The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
Climate change ball is in Rudd’s court, not Turnbull’s
|
With all the focus on the chaos in the Liberal Party, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the fundamental decision on what climate path Australia takes will be made by the Government, not the Opposition. It is up to the Government to decide whether to wedge Malcolm Turnbull, or give him enough rope to hang himself, or, tragically least likely, actually take meaningful action to avert the climate crisis. If Prime Minister Rudd and Minister Wong decide that the best political outcome for them is to tick the climate change box with a weak scheme, they will do any deal they need to do with the Opposition. The dodgy deal they made over the Renewable Energy Target and the noises recently made about a Morgan Stanley report recommending even more handouts to polluters, show that the Government will sell their own grandmothers to get the scheme through if they decide that is where the best politics lie. On the other hand, if Rudd and Wong want to keep wedging Malcolm Turnbull by refusing to negotiate, they are perfectly capable of doing that. The stark reality, of course, is that both of those options condemn Australia, our region and the planet to a future that none of us want to live in. The UK Met Office’s warning overnight that “if we get a weak agreement at Copenhagen then there is not just a slight chance of a 4C rise, there is a really big chance” should be a wake up call to all those who still argue that we just need to do something about climate change, regardless of how weak and insubstantial that something might be. At both the Australian domestic and global levels right now, we are heading for an agreement to fail. The political and media pressure to reach an agreement – any old agreement – is in serious danger of swamping the pressure to reach an agreement that will actually deliver a safe climate outcome. Thankfully there is now, at the eleventh hour, a growing chorus of voices joining the Greens in saying that a weak deal is worse than no deal at all as it will lock in failure. Last week, Sir David King and Lord Stern told the Financial Times that it would be far better that no global climate deal is reached this year than that we get a weak deal that will be very difficult to unravel. Now, the Global Humanitarian Forum meeting in Geneva, involving Kofi Annan, Mary Robinson, Rajendra Pachauri, James Wolfensohn and many other global luminaries, has come to the same conclusion, that: “No deal is better than a bad deal”: it would be more constructive to avoid conclusion at the 2009 UN Climate Conference at Copenhagen of any climate change agreement that would not provide for basic levels of safety, equity and predictability. Just as the theatre of Liberal Party disintegration distracts us from the fact that it is Labor’s job to govern, the prospect of some kind of agreement distracts us from the main game. We have to remember that our goal is not simply to reduce carbon pollution. Our goal must be to pass on to our children, and our children’s children, the safe climate that has nurtured us and made human civilisation possible. As Winston Churchill said, “It’s no use saying we are doing our best, we have to succeed in doing what is necessary.” At last week’s UN meetings, it was China and India who held out the olive branch by clearly committing to action if rich countries lead. The leaders of the developed world, including Prime Minister Rudd, failed to move. Now is the chance – China and India have given us an open invitation. If countries like Australia move to serious emissions targets and commit to meaningful financing, Copenhagen could still deliver the outcome we need. Likewise, at home, the Greens have offered five clear Senate votes in favour of the kind of strong scheme that the climate needs and the community wants. With the Opposition so fractured, the Government could find the support it needs for such an outcome in the Senate. The climate change ball is in Mr Rudd’s court. |
|
|
15 Comments
I remember how elated I was when Rudd won office. He said he believed in the necessity of fighting climate change. He said sorry to the indigenous of this country. He said lots of good things in those early months.
But saying and doing are two very different ball games. Just as he has proven ineffective in Indigenous affairs and the NT intervention in particular, so too he is collapsing with serious action on climate change. He is very disappointing in this regard. (I am still glad Howard did not win of course: he would have started building nuclear power stations all over the country!)
Senator Milne is I am convinced, the most intelligent and competent of all our senators. Especially on the issue of climate change. I agree with her comments here: a bad deal could well lock in failure. We need to respond to the crisis with a strong and couragous deal.
Let’s hope real action happens. I think it was Senator Milne who said on a previous occasion: you can’t negotiate with the laws of physics.
recall the initial report on climate change in 1975!? outlined two possible scenarios…international co-operation ( not likely) and geo-engineering (not possible at the time)
recently China has been making noises about geo-engineering…
does not require international approval
just takes a rocket (or two) over each pole
it may start an ice age…but takes global warming off the agenda!
puts some of the commentary into perspective
then again, there has always been climate change, the dinosaurs were the most spectacular example of not fully adapting
this could be viewed in that perspective, adapt or perish
so the planning becomes from now on…rather than looking over the shoulder looking to re-create a fleeting moment in a micro-climate.
most of Australia was under water for significant periods..that’s why there is salt under ground!(Queensland mining article in this Crikey)…when the polar caps melt, it will be again…
about time someone pointed out the bleeding obvious (along with B Keane recently)
But of course tomorrow we’ll be hearing Penny W talking about what ‘Mr Turnbull’ will do. And probably the media will continue along the easy path.
Christine,
Well may you be right about the antics of the Coalition and the Rudd Government, and that you have 5 votes to donate to a better outcome; however, you have failed to mention that, if the government don’t do a deal with the Coalition, then it’s not only The Greens 5 votes that become important. Not to put too fine a point on it, but your 5 votes are as nothing without those of Senator X. and noted Climate Change sceptic, Senator Fielding. I don’t think either of them voted for the legislation last time around. What is your solution for getting them on board this time, then?
Well said Jim,
I think we need a prime minister like Christine who’s actually got some balls to tell it like it is. Maybe her resolve comes from actually staring down corporate bullies all her adult life - that is the problem with both major parties and our problem as a nation in only developing primary industries. We are in effect cheating as we rake in the profits from mining and deforestation, basking in our privileged lifestyle and patting ourselves on the backs for being so clever, and Christine and the greens are the only ones crying foul.
The response from developed countries on climate change has been worse than pathetic. It was galling to see Rudd and Obama talking about the dire need for action when they’ve done zip. There is no leadership being shown by them because they are so beholden to donations of dirty polluters and there is an election looming large on the horizon for Rudd. China and India on the other hand are leading the way. Engery efficiency is now a pillar of China’s growth policy, and China plans to reduce its energy intensity by 20 percent from 2006 through 2010. China’s fuel economy standards today are higher than the US standard to be met by 2016. China has national targets for renewable electricity production, which has led to the emergence of innovative technologies. It plans to produce 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010, and 15 percent by 2020. China has new industrial zones dedicated to the production of low-carbon technologies.
What has Rudd done since he formed government other than ignore recommendations from the Garnaut report and alot of huffing and puffing on the issue?
Christine,
What’s the point? ‘Global Warming’ stopped about a decade ago.
Regarding the ETS. It should be thrown in the bin. Not negotiated. I am an Australian computer scientist, specialising in computer models and statistics, ex Australian Bureau of Statistics, founder and ex-chairman of the QAUUG. I have been pointing out for two decades that ‘Global Warming’ as a bad thing is pure kiddology, as is the presumption that CO2 will warm the planet. Never has done in the past, I can’t think of a good reason for it to start doing so now. What is your comment on this revelation from one of the chief climate scientists WITHIN the IPCC?
“Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC’s last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.
Yet in Geneva, Latif was forced to admit that all those An-Inconvenient-Truth-style fantasy projections showing global temperatures rising inexorably with C02 levels were wrong.
The world is getting cooler, not warming. It will continue to cool, Latif reckons, till 2020 or possibly 2030. By how much he doesn’t know: “The jury is still out.””
COOLING. I repeat. COOLING.
Wong, Rudd and co tried to put a new spin on this nonsense by invoking “Oh yeah, we know the atmosphere is COOLING, but the heat is HIDING in the sea waiting to LEAP at us all”. What utter nonsense.
I believe that is the Greenie spin as well.
There has been a change in direction by global warming alarmists, as shown by “Synthesis Report – Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions,” published in Copenhagen and released in June.
In that report, those claiming there is a human-induced global warming crisis have abandoned air temperature as a measure of global climate and switched to ocean temperature. The change in focus from air temperature to ocean temperature was predictable given the sustained decline in global air temperature over recent years. The new report claims ocean temperatures are rising, and fast.This is rubbish, but it will take time to inform the public and politicians that it is rubbish. With the U.S. climate bill and the Copenhagen meeting of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coming up, proponents of carbon dioxide restrictions need only to make the public believe these fables for a few months.
All the public education the climate realists have accomplished regarding air temperatures will have to start all over regarding ocean temperatures. Here are some key points to be made:
* Ocean temperatures can be measured adequately only by the Argo buoy network. Argo buoys dive down to 700m, recording temperatures, then come up and radio back the results. There are 3,000 of them floating around all the world’s oceans.
* The Argo buoys have been operational only since the end of 2003. Before that, ocean temperatures were gathered by various methods – usually collected by ships in popular commercial shipping lanes – that lacked uniformity, sufficient geographical coverage, and the ability to measure temperature much beneath the surface. The Argo buoy system has added uniformity and greater reliability to ocean temperature measurements.
