How Australia Perfected Solar Power and Then Went Back to Coal

[turboplanner]

Don't mess with Octave's understanding of what science means Bex, it's a dark place!

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Your response is valid Bex, but climate change researchers are relying on far more than satellite data. As we speak, teams of scientists are working all over the planet. They are gathering data from deep in glaciers, the bottom of lakes and seas, soil profiles and pollen cores. This is probably the largest global research effort in history and likely to yield fundamental truths about our planet.

 

Money well spent.

 

 

[Marty_d]

You got a headache?

No dear, I'm just too tired tonight.

 

97% you say? Did you meant 97% of Department Heads who need to be on the funding bandwagon? Seriously, a Department today says "No we don't agree with GW" - what are their chances of getting research funding? Lip biting reaps rewards.

 

'Global Warming’ Fear is about Money Not Science

 

Posted on August 26, 2012 by Gary DeMar Filed under Economics, Education, Environment, Global Warming, Liberalism, Politics, Socialism, Taxes

 

League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is spending $1.5 million to defeat five of the most outspoken members of the House of Representatives who believe man-made global warming is a hoax.

 

NB: The use of a negative title here ..

 

The campaign, called "Defeat the Flat Earth Five" will focus on running TV, mail and phone initiatives to spread the message that the members are ignoring science and out of touch with what most Americans believe.

 

Equating these anti-global warming congressmen with a belief in a flat earth shows how the folks at the LCV are as out of touch with the history of science as they are with the science behind climate change (it changes every day) since no one of any reputation ever believed in a flat earth.

 

In the end, it’s not about science; it’s about government (tax-payer) grant money.

 

Scientists live or die by grant money. A long time ago universities began to realize that there's big money to be made in doing research for the government.

 

Campus protests in the 1960s and early 1970s were often directed at schools that were doing work for the "Military-Industrial Complex." The Sterling Hall Bombing that occurred on the campus of the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1970 was committed by four young people as a protest against the University's research connections with the US military during the Vietnam War. It resulted in the death of a university physics researcher. The bombers were after the Army Math Research Center (AMRC) that was housed in the building.

 

The Manhattan Project, which began in 1939, was led and developed by university professors. The Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly $2 billion ($22 billion in current value). The majority of the money came from the Federal government.

 

Research is big business that is most often driven by ideology. Those who know how to write the grants get the money. A 2005 study in the journal Nature surveyed 3247 US researchers who were all publicly funded by the National Institutes of Health which is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services and is the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and health-related research. It consists of 27 separate institutes and centers. Out of the scientists questioned, 15.5% admitted to altering design, methodology or results of their studies due to pressure of an external funding source.

 

With this very brief background study, should we be surprised if scientists who are pushing Global Warming as a man-made disaster would be reluctant to criticize the claim if they knew their funding would be cut? There are big bucks in Global Warming. Those who are pushing it are mostly ideologues with a larger political agenda.

 

Most Americans have an idealized opinion of scientists, that they are somehow detached from the mundane world of power, prestige, and fortune. If you believe this, then you also believe that Tiger Woods only cares about golf and the purity of the sport. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould has written:

 

“The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology.”1

 

Scientists are just like everybody else. They want the same things.

 

We shouldn’t be surprised that climate scientists might fudge the evidence to keep the grant money coming in. Who’s really getting harmed? Anyway, the kids need new shoes and an investment portfolio so they can get into the best universities so they can work for a university that gets grant money.

 

If these scientists and politicians were really concerned about Global Warming, would 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists, and 98 world leaders meet in far way places for a Climate Summit?2 Why not set up a teleconferencing system? Really show the world what can be done to “save the planet.”

 

More than 1200 limos were called into service for a meeting in Copenhagen in 2009. Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen’s biggest limousine company, said that there weren’t enough limos in the country to fulfill the demand. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden,” she says. This does not count the huge carbon footprint that was created by the number of private jets (more than 140) that were used. The eleven-day conference, including the participants’ travel, created a total of 41,000 tons of “carbon dioxide equivalent.”

 

It’s all a scam. Newsweek “did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported ‘many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age.’” In 1974, the National Science Board announced: “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next ice age.” Gary Sutton, writing in an online article for Forbes, makes the point:

 

You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed’s mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today’s scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.3

 

Of course, they can be blamed when they (1) claim that they are doing real science, (2) there is no contrary evidence, and (3) what contrary evidence they do find they suppress it. So the next time someone dogmatically asserts that the majority of scientists believe in Global Warming, ask your antagonist how much grant money he’s getting?

