13 July 2016

ACT to target 100% renewable power by 2020

| Charlotte
Join the conversation
124
Simon Corbell

The ACT will target 100% renewable energy use by 2020, five years earlier than previously announced, cementing its position as a world leader in the commitment to renewables.

To meet the 100% target the government will expand its current large-scale renewable energy auction process from 109MW to 200MW, with additional capacity to be awarded subject to the value for money of the proposals brought forward, according to ACT Environment Minister Simon Corbell.

“Adding an extra 91MW of renewables to our current auction process will allow us to take advantage of the record low prices and significant local investment we have achieved in our recent auctions,” Mr Corbell said.

Legislation will be introduced to change the ACT’s feed-in-tariff legislation to accommodate the extra capacity required to meet the new target.

Canberrans will see a significant increase in the power bills in the first year as a result of the move to renewables, peaking at around $5.50 per household per week, but Mr Corbell says that will drop off over time and will be largely offset by energy savings from mandated energy efficiency measures.

The Minister said that with the current auction process underway, the ACT would have secured enough renewable energy to meet its previous 90% renewable energy target by 2020 while demonstrating that the switch to renewables was both achievable and affordable.

“As leaders in the renewable energy field the ACT is reaping the environmental and economic benefits of decarbonisation,” he said.

“Not only are we providing clean power for the people of Canberra, we are also delivering jobs and economic benefits by securing $400 million in local investment through our reverse auction process.

“Taking the extra step to 100% at this time lets us take advantage of favourable market conditions to lock in great long-term prices for Canberrans. It also ensures we can meet our emission reduction targets if the Commonwealth’s policy framework for its Renewable Energy Target continues to falter.”

The Government’s reverse auction process has driven down the price of wind and solar energy to record lows. These reductions mean that the latest estimated price for 100% renewables in line with the estimates set out in Climate Change Action Plan 2 for achieving 90% renewables.

“I am confident we can reach this highly ambitious target in the next four years, which will certainly place the territory at the forefront of the renewable energy target rankings,” Mr Corbell said.

File photo of Simon Corbell by Charlotte Harper

Join the conversation

124
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest

For the past 2 days Canberra has experienced “CCC” weather conditions.
That is: Calm, Cloud and Cold.
That means no solar, no wind power and excess energy consumption.
So Mr. Corbell, what are your contingency plans to ensure we maintain 100% renewable supply under these conditions?

rosscoact said :

rommeldog56 said :

Lurker2913 said :

agent_clone said :

I have refereed to “local” warming, not global warming unless you mean “warming repeatedly” and “cooling repeatedly” which I agree it does over many thousands of years.
Are you now going to ignore the ice ages?
You really are getting desperate now.

Leaving aside the question of what this post actually means, I wonder if you could ask yourself –
– Do global climate changes happen because someone somewhere decides to press the “ice age” button?
– Do you think it’s possible that ice ages occur as a result of a combination of insolation and atmospheric composition?

Because science tells us the latter is true.
And research into the history of climate changes allows those scientists to calculate the effects of CO2.
And those calculations tell us that we are halfway to the CO2 level that will give us anywhere between 1 and 6 degrees of global warming.
Last time (during the Pliocene) CO2 levels were the same as they are now, global temperature reached 3-4 degrees more than today and sea levels were 25 metres higher than now. And we don’t look like we’re stopping CO2 emissions any time soon. So we are locking in sea level rise which could make 25 metres look benign.

Dungers thinks this is something to joke about, I really don’t know why. Maybe he’s afraid?

You better notify Tim Flannery as he lives on the water’s edge in the Hawkesbury estuary.
It’s best to joke about it because few people take seriously given that nothing is happening with sea level rises to date. I used to be afraid of the Boogey Man when I was a child but these days the Boogey Man has been replaced by climate alarmists sprouting all their wild predictions.
In fact, Broulee Island not far from Canberra, is no longer an island which indicates sea levels could be falling.

Professor Flannery lives well above the waterline. No need to keep repeating the misleading characterisations of The Australian.
https://theconversation.com/bad-tidings-reporting-on-sea-level-rise-in-australia-is-all-washed-up-2639

Who funds The Conversation?
What about Broulee Island?

There’s more chance of Bill Shorten loosing his man BooBs than the ACT being 100% renewal energy by 2020.

What are these “mandated energy efficiency measures”… are you going to ban the 4 bar heater and the 6 slice toaster.

rommeldog56 said :

Lurker2913 said :

agent_clone said :

I have refereed to “local” warming, not global warming unless you mean “warming repeatedly” and “cooling repeatedly” which I agree it does over many thousands of years.
Are you now going to ignore the ice ages?
You really are getting desperate now.

Leaving aside the question of what this post actually means, I wonder if you could ask yourself –
– Do global climate changes happen because someone somewhere decides to press the “ice age” button?
– Do you think it’s possible that ice ages occur as a result of a combination of insolation and atmospheric composition?

Because science tells us the latter is true.
And research into the history of climate changes allows those scientists to calculate the effects of CO2.
And those calculations tell us that we are halfway to the CO2 level that will give us anywhere between 1 and 6 degrees of global warming.
Last time (during the Pliocene) CO2 levels were the same as they are now, global temperature reached 3-4 degrees more than today and sea levels were 25 metres higher than now. And we don’t look like we’re stopping CO2 emissions any time soon. So we are locking in sea level rise which could make 25 metres look benign.

Dungers thinks this is something to joke about, I really don’t know why. Maybe he’s afraid?

You better notify Tim Flannery as he lives on the water’s edge in the Hawkesbury estuary.
It’s best to joke about it because few people take seriously given that nothing is happening with sea level rises to date. I used to be afraid of the Boogey Man when I was a child but these days the Boogey Man has been replaced by climate alarmists sprouting all their wild predictions.
In fact, Broulee Island not far from Canberra, is no longer an island which indicates sea levels could be falling.

Professor Flannery lives well above the waterline. No need to keep repeating the misleading characterisations of The Australian.
https://theconversation.com/bad-tidings-reporting-on-sea-level-rise-in-australia-is-all-washed-up-2639

rommeldog56 said :

It’s best to joke about it because few people take seriously given that nothing is happening with sea level rises to date. .

Looks like someone forgot to tell the Murdoch Press. I spotted this article earlier this week.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/climate-change-rising-sea-levels-mean-five-solomon-islands-now-underwater/news-story/f005f80f696f2abe13c15dd9334bbd2e

Lurker2913 said :

agent_clone said :

I have refereed to “local” warming, not global warming unless you mean “warming repeatedly” and “cooling repeatedly” which I agree it does over many thousands of years.
Are you now going to ignore the ice ages?
You really are getting desperate now.

Leaving aside the question of what this post actually means, I wonder if you could ask yourself –
– Do global climate changes happen because someone somewhere decides to press the “ice age” button?
– Do you think it’s possible that ice ages occur as a result of a combination of insolation and atmospheric composition?

Because science tells us the latter is true.
And research into the history of climate changes allows those scientists to calculate the effects of CO2.
And those calculations tell us that we are halfway to the CO2 level that will give us anywhere between 1 and 6 degrees of global warming.
Last time (during the Pliocene) CO2 levels were the same as they are now, global temperature reached 3-4 degrees more than today and sea levels were 25 metres higher than now. And we don’t look like we’re stopping CO2 emissions any time soon. So we are locking in sea level rise which could make 25 metres look benign.

Dungers thinks this is something to joke about, I really don’t know why. Maybe he’s afraid?

You better notify Tim Flannery as he lives on the water’s edge in the Hawkesbury estuary.
It’s best to joke about it because few people take seriously given that nothing is happening with sea level rises to date. I used to be afraid of the Boogey Man when I was a child but these days the Boogey Man has been replaced by climate alarmists sprouting all their wild predictions.
In fact, Broulee Island not far from Canberra, is no longer an island which indicates sea levels could be falling.

agent_clone said :

I have refereed to “local” warming, not global warming unless you mean “warming repeatedly” and “cooling repeatedly” which I agree it does over many thousands of years.
Are you now going to ignore the ice ages?
You really are getting desperate now.

Leaving aside the question of what this post actually means, I wonder if you could ask yourself –
– Do global climate changes happen because someone somewhere decides to press the “ice age” button?
– Do you think it’s possible that ice ages occur as a result of a combination of insolation and atmospheric composition?

Because science tells us the latter is true.
And research into the history of climate changes allows those scientists to calculate the effects of CO2.
And those calculations tell us that we are halfway to the CO2 level that will give us anywhere between 1 and 6 degrees of global warming.
Last time (during the Pliocene) CO2 levels were the same as they are now, global temperature reached 3-4 degrees more than today and sea levels were 25 metres higher than now. And we don’t look like we’re stopping CO2 emissions any time soon. So we are locking in sea level rise which could make 25 metres look benign.

Dungers thinks this is something to joke about, I really don’t know why. Maybe he’s afraid?

tooltime said :

But all of this is not going to get us anywhere as you are not listening. Anything from real research and crosschecked scientists is “tripe”, because it just is, You then want that real research stopped, silenced along with any reports of the results. The way to make the Sun circle the Earth the way God obviously intended it, is to put Galileo under house arrest for life.

You “know” that everything the scientists say “tripe”, because it unsettles your belief” that the world and your view of it stopped changing in the ’60s. Your “commonsense” then fails you as you unquestioningly accept anything said by any huckster in any dubious media article, all it has to do is confirm your prejudices. We see that in every reference you give us.

We would like to see evidence that your beliefs are founded on anything other than prejudices, but I think we can agree on one thing, that is not going to happen.

btw You have denied that the world is warming repeatedly, but you deny having said that is really just denial of the denial so unsurprising.

I suspect Rubaiyat will enjoy “epistemic closure”, if he hasn’t already come across it.
This is a long read, but an intriguingly good one:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/

“…living in their own bubble where nonsensical ideas circulate with no contradiction.”.

This is why BoM funding into atmospheric research has to be shut down and why CSIRO sea level research and climate modelling has to be thrown away.

Dungers links unashamedly to Jennifer Marohasy’s blog-site, thus revealing the bubble he is trying to live in.

tooltime said :

devils_advocate said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

A_Cog said :

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

Great point.
If only we had scientists who could research these issues and apprise of the facts so we didn’t have to rely on gut-feelings or ideology any more.

Whatever you do, don’t mention the application of common sense to reach a conclusion.

The problem is, many people confuse “common-sense” with their own peculiar biases and dogmatic ideologies.
Hence we have science, performed by scientists who gather data and present checkable analyses of said data.
Hence we have dogmatists who want science shut down by withdrawing funding from CSIRO and the BoM because they don’t like it when their ideologies are contradicted by facts.
That’s not how science works – many scientists disagree with each other – the credible ones don’t scream “fraud” when they disagree, they sit down and do the work to prove their own opinion is the correct one.
The single over-riding characteristic of climate change deniers is that not one of them can sustain their opinions TOGETHER with any kind of rigorous scientific work, but instead stoop to baseless accusations of fraud.

My beliefs (not ideologies) are based on scientific research that was done a long time ago which clearly shows the same things that are are happening now also happened thousands of years ago.
I have never denied that there is a changing climate either so don’t refer to me as a denier.

You’ve done an excellent job of hiding the details of your “scientific research”. All we know is that it is in an over 100 year old geological text that predates the discovery of tectonic plates and the role they play in the carbon cycle. You have never elaborated on what it actually says because that might let us unravel any arguments it makes that are relevant, but probably aren’t because the author was unaware of the massive changes made to the carbon cycle post industrialisation and the massive environmental changes made by human activity.

But all of this is not going to get us anywhere as you are not listening. Anything from real research and crosschecked scientists is “tripe”, because it just is, You then want that real research stopped, silenced along with any reports of the results. The way to make the Sun circle the Earth the way God obviously intended it, is to put Galileo under house arrest for life.

You “know” that everything the scientists say “tripe”, because it unsettles your belief” that the world and your view of it stopped changing in the ’60s. Your “commonsense” then fails you as you unquestioningly accept anything said by any huckster in any dubious media article, all it has to do is confirm your prejudices. We see that in every reference you give us.

We would like to see evidence that your beliefs are founded on anything other than prejudices, but I think we can agree on one thing, that is not going to happen.

btw You have denied that the world is warming repeatedly, but you deny having said that is really just denial of the denial so unsurprising.

I have refereed to “local” warming, not global warming unless you mean “warming repeatedly” and “cooling repeatedly” which I agree it does over many thousands of years.
Are you now going to ignore the ice ages?
You really are getting desperate now.

devils_advocate said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

A_Cog said :

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

Great point.
If only we had scientists who could research these issues and apprise of the facts so we didn’t have to rely on gut-feelings or ideology any more.

Whatever you do, don’t mention the application of common sense to reach a conclusion.

The problem is, many people confuse “common-sense” with their own peculiar biases and dogmatic ideologies.
Hence we have science, performed by scientists who gather data and present checkable analyses of said data.
Hence we have dogmatists who want science shut down by withdrawing funding from CSIRO and the BoM because they don’t like it when their ideologies are contradicted by facts.
That’s not how science works – many scientists disagree with each other – the credible ones don’t scream “fraud” when they disagree, they sit down and do the work to prove their own opinion is the correct one.
The single over-riding characteristic of climate change deniers is that not one of them can sustain their opinions TOGETHER with any kind of rigorous scientific work, but instead stoop to baseless accusations of fraud.

My beliefs (not ideologies) are based on scientific research that was done a long time ago which clearly shows the same things that are are happening now also happened thousands of years ago.
I have never denied that there is a changing climate either so don’t refer to me as a denier.

You’ve done an excellent job of hiding the details of your “scientific research”. All we know is that it is in an over 100 year old geological text that predates the discovery of tectonic plates and the role they play in the carbon cycle. You have never elaborated on what it actually says because that might let us unravel any arguments it makes that are relevant, but probably aren’t because the author was unaware of the massive changes made to the carbon cycle post industrialisation and the massive environmental changes made by human activity.

But all of this is not going to get us anywhere as you are not listening. Anything from real research and crosschecked scientists is “tripe”, because it just is, You then want that real research stopped, silenced along with any reports of the results. The way to make the Sun circle the Earth the way God obviously intended it, is to put Galileo under house arrest for life.

You “know” that everything the scientists say “tripe”, because it unsettles your belief” that the world and your view of it stopped changing in the ’60s. Your “commonsense” then fails you as you unquestioningly accept anything said by any huckster in any dubious media article, all it has to do is confirm your prejudices. We see that in every reference you give us.

We would like to see evidence that your beliefs are founded on anything other than prejudices, but I think we can agree on one thing, that is not going to happen.

btw You have denied that the world is warming repeatedly, but you deny having said that is really just denial of the denial so unsurprising.

Mysteryman said :

water_lily said :

Bennop said :

A_Cog said :

searcher3489 said :

Odd how you cherry pick!

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

How about some evidence of your accusations?

