some data might help.
    Let’s assume the USA leads the world by 10-20 years – how do they generate electricity?
    .

    In 2012, the USA generated electricity of 4,054,485 million kilo Watt hours
    70% fossil fuels (37% coal, 30% natural gas, 3% other gas)
    19% nuclear
    7% hydro (inc. pumped storage)
    1% biomass (wood, waste)
    3% wind
    0% solar PV
    0% geothermal

    The figures are for generated – not capacity – what is done, not hoped/proposed.
    .
    As we don’t have the mountains and the water of the USA, and because we don’t have nuclear – we really don’t have an economic choice. Get real Evcricket.

  41. JC

    Alan I think it is just fantastic that someone that knows as little about the electricity sector as you can make a living writing about it.

    Lol. I’m game. Come back to me when solar is producing energy at 6 cents per kilowatt hour without the subsidy whoring. Otherwise fuck off.

    Fortunately, it doesn’t matter what you, or any of your centre-right comrades think; solar power is going to change the world and it has already started.

    I’ll wait for the evidence, or with too is the science is in and the debate over?

  42. JC

    oops with this too, is the science in and the deabte over?

  43. JC

    So when you say you want the free market to operate no doubt you support stopping all fossil fuel subsidies and making the generators pay their subsidies back?

    Also, solar isn’t subsidised any more.

    Lying sack of shit.

    The feed in tariff is still there stealing from people.

  44. Token

    Free speech doesn’t mean anybody has to give a fuck about what you’re saying.

    Somebody really has to tell Sarah Tragedies-Happen that before she starts another of her press conference / tedious Kath & Kim impressions.

  45. egg_

    7% hydro (inc. pumped storage)

    3% in Oz, IIRC.
    As good as renewables could hope to get (i.e. pumped storage) if they were to be part of the grid, i.e. expensive window dressing – if they were any good, they wouldn’t need a Global leg-up, FFS, they’d be in use for economic reasons alone.

  46. .

    No it is about 7% of electricity in the national grid and in the last Federal Government forecasts, it will fall to 3% by about 2039.

    http://arena.gov.au/files/2013/08/Chapter-8-Hydro-Energy.pdf

  47. Leo G

    “Where you say “no one knows how much rooftop PV provided” you obviously don’t know about this recource: http://pv-map.apvi.org.au/ which tracks PV contribution in real time.” – evcricket

    That resource only knows about PV from about 1700 non-representative solar installations around the country, some of which give near real-time data.

  48. Alan Moran

    The pv data at http://pv-map.apvi.org.au is modelled not measured. It makes no adjustment for the degredation during hot weather, nor does it take into account the quality of pv’s some of which switch off to protect themselves in hot weather and some use poor quality materials.

    Pv’s all receive the RET subsidy equivalent to the $30-40 per megawatt hour that is the cost of coal generated electricity. They receive this up front for their estimated 15 year life. This defrays the installation cost.

  49. JC

    Batteries are not far behind, falling 20-30% each year for the last 5

    Batteries. Lol… Batteries.

    Like yea, we’re going to run an industrial civilization with three AAA Panasonics.

    ” I’d like to buy this pack of AAA’s please. It’s to run an aluminum smelter”.

    Delusional fucking lunatics.

  50. Token

    Batteries. Lol… Batteries.

    Like yea, we’re going to run an industrial civilization with three AAA Panasonics.

    I had a delusional lefty tell me they are “resolving” the battery problem by use of water. When the solar energy occurs during the day water is evaporated up to a higher storage. At night they can “harvest” the stored energy by allowing the water to flow through watermills to the lower locations.

    From the glint in his eyes and weird grin I knew that I would end the friendship if I asked him about how much real estate would be required to house a battery to power a house for a night.

  51. Oh come on

    Alan: a friend of mine (a massive AGW fanboi, btw) is one of the top electronic engineers working at an Australian power utility. He is VERY anti-rooftop solar. He claims they are damaging the large, base-load generators which are forced to spool up and shut down much more quickly than advisable under standard operating conditions due to the transient nature of rooftop solar’s contribution to the grid. He says that there are going to be major maintenence issues in the coming years; more breakdowns and blackouts as these large generators fail, and we’ll have to resort to a post-tsunami Japan rationing regime at some point if things continue as they are. He says that rooftop solar systems should be disconnected from the grid.

    This is a story that hasn’t had any airtime but could explode in the not too distant future.

  52. egg_

    Oh come on
    #1163906, posted on January 23, 2014 at 12:43 pm

    Fluctuations and harmonics on the Grid – the State Govts only have themselves to blame by encouraging this tripe.

  53. JC

    I had a friend, a massive advocate of propellers on stilts because he’s making money out of it, tell me how solar and windmills are fucking up the coal plants too, financially, by skimming the times when these plants make most of their money… ie when there’s a spike in demand.

    I don’t shut up though. I retorted that those sorts of practices are fraudulent when taking into account the subsidies he and others whore from the public.

  54. JC

    Cricket, you dishonest impertinent scumbag, get back here answer to these charges.

    As for being dinosaurs, you fucking moron….. the wheel is a 2000 year technology that we still use because it’s economically efficient to do so. That’s the acid test, you despicable piece of sludge. It’s nothing to do with the age of technology. We use or should use what’s economically and technologically efficient.

  55. gabrianga

    Funny about that Ant. When I hear the name Greg Hunt mentioned the first word that springs to mind is “dick”

  56. Bruce of Newcastle

    Batteries unfortunately suffer from the whims of chemistry and nucleosynthesis. Lithium is good stuff, but there isn’t much around due to its annoying habit of being destroyed in stars. We currently mine enough to build about 2-3 million Teslas a year. Drop in a bucket. There’s not much prospect of massively increasing extraction as mineable resources are rare.

    If you try a load levelling baseload battery program the sheer amount of material you would need would blow the economics skyhigh. Prices would increase massively. During the rare earth metal boom their prices rose 10-20 times. EV’s are expensive enough already, that sort of price rise would make them ridiculous.

    Hydrogen, beryllium and especially magnesium would theoretically fit the bill, but their electrochemistry sucks. No one has yet made a workable light weight battery out of them.

    There is only one mature battery system that makes sense economically: sodium-sulphur, since these elements aren’t rare. Unfortunately that system has significant drawbacks, like having to operate above about 200 C. It wouldn’t work for EV’s and is pretty expensive for load levelling. MWh scale units are commercially available and have been installed here and there. But with renewables already extremely expensive adding more capex for a big hairy battery system just makes no sense compared to nuclear.

    So forget batteries.

  57. JC

    Bruce

    We don’t need to remake batteries as we have stored energy anyway. There’s coal, oil, gas and uranium which we have plenty of and know how to extract the stored energy from that stuff.

    The idea of developing batteries is mindbogglingly stupid for humungous amounts of energy that we need. In fact anyone promoting that crap, like cricket brain is, ought to be put to death after a speedy trial.

  58. JC

    Rats like Cricket really get up my goat because they basically want to impoverish humanity. I have absolutely no fucking time for this sort of human trash. And human trash/garbage is what they are.

  59. RexR

    Alan, you claim that:

    AEMO data shows that during heat wave conditions in the five days to 18 January this year, wind actually contributed 3 per cent of electricity supply across the Australian National Electricity Market.

    The link you provide does not take us to any data that supports your claim. Just wondering if you’ll provide us with a more specific link where we can see the evidence that supports your thesis.

  60. gabrianga

    Gillard and Combet’s “supporters” the EU to abandon renewable targets

  61. Bruce of Newcastle

    RexR – Try the links on the LHS of the page Alan linked to, like this one. You can see the SA price spike in January pretty clearly.

    There is a range of interesting data there to play with.

  62. Alan Moran

    Rex and any others intersted in the precise data I extracted can email me at IPA and I will send the spreadsheet I assembled from the AEMO data. Their system is not over user friendly

  63. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    JC:

    you despicable piece of sludge

    I am so stealing that.

  64. Evcricket

    You guys are the best. Thanks

  65. MT Isa Miner

    JC

    #1163887, posted on January 23, 2014 at 12:26 pm

    Batteries are not far behind, falling 20-30% each year for the last 5

    Batteries. Lol… Batteries.

    Like yea, we’re going to run an industrial civilization with three AAA Panasonics.

    ” I’d like to buy this pack of AAA’s please. It’s to run an aluminum smelter”.

    Delusional fucking lunatics.

    I read the Cat to learn more stuff , ta, Alan, but I read JC to keep sane against the leftist loon dripfeed everywhere else.

    Abuse and humiliation, we need more of it. Go JC, MK and the others. Get stuck in!

  66. .

    The link you provide does not take us to any data that supports your claim. Just wondering if you’ll provide us with a more specific link where we can see the evidence that supports your thesis.

    Hows about YOU provide US of YOUR claims?

  67. .

    Ev

    I gave you no umbrage but you treated my question as umbrage.

    Perhaps you can’t answer the question and in part deserve what else you get from others.

    We’ll be having that list of fossil fuel subsidies now, Ev.

  68. incoherent rambler

    If abiotic oil/gas is only partly true, then it makes redundant the term “renewable energy”.

  69. gabrianga

    Scottish windfarms hit legal problems which has rocked Numero Uno, Salmond and his “kilted warriors” in the SNP.

    A win for the “bravehearts”

  70. Token

    We’ll be having that list of fossil fuel subsidies now, Ev.

    That second post supports my Hammy/Composta theory about Ev.

  71. Rabz

    You guys are the best. Thanks

    Anytime, you lobotomised luddite.

    🙂

  72. Evcricket

    I note with interest that outsiders of this close-knit community are heavily policed and expected to conform to rigid rules of decency, while at the same time expected to take any number of insults from the community.

    Libertarians in massive hypocrisy shock I guess.

  73. JC

    We’ll be having that list of fossil fuel subsidies now, Ev.

    That second post supports my Hammy/Composta theory about Ev.

    What subsidies are these T0ke. I know it’s bullshit but I’m interested in figuring out what the human trash is referring to.

  74. Evcricket

    Here’s one JC, let me know if any of the words don’t make sense to you:
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2011/11/1/smart-energy/nsws-great-big-coal-subsidy-scandal

    Also the diesel fuel rebate.

    Then there are the historical subsidies like free land, network connections and transmission lines which were gifted by state governments to coal fired power plants.

  75. Token

    If you want to be taken seriously Evcricket, stop sooking and playing the victim. We know deflection and will call you out for it.

    You were asked for facts about the subsidies. Please be kind enough and substantiate the statement.

