Quote:

which had surrounded the Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm. The UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has been trying valiantly to prevent the construction of as much as 2.3 gigawatts (GW) worth of offshore wind off the coast of Scotland, due to concerns over the impact on migratory seabirds. In July of 2016, a judge in the Outer Court of Session in Scotland revoked consent for four separate wind farms — the 600-megawatt (MW) Inch Cape Offshore wind farm, the 450 MW Neart Na Gaoithe offshore wind farm, and the 525 MW (each) Seagreen Alpha and Bravo projects. This May, however, the Inner House at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland, overturned the July revocation. . . . “It will create more than 500 direct jobs during construction and over 100 direct permanent jobs once operational.  £540 million will be directly invested in Scotland during the construction phase with a further £610m during the operational phase.”

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/21/go-ahead-given-450-mw-neart-na-gaoithe-offshore-wind-farm/

Wish we could do something like that! In Backstairs Passage between Kangaroo Is and the mainland would be a great place. Jobs and investment, clean power.

Cool  8-)  :) :)

I thought it was nice.

Yes. Dead birds are an increasing part of the environment. ;)

Coal kills people, I suppose you are fine with that?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 12^th, 2017 at 6:47pm:

Coal kills people, I suppose you are fine with that?

Windmills kill people, Cars kill people, electricity kills people. Do you have a point?

Windmills kill hardly any people. Coal kills lots.

When are you going to stop spouting bullshit and lies?

I know 2 people were killed when the nacelle caught fire.

Coal miners:
Search on: deaths from coal mining

People living around coal mines/coal fired generators:
Search on: deaths from coal fired power plants

Too many deaths.

First you say -

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 12^th, 2017 at 9:16pm:

Windmills kill hardly any people. Coal kills lots.

And then


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 12^th, 2017 at 9:16pm:

When are you going to stop spouting bullshit and lies?

So obviously what I said was true. Your missing logic is showing.

BTW- How many is "lots"? Are they direct losses? Are they inferred losses?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 12^th, 2017 at 12:54am:

Quote: which had surrounded the Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm. The UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has been trying valiantly to prevent the construction of as much as 2.3 gigawatts (GW) worth of offshore wind off the coast of Scotland, due to concerns over the impact on migratory seabirds. In July of 2016, a judge in the Outer Court of Session in Scotland revoked consent for four separate wind farms — the 600-megawatt (MW) Inch Cape Offshore wind farm, the 450 MW Neart Na Gaoithe offshore wind farm, and the 525 MW (each) Seagreen Alpha and Bravo projects. This May, however, the Inner House at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland, overturned the July revocation. . . . “It will create more than 500 direct jobs during construction and over 100 direct permanent jobs once operational.  £540 million will be directly invested in Scotland during the construction phase with a further £610m during the operational phase.” https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/21/go-ahead-given-450-mw-neart-na-gaoithe-offshore-wind-farm/ Wish we could do something like that! In Backstairs Passage between Kangaroo Is and the mainland would be a great place. Jobs and investment, clean power.

Bringing this to the front again.

How many people in poor countries die from dung fires?

More bullshit, crap and obfuscation.

lee wrote on Aug 12^th, 2017 at 10:20pm:

How many people in poor countries die from dung fires?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 12^th, 2017 at 10:35pm:

More bullshit, crap and obfuscation.

"Around 3 billion people cook and heat their homes using open fires and simple stoves burning biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal.
Over 4 million people die prematurely from illness attributable to the household air pollution from cooking with solid fuels.
More than 50% of premature deaths due to pneumonia among children under 5 are caused by the particulate matter (soot) inhaled from household air pollution."

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/

"Like Pratibha, over two-thirds of India’s 1.3 billion people continue to rely on carbon-emitting biomass and dung-based fuel for cooking, according to a United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) report titled ‘Sustainable Energy For All’ – released this month.

“More than half of the global population lacking clean cooking facilities lives in India, China and Bangladesh,” says the UN report. “Here, India sits at the top as the country with the largest population lacking access to clean fuel for cooking.”

