Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > General Chat
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #241  
Old 24-07-2014, 06:34 PM
Astro_Bot's Avatar
Astro_Bot
Registered User

Astro_Bot is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlgerdes View Post
You must use a different Internet to me.
I have the hardback edition. You have to pay to get better info.
  #242  
Old 24-07-2014, 06:36 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlgerdes View Post
Yes, also please distinguish between AGW Deniers and Climate Change Deniers.
My problem was the use of denier for anyone other than a holocost denier
  #243  
Old 24-07-2014, 06:43 PM
Astro_Bot's Avatar
Astro_Bot
Registered User

Astro_Bot is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post


My problem was the use of denier for anyone other than a holocost denier
As should be obvious to anyone by now (although, given Renato is participating in this thread, that may not hold true ) "denier" means "one who denies" and is not/has never been restricted to the topic of Holocaust (with a capital 'H') denial. Note that the word "holocaust" also has a meaning separate from the WWII atrocity.
  #244  
Old 24-07-2014, 06:45 PM
tlgerdes's Avatar
tlgerdes (Trevor)
Love the moonless nights!

tlgerdes is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astro_Bot View Post
I have the hardback edition. You have to pay to get better info.
Yeah, see, that doesn't fit in my travel suitcase, and it so easily becomes out of date in this age of wordsmithing
  #245  
Old 24-07-2014, 06:48 PM
Astro_Bot's Avatar
Astro_Bot
Registered User

Astro_Bot is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlgerdes View Post
Yeah, see, that doesn't fit in my travel suitcase, and it so easily becomes out of date in this age of wordsmithing
You mean in this age of spin.

I blame the politicians. It's worse than the effect of cartoon violence on kids.
  #246  
Old 24-07-2014, 07:22 PM
LewisM's Avatar
LewisM
Novichok test rabbit

LewisM is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 10,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astro_Bot View Post
I have the hardback edition. You have to pay to get better info.
I have the ridgeback edition. It bites
  #247  
Old 24-07-2014, 08:01 PM
tlgerdes's Avatar
tlgerdes (Trevor)
Love the moonless nights!

tlgerdes is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,284
We are all deniers in this topic, we either deny that AGW does exist or deny that AGW doesn't exist
  #248  
Old 24-07-2014, 08:05 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz View Post
all I know is that the carbon tax did exactly what it was supposed to do for me. Power went up so much that it forced me to get off my butt and do something.
Ray, the carbon tax component of your electricity bill amounts to something like 2c per kwh iirc. (basically nothing) After reading through your post, it is redundant to say that you have made some intelligent and informed decisions with respect to the changes you made to your energy usage profile. Your example is quite typical of those that apply some initiative. I used to work as an energy auditor and the cases where I couldn't point out to clients how to significantly reduce the costs associated with their energy consumption with simple behavioural changes were extremely rare (I could count them on both thumbs, one of them being spare). A 30% reduction straight off the bat without any major investment was probably the mean.

It may surprise you however, to learn that I am somewhat less than ambivalent to the idea of taxing carbon as a means to solve the issues associated with burning it. People generally do not take the time to make a fully informed and rational decision on the fundamentals that affect their long term welfare (you are somewhat of an exception). Pressuring them with market forces doesn't actually work to the extent required because their behaviour is more easily manipulated by suggestion (media advocacy) which is always going to be the domain of the highest bidder (multinational banks and corporations) Direct action is in my opinion, far more effective. This is not to be confused with the 'fossil fool' initiative being employed by our current crime minister (disingenuously) under the same name.

Last edited by clive milne; 24-07-2014 at 10:32 PM.
  #249  
Old 24-07-2014, 08:20 PM
el_draco (Rom)
Politically incorrect.

el_draco is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tasmania (South end)
Posts: 2,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlgerdes View Post
We are all deniers in this topic, we either deny that AGW does exist or deny that AGW doesn't exist
Holy Hell.... Do you have bring in a THIRD point of view....
  #250  
Old 24-07-2014, 08:23 PM
el_draco (Rom)
Politically incorrect.

el_draco is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tasmania (South end)
Posts: 2,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
She is a bit crass (or maybe a lot) - but she now has a track record.

She has voted rationally on one decision (The Carbon Tax), and I'm having a hard time thinking of anything significant and rational that Milne and Hanson-Young have voted on.

