You have to hand it to The Australian – they will publish both sides. Take this (please, take it): “Our energy policy still stuck in coal country”. This is Alan Kohler, bless him, who doesn’t get it and dreams of a nation of motor-heads “going electric”. But, wow, ouch, watch how he reasons it out… not with numbers and graphs (he’s the numbers man on the nightly finance report) but with pop psychology?
The idea of an Australian government banning petrol and diesel cars to promote public health seems especially remote right now: we can’t keep the lights on as it is, having closed a few fossil fuel power stations.
But you can bet that the Coalition government and its media supporters will argue that the electrification of transport makes it even more necessary for there to be more “baseload power” from coal-fired power stations — how could we possibly charge millions of cars, and run millions of airconditioners and fridges if we let Liddell close in 2022?
And you can fix that Mr Kohler, how?
Wait for it…
This is the underlying reality of Australia’s energy debate: a majority of the government does not actually believe the science of climate change. Not really.
Politicians are generally in it for the public good. If they all believed in global warming, there would be a bipartisan energy policy.
Fergoodnesssake, If politicians all believed in being skeptics there would be bipartisan energy policy too.
If half of Parliament are skeptical, it is exactly as it should be in a representative democracy. Fifty percent of Australians are skeptical, but too scared to say so on TV for fear the ABC will call them a denier.
If belief were baseload we could run our cars on polls instead of petrol.
- Australian skeptics outnumber believers say OECD. Globally, 63% don’t want their dollars spent on the environment…
- 62% of Australians don’t want to pay even $10 a month for renewables
- Poll: Australians more skeptical. Climate change “dropped off” political radar
- 54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it
Tricky stuff balancing CO2 emissions.
From a letter by Bernard Brewer on the 17th Sept in the UK Telegraph
According to the IVL Institute in Sweden 17.5 tons of CO2 have been released by Teslsa batteries during manufacture and the smaller Nissan Leaf battery releases 5 tons of CO2 while being manufactured.
You could drive a Diesel/Petrol car for more than 8 years before it exceeds the amount given out by a brand new unused Teslsa battery
362
CO2, molecular weight = 12 + 2*16 = 44. 17.5 tons of CO2 contain 4,770 kg C. 1 liter of petrol contains 0.7 kg of carbon, so 6,800 liters of petrol will produce 17.5 tons of CO2. Take an average car with 7 l /100 km consumption, that will move you by some 1,000 kilometers. If you drive 1,000 kilometers in 8 years, you may consider using Uber or a similar service.
72
Sorry, my bad. It is 100,000 km. Reasonable for 8 years.
180
Don’t feel too sorry, a very good outline.
You showed that even before use the Tesla battery has a CO2 imprint that is carefully ignored, and maybe even hidden, from public view.
From the point you got to we can now compare the actual CO2 signature of petrol and battery power in use.
There is double handling for battery power in that the electricity it regularly taps into is made by burning coal. It doesn’t come from renewables!
Also the economies of scale make battery power a big loser economically with frequent replacement of the battery.
The biggest issue for batteries is the horrendous environmental cost in mining the rare earth metals and manufacture and eventual disposal. Other “more primitive” countries can do this dirty work; well out of sight of greenies.
There would be a mountain of used batteries to “recycle” after only a few years of compulsory use of batteries.
A financial and environmental cost benefit analysis does not support the media view that battery power is either cost effective or environmentally friendly.
Quite the reverse.
KK
220
“A financial and environmental cost benefit analysis does not support the media view that battery power is either cost effective or environmentally friendly.
Quite the reverse.”
Should I be surprised?
70
I’m just trying to imagine the size of batteries to drive an 18 wheeler, and how often they would have to be charged.
In discussions I’ve had with people I know, I said dont forget the whole CAGW mess cant actually supported scientifically.
As such, to push this barrow so far down the road and moot the removal of all internal combustion vehicles, implies a scientific correctness, which just isnt there.
110
The 18 wheeler will need to become a 36 wheeler – just to carry the battery!!!!
110
Standard tractor trailers “semis” in Australia are 22 wheelers and B-doubles have 34. Road trains used in the Outback have more.
Batteries will be useless on all of them unless the entire cargo space is devoted to battery packs.
Politicians simply have no clue about the energy density of fossil fuels compared to electrochemical energy storage. Come to think of it, they have no clue about anything else either.
171
David, perhaps someone should offer to create a full size build of a battery powered electric truck to prove ( or otherwise ) its ability to function….
That would certainly hose down pie-in-the-sky expectations pretty quickly.
70
“You showed that even before use the Tesla battery has a CO2 imprint that is carefully ignored, and maybe even hidden, from public view.”
Soon lotsa ‘mining’ will be recovery of old discarded Plumbum (Pb-82) batteries from lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. While now not a yet a ‘precious’ metal, the only good stuff is in the form of lead-acid batteries, and scuba diving weights. Except for surface ‘blemish’ hard to oxidize or sulfate. When soft lead is properly alloyed with very hard U235 all sorts of useful metallurgical properties are yet to be discovered.
A large sailing ship with proper amorphous silicon solar cell sails and massive lead acid battery\ballast\power storage may yet become the preferred transport for ecologically inspired very very rich!
Hey Donald P45, weeuns can do dis! You can rent out ‘cabins’ at obscene prices!
\
40
Oi! Not so fast Will. Lead Acid batteries are a big user, scuba diving weight belts are small change. Electronics is probably the largest user. Solder. All your cell phones, smartphones, the rest of the machinery in all the cellphone networks, all printed circuit boards in your Smart Fridges, Smart Stoves, Smart Washers (washing machines), Microwave ovens, TVs, Audio Systems and Digital clocks, Motor vehicle instruments, dash boards, fuel injection computers, and fuel injection metering, and even wiring looms, all use solder. Solder uses lead.
Up to about 1995 there was good solder which was 60% lead, now there’s only bad solder which is 40% lead. That’s why all this important junk is now so unreliable.
And Lead is the final breakdown product of Uranium.
50
I left out all control systems, such as computers, elevators, air conditioning, door openers, CAC machines, intruder alarms etc etc.
All use solder.
40
“Not so fast Will. Lead Acid batteries are a big user, scuba diving weight belts are small change. Electronics is probably the largest user”
How truly ancient! Have you not heard of:
RoHS, now worldwide insanity?
“The Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive 2002/95/EC, short for Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, was adopted in February 2003 by the European Union.”
This immediately tripled the price on good Alpha metals 60/40 solder. There is no longer any useful lead\tin solder available, except on, very selective black market. Even plumbers now glue copper pipe together with J-B weld!
This insanely stupid directive, way way more idiotic than the ban on CFCs, directive even disallowed steel with 60 ppm lead for malleability and no possible way to leach ‘any’ of that matter from such steel.
Electronic assembly uses re-flow tin plated copper ‘braising’ or welding for interconnect of physical components. Inside is only stronger gold compression ball bond.
50
Will, your outline of the restrictions on lead in soldered incredible. How do they get away with such stupidity?
I haven’t read George Orwells 1984 but from what I’ve heard the lead restrictions are totally in line with his predictions.
KK
40
Ah, but I don’t live in the EU. I can still buy solder from the hardware/electronics shops/electrical warehouses, but it’s 60/40 tin/lead solder, not the good 60/40 lead-tin alloy.
Plumbers use silfos for brazing copper pipes (15% silver alloy brazing rod, which is coated with a phosphorous based flux). It flows nicely. I can buy that readily, and recently did, but it’s not cheap (ouch). Most plumbing now is pvc pipe which is readily glued.
The EU can say and do what it likes, and, unfortunately for its citizens, it does. I don’t buy their appliances and equipment because of that directive. All my electronix stuff is sourced from China and my motor vehicles from Japan. A 2007 model whose instruments I went into to cure a dry joint, still uses the old-fashioned etched copper pcbs with solder. I have no idea what solder alloy it was put together with, but it’s now functioning reliably.
60
You will notice also,that the battery life(at most 7 years)still doesn’t justify the amount of CO2(8 years worth) that is generated in the manufacture of said same battery.And that doesn’t take into account how much CO2 is generated in making the rest of the car.
00
No Uber, then?
30
Is Uber battery powered?
20
Perhaps it is solder powered! Mabe CO2 powered! Fish powered anyone?
20
I thought you were out by “a little”. 🙂
If a Tesla owner did 100,000 KMs in 8 years he/she would not be able to charge it from the rooftop solar, may do it with a Teslawall 2 but one would need to be proactive in handling the household electricity supply and would need smart metering and reduced off-peak pricing.
Trouble is, you are using your rooftop array to run your car so you are back on the grid for general household power use.
I watched a youtube video of a chap and how he did this and as an aside he says that when charging from a 10A GPO he was charging @ 8 miles/hour. I blinked but then realised what he was saying but he would have read that directly from the Tesla screen.
If we reached general acceptance and everyone is going to charge their Tesla during the evening peak I fear the grid would become so unstable that an extra coal burner would be a drop in a bucket.
If this is the brave new world Snowy II is the least we can do.
50
It surprises me greatly that nobody has yet complained about all the oxygen that is being taken out of the atmosphere.
30
🙂
30
Ted, there must be giga, mega, terra tons of oxygen leached from the atmosphere last month alone through uncaring human activities like breathing.
It could be a very serious problem that needs to have a U.N. investigation started urgently.
