Australia's largest solar farm opens in the ACT

watto23 said :

I was just reading about Galileo and how he was considered a heretic, because his science helped show that the earth circled the sun. It didn’t surprise me that in the 1500-1600’s that this was the case, mbut these days people just refuse to believe any facts or science, especially when it doesn’t suit their religious beliefs or their political beliefs or their business model. That is where the conspiracy is.

As I’ve said in other posts, the alarmism isn’t warranted, but the question is if in say 50 years time, we all suddenly realise that we need to reverse the environmental damage done, will it be too late and is there any harm in doing something now as an insurance policy (other than fossil fuel companies and mining companies complaining) if we do something now?

What was Galileo’s take on climate change?

I was just reading about Galileo and how he was considered a heretic, because his science helped show that the earth circled the sun. It didn’t surprise me that in the 1500-1600’s that this was the case, mbut these days people just refuse to believe any facts or science, especially when it doesn’t suit their religious beliefs or their political beliefs or their business model. That is where the conspiracy is.

As I’ve said in other posts, the alarmism isn’t warranted, but the question is if in say 50 years time, we all suddenly realise that we need to reverse the environmental damage done, will it be too late and is there any harm in doing something now as an insurance policy (other than fossil fuel companies and mining companies complaining) if we do something now?

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

You are the one making the claim about subsidies so let’s hear the details as you see them. I don’t want links – you say it is commonly known what the subsidies are so share the knowledge that is on the tip of your tongue, please.

You’ve already been provided with reams of info on fossil-fuel subsidies, which add up to $400billion/year globally and $10billion/year in Australia.

Why are you now pretending you haven’t seen it?

And, having brought up the subject of irrational behaviour, why are you still dodging these questions?

Why can’t you answer the following questions?

Is it the radiative physics that you disagree with?
IOW, do you dispute the “Greenhouse Effect”?

Is it the recent huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere you disagree with?
IOW, are the scientific measurements of atmospheric CO2 wrong?

Is it the agreed range of values for climate sensitivity you disagree with?
IOW, is the science pointing at 2-3degrees rise in response to a doubling of CO2, wrong?

The information on fossil fuel subsidies I am seeking is a simple explanation that I can compare to the weekly subsidy that Simon Corbell has already stated will be payable by us on solar energy now being supplied by the Royalla thermal-less solar factory.
So, how much subsidy a week are we paying for electricity generated from fossil fuel?
Is that too simple for you to advise?

dungfungus said :

You are the one making the claim about subsidies so let’s hear the details as you see them. I don’t want links – you say it is commonly known what the subsidies are so share the knowledge that is on the tip of your tongue, please.

You’ve already been provided with reams of info on fossil-fuel subsidies, which add up to $400billion/year globally and $10billion/year in Australia.

Why are you now pretending you haven’t seen it?

And, having brought up the subject of irrational behaviour, why are you still dodging these questions?

Why can’t you answer the following questions?

Is it the radiative physics that you disagree with?
IOW, do you dispute the “Greenhouse Effect”?

Is it the recent huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere you disagree with?
IOW, are the scientific measurements of atmospheric CO2 wrong?

Is it the agreed range of values for climate sensitivity you disagree with?
IOW, is the science pointing at 2-3degrees rise in response to a doubling of CO2, wrong?

Snow_Crash said :

dungfungus said :

With respect, I did ask snow_crash to supply his details. I have already heard enough from you.

I’m back. Details? Subsidies? Yes I see there’s been some talk about that since. (I had thought it a commonly known thing but I guess not).

And the contradiction I pointed out to you. (52). Rather than deal with it, you tried to dodge it. Perhaps you realise its importance. Would you like to have another crack at it?

You are the one making the claim about subsidies so let’s hear the details as you see them. I don’t want links – you say it is commonly known what the subsidies are so share the knowledge that is on the tip of your tongue, please.

dungfungus said :

With respect, I did ask snow_crash to supply his details. I have already heard enough from you.

I’m back. Details? Subsidies? Yes I see there’s been some talk about that since. (I had thought it a commonly known thing but I guess not).

And the contradiction I pointed out to you. (52). Rather than deal with it, you tried to dodge it. Perhaps you realise its importance. Would you like to have another crack at it?

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

Err, you are talking about something entirely different namely solar and solar thermal.
.

Hilarious. Beyond parody.

Somebody tell those engineers that solar thermal isn’t solar.

The facility at Royalla subject of this thread is not solar thermal which begs the question as to why it isn’t?
Is it because solar thermal has to be built on flat land with reflectors focused on a central target. The location (like Mojave Desert) is usually remote to grid connections or is it wireless?
The one being built near Forbes is on very flat land on the banks of the Lachlan River.
Here I am explaining this to you who is supposed to be the expert.

dungfungus said :

Err, you are talking about something entirely different namely solar and solar thermal.
.

Hilarious. Beyond parody.

Somebody tell those engineers that solar thermal isn’t solar.

Canberroid said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

The problem with your side of things is that it is just too complex and scientific. .

Nuclear physics is complex and scientific – do you believe in nuclear power?

Wave division multiplexing is complex and scientific – do you believe in fibre optic networks?

DNA is complex and scientific – do you believe in GM crops?

I mean….come on….if you don’t understand it, how can you pretend to have an opinion in it???

I think you’ve nailed it.

As you would nail a coffin lid?

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

All figures look the same late at night (including the KW reading from solar generating factories which are constantly “0”).

I am no longer amazed to discover yet another thing Dungfungus is wrong about.

Solar thermal plants do indeed produce electricity during the night:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-tech/energy-production/solar-thermal-power.htm

http://www.torresolenergy.com/TORRESOL/gemasolar-plant/en

“…permits independent electrical generation for up to 15 hours without any solar feed.”

Scientific progress – wonderful, isn’t it?

Err, you are talking about something entirely different namely solar and solar thermal.
BTW, both solar thermal factories were the subject of massive taxpayer subsidies but no doubt you will find a clean end on that one.
I understand one of the solar thermal factories is being built near Forbes. Perhaps you can tell us all about it.

Antagonist said :

The Celcius scale has been specified the whole time – even before I put my two cents worth in. But you keep waving those arms around if it makes you feel better.

Waving my arms? You’re the one arguing that the world is going to end because you think that a temperature increase of 0.85 degrees celsius to 15 degrees celsius is a 5.67% increase.

2604 said :

Antagonist said :

This is the approximate average temperature from thousands of different weather measurements taken at thousands of different locations across the globe. Some places have temperatures well above 15 deg C. Some places have temperatures well below 0 deg C. The average temperature of the Earth as a whole (not at the north/south pole and not at the equator – we are talking globally) is ~15 deg C. And you quoted a GLOBAL increase of 0.85 deg C. Moving the goal posts is not clever and does little for your credibility.

I wasn’t saying that your global average temperature of 15 degrees was wrong. I have no idea about that.

I was saying that your idea that a 0.85 degree increase in average temperature from 14.15 degrees to 15 degrees represents a 5.67% increase is mathematically incorrect. It would only be correct if zero degrees celsius were the lowest temperature possible. Of course, absolute zero, or even the lowest recorded surface temperature on earth, is far lower than zero degrees celsius.

It’s kind of like saying that an increase in price from $1014.15 to $1015.00 is a 5.67% increase in price.

The Celcius scale has been specified the whole time – even before I put my two cents worth in. But you keep waving those arms around if it makes you feel better.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

The problem with your side of things is that it is just too complex and scientific. .

Nuclear physics is complex and scientific – do you believe in nuclear power?

Wave division multiplexing is complex and scientific – do you believe in fibre optic networks?

DNA is complex and scientific – do you believe in GM crops?

I mean….come on….if you don’t understand it, how can you pretend to have an opinion in it???

I believe in most things I can see Henry.
I have seen a nuclear reactor with electrical transmission lines connected to it so I can reasonably assume nuclear power exists.
I have seen fibre optic cable connected to computer servers so it also exists.
I have seen GM crops and of course I followed closely the criminal actions of people (probably with your beliefs about climate change) who destroyed experimental GM crops at the CSIRO in Canberra.
I don’t know much about DNA – how is it linked to climate change?
Some of the aforementioned all started from scientific theory and manifested into practicable, sensible things.
That is where there is a disconnect with your version of what is causing climate change as the effects predicted have not happened and cannot be seen.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

The problem with your side of things is that it is just too complex and scientific. .

Nuclear physics is complex and scientific – do you believe in nuclear power?

Wave division multiplexing is complex and scientific – do you believe in fibre optic networks?

DNA is complex and scientific – do you believe in GM crops?

I mean….come on….if you don’t understand it, how can you pretend to have an opinion in it???

I think you’ve nailed it.

dungfungus said :

All figures look the same late at night (including the KW reading from solar generating factories which are constantly “0”).

I am no longer amazed to discover yet another thing Dungfungus is wrong about.

Solar thermal plants do indeed produce electricity during the night:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-tech/energy-production/solar-thermal-power.htm

http://www.torresolenergy.com/TORRESOL/gemasolar-plant/en

“…permits independent electrical generation for up to 15 hours without any solar feed.”

Scientific progress – wonderful, isn’t it?

So given that this started as a media release about the Royalla solar farm, I wonder if one of you highly intelligent contributors can tell me how much impact the solar farm will have on halting the predicted temperature rise? Two decimal places will be fine

dungfungus said :

The problem with your side of things is that it is just too complex and scientific. .

Nuclear physics is complex and scientific – do you believe in nuclear power?

Wave division multiplexing is complex and scientific – do you believe in fibre optic networks?

DNA is complex and scientific – do you believe in GM crops?

I mean….come on….if you don’t understand it, how can you pretend to have an opinion in it???

dungfungus said :

Someone said once that a fanatic is one who loses sight of the cause .

