I'm asking scientists here on IIS - can the actual science be demonstrated rather than ear-bashed into us? If so, then it might not result in so much fervent opposition, but until then it's all heresay to the common man. Show it to the general population on television, show it to them in the newspapers and magazines in glorius colour- don't just refer them to a bunch of scientific white papers and ask them to interpret them because they quite simply can't. People are generally visual - so give them vision! Where's Julius Sumner-Miller when you need him, eh? If the basic thermodynamics could be simply and convincingly demonstrated then I believe that the question on whether the carbon tax is relevant could be finally resolved for most, and then the next question be entertained - what to do with it.
Thanks for your insightful and entirely fair post if all in the debate had your grasp on the situation it would be great. I believe that the visual evidence was produced in a documentry it was called an inconvinient truth. But unfortunately a lot of people reacted with the same steadfast line we have seen in evidence elsewhere.
Infact I was talking to a denier when I was driving to a job in Moranbah on friday who claimed to know all the science but hadn't seen the movie and didn't know the science presented in it he admitted to me (it was a long drive) he had got all his "evidence" from listening to the scare campaigns as apposed to science.
I believe that there is no balance in the print media in Australia and this is my long held opinion not something that I have got from recent events.
I'm asking scientists here on IIS - can the actual science be demonstrated rather than ear-bashed into us?
Yes if people are prepared to listen... My main problem is getting people to listen to my explanations! If you try to simplify things there is always someone ready to pounce on you for simplifying the facts - funny it doesnt seem to be a problem for the sceptics arguements.
Sadly i have found people dont want to know, its easier to listen to the shock jocks etc than to actually read up on the issue.
My in-laws are a good example. The only info they have is from people like Andrew Bolt. I am forever having to explain the flaws in what he says, or the latest email to go around claiming to have the real answer. They accept my explanation (or perhaps they are just saying they do to shut me up ) and then before long are waving around another chain email or Andrew Bolt newspaper again sayig 'see your wrong and I have the evidence here"
I think the OP asked for feedback and a debate around alternate power sources and technologies to supply demand in Australia and adequate base load in the short term future for a growing population. It's not about climate change. Just where the CT money's going to go or where it should go ideally. No point steering this whole thread into another climate change thread arguing about CO2 output or who's a sceptic, denier, Andrew Bolt Supporter, Greenie or other. Besides the point IMHO.
I'd say that the level of soon-to-be collected funds will determine what we can afford to replace coal-fired base load power generation - irrespective of what technology is better than any other. I'm reasonably sure that they will depend entirely on whether the population supports a carbon or any other emissions-related tax or scheme in the first place. Ultimately I see no solution in the near future that can compete with NP of some flavour. We haven't deviated from the the original post too much I don't think.
I'd say that the level of soon-to-be collected funds will determine what we can afford to replace coal-fired base load power generation - irrespective of what technology is better than any other. I'm reasonably sure that they will depend entirely on whether the population supports a carbon or any other emissions-related tax or scheme in the first place. Ultimately I see no solution in the near future that can compete with NP of some flavour. We haven't deviated from the the original post too much I don't think.
Your reasoning is correct Chris but I do fear that the collected funds will go no where. As you know I work in the generation industry and find the companies overall are really not interested in being inovative if it is going to cost them money or public outcry. They are only interested in the final dollar return to share holder. Most if not all will play it very safe, build wind farms, build the odd gas fired turbines and continue to do it at our expence. New forms of generation will require legislative direction before any one of them will step up and take the plunge. All the forms of generation we see in Australia are world proven before we step up and buy it.
$23 per ton is not a realistic price to force companies to make a break from the traditional generation. These costs will just be passed on to us all with no real incentive for companies to improve.
There has been a lot of talk of shutting down Hazelwood Power Station in the Latrobe Valley. This is privately owned and for government to pay a private company to shut down such a large generator will probably absorb the entire first few years worth of carbon tax in compensation let alone the need to replace it with something...... What will that be.....God only knows....... Gas is of course a possibility but it produces CO2 as well and is still eating up a natural resource but at least it is near the source of some gas in Victoria.