KK
30
Actually one of my best arguments about CCS is the absolute absurdity of taking 1 part Carbon and TWO PARTS OXYGEN and burying it for a couple of millennia.
30
We need it.
20
Atmospheric O2 is replenished by Solar EUV reducing dihydrogen oxide to its elements. The H2 drifts off to the Sun to replenish its power source. That is why sea levels are dropping. Is another 40 days and 40 nights needed?
Where the hell did I park that Ark?
41
The Nissan Leaf and the Mitsubishi equivalent were withdrawn from sale in Australia after the tiny market share sales crashed in 2016 and now in 2017 both vehicles are no longer stocked and sold in Australia.
140
I wonder what the CO2 calculations for manufacturing South Australia’s big battery would be. Another con being sold to the gullible.
30
If you think this is weird, just wait. Soon even this will look normal. Their panic has just started. Soon it will be the wild dance of a headless chicken. Things will start getting really dangerous.
180
Its often speculated about peak stupid here and it well may come in forms not yet imagined, where silly ideas about saving a poofteenth of a molecule or metaphysical physics are amusing the radicalized reactionaries will provide the most breathtaking examples, however be careful what you wish for as Lenin’s and Stalin’s Useful idiots managed to cause a few deaths over their narrowed focused beliefs.
171
I can just see all of our highways and country roads looking like Melbourne streets with the overhead power lines to run the heavy transport vehicles from state to state and region to region. Farmers will be working only a few hours a day as their tractors etc need to go back to the power shed to continuously recharge. Tourism in the outback and elsewhere comes to a halt as cars can no longer travel the distances and power stops are too expensive to install. Food shortages start to affect metropolitan areas as farmers can’t produce enough and transport can’t deliver.
Riots begin in the cities and people start to eat zoo animals and pets.
170
Meanwhile, the already stagnant Australian economy starts to crash, falling from the current poor about 2 per cent GDP growth into a recession. WA is already there with a mild state recession.
Australia needs 3-4 per cent GDP growth a year to move forward, to increase economic prosperity, and these LABLIBS in Canberra, and their state/territory comrades, are standing on the brakes.
80
“Riots begin in the cities and people start to eat zoo animals and pets.”
Politician barbecue is way out in front! Feed that to your hogs first, for excellent translation to, nice ham and Canadian back bacon! 🙂
30
That last sentence was about what’s literally happening in Venezuela, a country full of vast resources that has followed the Socialist way and become a basket case.
61
Politicians make good flags to hang from lamp-posts. The Italians showed that with their Il-Duce in 1944 …
10
Nobody seems to have realised that parking the car to charge the battery is both often unrealistic and unnecessary.
The solution is simple. Design the batteries to be easily swapped.
Meanwhile, we already have a lot of electric vehicles in use. The “gophers” that older and disabled people use. I can’t imagine that they would win any efficiency competition, but the numbers would be interesting.
10
Just the proper Tesla for old farts!:-)
10
“The solution is simple. Design the batteries to be easily swapped.”
Perhaps the batteries and even motors need be part of wheels where power is exchanged; as LeTourneau does! Da pit crew has demonstrated complete replacement within 30 seconds! Details details, details, damn; here hold my beer; Mom watch this!! Mom covers face.
All the beat!-will-
10
Any politician spruiking these lies and fraudulent claims, make them put their money where their big mouths are, make them go off the grid, and they MUST use renewables in all walks of their life. They want to get from Tasmania to the mainland, let them do it the old fashioned way, no planes, no powered boats, let them use the wind at their backs, but they won’t.
00
I read an interesting analysis (H/T Delingpole) about the ramifications if electric vehicles were mandated in places subject to natural disasters – in this case, they used Irma as an example, but it could equally be applied to other disasters such as bush fires or earthquakes: .
Add to the carnage caused as a result of the failure of electric vehicles (including emergency response vehicles) is the disruption to power through the destruction of eco-crucifixes and solar panels being destroyed. It is well worth a read, and it should be compulsory reading for twits like Kohler.
20
I wonder if Mr Kohler would be Ok with himself or one of his loved ones undergoing major surgery in a hospital with only battery backup if the power goes out?
Surely you can’t love the planet so much that people don’t even rate in your feelings of affections?
For all warmists out there that was two rhetorical questions above created to prompt nice thoughts of other people, you do know what rhetorical is yes?
160
Exactly what i have been saying for a long time.
You can have reliabke base load or renewables, not both.
We need to constantly call out CAGW supporters to provide actual empirical proof of CAGW and table it publically, so it can be examined by the public, and never let up. Use some of their own Saul Alynskis tactics against them…..
If you shut down cars and trucks and no baseload from coal, your country will become like a failed third world state…
Now ponder the new fence at Parliament House. Its not about terrorism, it never has been.
This stuff is planned years in advance. This is not some random outcome.
60
In Burra, SA, on Anzac Day in 1918, the Methodist minister, the Rev. A. J. Finch, remarked:
Perhaps the “hospital” question is more than rhetorical.
60
Lofty words, but what did those ANZACS get in return?
A beautiful, tree-lined thoroughfare called Anzac Parade in Sydney, trashed by its brain dead State Government 100 years later to construct a you beaut tramline!
50
Says the MSM about another bedfellow whose sole skill is best expressed as the art of lying? Fortunately for all, lies often have very short legs.
140
That was the old days, but there are still some honourable members with us today trying to work with those who should be in an asylum.
60
Sorry Dennis, you have that all wrong. Your asylum idea can only mean you think all this is just stupidity. In fact you couldn’t be more wrong.
It could never have spread through the western world, & beyond if it were mere incompetence. It is a plan by the elites to put us peasants back in our place.
The elites are horrified that mere peasants can live in a five bedroom McMansion, with 3 or 4 cars out front. They are horrified that a mere tradesman, or clerk can earn as much as a bureaucrat, or academic.
They have jumped onto this global warming bandwagon to use it to wind back our standard of living, which they see as excessive for peasants. We are consuming far too many resources that will be required for future generations of their offspring.
No Dennis, they are not crazy, just greedy, with a grossly inflated assumption of their own worth.
30
Yes,we used to lock these”Loonies”away for their own safety.Now,they wander our streets dressed as”Lying,do nothing,career politicians”
00
Living proof to be given the plum positions in this world, you need to have signed up to “the cause”, no matter how ridiculous.
I pity those who are are old and smart enough to know better.
I recently chided a university academic who had spent time in industry in the USA who was a fellow qualified engineer who brought up climate change, and I told him he should be ashamed to believe in such unproven nonsense given the lack of emperical evidence and proof.
I think deep down he knows.
50
I wonder how many fossil fuel powered cars Kohler owns?
When he owns just a single car and it is a EV…..
….. maybe his comments will be worth more than comedy value.
183
Most EVs in Australia are coal-fuelled anyway.
110
I have toyed with the cheeky idea of sticking “Charged by coal” stickers on the back of hybrids….
70
You could try Dino-Juice?
It’s probably more accurate! 🙂
30
He probably pays extra for “green energy” to be supplied to his home.
Off peak electricity of course, which is different.
sarc
60
AndyG55,
This would only be relevant if he lived in the country………..about 300 miles from the nearest
re-charge unit….
You really have to wonder if “knowledgeable” people like this
engage their brain before opening their mouth……
Or just do it for the twits on twitter….
60
I would suggest that all EV’s are equipped with a tow bar;
fitted at the front of the vehicle!!
GeoffW
50
It works for the fleet of golf carts at my local club. They hook several carts together and then the cart kid drives the front cart with all the rest following along in a train. When one runs out of juice they send another cart out to tow it home.
30
“When one runs out of juice they send another cart out to tow it home.”
That is the idea behind new heavy rail cars. Weight does not matter if the rails and bed can spread it to much larger area (lower pressure). What costs so much is the shift to higher potential accumulated power as the mass is elevated (go up) that is not recovered (going down). The second loss is the solid axle trucks friction going around any curves. The power loss is obscene and can no longer be tolerated, especially by the steel tracks. With well designed truckage (wheels) and brush-less DC motor technology, much of this loss, and even acceleration\deceleration losses can be recovered by battery technology. Implementation details left to the reader.
Wind losses? Why any? Best to use experience:
Officer: Do you know how fast you were going?
Driver: No idea ossifer, there was beer going everywhere!
Your result may vary; I conclude the police have no sense (of humor) whatsoever! 🙂
30
Want to see how this”NEW”technology works in motor vehicles?In 1998 formula 1 cars were lapping Albert park in Melbourne,14 seconds faster than they do today.And that’s called”Progress?”
00
they changed the formula… or are you making a joke?
00
Waiting for the Climate council to come out today and push the usual CAGW barrow this time using the earthquake in Mexico as a reason for the need to drive electric cars .
110
Electric cars would mainly be re-charged at night…….
I’m just wondering if the owners realise where their re-charge
power comes from………….at night?
Can you just imagine how much the base-load power is going to increase by
when EVERYONE plugs in to re-charge……
We would NEVER have enough coal fired power stations to cover this….
Sometimes you really have to wonder about the “intelligence” of these people….
70
could someone with more knowledge and access to data than me do some back of the envelope calcs to determine the power requirements to recharge just domestic vehicles each night? How many wind generators/backup batteries/etc would be required?
There is also the issue of fuel taxes that will disappear if we all drive electric vehicles. Where will the lost revenue be recovered from as no government is going to offset this loss by reducing expenditure?