A fanatic is somebody who won’t provide a rational basis for his opinions.

Why can’t you answer the following questions?

Is it the radiative physics that you disagree with?
IOW, do you dispute the “Greenhouse Effect”?

Is it the recent huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere you disagree with?
IOW, are the scientific measurements of atmospheric CO2 wrong?

Is it the agreed range of values for climate sensitivity you disagree with?
IOW, is the science pointing at 2-3degrees rise in response to a doubling of CO2, wrong?

Antagonist said :

This is the approximate average temperature from thousands of different weather measurements taken at thousands of different locations across the globe. Some places have temperatures well above 15 deg C. Some places have temperatures well below 0 deg C. The average temperature of the Earth as a whole (not at the north/south pole and not at the equator – we are talking globally) is ~15 deg C. And you quoted a GLOBAL increase of 0.85 deg C. Moving the goal posts is not clever and does little for your credibility.

I wasn’t saying that your global average temperature of 15 degrees was wrong. I have no idea about that.

I was saying that your idea that a 0.85 degree increase in average temperature from 14.15 degrees to 15 degrees represents a 5.67% increase is mathematically incorrect. It would only be correct if zero degrees celsius were the lowest temperature possible. Of course, absolute zero, or even the lowest recorded surface temperature on earth, is far lower than zero degrees celsius.

It’s kind of like saying that an increase in price from $1014.15 to $1015.00 is a 5.67% increase in price.

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

Antagonist said :

The average temperature of the Earth as a whole (not at the north/south pole and not at the equator – we are talking globally) is ~15 deg C. And you quoted a GLOBAL increase of 0.85 deg C.

The operative word is “approximate”.

Casting doubt on the accuracy of temperature measurements has long been a mainstay of the fossil-fuel lobby.

The Koch brother funded a climate-change “sceptic” to reinforce that doubt with the Berkeley Earth Project.

The leader of the project had this to say, after his exhaustive study of the data was completed:

“Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all

“Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

To paraphrase the military strategy genius Helmuth von Moltke, “no plan survives contact with the enemy”.

My alternative: no climate-science-denial survives contact with the facts.

You’ll have noticed that a bunch of behind-the-times climate-science deniers here in Australia are right now trying to resuscitate this “unreliable temperature record” meme.

(Amusingly, when an ex-TV-weatherman tried the same thing in the US, he inadvertantly discovered that the homogenisation process used to improve the quality of the temperature data in the US had introduced a *cooling bias* in the data. Needless to say, he declined to publish his work once he discovered it disproved his assertions.)

Someone said once that a fanatic is one who loses sight of the cause and in turning this thread into a crusade against non-believers Henry you are approaching that point.
If climate scientists said we should all live underground you would probably be the first in line.
The problem with your side of things is that it is just too complex and scientific. Few can understand what you are talking about and without tangible evidence of the predicted catastrophic changes in climate (like visual proof that sea levels are rising) people like me are simply not-interested in the plethora of links and anecdotes from “converted denialists” who were members of the Berkeley Earth Project (whatever that was).
When one is battling to keep warm in winter and pay the bills the furthest things from our minds is the level of CO2 in ice cores drilled from the bottom of some Arctic ice shelf.

What makes you think that climate change (real or perceived) will make winters disappear?
On lighter note, think of all the coal that might be lying under those retreating glaciers…

dungfungus said :

Someone said once that a fanatic is one who loses sight of the cause and in turning this thread into a crusade against non-believers Henry you are approaching that point.

All I’m doing is sharing facts for the purpose of contrasting reality with your opinions.

dungfungus said :

If climate scientists said we should all live underground you would probably be the first in line.
The problem with your side of things is that it is just too complex and scientific.

Geophysicists may one day predict an imminent magnetic field polarity reversal, and as a result recommend we all head underground to avoid the ensuing flood of radiation.

dungfungus said :

Few can understand what you are talking about and without tangible evidence of the predicted catastrophic changes in climate (like visual proof that sea levels are rising) people like me are simply not-interested in the plethora of links and anecdotes from “converted denialists” who were members of the Berkeley Earth Project (whatever that was).
When one is battling to keep warm in winter and pay the bills the furthest things from our minds is the level of CO2 in ice cores drilled from the bottom of some Arctic ice shelf.

Some people care that their opinions reflect the facts.

Others, apparently, don’t.

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

Antagonist said :

The average temperature of the Earth as a whole (not at the north/south pole and not at the equator – we are talking globally) is ~15 deg C. And you quoted a GLOBAL increase of 0.85 deg C.

The operative word is “approximate”.

Casting doubt on the accuracy of temperature measurements has long been a mainstay of the fossil-fuel lobby.

The Koch brother funded a climate-change “sceptic” to reinforce that doubt with the Berkeley Earth Project.

The leader of the project had this to say, after his exhaustive study of the data was completed:

“Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all

“Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

To paraphrase the military strategy genius Helmuth von Moltke, “no plan survives contact with the enemy”.

My alternative: no climate-science-denial survives contact with the facts.

You’ll have noticed that a bunch of behind-the-times climate-science deniers here in Australia are right now trying to resuscitate this “unreliable temperature record” meme.

(Amusingly, when an ex-TV-weatherman tried the same thing in the US, he inadvertantly discovered that the homogenisation process used to improve the quality of the temperature data in the US had introduced a *cooling bias* in the data. Needless to say, he declined to publish his work once he discovered it disproved his assertions.)

Someone said once that a fanatic is one who loses sight of the cause and in turning this thread into a crusade against non-believers Henry you are approaching that point.
If climate scientists said we should all live underground you would probably be the first in line.
The problem with your side of things is that it is just too complex and scientific. Few can understand what you are talking about and without tangible evidence of the predicted catastrophic changes in climate (like visual proof that sea levels are rising) people like me are simply not-interested in the plethora of links and anecdotes from “converted denialists” who were members of the Berkeley Earth Project (whatever that was).
When one is battling to keep warm in winter and pay the bills the furthest things from our minds is the level of CO2 in ice cores drilled from the bottom of some Arctic ice shelf.

“The problem with your side of things is that it is just too complex and scientific.”

Denial on account of complexity? “Too scientific?” Beyond your comprehension?

By that approach, you now need to abandon any science and technology which you do not comprehend.

Do you take such a hesitant stand on medical science?

Explain to me the common-sense-defying yet thoroughly established quantum physics underpinning an oh-so-expensive Magentic Resonance Imaging machine.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

Antagonist said :

The average temperature of the Earth as a whole (not at the north/south pole and not at the equator – we are talking globally) is ~15 deg C. And you quoted a GLOBAL increase of 0.85 deg C.

The operative word is “approximate”.

Casting doubt on the accuracy of temperature measurements has long been a mainstay of the fossil-fuel lobby.

The Koch brother funded a climate-change “sceptic” to reinforce that doubt with the Berkeley Earth Project.

The leader of the project had this to say, after his exhaustive study of the data was completed:

“Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all

“Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

To paraphrase the military strategy genius Helmuth von Moltke, “no plan survives contact with the enemy”.

My alternative: no climate-science-denial survives contact with the facts.

You’ll have noticed that a bunch of behind-the-times climate-science deniers here in Australia are right now trying to resuscitate this “unreliable temperature record” meme.

(Amusingly, when an ex-TV-weatherman tried the same thing in the US, he inadvertantly discovered that the homogenisation process used to improve the quality of the temperature data in the US had introduced a *cooling bias* in the data. Needless to say, he declined to publish his work once he discovered it disproved his assertions.)

Someone said once that a fanatic is one who loses sight of the cause and in turning this thread into a crusade against non-believers Henry you are approaching that point.
If climate scientists said we should all live underground you would probably be the first in line.
The problem with your side of things is that it is just too complex and scientific. Few can understand what you are talking about and without tangible evidence of the predicted catastrophic changes in climate (like visual proof that sea levels are rising) people like me are simply not-interested in the plethora of links and anecdotes from “converted denialists” who were members of the Berkeley Earth Project (whatever that was).
When one is battling to keep warm in winter and pay the bills the furthest things from our minds is the level of CO2 in ice cores drilled from the bottom of some Arctic ice shelf.

dungfungus said :

Antagonist said :

The average temperature of the Earth as a whole (not at the north/south pole and not at the equator – we are talking globally) is ~15 deg C. And you quoted a GLOBAL increase of 0.85 deg C.

The operative word is “approximate”.

Casting doubt on the accuracy of temperature measurements has long been a mainstay of the fossil-fuel lobby.

The Koch brother funded a climate-change “sceptic” to reinforce that doubt with the Berkeley Earth Project.

The leader of the project had this to say, after his exhaustive study of the data was completed:

“Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all

“Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

To paraphrase the military strategy genius Helmuth von Moltke, “no plan survives contact with the enemy”.

My alternative: no climate-science-denial survives contact with the facts.

You’ll have noticed that a bunch of behind-the-times climate-science deniers here in Australia are right now trying to resuscitate this “unreliable temperature record” meme.

(Amusingly, when an ex-TV-weatherman tried the same thing in the US, he inadvertantly discovered that the homogenisation process used to improve the quality of the temperature data in the US had introduced a *cooling bias* in the data. Needless to say, he declined to publish his work once he discovered it disproved his assertions.)

dungfungus said :

You are becoming quite irrational Henry.
Even if I had a brain explosion and joined the ranks of the “we are doomed lobby”, would it make the slightest skerrick of difference?
Very soon, the governments who are funding the climate scientists who you worship will withdraw all funding and the world can become a rational place once again.

Irrational? From Denial, we leap right into Projection.

Do you have any fact-based, rational argument with which to counter my fact-based, rational debunkings of your opinions about climate science?

Let’s try and find a rational basis for your non-acceptance of the known facts of climate science.

