JoNova

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


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

The transformation to coal continues: Hungary declares emergency, revives brown coal, Greece aims to quadruple coal

It’s just another day in the global energy crisis: Years of climate goals are evaporating

USD Euro

When your currency is backed by renewables…  |   1 year of Euro/USD

The threat of the Russians cutting off gas completely through Nord stream 1 has focused Europe on the blessings of coal and the reality of surviving winter with only windmills and solar panels to keep warm.

Germany, France, Austria, Netherlands, and the UK have already changed plans to shut coal plants or have plans to revive old ones. Poland is buying coal directly for homes. Hungary has now also declared a state of emergency and said it will boost gas production and stop exports. No sharing allowed now.

Only two years ago Greece was going green — phasing out brown coal but now the Greek power corporation has been told to stop the phase out of coal. Last year lignite provided only 5% of the electricity in Greece, now the aim is 20%.

Hungary declares ‘state of emergency’ over threat of energy shortages

Euronews

Budapest says it will boost its annual production of natural gas from 1.5 billion cubic metres to 2 billion cubic metres. The EU member state also plans to increase the extraction of coal and restore an offline lignite-fired power plant in Matra.

Energy exports will be banned, and Hungary’s only nuclear power plant will extend its operating times to increase production, Gulyás said on Wednesday. Citizens have also been ordered to “moderate their consumption or pay the surplus at the market price”. The measures — which go against Hungary’s climate commitments — are set to go into effect in August.

Earlier on Wednesday, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó also announced that Hungary would seek to buy an additional 700 million cubic metres of gas from an unknown country.

Greece to Use Lignite Again as Fuel Alternative Due to Energy Crisis

Greek Reporter

Greece is planning to ramp up the use of lignite as an alternative power source to natural gas, which has become extremely expensive in the wake of the war in Ukraine. Lignite, or brown coal, is formed from naturally compressed peat and has a carbon content of around 35 percent. Greece is the tenth largest producer of lignite while Germany is the first. In 2020, Mitsotakis announced a plan to cease the burning of lignite in all of the country’s power plants by 2023, save for at the Ptolemaida 4 power plant, which would be shut down by 2028.

Yet, the Greek Public Power Corporation (DEH) has already been asked to stop its efforts of phasing out lignite, and Mitsotakis himself ordered lignite mining to be ramped up by 50 percent in April. Kostas Skrekas, Greek Minister of the Environment and Energy, told DEH to up the percentage of lignite in its electricity source to 17 to 20 percent from 5 percent, as it was last year.

Remember when coal was a stranded asset?

The end of coal? Why investors aren't buying the myth of the industry's 'renaissance'

The Guardian, Dec 2020

All those poor investors who read The Guardian…

Speaking of investors: after two years China is rumoured to be talking of reversing the ban on Australian metallurgical coal used in making steel.

Aussie coal companies bouncing on rumour of China ban reversal

News.com

Australian exports account for 58 per cent of the global seaborne trade or metallurgical coal, a vital ingredient in steelmaking. China meanwhile loves to make steel, accounting for 57 per cent of world steel production in 2020. However, there are rumours that China may be preparing to reverse its unofficial ban on Australian coal imports in August or September.

10 out of 10 based on 81 ratings

247 comments to The transformation to coal continues: Hungary declares emergency, revives brown coal, Greece aims to quadruple coal

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Check out share prices on the ASX for NHC, WHC, YAL,… prices have more than doubled since last year. Woodside WDS also doing well but linked more to oil price.

    220

    • #
      Mike Jonas

      Price of coal (MarketInsider https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/coal-price?op=1):
      15/7/2021: $132
      15/7 2022: $393
      [which type of coal is not specified]

      50

      • #
        RickWill

        That is thermal coal price. It is the first time thermal coal has exceeded met coal in price.

        Met coal is higher rank but usually shipped with more moisture. Still hard to believe that lower rank coal is commanding a higher price.

        I expect there would be hot spot problems in boilers if they change to higher heat value coal without adjustment to burners. So the high price for lower rank coal should be temporary.

        Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal averages almost 3 tonne per second. So almost USD1200/second in export income for Australia but not Australian owned businesses. And that is just one of the coal terminals. There are three others in Qld and two more in NSW of similar size.

        80

    • #
      mareeS

      Talking to a friend in the Newcastle Hunter Coal Chain today, said even if China lifts its ban, Hunter mines and Newcastle port are working at full capacity without the former China trade, and could not supply Chinese orders even if they did lift their bans.

      China seems to have shot itself in the foot here. Such a shame.

      90

    • #
      Carl

      I have 2/3 of my super with a super fund that emailed me that they are getting out of coal etc. 1/3 of my super is an an SMSF. I went all in for coal and a bit of Woodside. Newhope Coal, and Whitehaven Coal. Doubled my money. If the funds are going green, I’m going the opposite to get a bit of balance.

      30

  • #
    ExWarmist

    The bottomline, the ready availability of Russian gas enabled the whole Green/Renewables movement in Europe.

    Without the gas, the fantasy is revealed.

    550

  • #
    Graham Richards

    As usual our mob of plonkers in Canberra are hell bent on going in the opposite direction in pursuit of their ideology. Global Warming will be the death of another Australian government. Why must the electorate suffer economic hardship for the vanity of these dumb bass socialists like Airbus Albo & Chris Bowen. Dare we forecast that the Coalition will reverse the insanity or will their WEF trained members still have a majority to continue the policies of the WEF/UN .
    I don’t recall ever voting for the WEF or the UN! Do you??

    660

    • #
      Simon

      Because increasing atmospheric CO2 is a significant problem. For those of you who have problems with the physics, here is the simplest explanation you are going to get: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/07/the-cos2-problem-in-six-easy-steps-2022-update/

      594

      • #
        Eng_Ian

        Have you personally made any changes to your lifestyle?

        I would hope that you respond to this request with a detailed list of what you have done. In addition, I hope you haven’t just transferred your output of CO2 to others, for example, Australia reduces steel production and now we buy it from China. Or, you no longer drive a petrol powered car, you drive a coal powered one. You eat locally produced produce and would not consider consuming produce that has been shipped around the world using fossil fuels. Or, your electrical supply is 100% renewable, yet your supplier can provide no details of any storage devices within their network that could supply their complete customer base for the period that there is insufficient W&S, (including any recharge loads, if applicable), and of course, you would have seen an audit of this to verify it.

        Hope to see a good list. Surely you aren’t just shooting from the hip with no personal commitment.

        660

        • #
          b.nice

          [SNIP – Simon is not the topic.]

          371

        • #
          David Maddison

          Have you personally made any changes to your lifestyle?

          I have never seen a Leftist make significant (or any) changes “to save the planet” apart from perverse virtual signaling such as buying Teslas.

          The more wealthy ones continue to fly around the world in private jets doing the climate crisis conference circuit. They can’t even bring themselves to fly by commercial airlines.

          451

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          >”I would hope that you [Simon] respond to this request with a detailed list of what you have done”

          Well he did buy an EV. Probably got the rebate/subsidy the NZ govt extracts from new diesels and large ICE vehicles.

          So….

          Buy a diesel
          Subsidize an EV
          Save The Planet!

          70

        • #
          b.nice

          Every person in modern society is totally dependent on carbon based fuels for every facet of their lives.

          Their houses, their transport, their internet.. EVERYTHING !

          They can make minor, trivial changes in an attempt to virtue-seek, but it does not change their ABSOLUTE RELIANCE on fossil fueled energy supplies.

          100

        • #
          Serge Wright

          There should be a mandatory list for those pushing the green alarmism
          – Vegan and insect diet
          – Off grid living
          – Hemp clothing
          – No motor vehicle – bicycle and walking only
          – No aircraft travel, or ship
          – Tiny house accommodation
          – No children

          Did I miss any ?

          40

          • #
            Bozotheclown

            -No metals
            -No plastics
            -No synthetic fabrics
            -No leather
            -Only hand-grown foods (no tractors no fertilizer)

            40

      • #
        b.nice

        “Because increasing atmospheric CO2 is a significant problem.”

        More anti-science codswallop !

        Posting links to erroneous AGW mantra, doesn’t help your cause one little bit.

        A mantra based on ignorance and deceit… for the GULLIBLE and IGNORANT to follow.

        1. Yes there is a natural warming effect of the atmosphere, due to atmospheric mass retaining energy.

        The Trenberth diagram is travesty !

        2. Proven by actual measurements that the absorption in the tiny weak CO2 band is translated to the atmospheric window

        https://ibb.co/mhyCFky ie CO2 does not block any energy, in fact it aid in energy transfer.

        3. We can be highly thankful for the increase in atmospheric CO2.. the whole planet’s ecosphere depends on it.

        4. Oh dearie me.. models (lol) that forget that net radiative transfer is dependent of temperature gradient. (S-B law)

        5. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is immeasurable, and has never been measured, but most probably ZERO

        6. Radiative forcing of CO2 = zero.. Climate sensitivity = zero.. zero x zero = ZERO !

        [SNIP ad hom]

        Also remember, that NOT ONE of the many predictions from the AGW glitterati has come true… ever.. but those predictions allow them to advance in the pecking order.

        They are the epitome of Dunning Krugger. !

        Extra atmospheric CO2 is a total blessing to all life on the planet.

        Why hate CO2 ?

        820

      • #
        b.nice

        And Gavin’s last line is real hoot !!

        “and is going to get more so until emissions cease”

        Well bad luck, Gav, they ain’t gunna cease now, or anytime in the foreseeable future.

        They will continue to increase as more and more of the developing countries realise the total benefit of solid, reliable energy supply

        And the planet will just LOVE that extra atmospheric CO2 🙂

        440

      • #
        Maptram

        As most of us know, plants have the technology, called photosynthesis, to convert CO2 to carbon and oxygen, but the CO2 must be available to the plants. Perhaps the CO2 emitted at low levels in the atmosphere, from activities such as transport, burning coal to produce electricity, heat etc, to name a couple, are readily available to plants. But what about the emissions from upper atmosphere activities such as air travel? How long does such CO2 remain in the atmosphere?

        Then there is methane. We keep hearing that methane is also one of those horrible greenhouse gases. But, in higher concentrations, methane is a flammable gas. So what happens when methane molecules meet an energy source such as infrared radiation?