80
I did the calcs once, the energy used by vehicles in MJ is roughly the same as electricity consumption, so an all electric transport infrastructure would roughly double total demand (Domestic + Industry/Government) so if its 18000GW now we’ll need 36000GW, but wait there’s more. Of course that works if the recharging is random, but it’s not. Recharging will tend to be done in the morning and evening peaks. Let’s just call it “Unsustainable”.
I’m fond of saying that green “sustainability” is totally unsustainable.
40
Oh but that’s too easy John. All you need are giant batteries charged during the day which are then used to charge the car batteries at night. And when driving the car battery can charge the battery in your phone.
It’s batteries all the way down!
30
The Climate Change/A Global Warming Scam, this great monumental political hoax, can be reduced to one issue – whether carbon dioxide can cause a ‘greenhouse’ effect on this planet.
People forget this. People get wound up debating complicated concepts that rely on this basic fallacy that is so obviously impossible on our planet and so easy to see is not happening. Why go beyond the obvious fallacy of this argument when debating ‘Climate Change’?
People overlook the following. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is so very small it cannot act as a greenhouse gas and CO2 is a relatively heavy gas that sinks to the ground surface where it cannot trap air below it for this, another reason!
And rather, CO2 acts as an essential nutrient, not a pollutant, keeping the essential plant life producing the oxygen and food that keeps us going.
Why don’t these people wake up to the fact that any genuine anti pollution evangelist should be defending the production of CO2 not denigrating it.
The planet would be in big big trouble if it were not for the production of CO2 and there is obviously no greenhouse effect from CO2.
170
Thank you Robert.
The vast majority of the people who come to this site on a regular basis understand the science. Even our resident trolls understand the fundamentals, but they tend to be more political than scientific, because long words and longer sentences bother them.
However, having said that, it doesn’t hurt to restate the facts from time to time. It keeps all of us focussed, except for Andy, who wanders off on his own occasionally.
190
Thanks RW. I know everyone here understands, however, my point is this. Because the basic greenhouse fallacy of the anthropogenic climate change argument is so easily understood and therefore so easily demonstrable, these basic arguments should be pushed and pushed to the masses so that the masses then rise up against the climate change brigade.
Then the figure of 63% quoted in this news item will be much higher and when people claim ridiculous things like the need to have only electric cars, for example, they will be howled done and put in their place real quick instead of the endless ongoing controversy.
70
“Because the basic greenhouse fallacy of the anthropogenic climate change argument is so easily understood and therefore so easily demonstrable, these basic arguments should be pushed and pushed to the masses so that the masses then rise up against the climate change brigade.”
Such has been pushed and pushed to the masses continuously, for now 30 years by many many folk with some science\engineering experience. Unfortunately these same many many folk have little desire to SCAM the masses or even each other! No Joy! T’ain’t working!
The only way your climate change brigade can be defeated is by much superior professional SCAMMERS with greater funding! 🙁
20
BTW on a lighter note:
The very most professional SCAMMER with unlimited funds; yet no desire to scam the masses or self; but only second rate governmental scammers; has recently been elected as USAP45!
I hope that with sufficient support by the masses; that will be enough! 🙂
All the best!-will-
20
We hope and pray that APM30 is cast in the same mould and is a reflection of a sudden uptake of awareness by Australians that urgent decisive action is all that stands between them and massive unemployment, continued abuse by politicians and their lackeys and slavery.
Just because there are no visible chains doesn’t mean you are not a slave.
The contributions revealed on this blog recently, that have gone to the EU and U.N. with little or no oversight or public awareness is dispiriting.
KK
30
“The contributions revealed on this blog recently, that have gone to the EU and U.N. with little or no oversight or public awareness is dispiriting.”
KK, dispiriting is relative. In the 70s 80s, many highly skilled technical, were running round in circles, like chickens with head cut off. You would have been most welcome, especially if buying next round for greater understanding! 🙂
20
A real government would have put all of those “highly skilled technicals”, sitting on the sidelines, onto and extremely challenging scientific mission: Research into the development of renewable energy systems.
Perhaps with the right approach there may have been advances in either solar, hydro or wind that challenge coal and petroleum products.
Instead we had unused talent and a later politically dominated mess with no dams and outrageously expensive and technologically deficient wind and solar icons that are good for political games but nothing else.
KK
10
“A real government would have put all of those “highly skilled technicals”, sitting on the sidelines, onto and extremely challenging scientific mission: Research into the development of renewable energy systems.”
You seem to have omitted da \sarc, perhaps intentional. 🙂
While sitting on the sidelines drinking beer; ‘at off times’ we did properly design all nuclear powered shipping with no nuclear failure.
I must admit those Russian folk with their subs and icebreakers are very very good. They better understood Admiral Rickover’s plea; ‘in war you only have submarines OR targets’!
20
Will, it’s just on 8p.m. and I am spirited.
Three measures of “spirits” and the cares of the world are at bay.
Rest easy.
KK
20
Rest easy.
Ah! no longer dispirited. I get dispirited when I run out of stuff to imbibe. Wonder why that is?
20
Two modern coal fired power stations would rectify all of Australia’s immediate problems for the next fifty years and another could meet reasonable increases in demand.
Emissions, if they are important at all, would probably be reduced due to technological advances in design.
Or use all the gas presently locked up in Queensland where the exploration wells sit capped.
We could then investigate technologies that make sense having secure electricity for a few decades.
The amazing thing about renewable advocates is they simply ignore the fact electricity generation is less than 50% of global energy usage.
Just how do they propose international trade, travel and domestic food production without hydrocarbon energy ?
I am yet to see an electric tractor or combine harvester.
According to the IEA 2016 report solar, wind and tide accounted for 5.8% of 13.8% of total energy – less than 1% of world energy – Figures 1 and 2.
Burning something called biofuels and waste accounted for 10% of world energy but it is still “burning something”.
Even the hated hydro and nuclear produced nine times as much power as the beloved renewables.
Personally I wish someone would round all of these “experts” up and restrict them to a small city with only renewable electricity and transport and see how long they tolerate it.
This would be a great experiment rather than foisting their nonsense on the rest of us.
Why aren’t figures like these ever discussed ? Oh wait, everyone would realise wind and solar are never going to provide the world’s energy demands and this would ruin so many gravy trains.
190
“Personally I wish someone would round all of these “experts” up and restrict them to a small city with only renewable electricity and transport and see how long they tolerate it.
This would be a great experiment rather than foisting their nonsense on the rest of us.”
Rosco, We’ve already got that “City”.
CANBERRA.
Disconnect all the power lines in…………and let them go..
I reckon they might last about……two……….days. No planes in or out either…unless they are
electric.
And, we’ve also got a BIG city………South Australia. They are well on the way, having had a practice run twelve months ago.
60
But, they’ve got our money to pay their power bills.
40
I predict Turnbull will be gone by Xmas.
‘TONY Abbott has warned he’ll cross the floor if the Coalition tries to legislate a clean energy target, with up to six backbenchers tipped to follow him.
“He has let the government know his position. He won’t vote for a clean energy target,” a government source told The Australian on Wednesday.
In an opinion piece, Mr Abbott argues the recommendation by the chief scientist for such a target should be ignored.
“It would be unconscionable for a government that was elected promising to scrap the carbon tax and to end Labor’s climate change obsessions to go down this path,” he writes.
News Ltd
190
I have my fingers crossed.
80
The Chief Scientist should be required, by the government, to write a paper that definitively demonstrates the physics involved in climate change in a free atmosphere, supported by empirical evidence, and repeatable experimentation. The tone of the language, of this paper should be at the reading level of a forth or fifth year high school student. All technical terms should be defined and sheeted back to first principles.
Because of the apparent certainty of conviction within the Climate Change fraternity, it should be possible for this paper to be available, no later than 31 March 2018.
A copy of this paper should be posted on the web, and be free to download by any person, or organisation, in any country, who wishes to do so.
200
Exactly So Rereke.
Malcolm Roberts asked the Chief Scientist to do something like that. Alan Finkel said that he would. As far as I know he has not yet done son.
110
What a great outline of what should be done!!
In a reasonable country, with a functioning democracy, that’s exactly what would happen.
Unfortunately we live in Australia and there is no way that our Chief Scientist is going to be asked to tell the truth because the APM29 told him what to say originally.
KK
31
“The Chief Scientist should be required, by the government, to write a paper that definitively demonstrates the physics involved in climate change in a free atmosphere, supported by empirical evidence, and repeatable experimentation.”
You keep accepting the claim that the SCAM actually has some\wee bit of science involved! Quit it on out!!
41
I think RW is implying that he will not be able to write the paper because there is no scientific evidence.
CO2 cannot cause CAGW.
Game would be over when there’s no report.
20
“Game would be over when there’s no report”
Hokay! No report. Game over! Now what?
20
The media will do the usual snow job and cover it over.
It seems that nothing will stop the CAGW monster.
20
“It seems that nothing will stop the CAGW monster.”
Dispirited again so soon? Time to get better ‘spirits’. Your CAGW monster is but useful practice target for your new weapons! such will be needed when bankster monster appears\revels self! 🙂
I prefer large bore rifles with full metal jacket bullets. But lovely witch curse upon may be more effective. CAGW and banksters remain similar.
20
Will
Banksters stole our savings in 1987 and 2008.
Alotta unhappy people out there.
10
“Banksters stole our savings in 1987 and 2008. Alotta unhappy people out there.”