For your opinions to be rational, then one or more of the following would have to be true:

Is it the radiative physics that you disagree with?
IOW, do you dispute the “Greenhouse Effect”?

Is it the recent huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere you disagree with?
IOW, are the scientific measurements of atmospheric CO2 wrong?

Is it the agreed range of values for climate sensitivity you disagree with?
IOW, is the science pointing at 2-3degrees rise in response to a doubling of CO2, wrong?

No more talk of “we are doomed”, “worshipping climate scientists”, or wishing for political interference in the conduct of research science.

Let’s keep this rational and respond rationally, shall we? Which of the above three summaries of climate science is/are wrong?

dungfungus said :

Antagonist said :

2604 said :

Antagonist said :

The average global temperature is 15 deg C. If global temperatures have increased by 0.85 deg C over this period, it represents an increase of 5.67%. Over a period of ~130 years that is indeed a significant rise, it is cause for concern, and it is plenty reason enough to start taking action including renewable energy targets.

Good Lord. You do realise that there are temperatures below zero degrees celsius, don’t you?

Following your logic, an increase in average temperature at a very cold place from 1 degree to 2 degrees is actually a 200% increase in average temperature in that place.

This is the approximate average temperature from thousands of different weather measurements taken at thousands of different locations across the globe. Some places have temperatures well above 15 deg C. Some places have temperatures well below 0 deg C. The average temperature of the Earth as a whole (not at the north/south pole and not at the equator – we are talking globally) is ~15 deg C. And you quoted a GLOBAL increase of 0.85 deg C. Moving the goal posts is not clever and does little for your credibility.

The operative word is “approximate”.

The actual average is a bit less than 15 deg C, meaning the increase of 0.85 deg C is a bit more than 5.67%. You just scored an ‘own goal’, LOL.

Antagonist said :

2604 said :

Antagonist said :

The average global temperature is 15 deg C. If global temperatures have increased by 0.85 deg C over this period, it represents an increase of 5.67%. Over a period of ~130 years that is indeed a significant rise, it is cause for concern, and it is plenty reason enough to start taking action including renewable energy targets.

Good Lord. You do realise that there are temperatures below zero degrees celsius, don’t you?

Following your logic, an increase in average temperature at a very cold place from 1 degree to 2 degrees is actually a 200% increase in average temperature in that place.

This is the approximate average temperature from thousands of different weather measurements taken at thousands of different locations across the globe. Some places have temperatures well above 15 deg C. Some places have temperatures well below 0 deg C. The average temperature of the Earth as a whole (not at the north/south pole and not at the equator – we are talking globally) is ~15 deg C. And you quoted a GLOBAL increase of 0.85 deg C. Moving the goal posts is not clever and does little for your credibility.

The operative word is “approximate”.

2604 said :

Sorry, one hundred.

Too shocked to “do the math” properly.

All figures look the same late at night (including the KW reading from solar generating factories which are constantly “0”).

2604 said :

Antagonist said :

The average global temperature is 15 deg C. If global temperatures have increased by 0.85 deg C over this period, it represents an increase of 5.67%. Over a period of ~130 years that is indeed a significant rise, it is cause for concern, and it is plenty reason enough to start taking action including renewable energy targets.

Good Lord. You do realise that there are temperatures below zero degrees celsius, don’t you?

Following your logic, an increase in average temperature at a very cold place from 1 degree to 2 degrees is actually a 200% increase in average temperature in that place.

This is the approximate average temperature from thousands of different weather measurements taken at thousands of different locations across the globe. Some places have temperatures well above 15 deg C. Some places have temperatures well below 0 deg C. The average temperature of the Earth as a whole (not at the north/south pole and not at the equator – we are talking globally) is ~15 deg C. And you quoted a GLOBAL increase of 0.85 deg C. Moving the goal posts is not clever and does little for your credibility.

HenryBG said :

Antagonist said :

The average global temperature is 15 deg C. If global temperatures have increased by 0.85 deg C over this period, it represents an increase of 5.67%. Over a period of ~130 years that is indeed a significant rise, it is cause for concern, and it is plenty reason enough to start taking action including renewable energy targets.

I don’t want to be picky, but it might be better to look at it this way:

I am an environmental scientist. Don’t preach to the choir 🙂

Antagonist said :

The average global temperature is 15 deg C. If global temperatures have increased by 0.85 deg C over this period, it represents an increase of 5.67%. Over a period of ~130 years that is indeed a significant rise, it is cause for concern, and it is plenty reason enough to start taking action including renewable energy targets.

I don’t want to be picky, but it might be better to look at it this way:

If the Earth had NO greenhouse gases at all, the average temperature would be -18degreesC (Stefan Boltzmann law).

Last time the Earth’s energy budget was in equilibrium (ie, Solar radiation coming in balanced by heat leaving Earth), the various greenhouse gases brought this up to 15degreesC.

We have raised the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280ppm to 400ppm. (Not to mention Methane).
The Earth’s energy budget is no longer in equilibrium, so heat will accumulate until that equilibrium is once again reached.

There is no certainty about exactly how much hotter we will get before equilibrium is reached – more heat means more H2O in the atmosphere, and H2O is a powerful greenhouse gas. (On the other hand, more clouds means more solar radiation reflected).

There have been about two dozen scientific studies into this point, called “climate sensitivity”, using various data and methods. They all agree that – using a figure of 560ppm CO2 concentration – the Earth’s new equilibrium point will be anywhere between 1.5 and 8 degrees hotter than it is currently, but they all agree that 2-3 degrees is the most likely.

It’s important to note that different parts of the Earth heat to different extents: the tropics are least affected, whereas the poles are already seeing very large temperature increases, which explains the vast amounts of ice that both polar ice caps have been losing. And this is where we get the worst of the future sea level rise from: the glaciers on Antarctica and Greenland are shoving vastly more ice into the sea than before.

Sorry, one hundred.

Too shocked to “do the math” properly.

Antagonist said :

The average global temperature is 15 deg C. If global temperatures have increased by 0.85 deg C over this period, it represents an increase of 5.67%. Over a period of ~130 years that is indeed a significant rise, it is cause for concern, and it is plenty reason enough to start taking action including renewable energy targets.

Good Lord. You do realise that there are temperatures below zero degrees celsius, don’t you?

Following your logic, an increase in average temperature at a very cold place from 1 degree to 2 degrees is actually a 200% increase in average temperature in that place.

Postalgeek said :

0.85°C may not seem like much to you, but we are talking average global surface temperatures and manageable targets of 2°C, so we are almost half way to that target already and it is highly likely we are going to overshoot it.

Who decided that 1880 was the baseline above which we could only manage a 2 degree increase? And on what basis can we only manage a 2 degree increase?

Even if 2 degrees were the magic increase level above which the world would end, and assuming (as you do) that warming continues at the same pace as in the previous 132 years, it would take roughly another 178 years to reach that 2 degree increase. Why, then, do we hear so many dire predictions (for example, about a 4-degree rise in average temperatures by 2050)?

Postalgeek said :

I assume you understand the implications for agriculture, fish industries, and food security around the planet if we hit 2°C, let alone 4°C or worse?

Yes. Food production in some regions (regions which are currently temperate and tropical) will decrease as those areas become more arid and as average temperatures increase beyond the optimum for crop production. However, food production in other regions will increase as the climate in those regions gets warmer and moves into the optimal range for maximising crop yield.

Antagonist said :

2604 said :

Regarding the first point, between 1880 and 2012, average global surface temperatures increased by 0.85 degrees. Not per year or decade, that was the total increase in the average over that period. That isn’t a huge amount by any means, and certainly not cause to trash the economy and spend billions subsidising feel-good environmental policies like solar feed-in tariffs.

The average global temperature is 15 deg C. If global temperatures have increased by 0.85 deg C over this period, it represents an increase of 5.67%. Over a period of ~130 years that is indeed a significant rise, it is cause for concern, and it is plenty reason enough to start taking action including renewable energy targets.

Why is it that I don’t feel warmer then?

HenryBG said :

The only politics here is the anti-science propaganda being emitted by the Heartland Institute, other anti-science lobby groups, and their useful idiots who repeat it.

The physics behind the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect is well-understood and uncontroversial: solar radiation arriving to Earth is more energetic(shorter wavelengths) than the energy that leaves Earth, (longer wavelengths) therefore the absorption spectra for various molecules such as H2O, CO2, CH4, has the effect of trapping heat that would otherwise leave Earth.

This is basic physics. (Despite this, you *can* find some strange internet sites that ridiculously claim that physics is wrong. Climate-change deniers sometimes get confused about the difference between science, and the mad rantings of nutters on the internet).

One of those greenhouse gases is CO2. Human activity is responsible for the emission of CO2 in large quantities. This is another basic fact. You can’t burn coal without emitting CO2, (even though some strange internet bloggers do try to debate this point.)

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has massively increased over the last couple of hundred years:
http://iter.rma.ac.be/en/img/CO2-concenNEW_EN.jpg
This is another uncontroversial and well-established fact. (However, again, there are some strange sites on the internet that deny these observations. There really isn’t anything you can do about crazy people who insist on denying reality.)

Increased CO2 means more heat trapped on Earth. It is agreed by the published research on this point that the amount of increased heat being trapped here should cause a global 2-degree rise in temperatures, perhaps slightly less, or perhaps a lot more. This point is still being debated.

More heat means changes to sea level, polar ice, and global climate. It is open to debate whether this is a good thing or not. Most normal people say “not”, (although scribblers for the IPA and various other lobby groups have surprising views on this.)

If you ask a climate-change denier to explain exactly what he believes, you will get a confusing mish-mash of tall stories they have read on the internet – strange statistical takes, weird weather anecdotes, or one of their favourites: misquoting an actual scientific study in order to make it say something its authors did not say. There is absolutely no justification in any of the published science on atmospheric physics for believing that climate change caused by human emission of CO2 is anything but real.

