by Sojourner » Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:43 pm
by redandblack » Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:48 pm
by Q. » Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:46 pm
by scoob » Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:36 pm
Quichey wrote:Couple of things the article doesn't point out.
Carbon pricing is a global inevitability. Our implementation of a pricing scheme means that, for investors, Australia is already a known quantity, whereas it will be difficult to predict costing impacts in countries that are yet to, but will be, implementing carbon pricing schemes.
Secondly, it is absolutely crucial the successive governments continue with the promised investment into renewable energy so that we become global leaders of the technology and leaders in export of renewable energy technology to countries adopting carbon pricing over the next decade.
by Psyber » Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:37 pm
Quichey wrote:Couple of things the article doesn't point out.
Carbon pricing is a global inevitability. Our implementation of a pricing scheme means that, for investors, Australia is already a known quantity, whereas it will be difficult to predict costing impacts in countries that are yet to, but will be, implementing carbon pricing schemes.
Secondly, it is absolutely crucial the successive governments continue with the promised investment into renewable energy so that we become global leaders of the technology and leaders in export of renewable energy technology to countries adopting carbon pricing over the next decade.
Q2. Considering ‘energy’ itself is free, enough of it all around us and with cheaper, cleaner, safer, decentralised methods of harnessing it as individuals(going ‘off-grid’) and the growing devastating, global crisis of Fuel Poverty on social-economic conditions:
-Why do you think the energy industry and governments are so keen to continue the current dependency on the infinite extraction of gravely finite fuels, wasteful and polluting means of supplying across great distances from source to customer?
-What are the chances of seeing off-grid autonomous power generation becoming our main energy source? what role could it have in eliminating fuel poverty, climate change and the world economy/markets?
The most commonly proposed ways to overcome intermittency and unscheduled lulls in local renewable energy generation are: (i) to store energy during productive times and draw on these stores during periods when little or nothing is being generated; (ii) to have a diverse mix of renewable energy systems (including distributed generation – the second part of the question being asked), coordinated by a smart electronic grid management system (so that even if the wind is not blowing in one place, it will be in another, or else the sun will be shining or the waves crashing); and (iii) to have fossil fuel or nuclear power stations on standby, to take up the slack when needed. …...
…... As a result, an overbuilt system of wind and solar would, at times, be delivering five to twenty times our power demand, and at other times, none of it. Modelling of these contingencies has shown that a system which relies on wind and/or solar power, plus large-scale energy storage and a geographically dispersed electricity transmission network to channel power to load centres, would be at least an order of magnitude more expensive than an equivalent nuclear-powered system, and still less reliable.....
….. Nuclear fission, the other low-carbon, low-impact alternative, has the advantage of using an energy-dense stored fuel, but it carries a social stigma in many countries (centred on ‘radiophobia’) that will be a real challenge to overcome.
So currently, fossil fuels win by default.
by Psyber » Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:38 am
by Jimmy_041 » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:05 pm
by Sojourner » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:43 pm
by mick » Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:12 pm
by Q. » Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:27 pm
by Squawk » Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:33 pm
Psyber wrote:fast breeder Uranium Fission models.
by fish » Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:23 pm
Jimmy if you are talking about distortion of the facts look no further than this howler from the Minnesotans for Global Warming!Jimmy_041 wrote:See how statistics distorts the facts
by Sojourner » Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:34 pm
fish wrote:Jimmy if you are talking about distortion of the facts look no further than this howler from the Minnesotans for Global Warming!Jimmy_041 wrote:See how statistics distorts the facts
Or this gem from the sadly departed Senator Fielding!
The inescapable fact is that Australia produces 1.47% of the worlds emissions with just 0.33% of the worlds population - we produce far more than our fair share of the stuff (four and a half times the global average emissions per person!) and ought to do our fair share to cut our emissions.
by Jimmy_041 » Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:03 pm
fish wrote:Jimmy if you are talking about distortion of the facts look no further than this howler from the Minnesotans for Global Warming!Jimmy_041 wrote:See how statistics distorts the facts
Or this gem from the sadly departed Senator Fielding!
The inescapable fact is that Australia produces 1.47% of the worlds emissions with just 0.33% of the worlds population - we produce far more than our fair share of the stuff (four and a half times the global average emissions per person!) and ought to do our fair share to cut our emissions.
by The Sleeping Giant » Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:22 pm
fish wrote:Jimmy if you are talking about distortion of the facts look no further than [url=http://www.safooty.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1343864#p1343864]this howler[/url] from the Minnesotans for Global Warming!Jimmy_041 wrote:See how statistics distorts the facts
Or [url=http://www.safooty.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1312840#p1312840]this gem[/url] from the sadly departed Senator Fielding!
The inescapable fact is that Australia produces 1.47% of the worlds emissions with just 0.33% of the worlds population - we produce far more than our fair share of the stuff (four and a half times the global average emissions per person!) and ought to do our fair share to cut our emissions.
by fish » Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:38 pm
Are you saying we don't produce emissions at a rate around four and a half times higher than the global average?Jimmy_041 wrote:Another use of statistics to distort the factsfish wrote:Jimmy if you are talking about distortion of the facts look no further than this howler from the Minnesotans for Global Warming!Jimmy_041 wrote:See how statistics distorts the facts
Or this gem from the sadly departed Senator Fielding!
The inescapable fact is that Australia produces 1.47% of the worlds emissions with just 0.33% of the worlds population - we produce far more than our fair share of the stuff (four and a half times the global average emissions per person!) and ought to do our fair share to cut our emissions.
by Jimmy_041 » Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:44 am
by fish » Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:45 am
Anyone can use facts to support an argument too, and that is exactly what I've done. The deniers, nay-sayers and head-in-sanders can whinge and moan all they like but it is a fact that Australia produces more than it's fair share of carbon dioxide emissions.Jimmy_041 wrote:No - I'm saying anyone can use of statistics to support an argument.
Are you saying Belize, Qatar, Guyana, Malaysia, UAE, Kuwait, PNG, Brunei and Australia are the worst polluters in the World?
by Jimmy_041 » Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:17 pm
Are you saying Belize, Qatar, Guyana, Malaysia, UAE, Kuwait, PNG, Brunei and Australia are the worst polluters in the World?
OK, lets cut their emissions in half in the next year and see what difference that makes to total output
It would equal 5 days of China's output
All produce oil and all have small populations
by redandblack » Sat Dec 24, 2011 7:32 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |