2 March 2012

Greens stick their oar into emissions reductions

| johnboy
Join the conversation
67

The Greens’s Shane Rattenbury has announced the Green’s preferred path to reaching the ACT’s stated target of cutting greenhouse emissions by 40% in the next 8 years.

Of the 5 options outlined, the Greens favour Pathway 2, which combines building efficiency measures, sustainable transport, energy-from-waste and renewable energy.

“Pathway 2 comes closest to delivering the kind of structural changes needed to ensure a sustainable future for Canberrans,” Greens climate change spokesperson, Shane Rattenbury MLA, said today.

Commenting on the remaining four pathways, the Greens cautioned against over-reliance upon carbon offsetting and gas.

“Current offset markets are highly volatile and don’t deliver long-term structural change. It is ludicrous to suggest that we should meet our mitigation goals by offsetting alone, yet one of the Government’s proposed pathways does just that.

“As for gas, the Greens are concerned about the rise in gas’ popularity catalysing an increase in the environmentally damaging practice of coal seam gas (CSG) extraction.

“Gas features prominently in the strategy, but there is no mention of how the gas would be sourced. With the rapid growth of the CSG industry, and the serious questions it raises, the environmental benefits of gas are not as clear cut as many people think.

“No-one seems to have clicked that gas facilities’ 30-40 pay-back times are not compatible with ambitious 2020 cuts. Compare this with wind, which could become a zero-cost fuel within the next decade.

“Renewables are also not being given their full glory in any of the options. We have great potential for local large-scale and distributed renewable energy generation yet the Government seems to prefer gas.”

As such, the Greens are encouraging the Government to consider increasing its Renewable Energy Target to stimulate greater local renewable generation.

The Greens’ full submission is available.

Join the conversation

67
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

HenryBG said :

The mistake made by its blinkered and rabidly pro-nuclear author is to compare disasters such as “an oil spill” with Fukushima, and the mess created by burning coal, with the mess at Yucca Mountain.

There is no comparison. The taxpayer cannot afford nuclear – it is far, far too costly which is why the industry tries to hide all these costs.

What’s the cost of a “disaster” involving a wind turbine? A solar array?

If you want to compare apples with apples, you include all the costs of nuclear, and that includes:
– 100% cost of risk, not just a token amount and a “the government can take care of the rest”
– 100% cost of permanently dealing with radioactive waste – and unknown, seeing as there is no way to do it.
– 100% cost of decommissioning, currently a cost which is ignored with the tab picked up by thre taxpayer.

You nuke-spruikers are not getting any more convincing with repetition.

Fact #1:

Nuclear power has the least deaths/TWh than coal, oil, gas, solar, wind (geothermal- no data).

Fact #2:

Nuclear power has the least external costs/TWh than coal, oil and gas.

Henry, the direct comparison study for costs of all energy for Australia (Nicholson 2010) included your cost demands. What more do you want?

Include in this analysis, that GenIII+ reactors (the only ones people are building now) have passive safety systems. Resulting in two orders of magnitude less potential for disaster in ISO31000 standards (and several insurance companies are now in discussion with owners).

It’s all about keeping up with technology Henry.

Diggety said :

HenryBG said :

Diggety said :

Insurance
The insurance myth is exactly that, a myth. You can read up on that here.

.

OK – please name the insurance company which is paying the full cost of cleaning up Fukushima, and compensating affected property owners.

Hmmm?

So much for your “myth”. Nuclear does not, and can not get insurance because every commercial insurance entity realises the risk is uninsurable.
This is why the government has to underwrite it, which is a massive subsidy, the cost of which takes the cost of nuclear energy waaaay beyond any other reasonable means of producing power.

Please read the article before commenting on it Henry!

The mistake made by its blinkered and rabidly pro-nuclear author is to compare disasters such as “an oil spill” with Fukushima, and the mess created by burning coal, with the mess at Yucca Mountain.

There is no comparison. The taxpayer cannot afford nuclear – it is far, far too costly which is why the industry tries to hide all these costs.

What’s the cost of a “disaster” involving a wind turbine? A solar array?

If you want to compare apples with apples, you include all the costs of nuclear, and that includes:
– 100% cost of risk, not just a token amount and a “the government can take care of the rest”
– 100% cost of permanently dealing with radioactive waste – and unknown, seeing as there is no way to do it.
– 100% cost of decommissioning, currently a cost which is ignored with the tab picked up by thre taxpayer.

You nuke-spruikers are not getting any more convincing with repetition.

HenryBG said :

Diggety said :

Insurance
The insurance myth is exactly that, a myth. You can read up on that here.

.

OK – please name the insurance company which is paying the full cost of cleaning up Fukushima, and compensating affected property owners.

Hmmm?

So much for your “myth”. Nuclear does not, and can not get insurance because every commercial insurance entity realises the risk is uninsurable.
This is why the government has to underwrite it, which is a massive subsidy, the cost of which takes the cost of nuclear energy waaaay beyond any other reasonable means of producing power.

Please read the article before commenting on it Henry!

Jim Jones said :

Wah wah wah everyone is calling me names wah wah wah the scientists are being mean to me with all their ‘facts’ wah wah wah

Well there you go, how can one argue with such a well thought out and adult response.

Diggety said :

Insurance
The insurance myth is exactly that, a myth. You can read up on that here.

.

OK – please name the insurance company which is paying the full cost of cleaning up Fukushima, and compensating affected property owners.

Hmmm?

So much for your “myth”. Nuclear does not, and can not get insurance because every commercial insurance entity realises the risk is uninsurable.
This is why the government has to underwrite it, which is a massive subsidy, the cost of which takes the cost of nuclear energy waaaay beyond any other reasonable means of producing power.