The prolific use of this cheap fuel in the absence of clean sources of energy causes staggering damage to human health, especially to the women and children of the house, say medical experts.

“Burning solid fuels produces extremely high levels of indoor air pollution,” explains Delhi-based pulmonologist Prateek Kamaraj. “As cooking takes place every day, most people using solid fuels are exposed to smoke particles at a level much higher than the accepted annual limits for outdoor air pollution. Epidemiological studies have shown a clear connection between air pollution and heart disease and stroke.” "

http://indiaclimatedialogue.net/2014/07/17/millions-die-indians-still-cook-wood-dung/

So are you a liar or just genuinely don't know?

We are talking about offshore windfarms.

You dragged in crap about dead seabirds.

I pointed out coal kills people.

WTF dung fires have to do with anything I don’t know.

You just strive to cover up any interesting posts. Don’t know why, this thread had nothing to do with AGW and still you have to drag your crappy arse all over the thread.

Bullshit, crap and obfuscation is all you do.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 12^th, 2017 at 11:03pm:

We are talking about offshore windfarms. You dragged in crap about dead seabirds.

You mean the windmills don't kill seabirds?


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 12^th, 2017 at 11:03pm:

I pointed out coal kills people.

very good


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 12^th, 2017 at 11:03pm:

WTF dung fires have to do with anything I don’t know.

Dung fires also kill people. And more people than coal.

But I suspect you are right and can't see a connection.

So much for a would be moderator of thee Environment.

Nah, just crap to bury the OP.

Why?

I get you are desperate to kill discussion of AGW, but this was nothing to do with AGW, so why drag irrelevant crap into the thread?

Off topic—bullshit, crap and obfusctation.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 12^th, 2017 at 9:48pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 12th, 2017 at 12:54am: Quote: which had surrounded the Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm. The UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has been trying valiantly to prevent the construction of as much as 2.3 gigawatts (GW) worth of offshore wind off the coast of Scotland, due to concerns over the impact on migratory seabirds. In July of 2016, a judge in the Outer Court of Session in Scotland revoked consent for four separate wind farms — the 600-megawatt (MW) Inch Cape Offshore wind farm, the 450 MW Neart Na Gaoithe offshore wind farm, and the 525 MW (each) Seagreen Alpha and Bravo projects. This May, however, the Inner House at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland, overturned the July revocation. . . . “It will create more than 500 direct jobs during construction and over 100 direct permanent jobs once operational.  £540 million will be directly invested in Scotland during the construction phase with a further £610m during the operational phase.” https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/21/go-ahead-given-450-mw-neart-na-gaoithe-offshore-wind-farm/ Wish we could do something like that! In Backstairs Passage between Kangaroo Is and the mainland would be a great place. Jobs and investment, clean power. Bringing this to the front again.

2GW :) of off and on shore windmills in and on both sides of Backstairs Passage would really solve SA’s energy problem, probably could sell some to Vic  :)

http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/WindPPotential.html#Potential_wind_power_in_Australia_by_state_graph

Even just on KI there is potential for over 2GW windpower.

Do a search on: wind power potential of Backstairs Passage

If building off shore, could maybe add tidal.

Wind blows in and either side of Backstairs Passage pretty much every day of the year, e.g. in the hills behind the town of Middleton.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 1:04am:

2GW :) of off and on shore windmills in and on both sides of Backstairs Passage would really solve SA’s energy problem, probably could sell some to Vic  :) http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/WindPPotential.html#Potential_wind_power_in_Australia_by_state_graph Even just on KI there is potential for over 2GW windpower. Do a search on: wind power potential of Backstairs Passage If building off shore, could maybe add tidal. Wind blows in and either side of Backstairs Passage pretty much every day of the year, e.g. in the hills behind the town of Middleton.

We all thought diesel gen sets were all the rage in SA. Didn't you lot just spend $111m on a new green initiative....oops I mean diesel gen sets?