  76. Evcricket

    Here are details of even more fossil fuel subsidies:
    http://environmentvictoria.org.au/fossilfuelsubsidies

    I guess you guys haven’t heard of google?

  77. Rod

    Many people here are missing the real point. Solar Energy costs between $150-$240MWh and Wind Power Energy Costs between $110-$130MWh while the latest coal fired power station produce energy on a LRMC of $40MWh.

    I have no problem with anyone supporting Wind or Solar energy having this fuel supply their needs but then they have to be willing to pay the cost of production. The problem is that these people want to pay the cost of Coal Power for Wind and Solar and want everyone else to cross subsidize this demand.

    There is no country in the world where energy prices are at the levels of Australia or lower where any wind or solar power is not heavily subsidized, including the USA. Countries which are very reliant on Wind such as Denmark pay significantly higher prices than we do.

    I am sick of all the so called environmentalist taking the so called moral high ground and asking everyone else to pay for it.

  78. Token

    Your article Evcricket is built on the premise of this statement which is not proven:

    In short, this inquiry tells us, the coal-fired power stations in NSW are unable to compete with other power sources unless their coal is supplied at around one quarter of the cost of export coal.

    Where is the statement which compares the actual unit cost of comparable coal plants in Queensland, Vic & elsewhere in NSW and notes the cost ex subsidy against the rates in those plants?

    Where does it compare those rates against the retail cost of solar, wind, geo-thermal, tide or other unicorn fart power, at the rates they can be supplied?

  79. Rabz

    http://environmentvictoria.org.au/fossilfuelsubsidies

    You’ve got be f*cking kidding?

    “Kiddies V Big Polludahs”

  80. Token

    Many people here are missing the real point. Solar Energy costs between $150-$240MWh and Wind Power Energy Costs between $110-$130MWh while the latest coal fired power station produce energy on a LRMC of $40MWh.

    Rod, that is exactly the type of detail the Evcricket chooses not to provide (and whines about being picked on when pushed).

    As they say, an empty vessel makes the most noise.

  81. JC

    Here are details of even more fossil fuel subsidies:
    http://environmentvictoria.org.au/fossilfuelsubsidies

    I guess you guys haven’t heard of google?

    Sludge pack, the reason why we don’t discuss them is that we’ve been through it before in great detail at the Cat. The so-called subsidies are tiny which even if they were closed wouldn’t make one bit of fucking difference to the production of energy using coal. Go through the blog and read up. It’s basically propaganda from the human trash straight out lying about it.

    In fact, fudge pack , Australia has the highest carbonic taxes in the world, which basically negates any so called subsidy,……that really don’t exist anyway except in the propaganda literature of the green trash.

    You lying dickhead.

  82. rebel with cause

    Treasury estimates that subsidised aviation gasoline and turbine fuel cost Australian taxpayers $1.06 billion in 2011-12, and will cost $920 million in 2012-13, $940 million in 2013-14 and $970 million in 2014-15

    This has got to be the most dishonest bunch of claptrap going aroud. Let’s see, what does Treasury actually say?

    Aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel are subject to a lower rate of excise than the benchmark rate. Aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel are currently excised at 3.556 cents per litre and this rate will be increased from 1 July 2012 to include a ‘carbon component rate’, which is determined by the emission factor of each fuel.

    Excise on aviation fuel has been used to fund the provision of air services by the Australian Government. Excise on aviation fuel is currently directed to the funding of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). From 1 July 2012, the carbon component of the tax will not be directed to CASA.

    Since when was the decision not to tax something at the same rate as something else a subsidy? By this token, whatever the government lets you keep of your income is a ‘subsidy’.

  83. .

    This Evcricket chap is a tad naive. He is saying where fuel isn’t taxed at the highest possible rate, it is a subsidy.

    The only thing which is arguably subsidy is the phase out payments, which wouldn’t exist without susbidising renewables.

    Air travel is not subsidised if airlines don’t pay fuel excise. We pay specific air travel taxes anyway. Off road diesel is not subsidised as the excise is meant to fund roads.

    Accelerated depreciation is available for many types of investment. Renewables are pimping for this themselves. This is only an issue because we have income tax anyway. If your accountant knows what they are doing anyway, they will use a method which basically follows AD anyway.

  84. dianeh

    Awww JC

    AAA batteries, aluminium smelter. Lol

    my hubby thinks I’ve lost it I was laughing so much.

  85. JC

    Rod…

    thanks… at least I knew how expensive it is. Thanks for raising it though as it brings everyone up to speed on the subject.

    Plastic panels fitted with magnifying glass and propellers on sticks can never create the level of cheap abundant energy we need. They’re diffuse energy sources and suffer greatly for dis-economies of scale. This won’t change even if their cost was brought down close to zero as maintenance and related issues come into play then.

  86. JC

    Another leftwing asshat is put to the sword. At this we’re going to run out of them and may have to import a load of lefties.

    The cat really is a leftie killing field. They never leave alive or mentally healthy after we’re been through them.

  87. Token

    I guess you guys haven’t heard of google?

    Every time I Google queries about Australia’s energy needs through to 2030 it is clear the offensively large amount of money wasted on unicorn farts are not going to help deal with the growth that the 50,000 economic refugees and their families the incompetent Rudd/Gillard government let in will require, let alone deal with real growth from new technology, etc.

  88. brc

    You could steal an entire wind farm at the point if a gun and still not make any money from it. Unless, you can also steal money from electricity consumers at the pint of a gun

    I would rather the wind industry produced outdoor sculptures and get pays a subsidy for that. At least you could call it yarts and someone would like it.

    Despite all the tax breaks, subsidies, exemptions from environmental impacts, regulations forcing us to use it and plain old graft and corruption, the wind industry still cannot turn a profit. It’s hilarious. Instead of attacking Germany, Churchill should have convinced Hitler to switch to wind power. It would have been over quicker. The u-boats wouldn’t have made it past the harbor entrances and the v2 rockets would have sat on the launching pad waiting for the wind to blow.

    It’s an entirely hopeless technology. Despite the billions, despite the destruction, the worldwide electricity production from wind, rounded to the nearest decimal point, is zero. And in ten years time they will all be rusting post-industrial junk.

  89. Bruce of Newcastle

    Evcricket – Diesel excise is intended to pay for the maintenance and building of roads. Which B-doubles travel on and damage.

    Miners do not pay it for mining trucks because they do not travel on roads. Capeesh?

    Airlines pay a lower fuel excise because that is sufficient to pay for ‘air services’ ie airport maintenance or at least the component that is not covered by landing fees. If they paid the same excise as cars they would be unfairly taxed, since the services they are paying for are fully covered by the lower rate.

    The carbon tax on top is an unjust tax because there is no damage to be paid for and CO2 emitted is harmless since the empirical equilibrium climate sensitivity is low. Therefore we could aid Qantas quite fairly by $100 M a year just by removing the carbon tax.

    All this is called ‘fairness’. Do you understand the concept?

  90. Andrew of Randwick

    What really pisses me off about ignoramuses like Evcricket is that I spent over ten years of my life (and the companies I worked for millions of dollars) conforming to environmental regulations set by governments. Every hoop specified, was jumped through – no matter its cost.
    .
    We then worked hard keeping the plants running meeting tough foreign customer specifications for quality:
    – whilst the governments won (royalties, charges and taxes),
    – whilst the towns won (from the injection of wealth and growth),
    – whilst the workers won (high wages and good conditions),
    – whilst the suppliers on the coast won (risk-less expansion),
    – whilst the bankers won (personal guarantees and homes on the line),
    and at the end of the day we just said “f*ck it”. Let’s hope the next project is better. And off we went again.
    .
    But that is private business in a ‘dirty’ industry. We should have had the foresight to go into ‘fake’ industry that only survives because of subsidies (which can be gained and sustained by only employing a handful of ‘government relations’ managers and a big lobbying budget), which flouts safety, planning and environmental rules that others have to obey, and then gets all the kudos of being ‘green and saving the planet’.
    .
    I think I know where all the smart guys from Enron era went. They sure as hell did not go into coal fired power generation – that does not have the ROE’s to which they had become accustomed. And the young brain-washed engineering graduates thinks it’s better (more honourable) to do ‘carbon audits’ than run a shift doing something productive.

  91. manalive

    Just another example of Left bastardisation of the language; a subsidy is a grant of cash given actual and overall not a tax rebate or waiver or concession of some kind usually to encourage industry investment and employment.
    Another standard talking-point that lefties regularly regurgitate from green/left websites.

  92. you all want to be me

    But wind & solar are clean.
    Coal so dirty.
    When I turn on fan, I want clean energy.
    Maybe they work a way to take money from rich mining people to give to wind farms.
    Then there will be jobs for everyone.

  93. gabrianga

    Are you for real ev? You use a Green NGO’s figures to back up half arsed claims about subsidies to our resource industries.? Perhaps their Head Honcho from NBN could clarify as that outfit is well recognised for it’s financial creds.

  94. evcricket

    You could have saved a lot of time by saying “I don’t read links that people post, particularly not if they challenge my assumptions”.

  95. Gab

    You use a Green NGO’s figures to back up half arsed claims about subsidies to our resource industries.?

    Green NGOs? Like the ones subsidised by Big Petroleum, you know, Greenpeace?

  96. Rod

    I have no problem with anyone wanting Wind or Solar or as “you want to be me” (actually I don’t want to be them) wanting certain power to run her / his fan!

    Just don’t ask me to pay for it.

    Respect my right to use the energy source I like and want, and I will respect your choices, but you see here is the real elephant in the room that no-one wants to discuss.

    Socialists and Greenies don’t want others to have choice, they want to control others lives based upon their views and that is what this is really about!!!

  97. evcricket

    So what if your choices impact someone else? Does that matter?

  98. incoherent rambler

    Energy availability and cost is key to developing industry for next generation.

    Wasting billions on wind, increasing energy costs; a simple job killer. This is why the greens like wind and the RET.

  99. manalive

    So what if your choices impact someone else? Does that matter?

    I think I know where this is heading.

  100. Andrew of Randwick

    Dot #1163768, posted on January 23, 2014 at 11:16 am – No its 4.5%
    .
    From page 225 of your source:

    In 2007–08, Australia’s hydroelectricity use represented… 4.5 per cent of total electricity generation. Hydroelectricity use has declined on average by 4.2 per cent per year between 1999–00 and 2007–08, largely as a result of an extended period of drought

    From page 237 of your reference:

    In 2029–30, hydro is projected to account for 3.5 per cent of Australia’s total electricity generation

    The Government MUST stop this waste of capital (solar, wind). It is distorting a crucial enabling industry. And the State governments MUST stop their snouts-in-the-trough feed-in tariffs.