I agree! Now what? Do we let this proceed to massive bloodshed on both sides? I remain dispirited on no bloodshed. Where might I contribute to massive fetching witch curse upon? Banksters have no defense on dat.
10
It’s a bit hypocritical and a useless gesture, as if Labor will vote against a green initiative although anything is possible these days , and didn’t Abbott raise the RET ? I would have some respect for the guy if he admitted his previous mistake .
30
el gordo:
The problem is that Labor will seize the chance and vote with the remainder of the government to bring in the CET, while promising to bring in something worse once elected. The government couldn’t survive such a defection and Turnbull would retire to the Cayman Islands – following the money as always – and there would be a general election.
The wishy-washies (to restore an old term) would be faced with losing their perks and probably their careers, so there won’t be any wish in the government to legislate for a CET. The odd wishy-washy might dream about crossing the floor to support a Labor bill but I think that their attachment to AGW will be far weaker than the lure of their current “entitlements”.
60
Barnaby correctly said Abbott won’t be crossing the floor, this is all about gathering the numbers to unseat the PM.
I mentioned on the other thread that Peter Dutton is tipped to take his place as PM, thats what the punters are saying at Sportsbet.
Barnaby has little to say …
‘Mr Joyce defended Mr Abbott’s commentary against the Government’s policy, “because he is a backbencher”.
“That is one of the graces you have on the backbench that you have the capacity to express your views the way you see fit,” Mr Joyce said.
ABC
30
“Mr Abbott argues the recommendation by the chief scientist for such a target should be ignored.”
A governmental ‘chief scientist’ must ignore the idea that meteorologists are those kicked out of the fine astrologers guild; for being such whit-less, insufferable a**-holes! 🙂
11
I just read this in the OZ concerning the Australian Energy Market Commission’s new rules supposedly to prevent blackouts this summer:
Get the spin, the troubles in NSW were “heat-related” (too many air-conditioners going full blast during heat wave) not inadequate-base-load-supply-related — ditto SA.
130
With all the spinning going on, I am surprised that several journalists have not drilled holes deep enough to discover oil.
Let’s just keep on decoding the spin. They will eventually realise that they are shooting themselves in the metaphorical foot.
110
“in the metaphorical foot.”
That is because the have the rifle pointed backwards, metaphorically; as is to be expected, metaphorically! 🙂
20
Green Dreamers Have Failed Us
TONY ABBOTT
It can’t be wrong for Australia to exploit resources we happily sell to others.
The Australian
100
You have cyclones, right? You have coastline, correct? Evacuations, too, and storm driven power outages?
Just checkin’. All-electric might not be much fun, based on an evac experience I had last week.
Course, if you go electric, you won’t have storms any more.
60
But, but, electrical storms are necessary to replenish Gaia’s green energy reserves. What do you suppose creates the wind that gets pushed into the turbines? [Sarc.]
80
In the face of a cyclone we could have wind powered cars, I’d like to see them all tacking….
31
Land Yachts. They’re great fun.
But no gybes permitted on motorways.
20
Did you listen to President Trump addressing the UN yesterday?
Great stuff, all about making America great again but much more, socialism and communism has failed everywhere they have been practised the citizens suffer the consequences, the UN has lost its way and must reform, the US is fed up with paying an unfair share of UN expenses, the sovereignty of nations, the diversity of people of different nationalities must be respected and mutual respect be developed between nations.
“Rocket Man” had better pull his horns in or face the end of his regime and nation, the US will destroy it. Much the same tack commenting on Iran and oppression of citizens and economy.
Much more.
I could not help thinking there is a statesman, our leader pales into insignificance.
In fact, our leaders are letting our nation down badly and doing many of the things President Trump condemned as being counter productive, better to make the world a better place and look after the people.
160
Morning Dennis,
I just found this.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-20/donald-trump-speech-to-un-full-transcript/8962616
I’ve not read it yet, and have no way of commenting on the reliability of the “full transcript” claim.
Cheers,
Dave B
20
Thank you David.
10
Dennis,
Please keep pressing this theme of Aust going contrary to USA. Every person can understand there is a need for Aust to do better. AFAIK, we are still lining up to give masses of taxpayer $$$ to green causes overseas lie the UN Green Climate Fund. Geoff
70
Will do Geoff, thanks.
10
Also, I have considered for a very long time foreign investment into Australia, that the number one and two are UK and US, Singapore in 6th and China 7th.
The US is now moving to expose the Paris Agreement farce and is highlighting the enemies of the developed world, and the UK is following BREXIT planning.
What do our close allies think about the emerging OZENTRY?
President Trump has displayed his negotiating and business skills with China using their currency as a lever to obtain their cooperation in handling the NK crisis. It went something like: We need your cooperation, it would be unfortunate if we allowed rumours to persist about your currency manipulation. Please help us and I will let the world know that your currency is not at risk. And it worked.
Not long ago our Minister for Foreign Affairs released a copy of a letter from our government to POTUS Trump congratulating him on his initiatives aimed at improving economic prosperity in the US, etc. So, what did the US Ambassador or other VIP have to say about where Australia has been heading?
And then consider Trump’s UN address.
10
What next?
Will Alan Kohler tries to get the public on side by advocating a ban on beer brewing and breadmaking to reduce Australia’s magic gas generation and ‘save the whirled’.
130
Minus ten points for the awful pun.
40
Not sure I agree with RobertR.
Hot air balloons are predominantly hot CO2 balloons and they seem to rise perfectly capably.
Kiehl et al claim that “greenhouse gases” are responsible for ~83% of the IR emission to space whilst 99% of the atmosphere emits bugger all.
No one doubts 99% of the atmosphere heats during the day and cools over night but IF this 99% cannot radiate to space how is it the temperature isn’t rapidly spiralling up ?
The claimed 0.9 W/m2 anomaly “trapped” by “greenhouse gases” is 0.9 joules per second.
John Christy describes a teaching aid where a 10 kilometre by 1 metre square column of air above he surface has a volume of 10,000 cubic metres with a mass of ~10.000 kg.
Using standard physics where Q = Cp.dT.mass with Cp of air as ~1000 J/K/kg and a 0.9 J/sec anomaly then in 3,153,600 seconds one can calculate dT as 3153600 x 0.9/(1000 x 10000) or about 2.8°C in a year.
Clearly this has never occurred during my lifetime.
61
Um, no. Hot air balloons are full of hot air, which is primarily 78.0% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen 0.9% Argon, and 0.1% Trace Gases, of which 93.49% is Carbon Dioxide.
Source: NCSU (chosen at random from a number of tertiary education websites)
So CO2 represents 94% of 0.1% of the atmosphere. Lets just round it up to 0.1%, shall we? And given that CO2 is heavier than Nitrogen and Oxygen, it would not provide much lift on its own, irrespective of its temperature.
90
Maybe not. The balloon is initially inflated with cold air using a motorised fan. The blast of the burner is then directed straight into the balloon and the burner is spewing out hot CO2 and H2O. The composition of the “air” in the balloon may be a matter if conjecture but I imagine it would have a high proportion of combustion products.
70
Point taken. You shouldn’t let a physicist play with chemistry.
50
In retrospect, the ones I have flown in (which is not many) have used propane gas.
20
Hot air balloons are predominantly hot CO2 balloons – Peter C is absolutely right in his analysis – so was I !
The hot combustion products – primarily water vapour and CO2 are blasted under pressure into the balloons and rise in the envelope forcing the air out – obviously some of the air will heat up and rise into the envelope filling with hot combustion products but what I said was right !
Complete combustion of propane C3H8 would produce 3 CO2 and 4 H2O.
The fact that CO2 is heavier than air is irrelevant due to the forced nature of inflation.
Further, CO2 has a specific heat which is 16% lower than that of ordinary air meaning it gets hotter than air for the same input of energy.
And CO2 has a thermal conductivity which is almost 40% lower than that of normal air meaning once heated it stays heated for longer.
20
“filling with hot combustion products but what I said was right”
No What you wrote is physically back-assward.
I have no idea of your background; perhaps in mathematics but never in any of the ‘hard sciences’ consider:
“Complete combustion of propane C3H8 would produce 3 CO2 and 4 H2O.”
Mathematically correct at the molecular level but ignorant of the physical effects of combustion (rapid airborne oxidization of liquid C3H8) ‘propane’. Both Oxides are now vapor rather that liquid propane; with the ‘required’ conversion of latent heat of evaporation ( vast volumetric expansion with no change in temperature). There is absolutely no reason for increase in any ‘temperature’ for proper lift-off of a so called “hot air balloon” complete with gondola, operator, propane tanks, and passengers; soon to be precipitated upon by condensing WV that refuses to remain within balloon. Ever been in dat? All da higher density CO2 also falls from da bottom of da balloon, providing no ‘lift’ whatsoever!
“The fact that CO2 is heavier than air is irrelevant due to the forced nature of inflation.”
“each and every airborne component of Earth’s atmosphere including, bees, bats, birds, and aircraft can exhibits absolutely no weight (heaviness) and still be airborne!
“Further, CO2 has a specific heat which is 16% lower than that of ordinary air meaning it gets hotter than air for the same input of energy.And CO2 has a thermal conductivity which is almost 40% lower than that of normal air meaning once heated it stays heated for longer.”
So what to your insane spoutings, if always at the exact same temperature as the surrounding atmosphere?