You are becoming quite irrational Henry.
Even if I had a brain explosion and joined the ranks of the “we are doomed lobby”, would it make the slightest skerrick of difference?
Very soon, the governments who are funding the climate scientists who you worship will withdraw all funding and the world can become a rational place once again.

Antagonist said :

2604 said :

Regarding the first point, between 1880 and 2012, average global surface temperatures increased by 0.85 degrees. Not per year or decade, that was the total increase in the average over that period. That isn’t a huge amount by any means, and certainly not cause to trash the economy and spend billions subsidising feel-good environmental policies like solar feed-in tariffs.

The average global temperature is 15 deg C. If global temperatures have increased by 0.85 deg C over this period, it represents an increase of 5.67%. Over a period of ~130 years that is indeed a significant rise, it is cause for concern, and it is plenty reason enough to start taking action including renewable energy targets.

Are you advocating a wind turbine on every rooftop?
How does one work out what the average global temperature is anyhow? Where are the readings taken?

Canberroid said :

dungfungus said :

Well, you are back now so let’s see your details about the alleged subsidies to the fossil fuel electricity generators.
I don’t think your peers were very convincing with their offerings either.

Here you go: http://environmentvictoria.org.au/newsite/sites/default/files/useruploads/MF%20and%20EV%202013%20polluter%20handouts%20assessment%20FINAL-4.pdf

Those subsidies aren’t the real issue here. They don’t take into account the externalities of fossil fuels. A lot of things that we buy and use are more expensive due to environmental regulations that affect their manufacturing costs, and I think most of us agree that that is a good thing for society as a whole. Power stations burning coal would have to charge a hell of a lot more for their electricity if they weren’t allowed to release so much CO2 into the atmosphere. But they don’t, because we’re deferring that cost until later.

You know how we bang on about the costs of rising sea levels, ocean acidification devastating fish stocks and biodiversity, increased frequency and severity of floods and droughts, and a reduction of arable land for food production? That is the rest of the price of our cheap energy, and the cost will be paid by the next couple of generations. They are subsidising our cheap fossil fuel use. That’s pretty selfish of us really.

Canberroid said :

dungfungus said :

Well, you are back now so let’s see your details about the alleged subsidies to the fossil fuel electricity generators.
I don’t think your peers were very convincing with their offerings either.

Here you go: http://environmentvictoria.org.au/newsite/sites/default/files/useruploads/MF%20and%20EV%202013%20polluter%20handouts%20assessment%20FINAL-4.pdf

Those subsidies aren’t the real issue here. They don’t take into account the externalities of fossil fuels. A lot of things that we buy and use are more expensive due to environmental regulations that affect their manufacturing costs, and I think most of us agree that that is a good thing for society as a whole. Power stations burning coal would have to charge a hell of a lot more for their electricity if they weren’t allowed to release so much CO2 into the atmosphere. But they don’t, because we’re deferring that cost until later.

You know how we bang on about the costs of rising sea levels, ocean acidification devastating fish stocks and biodiversity, increased frequency and severity of floods and droughts, and a reduction of arable land for food production? That is the rest of the price of our cheap energy, and the cost will be paid by the next couple of generations. They are subsidising our cheap fossil fuel use. That’s pretty selfish of us really.

With respect, I did ask snow_crash to supply his details. I have already heard enough from you.

2604 said :

Regarding the first point, between 1880 and 2012, average global surface temperatures increased by 0.85 degrees. Not per year or decade, that was the total increase in the average over that period. That isn’t a huge amount by any means, and certainly not cause to trash the economy and spend billions subsidising feel-good environmental policies like solar feed-in tariffs.

The average global temperature is 15 deg C. If global temperatures have increased by 0.85 deg C over this period, it represents an increase of 5.67%. Over a period of ~130 years that is indeed a significant rise, it is cause for concern, and it is plenty reason enough to start taking action including renewable energy targets.

dungfungus said :

Well, you are back now so let’s see your details about the alleged subsidies to the fossil fuel electricity generators.
I don’t think your peers were very convincing with their offerings either.

It’s breathtaking – You’ve been advised that fossil fuel subsidies are indeed considerable, and you’ve been provided with information with which to inform yourself.
And yet, you pretend you never saw that information and hunker down in your bunker of invincible ignorance.
This is the true face of “denial”.

http://www.iea.org/publications/worldenergyoutlook/resources/energysubsidies/
The International Energy Agency says, “The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $409 billion in 2010”

And here’s an article about Australia’s $10billion/year in fossil fuel subsidies:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/feb/02/fossil-fuel-subsidies-tony-abbott-spc-ardmona-corporate-welfare

And here’s another article confirming the massive subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuels in that left-wing rag, “The Economist”:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21604170-there-are-moves-around-world-get-rid-energy-subsidies-heres-best-way-going

Southmouth said :

The point that is missed is that no state or territory can afford to build new renewables for 90 percent of its needs if the cost is electricity at 5 times the market price. Unfortunate but true

No state or territory can afford *not* to.

And as studies such as this one show:
http://www.windlab.com/sites/default/files/South_Australian_Wind_Power_Study_2014_Windlab.pdf
Worst case scenario: It isn’t expensive.

More likely scenario: renewables bring down the cost of electricity, as explained here:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/5/8/renewable-energy/explaining-electricity-markets-dummies

dungfungus said :

Well, you are back now so let’s see your details about the alleged subsidies to the fossil fuel electricity generators.
I don’t think your peers were very convincing with their offerings either.

Here you go: http://environmentvictoria.org.au/newsite/sites/default/files/useruploads/MF%20and%20EV%202013%20polluter%20handouts%20assessment%20FINAL-4.pdf

Those subsidies aren’t the real issue here. They don’t take into account the externalities of fossil fuels. A lot of things that we buy and use are more expensive due to environmental regulations that affect their manufacturing costs, and I think most of us agree that that is a good thing for society as a whole. Power stations burning coal would have to charge a hell of a lot more for their electricity if they weren’t allowed to release so much CO2 into the atmosphere. But they don’t, because we’re deferring that cost until later.

You know how we bang on about the costs of rising sea levels, ocean acidification devastating fish stocks and biodiversity, increased frequency and severity of floods and droughts, and a reduction of arable land for food production? That is the rest of the price of our cheap energy, and the cost will be paid by the next couple of generations. They are subsidising our cheap fossil fuel use. That’s pretty selfish of us really.

Snow_Crash said :

dungfungus said :

2604 said :

watto23 said :

The facts point to climate change being real.

Virtually no-one denies that climate change is happening. The conjecture is about:

1. Whether the rate of change is anything to be alarmed at.
2. Whether the change is being caused by, or significantly contributed to by, humans.

Regarding the first point, between 1880 and 2012, average global surface temperatures increased by 0.85 degrees. Not per year or decade, that was the total increase in the average over that period. That isn’t a huge amount by any means, and certainly not cause to trash the economy and spend billions subsidising feel-good environmental policies like solar feed-in tariffs.

Regarding the second point, I don’t see how a link can conclusively be drawn. There is no way of conclusively proving that any change in climate isn’t a naturally occurring phenomenon rather than something caused by industrialisation.

The fact that 97% of scientists believe in a link between human activity and climate change does not constitute scientific proof of that link. Scientific proof is about evidence, not politics.

You have been able to put forward this well presented argument without using demeaning names for specific interest groups and by not referring to an internet link reflects that you are an independent thinker who has the common-sense and intelligence to look past the populist beliefs.
I hope it make others think for themselves.

You contradict yourself.

When I present my argument for the easily demonstrable (as others point out in my absence) you plead for reference.

When you see something agreeable to your own view, you applaud it as independent thinking not requiring any further reference.

Well, you are back now so let’s see your details about the alleged subsidies to the fossil fuel electricity generators.
I don’t think your peers were very convincing with their offerings either.

2604 said :

Regarding the first point, between 1880 and 2012, average global surface temperatures increased by 0.85 degrees. Not per year or decade, that was the total increase in the average over that period. That isn’t a huge amount by any means, and certainly not cause to trash the economy and spend billions subsidising feel-good environmental policies like solar feed-in tariffs.

0.85°C may not seem like much to you, but we are talking average global surface temperatures and manageable targets of 2°C, so we are almost half way to that target already and it is highly likely we are going to overshoot it.
Average increase of 1 degree doesn’t mean the day to day temperature will ratchet up by 1 degree. Average global means average global. Polar regions and the cold snaps sceptics like to lock on to are fighting a losing battle to draw down the average. Warm regions will become significantly warmer with prolonged heat waves. I assume you understand the implications for agriculture, fish industries, and food security around the planet if we hit 2°C, let alone 4°C or worse?

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2014/03/17/climate.change.will.reduce.crop.yields.sooner.we.thought

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-23/ipcc-working-group-ii-report-climate-change-australia/5339654

dungfungus said :

2604 said :

watto23 said :

The facts point to climate change being real.

Virtually no-one denies that climate change is happening. The conjecture is about:

1. Whether the rate of change is anything to be alarmed at.
2. Whether the change is being caused by, or significantly contributed to by, humans.

Regarding the first point, between 1880 and 2012, average global surface temperatures increased by 0.85 degrees. Not per year or decade, that was the total increase in the average over that period. That isn’t a huge amount by any means, and certainly not cause to trash the economy and spend billions subsidising feel-good environmental policies like solar feed-in tariffs.

Regarding the second point, I don’t see how a link can conclusively be drawn. There is no way of conclusively proving that any change in climate isn’t a naturally occurring phenomenon rather than something caused by industrialisation.

The fact that 97% of scientists believe in a link between human activity and climate change does not constitute scientific proof of that link. Scientific proof is about evidence, not politics.

You have been able to put forward this well presented argument without using demeaning names for specific interest groups and by not referring to an internet link reflects that you are an independent thinker who has the common-sense and intelligence to look past the populist beliefs.
I hope it make others think for themselves.

You contradict yourself.

When I present my argument for the easily demonstrable (as others point out in my absence) you plead for reference.

When you see something agreeable to your own view, you applaud it as independent thinking not requiring any further reference.

2604 said :

Virtually no-one denies that climate change is happening. The conjecture is about:

1. Whether the rate of change is anything to be alarmed at.
2. Whether the change is being caused by, or significantly contributed to by, humans.
.

This is not true at all. There is no scientific conjecture on these points, they are instead points you seem to have invented in order to justify your disbelief in reality.

1. Nothing to do with the science, this is risk management. It is the effects of the rate of warming that policy-makers might want to look at. For example, the Pentagon considers it a National Security issue:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121352495
The National Intelligence Council says stuff like:
http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/GlobalTrends_2030.pdf
“Climate change will worsen the outlook for the availability of these critical resources.”
“Dramatic and unforeseen changes are already occurring at a faster rate than expected,”
“Most scientists are not confident of being able to predict such events. Rapid changes in precipitation patterns – such as monsoons in India and the rest of Asia – could sharply disrupt that region’s ability to feed its population.”

2. Humans are without doubt responsible for current global warming. You may have been misled by statements such as “Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans do”. This is completely wrong. The amount of CO2 emitted by humans can be calculated reasonably precisely – about 29 Gt per year. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing every year by about 16Gt.
This is a great logic test for the anti-science mob here – if we’re emitting 29Gt, and the atmosphere increases by 16Gt, what would you conclude is the biggest factor in increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2?
Come on, give it a go….
Current concentrations are – according to some – the highest seen in 15-20million years. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1394.abstract
Which is a worry.

The only politics here is the anti-science propaganda being emitted by the Heartland Institute, other anti-science lobby groups, and their useful idiots who repeat it.

The physics behind the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect is well-understood and uncontroversial: solar radiation arriving to Earth is more energetic(shorter wavelengths) than the energy that leaves Earth, (longer wavelengths) therefore the absorption spectra for various molecules such as H2O, CO2, CH4, has the effect of trapping heat that would otherwise leave Earth.

This is basic physics. (Despite this, you *can* find some strange internet sites that ridiculously claim that physics is wrong. Climate-change deniers sometimes get confused about the difference between science, and the mad rantings of nutters on the internet).

One of those greenhouse gases is CO2. Human activity is responsible for the emission of CO2 in large quantities. This is another basic fact. You can’t burn coal without emitting CO2, (even though some strange internet bloggers do try to debate this point.)

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has massively increased over the last couple of hundred years:
http://iter.rma.ac.be/en/img/CO2-concenNEW_EN.jpg
This is another uncontroversial and well-established fact. (However, again, there are some strange sites on the internet that deny these observations. There really isn’t anything you can do about crazy people who insist on denying reality.)

Increased CO2 means more heat trapped on Earth. It is agreed by the published research on this point that the amount of increased heat being trapped here should cause a global 2-degree rise in temperatures, perhaps slightly less, or perhaps a lot more. This point is still being debated.

More heat means changes to sea level, polar ice, and global climate. It is open to debate whether this is a good thing or not. Most normal people say “not”, (although scribblers for the IPA and various other lobby groups have surprising views on this.)

If you ask a climate-change denier to explain exactly what he believes, you will get a confusing mish-mash of tall stories they have read on the internet – strange statistical takes, weird weather anecdotes, or one of their favourites: misquoting an actual scientific study in order to make it say something its authors did not say. There is absolutely no justification in any of the published science on atmospheric physics for believing that climate change caused by human emission of CO2 is anything but real.

dungfungus said :

2604 said :

watto23 said :

The facts point to climate change being real.

Virtually no-one denies that climate change is happening. The conjecture is about:

1. Whether the rate of change is anything to be alarmed at.
2. Whether the change is being caused by, or significantly contributed to by, humans.

Regarding the first point, between 1880 and 2012, average global surface temperatures increased by 0.85 degrees. Not per year or decade, that was the total increase in the average over that period. That isn’t a huge amount by any means, and certainly not cause to trash the economy and spend billions subsidising feel-good environmental policies like solar feed-in tariffs.

Regarding the second point, I don’t see how a link can conclusively be drawn. There is no way of conclusively proving that any change in climate isn’t a naturally occurring phenomenon rather than something caused by industrialisation.

The fact that 97% of scientists believe in a link between human activity and climate change does not constitute scientific proof of that link. Scientific proof is about evidence, not politics.

You have been able to put forward this well presented argument without using demeaning names for specific interest groups and by not referring to an internet link reflects that you are an independent thinker who has the common-sense and intelligence to look past the populist beliefs.
I hope it make others think for themselves.

It is a well presented argument, but it is not a good argument.

2604 said :

watto23 said :

The facts point to climate change being real.

Virtually no-one denies that climate change is happening. The conjecture is about:

1. Whether the rate of change is anything to be alarmed at.
2. Whether the change is being caused by, or significantly contributed to by, humans.

Regarding the first point, between 1880 and 2012, average global surface temperatures increased by 0.85 degrees. Not per year or decade, that was the total increase in the average over that period. That isn’t a huge amount by any means, and certainly not cause to trash the economy and spend billions subsidising feel-good environmental policies like solar feed-in tariffs.

Regarding the second point, I don’t see how a link can conclusively be drawn. There is no way of conclusively proving that any change in climate isn’t a naturally occurring phenomenon rather than something caused by industrialisation.

The fact that 97% of scientists believe in a link between human activity and climate change does not constitute scientific proof of that link. Scientific proof is about evidence, not politics.

You have been able to put forward this well presented argument without using demeaning names for specific interest groups and by not referring to an internet link reflects that you are an independent thinker who has the common-sense and intelligence to look past the populist beliefs.
I hope it make others think for themselves.

2604 said :

watto23 said :

The facts point to climate change being real.

Virtually no-one denies that climate change is happening. The conjecture is about:

1. Whether the rate of change is anything to be alarmed at.
2. Whether the change is being caused by, or significantly contributed to by, humans.

Regarding the first point, between 1880 and 2012, average global surface temperatures increased by 0.85 degrees. Not per year or decade, that was the total increase in the average over that period. That isn’t a huge amount by any means, and certainly not cause to trash the economy and spend billions subsidising feel-good environmental policies like solar feed-in tariffs.

Regarding the second point, I don’t see how a link can conclusively be drawn. There is no way of conclusively proving that any change in climate isn’t a naturally occurring phenomenon rather than something caused by industrialisation.

The fact that 97% of scientists believe in a link between human activity and climate change does not constitute scientific proof of that link. Scientific proof is about evidence, not politics.

Absolutely brilliant post, I agree with you 99%. The 1% is me being the virtually no-one.

watto23 said :

The facts point to climate change being real.

Virtually no-one denies that climate change is happening. The conjecture is about:

1. Whether the rate of change is anything to be alarmed at.
2. Whether the change is being caused by, or significantly contributed to by, humans.

Regarding the first point, between 1880 and 2012, average global surface temperatures increased by 0.85 degrees. Not per year or decade, that was the total increase in the average over that period. That isn’t a huge amount by any means, and certainly not cause to trash the economy and spend billions subsidising feel-good environmental policies like solar feed-in tariffs.

Regarding the second point, I don’t see how a link can conclusively be drawn. There is no way of conclusively proving that any change in climate isn’t a naturally occurring phenomenon rather than something caused by industrialisation.

The fact that 97% of scientists believe in a link between human activity and climate change does not constitute scientific proof of that link. Scientific proof is about evidence, not politics.

HenryBG said :

Wind is already cheaper than coal.

Only if you ignore the huge upfront capital costs involved in setting up wind farms, which only a complete ignoramus would do.

If it were really “cheaper than coal” then AGL, CLP and every other Australian energy company would have mothballed their conventional energy plants in favour of wind farms, and every business and most home users in Australia would only be purchasing electricity generated through wind turbines.

HenryBG said :

Wind certainly does bring down the cost of power. Check here:
http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/109921/13-carbon-prices-appendixd.pdf
where I demonstrate that SA electricity prices have been plummeting in response to the increased amount of free and clean wind-generated electricity hitting the grid.

All that document has is a graph which shows that average NEM electricity prices in SA have fallen since 2007-8. Absolutely no proof that the fall was caused, or even contributed to, by wind-generated electricity hitting the grid. Correlation does not imply causation. Average NEM prices are still far lower in Victoria, where electricity mainly comes from brown coal.

HenryBG said :

Check out the situation in Germany, where coal and gas prices are plummeting as cleaner and cheaper forms of electricity generation take over. The CEO of Germany’s biggest power producer, RWE
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/uk-rwe-results-idUKBREA230YD20140304
said:
“I grant we have made mistakes. We were late entering into the renewables market – possibly too late,” RWE Chief Executive Peter Terium told journalists on Tuesday.

German utilities have three big problems. First, the government has mandated the end of nuclear power by 2022, meaning huge decommissioning costs until then. Second, huge and uncapped government subsidies paid to producers of renewable energy have caused a glut of electricity in the market, depressing prices. Third, the government gives preferential grid access to renewable energy, meaning that all of that subsidised renewable power has to get purchased first, and only then can conventional electricity get used.

All the RWE guy is saying is that he wishes he was on the right side of all of that government regulation. Nothing at all to do with the superior economics which you erroneously attach to renewable energy.

wildturkeycanoe said :

dungfungus said :

Does Mr Corbell have any plans for a gas fired peak load generator like the one that was going to built for “Technology City” at Hume?
While he aims to have our electricity requirements 90% dependent on renewables we all know this is not possible 24/7 so how is going to guarantee the balance of supply?

