JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



EU Carbon trading crashes: German bourse closes and Irish end carbon rort

More signs Australia is leaping onto a burning ship as it starts carbon taxing, just as the largest carbon markets are winding up:

(Reuters) – Bavaria’s stock exchange will abandon its carbon emissions certificate trading operations in the EU-traded CO2 market on June 30 after volumes in Europe “plunged to practically zero” in recent months, it said on Tuesday.

The EU’s emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) limits the carbon dioxide emissions of the 27-nation bloc’s factories and power plants and covers nearly half of EU emissions.

EU prices are down 60% over the last 12 months

“Emissions trading will never find its feet again without radical political action,” said Christine Bortenlaenger, the head of the exchange…

[Source: Reuters]

The Borse management claim they were closing because of the fraud and hacking as well as the market downturn:

Bayerische Borse listed a number of other contributory factors in its decision to quit the carbon market, including current macroeconomic and policy uncertainty and the instances of VAT fraud and hacking attacks on national emissions registries between 2009 and 2011 that tarnished the image of emissions markets.

A Bayerische Borse spokesman Tuesday told Platts that it held less than a 1% share of the European carbon market. [Source: Platts]

The Industry Group IETA hit back at the German Bourse, and tried to salvage something:

The International Emissions Trading Association Wednesday denied that Europe’s carbon trading system is broken, dismissing suggestions by a German exchange operator Tuesday that industry does not support the scheme.

But the fact that they are even talking about whether it is “broken” or not says all you need to know.

Meanwhile — one of the suspended trading schemes (ICE Futures) will remain suspended. 16 months and counting…

Could the Irish bureaucrats have made this more complex? Was that a levy on a tax?

The Irish are closing off a lucrative carbon rort. Irish Energy companies were told they needed to pay for carbon emissions, but were given free carbon credits during the start up phase (they are supposed to start buying them for real soon). The companies were passing on the theoretical cost of the carbon credits to customers, and thus netting a nice profit with customers paying for a credit that the companies got for free. To stop these naughty companies from making a windfall, the Irish government had the bright idea to …remove the EU trading scheme? No. They decided to add a levy onto these companies to make the trading scheme even more complex. The levy raised €75 million for the exchequer last year. But now, the carbon revenue levy has been dumped though the carbon tax on fuels remains.

VALERIE FLYNN, Irish Times.

THE GOVERNMENT has repealed the multimillion euro carbon levy on fossil fuel-based energy generation, which had allowed energy companies to increase wholesale electricity prices.

The levy had raised an estimated €75 million for the exchequer in 2011 and a further €45 million between its implementation in July 2010 and the end of that year.

It was repealed with immediate effect on Friday.

Who paid the €75 million? According to Viridian Power “the levy “added costs in the electricity market”. Yes, the consumer paid. The Greens predictably were unhappy about the levy being stopped:

Green Party leader Eamon Ryan said he was disappointed at the Supreme Court ruling, because the levy had been in line with the “polluter pays principle”.

And we all know who the evil polluters really are don’t we? Not the conglomerates, but the people who try to stay warm.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.8/10 (64 votes cast)
EU Carbon trading crashes: German bourse closes and Irish end carbon rort, 8.8 out of 10 based on 64 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/7sdf986

107 comments to EU Carbon trading crashes: German bourse closes and Irish end carbon rort

  • #
    R. Gates

    That Carbon trading is a very bad idea is at least one thing that skeptics and Jim Hansen can agree on.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Jaymez

    Some entries from the ‘CleanEnergyFuture’ brochure which may need to corrected:

    “As it rolls out, Australia’s carbon trading scheme will be about one fifth the size of Europe’s.”

    “….governments around the world are already taking action to reduce carbon pollution. By acting now, Australia can look forward to long term prosperity for ourselves and future generations.”

    “Australia is joining over 89 countries, representing 80 per cent of global emissions and 90 per cent of the world’s economy, which have already pledged to take action on climate change.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    The unhappiness of the Greens is predictable because the Greens are not concerned (here) with pollution per se. Their wish is to deindustrialize, de-consume by making the masses unable to take advantage of either industry or consumer goods. Taxes come back to the state, not the industries, and allow more government directed spending on healthcare etc. in theory. In theory because the government can reallocate resources better than the market.

    Statism is at the heart of the Green. It is a wonder that the last 90 years of history has not taught them that statism leads to Romania, not Rome. The Greens want a more level playing field perhaps, but one that is also much lower: you can’t consume what you can’t afford.

    It is ironic, in a way, for a group that professes its love for the “little” people, that the only ones who will be consuming and buying will be the rich mandarins. There will be a happy industrialized elite and an energy and goods impoverised lower class. And no middle class. Once again the socialists are all equal except for those at the top, who are more equal.

    Gasoline at $30/gallon or litre? The Greens sitting at home growing their lettuce in windowsill flower pots will be okay. They don’t drive or buy anything that comes outside their communities, especially the Californian type who can growth things year-round.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    I knew many Governments had a policy to “never negotiate with eco-terrorists”, but I didn’t think that meant “totally surrender at the first Stern word spoken”.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Nick

    We are at a very time in history. Able to watch and experience the decline of a civilisation and societal system before our very eyes.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    Doug Proctor – well said. I’m reminded of these words from Orwell’s The Road To Wigan Pier:
    The truth is that to many people, calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which ‘we’, the clever ones, are going to impose upon ‘them’, the Lower Orders.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Bulldust

    The thing is … people may not understand the first thing about the science, but most in the electorate have a reasonably keen sense of when they are being bullshitted to. At the moment the BS meters are being repaired because the needles were stuck at the end of the dial. I have mixed feelings about the early demise of the Rainbow Coalition… on the one hand the country needs to catch a break, but on the other hand it has been comedy gold. The Chasers mob couldn’t make this up.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    mike williams

    Cricket noises from the $CAGW$ (TM) cheer squad.
    Wonder why.. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    History will judge these schemes as being yet more examples of how technocrats have no business interfering in the workings of industry.

    Of course, this lesson has been learnt through poverty and famine for centuries over and over again.

    Unfortunately right now we have a generation who view the communist era through rose tinted glasses, with the help of their mentors and teachers (and in the australian case, more than a few members of parliament) who were on the communist/socialist side of the fence who still cannot face the fact that their ideals are destructive to mankind.

    Governments are and always will be an extremely inefficient and wasteful means for wealth distribution. Whilst some of this is necessary, we unfortunately seem to get repeated attempts by technocrats to grow their little empires just that little bit larger time and time again until it actually becomes destructive.

    I think Karl Marx was right – capitalism does lead to socialism – the reason is because capitalism is so effective that it breeds new generations of naive ignorant idealists who are easily manipulated by the older socialists who never actually grew up.

    Let me be clear here. Trading imaginary packages of a trace gas is only ever going to be a magnet to corruption and rorts. It is a means for centralised control of any one industry or business at the whim of the political agenda or ideals of any political body. In short it is a Command Economy.

    If you’re not sure about what I have just written – just ask yourself this question – why on earth would an MP who was a member of the communist party until it was dissolved by moscow be pushing for a “free market solution to climate change”. Do you really think that a dyed in the wool communist believes in anything related to a free market?


    Report this

    10

  • #

    [...] EU Carbon trading crashes: German bourse closes and Irish end carbon rort [...]