        90

        • #
          Chris

          Methane breaks down in the northern summer near the equator by UV light. The free C and H atoms re bond with O2 to produce the essentials CO2 and H2O. Photosynthesis releases excess O into the atmosphere, this oxygen molecule comes from water NOT from the CO2 . Without CO2 and photosynthesis there would be NO free Oxygen in the atmosphere.

          230

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        In 1981, NASA’s James Hansen, the initiator of the CO2 scare in the late 80’s, put out a paper showing a lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature and confirmed the 70’s cooling. In fact, the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere decreased by about 0.5°C between 1940 and 1970, a time of rapid C02 build up.

        And in 1988 he claimed that The Maldives and lower Manhattan would be underwater by 2018. And in 2018, when questioned about those predictions NOT happening, he insisted that they would still come true.

        280

      • #
        • #
          Graeme No.3

          That’s the same as Guy Callendar put out in 1938.
          Simon will be pleased! Peer reviewed settled science.

          00

      • #
        RickWill

        Because increasing atmospheric CO2 is a significant problem.

        How can you believe this drivel when the Southern Ocean is in long term temperature decline, the Equator no temperature trend and the Northern Hemisphere doing what is expected when it gets more intense sunlight:
        https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/NCEP_Three_Trends-3-1657607161.2964.png

        You can verify all of these trends on the Climate Explorer Website – DDG it.

        How could CO2 be selective in what part of the globe it warms, cools and leaves untouched?

        Climate models do not incorporate the change in solar intensity due to orbital precession. 500 years ago was the last time orbit perihelion occurred before 22nd December, the austral summer solstice. By 2020, perihelion occurred on 5th January. This means the Northern Hemisphere is in a long warming trend while the Southern Hemisphere is in a cooling trend. CO2 does zip for Earth’s energy balance. It is hugely beneficial in accelerating accumulation of biomass on land, which moderates temperature swings.

        Look at how well the CSIRO model predicted the measured temperature in the Nino34 region:
        https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Nino34_CSIRO_CIMP3-1657699214.0072.png
        Worse than useless. CSIRO do not have a clue how Earth’s climate actually works. They still believe that open oceans can sustain more 30C despite the obvious fact they cannot.

        The only explanation CSIRO offer for this is that their model is “middle of the road”. They do not care about reality. CSIRO and BoM have colluded on climate modelling and BoM ensures Australia shows an upward trend in temperature by fiddling the data..

        You can verify everything I have written above by doing your own research.

        380

        • #
          Russell

          And “middle of the road” is not such a good place to be.
          You can get hit by people going in both directions.
          Better to stay in one lane and go with the flow – for CSIRO “science” that would have to be the Left lane.

          40

      • #
        Gnrnr

        Cool story Bro. Rising CO2 is not a problem at all. All you have is modelling based on modelling and none of it relates back to actual measurements or happenings in the real world. The temps are not rising as fast as predicted and sea level is not rising any faster than it did before 1900.

        240

      • #
        GlenM

        People here have tried continually to drum into your conditioned brain the nature of radiative physics pertaining to CO2, but you revert to ersatz science. I’m star6to think that you don’t think at all. Just regurgitate trash.

        220

      • #
        NuThink

        Simon,
        What is the optimum ppm of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere?
        Too many talk about the increase but surely there must be an optimum amount.
        We may even be below the optimum.

        Just give a number without the waffle.

        220

        • #
          David Maddison

          What is the optimum ppm of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere?

          It’s not nearly enough now.

          I’d like to see it around 800-1000ppm which is optimal for many plants, some plants as much as 1500ppm. It should conservatively be kept below 5000ppm at which point it starts to be possibly problematic for humans although the US Navy set a maximum safe limit of 8000ppm on their submarines.

          Most people are unaware how dangerously low CO2 became. It came close to as low as 150-200ppm at which point plants would have died and there would have been a mass extinction event.

          It’s good that it’s naturally rising.

          190

        • #
          Ronin

          “Just give a number without the waffle.

          Not possible , I’m afraid.

          50

      • #
        TdeF

        “The sources of these increases are dominated by the burning of fossil fuels, landfills, mining, oil and gas operations, agriculture (especially livestock for methane), and industry.” This is demonstrably wrong idea at the base of all this proven nonsense, based on no science at all.

        The CO2 vs time graph is another ‘hockey stick’ where slow averages from ice cores are bolted onto modern instantaneous measurements, just as the discredited Michael Mann graph where he bolted tree ring proxies. Whatever produced the Little Ice Age (not explained by CO2) simply reversed. It is highly improper in science to mix measurement techniques like this. You cannot bolt old slow average data onto rapid new data and have any credibility. It always produces a hockey stick.

        There is no global warming, no rapid sea rise, as if that was not extremely obvious after 34 years. That’s the problem with religions, people will not admit it was made up.

        260

        • #
          TdeF

          The Little Ice Age has been wiped from history. It was in Victorian times that the Thames stopped freezing, something which did not happen in the time of the Tudors. Michael Mann could not explain it, nor the Medieval warming nor the very warm Roman period. So he wiped them from his temperature graph.

          Until you can explain why it was freezing in 1870, warming after 1870 has no credibility. Two things going up at once is not proof. That happens. And why CO2 producing warming? That’s unlikely. Warming producing CO2? That makes perfect sense when you are told 98% of all gaseous CO2 is dissolved in the oceans like soda water. And self appointed Climate Scientists tell you it is unable to participate in the equilibrium of CO2. Absolute rubbish.

          For example radio carbon dating shows the CO2 at the bottom of the 3.5km deep oceans is only 300 years old. That means it has been at the top of the atmosphere within the last 300 years. The top of the atmosphere is only 2% of all CO2, so that’s a cycle period of 300/50 or 6 years. Not the 80 years quoted by the IPCC. All CO2 in the ocean is involved in the chemical equilibrium which determines CO2 levels and NOTHING humans do can change CO2 Levels, as can be seen from any graph of CO2. Spot the human activity like WW1, WW2, atom bombs, bush fires. Nothing. There is no sign of the total shutdown of the planet, so why bother?

          That’s why no one talks about total CO2. They all talk about emissions as in toxic emissions. And to make it seem even worse, they talk about per capita CO2 which makes all Australians into villains and the Chinese into heroes. Of course.

          280

          • #
            David Maddison

            The Little Ice Age has been wiped from history.

            Tony Heller has documented how NASA and NOAA deleted it from the records.

            130

      • #
        Ross

        I’m going to say Simon is just Jo masquerading as Simon in order to get some reaction and fill up the comments. Its just hilarious how he ( or she???) throws in those hand grenade comments and then just sits back and watches the red thumbs. What’s your record for red thumbs Simon?

        72

        • #
          Forrest Gardener

          Pavlov would certainly be proud of the conditioned response to the posts inserted under the name of Simon.

          Frankly fellows I feel a little embarrassed about the wasted electrons.

          21

          • #
            GreatAuntJanet

            Nah, I enjoyed reading every single one. Not being that knowledgeable or articulate myself, I do appreciate the repartee I’d like to be able to deliver myself.

            60

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          >…hilarious how he [Simon] throws in those hand grenade comments and then just sits back and watches the red thumbs”

          Thing is, the same rebuttals have been put to him over and over and over….and at another blog previous to this too.

          He is unable, and unwilling anyway, to refute the rebuttals on a point-by-point basis so just walks away. Then comes back with the same tired simplistic refrain ad nauseum.

          But the climate is winning – anthropogenic global warming is busted. They (Schmidt et al) claimed, fraudulently, the 2015/16 El Nino for AGW. That was their last gasp but that’s passed. Cooling has begun in the Southern Hemisphere:

          2m T Anomaly
          https://i0.wp.com/electroverse.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/gfs_nh-sat7_t2anom_1-day-5.png?w=800&ssl=1

          Climate 1 – Simon 0.

          [And there is a Spam-like quality to commenters who keep starting a conversation they won’t finish and who repeat material. – Jo]

          20

      • #

        Atmospheric Physics for Simon. Here is the simplest explanation you are going to get from the Mensa Debating Forum and Tallbloke: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/

        “Simple Proof” that radiative heating & gravitational heating do not occur. The reason being that the random nature of the movement of molecules means that half of the molecules moving towards the radiation or away from the gravity field, are slowed down or cooled. So then radiative forcing or gravitational forcing is real, but only positive for half of the molecules. So in reality no heat is created in this process.

        Simple Proof that “Pressure-induced Thermal Inertia” is true, and not “Radiative or Gravitational Forcing”, is the fact that the average temperature at the one bar pressure points on each of the planets, is the same, adjusted for distance from the Sun, despite the different main gases, Nitrogen for the Earth & Titan, Hydrogen for Jupiter, Neptune, Saturn & Uranus and Carbon Dioxide for Venus.

        So understanding that warming on Venus is produced by molar mass, proves that the assumption that there is a natural greenhouse effect or that radiative forcing exists is a disproved assumption.

        I remember that it was noted that “realclimate” do not like to mention Henrys Law, Max Planck or high energy Galactic Cosmic Rays.

        120

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Simon >Schmidt – “The IPCC AR6 report used the most up-to-date estimates from Etminan et al (2016) which are similar but slightly more complicated than the simplified, oft-used formula for CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) (seen in Table 6.2 in IPCC TAR).”

        2000-2010 = 5.35 ln(C/Co)
        2010 390.10, 2000 369.71
        0.287 W.m2/decade

        Berkeley Labs actually did some observations:

        The series covers 11-years (2000-2010). It includes,300 measurements taken from Oklahoma, and,300 from Alaska. According to the authors, “Both series revealed the same trend: Atmospheric CO2 emits an increasing amount infrared energy. This is about 0.2 Watts per sq m per decade.”
        https://dosthana.com/berkeley-lab-scientific-evidence-of-increasing-co2s-greenhouse-effects/

        A miniscule amount – lost in the forcings of natural variation that are orders of magnitude greater (cloudiness/watervapour, dimming/brightening etc – see IPCC) and the entire CO2 effect is only 6-7% of Downwelling Longwave Radiation (DLR) in the US Std Atm 1976 to 2000s (Wang & Liang 2009). So at Darwin (400 W.m2 DLR approx) the CO2 “forcing” is only 0.05% of total DLR (0.2/400).