If by “balance of supply” you mean “where does it come from at night time?”, I am also wondering. There is about 50% daylight and 50% night, so how is the A.C.T going to get through the other half of the 24 hour period if almost all our power is from solar and wind? The answer is – we will buy it from where most of it comes from now. Unless the power grid is physically severed from across the borders, the consumers here still have the choice to buy their power from non-green sources. This means that unless customers are forced to buy 90% of their power from renewables, this whole plan is not achievable. Pie in the sky, just like trams on Northbourne.

Years ago this scenario was called “a Clayton’s solution”, Clayton’s being “the drink you have when you are not having a drink”.

dungfungus said :

Does Mr Corbell have any plans for a gas fired peak load generator like the one that was going to built for “Technology City” at Hume?
While he aims to have our electricity requirements 90% dependent on renewables we all know this is not possible 24/7 so how is going to guarantee the balance of supply?

If by “balance of supply” you mean “where does it come from at night time?”, I am also wondering. There is about 50% daylight and 50% night, so how is the A.C.T going to get through the other half of the 24 hour period if almost all our power is from solar and wind? The answer is – we will buy it from where most of it comes from now. Unless the power grid is physically severed from across the borders, the consumers here still have the choice to buy their power from non-green sources. This means that unless customers are forced to buy 90% of their power from renewables, this whole plan is not achievable. Pie in the sky, just like trams on Northbourne.

dungfungus said :

Well, if you are happy then I am happy too because I like to see all you hand-wringing climate alarmists age prematurely over a non-problem, perhaps even the greatest scam of all time.
Me? – well I sleep well every night.
Ignorance is bliss.

This is the problem. You just think because someone doesn’t agree with you, that they are a “Climate Alarmist”. Seriously, just about everyone who agrees with Climate science also agrees its not happening that quickly in human time scales. Anyone born today may be perfectly fine and not affected that much. Hard to say at what point do things become bad enough that governments take action. I feel that the temperatures could have risen 5 degrees and there would still be people in denial calling everyone climate alarmists.

But you are right many people love to live in ignorance and that is fine. But if you want to be ignorant, don’t tell everyone they are wrong, because how would you know??

The facts point to climate change being real.
Happy to debate about the effects and how long it will take before something really bad happens as it might be decades or centuries, because the reason the skepticism exists is because people can always point to the 1 in 100 case showing its not happening, or because nothing has changed in their eyes for 20 years so nothing is wrong.

I still use the ozone layer hole as an example of where the longer it takes to do something the longer it takes to fix it. That is the concern by the so called “alarmists” and also prevention is better than a cure. Also doing the right thing morally because we have developed the ability to think at such a high level over all the other animal species.

Who is subsidising the coal fired plants then, the government? If so, where do they get that money? From us, the taxpayer. So, all of us are paying for cheaper electricity via funneling our taxes into coal generated power. Nothing in this world is going to make electricity cheaper for anyone, absolutely nothing. Green energy is more expensive than our regular stuff,

You seem very confused. You start off accepting that coal-generated electricity is artificially cheaper due to subsidies.
You then assert that “Green energy is more expensive” and “nothing is going to make electricity cheaper”.

This is not true.

Wind is already cheaper than coal, which is why they are screaming for subsidies, and the backward-looking current government is shoveling taxpayer’s cash at them in response.

Wind certainly does bring down the cost of power. Check here:
http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/109921/13-carbon-prices-appendixd.pdf
where I demonstrate that SA electricity prices have been plummeting in response to the increased amount of free and clean wind-generated electricity hitting the grid.

Check out the situation in Germany, where coal and gas prices are plummeting as cleaner and cheaper forms of electricity generation take over. The CEO of Germany’s biggest power producer, RWE
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/uk-rwe-results-idUKBREA230YD20140304
said:
“”I grant we have made mistakes. We were late entering into the renewables market – possibly too late,” RWE Chief Executive Peter Terium told journalists on Tuesday.

Terium pledged the group would increase efforts in new energy efficiency and renewable power to drag it out of a sector crisis that has destroyed more than 70 percent of its share value since 2008.”

Some people who choose to believe the mish-mash of bizarre and senseless denialist memes are actually destroying their companies’ share value.
For the rest of them it’s just their credibility.

The world is changing, and we all know that some people do not cope well with change.

Does Mr Corbell have any plans for a gas fired peak load generator like the one that was going to built for “Technology City” at Hume?
While he aims to have our electricity requirements 90% dependent on renewables we all know this is not possible 24/7 so how is going to guarantee the balance of supply?

Southmouth said :

The point that is missed is that no state or territory can afford to build new renewables for 90 percent of its needs if the cost is electricity at 5 times the market price. Unfortunate but true

In the ACT that logic doesn’t apply. The decision to press on with the tram project is proof of that.

HenryBG said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

By “us”, I mean the rest of non-solar consumers whose prices will rise to make up for the deficit in the profits of coal powered electricity providers. .

Economic modelling shows that medium- and long-term electricity prices are higher *without* investment in renewables. In other words, you pay a bit extra now, and then in 5 years your prices will be cheaper than if you hadn’t made that investment, continuing to get cheaper every year thereafter.

If you don’t believe me, just look at South Australia: now that they are approaching 50% renewables (mostly wind) consumer electricity prices are falling dramatically.

Yes, we’re going to keep having to subsidise coal operators due to the inefficiency of their obsolete technologies, but once enough investment is made, that problem goes away.

Who is subsidising the coal fired plants then, the government? If so, where do they get that money? From us, the taxpayer. So, all of us are paying for cheaper electricity via funneling our taxes into coal generated power. Nothing in this world is going to make electricity cheaper for anyone, absolutely nothing. Green energy is more expensive than our regular stuff, there is no magic alternative [unless you are lucky enough to have your own solar installation that somebody else paid for].
Just like petrol and motor vehicles, the demand is something we cannot avoid and the profits to be made are huge. Whilst there is money to be made from a commodity that everybody has to purchase to survive, there will never be a cheaper alternative or else big business and the government’s tax collectors will cry foul.
It is all regulated people, the cost of electricity, the cost of fuel, the cost of water [it falls out of the sky but we still have to pay for the stuff]. Our world is a place where the leaders make sure they extract every drop of money from our wallets in whatever manner possible. Anything that reduces this pillaging is seen as bad for them and quickly eradicated. Such is life.

2604 said :

HenryBG said :

And yet the Spanish are earning export dollars selling us technology because we failed to develop our own.

A win for the Spanish, I’d say.

The corollary of your argument is that we are suckers because the Germans are earning export dollars selling us cars because we failed to develop our own car industry. We must also be suckers because we failed to develop our own textile industry and the Chinese are now earning export dollars selling us clothing. Whatever the profit margin in his contract with the ACT Government is, it is peanuts compared with the A$12 billion in subsidies that Spanish taxpayers pay to their solar industry every year.

HenryBG said :

“The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $409 billion in 2010, up from $300 billion in 2009,”

Those figures mean nothing in isolation. Fossil fuel subsidies cost US0.8c per kWh of energy produced. Renewable subsidies amounted to US5c per kWh of energy produced. In other words, each dollar spent on fossil fuel subsidies buys more than six times as much power as each dollar which is spent subsidising renewables.

As for electricity prices falling dramatically in South Australia, there is absolutely no evidence linking that fall to the rising percentage of wind energy being used in South Australia. The fact is that demand for electricity has been falling for years now and there is a glut of energy on the market, which is being reflected in lower prices.

I think that the SA Government is obliged to buy more wind energy due to the subsidized supply contracts it has with the wind turbine people.
As the aggregate amount of electricity being used (commensurate with SA turning into a rust belt) reduces there will be more wind generated energy being used than electricity from non-renewables and this is why electricity in SA is the most expensive in the country even though the price is falling.

HenryBG said :

And yet the Spanish are earning export dollars selling us technology because we failed to develop our own.

A win for the Spanish, I’d say.

The corollary of your argument is that we are suckers because the Germans are earning export dollars selling us cars because we failed to develop our own car industry. We must also be suckers because we failed to develop our own textile industry and the Chinese are now earning export dollars selling us clothing. Whatever the profit margin in his contract with the ACT Government is, it is peanuts compared with the A$12 billion in subsidies that Spanish taxpayers pay to their solar industry every year.

HenryBG said :

“The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $409 billion in 2010, up from $300 billion in 2009,”

Those figures mean nothing in isolation. Fossil fuel subsidies cost US0.8c per kWh of energy produced. Renewable subsidies amounted to US5c per kWh of energy produced. In other words, each dollar spent on fossil fuel subsidies buys more than six times as much power as each dollar which is spent subsidising renewables.

As for electricity prices falling dramatically in South Australia, there is absolutely no evidence linking that fall to the rising percentage of wind energy being used in South Australia. The fact is that demand for electricity has been falling for years now and there is a glut of energy on the market, which is being reflected in lower prices.

wildturkeycanoe said :

By “us”, I mean the rest of non-solar consumers whose prices will rise to make up for the deficit in the profits of coal powered electricity providers. .

Economic modelling shows that medium- and long-term electricity prices are higher *without* investment in renewables. In other words, you pay a bit extra now, and then in 5 years your prices will be cheaper than if you hadn’t made that investment, continuing to get cheaper every year thereafter.

If you don’t believe me, just look at South Australia: now that they are approaching 50% renewables (mostly wind) consumer electricity prices are falling dramatically.

Yes, we’re going to keep having to subsidise coal operators due to the inefficiency of their obsolete technologies, but once enough investment is made, that problem goes away.

dungfungus said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

So, there is another 20MW of power the coal refineries don’t have to produce, then having to recoup costs by increasing their prices. It isn’t a win for us…yet.