When was the Green government in power in Victoria, because I missed it.

The more you remove trees, the hotter and drier it gets with more dead vegetation. Hot and dry leads to more violent weather with more lightning strikes, starting more fires that can’t be contained in the hot, dry conditions.

Those hot, dry conditions then reduce the number of days in which you can safely burn, so it becomes a Catch 22.

Not rocket science, not even if your rocket science extends to struggling with the instructions to light the blue paper and step back.

After you read this let me know if you still want more convincing:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/victorian-bushfires-the-result-of-human-folly/

What another looney right wing rant?

If Greenies are in charge how come there are cows in Victoria’s national parks and foresters seem to be dictating the whole forest management strategies of Governments.

Is this the Reichstag all over again?

The Reichstag was destroyed by fire.

wildturkeycanoe6:42 am 12 May 16

Bennop said :

The more you remove trees, the hotter and drier it gets with more dead vegetation. Hot and dry leads to more violent weather with more lightning strikes, starting more fires that can’t be contained in the hot, dry conditions.
Not rocket science,

How can you get more fuel by removing trees? Denser, thicker forests will create more fuel. It isn’t the dry stuff on the ground that makes the firestorm but the oil in the eucalyptus leaves on the tree that help to spread the inferno. Why do you think fire breaks are void of living and dead trees? If there are fewer trees, the flames cannot jump from one to another and there will be less litter to throw into the air as embers. Remove more trees and the fire front will travel even more slowly.
In addition, without the canopy of a dense forest for protection, young saplings won’t survive as easily against the wind, the heat and will have less leaf litter for nutrients. Just look how well grass grows under any established gum tree, it doesn’t.
Opposing opinions can be formulated using facts, observation and what one has learned from many different sources. Relying on what “scientists” say as being true, without questioning their propaganda using your own intellect is as rigid in thinking as unquestionably believing in deities.

HenryBG said :

water_lily said :

After you read this let me know if you still want more convincing:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/victorian-bushfires-the-result-of-human-folly/

I really have to caution you against confusing entertaining (to you) opinions with valuable sources of facts.

Marohasy worked for many years for the IPA writing right-wing opinion, often denying the facts of climate change. Needless to say, her opinions are nonsense.
She has done work for the Heartland Institute, which is a fossil-fuel-funded lobby group.
Needless to say, it isn’t on record as any kind of reliable source for facts about science.
She also has a history of involvement in misleadingly-named groupuscules such as the “Australian Environment Foundation” and the “Australian Climate Science Coalition”.
Needless to say, neither of these organisations are funded by lefties, and nor are the known for purveying anything particularly factual about either the environment or climate change.
Even in her own chosen area of maximum “expertise”, the Murray-Darling river system, her opinions are largely derided by her peers, and she has a history of making assertions that can’t be borne out by the facts.

In other words, Dungers, pick a better source.

HenryBG said :

water_lily said :

After you read this let me know if you still want more convincing:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/victorian-bushfires-the-result-of-human-folly/

I really have to caution you against confusing entertaining (to you) opinions with valuable sources of facts.

Marohasy worked for many years for the IPA writing right-wing opinion, often denying the facts of climate change. Needless to say, her opinions are nonsense.
She has done work for the Heartland Institute, which is a fossil-fuel-funded lobby group.
Needless to say, it isn’t on record as any kind of reliable source for facts about science.
She also has a history of involvement in misleadingly-named groupuscules such as the “Australian Environment Foundation” and the “Australian Climate Science Coalition”.
Needless to say, neither of these organisations are funded by lefties, and nor are the known for purveying anything particularly factual about either the environment or climate change.
Even in her own chosen area of maximum “expertise”, the Murray-Darling river system, her opinions are largely derided by her peers, and she has a history of making assertions that can’t be borne out by the facts.

In other words, Dungers, pick a better source.

The article was by Roger Underwood, a bushfire expert.

Maya123 said :

Simon Corbell’s office has promised to answer my question on behalf of the Government as soon they can, as has Nicole Lawders office for the Opposition.

I asked if the Libs would be tearing up the 2020 target policy if elected. And asked all of them (Labor/Libs/Green) if they would be increasing the low income or pensioner electricity supplements with the policy in place.

Nicole Lawders office replied to me, same response as when I asked them about Public Housing policy – we have not released our policies yet. No response from the Government so far.

Dear *****,

Thank you for your email about renewable energy targets and electricity prices, including concessions for pensioners and people on a low income. It is great to see members of our community taking an active interest in these important issues.

We are currently working on our Environment policies and will release these in due course leading up to the election.
Kind regards,

Nicole

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

A_Cog said :

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

Great point.
If only we had scientists who could research these issues and apprise of the facts so we didn’t have to rely on gut-feelings or ideology any more.

Whatever you do, don’t mention the application of common sense to reach a conclusion.

The problem is, many people confuse “common-sense” with their own peculiar biases and dogmatic ideologies.
Hence we have science, performed by scientists who gather data and present checkable analyses of said data.
Hence we have dogmatists who want science shut down by withdrawing funding from CSIRO and the BoM because they don’t like it when their ideologies are contradicted by facts.
That’s not how science works – many scientists disagree with each other – the credible ones don’t scream “fraud” when they disagree, they sit down and do the work to prove their own opinion is the correct one.
The single over-riding characteristic of climate change deniers is that not one of them can sustain their opinions TOGETHER with any kind of rigorous scientific work, but instead stoop to baseless accusations of fraud.

My beliefs (not ideologies) are based on scientific research that was done a long time ago which clearly shows the same things that are are happening now also happened thousands of years ago.
I have never denied that there is a changing climate either so don’t refer to me as a denier.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

A_Cog said :

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

Great point.
If only we had scientists who could research these issues and apprise of the facts so we didn’t have to rely on gut-feelings or ideology any more.

Whatever you do, don’t mention the application of common sense to reach a conclusion.

The problem is, many people confuse “common-sense” with their own peculiar biases and dogmatic ideologies.
Hence we have science, performed by scientists who gather data and present checkable analyses of said data.
Hence we have dogmatists who want science shut down by withdrawing funding from CSIRO and the BoM because they don’t like it when their ideologies are contradicted by facts.
That’s not how science works – many scientists disagree with each other – the credible ones don’t scream “fraud” when they disagree, they sit down and do the work to prove their own opinion is the correct one.
The single over-riding characteristic of climate change deniers is that not one of them can sustain their opinions TOGETHER with any kind of rigorous scientific work, but instead stoop to baseless accusations of fraud.

water_lily said :

After you read this let me know if you still want more convincing:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/victorian-bushfires-the-result-of-human-folly/

I really have to caution you against confusing entertaining (to you) opinions with valuable sources of facts.

Marohasy worked for many years for the IPA writing right-wing opinion, often denying the facts of climate change. Needless to say, her opinions are nonsense.
She has done work for the Heartland Institute, which is a fossil-fuel-funded lobby group.
Needless to say, it isn’t on record as any kind of reliable source for facts about science.
She also has a history of involvement in misleadingly-named groupuscules such as the “Australian Environment Foundation” and the “Australian Climate Science Coalition”.
Needless to say, neither of these organisations are funded by lefties, and nor are the known for purveying anything particularly factual about either the environment or climate change.
Even in her own chosen area of maximum “expertise”, the Murray-Darling river system, her opinions are largely derided by her peers, and she has a history of making assertions that can’t be borne out by the facts.

In other words, Dungers, pick a better source.

water_lily said :

Bennop said :

A_Cog said :

searcher3489 said :

Odd how you cherry pick!

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

How about some evidence of your accusations?

When was the Green government in power in Victoria, because I missed it.

The more you remove trees, the hotter and drier it gets with more dead vegetation. Hot and dry leads to more violent weather with more lightning strikes, starting more fires that can’t be contained in the hot, dry conditions.

Those hot, dry conditions then reduce the number of days in which you can safely burn, so it becomes a Catch 22.

Not rocket science, not even if your rocket science extends to struggling with the instructions to light the blue paper and step back.

After you read this let me know if you still want more convincing:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/victorian-bushfires-the-result-of-human-folly/

What another looney right wing rant?

If Greenies are in charge how come there are cows in Victoria’s national parks and foresters seem to be dictating the whole forest management strategies of Governments.

Is this the Reichstag all over again?

water_lily said :

Bennop said :

A_Cog said :

searcher3489 said :

Odd how you cherry pick!

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

How about some evidence of your accusations?

When was the Green government in power in Victoria, because I missed it.

The more you remove trees, the hotter and drier it gets with more dead vegetation. Hot and dry leads to more violent weather with more lightning strikes, starting more fires that can’t be contained in the hot, dry conditions.

Those hot, dry conditions then reduce the number of days in which you can safely burn, so it becomes a Catch 22.

Not rocket science, not even if your rocket science extends to struggling with the instructions to light the blue paper and step back.

After you read this let me know if you still want more convincing:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/victorian-bushfires-the-result-of-human-folly/

“The more you remove trees, the hotter and drier it gets with more dead vegetation. Hot and dry leads to more violent weather with more lightning strikes, starting more fires that can’t be contained in the hot, dry conditions”
So, it isn’t minute increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide that is causing “global warming” after all!?

BTW, I agree that the higher local temperatures that are being recorded are a result of disappearing vegetation especially when the hot north-westerly winds from Central Australia reach Eastern Australia without all the trees that used to be in their path to temper those winds.

dungfungus said :

A_Cog said :

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

Great point.
If only we had scientists who could research these issues and apprise of the facts so we didn’t have to rely on gut-feelings or ideology any more.

Whatever you do, don’t mention the application of common sense to reach a conclusion.

Bennop said :

A_Cog said :

searcher3489 said :

Odd how you cherry pick!

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

How about some evidence of your accusations?

When was the Green government in power in Victoria, because I missed it.

The more you remove trees, the hotter and drier it gets with more dead vegetation. Hot and dry leads to more violent weather with more lightning strikes, starting more fires that can’t be contained in the hot, dry conditions.

Those hot, dry conditions then reduce the number of days in which you can safely burn, so it becomes a Catch 22.

Not rocket science, not even if your rocket science extends to struggling with the instructions to light the blue paper and step back.

After you read this let me know if you still want more convincing:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/victorian-bushfires-the-result-of-human-folly/

A_Cog said :

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

Great point.
If only we had scientists who could research these issues and apprise of the facts so we didn’t have to rely on gut-feelings or ideology any more.

searcher3489 said :

Odd how you cherry pick!

Understand the Backfire Effect and then redirect your energies towards MPs and people who count.

A_Cog said :

searcher3489 said :

Odd how you cherry pick!

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

How about some evidence of your accusations?

When was the Green government in power in Victoria, because I missed it.

The more you remove trees, the hotter and drier it gets with more dead vegetation. Hot and dry leads to more violent weather with more lightning strikes, starting more fires that can’t be contained in the hot, dry conditions.

Those hot, dry conditions then reduce the number of days in which you can safely burn, so it becomes a Catch 22.

Not rocket science, not even if your rocket science extends to struggling with the instructions to light the blue paper and step back.

searcher3489 said :

madelini said :

madelini said :

Mysteryman said :

devils_advocate said :

pink little birdie said :

Climate change is readily seen by those who feel like checking out the BoM’s time series and trend maps.
http://tinyurl.com/ommxkbl
As you can see, over the last 45 years, annual rainfall in our general area has fallen by 50mm per 10 years.
Hot nights (a particular signature effect of greenhouse gases) have increased considerably:
http://tinyurl.com/jkbzuxr
The one the farmers are all familiar with is the dramatic increase in growing season length:
http://tinyurl.com/zn9gwwr
And another signature effect of global warming is of course the decrease in frost nights:
http://tinyurl.com/zb3sqta

These pictures provide a visual understanding of just how our climate is changing. That it *is* changing is beyond doubt by any rational person who is willing to learn the facts.

I’ll assume that is your way of saying “yes, the Canberra bushfires have nothing to do with “climate change” then?

I have no idea if the changed rainfall pattern causes less fuel build-up, thus decreasing the likelihood of fires, or causes drier built-up fuel and thus more fires.

What *I* would do is defer to the experts on the issue.

Well, there are plenty of “experts” who have recorded details of previous bushfires in the same Canberra areas devastated in the 2003 conflagration. The most noted are from the CSIRO.

And before everyone starts blaming the huge fires in Canada on “climate change”, read this:
The last big fire that happened in Alberta occurred in 2011, according to UCLA wildfire expert Glen MacDonald.
Prior to that, the last big fire happened in 1919.
In order to prevent fire like this week’s, Alberta has engaged in a robust fire suppression program, says MacDonald. But because the province has suppressed natural fires that burn off underbrush ever 50 or more years, forests are full of fresh tinder.
“Alberta has engaged in a robust fire suppression program that changed the age structure of the forest,” MacDonald said. “Typically, forests in that part of Alberta would burn every 50 to 200 years. But with strong fire suppression, there has been a tremendous build-up of fuel.”

Why don’t you quote the rest of what Macdonald said:

“If you look at Alberta’s climate trajectory over the late 20th century”, Dr. MacDonald tells The Christian Science Monitor by phone, “you see that the winters and springs are becoming much warmer than they were over the 20th century”. The Comment http://bsccomment.com/2016/05/06/raging-wildfire-in-western-canadian-province-of-alberta.html

Odd how you cherry pick!

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

And some more on the subject from Maclean’s magazine:

“What can we learn from the worst fires in Canadian history?”

“Although the fires of today kill fewer people, it is a result of better firefighting rather than smaller fires. “We’re facing increasingly intense fires,” says Peter Murphy, a retired professor of forest fire management at the University of Alberta. “They burn hotter, move faster and take more space.”

Prior to this blaze in Fort McMurray, the 21st century’s most famous Canadian fire broke out in Slave Lake, Alta., in May 2011. The town’s 7,000 people had to evacuate, and the town suffered $750 million in damages. Looking to the future, Boulanger points to statistics that show the area burned each year has increased since the 1970s. Rising temperatures bode for worse conditions. “According to the most aggressive climate scenario,” says Boulanger, “we can talk about as much as two or four times as much fire [in 2100] as right now.”

Although firefighting methods have been revolutionized in recent decades, communities may still underestimate what could be coming. “You’d be impressed with the sophistication of the departments,” says Murphy, “but it’s just astonishing how [fires] can burn. We’re chasing a moving target … we’re ready for fires of the past, but we don’t seem to be ready for the fires of the future.”

madelini said :

madelini said :

Mysteryman said :

devils_advocate said :

pink little birdie said :

Climate change is readily seen by those who feel like checking out the BoM’s time series and trend maps.
http://tinyurl.com/ommxkbl
As you can see, over the last 45 years, annual rainfall in our general area has fallen by 50mm per 10 years.
Hot nights (a particular signature effect of greenhouse gases) have increased considerably:
http://tinyurl.com/jkbzuxr
The one the farmers are all familiar with is the dramatic increase in growing season length:
http://tinyurl.com/zn9gwwr
And another signature effect of global warming is of course the decrease in frost nights:
http://tinyurl.com/zb3sqta

These pictures provide a visual understanding of just how our climate is changing. That it *is* changing is beyond doubt by any rational person who is willing to learn the facts.

