|
|
||||
Shattered Warmers Become Global MournersIt’s unsubtle, twice as long as it needs to be, it’s unashamedly smug, and worth watching. Be patient with the start. (Click on the pic to go to PJTV) Betrayed By Climategate, … PJ TV “It was supposed to be hot dammit!” “I just had faith that everything wouldn’t work out…” “This is how I knew was better than other people” This is gratuitous “rubbing-it-in”. The short killer summary:
The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point:
The Missing Hot Spot. May 9th, 2010 | Tags: Satire & Parody | Category: AGW socio-political, Global Warming |
 Print This Post | | 43 comments to Shattered Warmers Become Global Mourners |
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets
  |
|||
|
Copyright © 2024 JoNova - All Rights Reserved |
||||
beautiful, but so true – thanks for the link Jo.
10
In the beginning I believed, and having a broad science background decided to educate myself about global warming. This was in part motivated by my complete inability to to understand the physics behind how CO2 could trap heat. So three years ago I started reading, many books (pro) AGW, books on climate, articles on physical chemistry and heat exchange, etc. I read all the associated historic papers I could find, including Joseph Fourier’s 1824 summary of his work on global temperature regulation (a great read!). As all the lies got stripped away I continued to believe in global warming – thinking that people just didn’t understand its underlying mechanism. After finishing ‘The Deniers’ by Lawrence Solomon I remember my shock when I realized that global warming itself was also a lie!
So glad to have found your blog and realize that I am not the one who is delusional.
Colin in London, Ontario, Canada
10
“Divinely created” is where this video totally lost me. It was quite funny for a while but as soon as the line about creation slipped out, it showed itself to be nothing more than a bible bashing crock.
BTW: Global warming is rubbish, but so is creation.
10
Thanks for the link Jo; and relevant to this topic I’m sure you’ve all heard about Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli’s investigation of alleged climate science fraudster, Michael Mann; here’s a link to a great article by John O’Sullivan How to Expose Post-Normal Junk Climate Science in Five Steps in which John (a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain) examines the legal aspects of the case http://co2insanity.com/2010/05/07/how-to-expose-post-normal-junk-climate-science-in-five-steps/
and leave a comment
10
“It’s what made me better than other people and now it’s gone.”
Bullseye.
10
‘Chuckle’; Humour is the prerogative of the winners. It’s too bad the Monty Python boys are not still about, they would have made an absolute banquet out of AWG.
10
Most, I have to say, haven’t yet gotten to that stage. They think that it’s still warming, but maybe not as much as Gore said it would.
10
I feel for the yoof that were brought up believeing this drivel, because they will be shocked to their foundations when they find out the truth:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2892022.htm
The funny thing is… I didn’t recognise the name of the author, but merely looking at the picture told me what the slant in the story was going to be. I wasn’t disappointed … my spidey sense is still working.
10
There’s a bit of a danger in insufferable smugness, that it causes the people who got it wrong to entrench themselves in their wrongness (and we must live with those people).
For example, I very much doubt that laughing at religious people ever encouraged one of them to reconsider their faith.
10
Ah but Tel… you ignore that it can be so much fun. If not for the religions of the world our hard working comedians would have so much less to talk about. I guess it was why politicians were invented… so we could diversify our sources of comedy.
10
Bulldust @ 8
I like the comment from Crispy:
Clearly relying on a government to do your bidding is not working. If you are so concerned about climate change… start a company or organization and provide cleaner products or do research into them. Getting the big man with the big stick to whip the world into shape for you and your ideas is just straight up dictatorship mentality. I don’t see why anyone else should help or fund you let alone the government. If anything the state will only use it for personal expansion. If your idea has legs and is credible it will gain legs… if it doesn’t it will get amputated. If climate change is an issue maybe take a jumper off if it is too warm or put one on if it is too cold. Outside of that… pushing me to pay for the popularity of your ideas through force is facism.
The fact which obviously escapes young Amanda and many like her is that the drive for improved efficiency is a fundamental part of Western capitalism. If it wasn’t, her personal computer would be the size of a warehouse.
