Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[Ripper]

It's an obsession particular to your ideological bent. Like I said, please, tell us all about you conspiracy theories - it just confirms that deniers can't compete on the science front and exposes exactly what motivates and instructs your world view

It's there in black and white.

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three
basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization
of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on
adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds
and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will
operate as such, as appropriate.

I take from your silence that you have no problem with the world bank financing Big Green kicking people off their land and planting eucalyuptus (which are considered weed in the rest of the world)

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Sure thing mate! You tell us ALL about it!

 

[Ripper]

Sure thing mate! You tell us ALL about it!

Bob already has.

Back to the "settled science" LOL

What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
fluctuation? They'll kill us probably...

Read the whole mail.

 

[Norwegian Blue]

Sigh...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Solar_Power_Project

Um, Upton, if you'd look a little further:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Solar_Power_Project

Blythe Solar was to be a $6 billion parabolic trough solar thermal plant, comprising four 242 MW units

They're trying to salvage the project after the developer filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

In any case US$6billion for 1000MW is ridiculously more expensive than coal and baseload gas, particularly since what's left of the project seems to be using PV technology, i.e. no storage capability.

I know you'd like to live in a world where solar is cost-competitive with other technologies - frankly, so would I - but we're a looooong way from it.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Solar can work on cloudy days, maybe not generate quite so much but clouds block something like 10% of the radiation. Some countries in northern Europe which have far less sun than us generate much power than us. Personally I think that is a disgrace. You have an implication that the technology is not improving all the time and in fact seem to be talking about solar capabilities of 20 years ago.

Also I am not advocating wholesale transition towards Gen 3 or less nuclear power as it is an inefficient use of the uranium, creates waste that is dangerously radioactive for a period longer than the time our species has existed and can produce products to be used in a weapon of ridiculous destruction. Gen 4 uses up nearly all the radioactive energy in uranium so it leaves waste that has a half life of around 300 years, its waste can not be used for atomic bombs as it is less explosive than TNT and most excitingly of all can run on the waste of older generations' waste. In fact the waste that has already been created over the last 60 years that is a massive problem for humanity, and other species on this planet, going forward can create enough energy to fuel human needs for the next millenium.

Also damning rivers is just stupid as it creates such a level of destruction to many ecosystems that a level of need would have to arise to justify it that hasn't in my eyes.

Also the people that want action on climate change but don't want to explore the nuclear options available have their head up their arse, much like the denialist do about the actual problem. They deny the science in a way that is pathetic as those who deny climate change, imunisation, smoking health risks, age of the earth ect ect.

The 3Kw Solar system on my roof would have taken a week to fully charge an electric car over some periods of winter this year. 10% my arse. ( and I actually shopped and bought reputable equipment ).
Apart from that slight inconvenience what are the practicalities of having that many solar panels per car in a car park?

I guess you need to balance the damage to ecosystems through global warming with that of damming rivers.
The trouble with environmentist groups, is they tend to consider that all of their goals are tied together and that there should be no compromise.
Hydro is one of the few alternatives that is viable right now.

Its too hard to choose. Lets save the whales intstead.

 

[fishardansin]

Yep, Its worse than we thought, ROFL.

Now the IPCC have NOT been invited to COP18

Climate Change panel chief says ‘not invited to COP18’


Not surprised really , If you read the draft Copenhagen draft treaty, climate was barely mentioned .

It was all about (Redistributing) the money and a first step to raising a global income stream to finance a global government.

What are peoples thoughts on global government?

I personally think that long term a global government is inevitable and will solve some problems. It will never completely remove warfare but I see it being reduced to gang style warfare rather than international. I also think that as private companies now have operations and a market places that are practically global no one government can regulate them. A global government would be able to. Also with many nations showing reticence towards making the jump to a carbon free economy because they fear it will put them at a disadvantage shows another problem that would be better dealt with by a world government.

The biggest issue of course is what sort of government do we have. What happens to current national borders ect ect. It may be a way of introducing democracy to countries that currently don't have it.

Having said that I think we're as close to having a world government as Europe was to the EU during the middle ages!! First step is for the EU to become a real government, then NAFTA to go down the same evolutionary path, Oceania could make steps along this path and we still have the problems of the middle east, asia, south America and Africa to consider. It is a nice dream to have if we had a world democracy, rule of law, culturally/language appropriate regional governments and free of dictatorial and/or inherited leadership.

Apart from improving regional governance perhaps the first step will be giving the world court some real teeth and not have anyone above it. If we knew that even a US president or high level Chinese politician could be prosecuted and the penalties would apply then it would have a massive effect. Also world wide labor laws, free trade and laws to stop anti-competitive behaviour. These could be instituted with out ending national borders.

There could also be a cultural shift regards the UN's military operations. A large army that was recoursed by eveything from money, equipment and man power by everyone to a level high enough to see them deployed in every and any spot in the world that fighting breaks out would see a reduction of violence.