Aircraft are often above temperature of surround as they have a coating of elevated compressed air, produced of fluid compression by own relative motion through such surround. 🙂
30
That’s probably why the aeronauts don’t use politicians to supply the hot air. Unreliable and a dead weight when you want to go anywhere.
20
I’m not sure I understand why you brought RobertRs comment into this?
What is your point?
10
I think that R9osco was responding to Robert R at #8.
Robert makes some assertions about the nature and distribution of CO2 which are a bit questionable. He also wrote about the Greenhouse Effect (Theory) and Rosco was responding to that.
Rosco; Click the reply at the end of the date/time stamp at the beginning of a comment and your response will be correctly nested under the comment that you are responding to. If you click on “Leave a reply” it starts a new comment thread.
10
I did go back and find that comment before responding so my question is still unanswered.
The response just seemed to be an excuse to comment.
Why not just make your own comment?
10
Ok, Rosco responded with some criticisms of Robert R’s comment.
My own views comments are these.
Correct
The range of an IR Photon in our atmosphere is estimated as <100m at 670 wavelengths/cm (best CO2 absorbtion frequency) . I do not think that is so small that it cannot act as a greenhouse gas. The problems with the Greenhouse Theory are a more complicated.
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page15.htm
I think that Rosco dealt with this. However it should also be mentioned that CO2 is considered a well mixed gas, even in the upper atmosphere. Co2 only sinks to the bottom of the atmosphere in exceptional circumstances, such as volcanic outflows. Then it can be lethal.
Otherwise it is pretty well mixed up to the top of the atmosphere.
Correct.
I hope this answers your question KK.
I responded because I thought the Rosco was getting a bit of unreasonable flack.
20
Thanks Peter, I agree with what you’ve said there especially about the rare occurrence of CO2 being unmixed, but I felt that the comment by Roscoe was a bit unnecessarily heavy.
Water may absorb ground origin IR but it cannot hold on to it. This energy is immediately shared with all gases in the immediate vicinity.
Water, of course is also active in the same spectrum as CO2 and if the greenhouse mechanism actually occurs then water is the big problem followed by natural origin CO2.
Human origin CO2 is irrelevant, and there is that big IF.
There is no human contribution to atmospheric warming via CO2.
There’s also the criticism of Donald Trump and comments about genocide?? I don’t think even Trump would actually want to start a war.
Globull warming is a big topic.
🙂
KK
20
Peter C September 20, 2017 at 9:53 pm writes:
“The range of an IR Photon in our atmosphere is estimated as <100m at 670 wavelengths/cm (best CO2 absorbtion frequency) . I do not think that is so small that it cannot act as a greenhouse gas. The problems with the Greenhouse Theory are a more complicated. (www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page15.htm)"
What do you mean by 'range' of an IR Photon? Seems like you refer to the effective absorption\emission bandwidth near the 14.5 micron CO2 band; but you write less than 100m (meters) so you might be referring to optical depth in that band which at 101.3kPa is less than one meter! Can you explain?
You go on with 'act as a greenhouse gas'. Could you please explain how a greenhouse gas acts, without reference to superstition?
10
Rosco September 20, 2017 at 8:27 am
“Hot air balloons are predominantly hot CO2 balloons and they seem to rise perfectly capably.”
What complete nonsense!! A hot air balloon has near constant volume hence Cv prevails and density is inversely proportional to the sensible heat (temperature) of the whole contents. The output of the propane burner into that fixed volume is mostly low density water vapor never your hot CO2
“Kiehl et al claim that “greenhouse gases” are responsible for ~83% of the IR emission to space whilst 99% of the atmosphere emits bugger all.”
So much for the lack of intelligence profoundly displayed by Kiehl et al!
“The claimed 0.9 W/m2 anomaly “trapped” by “greenhouse gases” is 0.9 joules per second.”
That is a power flux to space that cannot be trapped (accumulated) by any component molecule of the atmosphere whatsoever!
“John Christy describes a teaching aid where a 10 kilometre by 1 metre square column of air above he surface has a volume of 10,000 cubic metres with a mass of ~10.000 kg.”
John Christy’s Doctoral advisor was/is Kevin Trenberth. There is no wonder that Dr. Christy can get nothing correct about Earth’s atmosphere.
The average airmass in a column of one square meter to 10km ASL is approximately 2,500 kg. If what Trenberth and Chrisy is correct surface air pressure would be approximately 45 PSIA.
I have deliberately changed units to demonstrate how much detail thinking, including geometric dimensionality, rather than book-learning must be expended for correct scientific results.
You guys can do it!! Hint: The pressure of a compressible fluid held in place only by near spherical gravitational compression of that whole airmass is nowhere near the ‘weight’ of an accumulated stack of bricks in a gravitational field creating such lopsided ‘weight’!
All the best!-will-
20
“he’s the numbers man on the nightly finance report”. (Alan Kohler). A numbers man who can’t add up!!!!!
60
I wonder if Alan Kohler will read this? It all about him.
50
I blame the accountants.
A physicist might say that 2 + 2 = 5 for large values of 2 and small values of 5, but only an accountant can pull down the blinds and ask you what you would like it to be.
10
“I blame the accountants.”
I disagree, muchly! I have A lady ‘friend’ CPA.
She is the most honest\ethical folk I have ever met. Refuses to even cheat the phone company, while agreeing that they deserve it!
Try to have her ‘adjust’ her CPA certified numbers? ‘Tis like a momma Ostrich with any else trying to steal her egg! Announces: “prepare to die”!, then quickly stomps ‘else’ into small grease spot in sand! 🙂
10
The switch to electric vehicles and in between time hybrid vehicles, starting in 2025, just 7 years away, is a disastrous decision for Australians.
European Standards? What about Australia New Zealand Standards? As President Trump alluded to in his UN address, nations and circumstances are not all the same.
Right now I have to buy a new tow vehicle, diesel engines will not be permitted to be sold by 2025, so what will that do to resale values? And when will state governments with their lack of wisdom and common sense begin to issue penalties and even bans on diesel engine vehicles entering city limits?
What will the rural community drive in the very tough conditions they operate in, where EV would be a nightmare for them?
Go petrol engine? And greatly increase fuel consumption and lose load carrying and hauling capacity? I realise that there are SUV Hybrids that have towing capacity up to 2000 Kg on the market today, but!
When will this political turmoil, chaos and dysfunction end?
120
Dennis , electric won’t be a reality for a tow vehicle in our lifetime , resale value of diesel will still be good but the older school engines that rev slower but have large capacity imo are the ones to buy.
Instead of buying a new high strung diesel that will struggle after about 6 months we are converting a 2002 GU to 6.6 litre Duramax , increased power good fuel economy and cheaper than a new tug .
70
According to a country provincial city based diesel engine reconditioning business owner many low capacity, high technology, diesel engines are failing by or soon after 150,000 Km. And not surprisingly, the harder they are worked (loaded and towing) the sooner they fail.
Thank you for your advice
70
If you go down that road Dennis make sure the motor is an LBZ model around 2006 vintage.
Your comment on the little dictator and Trumps comment is spot on , if Obummer had have done his job way back when , it wouldn’t be an issue now .
50
FWIW – lower revving engines generally last longer.
I saw a tv show wehereby one of the scandanavian truck companies had produced a monster V8 engine ( presumably diesel ) and the benefit was that while it consumed more fuel, its increased torque and lower revs meant it was ultimately able to run longer ( without restarts ) and mantain a more even speed over mountain ranges etc, equating to greater productivity and profit that economically outweighed its thirst.
Also, once deisels are banned, any existing diesels I predict will need to be upgraded and maintained well, until the govt comes to its senses and reverses it.
The real proof of whether the diesel “ban” is real or not is switching off fuel excise ( tax ) for deisel – will they stop selling diesel fuel all together? After all, if no diesels exist, why sell the fuel? Govts as we know love any form of tax, so cutting off a massive tax source by banning diesel ( and its fuel ) by choice will be a true test.
Presumably they will hike taxes elsewhere and continue the hurt in anotehr form.
60
You can’t do that, when cracking oil, the oil breaks into fractions, different hydrocarbon molecules of different densities from methane on up. Part of that fraction is fuel oil (diesel), and you can’t just turn it off. Part of the regular fuel price cycle is driven by the relative abundance of diesel and petrol fractions and the available storage. If you get rid of diesel vehicles what do you do with the diesel fraction from the refineries when you run out of storage?
40
A good point.
10
Dennis, there really is absolutely no understanding in Canberra, or any of the major cities for that matter, of the reality of the regions, let alone the more far flung areas of this country – how they operate, what are necessities and how to cope with them. To the city folks agriculture is a sort of romantic undertaking, where bronzed blokes and pretty but tough shielas do adventurous things to raise cattle and grow wheat for the city folks. The heartbreaking reliance on the seasons, the grinding hard slog, the enormous costs involved, the bloody-minded bureaucracy imposed on primary producers, is all unknown to them, and they really don’t care or want to know about that. That diesel is the lifeblood of the regions is apparently just not understood.
I can only conclude that if it IS understood, and the government of the day continues down this track, then that government is determined to deliberately ruin this country. It’s gone well past the point where they should have understood the implications of the insanity they’re imposing on this country and its people – they have to know full well what they are doing. That would mean our governments have betrayed us all, for reasons I just can’t begin to imagine.
20
Dennis – do you seriously support genocide of millions of innocent people ?
Anyone who cheers as ordinary people without any political power are slaughtered because of the actions of the criminally insane should not advertise their inhumanity.