10
She is young and naive yet… and she is yet to be released from the programming of her teachers in high school who probably played An Inconvenient Truth to her… poor thing. My hope is that one day she learns to think critically and wakes up from her stupor.
10
the Govt may have shelved the ETS for the moment but it still has a Renewable Energy Target designed to ensure that 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply will come from renewable sources by 2020 http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/renewable-target.aspx
how realistic is this and how much money will it cost us; here’s an article by Terry Cardwell who worked 25 years for the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. His last commission was at the Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle, with four (very large!) 350 MW power generating units.
The Madness of King Rudd.
In 1994 they made a movie called ‘The Madness of King George.’ A true story about the eccentric and erratic behaviour of King George the 3rd of England, who exhibited increasing strange and eccentric behaviour, ignoring all logic and common sense to do as he wished.
In the near future they will no doubt be making another one based on the same behaviour of Kevin Rudd, called ‘The Madness of King Rudd.’
In spite of all the screaming facts from all corners of the globe that now has become apparent about renewable energy and global warming Kevin Rudd still refuses to listen or look at the truth and still declares that 20% of our power generation will be renewable energy.
——- IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT.
And if it was possible (and I repeat it is not) the influence from the unreliable wind or solar generators would cause instability in the power grid system as they continually change without any warning.
Also there would have to be a spinning reserve in the grid system in excess of 20%. plus normal spinning reserve to cover the largest unit ( in N.S.W. 660MWs) plus spare.
That reserve would be covered by thermal power station units backed off sufficiently in load to immediately pick up if required. This affects their generation efficiency as they are at maximum efficiency at full load. Thus increasing generation cost.
And no you cannot just ‘turn them on and off’ like light switches. To bring a coal fired thermal unit to at least mid load or better operating level can take up to twelve hours or more from a cold start.
Hot starts are quicker but are not good for the unit on a continuous basis. Generators are designed to stay on line and operating continuously and they normally do that for months on end. Usually more than a year requiring only normal service shutdowns.
The power grid system in any country is a very closely controlled, finely tuned and highly sensitive network that must maintain the system voltage and frequency within very fine limits.
To subject it to major (i.e.20%) unregulated continual variations in power input can create control problems and instability.
More gas turbine are being installed but these only have a relatively small output and are used for peak loads, not load control.
I read an article recently by a Melbourne university lecturer where he stated that coal fired thermal power generation units were slow and could not respond to load changes.
It is this type of erroneous completely wrong statements from someone who should know better, that deliberately mislead the community.
Coal fired thermal power generators can respond rapidly to system load changes and can cover the instant loss of the largest unit (660 megawatts) without instability being created in the system. It is this type of response that is required to compensate for the erratic output from wind and solar generators if they were to have a 20% input to the grid.
One wonders if Kevin Rudd has an ulterior motive for doing his best to destroy the power industry. Surely no one can be that blind and stupid to not see the glaring truth about the so called renewable energy farce.
It is not about what political persuasion or beliefs you have. It is about facts and the truth. Certainly anything cleaner or cheaper is welcomed but only IF it IS cheaper, NOT because the greenies or wind generator and solar array manufacturers say so.
The cost to install, operate and maintain them is very high. Wind generators have killed hundreds of thousands of birds with bird strikes throughout the world.
Here are some of those “screaming facts.’
In the early 1980s California was seduced by renewable energy and proceeded to offer subsidies to anyone wanting to erect a wind generator. This subsidy ceased in the late 1990s as they ran out of money due to bankruptcy.
By 2008 they had over 18000 wind generators scattered across California——————————-14000 of them no longer operate, some were cannibalised to keep the other running.
California power cost has now doubled. Their thermal power generation has increased continually to compensated for this disaster and the input from the wind generators, after 30 years of development,produces only 2.3% of California’s electricity. An extremely small percentage and erratic output.
There is also over 15000 birds killed per year by bird strikes from wind generators.
Spain also embraced renewable energy with wind generators and solar array farms. A recent detailed analysis found that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs were lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies.
They now have an unemployment rate of 19%. The cost of power has gone up 100% and they are forced to import power from other countries.
Germany has over 7000 wind generators with over 2500 wind generator failures last year alone. The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired
plants have been constructed to ensure reliable supply.
