…
Do young adults learn anything that matters in school?
They’re protesting in the streets but can’t even answer the most baby-basic questions about energy or their pet molecule “CO2”.
It’s almost like carbon dioxide is totally irrelevant? Teachers don’t care. Kids don’t care. Media don’t care, and when they all grow up the adults won’t care either.
More than 72% of Gen Z ‘don’t know nuclear power is low carbon energy’
Dimitri Macrokefalidis EnergyLive News:
Only 26% of people aged 18-24 understand that nuclear power is a low carbon source of electricity, compared with 76% for renewables such as wind and solar, according to a new poll by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE).
Older people are more likely to say that nuclear power is low carbon. The poll found the level of understanding rising from 47% among 35 to 44-year olds to 61% among 65 to 74-year olds, although it remains well below levels seen for renewables.
Good on the Mech Eng’s for asking. I call “fake” on the protesters that tell us the world is at stake but can’t be bothered learning the basics.
Wait til they find out they’ve been dragooned into being free advertising for conglomerate industrial capitalists.
Where is the Education Department?
When the Zombie Apocalypses comes, the Zombies will go hungry. Looks as if three fourths of of Generation Z has lost any brains they were born with.
Could it be possible that Generation Z stands for Generation Zombie? Maybe they are only Pod People pretending they are human rather than just moving
talking vegetable matter.
240
As the only person on God’s Green Earth, who does NOT own or use a cell phone, I’ve come to call what we see today (i.e., people who cannot go a few seconds without looking at their cell phone or tablet or what-have-you … … ) I call almost everyone “screen zombies”. The most important thing in too many people’s life is their cell phone. Makes you wonder how we ever managed to get along without a cell phone. I’ve asked some acquaintances their opinion on something, and the first thing they do is pull out their phone to look something up on YouTwitFace — — — and I’m not making this up!!!!! Personally, I’m stunned when I find someone who knows how to use the dunnee without having to look it up on some YouTwitFace video first!
Sorry if I guessed wrong on how to spell “dunnee” — — I’m on the other side of the Big Pond, in Wyoming, and do not know all the subtleties of the local colloquialisms.
Last June, I gave a presentation at a symposium, where I posited that the proliferation of mobile devices has caused a decline in human intelligence (yes, with some help I might be able to post some of the references I cited), and was excoriated by the audience for relaying my own observations, and the various references I presented. So here’s our lovely hostess showing us some further evidence of the growing consensus about loss of learning and understanding; am I the only one who sees a growing problem here?
My best regards to all,
Vlad
311
Our bureaucrats and commercial sector have systematically made it not possible to survive without an internet-connected electronic baby-sitter to enable us. Personally I detest them, but it isn’t possible to function without a cell phone any longer. The expense and hassle plus exorbitant internet bandwidth bill is unavoidable. If you mush eat a poor diet that will make your like 15 to 20 years shorter, to afford it, that’s just tough luck mate. The majority who can least afford the mandatory smartphone access bill, always proportionately pay far more for an internet connection and ‘smartphone’ services.
But at least we’re ‘free’ and the best ‘educated’ country on Earth, and ‘equal’ in the eyes of our electronic service providers.
61
Our bureaucrats and commercial sector have systematically made it not possible to survive without an internet-connected electronic baby-sitter to enable us. Personally I detest them, but it isn’t possible to function without a cell phone any longer. The expense and hassle plus exorbitant internet bandwidth bill is unavoidable. If you must eat a poor diet that will make your like 15 to 20 years shorter, to afford it, that’s just tough luck mate. The majority who can least afford the mandatory smartphone access bill, always proportionately pay far more for an internet connection and ‘smartphone’ services.
But at least we’re ‘free’ and the best ‘educated’ country on Earth, and ‘equal’ in the eyes of our electronic service providers.
81
Require phone = “bonus” 24×7 tracking. Clever, isnt it?
No thanks.
I work in IT, I hate them.
NBN = central point of monitoring for the spooks. Double bonus.
151
Instant access to information may have led to abrogating opinion formation. More-information may have become more-received-opinion.
Try posting a (non-threatening) fact a little outside a prevailing narrative. Likely enough that fact will be invisible to narrative junkies.
Facts don’t matter very much. Narrative rules. Fact-clusters that support a narrative are key.
Contrary evidence is that electorates are making interesting decisions against some very dominant narratives, and these decisions provide hope.
91
G’day Vlad. I find the convenience of a mobile phone, also capable of accessing the couple of websites I find useful when I’m out and about, very convenient. I’m not wedded to the thing though, and even though a lot of my business is conducted by mobile, I turn it off or actually ignore it when I need my own time.
Your spelling was almost correct. We spell it”Dunny”. I think all Australian abbreviations that end in the “ee” sound are spelt with a “y”.
81
Many thanks, Bushkid. “Dunny” it is. My better half and I have long wanted to visit, but raising grandchildren has taken a higher priority, so someday we may make it there.
She, of course, wants to see all the big cities, while I’m game for the Ediacara Hills and other geological places. Just as a side-bar, I inquired of our lovely hostess, and the unsung hero mods, about how one pronounces “Ediacara”. My first encounter with the name was in Historical Geology (1973), and our Professor, Dr. Ekdale, apparently mis-pronounced it, but it made sense from an American-English standpoint. I later found out that the native pronunciation is quite different. In spite of all that, I am interested in seeing the type locality of the Ediacaran fauna, even if all the fossils have been removed. It was, and is, such a significant discovery.
Thanks for the assist, and my regards to all,
Vlad
61
It occurs to me that like most people under the age of 30 ( whereby you start to gain a brain ) they haven’t had the life experience yet.
I have great respect for those who have lived and have the life experience to go with it.
From a Christian point of view, in the Bible you never saw the 20 year olds being appointed as the Elders or Judges of a city etc.
I suspect this is why revolutionaries like to say never to trust anyone over the age of 30 – maninly because they might have a brain….
Hmmmm
221
“When the Zombie Apocalypses comes…”
Um, it is already here!
Antifa, XR, Greens Voters, and a myriad of other braindead Leftards already infest modern society.
They are beyond reason and have an insatiable appetite for your life, liberty, and livelihood.
#thewalkingtalkingdead
131
But I bet they are not well prepared. A new reality is soon to be upon them.
81
They probably didn’t think they need to be prepared.
After all, can’t they just take what they want from those of us who do have what we need? That’s how they roll any other time.
51
Progressives took over the education system. What you see is not a defect; it is a plan.
421
It’s been a long March, but they’ve Arrived.
And it’s frightening.
KK
231
Yeah but this is our role….to educate.
At this time in history, we the older generation have a responsibility to make sure wisdom is passed on….
221
“At this time in history, we the older generation have a responsibility to make sure wisdom is passed on….”
And that’s completely true Steve.
Trouble is that our educational system along with our political governance have been subverted so that your wisdom becomes secondary to the driving theme of achieving “government” at any cost.
The USA has managed to poke its head out from under in a most inspiring way.
Britain has begun the process but ain’t there yet while the EEU still controls so much of the drama.
Money, power control. Money ,,,,,
Every Australian household is “donating” $800 per annum via inflicted electricity Surcharges to “the cause” of managing “emissions” and the greater world good, whatever that might be.
Both sides of the political spectrum are lusting to control the gravy train because it is big money, serious stuff.
It would be nice to transmit our aged wisdom but the system is locked at the moment.
KK
121
They have almost arrived, but, I think they are very vulnerable, and I think they feel very vulnerable. Their failure to gain control with the federal election was almost a knockout blow. All that is needed to blow them away is for another leader to back up Trump.
Always their goal has been 50% + 1. They thought they had it, but it slipped away out of reach as they went to sleep in the home straight.
11
Classic dumb and dumber. A true dark age for modern times has developed with nihilism and inane self-absorption the mark of the times.I personally believe a great catastrophy is about to descend.
111
As Brian, “The messiah” said. ” You are all individuals”
71
My tall story that is true, I’m sorry to say. I went into teaching from science and struggled. The 4 other PhDs in chemistry that I studied with all struggled while the three people I knew who couldn’t finish their PhD found it easy. It took a while before I clicked as to why. You can’t make it explicit enough for the students while those who completed a PhD appreciated that you need to be thrown in the deep end to learn something where you truly understand what you have learnt.
So what we have now are people who are helped with explicit instructions on how to control students by rewarding them with explicit instructions and punishing them with vague instructions. ie. useful idiots.
I couldn’t do that so I worked on getting the students use to dealing with not knowing what to do straight away, using puzzles. It went down well with the students although I never got see if they improved their abilities to be independent learners.
It didn’t go down well with the teachers for some strange reason. There is an old saying – if the kids don’t get to you, the other teachers will. I found out what they meant. What was strange though were the same stunts to undermine you even if in another state. Never attribute a conspiracy to what could be due to incompetence but something truly incredible happens next.
I was relief teaching while looking to go back in a lab while in Melbourne and out of the blue, I got a cushy job at a private school for a term. It looks like I was set up, as I found out too late. One teacher had a guilt trip and told me that the receptionist was the daughter of a good friend of the principal and ex school friend of another teacher. That teacher had gone out clubbing with her and her step brother and father. She was disgusted to see that the receptionist (Jessica Rabbit like) would be a honey pot so that her step brother and step father could come to her aid and bash a sucker up. Instead of being banned from coming within 500m of a school she was seen as useful to harass someone like me. I didn’t ask what I had supposedly done to deserve this because a lot of teachers at the school would have known what was going to happen, but whatever it was had to be a massive lie. I haven’t been an angel but I haven’t down anything that deserves being bashed up.
Anyway, I got sucked in and attacked by just the step dad. He gave me a black eye and split lip before I knew what was happening. We got into wrestle and I put his head through a wall but just plasterboard. The biggest regret when I die will probably be missing the stud. Anyway, I walked away with a few choice words and got stitched up. Was warned by police to not make a complaint. He stalked me after that hiding behind a bikie built like a brick proverbial so I understood why the police looked after him (she had made a point of telling me how they were good friends of the local police).
The point is that my fellow teachers were convinced that I was worse than these grubs. Maybe they didn’t realise how bad they were or were convinced that I was one step down from Hitler.
Years later, the step brother is in the news having been charged with murder and thought to be a bikie gang’s hit man. He was suspected of killing a bikie leader in Sydney and survived being in a tattoo parlour that was peppered by machine gun fire in Melbourne.
Seriously, I’m supposed to be worse human being than this mob?
141
RB,
You have discovered the sub plot that lurks and thrives in society and it’s not surprising that it showed its ugly head via the “private” school.
Everyone wants to belong somewhere and when drawn in deep enough will do anything, tell any lie, break any moral boundary to hang on to group membership.
This structure may appear in many places: the local dockyard being one example with cronyism a prime force. But it’s everywhere.
And those other teachers decided to stay quiet, not quite getting the fact that they could easily be next.
Universities?
101
KK, the reverse is to always recognize and abide by moral values. “Want to belong” at the expense of law and order then a truly civil “community” group turns you in to the law or hangs you.
41
That’s the way it was many decades again.
Perhaps even a bit harsh.
But the mafia type thing was very active then too.
21
Thank you R.B.
I am beginning to understand the background psychology used against us. Anyone who knows their Ancient Greek history would know the legends of Prometheus is really all about what we are up against.
You wrote:
“You can’t make it explicit enough for the students while those who completed a PhD appreciated that you NEED TO BE THROWN IN THE DEEP END to learn something where you truly understand what you have learnt. . .
I couldn’t do that so I worked on GETTING THE STUDENTS USED TO DEALING WITH NOT KNOWING WHAT TO DO straight away, using puzzles. It went down well with the students although I never got (to) see if they improved their abilities to be independent learners. . .”
(emphasis added BL)
“The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World”
It was UK psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist who started me on my need to understand WHY some people simply can’t see the obvious. McGilchrist writes about the important differences between the left and right hemispheres of the brain in his book “The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World,” 2009 and his booklet “Ways of Attending: How Our Divided Brain Constructs the World,” 2019.
In “Ways of Attending” he points out:
“There is a mass of evidence that the left hemisphere is better attuned to tools and to whatever is inanimate, mechanical, machine-like, and which it itself has made: such things are understandable in their own terms, because they were put together by it, piece by piece, and they are ideally suited to this kind of understanding.
In contrast, the right hemisphere is adapted to dealing with living things, which are flexible, organic, constantly changing, and which is has not made.
The right hemisphere alone appears appears to be able to appreciate the organic wholeness of a flowing structure that changes over time, as in fact all living things are; . . .”
“By contrast, the left hemisphere sees time as a succession of points and sees flow as a succession of static moments, rather like the still frames of a cine film. Everything, including living wholes, is put together from bits; and if there are no clear bits, it will invent them . . . ”
My summing up is: The left hemisphere is a ‘know-all’ and the right hemisphere ‘knows nothing’ – at first.
31
You can’t blame anyone from the ranks of the general public for not knowing the benefits and disadvantages of the many and varied sources of electricity.
The real issue is why haven’t governments got on with their job of taking expert advice and provided cheap, reliable, clean coal fired power.
Alternatives like Wind and solar Power generation cannot be justified in any way, but the public doesn’t know that.
Considered from any viewpoint it seems that there’s only one raison d’etre for wind power being pushed on the public.
That reason is common to all places where Renewable Wind Turbines have been installed and has nothing to do with the basic principles of electrical engineering, nothing to do with the reduction of human CO2 output, any nothing to do with the provision of reliable, cheap electricity to the consumers.
Whether in the USA, EEU, China or Australia the common factor is that the forced adoption of Renewables enables the ruling Elite to Skim and redirect a sizeable chunk of the turnover to their own benefit.
There’s some good in all of this. Countries no longer need to be involved in massive World Wars every twenty years to establish who gets what.
The elites have us well and truly and all it took was a fake media bought off with our own tax dollars.
Slavery Mk 111.
KK
141
You are giving conspiracy too much credit. As the topic of this blog shows, there is a lack of knowledge. Hopium is the ruling factor. Sure there are people who use the circumstances to feather their nest.
When I looked at the level of modelling behind Finkel’s conclusions that 100% ambient sourced energy was feasible, I was appalled. There was no time based modelling. It was all based on capacity factors using a broad and WRONG assumption that diversity would sort it all out. It demonstrated a lack of knowledge. Finkel was not qualified to lead the project and the CSIRO’s view of the world is not based on reality.
We see the same appalling lack of knowledge applied to climate models. They are nothing better than an extrapolation of the temperature v CO2 in the 20 years from 1970 to 1990 or 1980 to 2000 depending on what data they use for hind casting.
There is no such thing as “greenhouse gasses”. The satellite data demonstrates that. The fairy tale is based on some fictitious climate sensitivity for double CO2 and then that being amplified by water vapour positive feedback. The fairy tale tells us that water vapour is the most powerful “greenhouse gas”. If WV is the most powerful, why does it require a tiny extra amount of CO2 to start the positive feedback, surely it could do that all by itself. The fairy tale is logically flawed.
152
Indeed.For a science that purports to be “in” they fall down on this certainty regarding sensitivity- a term that confounds most. A good way to separate the wheat from the chaff when discussing the topic is to drop the term, climate sensitivity. Most schoolteachers for example.
51
Many excellent points Rick, but from my perspective I see government at all levels driven by the impulse for personal advancement rather than the common good.
KK
111
Certainly they are in it for themselves and family – Turnbull the perfect example.
The UN has and agenda aimed at more authority and wealth skimming. They have latched onto CAGW as a means of driving their agenda for wealth transfer, which increases their legitimacy to take from producers for themselves and their hangers on.
The UN were not the drivers of ambient energy generation. It started out as a curiosity with no realisation of what harm it could cause. Individuals got involved and economically tied to its widespread use. They have used the religious zealots to legalise the theft required to make money from it.
There has so far been no intelligent review of the status and prospects for ambient generation. You will often see South Australia touted as the leader in “renewables” with in excess of 50% generation from ambient sources. You will NEVER see in those “advertisements” that they have only achieved that by using Victoria as a massive battery. Once the SA-NSW 800MW link is in then SA has the potential to get to 100% ambient energy generation. Where does the rest of Australia get the 30GW, infinite capacity battery to get the rest of the country up to 100% ambient energy. South Australia is harming the entire country through its interconnections.
111
I must have been asleep for a while.
Never heard of the term “ambient energy” used in the context of renewables.
What’s it mean?
31
The only current form of renewable energy comes from managed forests. Power generated from ambient sources such as wind and solar are unrenewable as the technology currently stands.
Ambient, adjective:
completely surrounding; encompassing:
the ambient air.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ambient
In the sense of energy ambient is that, that surround you like wind and solar. Ambient is often used in an engineering sense to describe the natural or surrounding conditions. It is the correct term to describe energy taken from the movement air or the presence of insolation. The devices that convert these ambient sources to energy are not renewable. Using the term to describe them is a misnomer that perpetuates a myth.
41
It’s something very New, no doubt introduced by the CAGW crowd to keep things on the hop.
22
All the money spent on ambient generation has saved a tiny amount of coal and retired a few old coal power stations. However that required more gas and diesel fuelled generation to maintain dispatchable capacity in addition to the massive spend on intermittents and their connections.
Clearly the intermittent generation is not required because it often goes missing; solar every night and wind for days at a time.
It is a huge drain on national resources and locked the country into high cost electricity and gas for decades to come. I would say that Australia will need fusion power before intermittents get replaced.
61
But what is this new meaning of Ambient Energy.
In has overtones of the little compressor fans put on top of water heater units required by state government along with other clap trap when you build a new house.
Why isn’t it remarkable that all of this junk is required to save the planet, and sourced from Chyna?
Is everything above board in the housing industry.
Is everything fireproof, what’s its lifespan.
KK
31
Fusion RickWill? So you’re saying we’ll never get rid of the intermittents on account of the replacement technology remaining unrealized. And we’ve hundreds of years of known coal deposits.
Let’s get Dan’s BRI chums to build us half a dozen USC power stations; there being three to five hundred scheduled for construction within China economies of scale obtain –them needing to use their own workforce is the tricky bit.
31
My view is that Australia will never have fission reactors powering generators.
There is too much investment tied up in intermittents to abandon them. Getting away from them now is politically impossible. The rules that have enabled them are in place till 2030. After 2030, it is more likely that targets will be extended rather than wound back.
I conclude, the only alternative to ambient intermittents in Australia long term is fusion. There is progress being made toward the containment needed to sustain fusion with an energy factor greater than 1. Fusion could replace intermittents if it ever becomes viable.
31
Nope. Fusion is a long way off.
21
So why aren’t the Libs doing the proper research?
I’m a guitar player/music orchestrator. My science knowledge is limited to high school physics and chemistry, and even then I spent most of those lectures at the back of the room discussing the merits of the music of Frank Zappa and King Crimson et al with other like-minded recalcitrants.
Yet somehow, I found Jo Nova’s blog, I found Anthony Watts’ website, I read TonyfromOz’ posts and TdeF’s posts and many others.
It isn’t that difficult. So why aren’t the politicians sourcing information from Jo’s blog?
Liberal MP Craig Kelly is doing the hard yards re debunking the climate hysteria, but I doubt he reads Jo’s blog.
Has anyone pointed Craig in the direction of Jo’s blog?
I’ve just sent him an invitation to Jo’s blog. He has previously replied to my emails, so here’s hoping.
171
*** THIS IS AN AUTOMATED REPLY ***
Thank you for getting in touch with me, due to the very large volume of emails I receive on a daily basis as the Federal Member for Hughes I may not be able to personally acknowledge receipt of each message.
Please rest assured that your email is important to me and please bear with me while I address your concerns.
My response times will vary depending on the complexity of the issues raised, especially during Parliamentary sitting weeks.
For urgent matters or for further information, please contact my staff on (02) 9521 6262
Please note that due to time constraints that constituents of the Hughes Federal electorate will be given priority, so please provide your current electoral address and daytime contact telephone number in your email. If you are from outside of Hughes electorate, your correspondence will be read, but may not be responded to directly.
Once again thank you for your email.
Regards,
Craig Kelly
Federal Member for Hughes
Shop 1, 9 – 15 East Pde Sutherland NSW 2232
Phone: 9521 6262 Fax: 9545 0927
http://www.craigkelly.com.au
http://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP
71
Craig Kelly is one of a very small number willing to stand up for knowledge. Morrison is a fence sitter. Morrison has banned Crag Kelly from appearing on ABC because of the concern he has about losing votes.
Here is a recent interview on BBC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFvTrdOqdXo
Notice the tactics used against him. He is just an honest guy, probably without formal training in dealing with the media. Smarmy, smug interviewers who have the religion – they are the ultimate dingbats. “The Project” is infested with these dingbats. No respect for individuals who have not got the religion but fawn over the celebrity dingbats who preach the religion.
Look at how the title of the video is framed:
So he is a denier, and worse still, he is not connecting the fires with “Climate Change”
He appears to be well informed, often mirroring the topics on this blog in his interviews. He could take lessons from Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Paul Keating and Donald Trump in how to deal with the “chooks”. You simply do not suffer fools (easier when you are the leader of a party than a back bencher)
81
Craig Kelly is extremely well versed in this subject.
I would be astonished if he has not already discovered this place.
81
That’s OK.
90+% of Gen X,Y,and Z have trouble telling down from up.
http://phzoe.com/2020/03/11/40-years-of-climate-change/
125
This person offers nothing other than links to a site that has paid advertising. It is income generating. Avoid following the links as you are wasting your time.
76
I’ll read it when it passes peer review
63
Three monkeys?
