Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[Methuselah]

Oh - I didn't miss anything, then.

 

That isn't giving them money, it is taking less money from them.

Well, knowing how this government operates (just like the one that came before it) they probably pay no tax to start with...So it it may well be nothing but hot air.

Edited August 5, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[UV-RAY]

Huge, ginormous tax incentives.

Probably the same amount as they give to that other useless technology, "wind power". Don't get me wrong I'm all for fossil fuel alternatives but aside from nuclear ( and that ship has long gone ) there isn't a viable alternative, which is rather depressing for the reasons that you stated previously.

[loafer]

I thought I was the pedantic champion around here.

 

Can you see the sense in forging ahead with Fracking, given the concern about climate change and CO2 emissions?

 

 

 

At the risk of annoying a mod, isn't your comment more appropriate in the Manmade Climate Change thread...?

 

;-)

 

Only joking.

 

I would love to move to sustainable energy sources. Indeed I spent most of my morning discussing the logistics required for the development of an offshore wind array and am actively supporting a major education initiative on the subject.

 

But until technology comes through we have economic battles to fight and energy is required to win them.

 

So before having a go at those looking to provide the energy we need, I want to know the answers to questions like why on earth can we not harness tidal power (far more sensible than wind) when the Victorians managed it? Or for that matter why on earth isn't Iceland wealthy by cracking water into hydrogen & oxygen using geothermal power and then shipping it?

 

Perhaps there is something we might all agree on ... it would be perfect if 10% of fracking tax revenues was invested in green technology development, then we might sort Cold Fusion, Tidal Power etc alot quicker.

Edited August 5, 2013 by loafer

[Methuselah]

Probably the same amount as they give to that other useless technology, "wind power". Don't get me wrong I'm all for fossil fuel alternatives but aside from nuclear ( and that ship has long gone ) there isn't a viable alternative, which is rather depressing for the reasons that you stated previously.

But even nuclear is not infinite; it would only delay the inevitable...But, if it were used to augment renewables it would, of course, last a lot longer?

[UV-RAY]

But even nuclear is not infinite; it would only delay the inevitable...But, if it were used to augment renewables it would, of course, last a lot longer?

This is true, but had we invested in nuclear twenty years ago then that would have given us more time in order to invest in viable alternatives. It's a depressing scenario Pete, we can all see problems ahead yet successive governments fail too see any sense of urgency or even have a contingency plan in place. Ostriches, sand and buried! Edited August 5, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[VillagePlank]

Here's what the Green Party have to say about fracking,

 

 

"Campaigners have understandably, and rightly, concentrated, on concerns about the local environmental impact of fracking - the multiple heavy vehicle movements, the consumption of water, the high risk of contamination of aquifers, the earthquakes"

 

http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2013/06/27/fracking-is-not-the-answer/

 

Here's what the science says about it,

 

 

It should be noted, however, that after hundreds of thousands of fracturing operations, only three examples of felt seismicity have been documented. The likelihood of inducing felt seismicity by hydraulic fracturing is thus extremely small but cannot be ruled out.

 

http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/refine/InducedSeismicityfull.pdf

 

So, assuming the lowest possible bound for this risk assessment (3 in 200,000) that's about the same risk of death by murder (here) ie not very likely at all.

 

Incidentally, you'd think they'd be opposed to it because of it's CO₂ impact; but, no, not the Greens: they argue that we shouldn't be using gas because "most experts expect the cost of gas to continue to rise, the only question is by how much" One supposes that should the Greens ever get into government then paying more energy means less opportunity for taxation to invest in geothermal, which, incidentally, has a (much) higher rate of felt seismicity.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

Here's what the Green Party have to say about fracking,

 

 

 

http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2013/06/27/fracking-is-not-the-answer/

 

Here's what the science says about it,

 

 

 

So, assuming the lowest possible bound for this risk assessment (3 in 200,000) that's about the same risk of death by murder (here)

 

Incidentally, you'd think they'd be opposed to it because of it's CO₂ impact; but, no, not the Greens: they argue that we shouldn't be using gas because "most experts expect the cost of gas to continue to rise, the only question is by how much"

Aye...I lost all faith in Greenpeace after those daft protests about sinking that oil rig...Their claim that the Earth is only 64 million years' old didn't help much, either!

[VillagePlank]

Aye...I lost all faith in Greenpeace after those daft protests about sinking that oil rig...Their claim that the Earth is only 64 million years' old didn't help much, either!