Sweden has 5000 wind generators and 2000 wind generator failures.
During the cold weather in Europe last December a large number of wind generators froze up and did not work at all. When they finally did they only generated 4% of their capacity.
Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide
emissions have risen by 36% in 2006 alone and continues to rise.. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe.
Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “Windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.”
Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”
Wind generators only generate an average of 30% of their capacity averaged over a month and are completely inconsistent, varying in output between zero and 70% and rarely reaching their maximum capacity.
For wind generators to provide 20% renewable energy in Australia there would have to be over 7000 of them assuming they were 5MW units with the usual generation capability of 30%.
Every Megawatt they generate would have to be backed up by a spinning reserve in the power grid system ready to compensate for their inconsistency. Which neutralises any advantage they may offer.
Wind generators are ideal for boats or isolated areas where they can charge a bank of wet cell batteries providing a continuous power supply. But are of great expense and are of no advantage to the power grid system.
Solar power Generation is in two forms.
Solar thermal generation is where the reflectors are concentrated on a central receiver which then heats a liquid such as sodium, which in turn heats the water to generate steam that drives a turbine coupled to a generator.
The problem is the heat is only available in strong sunlight and increases throughout the day and then falls off to nothing in the evening when there is insufficient sunlight to heat and drive the turbine. It then stops generating. This inactivity occurs for 14hrs of the day and the continual heating and cooling is not good for steam turbine operation.
These units, even though they cover a large area, only generate small amounts of power and add little to power demands.
Solar Electric Generation through solar array farms is more common where the panels generate power from sunlight stimulation. They are very expensive per kilowatt generated to install and require high maintenance to keep them clean and are susceptible to damage from storms and falling objects.
The total peak power generated in Australia is approximately 50,000MWs.
The World’s largest (currently) operating solar power generation plant is the Olmedilla Photovoltaic Park in Spain, and this needs an area of 250 hectares to generate 60MWs in bright sunlight. So let’s put this into perspective.
There are 100 hectares to the square kilometer, and using Olmedilla as a guide, one square kilometer will generate 24MWs.
Theoretically therefore, at maximum generation on a bright sunny day the generation of 10,000MWs to power 20% of Australia’s needs would require a solar array covering an area of 420 square kilometers – a massive area.
However because such a plant would only generate at approximately 20%-30% of its capacity measured over a year, the full size area needed would have to be five times larger, i.e. 2100 square kilometers.
Then there is a minor (?) problem: these plants do not generate at night!!
So, here are some hard facts about solar generation:
1. Supply is more consistent in continually sunny areas e.g. Saudi Arabia, Queensland, Africa, etc., therefore solar generation would not be very effective in areas such as U.K., Europe, Russia, etc. where it is far more overcast. Solar power requires bright sunlight for maximum performance. The output can vary dependent on how overcast it is.
2. Solar generation is only possible during daylight hours where there is sufficient sunlight, approximately eight to ten hours per day; therefore it does not generate anything for between 14 and 16 hours per day.
3. Output cannot be controlled except for changing angles of those arrays fitted with moving solar panels.
4. The supply is unreliable, although more consistent than wind generation which is notoriously unreliable and thermal, nuclear, or hydro power (if available) is required to carry sufficient reserve in the grid system to compensate for any changes in solar plant output due to any changes in sunlight during the day.
5. It is very expensive per kilowatt to install, and expensive per kilowatt to operate and maintain. The solar panel receivers have to be continuously kept clean of bird droppings, dust, and rubbish; and they can be damaged in severe weather (for example in the recent severe hailstorm in Melbourne).
As a power ‘add on’, solar ‘farms’ are useful but could never play anything more than a small part of the grid system because of their inflexible and unreliable nature. The same applies even more so to wind generators.
A note about solar power generation for your home:
The solar program subsidised by the federal government has an output of 1 to 1.5 kilowatts. Provided the sun shines brightly and there is no cloud cover.