I fear a lot of this is just lip service to appease the greens and little be done in the end.
The oceans cover a little more than 70 percent of the Earth's surface. This makes them the world's largest solar energy collector and energy storage system. On an average day, 60 million square kilometers (23 million square miles) of tropical seas absorb an amount of solar radiation equal in heat content to about 250 billion barrels of oil. If less than one-tenth of one percent of this stored solar energy could be converted into electric power, it would supply more than 20 times the total amount of electricity consumed in the United States on any given day.
OTEC, or ocean thermal energy conversion, is an energy technology that converts solar radiation to electric power. OTEC systems use the ocean's natural thermal gradient - the fact that the ocean's layers of water have different temperatures - to drive a power-producing cycle. As long as the temperature between the warm surface water and the cold deep water differs by about 20°C (36°F), an OTEC system can produce a significant amount of power. The oceans are thus a vast renewable resource, with the potential to help us produce billions of watts of electric power. This potential is estimated to be about 10 tothe13 watts of baseload power generation, according to some experts. The cold, deep seawater used in the OTEC process is also rich in nutrients, and it can be used to culture both marine organisms and plant life near the shore or on land.
Because the oceans are continually heated by the sun and cover nearly 70% of the Earth's surface, this temperature difference contains a vast amount of solar energy which could potentially be tapped for human use. If this extraction could be done profitably on a large scale, it could be a solution to some of the human population's energy problems. The total energy available is one or two orders of magnitude higher than other ocean energy options such as wave power, but the small size of the temperature difference makes energy extraction difficult and expensive. Hence, existing OTEC systems have an overall efficiency of only 1 to 3%.
The concept of a heat engine is very common in engineering, and nearly all energy utilized by humans uses it in some form. A heat engine involves a device placed between a high temperature reservoir (such as a container) and a low temperature reservoir. As heat flows from one to the other, the engine extracts some of the heat in the form of work. This same general principle is used in steam turbines and internal combustion engines, while refrigerators reverse the natural flow of heat by "spending" energy. Rather than using heat energy from the burning of fuel, OTEC power draws on temperature differences caused by the sun's warming of the ocean surface.
The economics of energy production today have delayed the financing of a permanent, continuously operating OTEC plant. However, OTEC is very promising as an alternative energy resource for tropical island communities that rely heavily on imported fuel. OTEC plants in these markets could provide islanders with much-needed power, as well as desalinated water and a variety of mariculture products.
It is possible to measure the value of an OTEC plant and continued OTEC development by both its economic and non-economic benefits. OTEC's economic benefits include these:
Helps produce fuels such as hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol
Produces baseload electrical energy
Produces desalinated water for industrial, agricultural, and residential uses
Is a resource for on-shore and near-shore mariculture operations
Provides air-conditioning for buildings
Provides moderate-temperature refrigeration
Has significant potential to provide clean, cost-effective electricity for the future.
Some energy experts believe that if it could become cost-competitive with conventional power technologies, OTEC could produce gigawatts of electrical power. Bringing costs into line is still a huge challenge, however. All OTEC plants require an expensive, large diameter intake pipe, which is submerged a mile or more into the ocean's depths, to bring very cold water to the surface
Hi all the public forum can be tough, vigerous to and frowing can be taken the wrong way at times. I'm use to having to have strong arguements with people and having a beer afterwards.
Hagar funny you use those examples, I can see the Hallet wind farms from my farm. The farm is off the grid but I do use wind and solar to power everything.
I work in Whyalla. Onesteel makes use of those high power prices by stopping their operations and selling their excess power.
No one is saying it will be easy or that it will happen overnight but I am saying that there are ways to make baseload power other then coal.
Other coutries are using other options and more and more we will to.
Further more a large whack of the power we make is wasted, transmission losses and general wastefulness. The goal in the next 40 years is to reduce our CO2 output by 80% on our 1990 levels. That means the coal we do have will last alot longer.