 

Yes, there's an outside chance that if the Green Party, Greenpeace etc etc hadn't opposed the building of new nuclear power stations, we might even not have been talking about climate change now; it might have been a historical footnote of a risk averted way back in the 1970s. But oh, no.  not the environmentalists. Lots of fear, lots a wide-eyed pointing and pontificating; lots of time on the 9 o' Clock news! And not one of their arguments were rooted in anything that any reasonable person would consider to be evidence. Even arch-Greenie Monbiot (who actually normally makes quite good well thought out points) changed his position to be pro-nuclear when confronted with evidence, here.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

I've been pro-nuclear for decades, S...Do you recall all those daft protests, about storing waste, back in the '80s? What could be safer than putting the stuff miles underground, in a geologically stable area? Or even in deep ocean trenches, from where it won't re-emerge for 200 million years?

 

And, of course, it does decay!

[VillagePlank]

I've been pro-nuclear for decades, S...Do you recall all those daft protests, about storing waste, back in the '80s? What could be safer than putting the stuff miles underground, in a geologically stable area? Or even in deep ocean trenches, from where it won't re-emerge for 200 million years?

 

And, of course, it does decay!

 

Well, just like most major religions, environmentalism kills people - and lots of them. The DDT debacle where environmentalists "won" a ban on the substance is estimated to have killed upwards of 60 million people, most of them children. Charles Wurster, the chief scientist of the Environmental Defence Fund, is quoted as saying "“Probably … so what? People are the causes of all the problems; we have too many of them.†even in the presence of evidence that other experts considered that  "The issue of banning DDT is unquestionably a genocidal one"

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature1/text4.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821864/

[keithlucky]

Actually J, I find myself far more sympathetic to the idea of paying 'green' taxes (so long as they what it says on the tin) than I do to Osborne's current policy of giving tax-payers' money, hand-over-fist, to those expecting to make a mint out of fracking...

Yes  they say green taxes but as road tax proves can you trust any government .

[Methuselah]

Yes  they say green taxes but as road tax proves can you trust any government .

Nyet! 

[VillagePlank]

Yes  they say green taxes but as road tax proves can you trust any government .

 

No such thing as road tax anymore - it IS an environmental tax as it is based on engine emissions. ie our government think the right to pollute belongs to the rich, and the poor can go swivel.

[jethro]

No such thing as road tax anymore - it IS an environmental tax as it is based on engine emissions. ie our government think the right to pollute belongs to the rich, and the poor can go swivel.

 

And they can't even get this right.....Hubby drives a Discovery, I drive a Defender, they have exactly the same engine and yet he can drive his into London at will, I would have to pay because of the Low Emissions Zone charge.

[Jax]

We're running out of fossil fuels - climate change science demands we reduce our CO2 emissions, CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels. The coincidence of the science demanding reduced emissions and being encouraged/taxed to use less energy, eeking out our dwindling supplies, is I'm sure, purely coincidence.....

 

Taxing us all to develop green energy supplies via wind, solar etc.....I'm guessing you can get away with that one easier if you sell the idea on the basis of 'saving the planet'. Certainly a bit more palatable than admitting the energy companies have spent the profits, failed to invest in the future and that we're approaching a dangerous level of not being able to produce enough energy, via fossil fuels.

 

Yes, I'm cynical about all the climate disaster nonsense but leaving aside the validity of the science for a moment..... What government, in their right mind, would press head long into creating another new industry like Fracking, give huge tax advantages to encourage the development of Fracking, plan and promise a future of continued growth and cheap energy costs (which encourages careless use) if the concerns and claims of future climate change were as real as are being claimed? The claim is the world is doomed unless we drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels and reduce emissions......Plan A: Let's build a future based on cheap Gas.

 

Is it just me who can see a flaw in that plan....

 

 

Surely its not a question of 'winning' against nature but living within its boundaries.

 

There are many things naturally driven in nature and we have dealt with them for centuries .e,g built a sea wall, put a roof over our heads etc

 

 

No such thing as road tax anymore - it IS an environmental tax as it is based on engine emissions. ie our government think the right to pollute belongs to the rich, and the poor can go swivel.

OK, I am not trying to say we beat nature, far from it, that is my point, we build/plan/work with her instead, but being taxed on it for example but spending that money making roads and stuff rather than using it to gather the power nature already gives us is wrong IMHO.  As has already been said be have plenty of Sun, Wind, Water etc, all good to produce energy.

