Macorna, VIC, 3579
  Search for a Location
  Clear Recents
Metro
South West
Central West
North West
  Surf Cameras
  Safety Bay Camera
Metro
North
Mid North
Illawarra
South Coast
Metro
West Coast
East Coast
Brisbane
Far North
Central Coast
Sunshine Coast
Gold Coast
Hobart
West Coast
North Coast
East Coast
Recent
Western Australia
New South Wales
Victoria
South Australia
Queensland
Northern Territory
Tasmania
  My Favourites
  Reverse Arrows
General
Gps & Speed Sailing
Wave Sailing
Foiling
Gear Reviews
Lost & Found
Windsurfing WA
Windsurfing NSW
Windsurfing QLD
Windsurfing Victoria
Windsurfing SA
Windsurfing Tasmania
General
Gear Reviews
Foiling
Newbies / Tips & Tricks
Lost & Found
Western Australia
New South Wales
Queensland
Victoria
South Australia
Tasmania
General
Foiling
Board Talk & Reviews
Wing Foiling
All
Windsurfing
Kitesurfing
Surfing
Longboarding
Stand Up Paddle
Wing Foiling
Sailing
  Active Topics
  Subscribed Topics
  Rules & Guidelines
Login
Lost My Details!
Join! (Its Free)
Macorna, VIC, 3579
  Search for a Location
  Clear Recents
Metro
South West
Central West
North West
Surf Cameras
Safety Bay Camera
Metro
North
Mid North
Illawarra
South Coast
Metro
West Coast
East Coast
Brisbane
Far North
Central Coast
Sunshine Coast
Gold Coast
Hobart
West Coast
North Coast
East Coast
Recent
Western Australia
New South Wales
Victoria
South Australia
Queensland
Northern Territory
Tasmania
  My Favourites
  Reverse Arrows
All
Windsurfing
Kitesurfing
Surfing
Longboarding
Stand Up Paddle
Wing Foiling
Sailing
Active Topics
Subscribed Topics
Forum Rules
Login
Lost My Details!
Join! (Its Free)

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

Global Warming ?

Reply
Created by Simondo > 9 months ago, 26 May 2011
pierrec45
NSW, 2005 posts
31 May 2011 12:30AM
Thumbs Up

"Scientists will loose their funding if climate change is false": firstly the consensus is getting there, has grown rapidly. It's about done. What is being debated is whether it's man-made and whether we can do something about it.

Overall, your statement could be true, but it's not a useful comment, as the converse is equally true: "scientists working for polluting industries stand to lose (their jobs, funding) if warming and its cause end up being generally agreed."

pweedas
WA, 4642 posts
30 May 2011 11:41PM
Thumbs Up

Trant said...

Surely "pollution" includes an excess of something, otherwise we wouldn't have "noise pollution"

All noise is pollution, it's just that some noise is more polluting than other noise.



To the people dead set against any form of carbon tax or ETS, I ask what they would prefer to do? Sit back and do nothing? Or wait until some magical time when all the leaders of the world sit down and all agree on something for the first time in history?


The problem with the present tax proposal is that most of the money is used to compensate people for the tax in the first place. That's hardly going to inspire them to reduce their co2 emissions. Why should they? They will be paid to use as much as they previously did.

The system would be much more logical if it was a small tax, say $5 a ton and every cent of it was used to convert industries to a cleaner technology, starting with the big co2 scources such as electricity generation, and workinng our way back to the smaller ones.
Just hitting everyone with higher charges for everything and then giving the money to lower income groups is nothing more than a socialist wealth redistribution program.




Gizmo
SA, 2865 posts
31 May 2011 8:08AM
Thumbs Up

I would have thought that if the Gov. wants to reduce carbon emissions it needs to be done with a positive rather than a negative and people WILL change.

There are MANY examples.... like Digital / Analogue phones, how many people would go back to analogue and give up TXT messages, mobile Internet, cameras and music in the phone?
Who would want to go back to vinyl or cassettes for music rather than CD and MP3?
Would you buy an analogue TV with 4 channels on it or would you go for a digital with lots more for a similar price?
Anyone want to go back to floppy discs from USB storage?
How about the new LED torches, no globes to blow and 10 times the battery life.

If they want to reduce car usage build better and cheaper public transport, If you want people to use less electricity promote better house design, and more energy efficient products etc.

People will change when it is a positive for them .

Ian K
WA, 4120 posts
31 May 2011 7:17AM
Thumbs Up

And Germany has just announced it's getting rid of its nuclear plants! Irrational fear of nuclear energy. Can anybody put numbers on the casualities per kilowatt hour of coal vs. nuclear? I'd guess it's far greater for coal.

graph from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint


Trant
NSW, 601 posts
31 May 2011 10:15AM
Thumbs Up

pweedas said...

The problem with the present tax proposal is that most of the money is used to compensate people for the tax in the first place. That's hardly going to inspire them to reduce their co2 emissions.


Not really, but take a simple scenario where you own a Power generating company.

Carbon tax means that you've put your prices up because your coal power stations produce lots of carbon.
Your Solar and wind farms meanwhile have become cheaper to operate than coal because they don't generate carbon, which means they are also generating more money for you.

What happens next?

Adoy
NSW, 238 posts
31 May 2011 10:33AM
Thumbs Up

We are exporting more and more coal, this is what should be reduced, so tax the people selling this and they might invest in alternatives, then other methods of energy production might become more viable.
Then overseas buyers can foot the bill (mining tax)
Wasnt this what Kevin Rudd was proposing to do before he was back stabbed and ousted?
Big business rules...

Gorgo
VIC, 5040 posts
31 May 2011 10:36AM
Thumbs Up

pweedas said...
...The problem with the present tax proposal is that most of the money is used to compensate people for the tax in the first place. That's hardly going to inspire them to reduce their co2 emissions. ..



Gizmo said...
...
People will change when it is a positive for them .



Taxing carbon and emissions trading and all that is not about forcing people to reduce carbon emissions.

The point is to create a level playing field so renewable energy can compete with fossil fuels.

All fossil fuel based industries get a free ride because they don't have to pay for the pollution they emit or environmental damage they do.

These mechanisms are capitalism at work. They introduce an economic stimulus that controls the supply and demand of energy and carbon.

It's starting to happen in all industries. Manufacturers are being required to build products that can be recycled and take products back at the end of their life.

pierrec45
NSW, 2005 posts
31 May 2011 11:34AM
Thumbs Up

One of the windsurfing dudes here (older gent) is supposedly is a world-renowned scientist in energy transport. He travels all over the world for large energy projects, including the 3 Gorges and some nuclear plants in Asia and Europe. He was in Japan recently, I'd rather not know why.

Anyways, he says all the time that people can kick and scream all they want, it's all going to be nuclear within 25 years, that renewable energy sources will never take off, and the various lobbies have succeeded in preventing useful research in those fields.

I would tend to believe him - he actually has fascinating stories about those projects and the plants in Japan. Scary stuff - if any one of his warnings is true... gloomy stuff.

Gorgo
VIC, 5040 posts
31 May 2011 12:38PM
Thumbs Up

pierrec45 said...
...

Anyways, he says all the time that people can kick and scream all they want, it's all going to be nuclear within 25 years, that renewable energy sources will never take off, and the various lobbies have succeeded in preventing useful research in those fields.

...


I can match your power expert with my own. They say that it is easy to cut carbon emissions from coal fired power stations. You simply convert them to run on natural gas. The only problem with that is you instantly put all the coal miners out of work.

I am curious about Thorium nuclear reactors. It all sounds too good to be true. Same power output. Safer. Readily available fuel. Waste only lasts a few hundred years. No weapons grade fuel produced.

SomeOtherGuy
NSW, 807 posts
31 May 2011 12:41PM
Thumbs Up

Gizmo said...

People will change when it is a positive for them .


But my electricity comes down a wire. I don't get to choose anything except who sends me the bill. The producers of electricity choose how the electricity is generated and they are a business. Businesses exist to make a profit (in this case by making electricity at the cheapest cost and selling it for as much as possible).

Which means they'll choose the cheapest available option every single time - ie COAL. Make coal more expensive and they choose something else.

See? It's not that hard people.

SomeOtherGuy
NSW, 807 posts
31 May 2011 12:52PM
Thumbs Up

I am curious about Thorium nuclear reactors. It all sounds too good to be true. Same power output. Safer. Readily available fuel. Waste only lasts a few hundred years. No weapons grade fuel produced.