If we move to more solar, we can use small local coal and gas fired stations. We would have make better use of our power, hence why the tax is good. Most people don't conserve things that are cheap, plentiful or where the damage is down river.
I believe there are alot of lights that burn all night in cities buildings that don't need to be on all night turn them off at say 8pm some will say it is a security issue but you can have motion sensors turn lights back on if anything is moving. And this would be great for us Astronomers
Yes if people are prepared to listen... My main problem is getting people to listen to my explanations! If you try to simplify things there is always someone ready to pounce on you for simplifying the facts - funny it doesnt seem to be a problem for the sceptics arguements.
Sadly i have found people dont want to know, its easier to listen to the shock jocks etc than to actually read up on the issue.
My in-laws are a good example. The only info they have is from people like Andrew Bolt. I am forever having to explain the flaws in what he says, or the latest email to go around claiming to have the real answer. They accept my explanation (or perhaps they are just saying they do to shut me up ) and then before long are waving around another chain email or Andrew Bolt newspaper again sayig 'see your wrong and I have the evidence here"
This is your answer Chris, unfortunate but true...
There has been so much information about why and how the climate is changing and the strong links to an anthropogenic cause and yes beyond An Inconvenient Truth, the IPCC has confirmed it is unequivocal. The problem is that pseudo science and creationist like selective evidence picking plus the anti Labor rubbish these undeserved self promoting shock jocks have been dishing out has escalated in more recent times and done lots of damage. Throwing doubt on an issue with crap science no matter how loosely that doubt relates resonates with average people with no scientific clue. If more people are doubting now that climate change is even real let alone that man is a serious contributer, how do you seriously think a government can sell putting a price on carbon..?
We can ill afford another election on it, the government has a mandate and a responsibility to act regardless of the damage it will do to them in the polls - Kudos to the Australian Labor party, they will most likely leave government in two years or so but they will leave us with another significant and long over due reform and I congratulate them.
The sky will not fall, the economy will survive and hopefully it will be the start of a change of direction and approach to how we do things, hopefully the World will continue along a similar path and over time we will see real change all over the place, that's all I hope
Forget Prof Miller...but we will just have to waatch waatch
Mike
Last edited by strongmanmike; 17-07-2011 at 11:42 PM.
I'm asking scientists here on IIS - can the actual science be demonstrated rather than ear-bashed into us? If so, then it might not result in so much fervent opposition.
Well said Chris . The argument "your not smart enough to decide" doesn't hang well with me either.
There has been so much information about why and how the climate is changing and the strong links to an anthropogenic cause and yes beyond An Inconvenient Truth, the IPCC has confirmed it is unequivocal. The problem is that pseudo science and creationist like selective evidence picking //
We can ill afford another election on it, the government has a mandate //
Mike
The trouble is Mike that in the eyes of the average person .. AKA me, I see quite credible information from what appears to me equally as credible sources, that refute the pro claims. I dont know if this falls into your "pseudo science and creationist like selective evidence picking" category or not. Im an open book on this subject by the way. So what Chris is saying is exactly the problem here ... why is it so difficult to produce tangible demonstratable and repeatable proof. I know you think we have already seen proof, but I havent and would really like to one way or the other.
The fact that this delemour exists makes it all a grey area to me.
I am quite willing to side with the facts ... just show them to me.
If we have to go down the avenue of prudence then so be it ... my objection to that is not that in itself, only the timing of it.
I have to clearly object to the assertion that the government has a mandate ... Not even in some abstract way, nor mixing up letters and taking a few away is there any chance that the statement "there will be no carbon tax under my government" was not made in one sentence and in english ... and as an average person, I dont know how else to understand that but of course thats only my take on it.
Fortunately, that is not the main focus in this, there are much more difficult decisions and problems to address and I l hope that if Carbon is the problem we find solutions and move on. Either way though Im in favour of being pro active in the search for renewable energy sources as I think are most.
The thorium idea being discussed seems to be something that definately has merit.
The trouble is Mike that in the eyes of the average person .. AKA me, I see quite credible information from what appears to me equally as credible sources, that refute the pro claims
The info is available and very easy to find people just don't want to believe it for some reason
Quote:
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.