    Report this

    10

  • #

    For the first three years of operation, the Australian Government can blissfully ignore the International price of those CO2 Credits, because they have set in stone the price. All they need to do is to rake in the rivers of gold.

    However, think of what will happen at the introduction of the ETS, and the Credit price is still as low as it is everywhere else in the World.

    The Government has set a base price of $15.

    If that International price is still as low as it currently is, what emitting entity in its right mind will want to trade credits, either buying or selling them.

    If they sell their Credits at the going rate, they lose money, and here you need to realise that a large emitting entity could be liable for anything up to 20 million Credits, so it’s not a matter of buying and selling a few here and a few there. We are talking in ten thousand or more units at a time. They will not sell them if the going price is lower than that $15 base price. If they do sell, then at years end when they have to hand those Credits back in, they now have to make up what they have sold, hence the need to buy Credits. If they buy them at the going price, then the Company has to make up the amount to that $15 when they hand the Credits back in to the Government.

    So, it defeats the purpose of emitting entities investing their money in offshore Green schemes (only those ones approved by the UN remember) Why would they buy Credits at the low price, and then have to pay the Government extra on top of that.

    So, they will hold onto what they have, and not trade them at all.

    Then there’s the penalty factor.

    Pretend it’s a long hot summer, or a long cold snap, when vast amounts of extra power are needed. Power plants that are restricted to an ever lowering cap on their emissions will not run their plants for longer, and here that will be those CO2 emitting Natural Gas fired plants. Also with the lowered cap, large scale coal fired plants will reach their target and just shut the plant down. Because of that penalty, they cannot now afford to exceed that cap, and when you are talking on average of 55,000 to 60,000 credits a day, you can see the financial impact of just one day. (can you see now the rivers of gold)

    If they do exceed their limit, they have to purchase make up Credits at the going rate, and then make that up to the base price. On top of that, they then have to pay extra for exceeding their cap, whatever that excess was, at the going rate, and made up to the base price and then multiplied by a factor of 1.5. Then, on top of that, their cap for the following year is lowered by whatever amount they exceeded their current cap by.

    So, what will happen if that Credit price Internationally stays so low will be that emitting entities will hold onto all their credits, shut down the plant when that credit total is reached, and not fire up until the new year begins.

    Either way, there are winners and losers.

    The winners are the Government.

    The losers are us, the people.

    If the Labor Government is still in power, they will be laughing like pigs in mud.

    Keep also in mind that in this first year, that Labor Government is giving away free credits to emitting entities, so the full cost will be incrementally phased in over these first three years, so electricity will be rising a bit this year, a bit next year and then a further bit the year after, and then when the ETS comes in that last little bit.

    I notice from the advertising blurb that hit my mailbox that the Government reckons that the impact from their modelling shows that the average household will see a $9.90 impact for the CO2 Tax, but that they are giving (some) households compensation of $10.10. Wow, 20 cents a week extra. One and a half cups of coffee a year. I am impressed.

    This scheme may be open to rorting, but by far the biggest rorters are the Government themselves.

    Tony.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    … so electricity will be rising a bit this year, a bit next year and then a further bit the year after …

    It’s called boiling the frog.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    JMD

    What, all the riches that the International Emissions Trading Association boast consists in scraps of paper?

    Here’s an amusing verse

    An old Welsh Justice, mounted on a goat… Was asked which way his Justice means to trot… To London he is traveling, quoth he… To sell Welsh copper & buy South Sea…

    But what does all this have to do with skeptical science?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross James

    The battery of the future may deliver the cheap storage of Solar and to power motor vehicles using common bound Sodium and Magnesium metals and salts!

    There’s one major drawback to most proposed renewable-energy sources: their variability. The sun doesn’t shine at night, the wind doesn’t always blow, and tides, waves and currents fluctuate. That’s why many researchers have been pursuing ways of storing the power generated by these sources so that it can be used when it’s needed.

    1. Offer both a higher energy density through the proper selection of reactant pairs as well as a higher power density by means of a high-conductivity molten salt electrolyte. In a molten state salt acts not dissimilar to a super conductor.
    2. Imagine a house roof top generating fitted with 5 Kilowatts of power connected a stainless steel column where energy is stored cheaply harvested from the sun.
    3. These types of batteries are used where high energy density and high power density are required.
    4. Rechargeable molten-salt batteries are a promising technology for powering electric vehicles.
    5. Referenced as Thermal batteries, the electrolyte is solid and inactive at normal ambient temperatures.
    6. When the technology reached the United States in 1946 it was immediately applied to replacing the troublesome liquid-based systems that had previously been used to power artillery proximity fuzes.
    7. They are the primary power source for many missiles such as the AIM-9 Sidewinder, MIM-104 Patriot, BGM-71 TOW, BGM-109 Tomahawk and others.
    8. Sumitomo developed a battery using a salt that is molten at 57 °C (135 °F) far lower than sodium based batteries. The battery offers energy densities as high as 290 Wh/L. The battery employs only nonflammable materials and will not ignite on contact with air, nor is there thermal runaway.

    Most battery research, Sadoway says, has been aimed at improving storage for portable or mobile systems such as cellphones, computers and cars. The requirements for such systems, including very low weight and high safety, are very different from the needs of a grid-scale, fixed-location battery system. “What I did was completely ignore the conventional technology used for portable power,” he says. The different set of requirements for stationary systems “opens up a whole new range of possibilities.”

    And so the new liquid batteries that Sadoway and his team, including graduate student David Bradwell, are designing use low-cost, abundant materials. The basic principle is to place three layers of liquid inside a container: Two different metal alloys, and one layer of a salt. The three materials are chosen so that they have different densities that allow them to separate naturally into three distinct layers, with the salt in the middle separating the two metal layers —like novelty drinks with different layers.

    The energy is stored in the liquid metals that want to react with one another but can do so only by transferring ions — electrically charged atoms of one of the metals — across the electrolyte, which results in the flow of electric current out of the battery. When the battery is being charged, some ions migrate through the insulating salt layer to collect at one of the terminals. Then, when the power is being drained from the battery, those ions migrate back through the salt and collect at the opposite terminal.

    The whole device is kept at a high temperature, around 700 degrees Celsius, so that the layers remain molten. In the small devices being tested in the lab, maintaining this temperature requires an outside heater, but Sadoway says that in the full-scale version, the electrical current being pumped into, or out of, the battery will be sufficient to maintain that temperature without any outside heat source.