So, I'd rate Lambi as one of Tasmania's better choices for the Senate.
Cheers,
Renato

Proof positive that you haven't got a clue
... and you STILL haven't answered the question!
  #251  
Old 24-07-2014, 08:38 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeno View Post
Typical....
The very first post was politically inflaming and now there are nine pages, with some foul language thrown in for good measure. What a wonderful site this has become for children.
My 15 year old step daughter would beg to differ.
The language and conduct shown by members of this forum is an order of magnitude more cordial and respectful than that of her peer group and those considerably younger. She is privy to, and master of a lexicon of colourful vernacular the likes of which has never been posted on IIS. I think I can safely posit that she is not an outlier data point in the distribution curve either.
She would also put it to you (if she were even interested in engaging in a political discussion on an astronomy forum when there is 24 hours in a day where she could be on face book) that censoring debate on a crisis of existential magnitude is in fact more offensive than the occasionally inflamed passions expressed within it.

2c
  #252  
Old 24-07-2014, 08:51 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Onshore wind is now the cheapest form of new electricity generation in Denmark, undercutting coal power, according to the government’s energy agency.

New analysis shows that onshore wind plants due online in 2016 will cost half the price of coal and natural gas plants, coming in at around 4 cent euro (3 UK pence) per kilowatt hour.

Rasmus Petersen, Danish Minister for Energy, Climate and Buildings said:

Quote:
Wind power today is cheaper than other forms of energy, not least because of a big commitment and professionalism in the field. This is true both for researchers, companies and politicians. We need a long-term and stable energy policy to ensure that renewable energy, both today and in the future is the obvious choice.
Full article here:
http://tcktcktck.org/2014/07/wind-de...-denmark/63626
  #253  
Old 24-07-2014, 10:39 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Renewable energy is ready to supply all of Australia’s electricity

AUTHOR


Mark Diesendorf
Associate Professor and Deputy Director, Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW at UNSW Australia



Even when the wind doesn’t blow, it is technically possible for Australia to get all its electricity needs from renewable sources. David Clarke/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND
In a recent article on The Conversation, University of Melbourne Professor Emeritus Frank Larkins wrote that Australia’s targets to increase renewable energy will make electricity more expensive, thanks to problems with consistency and storage.

But Professor Larkins is several years behind developments in renewable energy and its integration into electricity grids. In fact, we already have technically feasible scenarios to run the Australian electricity industry on 100% renewable energy — without significantly affecting supply.

When the sun doesn’t shine…

Professor Larkins states that hydro, wind, solar depend on:

irregular weather patterns, which lead to uncertain and intermittent power output. This is a big challenge for electricity generators and retailers, and it can cost lots of money.
But the problem of “consistency” or variability of some renewable energy sources is now better understood, both from empirical experience with lots of wind power in electricity grids, and from hourly computer simulations of electricity supply and demand performed for many states, countries and global regions.

For instance, South Australia nominally has two coal-fired power stations, several gas-fired ones, and at least 15 operating wind farms. Wind now supplies an annual average of 27% of South Australia’s electricity generation. As a result, one of the coal stations is now shut down for half the year and the other for the whole year. And the state’s electricity supply system is operating reliably without the need for any additional non-renewable energy supply.

In Germany, the northern states of Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern have about 100% and 120%, respectively, of their electricity generated from the wind. Of course they use their transmission links with neighbouring states (including each other) to assist in balancing supply and demand with such high wind penetrations.

100% renewable — without supply problems

But Australia’s National Electricity Market (NEM) has no such links to other electricity supplies. How could it increase generation from renewable energy without hurting electricity supply?

Ben Elliston, Iain MacGill and I at UNSW have performed thousands of computer simulations of the hour-by-hour operation of the NEM with different mixes of 100% commercially available renewable energy technologies scaled up to meet demand reliably.

We use actual hourly electricity demand and actual hourly solar and wind power data for 2010 and balance supply and demand for almost every hour, while maintaining the required reliability of supply. The relevant papers, published in peer-reviewed international journals, can be downloaded from my UNSW website.

Using conservative projections to 2030 for the costs of renewable energy by the federal government’s Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE), we found an optimal mix of renewable electricity sources. The mix looks like this:

Wind 46%;
Concentrated solar thermal (electricity generated by the heat of the sun) with thermal storage 22%;
Photovoltaic solar 20% (electricity generated directly from sunlight);
Biofuelled gas turbines 6%; and
Existing hydro 6%.
So two-thirds of annual energy can be supplied by wind and solar photovoltaic — energy sources that vary depending on the weather — while maintaining reliability of the generating system at the required level. How is this possible?

It turns out that wind and solar photovoltaic are only unable to meet electricity demand a few times a year. These periods occur during peak demand on winter evenings following overcast days that also happen to have low wind speeds across the region.

Since the gaps are few in number and none exceeds two hours in duration, there only needs to be a small amount of generation from the so-called flexible renewables (those that don’t depend on the vagaries of weather): hydro and biofuelled gas turbines. Concentrated solar thermal is also flexible while it has energy in its thermal storage.