[Nobody, apart from you, has mentioned nor alluded to, genocide. If you want to keep on commenting here, I suggest you moderate your language. If you do not, the moderators will do it for you] Fly
25
I prefer to save the rest of humanity.
But the threat was not for immediate actioning, there have been and no doubt will continue to be diplomatic manoeuvres.
Consider how the end of WW2 was achieved.
50
If you were referring to the climate change [corruption], please read all of the articles published on this website.
And get back to me.
30
I think he forgot the sarc tag .
30
Roscoe and Fly,
It is likely that Trump is trying to put pressure on China and Russia to increase pressure on North Korea. I don’t think he really means to annihilate all North Koreans. Surgical strike more likely if it should come to that.
Ronald Regan ramped up the rhetoric on the USSR and the eventual result was the collapse of the USSR.
Trump is labouring under a huge burden of opposition from Democrats and Half of the Republicans. Only voters like him! Look beyond the Press Reaction and check on Breitbart.
20
Roscoe
I liked some of your comments but it might be worth your while to go back and read some of the earlier threads.
It might put some perspective on the comments that people have made.
It helps to put things in context.
KK
10
If you were referring to the climate change con, please read all of the articles published on this website.
And get back to me.
50
The biggest problem in banning cars in Australia to constrain the warming is something that there should be a universal consensus if folks would think before they proposed policy.
Global Warming is meant to be caused by GHG emissions. A necessary condition to constrain global warming is to stop global GHG emissions from rising and make sure they start falling rapidly in the next decade. Most countries, with at least 80% of the global population, will not reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Many, as developing countries, will increase them.
The impact of Australia banning internal combustion engine cars is therefore in a small band. If you are an end-is-nigh unless we repent now alarmist, it is pretty close to zero impact. For the more sensible people, it is much less than that. It is only in the praise and glory from “saving the planet” that the significant differences reside for the politicians and it is only from doing nothing – and not heaping misery of future generations – that the real positive difference can be made in the current climate. The choice is between ephemeral reflected glory and serving the people of Australia.
60
The warmists in full zany mode,
Think all transport on rail and on road,
Could be charged by the grid,
When renewables rid,
The need for coal-powered base load.
100
Necessity is the mother of invention not intervention, in the future we will probably have flying cars powered by weird gizmos and electrical energy will be generated by some other gizmo directly at source .
We need to stop intervening in this natural process and let it proceed at its own pace , we have enough fossil fuel reserves for for at least 100 plus years and more than likley triple that , as reserves run low let the market invent new working technology that actually replaces the old tech completely.
Unlike solar and wind which require back up from fossil fuel but for now coal and it’s mates are doing a great job instead of spending trillions on green groupthink , spend it on new tech but leave fossil fuel alone until you have a viable alternative and that won’t be in my lifetime .
50
I did not forget the “sarc tag”.
There is no comparison between ending world war 2 and annihilating a nation of innocent people simply because their leaders conducted the exact same sort of experiments many other nations have carried out without any international “permission” and certainly no international sanction.
And let us never forget that of the ~240,000 Japanese killed in the nuclear bomb explosions and the after effects a significant proportion, possibly half or maybe a majority, probably either never supported the war or had grown tired of it.
I don’t celebrate that devastation but I understand the reasoning. Still the elite responsible for the war escaped this fate.
Should we have destroyed France for the south Pacific tests in violation of treaties ? What about India, Pakistan Israel ?? We let the British use our country for these purposes !
Trump should stop tweeting and talking about destroying North Korea – he is frightening his allies and any rational person.
Only a truly insane person could “destroy North Korea” without any real provocation such as them invoking some sort of first strike.
To destroy North Korea simply because they have conducted the tests they have or will do in the future would amount to the biggest war crime ever perpetrated by any person and history would record Trump as the biggest monster ever to have walked the Earth.
I cheered Trump’s election on climate grounds but I think he has lost the plot over this. No-one seriously believes any normal person could do what he claims he will and sooner or later the “boy who cried wolf” syndrome will kick in.
What then ?
If he wants to isolate the US then committing mass murder of a society with no political power or will whilst the leaders survive in underground bunkers with an intact arsenal ought to just about achieve that goal !
Anyone who thinks the North Korean regime aren’t prepared is kidding themselves – they will never match the US’s fire power but would relish being the aggrieved who got in one decent punch !
Someone has helped them get to where they are and they probably have warheads and missiles already hidden underground.
43
I don’t think even Donald Trump really means that.
If you take his comments as meaning that he wants to Nuke North Korea then perhaps you need to reassess; it’s just rhetoric.
KK
30
To the moderators Dennis said
“Did you listen to President Trump addressing the UN yesterday?
Great stuff, …”
““Rocket Man” had better pull his horns in or face the end of his regime and nation, the US will destroy it. Much the same tack commenting on Iran and oppression of citizens and economy.”
I believe Dennis’s statements are tacit support to the idea of destroying North Korea and by any rationale that is genocide.
Personally I do not believe Trump will do what he says and to continue down this track serves no rational purpose – escalation is never a good thing.
34
I agree that Trump’s recipe is bad. Please offer something better. Something that had not keep failing for 60 years.
42
America started the Korean War back in 1951. The only thing that’s changed, is that they haven’t shot many Koreans since 1953.
20
The US is the biggest source of foreign aid, they accept more refugees for resettlement on a per capita basis than any other UN member nation, they have given military aid many times, they saved Europe in WW2 and Australia from the Japanese.
Is America perfect? No they are not, but to continually criticise them for what they do, and they have made mistakes, is unfair.
30
Hi Sophocles,
I must admit that I don’t know anything about the war in Korea but I do have some insight into the activities of Russia and China during that period and in South East Asia generally.
That so many millions of people in that area now live in relative freedom or in a moderated version of communism is in large part due to the intervention of America.
That over 50,000 U.S. soldiers lost their lives in Vietnam over approximately 15 years of engagement is a gigantic tragedy. Their sacrifice is still remembered by many Vietnamese who lived and fought in that war to hold back Russia and Chinese backed communists.
I personally hate wars because the same rich people always seem to come out unscathed. Trouble is that when a war is pushed in your face you have to respond regardless of the origin. If you don’t fight you lose everything.
KK
20
As I understand it, the USA were asked to intervene in South East Asia, under a UN Mandate, as being the only “Free World” nation with anywhere near the resources to stand up to the Russian and Chinese Communists. Other countries, including Australia, and New Zealand, pitched in to help.
With the spread of Communism, national borders get confused, and they still are. There are still war-divided families in Europe, as well as in Asia.
20
The problem is that Alan Kohler does not believe in climate change, except as a peculiar modern fetish or fashionable politico/religious movement.
He is yet another history-rejector and Holocene-denier. Probably thinks Bass Strait and English Channel filled up millions of years ago before a stable climate set in. Too much Arctic ice at September minimum this year? Alan’s the type to change the subject to North Atlantic hurricanes (but not the ones that tore up the scenery in 1635, 1667, 1749…I’m boring you, aren’t I, Alan?).
Alan is lucky I’m against jailing and prosecuting those who do not accept climate change. I’ll settle for his exclusion from international flights and air-conditioned premises until he recants his denial of natural and human history.
Now, let’s get back to digging that good eastern black coal. What about some flash new A-USC power plants to do it justice? You don’t serve Mouton-Rothschild in plastic picnic cups.
60
Can a d*ckwit get worse?
Well Alan Kohler is certainly getting worse.
50
If we are not careful our two major parties might be stupid enough to let it happen. After all what other country is destroying their existing coal fired power stations and treating any hint of building a new one as bad if not worse than an international criminal act? Also we have our Greens who seriously want to close down our whole coal and uranium mining industry, and they happen to be allied to the ALP who is likely to win the next federal election. Why are our political leaders and many of our big businesses leaders so eager to destroy our economy?
70
19 Sept: GWPF Newsletter: We Were Wrong, Climate Scientists Concede
How The IPCC And Climate Alarmists Hid The Good New About Global Warming
3) Reminder: How The IPCC And Climate Alarmists Hid The Good News On Global Warming
Global Warming Policy Forum, 18 September 2017
A report published 3 years ago by the Global Warming Policy Foundation showed that the best observational evidence indicates our climate is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than climate models are estimating.
The clues for this and the relevant scientific papers are all referred to in the Fifth Assessment report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, this important conclusion was not drawn in the full IPCC report – it is only mentioned as a possibility – and is ignored in the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers (SPM).
For over thirty years climate scientists have presented a range for climate sensitivity (ECS) that has hardly changed. It was 1.5-4.5°C in 1979 and this range is still the same today in AR5. The new report suggests that the inclusion of recent evidence, reflected in AR5, justifies a lower observationally-based temperature range of 1.25–3.0°C, with a best estimate of 1.75°C, for a doubling of CO2. By contrast, the climate models used for projections in AR5 indicate a range of 2-4.5°C, with an average of 3.2°C.
This is one of the key findings of the GWPF report Oversensitive: how the IPCC hid the good news on global warming, written by independent UK climate scientist Nic Lewis and Dutch science writer Marcel Crok. Lewis and Crok were both expert reviewers of the IPCC report, and Lewis was an author of two relevant papers cited in it….
“The observational evidence strongly suggest that climate models display too much sensitivity to carbon dioxide concentrations and in almost all cases exaggerate the likely path of global warming,” says Nic Lewis.