    Portions: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_battery#cite_note-16
    Portions: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/liquid-battery.html

    ___________

    Ross J.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    i’m so disillusioned by all our pollies and their plans for an ETS, i am hoping the Adelaide man wins his case against compulsory voting:

    12 May: Menzies House: No judgment in Anders Holmdahl’s compulsory voting Supreme Court challenge
    The case will now pass to the Full Court in the June sittings, where 3 – 5 judges will hear arguments from Anders and the Australian Electoral Commission.
    In the past, other challenges to compulsory voting have been thrown out of court, so the progress of this case represents a victory for pro-freedom advocates…
    If the next stage of the defense is unsuccessful, Anders intends to appeal. He says he will take it “all the way” and he says he is “prepared to spend a couple of days in jail if that’s what it takes”…
    Under voluntary voting leaders who cannot educate, inform, motivate, inspire and ultimately empower the electorate will be replaced by leaders who can – true democratic leaders. Voluntary voting holds leaders to a higher standard. It also obligates leaders to promote democracy and freedom in order to gain votes. This is the type of education Australia needs.
    Through Anders Holmdahl’s defense of freedom, let’s hope that more Australians come to value freedom, and in the end our freedom is finally restored.
    http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2012/05/no-judgment-in-anders-holmdahls-compulsory-voting-supreme-court-challenge.html

    how ridiculous:

    29 May: Ninemsn: Half a million in NSW not enrolled to vote
    NSW residents will receive a postcard outlining the three steps to enrol or update enrolment details.
    An advertising campaign, including stencil art on Sydney pavements, will support the campaign.
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8474876/half-a-million-in-nsw-not-enrolled-to-vote


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    28 May: AirCargoAsiaPac: India considers EU ETS retaliation
    India has implied it might ban EU airlines from its air space if Brussels goes ahead with sanctions against Indian airlines in the dispute over the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS) carbon tax…
    Now Ajit Singh, India’s civil aviation minister has said: “Travelling is always a two-way traffic . if they can impose sanctions so can other countries.”
    http://www.impactpub.com.au/aircargo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9550&Itemid=60

    as ever, changing the rules as we go along:

    28 May: EnergyEfficiencyNews: UK to allow small emitters to opt out of emissions trading
    The UK government has confirmed that small emitters and hospitals will be given the option to ‘opt out’ of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) from 2013.
    The opt out scheme is part of the government’s drive to reduce the burden of unnecessary regulation as part of its wide-ranging ‘Red Tape Challenge’.
    The government says the scheme could cover some 250 organisations, saving them up to £80 million between 2013 and 2020…
    Only stationary installations will be eligible, so airlines will not be able to opt out under the scheme.
    But organisations that opt out of the EU ETS and then exceed this limit will face fines for every extra tonne of CO2 emitted in line with the EU emission allowance price…
    http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/articles/i/5139/?cid=3

    fascinating how the MSM rarely touch on ETS concerns!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    the good ol’ free market:

    28 May: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: EU Carbon May Become More Volatile in June: New Energy
    European Union carbon permits may become more volatile next month because of the prospect of intervention in the market following a review by regulators, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
    The review by the European Commission in Brussels will be “the key catalyst to stir up the market as early as June,” Konrad Hanschmidt, a New Energy Finance analyst in London, said today in an e-mailed note…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-28/eu-carbon-may-become-more-volatile-in-june-new-energy.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    catamon
    May 29, 2012 at 11:16 am · Reply
    Because we are all so terrified of the sheer magnitude of the intellectual power and glory demonstrated by the posters here??

    Bleeding obvious Truisms aside..
    It was probably better just to stay hiding rather than actually admit there are any problems with the meme..
    Aint going to happen is it tiger.?
    The meme will live no matter what… :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development – fourth edition 2010

    http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/EPLP-031-rev3.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Byron

    Off topic I know , but still of interest this reminds Me of that old pun “Excuse Me but I just ran over Your dogma with My Karma ”
    except it`s Hysterical Hypothesis with Empirical Evidence

    Enjoy !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Answered the phone a few hours ago. It was a random survey about how well the government is performing. When asked “what is your major concern?” and I answered “the carbon tax” the young man just gave a “yep-another-one” type laugh.

    That says it all I reckon.


    Report this

    10

  • #
  • #
    Garry Stotel

    Carbon trading crashing is all very well.

    I want the whole premise of carbon trading to be exposed for what it is: climate fraud of global proportions.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    “Green Party leader Eamon Ryan” – That’s a bit rich. The Greens lost every seat they had in the last election, and for a PR electoral system, that is a real disaster. Bye bye Greenies …

    Pointman


    Report this

    10

  • #
    warcroft

    I love you guys! *hugs*


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul S

    I’ve noticed a trend. Whenever a post like this one appears, which points out real-world flaws in the process of implementing CAGW policies, the climate fantasists are nowhere to be seen – or at best only manage schoolyard taunts.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    If you dont belive it..think again
    ..
    from http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30961

    This common adversary-remark neatly ties in with the Club of Rome’s 1993 The First Global Revolution in which the authors state:

    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by

    human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome

    . The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” ..

    The quest for World Goverment or ‘New World Order’. Beware


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    ***and the 7 billion who weren’t surveyed by the IN-credible PwC – what do they want?

    30 May: Reuters Point Carbon: Michael Szabo: EU CO2 prices to treble on supply cut: survey
    European carbon prices could treble from current levels to average above 19 euros ($23.80) over the next eight years provided European governments cut supply of permits, according to a survey by consultants PwC.
    In its annual GHG Market Sentiment Survey, PwC found that 80 percent of respondents were in favor of cutting supply in a bit to boost carbon prices from under 7 euros to a level that encourages firms to invest in clean technology that cut emissions.
    Of those, two-thirds preferred EU regulators to cut supply by taking on a deeper 2020 emissions target rather than a one-off permanent withdrawal of allowances from the market…
    ***Other intervention options proposed by those surveyed included introducing a legally-binding CO2 cut target of 50 percent by 2030 and launching a carbon central bank to monitor prices and regulate supply in the EU ETS.
    Assuming supply is cut and Europe’s economy recovers, EU Allowance prices could rise to more than 38 euros by 2030, the survey found, while prices for U.N. carbon credits could average nearly 12 euros each in the 2013-2020 trading period and 22 euros by 2030…
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/05/30/us-carbon-pwc-survey-idUKBRE84T00720120530


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Alan Jones did an interview with Marc Morano this morning which could be on podcast later. If I heard correctly, Morano is in Oz currently.

    It’s hardly surprising that none of the Warmista will debate him. Some of us would recall when the blowhard James Cameron challenged Morano to a debate then did a last minute chicken-out. Cameron gave the excuse that Morano was not his equal in status.

    Un-flipping believable!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    JMD

    Looks like the chumps who sold Welsh copper & bought Origin Energy Ltd got fleeced. Seems kind of facebookish.

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Origin-cancels-US-solar-cells-US2J7?OpenDocument&rf=s

    But, even parasites are finding the going tough these days. Maybe the host IS finally dying

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Big-US-law-firm-files-for-bankruptcy-URL7D?OpenDocument


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    http://climateconferences.heartland.org/marc-morano-iccc7/

    Includes discussion on interview re ABC’s “I Can Change Your Mind”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    .
    How much can you believe from the internet.
    This is an article from Climate Spectator!

    Wind now makes up 31 per cent of SA’s power supply, with solar PV accounting for another 3.5 per cent.????