Interesting article but it misses one fundamental point. The premise seems to be that all these scientists are using climate change as a cash cow, milking governments for billions.

 

The point it's missing is that governments HATE climate change. It means they have to do things, unpopular things, which might hit the hip pocket of voters, and no government wants that. Just look at the current mob, who wanted to kill the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (ironically blocked by Clive Palmer). Not just our government, every government on earth would prefer not to have to deal with climate change.

 

So the idea that a bunch of scientists got together in a big conspiracy and made this sh1t up in order to suck at the grants teat, despite it being an area very much on the nose with their source of funding, and directly opposed to the interests of those with the real money (thinking coal & oil here) is just laughable.

 

I'd like to see who funded Gary DeMar, and who's funding the "flat earth five" he mentions.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Gazza all the gas you produce is going overseas.

Nope , wrong again. Some of our gas powers the gas turbines at the Darling Downs Power station and we also supply some gas to the domestic market.

 

 

[jetjr]

FT

 

Can you please explain how ground water is effected by CSG

 

Where will it "drain to", how deep it it, how much is there, who is using this water below 800m, whats the quality like

 

 

[fly_tornado]

CSG is pulling gas from coal seams at much closer than 800M. The problem with CSG is you can't control where the gas and fracking fluid goes once its released, if you have drilled through an aquifer to get to that gas you can't stop that pollution leaking into the aquifer.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-17/linc-energy-accuse-failing-report-series-of-dangerous-leaks/6323850

 

then there is the chinchilla leak

 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/activist-blames-underground-coal-fire-for-soil-gas/story-fnihsps3-1227244591051

 

the gov wants the farmers to think this sort of stuff is normal

 

 

[jetjr]

Now your talking UCG - pretty unrelated but nicely sensational and the confusion with a few emotive images works well

 

Still interested in claims from TP re draining aquifers

 

Maybe you could elaborate on the risks of groundwater contamination, how, how much, where?

 

Risks are low, firstly very few are fracked here, only "tight" gas sites, Daz says 10%, id have thought less than that.

 

Many aquifers are localised, unused and many are rubbish quality water and the volumes of either leaked frack compounds or even well water are miniscule in comparison.

 

Lots of overseas or unrelated evidence used in debate here deliberately confusing issues. I see often campaigns run by city based groups with farmers as mouthpiece.

 

Green leaning groups convincing farmers to support preying on their fears. On the other hand they then have published policies which include devastating taxes, restrictions inc ending irrigation and intensive farming, making transport and energy more expensive. This will end up closing down of agriculture and regional areas will die. WA will see what happens to regional towns when mines wind back.

 

Lots of happy farmers I know in CSG areas both NSW and QLD. Places where CSG is predicted to happen is where dissent is strong.

 

Carbon pricing schemes have to exclude agriculture as they are massive methane producers and couldnt survive if this were included.

 

Anti CSG farmers are walking very thin line often being led by environmental enthusiasts.

 

I think many in Australia dont realise we cannot always afford our moral standpoint.

 

I fully support placing heavy compliance pressure on CSG companies, but much of the current attacks are unfounded and will see them walk. Many Australian families miss out on jobs and resources to secure their farms and local infrastructure.

 

NSW is a basket case. Govt pandering to any noisy minority. Population is Ok with anything happening so long as they cant see it and yet they have lives based on what it produces.

 

I also believe effort should be put into developing renewable energy, it is the future. How much we sponsor it is the question. For the time being we need cheapest, greenest fuel and right now gas is it.

 

The developing world are moving towards producing much of our trinkets and food as our moral high ground slowly prevents it happening here.

 

 

[octave]

Are you serious?

Peers of that era were using calculations from centuries before that made satellites and computers even possible. The only thing satellites and computers have done is confirm their findings and made things a bit faster. A human being still has to do all the calculations at some point or do you think satellites and the software for them were left on Earth by Aliens?

 

The abacus is over 4000 years old and the slide rule was invented in the 1600's btw.

 

But anyway, if your stance is to null and void any information prior to satellites then you fail badly with GW because any reasonable person from either side will not deny for a moment that to prove it either way means historical evidence over a very long period, it's called "Science", and 50 years of satellite info just doesn't cut it at all.

 

sci·ence

 

(sī′əns)

 

n.