I’ll assume that is your way of saying “yes, the Canberra bushfires have nothing to do with “climate change” then?

I have no idea if the changed rainfall pattern causes less fuel build-up, thus decreasing the likelihood of fires, or causes drier built-up fuel and thus more fires.

What *I* would do is defer to the experts on the issue.

Well, there are plenty of “experts” who have recorded details of previous bushfires in the same Canberra areas devastated in the 2003 conflagration. The most noted are from the CSIRO.

And before everyone starts blaming the huge fires in Canada on “climate change”, read this:
The last big fire that happened in Alberta occurred in 2011, according to UCLA wildfire expert Glen MacDonald.
Prior to that, the last big fire happened in 1919.
In order to prevent fire like this week’s, Alberta has engaged in a robust fire suppression program, says MacDonald. But because the province has suppressed natural fires that burn off underbrush ever 50 or more years, forests are full of fresh tinder.
“Alberta has engaged in a robust fire suppression program that changed the age structure of the forest,” MacDonald said. “Typically, forests in that part of Alberta would burn every 50 to 200 years. But with strong fire suppression, there has been a tremendous build-up of fuel.”

Why don’t you quote the rest of what Macdonald said:

“If you look at Alberta’s climate trajectory over the late 20th century”, Dr. MacDonald tells The Christian Science Monitor by phone, “you see that the winters and springs are becoming much warmer than they were over the 20th century”. The Comment http://bsccomment.com/2016/05/06/raging-wildfire-in-western-canadian-province-of-alberta.html

Odd how you cherry pick!

pink little birdie said :

John Moulis said :

The weather bureau has admitted to doctoring temperature data history to suit the climate change story. So anything on there is not true and is fancyfull.

This morning’s rain, that they predicted almost a week ago, has turned up right on time and right on cue, but you what you “believe” says “anything on there is not true and is fancyfull”.

Do you at all understand the principle that you can predict the long term number of car accidents, deaths and injuries? Just not exactly where, how and who.

The rain has turned up but not in the quantities predicted. The previous 4 predictions of rain failed to happen.

Acton said :

chewy14 said :

Well, population in the Western world does happen and is happening.
Why can’t it happen elsewhere?
We give the rest of the world aid and all that happens is they breed even more.
Population control should be a condition of accepting aid.
If the world doesn’t do something will will be subject to famines and they can get very ugly.

If only it were that simple.

How do you propose population is controlled? 2 children policy with all children past number 2 killed at birth? What about culling of the over 70 population? That would solve lots of issues actually so maybe a good policy actually.

Your methods are a bit harsh, even by the perception of my standards but it may become necessary to do something like that if there isn’t a substantial fall in population through a natural occurrence or a war.
Before that stage is reached, birth control should be enforced irrespective of cultural caveats.

PeterC said :

John Moulis said :

The weather bureau has admitted to doctoring temperature data history to suit the climate change story. So anything on there is not true and is fancyfull.

Is this another of your “little known facts” dungers?

Links please to this damning self confession.

Let’s leave that as a standing request for all your wild accusations.

I don’t recall making that statement but it is probably correct.

madelini said :

Mysteryman said :

devils_advocate said :

pink little birdie said :

Climate change is readily seen by those who feel like checking out the BoM’s time series and trend maps.
http://tinyurl.com/ommxkbl
As you can see, over the last 45 years, annual rainfall in our general area has fallen by 50mm per 10 years.
Hot nights (a particular signature effect of greenhouse gases) have increased considerably:
http://tinyurl.com/jkbzuxr
The one the farmers are all familiar with is the dramatic increase in growing season length:
http://tinyurl.com/zn9gwwr
And another signature effect of global warming is of course the decrease in frost nights:
http://tinyurl.com/zb3sqta

These pictures provide a visual understanding of just how our climate is changing. That it *is* changing is beyond doubt by any rational person who is willing to learn the facts.

I’ll assume that is your way of saying “yes, the Canberra bushfires have nothing to do with “climate change” then?

I have no idea if the changed rainfall pattern causes less fuel build-up, thus decreasing the likelihood of fires, or causes drier built-up fuel and thus more fires.

What *I* would do is defer to the experts on the issue.

Well, there are plenty of “experts” who have recorded details of previous bushfires in the same Canberra areas devastated in the 2003 conflagration. The most noted are from the CSIRO.

And before everyone starts blaming the huge fires in Canada on “climate change”, read this:
The last big fire that happened in Alberta occurred in 2011, according to UCLA wildfire expert Glen MacDonald.
Prior to that, the last big fire happened in 1919.
In order to prevent fire like this week’s, Alberta has engaged in a robust fire suppression program, says MacDonald. But because the province has suppressed natural fires that burn off underbrush ever 50 or more years, forests are full of fresh tinder.
“Alberta has engaged in a robust fire suppression program that changed the age structure of the forest,” MacDonald said. “Typically, forests in that part of Alberta would burn every 50 to 200 years. But with strong fire suppression, there has been a tremendous build-up of fuel.”

John Moulis said :

The weather bureau has admitted to doctoring temperature data history to suit the climate change story. So anything on there is not true and is fancyfull.

This morning’s rain, that they predicted almost a week ago, has turned up right on time and right on cue, but you what you “believe” says “anything on there is not true and is fancyfull”.

Do you at all understand the principle that you can predict the long term number of car accidents, deaths and injuries? Just not exactly where, how and who.

Acton said :

chewy14 said :

Well, population in the Western world does happen and is happening.
Why can’t it happen elsewhere?
We give the rest of the world aid and all that happens is they breed even more.
Population control should be a condition of accepting aid.
If the world doesn’t do something will will be subject to famines and they can get very ugly.

If only it were that simple.

How do you propose population is controlled? 2 children policy with all children past number 2 killed at birth? What about culling of the over 70 population? That would solve lots of issues actually so maybe a good policy actually.

…titter…

rommeldog56 said :

Im going online to buy on old diesel generator and going off grid , hope my greenie neighbours like the fumes down wind … and im also putting in two more wood fires … the good ol open fire type …ah now to buy a chainsaw and find a few trees down the local park that are looking a bit old and shabby ….. life us going to be great no power bills to pay

In fact anything rather than install solar, get your money back quickly, then be off-grid and off-bill for life.

We really need a new word for “stupid-nasty” that covers the diesel sniffing anti-environmentalists whose sole motivation seems to be dog in the manger spite.

Here_and_Now said :

The deserts of Africa weren’t always deserts either, but they became that way well before mankind started using fossil fuels. Glaciers were melting long before we started using CFCs. The Australian landscape was greener and more fertile, but turned into sand covered barren land centuries before white man stepped foot on Sydney cove.

North Africa was fertile and a grain basket for the Roman Empire until even the time of the invasion of the Vandals in the 5th century AD.

Australia was indeed a much greener and more fertile place before white man came and destroyed a lot of the vegetative cover by overgrazing, cutting down forests and introducing feral species, particularly rabbits, which caused most of the desertification and rising salt tables that you see today.

Here_and_Now said :

I do not for a second believe our climate isn’t changing, but I do see the undeniable fact that it began to change well before the industrial era and well before mankind began polluting the air.

We have spoken before on the difference between belief based on ignorance, and knowledge based on research, and how you go about differentiating the two. Hint, it is not by picking the bits you like and ignoring everything you don’t like.

Here_and_Now said :

What I do not believe is the sensationalist hype that we are having a man-made catastrophic event, when history quite clearly shows it has happened before many times and the planet is about ready to go through one of those “apocalyptic” phases. Eventually it will turn around and do the exact opposite, like it has done before. To think that we have caused this problem is overstating the power we have of controlling the planet’s natural functions. Ice-age cycles are natural, we just happen to be in the end stages of warmth just prior to the next one.

That something has happened previously with different causes does not explain what is happening now, particularly so rapidly and counter to the Ice Age cycle that you are referring to.

There are geological markers to point to the maximum extent of glaciers, ie moraines, the deposited rock at the leading edge of a glacier when it begins its rertreat, and those mark in historical time between the 17th and second half of the 19th century as the turning point of most observed glaciers and a rapidly accelerating retreat for the vast majority of glaciers since, concurrent with the rise of almospheric CO2.

Here_and_Now said :

The rhetoric around global warming is an attempt for world leaders to gain control of the people, to extract more revenue from them under the guise of “protecting us” from ourselves.

Yet there has been a remarkable foot dragging by “world leaders” against the wishes of the general population to act.

Does this conspiracy theory include the many who are ACTUALLY making a lot of money out of fossil fuels and are desperately clinging to their right to pollute?

Here_and_Now said :

If the governments of the world were serious about changing our emissions, if the consequences were so dire and proven beyond a doubt to be cataclysmic, why does it seem to be all about charging everybody more for fossil fuels or their “carbon footprint” instead of spending money on alternatives and restricting the supply of the evil products? Making us pay extra isn’t changing anything, but it certainly is putting a lot more into the global business’ and leaders’ pockets.

Because making people pay for their actions does affect their behaviour. It works in everything from cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, water usage, even car parking. It has worked extremely well, Labor’s carbon tax actually worked but you would never know it listening to the Murdoch propaganda. Let’s see, what exactly is this extremely rich man doing instructing his editors and reporters to write hate pieces on global climate change scientists? Must be because he is so concerned for the well being of ordinary citizens such as yourself!

ROTFL!

Remember that oft quoted maxim that the user should pay? Well the polluter should pay for the damage they cause, otherwise it is just an incentive to continue to damage even more.

Here_and_Now said :

Globally they cannot reach consensus on what everybody is going to do about it, rather they talk in tiny percentages of change over decades to come.

Thanks to the massively funded fossil fuel lobbyists and the efforts of billionaire reactionaries like Rupert Murdoch.

Here_and_Now said :

Countries that try to do the “right thing” are losing financially against foreign entities who disregard the threat and continue using their cheaper, dirty power to give themselves the advantage in manufacturing.

Countries such as Germany which almost owns the clean energy space? Actually economies that are doing something to transition to cleaner energy are doing well. Even the Chinese who are doing more than all the rest put together.

Here_and_Now said :

Customers are paying higher and higher energy prices, but still the power comes through the same transmission lines from the same coal-fired power stations.

The transmission lines are not the problem, it is the coal burning power stations which are in decline despite the best efforts of the denialists.

Here_and_Now said :

The media keeps prophesying the rapidly approaching doom of the world, but statistics supporting the fantasy only go back to the infancy of record keeping, some hundred or so years ago.

“The media”? Which media would that be? There are plenty that seem to be pushing the “fantasy” that the tiny number of denialists represent anything more than the fossil fuel lobbyists, their paid liars and any fools who believe anything they say.

The statistics are damning and whilst most do in fact cover the period of the industrialisation, there is plenty of data from other indirect sources that confirm global warming and its cause, the rise in atmospheric CO2, and that that increased CO2 can only have come from the obvious massive burning of fossil fuels by man and the destruction of most of the natural environment that could have balanced the burning.

Here_and_Now said :

With that tiny scope of information, they extrapolate a new phenomenon, without alluding to the fact that it has already been happening for thousands of years.

Time to actually back up your nonsense “fact”.

Here_and_Now said :

The Egyptian desert was only 10,000 years ago a rich, fertile land. Did it’s demise into a sandy wasteland result from man’s interference? No. It was climate change then, as it is now, a naturally occurring process.

What “Egyptian Desert”? And what does this non-existent geographical feature have to do with global warming?

If you are referring to the Sahara, that began to change from savanna to desert around 3000 BCE well after Man had brought in agriculture, husbandry and began the destruction of the forests that changed much of the Ancient World. North Africa was the grain bowl of Rome, despite their best efforts such as sowing the Carthaginian lands with salt, so that nobody could revive their civilisation there. Today the desertification of the remaining more fertile neighboring regions of the Mediteranean coast and the Sahel is visibly due to deforestation, desperate overexploitation and overgrazing by Man.

Here_and_Now said :

The current climate change panic, is comparable to people of old believing that the seers could make the earth go dark. In fact it was from knowing the cycle of the sun and predicting the next solar eclipse that gave them this magical ability of foresight. Signs and wonders my friends, on a global scale, to sucker everybody into the lie for the profit of the few.

Besides you just making up the “seers could make the earth go dark”, doesn’t the sucker monicker actually apply to those who ignore science and research and instead fall for the manipulators, the fossil fuel lobby who work on their irrational “beliefs” instead, for the manipulating polluters’ personal benefit?

PeterC said :

John Moulis said :

The weather bureau has admitted to doctoring temperature data history to suit the climate change story. So anything on there is not true and is fancyfull.

Is this another of your “little known facts” dungers?

Links please to this damning self confession.

Let’s leave that as a standing request for all your wild accusations.

Sorry gazket. I mistook you for that other resident expert. I assume you are not one and the same?

John Moulis said :

The weather bureau has admitted to doctoring temperature data history to suit the climate change story. So anything on there is not true and is fancyfull.

Is this another of your “little known facts” dungers?

Links please to this damning self confession.

Let’s leave that as a standing request for all your wild accusations.

madelini said :

What *I* would do is defer to the experts on the issue.

Well, there are plenty of “experts” who have recorded details of previous bushfires in the same Canberra areas devastated in the 2003 conflagration. The most noted are from the CSIRO.

I am not aware of all the other raging firestorms over 2/3rds of the ACT, destroying over 500 houses in Canberra, injuring over 490 people and killing 4.

Links please.

Now that you have conveniently decided the CSIRO is (for your purposes) not lying, self serving and self enriching fraudsters, include the CSIRO data on climate change as well while you are at it, and their predictions of more frequent and intense bushfires due to climate change.

I was also not aware either that the smoldering remains of the Mt Stromlo Observatory were built on the ashes of previous catastrophic events.

chewy14 said :

Well, population in the Western world does happen and is happening.
Why can’t it happen elsewhere?
We give the rest of the world aid and all that happens is they breed even more.
Population control should be a condition of accepting aid.
If the world doesn’t do something will will be subject to famines and they can get very ugly.

If only it were that simple.

How do you propose population is controlled? 2 children policy with all children past number 2 killed at birth? What about culling of the over 70 population? That would solve lots of issues actually so maybe a good policy actually.

Mysteryman said :

devils_advocate said :

pink little birdie said :

Climate change is readily seen by those who feel like checking out the BoM’s time series and trend maps.
http://tinyurl.com/ommxkbl
As you can see, over the last 45 years, annual rainfall in our general area has fallen by 50mm per 10 years.
Hot nights (a particular signature effect of greenhouse gases) have increased considerably:
http://tinyurl.com/jkbzuxr
The one the farmers are all familiar with is the dramatic increase in growing season length:
http://tinyurl.com/zn9gwwr
And another signature effect of global warming is of course the decrease in frost nights:
http://tinyurl.com/zb3sqta

These pictures provide a visual understanding of just how our climate is changing. That it *is* changing is beyond doubt by any rational person who is willing to learn the facts.

I’ll assume that is your way of saying “yes, the Canberra bushfires have nothing to do with “climate change” then?

I have no idea if the changed rainfall pattern causes less fuel build-up, thus decreasing the likelihood of fires, or causes drier built-up fuel and thus more fires.

What *I* would do is defer to the experts on the issue.

Well, there are plenty of “experts” who have recorded details of previous bushfires in the same Canberra areas devastated in the 2003 conflagration. The most noted are from the CSIRO.

John Moulis said :

The weather bureau has admitted to doctoring temperature data history to suit the climate change story. So anything on there is not true and is fancyfull.

Option1:
The premier science body in this country that concerns itself with collecting meteorological data and researching it is making things up?

Option2:
Kooky internet-dwellers are making things up.

Take your pick.

devils_advocate said :

pink little birdie said :

Climate change is readily seen by those who feel like checking out the BoM’s time series and trend maps.
http://tinyurl.com/ommxkbl
As you can see, over the last 45 years, annual rainfall in our general area has fallen by 50mm per 10 years.
Hot nights (a particular signature effect of greenhouse gases) have increased considerably:
http://tinyurl.com/jkbzuxr
The one the farmers are all familiar with is the dramatic increase in growing season length:
http://tinyurl.com/zn9gwwr
And another signature effect of global warming is of course the decrease in frost nights:
http://tinyurl.com/zb3sqta

These pictures provide a visual understanding of just how our climate is changing. That it *is* changing is beyond doubt by any rational person who is willing to learn the facts.

I’ll assume that is your way of saying “yes, the Canberra bushfires have nothing to do with “climate change” then?

I have no idea if the changed rainfall pattern causes less fuel build-up, thus decreasing the likelihood of fires, or causes drier built-up fuel and thus more fires.

What *I* would do is defer to the experts on the issue.

Well, population in the Western world does happen and is happening.
Why can’t it happen elsewhere?
We give the rest of the world aid and all that happens is they breed even more.
Population control should be a condition of accepting aid.
If the world doesn’t do something will will be subject to famines and they can get very ugly.

Mysteryman said :

Here_and_Now said :

pink little birdie said :

Climate change is readily seen by those who feel like checking out the BoM’s time series and trend maps.
http://tinyurl.com/ommxkbl
As you can see, over the last 45 years, annual rainfall in our general area has fallen by 50mm per 10 years.
Hot nights (a particular signature effect of greenhouse gases) have increased considerably:
http://tinyurl.com/jkbzuxr
The one the farmers are all familiar with is the dramatic increase in growing season length:
http://tinyurl.com/zn9gwwr
And another signature effect of global warming is of course the decrease in frost nights:
http://tinyurl.com/zb3sqta
.

The deserts of Africa weren’t always deserts either, but they became that way well before mankind started using fossil fuels. Glaciers were melting long before we started using CFCs. The Australian landscape was greener and more fertile, but turned into sand covered barren land centuries before white man stepped foot on Sydney cove.
I do not for a second believe our climate isn’t changing, but I do see the undeniable fact that it began to change well before the industrial era and well before mankind began polluting the air.
What I do not believe is the sensationalist hype that we are having a man-made catastrophic event, when history quite clearly shows it has happened before many times and the planet is about ready to go through one of those “apocalyptic” phases. Eventually it will turn around and do the exact opposite, like it has done before. To think that we have caused this problem is overstating the power we have of controlling the planet’s natural functions. Ice-age cycles are natural, we just happen to be in the end stages of warmth just prior to the next one. The rhetoric around global warming is an attempt for world leaders to gain control of the people, to extract more revenue from them under the guise of “protecting us” from ourselves. If the governments of the world were serious about changing our emissions, if the consequences were so dire and proven beyond a doubt to be cataclysmic, why does it seem to be all about charging everybody more for fossil fuels or their “carbon footprint” instead of spending money on alternatives and restricting the supply of the evil products? Making us pay extra isn’t changing anything, but it certainly is putting a lot more into the global business’ and leaders’ pockets. Globally they cannot reach consensus on what everybody is going to do about it, rather they talk in tiny percentages of change over decades to come. Countries that try to do the “right thing” are losing financially against foreign entities who disregard the threat and continue using their cheaper, dirty power to give themselves the advantage in manufacturing. Customers are paying higher and higher energy prices, but still the power comes through the same transmission lines from the same coal-fired power stations. The media keeps prophesying the rapidly approaching doom of the world, but statistics supporting the fantasy only go back to the infancy of record keeping, some hundred or so years ago. With that tiny scope of information, they extrapolate a new phenomenon, without alluding to the fact that it has already been happening for thousands of years. The Egyptian desert was only 10,000 years ago a rich, fertile land. Did it’s demise into a sandy wasteland result from man’s interference? No. It was climate change then, as it is now, a naturally occurring process.
The current climate change panic, is comparable to people of old believing that the seers could make the earth go dark. In fact it was from knowing the cycle of the sun and predicting the next solar eclipse that gave them this magical ability of foresight. Signs and wonders my friends, on a global scale, to sucker everybody into the lie for the profit of the few.

I referred to these people as “climate change carpet baggers” in an earlier post. You have really spelt it out. And their gullible devotees have the audacity to call people like me “denialists”.
And yes, climate changing is a naturally occurring process. It doesn’t need computer modelling and a witch-hunt to blame someone, only adapting to what the outcome is which will be over a period of thousands of years.
Time to move on. If all those wasted climate change resources were focused on population control the world would be a kinder place.

You have been told before the issue now is the rate of change. And your right population does have a lot to do with along with wealth in developing countries meaning people drive and consume more power which is accelerating climate change.

Population control ain’t going to happen so something else needs to change and that is how we including in Australia use energy and pollute.

Here_and_Now said :

pink little birdie said :

Climate change is readily seen by those who feel like checking out the BoM’s time series and trend maps.
http://tinyurl.com/ommxkbl
As you can see, over the last 45 years, annual rainfall in our general area has fallen by 50mm per 10 years.
Hot nights (a particular signature effect of greenhouse gases) have increased considerably:
http://tinyurl.com/jkbzuxr
The one the farmers are all familiar with is the dramatic increase in growing season length:
http://tinyurl.com/zn9gwwr
And another signature effect of global warming is of course the decrease in frost nights:
http://tinyurl.com/zb3sqta
.

The deserts of Africa weren’t always deserts either, but they became that way well before mankind started using fossil fuels. Glaciers were melting long before we started using CFCs. The Australian landscape was greener and more fertile, but turned into sand covered barren land centuries before white man stepped foot on Sydney cove.
I do not for a second believe our climate isn’t changing, but I do see the undeniable fact that it began to change well before the industrial era and well before mankind began polluting the air.
What I do not believe is the sensationalist hype that we are having a man-made catastrophic event, when history quite clearly shows it has happened before many times and the planet is about ready to go through one of those “apocalyptic” phases. Eventually it will turn around and do the exact opposite, like it has done before. To think that we have caused this problem is overstating the power we have of controlling the planet’s natural functions. Ice-age cycles are natural, we just happen to be in the end stages of warmth just prior to the next one. The rhetoric around global warming is an attempt for world leaders to gain control of the people, to extract more revenue from them under the guise of “protecting us” from ourselves. If the governments of the world were serious about changing our emissions, if the consequences were so dire and proven beyond a doubt to be cataclysmic, why does it seem to be all about charging everybody more for fossil fuels or their “carbon footprint” instead of spending money on alternatives and restricting the supply of the evil products? Making us pay extra isn’t changing anything, but it certainly is putting a lot more into the global business’ and leaders’ pockets. Globally they cannot reach consensus on what everybody is going to do about it, rather they talk in tiny percentages of change over decades to come. Countries that try to do the “right thing” are losing financially against foreign entities who disregard the threat and continue using their cheaper, dirty power to give themselves the advantage in manufacturing. Customers are paying higher and higher energy prices, but still the power comes through the same transmission lines from the same coal-fired power stations. The media keeps prophesying the rapidly approaching doom of the world, but statistics supporting the fantasy only go back to the infancy of record keeping, some hundred or so years ago. With that tiny scope of information, they extrapolate a new phenomenon, without alluding to the fact that it has already been happening for thousands of years. The Egyptian desert was only 10,000 years ago a rich, fertile land. Did it’s demise into a sandy wasteland result from man’s interference? No. It was climate change then, as it is now, a naturally occurring process.
The current climate change panic, is comparable to people of old believing that the seers could make the earth go dark. In fact it was from knowing the cycle of the sun and predicting the next solar eclipse that gave them this magical ability of foresight. Signs and wonders my friends, on a global scale, to sucker everybody into the lie for the profit of the few.

I referred to these people as “climate change carpet baggers” in an earlier post. You have really spelt it out. And their gullible devotees have the audacity to call people like me “denialists”.
And yes, climate changing is a naturally occurring process. It doesn’t need computer modelling and a witch-hunt to blame someone, only adapting to what the outcome is which will be over a period of thousands of years.
Time to move on. If all those wasted climate change resources were focused on population control the world would be a kinder place.

wildturkeycanoe6:51 am 07 May 16

pink little birdie said :

Climate change is readily seen by those who feel like checking out the BoM’s time series and trend maps.
http://tinyurl.com/ommxkbl
As you can see, over the last 45 years, annual rainfall in our general area has fallen by 50mm per 10 years.
Hot nights (a particular signature effect of greenhouse gases) have increased considerably:
http://tinyurl.com/jkbzuxr
The one the farmers are all familiar with is the dramatic increase in growing season length:
http://tinyurl.com/zn9gwwr
And another signature effect of global warming is of course the decrease in frost nights:
http://tinyurl.com/zb3sqta
.

The deserts of Africa weren’t always deserts either, but they became that way well before mankind started using fossil fuels. Glaciers were melting long before we started using CFCs. The Australian landscape was greener and more fertile, but turned into sand covered barren land centuries before white man stepped foot on Sydney cove.
I do not for a second believe our climate isn’t changing, but I do see the undeniable fact that it began to change well before the industrial era and well before mankind began polluting the air.
What I do not believe is the sensationalist hype that we are having a man-made catastrophic event, when history quite clearly shows it has happened before many times and the planet is about ready to go through one of those “apocalyptic” phases. Eventually it will turn around and do the exact opposite, like it has done before. To think that we have caused this problem is overstating the power we have of controlling the planet’s natural functions. Ice-age cycles are natural, we just happen to be in the end stages of warmth just prior to the next one. The rhetoric around global warming is an attempt for world leaders to gain control of the people, to extract more revenue from them under the guise of “protecting us” from ourselves. If the governments of the world were serious about changing our emissions, if the consequences were so dire and proven beyond a doubt to be cataclysmic, why does it seem to be all about charging everybody more for fossil fuels or their “carbon footprint” instead of spending money on alternatives and restricting the supply of the evil products? Making us pay extra isn’t changing anything, but it certainly is putting a lot more into the global business’ and leaders’ pockets. Globally they cannot reach consensus on what everybody is going to do about it, rather they talk in tiny percentages of change over decades to come. Countries that try to do the “right thing” are losing financially against foreign entities who disregard the threat and continue using their cheaper, dirty power to give themselves the advantage in manufacturing. Customers are paying higher and higher energy prices, but still the power comes through the same transmission lines from the same coal-fired power stations. The media keeps prophesying the rapidly approaching doom of the world, but statistics supporting the fantasy only go back to the infancy of record keeping, some hundred or so years ago. With that tiny scope of information, they extrapolate a new phenomenon, without alluding to the fact that it has already been happening for thousands of years. The Egyptian desert was only 10,000 years ago a rich, fertile land. Did it’s demise into a sandy wasteland result from man’s interference? No. It was climate change then, as it is now, a naturally occurring process.
The current climate change panic, is comparable to people of old believing that the seers could make the earth go dark. In fact it was from knowing the cycle of the sun and predicting the next solar eclipse that gave them this magical ability of foresight. Signs and wonders my friends, on a global scale, to sucker everybody into the lie for the profit of the few.

Mysteryman said :

“Canberra bushfires?”
The same ones that have happened before “climate change” was invented?

Exactly how many times have two major bushfires raged through Canberra in short succession killing citizens and destroying hundreds of houses after an extraordinarily long drought that seems to have left Lake George permanently dry?

pink little birdie said :

Mysteryman said :

dungfungus said :

Just to put some measure on the unthinkable sums that were either stolen or vaporised by the 2007 GFC, Dallas Fed estimated that by 2014 it had cost approximately US$25,000,000,000,000 and is still going strong.

It is the theft that keeps on stealing:

https://dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/staff/staff1301.pdf

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/eclett/2013/el1307.cfm

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/foreign-affairs/so-how-much-did-the-gfc-cost-20140121-iy7vy

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-much-did-the-financial-crisis-cost/

That will be piddling nothing to when the consequences of burning billions of tonnes of carbon per year is sheeted home, in lost arable land, food production, inundation, destroyed environment, extreme weather events, low lying (most) huge cities lost, the cost of having to deal with more extreme weather day to day, population movements, conflict and loss of life.

You can see a few tasters of this in the Super Cyclones hitting south east Asia, the hurricanes damaging the eats and south coasts of the USA, the masive floods striking Europe, the methane eruptions Siberian tundra that could portend many more to come, the Canberra bushfires, and the current Fort Masters fire in Canada that has destroyed 1600 buildings, 85,000 hectares and forced 88,000 from their homes. Ironic how this has happened to a community living off the filthy Alberta oil sands mines.

The Canberra Mr Fluffy bad choices and “going for the cheap” has demonstrated the short term thinking that dumped a massive clean up bill on the entire population, nearly all of whom had nothing to do with the “savings” a small number made.

In the case of current bad environmental choices we have all played some part in that, only now that the reality is well and truly out, and many are trying to correct past mistakes, some are insistently ignoring what they don’t want to hear and loudly demanding the same bad choices… “Just because!!!!”

“Canberra bushfires?”
The same ones that have happened before “climate change” was invented?

Climate change is readily seen by those who feel like checking out the BoM’s time series and trend maps.
http://tinyurl.com/ommxkbl
As you can see, over the last 45 years, annual rainfall in our general area has fallen by 50mm per 10 years.
Hot nights (a particular signature effect of greenhouse gases) have increased considerably:
http://tinyurl.com/jkbzuxr
The one the farmers are all familiar with is the dramatic increase in growing season length:
http://tinyurl.com/zn9gwwr
And another signature effect of global warming is of course the decrease in frost nights:
http://tinyurl.com/zb3sqta

These pictures provide a visual understanding of just how our climate is changing. That it *is* changing is beyond doubt by any rational person who is willing to learn the facts.