Diggety said :

The simple fact is, if you are serious about addressing climate change, you must consider advanced nuclear reactors as a component in the energy supply.

That is why The Greens have the least realistic climate change/energy policy.

I would add that, if one is serious about addressing climate change, one would also look at population control as this is the proverbial elephant in the room.

The Greens abandoned population control as soon as Paulin Hansen jumped up with the same idea.

Additionally, it doesn’t fit with their new-found love of illegal immigrants scamming refugee places in their thousands.

Diggety said :

The simple fact is, if you are serious about addressing climate change, you must consider advanced nuclear reactors as a component in the energy supply.

That is why The Greens have the least realistic climate change/energy policy.

I would add that, if one is serious about addressing climate change, one would also look at population control as this is the proverbial elephant in the room.

As much as I loathe the concept, and cringe at thought of implementation, yes I agree.

However, it’s probably not the highest priority in Australia’s case. For now.

The simple fact is, if you are serious about addressing climate change, you must consider advanced nuclear reactors as a component in the energy supply.

That is why The Greens have the least realistic climate change/energy policy.

Jethro said :

Diesendorf & Mudd 2008 – carbon footprint of a nuclear power plant using high grade ore is 10% of a coal fired plant. This does not include energy costs associated with the construction and decommission of power plants.

Insurance companies refuse to insure power plants, so the government also needs to cover the cost of insurance (Pittock 2009)

Nuclear electricity is estimated to cost 6.7 cents per kWh, compared to 5 cents for wind (Pittock 2009)

the IEA estimates a 400% increase in the use of nuclear produced electricity by 2050. This would require the construction of 32 power plants every year between now and then and would lead to a total reduction in CO2 emissions of 6%. Wind farms could generate the same power for 60% of the construction cost in far less time (Lovins and Sheik 2008)

Jethro, I’ve outlined extensively that CO2 cost abatement is cheaper and faster with nuclear energy, and more importantly, that nuclear and renewable energy compliment each other well. They should not be regarded as ‘one or the other’.
– nuclear the most economical tech to deliver baseload power (full lifecycle costs).
– nuclear the lowest cost abatement for CO2 (apart from hydro)

Insurance
The insurance myth is exactly that, a myth. You can read up on that here.

Diesendorf is a commenter on that site, you can ask him how it compares to Mudd’s paper (which does not analyse full cost parameters) on the site, along with other experts.

These are all studies with direct relavence to Australia’s case.

2604 said :

Blaming criticism of ALP/Green policies on “The Hate Media” rather than on weaknesses in those policies springs immediately to mind.

LoL! I remember that News Limited article. Almost exactly 6 months later, News International had to shut down one paper and front up at various police enquiries into its dishonest and illegal activities.
Bob Brown was bang on the money.

2604 said :

Calling criticism of the Prime Minister “sexist” rather than addressing the substance of that criticism, does too.

Much criticism of Gillard is quite obviously phrased in the language of mysogyny. As Bob Brown points out, a lot of the people doing it don’t even realise they are doing it.

2604 said :

Lee Rhiannon likening comments on her past life as a communist to McCarthyism?

Lee Rhiannon is entitled to make that argument, if that’s the way she sees it. The fact that she’s obviously in denial about the mistakes of her (and her parents’) pro-Soviet past is a different issue.

2604 said :

Here’s another example.

LoL again!

Did you read that article?

Let me summarise it for you:
– Bob Brown says Ta Ann is up to no good in Sarawak
– Ta Ann says that Bob Brown’s photos are wrong, therefore they are not up to no good in Sarawak.
– Bob Brown points out the obvious flaw in that argument
– The Quadrant says this proves Bob Brown hates free speech.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but starting about 10 years ago, The Quadrant and the IPA (who used to do excellent work at taking aim at sacred cows such multiculturalism, the aboriginal industry , and the proliferating illegal immigration industry) have lost the plot – no longer do they offer anything even remotely resembling rational analysis. And this article is a case in point – a complete charabia of just about every logical fallacy ever invented.

HenryBG said :

Go on, quote us an instance of “the Greens” casting aspersions on somebody else’s character instead of addressing any facts that character might have brought to the table. That’ll give us something concrete to discuss.

Blaming criticism of ALP/Green policies on “The Hate Media” rather than on weaknesses in those policies springs immediately to mind.

Calling criticism of the Prime Minister “sexist” rather than addressing the substance of that criticism, does too.

Lee Rhiannon likening comments on her past life as a communist to McCarthyism?

Here’s another example.

Ben_Dover said :

HenryBG said :

Ben_Dover said :

It seems the Greens have adopted the left’s “insult as a substitute for debate technique.

Projection. What you’re describing is *precisely* the modus operandi of the Denial lobby.

They have no facts therefore they resort to smear and idiotic conspiracy theories.
.

So the Greens here decide that they will achieve something by resorting to exactly the same tactics?

Would you like more examples of this, or will the ones I have already quoted do?

Wah wah wah everyone is calling me names wah wah wah the scientists are being mean to me with all their ‘facts’ wah wah wah

Ben_Dover said :

HenryBG said :

Ben_Dover said :

It seems the Greens have adopted the left’s “insult as a substitute for debate technique.

Projection. What you’re describing is *precisely* the modus operandi of the Denial lobby.

They have no facts therefore they resort to smear and idiotic conspiracy theories.
.

So the Greens here decide that they will achieve something by resorting to exactly the same tactics?

Would you like more examples of this, or will the ones I have already quoted do?