 

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

 

2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limited class of natural phenomena.

 

3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

 

4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

 

 

My point is that science doesn't give the correct answer as such but gives the best answer given the evidence available at the time. You seem to be suggesting that new technology or techniques have not improved in the last 100 years. For example, we now have many more data points for temperature measurements. Observations and calculations from 100 years ago whilst still extremely important are not the last word but are proven, disproven or refined by modern knowledge. Cherry picking one article is not good science.

 

So Bex I am assuming that you agree with Svante Arrhenius was saying? His view was that industrial CO2 would increase the temperature in the arctic by 8 degrees but he saw this as potentially a good thing.

 

When Svante Arrhenius talks about the seas ability to absorb carbonic acid he makes no mention of how ocean acidification could affect the ocean, we now have much more knowledge of what this would mean to the world's fisheries. Perhaps he addresses this elsewhere but I can't find anything.

 

He does not fully address the implications of an 8 degree temperature increase in the arctic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release

 

For more on the work of Svante Arrhenius - http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/ here is an excerpt:

 

By 1904, Arrhenius became concerned with rapid increases in anthropogenic carbon emissions and recognized that “the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may, by the advances of industry, be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries.” He eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth's climates “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming caused by industrial emissions and deforestation. Until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the notion as implausible that humans could significantly affect average global temperatures. Today, however, we know that carbon dioxide levels have risen about 25 percent—a rate much faster than Arrhenius first predicted—and average global temperatures have risen about 0.5 degrees Celsius.

 

 

Of course I am not dismissing the work of Arrhenius, he was largely in agreement with modern science, he only really differed in that he thought the warming climate would be a good thing.

 

In terms of the old argument that scientists aren't really interested in good science but just getting buckets full of research money, it seems to me the scientists at CSIRO are a bit foolish, whilst this may have been a clever ploy with previous government we now have a government that would be more generous to any scientist that could provide evidence to contradict the theory.

 

Yes, it is important to consider funding, that is why scientifically rigorous papers require a declaration of financial interests. I am assuming you apply the same rigour to the video "Follow the money"?

 

To let you know where I am coming from, I am not a rabid leftie greeny, in fact nothing annoys me more than people who say "Climate Change" - look at the scientific evidence, "evolution" - look at the evidence, "GM foods" look at the ev.......... wait a minute that can't be right (those nasty scientists)

 

For those of you that work in the fossil fuel industries, I most definitely do not point the finger at you and suggest that you are damaging the planet, you are merely selling me the products I wish to buy. All I say is that the evidence for climate change is strong, the likelihood of negative consequences is also strong. In any case the fossil fuel era will end one way or another. Those countries that are on the cutting edge of the new technologies will the winners

 

 

[octave]

Don't mess with Octave's understanding of what science means Bex, it's a dark place!

 

Turbs that is a pretty disappointing post from you. Whilst I am happy to have my understanding of "what science is" challenged, you will have to be a little more specific otherwise this looks like a cheap ad hominem attack.

 

My understanding of science comes from a "dark place" what does this mean?

 

In my postings, I am usually very careful to only challenge ideas and not people.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

@jetjr lots of farmers don't really care about the long term implications of CSG, its quick money in a drought. Sadly, many farmers support CSG because they hate green groups. If you could explain the chinchilla gas fire that would be good.

 

 

[jetjr]

Not true re money in a drought, you underestimate farmers and what they need or how long CSG has been out there.

 

They see it as a way to secure their future, pay off loans and move forward. Droughts come and go. No one else is out there offering real long term help.

 

They dont get cash but infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals, mobile service, access to air travel, medical services and water and their towns develop and prosper.

 

Worth much more all provided because population is there. A VERY small number of that population is actually farmers.

 

Try living somewhere west of the ranges where dryland farming is all there is and no mining, you have very little including people.

 

I think it would be great to have all this without the compromises and risks mining brings but it isnt possible.

 

Generally regional centers and farmers see a continued stream of city centric regulation and costs imposed. Many dont hate green groups but probably should.

 

Why do I have to explain a fire?

 

UCG sets fire to underground coal to release gas I think - how is that relevant to CSG except its happening in central QLD too?

 

 

[Pearo]

Don't mess with Octave's understanding of what science means Bex, it's a dark place!

Oh the irony...