* According to Argo temperature measurements, the world’s oceans have shown a slight cooling since Argo became operational in 2003. In sharp contrast to model predicted heat build-up
In short, if one studies the OBSERVABLE DATA for but a moment and ignore the output of rather poor computer models, the planet has been COOLING for a decade and is predicted to continue to COOL for the next two decades, perhaps longer.
The atmosphere is COOLING, the sea is COOLING, the ice in the Arctic INCREASED by another 10% this year, what is the major problem?
WHY DO WE NEED A NEW TAX TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING? IT DOESN’T EXIST!
The Greens are stumbling along, still mouthing the same tired Watermelon mantras. As if the current state of “URGENT” action being required to fix a problem that frankly doesn’t exist isn’t bad enough,we find that the science used as the basis for underwriting all this childish nonsense was wrong.
Treemometers: A new scientific scandal
By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author
Posted in Environment, 29th September 2009 16:03 GMT
A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.
At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.
At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy, or dendrochronology. Using statistical techniques, researchers take the ring data to create a “reconstruction” of historical temperature anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of temperature, since the rings principally record Co2, and also record humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake and other local factors.
Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is problematic, and a dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. In dendro jargon, this disparity is called “divergence”. The process of creating a raw data set also involves a selective use of samples - a choice open to a scientist’s biases.
Yet none of this has stopped paleoclimataologists from making bold claims using tree ring data.
In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.
How could this be? Scientists have ensured much of the measurement data used in the reconstructions remains a secret - failing to fulfill procedures to archive the raw data. Without the raw data, other scientists could not reproduce the results. The most prestigious peer reviewed journals, including Nature and Science, were reluctant to demand the data from contributors. Until now, that is.
At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions B the data has leaked into the open - and Yamal’s mystery is no more.
From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.
In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked.
Controversy has been raging since 1995, when an explosive paper by Keith Briffa at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia asserted that that the medieval warm period was actually really cold, and recent warming is unusually warm. Both archaeology and the historical accounts, Briffa was declaring, were bunk. Briffa relied on just three cores from Siberia to demonstrate this.
Three years later Nature published a paper by Mann, Bradley and Hughes based on temperature reconstructions which showed something similar: warmer now, cooler then. With Briffa and Mann as chapter editors of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this distinctive pattern became emblematic - the “Logo of Global Warming”.
Hokey hockey sticks
Mann too used dendrochronology to chill temperatures, and rebuffed attempts to publish his measurement data. Initially he said he had forgotten where he put it, then declined to disclosed it. (Some of Mann’s data was eventually discovered, by accident, on his ftp server in a directory entitled ‘BACKTO_1400-CENSORED’.)
Tree data was secondary in importance to Mann’s statistical technique, which would produce a dramatic modern upturn in temperatures - which became nicknamed the “Hockey Stick” - even using red noise.
Similarly, all the papers that used the Yamal data have the same point to make. All suggest recent dramatic warming. Having scored a global hit with a combination of flawed statistics and dubious dendrochronology, the acts repeated the formula.
“Late 20th century warmth is unprecedented for at least roughly the past two millennia for the Northern Hemisphere,” wrote the two authors of Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia published in Geophysical Research Letters in 2003 - Mann, and Phil Jones of CRU.
For example, Briffa’s 2008 paper concludes that: “The extent of recent widespread warming across northwest Eurasia, with respect to 100- to 200-year trends, is unprecedented in the last 2000 years.”
It continues to this day. A study purporting to show the Arctic was warmer now than for 2,000 years received front-page attention last month. Led by Northern Arizona University professor Darrell S Kaufman, and including dendro veteran Mann, this too relied heavily on Yamal, and produced the signature shape.
And when Yamal is plotted against the wider range of cores, the implications of the choice is striking: The warming goes away.
http://www.addinall.net/rcs.gif
(The alarming red line we are all familiar with is created by cherry picking 12 samples as data points. The black line is created using ALL of the data collected.)
A comparison of Yamal RCS chronologies. red - as archived with 12 picked cores; black - including Schweingruber’s Khadyta River, Yamal (russ035w) archive and excluding 12 picked cores. Both smoothed with 21-year gaussian smooth. y-axis is in dimensionless chronology units centered on 1 (as are subsequent graphs (but represent age-adjusted ring width).