It also used to snow in Canberra.

pink little birdie said :

Mysteryman said :

dungfungus said :

Just to put some measure on the unthinkable sums that were either stolen or vaporised by the 2007 GFC, Dallas Fed estimated that by 2014 it had cost approximately US$25,000,000,000,000 and is still going strong.

It is the theft that keeps on stealing:

https://dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/staff/staff1301.pdf

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/eclett/2013/el1307.cfm

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/foreign-affairs/so-how-much-did-the-gfc-cost-20140121-iy7vy

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-much-did-the-financial-crisis-cost/

That will be piddling nothing to when the consequences of burning billions of tonnes of carbon per year is sheeted home, in lost arable land, food production, inundation, destroyed environment, extreme weather events, low lying (most) huge cities lost, the cost of having to deal with more extreme weather day to day, population movements, conflict and loss of life.

You can see a few tasters of this in the Super Cyclones hitting south east Asia, the hurricanes damaging the eats and south coasts of the USA, the masive floods striking Europe, the methane eruptions Siberian tundra that could portend many more to come, the Canberra bushfires, and the current Fort Masters fire in Canada that has destroyed 1600 buildings, 85,000 hectares and forced 88,000 from their homes. Ironic how this has happened to a community living off the filthy Alberta oil sands mines.

The Canberra Mr Fluffy bad choices and “going for the cheap” has demonstrated the short term thinking that dumped a massive clean up bill on the entire population, nearly all of whom had nothing to do with the “savings” a small number made.

In the case of current bad environmental choices we have all played some part in that, only now that the reality is well and truly out, and many are trying to correct past mistakes, some are insistently ignoring what they don’t want to hear and loudly demanding the same bad choices… “Just because!!!!”

“Canberra bushfires?”
The same ones that have happened before “climate change” was invented?

Climate change is readily seen by those who feel like checking out the BoM’s time series and trend maps.
http://tinyurl.com/ommxkbl
As you can see, over the last 45 years, annual rainfall in our general area has fallen by 50mm per 10 years.
Hot nights (a particular signature effect of greenhouse gases) have increased considerably:
http://tinyurl.com/jkbzuxr
The one the farmers are all familiar with is the dramatic increase in growing season length:
http://tinyurl.com/zn9gwwr
And another signature effect of global warming is of course the decrease in frost nights:
http://tinyurl.com/zb3sqta

These pictures provide a visual understanding of just how our climate is changing. That it *is* changing is beyond doubt by any rational person who is willing to learn the facts.

The weather bureau has admitted to doctoring temperature data history to suit the climate change story. So anything on there is not true and is fancyfull.

They couldn’t predict the gale force winds we had 2 days ago. No warning was released until it was here on us. The morning forecast was light winds by 1.00pm the winds were gusting at 85kph.

pink little birdie said :

Mysteryman said :

dungfungus said :

Just to put some measure on the unthinkable sums that were either stolen or vaporised by the 2007 GFC, Dallas Fed estimated that by 2014 it had cost approximately US$25,000,000,000,000 and is still going strong.

It is the theft that keeps on stealing:

https://dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/staff/staff1301.pdf

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/eclett/2013/el1307.cfm

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/foreign-affairs/so-how-much-did-the-gfc-cost-20140121-iy7vy

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-much-did-the-financial-crisis-cost/

That will be piddling nothing to when the consequences of burning billions of tonnes of carbon per year is sheeted home, in lost arable land, food production, inundation, destroyed environment, extreme weather events, low lying (most) huge cities lost, the cost of having to deal with more extreme weather day to day, population movements, conflict and loss of life.

You can see a few tasters of this in the Super Cyclones hitting south east Asia, the hurricanes damaging the eats and south coasts of the USA, the masive floods striking Europe, the methane eruptions Siberian tundra that could portend many more to come, the Canberra bushfires, and the current Fort Masters fire in Canada that has destroyed 1600 buildings, 85,000 hectares and forced 88,000 from their homes. Ironic how this has happened to a community living off the filthy Alberta oil sands mines.

The Canberra Mr Fluffy bad choices and “going for the cheap” has demonstrated the short term thinking that dumped a massive clean up bill on the entire population, nearly all of whom had nothing to do with the “savings” a small number made.

In the case of current bad environmental choices we have all played some part in that, only now that the reality is well and truly out, and many are trying to correct past mistakes, some are insistently ignoring what they don’t want to hear and loudly demanding the same bad choices… “Just because!!!!”

“Canberra bushfires?”
The same ones that have happened before “climate change” was invented?

Climate change is readily seen by those who feel like checking out the BoM’s time series and trend maps.
http://tinyurl.com/ommxkbl
As you can see, over the last 45 years, annual rainfall in our general area has fallen by 50mm per 10 years.
Hot nights (a particular signature effect of greenhouse gases) have increased considerably:
http://tinyurl.com/jkbzuxr
The one the farmers are all familiar with is the dramatic increase in growing season length:
http://tinyurl.com/zn9gwwr
And another signature effect of global warming is of course the decrease in frost nights:
http://tinyurl.com/zb3sqta

These pictures provide a visual understanding of just how our climate is changing. That it *is* changing is beyond doubt by any rational person who is willing to learn the facts.

I’ll assume that is your way of saying “yes, the Canberra bushfires have nothing to do with “climate change” then?

Mysteryman said :

dungfungus said :

Just to put some measure on the unthinkable sums that were either stolen or vaporised by the 2007 GFC, Dallas Fed estimated that by 2014 it had cost approximately US$25,000,000,000,000 and is still going strong.

It is the theft that keeps on stealing:

https://dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/staff/staff1301.pdf

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/eclett/2013/el1307.cfm

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/foreign-affairs/so-how-much-did-the-gfc-cost-20140121-iy7vy

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-much-did-the-financial-crisis-cost/

That will be piddling nothing to when the consequences of burning billions of tonnes of carbon per year is sheeted home, in lost arable land, food production, inundation, destroyed environment, extreme weather events, low lying (most) huge cities lost, the cost of having to deal with more extreme weather day to day, population movements, conflict and loss of life.

You can see a few tasters of this in the Super Cyclones hitting south east Asia, the hurricanes damaging the eats and south coasts of the USA, the masive floods striking Europe, the methane eruptions Siberian tundra that could portend many more to come, the Canberra bushfires, and the current Fort Masters fire in Canada that has destroyed 1600 buildings, 85,000 hectares and forced 88,000 from their homes. Ironic how this has happened to a community living off the filthy Alberta oil sands mines.

The Canberra Mr Fluffy bad choices and “going for the cheap” has demonstrated the short term thinking that dumped a massive clean up bill on the entire population, nearly all of whom had nothing to do with the “savings” a small number made.

In the case of current bad environmental choices we have all played some part in that, only now that the reality is well and truly out, and many are trying to correct past mistakes, some are insistently ignoring what they don’t want to hear and loudly demanding the same bad choices… “Just because!!!!”

“Canberra bushfires?”
The same ones that have happened before “climate change” was invented?

Climate change is readily seen by those who feel like checking out the BoM’s time series and trend maps.
http://tinyurl.com/ommxkbl
As you can see, over the last 45 years, annual rainfall in our general area has fallen by 50mm per 10 years.
Hot nights (a particular signature effect of greenhouse gases) have increased considerably:
http://tinyurl.com/jkbzuxr
The one the farmers are all familiar with is the dramatic increase in growing season length:
http://tinyurl.com/zn9gwwr
And another signature effect of global warming is of course the decrease in frost nights:
http://tinyurl.com/zb3sqta

These pictures provide a visual understanding of just how our climate is changing. That it *is* changing is beyond doubt by any rational person who is willing to learn the facts.

dungfungus said :

Just to put some measure on the unthinkable sums that were either stolen or vaporised by the 2007 GFC, Dallas Fed estimated that by 2014 it had cost approximately US$25,000,000,000,000 and is still going strong.

It is the theft that keeps on stealing:

https://dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/staff/staff1301.pdf

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/eclett/2013/el1307.cfm

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/foreign-affairs/so-how-much-did-the-gfc-cost-20140121-iy7vy

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-much-did-the-financial-crisis-cost/

That will be piddling nothing to when the consequences of burning billions of tonnes of carbon per year is sheeted home, in lost arable land, food production, inundation, destroyed environment, extreme weather events, low lying (most) huge cities lost, the cost of having to deal with more extreme weather day to day, population movements, conflict and loss of life.

You can see a few tasters of this in the Super Cyclones hitting south east Asia, the hurricanes damaging the eats and south coasts of the USA, the masive floods striking Europe, the methane eruptions Siberian tundra that could portend many more to come, the Canberra bushfires, and the current Fort Masters fire in Canada that has destroyed 1600 buildings, 85,000 hectares and forced 88,000 from their homes. Ironic how this has happened to a community living off the filthy Alberta oil sands mines.

The Canberra Mr Fluffy bad choices and “going for the cheap” has demonstrated the short term thinking that dumped a massive clean up bill on the entire population, nearly all of whom had nothing to do with the “savings” a small number made.

In the case of current bad environmental choices we have all played some part in that, only now that the reality is well and truly out, and many are trying to correct past mistakes, some are insistently ignoring what they don’t want to hear and loudly demanding the same bad choices… “Just because!!!!”

“Canberra bushfires?”
The same ones that have happened before “climate change” was invented?

Just to put some measure on the unthinkable sums that were either stolen or vaporised by the 2007 GFC, Dallas Fed estimated that by 2014 it had cost approximately US$25,000,000,000,000 and is still going strong.

It is the theft that keeps on stealing:

https://dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/staff/staff1301.pdf

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/eclett/2013/el1307.cfm

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/foreign-affairs/so-how-much-did-the-gfc-cost-20140121-iy7vy

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-much-did-the-financial-crisis-cost/

That will be piddling nothing to when the consequences of burning billions of tonnes of carbon per year is sheeted home, in lost arable land, food production, inundation, destroyed environment, extreme weather events, low lying (most) huge cities lost, the cost of having to deal with more extreme weather day to day, population movements, conflict and loss of life.

You can see a few tasters of this in the Super Cyclones hitting south east Asia, the hurricanes damaging the eats and south coasts of the USA, the masive floods striking Europe, the methane eruptions Siberian tundra that could portend many more to come, the Canberra bushfires, and the current Fort Masters fire in Canada that has destroyed 1600 buildings, 85,000 hectares and forced 88,000 from their homes. Ironic how this has happened to a community living off the filthy Alberta oil sands mines.

The Canberra Mr Fluffy bad choices and “going for the cheap” has demonstrated the short term thinking that dumped a massive clean up bill on the entire population, nearly all of whom had nothing to do with the “savings” a small number made.

In the case of current bad environmental choices we have all played some part in that, only now that the reality is well and truly out, and many are trying to correct past mistakes, some are insistently ignoring what they don’t want to hear and loudly demanding the same bad choices… “Just because!!!!”

John Hargreaves said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

HenryBG said :

So the raw materials come from our own land? The panels aren’t required to be imported from China, Germany, USA or anywhere else by boat? Very green indeed.

Cleverly, we are allowing the Chinese to deplete their stock of rare earths in making LCD screens, solar panels, and other such technology that requires them.
Meanwhile, we are well-supplied with our own, for future use:
http://www.australianrareearths.com/known-rees-resources-reserves.html

Mordd said :

It’s the same situation with the bird blenders with components being made offshore and transported here.

It always warms the cockles of my heart to see your sincere concern for the environment, Dungers.

Well, getting a “warm feeling” is what it is all about, isn’t it?

We’ve been through the enormous number of birds that Coal fired plants kill as a opposed to the relative small number of wind farms, but who cares? There is no rhyme nor reason to any of it. Just anything to prop up the “feeling” you have about science, the environment or anything except your false economies that will be the biggest bill shifted to the world’s population by a few greedy individuals ever, making every Grand Theft Wall Street Event look kindergarten by comparison.

There is a transmission grid in NSW, QLD, VIC and SA that are connected together with state interconnectors to form the National grid. Tasmania is involved as well but differently. Each state has it’s own “market” so there is often quite different prices in each state. Some power flows between states but generally the idea is to have the load and generation near balanced in each state. Generators bid to supply a block of generation and they are put on line purely on price if there is enough transmission capacity to get to the load. So a coal station might bid 5000MW at $5, hydro might bid 3000MW at $95 gas might bid 2000MW at $100 Diesel 100MW at $500. So as the demand increases, the more expensive generators (with higher running costs) get the nod to start. Once demand gets above the coal capacity, prices go up dramatically. Wind adds great complexity to this. If it is windy, they generate, so in order to make sure they are allowed to be “on” they need to bid in low. $0 is common. Everyone gets highest bid price of the “on” generators, so they bid $0 knowing that there be at least some coal on as well to get their price up. This is why they need “green” money. They bid in at below break even and rely on the green money to get into profit.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

HenryBG said :

So the raw materials come from our own land? The panels aren’t required to be imported from China, Germany, USA or anywhere else by boat? Very green indeed.

Cleverly, we are allowing the Chinese to deplete their stock of rare earths in making LCD screens, solar panels, and other such technology that requires them.
Meanwhile, we are well-supplied with our own, for future use:
http://www.australianrareearths.com/known-rees-resources-reserves.html

Mordd said :

It’s the same situation with the bird blenders with components being made offshore and transported here.

It always warms the cockles of my heart to see your sincere concern for the environment, Dungers.

Well, getting a “warm feeling” is what it is all about, isn’t it?

Sorry my mistake.

1 kg of silicon produces 79,000 kw/hrs over 50 years vs 1.3 kw/hrs for coal.

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

carnardly said :

No coal power plants have been shutdown though ? All this is doing is simply shifting the cost of green power onto the ACT giving us the same coal power we would have had. Instead the coal is used elsewhere for the rest of Australia or sold overseas. Given the ACT has bugger all industry this is an easy win. However it also says that we don’t want new industry in the ACT as electricity prices would be at a premium.

Try going solar in SA where half of the power is used by BHP.

Where is the solar to offer the creation of the wind farm?

Global warming will probably make Australia more green. More CO2 more plant growth.

There are plans to replace coal fired power stations (Liddell in NSW is the first) with on demand, slightly less polluting than coal gas fired generators to cover peak demand and no-supply of wind and solar power.
These are like installing those expensive desalination plants which have to be kept on standby yet they are used very little or not at all adding to the cost of providing electricity.
Funny how public sentiment is being turned against coal. It is now always reffered to as “dirty coal”. Soon, large blocks of coal will be dragged into Garema Place where warmists can throw stones at it (they can’t burn it as that would release carbon pollution)

Terrible how “public sentiment is being turned”, despite a valiant rearguard action by these major league rent-seekers:

http://littleblackrock.com.au/#home

Undeniable facts at that link, thanks!

ROTHFL! Undeniable?

I gather you “liked” them and that made them “facts”.

rommeldog56 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

TuggLife said :

Henry I agree, but my question remains: Will there be some kind of increase in the low income supplement for electricity to offset this for the most disadvantaged in our community?