  101. Rod

    evcricket

    my choices impact no-one, unfortunately yours do, your lack of facts to substantiate your views, and your lack of willingness to learn beyond the narrow understanding you have says much about you as a person. I have no doubt that you live of subsidies and handouts, please tell me if I am wrong and you are not in a govt job or still studying at the age of 40 plus!

    You will spend your life blaming others and asking others to do things for you and never ever take responsibility or grasp reality….

    But that is fine because if it was not for the insane how would you recognize the sane!

  102. Andrew of Randwick

    Token #1164108, posted on January 23, 2014 at 4:32 pm

    Your article Evcricket is built on the premise of this statement which is not proven:
    In short, this inquiry tells us, the coal-fired power stations in NSW are unable to compete with other power sources unless their coal is supplied at around one quarter of the cost of export coal.

    That is the whole bloody point you idiots.
    The coal mining leases are (were?) carefully managed. A 15% ash steaming coal can only be produced from certain reserves and they are ear marked for export. Go for it and you may get $200/t CIF then pay everybody (govt, workers, suppliers) and you may get a ROE around 10% (on twenty year averaging)
    .
    Other deposits are near worthless dirt – like brown coal. So what to do? Well they are kept (for the PEOPLE) to fire domestic coal fired power stations because their product is not worth washing, or shipping anywhere. Dig it up, push it into that power station at 25-30% ash using an integrated production system ($20-40 per tonne). That’s what we did when we had brains, not good intentions.

  103. brc

    evcricket, if you want to be taken seriously, you’ll have to either admit that different excise rates are not a subsidy, or at least mount a valid argument why they are. Linking to an activist site is not winning an argument. Tell us why differing fuel excise rates are subsidies.

    While you are at it, tell us what the net cash flow to the government is from wind companies, and whether that net cash flow is towards the ATO or from the dept of free cash for true believers towards the wind companies. Even if you were right on the subsidies, which you are not, what matters is the net amount of cash going toward the government or away from them.

  104. JC

    So what if your choices impact someone else? Does that matter?

    What are those sludge pack? Name them!

  105. Gab

    While you are at it, tell us what the net cash flow to the government is from wind companies, and whether that net cash flow is towards the ATO or from the dept of free cash for true believers towards the wind companies.

    Asked that question this morning. Still no answer.

  106. Leo G

    “During the peaks in the heatwave, solar was contributing 10% in WA and Qld, about 6 in NSW, 8 in SA and not much in Victoria and Tassie.” – evcricket

    Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) the peak electricity demand during the heatwave occurred on Thursday 16th January in the half hour from 4.00 pm in Victoria (10,240 MW) and in the half hour from 6.30 pm in South Australia (3,246 MW).
    How much do you think photovoltaics generate at that time of day? Unless you count PV generation in Perth (at 2pm local time) as counting toward a reduction in peak demand in Sydney (at 4pm local time) even though they’re not connected to the same grid.

  107. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    This ones kinda boring. All it knows is the fact-free propaganda endlessly excreted by various idiot greenfilthers. Just like all the others over the years.

    Not paying a fuel tax based on road use because you do not use roads = a subsidy? God, how many times have we laughingly demolished economicially illiterate drivel like that?

    Are all greenfilthers retarded bong-addled kindergarten drop-outs on crack?

    Chirpy, wake up and smell the tofu. The cretinous idiocy of the risible demonisatioon of an entirely beneficial trace gas has cost real people, tens of thousands of them, their jobs by adding entirely unnecessary costs to their industry. Every cent squandered on cli-fi dross has been wasted (and greenfilthers have grown fat and rich on it) while every single ‘model’ used to predict the ecopalypse has now been proven by empirical measurement to be dead wrong. Piffling increases in CO2 concentrations DO have a significant impact – on increasing plant growth rates. But that’s it. The warmy CO2 model is laughably simplistic.

    ‘renewables’ are merely very convenient to con-men, frauds, spivs and charlatans out to snuffle up public money. You cannot run a techno civilisation on low-intensity distributed energy sources. it simply cannot provide enough energy, or even reliable 24/7/365 energy.

    I want a fast-track government approval to build a 2Gw supercritical thermal station to replace the now-closed Munmorah power station, a second one twice the capacity to replace Loy Yang (but to still used brown coal) and a third to power Gladstone’s industrialisation.

    The most urgent need in Australia is to drastically lower electricity prices and regain our manufacturing edge.

  108. nerblnob

    I read EV’s links. The usual stuff about imposing an extra tax and then winding it back a bit, and calling it a subsidy. The airline one is particularly amusing. Environment Victoria’s aim seems to be to prevent air travel.

    This so called NGO nevertheless received considerable subsidy from government, as this complaint about it being reduced shows:

    Not for profit my arse. They profited from the taxpayer.

  109. Pedro

    I’ve got panels because of the feed in tariff, if the govt’s going to do something stupid, don’t get on the wrong end of the stick. If it wasn’t for the tariff I’d have waited for the cost to come down, but I could still foresee a point when a set of panels would make sense for me. There seems to be a moores-type law in operation. It will get to the point where they just become roofing.

    If there were a lot of panels and a significant part of the supply was fast start up gas then that could have benefits. I think some renewels will be transformative over time, I just don’t believe the current subsidies were a good idea. Money into R&D is potentially justifiable.

  110. you all want to be me

    I don’t understand.
    Everyone wants green energy.
    We can have it at a cheap price if the government pays for it or gets rich mining people taxed big & they can afford it.

  111. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    Environemtn Victoria annual report 2011-12

    I note that they are (according to Chirpy) subsidised.

    On p.7 of their audit report that state that they are exempt from income tax!

  112. JC

    I don’t understand.

    You don’t, so STFU and piss off.

  113. JC

    Pedro

    They estimate the life to be around 25 years. It’s bullshit. They’re lying. We’ve now recently found out that the real estimated life of a propeller on a stick is around 5 years without serious heavy duty maintenance and parts replacements instead of the 25 to 30 years the makers were suggesting.

    The renewball industry is built on a pack of lies and a large numberof the disgusting slobs and slobettes engaged in it ought to be up on fraud charges.

  114. Carpe Jugulum

    Everyone wants green energy.

    I don’t, i want cheap reliable power.

  115. Pedro

    JC, I think wind looks much more suss than solar as a long run proposition, but I’m not making a claim about now. I’m talking about the future. The trend seems to be our friend.

  116. evcricket

    JC is a nasty piece of work. I note that none of you police their behaviour but have a tizzy when I suggest someone is a Dinosaur. Again, the right demonstrate they are some of the worst hypocrites going around.

    Rod claims:
    “my choices impact no-one”. So you deny the evidence that coal mining is harmful to human health?

  117. JC

    It’s really fucking incredible. We have two morons who shouldn’t be tying their shoelaces without strict supervision, commenting here on the way our economy derives its energy inputs. The entire left is no different. They really are fucking morons. Dangerous fucking morons because if they ever came to power again they would really try to cut off our reliable energy supplies for plastic panels and propellers on sticks. They’re mentally ill.

  118. evcricket

    Here is another article for you not to read about how solar lowered electricity prices during the heatwave
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/solar-saved-southern-states-from-new-and-costly-demand-peaks-92609

  119. you all want to be me

    STFU
    What is this?
    Are you being racist again mister JC?

  120. JC

    JC is a nasty piece of work.

    No, I’m actually a nice person. I just find you and your type utterly despicable to the point that I would literally not piss on you if you were on fire. I despise your kind. If i knew who you were and died in front of me I wouldn’t care less.

    I note that none of you police their behaviour but have a tizzy when I suggest someone is a Dinosaur.

    What’s there to police, sludge pack. They possibly despise you as much as I do.

    Again, the right demonstrate they are some of the worst hypocrites going around.

    lol… you fucking idiot. You don’t even seem to know how to contextualize your arguments.

    Rod claims:
    “my choices impact no-one”. So you deny the evidence that coal mining is harmful to human health?

    Depends how you mine it, you fucking moron. It’s dangerous to health in the third world because they can’t afford the safeguards the developed world can. Hardly anyone in the developed world. No one is forcing people to live in the Hunter Valley. In fact it’s quite nice.

    And how about trade offs, fuck face? How about trade offs particularly in the developing world where the difference would be an okay life for a large number of people or grinding absolute poverty and despair.

    You despicable sludge pack turd.

  121. Pedro

    “So you deny the evidence that coal mining is harmful to human health?”
    Well, I think it’s pretty clear that:
    1 falling into a coal mine could be pretty bad, even lethal;
    2 I’ll bet plenty of people have died in work place accidents
    3 if you let power companies and such burn coal without scrubbers then the air gets pretty awful and will make people sick and even kill them

    On the other hand, being a poor schlub with a wood fire in your mud hut really sucks big time and seems to be associated with lots of negative health outcomes and makes London in 1850 or Beijing now look like paradise by comparison.

    It’s easy to be a stupid wanker about this when more sensible people came along and made your standard of living so good that you can feel superior about the sacrifices you’re prepared to make to increase the cost of energy for marginal (at best) environmental gains.

  122. JC

    Here is another article for you not to read about how solar lowered electricity prices during the heatwave
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/solar-saved-southern-states-from-new-and-costly-demand-peaks-92609

    It’s an astroturf wesbite, fuckface. In other words just propaganda and lies for subsidy whores.

  123. Carpe Jugulum

    Are you being racist again mister JC?

    This is so amateur it’s pathetic.

  124. .

    you all want to be me
    #1164182, posted on January 23, 2014 at 5:29 pm
    But wind & solar are clean.

    No, they’re friggin’ not.

    Do you know what cadmium is?

    Which power source it is used in?

    Or what cadmium poisoning is?

    FFS…

  125. Bruce of Newcastle

    Rod claims: “my choices impact no-one”. So you deny the evidence that coal mining is harmful to human health?

    What appalling hypocrisy. Harmful? Modern coal fired power does not kill. Renewable energy does.

    High power costs lead to deaths for pensioners and poor people who cannot afford to heat their homes:

    Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day.

    And that is just the UK. Add the rest of EU to that and you have tens of thousands dying because of renewable energy policy.

    Then there are biofuels. They cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands and possibly millions. Biofuels consume food in the fuel tanks of greenies SUV’s. Food prices rise, and poor people cannot afford to eat enough. They get malnutrition and die.