How do you justify the environment destroying batteries you and that muppet show called elon and jay love so much?

You are so drowning in the sh#t you write.

So aptly named Wind Power Back Passage. You cant make this tripe up.

If this summer is stinking hot then SA might actually come out of it the best out of NSW/Vic/SA. The diesel generators will be converted to gas after this coming summer.

Part of the problem in SA & Vic—privatised networks where cost cutting makes them fragile to a bit of wind etc.

2GW of wind energy from on and off shore windfarms in and around Backstairs Passage would be good and is possible.

Be nice to have nuclear as part of the mix, SA has the geology to site a nuke generator properly away from major earthquakes and tsunamis.

We have to stop burning fossil fuels.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 12^th, 2017 at 11:19pm:

Nah, just crap to bury the OP. Why?

You were the one brought up "Coal Kills". So why shouldn't I respond to that?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 1:04am:

Even just on KI there is potential for over 2GW windpower. Do a search on: wind power potential of Backstairs Passage

And do a search on "company wants to build renewables in Backstairs Passage, without subsidies".

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 11:36am:

If this summer is stinking hot then SA might actually come out of it the best out of NSW/Vic/SA. The diesel generators will be converted to gas after this coming summer. Part of the problem in SA & Vic—privatised networks where cost cutting makes them fragile to a bit of wind etc. 2GW of wind energy from on and off shore windfarms in and around Backstairs Passage would be good and is possible. Be nice to have nuclear as part of the mix, SA has the geology to site a nuke generator properly away from major earthquakes and tsunamis. We have to stop burning fossil fuels.

How do you convert a diesel engine to gas??

Or more like it, your gonna replace your energy generating capacity for a third time. How much do the tax payers have to pay for this rank stupidity? 

Should have built a new coal fired power station or three and canned ya dumb Renewabull nonsense, and we'd all be paying less for our power.

Actually, coal fired power stations are the reason for high electricity prices.

We do need to stop burning coal, it emits CO2 and also emits cadmium and uranium as well as particulate emissions that cause respiratory diseases even death in the populations around and downwind of coal fired generators. We need nuclear generators to provide solid electricity to industry and smooth out fluctuations of wind & solar etc.

As to converting the diesel generators—how do they convert cars from petrol to gasoline?

But putting some large wind farms in and on the sides of Backstairs Passage will see Sa become a net exporter of electricity. Victoria will need to buy electricity this summer now Hazelwood was closed by its private owner. Same with Pt Augusta in SA.

Over the next 20 years there will be a heap of coal fired generators will reach the end of their economic life and close. Would pay governments to get started on nuclear and large scale renewables without delay!

This could be a way of reducing evaporation from reservoirs while using the space they take up for solar power.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 2:01pm:

how do they convert cars from petrol to gasoline?

Say what?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 2:01pm:

Actually, coal fired power stations are the reason for high electricity prices.

Nothing to do with  renewables and their subsidies. Nothing to do with the need for a fast ramp up time when renewables aren't generating. Right. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 2:01pm:

Actually, coal fired power stations are the reason for high electricity prices. We do need to stop burning coal, it emits CO2 and also emits cadmium and uranium as well as particulate emissions that cause respiratory diseases even death in the populations around and downwind of coal fired generators. We need nuclear generators to provide solid electricity to industry and smooth out fluctuations of wind & solar etc. As to converting the diesel generators—how do they convert cars from petrol to gasoline? But putting some large wind farms in and on the sides of Backstairs Passage will see Sa become a net exporter of electricity. Victoria will need to buy electricity this summer now Hazelwood was closed by its private owner. Same with Pt Augusta in SA. & Over the next 20 years there will be a heap of coal fired generators will reach the end of their economic life and close. Would pay governments to get started on nuclear and large scale renewables without delay!