I'm asking scientists here on IIS - can the actual science be demonstrated rather than ear-bashed into us? If so, then it might not result in so much fervent opposition.
Please tell me how would demonstrate something except by modeling which is happening, but people only believe the modeling of the sceptics
There are many papers on this subject and lots of evidence but still until it is too late vested interests will stir the fire in doubters mind.
Have you noticed that the biggest doubters are the miners and petrolium companies.
Cheers
The science can be demonstrated easily, with a simple experiment anyone can do (if they get a hold of the supplies).
Make up two small, airtight, "greenhouses" and place them on a table. Get a small canister of CO2 and pump a little bit into one of them and label it. Grab a sunlamp and shine it on both of them for a number of hours, then take a reading of the temp in both.
You'll find the one with the CO2 in it will be hotter than the control with only air.
The same happens with the Earth, only on a vastly larger scale.
The trouble is Mike that in the eyes of the average person .. AKA me, I see quite credible information from what appears to me equally as credible sources, that refute the pro claims.
The realclimate website has some great discussion and resources. I have also seen some very good articles in the new scientist and the science section of the Guardian.
Getting informed about it all is my big thing. I just get frustrated by people dismissing the scientists without actually reading anything, just by following what they read in the paper.
The same can be said for those opposing nuclear solutions for base load (eg me). There was some interesing discussion on here after the Japan earthquake and it certainly highlighted my ignorance. I have since been doing a lot of reading on nuclear power generation since then, and although I am yet to be converted, I have a much better grasp of the issue and agree the Thorium idea sounds very interesting.
I know some have complained about this thread going off topic a bit but I think it is that bad. These issues are linked in peoples minds right now. There is not a lot of sensible debate going on about climate change and the move away from coal as a primary energy source. I have already found much food for thought from this thread.
A lot of people won't do their own research into the matter simply because they don't want to have to handle science. They've been brought up to think of science as some weird thing only geeks and people in lab coats like to do and that no one else can understand it. "It's too hard". So, they go with what they know....the sensationalist, misguided claptrap that the journos put out. Much more believable than the "mundane", "boring", "incomprehensible", factual stuff that scientists talk about.
A lot of people, when you really dig into their motivations and thoughts, don't really care. If it doesn't affect their job, their home and family, or their money/security, then it's usually out of sight, out of mind and too difficult a task to handle, anyway.
That's why the Carbon tax is polarising everything....this will hit those things I mentioned.
We can ill afford another election on it, the government has a mandate and a responsibility to act regardless of the damage it will do to them in the polls - Kudos to the Australian Labor party, they will most likely leave government in two years or so but they will leave us with another significant and long over due reform and I congratulate them.
Mike
Rubbish, The government definitely has no mandate. They don't even have a mandate to Govern in their own right. Whichever party came into power at the last election had only a mandate to appease the policy of the Greens, a minor party but holding power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by supernova1965
The info is available and very easy to find people just don't want to believe it for some reason
I believe there is significant evidence to indicate that thge earths surface temprature had risen in the past as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
The science can be demonstrated easily, with a simple experiment anyone can do (if they get a hold of the supplies).
Make up two small, airtight, "greenhouses" and place them on a table. Get a small canister of CO2 and pump a little bit into one of them and label it. Grab a sunlamp and shine it on both of them for a number of hours, then take a reading of the temp in both.
You'll find the one with the CO2 in it will be hotter than the control with only air.
The same happens with the Earth, only on a vastly larger scale.
Carl, nice experiment if you can call it that. We are talking ppm here and not litres / cubic meter. Try the same experiment with an increase in CO2 in small amounts, plant some plants in the container and your results will be entirely different. Use the sun instead of a narrow spectrum heat lamp and both containers will probably die.