 

Perhaps too we need to be using a bit less energy as well (does the TV really need to be on *in the background* or that light *left on*)

 

I am a supporter of Gaia, not a fighter, far from it, but still think our understanding and approach is not *fitting* to the cause nor the cure.

[keithlucky]

Talking about green taxes http://t.co/SjBS5XuhCV

 

[poseidon]

This is true, but had we invested in nuclear twenty years ago then that would have given us more time in order to invest in viable alternatives. It's a depressing scenario Pete, we can all see problems ahead yet successive governments fail too see any sense of urgency or even have a contingency plan in place. Ostriches, sand and buried!

Unfortunately the nuclear option is a pretty scary one at the moment. The UK gov has gone for the EPR reactor design. This design is currently being built in Finland and France. The Finnish one is 6 years behind schedule and the French one 3 years. Both have experienced massive cost overruns, but more worryingly numerous construction faults have been found by inspectors - weld issues, incorrect concrete mixes, pressure vessel issues, all manner of stuff. In addition, it's bigger and uses MOX fuel which contains more Plutonium so things could get rather messy in a major accident scenario. It's also still a PWR and so suffers from the some of the same issues as current PWRs, including the use of Zirconium cased fuel rods that can generate Hydrogen in a power excursion, leading to an explosion. In a country with such a small land size we cannot afford one accident and we cannot afford France to have any accidents either. IMHO, the risk is too great.

[poseidon]

I've been pro-nuclear for decades, S...Do you recall all those daft protests, about storing waste, back in the '80s? What could be safer than putting the stuff miles underground, in a geologically stable area? Or even in deep ocean trenches, from where it won't re-emerge for 200 million years?

 

And, of course, it does decay!

Nobody wants waste stored anywhere near them. There's still no long term storage and therefore all the waste has to be stored at the plants and at Sellafield. This waste is stored in pools with minimal containment. If there was a loss of coolant as nearly happened at Sizewell A, where a major accident was only prevented by pure luck, a couple of years ago, then the fuel rods would catch fire and vaporise caesium, strontium etc into the atmosphere - you cannot put such a fire out with water. The US is already experiencing problems with deep storage where highly radioactive waste has begun leaking from containers, after only a few decades. Some transuranic elements in the waste can take over 30 million years to decay. Storage is a major issue that gets continually swept under the carpet.

[crikey]

JETHRO said

"We're running out of fossil fuels "

When l was teaching in the 1980's they were talking in text books 50 yrs of supplies left

Now in 2013.....30 yrs later.?

CRIKEY NEWS published an article on this very topic today .

 

When will Australia’s coal run out?

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/10/28/when-will-australia%e2%80%99s-coal-run-out/

 

OFFICIAL ESTIMATE

At the 2008 rate of production of around 490 Mt [mega-tonnes] per year the EDR are adequate to support about 90 years of production.

However Crikey writer' Stubborn Mule' suggests that this estimate is far too large

The estimate of 90 yrs is based on 2008 trends assuming no growth in coal production

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok.. Get this....quote

if production growth returns a long run average of 5%, then reserves would only.... last 34 years. !!

 

We also have a healthy population growth rate ..

Are they leaving things a little late for an alternative?

We have frakking projects underway here but MUCH opposition

we have no nuclear yet.. The growth in solar on roofs here is excellent

Wind farms are springing up in many districts

You can get a 2,000 watt system for $3,200 installed

Our electricity prices have over doubled since 2008 mainly due to privatization

Hearing reports of electricity bills at $2000 per 3months ( we have a generator in the country here)

Today our interest rates have dropped again to reach historically low levels.

"With about 66% of our coal going offshore, there is quite a bit that could be clawed back there. But who would dare suggest slowing export growth?!!"

We have an election on the 7th September  The liberals are likely to get in.

The Liberal party are going to remove the carbon tax and razor the climate change dept.

Our debt has blown out and govt' cut backs and further recessive activity are likely. THe comments at the end of this article are also interesting

[knocker]

Not to forget.

 

Solar panel revolution takes off in Australia

RISING electricity prices and cheaper rooftop panels have helped drive a solar revolution in Australia, the federal Climate Commission says.

 

More than one million panels are now on rooftops - which is up from about 8000 six years ago.

 

The number of units used by households is tipped to continue to rise, even though there has been a decrease in government incentives, such as rebates for rooftop solar systems.

 

 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/solar-panel-revolution-takes-off-in-australia/story-fni0fiyv-1226690984362

[Methuselah]

Not to forget.