The power usage of the average Australian family (i.e. 2 adults + 2 children) is approximately 3 to 4 kilowatts during the day and the additional power required would be drawn from the grid system
Even at night while you are asleep some 0.8 to 1.5 kilowatts is still required to keep things going, such as a refrigerator If you start to run things such as air-conditioning then inevitably your power demand must increase and all power is drawn from the power grid.
The cost of a 1.7kW system is somewhere between $7,000 & $8,000 after allowing for the present Australian Government subsidy. The cost before the subsidy is somewhere between $13,000 & $14,000.
The good news is that a far more efficient solar photovoltaic panels has been invented in Israel, and this is reported to be 400% more efficient than present panels. However these are still being tested and developed and not yet ready for general use.
Hydro Electric is the perfect Power Generation but we are using all available water resources and there is no more available to increase its capacity.
Hydro generation is 4.6% of total generation and can only run when there is sufficient water from spring snow melt and rain water.
Geothermal is good if you are in New Zealand but there is none in Australia except for the ‘Hot Rocks’ experiments which so far has only met with failure.
Tidal and wave Generation is being developed but would only have a very minor possible power generation capability for the foreseeable future. In the distant future (50 years) I believe we may develop it substantially.
Nuclear Power generation is proving throughout the world to be the ideal power generation system. Especially with the new revolutionary 4th generation Liquid fluoride Thorium Reactor systems that solves all the problems associated with nuclear power. LFTRs consume 100% of the thorium fed to them and can be started with spent fuel rods or old nuclear warheads.
LFTRs will inevitably be used as janitors cleaning up old nuclear waste.
A very exciting concept for power generation.
In the past three years the Rudd government has squandered billions of dollars on;
A. Clean coal technology. A complete failure.
B. Hot rocks programmes, Still struggling to get any form of result.
C. Power stations with CO2 deep storage. Massive cost for a teaspoon of power.
D. Renewable energy projects. Could never achieve a viable usage or cost.
E. Home Insulation programmes. A total waste of money and a disaster.
F. Solar Power on homes. Will have negligible effect on power generation.
All have been either a failure or worse a disaster as in the insulation program.
AND FOR WHY?
Oh yes that’s right !!! To reduce our ‘carbon footprint’. What a ridiculous name. One imagines a big black boot covered in graphite leaving a mess on the carpet. When they actually mean carbon dioxide emissions.
Carbon Dioxide the gas essential to all life and they call it a pollutant.
SO HOW DOES ALL THE ABOVE REDUCE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS.
Ah yes! By reducing the amount of electrical power from the thermal power stations that generate over 94% of our energy. Therefore reducing the CO2 coming out of the stacks.
Except for one minor point!!!!!!
In 2008-2009 Australia’s power stations produced approximately 276 billion kilowatt hours (TWh) of electricity*, 71.5% more than the 1990 level and growing at 4% pa.
This growth in production is normal and has not even dropped in the slightest due to the above programmes.
The power returned to the grid system from domestic solar panels would be an irritating and a very expensive teaspoon full in a 200 litre drum.
The federal and state governments have spent many billions of dollars of ours and our children’s economic future chasing butterflies.
One final point; NOT ONE of the doomsday predictions from as far back as 1979 has eventuated or proven to be true.
Global warming will be forever in our history as the biggest scam EVER perpetrated on mankind putting billions of dollars in the pockets of those that have promoted the scam and those ‘scientists’ that have been highly paid to come up with ‘positive’ results.
( Remember the computer 2000 millennium bug.)
The eruption of the volcano in Iceland that is emitting millions of tons of sulphur dioxide, ash and carbon dioxide daily make man’s efforts extremely puny and ridiculous.
The madness of the federal and state governments in this horrific waste of money must be stopped before they bankrupt the country.
sorry I can’t link to it; it’s not on the net
10
Dear Shattered Warmers,
Boo hoo!
10
val majkus: @13
good post – just a correction – the 1.5kW home solar unit produces 9kW over 6 hours which covers the 3 -4kW consumption, (provided you have full sun all day) – the problem is the power company doesn’t need it because, as you rightly point out, they can’t turn their generators down to compensate.