41
Yep, avoid ideas that don’t get passed the AGW gatehouse, by all means possible.
Don’t try to understand the science and processes involved.
That is why your thought-bubbles will remain forever stagnant.
43
Rick,
I find it hard to believe that people would post here just to promote their own blogs.
And income stream.
http://joannenova.com.au/2020/03/csiro-forgets-to-mention-no-study-explicitly-shows-climate-change-caused-bushfires/#comment-2288576
Surely not.
KK
22
KK is here to ruin their message or their revenue stream. Which is it KK????
22
Not sure what you mean there Mark.
I’m not all that concerned about the money.
There are two people posing as experts on the Global Warming issue.
Both have shown that they aren’t interested in the actual science, just the appearance of science is enough for them.
Disappointing that science takes a back seat to other blog promotion.
KK
21
Keith,
As far as I know, I’m the first person to point out that geothermal heat flux is an irrelevant measure for energy budget.
It is actually consensus that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are mainly geothermal powered. Some people simply lack imagination and understanding of scale for othet planets. And since some of these planets also have GHGs, they are further tainted from common sense.
41
But you mentioned it didn’t you?
As to the rest you have not exactly been clear about specific failures of “both” to show interest in science.
You allege they are here to promote their blog revenue without any evidence of that claim either.
Then you feign lack of understanding….
So: Are you here to ruin their message or their revenue stream.?
Gosh I hadn’t imagined that you want to ruin both!
32
You haven’t even looked have you.
Go back read this bit of science:
http://joannenova.com.au/2020/03/csiro-forgets-to-mention-no-study-explicitly-shows-climate-change-caused-bushfires/#comment-2288576
Check it against my original comment which I believe had 13 green ticks. His response is science free and if you look up the origin of his blog there are many requests for “funding”.
Go check.
As for Zoe, she jumps from saying geothermal is significant one day to saying it’s insignificant today.
Obviously she’s not in need of money but as another comment said she asks for comment and then gets supercritical of the responses.
Go figure.
KK
01
“As to the rest you have not exactly been clear about specific failures of “both” to show interest in science.”
Been very clear there. Again, you didn’t do your homework.
Go check.
01
Hello, no response.
01
Hello, no response.
01
Keith,
“As for Zoe, she jumps from saying geothermal is significant one day to saying it’s insignificant today.”
Geothermal is significant, but the number for “geothermal heat flux” (~92 mW/m^2) is irrelevant.
“she asks for comment and then gets supercritical of the responses”
Yes, because it’s made by people who have learned nothing from what I said, as you just showed.
31
Zoe,
Thank you for replying to the comment I left for Mark.
We all agree that on average, geothermal energy at the surface of our planet is about 0.1 watts/ sq metre.
Some comparison to give an idea of the “strength” of that energy source can be gained from looking at our own bodies.
At rest humans give out 25 watts. Assuming that our bodies have roughly a surface area of one square metre, we can say that humans give out a minimum of 25 watts/sq metre.
In other words the human body transfers energy to the atmosphere at a rate 250 times greater than the Earth’s surface on average.
I use the term on average because we all know that the movement of heat from the core to the atmosphere can occur in many ways.
Very Low rates of transfer occur through soil, but some submerged volcanoes emit concentrated energy into small areas of ocean. Volcanoes at the surface in some cases have molten areas of 100 metres diameter.
But on average 0.1 compared to humans on 25.
Yes, geothermal is relatively small.
What are you so angry about. Everyone wants to advance our understanding of issue related to the false claim that human origin CO2 causes atmospheric overheating.
KK
12
Keith,
“We all agree that on average, geothermal energy at the surface of our planet is about 0.1 watts/ sq metre.”
No, that is incorrect. The average geothermal CONDUCTIVE HEAT FLUX just below the surface is ~0.1 W/m2. Heat flux is not energy. Heat flux is a differential of two kinetic energies at two diff locations. Geothermal ENERGY is large, but the difference of two energies at two depths is small.
http://phzoe.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-other-verified/
Your ears are the same temperature, ergo the heat flux between your two ears is 0 W/m^2. Does that mean your ears can’t emit 527 W/m^2 (37C)?
Why do I have to keep teaching people that refuse to learn?
31
Hello Mark?
“Why do I have to keep teaching people that refuse to learn?”
http://joannenova.com.au/2020/03/uk-three-quarters-of-gen-z-doesnt-even-know-nuclear-is-low-carbon/#comment-2290456
Why didn’t I follow that advice?
KK
01
RickWill,
When you get a free wordpress account, THEY put ads on your site. THEY generate income for themselves.
A few days ago I paid for the service and domain, and now there are no ads. So why not have a visit and stop making up conspiracy theories?
Yes, I’m promoting what I think is true. Yes, I think geothermal denial is a mental illness. Obviously not everyone will understand that. I argued with myself for 6 months, then I won.
I haven’t seen an original argument I haven’t considered. Mostly I see people trying to deceive themselves with hypocrisy, sophistry, and confusion.
Why not try my hypothesis for a while?
I tried building up others’ arguments and saw more contradictions then my own. I may not know everything, but I’m confident I’m on the right track. I have a few aces up my skirt I have not exposed yet. Stay tuned if you’re interested. Haters will hate anyway, but I don’t care.
P.S. The idea that someone that currently manages over 35 million dollars for others is interested in blog ads is quite amusing. Thanks for the laugh.
53
All the signs are there; it’s the beginning of the end of the West. The craziness over toilet paper alone is proof of that. So is the mindless followers of the Extinction Rebellion cult and people like Greta Thunberg and even the childish manner of people like Prince William who really believe in the CAGW crap. The real fault though is placed fairly and squarely on our so called leaders like Morrison who at best are appeasers and at worst are follows of the new cult. Trump is the exception although he is being continually bombarded even by some of his own Republican party members. The only chance of the West to avoid a crash and burn scenario in the years ahead is to turn things around and call the whole climate change alarmist push a complete and utter fabrication and lie. Trump has already done that. We need our leaders to grow a spine and follow his lead. I doubt though they will in which case be prepared for the crash and burn scenario to play out in the foreseeable future.
161
We the elders of the community also have a responsibility too – the young ones need to be shoved into a line a bit whether they like it or not and told the climate lie is just that.
I just keep presenting the evidence and eventually it will all collapse….
91
That would require a complete overhaul of our public education system. Not going to happen with either major party in power at the state level.
41
Comrade Peter its not the time for political revolution.
11
LOL
21
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-12/coronavirus-updates-who-declares-pandemic/12047598
Maybe the World Bank “Pandemic Bonds” have matured so they arent 40% on face value any more?
/Sarc
*sigh*
Idiocracy rules…currently….
“Global Pandemic” also equals medical martial law if they so declare. Be aware of that.
61
The way I look at it is this is just a dry run of the real move by the elite.
51
Yup.
41
and there might be more to come before the real crunch happens.
41
So the ABR crowd are pushing for nuclear, what about the cost? I’m bemused in that of all the options, nuclear is the most expensive. on the other hand, it would make renewables + storage look very good indeed.
Source – https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J
/ABR- Anything But Renwables
324
Do you have a price for storage which makes it look good?
151
Do you have any evidence that we need anything except good RELIABLE coal and gas ?
There is no reason whatsoever to use anything else in Australia.
Anything else will always be an inefficient use of funds.
Wind and solar have a negative, destabilising affect on electricity supply systems.
While we have plenty of uranium, the extra cost of nuclear over coal cannot be warranted.
143
Nothing can make wind/solar + storage look “very good”..
… except a warped imagination and a lack of scientific comprehension.. !
163
Subsidies, RETs, Carbon Taxes, ETS’s, emissions targets…
All tricks for the gullible, ill-informed and stupid; each a form of “leaning on the scales” to make wind/solar+storage appear cost-competitive with coal.
81
Wind/solar plus storage is impossibly expensive at utility scales. A wind farm needs 7 days of backup and at today’s cost the batteries pull be about 100 times the wind farm. Solar needs 3 days at least. Korea, China, etc., are building nukes very economically. The cost here is mostly just over regulation.
191
How much will it cost if we don’t do it? 🙂
To be honest though I don’t give a damn whether we adopt nuclear or not. What I do give a damn about is how both major parties have swallowed the emissions reduction scam, hook, line and sinker.
111
Peter, I urge you to think deeper.
73
“Peter, I urge you to think deeper.”
LOL…. now that is funny !!
122
Please be clear about which Peter you are talking about eh?
51
You see, here’s where Peter Fitzroy has no idea:
He has no clue about power generation, its consumption, physics, Science, Engineering, and Maths associated with power generation, and he doesn’t even want to know frankly.
Compare Macarthur Wind to a Nuclear power plant.
The big nuke has five times the Nameplate. (so five Macarthurs are needed just to equal the Nameplate) The big nuke has twice the life span. (multiply by two) The big nuke generates its electricity at a CF around 90% while Macarthur is at 30%. (multiply by three)
So now, to generate the same electricity, you need 30 Macarthurs. Macarthur cost $1.2 Billion, so $36 Billion. Please don’t even begin to tell me a big nuke will cost anything even remotely close to that.
Then, for when the wind plant is off line, you have this, umm, battery storage. You either use the power as it is generated or use the power for charging the batteries, you CANNOT do both. So, now you have to build even more Macarthurs to charge the batteries for when the wind is not blowing, so we now have a further multiplier on top of all that for the extra Macarthurs, PLUS the cost of the battery storage itself.
Peter Fitzroy, see now how it’s never as simple as ….. just saying ….. renewables and battery storage that you have fallen for.
Tony.
221
A large proportion of the cost of deploying nuclear is in the length of time it takes to design, plan and construct (ready for dispatch). Spent capital at interest without revenue.
SMRs (in their various forms) could significantly reduce the impact of this effect. Still essentially a near-future technology but much closer and far more realistic than the “renewables” folly of economically viable mass battery storage.
51
Read the link, then hurl the insults [Snip insult. C’mon Peter]
29
Oh okay.
I read your link. It was fluff and quotes figures that fly in the face of reality.
Now, what was step two of your instructions? Oh yes. Hurl insults.
Peter? You are a swarf on the cutting tool of progress.
There you go. Instructions followed. Happy now?
71
When you read stupid anti-scientific statements like.. “Stabilizing the climate is urgent”
…. you know immediately than anything else said in the post is also going to be based on a load of garbage and will also be basically fact free.
It is aimed at people just like you, to swallow whole.
People who are gullibly inept in most branches of real science.
92
Oh – also try to read and comprehend what I said. For example batteries were not mentioned, that is all down to your imagination.
Also – how about some figures, since you are so sure. You could start with #10 if you don’t believe my link.
310
OOOh! INDIGNANT! good on ya Fitzeroy! Keep it up. You and KK can team up and ruin everybody…
Then maybe you have already?
41
Must say I can’t see any insults in Tony’s post Peter Fitzroy but I can see an insult in yours .