These lower, observationally-based estimates for both long-term climate sensitivity and the seventy-year response suggest that considerably less global warming and sea level rise is to be expected in the 21st century than most climate model projections currently imply…ETC
http://mailchi.mp/thegwpf.org/we-were-wrong-climate-scientists-concede-170317?e=f4e33fdd1e
20
Another good find Pat.
They don’t need to give up though, they still claim Climate Sensitivity, so the game is still on.
The real issue, scientifically, is that the are NO measurements of the system under scrutiny but more importantly
the basic mechanism supposedly underpinning the models is a scientific nonsense.
There is NO global warming mechanism attached to carbon dioxide.
This is, was and always will be a purely political piece of manipulation of the masses, sometimes known as serfs.
KK
40
The exciting sound of Formula E
Sounds like racing vacuum cleaners.
Glad I grew up in the Alan Moffat and Peter Brock era.
30
John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia –
12 Sept: news.com.au: Joshua Dowling: Unveiled: F1 car for the road, the $5.1 million Mercedes Project One — and it’s coming to Australia
THE most expensive production car ever made — the Mercedes Project One — has been unveiled overnight. And one of our magnates has already snapped one up.
THE most expensive production car ever made — the Mercedes Project One, a Formula One car for the road — has been unveiled at the Frankfurt motor show overnight.
It will cost $5.1 million in Australia — including $1.1 million in Luxury Car Tax alone — when it arrives in 2019.
Just eight examples of the 275 to be made will make it Down Under.
Mercedes refuses to disclose the names of local customers, but trucking magnate and car enthusiast Lindsay Fox is understood to be among the lucky few to have secured one given his appetite for supercars.
The Project One is powered by a 1.6-litre V6 Formula One engine with a staggering 1000 horsepower — or 740kW in modern terms — paired to hybrid electric motors to give it all-wheel-drive acceleration.
It even has the same type of battery cells and cooling system used in the Mercedes F1 race car — enough to drive 25km on battery power alone…
http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/unveiled-f1-car-for-the-road-the-51-million-mercedes-project-one-and-its-coming-to-australia/news-story/7247be7e4203ad635924b9951fad49ea
MSM went gaga over this a week ago.
20
Thanks for the article Jo, and the good discussion from all. My take on this is simple – the LRET is a pernicious piece of legislation that will destroy our once reliable and affordable national power network. Without this essential and critical piece of infrastructure the whole country is stuffed, and any discussion about electric cars is pointless because not only will we not be able to afford them, but we won’t have a power network to charge them up!
I put this story together to help understand the problems with the RET (sorry for the length):
What if the LRET applied to free range eggs instead of ‘renewable’ electricity?
The Large Scale Renewable Energy Target (RET) is a legislated instrument that set up a generous subsidy (via the gift of ‘renewable energy certificates’ to each renewables generator, worth about $85 per MWh of energy they sold to the grid) to encourage investment in ‘renewable’ electricity. This subsidy is currently equal to about 170% of the wholesale price of traditional (i.e. fossil-fuelled) electricity, and is paid for by electricity retailers who must not only buy these certificates for up to about 30% of their sales, and give preference to the purchase of ‘renewable’ electricity versus conventional ‘fossil fuel’ electricity, but then add the cost of the subsidy to their customers’ bills.
However, renewable energy production from solar and wind generators varies from minute to minute with the amount of wind and sun, whilst conventional energy production is stable, 24 x 7 x 365, hail, rain or shine. Incorporating this varying supply of renewable electricity also makes life difficult for the both the traditional generators, the network operators and the energy retailers.
What if this legislation applied to say ‘free range’ eggs instead of electricity? Let’s say that regular (i.e. cage) eggs wholesale for $1/dozen, and the RET (now called the Renewable Egg Target) provides for a similar level of subsidy to producers of free range eggs to that provided to renewable energy generators, which would equate to about $1.70/dozen. Free range egg producers can then clearly sell their eggs to a retailer for either the same price as cage eggs ($1/dozen), and also pocket the $1.70/dozen RET subsidy, making huge profits compared to the cage egg producers. Or they could sell their eggs to a retailer for nothing and still get the $1.70/dozen subsidy, which is well above the current market value of their eggs.
However, as it happens free range hens do not produce a reliable supply of eggs. Unlike their caged sisters, for some unknown reason they lay more or less (or even no eggs) each day according to whether and how fast the wind is blowing. So the retailers have to decide how many cage eggs they need to buy each day (but only up to up to 70% of total demand) depending on how many free range eggs were produced yesterday. This means in turn that the cage egg producers, whose hens each reliably produce about 6 eggs a week, may find that the retailer wants to buy more or fewer of their eggs on any day. By contrast, free range egg producers have the benefit of the subsidy regardless of how many eggs they produce, and therefore have little incentive to produce a reliable supply of eggs.
Under the RET rules, the retailer must buy 30% of their demand from the free range producers at the wholesale market price of $1/dozen, and must also buy an equal number of ‘free range’ certificates to pay for the $1.70/dozen RET subsidy. At the very least, arithmetic says that retailers will have to raise their average retail price for all eggs by about 50 cents/dozen just to cover the cost of the buying the certificates for 30% of their sales.
Now, what happens if the free range producers decide that because of the $1.70/dozen subsidy, they can now profitably sell their eggs for only $0.50/dozen? Well, the wholesale price will drop by about 50%, so the income of all cage egg producers will be halved, significantly lowering their profits.
What if the free range egg producers decided to sell their eggs for nothing – after all they will still get the $1.70/dozen subsidy anyway? Well, the cage egg producers would get nothing for their eggs and would be forced to close down. The retailers would then have to buy all their eggs from the free range producers at whatever price the producers determined, and would still have to buy RET certificates at $1.70/dozen for 30% of them. But the number of free range eggs produced each day would still vary with the amount of wind, and with all the cage egg producers gone, wholesale (and therefore retail) prices would surely rise, whilst the quantity of eggs available would vary randomly from day to day. Is this the effect that the RET intended?
Enjoy your eggs!
50
18 Sept: Daily Caller: Michael Bastasch: Former Clinton Official, France Push For ‘Carbon Tariffs’ Against The US For Leaving The Paris Accord
Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said countries could impose a “border adjustment carbon tax,” or carbon tariff, to penalize U.S.exports for President Donald Trump’s decision to leave the Paris accord.
French ecological minister Nicolas Hulot agreed with the carbon tariff idea, echoing remarks made French President Nicolas Sarkozy during the country’s last election.
“We agree with that,” Hulot said at the “Climate Week” event in New York City on Monday, according to The New Republic. “The Paris agreement is not only a piece of paper where 170 states put their signature. It’s a promise to our children, and we cannot lie to our children.”
“We must always say the Paris agreement is negotiable and irreversible,” Hulot said. “That’s the first step.”…
“We are going to need a system where you are rewarded for cooperation, and penalized for not cooperating,” said Summers, who served as President Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary…
“We are withdrawing, and we made that as clear as it can be. I don’t know how to say it any more clearly,” White House economic adviser Gary Cohn told energy ministers at a Monday meeting in New York City.
The WSJ walked back its reporting, but the speculation over Trump’s commitment to his campaign promise to leave the Paris accord.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/18/former-clinton-official-france-push-for-carbon-tariffs-against-the-us-for-leaving-the-paris-accord/
10
“We must always say the Paris agreement is negotiable and irreversible,” Hulot said. “That’s the first step.”…”
The French have many fine weapons for sale. Never fired, only dropped once!
50
Trouble is Will, the Argentines saturated the market back in the early 1980’s with lower prices …
30
The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with the EU was $91 billion in 2014
The U.S. trade deficit with the EU was $155,657 billion in 2015
The U.S. trade deficit with the EU was $146,760.3 billion in 2016
The U.S. trade deficit with the EU is $83,338.7 billion in the first 7 months of 2017
I am quite sure that the EU would winge like anything if the USA did that to them.
40
Don’t they (the EU) behave like a socialist regime?
20
20 Sept: Daily Mail: Cut green taxes now! Experts call for cost of energy bills to fall after scientists admit overstating global warming
Around 10 per cent of a family’s energy bill is used to subsidise green energy
Critics say this should be reduced because it is based on outdated information
A scientific report has said global warming was less drastic than first feared
By Colin Fernandez
The Committee on Climate Change, which advises the Government on climate policy, claimed there was no reason to change its targets for cutting carbon in the light of the new paper.
But critics said that, as these estimates formed the basis of UK energy policy, it was also time to rethink the green taxes on energy intended to address them
John Constable, chief executive of the Renewable Energy Foundation, which opposes subsidies to wind farms said: ‘This research has confirmed what a lot of people have known.
‘What is significant is establishment figures are now admitting it. [Policy-makers] should stop panicking and focus on cutting costs to consumers.’ The researchers, in an article in the journal Nature Geoscience, had said the world can emit around 240billion tonnes of carbon dioxide – around 20 years of current emissions – and still meet the 1.5C target.
Bjorn Lomborg, author of the Skeptical Environmentalist, said: ‘What we really need to [ask] is how do we spend our money, how much should we spend on cutting CO2, compared to all the other things we should spend on [such as] the NHS. Are we spending too much on achieving too little?’…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4901280/Experts-call-cost-energy-bills-fall.html
19 Sept: Breitbart: James Delingpole: Climate Alarmists finally admit “We were wrong about global warming”
One researcher – from the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one – has described the paper’s conclusion as “breathtaking” (LINK) in its implications.