        This is a negligible consideration.

        60

        • #
          b.nice

          The ONLY way you can measure change in CO2 radiation is by creating a negative temperature profile using a supercooled sensor.

          That means it has absolutely ZERO real forcing effect.

          40

        • #
          b.nice

          Also, if you look at the paper, you will see that this so-called “forcing” was actually model derived.

          https://i.ibb.co/jykDT9T/Feldman-2015-CO2-forcing-is-derived-from-temperature-and-modeled-spectra.jpg

          60

          • #
            Richard C (NZ)

            >”…this so-called “forcing” was actually model derived”

            IPCCs TOA paradigm. This is contrived “science”.

            They ditched ‘surface forcing’ in AR4 but still write screeds on surface forcing ever since (Observations: Atmosphere).

            So then they insert a model-derived “CO2 forcing” into their Global Climate Models (GCMs) and the models run too warm.

            They even identify the main problem (CO2 forcing probably too great – natch) but persevere nonetheless.

            It is inevitable that some time soon they will have to acknowledge that the paradigm is broken but there’s too much vested in it to kill it off (pays too well).

            50

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Next problem of course is that the miniscule 0.2 W.m2/decade at the height of human emissions is not a heating agent on surface materials anyway e.g. water: Segelstein or Hale & Querry or Wieliczka.

        Optical Absorption of Water Compendium
        https://omlc.org/spectra/water/abs/index.html

        100 micron absorption of DLR (IR-C) of which CO2 is a minor component (7%) will never heat water.

        Simon >”…increasing atmospheric CO2 is a significant problem”

        Basically, as evidenced by the above, the whole CO2 “forcing” idea being a “significant problem” is a bust – a negligible Occam’s Razor discard.

        50

      • #
        el+gordo

        ‘Because increasing atmospheric CO2 is a significant problem.’

        Unproven, on the evidence available CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.

        101

        • #
          TdeF

          My contribution since I started writing is that if man made CO2 is not true, whether extra CO2 causes warming (notwithstanding whether warming is bad) is irrelevant. If we cannot control CO2, the whole business is absurd, a fraud. And Nett Zero is a fraud on a fraud, non science.

          Human CO2 is only 3-4% of the annual CO2 output of the planet. Our contribution is nothing more than noise. And the 96% level is set by simple principle of physical chemistry known as Henry’s Law. Heat the ocean surface and CO2 comes out. Cool it and CO2 goes in. That happens from the Arctic which absorbs CO2 to the tropics which release CO2. And you can see the seasonal variations in the CO2 graph where you cannot see anything else, not a bushfire and certainly not the COVID induced world shutdown. That proves nothing we do in say swapping to electric cars will make a jot of difference.

          130

          • #
            TdeF

            And who said warming was bad? Anyone? The 14% increase in CO2 since 1990 has also seen a 14% increase in green cover, more than Brazil in area, but the Greens ignore this. Crops are up, deserts are vanishing. What’s the problem?

            How can CO2 go up and Green cover go up? Doesn’t that contradict the fantasy equilibrium where trees go up and CO2 goes down?

            Then CO2 warming of the air does NOT explain the obvious ocean warming. So even NASA is arguing that the air did not warm and the oceans warmed because the oceans ‘stole’ the heat. That’s patently ridiculous.

            However oceans are warming and CO2 is going up, so what would anyone conclude from that? Warming increases CO2. Tim Flannery is a dill. A man with a beer knows that.

            130

      • #
        MichaelB

        Simon,
        That is mainly unsupported (junk) science that fits the activist narrative. The current evidence shows no significant global warming, arctic ice extents at high levels, and no significant sea-level rise that cannot be explained by the warming trend following the Little Ice Age.

        It doesn’t matter who you quote, you can’t fool nature – just look at the evidence, and even more importantly, the history of climate.

        In addition, all the references in the article you linked to are from the same ‘Journal of Geophysical Research’ and ‘Reviews of Geophysics’. Radiative forcing physics is outside the area of geophysical ‘experts’.

        Further, one of the papers cited is J. Hansen, “Efficacy of climate forcings“. In the opinions of many, James Hansen from NASA is the ‘Father of Climate Junk Science’ and widely discredited.

        Physicist Freeman Dyson criticised Hansen’s climate-change activism in 2009. “The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers… Hansen has turned his science into ideology.”

        Maybe you should review some of the work by physicist William Happer, who is a retired Professor of Physics at Princeton University, and not reliant on a stream of taxpayer funding to keep churning out the same tired and unsupported alarmist predictions. You might want to read one of his recent papers: Wijngaarden and Happer (2020) “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases” from the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics.

        Real science – not activism or money-grabbing ideology peddling.

        40

      • #
        Ronin

        No mention in Gaavins diatribe of CO2s logarithmic decline of effect as atmospheric concentration increases, is there, or did I miss it among all the waffle.

        30

      • #
        Lance

        For Australia, here’s the simplest things can get. Even assuming the AGW crowd has a point, which I don’t believe.

        Atmospheric CO2 = 400 ppm = 0.04% of atmosphere by volume = 0.0004 of total amount
        Human contribution to CO2 content: 3% = 0.03 of total. The rest is naturally occurring without humans at all.
        AU contribution to CO2: 1.3% = 0.013 of total amount.

        So, AU contributes 0.013 x 0.03 x 0.0004 = 0.000000156 = 1.56 E -7 of the Worlds CO2. Or 0.156 ppm.

        Australia is statistically a zero player in AGW whether it uses all available coal/gas/oil or none at all.

        The smartest thing AU can do is help its own people and let others destroy their nations for no net benefit.

        AU should tell the IPCC/WEF/EU to go get stuffed.

        170

      • #
        R.B.

        Step 1 – the Earth is warmer than the moon because the oceans absorb , store and transport the heat around. That 15° C is what you would expect from just a spread of 290 K at the Moon’s equator compared to the 30 K spread of the sea surface, if all else were equal.

        I did not debunk the greenhouse effect, it’s just a lie that you can deduce that Thermaggedon is about to happen from the temperature difference. I have yet to get a reply to the question of what the difference in mean temperature would be of a proper black body compared to a sphere of an infinite number of individual (one sided) black bodies. Neither the Earth nor Moon are either, but the calculations start from what mean temperature a black body would be. Hint, my back of envelope gave me a difference of 2&;radic 2

        10

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Simon >”For those of you who have problems with the physics…”

        Problems with “the” physics seems to be with Schmidt’s physics.

        When Schmidt says “IR” he is actually referring to IR-C – the 3 orders of magnitude lower energy-per-photon radiation than solar IR-A/B and of no consequence in terms of planetary heating (the sun heats the ocean in the tropics).

        In the Step 1 graphic there’s a distinction:

        Earth’s Energy Budget
        https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/ceres-poster-011-v2.jpg

        Solar IR-A/B radiation (163.3) is “absorbed by surface” i.e. a heating flux, but terrestrial IR-C is not absorbed and therefore not a heating flux at the surface. And Net terrestrial IR-C is an outgoing 57.9 W.m2 OLR – a cooling flux.

        Thus, along with extremely weak energy-per-photon, there cannot be any warming of the earth’s surface by terrestrial radiation (IR-C).

        But Schmidt takes the leap with the first mention of temperature in Step 5:

        Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2

        There is no proof, in terms of radiation-matter interaction (i.e. physics) in Steps 1 to 6 that terrestrial radiation (IR-C) creates any surface heating – it is actually impossible

        30

      • #
        Philip

        Yes I remember agreeing with what Simon believes when I was in grade 10.

        10

      • #
        el+gordo

        Congrats Simon, your casual uttering has produced a lot of intellectual discussion.

        21

        • #
          paul courtney

          Mr. gordo: Indeed, in this case the gaslighter tried to gaslight the wrong crowd. He evidently is impervious to the pain of getting torched. Over and over.

          00

      • #
        Wet Mountains

        Were your parents condescending to you? You do it so well, you must have had years of practice.

        00

    • #
      Lawrie

      Some of their WEF members either retired or were defeated at the election. Good riddance. Littleproud has been thumping the nuclear drum today on 2GB, the biggest morning radio show in Sydney and Brisbane. He sounds committed now they have to drag the Liberals with them. I have a feeling Dutton may be weakening which is a shame. I am surprised there are so many Liberals who believe conservatives want more green rubbish. That’s the trouble with having young, uneducated advisors.

      70

      • #
        Graeme#4

        Littleproud was also quoted in today’s The Australian. So now we have two politicians prepared to stand up. Wish they had done it earlier.

        10

  • #
    John Galt III

    The Enviro-Fascists don’t want nuclear beacuse it works, so they get governments to ban it whiel throwing Great Thunberg type tantrums and lying about nuclear’s superiorty as a source of electrical generation.

    Well, now that coal usage will double or triple, maybe these idiotic greenie/weenie Communists might want to rethink their anti-nuke position.

    240

    • #
      another ian

      What odds do you reckon you’d get from a bookie for a bet on that?

      90

    • #
      Lawrie

      I am glad you included communist in their descriptor for that is what they are. They are not working for Australia, they are working for the Chinese. Don’t believe me? Who benefits and who loses by their actions?

      10

  • #
    David Maddison

    Meanwhile in one of the stupidest countries in the world, down here in Terra Australis, we shut down coal plant and immediately, with extreme urgency, destroy it.

    Not only that, as with Hazelwood, they also destroy the mining equipment.

    The country is full of 21st century Luddites.

    Maybe they should be called Australites (apologies to tektites of the same name).

    330

    • #
      Sambar

      Dont forget GAS David. As of today Dan has a PLAN to phase out gas in Victoria. Yet only two or three weeks ago during the potential no supply contingency, dear leader was on the telly saying, and I quote, “anyone can explore for gas in Victoria”. As always the devil is in the detail, he didn’t complete his statement with “we don’t care how much you spend or how much gas you discover, under a government I lead you will NEVER get a permit to mine it”

      270

    • #
      YallaYPoora Kid

      Yes politicians in general seem to be a case study in challenging evolution of survival of the fittest and seems to be survival of the moronic regressing to Cro-Magnon levels rather than advanced humans.