31
The help you (and the moderators)
Peter Fitzroy has no idea: – That is in the first sentence
He has no clue about power generation, its consumption, physics, Science, Engineering, and Maths associated with power generation – That is his second sentence.
Now Robert – tell me who on this blog, and I’ll include Tonyfromoz in this, has the knowledge of “power generation, its consumption, physics, Science, Engineering, and Maths associated with power generation”
Since no one can claim that – it is an insult to single me out for that lack, do you and the moderators see?
47
Kind of a wobbly sentence but I’ll take the bait:
I do.
71
As a trained (but not practicing) EE, I’ll put up my hand, too.
61
‘ … it is an insult to single me out for that lack, do you and the moderators see?’
Its a tough gig, been there on other blogs, and it taught me to be fully conversant with the subject matter to avoid public humiliation.
41
Also, TonyfromOz has an electrical engineering diploma (which is equivalent to my degree) and there are numerous others with practical experience and/or professional qualifications for power generation/transmission here like GraemeNo3, Lance and others that I (unfortunately) can’t remember off the top of my head.
What are your qualifications in this area, Mr Fitzroy?
51
“He has no clue about power generation, its consumption, physics, Science, Engineering, and Maths associated with power generation “
Not an insult.
A statement of proven fact. !
41
“it is an insult to single me out for that lack”
You do it to yourself, with your comments.
Always.
It is obvious to everybody that Tony has far more knowledge than you do in this area.
His statement is absolutely true.. you just refuse to accept it .
41
KK.
EE101.
21
Someone has annoyed Mark.,?
🙂
31
Sorry KK maybe a bad day at the office. Though you should consider that many people stop by intermittently (like me these days). So you need to spell arguments out each time or else the new comer will not be impressed.
31
🙂
20
I was comparing 2 non CO2 producing forms of electrical power.
To cover my lack of detailed knowledge I provided a link to the reference which formed the basis for my post.
That is more than Tony has ever done (self references do not count)
He takes the position that if, and only if, you hold a diploma or better in the subject (which is economics, not electrical generation), you are not allowed to comment. This would mean that the host of this blog is only allowed to post in Microbiology as an example.
On the other had, everyone else feels no such constraints in their comments on climate change, temperature measurement, atmospheric science, ecology, microbiology, virology etc, and mostly without providing a link to support their assertions.
Now based on my referenced article, and what Lance posted at #10 – do you support the proposition that nuclear is a very expensive solution, and therefore will drive energy prices higher, if we were to implement it.
25
Mr Fitzroy, TonyfromOz inferred your “lack of detailed knowledge” on power generation from the link you provided because people with that knowledge would not be putting it up as “proof” of wind and solar being economic (let alone viable) forms of power generation compared with nuclear.
I have provided further reasoning in #8.7.3.2 as to the issues with the articles assertions. You are happy to research the web for articles to support your positions – try doing the same for contrary ones and figuring out for yourself which sources are credible and which are not. Self education is a wonderful thing – most sceptics check both sides of the arguments for renewables and climate change before arriving at a position. You should be willing to do the same.
Eg, how about you provide some storage costs to back up your statement that “it would make renewables + storage look very good indeed”.
If you want links to “prove” my statements, be specific about which points you dispute.
51
Mark ,
If you had followed the link, this is the unusual comment that could be found.
http://joannenova.com.au/2020/03/wikipedia-deletes-the-list-of-scientists-who-are-skeptics-of-the-sacred-consensus/#comment-2286710
This is the response;
“”First of all, there will be no convection if the parcels of air above your parcel are also warmed. Given that CO2 is well mixed this should happen if CO2 is increased.
Second, if the energy in the air is increased, this should cause the GH molecules therein to spray more photons toward the ground. The captured photons are not stored. What is stored, if you want to call it that, is the energy from the photons that goes into the air. It is stored until it generates new photons, some of which go back to the surface.
The real question is why the increased CO2 has not generated any warming? It is a very good question.””
The author was responding to my comment which can be traced through the link.
And this is a science blog.
KK
31
”First of all, there will be no convection if the parcels of air above your parcel are also warmed. Given that CO2 is well mixed this should happen if CO2 is increased.”
Given that the mean free part of energy in the CO2 frequency band is some 10-30m, this guy doesn’t have clue what he is talking about.
The atmosphere is controlled by the pressure density gradient.. proven = the end of AGW farce
41
“= the end of AGW farce”
meant to add.. “from a scientific perspective.”
Much harder to kill from a political and religious ideology basis.
41
So if I understand it correctly;
The weight of the overburden of the atmosphere forces gases of the atmosphere into contact with the surface.
When the surface is heated by solar energy it transfers some of that energy to atmospheric gases, including CO2.
Some of the degraded solar energy left over exits the ground as IR and theoretically is available for absorption by “greenhouse gases”.
Whether any absorption of this can take place after “conduction”, I don’t know, but if it does occur then only CO2 in the first 30 metres above surface can be involved.
Whatever mechanism is operant,the portion of atmosphere closest to ground is warmed, expands and rises: flotation/convection.
CO2 just cannot absorb or store more energy than normal. The normal being the interrelationship between all atmospheric gases.
CO2 is Not a specific heating agent in the atmosphere.
The whole CAGW thing is Non Science and appeals to authority are an insult to science.
KK
31
Do you want to explain this 30 metres? how does it operate on a slope or a mountain?
Why 30?
10
Gee Aye,
As far as I know the 30 metres would only be relevant IF CO2 was able to soak up ground origin IR during the initial warming at ground level.
I assume that if ground origin IR can be absorbed in that preliminary stage it would all be absorbed by 30 metres.
Again, there would then follow need for that CO2 to move up in the rising parcel of atmosphere so that it can be replaced by new CO2. It’s not a clear cut description for me, that’s why I would like more informed comment.
As mentioned before, I have no doubts about the integrity of the atmosphere following pv=nRt once it gets set up at ground level. No ability to “store” or trap IR as a ground heating reservoir for later use.
I have my own ideas about alternative activity higher up but that’s also irrelevant to the CO2 heat trapping argument.
KK
21
But why 30m? Is that +/- something. Is that at sea level? Why 30?
10
Why? Is also the problem for me and concerns the relative collision rate and absorption rate. More couldn’t be absorbed until the CO2 had given up previous energy absorbed via collision.
Andy might have a better idea.
21
I rather doubt that.
You’ve still not given me anything on the 30 – where does this number pop from?
11
“Do you want to explain this 30 metres?””
Because that is the maximum distance that CO2 frequency can travel in the lower atmosphere before it totally absorbed.
Your grasp of science is lacking.. still.
Atmosphere has be proven, from balloon data, to be controlled by the gravity based pressure-density gradient.
That is the science that matters.
None of your other anti-science fantasies are relevant.
31
Oh good grief.
That balloon data is just a bunch of temperatures, pressures, humidities etc.
It is then fitted to a model described by a theory by that guy you keep quoting. Model fitting is not empirical proof.
11
Gosh Yes,
Your reply to Andy,
http://joannenova.com.au/2020/03/uk-three-quarters-of-gen-z-doesnt-even-know-nuclear-is-low-carbon/#comment-2291033
You’re starting to look like Zo when you do that.
Forget the balons.
The very concise measurement of the capacity of individual atmospheric gases to take in and keep energy has been carefully established in laboratory experiments. Cv and Cp values are available individually and collectively as “the atmosphere.
There’s no way an individual gas can absorb more energy than its built in capacity at any set of atmospheric conditions.
KK
21
Indeed – there was no mention in the linked article about storage, whatsoever. This makes the comparison of solar and wind to nuclear totally meaningless since the intermittentcy of the renewables is not factored in at all when comparing the supplied cost. Intermittent power is useless for almost all applications which makes much of the renewables output useless once the penetration rises much beyond 10% without storage. And if cost efficient storage was available for renewables, it would also be beneficial to coal and nuclear power plants
While people like to carry on about nuclear plants being unable/unsuitable for load following, the reality is that they COULD load follow by venting steam when demand falls, at the cost of lower efficiency. Given the low fuel, relative to capital, costs for nuclear plants this would not be a massive problem except that it is more economically sensible to have fewer nuclear plants and cover the variation with less capital intensive gas plants. Technically, coal plants could also vent steam for better load following but fuel costs are a concern for these.
Interestingly, the article also states
No mention of all the new coal plants that have been commissioned/restarted. How about that, Mr Fitzroy?
71
“For example batteries were not mentioned”
from your post.. “it would make renewables + storage”
What sort of storage are you thinking of if not batteries.
Seems you are having a great deal of trouble comprehending even what YOU yourself have actually written.
42
Batteries are the only feasible grid scale storage.
23
At the grid level, I’d say even our best current batteries are unfeasible for storage
Aggressive load-shifting could increase battery fire risk
51
A single quote immediately informs an intelligent person that the author is a dingbat:
Stabilising the climate What bunkum. The climate on Earth is powerfully self-stabilising. It has recovered from major disruptions like massive volcanoes that essentially turned the sun off for years.
low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.. The only low carbon form of generation is nuclear. Wind and solar require huge amounts of carbon in their materials, manufacture, transport, installation and connections. The present technology cannot recover the energy required to replicate them as well as the essential energy storage to make them viable as a replacement for fossil fuel or nuclear fuel.
Mycle Schneider is a class A dingbat; perpetuating religious nonsense.
81
Fitz is correct, nuclear is more expensive to build.
41
No, that is not what he (and the article) assets. The premise is that nuclear is less economic which requires factoring in the operational costs/benefits as well as the upfront costs. Intermittency of wind and solar destroys that argument which is why China is giving up on subsidies for these (see my post #8.10)
41
sorry, that should be “asserts”, not “assets” (for my post held up in moderation, yet again)
31
No -Fitz is wrong – I wrote this on comments below with regard to links Lance posted.
This gives tracking solar at USD1300/kW. Advanced nuclear is given as USD5900/kW. These are meaningless numbers until you compare like-with-like.
The nuclear will produce whenever needed. To get solar up to the same level of performance it needs storage. With typical cost of hydro storage, the solar will operate at a constrained capacity factor of 10% and it happens that the most economic storage is when generating and storage have equal cost. So at 10% constrained CF, the solar works out at USD13k/kW plus USD13k for each kW of demand served for the battery (say 44 hours storage at USD300/kWh). Total capital cost USD26k/kW to achieve what the nuclear will do at USD5.9k/kW so the Solar/storage is more than 4X the capital. Of course the solar is based on high sunshine locations.
The figures for the solar I have given do not cover the requirement for the 4 to 5-fold increase in transmission costs due to the low native CF of solar at around 20 to 25% for a tracking array at latitudes lower than 35 degrees. Don’t bother with solar at latitudes above 35 degrees.