By “disadvantaged” I assume you are referring to the 40% of Australian households that currently contribute no net tax?

At some point, those who are living comfortably at the expense of those of us who pay tax are going to have to stop demanding ever more handouts.

You are talking about politicians and large business owners I assume?

No, I am not talking about the 100-odd households in this country whose income exceeds $1million and yet who for some reason do not pay tax, I am referring to the 2million+ households in this country which contribute no net contribution to the government’s tax income and who are forever bleating about ever more middle-class welfare.

It’s actually becoming a scary fact that the the number of people who *vote* is rapidly approaching a 2:1 ration with the number of people who pay tax.

Soon, the people who live on handouts will outnumber the people who pay tax. Then what? Keep voting in populist governments promising ever more hand-outs at the expense of the minority of us that has to fund all this scrounging?

Look at the budget – tax cuts, Insane populilsm. John Howard caused our budget structural deficit by selling evferythign off and giving loads of tax cuts. Everybody knows about the structural issue. Everybody *should* know that tax cust are not the issue. The welfare bill this year is set to reach $150billion.
$150billion.
This is utter madness. And we can’t afford it – these scroungers need to be re-assessed and thrown off the scrounge.

Im going online to buy on old diesel generator and going off grid , hope my greenie neighbours like the fumes down wind … and im also putting in two more wood fires … the good ol open fire type …ah now to buy a chainsaw and find a few trees down the local park that are looking a bit old and shabby ….. life us going to be great no power bills to pay

Bravo, ACT has the lowest prices for power in Australia. In Tassie its 27c/KWhr, my peak with ACTEW is 15.7c + GST. Its smart to buy now and lock in long term contracts while prices are low and the market is favourable because of dithering in other states and federally. The world is moving towards renewables. Because were on the east coast grid the actual generating facilities can be anywhere in the eastern states. And wind blows at night (and if you have enough spread around its always windy somewhere), hydro provides base and peak load (ie just release water when its needed) and any increase in cost is mostly being offset by efficiency reductions (ie dont use as much power so come out even). There’s also smart appliances now, passive solar houses etc. Good to see the ACT showing leadership and getting in on a new wave of technology which is growing massively and will lead to jobs and exports of the future. And as many have remarked, the cost of doing nothing and damage imposed by climate change will be far greater. And prices massively went up in other States because of reasons nothing to do with renewables – in NSW for instance it went up by something like 50+% over a year or two around 2010 because of poles and wires infrastructure costs and because the then State Govt jacked up the prices of State owned utility to plug holes in the State budget, then blamed the Federal carbon tax (which was minor as a %, and funny when it was removed prices didn’t come back down much if at all). Yes I can understand people on low incomes struggle with any price increases so discussion of discounts and assistance is reasonable, but otherwise we have 1st or 2nd highest average incomes in the country, and lowest prices, so were in the best place to be able to afford it and manage.

HenryBG said :

So the raw materials come from our own land? The panels aren’t required to be imported from China, Germany, USA or anywhere else by boat? Very green indeed.

Cleverly, we are allowing the Chinese to deplete their stock of rare earths in making LCD screens, solar panels, and other such technology that requires them.
Meanwhile, we are well-supplied with our own, for future use:
http://www.australianrareearths.com/known-rees-resources-reserves.html

Mordd said :

It’s the same situation with the bird blenders with components being made offshore and transported here.

It always warms the cockles of my heart to see your sincere concern for the environment, Dungers.

HenryBG said :

Acton said :

buzz819 said :

What materials used in renewables don’t need to be mined from the ground?
Wind power uses lots of metal. Solar needs ultra pure silicon.
Solar needs almost as much energy that the cells will produce. Rooftop Solaris terrible roi

Everything needs materials and energy to be constructed. When comparing the amount of land and energy needed to construct and operate a solar farm vs a coal fired power plant then its pretty clear which is better. Especially when you factor in the footprint from transporting coal across the country and the globe.

So the raw materials come from our own land? The panels aren’t required to be imported from China, Germany, USA or anywhere else by boat? Very green indeed.

It’s the same situation with the bird blenders with components being made offshore and transported here.

wildturkeycanoe7:00 am 05 May 16

Acton said :

buzz819 said :

What materials used in renewables don’t need to be mined from the ground?
Wind power uses lots of metal. Solar needs ultra pure silicon.
Solar needs almost as much energy that the cells will produce. Rooftop Solaris terrible roi

Everything needs materials and energy to be constructed. When comparing the amount of land and energy needed to construct and operate a solar farm vs a coal fired power plant then its pretty clear which is better. Especially when you factor in the footprint from transporting coal across the country and the globe.

So the raw materials come from our own land? The panels aren’t required to be imported from China, Germany, USA or anywhere else by boat? Very green indeed.

wildturkeycanoe6:50 am 05 May 16

wildturkeycanoe said :

TuggLife said :

Henry I agree, but my question remains: Will there be some kind of increase in the low income supplement for electricity to offset this for the most disadvantaged in our community?

By “disadvantaged” I assume you are referring to the 40% of Australian households that currently contribute no net tax?

At some point, those who are living comfortably at the expense of those of us who pay tax are going to have to stop demanding ever more handouts.

You are talking about politicians and large business owners I assume?

Simon Corbell’s office has promised to answer my question on behalf of the Government as soon they can, as has Nicole Lawders office for the Opposition.

I asked if the Libs would be tearing up the 2020 target policy if elected. And asked all of them (Labor/Libs/Green) if they would be increasing the low income or pensioner electricity supplements with the policy in place.

HiddenDragon said :

Maya123 said :

Mysteryman said :

I like renewables because i like technology but there are a couple of basic things that people need to understand. NSW has a grid which is interconnected with other states. Canberra is just another city on the NSW grid. It therefore cannot choose to get renewable power from where ever. The only way he can make good on his promises is to build new generation sources in or close to the ACT. If he does not, he is simply susidising an increased percentage of renewables in the NSW grid. In very simple terms power will flow towards the closest unmet load so wind turbines a long way north are not powering anything in the ACT. Build it here.

Umm, no. Not how it works. No need to have the asset in or near the ACT. The grid and the national energy market allow for the ACT’s renewables commitment to bring on the new supply from where it is cheapest. The fact that there is renewable and non-renewable supply in the grid as a mixture is immaterial. There is also no such thing as the ‘NSW grid’.

I think you’re both right.
NSW has “a grid” in terms of there being infrastructure managed by an entity within that state.
I wouldn’t know the details, but I’m sure a market-based approach to buying power from NSW on the proviso an equivalent amount of power was being sourced from nominated producers, or, a nominated generating capacity was connected to the grid from renewable sources, wouldn’t exactly be rocket-science.
NSW in turn could sub-contract generation or generating capacity either from local sources, or purchase it from another State’s grid.

All of this would be a lot simpler if the neanderthals hadn’t ditched our carbon tax and pumped up subsidies to coal producers and their customers.

You are half right about the NSW grid formerly known as TransGrid. It was sold last year to overseas interests for $10.3 billion dollars. The financial institutions that bought it will be looking for a realistic return on their investment so prices for delivery of electricity will rise.
At one stage the Chinese were going to buy it but to have strategic assets in the hands of a foreign sovereign power is illogical as in the event of a stoush the owners “can flick a switch”.
It worries me that by the time we get our French submarines France may be an Islamic caliphate and they may refuse to keep our equipment running.
Some of us are old enough to remember the debacle about ammunition for the Mirage fighters we bought from Dassault in the 1970s. We had to buy the bullets from the French as exorbitant prices because there was no agreement to manufacture in Australia.

Maya123 said :

Mysteryman said :

I like renewables because i like technology but there are a couple of basic things that people need to understand. NSW has a grid which is interconnected with other states. Canberra is just another city on the NSW grid. It therefore cannot choose to get renewable power from where ever. The only way he can make good on his promises is to build new generation sources in or close to the ACT. If he does not, he is simply susidising an increased percentage of renewables in the NSW grid. In very simple terms power will flow towards the closest unmet load so wind turbines a long way north are not powering anything in the ACT. Build it here.

Umm, no. Not how it works. No need to have the asset in or near the ACT. The grid and the national energy market allow for the ACT’s renewables commitment to bring on the new supply from where it is cheapest. The fact that there is renewable and non-renewable supply in the grid as a mixture is immaterial. There is also no such thing as the ‘NSW grid’.

I think you’re both right.
NSW has “a grid” in terms of there being infrastructure managed by an entity within that state.
I wouldn’t know the details, but I’m sure a market-based approach to buying power from NSW on the proviso an equivalent amount of power was being sourced from nominated producers, or, a nominated generating capacity was connected to the grid from renewable sources, wouldn’t exactly be rocket-science.
NSW in turn could sub-contract generation or generating capacity either from local sources, or purchase it from another State’s grid.

All of this would be a lot simpler if the neanderthals hadn’t ditched our carbon tax and pumped up subsidies to coal producers and their customers.

Mysteryman said :

I like renewables because i like technology but there are a couple of basic things that people need to understand. NSW has a grid which is interconnected with other states. Canberra is just another city on the NSW grid. It therefore cannot choose to get renewable power from where ever. The only way he can make good on his promises is to build new generation sources in or close to the ACT. If he does not, he is simply susidising an increased percentage of renewables in the NSW grid. In very simple terms power will flow towards the closest unmet load so wind turbines a long way north are not powering anything in the ACT. Build it here.

+ 1. I can not see why this compulsory “one size fits all” green energy solution by the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t was necessary in that form. Surely, it would be better to dramatically ramp up concessions for ACT residents to install their own green energy solutions, like solar. That way, ACT householders and ratepayers could become more self sufficient in green electricity, rather than rely on ACTEW. And there has been no mention of what the increase will be for industry and businesses (employers) – just households. Yet another disincentive for businesses to relocate to or establish in, the ACT as we would have lost much of the small comparative advantage we enjoyed with the previously cheaper electricity.

Mysteryman said :

I like renewables because i like technology but there are a couple of basic things that people need to understand. NSW has a grid which is interconnected with other states. Canberra is just another city on the NSW grid. It therefore cannot choose to get renewable power from where ever. The only way he can make good on his promises is to build new generation sources in or close to the ACT. If he does not, he is simply susidising an increased percentage of renewables in the NSW grid. In very simple terms power will flow towards the closest unmet load so wind turbines a long way north are not powering anything in the ACT. Build it here.

Umm, no. Not how it works. No need to have the asset in or near the ACT. The grid and the national energy market allow for the ACT’s renewables commitment to bring on the new supply from where it is cheapest. The fact that there is renewable and non-renewable supply in the grid as a mixture is immaterial. There is also no such thing as the ‘NSW grid’.

rommeldog56 said :

You guys are on fire this week.

Just as long as it is not a coal fire.

devils_advocate said :

Could someone please explain how our current unquestioned commitment to rapid & seemingly endless population growth fits with this noble ambition. Surely a stable population must be part of any holistic strategy aimed at achieving a genuinely sustainable ACT/Australia.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for an explanation.
Growth has become a mantra for all governments. It’s like buying Lotto tickets in the hope that growth will provide dividends to justify the expenditure when usually the opposite is the case. Consolidation is an alien concept.
Stopping all immigration would be the first step in correcting the mistaken belief that “growth is good”.
No one wants to put forward a plan to get Australia out of debt either. Last night’s budget (jobs and growth) couldn’t even address a coherent plan to achieve a budget surplus but there were assurances that budget deficits will increase.

I like renewables because i like technology but there are a couple of basic things that people need to understand. NSW has a grid which is interconnected with other states. Canberra is just another city on the NSW grid. It therefore cannot choose to get renewable power from where ever. The only way he can make good on his promises is to build new generation sources in or close to the ACT. If he does not, he is simply susidising an increased percentage of renewables in the NSW grid. In very simple terms power will flow towards the closest unmet load so wind turbines a long way north are not powering anything in the ACT. Build it here.

Arthur Davies said :

gazket said :

gooterz said :

TuggLife said :

Will there be some kind of increase in the low income supplement for electricity to offset this for the most disadvantaged in our community?

Its an interesting question. The ACT Gov’t (as do all State and Territory Gov’ts), gives a substantial discount to Aged and Disabled pensioners (and other Centrelink beneficiaries too, I think) on electricity, other utility charges, rego fee, ACTION bus fares and in particular, on Annual Rates.

So, as these ACT Gov’t/utility charges are dramatically increasing each year and if that low income discount/supplement by the ACT Gov’t is not increased proportionally, how will these vulnerable ACT residents/ratepayers be able to afford to live here ?? To date, the ACT Gov’t is silent on this.

I will send off some emails to our Labor candidates asking them this very question then. Or Charlotte if you are reading this, maybe you could try asking them as well, you’ll probably have more luck getting an answer than me.

It may also be worth asking Liberal candidates & Greens too. Would a Liberal ACT Govt “tear up” these green energy contracts as they have threatened to do with the Tram contract ?

Good point, ill try and gather a better list of all the candidates and shoot off more emails. Im guessing though that the Libs will say the same thing as when I asked about Public Housing policy “we havent announced all our policies yet and will do so in due time” still I will try asking anyway just in case.

buzz819 said :

What materials used in renewables don’t need to be mined from the ground?

Errr … “the wind”.
Also, “the sun”.

You guys are on fire this week.

Today is about as good as it gets for renewable power generation. It’s windy as blazes, sunny and cool. The numbers at 1pm for NSW (inc ACT) are 9.5% wind and 7% solar. Hydro is about 5%. So on a great day for renewables almost 80% is still coal/gas. Mostly coal. Just saying.

buzz819 said :

What materials used in renewables don’t need to be mined from the ground?
Wind power uses lots of metal. Solar needs ultra pure silicon.
Solar needs almost as much energy that the cells will produce. Rooftop Solaris terrible roi

Everything needs materials and energy to be constructed. When comparing the amount of land and energy needed to construct and operate a solar farm vs a coal fired power plant then its pretty clear which is better. Especially when you factor in the footprint from transporting coal across the country and the globe.

Could someone please explain how our current unquestioned commitment to rapid & seemingly endless population growth fits with this noble ambition. Surely a stable population must be part of any holistic strategy aimed at achieving a genuinely sustainable ACT/Australia.

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

carnardly said :

No coal power plants have been shutdown though ? All this is doing is simply shifting the cost of green power onto the ACT giving us the same coal power we would have had. Instead the coal is used elsewhere for the rest of Australia or sold overseas. Given the ACT has bugger all industry this is an easy win. However it also says that we don’t want new industry in the ACT as electricity prices would be at a premium.

Try going solar in SA where half of the power is used by BHP.

Where is the solar to offer the creation of the wind farm?

Global warming will probably make Australia more green. More CO2 more plant growth.