    Do you support biofuels and renewables that kill legions of poor people Evcricket?

  126. Rabz

    Again, the right demonstrate they are some of the worst hypocrites going around.

    But your unquestioning swallowing of the most laughable, utterly discredited, fact and evidence free anti-scientific bullshit hasn’t been at all harmful to your mental health, has it, you deranged, drug-addled dunderhead?

    FFS.

  127. you all want to be me

    But all those old people would die anyway.
    And we will all be dead if we don’t stop using coal.
    We need to live with the future.
    Julie Gillard should never have given the top job to new guy.

  128. Mater

    Evcricket,
    I suggest you confine your argument to that which you know. Despite the speculation from your link, the greatest difference between 2009 and 2014 is the fact that a lot of heavy industry was not yet in full swing last week. Max demand can vary greatly during the summer holidays.

  129. evcricket

    Here are some articles on the health impacts of coal mining and burning:
    http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/research/units/boden/PDF_Mining_Report_FINAL_October_2012.pdf
    This one is from some doctors, who everyone knows are all leftists so this can be disregarded
    http://www.fof.org.au/uploads/media/MJA_Coal.pdf
    And here’s an article from the Sunshine Coast Daily which is probably about the standard you prefer
    http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/owen-jacques-apn-newsdeska-group-of-activist-docto/1882270/

  130. Leo G

    “Here is another article for you not to read about how solar lowered electricity prices during the heatwave
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/solar-saved-southern-states-from-new-and-costly-demand-peaks-92609 ” – evcricket

    It’s an astroturf wesbite, fuckface. In other words just propaganda and lies for subsidy whores.” – JC

    JC is quite correct. Commenter evcricket would have us accept that at the peak demand time during the heatwave in South Australia, PV significantly reduced demand over a continuous period of 11 hours.

  131. JC

    Sinc

    This is some of the worst trolling I’ve seen here.

    you all want to be me
    #1164339, posted on January 23, 2014 at 7:15 pm

    But all those old people would die anyway.
    And we will all be dead if we don’t stop using coal.
    We need to live with the future.
    Julie Gillard should never have given the top job to new guy.

    Any chance of culling it?

  132. Infidel Tiger

    Here are some articles on the health impacts of coal mining and burning:

    What power source was used to manufacture your solar panels?

  133. JC

    Sludge Pack

    One of your links contains this subject header.

    Is social injustice associated with coal mining in local communities?

    Lol. A scientific study no doubt. hahahahahahahhaha

    You fuckers are disgusting. Just disgusting.

  134. squawkbox

    Sorry, Ev, I looked up your first link but as soon as I reached.

    This independent Report was commissioned by Beyond Zero Emissions

    I was overcome by a fit of laughter which will end sometime around Sunday. Thank you for brightening up my life.

  135. Carpe Jugulum

    Here are some articles on the health impacts of coal mining and burning:

    Lets see – the 1st link is from the shills ‘beyond zero omissions’ – focus on health and social justice impact
    .
    2nd & 3rd links are from ‘Drs for the environment’.

    So you link to green shills – aaaaahahahahahahahahahaha

    Pathetic

  136. JC

    There more:

    Is there an association between coal mining and social injustice in the Hunter Region of NSW?

    hahahhaha look who commissioned the propaganda piece.

    Commissioned by: Beyond Zero Emissions(Australia

    Sludge pack, do you understand the difference between propaganda put out by astroturf operations and real science?

    You don’t seem to because you’ve only linked to propaganda sites which invariably have predetermined findings. Do you think think that sort of crap would make it through the Cat?

    You dickhead sludge pack.

  137. evcricket

    The thing I have found most interesting about this ‘debate’ is that you guys are most interested in performing for each other, trying to out do each other in attempt to Crush Teh Leftist. Facts, being convincing and being civil come in distant second.

    Just for interest what do you think of nuclear power?

  138. Token

    You could have saved a lot of time by saying “I don’t read links that people post, particularly not if they challenge my assumptions”.

    At 4:32pm I quoted from your first post.

    You are not very bright Ev, bit like those awful light globes the greens like.

  139. Carpe Jugulum

    I love this shyte from one of sludges links; (david shearman)

    Climate change caused by economic growth and the increasing population of the world now threatens the integrity of the biological earth. Our life support systems, the ecological services in the soil and the sea, upon which we depend for food, are sick. The health impacts of climate change are already upon us with an increase in deaths from heat stroke and natural disasters. Many societies are becoming unstable because of drought and there is suffering from stress, depression and the migration of populations.

    Do not let this lunatic posing as an MBBS near you are your family.

  140. Carpe Jugulum

    Nuke is great – do you have a problem with it *pokes village idiot with a stick*

  141. Mater

    Ev,
    I think Nuclear is infinitely sensible. Now would you care to comment on my explanation regards the lower Max Demand last week?

  142. Infidel Tiger

    Just for interest what do you think of nuclear power?

    Nice shit, especially when dropped on the enemy.

    As a power source it’s second rate to cheap coal though.

  143. Rabz

    what do you think of nuclear power?

    Why bother? We’ve got many thousands of years of lovely coal at our disposal, plus all the new sources of gas. No hurry to rush to nuclear and there are some interesting technological advances likely in the next couple of decades.

  144. Token

    Just for interest what do you think of nuclear power?

    You have to keep moving as you don’t really have anything accept good intentions and the threat of a doomsday. Sounds like some goofy religion.

  145. Leo G

    Just for interest what do you think of nuclear power? – evcricket

    Fortunately, it doesn’t matter what you, or any of your centre-right comrades think (about the electricity sector)” – evcricket

    You’re interested, you’re not interested.- which is it? But don’t suggest you’re seriously interested in facts- you’ve already demonstrated otherwise.

  146. you all want to be me

    What would Jesus do?
    He wouldn’t like nuclear power.

  147. Bruce of Newcastle

    Evcricket – If you look at the data in the Colagiuri et al report you will see the deaths by area in Fig 2 and Fig 3. Since I live in the area I can assure you that the statistics are fully explainable by lifestyle choice. The Upper Hunter has quite a few modern coal mines, yet has less mortality than the Lower Hunter. The Lower Hunter is an area where there is a higher smoking rate.

    Now if you looked at the actual population, its tiny. The whole of Newcastle area has about 350,000, and the rest of the Hunter area less than 100 thou. So the actual excess deaths even if they weren’t due to lifestyle choices would be single digits compared with the rest of NSW. And you’d have to do some sexy stats to determine any significant excess of deaths. Its crap.

    Now look at my first link. Tens of thousands of actual deaths, easy to determine because they take place over a space of three months. Easy to correlate with energy prices.

    Now the second. If you note my very first comment on this thread you will see a link to an analysis of coal power station efficiency. If a plant operates steadily it is more efficient. If it has to cope with swings due to wind and solar energy it runs inefficiently. When a plant like that runs inefficiently it certainly will emit more dust (ie pm 2.5). Furthermore the other link points out that because of the inefficiency the coal plants don’t actually burn much less coal. So because of the intermittency the coal plants will emit more PM 2.5 with wind turbines than if they just operated at peak efficiency. (BTW I have worked for thirty years in such industries where particulate capture is a required emission control. I speak from experience – you really want your plant running steadily for the baghouse to operate at its best).

    In other words according to those stats if you turned off the wind turbines fewer people would die (assuming the stats are accurate…from a mob like “Physicians for Social Responsibility”).

    Your third link is about CSG not coal fired power.

    So far I’m seeing, if the data is right (and I doubt that for the statistical reasons I mentioned), the ratio of deaths due to renewables to those due to coal power stations are about 1,000 to 1. Admittedly the deaths I’m taking about are in Europe. Add in biofuels and the death ratio is probably closer 10,000 to 1.

    You would kill 10,000 people to save 1 person? How very green of you Evcricket.

    Always the left kills people with their caring policies. Why is that?

  148. squawkbox

    What would Jesus do?
    He wouldn’t like nuclear power.

    Why not? God the Father created it 🙂

  149. evcricket

    You keep saying sludge pack JC, what does that mean?

  150. Infidel Tiger

    What would Jesus do?

    Stone you to death and then throw a handsome feast involving fish, loaves and a cheeky sauvingon blanc sourced from the Red Sea.

  151. Andrew of Randwick

    evcricket cites:

    Here are some articles on the health impacts of coal mining and burning:
    1) http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/research/units/bode/PDF_Mining_Report_FINAL_October_2012.pdf
    2) http://www.fof.org.au/uploads/media/MJA_Coal.pdf
    3) http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/owen-jacques-apn-newsdeska-group-of-activist-docto/1882270/

    1) Need I read further?

    The purpose of this report is to provide an objective overview of the available international and local evidence from the health and medical literature about the health effects and social justice impacts of coal mining on local communities and to discuss and relate these issues to the Hunter Region of New South Wales

    This independent Report was commissioned by Beyond Zero Emissions

    2) As the only person (I suspect) on this blog who has actually worked in West Virginia, USA I can tell you the high mortality rate had nothing to do with coal. It had to do with poverty when their mines were shut down in the early 1980’s due to high sulphur content and US coal production shifted to the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.

    Concerns about the expansion of coal mining are growing and, as a result, medical practitioners and other health experts are being asked about coal and its effects on health. While there has been no Australian overview of the health effects of coal mining on inhabitants of coal mining areas, evidence from the United States indicates that coal mining communities in West Virginia had an increased risk for developing cardiopulmonary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hypertension, other lung diseases and kidney disease.
    1 Mortality rates for these diseases were higher in coal mining areas compared with non-mining areas of the region.2 Potentially confounding risk factors, such as smoking rates, were not reported. Coal-processing chemicals, fumes from diesel powered equipment, explosives, toxic impurities in coal and dust from uncovered coal trucks could all have affected the health of respondents.

    3) Typical agitation – media management 101 when you have nothing to say.

    A GROUP of activist doctors have taken aim at gas and coal projects … calling for the creation of a national environmental protection body…The Doctors for the Environment Australia report

    The World Health Organisation estimates that one quarter of global disease and one third of that in children is due to modifiable environmental factors (the other 75% are because you are so energy poor that you can’t get a first world service?)
    Doctors for the Environment Australia is a voluntary organisation of medical doctors in all states and territories. We work to address the diseases – local, national and global – caused by damage to the earth’s environment. For example, climate change will bring to Australia an increased burden of heat stroke, injury from fire and storm, infectious diseases and social disruption and mental illness, whilst in the developing world it will bring famine and water shortage.