Even better - it can be fed weapons grade (and other) radioactive waste and it'll consume it. No chance of a melt down because the reactor needs power to be able to continually bombard the thorium with neutrons otherwise the reaction stops. In other words, turn off the power and the reactor shuts itself down.

At least, that's the theory. It needs more research and development though. Apparently, this was happening back in the 40's-50's but was canned when all the money went to uranium reactor research because back then everyone wanted to make nuclear weapons and that required uranium reactors.

China and India are investing in this stuff. I guess (once again) Australia will buy it off them for big bickies while trying to make a little money digging it out of our back yard instead of getting to the forefront and actually developing the technology and selling it to everyone else.

Sure, go on... keep arguing about how climate change is cr@p and how you all know better than scientists.

[admin: abuse removed]

SomeOtherGuy
NSW, 807 posts
31 May 2011 1:02PM
Thumbs Up

Adoy said...

Then overseas buyers can foot the bill (mining tax)
Wasnt this what Kevin Rudd was proposing to do before he was back stabbed and ousted?


Yes, and a good idea it was too. But Rinehart got on the back of her truck complete with pearl necklace and her mate Freddie and told everyone how we'd all die and our children would be sold into slavery if that happened. And sooo many of you suckers here bought it, together with a big chunk of the rest of Australia. And next thing, it was a fair bet that KRudd would lose the election big time. So they knifed him.

Next time any of you start whining about KRudd getting knifed, try looking in the mirror for the real culprits.

K Dog
VIC, 1847 posts
31 May 2011 1:12PM
Thumbs Up

Gorgo said...
I am curious about Thorium nuclear reactors. It all sounds too good to be true. Same power output. Safer. Readily available fuel. Waste only lasts a few hundred years. No weapons grade fuel produced.




They can retro reactors to do thorium, the US is currently trialling it. The tech won't take off if the big oil doesn't back it..... what matters is return on investment to the major players, if they can't scope it to provide lasting returns, they won't back it, and will most likely bury the tech.

I'm very pessimistic with good new tech - too good to be true = better bury it so it doesn't cost returns....

Simondo
VIC, 8020 posts
31 May 2011 6:01PM
Thumbs Up

^ Royale with cheese please !.... What do they call a Whopper? I don't know, I didn't go into burger king....

SomeOtherGuy
NSW, 807 posts
31 May 2011 6:18PM
Thumbs Up

SomeOtherGuy said...

[admin: abuse removed]


...and here I was thinkin' I was being gentle on 'em...

Simondo
VIC, 8020 posts
31 May 2011 7:27PM
Thumbs Up

Sorry, it's marginally more complex than that. Coal is actually an effective product to maintain balance in the system, so everyone has power whenever they want it. Solar and wind have a few issues associated with the required total power output, and with being able to delivery consistent power.

The laws of voltage drop means you can't easily put all the solar panels in the sunny desert either....


SomeOtherGuy said...

But my electricity comes down a wire. I don't get to choose anything except who sends me the bill. The producers of electricity choose how the electricity is generated and they are a business. Businesses exist to make a profit (in this case by making electricity at the cheapest cost and selling it for as much as possible).

Which means they'll choose the cheapest available option every single time - ie COAL. Make coal more expensive and they choose something else.

See? It's not that hard people.


Trant
NSW, 601 posts
31 May 2011 7:49PM
Thumbs Up

Simondo said...

Sorry, it's marginally more complex than that. Coal is actually an effective product to maintain balance in the system, so everyone has power whenever they want it.


Which is why a tax is needed to stimulate alternatives to coal. Coal is easy for energy suppliers to use

Several solar and wind farms with peaking gas power stations to 'fill in the gaps' would be better than the current system, as an example.

Best case would be the ability to store excess wind/solar power generated during peak times, but that may not be easy or particularly efficient. (I'm not talking about batteries, the classic solution is 'pumped storage' where water is elevated during times of excess energy and released through turbines during times of need
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity )

Simondo
VIC, 8020 posts
31 May 2011 8:49PM
Thumbs Up

Trant said...

Simondo said...

Sorry, it's marginally more complex than that. Coal is actually an effective product to maintain balance in the system, so everyone has power whenever they want it.


Which is why a tax is needed to stimulate alternatives to coal. Coal is easy for energy suppliers to use

Several solar and wind farms with peaking gas power stations to 'fill in the gaps' would be better than the current system, as an example.