The gas turbines have low capital cost and, when operated infrequently and briefly, low fuel costs, so they play the role of reliability insurance with a low premium.

No need for batteries

Our research, together with similar extensive hourly computer simulations by others spanning up to a decade from Europe and the USA (reviewed in Chapter 3 of “Sustainable Energy Solutions for Climate Change”), refute Professor Larkins’ statement that “We need baseload electric power [from non-renewable sources] to guarantee security of supply”.

Many regions of the world could operate a 100% renewable electricity system reliably without any baseload power stations. Indeed, in electricity supply systems with a lot of renewable energy, inflexible coal and nuclear baseload power stations get in the way. What we really need to balance the variability of wind and photovoltaic solar are the flexible renewable energy power stations: hydro, solar thermal and biofuelled gas turbines.

This mix needs only a little storage from hydro and solar thermal to maintain reliable supply. With enough fuel, biofuelled gas turbines could also be considered storage. Such a mix has no need for expensive batteries or hydrogen fuel cells.

Using BREE’s conservative projections for the costs of renewable energy technologies in 2030, we find that the cost of 100% renewable energy is A$7-10 billion per year more than that of the existing polluting fossil fuelled system. Although this is a 50% increase, it is likely to be less than the damage caused by the increased frequency of heatwaves, droughts and floods in a business-as-usual scenario.

The renewable scenarios would be economically competitive with the fossil system either with a carbon price of A$50 per tonne of CO2 (reflecting part of the environmental and health damage from fossil fuels) or, in the absence of a carbon price, by removing the existing subsidies to the production and use of fossil fuels and transferring them temporarily to renewable energy.

As an alternative to BREE’s cost estimates, Bloomberg New Energy Finance calculates that wind and solar are already cheaper than new build coal and gas in Australia. If this is correct, 100% renewable systems are already economically competitive with a new fossil-fuelled system.

Australia could be more ambitious

Is Australia’s Renewable Energy Target of 41,000 gigawatt hours per year in 2020 “ambitious”? Not on a world scale. The table below compares several countries' renewable energy contributions, as well as their official long-term targets.


Considering that Australia has much greater solar energy and wind potential than the European countries, its present renewable contribution and its 2020 target are both modest.

Moving to 100% renewable electricity is safe, technically feasible and affordable. It can cut greenhouse gas and other emissions and land degradation, while creating local jobs and energy security. It is ready to go!

Full article with source links here:
http://theconversation.com/renewable...ctricity-29200
  #254  
Old 25-07-2014, 12:42 AM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by el_draco View Post
Proof positive that you haven't got a clue
... and you STILL haven't answered the question!
Proof positive that you don't understand positive outcomes for the good of the citizens as decided by the citizens (something called democracy), rather than by philosopher kings who supposedly know best.
Cheers,
Renato
  #255  
Old 25-07-2014, 12:49 AM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by wulfgar View Post
I was very impressed by France when they started turning lights off in Paris to save money when if the propaganda is true then power should be no problem.

But the fact remains that conventional nuclear power is guaranteed to remain more expensive than fossil fuel and economical fast breeder remains a pie in the sky.

I'd say the Japanese and Germans have revealed their smarts. Or do you have a different angle?
The Japs revealed their smarts when they signed the Kyoto treaty. No problem reducing to 1990 levels, they said, we're going to build 27 new nuclear reactors. No complaints from Greens then.

And now that they've closed their reactors and going back to coal, they've put a new CO2 target out, which misses their Kyoto target by miles.

No complaints from Greens - because the Japs have a target, they are doing something about Global Warming!

Gotta love both of them.
Cheers,
Renato
  #256  
Old 25-07-2014, 01:41 AM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrograde View Post
This is just a misrepresentation of global climate models. No one has been able to successfully predict ENSO phases well in advance and that is not what GCMs are designed to do.
ENSO is a response to a range of factors and not a forcing on the climate itself - it would be the same as writing off climate models for not predicting the cooling effect of a large volcanic eruption even though GCMs are not designed to predict volcanic eruptions.
Hi again Pete,
You seem to miss one very important point - the two score or so supercomputer models all predict past climate without a hitch! (Or they wouldn't get any credibility or funding).

So - they either replicate the past climate either with or without the pacific oscillation.

If they did the simulations without it - well - how can it be so? The oscillation is now considered one of the major factors that is stuffing up their predictions, and they haven't accounted for it.