    I am going to give up. Ostriches just don’t get it.
    You can pull the plough yourself and have a shit life (energy input 0.25 horsepower)
    You can get a horse to pull the plough and have a better life (eneryg input 1 HP)
    Or you can get a tractor and have a liveable life (energy input 100 HP)
    .
    Per capita energy intensity drives per capita GDP with an asymptote about 12 tonnes of coal equivalent energy per capita per year. Getting that energy hit cheaply and reliably will get you a head.

  152. blogstrop

    evcrikeyt is further proof of the theory that these guys just want to be disruptive – that’s their whole raison d’etre. Apart from that it looks and sounds like monty in a beard and wig.

  153. feelthebern

    Bruce of Newie, you are smarter than Yoda.

  154. Bruce of Newcastle

    The thing I have found most interesting about this ‘debate’ is that you guys are most interested in performing for each other

    Evcricket – My comments to you are polite, logical and detailed. You do not ever answer them. Is it because you cannot or will not?

    I like debating with people from the Left because it allows me to point out the real data, and to explore what it means with them. I am quite happy to do so with you.

    You will note that with the report by Colagiuri et al the data was what I looked at. Would you like to discuss it?

  155. Andrew of Randwick

    evcricket cites:

    Here are some articles on the health impacts of coal mining and burning:
    1) http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/research/units/bode/PDF_Mining_Report_FINAL_October_2012.pdf
    2) http://www.fof.org.au/uploads/media/MJA_Coal.pdf
    3) http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/owen-jacques-apn-newsdeska-group-of-activist-docto/1882270/

    1) Need I read further?

    The purpose of this report is to provide an objective overview of the available international and local evidence from the health and medical literature about the health effects and social justice impacts of coal mining on local communities and to discuss and relate these issues to the Hunter Region of New South Wales

    This independent Report was commissioned by Beyond Zero Emissions

    2) As the only person (I suspect) on this blog who has actually worked in West Virginia, USA I can tell you the high mortality rate had nothing to do with coal. It had to do with poverty when their mines were shut down in the early 1980?s due to high sulphur content and US coal production shifted to the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.

    Concerns about the expansion of coal mining are growing and, as a result, medical practitioners and other health experts are being asked about coal and its effects on health. While there has been no Australian overview of the health effects of coal mining on inhabitants of coal mining areas, evidence from the United States indicates that coal mining communities in West Virginia had an increased risk for developing cardiopulmonary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hypertension, other lung diseases and kidney disease.
    1 Mortality rates for these diseases were higher in coal mining areas compared with non-mining areas of the region.2 Potentially confounding risk factors, such as smoking rates, were not reported. Coal-processing chemicals, fumes from diesel powered equipment, explosives, toxic impurities in coal and dust from uncovered coal trucks could all have affected the health of respondents.

    3) Typical agitation – media management 101 when you have nothing to say.

    A GROUP of activist doctors have taken aim at gas and coal projects … calling for the creation of a national environmental protection body…The Doctors for the Environment Australia report

    The World Health Organisation estimates that one quarter of global disease and one third of that in children is due to modifiable environmental factors (the other 75% are because you are so energy poor that you can’t get a first world service?)
    Doctors for the Environment Australia is a voluntary organisation of medical doctors in all states and territories. We work to address the diseases – local, national and global – caused by damage to the earth’s environment. For example, climate change will bring to Australia an increased burden of heat stroke, injury from fire and storm, infectious diseases and social disruption and mental illness, whilst in the developing world it will bring famine and water shortage.

    I am going to give up. Ostriches just don’t get it.
    You can pull the plough yourself and have a bad life (energy input 0.25 horsepower)
    You can get a horse to pull the plough and have a better life (eneryg input 1 HP)
    Or you can get a tractor and have a liveable life (energy input 100 HP)
    .
    Per capita energy intensity drives per capita GDP with an asymptote about 12 tonnes of coal equivalent energy per capita per year. Getting that energy hit cheaply and reliably will get you a head.

  156. dd

    What would Jesus do?
    He wouldn’t like nuclear power.

    Oh really?

    If we’re going to play that game, I would say that Jesus would like nuclear power. The reason is that as a lover of humankind, he would like anything that provided cheap, reliable energy to ordinary people, that allowed them to stay warm in the cold winters, and to stay cool in the blazing sun.
    He would also perhaps like that humans were making use of the wondrous gifts that God left lying around, rather than letting them sit idle and wasted.

    That’s if we were going to play that game.

  157. feelthebern

    Because of the carbon tax & mining tax & inflexible labour laws so many coal mines here in oz have been moth balled, shut or delayed.
    Indonesia rubs it’s hands together, and continues to extract high sulphur, ash laiden shite with strip ratios of 13+ times.
    & the green movement thinks this is a win?
    FMD

  158. Carpe Jugulum

    You keep saying sludge pack JC, what does that mean?

    All the leftbots get a pet name – it’s a sign of endearment.

    So do you support or oppose cheap nuclear electricty?

  159. Carpe Jugulum

    What would Jesus do?
    He wouldn’t like nuclear power.

    You do know there is a way you can ask him personally.

  160. you all want to be me

    DD. your picture is Putin ?
    Why you like him.

  161. .

    No Ev

    I am not trying to outdo anyone.

    You and “You wanna be me” don’t answer my questions.

    You have brought umbrage onto yourself.

  162. Carpe Jugulum

    Why you like him.

    Don’t you like Alpha males?

    Perhaps you’d prefer barry o’gabe wearing mom jeans riding a girls bike, who knows he may bake you scones.

  163. .

    you all want to be me
    #1164438, posted on January 23, 2014 at 8:24 pm
    DD. your picture is Putin ?
    Why you like him.

    We should probably lay off.

    This is probably a kid. A dumb kid, but a kid nevertheless.

    “Would jesus like nuclear power…?”

    On weight training forums, this is the equivalent of “if you could train a gorilla to bench, could he bench 1200 lbs?”

  164. Carpe Jugulum

    “if you could train a gorilla to bench, could he bench 1200 lbs?

    1000 maximum and that includes steroids.

  165. .

    http://gorillabenchpress.wordpress.com/

    How Much Can A Gorilla Bench Press
    I want to know. We all want to know.

    To amuse the developing mind of “I wanna grow up” and distract them from asinine What Would John Denver Do? questions.

  166. Carpe Jugulum

    What Would John Denver Do?

    Give up flying light planes?

  167. jumpnmcar

    LOL
    When do we get ” Hitler hated renewballs and loved fossil fuel ” ?
    One of the Cats is playin silly buggers with y’all.

  168. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    Some idiot:

    What would Jesus do?
    He wouldn’t like nuclear power.

    He would not like the sun and all the trillions of other suns in the firmament?

    Why not?

  169. caveman

    I know he hates wind farms cause his beard gets tangled up in them.

  170. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    Chirpy:

    The thing I have found most interesting about this ‘debate’ is that you guys are most interested in performing for each other, trying to out do each other in attempt to Crush Teh Leftist.

    hahahahahaha!

    nope, we are exploring your actual knowledge of the subject and finding you know nothing, and get your views on it from imbecilic greenfilth propaganda.

    You DO know that the dirty shills of greenpeace is funded by the Saudi Arabian and Qatari oil ticks to attack fracking and non-conventional oil and gas extraction so they can nobble their commercial competitors, don’t you?

    Facts, being convincing and being civil come in distant second.

    Straight projection. Your ‘facts’ on ‘fossil fuel subsidies’ have proven to be infantile propaganda, you know nothing about how massively polluting so-called ‘clean’ solar is, how pathetically inefficient wind is.

    You are the one rejecting actual, verifiable facts from people who know far more than you and who happily provide academic-level references (you do know Bruce is a scientist, don’t you?) and you reject this in favour of blatantly wrong activist propaganda, thus demonstrating both invincible ignorance (the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy of one’s position in the face of contradictory facts) and a low-level intellect lacking the ability to learn. And why should we be civil with such an ill-educated, intellectually vapid boor?

    Just for interest what do you think of nuclear power?

    Great for submarines. Other than that I am much in favour of the sun.

    You DO know the sun is an uncontrolled nuclear reaction, don’t you?

  171. dd

    DD. your picture is Putin ?

    No.
    It’s a picture of myself that I took with a web camera then ran through a photo ‘sketch’ filter to make it look like a sketch.

    Apparently the picture looks nothing like me, but (*shrug*) there you have it.

  172. Yohan

    Isn’t the Solar feed in tariff actually paid by other users on the grid in the form of higher electricity prices?

    A friend who is a power utilities engineer here in SA said the so called ‘gold plating’ of the electricity infrastructure has been driven mostly by the need to deal with the noise of solar panel DC converters that cause large problems for the grid.

  173. rebel with cause

    What happens when you use coal power to charge up one of those electric cars that greenies love so much?

  174. Yohan

    So lets add it up this list of socialist, green mad interventions…..

    First create a market distortion that favours the rich and well off, who benefit from big solar systems while the poor and renters pay higher prices.
    Then we hit you again by gold plated infrastructure upgrades that is required to handle all the new solar systems on the grid.
    Then we add a carbon tax, as well as driving the price up for obvious reasons, also create uncertainty in the power utility markets, because capital investment is fleeing industries which the government has declared the enemy and must be shut down. (long term consequences is reduced investment = less supply = higher prices)

    Its a knockout list of socialist interventions, the end result which can be predicted by anyone who is not educated in an Australian University.

    And to top that off we have fuckwits like evcricket explaining to us how we just don’t understand the new paradigm.

  175. ‘Crush the left’
    Yeah, I’ll be in that.

  176. Tel

    In short, this inquiry tells us, the coal-fired power stations in NSW are unable to compete with other power sources unless their coal is supplied at around one quarter of the cost of export coal.

    Those power stations are built (sensibly enough) on the coal mine. That makes the supply of coal intrinsically a shedload easier than exporting the stuff. Besides that, export coal is of a higher quality than most power station input coal. Black coal is exported for steel production. Brown coal and some black coal is burnt in power stations. Anyhow, when rail was built to redirect the coal away from Liddell and Bayswater and send it away for export, the freaking Communists whined about that too. There’s no pleasing them.

    http://www.cpa.org.au/z-archive/g2007/1335coal.html

  177. brc

    I don’t understand why we didn’t get told how differing excise prices count as subsidies. I thought that the towering hive of intellect minds at BZE would have gotten that down to a slam-dunk by now.