Go on, quote us an instance of “the Greens” casting aspersions on somebody else’s character instead of addressing any facts that character might have brought to the table. That’ll give us something concrete to discuss.

HenryBG said :

Ben_Dover said :

It seems the Greens have adopted the left’s “insult as a substitute for debate technique.

Projection. What you’re describing is *precisely* the modus operandi of the Denial lobby.

They have no facts therefore they resort to smear and idiotic conspiracy theories.
.

So the Greens here decide that they will achieve something by resorting to exactly the same tactics?

Would you like more examples of this, or will the ones I have already quoted do?

Gungahlin Al said :

…. the accelerated pace caused by people, coupled with human-caused fragmented landscapes, will outstrip the ability of vegetation communities and their associated animal spectrums, to ‘migrate’ with the changing climatic conditions. So people might continue to “prosper and populate” as Shauno claims, but what’s the point if we’ve devastated the land along the way?

Personally, I don’t care much about the issues you raise above – areas of the earth that have seen intensive human occupation and exploitation already have no ecological diversity to speak of anyway. This is an unavoidable result of human populations continuing to grow, and we can survive just fine with vast number of species going extinct. Been to Greece? It’s a desert. Same with Tunisia. And Persia.

Gungahlin Al said :

And how exactly does one do this without food?

That’s more like it.
What happens when 1 billion people, living not too far away from Australia, see the bulk of their food producing land go under a rising sea?
They’re not going to sit there and quietly starve, they are going to create the biggest human migration in history, and this will have dire economic consequences for Australia.

nobody said :

shauno said :

We are far from done but we could be if you believe Bob And his communist cohorts.

We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over. -Arnold Schwarzenegger 2006

Arnie! Another communist!

Gungahlin Al12:23 pm 04 Mar 12

Ben_Dover said :

It seems the Greens have adopted the left’s “insult as a substitute for debate technique. The sad thing is they have not noticed that by doing so they are using the tactics of the “shock Jocks” etc they claim to despise, and have lowered the discourse accordingly.

Sigh… I am on here representing my own thoughts BD, as always. Unless the Greens membership elect me to represent them (to be known in a few weeks) I have no ‘hat’ under which you could claim my comments represent the Greens.

Do I have disdain for the views espoused by Alan Jones, *Andrew* Bolt and a number of others? Absolutely.

Am I bothered that so many people could possibly believe them, and their assertions that the bulk of the world’s scientists are part of some global brainwashing or conspiracy, instead of just doing and relaying the science before them? Intensely so.

Particularly when those same people have no concern (usually) trusting the pills the doctor prescribes them, the functioning of the car they drive or the plane they fly in, or the flood warning on the weather report. When all of these and almost every single aspect of our daily lives are the product of scientific research just like has been happening for several decades and has proven beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt that we are massively accelerating a change in our climate.

I’m also concerned that so many people seem incapable of understanding is not that there is any dispute that climate change has happened before, but that the accelerated pace caused by people, coupled with human-caused fragmented landscapes, will outstrip the ability of vegetation communities and their associated animal spectrums, to ‘migrate’ with the changing climatic conditions. So people might continue to “prosper and populate” as Shauno claims, but what’s the point if we’ve devastated the land along the way? And how exactly does one do this without food? Rely on scientists to save the day and invent some algae-based food substitute (or maybe Soylent Green?)? That would be those same sort of scientists he reckons can’t be trusted to tell the truth on the climate right?

But worse I think is the pointless circularity of trying to have a sensible debate with certain people who refuse to open their eyes and minds. So I choose to instead spend my time elsewhere learning about and revelling in some of the science and wonder that the world’s scientists are discovering around us. And occasionally writing about some of it on my blog. There endeth my rant. And my interest in this thread.

shauno said :

Gungahlin Al said :

welkin31 said :

Yes and the IPCC which pulls together the work of – “…the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.” – a consensus propped up by $Zillions of taxpayer funds – that same IPCC has made an art form for decades of trivializing the role of the sun in our climate.

It is impossible to have a logical debate with people who learn their science from Alan Jones and Alan Bolt. I am embarrassed on behalf of the august Society of Alans.

Is it possible to have a sensible debate with greens who seem to quote the standard mantra and attack the man instead of the science. I came from a back ground of Geophysics and Geology I dont need greens telling me I get all my ideas from Alan Jones. As has been the case over the last few years the Greens and Labor have been attacking the man and while doing so expose the great scam and will bring the labor party to a screaming heap at the next election. No need to panic people the Earth has come though 4.5 billion years of climate change way colder and way hotter then now. We will still prosper and populate the Solar System and the Galaxy. We are far from done but we could be if you believe Bob And his communist cohorts.

We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over. -Arnold Schwarzenegger 2006

Gungahlin Al11:43 am 04 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

Gungahlin Al said :

welkin31 said :

Yes and the IPCC which pulls together the work of – “…the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.” – a consensus propped up by $Zillions of taxpayer funds – that same IPCC has made an art form for decades of trivializing the role of the sun in our climate.

It is impossible to have a logical debate with people who learn their science from Alan Jones and Alan Bolt. I am embarrassed on behalf of the august Society of Alans.

I know “Bolt” rhymes with “Dolt”, but I’m pretty sure the “A.” stands for “Andrew”.

Clearly you’re a couple of glasses ahead of me at this stage tonight, Al.

D’oh. Yes. Wine. That must have been it. Slinks off quietly…

Ben_Dover said :

It seems the Greens have adopted the left’s “insult as a substitute for debate technique.

Projection. What you’re describing is *precisely* the modus operandi of the Denial lobby.