 

Solar panel revolution takes off in Australia

 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/solar-panel-revolution-takes-off-in-australia/story-fni0fiyv-1226690984362

It's a shame that our government would rather give money to wealthy landowners (such as themselves and their families) than help ordinary folks achieve any real degree of freedom from the profiteering energy corporations...

[UV-RAY]

It's a shame that our government would rather give money to wealthy landowners (such as themselves and their families) than help ordinary folks achieve any real degree of freedom from the profiteering energy corporations...

One of our neighbours recently had solar panels installed, I must say they are an absolute eyesore with not only panels on the roof ( as expected Lol ) but a great big panel on the rear wall. Still they re the way forward it just needs time for the technology to improve and shrink!

[jethro]

The trouble with Solar panels is they're not all they're cracked up to be. Firstly, they're damned expensive - the average pay back time is 15 years, with the major component having an average lifespan of 10 years, they're incredibly likely to fail before you've even recouped the money. Secondly, they're pretty inefficient. Think of the hours of daylight we get as an average all year round figure, then knock off a percentage for all those overcast days when they don't work very well, and then to make matters worse, knock off another percentage for any gloriously hot days, when they don't work very well either.

 

Hubby's a Building Control Officer for the local council and we've been gutting/renovating a house so have looked in detail at all the eco options; the only one which actually makes any substantial difference and offers a reasonably payback time, are the ground source heat pumps. Brilliant at pre-heating water and especially good if you have underfloor heating. If any of you ever consider a pellet burner instead of a gas/oil boiler, I cannot state strongly enough.....DON'T BOTHER! They're ludicrously expensive to run, a nightmare to have enough storage space with the right humidity to store the pellets, and by all accounts, parts regularly fail and are difficult/expensive to replace. 

[Jax]

The trouble with Solar panels is they're not all they're cracked up to be. Firstly, they're damned expensive - the average pay back time is 15 years, with the major component having an average lifespan of 10 years, they're incredibly likely to fail before you've even recouped the money. Secondly, they're pretty inefficient. Think of the hours of daylight we get as an average all year round figure, then knock off a percentage for all those overcast days when they don't work very well, and then to make matters worse, knock off another percentage for any gloriously hot days, when they don't work very well either.

 

Hubby's a Building Control Officer for the local council and we've been gutting/renovating a house so have looked in detail at all the eco options; the only one which actually makes any substantial difference and offers a reasonably payback time, are the ground source heat pumps. Brilliant at pre-heating water and especially good if you have underfloor heating. If any of you ever consider a pellet burner instead of a gas/oil boiler, I cannot state strongly enough.....DON'T BOTHER! They're ludicrously expensive to run, a nightmare to have enough storage space with the right humidity to store the pellets, and by all accounts, parts regularly fail and are difficult/expensive to replace. 

So is the answer to use less energy?

 

I have cut mine from 26.9KWh last year to 9.7KWh this year in the same time period (couple of months and a bit)

 

I am still paying a higher day rate for most of it as my night rate is not needed as much, saving energy but not money.

 

 

But the question is are we warming the planet ourselves or is it a natural cycle that has just come into play at a similar time as we did?

 

That is why I posed the question "what if?" and to that end where could we better put our time and money if that was such the case?

[jethro]

Personally, I don't think it matters whether the warming is natural or manmade when it comes to making decisions about energy use. Whether it be electric, gas or oil, it all costs a fortune and is set to get ever more expensive as we try to play catch up on fuelling our energy needs. The energy companies have for years been ignoring the future and reaping the profits, there has been next to no investment for the future and many of the power plants we currently rely upon are reaching the end of their life. Add into this the fact that the government made some really excessive promises about cutting our GHG emissions (way above what was legally required), fossil fuel supplies are dwindling, the existing fossil fuels are in countries we'd probably better not be too reliant upon and the current absence of realistically fuelling the nation via wind/solar energy - we're all facing an expensive future. My advice would be to buy the most energy efficient appliances possible, install wood burners wherever possible (fit them with back boilers), replace windows with double glazing (they're all K glass now which is better) and insulate, insulate, insulate.

 

For what it's worth and this is only my own personal opinion, I think we face a bigger problem of a quiet Sun in the next decade or so, possibly longer.  AGW may be warming the planet (and I think it is, just not as much as has been claimed) but for this part of the world, history tells us that a prolonged Solar minimum, means longer, colder winters. My money's on the Sun dictating the weather in the foreseeable future.