      10

    • #
      Lawrie

      You surely mean Australopithecus. He was a pre-human much like the crowd that demonises coal. I don’t think old Australopithecus had mastered fire so that would gel with the latte set who believe all good comes from the super market where food just happens.

      30

  • #
    Geoff+Croker

    Coal has oil in it. Lots of it. Burning oil in such a wasteful manner is going to bite us later when we start to run out. It could be argued that we have run out of cheap oil?

    All of our economies are based on oil. Our way of life is dependent upon it.

    Burning it to make base load electricity is not a good long term strategy. Going to unreliables without massive storage is stupid. it can only end in misery.

    It all comes down to cost. No matter what everyone says, every country will be forced to go with the cheapest solution. The richest will become poor because they can afford poverty.

    100

    • #
      Eng_Ian

      I’ve never seen anthracite being drained of oil.

      Making liquid or even gaseous hydrocarbons from coal destroys a percentage of the available energy of the coal just to make the fuel. As a guide, the best you can ever do with coal is burn it very close to the mine and produce electricity which can be transported to the user with negligible losses and can be used with very high efficiencies. Even gas takes energy to compress and transport in pipes and hence loses value the further it travels from the source.

      Coal is a great, high density energy source and due to its predictable content across a mine, a generator can be established that will achieve consistently high efficiency with minimal waste. I do not know of any generator that can produce reliable, large volumes of base load power better than a coal fired power station which is located adjacent to a thermal coal source. That is the reason that they exist in this format across the globe. If it wasn’t cost effective, it would have been done differently. If the green tape can be removed, nuclear could do better, but removal of that restriction is nothing but a pipe dream in the woke world.

      270

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        On the other hand you can get a lot of chemicals from coal, such as diesel or methanol which can be converted to petrol (although it can also be made from natural gas). You can even make hydrogen and much more cheaply than using electricity.

        110

        • #
          Lawrie

          I have often thought that if we were smart enough to use nuclear we could convert some of our coal to liquid fuel to make us even more self sufficient.

          20

      • #
        Ross

        Your 3rd paragraph just described the state of Victoria with its open cut brown coal supply ( > 500 years) and generators virtually alongside with a reliable water supply. Big population (Melbourne) relatively close by which has industry, but not as much as it could or did in the past. The generators haven’t been upgraded in decades and now the government are intent on closing all remaining coal fired generation. You cant get any stupider than that.

        190

      • #
        b.nice

        Germany used a lot of coal to diesel oil (or something similar to it) transformation during WWII.

        50

        • #
          Lance

          It is called the Fischer–Tropsch process. It has an overall efficiency between 25% to 50% depending upon many variables. 40% to 50% is about the best that can be expected. And it takes a Lot of energy to do it.

          The only reason to do this is if there is no liquid petroleum available and hence no other choice.

          Gasification of coal to make synthetic hydrocarbons to then create hydrocarbon liquids is kind of insane if actual petroleum is available.

          There is a big difference between “can it be done” and “ought it be done”.

          60

          • #
            b.nice

            “Gasification of coal to make synthetic hydrocarbons to then create hydrocarbon liquids is kind of insane if actual petroleum is available”

            true. 🙂

            30

      • #
        TdeF

        Good points but I have to disagree with “Even gas takes energy to compress and transport in pipes and hence loses value the further it travels from the source.”
        The energy value, which is the real and massive value, does not decrease with distance, unlike electricity. You can store, ship, export gas forever and it loses nothing in energy or value. And if heating is the aim not electricity, it is 100% efficient. And it is even cost effective as a liquid. However liquid hydrogen is just ridiculously expensive to do any of these things.

        The real discovery was fracking which is illegal now in Victoria. Nuclear of course. And there are many others. As long as this Carbon Dioxide hatred continues, common sense will not win.

        90

        • #

          However liquid hydrogen is just ridiculously expensive to do any of these things.

          Perhaps it soon wont be.

          111

          • #
            Lance

            “Perhaps it soon won’t be”.

            Please. Enlighten all of us about how physical chemistry can be politically modified by any means other than artificially increasing the cost of hydrocarbons.

            Please. Enlighten me and all about how H2 can be economically and safely stored and used at 800 Bar.

            Let us all know about any objections to the absolute fact that it takes 40% to 112% more energy to produce, store, transport, and use, H2. That’s a negative efficiency if the point isn’t clear enough.

            Reality has the last laugh. Ignoring reality is what fools do. Magical thinking doesn’t change PChem or Thermo. Emotions do not trump reality.

            Please try ” informed, educated, technically correct, economically correct, Critical Thinking”.

            Regardless of what you believe, Maths, Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, and Reality, are superior to Politics. You may ignore reality, but you may not ignore the results of ignoring reality.

            80

          • #
            MP

            Right now, breaking crude oil into petrol and other gases in oil refineries relies on the hugely energy intensive process of cryogenic distillation. No it’s the opposite for crude oil, https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme801/node/470 (fractionation by distillation)
            LNG requires cryogenic to get it to liquid.
            Boron nitride it’s self extremely energy intensive to produce and ball milling around 85% of the energy is lost as waste (heat, noise etc.) As this process requires SS balls to do the work, these are expensive, boron nitride is a ceramic so the attrition rate will be huge and the SS must be separated from the BN. None of these facts are explained in the touchy feely BS.
            https://www.nanotrun.com/article/the-property-and-preparation-of-boron-nitride-powder-i00388i1.html

            That is another trash piece from the conversation, absolutely no details on anything and mixed up the facts enough to push their false narrative.

            Do you research anything or just believe!

            60

            • #
              b.nice

              “That is another trash piece from the conversation,”

              The go-to place for ga science-trash.

              30

            • #
              • #
                b.nice

                Only about 50 times.. read your own link.

                How much will be needed as ongoing production to power and supply the huge number of cars and other transport in the world.

                Where does the massive amounts of carbon and energy come from to manufacture it?

                You are not thinking rationally.. I’m sure you are not capable of it.

                30

              • #
                MP

                So the BS merchants say, but every time its milled the size fraction is reduced as the fraction is reduced more and more energy needs to be expended. Milling is in kW per hour but they use “kilojoules per second” to give it a low number, that is actually 77 kW.
                There is so many missing details.
                “This ball-milling gas absorption (They state absorption when the process is adsorption, big difference) process uses around 77 kilojoules per second to store and separate 1,000 litres of gases. That’s roughly the energy needed to drive the average electric vehicle 320 kilometers. (What is average) It’s at least 90% less energy than the cryogenic distillation method used in oil refineries. (BS)
                Why do they compare to an EV when they are trying to replace ICE? 320 KLM of energy to make 1000 liters of gases

                Whereas the production and consumption figures for the raw materials used for BN synthesis, namely boric acid and boron trioxide, are well known (see boron), the corresponding numbers for the boron nitride are not listed in statistical reports. An estimate for the 1999 world production is 300 to 350 metric tons. The major producers and consumers of BN are located in the United States, Japan, China and Germany. In 2000, prices varied from about $75–120/kg for standard industrial-quality h-BN and were about up to $200–400/kg for high purity BN grades.[28]
                Acyclic monoolefins have the general formula CnH2n, C being a carbon atom, H a hydrogen atom, and n an integer. They are rare in nature but can be formed in large quantities through industrial processing. One of the first processes used to produce them, developed in the early 20th century, was thermal cracking (breaking down of large molecules) of petroleum oils to gasoline. Olefins later were also produced via fluid catalytic cracking, steam cracking, and hydrocracking.

                The seed stock is Hydrocarbons, so you still have the cost of producing that anyhows.

                10

          • #
            b.nice

            “Boron nitride (B4N) is a crystalline material synthesized from boric anhydride and pure low-ash carbon material in electric furnaces at 1,800°C− 2,500°C”

            oops.. requires CARBON and lots of energy. !

            80

          • #
            TdeF

            Yes, interesting, but utterly pointless given that the source of hydrogen is hydrocarbons for which we already have everything in place.

            So the whole thing is useless. You throw away most of the energy just to extract the hydrogen from portable, storable, safe C2H6 ethane just so you can hope to solve a massive and massively expensive problem you did not have before.

            This whole carbon business is full of crazy ideas at the fringe of reality when there is no need for them, except for an irrational fear of rapid GLobal Warming and rapid sea rise which hasn’t happened in 34 years but we are promised will be reality in only another 9. Remember the Rapture? All those people selling their homes and waiting to be assumed into heaven without their families.

            There is no problem. And for the $1.5Trillion being spent, we could have had fusion and not needed the sun.

            40

            • #
              TdeF

              The chase for hydrogen reminds me of the story of Warwick Fairfax, scion of the newspaper dynasty. How do you make a small fortune? Start with a large one? There is no end of Laurie Connells ready to advise on ways to extract and store hydrogen, when you don’t need it.

              20

          • #
            David Maddison

            Mechanochemistry is not new, and neither is this idea. Here are some comments from 2018.

            https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/hydrogenating-ball-mill

            I worked on a project trying to make products using high-energy ball milling as the synthesis route. It works in some cases at a small scale, but when you get into the scale up details of it things get more complicated since the ratio of reactants to steel balls needs to be like 100:1 weight. If you want to make 1 kg of material you’re talking about spinning 100 kg of steel, which causes all kinds of other issues. God help you if you have to turn out 1 ton of material per day. The electricity costs to operate the mills scale somewhat linearly which messes with your economies of scale. For high-value products at low volumes it’s probably not an issue.

            20

        • #
          Eng_Ian

          TdeF,
          Compressing a gas consumes energy. If it didn’t then simple physical equations such as Force = Pressure x Area would become nonsense. For example. Think about that. If I want a piston to move in a cylinder I apply a pressure to the top surface, (area), of the piston. The force moves the piston down. If compressing a gas was energy free, then a piston could be made to move without fuel.

          Extrapolating from that, anything that moves in a pipeline incurs friction. Even a perfectly smooth surface will form an attraction between its surface and the fluid being transported. Whether that be electrostatic, chemical bonding or moving into the real world, surface imperfections and irregularities from fabrication, corrosion, etc.

          You are correct to assume that the gas is calorifically the same at the discharge as at the entrance but if you used a 50kW motor to pump the gas from one end to the other, then you have lost 50kW of power. As I stated, the further you pump it or the more you compress it, the larger the losses, (located at the input).