The spin is that this solar factory will power 4500 houses. The reality is that it may – if the sun is shining.
What happens to those 4500 houses at night time when it is -5 degrees?
And when you say” it isn’t a win for us..yet”, who is “us”?

By “us”, I mean the rest of non-solar consumers whose prices will rise to make up for the deficit in the profits of coal powered electricity providers. These fossil fuel powered companies have a profit margin and the more that solar takes their business away, the more they will need to bump up their prices to compensate. Knowing that they have a majority of the market share, there is little to stop them doing this either. It isn’t a situation where if 50% of the state was buying “green power”, that 50% of the power generated IS green energy. The whole process of running a coal fired power plant isn’t as simple as “wind it up when demand is high and turn it down at night”. Also, if actual demand drops due to the addition competition, it is simple economics to work out that they will make less power, buy less coal and eventually they will lose their bulk buying discounts and the prices will go up. Without coal fired power to provide when there is no alternative to this source in nighttime and non-windy conditions, it will not go away. Unfortunately this means it will just get more expensive, for all of us.

The point that is missed is that no state or territory can afford to build new renewables for 90 percent of its needs if the cost is electricity at 5 times the market price. Unfortunate but true

rosscoact said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

I can only be sure about fossil fuel being subsidised if you give me the details because while I hear this simplistic type of response all the time no one ever provides proof.

Weirdly, no matter how many times the facts are laid out in front of you, you remain oblivious to them.

Here is another $90million in subsidies for coal, in 2012:
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/m-fund-for-vic-brown-coal-technology/story-e6frfku9-1226442441048

As the article points out, it makes no sense whatsoever to be subsidising obsolete technologies when newer technologies are available.

It keeps him off the streets, everyone has to have a hobby 😀

Well, if you are happy then I am happy too because I like to see all you hand-wringing climate alarmists age prematurely over a non-problem, perhaps even the greatest scam of all time.
Me? – well I sleep well every night.
Ignorance is bliss.

Southmouth said :

I think the pumping thing only happened back when “OFF PEAK” electricity was really really cheap. Anyway, he could ask them very politely to use his newly contracted wind energy to pump on windy days and then generate at night or cloudy windless days

The other option is to install community “treadmill farms” at shopping centres so morally vain citizens who refuse to use dirty coal generated energy can spin the wheels to drive electricity generators feeding into the grid. We won’t worry about the carbon pollution they breathe out.

Southmouth said :

I wonder if it ever dawned on Simon Corbell to grab a phone directory and ring the rather large hydro power company just to our south and offer them say $90 MWh?

That would kind of miss the point regarding bringing in new renewable generation capacity.

I think the pumping thing only happened back when “OFF PEAK” electricity was really really cheap. Anyway, he could ask them very politely to use his newly contracted wind energy to pump on windy days and then generate at night or cloudy windless days

Southmouth said :

I wonder if it ever dawned on Simon Corbell to grab a phone directory and ring the rather large hydro power company just to our south and offer them say $90 MWh?

The electricity from there isn’t “pure” enough. It is tainted by the use of cheap, fossil fuelled electricity to pump water uphill so it can spin the turbines on the way back down.

I wonder if it ever dawned on Simon Corbell to grab a phone directory and ring the rather large hydro power company just to our south and offer them say $90 MWh?

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

I can only be sure about fossil fuel being subsidised if you give me the details because while I hear this simplistic type of response all the time no one ever provides proof.

Weirdly, no matter how many times the facts are laid out in front of you, you remain oblivious to them.

Here is another $90million in subsidies for coal, in 2012:
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/m-fund-for-vic-brown-coal-technology/story-e6frfku9-1226442441048

As the article points out, it makes no sense whatsoever to be subsidising obsolete technologies when newer technologies are available.

It keeps him off the streets, everyone has to have a hobby 😀

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

Southmouth said :

I like solar, a lot. But everyone on the eastern seaboard who uses the grid is buying there electricity from the national electricity market. Since the removal of the carbon tax the price has been about $30 per MWh. I think we are paying the Spanish company $173 or there abouts. I’d be interested to hear how coal is subsidised.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-16/chinese-firm-wins-25m-grant-to-develop-latrobe/5525544

And that’s but a small fraction of the many subsidy grants that were awarded for coal this year alone.

That grant isn’t for coal that will be generating electricity in Australia – it’s for developing a briquette export industry.
You should be comfortable with that as the Chinese are leading the world in emission controls, aren’t they?
demonstration plant.

So what do you think a smart country would be doing?

Subsidising a Chinese company to make profits from Australian coal, or developing a solar power industry to make profits from modern technologies?

But maybe you still don’t accept that the fossil fuel industry is still attracting subsidies. Here is what the IEA says:
http://www.iea.org/publications/worldenergyoutlook/resources/energysubsidies/
“The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $409 billion in 2010, up from $300 billion in 2009,”

Now just imagine that money was being spent on developing a modern sustainable energy industry instead of continuing to flog the dead horse of an obsolete 20th-century polluting industry?

This thread is not about how smart countries are.

HenryBG said :

2604 said :

The only reason Spain has such huge solar companies is because of massive and unsustainable government subsidies to its solar industry.

And yet the Spanish are earning export dollars selling us technology because we failed to develop our own.

A win for the Spanish, I’d say.

2604 said :

Any idea that we should provide subsidies similar to those paid by European nations is completely ridiculous. .

And yet…the Spanish won this contract, out-competing the Chinese….your argument appears to be faulty.

The winning bid was the from the supplier that would accept the lowest price for their solar generated electricity. That price includes the capital cost spread over the life of the contract plus a margin of profit. This really means the Spanish company was prepared to accept less than the other competitors. The ACT Government is prepared to pay several times more for solar generated electricity than the electricity available from other sources therefore a huge subsidy is needed to bridge the gap.
It is not as if we need more electricity; we are choosing to pay a lot more to fulfill some idealogical goal.

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

Southmouth said :

I like solar, a lot. But everyone on the eastern seaboard who uses the grid is buying there electricity from the national electricity market. Since the removal of the carbon tax the price has been about $30 per MWh. I think we are paying the Spanish company $173 or there abouts. I’d be interested to hear how coal is subsidised.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-16/chinese-firm-wins-25m-grant-to-develop-latrobe/5525544

And that’s but a small fraction of the many subsidy grants that were awarded for coal this year alone.

That grant isn’t for coal that will be generating electricity in Australia – it’s for developing a briquette export industry.
You should be comfortable with that as the Chinese are leading the world in emission controls, aren’t they?
demonstration plant.

So what do you think a smart country would be doing?

Subsidising a Chinese company to make profits from Australian coal, or developing a solar power industry to make profits from modern technologies?

But maybe you still don’t accept that the fossil fuel industry is still attracting subsidies. Here is what the IEA says:
http://www.iea.org/publications/worldenergyoutlook/resources/energysubsidies/
“The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $409 billion in 2010, up from $300 billion in 2009,”

Now just imagine that money was being spent on developing a modern sustainable energy industry instead of continuing to flog the dead horse of an obsolete 20th-century polluting industry?

HenryBG said :

Southmouth said :

I like solar, a lot. But everyone on the eastern seaboard who uses the grid is buying there electricity from the national electricity market. Since the removal of the carbon tax the price has been about $30 per MWh. I think we are paying the Spanish company $173 or there abouts. I’d be interested to hear how coal is subsidised.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-16/chinese-firm-wins-25m-grant-to-develop-latrobe/5525544

And that’s but a small fraction of the many subsidy grants that were awarded for coal this year alone.

That grant isn’t for coal that will be generating electricity in Australia – it’s for developing a briquette export industry.
You should be comfortable with that as the Chinese are leading the world in emission controls, aren’t they?
demonstration plant.

Are you saying that fossil fuel power generation in australia is subsidised?

2604 said :

The only reason Spain has such huge solar companies is because of massive and unsustainable government subsidies to its solar industry.

And yet the Spanish are earning export dollars selling us technology because we failed to develop our own.

A win for the Spanish, I’d say.

2604 said :

Any idea that we should provide subsidies similar to those paid by European nations is completely ridiculous. .

And yet…the Spanish won this contract, out-competing the Chinese….your argument appears to be faulty.

dungfungus said :

I can only be sure about fossil fuel being subsidised if you give me the details because while I hear this simplistic type of response all the time no one ever provides proof.

Weirdly, no matter how many times the facts are laid out in front of you, you remain oblivious to them.

Here is another $90million in subsidies for coal, in 2012:
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/m-fund-for-vic-brown-coal-technology/story-e6frfku9-1226442441048

As the article points out, it makes no sense whatsoever to be subsidising obsolete technologies when newer technologies are available.

Southmouth said :

I’d be interested to hear how coal is subsidised.

Here’s another $50million that was given to coal this year:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/50m-for-brown-coal-projects-20140515-38cwl.html

Southmouth said :

I like solar, a lot. But everyone on the eastern seaboard who uses the grid is buying there electricity from the national electricity market. Since the removal of the carbon tax the price has been about $30 per MWh. I think we are paying the Spanish company $173 or there abouts. I’d be interested to hear how coal is subsidised.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-16/chinese-firm-wins-25m-grant-to-develop-latrobe/5525544

And that’s but a small fraction of the many subsidy grants that were awarded for coal this year alone.

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

So, there is another 20MW of power the coal refineries don’t have to produce, then having to recoup costs by increasing their prices. It isn’t a win for us…yet.

The spin is that this solar factory will power 4500 houses. The reality is that it may – if the sun is shining.
What happens to those 4500 houses at night time when it is -5 degrees?
And when you say” it isn’t a win for us..yet”, who is “us”?

Peak usage is always during the day, especially in summer when A/C is running and the sun is shining.

