JoNova

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


Handbooks

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



Archives

India meets climate goals early by doubling coal, and keeping it as main energy source for next 30 years

In the last day in the media, India is going to use coal as its backbone energy for the next thirty years, is buying coal mines all around the world, and will double production by 2020 to a massive 1,500 million tons per annum. At the same time India is meetings its climate goals early, and is likely to reduce emissions by 2 – 3 billion tons by 2030.

They can’t all be true:

Coal to be India’s energy mainstay for next 30 years: policy paper

–Economic Times, May 16th

China, India dominate coal ownership as some shun climate risks: report

– Reuters, May 15th

Coal Decline In China & India Likely To Reduce Emissions Growth By 2-3 Billion Tonnes By 2030

– Cleantechnica, May 16th

China, India to Reach Climate Goals Years Early, as U.S. Likely to Fall Far Short

-InsideClimateNews, May 16th
 The top two headlines are backed by big numbers: India is the worlds third largest coal producer, and coal powers 60% of India’s energy needs. But the poor investors or readers of industry rags might think India’s coal use is falling. Read the fine print.

Lessons in spin:

It’s all in how an issue is framed. The third headline talks about “reductions” from forecast values, meaning theoretical savings of emissions “that might have been, but weren’t”.
The fourth headline tells us that the two massive coal producing nations are “meeting climate targets early” which just shows how pathetic the climate targets are.
If these countries are a “success” what does failure look like?
We have to teach children (adults) how to filter these contradictions.
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (97 votes cast)
India meets climate goals early by doubling coal, and keeping it as main energy source for next 30 years, 9.8 out of 10 based on 97 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kfm2wv5

223 comments to India meets climate goals early by doubling coal, and keeping it as main energy source for next 30 years

  • #
    Willard

    http://m.carandbike.com/news/electric-vehicles-could-help-save-60-billion-in-fuel-cost-by-2030-1693573 Clever country India by also going to an electric car fleet thus reducing fuel costs by $60 billion.

    329

    • #
      Willard

      Here’s a clever idea, we can export 60 million tonnes of Coal from the Adani mine to India every year, that’s a nice little earner of about $3.9 billion dollars for Oz and It will produce enough electricity to power over 40 million electric cars in India, then we can import $7 billion of oil from overseas every year (if it stays low at $50 a barrel) to power the 13 million passenger cars in Australia, everyone’s a winner….. well India and some random oil rich country are.

      531

      • #
        paul homewood

        Of course, as you no doubt know, electric cars simply are not up to the job at the moment, so there is no comparison

        242

        • #
          Willard

          Please to continue Paul with some more details to back up your statement.

          317

          • #
            Dennis

            My SUV diesel has a 70 litre fuel tank and can on highway exceed 1,000 kilometres without refuelling. It can also tow up to 2,500 Kg of trailer with increased fuel consumption. It is a medium size SUV and a new one from various manufacturers can be purchased from as low as $35K (diesel) with manual transmission.

            Willard, please tell me which pure electric, or hybrid if you prefer, that can equal what my SUV does for me and at an equivalent purchase price.

            220

            • #
              Willard

              No problem Dennis here’s a Hybrid- http://workhorse.com/pickup/

              113

              • #
                Peter C

                That is a concept vehicle at this stage. Only one prototype.

                http://www.motortrend.com/news/workhorse-w15-4wd-plug-electric-work-truck-prototype-first-drive-review/

                “Assuming all goes well, the Workhorse W-15 will go into production in late 2018 at a price of $52,500″
                That is US 5$52,500. Range 310 miles on one tank of fuel. 80 miles on battery. Watch that shrink if you tow a load or use the air conditioner or get stuck in traffic.

                “We’ve already asked to test one if and when the W-15 goes into production.”

                160

              • #
                Willard

                Peter, the Workhorse W15 has been pre-ordered by fleet managers to to its long term cost benefits in fuel saving and low maintenance, utility companies are keen as there vehicles generally only cover 50-80kms a day but on occasions are needed to drive long distance at short notice, the W15 covers these bases, this vehicle also has the ability to run power tools directly from its battery pack without starting the gas motor.
                As a side note, electric vehicles caught in traffic jams do not suffer from range loss anywhere near as much as internal combustion engine vehicles, in fact if the freeway traffic slows down and is crawling along at 20-60kms the range of an EV improves.

                115

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                And here we have Willard the Car Salesman.

                Lots of quotes from the glossy PR, with hypothetical projections on performance, but a bit thin on the science and engineering of “how”, backed by actual empirical measurements taken over a range of environmental conditions.

                How many units have you managed to shift, Willard? :-)

                190

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                Willard – a ute that is a hybrid is unusable in situations with water ( like most farms, forestry, camping mines, etc )

                You seem to be stuck in an urban mindset….

                170

              • #
                Dennis

                Come on Willard, it’s not a production model yet and, it’s a truck, not a mid size SUV like mine.

                120

              • #
                Dennis

                And what would the retail price be without US taxpayer subsidies?

                A Telstra electric sedan is already 5 Mazda or Toyota internal combustion engine equivalents in retail price and that’s with Federal subsidies, without the subsidies the Telstra would be much more.

                And where can I refuel a Telstra driving Sydney to Perth or to Darwin Willard?

                Supplementary Question:

                With due consideration for the energy crisis here now, with the additional demand on the electricity grid for electric vehicles how would the grid cope?

                130

              • #
                Willard

                You just keep working on your 50% transmission loss theory Rereke, you have a big hole to dig yourself out of there without concerning yourself with my posts.

                114

              • #
                Dennis

                “Urban mindset”, where would a cafe latte person park that truck in inner city areas?

                LOL

                100

              • #
                Dennis

                No loss Willard, then why do you need to offer me a truck to replace my SUV so that I can tow the same load?

                101

              • #
                Willard

                Steve, sealed units, but then again no vehicle should be driven with water above the floorpan without experience in the conditions, too many vehicles washed away every year.

                111

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                “above the floorpan” – well that cuts out most river crossings, farms and mine conditions….so “sparks” in urban areas only, huh?

                110

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                Interstingly, I am detecting Willard wavering a bit from the offical Party line about CAGW as Willard seems to reluctantly & grudgingly comprehending the foolishness of The Big Lie…

                110

              • #
                toorightmate

                You can speak bullsh*t.
                You can write bullsh*t.
                You can hear bullsh*t.
                You can read bullsh*t.
                You can sing bullsh*t.
                You can even think bullsh*t.
                BUT when you actually believe bullsh*t, you are in real trouble.
                Dullard, you are in real trouble.

                111

              • #
                Willard

                Dennis- where can a Telstra ( I guess you mean Tesla) charge while driving from Sydney to Perth you ask, at all the locations along the way that have power to run fuel bowsers, lights, freezers, aircons, caravan and RVs that are camping at those locations, Tesla cars and even a Nissan Leaf have been travelling the Nullabor for over a year now.
                And as for your supplementary question- if we took the power consumed to transport, refine and then further transport fuel fit for a IICE we could put it in an electric car and drive it almost the same distance.

                211

              • #
                Willard

                Steve- 4x4s and SUVs can be driven through water above the floorpan but should they? Too many have experienced the hard way how dangerous it can be- http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-18/research-shows-cars-deadly-in-floodwaters/7522798

                19

              • #
                AndyG55

                roflmao..

                And how do you think an EV would function in floodwaters., bozo !!!

                12

              • #
                Willard

                Thanks for the abuse AndyG55, here’s a video of a Tesla driving through floodwaters- https://electrek.co/2016/06/18/tesla-model-s-driving-swimming-flooded-tunnel-video/

                Your welcome

                Best wishes from Willard

                04

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                With reference to Willard’s comment @ 1.1.1.7: I have already addressed that, at my comment @11.2.1.1.8, in the previous, “Innovative taxes needed …”, thread, which Willard hopes everyone else missed.

                He is wriggling to get out of answering my question at 1.1.1.1.3, in this thread, which was, “How many units have you managed to shift, Willard?”

                I guess his attempt at deflection, whilst ignoring my actual question, gives us an implied answer: “None”.

                20

              • #
                Willard

                “How many units am I selling” in all seriousness Rereke, and this question is directed to you only, do you think my business is selling EVs, batteries, Coal? Does everyone who posts on here have something to sell? Isn’t it a site for opinions and discussion?

                12

              • #
                AndyG55

                where did I abuse you, shilly-willy

                Just called you be occupation !!

                And please ,get someone to give you an EV, any EV, so you can drive it through some floodwaters. :-)

                https://transportevolved.com/2014/02/13/bad-weather-guide-what-to-do-if-your-electric-car-has-been-in-a-flood/

                And you really should read what you post first

                ” In the case of the Model S, the battery pack is sealed, but there are still plenty of complications from submerging the vehicle.

                Furthermore, car warranties (including Tesla’s) or insurance rarely if ever cover any damage caused by driving through flooded streets.

                Most SUV, and Ford F series, (which, incidentally, outsell EV some 12 to 1 in the USA) easily cope with a small puddle like that one.

                11

              • #
                AndyG55

                ““How many units am I selling… do you think my business is selling EVs, batteries”

                I hope you are not trying to, because you are a seriously pathetic salesperson.

                MANIC tirade will not sell anything !!

                Would explain the dole and thus , the lack of an EV to drive, though.

                Poor little shilly-willy.

                21

              • #
                bullocky

                Willard:
                ‘……….Isn’t it a site for opinions and discussion?’

                Of course not, Willard! It’s a site for poking fun at b-llsh-t artists, and might I say, you’re not very good at it!

                11

              • #
                Willard

                Rereke Whakaaro
                May 18, 2017 at 12:25 pm
                And here we have Willard the Car Salesman.

                Lots of quotes from the glossy PR, with hypothetical projections on performance, but a bit thin on the science and engineering of “how”, backed by actual empirical measurements taken over a range of environmental conditions.

                How many units have you managed to shift, Willard? :-)

                “Bit thin on the science and engineering” – interesting comment from you Rereke, are you still holding up the theory that the grid suffers 50% transmission losses? Can you back that up with science and engineering?

                14

              • #
                Bobl

                You still won’t accept the engineering advice of an engineer. So after energy losses of
                65% generation loss
                10% transmission loss
                10% distribution loss
                10% conversion loss
                5% storage loss
                10% loss in VFD and
                20% motor loss.

                = 0.35 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.95 x 0.9 x 0.8
                = 0.174 or 17.4% thermal efficiency end to end that your EV is still going to emit less CO2 that a turbo diesel at 35% thermal efficiency?

                I might also point out that transmission loss an distribution loss is often stated exclusive of the transformer losses. There can be 4 transformers between the power station and you and each is no better than 95% efficient. That brings end to end efficiency of the ev down to
                14%.

                This is what I’ve been trying to get across to you. It nice to think EVs and electricity is the answer but it’s just not the case. Like solar, and wind power when you do the math the savings in emissions are NOT there, the math doesn’t lie. Engineers like myself are not be to kid ourselves about green energy like you can we do the math and it doesn’t stack up. Even if it did the miniscule savings in CO2 relative to a high compression ICE just isn’t worth the effort.

                50

              • #
                Willard

                Bobl, you should be embarressed to call yourself an engineer following the poor understanding you have with electric vehicles, still claiming EVs lack torque are you Bobl? Interesting figures above, stretch them all you want the efficiency of an EV is still better than an ICE, would you care to break down the efficiency losses of an ICE from the oil extraction stage, shipping, refining, transport, pumping and then the losses in the combustion chamber. Also do you think EVs only built just for efficencys? How about they now lead in performance, straight line and track, are far more reliable, 20 moving parts V an ICE with over 2000 moving parts, far less servicing, longer lifespan before major rebuilds, longer lifespan full stop, thats a better use of resources. The batteries and motor are in the floor, more storage space in an EV, lower centre of gravity, easier to build crumple zones that work correctly in a crash, and long term due to the small number of parts per car EVs will be cheaper to build on a mass scale.
                Bobl before you reply to my post with some groundbreaking research you studied in 1975 go and read up on some recent EV tech you may learn something.
                BTW- if the grid has a 65% generation loss, 10% transmission loss and 10% distribution loss as you claim then who’s paying for that massive energy loss? the cost eventually gets passed on to the end user in their power bills, that’s another good reason for households to install solar plus batteries for their energy requirements, oh wait that’s already happening.