“The majority of these trees (like the Graybill bristlecones) have a prolonged growth pulse (for whatever reason) starting in the 19th century,” wrote Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre on his blog on Sunday. “When a one-size fits all age profile is applied to these particular tries, the relatively vigorous growth becomes monster growth - 8 sigma anomalies in some of them.”
McIntyre’s determination to reproduce the reconstructions has resulted in the Yamal data finally coming to light.
All the papers come from a small but closely knit of scientists who mutually support each other’s work. All use Yamal data.
What went wrong?
The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science. The IPCC’s mission is to reflect the science, not create it.
As the panel states, its duty is “assessing the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data.” But as lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping (no pun intended) the assessment.
When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did here?
The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results. Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained elusive for almost a decade.
from:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/page3.html
Australia should do NOTHING in regards to an ETS or other Carbon tax. We are a LONG way from “the science is decided”. The concensus shrinks daily, the atmosphere is cooling, the seas are cooling, the seas are not rising alarmingly….. In short, NOTHING out of the ordinary is going on, and this whole movement is based on bad science and a lot of psuedo-science claptrap from the Watermelons.
The traders love it. The Carbon market in Europe last year was around $80 billion dollars. This is swapping IOUs for fresh air remember. Nothing collected or manufactured. Nothing delivered. A perfect scam.
Mark Addinall.
Hi Mark
nowithstanding the fact that after your comment that you were a “computer scientist” you have a lot of credibility to claw back you didn’t manage it with your rather confused rant. Mark- the crushing weight of very conservative scientific consensus utterly refutes your argument. I support your right to free-speech totally no matter how misguided you are but do you have to waste our time with it? Can you please take your pseudo arguments to one of the myriad flat-earth/area 54 type websites somewhere so those of us not off in woop-woop land with the denialist kooks can work out how we can get governments to take action to reduce emissions.
Thanks matey
Hi Jack,
I did not state I was a “computer scientist”, I stated I am a computer scientist. I have post graduate degrees in that field, and have done statistical analysis and model creations for Ford Motor Co, Rolls-Royce, Jaguar, DuPont, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the ADF, the Port of Newcastle, the Port of Fremantle amongst others. Hardly “whoop-whoop” land. So I believe I have done my apprenticeship over the last thirty years.
I have no “psuedo arguments”. I examine data sets that are made available. And from those data sets draw conclusions based on fairly standard statistical method.
The IPCC seems now to agree with me that the atmospheric temperatures have been cooling for a decade, and perhaps will continue to do so for another ten, or twenty, or thirty years. The ARGO system network has discovered a slight cooling of the seas and oceans since deployment in late 2003.
So if the atmosphere is not warming, and the seas are not warming, what is?
As to where I post, here seems fine at the moment.
So apart from some rather lame ad-hom, how about you trot out some figures? I live, eat and breathe statistics. Always welcome data sets that are not ‘corrected’ in secret. Have a quick look here:
http://www.addinall.net/antarctica
Quite a few long term measurement sets that really do not show a crisis with global temperature. Vostok got colder! As has much of the globe.
Awaiting on the edge of my chair to your well thought-out reply…
Thanks Matey.
Mark, love your work Matey - I wouldn’t expect to hear back from Jack in a hurry !
We need more like you to get the truth out.
PS. I heard them say on the radio last night that the Samoan earthquake was another example of Climate Change. It’s sad when you consider what we are up against.
Thank you. However I would love to hear back from Jack. He might be one of the many “well meaning” idiots. Christine on the other hand has enough resources to investigate the science that is the “Global Warming” twaddle. I can only presume she has an agenda to stop her doing so. Or to stop her from publishing what is a real scientific fact, that the planet at the moment, for the last decadal period, has not been warming, but COOLING. These are facts.
On your last note, I have heard in the last few years that Vulcanism, tectonic shift, and earthquakes are all caused by CO2 global warming! Usually by people who have little or none education in any of the hard sciences.
Shrug. I am just going to file a law suite against the first commercial entity that gives me a bill for “Carbon Pollution” and I will expect them to prove it in a court of law. I will win.
Regards, Mark.
Senator Christine Milne,
seems to have run away from her statement. Rather typical of an ill-educated Watermelon. All bluster, no brain. With a complete and utter reliance on slavish minions all in agreement…
The Senate needs an IQ test.