Ok I'm rambling now but in essence I believe a world government is desirable in the long term but pie in the sky now. However, there are many things that could be done in the mean time that would introduce the better aspects of a world government while not actually having one.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

But... but... Agenda 21! Mind control! The New World Order is coming!

Republican state senators in Georgia attended a four-hour closed door briefing last month in which they were told that President Barack Obama and the United Nations are using "mind-control" practices to force through a land use agenda.
The briefing, organized by state Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock), consisted of a presentation by birther activist Field Searcy regarding Agenda 21, a sustainability plan adopted by the United Nations in 1992. During the briefing, part of which was recorded by Better Georgia, an Atlanta-based watchdog group, Searcy accused the U.N. of using socialist practices to force a relocation of Americans from suburbs into cities, and seeking to implement mandatory contraception to curb population growth, Mother Jones reported. Rogers, who has pushed anti-Agenda 21 legislation in the past, did not seek reelection as majority leader during a GOP caucus meeting on Thursday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/11/15/agenda-21-georgia-chip-rogers_n_2140438.html

 

[fishardansin]

Obviously still lots of acid at Woodstock!

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Its probably a good idea to have some overriding authority. It could adress some of the issues we have discussed, such as why its not OK to burn coal in Australia but it is OK to export it to China.

Would be extremely problematic though. Does the country with the most people automatically gain control, or do countries that feel strongly about the same religeon gain control.
Do you commonise currency and risk the problems they are having in Europe?
How would it deal with skirmishes like the current one involving Israeli's and Palestinians.

If we consider that unlimited economic and population may not be feasible, it may mean that ultimately something akin to the original concept of communism will evolve.

 

[fishardansin]

Its probably a good idea to have some overriding authority. It could adress some of the issues we have discussed, such as why its not OK to burn coal in Australia but it is OK to export it to China.

Would be extremely problematic though. Does the country with the most people automatically gain control, or do countries that feel strongly about the same religeon gain control.
Do you commonise currency and risk the problems they are having in Europe?
How would it deal with skirmishes like the current one involving Israeli's and Palestinians.

If we consider that unlimited economic and population may not be feasible, it may mean that ultimately something akin to the original concept of communism will evolve.

Good questions.

Regards the currency I think Europe has shown us that you don't share currency with those you don't share treasury with!

I honestly think Israel v Palestine issues will be sorted out much better. Using their example, though there are many like the ethnic divisions in Iraq, Afganistan, Indonesia and all post colonial African nations that the policing will be done by people less emotionally invested in the conflict. When someone is shooting rockets into another country it is right that there is some sort of response, however, when it is the country that is being fired upon, and in large part due to them occupying the shooters' land, the response is inevitably over the top and further escalates the issue. International troops stationed through out Israel and Palestine would probably see international agreements regards borders and violent actions followed. Of course this is why Israel is keen to keep the UN out of there.

Regards Nations with bigger populations, they should have more say if you believe that the majority holds sway. Of course if we have a court based upon the rule of law it isn't about the majority but "sensible" argument.

Something "akin to communism" without dictators with ultimate power might be preferable in the long term. I'm sure we'll see personal liberties increase and more regulation on matters that lead to impacts on others, such as business practice and violence.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Good questions.

Regards the currency I think Europe has shown us that you don't share currency with those you don't share treasury with!

I honestly think Israel v Palestine issues will be sorted out much better. Using their example, though there are many like the ethnic divisions in Iraq, Afganistan, Indonesia and all post colonial African nations that the policing will be done by people less emotionally invested in the conflict. When someone is shooting rockets into another country it is right that there is some sort of response, however, when it is the country that is being fired upon, and in large part due to them occupying the shooters' land, the response is inevitably over the top and further escalates the issue. International troops stationed through out Israel and Palestine would probably see international agreements regards borders and violent actions followed. Of course this is why Israel is keen to keep the UN out of there.

Regards Nations with bigger populations, they should have more say if you believe that the majority holds sway. Of course if we have a court based upon the rule of law it isn't about the majority but "sensible" argument.

Something "akin to communism" without dictators with ultimate power might be preferable in the long term. I'm sure we'll see personal liberties increase and more regulation on matters that lead to impacts on others, such as business practice and violence.

Yeah tell em to go back where they came from. ( we'd best not go there ).

Population is probably a major sticking point. Should a nation that breeds uncontrollably have more say in the formulation of world law and its application?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Um, Upton, if you'd look a little further:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Solar_Power_Project


They're trying to salvage the project after the developer filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Heh... poor example

In any case US$6billion for 1000MW is ridiculously more expensive than coal and baseload gas, particularly since what's left of the project seems to be using PV technology, i.e. no storage capability.

