Energy (from "Two stroke engine ban" on Rec Flying)

[Marty_d]

Marty_d, do you have any science training or qualifications? Physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, engineering? If not, you likely don't even have the intellectual tools to begin understand the issue.The local pollution issue has been largely solved for both air and water pollution, mostly by 30 years ago. I can remember when the car exhaust emissions were first controlled and it was claimed to be great because the only things coming out the back of the car were harmless water vapour and CO2. Sometimes solving 99% of a problem is good enough.

 

If you are still worried about CO2 you should realise that NONE of the current or proposed measures in place to slow down/prevent/reduce CO2 emissions will have any significant effect by 2100 (or likely ever). Just a few days ago a bunch of climate modellers admitted their models run too hot. In 2009 we saw the release of the UEA computer data which revealed the inner workings of the minds of the climate "scientists" there. Intellectually dishonest bunch of bullies who make up stuff.

 

Last I heard 1500 or so coal fired power stations were under construction or planned around the world. If Australia built 15 new ones we'd have very cheap, reliable electricity and make really no difference to the world. As it is we'll have expensive unreliable electricity and no industry and will all be poor enough that we won't be worrying about private aviation at all.

 

I'm thinking we need to look at the standard of living in Argentina and realise this is the best case for us. Venezuela could be where we are heading though.

That's an interesting trick, asking for my qualifications while keeping strangely quiet about your own. As for your jab about lacking the intellectual tools to understand the issue, I'd suggest that the boot is firmly upon the other foot.

 

Are you also going to question the qualifications of the 97% of scientists involved in climate research who are in agreement that climate change is caused by human activity since the industrial revolution, and that, without action in the form of drastically curbing emissions, the consequences are going to be pretty serious for all of us?

 

You don't even have to be a scientist (although they have pointed this out too) to see the effects of climate change that are already happening. Substantial bleaching of coral reefs and insufficient lowering of the water temperature to allow recovery. More extreme bushfires and extended bushfire seasons. Unprecedented numbers of "1 in 500 year" weather events.

 

Your suggestion of building new coal fired power stations is ludicrous. The Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, has stated that solar generation is now cheaper than new coal. Even if you didn't believe (or understand) the science, have a look at the economics. No bank in Australia will lend to a company planning a new coal fired generator, not that any energy company would want to build one anyway.

 

I don't know where you get your information but I'd suggest you try reputable sources, for example NASA. Then go talk to some oceanographers and get their views on the subject. Let's face it, Fox News and discredited geologists whose research is funded by coal miners are not the kind of sources you want to rely on.

 

 

[octave]

instead of building fossil fuel burning power plants perhaps we should be investigating all of the options.

 

ANU finds 22,000 potential pumped hydro sites in Australia

 

Apart from climate change, there are all sorts of reasons to transition to renewables. Coal oil and gas are stored energy, in fact, they are solar energy. I once saw a science talk by a physicist who kept referring to coal as buried sunshine, the energy they hold came initially from the sun. Another way of thinking about it is that coal, oil, and gas are like our bank account savings. It is imprudent to live off your savings and waiting for them to run out before seeking out some income. Renewables are like income.

 

Another point that almost no one mentions is that coal oil and gas provide us with chemicals drugs plastics etc. I am sure if we don't change our grandchildren will wonder why the hell we burnt this substance which has so many uses.

 

 

[DenisPC9]

Apart from climate change, there are all sorts of reasons to transition to renewables. Coal oil and gas are stored energy, in fact, they are solar energy. I once saw a science talk by a physicist who kept referring to coal as buried sunshine, the energy they hold came initially from the sun. Another way of thinking about it is that coal, oil, and gas are like our bank account savings. It is imprudent to live off your savings and waiting for them to run out before seeking out some income. Renewables are like income.

Another point that almost no one mentions is that coal oil and gas provide us with chemicals drugs plastics etc. I am sure if we don't change our grandchildren will wonder why the hell we burnt this substance which has so many uses.

I was elsewhere recently where all sorts of drivel was being sprouted, so I decided to have a look at Coal's background. And that was interesting.

 

The Carboniferous Age when most of the coal seams were laid down lasted 60 million years.

 

Atmospheric Oxygen saturation was up to 35% and CO2 was 800ppm (approx twice today's levels, or 3 times pre-Industrial level). So "things" plant and live, grew very well. The reason these seams were laid down was that the bacteria responsible for lignin breakdown hadn't yet evolved.

 

And it takes approx 40 tonnes of plant matter to compress down to 1 tonne of coal. So the 180 million Tonnes of Steaming Coal Australia exported in 2015 (the latest year I could find data for) represents some 7.2 billion tonnes of original plant matter

 

So the amounts of energy stored then, and being released now are astronomical. We cant help but overwhelm the fairly finely balanced natural equations for the interchange of gases around the planet

 

 

[DenisPC9]

Following on my post above a natural extrapolation is for some bright spark to guesstimate just how many sqillions of megatonnes of Coal the earth holds in reserve. The do the same projections for what we have already extracted and burnt.