                14

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                In reply to your 1.1.1.1.19:

                … do you think my business is selling EVs, batteries, Coal?

                I don’t know what you are selling exactly, but your comments read like a glossy showroom brochure.

                You are full of descriptions of the end-state, and the benefits that will accrue, if and when EV becomes more economically viable than the diesel vehicle Andy currently drives.

                There is no actual science or engineering basis for your comments – there is no “how” things can, might, and will, work. There is no discussion of potential problems that will need to be addressed with the technology itself, and the up-stream and down-stream infrastructure that will be required to support it, maintain it, and dispose of it. Scientists and Engineers worry about the bigger picture, you see.

                You gave yourself away when you said to Andy, that an EV could drive from Sydney to Perth with no problems. But you forgot to mention the recharging time required for the batteries, or even the time required to swap batteries, and how relying on the physical state of the batteries becomes a risk, when travelling across a desert. Andy can currently make that trip in his diesel vehicle, almost non-stop. I presume that is why he asked you the question in the first place.

                Isn’t it a site for opinions and discussion?

                I guess it is. But opinions need to be supported by evidence and logic. Just stating an opinion, or concept, or an idea, as if it were a matter of fact, without any supporting logic, or empirical evidence, will invariably get you challenged on this site.

                School kids may be motivated by being told that if they can dream it, they can do it. But they only remain motivated by wishful thinking for as long as it takes for them to hit the wall of reality.

                The questions you should be asking yourself are, “How will this new(ish) technology work?” “For how long will it work?” “What dangers will be inherent, should it fail to work?” “How can those dangers be alleviated or mitigated?” … and so on,

                If you are trying to replace something that works today, with something else that only does the same job, under tightly controlled conditions, then you are pushing it up hill.

                31

              • #
                Bobl

                Willard,
                Can you quit the offensive slurs. Electric motors have poor starting torque it has to do with basic geometry within the motor, it’s just a fact of life. In general too, the motive force that two interacting magnetic fields can generate is below the motive force a chemical reaction can generate. Above a certain flux the magnetic components saturate or loads can cause the rotor can slip relative to the field rotation, there are basic limits on electromagnetism. You can aleviate some of these things but that comes at the cost of weight and efficiency.

                Your insults don’t change the math either. End to end efficiency doesn’t change just because you want it to, and whether you like it or not burning coal to make electricity in Australia is only 35% efficient, that means you start with a 65% loss. Want to make that better them support HELE Coal which is approaching 50% efficient. With HELE coal in place EVs might even have a point assuming of course that lowering CO2 is in fact a good idea (which is highly debatable). Regarding who pays for the generation, transmission, distribution and transformer losses, well hate to break it to you, but YOU do. It’s built into the markup you pay on your electricity bill. The coal starts with 24MJ per kg but by the time it reaches you there is only 5 or 6 MJ left. Still worth it though because coal is cheap and plentiful.

                You seem all too willing to take the word of a climate scientist on climate but strangely unwilling to take the word of an electrical engineer on electricity? Ever think maybe you are biased?

                One more thing you bring up the issue of ICE losses, I think I acknowledged right at the outset that ICE tech is 35% thermally efficient, power at the crankshaft is only 35% of the calorific value of the fuel which takes account of the losses you mention. Coal has processing losses too, maybe not quite as much as petrol, but perhaps more than fuel oil.

                So I ask our audience have I been fair?

                41

              • #
                Willard

                Bobl you are showing a real lack of knowledge about modern electric motors, please take a look at the video below, this was a test conducted in Australia with a production car that is sold in Australia, for those that don’t have time to view the video I will make a comparison- a 6.2 Litre supercharged V8 in a production car puts out a maximum torque of around 800Nm about half way towards its maximum revolutions, the electric car in the video produces 1406Nm low in its revolutions, the rear motor weighs 3 times less than a V8 yet produces 900nm on its own at low revs, in fact the torque figure is so high iat low revs the dyno operator has to bring on the power as gently as possible-
                https://www.wheelsmag.com.au/news/1703/tesla-model-s-p100d-hits-the-dyno-spits-out-incredible-torque-video
                Bobl, your claim that electric cars have limited torque at low revs is INVORRECT please try some other angle.

                13

              • #
                Willard

                Rereke, you say there is no science or engineering basis on my comments, okay then let’s walk the walk, ONE item at a time, I’ll fit the reply in when I get 5, go for it.

                12

              • #
                Willard

                You seem all too willing to take the word of a climate scientist on climate but strangely unwilling to take the word of an electrical engineer on electricity? Ever think maybe you are biased?

                Your statement above sums up your mindset Bobl, when have I ever mentioned or linked climate or climate scientist? Don’t waste your time looking because the answer is NEVER, you have this common problem of placing people in baskets, in your world those that show an interest in electric vehicles go in your climate change believer basket then when you get shown up for your lack of knowledge on electric cars you pull out the climate change card, Bobl, do yourself a favour and look outside the insular world you live in, study up on modern EVs and look at the positive benefits it can bring a country that has an abundance of energy (coal sprints to mind) an abundance of all the materials needed to make electric cars, then look at what we DONT have an abundance of OIL.

                21

              • #
                Bobl

                What is the point of the EV then Willard.

                Final remarks I never said high torque in elect cars is impossible, Fischer and Paykel washers get around this by using a specially designed electronically controlled polyphase motor. It’s just expensive, part of the reason EVs are $50k. Also torque costs energy and EVs carry less of that, EV control systems save energy by limiting torque. More torque means less range (as it does in ICEs) EVs are less able to sacrifice range for torque because of the low energy density of the fuel store. Hence at most times torque is poor. Add that to the cost involved in overcoming the low starting torque problem. Of course you can do a cheaper EV with out the high cost of “performance” in EVs.

                The question still remains, given very high cost , poorer or even equivalent performance, poor range, long refuel times and no useful emissions savings, what is the compelling reason to buy an EV?

                31

              • #
                Willard

                Bobl you are incorrect on a number of fronts; 1.electric cars are not expensive at this stage because of electric motors, they are expensive due to low production volume and the current cost of batteries, the electric motor has far less cost than an internal combustion engine with a multitude of parts.
                2. You say torque costs energy, in an electric car that’s for the short time the car gets up to speed, the remainder of the time the motor is energy efficent, another great benefit of electric motors, powerful when accelerating, miserly on energy when cruising, returning energy when regen braking, unlike an ICE that is constantly fighting a balance between.
                power and economy.
                It’s very clear you’re not interested in researching modern electric cars, you claim electric motors have no torque, I proved you wrong, it then claim it’s expensive to provide torque, once again I prove you wrong, I can’t wait for the next excuse. If you think I’m being hard on you understand that you as an EE should keep up to date with tech and not post misleading information

                12

              • #
                Bobl

                I give up,
                Willard, I still say that electric motor are lower torque you can get high torque for a moment by dumping current through it but it costs too much to sustain it. As I understand it in a Tesla you even have to select a special I know what I’m doing mode.

                Finally expensive motors plus huge quantities of batteries made from one of the rarest metals is never going to be cheaper than aluminium alloy ICE and an empty steel tank.

                Given all the other issues I restate that there is no compelling reason to choose an EV at this time and certainly not Co2 emissions savings because they are none

                41

              • #
                Willard

                Don’t give up yey Bobl you still have some educating to finish the week,
                1. As I said the high torque is only needed for A short period of time, virtually no effect on range unless it’s done over and over again.
                2.the special mode is Insane or Ludicrous, just like other performance cars have sport or drift, or some other talking point.
                3.as I said the motors are NOT expensive compared to an internal combustion engine.
                4. What is this ” one of the rarest metals” you mention in the batteries?
                5. You couldn’t help mentioning C02 savings again, why are you so concerned with reducing C02, why aren’t you concerned with reducing foreign oil imports to Australia.

                14

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Don’t give up yey Bobl you still have some educating to finish the week”

                He will probably give up trying to educate you.

                There’s not much a single brain cell with one manic thought, can learn !!

                22

            • #
              bullocky

              Willard:
              ‘………video of a Tesla driving through floodwaters’

              Gawwwd! not much of a flood Willard! (despite your best wishes!)

              20

            • #
              Dennis

              I just discussed the monster truck with a tradesman who drives a Mitsubishi Triton 4WD utility that is more compact and therefore more useful for city work and he pointed out that his light truck has more capacity for loading than the monster truck does.

              Obviously the batteries pack is the handicap but the tradesman said “so what, ask me about batteries and power tools, not what I need in a truck that is parked at job sites for hours a day.”

              10

              • #
                Dennis

                ps: And is rated to tow 3,200 Kgs of trailer load.

                10

              • #
                Willard

                Your tradesman is comparing power tool batteries that get abused day in day out, dropped on the floor, checked in the back of the ute, left in the hot sun all day, left in a state of discharge for days, plugged in and keep on full charge every night and generally treated like a $50 throw away item to a purpose built car traction battery with a series of control systems that could only be damaged by deliberate and constant abuse, the W15 battery is 60kwh, only 40kwh is available for use, that pack will last many years and many recharge cycles.
                And PS: just because a Triton can tow 3200kg doesn’t mean he should, nothing worse than the 3200kg tail wagging the 2100kg dog on the highway.

                13

          • #
            AndyG55

            This is great news,

            India not using fossil fuels for cars will prolong the use of those fuels by developed countries for many years.

            Thanks Shilly !

            How’s you EV going, btw? BE HONEST.. if you know how.

            Hey and did you know that in the USA last year that one single type of car,

            the Ford F-series pickup, outsold EV’s by over FIVE to one all by itself, !

            142

            • #
              Willard

              That’s also great news that you keen to keep driving on imported oil Andy, well great news for the oil rich countries keen to invest in solar-http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/UAE-Leading-The-Charge-For-Cheap-Solar.html

              211

              • #
                Ross

                Willard a good alternative is that Australia could keep or upgrade all it’s coal fired power stations ( probably need to build a few more) , burn all that good Australian coal and encourage all the main city dwellers to buy electric cars. You’d probably support subsidies for them.
                Oh thats right Hazelwood has gone already.

                180

              • #
                AndyG55

                “How’s you EV going, btw? BE HONEST.. if you know how.”

                OOPS.. no response.

                Why would that be????

                Nothing to do with yapping hypocrisy, …never that. !!

                112

              • #
                AndyG55

                Waiting for your answer shilly-willy.

                Or are your really just a low-end HYPOCRITICAL shill for some non-existent battery company ??

                32

              • #
                Willard

                Loving the abuse and name calling directed at me Andy, focuses the fact that you have nothing useful to add to the conversation.

                23

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Andy gets a little frustrated, at times, when people don’t respond to his direct questions or observations. He is a very bright guy, who does not suffer fools, gladly. He, like others here, has a lot of useful insights to add to the conversation. But none of us like being preached to by a marketeer, who has little knowledge of the engineering and science involved in what is being offered for sale.

                You are doing yourself, and the brand you represent, no favours. I wish I could advise you to quit whilst you are ahead. But you are way beyond that point already. That is a pity.

                32

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor shilly willy,

                A shill for the EV battery market, and nobody has given him a free EV.

                So sad !!! ;-)

                No wonder he is so manically FRUSTRATED.