10
thanks Janama for that comment; I’ve sent it to Terry Cardwell who wrote the article for his comment;
10
Wouldn’t the 1.5kW and 3-4kW numbers be hourly consumption? Heck I run two PC’s that have 500watt power supplies in them, and that’s just for starters. Then there’s the electric hot water system, fridge, plasma, electric induction stove, lights etc…
If you are talking a rate of consumption the convention is to use kW… whereas total energy consumption is based on kWh.
e.g. my last Synergy bill for 63 days usage was 1139 + 357 units = 1496 units
I am pretty sure that 1 unit = 1 kWh
So that puts my average daily usage at 1496 / 63 = 23.75 kWh. Given that the two of us are often out or working/sleeping, you figure that is 2-3kW per hour for when we are at home using the PC’s, cooking, watching TV etc. Sounds about right for an apartment. Given that the typical household is a house I would expect their consumption to be higher are around 3-4kW per hour. So I think the original statement rings true.
10
Janama; Terry says the 1.5kw is PER HOUR. That is the power generated. Total daily power would be 9 to 12kws.
10
Here’s what he said:
The solar program subsidised by the federal government has an output of 1 to 1.5 kilowatts. Provided the sun shines brightly and there is no cloud cover.
The power usage of the average Australian family (i.e. 2 adults + 2 children) is approximately 3 to 4 kilowatts during the day
it’s all a bit vague – I do know the solar kits are 1.5kW output (1.575kW to be precise) from 9 x 175W panels. The average sunlight in the mid NSW latitude is around 6 hours per day hence 9kW/day.
My own consumption is more like Bulldust suggested – 12.86kW – and I’m a single dweller.
the real joke is that I pay $3.28c per day (3.92C/kW). The solar panel person will receive 60c/kW from the government! so they will have an income of 9x.60c = $5.40c which will well and truly cover their additional electricity costs.
10
Val et al
The rating you mention is 1.5 kW – which means it generates 1.5 kWh per hour AT FULL LOAD. Obviously this relies on how sunny it is at the time. In Perth, Australia, we have a 2.3 kW system on the roof at home. Over the year it generates about 10kWh per day. Power costs A$0.17/kWh so the solar array is producing about A$1.70 of power per day on average. The system cost us about A$21,000 so it isn’t a very good investment. Rule of thumb for Perth is about 4.25 kWh per day per kW of installed capacity.
By the way, solar panels lose efficiency when they get hot. The rated capacity is based on 20 degrees celcius – on the roof on a hot sunny day here it can be 50 or so. (The photovoltaic cell also heats up nicely as a black panel ;( .) Which means the solar panels don’t run to capacity when the sun is peaking.
Plus, the inverter has a life of about 5 – 10 years, after which we’re up for another $2000.
As always, it’s not quite as simple as the greenies tell us.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
It’s the equivalent of me going to my local corner store and insisting that the government has determined that they purchase my home made ice cream for $60.00 even though they sell it for $3.92. it’s a farce!
10
Anyway.. minor corrections here and there aside, I think we all agree that solar power is ridiculously overpriced at the moment and can in no way reduce the load on the Aussie grid for the foreseeable future. This is hardly news to anyone that pays attention to the facts… unfortunately the Greens run their party based on ideology and the politicians have to weigh that into their decision making, especially around election time when preference systems become important factors in political life.
Until someone makes the courageous political decision to allow nuclear power installations in Australia we won’t be making significant reductions to our CO2 emissions. At best you can hope for a transition from coal-fired to gas-fired stations and reducing emissions that way. Not that I am suggesting CO2 emissions are a problrm, of course… that was a hypothetical statement. Besides there is no way WA will be installing major gas-fired electricity generators until the price of NWS gas contracts drop significantly. That won’t happen unless we can enforce the domestic supply from the new LNG projects in the near future.
It is an interesting exercise, by the way, to compare domgas supply prices versus what the householder pays for gas. You’d be amazed at the markup.
10
val majkus @13
About the Melbourne University lecturer: Mate he’s a University lecturer he doesn’t need to check his facts. The facts are whatever he says, and if any of his students question him he will mark them down.
How do you think the situation got where it is in the first place. These guys are feudal lords in their own little kingdoms, and no one dares question them.
They are literally the kings of the kids. Which is why, now that they have come out and started trying to tell adults what to do, they are shocked and stunned that they are being questioned.
10
“This is gratuitous “rubbing-it-in”.”……… Deservedly so, I might add;-)
10
Bulldust
Our household (2 adults + 3 kids) uses about 30-35 kWh/day. This is about 30 times less than Al Gore’s domestic electricity consumption.
I find that it is impossible to get kids to turn off lights, computers and TV’s unless you get severely antisocial at them. In the end, it was easier for me to install a solar cell and yell at that instead – the PV array seems to take more notice of me than the kids do…
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Shocker: Solar panel manufacturing creates potent GHG’s
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/27/shocker-solar-panel-manufacturing-creates-potent-ghgs/
10
Speedy @ 20
So you have had your Damascene experience re solar cells? I started using them in 1995 to run my small field camp in the north Kimberley. Two panels 80 watts each, 2 6 volt Trojans, and a portable fridge that only needed 2 amps or so to run.
Didn’t.
Now I use unisolar panels that are heat tolerant on the top of the caravan, peak sun gives me 16 amps, with another two angled 45 degrees facing west to capture the setting sun, so I should be getting 12 amps continuously from 10 am to sundown.
But I have not had the time to monitor the system but from experience solar power is not what the Greens think it is.
I am more interested in working out how to tap into the Earth’s ambient electric field of 100v per vertical metre.
10
Jo,
Thanks for this thought-inspiring clip. It got me to wondering what made the AGW so attractive to begin with. I think I’ve figured it out.
I wrote small piece about this at my site.
10
Louis Hissink: #27
Best of luck there, old son. Like a lot of folks I could mention, the ambient electric field is all potential, but nowt else.
It is all about the air not being a good conductor, and stuff like that.
You can trust me in this, I am an Engineer. 🙂
10
Rereke @ #29
I recall a young Australian school child (girl) doing a physics assignment and she decided to make a solenoid – problem is that solenoids with a single layer of coiled wire are not linear. For reasons she could not explain, she wound it differently and ended up with a soloneid with a pronounced bulge in the centre. Result was a solenoid that exhibited linear behaviour. The news article reporting mentioned that she cracked something engineers etc couldn’t.
But thanks for the good wishes – all it needs is a little lateral thinking, I suspect.
10
Seems no one but Speedy got the units right. kW per hour was especially disturbing. At least I know what was meant so never mind.
10
Bulldust@ 8
I followed up your link and You were right . Picture was a dead giveaway , I read through some of the comments and noticed You were in there ,swinging away at the AGWists with logic . Poor bastards , they`re not used to logic and independant thought. Still , if they`re going to try to pass of their religion as science , it serves `em right .
10
This video is a lot of fun, but unfortunately not the realistic response from global warmers.
The actual response has been, to redouble their attacks on the “deniers” as if more forcible attacks on them would make their sincere desire for “man-made global warming” come true
10
The alarmists have two things on their side. firstly climate is always changing, and secondly, most people are susceptible to scares. But scares are normally soon found out and if they are genuine then people manage them. If they are a long time being identified as false and the very enquiry generates income for people, then the supporter of the scare becomes entrenched emotionally and economically.If you then add a superstructure of dumb but powerful politicians you have a dangerous mixture. When it all goes wrong the withdrawl can be painful, expensive, and long drawn out. Lucky are those who haven’t invested a cent/dollar in green ideas. Soon to be poorest are those who have invested fortunes.
10
I talked with a friend about unusual units mentioned above and he came up with an explanation I would like to share.
Let 1gor = 1kW/h
Now one can think of a gor producing device (gorgon) and a gor consuming device (gorge) with interesting properties. Both devices when operating (even independently) lead to runaway warming (but never cooling) which easily reach a million degrees beyond our feet.
Is it possible that our climate scientists are using gores in their models…
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
10
At least in New South Wales we have a number of gas turbine power stations and they switch on and off quite rapidly. Gas is relatively cheap and easy to transport and the gas turbine stations tend to be smaller than the coal plants. They are an excellent choice for standby power (if you have plenty of gas, like we do).