 

Then divide one by the other to work out approximately how much of that 60 million years of stored energy we have released "un-stored".

 

Is it 100 years; 1,000 years; 1,000,000 million years? If its anywhere up in the last one, then I think we are steadily marching towards serious atmospheric issues.

 

 

[Yenn]

Marty. I go along with your idea, but it can also be discredited in some cases. For example we hear about these terrible bushfires. Here in Qld we have had to get permits to burn for many years. This has meant that fuel has not been burned off, when it would have been before the permit requirements. We are now seeing houses burnt and many more threatened by grass fires. Protection from grass fires has been denied to us by the problems of getting a permit. This has not been caused by global warming, but by stupid beaurocracy.

 

We have also been given figures for the bleaching of the reef. The reef is divided in those figures into 3 sections. We were told that there was severe bleaching n the Northern section, slight bleaching in the centre section and negligible in the Southern section. Then we were told that there was 90% bleaching or some similar high figure. I find it hard to have more than 30% bleaching, with little or none in other than the Northern section.

 

We are seeing statistics quoted to support arguments, which will not stand up to proper scrutiny. It seems that nowadays people cannot formulate a proper argument, but they make thing up or twist things to suit their point of view. Sad really when there is enough info in my opinion to make us want to reduce coal burning.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Following on my post above a natural extrapolation is for some bright spark to guesstimate just how many sqillions of megatonnes of Coal the earth holds in reserve. The do the same projections for what we have already extracted and burnt.

Then divide one by the other to work out approximately how much of that 60 million years of stored energy we have released "un-stored".

 

Is it 100 years; 1,000 years; 1,000,000 million years? If its anywhere up in the last one, then I think we are steadily marching towards serious atmospheric issues.

I doubt anyone knows the answer, but things are changing rapidly up north.

 

The Arctic - big changes, super-fast

 

 

[Bruce]

I would like the sceptics to explain: Glacier shrinking; Greenland icecap melting and sea level rise as measured to date.

 

Unless they have a scientific explanation to these things, I will have to conclude the warmists are right, even if their timing far from exact.

 

 

[DenisPC9]

I doubt anyone knows the answer, but things are changing rapidly up north.

The Arctic - big changes, super-fast

And to our South.

 

 

[Bruce]

Just for the record, Mike Borgelt has a degree in science ( Meteorology) and his first job was as a meteorologist in WA. In his last year at school, he topped the state of WA in physics. These days he makes the best gliding instruments ever.

 

 

[Bruce]

But don't give up Marty. I like reading your posts and I agree with a fair bit of what you say.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Just for the record, Mike Borgelt has a degree in science ( Meteorology) and his first job was as a meteorologist in WA. In his last year at school, he topped the state of WA in physics. These days he makes the best gliding instruments ever.

Interesting. Now the question is, why is his opinion different from 97% of his colleagues?

 

 

[octave]

Interesting. Now the question is, why is his opinion different from 97% of his colleagues?

You can find the odd doctor who does not accept the efficacy of vaccination but this does not change the weight of evidence.

 

 

[coljones]

You can find the odd doctor who does not accept the efficacy of vaccination but this does not change the weight of evidence.

You will also find the odd medico who cooks the books and providing skeptics with a straw to clutch despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

 

[Bruce]

We have the most amazing ability to choose our belief and then selectively choose the bits of evidence which support it and ignore the rest.

 

Burt Rutan is a brilliant man who is also a climate-change denier. He tells how ,under communism, Siberian settlements got more heating oil if they reported lower temperatures. So there were plenty of record lows which found their way into the history books.

 

But to be complete, Burt needs to explain shrinking glaciers and arctic changes, which he has ignored.

 

 

[storchy neil]

Easy. Bruce blame tony abbot Neil

 

 

[Bruce]

gosh Storchy, I was only reminded of tony abbott yesterday when I heard of this guy who smuggled yabbies to Thailand in his undies. Apparently no customs people want to search inside a blokes undies.

 

Aha said I, many years behind the action, " thats why they called tony's bathers " budgie smugglers"

 

Has anybody here done this with yabbies? Did they nip?

 

 

[Marty_d]

gosh Storchy, I was only reminded of tony abbott yesterday when I heard of this guy who smuggled yabbies to Thailand in his undies. Apparently no customs people want to search inside a blokes undies.Aha said I, many years behind the action, " thats why they called tony's bathers " budgie smugglers"

 

Has anybody here done this with yabbies? Did they nip?

Hmmm. Smuggling a bony crustacean with nippers right against the twig & giggleberries. Darwinism in action?

 

 

[storchy neil]

That would save me from looking for the magnifying glass Neil

 

 

[facthunter]

I've been bitten on the fingers by Yabbies so wouldn't suggest a possible circumcision or worse by carrying them in the jocks. Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

And what about budgies? did Tony really smuggle budgies in his speedos?

 

Tough on the budgies and yabbies too I reckon. I would nip if it as me.