Best case would be the ability to store excess wind/solar power generated during peak times, but that may not be easy or particularly efficient. (I'm not talking about batteries, the classic solution is 'pumped storage' where water is elevated during times of excess energy and released through turbines during times of need
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity )




Jeepers, pumped storage would cost loads to set up, let alone find a suitable location for it....
(I'm an infrastructure estimator, and pumped storage looks messy/costly)

pierrec45
NSW, 2005 posts
31 May 2011 9:11PM
Thumbs Up

"Which is why a tax is needed to stimulate alternatives to coal."

"Thorium", "safe coal", "solar","Elvis", etc.


The tax is a show. You'z couldn't possibly think that Australia's peddly little tax, is going to make a dent in this field, at least not for another the first 25 years and it's too late.

The US, at least part of the establishment that is not trying to kill new sources, has given a shot since the oil went up in the 70s. Look where it's at now: a few wind towers here and there for perhaps 1% of the total grid consumption, and an ROI of about 20 years carbon-wise. Even that slim progress is coming at the end already. The only other advance is perhaps somewhat more efficient car engines, but car sales are going up all over (not only US, also China and Russia), so overall it's gotten worse really.

"There's this new this-that magic trick": very much a broken record, after solar energy, tidal machines, hydrogen engines, cold fusion and other dead-ends.

Not saying something won't be found, but it probably is not going to be in this generation's span. The climatic situation will have to be dire in the US and a few privileged countries for things to really happen.

evlPanda
NSW, 9204 posts
1 Jun 2011 12:07AM
Thumbs Up

^ So basically we are all ****ed. The planet is fine by the way, we'll be just a hiccough. < seriously, that's a stupid word.

It's hard to organise six billion people.

The way I see it in 100 years things will be somewhere between somewhat bad and tragic. Look what El Nina did to QLD. If you think it's expensive now you had better stop whining about slightly larger energy bills and start coming up with words for something that many zeroes at the end.

On the good side it should be windier.

SomeOtherGuy
NSW, 807 posts
1 Jun 2011 12:54AM
Thumbs Up

^^^

Precisely, panda.

Except it won't be 100 years. It'll be somewhere between 30 and 50 years. Why? Well... the coal gets dug out of the ground by machines. And machines transport it from the coal face all the way to the railway to the port and on to the power station.

All those machines are powered by oil. And the oil will run out long before the coal does.

The industry reckons maybe 50 years of oil reserves tops but I reckon less given we're using more of the stuff every year. So we've got maybe 50 years at best but probably less.

How long will it take to develop new forms of energy?? It'll take 50 years for the whiners to stop whining about a carbon tax!

SomeOtherGuy
NSW, 807 posts
1 Jun 2011 12:56AM
Thumbs Up

Simondo said...

jeepers, pumped storage would cost loads to set up, let alone find a suitable location for it....
(I'm an infrastructure estimator, and pumped storage looks messy/costly)


Sure, no argument.

Now... how much does it cost to clean up after the floods? What if that was a regular event?

Trant
NSW, 601 posts
1 Jun 2011 9:51AM
Thumbs Up

Simondo said...

Jeepers, pumped storage would cost loads to set up, let alone find a suitable location for it....
(I'm an infrastructure estimator, and pumped storage looks messy/costly)


Yeah you're probably right, but I felt that I had to give an example because everyone tends to think "batteries" whenever you talk about storing energy.
Hopefully there's a better and easier way.

Mobydisc
NSW, 9029 posts
1 Jun 2011 8:37PM
Thumbs Up

This proposed tax will smother much of the Australian economy with a blanket of increased costs and red tape. Much of Australia business is on a downward curve, evidenced by decreased spending. Whatever sparks there are will be snuffed out.

Australians need a new tax system as much as a hole in the head. The upside is the proposed tax will possibly have a great impact upon Australia's carbon dioxide emissions. If the economy falls into depression then activity will decrease, thereby reducing carbon dioxide emissions. So perhaps having the tax is a good idea to save the planet.

Make Australians poor so they can't afford to do anything. Unemployed people don't take overseas holidays or go around buying new 4WDs.





ADS
WA, 365 posts
1 Jun 2011 7:14PM
Thumbs Up

+1



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"Global Warming ?" started by Simondo