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Angry

    POEM FOR jooLIAR……

    There were whispers in the Chamber for the word had got around
    That Gillard was on tenderhooks for Kevin was covering grounds
    The caucus was on high alert —some counting had begun
    With Kevin saying nothing and Juliar looking for a gun
    No challenge at this moment,but Journos running rife.
    With stories of our fate to come and all the Labor strife
    Not now nor tomorrow,June seems the likely time
    And when it is all over ,will everything be fine??
    Not likely, say the experts who seem to have the answers
    Cos Labor’s reputation has sunk as low as gangsters
    The Lies ,The waste of public funds has seen Labor self destruct
    The future points to Liberal to bring us better luck
    And so we go on working and praying for some gain
    We’re sick of all this bickering and bearing all this pain
    And if that isnt bad enough, the weathers got us blue
    The challenge stays -,our summers gone and we’re stuck in toxic stew


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] for over 14 euros each in 2010, but their price has fallen by 60% in the last year.  The stock exchange in Bavaria closed its ETS trading operation on 30 June, due in part to its [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] for over 14 euros each in 2010, but their price has fallen by 60% in the last year.  The stock exchange in Bavaria closed its ETS trading operation on 30 June, due in part to its [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidH

    According to the lates Essential Media poll, Greens supporters outdid Labor and Coalition supporters in these categories of spending in the last 12 months (numbers are Grn, Lab, Lib):

    Bought a new car (lots of Toyota Pious’s obviously): 14%, 12%, 13%
    Purchased a major household item: 45%, 42%, 40%
    Taken an overseas holiday: 38%, 25%, 31%

    … and well up there in most other spending categories.

    http://essentialvision.com.au/essential-research


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Doug

    If you know where people are coming from you have some idea where they are going.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/will-julias-past-cause-red-faces/story-e6frf7l6-1111114587478


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    You could in fact argue that the Greens want to force the price of energy up so that people in the northern latitudes can’t afford to heat their own homes in winter, and can’t afford the price of transported food and other necessities.

    This leads to an increase in deaths, due to hypothermia, especially in the elderly and the very young, which is one way of lowering the population, thus eventually restoring the “natural balance” of nature.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Joe V.

    ” Do you really think that a dyed in the wool communist believes in anything related to a free market? ”

    Good point. Only to the extent of the Free Lunches they expect it to keep providing them.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Do you really think that a dyed in the wool communist believes in anything related to a free market?

    Yes I do.

    They firmly believe in a free-market, supply-driven economy. It is fundamental to the economic theory that underpins all their other thinking. The state will give you a job; the state will pay you to work; the state will set up a market; and the state will decide what will be stocked in the market. You are then free to buy whatever you want, from the market.

    Any communist system also spins off a number of parallel black markets, which, although illegal, are actually free markets, based on barter.

    There … something to look forward to.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    When I reference anything about electrical power, I like to use Bayswater as a constant and that way I’m not chopping and changing, and also people can see what it means with reference to just the one entity.

    So, using Bayswater as an example, let’s then look at what the government is raking in, just from Bayswater, and just for ONE DAY at full operation.

    All four generators are running flat out at their normal operation.

    The coal is being fed into the 4 crushers. That talc powder consistency crushed coal is forced into the 4 furnaces along with forced air. Each furnace boils the water to high temperature, high pressure steam. The steam then drives the multi stage turbine which then drives the generator, spinning at 3,000 RPM, that immense weight of the rotor, up around 800 tons rotating at 50 times a second.

    To achieve that, Bayswater alone must pay the Government at the introduced rate of $23 per tonne of CO2 emitted an amount of $1.351 Million

    That’s $1.35 Million for just ONE DAY at full operation.

    Can you see now what will happen when Bayswater reaches its yearly Carbon Credit limit, which on the introduction of the ETS will be lowered each year.

    Tony.

    PS – If you are interested, there is a good schematic diagram of the generation process at the following link, and under the image is a scroll bar. Bayswater Schematic


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hey look, I know this isn’t related to the topic in hand, and I apologise for that, but see where I mentioned about Bayswater, and note specifically the weight that has to be turned at 50 times a second, up to 800 Tons, and more in some cases.

    There’s only two types of power generation that can actually achieve that, Coal fired power and Nuclear power.

    The Bayswater plant is old technology, dating from the mid/late 1970′s. New technology sees those generators as a hell of a lot better. Better hard magnets with Superconductor material, better and lighter wiring around them to further increase the magnetic force, (you classic large electromagnet) forced cooling of those magnets to further increase the magnetic force, better stators with more wire in them for increased EMF production, and less losses. On top of that, the driving turbines are better, the steam generation is better, the furnaces are better, the coal feed mechanism, and air forcing mechanism are better, and the crushers are better, Hence you can get considerably more power from a lighter unit, hence a lighter turbine, hence a smaller boiler, hence a smaller furnace, hence less coal required. That coal is burned more efficiently, and with the advent of even ‘cleaner’ coals, you burn considerably less coal, hence emitting considerably less CO2.

    OK now, we have a lighter generator, able to generate more electricity, and still, the only thing that can actually drive that immense weight is coal fired power or nuclear power.

    In an earlier Post, I commented that it would take 132 of those current Concentrating solar plants to replace just Bayswater.

    Why?

    Why not just hook up one of these huge new generators to that Solar Plant.

    Because of the weight of the rotor that has to be turned.

    The solar plant cannot make the steam required to drive the multi stage turbine that has to make that immense weight rotate.

    The best they can do is a smaller weight, a generator only capable of generating 20MW, and there is now hope that can actually be raised to 50MW. There is some theory around that with ever increasing technology they may be able to manage 100MW, but even that is still 5 and maybe even ten years away.

    Those humungous solar farm can only focus light to heat the salt compound to a molten state to make enough steam to drive a turbine for the 20MW generator.

    Hence, it will take 132 of those solar plants to equal the output from Bayswater.

    The big Nukes are currently driving Generators that can generate 1300MW ….. just from ONE generator.

    Almost the same can be done from one generator at a new technology coal fired plant.

    And the best out of a monstrously huge wind tower is currently 5MW, and the best and most efficient towers have around 3 to 3.5MW nacelles, again all coming down to weight of the rotor that has to be turned at high speed.

    Wind Power and Solar Power can NEVER compete with large scale coal fired power or the big Nukes.

    NEVER, and I can repeat that word till the cows come home.

    Tony.

    PS – The word I used here, Superconductor, does not mean the better wiring for conduction of electric current, but better permanent magnet material, termed Superconductor, and here it means the better and higher magnetic field being generated.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Tony,

    Thanks for the posts, i like reading them because it helps to focus the mind on exactly how deep we are (in pooh that is).

    Question……….you say that once the power company reaches the credit limit they can either purchase more credits or shut down.

    1) As you say if there are no credits to purchase then they must sorry THEY MUST shut down no ifs, buts or maybe’s but never fear we are not acting alone apparently so there will be plenty of credits.

    But hang a second there i thought these companies have long standing agreements which require them to produce X amount of energy 24/7/52 and if they do not then they will be in breach of their contract etc so does the carbon tax/ETS void all previous agreements?

    2) If there are credits to buy they will in fact be very expensive as most who hold them will want to make as much cash as they can and so they will act collectively and hold out until power companies are desperate enough to pay through the nose (thats the whole point of having a carbon market, to make money).

    So in the end we will always have power however the price will rise until it is out of reach of the common man.

    Where does “green power” fit into all of this? Nowhere of course but the warmbots are too stupid to see this.

    Once again thanks for your input Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    With regards to electricity prices : I read an interesting article recently which discussed the impact of the aluminium smelters closing down. As the smelters use something like 15% of all the power generated in the locations where they are, the removal of that demand must have an impact in the pricing. It could go either way : either the missing demand will mean that the price will lower due to increased supply, or the lack of demand means the baseload power will reduce, by closing down some baseload generators, which will lead to shortages in peak demand periods and thus a higher cost of power overall.