They have no facts therefore they resort to smear and idiotic conspiracy theories.

The recent leak of documents from Heartland Institute shows that they aim to literally misinform people about climate change.

breda said :

Henry said:

breda said :

The economics are that transforming wind into electricity costs about 4 times as much as transforming coal into electricity.

Liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources
Coal = $94.8/MWh v. Wind = $97MWh
(And that’s with coal externalising the cost of dumping waste CO2 for free). ie, Wind is cheaper.

—————————————————————————-
Henry, you just demonstrated again that you are innumerate as well as economically illiterate.

Assuming that the Wikipedia table is correct, it does not support your argument. It does not tell us what the cost per unit of electricity produced it, nor does it purport to. You do not seem to have noticed the column that says ‘capacity factor’ – which shows that the capacity factor of coal is almost 3 times greater than wind for the same cost. You just quoted the last column, because it gave you the answer you believed to be true. Add in the subsidies, and we are looking at around 4x the cost for wind versus coal – and minus knowing that when we flick a switch, the lights will actually go on.

More lies.

From the article:
“”Levelized cost represents the present value of the total cost of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle, converted to equal annual payments and expressed in terms of real dollars to remove the impact of inflation. Levelized cost reflects overnight capital cost, fuel cost, fixed and variable O&M cost, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type. “

I notice you bring up the issue of subsidies (via some false assertions), shall we look at those as well?

This study:
http://i.bnet.com/blogs/dbl_energy_subsidies_paper.pdf
Check out the column graphs on p7 & 8.

As you can see, renewables get a tiny fraction of the government subsidy given to oil, coal, gas and nuclear.

Now – what was it you were saying earlier about somebody being “innumerate and economically illiterate”?

HenryBG said :

[
That’s a rather silly comment.

It’s a 100% spot-on comment.

Objectors to the content of IPCC reports are cranks, wound up by right-wing shock-jocks and industry lobby propaganda. Complete nutters.

Look at the idiot above, “trivializing the role of our sun in the climate” – the sun provides the vast, vast majority of the energy input to the Earth – how the @$% could that be “trivialised” by educated professionals conducting research on the climate?

Gungahlin Al said :

welkin31 said :

Yes and the IPCC which pulls together the work of – “…the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.” – a consensus propped up by $Zillions of taxpayer funds – that same IPCC has made an art form for decades of trivializing the role of the sun in our climate.

It is impossible to have a logical debate with people who learn their science from Alan Jones and Alan Bolt. I am embarrassed on behalf of the august Society of Alans.

It seems the Greens have adopted the left’s “insult as a substitute for debate technique. The sad thing is they have not noticed that by doing so they are using the tactics of the “shock Jocks” etc they claim to despise, and have lowered the discourse accordingly.

shauno said :

Is it possible to have a sensible debate with greens who seem to quote the standard mantra and attack the man instead of the science….

We are far from done but we could be if you believe Bob And his communist cohorts.

Yep… no attacking the man in there. All you need to do is throw out the word communist and the vast scientific consensus on climate change is apparently destroyed in an instant.

I note that you never responded to a single piece of evidence regarding climate science that was put forward. (eg. my comments on the current solar minimum)

“the Earth has come though 4.5 billion years of climate change way colder and way hotter then now.”

Yes. And advanced civilisation has existed solely in the last 8000 years – a time when climate has been relatively stable and conducive to agriculture and so on. Causing rapid changs (ie. >2 degrees in a single century) is going to cause massive upheavals to the ecosystems and environmental systems which we rely upon for our survival.

Gungahlin Al said :

welkin31 said :

Yes and the IPCC which pulls together the work of – “…the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.” – a consensus propped up by $Zillions of taxpayer funds – that same IPCC has made an art form for decades of trivializing the role of the sun in our climate.

It is impossible to have a logical debate with people who learn their science from Alan Jones and Alan Bolt. I am embarrassed on behalf of the august Society of Alans.

Is it possible to have a sensible debate with greens who seem to quote the standard mantra and attack the man instead of the science. I came from a back ground of Geophysics and Geology I dont need greens telling me I get all my ideas from Alan Jones. As has been the case over the last few years the Greens and Labor have been attacking the man and while doing so expose the great scam and will bring the labor party to a screaming heap at the next election. No need to panic people the Earth has come though 4.5 billion years of climate change way colder and way hotter then now. We will still prosper and populate the Solar System and the Galaxy. We are far from done but we could be if you believe Bob And his communist cohorts.

Henry said:

breda said :

The economics are that transforming wind into electricity costs about 4 times as much as transforming coal into electricity.

Liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources
Coal = $94.8/MWh v. Wind = $97MWh
(And that’s with coal externalising the cost of dumping waste CO2 for free). ie, Wind is cheaper.

—————————————————————————-
Henry, you just demonstrated again that you are innumerate as well as economically illiterate.

Assuming that the Wikipedia table is correct, it does not support your argument. It does not tell us what the cost per unit of electricity produced it, nor does it purport to. You do not seem to have noticed the column that says ‘capacity factor’ – which shows that the capacity factor of coal is almost 3 times greater than wind for the same cost. You just quoted the last column, because it gave you the answer you believed to be true. Add in the subsidies, and we are looking at around 4x the cost for wind versus coal – and minus knowing that when we flick a switch, the lights will actually go on.

Not to mention that the conventional power plants have to be built, maintained and always on for when the wind isn’t blowing. And for this you think we should build thousands of taxpayer subsidised industrial monstrosities all over the countryside?