          I hope that clarifies the old adage, you don’t get something for nothing. Not now, not ever.

          60

          • #
            TdeF

            Electricity has large losses in distribution which drop as voltage goes up, which is why we use AC. Gas has no such problem.

            Yes, I understand energy is required for compression but only once and it depends on how much. A lot of vehicles and more run on bottled LP gas.

            And yes there is friction in all pipelines, but the velocity for most gas distribution is extremely low for final domestic delivery and it goes down dramatically with radius. Melbourne was plumbed for gas in the 1880s. Many of those old lines have rusted completely but the pressure was so low it does not matter. Tradesmen walk around with sniffers looking for old pipelines. People do not even know where they are or where they go. The maps are lost long ago.

            Pipelines like the ones across Russia are also low pressure. They are in every village and above ground and bright yellow. The cost of compression and delivery is low and there is no loss of chemical energy with distance. Volume also goes up with area as pressure drops. It all works very well with low losses and especially over great distances.

            In the distribution game gas is ideal. And you can store it. Then if heating is why you want it, it is also 100% usable. Converting gas to electricty, distributing the electricity and then using it for heat is a waste. And as a chemical component, you can make so much from gas. Not just nitrogen fertilizers but CO2 is a very valuable byproduct with many uses, like meat preservation.

            Greens know no chemistry, have no idea of energy and are just against everything. It must be very sad for them to sit at home freezing because they are worried about the planet overheating.

            20

            • #
              Eng_Ian

              TdeF,
              I’ll let you into a secret, the gas flow from the off shore rigs into the Pluto LNG plant is traveling at supersonic speeds. It takes a lot of energy to move gas at that speed. It also helps to keep the gas and the liquid fuel component, including water, etc all flowing in the pipe.

              But back to the problem, as an example of a large distribution network, the Bunbury to Dampier gas pipeline can carry 845 TJ/day, using a typical transmission pressure of 200Bar, the velocity in the pipe will be around 6m/s. This isn’t fast by any stretch of the imagination, but when the gas has a mass of 100kg/m3, (at 200 Bar), you can get an idea why the losses ramp up due to friction and why there are more than 20 (re)compressor stations on the pipeline. Each of these consume significant power to run.

              With regard to the domestic end of the supply chain, the gas flow in the street is also likely to be in the range of 5-20 m/s for the main, (under design flow rates). Since losses are proportional to the velocity squared, it soon becomes apparent that the lower the better. And the losses grow linearly with length. So I stick to the detail, you lose energy transporting gas. You can determine the exact pressure loss by equation, or you could simply count the number of compressor stations multiplied by their energy consumption. (They are big stations with large turbine compressors, so the numbers are going to be big, very big).

              Back to your electrical losses point, transmission lines are stepped up to very high voltages to avoid resistive losses. At transmission voltages, the losses in the line will be small compared to the power transmitted, certainly well under 5% from generator to (large) consumer. This is established via Australian Standards which specify a maximum permissible voltage drop in consideration of the supply voltage to the voltage measured under load.

              In short, EVERY energy transmission loses power in transmission and EVERY system generally performs worse over distance. I’d love to see the equations for the proposed cable from Darwin to Singapore.

              30

              • #
                TdeF

                The transmission voltage used in China and many other countries is UHVDC, 1 to 1.33 million volts. As voltage goes up, current goes down and losses go down as I^2. 1/10th of the voltage is 1% of the losses. It is fascinating as Edison was finally proven right with DC but it took billion dollar semiconductor step up and down installations to achieve this. And such networks do no need simultaneous real time coordination of phase, amplitude, just fixed voltage. Losses over very great distances are effectively zero. And they often use only one wire, so everything is simpler and cheaper.

                00

            • #
              Chad

              TdeF
              July 15, 2022 at 6:11 pm · Reply
              Electricity has large losses in distribution which drop as voltage goes up, which is why we use AC. Gas has no such problem.

              Yes, I understand energy is required for compression but only once and it depends on how much.

              That is a oversimplification…
              Natural gas distribution uses huge compressors at production sources and eqially large ones at periodic points along the distribution pipe lines.
              Rolls Royce RB211 gas turbines are a common unit for powering the compressors as they can burn theNG for fuel, other compressors are also driven by the biggest V20 Caterpillar motors.
              + gas leakage in distribution lines is not uncommon.
              Gos distribution is not 100% efficient.

              00

              • #
                Chad

                An example from a UK study…

                The authors of the study estimated 5.3 to 10.8 percent of the gas flowing through Britain’s natural gas pipes are leaking each year.

                00

              • #
                TdeF

                A loss of only 5% to 10% over the entire of the UK is a great result, not a negative. This is not only the major gas distribution pipes but all the tens of millions of domestic pipes. By comparison electricity has losses at every point in the generation, step up and step down transformers and in the wires themselves, a definite 9% in distribution. But you have to add that to the 58% loss in converting say natural gas to electricity, a compound loss of 65% or 2/3 of the gas power. And if gas is ultimately used for heating, it is an appalling loss.

                00

    • #

      In a previous lifetime, one of my jobs during the 1970’s oil crisis was to identify sufficient coal resources suitable for conversion to “oil” – we do have it.

      More to the point, we should not be wasting all that export income burning black coal for power generation when we have heaps of non-exportable lignite and brown coal that could do the job just as effectively – just ask Europe. Unfortunately, most lignite/brown coal resources are located in the foreign entities of Victoria and South Australia where the Governments are radical and isolationist.

      230

      • #
        TdeF

        “heaps of non-exportable lignite and brown coal”

        Only because of politicians. Technically you only have to get rid of the 66% water and it is comparable to black coal. Removing the water cheaply was perfected by Monash University and a company in Bacchus Marsh. So India ordered $400 Million of our brown/lignite coal around 2006. After a campaign by the Age newspaper that they were making brown coal ‘blacker’, the export was stopped by order of the Brumby Labor government. Who needs exports?

        There is no impediment to selling our brown coal except the Andrews Government who have stopped wood, sticks, gas, brown coal, highland grazing, fire breaks for farmers and by a premier who has dedicated his life to making sure over 13 years as Health Minister and then Premier that we have a completely dysfunctional ambulance service while securing wage rises for them. And that we have no energy at all. And we were signed up to President Xi’s Belt and Road, which was blatantly illegal under the Australian Constitution.

        All this carbon hatred is directed from Beijing, the world’s greatest consumer by far. And Australians and Americans and Europeans are functional idiots to accept it. They may not believe in God anymore in the West, so they believe in every mad scheme. Men can be pregnant and women don’t exist. And brown coal is useless.

        121

        • #
          Eng_Ian

          Well summed up.

          If only I could divert the Murray……

          00

        • #
          Ronin

          “So India ordered $400 Million of our brown/lignite coal around 2006. After a campaign by the Age newspaper that they were making brown coal ‘blacker’, the export was stopped.”

          Ah, so it’s a racism issue then.

          20

          • #
            TdeF

            Yes, now that you mention it. Brown was acceptable but black was not. And you have to wonder if coal would be a problem if it was white?

            00

        • #

          These low rank (brown/lignite) coals even with reduced moisture have a nasty tendency to self-immolate compared to the higher rank black coals – not quite as bad as a Li-ion conflagration but also hard to control.

          BTW, I had an LiFePO4 battery shipped to me recently by courier (prepping for the coming episodic darkness) and on the label it was marked as non-hazardous. Just so everyone knows the risks:

          For the battery cell, chemical materials are stored in a hermetically sealed Aluminum laminated case, designed to withstand temperatures and pressures encountered during normal use. As a result, during normal use, there is no physical danger of ignition or explosion and chemical danger of hazardous materials’ leakage.
          However, if exposed to a fire, added mechanical shocks, decomposed, added electric stress by miss-use, the gas
          release vent will be operated. The battery cell case will be breached and hazardous materials may be released.
          Moreover, if heated strongly by the surrounding fire, hydrogen fluorite gas may be emitted.

          Apparently, the LI-ion batteries in non-rigid plastic wraps are not that great – when they start to expand, time to dispose of them thoughtfully.

          10

          • #
            Chad

            Apparently, the LI-ion batteries in non-rigid plastic wraps are not that great – when they start to expand, time to dispose of them thoughtfully

            Generally true, but the risk is more a function of the battery chemistry..LiCo, NMC, NCA, LiFe Po4, etc etc.
            Some are much more risky than others. !

            00

    • #
      Zane

      If oil was a solid it would probably be a lot like coal :).

      10

  • #
    Penguinite

    “Aussie coal companies bouncing on the rumour of China ban reversal”
    There’s only one reason China will reverse its ban on AU coal and that is purely economics. It has zero to do with being nice to Australia! China’s economy is rumoured on the brink of collapse as depositors riot outside banks!

    220

    • #
      yarpos

      Note sure I see the connection between a bank run and buying overseas coal, but yes a coal in lieu of your cash option may have some appeal.

      10

  • #
    Neville

    Their extremist claims about a Climate Emergency have been answered by the co2 Coalition, GWPF, Lomborg, Shellenberger, Koonin etc for years. Yet we’ve just had the Albo, Wong loonies etc yapping and repeating all their lies about dangerous SLR at the recent Islands’ gabfest and clown show.
    According to Andrew Bolt even their ABC now admit that the island countries are mostly growing or are stable today. See Kench and Duvat studies.
    Meanwhile we Aussies should be planning new Coal power plants and Gas plants ASAP.
    The alternative are the TOXIC, DILUTE, UNRELIABLE, SHORT LIVED S & W disasters.
    Somehow this S & W lunacy has to stop.

    280

    • #
      Neville

      A young Charles Darwin solved the dynamic growth of Coral islands in 1836 and now even their ABC is playing catch up in the 2020s.
      Thanks to Andrew Bolt for hounding these clueless fools over the years.

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-08/why-are-hundreds-of-pacific-islands-getting-bigger/13038430

      170

      • #
        Mike Jonas

        “Thanks to Andrew Bolt for hounding these clueless fools over the years.”
        +42

        But even Andrew Bolt has limits. I have an email from a scientist in the vaccine field which says: I have 55 trials on file which show that Ivermectin works. Andrew Bolt was contacted (Sky News). He says he would lose his job if he mentioned it on air.