 

FWIW, I have no vested interest in the future of the planet. I have no kids, and the wife and I do not plan to have kids. I am a man of science, not fiction, so I obtain all my knowledge of subjects from peer reviewed science, not the media. My interested in the environment is purely based on self interest. I like flying, I like sailing, I like motorcycling and I like camping. I do wish to preserve my current surrounds for at least the next 40 odd years, because then my brain and body will be retiring, or well on the way to doing so. I doubt I will see any major impacts from climate change (as its called now, not global warming) so at the end of the day I don't really care what people do. I hate the greens and the far left, I am traditionally a labor supporter (although now there is no parties worth voting for IMHO). So I really don't fit the profile of an environmentalist at all. In-fact I am what most people call a capitalist pig, although I like to think I am a little more politically neutral (call me part democratic socialist if you will).

 

Solar? The reason I want it is because of money. If I can offset my power bill.

 

Coal Seam Gas, I think you will find Dazza is spot on the money. Most methane leaks from CSG are related to natural rock fractures as opposed to industry related issues. There is so much environmental pressure on the CSG industry in Australia that there is a vested interest in keeping it safe. I am an electrician (instrument fitter) turned electrical engineer, so I understand power distribution. Everyone wants cheap reliable power, but every whinges about coal and CSG. Fact is, you cannot provide base loads and peak loads from solar at this point it time, so you have no option but to burn natural resources. When we find a way to store solar power cheaply and effectively then maybe, just maybe we can do away with coal, gas and nuclear power.

 

WRT to Climate change, well here you have to be really careful what you read. The IPCC was known to falsify and cherry pick data and in my mind cannot be trusted. I cant remember the exact details, but this was discovered quite a few years ago now, and they have since changed their outlook to more accuratly reflect the real data that exists. IPCC aside, I look mainly are the real data obtained from real scientists, i.e, the ones that are not manipulating the results but rather just publishing raw data. If you think that climate change is not due to anthropogenic causes then you are living with your head in the sand. There is data, plenty off it showing the cycle of heating is much greater than it has ever been in the last 500000 years, and coincidentally that cycle started at the same time as the industrial revolution. There was so much carbon pollution in the early days of the industrial revolution that it actually had an effect on radio carbon dating. So you can deny it as much as you want (I dont really care), but there is empirical evidence out there to show that there is climate change that is being influence by man made causes.

 

Here is the thing. The environment is like modern form of religion. It does not matter what facts are presented, people have the idea in their head and they continue to deny the evidence of reality. So you get to the point where you just realise that debating the issue is a pointless exercise. If you are really interested in the science behind climate change, I encourage you to take a deep look at the real science. Steer clear of the IPCC (my opinion only, I don't believe they can be trusted). Don't look at the first google link. Check the authors and their industry status and education and check that any papers are peer reviewed. If you do this, I think you may just change your mind on the subject.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Everyone west of the great divide vote LNP. The LNP don't believe in handouts, the ALP won't lose any votes stripping funding from the bush. The bush is getting the gov they deserve. I can see from the ALP perspective that trashing the bush is politically a victimless crime but that country will be ruined in 50 years.

 

I was out at Miles a few weeks ago and the young farmer I had a chat with was getting out of that area because he can see how hard farming that country will get. He mentioned there where 50 farms for sale between Chinchilla and Roma.

 

 

[jetjr]

"50 farms for sale between Chinchilla and Roma" - yep sad. A real issue is who is looking after that land as it ceases to make a living for someone.

 

Contrary to popular beliefs it doesnt return to nature and repair itself. Simply becomes weed and feral infested and cost far more to return to productivity. More often overgrazed and no inputs used and many jobs lost.

 

Similar for national parks and gifted lands, No one managing it as there isnt enough money to do so properly. Some then display this as "how it used to be before settlement" and a model for everywhere else

 

Not sure we can afford to shut down industries which can fund all this.

 

If things work out well and the world moved to renewables, no one will want the gas or coal. Lower std of living for us all here.

 

Pearo raises good points

 

Firstly theres two arguments, is it happening and whats causing it? As said most likely it is happening and world seething with people are causing it.

 

Real question is what to do? A bucket of water on a bushfire isnt going to stop it and that water is VERY expensive.

 

More concerning is can we achieve anything or should we concentrate of surviving with the changes.

 

Tough call to deny, let alone impossible to stop, developing countries populations wanting electricity and all the shiny things we have.

 

Currently many dont have enough to eat and we expect them to be concerned about climate change and next generations.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Real question is what to do? A bucket of water on a bushfire isnt going to stop it and that water is VERY expensive.