    I don’t know the answer but it certainly bears thinking about. Once those big energy customers pack up and go offshore, how does that affect the overall market?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    catamon

    Because we are all so terrified of the sheer magnitude of the intellectual power and glory demonstrated by the posters here?? :)


    Report this

    01

  • #

    I was chatting to the neighbour a few evenings ago about the increasing electricity bills. He still thought that coal was “dirty” but I didn’t want to correct his “education” at the time. It took a while for me to extract his realization that all the subsidised PV solar and wind farms are being paid by ordinary consumers; in electricity bills and as taxes.

    I mentioned other proven means of generating electricity and he volunteered nuclear as an option but wasn’t chuffed at Uranium because of the inherent “waste” problem. He’d heard of Thorium but wasn’t aware that the entry cost to molten-salt breeder reactors would be substantially lower than for a “conventional” nuclear power station; with costs in the region of new coal-fired power stations of similar capacity; and the ability to economically build “small” ones (100MW to 300MW) for a distributed generating network, close to heavy consumers to minimise transmission losses.

    As we approach “peak Uranium” over the next 50 years or so, the world needs to look at diversified electricity generation, appropriate to those who need electricity. The Uranium-Thorium fuel cycle promises energy indefinitely; for thousands of years. Maybe the fusion-reactor proponents can get something to produce nett electricity in 1000 years. ;-)

    While nuclear power can provide substantially for staionary energy needs, it doesn’t look like mobile energy requirements in (especially) Australia will be met by anything other than the breaking down of carbon-bonded molecules. (Hydrogen is too difficult to handle.) Coal, oil and gas reserves will still be needed for transport fuels, plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilisers, …

    In the long run, nuclear power can be used to synthecise liquid fuel from “thin air”; using high-temperature reactions to build long-chained molecules from ambient CO2, H2O and nitrogen. The requisite energy has to be cheap. But it’ll be easier if CO2 levels don’t drop below 280 ppm again. ;-)

    Energy is the currency of civilization.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cementafriend

    Pat, look at your history. Hitler was voted in by a small portion of those voting and even smaller proportion of all the German population.
    Under non-compulsory voting the organisers of block voting such as the Greens, union leaders communists, socialists and national socialists (ie nazis, fascists, religious extremists etc) have greater chance of being elected.
    The above the line voting (where parties dictate preferences) for the senate was a major step in getting greens elected. The greens would like non-compulsory proportional voting so they can get more elected and destroy the country as they have in Eurpean countries including the European Parliament. Do you really want that?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Pat,

    New Zealand does not have compulsory voting, people can, and do, choose not to vote.

    But the interesting thing is that a number of minor parties also exist just to take the protest vote. One of these is the “McGillicuddy Serious Party” (see here). It claims to be the third oldest party in the country, and may well be right.

    A quick read of the occupations of their candidates will give you a feel for how serious they are about politics.

    Perhaps, if compulsory voting continues in Australia, a similar party might be in order on your side of the ditch?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    crakar24

    the plant will still keep generating electricity to comply with their ‘contract to supply’ arrangements, but as you might imagine, that could be running just one of their 4 generators, because, at that huge impost each day, it would cost them a fortune to keep running all 4 units flat out.

    The problem that is now quite obvious is that exceeding their credit total, their maximum emissions set by Government will come at a huge cost in penalties.

    However, what is more likely to happen is this.

    The plant knows exactly what their emissions limit will be for the year, so they will plan their power generation around that, effectively meaning that Eastern Australia will have less electrical power ‘on tap’.

    What is even more scary is the older larger plants, a couple of them, that are kept as ‘spinning reserve’ in other words, burning and turning but not delivering power until needed, if there is an unscheduled shutdown at one of the ‘majors’ will now not be running until those scheduled times, so any unscheduled outages will mean power cuts until units can be brought on line, or power rationing.

    What also needs to be taken in conjunction with this is that NSW is almost at the stage now where they are consuming more than is being generated, thanks to all those years of Labor Government, mainly under the new Foreign Minister, when no new plants were constructed, and now it’s too damned late.

    Bayswater actually wanted to upgrade all 4 generators to the new technology coal fired units, but The Greens have categorically stated that they will block this in the NSW Upper House.

    The general thrust of your comment from 2) forward is correct though.

    Tony.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Ross, this post is well structured and logical. I am tempted to ask “Who are you and what have you done with the real Ross James?”.

    However, whatever the promising developments in energy storage technology are (which you have explained here very well I might add), when it comes to mass power generation, there is no scenario where wind or solar works on a 24/7 basis. My reference for that is any of the excellent posts by “TonyfromOz” including comment 11.2 on this thread.

    Personal solar power at a household level is OK if I do not have to pay for someone else’s solar choice and any power created is not put into the main grid where its inconsistently phased power (“dirty” power in effect) pollutes the very reliably phased power (“clean” power) that is comming from the coal and hydro (or nuclear where they exist) power plants. Maybe day-time excess can be stored in one of your molten salt batteries for night-time use. If it runs out, simply draw power from the grid to make up the difference is a reasonable scenario. Household solar power is fine at the consumption end of the equation (given the above conditions), just not the supply end of the equation.

    People should be free to generate whatever power they can for themselves. I just object to helping them pay for it and for causing power phasing issues for the wider community.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Ross,

    It’s wonderful that you are game enough to come in and comment here and leave what seems to be good information.

    The battery of the future…

    So, umm, tell me Ross, what’s the life of these very (very very) expensive )and still basically experimental on the scale required) batteries still way far away unavailable to the general public at an affordable price. So, let’s give best case scenario of 7 years, and then you’ll need more of those batteries.

    Oh, also Ross, the batteries are the source of the power when the ‘Sun don’t shine’. They are the beginning of the process.

    What comes next Ross, to convert the power in those batteries to household AC of 240 Volts at 50Hz.

    Hint, Ross, It starts with the letter I and ends in with nverter. Each application will now need an Inverter, and here in Australia that is specially manufactured Inverters as we have a different power supply to most other Countries, and all of them are different one from the other.

    That Inverter needs to be designed for the system in use, eg, different size Inverters for each power application. And Ross, say, what’s the average life of those expensive Inverters?

    Hint, around the same as for Batteries, seven years at best, although some actually offer longer warranties, all with outs in those contracts.

    So, Ross, how much now will all this cost the, er, average, household, or even the bigger users.

    Where Ross will that money come from or will the Government altruistically subsidise that with the resultant knock on increase to the ordinary consumer as well.

    Ah, Ross, you’re great with other people’s money.

    You have ‘Pie In The Sky’ solutions for a problem that does not exist, use other people’s money for that solution, horrendous amounts of money, and you offer this as a solution.

    Come in and offer solutions for electrical power generation and I’ll ‘burn you’ every time Ross, and if that counts as ad hom then you deserve it.

    Tony.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Philip Bradley

    Ross, the solar energy proponents always focus on the diurnal storage issue, because it appears a solvable problem, although at an unknown cost. They completely ignore the seasonal problem. I know from my own solar unit at the relatively low latitude of Perth that on a sunny day in winter, I only get 25% of the electricity I get in mid-summer. On a cloudy/rainy day, it can be as little as 5%. The higher the latitude, the bigger the difference between summer and winter solar insolation. No one seriously thinks that it will ever be feasible to store electricity for 6 months to even out this difference.

    I can’t see that solar power will ever be a feasible large scale source of electricity in the populated south of Australia, or anywhere else outside the tropics/subtropics.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    Ross,

    You can’t run a modern-day industrial society on sunbeams and pixie dust, no matter what kind of magic jar you store them in.
    Learn to live with it.

    Besides this is not an open thread.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Ross, as usual, forgets the time dimension.

    But he is not alone, time is the dimension most often overlooked in discussing new energy sources.

    To bring a new technology to market requires time – generations of it, in fact.

    The energy sources that we must rely on for the next 25 to 50 years have already been discovered. What we have now is all we have got. What we are discovering today will not be in commercial use until our grandchildren have children of their own.

    And if you don’t believe me, why not have a look at something ubiquitous, like microwave technology.

    First patent, 1934; first commercial oven, 1947 (cost equivalent to a house at that time); first domestic microwave oven, 1967; in 1% of U.S. homes, 1971; in 5% of U.S. homes, 1986; in 90% of U.S. homes, today. Total time from discovery to common usage was around 65 years – 2.5 generations.

    Even the technology in the latest iPad is based on fifty year old science.

    The Gizzard of Oz and her followers take the position that if they tax the buggery out of something, then somebody, somewhere will produce a miracle that will give cheap and pollution-free energy to all, and bring it to market in a week and a half.

    Well that may well work in la-la land, but not in the real world. That is why the whole climate scam will fail. The alarmists can’t fight the time curves.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    mobilly1

    Got it in one finally Ross
    The Military have the technology , Not you or I .
    Ever wonder why they dont have solar powered missiles Ross ,Yet
    we are supposed to use Solar .
    Ross you might want to have a look at Submarine batterys how big they
    are and how long they last .
    At least you researched something , Thats a start .


    Report this

    10

  • #
    crakar24

    But Tony is there a “minimum” in that contract to supply. If the permits get too costly and drive up prices even more no one will use it (freeze to death/die of heat stroke etc) but the power company must maintain supply yes? Regardless of whether people use power they must burn coal to supply power so my question is at what point will the power company say “it is cheaper for us to reneg on our contract to supply than to generate electrickery”. I wonder if we could measure that *point* the point at which our economy collapses.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    SNAFU

    The long term future of the Australian Labor Party is now at stake.

    Continuance of present trends will reduced the greatest political party this country has known into a sectional rump.

    Gough Whitlam, (just before the 1966 election).


    Report this

    10

  • #
    crakar24

    You raise a valid point MV (open thread) however this issue does need to be touched on a little. Look at it this way we have rising electrickery costs due to tax/ets, the rising costs have one purpose and that is to drive the coal powered power generators AKA derdy poluders out of business thus driving customers into the open arms of the renewable sector (wind/solar etc).

    A great plan………….as long as it works, the whole thing hinges on the prosperity of the renewable sector of which the carbon credit market performs a crucial role. If however the renewable energy market fails to flourish (which it has, failed that is) causing the carbon credit market to crash and burn (which it has) then we are in deep sheet.

    Ross is living proof that no matter how much evidence is presented some people refuse to accept it and therefore revise their view on the world. This of course is not an ad hom against Ross i suspect we are all guilty of this in one form or another.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    crakar24

    MikeW,

    Tear down the carbon credit system and you tear down the dream, the dream must not be torn down so best we ignore this thread and wait for the next one.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross James

    I notice you think governments do not play a role in creating new sources of energy and creating a better standard of living through a socialist / combined free market approach. Subsidised R & D leading to………….. implementation of new technologies.

    Read on……..

    Although most Americans living in larger towns and cities had electricity by 1930, only 10 percent who lived on farms and in rural areas had electric power. At this time, power companies were all privately owned and in business to make money. These companies argued that it would be too expensive to string miles of electric lines to farms. They also thought farmers were too poor to pay for electric service.

    Enter a form of socialist intervention [New Deal]:

    Workmen string lines to bring TVA electricity to Valley farmers. (New Deal Network)
    President Franklin Roosevelt believed strongly that America’s farming areas should have the same access to electricity as cities. In 1935 the Rural Electric Administration was created to bring electricity to rural areas like the Tennessee Valley.

    Increased standard of living:

    By 1939 the percentage of rural homes with electricity had risen to 25 percent. The Tennessee Valley Authority also set up the Electric Home and Farm Authority to help farmers buy electric appliances like stoves and washing machines. Farm families of that time found these helpful electric appliances made their lives much easier.

    Today, Americans’ standard of living has risen as nearly everyone has electricity at home, school, and work. Read more about life in the Valley before electricity and how TVA power changed things for the better.

    http://www.tvakids.com/whatistva/history_electrification.htm
    ______________

    My how history can meet us at the cross roads. Nether of us like uncertainty. Like it or not – free market DOES not drive universal citizen uptake of new technologies. It is a partnership between government action and free market.

    Ross J.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Rereke
    Maybe you’ve got something with the NZ voting system – NZ thrashes AUS in Steel production over the last 12 months – and looks like it’s going to in the long term?

    Reflection of business in the government maybe!

    NO CONFIDENCE in Australian Government!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mobilly1

    Rereke
    What percentage of the population is needed for Government to
    be formed .
    Remember Belgium and no Government for around 18mths .
    Just like to here your thoughts .
    Cheers
    love your posts and I learn from them .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Rereke Whakaaro;

    watch out, they might be greenies. I notice an Ark builder, obviously an AGW believer worried about sea levels, and a pixie. The last surely confirms a green connection…they’ve been away with the fairies for years (no pun intended Bob).


    Report this

    10

  • #
  • #
    John M

    How about …… :-)

    “As it rolls out, Australia’s carbon trading scheme will now be more than five times the size of Europe’s.”

    “….governments around the world are almost bankrupt following action to reduce carbon pollution. By acting now with a vastly inflated carbon price, Australia can assist the long term prosperity of these debt ridden nations by transferring our wealth for their future generations.”

    “Australia, by not joining over 89 countries (now running away from an ETS), representing 80 per cent of global emissions and 90 per cent of the world’s economy, will help reduce global emissons by 0.05%.”


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Dave,

    Thank you for that. I had no idea that NZ could produce more raw steel than AUS. It is probably more a sign of how low the Aussie industry has sunk under the weight of regulation and tax, than NZ gearing up.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Catamon

    Take comfort in the warm doona of your interpretation of that study Timdot. But referring to a Dolt posting?? That’s just sad.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    That survey looks like the answer is based on their opinion of their own spending, not actual receipts in the filing cabinet. The greens are spending big? Really?
    Remember these are people who are paranoid about the carbon footprint of their goldfish and are always watching their own shadow lest it be cast across an endangered daisy. What do these people think is “a major household item”? An extra big bag of lentils?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Catamongst the doonas!
    Is that your best, Catamongst?
    If it is! That’s just sad! Suppose it’s self realisation for you!

    Check out your impact by renewable windmills by the SA government!

    Wind Turbines kill everything eventually! All funding for these studies have been halted by people of your mind set!