He’s right. The scientists who’ve written this paper aren’t climate skeptics. They’re longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they’re also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC’s carbon budget.
In other words, this represents the most massive climbdown from the alarmist camp.
But you certainly wouldn’t guess this from the way the scientists are trying to spin their report…READ ON
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/19/delingpole-climate-alarmists-finally-admit-we-were-wrong-about-global-warming/
20
“But you certainly wouldn’t guess this from the way the scientists are trying to spin their report.”
Are you writing of self appointed academic ‘scientists’, with much ‘education’ but no skill?
30
Today in the Australian
Experts admit global warming predictions wrong.
but their new ones are right!
Say no more.
60
19 Sept: Cicero: Did 1.5°C suddenly get easier?
by Glen Peters, Senior Researcher
COMMENTARY: A new paper suggests a rather significant upward revision of the carbon budget for 1.5°C. This is a potential game changer, but it is too early to reformulate mitigation plans…
Did the IPCC get it wrong? Just let me leave that question hanging for a while…
While you ponder that question, it is worth noting that the authors of this paper developed the idea of carbon budgets, are the world leading experts on carbon budgets, and derived the carbon budgets in the IPCC process…
The implications
The implications of this paper are breath taking. No, I am not exaggerating. And the implications are to do both with politics and with science…READ ALL
http://www.cicero.uio.no/no/posts/nyheter/commentary-did-15c-suddenly-get-easier
19 Sept: Paul Homewood: Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests
I have a number of thoughts about this:
1) We have known for several years that the climate models have been running far too hot…
3) Although they talk of the difference between 0.9C and 1.3C, the significance is much greater.
Making the reasonable assumption that a significant part of the warming since the mid 19thC is natural, this means that any AGW signal is much less than previously thought.
4) Given that that they now admit they have got it so wrong, why should we be expected to have any faith at all in the models?
5) Finally, we must remember that temperatures since 2000 have been artificially raised by the recent record El Nino, and the ongoing warm phase of the AMO.
Given the latest admission, there is every likelihood that global temperatures will remain flat for a good time to come..READ ON
FROM COMMENTS:
Phillip Bratby: Strangely there is no mention of this on the BBC. Usually Cardinal Harrabin is the first person to comment on any climate change issue. I will watch the BBC lunchtime news to see if there is any mention of it.
Robin Guenier: The BBC website has quite a long piece about it by its Science Editor, ***Paul Rincon…ETC
Chris Walker: Myles Allen currently spouting Hurricane alarmism on the (BBC) World at One, encouraged by Marthe Kearney of course. No mention of the above report
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/09/19/climate-change-not-as-threatening-to-planet-as-previously-thought-new-research-suggests/#more-30027
***heard part of BBC World Service Newshour this moring, which included a short piece, with Paul Rincon saying nothing about the detail, or implications, but stating China has finished building fossil fuel power plants and is now going full-tilt into “renewables”!
10
19 Sept: WUWT: Anthony Watts: Climate scientists admit they were wrong on climate change effects
FROM COMMENTS:
Sixto: No surprise that this story isn’t getting any ink…
Solomon Green: This morning on the BBC Today program Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and another author of the paper, was asked if, in the light of what has now been found, the models would be corrected.
He said that they would be corrected.
He explained that, instead of assuming that the temperature increase to date had been 1.3o C, as the models had predicted as recently as the mid 2000s, they would now use the revised figure of 1.00 C.
The interviewer forgot to ask him why they would continue to use the same models whose predictions had been falsified by observation.
4Eyes: The interviewer didn’t forget. He had no idea what questions to ask.
UnfrozenCavemanMD: This is what the start of the walkback looks like. We get incremental adjustments in the predictions, but no admission that the fundamentals are rotten, and no apologies for having misdirected billions of people and trillions of dollars.
Sceptical Lefty: Indeed! This is preparing the ground for a strategic retreat.
In 50 years’ time, when all who could be held accountable are safely dead, officially-sanctioned historians may point out what a boondoggle this business was. There will be a round of self-congratulatory backslapping while everyone agrees that something like that could never happen again. But … it will.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/19/climate-scientists-admit-they-were-wrong-on-climate-change-effects/
30
19 Sept: Scientific American: Jeff Tollefson: Limiting Global Warming to 1.5 Degrees Celsius May Still Be Possible
Analysis suggests researchers may have underestimated how much carbon humanity can emit, although critics disagree
Published on 18 September in Nature Geoscience1, the analysis focuses in part on the fact that global climate models used in the 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tend to overestimate the extent of warming that has already occurred…
Some argue that the analysis is fundamentally flawed, because it centres on a period of slower warming that began around the turn of the millennium. This period, often referred to as the climate hiatus, continued until 2014. Scientists think that natural variability in the climate system temporarily suppressed temperatures during this period…
The team’s estimate for the amount of warming that humans have caused so far — 0.93 °C — could thus be artificially low, because it calculates the human contribution to warming during this cooler time, says Ben Sanderson, a climate modeller at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado…
But Millar and his colleagues argue that the effects of the hiatus would be minimal. The team used multiple methodologies to estimate the actual warming due to greenhouse gases, independent of short-term climate variability…
Nathan Gillett, a climatologist at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, says that other teams have previously documented the slight discrepancy between the warming projected by climate models and that shown by actual observations. But Gillett credits Millar’s team with teasing out the implications of this gap, and of reducing the uncertainty surrounding the amount of emissions that would produce warming of 1.5 °C. “I think their central conclusion is robust,” Gillett says…
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/limiting-global-warming-to-1-5-degrees-celsius-may-still-be-possible/
10
still can’t find a word on the EXPLOSIVE carbon budget study on ABC, Fairfax, NYT, Bloomberg, HuffPo & more.
the following is more their style:
19 Sept: NYT: Climate Change Is Complex. We’ve Got Answers to Your Questions.
By JUSTIN GILLIS
We know. Global warming is daunting. So here’s a place to start: 17 often-asked questions with some straightforward answers.
1. Climate change? Global warming? What do we call it?
Answer: Both are accurate, but they mean different things.
You can think of global warming as one type of climate change. The broader term covers changes beyond warmer temperatures, such as shifting rainfall patterns.
President Trump has claimed that scientists stopped referring to global warming and started calling it climate change because “the weather has been so cold” in winter. But the claim is false. Scientists have used both terms for decades…
2. How much is the Earth heating up?
Answer: Two degrees is more significant than it sounds…
4. How do we know humans are responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide?
Answer: This one is nailed down…
5. Could natural factors be the cause of the warming?
Answer: Nope…
6. Why do people deny the science of climate change?
Answer: Mostly because of ideology…
Pt 3, 7: Climate change seems so overwhelming. What can I personally do about it?
Answer: Start by sharing this with 50 of your friends…
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/climate/what-is-climate-change.html
what the FakeCAGWNewsMSM are reporting:
ABC: Australia’s southern winters are drying out. Here’s why
Winter rains are in decline across southern Australia, and while it is too early to say beyond doubt it is due to climate change, scientists say it is not just about climate variability.
ABC: Brisbane set to sizzle through scorcher weekend
DiCaprio Rips Trump’s Climate Record, Says Hurricanes Should Be A Wake-Up Call
“The cost of our inaction these past couple weeks has become even clearer,” the actor and activist says at the Yale Climate Conference.
HuffPost-3 minutes ago
Islands Seek International Funding for Hurricane Recovery
New York Times-8 hours ago
They asserted that because climate change is fueling more intense storms…
BHP Pressed to Quit Australian Mining Lobby Over Climate Views
New York Times-18 hours ago
10
Justin Gillis has been taken care of over at WUWT.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/18/justin-gillis-strikes-one-last-time/
He seems to be completely out of his tree.
10
Have you seen what the Maldives main island of Male looks like from the air?
Here it is:
If Male is threatened by sea level rise caused by ‘climate change’, why have they built thousands of hotels on this island?
40
Obviously it is a great place to stay for a holiday.
Except if there is a tidal wave!
10
The British Royal Air Force had, and may still have, an airbase on the island of Gan, as a staging post to and from Asia.
Unaccompanied airmen are only expected to serve a one-year tour of duty there, because it is such an awful place.
10
Yes let’s go back to the horse and buggy days.
Now how would that be? Oh yes: The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894. And here are some photos.
Nice isn’t it?
40
No EPA and tonnes of poollution
10
Jo, politicians are fervent believers in the importance of getting themselves elected.
And that is all.
30
How many people will be able to afford non ICE vehicles, and the energy to drive them when demand is mandated and the energy supply severely limited? These types of ideas and policies are really anti- private property ownership. There once a time when only nobles and the knights they employed could afford to own a horse. At the same time only a privileged few were allowed to possess weapons. They envision a world were all the animals are equal but, of course, ….. some are more equal than others.
30
Maybe if he puts a wind turbine and a solar panel on top of every car he can make that work. The solar panel gets it moving fast and then the wind of its movement keeps the wind turbine going and the car runs. Is that about right?
What hath Al Gore wrought?
10
I seriously suggest you all study the consequences of losing the economies of scale that accompany the creation of liquid petroleum fuels. And figure out what to do with all that gasoline that no longer has a market. Anyone remember when gasoline was burned off as an unneeded by-product? And how that affects the production of Diesel fuel required by all overland trucking commerce, buses, and rail. What will that do to the production of kerosene used for jet fuel?
20