1. Wrong.
2. Rubbish. Agree nuclear.
3. Diesel to gas is what you said, let me know when the fact hits the fan.
4. SA will never export power.
5. We will upgrade and build new coal fired power stations, it is the only sane thing to do.

5. Nope, not even the CEOs of the power companies are interested in upgrading/renovating/building coal fired power stations.

If you had read some of the science I have posted you would see that we must reduce CO2 emissions. Easier to avoid reading the science and go with your prejudices I guess. That is called burying your head in the sand, or cowardice.

SA has huge potential for windpower and, being half craton, ideal for nuclear.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 6:42pm:

5. Nope, not even the CEOs of the power companies are interested in upgrading/renovating/building coal fired power stations. If you had read some of the science I have posted you would see that we must reduce CO2 emissions. Easier to avoid reading the science and go with your prejudices I guess. That is called burying your head in the sand, or cowardice. SA has huge potential for windpower and, being half craton, ideal for nuclear.

You quote rubbish social enginering as science, at best, based on fraudulently manipulated data. 

Wind power Potential is irrelevant as it is unviable, uneconomic, unreliable.

Three factors which are key for secure, safe supply of electricity.

Have you considered taking up a valid hobby? Golf, croquet?  This globull climate catastrophic nonsense is so debunked.

There will be no new coal fired generators.

Wind farms in and either side of Backstairs Passage will be built.

If this summer is truly horrible with blackouts in NSW/Vic/SA then nuclear becomes a lot more possible.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 7:11pm:

There will be no new coal fired generators. Wind farms in and either side of Backstairs Passage will be built. If this summer is truly horrible with blackouts in NSW/Vic/SA then nuclear becomes a lot more possible.

But burning 80000lt per hour of diesel is better.....yeah thats progressive isnt it.

If need be, as fallback, until we get serious about renewables + nuclear and phase out coal.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 6:32pm:

If need be, as fallback, until we get serious about renewables + nuclear and phase out coal.

Well how about we just burn coal.  Save kazzillions of tax payers dollars and celebrate how awesome life is with co2.

You could invent another future dated catastrophic  drama to fill your days,,,,how about this, a new ice age??

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 6:32pm:

If need be, as fallback, until we get serious about renewables + nuclear and phase out coal.

80,000 lt of diesel per hour. Its so awesome i just have to repeat it. This is the new improved environment we have been rewarded with.

You meet some dumb f#cks in life, but no one is as dumb as the useful idiots to the cause.

Quote:

which had surrounded the Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm. The UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has been trying valiantly to prevent the construction of as much as 2.3 gigawatts (GW) worth of offshore wind off the coast of Scotland, due to concerns over the impact on migratory seabirds. In July of 2016, a judge in the Outer Court of Session in Scotland revoked consent for four separate wind farms — the 600-megawatt (MW) Inch Cape Offshore wind farm, the 450 MW Neart Na Gaoithe offshore wind farm, and the 525 MW (each) Seagreen Alpha and Bravo projects. This May, however, the Inner House at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland, overturned the July revocation. . . . “It will create more than 500 direct jobs during construction and over 100 direct permanent jobs once operational.  £540 million will be directly invested in Scotland during the construction phase with a further £610m during the operational phase.”

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/21/go-ahead-given-450-mw-neart-na-gaoithe-offshore-wind-farm/

Wish we could do something like that! In Backstairs Passage between Kangaroo Is and the mainland would be a great place. Jobs and investment, clean power.


Bringing this to the front again.

2.5GW is a lot of power. We could get a similar amount of power with windfarms in/around Backstairs Passage, very reliable wind there.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 3:05pm:

2.5GW is a lot of power.

It would be if it was constant. ;)

Plenty of areas where wind is pretty constant. Renewable power needs an ultrahigh voltage DC network to transmit power to where it is needed.

I like nuclear as the non–intermittent power source.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:52pm:

Plenty of areas where wind is pretty constant.

oh. Only pretty constant. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:52pm:

I like nuclear as the non–intermittent power source.

Ok. Then why the need for an intermittent power source?