                12

              • #
                AndyG55

                “V”

                No, not frustrated.

                Just highly amused that shilly-willy’s antics and evasions.

                Hilarious to watch him squirming and worming away.

                Of course I will keep at the little shill, until he answers this very simple question.

                32

              • #
                AndyG55

                1.. you are yapping.

                2.. you are a hypocrite.

                3.. you are a shill

                FACTS

                No name-calling involved.

                32

              • #
                AndyG55

                You could of course, answer the simple question…. or not.

                Let me guess, an out-of-tune diesel SUV of some sort.

                Or a clapped-out crud spewing VW wagon.!!

                32

              • #
                Willard

                Yes Rereke it seems Andy does come across frustrated at times, it just rolls out in a series of posts with name calling and abuse but no useful content, I don’t mind at all although it does take the gloss of this site that strives keeps a good standard.

                32

              • #
                bullocky

                Willard:
                ……..”That’s also great news that you keen to keep driving on imported oil Andy

                Not as great as the news for the Nawab of Pataudi
                - he’s going to be driving his EV Tata through flood waters with cheap Aussie coal pulsing through its looms!

                00

          • #
            doubtingdave

            Willard , exactly what power do electric cars run on . where does that electrical charge come from

            20

      • #
        Mark M

        Only on the planet Itsacon.

        It appears your worse 97% consensus climate apocalyptic fantasy is here and it’s unstoppable.

        Doomsday is here.

        Do you have any fossil-fuel based assets you are selling cheap?

        Better still, just give them away to me.

        They will be useless post-apocalypse.

        70

      • #
        James Bradley

        So, Dullard,

        Electric vehicles do use more fossil fuels per klm than internal combustion vehicles…

        202

        • #
          Willard

          You keep making that claim James but never back it up with proven evidence.

          38

          • #

            Easy:
            “Electrical Vehicles convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels”
            and
            “Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.”
            http://www.fueleconomy.gov – the official government source for fuel economy information

            A lot of the electricity on the grid is produced from fossil fuel.
            (Unless the consumers has bought a Guarantee of Origin that is true even in Norway. Even though Norway, in theory, produces enough hydropower for its own consumption Link, norway has sold the hydropower to Europeans by Guarantees of origin.)

            And the “Typical thermal efficiency for utility-scale electrical generators is around 33% for coal and oil-fired plants” – Fossil fuel power station

            I guess you get the big picture by now:
            60 % fuel efficiency by the electrical vehicle powered from the grid
            multiplied with:
            33 % fuel efficiency by the fossil fuel machine powering the grid
            =
            Total fuel efficiency is about 20 % for an electric vehicle powered from a grid that is mainly powered by fossil fuel.

            Which is about the same as for a conventional gasoline vehicle.

            (There is also a transmission loss in the electric grid which I have not taken into account.)

            231

            • #
              Willard

              Yours is fiction, the science is below at 1.1.4.

              215

              • #

                My result are not very different from your claims. By the way, If you would like to appear scientific you should identify your sources.

                No matter how you look at it, Electrical Vehicles will not make a big difference for total CO2 emmissions before the grid is powered with energy from Wind, Solar or nuclear sources.

                Electrical vehicles are good for reducing local pollution, not that good for reduction of the total CO2 emmissions. By the way, I own an electric car and it is great. The best is that it is heavily subsidized in many ways.

                60

              • #
                Willard

                Here’s one for you Science -https://www.befrugal.com/tools/electric-car-calculator/
                Pick the U.S. state with a large percentage of coal consumption ( try Wyoming) picks two similar vehicles ( say Tesla and BMW 5 series 6 cylinder ) and hit the calculate button.

                04

              • #
                AndyG55

                Hey shilly-willy,

                did you know that the Ford F ute outsold ALL EVs in America by over 5 to 1 last year?

                32

              • #
                Willard

                Yes Andy, and your point being?

                23

              • #
                AndyG55

                That your posts are meaningless garbage, of course. !!

                EV sales are still a tiny AGW wannabee niche market, as they are destined to be for the foreseeable future.

                32

              • #

                I´m interested in the source of your original claim so that I can check both the premises and the inferences that are used to arrive at the figures you presented.

                30

          • #

            The link to fuel efficiency for electric cars went wrong. Here is the correct one:
            http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml

            130

          • #
            Graham Richards

            Come on Willard if all the “deniers” can’t come up with the evidence why don’t you give us all the benefit of your verifiable knowledge!

            The perpetrators of thi BS would pay you handsomely for VERIFIABLE evidence.

            90

      • #
        Willard

        Here’s one for James Bradley- the average internal combustion engine passenger car produces tail pipe emissions of 188gms per kilometre, that’s when the car is new, there’s also large emissions produced in the refining process.
        The average electric passenger car being charged off the average coal power station produces 148gms per km, this includes charging losses and transmission losses.

        To summarize: petrol car 188gms per kilometre at its best.
        Electric vehicle 148gms per Kilometre charged from 100% coal.

        314

        • #
          AndyG55

          Have you got an EV as your only car yet, shilly-willy ? :-)

          Or just on that battery high yet again !!

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIXUu-hIP_I

          102

        • #
          James Bradley

          Dullard,

          EV’s use more fossil fuel per klm and therefore generate more emissions per klm.

          101

          • #

            JB… I think you need to define “more” otherwise this will go on and on. Are you comparing apples and oranges?

            41

          • #
            Willard

            I’ve explained it to you above James, just keep buying your foreign oil if suits your needs.

            28

            • #
              OriginalSteve

              whats wrong with foreign oil?

              I love this – ACT , the Ratbag State…up the …er…..workers….?

              http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/denman-prospects-streets-named-after-abortion-campaigners-unionists-and-greenies-20170517-gw6rn2.html

              “Five of the 15 street names relate to unionism and industrial action. The fact that such a high proportion of the 14 “activists” have union ties is unsurprising. This is the same government that struck a secret deal handing unions – particularly the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union – unprecedented power in the ACT.

              What is surprising, though is the blatancy of the government’s decision to accord unionists the privilege of naming streets after them. The CFMEU, Australia’s most militant union, was graced with a couple of street names.

              This included organisers who had strong links to the Communist Party.

              I have a hard time believing they are representative of Canberrans or Australians.”

              Agreed…communists are purte trouble,. McCarthy was spot on.

              50

            • #
              James Bradley

              Dullard,

              On emissions:-

              Ozone is toxic at 0.1ppm.

              CO2 is toxic at 40,000ppm.

              81

              • #
                Willard

                On about this Ozone again James, you were wrong last time and still just as wrong this time.

                29

              • #
                ian hilliar

                Thanks, James. Dullard does not seem to understand that, every year, our ability to measure ever smaller traces of “emissions” or chemical compounds improves. Thus, emissions which would have been undetectable 20 years ago, are now quantifiable. It is the same with pesticides, and all other chemical compounds. Because a substance is detectable, it does not mean that that amount is dangerous for human health.

                62

              • #
                Willard

                Go ahead Ian, grab the Ozone Batton from James and run with it.

                26

              • #
                James Bradley

                Please Dullard,

                Show me where I’m wrong.

                40

              • #
                Willard

                State your case first James then we can continue.

                22

              • #
                toorightmate

                Dullard is toxic at 1 ppt.

                20

              • #
                James Bradley

                Dullard,

                Obviously you acknowledge I stated the case “… James, you were wrong last time and still just as wrong this time.”

                Your turn.

                71

              • #
                AndyG55

                It is noted that shilly-willy STILL hasn’t answered the question

                Have you got an EV as your only car yet, shilly-willy ? :-)

                Or just on that battery high yet again !!

                A hypocritical SHILL at the very least. !!!

                52

      • #
        el gordo

        Electric cars are a hypothetical concept, wishful thinking on your part young Willard.

        100

      • #
        cohenite

        Electric cars need to be plugged into a power point with power supplied by coal.

        Australia needs to develop its own oil and there has been no exploration let alone production for decades.

        90

        • #
          Willard

          What’s your issue with Coal Cohenite? Not Australian enough for you?

          06

          • #
            cohenite

            I don’t have an issue with coal: it’s chocolate sunshine.

            50

            • #
              Willard

              So while it would be handy for Australia to produce more home grown oil the reality is we are importing far to much from overseas lining the pockets of other countries, would you not prefer to run as much as possible of the local transport fleet off Australian coal, employing Australians, tell me Cohenhite, who’s corner are you in?

              24

            • #
              Glen Michel

              Hey good marketing Cohenite. Darker the better. I can’t fathom the reticence to use this bestowal of beneficence from the Permian/ Carboniferous. Mostly.

              20

    • #
      paul homewood

      And India will be getting all of this electricity from?

      Coal?

      I wonder why they are not using solar and wind?

      210

      • #
        Yonniestone

        India has a Molten Salt Reactor almost operational which will power batteries produced from recently found vast lithium reserves in Assam, the newly formed company A. Salt & Battery is expected to aggressively take over the energy market within 6 years if not sooner.

        140

      • #
        Willard

        Yes Paul, by consuming cheap Australian coal to power there electric car fleet India will get to a stage where the nation reduces their transport fuel bill by $US60 billion per year and reduce their carbon emissions as well, and just think what they could do with $US60 billion per year, new efficient coal power stations, nuclear power stations, better power infrastructure.

        210

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Just think what we in Australia could do with $US60 billion a year – I forgot, we waste that on ridiculous and unproven theories.

          By the way, India will be INCREASING their usage of coal out to at least 2030. It is true that this will involve a reduction in projections that they (carefully) prepared for the Paris party. but the total emissions will go UP, regardless of any electric vehicles.

          100

          • #
            Willard

            No Graeme the total emissions will go down because they’re goal is to replace inefficient petrol burning clunkers with energy efficient electric vehicles from ever increasingly efficient coal power stations.

            29

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            That is exactly the problem. The government waste it on BBQs at government house or give it away to the UN.

            41

            • #
              Willard

              Well not a gas fueled BBQ Graeme because we’re giving that away to too.

              25

              • #
                Dennis

                Not true.

                21

              • #
                bullocky

                ‘ we’re giving that away to too.’

                If true, this is scandalous! Evidence please!

                30

              • #
                el gordo

                Just to avoid being bogged in the mire, the reason LNG is so expensive is because of demand.

                https://www.appea.com.au/oil-gas-explained/benefits/benefits-of-lng/export-revenue/

                I don’t like the free market model if it penalises the locals, lets buy back the farm and give the multinationals the flick.

                Otherwise we could increase the taxes on wealthy Australians so that a local pensioner doesn’t have to freeze in winter.

                51

              • #
                bullocky

                Thanks el gorgo.
                From your link;

                ‘In 2015-16, Australia exported 37 million tonnes of LNG with a value of $16.55 billion’

                It seems that ‘giving’, like many other things, is in the eye of the beholder!

                20

              • #
                Willard

                And how much of that $16.5 billion dollar value goes to the Australian federal government Bullocky? How does the amount collected by the AFG compare to the revenue collected by the Japanese government from Australian gas shipped to Japan?

                04

              • #
                el gordo

                And look at this ….

                ‘The Queensland Government is offering Indian mining company Adani a “royalties holiday” worth hundreds of millions of dollars for its massive Carmichael coal mine in the state’s north.

                ‘The ABC understands the proposed agreement would see Adani pay just $2 million a year in royalties once the $21 billion project starts operating.

                ‘The royalty rate will then increase after several years.’

                20

              • #
                bullocky

                All of these questions you should answer, Willard, to qualify your statement ‘we’re giving that away to too.’

                10

              • #
                AndyG55

                “The ABC understands the proposed agreement would see Adani pay just $2 million a year in royalties ”

                At least it isn’t paying out, like wind and solar subsidies are dependant on.

                This is a great way of helping India to develop.

                The amount Adani will be investing in infrastructure and jobs will be quite substantial.