        130

    • #
      RicDre

      “The alternative are the TOXIC …”

      LA Times report warns about ‘environmental danger’ in solar transition

      Joe SilversteinBy | Fox News | Published July 14, 2022 5:28pm EDT

      California has excess solar panel waste and limited means of disposal, The Times reported

      https://www.foxnews.com/media/la-times-op-ed-warns-about-environmental-danger-solar-transition

      100

      • #
        Neville

        Thanks RicDre and ditto for the blades etc of Wind waste disposal in landfill every 20 years as well.
        And our Greens + Teals + Labor TOXIC energy extremists couldn’t care less.

        90

        • #
          RicDre

          Aren’t they the same people who want a major reduction in the human population? If so, perhaps the toxicity is not a bug in their plans but instead a feature.

          50

        • #
          Rupert Ashford

          The MONEY (names like Mike, Malcolm and just about every other political class WEF member etc) behind those parties/movements are well positioned to benefit greatly (+10% for youknowwho) from the installation of the unreliables so what do they care about the ramifications down the line. If they don’t have bread….

          50

      • #
        YallaYPoora Kid

        On my recent trip to Biloela QLD I noted a solar panel collection facility in a yard directly behind the Boomerang Caravan Park run by Solar Recovery Corporation who claim a 99% recycle rate following 12 years experience in Europe and backed by a government program. Their goal of course is to prevent toxic landfill as has been the practice until now.
        See link: https://www.srcorp.com.au/

        I would be interested to know if they are fair dinkum or just producing landfill for the Callide mine.

        80

        • #
          Graeme#4

          Anything can be fully recycled. Whether it can be done economically is the question, and right now neither solar panels nor wind turbines can be fully recycled economically. Nor can Li-Ion-batteries be recycled economically.

          30

        • #
          Chad

          Notice that there is a fee $8.40 – $41.50 per panel for the recycling!
          I suspect that their motivation is financial…a profit making business ..
          ……possibly supported by a government grant also ?

          30

  • #
    Honk R Smith

    So fashion is once again yielding to reality.
    The Mullet however, will never die.

    140

  • #
    Neville

    AGAIN the Co2 Coalition is a wonderful, scientifically accurate resource for Sceptics to answer the lies and half truths of the MSM, clueless pollies and their other so called scientists etc.

    https://co2coalition.org/facts/

    60

    • #
      TdeF

      I have something to add to “First and foremost, CO2 is plant food.”

      CO2 is ALL food. There is no food for any living thing which is not ultimately made from CO2. Without photosynthesis we dont’ exist. And photosyntheis is the convertsion of CO2 and H2O to ‘hydrated CO2’ which we also call carbohydrate.

      And the hated coal, gas, oil was produced by photosynthesis. Why it should be evil is based on a string of incredible stories which make poor science at any step but constitute the biggest lie in science history. CO2 is going up, Green Cover is going up, warming is not. That’s it.

      110

      • #
        TdeF

        There is some evidence of a sulphur cycle in worms around sulphur vents at the bottom of the Marianas trench. But it’s hardly tourist territory.

        70

        • #

          The tube worms partner with bacteria that chemosynthesise. There are free living bacteria too. I think they are all archaea.

          14

          • #
            TdeF

            All life is based on chemical energy. But a sulphur world would be stinky and yellow. I prefer CO2.

            30

            • #

              It would be.

              Just to be clear though, the sulphur compound is the energy source (ie not the sun as in photosynthesis) used to fix CO2.

              23

              • #
                TdeF

                Interesting. I had not studied the chemistry but it sounds like CO2 is still the food of ALL life on earth. Obviously we humans have decided CO2 has to be controlled, by us. I wonder what the ideal level of CO2 would be? It’s odd that we want it to be the level of when it was first measured as if that is likely to be the perfect level because we all know industry and capitalism are bad and therefore CO2 is bad and changes due to capitalism are predictably bad. Otherise I can think of no actual science logic to say that the first level discovered was perfect. It’s like finding the Garden of Eden in Birmingham.

                60

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                Gee Aye:
                There is also an extremophile that can use arsenic.

                20

          • #
            b.nice

            “But a sulphur world would be stinky and yellow.”

            Perhaps ga should go and be symbiotic with these sulphur worms.

            Exist without the need for much hated CO2.

            90

          • #
            GreatAuntJanet

            You don’t make them sound delicious though.

            40

  • #
    Zane

    Thermal coal price US$393 today. Quite a change from the March 2020 Covid low of $34.

    Meanwhile oil is edging down to $99. No doubt traders are watching it closely. Will it go up or is it’s run over for now?

    70

  • #
    Philip

    Meanwhile Australia identifies solution to problem as more wind and solar.

    70

  • #
    Philip

    Should there not be a declaration of an energy “emergency”, like every mid witted local council in Australia has pronounced a “climate emergency”.

    If you ever want to see what a low to mid intelligence group of people gathered with administrative power looks like, observe your local council. It’s like a graduation of the school prefect club. Their fervor for declaring this climate emergency was the perfect example of what I am trying to describe. Our local council is so green even the brown bits are green.

    90

    • #
      Rupert Ashford

      And the people who actually vote them in. “Never underestimate the amount of damage that can be inflicted by stupid people accumulating in large groups”.

      41

    • #
      Gary S

      ‘even the brown bits are green’. Shades of Eric Olthwaite.

      10

    • #
      yarpos

      Very true , sadly our Council is regarded as rather a low performer by surrounding Councils.

      I was chatting to shooting club member who works for a nearby council who gained staff from our Council. He said they appeared to be “uniformly useless and lacking in initiative” and that is in Council world, not a bastion of high performance.

      10

      • #
        MP

        Got a mail from the sporting shooters association, the government is banning red dot scopes due to the danger posed by the button batteries used.
        As you know our guns are kept in safes, so it is virtually impossible for a child to access, my scope requires a coin to remove the battery cover. My car remotes and two other remotes are slide off and dropping them will have you looking for the battery, these are still good though.

        Is this video relevant to your job? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvVu4GfDKpI

        00

  • #
    Neville

    Ken Stewart looks at the cost and RELIABILITY of electricity since 25th FEB 2022.
    Clearly COAL is your friend, if you want CHEAP, RELIABLE electricity.

    https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2022/07/07/the-cost-of-electricity/#comments

    90

  • #
    Rupert Ashford

    If Hungary is also suffering then you must know it’s bad. The Fidez government play their own game with everybody including China and Russia.

    60

  • #
    Brenda Spence

    And now it appears in Western Australia, that Synergy has got 7 years to get rid of coal … but we are keeping gas! So because we have the cheapest electricity in tne nation, the boffins have decided to phase it out.. fools and idiots running this country!

    The twin scares of covid and climate change are destroying ourcivilization.

    150

  • #
    RicDre

    Aussie PM Faces Defeat on First Major Climate Bill

    Essay by Eric Worrall

    Still no ban on coal; The Green Party has vowed to oppose a weak “symbolic” climate bill which provides no roadmap for how the proposed emission cuts are to be achieved.

    Greens slam Labor climate bill as government digs on 43 per cent ‘mandate’

    By James Massola and Mike Foley
    Updated July 14, 2022 — 7.06pmfirst published at 12.06pm

    Labor’s signature climate change bill to slash emissions by 43 per cent is facing defeat in the Senate after the Greens delivered a scathing assessment of the draft legislation.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/14/aussie-pm-faces-defeat-on-first-major-climate-bill/

    40

    • #
      Serp

      The green psychopathology results in very brief terms in government as they quickly run out of support for their drive to escalate prohibitions based on their warped doctrines.

      Skirmishing has broken out already in the senate over the forty-three percent policy; there’ll be three years of this so train up the appetite.

      60

    • #

      The Greens are opposing it because in their eyes, it’s not enough. They don’t appear to respond to rational thinking.

      They want to make it 75% by 2030!

      20

  • #
    MP

    Its not about coal, gas or oil, its about your carbon foot print not theirs.

    10 mins of the con.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_zjhp5HyfI

    40

    • #
      Honk R Smith

      Wow, that was weird.
      I imagine the origin of ‘carbon footprint’ is accurate.
      Oil companies putting the sin on the people rather than themselves … hmm?
      Especially when the sin is mythological creation.
      I think that vid was produced by some well funded political entity just the like the ones that produced the ‘carbon footprint’ label.
      I guess maybe the New Reformation birthed by the internet is the struggle between whether it becomes the vehicle for all consuming agitprop or veritable truth.
      Looks like the mechanism of the former is confusion.

      20

  • #
    LG

    What’s the hardest part of a 20 year green energy transition?

    The 50th year.

    120

    • #
      Honk R Smith

      Your comment makes think green energy transition has parallels to gender ‘transition’.
      The underlying facts are masked by cosmetics and reality obscuring labels.
      I guess I’m binary Cis energy.
      I can’t be attracted to solar panels because of my unresolved energy bigotry.

      30

  • #
    R.B.

    Sorry, OT but this is bonkers.
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/lifestyle/smart-living/ivana-trump-s-cause-of-death-has-been-revealed-hours-after-news-broke-of-her-passing-aged-73/ar-AAZApai?ocid=BingHp02&cvid=0bfc88f21843457fc200d9c0346c9145

    Ivana Trump’s cause of death has been revealed hours after news broke of her passing, aged 73…During their 15-year marriage the couple welcomed three children, Donald Jr, Ivanka, and Eric. Ivana and Donald Snr. divorced in 1992.

    Their only daughter together, Ivanka, paid homage to her late mother with an emotional tribute on Instagram on Friday morning.

    WATCH: Lisa Wilkinson speaks out against Trump in the aftermath of the Capitol Hill riots. Article continues after video

    And the left paint themselves as more compassionate and less confrontational.

    30

  • #
    Robber

    Energy Emergency? Across the AEMO grid, ex generator prices for July range from $300 (Tas) to $531/MWh (Qld). July 2021 prices ranged from $38 to $135, and prior year all below $65. How’s that switch to “renewables” going?

    60

    • #
      Ronin

      “How’s that switch to “renewables” going?”

      Looks like it’s perfectly on track.