OK Mark (and whoever your little friend is) you got me to respond but this will be the last time given the tendency of you little scamps to waste peoples time with your wacky stuff. (By the way stating that you “are” rather than “were” a ‘computer’ scientist hasn’t upped you in the credibility stakes, sorry mate. I’m not going to descend to your level by calling you a well meaning idiot in turn though, mainly because I can’t be sure whether you are, in fact, well meaning.) If you want as many stats as you can handle on climate change try this website http://www.bravenewclimate.com Its run by an actual (ie credible) statistician/scientist who publishes peer reviewed articles. BTW I can’t be bothered finding any of the flat earth, 9-11 conspiracy type sites for you but then I’m sure you are quite familiar with them already. Quite happy by the way for the Senate to employ an IQ test, that’s a great idea, then we can get rid of that utter wast of space Senator ” I have a graph” Fielding.
thanks champ
P.S. Can’t wait for your law “suite” either, I imagine one would sit on that while exploring http://www.nutjobdenialist.com or similar sites in the kookosphere would one?
“OK Mark (and whoever your little friend is) you got me to respond but this will be the last time given the tendency of you little scamps to waste peoples time with your wacky stuff.
(By the way stating that you “are” rather than “were” a ‘computer’ scientist hasn’t upped you in the credibility stakes, sorry mate. I’m not going to descend to your level by calling you a well meaning idiot in turn though, mainly because I can’t be sure whether you are, in fact, well meaning.) If you want as many stats as you can handle on climate change try this website http://www.bravenewclimate.com Its run by an actual (ie credible) statistician/scientist who publishes peer reviewed articles.”
Hmmmm. Interesting site. I have visited it many times in the past. “Peer review” was not something invented by Watermelons you know? It has been going on for yonks. It has taken quite a caning over the last decade since “actual and credible” staticians/scientists (in the feild of “climate science”) have abused it to the point of scientific fraud. I expect it from Greenie politicians, but am saddened that a lust for fame and fortune has overtaken a real quest for scientific knowledge.
Many of the projects I have contributed to have a concept of “Blue team - Red team” peer review. Where the Blue team consists of peers who you probably work with, who know your work. The Red team reviewers are people who do not know you. Aren’t familiar with the project other than a one page synopsis. Between the two teams your work gets a thorough examination. All data, sources and methods are to be made available for that review. Climate “science” hasn’t been working that way.
“A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.
At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.”
It doesn’t look like the type of “peer review” in place within “climate science” is a very robust one at all.
Back to the site….
An article by Barry Brook states:
“All international climate models predict the tropical Pacific to continue to warm and to be above El Niño thresholds throughout most of the second half of 2009.”
However, looking at DATA rather than computer models we find:
”* Ocean temperatures can be measured adequately only by the Argo buoy network. Argo buoys dive down to 700m, recording temperatures, then come up and radio back the results. There are 3,000 of them floating around all the world’s oceans.
* The Argo buoys have been operational only since the end of 2003. Before that, ocean temperatures were gathered by various methods – usually collected by ships in popular commercial shipping lanes – that lacked uniformity, sufficient geographical coverage, and the ability to measure temperature much beneath the surface. The Argo buoy system has added uniformity and greater reliability to ocean temperature measurements.
* According to Argo temperature measurements, the world’s oceans have shown a slight cooling since Argo became operational in 2003. In sharp contrast to model predicted heat build-up”
In short, if one studies the OBSERVABLE DATA for but a moment and ignore the output of rather poor computer models, the planet has been COOLING for a decade and is predicted to continue to COOL for the next two decades, perhaps longer.
The models are obviously wrong.
Barry Brook also writes some other well thought out and informative articles on the use of nuclear energy as the ‘clean’ power source for the 21st century. I agree with him, and the general tone of the web site (mostly in favour of exploring a nuclear option). He asks this in his article:
so please do pass on the link: http://tinyurl.com/cwvn8n
I also find this, posted by Barry Brooks, written by Lang:
“This paper provides a simple analysis of the capital cost of solar power and energy storage sufficient to meet the demand of Australia’s National Electricity Market. It also considers some of the environmental effects. It puts the figures in perspective. By looking at the limit position, the paper highlights the very high costs imposed by mandating and subsidising solar power. The minimum power output, not the peak or average, is the main factor governing solar power’s economic viability. The capital cost would be 25 times more than nuclear power. The least-cost solar option would require 400 times more land area and emit 20 times more CO2 than nuclear power.
Conclusions: solar power is uneconomic. Government mandates and subsidies hide the true cost of renewable energy but these additional costs must be carried by others.”
Again, something else I agree with. Solar power is not a viable technology for providing baseline power. And wind, if at all possible, is worse.