Gungahlin Al said :

welkin31 said :

Yes and the IPCC which pulls together the work of – “…the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.” – a consensus propped up by $Zillions of taxpayer funds – that same IPCC has made an art form for decades of trivializing the role of the sun in our climate.

It is impossible to have a logical debate with people who learn their science from Alan Jones and Alan Bolt. I am embarrassed on behalf of the august Society of Alans.

I know “Bolt” rhymes with “Dolt”, but I’m pretty sure the “A.” stands for “Andrew”.

Clearly you’re a couple of glasses ahead of me at this stage tonight, Al.

Gungahlin Al10:05 pm 03 Mar 12

welkin31 said :

Yes and the IPCC which pulls together the work of – “…the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.” – a consensus propped up by $Zillions of taxpayer funds – that same IPCC has made an art form for decades of trivializing the role of the sun in our climate.

It is impossible to have a logical debate with people who learn their science from Alan Jones and Alan Bolt. I am embarrassed on behalf of the august Society of Alans.

breda said :

Guess what. Coal is free too. We don’t have to pay anything for it’s existence – it is already there. But like with wind power, what we have to pay for is the infrastructure to transform it into energy.

No, you have to pay to dig it up, you have to pay to transport it, then you have to pay to burn it, and then pay to cart away the waste. (And externalising the cost of pumping CO2 waste into the atmosphere will hopefuilly soon be a thing of the past.

Wind? It comes to the turbine all by itself at no cost and produces no waste. Free.

breda said :

The economics are that transforming wind into electricity costs about 4 times as much as transforming coal into electricity.

Liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources
Coal = $94.8/MWh v. Wind = $97MWh
(And that’s with coal externalising the cost of dumping waste CO2 for free). ie, Wind is cheaper.

breda said :

Plus (listen carefully, because this is the bit the B. Ecology graduates keep ignoring) – coal delivers 24/7/365.

The wind blows 24/7. Somewhere.

In any case, coal cannot respond to spikes in demand. It cannot respond to troughs in demand. coal is totally unresponsive to the vagaries in demand.

This is why – now listen carefully, you obviously have a lot to learn – we have a mix of generating technologies, because one mode (eg coal) alone would be completely ineffective.

breda said :

The either loony or dishonest claims of the Greens about wind also pretend that there are no ongoing costs, after cheerfully ignoring capital costs. The landowners want their rent each year. The windmills have to be serviced, as do the transmission lines feeding into the grid. The grid has to be managed so that erratic wind power doesn’t blow it up.

(Same link as above:)
Coal = $24.3/MWh
Wind = $0.0/MWh

Ooh look – Wind uses free fuel! How cool is that?

breda said :

Apart from that, yeah, it’s free.

Idiots.

Quite.

After you’ve finished smearing yourself in glory here, do you plan on staking yourself out over a convenient ant-nest somewhere?

Or is Alan Jones re-runs all evening?

Jethro said :

To be fair HenryBG, renewables certainly become fairly cheap after construction, but there are ongoing costs, such as maintenance. The energy isn’t free, even if the ‘fuel’ (ie. the wind) is technically free. The inference from the report was that the energy is free.

OK, I have 2 things to say about that:
1. recurring costs for Wind are so minor they are almost invisible. I really can’t remember the exact figure but something like 97% of the Total Cost of Ownership is up-front.

2. The Greens are snivelling idiots. Like all political parties in this country, they aren’t what it says on the cover. If they were really “Green”, they would be a conservative party, but they aren’t – they are a radical party – obsessed with compulsion and social engineering, diverted by idiotic fringe issues, they thoroughly deserve the derisive “watermelon” tag.
This is the party that isn’t embarrassed to pre-select the (ex-, supposedly) communist daughter of communist parents who were caught during the Vietnam War conducting visual observation of Australian troop shipping movements and caught reporting in to an Eastern Bloc embassy contact. The fact her parents weren’t put up against the wall and shot is bad enough, but allowing their equally Australia-hating daughter to sully Australian democracy is just…. naive?…..words fail me.

breda said :

Henry BG said:

No. If you *read* what was written, you will see the greens are happy because wind-power’s *fuel* is zero-cost.

Which is 100% true.
—————————————————————-
Henry, you have clearly graduated from the Greens’ School of Supernatural Economics.

Guess what. Coal is free too. We don’t have to pay anything for it’s existence – it is already there. But like with wind power, what we have to pay for is the infrastructure to transform it into energy.

The economics are that transforming wind into electricity costs about 4 times as much as transforming coal into electricity. Plus (listen carefully, because this is the bit the B. Ecology graduates keep ignoring) – coal delivers 24/7/365.

The either loony or dishonest claims of the Greens about wind also pretend that there are no ongoing costs, after cheerfully ignoring capital costs. The landowners want their rent each year. The windmills have to be serviced, as do the transmission lines feeding into the grid. The grid has to be managed so that erratic wind power doesn’t blow it up.

Apart from that, yeah, it’s free.

Idiots.

I note you have quit with your denialism. Or are you just hiding the fact that you call people idiots but refuse to accept the findings of scientists from NASA, the science academies from each nation in the G8+5, plus pretty much every other reputable scientific institution?

Also, in all of your comments on this thread you have completely ignored the hidden costs of using coal fired power stations. The simple fact is, continuing to burn coal for electricity is going to cost far far more than what it will cost us to switch to renewables.

Yet you call people who want to shift to renewable energy idiots.

HenryBG said :

Futureproof said :

Jethro said :

breda said :

Idiots.

The same word could be used for people who deny the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.

One of those windmills you see at Lake George cost $8m each. Do you think the company installing them is doing if for fee? Greens have no idea about economics.