      40

      • #
        Dennis

        I suspect that supply is a major problem, like supply of any building materials from China and other suppliers, and therefore time is running out for the Albanese Labor Government as replacements for existing wind and solar installations compete for supply.

        Well, existing installations maybe, if the shareholders are willing to sacrifice their dividends to invest in removal and replacement.

        10

    • #
      LG

      Tell us progressives, is this “green industrial revolution” in the room with us right now?

      10

  • #

    There’s a delicious irony in all this return to coal fired power, as Europe realises that with the gas being cut off there is no other major power generation source.

    Hey, wait a minute, (number One) I thought that natural gas fired power was supposed to be one of those major sources of CO2 emissions second only to coal fired power.

    Hey, wait a minute, (number Two) I thought that Europe, supposedly the renewables giant, and most especially Germany, were going to run their Countries on those renewable sources.

    So now, the realisation sinks in that coal fired power is actually essential, not just as a stopgap because of number one and number two, but that coal fired power actually delivers HUMUNGOUS amounts of electrical power.

    Australia, ever the Country that’s many years behind Europe, will soon also have to come to the same realisation that coal fired power is essential.

    And here’s the delicious irony.

    It’s going to be the Labor Party Government that is the one that is going to have to come out and actually say that they NEED those coal fired power plants, and then attempt to explain just why to the Australian public. Lionel Bowen, in all his arrogance will soon realise that what he says about renewables won’t get done in the time frame he has categorically stated. Lionel Bowen will be told that the closure of Liddell, and not long after, Eraring, will lead to a huge shortfall in the supply of electrical power. He will then bluster about renewables replacing both of those plants, only to be told that they cannot be constructed in the time frame he wants, and that they will not deliver the power he loses from the closure of those two plants, and they will not deliver that power on a 24/7 basis.

    He’s now caught between Scylla and Charybdis. Either blindly follow Labor (and Greens) doctrine, and press on with the closures and the construction of the renewable plants. That will inevitably lead to power rationing, or worse, major blackouts, and losing that much power cannot really be relieved with power rationing, so blackouts will happen.

    If you seriously think that Labor will stomach the huge backlash from those blackouts, or even the rationing, then you’re an ideologue.

    He’s just going to HAVE TO find a way to explain why.

    That’s when you’ll really see pouty lips!

    Oh, and consider this, Bowen wants us to have, whatever he says is the latest figure, triple the number of renewables.

    Just think, that’s an extra 270 commercial solar power plants.
    That’s an extra 240 wind plants.
    That’s triple the existing number of homes with panels on the roof.
    That’s an extra 150 hydro power plants….. oh wait a minute there won’t be any more new dams built for hydro, so add ‘numbers’ to solar and wind plants.

    And all of that by, when is it 2030….. in eight years.

    Tell ‘im e’s dreamin!

    Tony.

    230

    • #
      GreatAuntJanet

      I really like your brain.

      60

    • #
      Dennis

      Don’t ignore “The Science”, it’s all about the science, you know.

      50

    • #
      Ross

      I think you mean Chris Bowen – not Lionel. Unless you misspelt and you were trying to type Lying Bowen? Actually, if you look hard enough at the words Chris Bowen , you can sort of make out the word “clown’.

      90

      • #

        Ross, thanks, and yes, they are not even related. Years of Whitlam and Hawke you get locked into the ‘real’ Bowen, so sorry.

        I saw a ‘meme’ recently about an old Turkish proverb, and when I saw it, the first thing I actually thought of was Chris Bowen.

        The old Turkish proverb goes like this …..

        When a clown moves into the palace, he doesn’t become a king. The palace just becomes a circus!

        Tony.

        150

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s another problem for our blog alarmists to consider. Using the OWI DATA Countries’ co2 emissions since 1970 we find some interesting trends.

    The world total emissions trend looks fairly consistent over the last 50 years, but AGAIN USA + EU 28 combined co2 emissions are lower in 2020 than co2 emissions in 1970, or a negative trend.

    But China’s trend is not as even as the total Asian trend since 1970, 1980 , 1990 and since 2000. And also the world total co2 emissions trend since 1970 seems more consistent than China as well.

    It’s important to remember that the Asian trend includes China, but I’ve also included China trend separately for comparison.

    I’ve also included Aussie and Canadian co2 emissions.
    And I’m not saying that higher co2 emissions are terrible or wonderful, I’m just linking to the DATA over the last 50 years and it’s interesting.

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?time=1970..latest&facet=none&country=OWID_WRL~AUS~CHN~CAN~Asia~European+Union+%2828%29~USA

    20

  • #
    el+gordo

    The forecast that Beijing will withdraw its coal ban is looking good.

    ‘Although the economy is facing downward pressures and uncertainties at home and abroad, experts said the momentum of China’s growth will gather pace in the second half, as the economy will continue to draw support from stimulus policy this year.

    ‘They said the country should strengthen cross-cyclical and countercyclical adjustment, and China still has sufficient policy tools and plenty of room to step up fiscal and monetary easing to shore up growth.’ (China Daily)

    50

    • #
      Zane

      China needs to build another 68 million empty apartments.

      90

      • #
        el+gordo

        A bit of exaggeration, anyway we shouldn’t make too much of it, ghost towns, glass houses and all that.

        ‘According to figures from the 2021 census, one million Australian homes — 10 per cent of the housing stock — were unoccupied on census night last August.’ (ABC)

        05

      • #
        Dennis

        More likely another hundred navy warships above and under water designs.

        40

        • #
          el+gordo

          They are going for sophisticated equipment like the hypersonic glide missile and closer to the ground Beijing is exporting tactical weapons.

          ‘Serbia has publicly displayed a recently delivered Chinese anti-aircraft missile system, raising concerns in the West and among some of Serbia’s neighbours that an arms buildup in the Balkans could threaten fragile peace in the region.’ (SMH)

          40

    • #

      The dominant Hunter Valley coal mining company YANCOAL Australia Ltd and its Chairman Baocai Zhang would be pleased to hear this news.

      Yancoal’s New South Wales mines include Moolarben, Hunter Valley Operations, Mount Thorley Warkworth, Stratford-Duralie, Ashton, Austar and Donaldson. Queensland mines include Yarrabee and the Middlemount Joint Venture. Yancoal also manages the Cameby Downs and Premier coal mines in Queensland and Western Australia respectively, on behalf of Yankuang Energy Group Company Limited.

      20

      • #
        Zane

        Coal in the ground is money in the bank. The Chinese can’t believe how easy it is to stroll in here and buy up our resources for pennies. Australian super funds are too busy investing in wind farms and Buy Now Pay Later fintechs.

        60

  • #
    Zane

    Speaking of brown coal, here are the facts about Victoria’s power supply situation.

    There are three major brown coal power stations operating in the Latrobe Valley east of Melbourne. Together they supply 72% of Victoria’s electricity and in reality probably somewhat more.

    The largest is Loy Yang A producing 2210 MW or 30% of the entire state’s power. What a trooper. It is owned by AGL, a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.

    The second largest is Yallourn, weighing in at 1450 MW and cranking out 22% of the state’s juice. It is owned by Energy Australia who in turn are a subsidiary of China Light & Power, a Chinese company.

    Number 3 is Loy Yang B, supplied from the same eponymous lignite mine as LY A. It produces a handy 1200 MW, or 20% of the state’s needs, and has a useful life until 2047 or beyond. Its owner is Alinta, who in turn is currently 100% owned by the venerable Hong of Chow Tai Fook Enterprises HK Ltd, a privately owned Hong Kong conglomerate which started out as a jewellery retailer.

    So there it is. Power aplenty in the garden state – for now.

    50

    • #
      LG

      Is AGL a good investment, considering LoyYang A will almost certainly have its life extended and extended considering the fact that renewables will never be ready to replace it? And it’s likely that the govt will have to give them capacity payments just to stick around.

      30

      • #
        Zane

        It might well be.

        20

      • #

        Beware LG

        Read this article – Mike Cannon-Brookes on ESG, AGL and why Australia needs no more gas

        Comments like:

        Do we need more gas extraction? No, absolute bulls—. That is not going to solve the energy prices for 20 years or more, if ever. Take it off the table. It makes no sense for solving the problem.

        and….

        More renewables? Yes. It will bring the price of energy in the grid down on an average basis. Look at the ACT, the only territory which is not going backwards because they’re committed to 100 per cent renewables. If you’re currently living in Canberra, you’re laughing at everyone else’s power bills.

        I live in the Canberra bubble and am not laughing about power prices – especially to small business.

        30

        • #
          LG

          It’s a shame pretty much all fossil fuel companies or companies with fossil fuels assets won’t stand up for themselves. If you know of any good ones let me know.

          20

    • #
      b.nice

      go to https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem#nem-dispatch-overview

      choose tab “Fuel Mix”,

      them Vic, 24 or 48 hours.. see how incredibly constant that brown coal supply is.

      50

      • #
        LG

        I’m guessing because brown coal is so cheap compared to black coal it’s always profitable to burn it.

        30

        • #
          yarpos

          You cant use brown coal as you can black coal, its not a substitute. So yes one of its best uses is energy generation in suitable plant. More fundamentally its what VIC has in abundance

          40

        • #
          b.nice

          Victoria has brown coal.. NSW and Qld have black coal.

          So long as the companies are not lugged with unjustified carbon expenditure etc, both types been proven profitable over many years.

          That’s because people NEED solid reliable electricity.

          10

  • #
    TdeF

    It’s really perverse, but the Russians are once again teaching their sophisticated rich neighbours that they are living in a dream world.
    You freeze without gas, coal, oil. Simple.

    And the Chinese managed to ban coal at a fixed price of $75 a tonne just before the price soared to $400 a tonne. Once again, very clever.

    Plus the AEMO is having to admit that the entirely new Australian energy grid is useless in managing the shortage caused by blowing up coal power stations. It’s what happens when public servants try to run businesses. And start to pay people not to work.

    Even Dr. Bob Brown does not want windmills in his backyard, which is wonderful expose of the endless hyporcrisy of the greedy Greens who just want power like all totalitarians or communists like Adam Bandt.

    In America gasoline might reach the $7 a gallon predicted by Trump as geriatric sock puppet President Biden begs the Saudis for oil and they quite predictably refuse.