61
EIA surveyed grid sized battery facilities and got an average build cost of $1500 per kWh, not $300. Tesla has built a couple for maybe $500 but that may be a loss leader, and not total facility cost. EIA found some at $500, but others at $3000, hence the $1500.
Also, the biggest built are just over 100 MWh, not the 44,000 MWh needed to back up a 1000 MW array for 44 hours. As Tony points out, you need several thousand MW of intermittent capacity to compete with that 1000 MW nuke. You have to charge the batteries while the sun is shining. Also with solar you need something like 16 hours of storage every day, on top of the 44 hours of long standby backup.
Making 100 MWh work is hard (especially when the batteries explode). Making 44,000 work may not be feasible.
Real backup storage costs vastly more than intermittent generating capacity.
61
Hey Mr Fitzroy,
Here’s a link to a very recent article that you might wish to read and then consider the implications on just how “cost effective” renewables are. This is from the Chinese media group, Caixin Media.
China Scraps Subsidies for Offshore Wind Farms and Slashes Ones for Solar
71
Similarly, on 3AW a couple of weeks ago there was a discussion about the fact that 30% of year ten students don’t know why there are seasons and night and day.
131
Duh, “Climate Change™”
61
Seasons are hard. Night and day not so much.
30
Reference links for interested parties for use in comparative analyses.
Cost and Performance of electricity generation by technology
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf
Operating costs for Gas/Coal/Nuke/Hydro generation
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html
Capital costs for by generation type
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/
21
This gives tracking solar at USD1300/kW. Advanced nuclear is given as USD5900/kW. These are meaningless numbers until you compare like-with-like.
The nuclear will produce whenever needed. To get solar up to the same level of performance it needs storage. With typical cost of hydro storage, the solar will operate at a capacity factor of 10% and it happens that the most economic storage is when generating and storage have equal cost. So at 10% constrained CF, the solar works out at USD13k/kW plus USD13k for each kW of demand served for the battery (say 44 hours storage at USD300/kWh). Total capital cost USD26k/kW to achieve what the nuclear will do at USD5.9k/kW so the Solar/storage is more than 4X the capital. Of course the solar is based on high sunshine locations.
The fires for the solar does not cover the requirement for the 4 to 5-fold increase in transmission costs due to the low native CF.
21
Most of those Asian made electric cars are made in factories utilizing nuclear power also.
Oh the horror.
61
Mr Peter Fitzroy,
Let’s level the playing field shall we?
Let’s require that all forms of proposed generation are to be fully dispatchable, providing whatever power, second-by-second, is required, 24/7. Any and all technology to meet that requirement is to be provided by the proposed generator at its own expense from behind, that is, on its side of, its connection point to the grid.
If a reduction in CO2 emissions is a requirement, then each generator is to be penalised for any and all CO2 emissions from its generation plant, those emissions to include a properly audited value ascribed to the manufacture and installation of that equipment. That audit quite properly extends to the embedded CO2 emissions resulting in the production and installation of any and all battery storage that might be chosen, again to be provided by the generator at its own cost behind its connection point. The requirement would also include the CO2 emissions produced by the civil works for the site preparation.
And, let’s not forget the full costs of waste disposal, those costs including, again, any CO2 emissions.
Remember, Mr Fitzroy, we are to compare like with like.
Then we might see which is the more expensive “option”.
Thanks heaps, Jo for all of your posts, particularly those providing so much essential information on the spread of the COVID virus.
Paul Miskelly
211
“dispatchable, providing whatever power, second-by-second,”
Add to that, that it should be synchronous to the grid, and frequency stable.
There is absoluteley ZERO scientific need for a reduction in CO2 emissions.
181
dispatchable implies synchronous to the grid, and frequency stable since the essence of a dispatchable power source is that it is controllable by the operators
31
It has ever been thus. Young people have always wanted to be different. What has changed in recent years however, is that they have been told that older people are to be despised because they have grabbed all the wealth and jobs, ruined the planet, driven property prices beyond the reach of young people, had it easy when THEY were young and now are driving the health system bankrupt.
Old people have been demonised.
Add this to the modern scourge of ‘victim mentality’ (even when sipping champagne in the back of your Rolls Royce on the way to collecting your Oscar) and you have a dangerous mix, because victims must have somebody to blame …
But, what if you wanted this scenario to be even worse? Well, you just under-educate them, making them more easily controlled and misinformed.
Bingo! You have an angry, simple-minded mob ready to do your bidding. The modern equivalent of the baying, unwashed masses that crowded round the guillotines in revolutionary France, or the pitchfork-waving villagers who rampaged through town, looking for witches and heretics.
91
Nuclear power is a pretty esoteric subject so I am surprised that this many people know about it. I suspect the older folks do because it was controversial 40 years ago.
That most people seem to know what low carbon means is disturbing.
40
That includes the leaders of both major parties. They are clueless on what low carbon (and low emissions) means, or worse still liars.
51
Perhaps it was a “pick all that apply” question and wind and solar are easy guesses for low carbon, but nuclear not do much.
21
Just more evidence taxes need to be raised to spend more on schools and teachers, duh.
Politically and ideologically indoctrinating children and damaging their future, as much as possible. Everyone know transitions studies are far more important than nerd energy. School is ultra-expensive mandatory baby-sitting where illiterate innumerate kids learn almost but not quite nothing which they could have gleaned from a pictorial comic book or smartyphone. Thus their duped parents can go to work all day to pay more taxes, so lazy, ignorant, incompetent arrogant baby-sitters can get paid more for doing less while achieving nothing they were paid to, then blame everyone else for their endless career of profound failure. While they keep getting paid for it and no one gets sacked for a total lack of adequate performance. Worlds-best-practice ain’t cheap.
I can feel a School Halls project coming on.
91
‘Just more evidence taxes need to be raised to spend more on schools and teachers’
Ah yes, the root cause of the problem.
An ever-increasing quantum of taxpayer money spent (wasted) on ‘schools and teachers’ instead of education and students.
Probably class-actions against the various teachers’ unions/federations and their “public service” enablers required before any of this gets better.
41
I was thinking can the useless staff of ideologically bent Teachers Colleges in the University campus first, that’s where all the stupidity and failure begins – but that too.
21
Where is the education department? A very good question indeed. I suspect students are only fed one side of the argument when it comes to anthropogenic climate change. There are many highly credentialed scientists that do not agree with the narrative. Education departments need to ensure that students get a range of views on the subject. Students should be encouraged to read responsible criticism of both sides of the argument and to think for themselves. Otherwise the education system does nothing more than churn out indoctrinated young people that are ignorant of other views and lack critical analysis skills. Just what we don’t need.
81
How very young minds don’t work is demonstrated via an apprentice carpenter working alongside a builder on a house roof frame. The builder asked the apprentice to climb down and get a spirit level from his truck. No problem said the apprentice, took his phone from his pocket and produced a spirit level app and was surprised when his boss told him to wake up to himself.
Another example was a blogger who posted on a comment about wind turbines being unreliable because of wind fluctuations that there will always be wind turbines working somewhere in Australia. Another on an electric vehicle comment replied that she would recharge her EV using solar panels, overnight.
101
being unreliable because of wind fluctuations that there will always be wind turbines working somewhere in Australia
I was told the battery in Adelaide already fully buffers the wind and happily supplies all of SA when the wind isn’t blowing!
31
being unreliable because of wind fluctuations that there will always be wind turbines working somewhere in Australia
I was told the battery in Adelaide already fully buffers the wind and happily supplies all of SA when the wind isn’t blowing!
01
They’re all being hoodwinked and “educated” by the likes of the Turnbulls with the aim of feathering their own nests – and don’t forget Scomo was quite close to Turnbull, so he supports the BS education to further that cause.
61
When SA had the lights go out, some peeps phoned 000 anxious they couldn’t get on Facebook. True story.
61
note how Reuters’ headline/sub-headings suggest so-called REs, while the article seems to be all about coal and gas! compare with reporting on just mentioning coal-fired plants in Australia:
11 Mar: Reuters: UPDATE 1-Uniper puts coal spending behind it as looks to greener future
Solar, hydro, onshore wind, M&A all options
by Vera Eckert, Tom Käckenhoff
FRANKFURT – German utility Uniper said on Wednesday it was keen to shift to investments in lower carbon energy ***following on from its last major expenditure on coal plants, ***which are scheduled to start up later this year…
***It issued a coal exit schedule at the end of January, but later this year its Datteln 4 coal-fired power station and Berezovskaya 3 plant in Russia will begin generation…
Chief Executive Andreas Schierenbeck said Datteln 4 had cost more than 1.5 billion euros ($1.70 billion) and the Russian project required a high triple-digit million euros sum.
With that expenditure out of the way, he said in an interview, the company would be “free for other endeavours in the medium term”.
Coal activities with 9.2 gigawatts (GW) of installed capacity account for 20% of profits, natural gas for around 60% and renewables and services for the remainder…
Green energy activities would involve readying Uniper’s huge natural gas infrastructure in Europe for a possible hydrogen economy, he said…
Uniper’s vast gas transporting, storage and supply functions, where it is a main player in Europe and Gazprom’s biggest customer, offer great scope to serve a future hydrogen economy, as supported by Berlin, Bryson said.
The company has years of experience in producing hydrogen and methane from wind power at pilot plants…
Uniper’s trading arm is working on long-term green power purchase agreements…
https://www.reuters.com/article/uniper-strategy-green/update-1-uniper-puts-coal-spending-behind-it-as-looks-to-greener-future-idUSL8N2B457T
11 Feb: Reuters: Uniper, gas lobby say Germany must help them keep lights on
by Vera Eckert
Power cannot yet be reliably stored and Germany needs up to 82 Gigawatts (GW) of capacity at all times to function, increasing to 114 GW by 2030 when millions of electric cars begin to hit the roads, figures from the Cologne research institute EWI said…
EWI data showed 5.2 GW from gas-fired plants and 1.7 GW at the Datteln 4 coal power plant are in the pipeline until 2030…
But the combined 6.9 GW is far less than an anticipated 13-45 GW of new conventional power capacity needed to make up for losing nuclear generation by 2022, as well as much of Germany’s coal capacity, EWI said…
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-eworld-gas/uniper-gas-lobby-say-germany-must-help-them-keep-lights-on-idUSKBN20515S
20
The dream of a “possible hydrogen economy” morphs into a “future hydrogen economy” by the next line; this is shysterism twenty-first century style and woe betide the poor devils that try to adopt it. Here’s the hydrogen document; see what you think.
11
maybe include a link to the actual report?
https://www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/1-oscar/reports-policy-statements-and-documents/nuclear-power-report-_2019_01_06_web.pdf
23
I got to page three and cried Bull Shi*.
How long did it take you Gee?
41
what aspect exactly? Page 3 appears to be pretty summary graphics and does not contain enough information to judge the survey (if that is what you are labelling bs?). And if it is bs what is your take on
Reminds me of making rhetorical claims on the basis of dodgy anonymous unreferenced historical newspaper columns.