    A solar panel farm will never pay even if you got the panels for free. That’s because the land would always be better served doing something else. Neither would a wind farm. Having a wind farm is like buying a 747 and only carrying passengers on Tuesday afternoon, and letting it sit in the hangar the rest of the time. Sure, you can talk about the amount of passengers you can carry at a time, but your competitor with a 10 seat prop plane will still eat you alive if he flies 95% of the time and you spend all your time on the tarmac waiting until flying conditions are perfect. It’s even worse if you decide you can fly right at the time when passengers would rather be asleep.

    Don’t forget gold plating includes running expensive high voltage transmission lines up to far-flung wind farms, which then spends half the time sending electricity *out* spinning the windmills around slowly to stop the gearboxes from failing, and then spends a few bursts sending electricity back, sometimes when the grid least needs it.

    The best use case for solar panels is to recharge electric cars while you are sitting at work, so you have enough juice for the way home. But that is an expensive way to go, and you can buy a truckload of fossil fuel for the price of the batteries and the solar panels.

  178. Tel

    What happens when you use coal power to charge up one of those electric cars that greenies love so much?

    It ends up costing you a tiny bit more than petrol on a Joule for Joule basis, electric motors are more efficient than ICU’s so you catch up a bit, but the batteries usually lose it for you again. If you get a good deal on off-peak power you come out ahead (presuming you actually charge off-peak which is the general idea).

    I worked out that it was cheaper to cook dinner using a petrol and sand fuel mix, based on evening being peak electricity price and that’s even with petrol prices pretty high. Taste-wise probably not as good, but that’s besides the point when there’s pennies to pinch. Gas is good value if you use a lot but connection fees make it uneconomical for lite users. If you could legally convert gas into electricity you would be onto a big winner (even better using the exhaust flue for your hot water system).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_combined_heat_and_power

    The system is totally possible and demonstrated, but as usual Australia is a million years behind the world. I would tend to point the finger at regulation but then again I haven’t bothered trying to import one because I’m just so accustomed to things being illegal on principle here… after a while you throw hands in the air and give up (I presume that’s the overall intention).

  179. Tel

    JC is quite correct. Commenter evcricket would have us accept that at the peak demand time during the heatwave in South Australia, PV significantly reduced demand over a continuous period of 11 hours.

    The cells were in Antarctica, which as we all know is ice-free now due to the effect of Global Warming and has very long sunny days.

  180. brc

    @tel – JC is always going on about Capstone mini-turbines. That’s what you’re talking about.

    I’ve always tried to work out if cooking on the bbq is cheaper than using the electric stove. But the prices for a BBq bottle refill are scandalous.

  181. Tel

    brc: try a little butane cooker, uses less fuel than the bbq and I think the butane cans are safer (smaller, lower pressure, less volatile). Won’t cook a whole roast, but good enough for a stir-fry.

    Has JC got a Capstone turbine, or he just dreams about it? There are lots of options on a global basis, and the Capstone is one of them, but it’s a whole different ballgame actually getting something like that installed and approved.

  182. brc

    Well, I am into cooking ribs at the moment – american style pork and beef ribs and marinated lamb spare ribs. I confess to enjoying flamage and lots of burning gas and generally making a mess. I’m not really that interested in economical cooking when there is so much fun to be had driving 4 burners.

    I should have said ‘I’ve always wondered’ – I have never actually tried to work it out. Besides, residential power isn’t charged at the peak spot rates, so most people get away with using up the power at peak time without incurring a penalty.

    JC said he bought capstone stock I think. The idea is very interesting for larger scale applications like buildings. It certainly is a way to force a bit of market power back onto utilities suppliers, especially if you keep a large gas storage tank and start shopping around for supply.

  183. JC

    Has JC got a Capstone turbine, or he just dreams about it? There are lots of options on a global basis, and the Capstone is one of them, but it’s a whole different ballgame actually getting something like that installed and approved.

    I own their stock. It’s up around 70% from where I bought it.

  184. Yohan

    Don’t forget gold plating includes running expensive high voltage transmission lines up to far-flung wind farms, which then spends half the time sending electricity *out* spinning the windmills around slowly to stop the gearboxes from failing, and then spends a few bursts sending electricity back, sometimes when the grid least needs it.

    Yeah this is the most understated aspect of renewable energy. Putting aside their capacity figures, what is the true usable amount of power that has been generated when all the backup generators and power loss issues have been taken into account?

  185. JC

    JC said he bought capstone stock I think. The idea is very interesting for larger scale applications like buildings. It certainly is a way to force a bit of market power back onto utilities suppliers, especially if you keep a large gas storage tank and start shopping around for supply.

    The firm has sold the turbines to institutions like hospitals which can alternate between taking power off the grid or from the gas line depending on price.

    I really like this stock. I think over the next couple of years it could make $100 million net income with a view of moving towards $250- 300 million. That could suggest a stock price potential of 18 bucks a share.

  186. JC

    I love this company like I it were a trophy wife.

    The other shit their doing is selling turbines to oil and gas firms which attach the little fuckers to the oil or gas wells in order to capture escaping gas. They can then convert the crap to energy with the use of the turbine and either use it themselves or onsell it to the grid if possible.

    I could talk for days about the potential.

  187. nerblnob

    It’s rather bizarre that an organization like EV gets government grants and tax reductions (known as “subsidies” in the Green world apparently) while explicitly industrialising and degrading the environment with their advocacy for wind farms. Not to mention campaigning for more expensive electricity for the very taxpayers who funded them.

    They have clearly turned 180 degrees from their original guise as a pressure group “saving” the Little Desert. What happened? The public ought to be told.

  188. Bruce of Newcastle

    Hey, Mr Evcricket seems to think polite comments which demolish his poorly thought out arguments are abusive…

    And Ben Cubby reads evcrickets numerous tweets. Do these people ever have time to actually look at the real data rather than twittering at each other?

    Evcricket – My offer stands. If you want a serious discussion about the basis for the respective climate hypotheses, by all means say so. I let data and science do my talking, not abuse.

    And the invitation extends to Mr Cubby too.

  189. Evcricket

    Are you sure about this Bob? You want to argue climate science with me?

    Okay start by identifying a temperature record that you consider to be accurate, covering the last 10, 000 years.

    The rest of you butt out and let us talk about science.

  190. JC

    Last 10,000 years? You’re using mick Mann’s ring racket?

    Butt out?

    Fuck off sludge pack.

  191. Sinclair Davidson

    Disappointed people. Not one of you has been rude to Eager Beaver.

  192. JC

    The douchebag had the shitmkicked out of him on the gerbil warming/ renewball thread

    The moron was posting links to AstroTurf sludge sites.

    He’s just a dickhead.

  193. Armadillo

    I’m pretty sure ‘The Beaver’ is that guy who was on the ABC last night. They just looked too similar from the link Cold Hands provided from a previous ABC clip.

  194. sdfc

    I think JC wants a pat on the head.

  195. Bruce of Newcastle

    Okay start by identifying a temperature record that you consider to be accurate, covering the last 10, 000 years.

    Evcricket – The temperature record I use is the Central England Temperature Series, which has been continuously collected since 1659.

    Because it is an internally consistent series it does not suffer from trying to splice datasets together.

    I have a model of it. When I first developed it in 2010 it was looking pretty good. It covers only 250 years because that corresponds to the contiguous DMI solar cycle dataset, which is a bit shorter. In 2012 I added the latest data and it still looked pretty good. So a couple weeks ago I included the latest data to end 2013 (I am using the HadCET annual averages).

    Still on the money. It explains the hiatus quite well, unlike the IPCC ensemble models.

    I can’t give you ten thousand years worth as humans didn’t have thermometers then, but the longest instrumental record we have shows that the Sun is the most significant driver, the oceans cycle(s) the next strongest, and that CO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity is about 0.7 C/doubling, which is easily shown to be harmless if you do the arithmetic.

    There is sufficient information in the description under the first graph for you to duplicate this model.

  196. Dave Wane

    Stealing funds from the ever-decreasing numbers of productive folk to hand out to greedy smart-arsed parasites who claim to be so-called “green” and depend on the similarly decreasing taxpayer funds to run their business is a far bigger crime than running any Australian power station – using whatever fuel – from brown coal to natural gas. This nonsense must stop. We simply cannot afford it. Let those who desire “green- renewable” energy pay for it with their own funds.

  197. JC

    They’re parasites, Dave. Eventually the completely eat the host.

  198. Armadillo

    Bruce, looks like ‘The Beaver’ isn’t interested in getting slayed by you tonight. He talked a pretty good game just after 7pm for one post, and then he disappeared?

    Beaver, as a matter of interest, was that you on the ABC last night?

  199. Bruce of Newcastle

    Yes I noticed. I was so hoping to paint another icon on the side of the Spitfire,.

  200. Armadillo

    I was so hoping to paint another icon on the side of the Spitfire,.

    No doubt. I have avidly read your posts in relation to this subject before.

  201. evcricket

    Yeah sorry guys that I didn’t cancel my plans so I could argue on the internet. And no I have never appeared on ABC TV. Note that the guy in my avatar is actually Jeff Bridges in the classic bowling film The Big Lebowski.

    I’m not fussed on the time length of the data series, as long as you explain why you want to use it, which you have done. Thanks. Could you explain what it measures exactly? How many sites over what area?

    If we’re discussing science we need a statement to be falsified through the use of empirical data. This is important when discussing AGW because many conflate the question or what is happening with the policy response or whether it is a bad thing.

    Firstly then I propose “human emissions of CO2 are changing the energy balance of the planet and making it hotter”. Whether or not this is a bad thing is a value judgement mostly because we are predicting the future, but could be discussed as well.

  202. Tel

    Firstly then I propose “human emissions of CO2 are changing the energy balance of the planet and making it hotter”.

    That’s not empirically falsifiable because you haven’t specified a margin for measurement error. If the effect of CO2 is less than half a degree C I dispute any of our global temperature series are as accurate as that.

    Besides that, how do you propose to do a control experiment for comparison?

    What do you mean by “making the planet hotter” at any rate? The planet does not have a temperature, by the normal definition of temperature (i.e. based on the presumption of Boltzmann distribution). If you want to measure it you must define what you are measuring, so you will need a new definition of temperature for the job at hand.

  203. boy on a bike

    Rod claims: “my choices impact no-one”. So you deny the evidence that coal mining is harmful to human health?

    Ever been to Africa and seen how really poor people live?

    Driving through the countryside at dusk, I was struck by how there were no lights on in most of the villages. None. Try living without cheap power.