There are plans to replace coal fired power stations (Liddell in NSW is the first) with on demand, slightly less polluting than coal gas fired generators to cover peak demand and no-supply of wind and solar power.
These are like installing those expensive desalination plants which have to be kept on standby yet they are used very little or not at all adding to the cost of providing electricity.
Funny how public sentiment is being turned against coal. It is now always reffered to as “dirty coal”. Soon, large blocks of coal will be dragged into Garema Place where warmists can throw stones at it (they can’t burn it as that would release carbon pollution)

Terrible how “public sentiment is being turned”, despite a valiant rearguard action by these major league rent-seekers:

http://littleblackrock.com.au/#home

Undeniable facts at that link, thanks!

gazket said :

gooterz said :

TuggLife said :

Will there be some kind of increase in the low income supplement for electricity to offset this for the most disadvantaged in our community?

Its an interesting question. The ACT Gov’t (as do all State and Territory Gov’ts), gives a substantial discount to Aged and Disabled pensioners (and other Centrelink beneficiaries too, I think) on electricity, other utility charges, rego fee, ACTION bus fares and in particular, on Annual Rates.

So, as these ACT Gov’t/utility charges are dramatically increasing each year and if that low income discount/supplement by the ACT Gov’t is not increased proportionally, how will these vulnerable ACT residents/ratepayers be able to afford to live here ?? To date, the ACT Gov’t is silent on this.

I will send off some emails to our Labor candidates asking them this very question then. Or Charlotte if you are reading this, maybe you could try asking them as well, you’ll probably have more luck getting an answer than me.

It may also be worth asking Liberal candidates & Greens too. Would a Liberal ACT Govt “tear up” these green energy contracts as they have threatened to do with the Tram contract ?

dungfungus said :

Terrible how “public sentiment is being turned”, despite a valiant rearguard action by these major league rent-seekers:

http://littleblackrock.com.au/#home

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

carnardly said :

No coal power plants have been shutdown though ? All this is doing is simply shifting the cost of green power onto the ACT giving us the same coal power we would have had. Instead the coal is used elsewhere for the rest of Australia or sold overseas. Given the ACT has bugger all industry this is an easy win. However it also says that we don’t want new industry in the ACT as electricity prices would be at a premium.

Try going solar in SA where half of the power is used by BHP.

Where is the solar to offer the creation of the wind farm?

Global warming will probably make Australia more green. More CO2 more plant growth.

There are plans to replace coal fired power stations (Liddell in NSW is the first) with on demand, slightly less polluting than coal gas fired generators to cover peak demand and no-supply of wind and solar power.
These are like installing those expensive desalination plants which have to be kept on standby yet they are used very little or not at all adding to the cost of providing electricity.
Funny how public sentiment is being turned against coal. It is now always reffered to as “dirty coal”. Soon, large blocks of coal will be dragged into Garema Place where warmists can throw stones at it (they can’t burn it as that would release carbon pollution)

There is a reason we don’t burn coal in our fireplaces anymore, it caused all those deadly smogs and incidents of black lung in London before being banned and shorten the lives of northern Chinese by an estimated 5.5 years, so maybe people think they have swept the problem under the carpet by burning it somewhere else.

Currently we are burning over 8 billion tonnes of coal a year, producing over 16 billion tonnes of CO2, a large amount of even worse methane, billions of tonnes of ash and more radioactive particles than all the world’s nuclear reactors. It is also a significant source of environmental mercury.

The extraction of coal costs huge amounts of energy, usually by burning oil another polluter, and destroys vast amounts of usually fertile land and with a wider impact from acid mine drainage into natural water courses.

Mining directly kills about 12,000 people a year but the pollution adds another 400,000 globally.

So “Dirty Coal” pretty well hits the nail on the head… but not for the Denialists who keep a bunker of it in their beds to spoon with at night.

What materials used in renewables don’t need to be mined from the ground?
Wind power uses lots of metal. Solar needs ultra pure silicon.
Solar needs almost as much energy that the cells will produce. Rooftop Solaris terrible roi

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

carnardly said :

No coal power plants have been shutdown though ? All this is doing is simply shifting the cost of green power onto the ACT giving us the same coal power we would have had. Instead the coal is used elsewhere for the rest of Australia or sold overseas. Given the ACT has bugger all industry this is an easy win. However it also says that we don’t want new industry in the ACT as electricity prices would be at a premium.

Try going solar in SA where half of the power is used by BHP.

Where is the solar to offer the creation of the wind farm?

Global warming will probably make Australia more green. More CO2 more plant growth.

There are plans to replace coal fired power stations (Liddell in NSW is the first) with on demand, slightly less polluting than coal gas fired generators to cover peak demand and no-supply of wind and solar power.
These are like installing those expensive desalination plants which have to be kept on standby yet they are used very little or not at all adding to the cost of providing electricity.
Funny how public sentiment is being turned against coal. It is now always reffered to as “dirty coal”. Soon, large blocks of coal will be dragged into Garema Place where warmists can throw stones at it (they can’t burn it as that would release carbon pollution)

There is a reason we don’t burn coal in our fireplaces anymore, it caused all those deadly smogs and incidents of black lung in London before being banned and shorten the lives of northern Chinese by an estimated 5.5 years, so maybe people think they have swept the problem under the carpet by burning it somewhere else.

Currently we are burning over 8 billion tonnes of coal a year, producing over 16 billion tonnes of CO2, a large amount of even worse methane, billions of tonnes of ash and more radioactive particles than all the world’s nuclear reactors. It is also a significant source of environmental mercury.

The extraction of coal costs huge amounts of energy, usually by burning oil another polluter, and destroys vast amounts of usually fertile land and with a wider impact from acid mine drainage into natural water courses.

Mining directly kills about 12,000 people a year but the pollution adds another 400,000 globally.

So “Dirty Coal” pretty well hits the nail on the head… but not for the Denialists who keep a bunker of it in their beds to spoon with at night.

Kinky.

dungfungus said :

There is a reason we don’t burn coal in our fireplaces anymore.

Is it because there just aren’t enough street urchins to sweep the chimneys? I demand more urchins.

gooterz said :

TuggLife said :

Will there be some kind of increase in the low income supplement for electricity to offset this for the most disadvantaged in our community?

Its an interesting question. The ACT Gov’t (as do all State and Territory Gov’ts), gives a substantial discount to Aged and Disabled pensioners (and other Centrelink beneficiaries too, I think) on electricity, other utility charges, rego fee, ACTION bus fares and in particular, on Annual Rates.

So, as these ACT Gov’t/utility charges are dramatically increasing each year and if that low income discount/supplement by the ACT Gov’t is not increased proportionally, how will these vulnerable ACT residents/ratepayers be able to afford to live here ?? To date, the ACT Gov’t is silent on this.

I will send off some emails to our Labor candidates asking them this very question then. Or Charlotte if you are reading this, maybe you could try asking them as well, you’ll probably have more luck getting an answer than me.

dungfungus said :

carnardly said :

No coal power plants have been shutdown though ? All this is doing is simply shifting the cost of green power onto the ACT giving us the same coal power we would have had. Instead the coal is used elsewhere for the rest of Australia or sold overseas. Given the ACT has bugger all industry this is an easy win. However it also says that we don’t want new industry in the ACT as electricity prices would be at a premium.

Try going solar in SA where half of the power is used by BHP.

Where is the solar to offer the creation of the wind farm?

Global warming will probably make Australia more green. More CO2 more plant growth.

There are plans to replace coal fired power stations (Liddell in NSW is the first) with on demand, slightly less polluting than coal gas fired generators to cover peak demand and no-supply of wind and solar power.
These are like installing those expensive desalination plants which have to be kept on standby yet they are used very little or not at all adding to the cost of providing electricity.
Funny how public sentiment is being turned against coal. It is now always reffered to as “dirty coal”. Soon, large blocks of coal will be dragged into Garema Place where warmists can throw stones at it (they can’t burn it as that would release carbon pollution)

There is a reason we don’t burn coal in our fireplaces anymore, it caused all those deadly smogs and incidents of black lung in London before being banned and shorten the lives of northern Chinese by an estimated 5.5 years, so maybe people think they have swept the problem under the carpet by burning it somewhere else.

Currently we are burning over 8 billion tonnes of coal a year, producing over 16 billion tonnes of CO2, a large amount of even worse methane, billions of tonnes of ash and more radioactive particles than all the world’s nuclear reactors. It is also a significant source of environmental mercury.

The extraction of coal costs huge amounts of energy, usually by burning oil another polluter, and destroys vast amounts of usually fertile land and with a wider impact from acid mine drainage into natural water courses.

Mining directly kills about 12,000 people a year but the pollution adds another 400,000 globally.

So “Dirty Coal” pretty well hits the nail on the head… but not for the Denialists who keep a bunker of it in their beds to spoon with at night.

dungfungus said :

carnardly said :

No coal power plants have been shutdown though ? All this is doing is simply shifting the cost of green power onto the ACT giving us the same coal power we would have had. Instead the coal is used elsewhere for the rest of Australia or sold overseas. Given the ACT has bugger all industry this is an easy win. However it also says that we don’t want new industry in the ACT as electricity prices would be at a premium.

Try going solar in SA where half of the power is used by BHP.

Where is the solar to offer the creation of the wind farm?

Global warming will probably make Australia more green. More CO2 more plant growth.

There are plans to replace coal fired power stations (Liddell in NSW is the first) with on demand, slightly less polluting than coal gas fired generators to cover peak demand and no-supply of wind and solar power.
These are like installing those expensive desalination plants which have to be kept on standby yet they are used very little or not at all adding to the cost of providing electricity.
Funny how public sentiment is being turned against coal. It is now always reffered to as “dirty coal”. Soon, large blocks of coal will be dragged into Garema Place where warmists can throw stones at it (they can’t burn it as that would release carbon pollution)

Terrible how “public sentiment is being turned”, despite a valiant rearguard action by these major league rent-seekers:

http://littleblackrock.com.au/#home

dungfungus said :

There are plans to replace coal fired power stations (Liddell in NSW is the first) with on demand, slightly less polluting than coal gas fired generators to cover peak demand and no-supply of wind and solar power.

It’s funny how the reality of “half as polluting” translates to “slightly less polluting” when Dungfungus’s worldview gets involved…
Aus Dept of Resources Energy and Tourism:
http://tinyurl.com/jlbr2dx
page6:
Emissions intensity in tCO2/eMWh
Coal Subcritical: 0.808-1.376
Coal supercritical : 0.83-0.93
Gas open cycle: 0.62
gas closed cycle: 0.37

dungfungus said :

These are like installing those expensive desalination plants which have to be kept on standby yet they are used very little or not at all adding to the cost of providing electricity.

I fail to see how a plant designed to separate salt from water has anything to do with “providing electricity”.

dungfungus said :

Funny how public sentiment is being turned against coal. It is now always reffered to as “dirty coal”. Soon, large blocks of coal will be dragged into Garema Place where warmists can throw stones at it (they can’t burn it as that would release carbon pollution)

Well, that would make a nice change to the current situation where the Aussie taxpayer is subsidising the coal industry to the tune of $1.8billion every year, not even including the externalised cost of allowing them to emit CO2 for free.

Another interesting fact for you:
http://tinyurl.com/o4ak2pk
“…a significant drop in the price of solar and wind generation costs, …helped arrest cost inflation in electricity generation over the past five years.”
“…utility-scale solar PV and especially onshore wind power are comparable and often lower in countries featuring plentiful resources and appropriate market and regulatory frameworks. Further, while more significant regional variations remain than for baseload technologies, variable renewable technology costs continue to converge towards international benchmarks at the lower end of their cost range.”

In other words, we don’t need to throw rocks at coal, just remove subsidies and adopt cheaper alternatives.

TuggLife said :

Henry I agree, but my question remains: Will there be some kind of increase in the low income supplement for electricity to offset this for the most disadvantaged in our community?

By “disadvantaged” I assume you are referring to the 40% of Australian households that currently contribute no net tax?

At some point, those who are living comfortably at the expense of those of us who pay tax are going to have to stop demanding ever more handouts.

carnardly said :

No coal power plants have been shutdown though ? All this is doing is simply shifting the cost of green power onto the ACT giving us the same coal power we would have had. Instead the coal is used elsewhere for the rest of Australia or sold overseas. Given the ACT has bugger all industry this is an easy win. However it also says that we don’t want new industry in the ACT as electricity prices would be at a premium.

Try going solar in SA where half of the power is used by BHP.

Where is the solar to offer the creation of the wind farm?

Global warming will probably make Australia more green. More CO2 more plant growth.

There are plans to replace coal fired power stations (Liddell in NSW is the first) with on demand, slightly less polluting than coal gas fired generators to cover peak demand and no-supply of wind and solar power.
These are like installing those expensive desalination plants which have to be kept on standby yet they are used very little or not at all adding to the cost of providing electricity.
Funny how public sentiment is being turned against coal. It is now always reffered to as “dirty coal”. Soon, large blocks of coal will be dragged into Garema Place where warmists can throw stones at it (they can’t burn it as that would release carbon pollution)

TuggLife said :

Will there be some kind of increase in the low income supplement for electricity to offset this for the most disadvantaged in our community?

Its an interesting question. The ACT Gov’t (as do all State and Territory Gov’ts), gives a substantial discount to Aged and Disabled pensioners (and other Centrelink beneficiaries too, I think) on electricity, other utility charges, rego fee, ACTION bus fares and in particular, on Annual Rates.

So, as these ACT Gov’t/utility charges are dramatically increasing each year and if that low income discount/supplement by the ACT Gov’t is not increased proportionally, how will these vulnerable ACT residents/ratepayers be able to afford to live here ?? To date, the ACT Gov’t is silent on this.

Nilrem said :

That is good news. Only 4 years to go.

How about being sustainable in other areas. Even Walter Burley Griffin envisioned Canberra as a self sustainable city.

How about the aim of being Australia’s most sustainable city by 2020?

A quick show of hands for all those who instantly oppose any suggestion of leaving this world a better place…

Maya123 said :

Great stuff. Delighted to be a part of this. This thing isn’t going to fix itself and I’m happy to pay what is a miniscule sum in the scheme of things.

“Miniscule” ? If you break it down to a per day increase, its almost nothing too. Never the less, its a substantial pa increase imposed on all households and ratepayers. Add that “miniscule” increase on top of all the other ACT Govt/utilities that have been increasing for years and/or being automatically ratcheted up on a % basis or not every year (including parking charges, Annual Rates, Water/Sewerage, bus fares, rego fees, etc), then in aggregate, its a substantial cost of living increase to all Canberrians. So, rather than dismiss this unnecessary rise in electricity cost as “miniscule”, look at the bigger picture rather than try to obfuscate or cloud the real issue which is the unnecessary increases in ACT Gov’t fees and charges/utility costs due to incredibly poor fiscal priority setting by this ACT Labor Greens Gov’t (despite the current near record level of Territory debt !).