    A lot of chickens are coming home to roost. Or are they teals?

    100

    • #
      LG

      Now let’s get rid of gas for home heating, like Dan is planning to. Instead of burning gas at people’s homes to heat them, we’ll burn the gas in inefficient open cycle gas turbines to generate electricity used to power electric heaters and split systems in homes.

      60

      • #
        TdeF

        Yes, utter nonsense. Gas is precious and limited and 100% efficient for heating with no energy loss in transmission.
        Brown coal is virtually unlimited and turning it to electricity beats all issues of pollution and transport.

        A real leader would maximize the use of brown coal which, once the water is taken out, is as good as black coal.
        But Daniel is an incompetent communist opportunist who has never had a real job and with no concern for anyone.
        And he fell downstairs. Of course. A common problem.

        80

        • #
          Serp

          His real problem is he lost the OBOR and associated funding; Victoria must be fiscally underwater and everything has already been sold.

          The opposition remains unelectable so he’s stuck with the as yet unnanounced disaster until he quits.

          50

        • #
          el+gordo

          … and its predicted that he’ll win the election.

          21

        • #
          LG

          What’s the reason brown coal can’t be exported? I’ve read the water content makes it uneconomical due to the increased weight vs black coal, but since they need to dry it before burning it in the power plants what difference does that make? Unless they don’t dry it before using it in the power plants, I’m not sure.

          30

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Brown coal may be unshippable as it is sometimes spontaneously combustible. Also shipping unwanted water makes it expensive.
            There are 2 ways of reducing the water content; the first is compression as developed in Victoria but banned by Dan Andrews who apparently thought it turned into black coal, so that was the end of an export opportunity.
            The second is to use waste heat from the exhaust after the firebox to dry the brown coal, as used by the latest German lignite (a.k.a. brown coal) plant which has emissions around 800kg per MWh compared with those in the LaTrobe valley around 1150.

            40

            • #
              TdeF

              At 2/3 just dirty water, it makes sense to at least squeeze the water out. India does not need to ship thousands of tons of dirty water. They have plenty already.

              40

            • #
              Louis

              Is the water removed before burning it in the Latrobe power plants, or it just goes in wet?

              10

              • #
                TdeF

                My understanding is that in electricity generation by steam engines only 1/4 of the heat converts to electricity because of the Carnot cycle reality of thermodynamics. With higher temperatures you can do much better but we are not allowed build any power stations in Australia. To answer your question there is plenty of heat to dry out the coal in transit at no cost. Cooling is more the problem and with all power stations the smoke out of the chimneys is steam, not smoke. And the Greens always point to steam as smoke, even from Nuclear power stations.

                30

              • #
                TdeF

                But if you were going to export such a soggy mess, you would remove the water. Probably by compression. Squeeze most of it out. Peat is good fuel too but closer to 80% water, a bog.

                10

    • #
      Ronin

      “And the Chinese managed to ban coal at a fixed price of $75 a tonne just before the price soared to $400 a tonne. Once again, very clever.”

      Yes, that was a very clever move by them.
      I wonder, do they know how to play chess.

      30

    • #
      Dennis

      Does anybody know what pioneer teal Zali achieved in her first term in Parliament?

      40

    • #
      Zane

      Gasoline is down to US$3.65 a gallon in many parts of the US, such as Texas and South Carolina. As usual Wall Street frontrunners pushed oil up and now traders are exiting long positions as the reality dawns that there is no shortage of the stuff. That’s my take anyway. As US interest rates rise, which they are, most commodities including oil priced in USD will fall. Coal has bucked the trend so far but will eventually do likewise. Capital will flow into the US to take advantage of higher rates. Not least from Middle Eastern cashed up petroleum exporters. They’ll probably buy some more Florida real estate… they usually do. One can only own so many apartments in Dubai. 😃

      30

    • #

      TdeF says:

      It’s really perverse, but the Russians are once again teaching their sophisticated rich neighbours that they are living in a dream world.

      Also , when they want to make a point in the current wheat negotiations happening in Turkey, they don’t hold back:

      Russian missiles have struck civilian buildings and a cultural centre in the city of Vinnytsia, in central Ukraine, killing at least 23 people – including three children – and wounding dozens more in what President Volodymyr Zelenskiy called “an open act of terrorism”.

      20

  • #
    TdeF

    Consider the following facts on CO2 Gas in Gigatons

    CO2 in the ocean 38,000
    CO2 in the air 3,210
    World CO2 released yearly 33
    Australian CO2 each year 0.41

    Why is everyone worried about CO2? Total human CO2 is 1% of world CO2 each year and it is all in rapid equilibrium.
    If CO2 goes up or down, that just means the sea surface is slightly warmer or cooler.

    60

    • #
      TdeF

      So lets all punish ourselves. And give political power to the Greens who promise salvation.

      They don’t believe a word of it. What really surprises them is that people do!
      So they call it Science, Climate Science, The Science.
      When I met Adam Bandt, he was another communist acolyte who spouted Marxist doctrine.
      He didn’t have any idea at the time that he was a Green.
      Now he’s the National leader of the Australian Green party, dedicated to saving the planet. Sure.

      Scientology has a turnover around $500 Million and their leader Science Fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard said he was a nuclear physicist
      and talked of General Zod and spaceships in Volcanoes and Thetans. But he had a way to charge his believers, a way to monetize it.

      It’s nothing. Climate Scientology is $1,500,000 Million and has a lot more people.

      Just keep paying and blowing up those power stations and trying to run a modern world on wind and sun like medieval farmers.
      And then wonder why there is no electricity?

      50

      • #
        James Murphy

        The greens dont promote salvation. they dont pretend to be positive about anything. they offer nothing but negativity, anger, and ignorance. Their policies are not about making Australia better, or about protecting the environment, they are about destroying or damaging what we have, and ripping off taxpayers to fund the rich and the lazy.
        This pretty much covers the LNP and Labor too, but the Greens are more direct.

        70

        • #
          TdeF

          The Greens play the guilt card, nothing more. White privilege. Per capita ’emissions’. What will others think of us, was popular this week. Virtue signalling. Scientists say. And they never ever use facts. Or at least real facts. More faux facts supported by faux fact checkers.

          00

  • #
    Ross

    Also, 97% of CO2 emissions are natural – as you well know. That 97% is broken down into 40% ocean/ atmosphere exchange, 28% Plant annual respiration, 28% soil respiration/decomposition and maybe about 1% volcanic eruptions (on average). But, here’s the kicker -sometimes the CHANGE in either of those big natural emitters (oceans, plant or soil ) is MORE than human emissions (3%). So, we are spending trillions to alter something insignificant which will be most likely swamped by natural variation in any one year.

    100

  • #
    Ronin

    Some people are buying one, two, or even three residential battery units and are actually making cash by buying and selling in the wholesale market.

    20

    • #
      LG

      Don’t residential consumers just get a fixed tariff tho? How do they get access to the wholesale electricity prices?

      20

      • #
        Ronin

        There are companies offering to set up batteries at your residence and they supply you wholesale priced power and pay you to export when it is high, I got a flyer in the mail about it, seemed to be too good so I forgot about it.

        20

      • #
        Ronin

        To make it a success, you need a fairly substantial battery setup to sort of ‘timeshift’ your power use away from times when wholesale power goes crazy, you don’t want to be paying $15,000 a Mwh, you want to be able to sell into that sort of market.

        10

  • #
    Ronin

    Off topic but… Albo is really out of touch with how Australia works, how do I drive a cab or truck or bus or train from home, How do I make coffee or work in a fruit and veg shop from home, how do nurses care for the sick or elderly and doctors perform operations from home.
    It’s all very well for govt workers or the laptop elite, isn’t it.

    80

  • #

    On Topic. Old King Coal still rules.

    30

  • #
    James Murphy

    No more peat for heat…

    From 2030, peat will no longer be used for energy production in Latvia, the government decided on July 14. Industry representatives see it as a mistake

    https://eng.lsm.lv/article/economy/economy/latvia-to-stop-using-peat-for-heat-as-of-2030.a465462/

    What would you get rid of in exchange for 184 million Euros?

    20

  • #
  • #
    Ronin

    ” Australia’s relationship with China can “set sail again”, the Chinese government says, as it reportedly considers scrapping a ban on Australian coal exports.”

    No doubt labor will claim the credit for the CCP backflip.

    10

    • #
      James Murphy

      Yes, because people genuinely think that its the duty of Albanese to “repair” our relationship with China, and that he is some sort of amazingly charismatic and competent leader.

      The same people get quite upset when asked why they support Australia having closer ties with a country known for slave labour and genocide.

      30

    • #

      They need our coal. Full stop.

      00

  • #
    Zane

    Kamala to replace the doddering Biden soon, the tea leaves say. And Gruesome Newsome plans to run for President in 2024. Fun and games.

    20

    • #
      Honk R Smith

      It’s a great unknown expanse between here and 2024.
      As Kamala has waxed eloquent about the passage of time.
      https://youtu.be/_DvAmoMGK80
      I don’t think the Dems can allow ‘elections’ as we have known them.
      The last one was 21016. They were caught with their panties down due to over confidence.
      A massive allied election ‘fortification’ project was undertaken to defeat the Orange Menace.

      I say this because they seem to make no effort to appeal to the other side.
      In fact, the demonizing of all opposition grows more outrageous.
      This may imply confidence.
      Either that, or they are truly nuts.

      40

  • #
    Wet Mountains

    We purchase a milk shake the other day. It came with a paper straw. Remember paper straws? Then, hallelujah, they replaced paper (renewable) with plastic (non-renewable). Now we have come full circle back to were we started. The first cold, hungry winter people send in the dark, things will come full circle.

    40

    • #
      TdeF

      As everything changes, it will be tough for some when the Government finally puts a punitive tax on wasteful very heavy electric cars who are not only not paying their fair share through petrol excise (in the UK, a pound a litre, here a dollar per litre).

      And it will be really easy to put a massive levy directly on the charging station invoices, straight from your credit cards.
      Of course the Teal owners will scream, but who will listen? They are the privileged few flouting their wealth and Green virtue, so there is nothing they can do.

      30

  • #

    […] The transformation to coal continues: Hungary declares emergency, revives brown coal, Greece aims to… […]

    00