    I drove into Soweto (by mistake) one day. Just about coughed up a lung – it’s a reasonably crowded place and all the cooking was done over wood fires. Got any idea how much smoke tens of thousands of wood stoves make in an urban area? Got any idea how bad all that smoke is for you? We complain here when we get a bit of smoke every few years from a bush fire or back burning. Imagine it being like that every day of the year.

    Cheap power will go a long way to solve the health problems of the poor – just as improved sanitation and water supply saved London and other big cities from disease outbreaks. Your continued insistence on pushing the most expensive power generation systems on people will keep millions of people mired in poverty, filth and poor health. That is despicable beyond words.

  204. evcricket

    I’m only here to debate Bob.

  205. evcricket

    Boy. much of the developing world will use solar in the first instance. When compared to building a centralised generating system and associated network, yes, solar is far cheaper than coal.

  206. Bruce of Newcastle

    Could you explain what it measures exactly? How many sites over what area?

    Evcricket – Good to see you back. You could look up the CET youself since its quite well known, but to make it easier for you here is the wiki.

    Firstly then I propose “human emissions of CO2 are changing the energy balance of the planet and making it hotter”.

    Yes I agree. That is what an ECS of 0.7 C/doubling represents. I will spell out the meaning of this though as you don’t seem to make the connection.

    It is generally regarded that the prehistoric pCO2 was 280 ppmV. Therefore we have added about 120 ppmV to the atmosphere. (Some people don’t think all of that is due to humans, but for the sake of a calculation lets assume it is).

    To raise global temperature by 0.7 C from today we would need to burn just over 3 times as much fossil fuel as we have done in all history. Ie pCO2 going from 400 ppmV now to 800 ppmV.

    To get 2 C of rise from today we would need to burn about 23 times as much fuel as we have since the last ice age. Do you believe in peak oil? Even if you don’t it pretty inconceivable that 23 times as much oil and coal than we’ve burned to date is out there waiting to be discovered.

    And two more degrees is unlikely to even be harmful.

    Therefore no action is warranted and actions we already have in process such as biofuels, which cost the lives of many thousand of people right now, are obscene.

  207. Cold-Hands

    you all want to be me

    Too obviously a hammy-style wind up.
    No-one could possibly be this stupid in real-life.

  208. james

    Evcricket is only here to troll so that he can return to his three or four fanbois on Twitter and act all Mr gloaty.

    Anyone who seriously believes that the world can be powered by current solar tech should be ignored, so should obvious trolls.

    The need for Lefties to sneer snobbishly at anyone who dares disagree with whatever they learned at the feet of a warmed up self important Marxist parasite with a ponytail whilst an undergraduate is boundless.

    Don’t give this particular fool the food of attention he so clearly needs to validate his sad, worthless existence.

  209. evcricket

    JamesK is that you? I’ve missed your confected, tired, cynicism.

    So Bob, can I just clarify what this means:

    “It is generally regarded that the prehistoric pCO2 was 280 ppmV. Therefore we have added about 120 ppmV to the atmosphere. (Some people don’t think all of that is due to humans, but for the sake of a calculation lets assume it is).

    To raise global temperature by 0.7 C from today we would need to burn just over 3 times as much fossil fuel as we have done in all history. Ie pCO2 going from 400 ppmV now to 800 ppmV.”

    So you concede that human emissions of CO2 have raised the temperature by 0.7C? And then go on to say that for each doubling of CO2 we will raise it by another 0.7C?

    Beyond that is the judgement of whether or not this is a problem. So first things first; human emissions of CO2 are definitely raising the global air temperature?

  210. Bruce of Newcastle

    Ev – I said that. I agreed with you. So what if humans are raising the temperature if it is harmless? The Age said a couple weeks ago that Melbourne was 4 C warmer than the surrounding suburbs because of UHIE. That too is human induced warming. Its not whether humans warm or cool the planet it is how much. And whether the amount is dangerous.

    Its not.

    As to warming the IPCC gave in AR4 the temperature rise from 1906-2005 as 0.74 C . I don’t know what they say in AR5 yet, but I doubt it will be much different from this.

    That breaks down as:

    0.33 C from the Sun
    0.28 C from the ocean cycles
    0.13 C from CO2 and everything else

    Which is consistent with my model, the CERES data and the hiatus in temperatures for the last 17 years (including cooling for the last decade).

  211. evcricket

    Okay humans are warming the planet but it’s okay. So you have decided that temperature rise of 4 degrees is okay because you read in the Age that Melbourne is 4 degrees hotter?

    How will your position that it is ‘no big deal’ be over turned with evidence? What about tipping points? Do you expect the climate sensitivity relationship to be the same throughout its range?

  212. Carpe Jugulum

    The floater returns

  213. egg_

    How will your position that it is ‘no big deal’ be over turned with evidence?

    A Little Ice Age (LIA) is the current fashion in the ‘Climate Science’ biz, do keep up.
    You’re confusing modelling with evidence – there’s very little hard evidence in this biz , that’s why it’s classed as ‘pseudo-Science’.

  214. Tel

    How will your position that it is ‘no big deal’ be over turned with evidence?

    When Flannery’s waterfront house gets flooded by rising sea level, then I will concede the evidence indicates that Global Warming is a big deal.

  215. Bruce of Newcastle

    How will your position that it is ‘no big deal’ be over turned with evidence?

    Ev – If it can be shown that equilibrium sensitivity is above about 2 C/doubling, then it may be worth considering some action. The action needs to be less harmful and less expensive than the problem.

    If it is between 1 C and 2C/doubling, the rate of warming would be so slow that no action would be justifiable, compared to mitigation.

    Below 1 C/doubling and any action at all is immoral.

    The only studies which show ECS above 2 C/doubling are modelling studies plus some paleodata studies where the data quality is problematic. In all cases the models those studies are based on suffer from omitted-variable bias. They leave out the full solar forcing (as in Butler & Johnson 1996 and Rao 2011) and they leave out the ~60 year ocean cycle. Neither of these are in the power of man to affect.

    If you include these two statistically significant variables the derived ECS drops by 85% because they were responsible for that much of the temperature rise last century. The IPCC modellers are now starting to acknowledge their effect in the last decade – invoking them for the recent cooling (as you can see in this post today), but they have yet to acknowledge them in the warming last century. When they do, that will end the CAGW scare.

    The studies which show sensitivity is below 1 C/doubling are empirical studies like mine. The CERES satellite instrument was designed for such a measurement, and the results were about 0.6-0.7 C/doubling from that data.

    Obviously I don’t have access to a supercomputer and the code used in the IPCC ensemble models, but I have done extensive modelling of thermodynamically driven processes over a period of 20 years, and I’ve a published paper. So I do have experience and qualifications relevant to this area.

    As to the Age story on 4 C of UHI in Melbourne a few weeks ago, UHI is on the one hand a human caused form of warming. On the other hand it is self limiting, since there’s only so much asphalt you can spread around. I included it as an example of human caused warming – one which comon sense shows is harmless. Not all warming is harmful. Indeed the data suggest the feedback mechanisms in the climate system mean there is no harmful warming short of the Sun turning into a red giant.

  216. Tel

    The need for Lefties to sneer snobbishly at anyone who dares disagree with whatever they learned at the feet of a warmed up self important Marxist parasite with a ponytail whilst an undergraduate is boundless.

    I have noticed that.

    Don’t give this particular fool the food of attention he so clearly needs to validate his sad, worthless existence.

    The trouble is that he will say, “Look, my argument is so convincing no one has an answer to it.”

    Then that will be used as evidence that skeptics are clueless… and it will be back to snobbish sneering. The guy talks about evidence, but the supposed surface temperature measurements like GISS are not measurements in the usual sense of the word, they are the output of a complex averaging and adjustment algorithm that gets twiddled with from year to year (i.e. the GISS values published a few years back are different to the GISS values published now, history is literally being changed).

  217. Bruce of Newcastle

    Do you expect the climate sensitivity relationship to be the same throughout its range?

    All climate scientists accept that. The logarithmic relationship has been well known since Arrhenius’ work.

    There is a question whether transient climate sensitivity and equilibrium climate sensitivity are the same. The CERES data measures TCS, which was found to be 0.6-0.7 C/doubling.

    The reason why I did my small model in the first place was to check the relative claims of the two sides, and to see if ECS was the same as the CERES TCS. I wanted to use the longest and best quality dataset I could lay my hands on, which is HadCET. I realised I could use the data in Butler & Johnson 1996 because Armagh in Nthn Ireland is very close and very similar to the CET location. Over a period of 250 years I found TCS does equal ECS. And the low sensitivity hypothesis was the one supported by the study, not the 3 C/doubling value quoted by the IPCC in AR4.

  218. .

    evcricket
    #1167386, posted on January 26, 2014 at 8:47 am

    Okay humans are warming the planet but it’s okay. So you have decided that temperature rise of 4 degrees is okay because you read in the Age that Melbourne is 4 degrees hotter?

    There isn’t even warming now. The climate models are wrong. Where on earth does 4 degrees come from?

    How does Kyoto, the carbon tax or overpriced solar panels help anyone?

  219. evcricket

    Bob, you didn’t touch this question:

    ” How will your position that it is ‘no big deal’ be over turned with evidence?”

    Ev – If it can be shown that equilibrium sensitivity is above about 2 C/doubling, then it may be worth considering some action. The action needs to be less harmful and less expensive than the problem.

    If it is between 1 C and 2C/doubling, the rate of warming would be so slow that no action would be justifiable, compared to mitigation.

    Below 1 C/doubling and any action at all is immoral.

    It seems you have just decided this. We need evidence.

  220. evcricket

    Snobbish sneering eh? Sounds pretty mean, but what does snobbish sneering look like? Could you please provide a quote which you consider snobbish sneering?

  221. JC

    Sludge heap..

    James Annan has revised his opinion- that it would be around 2 to 2.5 degs. At that level of warming over the next 100 years and even assuming no technological change (stasis), the world would benefit from warming, you fucking clown.

    You and the other meatheads are pushing to mitigate a net benefit. All of you morons should be placed in the rack.

  222. JC

    And sludge.. Annan is a climate scientist and a former member of the “team” until he jumped.

  223. JC

    There isn’t even warming now. The climate models are wrong. Where on earth does 4 degrees come from?

    How does Kyoto, the carbon tax or overpriced solar panels help anyone?

    Sactly.

    Sludge, in a just world… and I’m serious here… you would be up on fraud charges peddling those plastic panels.

    Any company director or executive that is found to be pushing lies can easily be charged with fraud personally, which means his or her house and assets would be in play. If it were up to me, I’d have you out of the street with a begging bowl in no time, you fraudulent skunk.