I also noter that early on in the discussion about this move to renewable energies, the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t said that after x number of years (10, I think), the price pa rises due to renewable electricity would decrease – for some contractual reason I didnt understand. Now, they say that this will be achieved by changing your light bulbs instead !

This is (unsurprisingly) just a vote catcher that all ACT voters and ratepayers will have to pay for forever.

switch said :

HiddenDragon said :

Well i’m an avowed Greenie but even i’m not sure if this is a great idea right now, given how much it will raise bill prices. Will there be some kind of increase in the low income supplement for electricity?

We’ve been benefiting from cheap power for decades by failing to cost for the emissions of generating that power.
Those costs are now catching up with us in the form of global warming, sea level rise and changing rainfall patterns.
We are now going to pay. The longer we try to hang onto cheap dirty power, the more we will pay in the long run. It just has to stop.

Henry I agree, but my question remains: Will there be some kind of increase in the low income supplement for electricity to offset this for the most disadvantaged in our community?

All Canberrans should take a day trip to the Snowy Hydro to see how the national electricity grid works.

rommeldog56 said :

When are they banning petrol cars?

Oh snap they aren’t so this is just another platitude to the green vote.

Would love to see the numbers on this, apparently the 100Megawatt was a 1.5 billion dollar investment over a decade or two. Is this double that payment or have they just redone the numbers to say the 250MW plant will occasionally supply 200 MW meaning that occasionally we’ll be 100% renewable?

The next thing they’ll mention is that a fraction of that 3 billion will come back as jobs and growth.
Neglecting what 3 billion dollars could have for Canberra.

…8 months of those “cheap” but oh so polluting cars.

That is good news. Only 4 years to go.

How about being sustainable in other areas. Even Walter Burley Griffin envisioned Canberra as a self sustainable city.

How about the aim of being Australia’s most sustainable city by 2020?

dungfungus said :

“The ACT will target 100% renewable energy use by 2020”
Now energy I suspect comes in many different forms such as electricity, natural gas, petroleum, diesel, LPG and others. Although they are targeting electricity, it won’t mean much when many of Canberra’s houses are heated by LNG, which as far as I know isn’t a renewable energy source. Wood burning heaters are on the other hand, renewable, but they are discouraged.
What is the government going to do about the use of natural gas appliances? Heating the home and hot water services is in many properties done by natural gas and constitutes the highest producer of emissions in the household. Will they have a “buy-back” scheme targeted at gas appliances, with conversions to electricity and solar units subsidised by this scheme?
What are they going to do about diesel and petrol consuming vehicles? It sounds very nice to be buying green electricity but that is only a fraction of the supposed carbon footprint we have as consumers, with transport producing half as much as the home. If they are serious about reaching zero emissions, it needs to be across the board or it means nothing.
Another thing to consider is that when we stop importing power from coal refineries, where is that power going? Are the utilities going to simply wind back their output and bump up the cost of their power to other states to compensate for the loss of revenue? How would the people in N.S.W react to a price increase due to us switching to “green”? I wonder if the power providers have been reimbursed in some way for the loss of revenue by the A.C.T government. It might sound simple in the press release, but changes as significant as this will have an impact across the country, not just here.

If only we could harness all the energy that has been put into fighting the clean-up!

No coal power plants have been shutdown though ? All this is doing is simply shifting the cost of green power onto the ACT giving us the same coal power we would have had. Instead the coal is used elsewhere for the rest of Australia or sold overseas. Given the ACT has bugger all industry this is an easy win. However it also says that we don’t want new industry in the ACT as electricity prices would be at a premium.

Try going solar in SA where half of the power is used by BHP.

Where is the solar to offer the creation of the wind farm?

Global warming will probably make Australia more green. More CO2 more plant growth.

Every time the “climate-change carpetbaggers” read the offerings from the apologists aka warmists contributing to this thread, their eyes must roll with dollar symbols as they jet their way around the globe visiting their polluting industries which make solar panels, batteries and wind turbines.
Some people are making huge amounts of dollars on this scam by the oldest tactic in the book namely exploiting people’s hopes and fears about a natural phenomenon that has been with us since time began.
Common sense has been stifled by opinions of largely self-appointed experts who are quick to quote endless links appearing to support their prophecies of doom.
The chronicles of written history prove that climate changes constantly – the current incessant over-monitoring and reporting is leading to mass hysteria.
It used to be “burn the witch”, soon it will be “burn the denier”.

HiddenDragon said :

Well i’m an avowed Greenie but even i’m not sure if this is a great idea right now, given how much it will raise bill prices. Will there be some kind of increase in the low income supplement for electricity?

If only people had thought of “Not now” before!

Oh well its too late now and anything you can do to stop the rise in bill prices will have little to no effect, so pointless. 😀

Great stuff. Delighted to be a part of this. This thing isn’t going to fix itself and I’m happy to pay what is a miniscule sum in the scheme of things.

HiddenDragon said :

Well i’m an avowed Greenie but even i’m not sure if this is a great idea right now, given how much it will raise bill prices. Will there be some kind of increase in the low income supplement for electricity?

We’ve been benefiting from cheap power for decades by failing to cost for the emissions of generating that power.
Those costs are now catching up with us in the form of global warming, sea level rise and changing rainfall patterns.
We are now going to pay. The longer we try to hang onto cheap dirty power, the more we will pay in the long run. It just has to stop.

dungfungus said :

I gave up on trying to point out the Niagara Of Nonsense on a US website because it never, Never, NEVER ends, and here I am. If someone doesn’t point out the bleedin’ obvious it all stands as “fresh facts”, just made up this morning.

What exactly do these prople think the cost of inaction will be?

It is a never-ending carousel of claptrap, that’s for sure.

Farmers have been seeing the effects of climate change for years, and now even we city-dwellers can plainly see it. And yet…..some of these people aren’t just demanding inaction, they are denying anything is going on.
This isn’t just “denial”, this is clinical “Denial” – they are actually suffering issues.

http://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-will-climate-change-do-economy

“…”although delaying action can reduce costs in the short run, on net, delaying action to limit the effects of climate change is costly.”…”

It’s real, guys, and the economists say we will pay one way or another. $290/year is barely scratching the surface of the losses climate change is going to inflict on each and every one of us over the next decade.

John Moulis said :

What he actually means is that he will use our money to subsidise the same quantity of energy that the ACT consumes, from Green sources. That’s not the same thing as “use”.

dungfungus said :

Acton said :

MERC600 said :

Didn’t they just rise it. Previously the numbers didn’t add up.

That $5.5 seems pretty low.

Unless there is energy storage where does the renewable power come from when the wind stops at night?

Snowy Mountains hydro power and power from the Tarago biomass-fuelled facility?

…and oh look, its dark and the wind is still blowing! …and unusually warm as we almost turn the corner to May.

But don’t get in the way of the blowhards who insist on a dirty future because God loves pollution!

I gave up on trying to point out the Niagara Of Nonsense on a US website because it never, Never, NEVER ends, and here I am. If someone doesn’t point out the bleedin’ obvious it all stands as “fresh facts”, just made up this morning.

What exactly do these prople think the cost of inaction will be? As I point out often enough if they don’t like having to pay to clean up Mr Fluffy what do they think all the global pollution and its consequences is going to cost?

Summer was unusually mild. Wind isnt guaranteed as a power source. Too little at night you use coal. Too much wind you have to lock the turbines so they dont explode.

John Hargreaves said :

When did our government get the right to force us to buy “green” energy? Where is our choice? Nanny state needs to keep their hands off our civil liberties. What if one were to run their household on diesel generators? Will that become illegal? What of people buying power outside of Canberra. All I can say is, once we get to 2020, they better disconnect from the grid of other states to prove we aren’t using coal. I bet they can’t.

Take note it was the last election……

wildturkeycanoe8:15 am 30 Apr 16

“The ACT will target 100% renewable energy use by 2020”
Now energy I suspect comes in many different forms such as electricity, natural gas, petroleum, diesel, LPG and others. Although they are targeting electricity, it won’t mean much when many of Canberra’s houses are heated by LNG, which as far as I know isn’t a renewable energy source. Wood burning heaters are on the other hand, renewable, but they are discouraged.
What is the government going to do about the use of natural gas appliances? Heating the home and hot water services is in many properties done by natural gas and constitutes the highest producer of emissions in the household. Will they have a “buy-back” scheme targeted at gas appliances, with conversions to electricity and solar units subsidised by this scheme?
What are they going to do about diesel and petrol consuming vehicles? It sounds very nice to be buying green electricity but that is only a fraction of the supposed carbon footprint we have as consumers, with transport producing half as much as the home. If they are serious about reaching zero emissions, it needs to be across the board or it means nothing.
Another thing to consider is that when we stop importing power from coal refineries, where is that power going? Are the utilities going to simply wind back their output and bump up the cost of their power to other states to compensate for the loss of revenue? How would the people in N.S.W react to a price increase due to us switching to “green”? I wonder if the power providers have been reimbursed in some way for the loss of revenue by the A.C.T government. It might sound simple in the press release, but changes as significant as this will have an impact across the country, not just here.

Well i’m an avowed Greenie but even i’m not sure if this is a great idea right now, given how much it will raise bill prices. Will there be some kind of increase in the low income supplement for electricity?

What he actually means is that he will use our money to subsidise the same quantity of energy that the ACT consumes, from Green sources. That’s not the same thing as “use”.

Acton said :

MERC600 said :

Didn’t they just rise it. Previously the numbers didn’t add up.

That $5.5 seems pretty low.

Unless there is energy storage where does the renewable power come from when the wind stops at night?

Snowy Mountains hydro power and power from the Tarago biomass-fuelled facility?

…and oh look, its dark and the wind is still blowing! …and unusually warm as we almost turn the corner to May.

But don’t get in the way of the blowhards who insist on a dirty future because God loves pollution!

I gave up on trying to point out the Niagara Of Nonsense on a US website because it never, Never, NEVER ends, and here I am. If someone doesn’t point out the bleedin’ obvious it all stands as “fresh facts”, just made up this morning.

What exactly do these prople think the cost of inaction will be? As I point out often enough if they don’t like having to pay to clean up Mr Fluffy what do they think all the global pollution and its consequences is going to cost?

HiddenDragon6:07 pm 29 Apr 16

“….peaking at around $5.50 per household per week, but Mr Corbell says that will drop off over time and will be largely offset by energy savings from mandated energy efficiency measures….”

Full details of the “mandated energy effiency measures” would be useful, particularly if this is a reference to measures which are in contemplation, but which have not yet been made public.

The “price signals” arising from the move to 100% renewables should be enough for the great majority of households and commercial users – we really don’t need clunky, one-size-fits-all “efficiency measures”, patronisingly dressed up with “smart” as part of their title and enforced by ratepayer funded energy police.

wildturkeycanoe6:04 pm 29 Apr 16

Will this be a mandated legacy we need to pay for even after Labor is kicked out of office, like the tram?

When are they banning petrol cars?

Oh snap they aren’t so this is just another platitude to the green vote.

Would love to see the numbers on this, apparently the 100Megawatt was a 1.5 billion dollar investment over a decade or two. Is this double that payment or have they just redone the numbers to say the 250MW plant will occasionally supply 200 MW meaning that occasionally we’ll be 100% renewable?

The next thing they’ll mention is that a fraction of that 3 billion will come back as jobs and growth.
Neglecting what 3 billion dollars could have for Canberra.

John Hargreaves said :

When did our government get the right to force us to buy “green” energy? Where is our choice? Nanny state needs to keep their hands off our civil liberties. What if one were to run their household on diesel generators? Will that become illegal? What of people buying power outside of Canberra. All I can say is, once we get to 2020, they better disconnect from the grid of other states to prove we aren’t using coal. I bet they can’t.

At about the time that governments gained the right to make law for peace, order and good government.

dungfungus said :

The 100 per cent renewable target will add $290 to the average electricity bill.
Last FY my household electricity bill was $1513, so a $290 increase is in effect a 19%pa increase.
If the average electricity bill in Canberra is around $1500 per year then we can all expect a 19% increase on account of the economically irrational, ideological driven policies of the departing Simon Corbell.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-commits-to-100-per-cent-renewable-energy-target-by-2020-simon-corbell-20160428-goh1l9.html

Will he get the $30,000 “moving allowance” when he leaves?

Acton said :

MERC600 said :

Didn’t they just rise it. Previously the numbers didn’t add up.

That $5.5 seems pretty low.

Unless there is energy storage where does the renewable power come from when the wind stops at night?

Snowy Mountains hydro power and power from the Tarago biomass-fuelled facility?

That is of course if there is any available and even then it will probably be at a premium price.
Canberra has its own biomass generators at the Mugga Lane Resource area. Isn’t this good enough for us to use?

Canberrans will see a significant increase in the power bills in the first year as a result of the move to renewables, peaking at around $5.50 per household per week, but Mr Corbell says that will drop off over time and will be largely offset by energy savings from mandated energy efficiency measures.

It will “drop off”, will it? I’m sure he means for that to sound like the price will go back down, but it won’t. It’s just a sly way of saying “there will be a significant increase in the first year. After that there will be increases but the rate at which it increases won’t be quite as high”.

Also, the “mandated energy efficiency measures” like having my lights replaced by less effective CFL bulbs won’t offset the $250 a year increase in power bills, no matter how Corbell and the born-to-dictate party spin it.

I think renewable energy is a great idea and I genuinely hope we can transition to 100% renewable energy supply. But on the other hand I’m sick of the ever increasing cost to live in this Labor/Green town. Renewable energy isn’t a finite resource. I hope we don’t end up paying for it like it is, but my confidence in this government dwindled long ago.

wildturkeycanoe3:01 pm 29 Apr 16

When did our government get the right to force us to buy “green” energy? Where is our choice? Nanny state needs to keep their hands off our civil liberties. What if one were to run their household on diesel generators? Will that become illegal? What of people buying power outside of Canberra. All I can say is, once we get to 2020, they better disconnect from the grid of other states to prove we aren’t using coal. I bet they can’t.

MERC600 said :

Didn’t they just rise it. Previously the numbers didn’t add up.

That $5.5 seems pretty low.

Unless there is energy storage where does the renewable power come from when the wind stops at night?

Snowy Mountains hydro power and power from the Tarago biomass-fuelled facility?

The 100 per cent renewable target will add $290 to the average electricity bill.
Last FY my household electricity bill was $1513, so a $290 increase is in effect a 19%pa increase.
If the average electricity bill in Canberra is around $1500 per year then we can all expect a 19% increase on account of the economically irrational, ideological driven policies of the departing Simon Corbell.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-commits-to-100-per-cent-renewable-energy-target-by-2020-simon-corbell-20160428-goh1l9.html

Good stuff. Smart move to take advantage of cheaper prices and increase the purchase.

Will this end up like the ‘No Waste by 2010’ target?

Didn’t they just rise it. Previously the numbers didn’t add up.

That $5.5 seems pretty low.

Unless there is energy storage where does the renewable power come from when the wind stops at night?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.