                62

              • #
                bullocky

                el gordo,
                (re ‘just $2 million a year in royalties…. once the project starts operating ‘ )

                Now THAT appears to be pretty close to ‘giving away’! It should, of course, be correlated to mined tonnages in the initial stages and could serve as an incentive for Adani to ‘weather the storm’ of domestic opposition in the short term.

                India for it’s part could be expected to be supportive of Australian governments’ commitments to renewable energy targets.

                20

              • #
                el gordo

                The point is that the Queensland government needs to generate infrastructure in the regions or be wiped out at the ballot box. So when we talk billions a pepper corn is fine by me, start up costs and all that.

                I would also like to see a state of the art coal fired power station close to the mine and new satellite cities scattered about, attached to a continental HSR network.

                20

        • #
          bullocky

          Willard:
          ‘………by consuming cheap Australian coal to power there electric car fleet India will get to a stage where the nation reduces their transport fuel bill by $US60 billion per year and reduce their carbon emissions as well,’

          Willard, you should advertise this plan more widely; it’s sure to increase international demand for Australian coal. More demand, higher prices, and bigger fleets of electric cars (until the threshold of renewables efficiency kicks in, that is!).

          20

          • #
            Willard

            You’d think the coal industry would be doing seeing as the oil industry would be happy to throw them under a bus.

            02

          • #
            bullocky

            You must be smarter than the entire coal industry , Willard?

            20

            • #
              AndyG55

              “You must be smarter than the entire coal industry”

              Yet shilly-willy is barely smaller than a lump of coal !!

              11

    • #
      Dave in the States

      Why is it better to convert a fossil fuel into electricity to power autos instead of just burning it in an internal combustion engine?

      Anyway I’m going to go jump in my V8 powered car and just drive it around at high speed just for the fun of it. And I’m not going to feel a smidgen of guilt about it either. As an American I don’t care if America meets any of these goals or not. In fact I don’t my country to spend one dime on any of this.

      120

    • #
      Dennis

      Should “we” demand more coal and gas fired power stations or nuclear power stations to provide the enormous increase in electricity demand?

      60

      • #
        Willard

        “Enormous increase in electricity demand” you say Dennis, tell us all about how much this increased demand will be? Please go ahead, you’ve made a statement now back it up.

        29

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          If we were all inclined to get rid of our petrol and diesel vehicles tomorrow, and rushed out to purchase whatever it is that you are pushing, what would be the impact on the national electricity system, that the Australian Prime Minister, coincidentally wants to be driven solely by wind and solar?

          For that is the BIG dream, isn’t it Willard. That is the Nirvana that you seek, is it not?

          110

          • #
            Another Ian

            RW

            First worry about the alternative vehicle supply industry

            00

          • #
            Willard

            Glad you asked Rereke, but first of all your dreamimg if you think all passenger cars will be replaced overnight, but let’s just assume that some time in the future we had 13 million electric passenger cars on the roads, at last count the overall power increase over a year would be no more than 18%, interestingly companies like AGL are keen to see this happen as they now offer all you can charge at home for $1 per day, Energex are installing a fast charging network up the QLD coast. Anyway back in Jan 2016 Tony set me a challenge concerning electric cars, below is the answer, funnily enough Tony never got back to be, the answer was correct just not the one he wanted to see-

            So let’s get on to the main topic, let’s not just make it 5.3 million cars but 5.3 million of the most powerful- Tesla’s latest, the P90D, dual motors, combined total of 560 KW driving through four wheels instantly, 0-100 in 3 seconds, a 2000 kg passenger car that whips V8s in total silence, for a split second under heavy acceleration its motors draw 1500amps, well that things gotta chew through more electricity than a suburb?
            NOPE, not even close, on average it consumes 18 kwh per 100km.
            Of course it’s not that perfect because to get 18kwh into the battery you need up near 21kwh going through the meter box, multiply that by the Australian average car distance of 14500 Kms and the figure blows out to 3045kwh per year, wait no, that can’t be right thats less than a family size hot water storage system consumes in a year?
            So let’s see, the figure you gave me for Bayswater was 16 200 000 000kwh per year, divide 3045 into that and we get 5.32 million passenger cars give or take a few hundred.
            .

            16

            • #
              ian hilliar

              Willard, “Lets just assume ” that you are an [snip], and stop wasting our time trying to crack open that closed mind of yours. You believe, because you believe, and no amount of logic or facts can ever convince a person against their beliefs.

              [sorry]ED

              01

            • #
              AndyG55

              Have you got an EV as your only car yet, shilly-willy ? :-)

              Truth to yourself. will ease your RABID shill-like behaviour

              22

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Oh yes, please give us the real numbers and references – no making things up, please.

          30

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            He cant – it would take a complete re-engineering of the grid and it plain wouldnt work.

            Interestingly, as transport stopped, so would the economy ( and food ) once petrol and diesel stopped.

            And how would you ship huge grain shipments to port? With Lithium battery powered locos? You have to be kidding….

            So no exports, no food, no tax, no economy…. but we have the every insightful Willard, who has volunteered to turn our generators by hand so we can to pump water at least….maybe…..

            Manuel!

            60

            • #
              Willard

              “A complete re-engineering of the grid” really Steve? For a steady 1 to 2% increase in consumption at most.

              23

              • #
                ian hilliar

                He’s talking about TRYING to replace coal and oil with wind and solar, dolt. And do you really believe the general population will abandon electric appliances? IF we ever did have all these electric cars ,of which you appear to be so fond, do you really believe “renewables” will supply all the electricity we need?

                40

              • #
                Willard

                Why is he trying to replace coal Ian? What’s wrong with putting coal power electricity into an electric car? The car doesn’t care, it runs the same, coal, gas, hydro, solar, nukes, the list goes on.

                13

              • #
                AndyG55

                Have you got an EV as your only car yet, shilly-willy ?

                Please answer a simple question… truthfully for once.

                03

            • #
              James Bradley

              Steve is correct,

              We just lost Hazelwood and Loy Yang.

              Faced with the prospects of diminished energy returns of Malcolm’s pumped hydro and more diminishing returns of SA’s solar battery storeage with 20% return from irregular and unreliable wind turbines… yep I’d agree -”… a complete re-engineering of the grid and it wouldn’t work”.

              Nice way to manage a third world economy, Dullard.

              61

  • #
    toorightmate

    China and India are obviously convinced the CO2 hoax will be dead and buried by 2030.
    It is not just their school children who are a lot smarter than ours.
    The likes of Willard’s shenanigans must have them in hysterics.

    171

  • #

    Ignoring/fudging Asia’s emissions or buying into China’s foggy “commitments” to “tackle” climate change…all part of the emasculation of the West. If I want something made I go to China or India. (I just bought a DAB cast-iron pump, once Italian now made in Asia, like just about everything else in view within my house, barring the furniture.)

    On the other hand, if I want to book a trip to Mars or around the moon, the West is still in the fairydust business, for now. As for all those services I consume, banks and the like will call them “products” to make me feel better, like Sid Kidman is still in the saddle. Your nation may not be able to run a smelter despite mountains of premium coal and minerals, but that bank account you just opened is a great new “product”.

    We know someone has to make all that stuff we like in ever greater quantities, even as we play at de-industrialisation or post-industrialisation or being green or whatever. Asia gets to do the producing, and if it should go through an economic slump we can triumphantly call the slump an emissions reduction. Moreover those dusky folk are always ready with a few wind turbines or solar panels as decor to satisfy White B’wana journalist. Massa Guardian reader, him plenty like see solar panel.

    So Asia is either robustly producing or reducing emissions, while we in the West are constantly sinning against Gaia. Got it? Bad European! (Germans selling to their captive “free” market excepted, of course. Since captive “free markets” are clearly the future.)

    Just as well we have Cate and Leo to remind us to turn off appliances off at the point.

    130

  • #
    pat

    the CleanTechnica & InsideClimateNews pieces are about a report released on the sidelines of the Bonn Climate Fest by well-connected NGO ClimateActionTracker:

    About Climate Action Tracker
    The CAT Consortium includes:
    ECOFYS, Netherlands (now owned by ***Navigant in Chicago)
    PIK (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) is a collaborator of the project as scientific advisor and data provider. The global aggregation and pathway extension methodology and tools were developed by PIK as partner in the project between 2009 and 2016. The consortium has now absorbed activities previously performed by PIK. The global aggregation and climate modelling methods from PIK are still used for the CAT temperature calculations and emissions data from the PIK PRIMAP emissions module are used for the country analysis…
    The Climate Action Tracker is made possible due to generous support from the ClimateWorks Foundation and the German Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation, Buildings and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) via the International Climate Initiative. Past supporters include the European Climate Foundation and the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation.
    http://climateactiontracker.org/about.html

    Nov 2016: Navigant Chicago: Navigant Acquires Ecofys, Scaling Global Energy and Sustainability Expertise
    Headquartered in the Netherlands, Ecofys began as a pioneer in sustainability consulting more than 30 years ago. Formerly a wholly owned subsidiary of ***Eneco, one of Europe’s leading sustainable energy companies, Ecofys’ work has led to prestigious honors, including the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for contributions on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the 2008 Erasmus Innovation Award…

    https://www.navigant.com/news/energy/2016/ecofys

    Wikipedia: Eneco, the trading name of Eneco Holding N.V., is one of the largest producers and suppliers of natural gas, electricity and heat in the Netherlands, serving more than 2 million business and residential customers…
    On the 8 January 2010 the United Kingdom Crown Estate awarded Eneco New Energy the Zone 7 offshore wind farm licence for UK waters. This gave them exclusive rights to create a 900 MW offshore wind farm (Navitus Bay) off the west coast of the Isle of Wight.

    another almost identical take, but Mathiesen finds someone to suggest if only this and that India & China could keep the warming below 1.5C, whereas InsideClimateNews could only muster “their (China & India) policies, in other words, are not consistent with limiting warming to below 2°C, let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger aim of a 1.5°C limit, unless other countries make much deeper reductions and comparably greater efforts”:

    15 May: ClimateChangeNews: Karl Mathiesen: India and China ‘on track to exceed Paris climate pledges’
    Coal plant cancellations mean the world’s two largest countries are cutting emissions faster than predicted a year ago, outweighing the effect of US policy rollbacks
    But Dr Bill Hare, CEO of Climate Analytics, said the changes in China and India “if continued and accelerated” meant it would be possible to stop the world warming more than 1.5C – the most ambitious goal of the Paris agreement and one seen as essential to saving coral reefs and low lying island nations. The US would need to adopt similarly ambitious policies, he added…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/05/15/india-china-track-exceed-paris-climate-pledges/

    20

  • #
    pat

    17 May: NYT: ***Ariel Bogle: Australia’s Rural Youth, in Split From Elders, Seek to Limit Emissions
    SPRING RIDGE, Australia — Mark Coulton and his daughter, Claire, both believe there is a future in rural living. They are both active members of Australia’s National Party, which traditionally represents farmers and voters outside the main cities who lean conservative, and they agree on most things — but not on how to deal with climate change.

    Mr. Coulton, 59, thinks measures like carbon trading are “symbolic things that really won’t have any impact.” Claire Coulton, 33, supports carbon trading as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and worries that Australia’s economic dependence on coal could undermine her future.
    “I think it’s something all young people should be looking at with real interest,” she said, “because if there are negative effects of opening up that coal mine, our generation will be the one to bear the brunt of it.”

    The elder Coulton is a lawmaker in the Australian Parliament, representing the electoral division of Parkes in New South Wales, and his daughter belongs to the party’s youth wing, but their disagreement is not limited to family debate. Last month, the regional youth wing, the NSW Young Nationals, including Ms. Coulton, went against party leaders at an annual meeting and voted to endorse a plan that would place a cost on emissions, known as an emissions intensity plan…

    ***Anika Molesworth, 29, whose family has a 10,000-acre sheep farm near Broken Hill, said she had raised the issue of global warming with Mr. Coulton. “As a young farmer, climate change is the issue of our generation,” she said in an email. “I don’t support any party that discounts science and jeopardizes the rights and well-being of future generations.”…
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/world/australia/climate-change-carbon-emissions-nsw.html?_r=0

    ***LinkedIn: Ariel Bogle, Associate Editor at Mashable, Sydney
    Education: ANU
    My writing has been published in Mashable, Slate, Mother Jones, Time.com and the Pacific Standard, among other places. I’ve also appeared on 702 ABC Radio, FBI Radio, KCRW and Sky News Business. In 2016, I won the Australian IT Journalism Award for best new journalist.

    ***Nov 2015: Farm Weekly: Pair take ideals to Paris
    by MATTHEW CAWOOD, national science and environment writer for Fairfax Agricultural Media
    Anika Molesworth, who lives on a sheep station at Broken Hill, and Josh Gilbert, whose family run a Braford stud at Nabiac, crowdfunded their trip to the COP21 talks on climate change…
    Mr Gilbert, whose family own Riverside Park Braford Stud, is a consultant with PwC Indigenous Consulting, and the chair of the NSW Farmers Association Young Farmers Committee…
    Ms Molesworth was made the Kondinin Group/ABC 2015 Young Australian Farmer of the Year for her advocacy of sustainable agriculture, which has a focus on climate change.
    1 COMMENT:
    ***Jock Munro: Is Josh Gilbert a farmer himself and if not why is he a member and Chairman of the NSW Young Farmers committee?
    http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/pair-take-ideals-to-paris/2748597.aspx

    ***similar question could be asked about Anika.

    Dec 2016: SMH: Anika Molesworth: Farmers believe in climate change, so why don’t the politicans who say they represent them?
    (Anika Molesworth is the Australian Young Farmer of the Year and a steering committee member of Farmers for Climate Action)

    Apr 2016: The Conversation: Climate justice and its role in the Paris Agreement
    by Anika Molesworth, PhD Candidate, Deakin University
    Climate change is one of the principal threats to quality – and equality – of life on our planet. Beyond environmental problems, climate change threatens food security, water availability, health, housing and self-determination. In essence, it confronts our basic liberties and pursuit of happiness…

    27 Apr: Guardian: Anika Molesworth: ‘Invisible farmers’: the young women injecting new ideas into agriculture
    A sustainable farming advocate and 2015 Australian young farmer of the year, Molesworth would like to combine her work on the family property, in western New South Wales, with a career as a consultant and educator in sustainable farming…
    Formerly Melbourne-based, the family bought the Broken Hill property in 2000 (when Anika was 12) at the start of a decade-long drought…

    20 Jan: Guardian: Anika Molesworth: From Asia to outback Australia, farmers are on the climate change frontline
    For those standing on the precipice of life the impacts of climate change are an ever present reality…

    Oct 2016: ABC: Riverina farmer Anika Molesworth named as a finalist for the 2017 NSW Young Australian of the Year

    10

  • #

    Statistics, while so incredibly boring, can sometimes tell so much.

    At some time during the year 2010, China finally overtook the U.S. as the largest generator of electrical power on Earth.

    Now, at the end of 2016, China generates 46% more power than the U.S. and a large percentage of all that came from coal fired power.

    In fact, just from coal fired power alone China generates 3905TWH of power, which is only 17% less than the U.S. generates from every source.

    China has closed down huge numbers of coal fired plants, all of them old to ancient, and all of them small, where small units were built in a number of places for local power. Now their grid is monumentally huge, and they have large numbers of very large scale coal fired plants.

    Because all these new plants are those HELE USC plants, and China is now the World leader in their construction, the actual consumption of coal per unit of electricity generated is steadily coming down, and I mean way down.

    Currently the whole of fleet coal consumption per power generation stands at 312grams of coal per KWH, far and away the lowest on Earth for a whole of Country basis.

    For example in the US, that rate of coal burning per unit of generated power stands at 496 grams per KWH, and here in Australia, it would probably be around the same as for the U.S. probably a little lower than that, but not by much.

    So, while China quite obviously consumes more coal than anywhere else on Earth, they are wringing more power from less coal.

    That’s 37% less coal per KWH than the U.S.

    China is now building those new tech coal fired plants all over the World.

    How anachronistic is that, when you can lower your CO2 emissions by 37% just by replacing old coal fired power with new coal fired power.

    India is also constructing new tech coal fired plants as well.

    There is spin, and there is actual verifiable data, and I know what I believe.

    Tony.

    401

    • #

      Why is it that the UN (or anybody for that fact) never complains about CO2 emissions from China, India, and all those other still Developing Countries. You never hear a peep out of them about the construction of coal fired power plants on a scale unseen in World history. That’s two new coal fired plants each week, adding around 25 million tonnes of CO2 a year for the two plants, which pretty much correlates with the increase in CO2 emissions per year of close on 10 Billion tonnes over those last 8 years. (2 plants a week X 50 weeks X 8 years x 25 million Tonnes for those 2 plants)

      Virtually one new plant a week in China for the last ten years, and now they are so expert at it, all those other Countries are also cashing in and getting China to construct them in their Country as well, so effectively, it’s probably closer to two new large scale coal fired plants a week, all of them being done by China, with no hint of them even easing back.

      I started doing all this in March of 2008. Since that time, China has doubled its CO2 emissions from 5 Billion Tonnes per annum to now over 10 Billion tonnes per annum. At that time in 2008, China emitted one billion tonnes of CO2 LESS than the U.S.

      Australia has increased its CO2 emissions since 2008 by 100 million tonnes, and yet, (because China’s emissions have gone up by so much) Australia’s percentage with respect to the rest of the World by emissions has stayed around that 1.2% mark.

      China now emits double what the U.S. (now in in second place) does, almost one third of all Worldwide CO2 emissions. In fact China emits more CO2 than the next three combined, U.S. The EU, (that’s ll of Europe combined) and India.

      If this CO2 problem was indeed as drastically bad as the UN makes out, surely they would be imploring China to stop, and would have been doing that for at least the last ten years or so.

      But China takes (quite literally) no notice of that at all.

      Tony.

      101

  • #
    Gordon

    NOOOOOOOO!!!!
    And we are still breathing? Hey something is wrong here. All that coal would destroy life on planet earth. Could this be more proof that the climate hoax is really a HOAX?

    90

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    We have to teach children (adults) how to filter these contradictions.

    But that would mean that we would have to teach that identification of contradictions is fundamental to thinking about what is real and what is not. Then teach that one must act accordingly to stay alive and thrive. That is too hard for far too many people. They let their “betters” do the thinking for them and expect to be kept safe, secure, and well fed by going along to get along.

    Thinking and acting on the principle that things cannot both be and not be the same thing at the same time in the same way is thought to be so unfair. There must be a way to have your cake and eat it too. Obviously, we must FORCE all those evil Engineers and Business men to do our bidding or else! They are simply being selfish and uncooperative. It is time they are put in their place. Enough boots on necks, whips on backs, and guns at their heads will make them come around a new way of thinking.

    Consider that a South American nation, once very rich, thought that way and is now destitute with a starving population. That such a thing has failed every time it has been attempted is held to be irrelevant. Surly, the next gang of thugs could do it better. However, reality always asserts itself and says contradictions cannot and do not exist. It is either one side or the other or neither but not both sides at the same time. If your life depends upon contradictions existing and working, you will pay with your life for the attempt. Making endless human sacrifices will not change the ultimate outcome.

    60

    • #
      Dennis

      Yes, but when about half of all adults have comprehension levels of primary school students it’s going to be difficult to teach them, but the political spin doctors take advantage of them.

      50

      • #
        Lionell Griffith

        You don’t have to teach them all. Just enough to make a real difference. I suspect less than one in ten is more than enough.

        30

  • #
    doubtingdave

    Before I start , I am not under the influence of any alcohol or drug , what is influencing my thoughts is articles like this , where by simply discussing it you give it some credence , the attack on CO2 is a political decision , whilst we all know that CO2 is vital to all life on earth , why give those that want to reduce CO2 any credibility . unless you think the best approach is to pander to them

    80

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Not to pander but discredit them, even if half the population believes in the need for CO2 reduction the information they receive comes from resources that currently far outweigh any sceptical input, the greatest lie unchallenged will eventually become truth if not countered.

      90

      • #
        doubtingdave

        The greatest lie Yonniestone is the so called ” precautionary princible ” they lost the argument on scientific observation years ago , so fell back on climate models as if that is evidence , they lost that argument and so retreated to consensus , they lost that argument and so retreated to the last bastion of fake science ” the precautionary princible ” they want to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels to so called pre industrial levels without considering that, that might lead to CO2 starvation and kill all life on earth , the so called ” precautionary princible ” should work in both directions shouldn’t it , and yet we sceptics don’t question them on that , a major fail in my book

        90

        • #
          David Maddison

          Here is a website devoted to criticism of the Precautionary Principle.

          http://paralyzingprecautionprinciple.com/problems-with-the-precautionary-principle.html

          60

          • #
            David Maddison

            Actually, this is the home directory of that site.

            http://paralyzingprecautionprinciple.com/index.html

            30

            • #
              doubtingdave

              DAVID , what we do know is that the CO2 cycle is driven by volcanic activity , CO2 in the atmosphere is sucked into the ocean and builds shells , then those shells turn into rock , then volcanic activity puts that CO2 back into the atmosphere , but volcanic activity has declined over the last so many millions of years , and that trend is likely to continue , as a result the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to decline , till we get to the point were there is so little atmospheric CO2 that life on earth cannot survive , any attempt by man to reduce atmospheric CO2 can only risk bringing that Doomsday scenario closer , think of your children

              32

              • #
                TdeF

                DD, 98% of all free CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. Ocean surface temperature alone determines aerial CO2. This is well known basic physical chemistry which you can apply to fish tanks or the planet. Henry’s Law. CO2 is also being produced continually by life on earth from insects to fish to birds and mammals, recovering the solar energy captured in the process of photosynthesis as carbohydrates, without which life on earth would not exist. On top of that, carbon and oxygen are low on the periodic table, so they exist in unimaginable quantity in many forms like carbonates. We should stick to CO2. The piffling amount mankind generates is of no consequence.

                Consider that for all the UN targets and rapid coal expansion, the graph of CO2 is showing not the slightest impression for the 350,000 windmills or the feverish activity in reducing CO2 which really just amounts to sending all our CO2 to China, given the CO2 debt in every windmills and solar panel. So like all the heavy metals now exclusively mined in China, the basic Green principle is simply, NIMBY. Not in My Backyard.

                Surely by now South Australia should have the lowest CO2 in the world? Does anyone believe their rolling disaster is anything more than the Precautionary Principle gone mad, killing the patient who is not sick?

                111

          • #
            TdeF

            I personally was aghast at the so called ‘precautionary principle’ as used by Sir Paul Nurse in his famous put down argument in 2011 with James Delingpole. His example was that if a doctor suspected you had cancer, he should treat you as if it was true. It left Delingpole with nowhere to go because it is no scientific principle and morally wrong.

            Given that most cancer treatments are at least life threatening to near lethal, this remains completely unethical. While Dr Nurse is a Nobel prize winning geneticist and head of the Royal Society at the time, he is no meteorologist and a medical doctor and would violate the Hippocratic oath which is in essence, to “do no harm”.

            So while his ‘Principle; it made Sir Paul sound principled and Newtonian and left his victim flat footed, it was simply an appalling and wrong and unethical but convenient argument. Guesswork is no substitute for facts. Potentially lethal action based on guesswork is gambling with people’s lives. This is not a principle of any science and does not exist in any science text. It is made up political science, like all of Climate Change, to win an argument when there are no real facts to justify action.

            In fact temperature is completely uncorrelated with CO2, the true statement that had Prof Murry Salby immediately fired by remote control even while lecturing overseas. That was the real Precautionary Principle in action. Dissent will not be tolerated.

            121

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Agreed the Precautionary Principle should have been applied to not take any action on CO2 reductions as a result of CAGW being a failed hypothesis when tested by the scientific method.

          From Davids link the ‘Ambiguity of its component elements’ would have omitted CAGW from the process in the first place but even at the start of the global warming idea certain elements of society were determined to influence public opinion.

          50

          • #
            doubtingdave

            Thankyou Yonniestone I appreciate your incite , do you agree that we as sceptics have let ourselves down by not countering the bogus use of the so called ^ precautionary princible , if they want to use that as an excuse to return CO2 LEVELS to pre industrial levels , should we not be pointing out that , it was was a period we know as the little ice age and the Thames would freeze over every year and poverty and starvation was rampant in the Northern Hemisphere , when CO2 levels were as low as 280 ppm and we know once CO2 drops to 180ppm or below all life on Earth would die , why is it that as sceptics we do not counter the precautionary princible as we should

            50

            • #
              Yonniestone

              The Precautionary Principle (PP) was used by both opponents and proponents of CAGW in the early years of debate with the narrative shifting to suit a outcome or belief much like GCM’s, qualified views such as Dr Roy Spencer, Bob Carter, Dr Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer may have tentatively used the PP to demonstrate a possible non-catastrophic warming effect of CO2 but of course this was taken completely out of context by those that wanted any science to prove without doubt it did.

              An early site I visited regularly was Climate Change Dispatch where a 2008 article Be Very Cautious of the Precautionary Principle gave a good view of what we’re discussing now.

              20

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                the PP is the intellectually lazy persons last resort….and allows avoidance of any intellectual or practical rigour.

                Kind of reminds me of the Tale of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby

                40

        • #
          Bobl

          You again miss the fact that this calculation ignores the losses in delivering the “fuel” to the ev they ascribe that to a different “bucket” but it is a fact that you will need to burn about 25% more coal that the theoretical energy needed to move the ev 1km making it a wash on CO2 but delivering a poor performance vehicle with high maintenance and capital cost.

          Besides, unless you compare with a variable displacement ICE you are comparing apples and oranges. The best diesels and variable displacement petrol engines easily outperform ev’s on emission. The energy saving tricks in an EV are the things that make them viable. Do those to an ICE you will get better emissions than current ice tech, no-one will want to buy them, but the emissions would be good.

          00

          • #
            doubtingdave

            STEVE , THATs BRILLIANT , you put it across so well and yet so simple , thanks mate

            00

  • #
    Mary E

    When I mention, to those CAGW greenie people who are still talking to me (fewer and fewer as time goes on as I won’t agree to become one of them) the number of coal-fueled plants being built in China, and India, and link to verifiable reports and articles, and mention that hey, these are -new- and highly efficient, clean, power plants, we could do the same, I get shot down. I don’t even think about nuclear power in some people’s presence, it’s not safe to, even though the tech has come so far and small nuclear plants make sense and could be affordable.

    Because their media, the trusted non-corporate-owned/backed and wholly green media, says otherwise. Even when the fact that the needed plants were over-stated/estimated and won’t be needed now, gee, and thus the CO2 “savings” is not on reduced emissions from current, but on reduced emissions from potential future, is right there in those same articles, even if near the bottom, or in a small side-note. Because only the evil corporate interests and capitalist westerners would play games like that.

    72

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Interesting perspective, Mary. Thank you.

      I too have few Green friends. It is very liberating.

      10

  • #
    Another Ian

    Around this area

    “Greens Forgive China their Coal Plants”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/17/greens-forgive-china-their-coal-plants/

    40

  • #
    Yonniestone

    The consent for other countries to have cheap reliable base load power while approving for the destruction of your own is a great leap forward for The Centre for American Progress.

    40

  • #
    Another Ian

    “Who leads the World in the Crusade against climate change?”

    Link at

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2017/05/who-leads-the-w-1.html

    10

  • #
    David S

    When dealing with India and China making predictions about what levels of CO 2 will be in the future is just total fiction. You can’t trust historical data so how can one trust future data. I have no doubt that virtually every country in the world ( except the idiots in Australia ) will cheat when reporting and measuring their CO 2 levels in the future but India and China will be the most adept. We are all being gamed and Aussie taxpayers are the ones who will pay.

    10

  • #
    Neville

    Here is the latest EIA report showing that the OECD countries co2 emissions will nearly flat line until 2040 and non OECD countries ( India,China etc) emissions will soar for the next 23 years. CHALK and CHEESE. And you’ll note that OECD emissions in 2040 will be about the same as OECD in 2009 and there has been only a small increase in OECD emissions since 1990. THIS IS OBSERVED DATA, NOT JUST GUESSWORK. The first graph at the link graphically provides the evidence. So why don’t the media and govt’s provide this evidence to the public? A short summary from the report here.

    https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/emissions.pdf

    “Chapter 9
    Energy-related CO2 emissions
    Overview
    “Because anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) result primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels, energy consumption
    is at the center of the climate change debate. In the International Energy Outlook 2016 (IEO2016) Reference case, world energyrelated
    CO2 emissions331 increase from 32.3 billion metric tons in 2012 to 35.6 billion metric tons in 2020 and to 43.2 billion
    metric tons in 2040. The Reference case estimates do
    not include effects of the recently finalized Clean Power
    Plan (CPP) regulations in the United States, which reduce
    projected U.S. emissions in 2040 by 0.5 billion metric tons.
    Much of the growth in emissions is attributed to developing
    nations outside the Organization for Economic Cooperation
    and Development (OECD), many of which continue to rely
    heavily on fossil fuels to meet the fast-paced growth of
    energy demand. In the IEO2016 Reference case, non-OECD
    emissions in 2040 total 29.4 billion metric tons, or about 51%
    higher than the 2012 level. In comparison, OECD emissions
    total 13.8 billion metric tons in 2040, or about 8% higher than
    the 2012 level (Table 9-1 and Figure 9-1).
    In conjunction with the 21st Conference of Parties in Paris
    (COP21, November 30 through December 12, 2015), many
    countries have submitted emissions reduction goals, or
    Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs),
    under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
    Change (UNFCC) (see “Policies to limit CO2 emissions in the
    United States and China,” below).”

    20

  • #
    amortiser

    This reminds me of the annual charade where the government claims that it cutting expenditure. “Billions cut from government programs” scream the headlines. When you look at it closely what they are doing is cutting dollars out of the forward estimates which are the wish lists of the bureaucrats. The real story is that expenditure inevitably increases over and above that of the previous year.

    It is incredibly misleading and these clowns are doing the same thing with CO2 emissions.

    50

  • #
    David Maddison

    “In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”

    Donny Miller

    82

  • #
    Neville

    Lomborg’s PR study shows that Paris COP 21 implementation will see no measurable change in temp by 2100 at all. But they will waste endless trillions $ for the next 83 years, providing that we are stupid enough to keep funding their delusions. Remember even Dr Hansen the father of CAGW said that Paris COP 21 was just BS and fra-d. Here’s the link and a summary about solar and wind energy.

    http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

    “Subsidizing inefficient renewables is expensive and doesn’t work. The IEA estimates that we get 0.4% of our energy from wind and solar PV right now, and even in optimistic scenarios the fraction will only rise to 2.2% by 2040. Over the next 25 years, we’ll spend about $2.5 trillion in subsidies and reduce global warming temperatures by less than 0.02.°C”

    20

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      These sorts of answers imply that Lomborg (and you ?) have followed the mis-direction thrown into the wind. Perhaps too much effort is going into pushing the wrong buttons of the general population.
      The UN and friends are interested in full control of the wealth generated by western (European, North American, AU, NZ, …) societies/enterprise. By enlisting socialists, greens, and SJWs the fog of confusion masks this agenda. It needs to be unmasked.
      To continue to refute the GHG, warming, temperature, doom arguments is a waste of time and energy (to most people). Most people cannot follow such topics. Think of the fellow that thought Guam might tip over, or the head of the Sierra Club that made a fool of himself before the US Congress committee.

      People are apt to care more about their personal wages and taxes than about 0.02 C°. An accurate answer to the wrong question is not really helpful.

      10

  • #
    ROM

    Off Topic and yet relevant to this headline post of Jo’s I think!

    The signs are now in place for the beginning of the end for the Greens drive for unbridled political power over all peoples and the Green cult as it exists today.

    Germany in particular and Europe in general are at the heart of and one of the most potent centres of global Green power and influence.

    From ; Der Spiegel .

    State Election Debacle
    What’s Wrong With Germany’s Green Party

    Germany’s once high-flying Green Party is foundering in many states.
    After a disastrous election result in North Rhine-Westphalia, the party is promising change, but it may come too late for September’s national poll.
    &
    This time around, though, the Greens aren’t pointing any fingers. The election result in Germany’s most populous state was no less than a disaster, with the party down from 11.3 percent in 2012 to just 6.4 percent on Sunday. What does the loss mean at the national level and where does the party go from here?

    1. The Greens have failed a key test.

    The coalition government pairing the Social Democrats and the Greens in North Rhine-Westphalia lost its majority in public opinion surveys long ago — and the party’s difficulties at the national level certainly didn’t help. But the Greens did almost nothing to stop the bleeding. Following the widely publicized incidents on New Year’s Eve 2015 in Cologne, which saw widespread sexual assaults committed largely by asylum seekers, the party struggled to come up with a clear position on its refugee and security policies (they still aren’t even clear today). The party successfully helped block deportations of Afghan nationals whose asylum applications had been rejected, but it did little to communicate what the rest of its asylum policies might look like.
    &
    Support for the Greens is waning in many regions. The fact that they are still part of governing coalitions in 10 German states makes the party look stronger than it is. In reality, the party is failing to make a strong and enduring connection with voters. The Greens are still strong in Baden-Württemberg and Schleswig-Holstein and perhaps still in Lower Saxony and the city-states of Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg, but that’s about it. The party remains perpetually weak in the eastern states and in Saarland. After serving as the junior partner in a coalition government in Rhineland-Palatinate, the Greens lost a dramatic 10 percent in the last election in 2016.

    40

    • #
      ROM

      And Pierre Gosselin’s NoTricksZone blog

      Climate Movement Falters As German Greens/Socialists Take Historic Election Trouncing -

      Energy policy in Germany’s most populated state could change profoundly.”

      Rise of the right

      The center-right CDU party led by Armin Laschet took the top spot as it pulled in 33% of the vote, some 6.7% more than they did in the 2012 election. Most observers believe the CDU will partner up with business-friendly FDP free democrats, who picked up an impressive 12.6% of the vote, 4% more than the previous election.

      The newcomer hard-right AfD party pulled in 7.4% in their first election in NRW ever.

      Demise of the left: In total the center/right-of-center parties gained a whopping 18%, marking a major political shift.

      Meanwhile the once ruling SPD Socialists saw their result disintegrate, falling almost 8% lower than 5 years ago, going from 39.1% to just 31.2%. The SPD coalition partners, The Greens, collapsed from 11.3% to a mere 6.4%. Meanwhile the extreme leftists, Die Linke, fell below the 5% threshold, and thus were booted out of the state parliament.
      &
      Shift back to fossil fuels?

      The results also hint at a growing sentiment that may be taking hold across Germany: Germans are realizing that no matter how much pain they might endure in trying to rescue the climate, ultimately their contribution on a global scale really will have very little impact at all. Whatever reductions Germany may achieve over the next 10-20 years will be wiped out in just a matter of months by large developing countries elsewhere, like China, India, and the African continent. What’s the point of all the pain?

      According to the online International Economic Forum for Renewable Energies here:

      With the altered balance of power in the most populated federal state comes an end to the previous energy policy of the ousted Red-Green state government. Conventional power sources will now get more support.”

      Working class anger

      The hard right AfD in fact garnered a large share of its support from working class people, who traditionally voted for the SPD, but who had grown dischanted with the widespread crimes waves, and hostility aimed by Greens at traditional energy industries and jobs.

      Greens and a number of Socialists have called for an accelerated shut down of German coal plants, many of which are located in NRW. German power companies, such RWE and EON, have seen billions in losses and tens of thousands of layoffs over the past years, a direct result of massive green energy subsidies and a run-away feed-in act.

      [ More ]

      30

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        …except of course in the ACT…”The Ratbag state”…?

        http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/denman-prospects-streets-named-after-abortion-campaigners-unionists-and-greenies-20170517-gw6rn2.html

        “One of the things that bugs me the most about the ACT government is the number of own goals it kicks for Canberra.

        The other week, I received the May issue of the government’s Our Canberra newsletter for the Molonglo Valley. Despite living in Tuggeranong, I was interested – and somewhat appalled – to read about the proposed street names for Canberra’s newest suburb, Denman Prospect.
        Fourteen streets in this new suburb are named after “inspiring and dynamic people linked to activism and reform”. After seeing this advertisement for the government’s decision on whom to name these streets after, I wondered whom the government deemed “inspiring”. So I did some research.

        Of the 14 streets, some are named after people who unmistakably did a lot of good and are not at all contentious. However:

        Two related to feminism and women’s rights. This includes Julia Trubridge-Freebury, who campaigned to repeal abortion and euthanasia laws in NSW. She proudly admitted to having four abortions. When she ran for the Queensland Parliament, her campaign slogan was “10 stone lighter, and lots, lots brighter” in reference to the incumbent conservative minister she ran against. Trubridge-Freebury didn’t win and the issues she is known for are contentious, to say the least.

        Three street names relate to environmental activism.
        Five of the 15 street names relate to unionism and industrial action. The fact that such a high proportion of the 14 “activists” have union ties is unsurprising. This is the same government that struck a secret deal handing unions – particularly the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union – unprecedented power in the ACT.

        What is surprising, though is the blatancy of the government’s decision to accord unionists the privilege of naming streets after them. The CFMEU, Australia’s most militant union, was graced with a couple of street names.

        This included organisers who had strong links to the Communist Party. I have a hard time believing they are representative of Canberrans or Australians.”

        11

        • #
          Yonniestone

          I suppose Scumbag Street, Parasite Place, Trougher Terrace, lecherous Lane, Cuckold Crescent or Coathanger Alley would’ve been too honest.

          60

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            If they had included Comrade Cresecent, Lenin Square, Stalin Street and Pol Pot Place, it would have been consistent.

            I’d love to see a sign at the ACT border requesting our papers, please…..

            Rauiri – this is gold…..any prose please?

            20

    • #
  • #
    Mark M

    BRITISH PETROLEUM CEO: Abundant supplies of oil and gas are now a fact of life.

    http://en.trend.az/business/energy/2755756.html

    Not in Australia …

    Gas surge after Hazelwood closure sends electricity prices skyward

    http://www.theage.com.au/business/energy/gas-surge-after-hazelwood-closure-sends-electricity-prices-skyward-20170516-gw5r9r.html

    40

  • #
    Ross

    I wonder if there is a Journalism lecturer with the courage to use the articles in Jo’s post as teaching aids for their students ?

    20

    • #

      Doncha’ mean churnalism, Ross?

      30

    • #
      el gordo

      Ross its unlikely, from my experience they are of the left/green persuasion. Not that it matters, journalism as a trade is finished.

      As I mentioned the other day I see this blog as Climate Science 101 for aspiring journalists. Modules: Atmospheric Science, Political Science and Paleoclimate History.

      The ‘tutes’ are fun.

      10

      • #
        Ross

        I agree el gordo. My comment was very much tongue in cheek but having said that they would make good teaching material for part of a course or tutorial.

        00

  • #
    el gordo

    Word to the wise, the light from our star (sunshine) can be ‘used as a friendly or sometimes threatening form of address’, so in my mind this kind of light hearted banter doesn’t require an apology.

    00

  • #
    pat

    16 May: PowerEngineering: Diarmaid Williams: German government to ignore calls to expand wind auctions
    The German government is set to ignore calls for more offshore wind blocs, as the country’s grid is not sufficiently developedOffshore wind energy turbine installation to take in the extra energy…
    “You can forget lifting the caps before the election in September,” the Social Democrat’s spokesman for energy, Bernd Westphal, said in an interview at a wind conference in the port of Bremerhaven. “With power grid expansion delays, this just won’t make sense.”

    Speaking at the same event, Felix Wuertenberger, head of Vattenfall’s offshore development in Germany and the Netherlands, on Wednesday urged the government to raise auction limits beyond the planned 3 gigawatts in 2017 and 2018 to bring down technology costs.
    Developers of North Sea wind projects need to build at least 4 gigawatts of capacity a year from 2020 — equal to one turbine a day — to keep the industry buoyant, said Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy’s new Chief Executive Officer Markus Tacke at the event…

    Germany’s plan to build three high-voltage power lines to transmit wind and solar power from the north to the south of the country won’t be realized before 2025 and at the moment the country is struggling to incorporate the levels of green energy already coming into the system.
    http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2017/05/german-government-to-ignore-calls-to-expand-wind-auctions.html

    17 May: Reuters: Japan’s JFE (Japan’s second-biggest steelmaker) aims to widen coking coal sources after Australian cyclone
    “The biggest reason for volatility of coking coal prices is geographic risk, with a major part of global production coming from the east coast of Australia,” JFE President Eiji Hayashida told a news conference.
    “We want to diversify our procurement sources to areas including Mozambique, Russia and Canada,” he said…

    Japanese steelmakers, which bought 71 percent of the 59.9 million tonnes of coking coal they consumed in 2016 from Australia, were forced to scramble to get material from the United States, Canada and China to replace supply lost or delayed due to the cyclone…
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/japan-jfe-holdings-coal-idUKL4N1IJ2KK

    10

  • #
    pat

    4 pages: 17 May: Reuters Africa: Clyde Russell: RPT-COLUMN-Coal exporters should fret as China, India become policy-driven markets
    (Repeats with no changes to text. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.)

    NUSA DUA, Indonesia – Coal exporters may be feeling more comfortable about their future as they see both reasonable demand from Asia’s top importers and prices which appear to be stabilising at levels that allow for decent profits.

    This renewed optimism was evident at this week’s Coaltrans Asia conference on the Indonesian resort island of Bali, where much of the discussion among delegates at the region’s biggest coal event was on plans for new capital spending and boosting output at existing mines.
    But – and there is always a “but” for the coal sector in recent years – the exporting miners have to face the uncomfortable reality that the two biggest importers in the world, China and India, are now markets where policy decisions are the main drivers, not supply and demand fundamentals…

    Last year’s surge in China’s imports is a case in point, although this was a policy change that was positive for seaborne coal exporters…
    Coal imports in China, the world’s biggest importer, producer and consumer of the fuel, have continued to show strength in the first four months of the year, gaining 33.2 percent over the same period in 2016, according to customs data.
    This paints a very positive picture for the coal miners that supply the seaborne market, and not just in Australia and Indonesia, with smaller exporters such as Russia and the United States also eyeing the Chinese market…

    China has also relaxed its restrictions on domestic miners, with coal output rising 9.9 percent in April from the same month last year, the second straight monthly gain.
    Coal production was up 2.5 percent in the first four months of the year at 1.1 billion tonnes, according to official statistics…

    India briefly became the top importer in 2015, but China regained the crown last year and on current trends looks set to keep it, notwithstanding some recent policy decisions that may lower China’s imports.
    This is mainly due to New Dehli’s policy of trying to cut out coal imports entirely and use only domestic production.
    Like many policy goals in India, this is a heroic aim that’s unlikely to be achieved, especially given that the South Asian nation is short of coking coal, used in making steel, a key industry that New Delhi wants to expand…

    It’s possible that if Asian thermal coal prices continue to decline that India’s imports may recover, but this is likely a short-term scenario. The long-term picture is for state-owned Coal India to keep boosting domestic output…
    http://af.reuters.com/article/southAfricaNews/idAFL4N1IJ23H

    10

  • #
    pat

    still pushing “renewables” for Africa, though:

    17 May: ClimateChangeNews: Karl Mathiesen: Ségolène Royal reveals new head for ‘Africa-led’ renewables scheme
    Denying allegations of meddling in African clean energy initiative, French environment minister pre-empts board decision on next top official
    Malian diplomat Seyni Nafo, currently lead negotiator for the Africa Group at climate talks, will take over from Youba Sokona, another Malian, as head of the African Renewable Energy Initiative’s (AREI) “independent delivery unit”, Royal told Climate Home…

    In a withering resignation letter obtained by this website, Sokona said a list of 19 initial projects had been forced through the board by Royal and the office of European commissioner for international development Neven Mimica. This showed, wrote Sokona, “evident contempt for, and abandonment of, the AREI principles”, which place primacy on African leadership and independence.

    Last week, speaking to Climate Home on the sidelines of climate talks in Bonn, Germany, Royal contradicted Sokona.
    She said he had told the board he was resigning because of his commitments to a second job. Sokona holds several academic and advisory roles, notably including vice chairmanship of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/05/17/segolene-royal-names-new-head-africa-led-renewables-scheme/

    10 May: ClimateChangeNews: Africa clean energy row continues in Bonn
    By Megan Darby in London and Karl Mathiesen in Bonn
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/05/10/africa-clean-energy-row-continues-bonn/

    10

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    ‘India’s mainstay for next 30 years’ – no wonder that they would like to get their hands on Aussie coal.
    GeoffW

    20

  • #
    pat

    18 May: Townsville Bulletin: Christie Anderson: No coal power: Premier says energy future is in renewables
    PREMIER Annastacia Palaszczuk says Townsville doesn’t need a coal-fired power station and the ­region’s energy future is in renewables.
    The Opposition has already pledged to fast-track approvals for a privately funded coal-fired power ­station in North Queensland if successful at the state ­election…

    Ms Palaszczuk toured the Sun Metals zinc refinery while in Townsville yesterday and viewed the site of the refinery’s $199 million planned solar farm.
    Speaking at the refinery yesterday she said she wasn’t prepared to throw support behind a coal-fired power station in North Queensland…
    “I believe that by raising the dam wall at Burdekin Falls Dam and putting in hydro, I believe that is a much more plausible opportunity for this region.”…

    A total of 1.3 million solar panels will be installed on 300ha of land next to the refinery creating more than 200 jobs. The solar farm is expected to be completed by April next year and will provide 30 per cent of the refinery’s energy needs…
    Sun Metals CEO Yun Choi said the solar farm was part of the major expansion…
    Ms Palaszczuk said the Government had a clear policy of 50 per cent renewables across Queensland by 2030…
    http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/no-coal-power-premier-says-energy-future-is-in-renewables/news-story/bfd02d59d6b2aae1deeaef7f6f5623ce

    17 May: BusinessLiveSouthAfrica: Farren Collins: Sign coal deals or the lights go off, warns Eskom’s Ngubane
    ‘We have a problem because Treasury has not yet signed our coal purchase agreements and we are in winter‚ and the winter is getting bitter’
    South Africa was warned on Tuesday of winter power cuts unless the National Treasury urgently signs purchase agreements so Eskom can build up its coal reserves…
    Eskom chairman Ben Ngubane: “Now we have a problem because Treasury has not yet signed our coal purchase agreements and we are in winter‚ and the winter is getting bitter. People are using electricity like crazy … We need to have enough stock of coal in view of that.”

    Ngubane was speaking on the sidelines of the African Utility Week conference at the Cape Town International Convention Centre‚ where he delivered the opening address…
    Said Ngubane: “I’m proud that we have made a difference at Eskom and saved the country from going into a state of blackout…
    https://www.businesslive.co.za/rdm/business/2017-05-17-sign-coal-deals-or-the-lights-go-off-warns-eskoms-ngubane/

    10

  • #
    Dennis

    Laugh for today, I went to a provincial city in my district today and came across a street table with an older women sitting and a man wearing a red bandana with a silver grey ponytail at the back of his head, a large sign stated : No New Coal.

    No new coal?

    And as I passed by the man asked me if I wanted to save the Barrier Reef.

    I replied: It’s been saved, ask the tourism tour operators.

    As I walked away the woman asked what I had said.

    30

  • #
    Dennis

    Hang on Willard, that monster truck can tow less than my mid size diesel SUV which has a manufacturer’s towing limit of 2,500 Kg …

    A pound is a unit of mass in both US Customary Units as well as the Imperial System. … 5,000 lb, 2,267.96185 kg.

    And my SUV drives through creeks when necessary, even Northern Territory creeks.

    20

    • #
      Another Ian

      Dennis

      But huge compared to a bicycle

      00

    • #
      Dave in the States

      Exactly. Electricity can’t replace diesel/gasoline for the real work that most most of us require. If I pull my horses to Boise, that is 350 miles at 80 miles per hour up and over several mountains. The horse trailer and the diesel pickup truck have a combined weight of about 14,000 lbs..before loading any horses. How far would I get with electric power and a battery charge? Probably not over the first mountain pass. How much would a electric rig cost me that could replace the diesel rig? $500,000? $1,000,000? How much would the charge cost me for a 350 mile trip? Diesel costs me about $2.75 a gallon currently, and 60% of that is taxes. The free market cost of kerosene world wide is rather cheap.

      A V8 Ford Mustang costs about $30,000. I believe a Tesla sedan costs about 3 times that. The typical annual fuel cost for the the Ford is about $1600. How much are the costs of the charging of the Tesla?

      last time I hauled hay using the same pickup truck and a flat bed trailer the weight was about 28,000 lbs. A scoop of a front loader lifts about that weight of dirt each time at a strip mine. Strip mines use diesel/electric powered machinery. This is much like a locomotive. A large diesel turns a generator that produces the electricity for the various electrical motors. They don’t use batteries because the energy requirements are immense.

      I can see using commuter EVs in urban areas as an option for areas that have large coal reserves, and a strong electrical infrastructure, provided the commuters could afford the costs. Of course none of this is really about -futile- co2 mitigation is it? If coal and/or nuclear is eliminated from the equation, then even light weight urban commuter EVs are not practical.

      10

      • #
        Dave in the States

        Correction: The LeTournuea L-2350 strip mine front end loader lifts 160,000 lbs of dirt per scoop. ~28,000 lbs would be for just a run of the mill diesel hydraulic loader.

        10

  • #
    pat

    16 May: Brookings Institution Report: Anthony Fiano: Cleantech venture capital: Continued declines and narrow geography limit prospects
    by Devashree Saha and Mark Muro
    DOWNLOADS LEFT COLUMN
    Not only has cleantech patenting slowed down, but there are indications that the early-stage financing system critical to helping innovative new energy companies grow is not working well either…

    1. U.S. cleantech venture capital investment has declined sharply since 2011…
    Between 2011 and 2016, VC cleantech investment declined by nearly 30 percent, from $7.5 billion to $5.24 billion. In addition to a lower total amount invested, the number of deals fell from 649 in 2011 to 455 in 2016. The average deal sizes are smaller, too…

    By 2008, two years after the release of Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” VC investments in cleantech had reached $6.65 billion across 385 deals—an annual average growth rate of 51.4 percent over that period…
    Then, in 2010, the sector rebounded and funding into VC-backed cleantech companies reached a peak in 2011, with 649 deals attracting $7.5 billion…
    Thereafter, several factors—including the struggles and failures of some heavily VC-funded companies (Solyndra and Evergreen Solar, to name a few); the onset of cheap natural gas, which makes solar and wind projects less economical; and the commoditization of solar modules, which makes VCs less willing to invest in solar manufacturing innovation—have caused investors to lose confidence in the sector and rein in investment…

    2. Cleantech VC investment is disproportionately concentrated in a few metro areas, with just four metros accounting for more than half of all such investment
    Specifically, U.S. cleantech VC investment is heavily clustered in just four metro areas—San Francisco, San Jose, Boston, and Los Angeles, which account for a massive 54 percent of all VC flows in cleantech…

    Even in the solar sector, more VC money now goes to solar finance and installation companies such as SolarCity, SunPower, Sunrun, SunEdison, and Sungevity, instead of to solar startups such as First Solar and now-defunt Solyndra, which have focused on manufacturing better solar panels.
    The implication is that VCs have all but stopped funding “deep technology” companies, whose work is necessary to avoiding the worst effects of climate change…

    In a similar fashion, VCs are reluctant to fund high-risk, capital-intensive ventures like offshore wind farms, biofuel refineries, and unproven solar cell technologies. Last year less than one percent of cleantech VC dollars reached wind…

    Looking forward, commercializing new, innovative clean technologies to grow the economy and slow climate change will require a more diverse set of actors and funding models that leverage new private and public funding sources to spur the next generation of breakout clean energy companies.
    https://www.brookings.edu/research/cleantech-venture-capital-continued-declines-and-narrow-geography-limit-prospects/

    00

  • #
    Amber

    I like coal it’s organic without additives .
    Of course India is going to use more coal and who knows maybe more Australian fuel .
    India has millions of people without reliable electricity and clean drinking water
    so naturally they are going to increase fossil fuel use . Who are the greenie hypocrites
    that think the possibility of a bit of warming isn’t well worth being able to read at night and have a drink of clean cool water ?
    The greenies are actually preachy condescending racists who think their own s doesn’t stink .
    Why not have a volunteer carbon tax for those bed wetter’s who feel so in inclined to donate 20% of their monthly income
    to bird blender projects or Al Gore ? You know walk the talk and feel self righteous just like some religions push
    on their believers . Then we can really see who are people of conviction or just con artists .
    How hard would it be to set up a Paypal volunteer donation scheme for eco warriors ? The rest of use are getting hosed enough .

    30

  • #
    Amber

    I like coal it’s organic without additives .
    Of course India is going to use more coal and who knows maybe more Australian fuel .
    India has millions of people without reliable electricity and clean drinking water
    so naturally they are going to increase fossil fuel use . Who are the greenie hypocrites
    that think the possibility of a bit of warming isn’t well worth being able to read at night and have a drink of clean cool water ?
    The greenies are actually preachy condescending racists who think their own s doesn’t stink .
    Why not have a volunteer carbon tax for those bed wetter’s who feel so in inclined to donate 20% of their monthly income
    to bird blender projects or Al Gore ? You know walk the talk and feel self righteous just like some religions push
    on their believers . Then we can really see who are people of conviction or just con artists .
    How hard would it be to set up a Paypal volunteer donation scheme for eco warriors ? The rest of us are getting hosed enough .

    20

    • #
      Peter C

      Thanks Amber,
      Love that!

      I like coal it’s organic without additives …
      Why not have a volunteer carbon tax for those bed wetter’s who feel so in inclined to donate 20% of their monthly income
      to bird blender projects or Al Gore ? .

      I totally agree. Lets see how many people there are who would volunteer to pay extra tax!

      See this from Viv Forbes: Trump should kill the Paris treaty and rip out the roots!
      http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/kill-paris-treaty.pdf

      00

  • #
    PeterS

    I find it sad that so many Australians (politicians in both major parties and many voters) are still blind to the fact that countries like India, China, Japan, Germany and many others are building so many new coal fired power stations yet they have been demonised to the point of making it virtually impossible to build them here despite our very rich source of the very same fuel those other countries will use for a very long time. We deserve to have a deep financial and economic crisis to weed out those intellectually challenged locals. I can’t see it any other way to get the message through their thick skulls.

    40

    • #
      el gordo

      When the Adani mine goes ahead the PM will explain to the locals why we need to build a coal fired power plant nearby. He will be both applauded and abused by the MSM.

      20

  • #
    pat

    cheap:

    18 May: CBC: Thomson Reuters: EU to back developing nations fighting climate with $890M US package
    EU will also provide 3M euros to support Fiji, which will oversee United Nations negotiations in 2018
    The European Union will provide 800 million euros ($891 million US) to help 79 African, Pacific and Caribbean nations implement a global deal to combat climate change…
    “We, developed and developing countries together, will defend the Paris Agreement,” European Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete said on Thursday.

    As a sign of closer cooperation with the ACP group “the EU has announced support of 800 million euros up to 2020, with ***around half earmarked for climate action,” the European Commission said in a statement…
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/eu-developing-nations-climate-change-package-1.4120962

    ***or not:

    16 May: Phys.org: Extreme weather has ***greater impact on nature than expected—researchers launch roadmap
    In the special June issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B researchers of the Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW) launch a new approach to these ‘extreme’ studies…
    But how do we define extreme events in the first place? That’s problematic, explain NIOO researchers Marcel Visser and Martijn van de Pol. “For climatologists, weather has to be warmer, colder or more extreme in another way than it is 95% of the time. But that doesn’t necessarily make it extreme in terms of its impact on nature. There isn’t a 1 to 1 correspondence.”…

    “We also don’t know enough about the long-term consequences for nature of these crucially important extremes”, say Van de Pol and Visser. “But that could be about to change.” As guest editors of a themed issue of the world’s oldest scientific journal, dedicated to extreme climatic events, they take stock of the available knowledge and the hiatuses that currently exist. They suggest a ‘roadmap’ for the further development of this new area of research, aimed at making it easier to compare and synthesize information across fields…
    Journal reference: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (LINK)
    https://phys.org/news/2017-05-extreme-weather-greater-impact-nature.html

    00

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    Maybe I am not able to read graphs correctly, but it seems to me that in the fourth link that Jo provided the graph that purports to show a “slowdown” in India’s and China’s emissions shows no such thing. In fact it shows the opposite as does the forward projections. Please tell me if I am incorrect.

    10

    • #
      Peter C

      I had a look Peter,

      My interpretation is that China’s growth rate has slowed slightly in recent times but the range of forward estimates is for growth of emissions.

      The graph for India however projects increasing emissions.

      00

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Meanwhile…back in the Kingdom of Bizarro Land…..

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-18/hazelwood-closure-sees-victorias-power-prices/8537816

    “Energy market analyst UBS has found Victoria’s wholesale electricity price has increased since the closure of the Hazelwood coal-fired power station less than two months ago.

    Victoria’s ability to export power to other states has also decreased.”

    70

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Amazing! Who could have predicted that? (Except those who don’t believe in Unicorns or Fairies leaving big bags of money at the bottom of Willard’s garden.

      60

    • #
      David Maddison

      Good. The sooner there is a major crisis the sooner people will be bought to their senses.

      10

  • #
    Douglas

    In 2015-16, Australia exported 37 million tonnes of LNG with a value of $16.55 billion’
    It seems that ‘giving’, like many other things, is in the eye of the beholder!

    Won’t be switching to all electric any time soon with all this kind of cargo to shift

    a href=” https://kleinefeldmausorgnz.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/indian-rail-transport.jpg?w=640“>https://

    00

  • #
    Douglas

    It’s main energy source (coal)will be kept for another 2o years but don’t forget the alternative facts ‘main energy sources’ . and then there are camels and bicycles and and and people …..

    https://kleinefeldmausorgnz.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/donkey-load-in-indian-donkey.jpg?w=640

    00