Cost of parabolic troughs are coming down as more get manufactured. Take PV for example, the $/kW rate plummeted once the Chinese manufacturing boom began. Same will happen here. New tech is always hellishly more expensive for early adopters, that's hardly news

I know you'd like to live in a world where solar is cost-competitive with other technologies - frankly, so would I - but we're a looooong way from it.

Well, we are while the global fossil fuel industry is being subsidised to the tune of $1 trillion p/a and while the market doesn't account for the external costs of burning fossil fuel. Correct those massive market distortions and solar comes out looking very competitive.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Its probably a good idea to have some overriding authority. It could adress some of the issues we have discussed, such as why its not OK to burn coal in Australia but it is OK to export it to China.

That can be left to the market to decide:

One remaining problem with local carbon markets is that firms can avoid paying for emissions by outsourcing manufacturing abroad. This may explain why the UK's emissions fell in recent years. "A lot of emissions got exported to countries like China," says Taschini.

But as more carbon markets launch, fewer countries will be willing to import emissions. China, for example, is launching seven prototype markets, and hopes to have a national system by 2016. South Korea will set up a market next year, and Brazil, Mexico and India are considering setting them up too.

The system will work better if markets link up to trade internationally – greater competition for permits should add to the incentive to cut emissions. The first such link will be between the ETS and Australia's new trading system, after it launches in 2015. "Linking is the holy grail," says Burtraw

http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/dn22516-full-steam-ahead-for-carbon-trading.html

 

[SaintsSeptember]

That can be left to the market to decide:

One remaining problem with local carbon markets is that firms can avoid paying for emissions by outsourcing manufacturing abroad. This may explain why the UK's emissions fell in recent years. "A lot of emissions got exported to countries like China," says Taschini.

But as more carbon markets launch, fewer countries will be willing to import emissions. China, for example, is launching seven prototype markets, and hopes to have a national system by 2016. South Korea will set up a market next year, and Brazil, Mexico and India are considering setting them up too.

The system will work better if markets link up to trade internationally – greater competition for permits should add to the incentive to cut emissions. The first such link will be between the ETS and Australia's new trading system, after it launches in 2015. "Linking is the holy grail," says Burtraw

http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/dn22516-full-steam-ahead-for-carbon-trading.html

I still dont quite get how this will work.

Suppose that Apple have 3 Ipod factories. One is in India utilising mainly Nuclear generated electricity. 2 are in China utilising a mix of Hydro, Coal and other sources of electricity which may vary on any given day. 1 of the 2 has gone to great expense to use equipment that minimises energy consumption.

Now I want to import some Ipod's how does it work?

What about fuel being burnt by ships transporting goods ( this IS in fact a significant producer of CO2 emmisions ). The very nature of the shipping industry makes it easy to fall outside any one nation's laws, so they can easily avoid Carbon taxes. Port taxes?
IF all fuel supplies were part of the chain it would work, but there would be sure to be some recalcitrant countries who would not have carbon pricing on their fuel.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

I still dont quite get how this will work.

Suppose that Apple have 3 Ipod factories. One is in India utilising mainly Nuclear generated electricity. 2 are in China utilising a mix of Hydro, Coal and other sources of electricity which may vary on any given day. 1 of the 2 has gone to great expense to use equipment that minimises energy consumption.

I'd imagine the manufacturer would pay for their emissions, the cost passed onto Apple who would then spread that cost evenly across the line regardless where am individual unit was made.

IF all fuel supplies were part of the chain it would work, but there would be sure to be some recalcitrant countries who would not have carbon pricing on their fuel.

Green tariffs would be easy enough to implement.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

California's carbon market kicked off this month

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8A70O620121108?irpc=932

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I'd imagine the manufacturer would pay for their emissions, the cost passed onto Apple who would then spread that cost evenly across the line regardless where am individual unit was made.

It would need a massive overhaul of the way the manufacturing industry works. For example a large manufacturer such as Ford may source the same components from several different manufacturing sources. The purchase price is pretty much fixed by what they consider the going rate is.
Unless the carbon price is a major factor ( such as the price of labour in Australia vs price of labour in China ) it wont flow through.
Push comes to shove one of the suppliers goes broke.



Green tariffs would be easy enough to implement.

Not that easy I would think. How would you judge how efficient each particular ship was and how much of the fuel could be attributed to each item of merchandise. Easy to average out, but then how do you motivate ships to become more efficient?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

A few things;
Apple is looking to make a profit.
Ships already want to be more efficient... The more efficient, the greater the profit....
There is no company... ever... that would send a plane or a ship specifically for an item, or a few items.... If something was sent specifically for you, you would pay the total of the shipping...

The way shipping and efficiency is judged, is by every company ever that ships items.... ever...


Again, no idea what your actual point is.

You are oversimplifying everything.
Yes ships want to be more efficient , so does Hazelwood powerstation. They want it and want it.