If we could get cheap, high efficiency solar cells onto regular household roofs it would not solve our energy problems but it would be well worth doing, just to reduce coal consumption (which will eventually run out). The current problem is that solar cells are very expensive, and not dropping in price at the same rate as other technology (e.g. laptops, phones, TV sets, etc).
10
Tel @36:
First, there is plenty of coal in Australia for electricity generation. Estimated reserve 100+ years.
Gas and oil are another issue.
Solar is very inefficient in terms of the total cost to provide supply capacity. Short of hiring lawyers to pedal bicyle generators, I can’t imagine anything sillier for domestic electricity consumption where it’s easy to be grid-connected.
“Renewable” energy sources that are intermittent and essentially unpredictable are impossible to integrate into the supply grid in any significant quantity. E.On’s wind energy reports of 2005 and 2006 (IIRC) outlined the extensive experience with integrating substantial wind power into the supply grid. Surges and sudden lulls have produced waves of power outages across Europe already, simply because the grid cannot manage such rapid changes in generated energy.
It’s a control system problem. Control systems designed and built to cope with a few managed generators and many consumers do not scale well to also having many unmanaged generators added.
Moreover, E.On’s later report indicates that the supplier has to provide 90% shadow capacity for all renewables, which end to be gas-fired because they have to respond quickly to respond to a supply gap/surplus as wind/solar varies.
Gas-fired power generation is somewhat less efficient than coal-fired, so the cost of supply is higher. Suppliers pass on all cost increases (and then some) to consumers.
Keep in mind that the high cost of electricity has already resulted in many of the most energy-intensive manufacturing industries in the EU being moved to other locations. Leaving hundreds of thousands without a job. The EU is now exposed to the vagaries of cost fluctuations in “unstable” economies, reducing the viability of other manufacturers that rely on those materials. e.g. they have to pay about 20% more for the stuff now than what they did a year ago, simply because of exchange-rate fluctuations.
Affordable energy is a fundamental component of any viable, independent economy.
10
Bernd in correct in mostly what he says except;
A. There is over 380 years of coal in Australia at current usage and export, plus areas not yet further explored. B. Gas firing is not less efficient but it is far more expensive. C. Coal fired power station are just as responsive as gas fired stations. D. The grid system does not manage the generators. The generators control the system and maintain system voltage and frequency automatically by continually varying load on units selected for frequency control. otherwise spot on Bernd.
20
Val Majkus @13
Do you ever hear an AGW believer talking about voluntarily and radically reducing their personal consumption? Do any of these people start saving the world by getting rid of all non-essentials? One of the reasons I am skeptical is that I don’t see a change in behaviour befitting the belief (i.e. they practise hypocrisy).
I looked into alternative power supply for my property. My motivation being “security” of supply, since I life rurally and am the last property on the grid with a 1km lead from the road to the house.
With solar water heating I would have had to replace my hot water cylinder and the current location was unsuitable, so I would have been up for a lot of expense that made it non-viable. To convert to photovoltaic with wind and back up diesel generation, I would have needed to install a massive bank of batteries that would need replacing after a ridiculously short term. On top of that I would have had to convert all my lighting to 12V and replace all my appliances with low power consumption units. When I added up the capital cost involved and then worked out the interest on the capital involved it proved to be very expensive compared with staying on the grid and risking the possibility of an extended outage.
Some might have applied the precautionary principle – but I applied the economic principle.
20
Terence @38:
Figures vary … (PPT) page 14ff put coal-fired efficiency at up to 47% and gas (without combined cycle) at up to 42% with boiler and a couple of percent lower with turbines. Turbines are generally used to respond to rapidly-changing supply-demand variations, and therefore the preferred means for shadow capacity provision with wind turbines and solar in the grid.
Other (PDF) document to read shows relative, international scales of power generation.
10
Make friends with absurdity. It’s the only thing we can be sure of.
10
Bernd Felsche and Terence Cardwell
Also of course if you take into account nuclear (and why wouldn’t you) Australia has millenia of cheap power in front of it.
Why spend money on renewable at this time?
Cheers
Jim
10
Are those people in the video for real? Seems a little overdramatic and staged to me. If they are real, all I can say is Schadenfreude!
10