 

More concerning is can we achieve anything or should we concentrate of surviving with the changes.

 

Tough call to deny, let alone impossible to stop, developing countries populations wanting electricity and all the shiny things we have.

 

Currently many dont have enough to eat and we expect them to be concerned about climate change and next generations.

Just as developing countries often bypass fixed telephone systems and go to mobiles, IF the developed nations can develop sustainable alternatives to coal then the developing countries can bypass coal entirely and go to the new technologies.

 

Surviving the changes is going to be far more expensive than preventing them, if the average temperature in this continent rises by 5-7 degrees.

 

My money is on a combination of technologies including small fast-breeder reactors. Build your power generation where it's needed rather than huge centralised power stations and all the associated transmission losses they bring.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

@jetjr would you buy a farm in an arrid area covered in CSG wells?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

for nuclear advocates, please send your donations to ERA to save Jabiru

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/14/concerns-raised-about-uranium-mine-being-able-to-afford-clean-up-in-kakadu?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

 

[Marty_d]

That's why I said fast breeders. Not only do they utilise 99% of the energy in the fuel, they can also dispose of existing nuclear waste.

 

 

[facthunter]

Fast breeder over reactors (tic) What country would that be?

 

Desert and low rainfall regions can use solar. It's getting cheaper and efficiency isn't paramount when it is so abundant. Battery technology is improving too. Carbon burning is not cheaper either (as well as being polluting.) if you add the hidden costs of undoing the damage and the subsidies. The deals are done to permit the investors in fossil fuel to keep their interests going, not for the betterment of the world. They know they are in big strife over the centralised Grid which costs HALF the total cost of the electricity bill and RISING. As I've pointed out before the Rockefella's have got out of fossil fuels.

 

Australia has fallen behind any country you could reasonable compare it with regarding renewables. Another missed opportunity for the "clever" country... WHAT? Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

@jetjr would you buy a farm in an arrid area covered in CSG wells?

Sure would, much more likely than without them, likely to be dryland value, In many cases free water to irrigate with.

 

New roads, lots of new fencing, nearby towns thriving, medical centre, great schools and now we have RPT nearby.

 

I can ring up and get a plumber, electrician, builder, hydraulics guy whatever

 

Oh and I can now use mobile phone too like the rest of Australia.

 

Few years ago had none of this and never any chance of getting it.

 

Too many Aussies sit in well serviced areas criticizing development. Go for a visit to areas with small towns and no industry, youll really see how a drought bites. Only ones left are farmers and govt supportee's. one group cant leave other has no reason to.

 

Ironically PV solar isnt very efficient in hot dry areas, dust gives plenty of problems too.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

@jetjr so why can't farmers find buyers for their properties?

 

You should move to chinchilla, they have over 200 vacant rentals in a town of 5,500

 

 

[Marty_d]

[winsor68]

You blokes are funny, do you work in the industry ? I guess not.

Nah mate...they don't pay me a cent for anything.

 

 

[jetjr]

Because you missed a vital question - who wants to be a farmer?

 

Was me for a long time, thankless hard work, big risk with little return. Was some great things too.

 

I do live somewhere pretty similar to Chinchilla, just smaller. I can say first hand what happens to farming based towns when droughts or govt buybacks of water does to whole valleys

 

Young professionals and their families leave, schools close, shops leave, social problems develop. Population drives everything.

 

Having a second income stream to a region is critical to survival.

 

Could list plenty of western NSW towns in similar state to that, have been since ~ 2000. Only towns growing have mining, govt or big industry nearby. Industry is struggling and govt is growing short of our money.

 

 

[dazza 38]

CSG is pulling gas from coal seams at much closer than 800M. The problem with CSG is you can't control where the gas and fracking fluid goes once its released, if you have drilled through an aquifer to get to that gas you can't stop that pollution leaking into the aquifer.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-17/linc-energy-accuse-failing-report-series-of-dangerous-leaks/6323850

 

then there is the chinchilla leak

 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/activist-blames-underground-coal-fire-for-soil-gas/story-fnihsps3-1227244591051

 

the gov wants the farmers to think this sort of stuff is normal

 

This happens naturally, there are local farmers who have said that this has been happening since they where young blokes well over 30 years before CSG ever existed.

 

Samples of this has been taken by government departments. I know exactly where this is because I took water samples with a enviromental officer.

 

You like spreading misinformation don't ya.