22
D.A! the report page 3: “just” 4 in 10 support…. 2.5 in ten (under some age of stupidity) don’t even understand that it is “low carbon”.
You don’t see the bias and propaganda?
Of course not.
31
I agree. It is a spin document on which a spin news report was made of which Jo made into a blog post.
There is no detailing of demographics beyond age (how many of each age?), and the questions are not revealed (though they admit to there being 7). At one point they write “a similar number (45%)”. Since when is 45% a number? Maybe it was only 9 or was it 900?
yes it is rubbish. Who’d base a blog post on it? Who would pontificate and bluster about teachers and kids not caring without being bothered to see if the thing they are using as evidence has any substance. This is fake skepticism at its finest.
32
“Who’d base a blog post on it”
It is good to show the totally unscientific behaviour of AGW supporters and apostles.
It is everywhere. It should be highlighted.
Jo has plenty of ammunition showing the idiocy and deceit of the AGW scammers.
Sorry you don’t like your fellow AGW dolts being exposed.
41
Hopefully no one at your institution professor. Why should they bother. Should it be assumed that teachers and students do care whether the thing they are using as evidence has any substance? How should they verify that thing?
At our university we teach people how to think for themselves!
Yeah Right.
31
Gee, I’m a little uncomfortable when you and I have agreement. You’d have to ask Jo why a piece like this becomes blog worthy.
We all have to watch out for and/or fall for propaganda. I assume then that you recognize “Fake News” and will reliably call it out wherever it is found?
01
or not fall for
01
sorry to cause you discomfort.
10
more laughs from ABC/RMIT FactCheck:
27 Sept 2019: ABC/RMIT FACT CHECK: Malcolm Turnbull says renewables plus storage are cheaper than coal and nuclear for new power generation. Is he correct?
Principal researcher: Josh Gordon, economics and finance editor
VERDICT: FAIR CALL
The claim…
On one side of the debate, there are those who argue Australia cannot afford to trade away a comparative advantage by forsaking coal, while on the other there are those who say a large-scale switch to renewable energy is inevitable and desirable.
Thrown into the mix is the question of whether Australia should embrace nuclear power as a base-load, low-emissions energy source.
Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull chipped in to the debate with a recent tweet claiming: “The bottom line is renewables + storage are cheaper than new coal let alone the loopy current fad of nuclear power which is the current weapon of mass distraction for the backbench.”…
Under current policy settings and economic conditions, it is generally cheaper to produce electricity from wind or solar sources than it would be using a new coal or nuclear plant, with or without “storage”.
However, the issue is complex…
As the Grattan Institute’s energy program director Tony Wood said: “When people start projecting what the cost is going to be in the future, we only know one thing, and that is that they are wrong. The only question is in which direction and by how much.”…
PIC night, chimneys, “smoke”
Nuclear power, on the other hand, is estimated to be well over double the cost of coal, wind or solar, regardless of risk premiums or backup…
CSIRO Chief Energy Economist Paul Graham said whether or not Mr Turnbull’s statement is accurate “depends on the view you take on whether you can access financing for coal plants that would not impose a climate policy risk premium”…
“However, if you take the lowest end of the range for coal, without a risk premium, it is slightly lower than the lowest-cost renewable with storage.”…
Bruce Mountain, director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre at Victoria University, stressed that it was difficult to compare different technologies, primarily because they served different purposes.
Professor Mountain said coal-fired plants tended to be inflexible, producing power regardless of whether the demand was there or not, whereas renewables with storage had the flexibility to sell power to the grid at times of high demand (and high prices)…
“I would guess a cost of capital for a coal-fired plant of probably twice the effective cost of capital for wind and solar.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-12/is-renewable-power-cheaper-than-coal-nuclear-malcolm-turnbull/11495558
20
One day, I’m going to start a fight with Bruce Mountain when I ask him to justify his conclusions in a quantifiable manner. I haven’t so far since it’s not in the spirit of a cycling group to have all in stoushes.
41
31 Aug 2019: Forbes: A Very Fast, Very Safe, Very SLIMM Nuclear Reactor
by James Conca
Ever since the world’s top climate scientists, including Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Tom Wigley, Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Kerry Emanuel, urged world leaders and environmental campaigners to support the expansion of nuclear energy as essential for addressing global warming, many new smaller and modular reactors have appeared on the scene in different stages of development.
All of them show promise (LINK)…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/08/31/a-very-fast-very-safe-very-sllim-nuclear-reactor/
I’ve always found it amusing that Jim Hansen, godfather of CAGW and George Monbiot (who I consider to be the godfather of XR) are nuclear advocates, yet MSM pretty much ignores this fact:
Wikipedia: Pro-nuclear movement
Early environmentalists who publicly voiced support for nuclear power include James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia hypothesis, Patrick Moore, an early member of Greenpeace and former president of Greenpeace Canada, George Monbiot and Stewart Brand, creator of the Whole Earth Catalog…
There are increasing numbers of scientists and laymen who are environmentalists with views that depart from the mainstream environmental stance that rejects a role for nuclear power in the climate fight (once labelled “Nuclear Greens,” some now consider themselves Ecomodernists). Some of these include…
Ken Caldeira, Professor Stanford University…
Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology…
James Hansen, Director of Climate Science, Awareness, and Solutions Program and the Earth Institute, Columbia University…
Tom Wigley, Climate scientist at the University of Adelaide…
Open letter signatories
Conservation biologists in 2014: to replace the burning of fossil fuels, if we are to have any chance of mitigating severe climate change […we] need to accept a substantial role for advanced nuclear power systems with complete fuel recycling
includes…
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg…ETC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-nuclear_movement
25 Nov 2019: Forbes: Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong
by Michael Shellenberger
Climate scientists are starting to push back against exaggerations by activists, journalists, and other scientists.
“While many species are threatened with extinction,” said Stanford’s Ken Caldeira, “climate change does not threaten human extinction… I would not like to see us motivating people to do the right thing by making them believe something that is false.”
I asked the Australian climate scientist Tom Wigley what he thought of the claim that climate change threatens civilization. “It really does bother me because it’s wrong,” he said. “All these young people have been misinformed. And partly it’s Greta Thunberg’s fault. Not deliberately. But she’s wrong.”
But don’t scientists and activists need to exaggerate in order to get the public’s attention?
“I’m reminded of what [late Stanford University climate scientist] Steve Schneider used to say,” Wigley replied. “He used to say that as a scientist, we shouldn’t really be concerned about the way we slant things in communicating with people out on the street who might need a little push in a certain direction to realize that this is a serious problem. Steve didn’t have any qualms about speaking in that biased way. I don’t quite agree with that.”
Wigley started working on climate science full-time in 1975 and created one of the first climate models (MAGICC) in 1987. It remains one of the main climate models in use today.
“When I talk to the general public,” he said, “I point out some of the things that might make projections of warming less and the things that might make them more. I always try to present both sides.”
Part of what bothers me about the apocalyptic rhetoric by climate activists is that it is often accompanied by demands that poor nations be denied the cheap sources of energy they need to develop.
“If you want to minimize carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2070 you might want to accelerate the burning of coal in India today,” MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel said.
“It doesn’t sound like it makes sense. Coal is terrible for carbon. But it’s by burning a lot of coal that they make themselves wealthier, and by making themselves wealthier they have fewer children, and you don’t have as many people burning carbon, you might be better off in 2070.”
Emanuel and Wigley say the extreme rhetoric is making political agreement on climate change harder.
“You’ve got to come up with some kind of middle ground where you do reasonable things to mitigate the risk and try at the same time to lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient,” said Emanuel. “We shouldn’t be forced to choose between lifting people out of poverty and doing something for the climate.”
Happily, there is a plenty of middle ground between climate apocalypse and climate denial.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#130fdd9c12d6
30
posted for the Wigley bits:
23 Nov 2019: ConservativeWomanUK: The Saturday essay: Ten years on from Climategate
By Tony Thomas
Restricting and adjusting data
CRU director Jones destroyed emails subject to Freedom of Information requests and urged colleagues to do the same. Some of the emails could have exposed improper manipulation of IPCC processes. In 2004 Jones refused a sceptic’s request for his source data:
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it?”…
# Scientist Dr Tom Wigley, then with the US Government, to Jones September 28, 2008, urging more adjusting:
“If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s warming blip. So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip . . . It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with ‘why the blip’.” (LINK)…
Scientist Tom Wigley points out flaws in Mann’s own research:
“Mike, the figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.” (LINK)…
Needless to say, universities have showered climate guys with honours. IPCC author Ben Santer agreed with honours for Jones and Wigley: “Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of our field” and the pair “deserve medals as big as soup plates”, he wrote on October 8, 2009 (LINK).
https://conservativewoman.co.uk/the-saturday-essay-ten-years-on-from-climategate/
40
10 Mar: CBS: UN climate report warns “time is fast running out” to avert the worst impacts of climate change
by Jeff Berardelli
The United Nations’ weather and climate agency is out with its annual State of the Climate report, and it says “the tell-tale physical signs of climate change” are everywhere. The report documents unprecedented heat waves, fires and floods over the past year, and warns that there is likely more to come.
In the report (LINK), the UN’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO) cited the historic fires in Australia and the Amazon, record-shattering heat waves in Europe, and soaring levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In a statement released with the report, the leader of the United Nations calls climate change “the defining challenge of our time” and said “time is fast running out for us to avert the worst impacts of climate disruption.”…
Historic fires
If there’s one thing most of the planet will remember about 2019, it’s the out-of-control fires. From Australia to the Amazon to California, devastating fires dominated news headlines for weeks…
In Australia’s worst fire season on record, 46 million acres were burned, more than 1 billion animals died and the estimated price tag is in the tens of billions of dollars. A international study recently concluded that the Australian bushfires were made much more likely and more intense (LINK) due to human-caused climate change…
Climate scientists are in clear consensus that the devastating climate events of 2019 are in part driven by human-caused climate change, and they say such disasters will only get worse until humanity manages to decarbonize our economies and reduce excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This climate challenge is herculean, but one that is necessary to preserve Earth’s fragile life systems.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-climate-change-report-world-meteorological-organization/
40
= crony capitalists.
21
But,but,but nucular power plants produce huge amounts of “smoke”, just like the coal ones…
61
The problem is not steam engines, coal is the issue, it’s on ABC news often.
lol
21
That’s what I find most frustrating about this whole debate – those screeching loudest about “the science” are generally the most scientifically illiterate.
They bleat about “net zero” emissions but have no understanding of what it means. They don’t even have the most basic understanding of energy.
41
begins with a bang, ends with ***a whimper!
11 Mar: OilPrice: Uber’s Green Competitor Is Riding A $30 Trillion Mega-Trend
By Charles Kennedy
If it’s not green, it’s not millennial–and that’s a big problem for a company like Uber, or Lyft. Millennials love ride-sharing, but they don’t appreciate the CO2 footprint that comes with it…
Millennials are driving a new mega-trend: impact-investing. Facedrive, the first ride-sharing company that lets you plant a tree while you drive, and choose exactly what kind of footprint you want to leave behind, is leading this new trend.