It goes on:
“Energy storage, at the scale required to make wind power a reliable source of dispatchable power, is uneconomic. This link provides comparative costs of energy storage technologies.
Even without energy storage wind generation is uneconomic. Wind must be mandated by governments and subsidised, otherwise it would not be built. Wind power is high cost for low value energy. It has low value because it cannot be controlled and called up on demand. It requires high cost upgrading to the grid in remote areas and requires costly systems to maintain power and frequency stability on the grid. Wind generators need $90/MWh to $140/MWh to be viable. As well, the electricity distributors and the national grid operator all incur substantial additional costs as a result of being forced (by government regulation) to buy wind energy. For comparison, the cost of new entrant baseload power is about $40/MWh.
Barry Brook will soon be posting another paper which provides insight into the amount of energy storage that would be required and just how far from being economic are intermittent, not dispatchable renewable energy generation technologies with energy storage. These technologies are not just 10% or 20%, or even 50% from being economic. Solar PV with energy storage, for example, would be some 20 times more costly than nuclear power to provide the electricity we demand. We have been researching and developing solar PV for the same time as nuclear power, and wind power for three times as long. Yet these renewables are still totally uneconomic. The advocates are making the same sorts of statements now as they were making in the early 1990s about the economics of these generation systems – “they are economic now if the government would just subsidise them and mandate them more”.”
Agreed again. Rather a good sight. It has the misconception that the climate is changing for the worse. There we disagree.
More follows:
“1. Wind power does not avoid significant amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Wind power is a very high cost way to avoid greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Wind power, even with high capacity penetration, can not make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
And in an article regarding the adoption of nuclear power in South Australia he comments on the comments from the Greens:
“However, something in that news story on the SA Libs particularly irked me (no, it was not the potshot from Kevin Foley; that was unsurprising political wedging). It was this:
Greens MP Mark Parnell says he does not think Ms Redmond’s stance will damage her credibility and the debate is futile.
“We are not about to have nuclear power here any time soon,” he said.
“South Australians don’t want it; it’s too expensive; it’s too dangerous; it’s not the solution to climate change; and we don’t know how to dispose of nuclear waste yet.”
Now Mark knows about Integral Fast Reactors — he’s been in the audience when I’ve talked about them. So why would he continue to claim that we don’t know how to dispose of nuclear waste? I find it hard to fathom.”
That’s right. The Greens care little for the environment.
“I’m sure you all know that the energy content contained in light water reactor (LWR) spent fuel and depleted uranium exceeds all the known oil reserves in the world. It’s an energy resource that is 10 times bigger than the energy of the coal we have in the ground. And that’s just the stuff we have on hand! That’s not even counting the stuff we haven’t mined. Using fast reactors, we can run the entire planet for over 700 years on just the uranium “waste” we have on hand and for millions of years if we are willing to use the uranium that hasn’t yet been mined.”
Now Christine and all the other Greens will have a chance at reading this interesting web site. Thank you.
Problem solved. We have clean, green power for the next million of so years. Next major problem please?
“BTW I can’t be bothered finding any of the flat earth, 9-11 conspiracy type sites for you but then I’m sure you are quite familiar with them already.”
Save it for someone who gives a f**k about what you think sonny.
” Quite happy by the way for the Senate to employ an IQ test, that’s a great idea, then we can get rid of that utter wast of space Senator ” I have a graph” Fielding.”
Dunno whether it would be Fielding out the door. He seems to take moreof an interest in numbers than Christine.
The AGW hypothesis has failed. Get over it. You Denier you. “Re-newable” energy has been found to be not re-newable, and doesn’t provide affordable and timely base power generation. Get over it. You denier you.
“thanks champ
P.S. Can’t wait for your law “suite” either, I imagine one would sit on that while exploring http://www.nutjobdenialist.com or similar sites in the kookosphere would one?”
If someone wants to give me a bill for getting rid of faeries from my garden, I want to see the remains. Otherwise it’s fraud.
Thanks Champ.
Hi Jack,
It’s Mark’s little mate here - Gordon ! I have been a regular over at BraveNewClimate for a while and agree that Barry’s efforts to raise the profile of Nuclear Energy is admirable. Jack, I wonder if in a few years time when the models are conclusively proved wrong, whether you will be like one of those believers in Saddam’s WMD’s, quietly relegated to history.
MMGWISBS - ManMadeGlobalWarmingIsBullSh#t.
Check out Chicken little on my Youtube site MMGWISBS - you may just feel like you are looking in the mirror !