 

[fishardansin]

Mods I really hope that this thread is kept up for the next decade or so, so that those who stood in the way of action can get the venom directed at them that they deserve.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Mods I really hope that this thread is kept up for the next decade or so, so that those who stood in the way of action can get the venom directed at them that they deserve.

Yeah because its all about saying "I was right".

Who is actually standing in the way of anything here?

I see people kicking back saying oooh yeah we could build a new solar station based on technology they are working on, or Nuclear fusion they might invent one day. If you want action now , you need something that commercially viable now. Even a big new gas power plant would be better than nothing. ( bear in mind though, that most gas power stations recently built in Australia are not the most efficient type ).

I see a Government who vowwed to close down Hazelwood, but have proposed nothing to generate the capacity of electricity that Hazelwood does.

 

[fishardansin]

I don't want to say "I was right". I want pooheads who think they know more than the esteemed experts in a field and then go on to stop the necesarry action with dishonest politics and in doing so put the lively hoods of my children, and their children, into question publicly flogged.

I also want a spotlight on the media too. For "reporting the controversy" and getting the opposition's view when the real opposition is less than 0.02%. Getting the comment of "sceptics" when a report comes out about climate change is a bit like getting the opinion of a skin head when reports into the damage of racism are released.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Yeah because its all about saying "I was right".

Who is actually standing in the way of anything here?

I see people kicking back saying oooh yeah we could build a new solar station based on technology they are working on, or Nuclear fusion they might invent one day. If you want action now , you need something that commercially viable now. Even a big new gas power plant would be better than nothing. ( bear in mind though, that most gas power stations recently built in Australia are not the most efficient type ).

I see a Government who vowwed to close down Hazelwood, but have proposed nothing to generate the capacity of electricity that Hazelwood does.

We have the technology now to build cost effective solar thermal stations, likewise large scale arrays of tidal generators.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

We have the technology now to build cost effective solar thermal stations, likewise large scale arrays of tidal generators.

Oh which company can build me a commercially viable ( allowing 50% subsidy ) 2000Mw solar thermal station.
How much estuary space would I need for a tidal generator of that capacity?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Oh which company can build me a commercially viable ( allowing 50% subsidy ) 2000Mw solar thermal station.
How much estuary space would I need for a tidal generator of that capacity?

Why exactly is 2000 MW the magic number?

Victoria has only 1 coal fire station with a 2000+ MW capacity.

Both France and South Korea have 200+ MW tidal power stations. South Korea also has a project underway in Incheon Bay for a station that will have a proposed 1,320 MW capacity, another in planning stages for Gaorim Bay (540 MW capacity) and finally a 200 MW station having been approved for construction in Jindo.

There are also a variety of proposals for equal to and far larger tidal stations in other countries (such as the UK and Russia). The technology is there, what is needed is simply government approval and time in a number of cases.

As for solar thermal, CSP stations such as the Ivanpah (392 MW), Solana (280 MW), Mojave (250 MW) and Crescent Dunes (110 MW), will all be completed in the US in 2013/2014 and each at a similar construction cost per kW as coal fired and nuclear power plants. With CSP towers it is simply an issue of economy of scale. The greater the size and projected capacity of station, the lower the construction cost per kW of capacity.

What this demonstrates is that the technology is there to construct either cost effective, or similar capacity renewable energy alternatives to small/medium coal fire stations. Not perfect but the situation is improving rapidly.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Why exactly is 2000 MW the magic number?

Victoria has only 1 coal fire station with a 2000+ MW capacity.

Both France and South Korea have 200+ MW tidal power stations. South Korea also has a project underway in Incheon Bay for a station that will have a proposed 1,320 MW capacity, another in planning stages for Gaorim Bay (540 MW capacity) and finally a 200 MW station having been approved for construction in Jindo.

There are also a variety of proposals for equal to and far larger tidal stations in other countries (such as the UK and Russia). The technology is there, what is needed is simply government approval and time in a number of cases.

As for solar thermal, CSP stations such as the Ivanpah (392 MW), Solana (280 MW), Mojave (250 MW) and Crescent Dunes (110 MW), will all be completed in the US in 2013/2014 and each at a similar construction cost per kW as coal fired and nuclear power plants. With CSP towers it is simply an issue of economy of scale. The greater the size and projected capacity of station, the lower the construction cost per kW of capacity.

What this demonstrates is that the technology is there to construct either cost effective, or similar capacity renewable energy alternatives to small/medium coal fire stations. Not perfect but the situation is improving rapidly.

OK build one then. It makes more sene than a national broadband for the money. Would there be any obstacles to building a tidal power plant in Port Phillip Bay?

2000 is just a number I plucked out, that would represent a significant reduction in coal burning.

How does Tidal power go at ebb tide?
Similarly how many of those Solar stations can store energy?