  224. JC

    sludge… (cricket brain)

    I really don’t know how you could show your miserable face here after the beatings you’ve sustained on this thread. Don’t you have any self esteem?

  225. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    JC:

    I really don’t know how you could show your miserable face here after the beatings you’ve sustained on this thread. Don’t you have any self esteem?

    heh!

    JC, there are those squalid little human cockroaches who greet the prospect of a sound thrashing with a shiver of …. anticipation.

    You thought the arthropod part of his handle had no meaning?

  226. evcricket

    I have loads of self esteem, that’s why I don’t need to insult people I am debating. It must madden you that I don’t bite at your childish insults.

    Anyway, HOW did you determine that 2 degrees of warming is a net benefit?

  227. evcricket

    More insults, oh so brave. But none of you have made an attempt at reasoned debate.

  228. Gab

    You’ve made no attempt at any debate at all, ev, but you really are good at attracting attention. Empty vessels often are. Linking to what others have written is not a debate, you overinflated ego on a stick.

    Self-esteem is not the same as ego, numbnuts.

  229. JC

    It must madden you that I don’t bite at your childish insults.

    No, not at all. However you do play the game like any typical leftwing piece of sludge. You payback through spite and underhanded spite is how leftwing beta males act. It doesn’t surprise me in the least.

    More insults, oh so brave. But none of you have made an attempt at reasoned debate.

    Yes we have. you just pretend to ignore it. In other words you lie. Again no surprise there.

    As I said you ought to be locked for fraud, you dishonest skunk.

  230. .

    evcricket
    #1168991, posted on January 27, 2014 at 6:52 pm

    More insults, oh so brave. But none of you have made an attempt at reasoned debate.

    Actually Ev, I’ve gone out of my way to give you civil debate, but you have fled everytime.

    This is why you get abused. You don’t have an argument then cry wolf.

    Maybe you should realise, for your own mind’s sake and finances, that without subsidies, most of this shit is never going to work.

  231. Tel

    But none of you have made an attempt at reasoned debate.

    This coming from the guy who said, “I’m only here to debate Bob.” Both snobbish sneering, and basic dishonesty.

  232. JC

    Maybe you should realise, for your own mind’s sake and finances, that without subsidies, most of this shit is never going to work.

    ‘sactly. You parasite, Sludge Heap.

  233. JC

    I just can’t believe the religious experience these fuckwits are going through. Not only do we have the highest pwice on carbin in the world and one of the highest renewball quotas. Not only do we now have the most expensive electricity in the western world, as a result of the Liar’s party attack on energy. Fuckwits like this fraud- Sludge heap- want to take it further and fuck us even more with additional solar, pretending it’s a great alternative and calling us dinosaurs (no abuse there hey lol) for questioning the economics and ethics of this disgusting energy form.

    Sludge, cricket, you are a complete fraud.

  234. stackja

    Jiminy evcricket
    As I live and breathe, a fairy. Mm-mmm!

  235. Carpe Jugulum

    Anyway, HOW did you determine that 2 degrees of warming is a net benefit?

    How did you determine it is not.

    And stop bleating like a schoolgirl, it’s annoying.

  236. Carpe Jugulum

    Sludge, cricket, you are a complete fraud.

    Harsh, but fair.

  237. JC

    How did you determine it is not.

    It’s up to Sludge to prove a need to mitigate with a 23 buck carbonic tax and 20% renewball quota.

    This is when he trots the abuse card. The fucking fraud.

  238. Bruce of Newcastle

    It seems you have just decided this. We need evidence.

    Ev – You can use a calculator?

    According to the IPCC less that 2 C of warming is not dangerous. Prof Schellnhuber himself says this.

    OK, do the sums. To get another 2 C of warming at a sensitivity of 2 C/doubling you need to emit another 400 ppmV of CO2. That, as I said, is more than three times what we have produced in all of human history.

    Do you believe in peak oil Ev? If you do, how on earth are we going to find that much stuff to burn?

    So 2 C/doubling is actually pretty harmless using the IPCC’s own “criteria”. And my data says its less than 1 C/doubling.

    BTW my name is not Bob, I don’t know who you think I am but the tag I go by here is Bruce.

  239. Bruce of Newcastle

    Anyway, HOW did you determine that 2 degrees of warming is a net benefit?

    Two degrees of temperature rise may be beneficial. I think it will be since the data suggests less extreme weather and better growing conditions in the mid latitudes.

    But unequivocally the extra CO2 is good. We already know that biosphere productivity and agricultural yields have risen 10% or more because of the higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants had a hard time at 280 ppmV. They like it a lot better now.

    I have papers and references I can cite if you want. Let me know and Ill dig them up – they’re on my main computer.

  240. evcricket

    Okay “Bruce”, sorry about that.

    So, summing up, you accept that human emissions of CO2 are changing the climate, but it’s okay because the forecast says this will change the temperature less than 2 degrees which is okay.

    Well, I’ve got some bad news for you. AR5 says we will go over 2 degrees. From the CSIRO:

    “What are findings in the AR5?

    i) Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS)

    The AR5 assesses ECS as likely to be 1.5°C to 4.5°C. ECS is extremely unlikely to be less than 1°C
    and very unlikely to be greater than 6°C.
    This compares with the Fourth Assessment Report, which assessed ECS as likely to be 2 to 4.5°C. Compared with the Fourth Assessment Report, the lower boundary of the ECS likely range has lowered
    from 2°C to 1.5°C, meaning slightly lower climate sensitivity is included in the ‘likely’ range than it was
    six years ago. The AR5 sensitivity range is the same as that of the Third Assessment Report (2001), highlighting the overall consistency of the assessment from the literature over more than a decade. The lower end revision follows some recent studies finding a lower temperature range from new estimates of temperature changes and ocean heat uptake.”

    Long link because it’s a Word doc: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.climatechange.gov.au%2Fsites%2Fclimatechange%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2F09_2013%2FFactsheet_climate_sensitivity_CSIRO-Bureau.docx&ei=ScXmUvT8Oe6tiQevjIGIDA&usg=AFQjCNHt-Ahshl0MtSQOmjVd-Dv8PGTKgw&sig2=0F_dpIizbgyu6h4ULKpBrw&bvm=bv.59930103,d.aGc&cad=rja

    Note that this is the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. Once the system reaches equilibrium the temperature will be in that range. We are not at equilibrium yet as the ocean is warming while the atmosphere has been warming less in the last few years. Because of enthalpy that means we’re going to see atmospheric changes in the coming years.

    So is that your threshold? If we are going to experience change in average temperature of >2degrees then we should act? Balance of probability says it’s time to act then.

  241. Bruce of Newcastle

    Well, I’ve got some bad news for you. AR5 says we will go over 2 degrees. From the CSIRO:

    Ev – The reason why the IPCC and CSIRO project more than 2 C of warming is because they say that ECS is greater than 2 C/doubling.

    I have given you data showing that ECS is much lower than that. Indeed I just posted this comment on the new thread with 3 more links to scientific research showing ECS is 0.4, 0.58 and below 0.7 C respectively. I can give you many more, not least the CERES TCR papers. If you want I can go through them with you.

    I have worked with CSIRO people, and the organisation itself, off and on for several decades. If you had done the same you would be as cautious of their grounding in the real world as I am. They are (i) human (ii) always chronically skint and out begging for money and (iii) have mortgages. The CAGW scare has been the biggest juiciest funding opportunity they have ever had. I am not surprised they’ve bought into it.

    So is that your threshold? If we are going to experience change in average temperature of >2degrees then we should act? Balance of probability says it’s time to act then.

    My absolute minimum threshold is an ECS of 2 C/doubling. The data (if you can call erroneous model output ‘data’) they give is laughable. The first para of page 2 describes it well:

    Climate scientists use a range of approaches to estimate ECS and TCR, including using climate models that represent the relevant physics and chemistry and by analysing recent climate records and paleoclimate reconstructions.

    Overwhelmingly the ECS values the IPCC quotes are from modelling studies, which CSIRO acknowledges later that same page.

    The data I give is empirical collected by actual instruments, not inferred from poorly built models that leave out the two most significant forcings – which caused about 5/6ths of the temperature rise (see my ‘omitted- variable bias’ comment). The empirical data shows ECS is something like 0.7 C/doubling. Latest data suggests it may be even lower. Which means it is even more harmless.

    Mate, if you dogmatically go off quoting “authorities” without addressing the science, data and arguments which refute those authorities you are expressing religious belief not science. Argumentum ab auctoritate is a well-known fallacy.

  242. Bruce of Newcastle

    I’ll add the last CSIRO run project I participated in was a mess. I did my bit then left them to fight amongst themselves. The last project where we commissioned CSIRO to do work for us was very successful…because we scoped it so tightly they had zero discretion to go outside of the terms of the contract. That is pretty much what people I talk to describe as their own experience with that organisation.

    If you have to work with government science organisations use ANSTO if you can. They are a lot better, but still not as tight as private R&D service providers.

  243. evcricket

    Okay so we’re just attacking research institutions now, in favour of your own backyard research?

    I’m done here.

  244. Infidel Tiger

    I’m done here.

    Better put some ice on those bruises, bozo.

  245. Bear Necessities

    Someone should fund Evcricket to build a CAGW shelter in his backyard so he can lock himself away and prepare for his long awaited apocalypse. It would be good for Ev and good for society.

  246. blogstrop

    I’m done here. Yes, you were. The “backyard” parting cheap shot completely ignoring all the learned people who are no longer prepared to stick with the dogma you espouse. Any scientist who disagreed with AGW has been insulted ever since it became a hot political issue. They’ve been shut out of luvvie media and denigrated in whatever terms the warmists thought might stick.
    Face it, cricket, it’s over.

  247. Bruce of Newcastle

    Okay so we’re just attacking research institutions now, in favour of your own backyard research?

    Ev – I am an R&D scientist and have been one for over 30 years. The methods I use for climate data are no different than the ones I use for other work. I assure you my work has been quite well regarded including by the head of the organisation you cite, seeing I worked for that person for some years.

    I accept that you are not a scientist yourself Ev. But that does not excuse you from at least attempting to address the data, scientific papers and basis for the low sensitivity hypothesis. At least you can try. I have said several times I’d be happy to take you through some of these. In the case of the CSIRO summary paper I’ve given you five separate links to papers or web discussions of papers on sensitivity. I can pull out many more if you want.

    You have not attempted to address any of this. Just dogma in response. Is that how a fair minded person acts or one who has a religion he is defending from reality?

Comments are closed.