My main gripe with the whole thing is the fact that both sides seem to be manipulating data to achieve there own desired result. The tax is exactly what it is another tax wich will probably leave us only with that ....another tax. The fact that the tax is not being equally applied with a majority of the population being compensated and the minority paying for everyone else. The fact that this tax is the tip of the iceberg and will eventually disceminate into a trading scheme wich will no doubt be open to missuse and abuse and do very little to improve carbon output. Major companies will not be penalised for carbon production as they will just pass any costs on to you and I. If there is no cost to them why improve.
The electricity sector has been trading Renewable Energy Certificates for a few years now and the only incentive they have under this scheme is the money they can make out of the sale of REC's. The cost of maintaining REC's has increased your electricity bills already. This is just another scheme of the same except now the Government gets to hold the cash.
Rubbish, The government definitely has no mandate. They don't even have a mandate to Govern in their own right. Whichever party came into power at the last election had only a mandate to appease the policy of the Greens, a minor party but holding power.
Oh, they have a huge ethical mandate Doug, we'll just have to dissagree on that one, go Labor, Julia and Bob we love you for being tough and not listening to rubbish don't waver in the face of missguided discontent, do what is right! .
I do agree with you that the price per ton needs to be higher, at least it's a start.
So...do you want to bury me under concrete now Doug
Rubbish, The government definitely has no mandate. They don't even have a mandate to Govern in their own right. Whichever party came into power at the last election had only a mandate to appease the policy of the Greens, a minor party but holding power.
About time someone said this....kudos, Doug
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagar
I believe there is significant evidence to indicate that thge earths surface temprature had risen in the past as well.
For most of the history of the planet, especially the last 550Ma, the CO2 content of the atmosphere and the average temp of the planet have been higher than what they are now. We actually live in one of the coldest periods of this planet's history. And also with one of the lowest concentration of CO2 as well (see graph).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagar
Carl, nice experiment if you can call it that. We are talking ppm here and not litres / cubic meter. Try the same experiment with an increase in CO2 in small amounts, plant some plants in the container and your results will be entirely different. Use the sun instead of a narrow spectrum heat lamp and both containers will probably die.
A small amount of CO2 will raise the temp in the "greenhouse" or container. Whether it's in ppm or l/m^3. CO2 is a strong absorber of long wave IR, which is what is doing all the heating. Water vapour and methane are even better absorbers of LIR than CO2.
Last edited by renormalised; 18-07-2011 at 03:35 PM.
The trouble is Mike that in the eyes of the average person .. AKA me, I see quite credible information from what appears to me equally as credible sources, that refute the pro claims. I dont know if this falls into your "pseudo science and creationist like selective evidence picking" category or not. Im an open book on this subject by the way. So what Chris is saying is exactly the problem here ... why is it so difficult to produce tangible demonstratable and repeatable proof. I know you think we have already seen proof, but I havent and would really like to one way or the other.
The fact that this delemour exists makes it all a grey area to me.
I am quite willing to side with the facts ... just show them to me.
If we have to go down the avenue of prudence then so be it ... my objection to that is not that in itself, only the timing of it.
I have to clearly object to the assertion that the government has a mandate ... Not even in some abstract way, nor mixing up letters and taking a few away is there any chance that the statement "there will be no carbon tax under my government" was not made in one sentence and in english ... and as an average person, I dont know how else to understand that but of course thats only my take on it.
Fortunately, that is not the main focus in this, there are much more difficult decisions and problems to address and I l hope that if Carbon is the problem we find solutions and move on. Either way though Im in favour of being pro active in the search for renewable energy sources as I think are most.
The thorium idea being discussed seems to be something that definately has merit.
I hear what you are saying Jeff but at this stage waaaay down the track of this needless debate, I am affraid the evidence is unequivocal, goverments have been given the facts and findings, it is all there, the Australian goverment must listen to the IPCC and they have. They have come up with the best system (by far) of the two major parties to takle the issue and it will almost certainly become active legislation, for at least several years, lets hope anyway.
I know that wasn't what you wanted but I am a little tired of this now (no offense at all) I wish you and others who doubt the science best of luck in trying to decide - it isn't hard really.
) and then before long are waving around another chain email or Andrew Bolt newspaper again sayig 'see your wrong and I have the evidence here"
.
.