“It’s not just that millennials, and younger generations in general, are increasingly opting out of the expenses and hassles of owning and parking a car,” Facedrive CEO Sayan Navaratnam told Oilprice.com in a recent interview. “It’s phenomenally bigger than that: Millennials demand more conveniences, and they demand that they be green. We are giving them that before anyone else does.”…
“For the first time since WWII we sense a shift in which climate and the environment – not growth – will become the priority of governments and their citizens, as shortages of food, clean water and air become existential questions,” Saxo Bank Chief Economist Steen Jakobsen said in his latest quarterly outlook report.
Green stocks are set to eclipse the current technology monopolies, and even the world’s top oil traders are going green.
Last year alone, 479 green bonds were issued globally–a 25% increase over 2018. And 2020 is going to be a “bumper” year for green, according to Linklaters…
Millennial investors are nearly twice as likely to invest in companies or funds that target specific social or environmental outcomes.
Facedrive got their first, and its ride count has gone from 100 a day just 4 months ago to around ***1,000 rides per day right now – and counting.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Ubers-Green-Competitor-Is-Riding-A-30-Trillion-Mega-Trend.html
10
11 Mar: Phys.org: Permanent magnets stronger than those on refrigerator could be a solution for delivering fusion energy
by John Greenwald, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-permanent-magnets-stronger-refrigerator-solution.html
20
The interesting aspect of this survey is the mantra for this group of warmist believers is follow the science and as shown the science is an area of which they have no idea.
31
best MSM they can get? a letter to FT, behind paywall:
Letter: EU must include nuclear power in its list of sustainable …
Financial Times – 16 Dec 2019
Mark Yelland Greens for Nuclear UK…
17 Dec 2019: WorldNuclearNews: Viewpoint: EU must include nuclear power in its list of sustainable sources
Climate scientist James E Hansen and others have written to the Financial Times, making the case for the inclusion of nuclear power in the EU Sustainable Finance Taxonomy. The text of the letter, published yesterday, and the list of signatories to it, follows…
LETTER
signatories include:
James E Hansen Climate scientist and former director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Mark Yelland ***Greens for Nuclear, UK
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Viewpoint-EU-must-include-nuclear-power-in-its-lis
not much happening here:
Facebook: Greens for Nuclear Energy
https://www.facebook.com/GreensForNuclearEnergy/
or here:
Greens for nuclear energy
A Green Party Nuclear Power Policy fit for the 21st Century
We are members of the Green Party of England & Wales who oppose, and seek to amend the following Green Party Policy on Nuclear Power…READ ON
https://www.greensfornuclear.energy/
20
was Keith Pitt referring to the above letter to FT? Kenny doesn’t follow up.
first 10 minutes re nuclear:
17 Dec 2019: VIDEO: 12m23s: Facebook: Sky News: Chris Kenny Show: Greens in other countries ‘support nuclear energy’
Nationals MP Keith Pitt says the moratorium on nuclear energy “should be lifted” for new technologies like “small modular reactors” noting the “Greens in other countries” are very “supportive” of nuclear energy.
https://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustralia/videos/457600081623637/
10
from The Times, to The Guardian, to BBC and the rest, MSM are singing the same CAGW song:
behind paywall:
11 Mar: UK Times: Budget 2020: Sunak fails to lead way on climate change
The budget was touted in advance as the “greenest ever” but despite commitments on planting trees, reducing plastic waste, building flood defences and capturing carbon it failed to live up to expectations…
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/budget-2020-sunak-fails-to-lead-way-on-climate-change-8r8nzqp93
Budget: missed chance to lead on climate crisis
The Guardian – 15 hours ago
Road to hell: budget tarmacs over climate ambition
The Guardian – 17 hours ago
11 Mar: BBC: Budget 2020: Mixed reaction on environmental issues
By Roger Harrabin
The Budget has simultaneously pleased and infuriated environmentalists by promising long-awaited green measures whilst expanding roads and freezing fuel duty…
But plans for the roads programme could be challenged in the courts for breaching the UK’s laws on climate change.
BBC News revealed recently that the plans don’t take into account commitments on reducing emissions…
Rebecca Newsom from Greenpeace commented: “The Chancellor has completely missed the opportunity to address the climate emergency. He’s driving in the opposite direction.”…
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51835950
10
wishful thinking across the MSM:
12 Mar: Reuters: Nearly $640 billion coal investments undercut by cheap renewables – research
by Nina Chestney
LONDON: Nearly $640 billion of investment in coal power capacity worldwide is at risk because it is cheaper to generate electricity from new renewables, research by think tank Carbon Tracker Initiative showed on Thursday…
PIC: night, chimneys, “smoke”
Globally, 499 gigawatts (GW) of new coal power capacity is planned or under construction with an investment cost of $638 billion…
Carbon Tracker said that in the European Union, 96% of the bloc’s 149 GW of operating coal capacity costs more than new renewables…
In China, the world’s biggest coal producer, $158 billion of investment is at risk, with 100 GW of coal capacity under construction and 106 GW planned…
China has 982 GW of existing coal power, and 71% of this costs more to run than building new renewables.
In India, $80 billion is at risk, with 37 GW of coal power under construction and 29 GW planned. Out of a total 222 GW of existing coal capacity, 51% costs more than new renewables…
The United States has 254 GW of coal capacity, with 47% costing more than new renewables…
However, several governments continue to incentivise new coal capacity, allow the high cost of coal to be passed onto consumers, or subsidise coal operators.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-coal-power/nearly-640-billion-coal-investments-undercut-by-cheap-renewables-research-idUSKBN20Z001
12 Mar: ITV UK: Press Association: Call to cancel new coal plants worldwide as renewables ‘out-compete’ on cost
Coal power developers risk wasting hundreds of billions of pounds as new renewables are now cheaper than new coal plants around the world, a report warns…
In the face of suggestions China is planning to approve new coal plants in the near future, Carbon Tracker urged the country to deploy its stimulus capital “efficiently and avoid investing in coal power which is economically redundant and environmentally disastrous”.
12 Mar: Guardian: Wind and solar plants ***will soon be cheaper than coal in all big markets around world, analysis finds
Report raises fresh doubt about viability of Australia’s thermal coal export industry
by Adam Morton
Christiana Figueres, a former head UN climate chief who oversaw negotiations on the Paris agreement and is in Australian on a book tour, said demand for coal had been diminishing, having been overtaken by cheaper gas-fired power in the US and outpriced by solar in India. She said the price of solar and onshore and offshore wind were falling consistently.
“No one should not assume that the demand for thermal coal from Australia is actually elastic. It’s not,” Figueres said…
headline via google: Coal’s End Moves Closer as Vietnam Turns to Renewables
note what’s not in the actual headline:
12 Mar: Bloomberg: Coal’s Sell-By Date Just Moved Closer
Vietnam, a key customer in the critical Southeast Asian market, is turning away from the fossil fuel.
By Clara Ferreira Marques
Vietnam forecasts power demand will more than double in the coming decade…
Vietnamese coal imports almost doubled in 2019.
Hanoi isn’t turning away altogether from the fuel that provides about 40% of its electricity. Its national energy development plan backs large-capacity and high-efficiency units, plus so-called ultra-supercritical technology, which is less polluting…
Besides other incentives to change, coal also threatens Vietnam’s energy security: The country has been a net importer since 2015, and could have to bring in 100 million metric tons a year to keep the lights on if it expands as planned through 2030.
None of this spells an abrupt end for coal. Vietnam and Indonesia can still provide guarantees that reduce risk for investors, or long-term purchase deals. China and India may push green concerns to the back as they scramble to keep economies moving…
10
It needs to be made very clear to all these dingbats comparing cost of generating capacity that not all kW are created equal. You need 8kW of wind or 10kW of solar to equal 1kW of dispatachable. Then whatever the number you arrive at, double for the lowest cost storage available. Then add on the 4-fold increase in transmission costs.
These dingbats cannot see the bleeding obvious. No jurisdiction installing ambient intermittents has achieved a reduction in cost of electricity. Those with the highest penetration of intermittents have the highest power costs – duh!
11
Take it from me that so many young, and not so young, UK minds have been brainwashed with so much garbage about climate change that the detail of how we can achieve a fossil fuel future goes way over their heads. Even the so called clever clogs that read and write for the Guardian do not seem to understand the concept of baseload power demand and why you need powerful and reliable generators to supply that load 24/7. When you suggest to them that presently its nuclear or nothing they tell you it isn’t true and the greens have all the answers you’ll see… It’s a nightmare to believe that among these generations are our future, I can tell you.
51
11 Mar: NYT: Impact of Coronavirus Is Felt on an Arctic Science Expedition
By Henry Fountain
The coronavirus outbreak has now had an impact on a large climate research expedition in the frozen Arctic Ocean.
While the scientists and crew aboard a German ship that is near the North Pole after drifting with the ice since October are unaffected, one member of a team scheduled to fly research missions as part of the expedition has tested positive for the virus in Germany.
As a result, the flights, which were set to begin from Longyearbyen in northern Norway this month, have been delayed, said Matthew Shupe, a research scientist at the University of Colorado who is a co-coordinator of the expedition, known as Mosaic.
“There was one person who tested positive” from a team of about 20 people, Dr. Shupe said, and that person had been interacting with the others. “Those people are all being quarantined to see how that evolves.”
The positive test and the decision to quarantine team members in their homes in Germany were first reported by Nature.com (LINK)…
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/climate/coronavirus-arctic-mosaic-mission.html
10
11 Mar: Reuters: Coronavirus tops ‘perfect storm’ of climate challenges, says Prince Charles
by Laurie Goering
The spread of the virus has led to the postponement or cancellation of many meetings around the world, including climate change negotiations and diplomacy efforts…
“We end up in a perfect storm now, with threat multipliers in all directions,” he told a gathering of water and climate experts in London, hosted by charity WaterAid.
Charles, patron of the agency which works on global water and sanitation issues, called climate change “the greatest threat humanity has ever faced”…
Nicholas Stern, chairman of the London-based Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said economic changes, from cheaper renewables to surging electric car sales, mean progress toward climate goals is happening…READ ON
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-coronavirus/coronavirus-tops-perfect-storm-of-climate-challenges-says-prince-charles-idUSKBN20X2T5
11 Mar: USA Today: Planet is ‘way off track’ in dealing with climate change, U.N. says
by Doyle Rice
The planet is “way off track” in dealing with climate change, a new United Nations report says, and experts declared that climate change is a far greater threat than the coronavirus.