That’s also when the cost of power is greatest, often MANY times more. Be interesting if people were paid for their solar at the going rate when it is generated, how much they would earn, as compared to what they are paid now.

dungfungus said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

So, there is another 20MW of power the coal refineries don’t have to produce, then having to recoup costs by increasing their prices. It isn’t a win for us…yet.

The spin is that this solar factory will power 4500 houses. The reality is that it may – if the sun is shining.
What happens to those 4500 houses at night time when it is -5 degrees?
And when you say” it isn’t a win for us..yet”, who is “us”?

Peak usage is always during the day, especially in summer when A/C is running and the sun is shining.

dungfungus said :

Snow_Crash said :

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

In fact, why are we paying Spain to build these things?

I recall Bob Brown was warning back in the ’90s that unless we started to seriously invest in modern technologies, we would end up buying them from foreign countries instead of being in the more beneficial reverse situation.

HenryBG said :

In fact, why are we paying Spain to build these things?

I recall Bob Brown was warning back in the ’90s that unless we started to seriously invest in modern technologies, we would end up buying them from foreign countries instead of being in the more beneficial reverse situation.

As I understand it we are not paying the Spanish company anything to build the solar factory.
They “won” the reverse auction by agreeing for the ACT Government to pay them a certain amount for electricity they generate.
I am not sure of the amount but It could be three times as much as the domestic rate were paying ActewAGL for. This is why our electricity bills will be rising as it “costs to be clean and feel good”.
All renewable energy is heavily subsidised (by us).

“I am not sure….”
Then be sure about this. Fossil fuel is subsidised.

I can only be sure about fossil fuel being subsidised if you give me the details because while I hear this simplistic type of response all the time no one ever provides proof.
At least we have been given some idea of the subsidies we are going to pay on the part time Royalla solar factory (0.35c per household per week) which seems odd as sunshine is free.

Easy, mining is subsidised all the time, with deisel fuel rebates. That is a start. You only believe things you want to believe and yet are happy to spread rubbish about everything else.

http://environmentvictoria.org.au/fossilfuelsubsidies#.VAeracWSx8E

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/coal-and-gas-paid-7b-in-subsidies/story-fn7kjcme-1226301312395?nk=8c637a21d6e22548d7054072d50dd166

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_Australia

Thats just 3 sources i found from google. Majority of big business in Australia gets subsidies from the government under the guise of “maintaining competitive against global companies” and “employing more workers”. Doesn’t matter what the subsidy is for, there are plenty of example where mining and fossil fuels get support from the government.

I like solar, a lot. But everyone on the eastern seaboard who uses the grid is buying there electricity from the national electricity market. Since the removal of the carbon tax the price has been about $30 per MWh. I think we are paying the Spanish company $173 or there abouts. I’d be interested to hear how coal is subsidised.

2604 said :

HenryBG said :

In fact, why are we paying Spain to build these things?

I recall Bob Brown was warning back in the ’90s that unless we started to seriously invest in modern technologies, we would end up buying them from foreign countries instead of being in the more beneficial reverse situation.

The only reason Spain has such huge solar companies is because of massive and unsustainable government subsidies to its solar industry. Of course those companies got massive – getting paid by the government for solar electricity at a rate 12 times the cost of standard electricity does that.

Having had their generous feed-in tariffs cut by the Spanish government, those companies are now scouring the globe for other gullible politicians to take advantage of. Enter Simon Corbell, flush with cash from the usual round of annual rate and fee increases paid by ACT ratepayers.

Any idea that we should provide subsidies similar to those paid by European nations is completely ridiculous. So is the idea that we could ever compete with solar manufacturers in China. Those are just the sort of ridiculous ideas that you’d expect from an ignoramus like Bob Brown, who always had the luxury of being in a minority party with no responsibility for implementing or paying for anything.

Well said.

Snow_Crash said :

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

In fact, why are we paying Spain to build these things?

I recall Bob Brown was warning back in the ’90s that unless we started to seriously invest in modern technologies, we would end up buying them from foreign countries instead of being in the more beneficial reverse situation.

HenryBG said :

In fact, why are we paying Spain to build these things?

I recall Bob Brown was warning back in the ’90s that unless we started to seriously invest in modern technologies, we would end up buying them from foreign countries instead of being in the more beneficial reverse situation.

As I understand it we are not paying the Spanish company anything to build the solar factory.
They “won” the reverse auction by agreeing for the ACT Government to pay them a certain amount for electricity they generate.
I am not sure of the amount but It could be three times as much as the domestic rate were paying ActewAGL for. This is why our electricity bills will be rising as it “costs to be clean and feel good”.
All renewable energy is heavily subsidised (by us).

“I am not sure….”
Then be sure about this. Fossil fuel is subsidised.

I can only be sure about fossil fuel being subsidised if you give me the details because while I hear this simplistic type of response all the time no one ever provides proof.
At least we have been given some idea of the subsidies we are going to pay on the part time Royalla solar factory (0.35c per household per week) which seems odd as sunshine is free.

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

In fact, why are we paying Spain to build these things?

I recall Bob Brown was warning back in the ’90s that unless we started to seriously invest in modern technologies, we would end up buying them from foreign countries instead of being in the more beneficial reverse situation.

HenryBG said :

In fact, why are we paying Spain to build these things?

I recall Bob Brown was warning back in the ’90s that unless we started to seriously invest in modern technologies, we would end up buying them from foreign countries instead of being in the more beneficial reverse situation.

As I understand it we are not paying the Spanish company anything to build the solar factory.
They “won” the reverse auction by agreeing for the ACT Government to pay them a certain amount for electricity they generate.
I am not sure of the amount but It could be three times as much as the domestic rate were paying ActewAGL for. This is why our electricity bills will be rising as it “costs to be clean and feel good”.
All renewable energy is heavily subsidised (by us).

“I am not sure….”
Then be sure about this. Fossil fuel is subsidised.

HenryBG said :

In fact, why are we paying Spain to build these things?

I recall Bob Brown was warning back in the ’90s that unless we started to seriously invest in modern technologies, we would end up buying them from foreign countries instead of being in the more beneficial reverse situation.

The only reason Spain has such huge solar companies is because of massive and unsustainable government subsidies to its solar industry. Of course those companies got massive – getting paid by the government for solar electricity at a rate 12 times the cost of standard electricity does that.

Having had their generous feed-in tariffs cut by the Spanish government, those companies are now scouring the globe for other gullible politicians to take advantage of. Enter Simon Corbell, flush with cash from the usual round of annual rate and fee increases paid by ACT ratepayers.

Any idea that we should provide subsidies similar to those paid by European nations is completely ridiculous. So is the idea that we could ever compete with solar manufacturers in China. Those are just the sort of ridiculous ideas that you’d expect from an ignoramus like Bob Brown, who always had the luxury of being in a minority party with no responsibility for implementing or paying for anything.

justin heywood said :

HenryBG said :

In fact, why are we paying Spain to build these things?

I recall Bob Brown was warning back in the ’90s that unless we started to seriously invest in modern technologies, we would end up buying them from foreign countries instead of being in the more beneficial reverse situation.

And behind bloody SPAIN.

All the talk about the ‘clever country’ is just that, talk.

Isn’t Spain one of those financially fly-blown European countries that sell trams to us?
Spain was one of those countries who nominated Wayne Swan as “World’s Best Treasurer” and led the cheer squad about Australia’s economy being the envy of the rest of the world.

wildturkeycanoe said :

So, there is another 20MW of power the coal refineries don’t have to produce, then having to recoup costs by increasing their prices. It isn’t a win for us…yet.

The spin is that this solar factory will power 4500 houses. The reality is that it may – if the sun is shining.
What happens to those 4500 houses at night time when it is -5 degrees?
And when you say” it isn’t a win for us..yet”, who is “us”?

A good slingshot and a bag of ball bearings should sort it out.

HenryBG said :

In fact, why are we paying Spain to build these things?

I recall Bob Brown was warning back in the ’90s that unless we started to seriously invest in modern technologies, we would end up buying them from foreign countries instead of being in the more beneficial reverse situation.

HenryBG said :

In fact, why are we paying Spain to build these things?

I recall Bob Brown was warning back in the ’90s that unless we started to seriously invest in modern technologies, we would end up buying them from foreign countries instead of being in the more beneficial reverse situation.

As I understand it we are not paying the Spanish company anything to build the solar factory.
They “won” the reverse auction by agreeing for the ACT Government to pay them a certain amount for electricity they generate.
I am not sure of the amount but It could be three times as much as the domestic rate were paying ActewAGL for. This is why our electricity bills will be rising as it “costs to be clean and feel good”.
All renewable energy is heavily subsidised (by us).

So, there is another 20MW of power the coal refineries don’t have to produce, then having to recoup costs by increasing their prices. It isn’t a win for us…yet.

HenryBG said :

In fact, why are we paying Spain to build these things?

I recall Bob Brown was warning back in the ’90s that unless we started to seriously invest in modern technologies, we would end up buying them from foreign countries instead of being in the more beneficial reverse situation.

And behind bloody SPAIN.

All the talk about the ‘clever country’ is just that, talk.

HenryBG said :

In fact, why are we paying Spain to build these things?

I recall Bob Brown was warning back in the ’90s that unless we started to seriously invest in modern technologies, we would end up buying them from foreign countries instead of being in the more beneficial reverse situation.

In the 1970’s we were world leaders in solar technology. Not now. Our loss is Spain’s gain.

On a side note, I am pretty sure China installed more solar panels last year than the US has installed in its entire history. Not only have we fallen behind, but we are falling further behind very quickly!

In fact, why are we paying Spain to build these things?

I recall Bob Brown was warning back in the ’90s that unless we started to seriously invest in modern technologies, we would end up buying them from foreign countries instead of being in the more beneficial reverse situation.