    Your answer to your CAGW is doonas and windmills? Really!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    So the only way to protect freedom of choice is to forcibly remove it by compulsion of law.
    That about sum it up?

    No? Then how about -

    The sheeple are so dumb and ignorant and apathetic we have to force them to look after themselves with laws forcing them to do what (we think) is good for them.

    Am I on the right track?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    What percentage of the population is needed for Government to be formed.

    That is an interesting question. There is no percentage requirement under the NZ system.

    New Zealand Voters get two votes, one for their local MP (the electorate vote), and one for the Party they want to see in Government (the party vote).

    The overall number of seats held by each political party is determined by the proportion of party votes they win, nation wide. Since a number of electorate MPs will belong to a party, those seats are already taken, so it is the remainder that are divided up to get the correct proportion. Sometimes (actually quite often) additional seats must be created in Parliament to ensure that the proportionality of the minor parties is maintained.

    The New Zealand system tends to lead to coalition Governments on the right or the left, with the Maori’s tending to have a bob each way, whoever wins, (us Maori’s, we’re not stupid, eh boy?).

    But it is not the perfect system, so there is some debate about whether we should move to another system.

    What we don’t want, is the Australian compulsory voting requirement, on the grounds that choosing not to vote is a personal freedom, making it compulsory removes that freedom, and could potentially make it easier to hide vote rigging.

    If you want to learn more about the NZ system you could look at the official explanation (here), but good luck.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Ah, another survey, the results of which, will never see the light of day …

    Bzzz, sorry, wrong answer!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    FWIW, here’s are graphs I made earlier of the year-to-year variability around Perth and showing the wonderful seasonal variability. In a “bad year”, insolation is about one standard deviation below the long-term mean. and the daily minimum total insolation can be less than half the annual average for the day. For a week at a time.

    BTW: Note how low insolation coincides with low wind speeds.

    IIRC from the analysis that I did earlier, it’d take a PV array of 5 to 6 times the nominal average size required and storage for up to 12 day’s power needs, to provide five-nines of electricity (99.999%) availability. The array size is determined by the need to capture a large amount of solar energy at the time of the year when insolation is at best, poor, unreliable and intermittent.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    I’m in Melbourne – and my solar system works really well on a sunny day in Summer and really badly on a cloudy day in winter. The differences for total output range from more than 20Kw to less than 1 Kw.

    It’s a boutique power system – essentially an expensive toy.

    I am seriously considering getting a diesel generator hooked up to supply the house when the inevitable power blackouts begin due to lack of investment in base load power generation.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Ian Hill

    To clarify, he wasn’t being impolite, just the opposite, he was telling me he’s heard this answer many times.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Bernd,

    There are some interesting new developments coming out of California, from a company called Hypersolar.

    Basically, they are prototyping the use of nanoparticles, in place of platinum, as the catalyst in a reaction that uses sunlight as a power source to split water molecules in order to extract the hydrogen.

    The hydrogen can then, of course, be used in regular fuel cells, creating power, with a byproduct of potable water.

    This is very akin to mechanised photosynthesis.

    There is an IEEE blog article that explains more, here.

    No mention of efficiency or utility at this point though, so I am not rushing out to buy shares just yet.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    And that is why the survey results will get buried somewhere. I didn’t mean to imply that the surveyor was doing anything wrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Bradley

    Bernd, those numbers sound about right.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Actually the military don’t have the technology – that is another urban myth.

    The typical military system is (due to the slowness of the procurement system) typically deployed using more or less obsolete technology. (There are exceptions of course).

    Don’t be fooled by the “impressiveness” of military tech.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    The military are usually the first to play with all the new toys but as Rereke said earlier these things take time. Some examples are with the GPS system the military had this toy for quite some time before finally letting the general public play with it but even then they put errors in the lat lon info that your GPS cannot see.

    On the other hand we have to keep the aging Hornet for a few more years as the JSF is running late due to the technology promised taking longer to develope.

    But then again if you ever came to Woomera with me i could show you equipment so old it still has the Nazi Swastika on it so it aint all beer and skittles in the military :D


    Report this

    10

  • #
    crakar24

    There are many reasons why your power varies Ex warmist, panels are in fact more efficient in winter as they are colder but the lower angle of incidence and less sunlight hours means you get less power.

    Yes they are a boutique power source and an expensive toy until you go “off grid” then they are great you just need to spend a years wages on batteries.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    crakar24

    Ten thumbs down? Just goes to show just how stupid the general public really are.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    WTF! 9 and 1 i thnk somethng is broken Jo.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    crakar24

    Something else may occur other than the carbon tax that may be more of a worry in the near future.

    http://rt.com/usa/news/us-troops-iran-exercise-490/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Unfortunately the JSF is a failed project in a death spiral. Furthermore, the JSF is inadequate to the emerging threats on the pacific RIM, (Think, SU-30, Su-35, PAK-FA, J-20, HHQ-9, S300/S400/S500 SAMs) as it was originally designed as a light fighter bomber optimised for interdiction of large numbers of Russian tanks rolling through the Fulda Gap within a permissive air space that had been cleared of real threats by the F-22 Raptor.

    With the F-22 production line now shut down (to funnel buyers to the JSF) and total combat coded F-22s numbering 120, and Lockheed Martin are still rolling approximately 30 mistake jets off their production line each year with the majority of software for the aircraft not even built, and with not a single weapon cleared for use on the aircraft it is simply a massive $ponzi scheme to suck money out of western nations taxpayers while delivering zero power projection capability to those nations.

    The US is throwing away 50 years of air dominance by going down the JSF pathway, and yes – they are really that dumb. The indifference to what is real that you see infecting governments wrt AGW is just as prevalent in the defense sphere.

    REFs 1: http://www.ausairpower.net/
    REFs 2: http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    crakar24

    Ex warmist,

    We wanted the F22 but they would not sell them to us, something about not letting anyone else have your best weapon or some such sillyness (thats a joke). Seriously we cant buy them and anyway they are all grounded due to oxygen problems and may never fly again.

    The JSF is a good aircraft its just that all the gadgets that go into them dont work properly (integrated defence network and the like) if you just flew it like a hornet it would be OK.

    Dont worry about clearing weapons for aircraft we are quite capable of doing all that stuff ourselves, the barb with the JSF is that we have paid good money after bad for the US to do all the clearence work for us but until they get all the gadgets working properly we are stuck with the Hornet.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Hi crakar24.

    Looks like you have some information – yes the F22s are busted over oxygen issues – life support systems are broken – but can be fixed – still a far better aircraft than the F35 will ever be.

    The JSF is not a good aircraft, it’s slow, it lacks maneouverability. In its proposed IOC fit out it will carry two internal air to air missiles vs up to 12 on the Su35. It’s an expensive flying target.

    WRT Hornet vs F35. The current block II Super Hornet outclasses the JSF in nearly all areas of operations and is both cheaper to acquire and operate. (Mind you – the S-Hornet is also outclassed vs top end threats).


    Report this

    00

  • #

    crakar24 makes a good point in 14.6.1.1.6 where he says:

    Don’t worry about clearing weapons for aircraft we are quite capable of doing all that stuff ourselves, the barb with the JSF is that we have paid good money after bad for the US to do all the clearance work for us but until they get all the gadgets working properly we are stuck with the Hornet.