No, but having installed them, they are getting their *fuel* for free, which is what thed Greens seem to be happy about.

Some people “have no idea” about reading comprehension.

To be fair HenryBG, renewables certainly become fairly cheap after construction, but there are ongoing costs, such as maintenance. The energy isn’t free, even if the ‘fuel’ (ie. the wind) is technically free. The inference from the report was that the energy is free.

Henry BG said:

No. If you *read* what was written, you will see the greens are happy because wind-power’s *fuel* is zero-cost.

Which is 100% true.
—————————————————————-
Henry, you have clearly graduated from the Greens’ School of Supernatural Economics.

Guess what. Coal is free too. We don’t have to pay anything for it’s existence – it is already there. But like with wind power, what we have to pay for is the infrastructure to transform it into energy.

The economics are that transforming wind into electricity costs about 4 times as much as transforming coal into electricity. Plus (listen carefully, because this is the bit the B. Ecology graduates keep ignoring) – coal delivers 24/7/365.

The either loony or dishonest claims of the Greens about wind also pretend that there are no ongoing costs, after cheerfully ignoring capital costs. The landowners want their rent each year. The windmills have to be serviced, as do the transmission lines feeding into the grid. The grid has to be managed so that erratic wind power doesn’t blow it up.

Apart from that, yeah, it’s free.

Idiots.

Simmo said :

shauno said :

Trivialising the role of the Sun on climate is not the issue infact the Sun probably plays a much greater role on climate than the co2 people believe. The technology to replace nuclear and coal power with numerous 2gw peak load solar power systems with base load round the clock power is not available. Just ask Germany.

Germany certainly isn’t going nuclear- From Wikipedia “Nuclear power in Germany accounted for 17.7% of national electricity supply in 2011, compared to 22.4% in 2010 [1).
On 30 May 2011, Germany formally announced plans to abandon nuclear energy completely within 11 years. “

Nuclear is one big confidence trick.

It’s immensely costly and can’t operate without massive government subsidy, including underwriting the insurance that the industry could never obtain commercially.

As for the waste it produces – it’s untreatable, therefore costs unknown, therefore conveniently left off the balance sheet, like many other of the costs of nuclear. At least they stopped dumping radioactive waste into the sea in drums like they used to. (Well, we think they’ve stopped doing that – but with such a record of secrecy, corner-cutting and dishonesty, who knows what they’re doing with their waste?).

shauno said :

Trivialising the role of the Sun on climate is not the issue infact the Sun probably plays a much greater role on climate than the co2 people believe.

The thing is, Shuano, the sun is currently going through a solar minimum (ie. it is putting out less energy than it was 50 years ago) yet there is still warming. Warming is happening despite changes in the sun’s energy output, not because of it.

HenryBG said :

Ben_Dover said :

Jim Jones said :

Yep, it’s a scam. All the world’s scientists are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy against the rest of us.

The only ones that aren’t afraid to tell the truth are right-wing shock-jocks and people that work for oil companies.

That’s a rather silly comment.

It’s a 100% spot-on comment.

Objectors to the content of IPCC reports are cranks, wound up by right-wing shock-jocks and industry lobby propaganda. Complete nutters.

Look at the idiot above, “trivializing the role of our sun in the climate” – the sun provides the vast, vast majority of the energy input to the Earth – how the @$% could that be “trivialised” by educated professionals conducting research on the climate?

It *really* isn’t rocket science: increased CO2 in the atmosphere has slowed down the rate at which heat from the sun which reaches the Earth can be re-radiated back into space. This means heat is accumulating on Earth until the Earth reaches a new equilibium temperature at which outgoing heat matches incoming heat. At that point, the Earth will stop warming. Where that point is, nobody knows exactly. What we do know is that the Earth is warming. The stratosphere is cooling as a result of less heat escaping. This is all basic science and people were guessing 200 years that this might start happening. They were right.

No idea why some people choose to try to trump these facts with a headful of nonsense and flat-earther-style ignorance, but it has something to do with psychology, and the lying lobbyists are exploiting it to the maximum by feeding the ignorant exactly the disinformation they need to continue in their reality-denying delusions.

Very well said HenryBG.

And even if we didn’t have the certainty we do (which sits at something like >90%) any rationale consideration of risk management would see that reducing CO2 emissions is a no-brainer in terms of costs of changing to low emissions energy versus cost of continuing to pollute as usual.

shauno said :

Trivialising the role of the Sun on climate is not the issue infact the Sun probably plays a much greater role on climate than the co2 people believe. The technology to replace nuclear and coal power with numerous 2gw peak load solar power systems with base load round the clock power is not available. Just ask Germany.

Germany certainly isn’t going nuclear- From Wikipedia “Nuclear power in Germany accounted for 17.7% of national electricity supply in 2011, compared to 22.4% in 2010 [1).
On 30 May 2011, Germany formally announced plans to abandon nuclear energy completely within 11 years. “

shauno said :

infact the Sun probably plays a much greater role on climate than the co2 people believe.

Do you have any idea how stupid your statement is?

You can’t study climate unless you start with the sun.
The sun is the source of (almost all) the energy that has to be taken into account when studying the climate.

There couldn’t possibly be any “greater role” than the sun – because its role is the greatest.

The idea that smart people with PhDs who’ve been studying this for decades have missed something that *you* (whoever you are) have thought of is completely laughable.

Trivialising the role of the Sun on climate is not the issue infact the Sun probably plays a much greater role on climate than the co2 people believe. The technology to replace nuclear and coal power with numerous 2gw peak load solar power systems with base load round the clock power is not available. Just ask Germany.

Futureproof said :

Jethro said :

breda said :

Idiots.