“It is important that all the attention that needs to be given to fight this disease does not distract us from the need to defeat climate change,” U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said Tuesday, according to Agence France Presse (LINK)…
Although emissions have been reduced due to the virus, Guterres noted that “we will not fight climate change with a virus. Whilst the disease is expected to be temporary, climate change has been a phenomenon for many years, and and will remain with us for decades and require constant action.
“We count the cost in human lives and livelihoods as droughts, wildfires, floods and extreme storms take their deadly toll,” Guterres said…
Professor Brian Hoskins, of Imperial College London, told the Guardian that “the report is a catalogue of weather in 2019 made more extreme by climate change, and the human misery that went with it.
“It points to a threat that is greater to our species than any known virus – we must not be diverted from the urgency of tackling it by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to zero as soon as possible.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/03/11/climate-change-world-way-off-track-dealing-global-warming/5021961002/
10
***a ‘climate progressive’ pathway?
11 Mar: Reuters: Dead meat: Industry faces ‘ruin’ if slow on adapting to climate change
by Simon Jessop
The world’s meat industry must adapt to the challenges posed by climate change and ***growing demand for plant-based alternatives or face ruin, according to a group of investors managing $20 trillion in assets…
Incoming United Nations climate envoy Mark Carney is pushing all companies to use a risk-assessment framework devised by the G20-backed Financial Stability Board’s Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)…
“Investors can see the inescapable truth for the meat sector is that it must adapt to climate change or face ruin in the years ahead,” said Jeremy Coller, Founder of FAIRR and Chief Investment Officer at Coller Capital.
“Conversely, there is also an appetizing prospect of enormous upside if the world’s meat companies shift their protein mix to align with a climate-friendly path.”
Of 43 listed meat companies assessed, only two had publicly disclosed a climate-related scenario analysis, FAIRR said…
***A ‘climate progressive’ pathway would see companies grow alternative proteins faster, and shift feed and livestock mix towards less climate-influenced crops and species, while a ‘climate regressive’ pathway would keep things as they are…
In addition, by 2050 alternative proteins such as plant-based burgers will account for at least 16% of the current meat market, FAIRR’s model forecasts, rising to 62% depending on factors such as technology adoption rates, consumer trends and the potential imposition of a carbon tax on meat.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-meat-investors/dead-meat-industry-faces-ruin-if-slow-on-adapting-to-climate-change-idUSKBN20Z00R
lots of MSM carrying this…besides The Times, behind paywall:
11 Mar: UK Times: Weakened Amazon rainforest facing collapse within 50 years
by Ben Webster
The Amazon rainforest could collapse within 50 years because it has been weakened by deforestation and fires, scientists say.
Natural environments such as forests and coral reefs are much more vulnerable to rapid decline when placed under stress than previously thought.
Scientists analysed data from reports on more than 40 such areas and used computer models to estimate how long it would take them to collapse.
They said that the Amazon rainforest could turn into a savannah with a mix of trees and grass in just 49 years after it reaches a “tipping point”.
Simon Willcock, of Bangor University and joint lead author on the study, said that the tipping point may already have been reached for the Amazon because of recent fires, climate change and deforestation…
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/weakened-amazon-rainforest-facing-collapse-within-50-years-6sq3hfwj5
20
behind paywall:
12 Mar: UK Telegraph: The West’s neglect of science has left us chillingly exposed to deadly pandemics
By Sherelle Jacobs
The global elite don’t want you to know that the scale of this crisis was categorically avoidable…
We need to redirect university financing away from climate change predictive modelling, into the scientifically uncontested problem of pandemics…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/03/12/wests-neglect-science-has-left-us-chillingly-exposed-deadly
30
11 Mar: ThomsonReutersFoundation: FEATURE-Electric vehicle push struggles to accelerate in Pakistan
by Imran Mukhtar
ISLAMABAD: As Pakistan’s first-ever electric three-wheeled rickshaws start to roll off the assembly line, the country is struggling to build momentum for its shift to electric vehicles in efforts to cut air pollution and curb climate change.
It has been four months since Prime Minister Imran Khan’s cabinet approved the National Electric Vehicle Policy, offering tax exemptions and incentives to manufacturers, importers and buyers of electric vehicles.
But pushback by traditional automakers has stalled the government’s finalising of the policy, leaving electric vehicle (EV) makers worried that eco-friendly cars, vans, motorcycles and rickshaws will remain too expensive for the mass market…
Sazgar’s electric rickshaw can travel up to 170 km (105 miles) on a charge, has almost no moving parts – which means fewer trips to the mechanic – and produces zero emissions, (Syed Ismail Ghaznavi, sales head at Sazgar Engineering Works) pointed out.
“But we need the government support to roll it out on a larger scale for the public,” he said…
To encourage prospective (EV) buyers, the government says it aims to lower or do away with various taxes on electric vehicles and bring down customs duty for imported parts to 1%.
It also plans to establish fast charging stations in all major cities and along major motorways and highways every 15-30 km (9-18 miles).
But some automobile manufacturers are pushing back, saying that creating incentives specifically for electric vehicles unfairly benefits the nascent industry while leaving the traditional automobile sector floundering…
“Our only concern is that there should be only one auto policy and not a separate policy for EVs,” Abdul Waheed Khan, director general of the Pakistan Automotive Manufacturers Association, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation…
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-transport-electric-feature/electric-vehicle-push-struggles-to-accelerate-in-pakistan-idUSKBN20Y1WW
10
test
[ What are you testing ? ] AD
01
test 2
01
11 Mar updated 12 Mar: SBS: It’s time to win climate wars, NSW Environment Minister Matt Kean says
by AAP-SBS
NSW Environment Minister Matt Kean says it’s time to stop “futile arguments” about whether climate change exists and “win the climate wars”…
In the wake of a devastating bush fire season, Mr Kean wants an end to “futile arguments” about whether climate change exists.
He told an Affinity Intercultural Foundation event on Wednesday people had weaponised climate change for too long and to the country’s detriment.
He stressed reducing emissions didn’t need to come at the expense of the economy.
“That’s something that has been absent from the debate for a long time. The economics have changed dramatically,” Mr Kean said at the Sydney event.
“Right now, it presents an enormous economic opportunity for our nation that’d be too good to miss.”
Mr Kean said renewables backed up by pumped hydro offered the cheapest way to deliver electricity, adding, “It’s not nuclear, it’s not coal, it’s not gas.”…
He said the global push to reduce emissions would require trillions of dollars of investment in low-emissions technology and he wanted a big slice of that money coming into NSW…
“There’s no country on the planet better placed to take advantage of a low-carbon world than Australia,” he said.
“We’ve got masses of land, we’ve got some of the best wind and solar sources anywhere on the planet.”…
He said the right of Australian politics hadn’t been showing the leadership they should have for a long time.
“It’s time for that to change.
“As someone on the right of Australian politics, the reason I’m there is because I believe in the power of markets. I’m a capitalist.”
Mr Kean told the event he intended to win the nuclear debate after Deputy Premier John Barilaro said the Nationals would support a bill to repeal state bans on uranium mining and nuclear facilities.
“For the people arguing for nuclear, you’re actually arguing for more expensive electricity which is less safe and dirtier. I don’t think that’s a good argument,” he said.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/it-s-time-to-win-climate-wars-nsw-environment-minister-matt-kean-says
20
all up it will cost taxpayers $640m. Matt Kean says it’s bigger than Liddell, but that’s only after the 300,000 households target is met:
Youtube: 2m11s: 28 Feb: Channel 10 News – Natural Solar – NSW Empowering Homes Scheme launch
posted by Natural Solar
Natural Solar welcomed NSW Energy Minister Matthew Kean to tour our warehouse and officially launch the NSW Empowering Homes Scheme today as seen on Channel 10 News.
The NSW Empowering Homes Scheme aims to deliver 300,000 batteries to NSW Households across the next 10 years through interest free solar and battery loans.
Natural Solar is delighted to be partaking in this sensational initiative for NSW households
ONE COMMENT ONLY:
Mister Tracks: amazing stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULGPJ69FceM
20
Matt Kean can’t do arithmetic. That 30,000 (3,000 by 10 MW) is delivered once a day. Even at 50% CF Liddell would deliver 36,000MWh in a day. And Liddell doesn’t need to stop on cloudy days.
Also at $285 saving a quarter it would take over 12 years to pay back the loan. Unless all that CHEAP electricity forces UP prices.
21
And residential power consumption only makes up 30% of the overall consumption for the State of NSW.
If he hopes to supply 30000MWH with his batteries, all he needs to do now is to find a way to deliver the other 180,000MW per day.
Tony.
31
Me too!
300,000 batteries at 10 kWh = 3,000 MWh. per day. Still less than Liddell which would (@50% C.F. deliver 24,000MWh in a day..
The figures for $285 savings p.a. mean that a top-up of $28.17 per week tp pay off the loan in 8 years.
The figures for $685 savings p.a. mean that a top-up of $20.48 per week tp pay off the loan in 8 years.
Then they will own the battery etc. outright just about the time the inverter dies, and the battery loses capacity from the constant deep draw down.
00
Can’t find it but I immediately thought of the old Wizard of Id cartoon where the peasants ask (paraphrasing) “If the people of Russia are russians, and those from Cyprus are cypriots, what does that make us?”
New answer: The same as Matt Kean.
21
Graeme No.3
thanx for checking the numbers. I didn’t believe them anyway. plus, by the time the program rolls out, there’ll surely be plenty of batteries – and even some panels – that already need replacing.
Matt Kean is a doozy:
Mike Baird: Former premier being wooed for federal politics
Daily Telegraph – 8 Mar 2020
and Environment Minister Matt Kean compared his former state colleague to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. “Mike Baird is a future potential prime minister,” he said. “He should one day run. He’d be Australia’s Justin Trudeau.”
5 Mar: AFR: Mike Baird stands down from NAB
by James Eyers
National Australia Bank boss Ross McEwan is expected to look externally for a new head of consumer banking, after Mike Baird announced his departure after three years there to “consider new opportunities”.
There has been speculation Mr Baird, who was Liberal premier of NSW between 2014 and 2017, might consider seeking pre-selection for the federal seat of Warringah and run against independent Zali Steggal, who unseated former prime minister Tony Abbott.
However, it is understood Mr Baird, who lives in the seat on Sydney’s northern beaches, is not interested in another political career…
https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/mike-baird-stands-down-from-nab-20200305-p5471k
20
F1 GP cancelled this morning.
Cannot see the AFL season going ahead. May not see the last rounds of the AFLW.
21
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
etc.
Source: Electroverse, Originally posted by grumpydenier.wordpress.com and reposted by climatism.blog on March 7, 2020
00
List of comments from former IPCC contributors once they’ve eventually left the political organization and are no longer subject to any bullying and financial repercussions:
Dr Robert Balling: The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
Plus 37 more comments. Source: Electroverse
20
Highly relevant.
10
Not only is atomic power low-carbon-dioxide, but [Carbon dioxide is more dangerous than plutonium] – Guardian
00