    I know it’s again way off the topic, but someone else brought it up, and this thread is slowly being passed over for newer ones.

    Something similar happened with the F111, build by GD (ex Convair et al) at Fort Worth.

    This is where Australia actually taught the Americans a thing or two about aircraft longevity, as the U.S. was always rich enough to replace their aircraft every few years, while here in Oz, we had to fly them virtually forever.

    For construction of the F111, GD had a factory one mile long, and the F111 rolled down the line having all the bits and pieces added as it went. The workers there were assigned a four digit code on where they were to work when arriving there. That code aligned with the number of yards down the line.

    What raised the Americans eyebrows was that in the interim before we got the F111, we leased some F4 Phantoms. We had one of them land wheels up gently at Amberley, and as is the way with Aussie pilots they do all they can to get the plane back, while Yank pilots would just ‘punch out’. The pilot landed ‘softly’, well as softly as you can with the wheels still up.

    The people from MD came out and is the way of the yanks, they just wrote it off. Aussie ingenuity asked them if they could, er, fix it, and that is just what they did. That Phantom flew again.

    The same with GD. They saw that we did everything we could to extend the longevity of the F111. We added PR capability to the existing airframe while the yanks custom built PR F111′s.

    We instigated a huge Mod program to fit Pave Tack capability to the F111, and now I’ve told you that, I’ll have to kill you all. (sarc off Tony, careful now)

    We changed them all to Digital, and Fly by wire.

    And on it went.

    After a few years, even the Americans realised that no amount of money could be spent to build a new combat aircraft the could do everything that the F111 could do. So now eyes turned to Oz to see how we could get so much out of Ethel. (the Aaardvark – From Monty Python, and Aardvark being the nickname for the F111, as well as Pig)

    GDFW ended up knocking a hole in the wall at almost the half way mark of that mile long construction complex, and rolled old F111′s back onto the line for refurbishment. The Americans flew the F111 for longer than any other combat aircraft, and only the old F-15 Eagle is close.

    Even though the F111 had become too expensive per sortie to operate, hence they were retired, there were very few if any aircraft anywhere that could do what the F111 did. While every one of them that was ‘lost’ made huge news, mainly for the cost involved, they were one of the most inherently safe aircraft built.

    Our RAAF found ways to considerably extend the life of those F111′s and that aircraft probably ranks as one of the best military acquisitions we have ever made, well nearly, I suppose. Those Collins subs are pretty good. (Come on Tony, I warned you about that sarc button)

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Ex warmist,

    You need to understand the roles the aircraft play, the Hornet is a fighter/attack hence the F/A part in its name the JSF stands for Joint (as in we have all poured money into the bottomless pit) Strike Fighter. Therefore its role is more of a strike weapon kind of like the F111 which really should have been named the s111 because it was more a strike weapon.

    The JSF is designed to have a all encompasing view of the battle field, be able to acquire and track many targets at once (more than two) see threats beyond the horizon. There is nothing like it anywhere ekse in the world.

    Unfortunately it does not work…………….well the plane does just all the gadgets and the longer it takes to get it right the it will cost.

    I think we agree on most aspects of this we should dump this lame duck and buy something else its just a shame it did not work as it would have been the ultimate killing machine.

    PS the Gizzard of Oz (H/T to rereke) has delayed the purchase by two years hopefully this is a sign of this to come.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Hard to beleive they were built by the French hey.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    …you just need to spend a years wages on batteries.

    Every seven years.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    You know i was going to say that but for some reason left it out, thanks for the additional info Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Installation angle when grid-connected is almost always optimised for maximum total subsidy harvest over a year. A fixed angle of about 10 degrees less than latitude provides for maximum infeed amount over the year.

    Off-grid optimum for supply of electricity is to provide the maximum possible during mid-winter; which is about 10 degrees more than latitude. The angle needs to be modified to take into account average cloudiness and altitude.

    An example of such an orientation is on freeway/motorway emergency telephone poles and other off-grid electronic road signage. Or you could drive up/down the centre of Australia and see these PV panels powering optic fibre repeater stations. Compare those angles to what’s installed on residential fire traps.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    I inadvertantly posted this on the previous thread.

    On radio 2GB this morning – well worth a listen.

    The Greatest Hoax of Our Time – Alan Jones speaks with Marc Marano of Climatedepot.com about climate change.

    http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=2&Itemid=41


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Smells like Solyndra in the morning.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    It gets very cold in NZ as well…….yes?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    But maybe we can fleece the rest of the world by selling wool for them to wrap up against the cold.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Dave

    This speaker gives a good explanation of why wind and solar are completely unsuitable for commercial applications. Much along the same lines as Tony. On the evidence in this talk the claim is dubious.

    Kenneth Haapala – an energy and economics modeler – “Wind and Solar:The Past or the Future”

    http://climateconferences.heartland.org/kenneth-haapala/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    I believe this statistic is true for a certain time frame, but I’m not sure which.

    But watch the words : Wind makes up to 31 percent of SA Produced power.

    Couple of points’
    Makes up to: means when the wind is blowing strong at 2am, peaking power production is closed down, and the windmills are going close to their nameplate capacity.
    PRoduced Power : SA imports energy from Victoria. Produced power is not the same as consumed power.

    There are plenty of these stories getting around – I saw someone saying Germany produced 22gw of Solar power the other day. It may well be true that that 3pm on a sunny Tuesday they did so (though it seems like too much to me).

    The point is this : it’s kwh you need, not kw. In other words – how much was produced over a 24 hour, 7 day, 28 day or 365 day period. This is the fatal flaw with ‘renewables’. They can produce lots of power in perfect conditions, but perfect conditions rarely occur, as anyone who has tried to plan a bbq can attest.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    The poem dates from 1720 and refers to the South Sea Bubble. It was a scam in which sharp financial operators colluded with corrupt and/or stupid politicians to extract money from the public. Unlike today’s green schemes sarc now off/

    There are several books on the subject, and the related french Mississippi bubble; John Carswell’s book is old but the best overview.

    What is very interesting is the speed with which the honest politicians reacted afterwards. Some dishonest politicians found themselves in the Tower, another committed suicide as did a banker. All the South Sea Directors were fined enormous amounts, up to 95% of their wealth. And in 6 months.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Aussie

    the Greens are worried about our spending… not their own.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Mark D.

    Ross, maybe R.E.A. sped up the time of return on this investment (electrification). The electrical generating companies are the benefactors.

    However, it is the decidedly NON SOCIALIST concept of private land ownership that truly made farming what it is today. Paired with low cost energy for building and running farm equipment (gasoline and diesel) NOT R.E.A. that keeps food production at optimum. Farmers were no poorer than most other families and they ate well. There isn’t much difference between kerosene light and electric other than convenience. Gasoline powered laundry and almost any other device worked pretty well just required more maintenance.

    Bang this into your head Ross: Cheap energy and private land ownership not Socialism!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    The challenge stays -,our summers gone and we’re stuck in toxic stew

    The Real Julia

    http://jaimartinkovits.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=34


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Ok, Ok. But … “on tenderhooks for Kevin” That would be “tenterhooks”.
    hooks used to stretch cloth on a tenter

    —tenter: A framework upon which cloth is stretched and dried.


    Report this

    00