The same word could be used for people who deny the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.

One of those windmills you see at Lake George cost $8m each. Do you think the company installing them is doing if for fee? Greens have no idea about economics.

No, but having installed them, they are getting their *fuel* for free, which is what thed Greens seem to be happy about.

Some people “have no idea” about reading comprehension.

breda said :

“Compare this with wind, which could become a zero-cost fuel within the next decade.”

Zero cost? You mean, pixies will build the windmills, fairies will pay the landowners, leprechauns will build the transmission infrastructure and elves will do the maintenance?

No. If you *read* what was written, you will see the greens are happy because wind-power’s *fuel* is zero-cost.

Which is 100% true.

Plus, it causes no emissions and doesn’t produce radioactive waste, which is another bonus in *my* book.

breda said :

Idiots.

Who are idiots? People who comment on a piece of writing without apparently having read and understood it?

Quite right.

Ben_Dover said :

Jim Jones said :

Yep, it’s a scam. All the world’s scientists are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy against the rest of us.

The only ones that aren’t afraid to tell the truth are right-wing shock-jocks and people that work for oil companies.

That’s a rather silly comment.

It’s a 100% spot-on comment.

Objectors to the content of IPCC reports are cranks, wound up by right-wing shock-jocks and industry lobby propaganda. Complete nutters.

Look at the idiot above, “trivializing the role of our sun in the climate” – the sun provides the vast, vast majority of the energy input to the Earth – how the @$% could that be “trivialised” by educated professionals conducting research on the climate?

It *really* isn’t rocket science: increased CO2 in the atmosphere has slowed down the rate at which heat from the sun which reaches the Earth can be re-radiated back into space. This means heat is accumulating on Earth until the Earth reaches a new equilibium temperature at which outgoing heat matches incoming heat. At that point, the Earth will stop warming. Where that point is, nobody knows exactly. What we do know is that the Earth is warming. The stratosphere is cooling as a result of less heat escaping. This is all basic science and people were guessing 200 years that this might start happening. They were right.

No idea why some people choose to try to trump these facts with a headful of nonsense and flat-earther-style ignorance, but it has something to do with psychology, and the lying lobbyists are exploiting it to the maximum by feeding the ignorant exactly the disinformation they need to continue in their reality-denying delusions.

On thing is certain Solar or Wind is no where near and possibly 100 or more years off from any feasibility. Nuclear is the no brain solution for power and our next generation subs. Australia is the safest most stable country for it, plenty of ore and heaps of stable rock formations for a waste site which isnt much waste anyway and proven generation 3 heading to generation 4 systems.

Solidarity said :

Gotta say it, yet again.

Nuclear.

what – weapons? war? waste? uranium mining?

which bit of “nuclear” do you want? just the good bits? wll, it comes as a package, and you don’t get to choose just the good bits.

IP

@ Shane Rattenbury

Come on the RiotACT and debate your plan before b/millions of taxpayers money is spent!

Wow, I’ve just gone through the Greens proposal.

Did a primary school kid write this? Gotta share this with friends!

Diggety said :

Jethro said :

Solidarity said :

Gotta say it, yet again.

Nuclear.

Solidarity – I’ve been open to the idea of nuclear. However, the more I have looked into it, the less convinced I’ve become. The financial costs of establishing nuclear simply don’t make it feasible. Not to mention, it isn’t actually carbon neutral.

Ok, I’ll bite.

” The financial costs of establishing nuclear simply don’t make it feasible” – Jethro

Quote peer-reviewed sources and real world data.

“Not to mention, it isn’t actually carbon neutral.” – Jethro

Neither is a mouse. Work with a sense of proportion, Jethro.

Diesendorf & Mudd 2008 – carbon footprint of a nuclear power plant using high grade ore is 10% of a coal fired plant. This does not include energy costs associated with the construction and decommission of power plants.

Insurance companies refuse to insure power plants, so the government also needs to cover the cost of insurance (Pittock 2009)

Nuclear electricity is estimated to cost 6.7 cents per kWh, compared to 5 cents for wind (Pittock 2009)

the IEA estimates a 400% increase in the use of nuclear produced electricity by 2050. This would require the construction of 32 power plants every year between now and then and would lead to a total reduction in CO2 emissions of 6%. Wind farms could generate the same power for 60% of the construction cost in far less time (Lovins and Sheik 2008)

(Apparently my friend is hilarious and decided to rant on my Riot account).

An energy debate? I actually don’t mind!

I’ll gladly scrutinize the cost and capabilities of the Greens’ plan if they give the public more detail?

Are you there Al?

Jethro said :

breda said :

Idiots.

The same word could be used for people who deny the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.

One of those windmills you see at Lake George cost $8m each. Do you think the company installing them is doing if for fee? Greens have no idea about economics.

breda said :

“Compare this with wind, which could become a zero-cost fuel within the next decade.”

Zero cost? You mean, pixies will build the windmills, fairies will pay the landowners, leprechauns will build the transmission infrastructure and elves will do the maintenance? And this invasion of supernatural beings will occur over the next ten years?

Bingo.

Claiming that something is “zero cost” by ignoring capital costs is a new level of economic illiteracy, even for the Greens.

Shane Rattenbury you are am idiot.

Jethro said :

Solidarity said :

Gotta say it, yet again.

Nuclear.

Solidarity – I’ve been open to the idea of nuclear. However, the more I have looked into it, the less convinced I’ve become. The financial costs of establishing nuclear simply don’t make it feasible. Not to mention, it isn’t actually carbon neutral.

Ok, I’ll bite.

” The financial costs of establishing nuclear simply don’t make it feasible” – Jethro

Quote peer-reviewed sources and real world data.

“Not to mention, it isn’t actually carbon neutral.” – Jethro

Neither is a mouse. Work with a sense of proportion, Jethro.

SnapperJack said :

Jim Jones said :

welkin31 said :

Yes and the IPCC which pulls together the work of – “…the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.” – a consensus propped up by $Zillions of taxpayer funds – that same IPCC has made an art form for decades of trivializing the role of the sun in our climate.

Yep, it’s a scam. All the world’s scientists are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy against the rest of us.

The only ones that aren’t afraid to tell the truth are right-wing shock-jocks and people that work for oil companies.

Climate science? More like Climate Scientology.

Yes. The culminated efforts of thousands of scientists over a period of decades, in which they rigorously collate and assess data and test AGW against other possible theories to explain our changing climate is EXACTLY the same as a cult started by a science fiction writer.

Solidarity said :

Gotta say it, yet again.

Nuclear.

Solidarity – I’ve been open to the idea of nuclear. However, the more I have looked into it, the less convinced I’ve become. The financial costs of establishing nuclear simply don’t make it feasible. Not to mention, it isn’t actually carbon neutral.

all the worlds scientists ( 100% ? ) involved in a conspiracy, probably not, but I bet they are all after more funding as they sure got it right when they said no more rain a few years back when we were going to drink sewerage water

Jim Jones said :

welkin31 said :

Yes and the IPCC which pulls together the work of – “…the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.” – a consensus propped up by $Zillions of taxpayer funds – that same IPCC has made an art form for decades of trivializing the role of the sun in our climate.

Yep, it’s a scam. All the world’s scientists are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy against the rest of us.

The only ones that aren’t afraid to tell the truth are right-wing shock-jocks and people that work for oil companies.

Climate science? More like Climate Scientology.

I wonder if the Greens realize that gas turbine power such as that proposed for Dalton is needed to safeguard smooth operation of the grid from the erratic contribution from wind power.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/dalton-fired-up-over-power-plant-20120226-1twmw.html#ixzz1nYClUu3G
The need for this compensation is growing as our great and wise Govt oversees the expansion of wind power.

I struggle to see how people can write this off as stupid. It seems to me that the greens simple look move us to a type 1 civilisation. Everyone stuck on the concept of fossil fuels (yes gas is a fossil fuel) is still living in a type 0 civilization and needs to wake up.

Gas is just a replacement for the issues of current fossil fuel it is destined for the same failures as oil and coal. ie making it a dirty place to live.

It’s the equivalent of stabbing yourself with a spoon rather than a knife. It will take a little longer but the outcome is the same and it probably hurts more.

Zero cost does not imply that it will cost nothing to make the power but that it will cost the government nothing to support it as it is currently subsidized to make it cost the same amount as fossil fuel. When enough research has actually been done this should equalize and make a situation where it costs the same or less. Due to no requirement other than minimal upkeep.

The issue most people fail to see is that new energy sources cost capital to build in the first place. Fossil fuel mines and power plants did in the beginning too. But that is old technology. We need new tech to push us into a type 1 civilization.

Jim Jones said :

Yep, it’s a scam. All the world’s scientists are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy against the rest of us.

The only ones that aren’t afraid to tell the truth are right-wing shock-jocks and people that work for oil companies.

That’s a rather silly comment.

Gotta say it, yet again.

Nuclear.

““Renewables are also not being given their full glory in any of the options. We have great potential for local large-scale and distributed renewable energy generation yet the Government seems to prefer gas.”” -Shane Rattenbury

The reason Governments (ones taking a pragmatic approach) prefer gas over renewables is because:

– capital costs ($/kWe installed) are lower
– CO2 abatement costs ($/ton) are lower
– electricity costs ($/kWh) are lower

The Greens are clueless when it comes to the costs and capabilities of renewable technologies. Renewables (geothermal, wind. solar thermal & solar PV) need more development to address their drawbacks. And there is not much allocated for that in the carbon tax plan.

Windmills don’t grow on trees. Someone has to make them.

Climate skeptics and believers alike should be able to agree on that one.

welkin31 said :

Yes and the IPCC which pulls together the work of – “…the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.” – a consensus propped up by $Zillions of taxpayer funds – that same IPCC has made an art form for decades of trivializing the role of the sun in our climate.

Yep, it’s a scam. All the world’s scientists are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy against the rest of us.

The only ones that aren’t afraid to tell the truth are right-wing shock-jocks and people that work for oil companies.

welkin31 said :

Yes and the IPCC which pulls together the work of – “…the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.” – a consensus propped up by $Zillions of taxpayer funds – that same IPCC has made an art form for decades of trivializing the role of the sun in our climate.

You do realise that this is a myth? That we’ve been recently going through a period of lower total solar irradiance, while temperatures have increased?

Maybe have a look at what the science says, via http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Yes and the IPCC which pulls together the work of – “…the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.” – a consensus propped up by $Zillions of taxpayer funds – that same IPCC has made an art form for decades of trivializing the role of the sun in our climate.

breda said :

Idiots.

The same word could be used for people who deny the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.

“Compare this with wind, which could become a zero-cost fuel within the next decade.”

Zero cost? You mean, pixies will build the windmills, fairies will pay the landowners, leprechauns will build the transmission infrastructure and elves will do the maintenance? And this invasion of supernatural beings will occur over the next ten years?

PS – windmills and associated infrastructure are built from concrete, steel and a range of other fabricated products. Regrettably, the manufacture of these products is not able to be done using wind power.

Idiots.

Daily Digest

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

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