If they did use it in their simulations of the past - they have to use it in simulations of the future. You volcano comparison is flawed. For all intents and purposes a major volcano eruption is an unpredictable event. But a Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a recurrent event, to which one can assign probabilities, and which can be modelled.
Cheers,
Renato
  #257  
Old 25-07-2014, 01:51 AM
Astro_Bot's Avatar
Astro_Bot
Registered User

Astro_Bot is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
The Japs revealed their smarts when they signed the Kyoto treaty. No problem reducing to 1990 levels, they said, we're going to build 27 new nuclear reactors. No complaints from Greens then.

And now that they've closed their reactors and going back to coal, they've put a new CO2 target out, which misses their Kyoto target by miles.

No complaints from Greens - because the Japs have a target, they are doing something about Global Warming!

Gotta love both of them.
Cheers,
Renato
You're a fair bit wide of the mark there, Renato.

Firstly, Japan isn't going back to coal. The vast majority of the the shortfall from a lack of nuclear power capacity has been taken up by petroleum (oil), liquified natural gas (LNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) - from 36.8% to 60.8%. Meanwhile coal consumption increased only by a small amount, from 25.0% to 27.6%.

Secondly, the nuclear shutdown is probably not permanent. Two reactors have already been approved for re-start by the Japan Nuclear Regulatory Authority, with the re-starts expected before November 2014. That isn't quite the final decision - there's a series of public consultations planned before the Japanese Government makes the final call and they could yet cave to minority political pressure, if there are seats to lose - but PM Abe is pushing pretty hard for nuclear power. There are 17 more reactors with re-start applications pending. That's not all of them (there are 48 reactors in total), but it's a large chunk of Japanese nuclear generating capacity. The 6 reactors at Fukushima will never be re-started.

Quote:
... we're going to build 27 new nuclear reactors. No complaints from Greens then.
Since I've never met a card-carrying greenie who didn't complain about nuclear power, I find this very hard to believe.
  #258  
Old 25-07-2014, 01:57 AM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrograde View Post
This is just a misrepresentation of global climate models. No one has been able to successfully predict ENSO phases well in advance and that is not what GCMs are designed to do.
ENSO is a response to a range of factors and not a forcing on the climate itself - it would be the same as writing off climate models for not predicting the cooling effect of a large volcanic eruption even though GCMs are not designed to predict volcanic eruptions.



Dr Spencer is also a creationist. Do you not accept evolution as well on his say so?
If you correct for ENSO then you still see strong warming trend. Spencer is completely wrong on that as shown here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ends-and-enso/

Of course Roy Spencer tried to produce his own climate model. When hindcast 1000 years (a basic check) it was out by 6 TRILLION degrees


So you did. One denialist 'think-tank' that refuses to disclose its funding sources and lists the usual suspects amongst its list of 'academic advisers' (Plimer, Carter, Lindzen etc) is quite hard to distinguish from another.

What they all have in common is that they don't do real scientific research or produce peer-reviewed, scientific papers. They instead spread misinformation for their undisclosed financial backers and (in the case of the GWPF & our own IPA) even leech off the taxpayer by declaring "charitable status".
Hi Pete,
Very interesting - discrimination on the grounds of religion. Spencer got a medal from NASA for all his work with satellites recording the earth's temperature. Yet you dismiss him as a nutter because of his religious beliefs, and despite his championing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as a major factor in climate for decades, which it now transpires is a major factor affecting the climate models.

Oh - and good to see you admitting that your assertion about me and the Heartland Institue was baseless. Very interesting to see also that you dismiss everything from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, despite the fact that all it does is point out to good news buried in the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report - which you can easily verify with a few clicks on Google and then at the AR5 site. Perhaps you are unaware that the IPCC 5th Assessment Report is a document which claims global warming is happening and is bad?
Cheers,
Renato
  #259  
Old 25-07-2014, 01:57 AM
Amaranthus's Avatar
Amaranthus (Barry)
Thylacinus stargazoculus

Amaranthus is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Judbury, Tasmania
Posts: 1,203
The Japan situation is problematic but still in flux. I worked recently with a PhD student of mine to evaluate the 4 proposed governmental scenarios, which ranged from a phase out nuclear energy through to an expansion to about 50% of supply by 2035. The original paper is here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...01421513000049

and the blog post covering the results here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/02/0...ns-over-style/
  #260  
Old 25-07-2014, 02:03 AM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by el_draco View Post
Ah yep, and how thick is it compared to 20 years ago, and how extensive is it compared to 20 years ago. Hmmm
Pretty easy to find out for yourself.
Look up the Arctic Sea Ice Anomaly on Google.

You see two important things there.
1. It is still there.
2. It did take a dip, but is now increasing again relative to where it was.

Regards,
Renato
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 06:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement