That Electricity rip-off again

[Zhou (Mick)]

G'day Clive,

I do hear what your saying. Sadly we live in pretty unenlightened times where science is oxymoronically seen as an impediment to progress. I guess we have to be careful of of what we say because there are people waiting to for that "gotcha" moment. I know that only too well.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by pgc hunter

Yes. I accept the challenge.

By all means...

Start with some credible climate science that challenges it.
But I do hope you have your ducks in a slightly better row than you managed in our last discussion.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Zhou

G'day Clive,

I do hear what your saying. Sadly we live in pretty unenlightened times where science is oxymoronically seen as an impediment to progress. I guess we have to be careful of of what we say because there are people waiting to for that "gotcha" moment. I know that only too well.

Hey Zhou, point well taken...

btw) I just noticed you are from China.

I worked over there (in Shanghai) back in 92, lots of vivid memories. I bet the place is unrecognisable from when I was there though.

best regards,
~c

[andyc (Andy)]

Originally Posted by Larryp

Well Andy, did you just not say the same as I did, but in a more roundabout way?
Maybe these technologies will improve with time, but they are not there yet. The other thing with wave technology is the size of the machinery necessary to produce a meaningful amount of power.

Err, no I didn't. I'm afraid you were dismissive about technology I doubt you're aware of, whether you intended to be or not. And having seen up close and personal a number of wave and tidal power developments, they're a lot smaller than your average coal-fired power station. You're welcome to do the volume/quantity of steel & concrete calculations per megawatt generated, and I still suspect coal will come out worse. And that's before considering some of the coal station's externalities, such as toxic coal ash (including radioactivity), the powerful global warming agent CO2, and of course the requirement for a continuous supply of fuel. Mining that fuel requires further resources, equipment, degradation, pollution and human risk.

Given all that, it might do good to be positive about developing and deploying much cleaner sources of energy? And given the relative price trajectories of renewable vs non-remewable energy sources, they'll soon enough be cheaper too. Surely everyone's positive about that? Grid parity is being reached by some renewable technologies already, and that is only increasing as dirty fossil fuels become more expensive and scarce.

[pgc hunter]

Originally Posted by clive milne

By all means...

Start with some credible climate science that challenges it.
But I do hope you have your ducks in a slightly better row than you managed in our last discussion.

and saying things like fossil fuels are more damaging than a nuclear war and half the world population will be wiped out in the next 300 years because of man-made "global warming" (by up to 20C nonetheless!!!!) is credible? Give me a break
Sorry Clive Milne, but if you make such ridiculous statements you can expect some flak

[smithcorp (Brian)]

Our family has been protected pretty well from the electricity price rises (much of which in my State has been due to infrastructure investments prior to carbon price). We installed solar panels while there was still a nice gap between what we get paid per kW/h for generation; and what we pay (ie we got the 60c per kW/h), but we also went onto time of use metering and did a few other things to get our usage down.

These included getting ceiling insulation and a gas heater (pretty good outcome - don't use heating so much in winter now and when it was warmer, as long as we kept the windows covered during the day, the house would stay nice and cool); operating washing machine and dishwasher (which we use rarely) after 10 or 11 pm at night, when the tariff is much lower, training the kids to turn lights off when they leave the room and keeping stuff switched off at the wall when not in use.

We bought a $20 monitor plug thing from Jaycar that showed us how much standby power our appliances used; and got Belkin Conserve sockets, which switch off the power after a timed period. These are great for switching off mobile phone chargers that suck power even after the device is fully charged.

Doing these things, we got our 4 person household down to an average use of about 7 kW/h per day. Our bills are much lower and usually our usage is less than we generate now, in winter and summer.

Hope this is useful to anyone - here's another good site with tips on saving energy: http://theconversation.edu.au/the-ca...rgy-costs-7879

I reckon whatever happens with carbon prices and the like, you can bet electricity prices will continue to increase (population increase, plus increasing demands of modern households) and i hope my state doesn't privatise power generators too fully, as based on other states like Victoria, this will probably result in bigger increases and less reliability of supply. I reckon the aim should be to reduce usage as much as possible and get some future-proofers like solar panels which can help offset proce rises.

smith

[Larryp (Laurie)]

I have solar panels too, and I have converted my cooking, heating and hot water to natural gas. I use the profit from the solar to pay my gas bill, and my total energy expenditure per annum would be maybe $200.00

[Exfso (Peter)]

I know all the lurks about saving energy, and I have cut my useage right back, this is not what the thread is about or getting into an argument about Nuclear versus conventional power generation, it is about the outlandish price rises that have occurred in the last 18 months. End of story. Simple fact, the general public is being shafted, big time.....

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by pgc hunter

and saying things like fossil fuels are more damaging than a nuclear war and half the world population will be wiped out in the next 300 years because of man-made "global warming" (by up to 20C nonetheless!!!!) is credible? Give me a break
Sorry Clive Milne, but if you make such ridiculous statements you can expect some flak

The 12C to 20C claim is made by climate scientists at Purdue University and the University of NSW.... perhaps you can enlighten us as to why you think you are a more credible source of information on long term climate change (and its impacts) than they are? Incidentally, these guys are leading the field in long term climate modelling. Pretty much everyone else has limited their focus to this century.

fwiw) The nuclear war aftermath analogy is my commentary, but I stand by it as being a fair comparison to the impact of a 12C to 20C step change in average global temperature. Your value judgements may differ of course.

[clive milne]

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Attachment 119640

Really is quite a joke huh Clive?...can only shake our heads

[Exfso (Peter)]

Why cant you guys keep to the topic instead of going off at a tangent. The mind boggles.

[Colin_Fraser]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Really is quite a joke huh Clive?...can only shake our heads

Scientific evidence backed up by a cartoon drawing

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

Scientific evidence backed up by a cartoon drawing

Gotta make it simple for simple minds sometimes I guess

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

Scientific evidence backed up by a cartoon drawing

And the basis for doubting or denying the seriousness of anthropogenically forced climate change is what exactly?

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Exfso

Why cant you guys keep to the topic instead of going off at a tangent. The mind boggles.

Because the subjects being discussed are inextricably linked.

[RB (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

And the basis for doubting or denying the seriousness of anthropogenically forced climate change is what exactly?

A reminder to everyone that in the Forum TOS Rules, Mike has stated the following rule:

3. Posting Topics
Please avoid topics about global warming, race, politics or religion. These can be very sensitive topics, and people are usually very polarised about these issues; it can be very easy to take things the wrong way, creating arguments. Threads about these topics often end badly - usually being locked, with posts being deleted, or with people being upset.

We have been keeping an eye on this thread closely and don't want to see it end up the same way all the other threads we have moderated in the past have ended up, locked, moderated or deleted.

Many thanks for understanding and for your co-operation.

RB

[2stroke (Jay)]

Hey i do my part for them environment, each summer i turn all our air conditioners up, open the fridge and freezer doors, then open all the doors and windows of our home to help combat global warming

On a real note this power monopoly has got me worried, but we all know who is to blame for selling the utility's to start with, and also who voted the low life's in (not my gen bahah) now we just have to deal with it unless you guys are planing a NWO we are all going to have to put up with being bent over and shafted by our new overlords Give peter garrett a call, hell he might even sing a song for you and make it all better

Click here to load the video

Loading...

irony


i·ro·ny

1    [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Show IPA
noun, plural i·ro·nies. 1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

2. Literature . a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.

b. (especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.



3. Socratic irony.

4. dramatic irony.

5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by RB

A reminder to everyone that in the Forum TOS Rules, Mike has stated the following rule:



We have been keeping an eye on this thread closely and don't want to see it end up the same way all the other threads we have moderated in the past have ended up, locked, moderated or deleted.

Many thanks for understanding and for your co-operation.

RB

Andrew, I think most ISS members appreciate your efforts to keep the forum civil and free of ad-homonym argument.

On the subject of AGW, it is arguably the single most important planetary science and its relevance is the reason the subject elicits such passionate debate.

I think the words of James Hansen (NASA Goddard Institute for space studies) are instructive:

Dr. Hansen explains that, after speaking out for the need for an energy policy that would address climate change, the White House contacted NASA and Dr. Hansen was ordered to not speak to the media without permission. After informing the New York Times about the situation, the censorship was lifted and Dr. Hansen continued to speak out, justifying his actions with the first line of NASA’s Mission Statement’: “To understand and protect the home planet”. But there were consequences… the reference to the home planet was soon struck from NASA’s Mission Statement, never to return.


James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change: TED TALKS: documentary,lecture,talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ-sf...eature=related


it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[RB (Andrew)]

Thanks Clive, my point is that whether others, including myself, agree or disagree with your views the fact remains that the words of my mate, Mike Salway.....trumps your references to Dr James Hansen, et al.