You want to cover the world in waste?

If we had fusion, sure, 100% nuclear might be possible.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 9:04pm:

You want to cover the world in waste? If we had fusion, sure, 100% nuclear might be possible.

So no need for renewables. ;)

We have fission not fusion.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 9:26pm:

We have fission not fusion.

And we still have no need for renewables.

Yeah, we do. You know that, you are just suppressing the knowledge.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 9:45pm:

Yeah, we do. You know that, you are just suppressing the knowledge.

You must tell me how that's done oh erudite one. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

which had surrounded the Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm. The UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has been trying valiantly to prevent the construction of as much as 2.3 gigawatts (GW) worth of offshore wind off the coast of Scotland, due to concerns over the impact on migratory seabirds. In July of 2016, a judge in the Outer Court of Session in Scotland revoked consent for four separate wind farms — the 600-megawatt (MW) Inch Cape Offshore wind farm, the 450 MW Neart Na Gaoithe offshore wind farm, and the 525 MW (each) Seagreen Alpha and Bravo projects. This May, however, the Inner House at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland, overturned the July revocation. . . . “It will create more than 500 direct jobs during construction and over 100 direct permanent jobs once operational.  £540 million will be directly invested in Scotland during the construction phase with a further £610m during the operational phase.”

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/21/go-ahead-given-450-mw-neart-na-gaoithe-offshore-wind-farm/

Wish we could do something like that! In Backstairs Passage between Kangaroo Is and the mainland would be a great place. Jobs and investment, clean power.


Bringing this to the front again.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 11:11pm:

Quote: which had surrounded the Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm. The UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has been trying valiantly to prevent the construction of as much as 2.3 gigawatts (GW) worth of offshore wind off the coast of Scotland, due to concerns over the impact on migratory seabirds. In July of 2016, a judge in the Outer Court of Session in Scotland revoked consent for four separate wind farms — the 600-megawatt (MW) Inch Cape Offshore wind farm, the 450 MW Neart Na Gaoithe offshore wind farm, and the 525 MW (each) Seagreen Alpha and Bravo projects. This May, however, the Inner House at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland, overturned the July revocation. . . . “It will create more than 500 direct jobs during construction and over 100 direct permanent jobs once operational.  £540 million will be directly invested in Scotland during the construction phase with a further £610m during the operational phase.” https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/21/go-ahead-given-450-mw-neart-na-gaoithe-offshore-wind-farm/ Wish we could do something like that! In Backstairs Passage between Kangaroo Is and the mainland would be a great place. Jobs and investment, clean power. Bringing this to the front again.

Its a shipping lane but I suppose they can divert around the outside of KI for the sake of free power, or build more at Cape Jervis, with the locals permission.

Or in the hills behind Middleton etc on the mainland or on one or more capes on the island.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 11:58pm:

Or in the hills behind Middleton etc on the mainland or on one or more capes on the island.

I don't think any of the locals want any on the island.
Middleton area does not have that much consistent wind and the land is to valuable, between waitpinga and cape jervis is the only place, a few farmers and national parks stand in the way.
Maybe put them way offshore somewhere.

The hills behind Middleton have pretty good wind.

But, yeah, put them of shore is probably easier. No NIMBYism to worry about.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 18^th, 2017 at 12:16am:

The hills behind Middleton have pretty good wind. But, yeah, put them of shore is probably easier. No NIMBYism to worry about.

To expensive for the Nimbyists, although some of those Kombis I see them in down there these days would have to be worth 50 grand, drug money I bet.

Haven’t really noticed any Kombies. Big shiny SUVs yes.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 18^th, 2017 at 12:16am:

The hills behind Middleton have pretty good wind. But, yeah, put them of shore is probably easier. No NIMBYism to worry about.

Off shore....

Twice as expensive.
Twice the maintenance.
Half the expected life.

I see this option meets all criteria for the brain dead.

Rider wrote on Aug 18^th, 2017 at 8:26pm:

Off shore.... Twice as expensive. Twice the maintenance. Half the expected life. I see this option meets all criteria for the brain dead.

Can we see the Capex analysis? Actual dollar comparisons?  :-/

I note there is no mention of wind availability or lease fees...

Rider wrote on Aug 18^th, 2017 at 8:26pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 12:16am: The hills behind Middleton have pretty good wind. But, yeah, put them of shore is probably easier. No NIMBYism to worry about. Off shore.... Twice as expensive. Twice the maintenance. Half the expected life. I see this option meets all criteria for the brain dead.

Rider knows nothing!

Moriaty wrote on Aug 18^th, 2017 at 11:42pm:

Rider wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 8:26pm: Off shore.... Twice as expensive. Twice the maintenance. Half the expected life. I see this option meets all criteria for the brain dead. Can we see the Capex analysis? Actual dollar comparisons?  :-/ I note there is no mention of wind availability or lease fees...

Glad you asked, as per source provided by some useful idiot for the globull disaster team.....see page 3 of this thread....

http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/WindPPotential.html#Potential_wind_power_in_Australia_by_state_graph

"About twice as expensive as on-shore, both in capital and maintenance costs. The more corrosive environment would probably also lead to quicker deterioration and shorter life-times."

As I said, the brain dead.

Rider wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 6:24am:

Moriaty wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 11:42pm: Rider wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 8:26pm: Off shore.... Twice as expensive. Twice the maintenance. Half the expected life. I see this option meets all criteria for the brain dead. Can we see the Capex analysis? Actual dollar comparisons?  :-/ I note there is no mention of wind availability or lease fees... Glad you asked, as per source provided by some useful idiot for the globull disaster team.....see page 3 of this thread.... http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/WindPPotential.html#Potential_wind_power_in_Australia_by_state_graph "About twice as expensive as on-shore, both in capital and maintenance costs. The more corrosive environment would probably also lead to quicker deterioration and shorter life-times." As I said, the brain dead.

No actual dollar figures presented.

No estimate of energy produced vs capex cost.

No meaningful analysis, other than vague statements with zero supporting data.

F*ck me, if all your arguments are presented like this I doubt you could demonstrate you, yourself, exist.... :-?

Moriaty wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 11:09pm:

Rider wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 6:24am: Moriaty wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 11:42pm: Rider wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 8:26pm: Off shore.... Twice as expensive. Twice the maintenance. Half the expected life. I see this option meets all criteria for the brain dead. Can we see the Capex analysis? Actual dollar comparisons?  :-/ I note there is no mention of wind availability or lease fees... Glad you asked, as per source provided by some useful idiot for the globull disaster team.....see page 3 of this thread.... http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/WindPPotential.html#Potential_wind_power_in_Australia_by_state_graph "About twice as expensive as on-shore, both in capital and maintenance costs. The more corrosive environment would probably also lead to quicker deterioration and shorter life-times." As I said, the brain dead. No actual dollar figures presented. No estimate of energy produced vs capex cost. No meaningful analysis, other than vague statements with zero supporting data. F*ck me, if all your arguments are presented like this I doubt you could demonstrate you, yourself, exist.... :-?

Go on, you prove remotely located off shore wind turbines produce reliable constant electricity at a lower cost and greater certainty than a coal fired power station, say in NSW, located a short conveyor belt trip from a coal mine, within commuting distance to a town or 10 housing all workers including maintenane experts and suppliers. Producing electricity 24/7 powering industry large and small, small towns and cities with critical power demands like hospitals and airports......

Go on.

Unfortunately useful idiots to the cause like you do exist, no doubt hoovering up my tax dollars and using them to destroy the very basis of what makes this once great country not so bloody great any more.

No energy company is all that anxious to build more coal fired power stations. So forget that idea.

Coal fired power stations are losing the battle against renewable energy even tho they can spew CO2, particulates, uranium and cadmium into the atmosphere without penalty.

Renewables are becoming cheaper than coal.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 9:14am:

No energy company is all that anxious to build more coal fired power stations. So forget that idea. Coal fired power stations are losing the battle against renewable energy even tho they can spew CO2, particulates, uranium and cadmium into the atmosphere without penalty. Renewables are becoming cheaper than coal.

Other than hydro, there is no metric where are renewables cheaper than coal powered electricity generation .

Rider wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 10:02am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 9:14am: No energy company is all that anxious to build more coal fired power stations. So forget that idea. Coal fired power stations are losing the battle against renewable energy even tho they can spew CO2, particulates, uranium and cadmium into the atmosphere without penalty. Renewables are becoming cheaper than coal. Other than hydro, there is no metric where are renewables cheaper than coal powered electricity generation .

If you were to look at the actual figures you might be surprised and that is with coal being allowed to vent all its waste products, its pollution and not just carbon pollution, into the atmosphere without penalty.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 10:13am:

If you were to look at the actual figures you might be surprised and that is with coal being allowed to vent all its waste products, its pollution and not just carbon pollution, into the atmosphere without penalty.

Is that particulate emission for which they have scrubbers?

Do you mean Carbon Dioxide pollution? Or Carbon particulate pollution?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 10:13am:

Rider wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 10:02am: Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 9:14am: No energy company is all that anxious to build more coal fired power stations. So forget that idea. Coal fired power stations are losing the battle against renewable energy even tho they can spew CO2, particulates, uranium and cadmium into the atmosphere without penalty. Renewables are becoming cheaper than coal. Other than hydro, there is no metric where are renewables cheaper than coal powered electricity generation . If you were to look at the actual figures you might be surprised and that is with coal being allowed to vent all its waste products, its pollution and not just carbon pollution, into the atmosphere without penalty.

We should tax the BS pollution you dribble constantly,  no child wouldd live in poverty then.

Carbon dioxide.... you mean that irrelevent trace gas.....

“. . .irrelevant trace gas. . .”

https://skepticalscience.com//pics/FeldmanGrowingRF.png

Somehow that “irrelevant trace gas” seems to be doing something. Since you probably can’t work out the graph I posted it shows that over a period of years the CO2 in the atmosphere has reflected infra red radiation back to the surface.

The surface is trying to lose heat by radiation so if a significant part of the radiation gets reflected back to the surface then it necessarily warms, can’t get rid of the heat.

The graph shows that as CO2 increases with time the amount of IR blocked from escaping the surface increases. Also, within each year you see the carbon cycle: CO2 high in winter then decreases in spring and summer as plants grow, deciduous trees put on leaves etc, all of this affecting the amount of IR that can escape to space and the amount that is blocked and sent back to the surface.

Pretty good for a “trace gas” eh?

Another reason why this “trace gas” bullshit does not hold water: CO2 and water vapor combine to allow only a small window of IR frequencies through which IR can escape.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 5:47pm:

Also, within each year you see the carbon cycle: CO2 high in winter then decreases in spring and summer as plants grow, deciduous trees put on leaves etc, all of this affecting the amount of IR that can escape to space and the amount that is blocked and sent back to the surface.

We knew CO2 was not a well mixed gas. Thanks for confirming that. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Didn’t take you long to get here? You really have notifications turned on? Such behavior is so odd in one who says he is so comfortable with CO2 and everything! So very odd!

My post was addressed to Rider but you HAD to put your 2¢ in didn’t you, Lees? Thought you were comfortable with CO2? So very odd.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 6:12pm:

Didn’t take you long to get here? You really have notifications turned on? Such behavior is so odd in one who says he is so comfortable with CO2 and everything! So very odd! My post was addressed to Rider but you HAD to put your 2¢ in didn’t you, Lees? Thought you were comfortable with CO2? So very odd.

I am. It is obvious.  You didn't address the statement of the well-mixed gas. You're slipping. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

How odd are you? ;D ;D ;D ;D

“. . .irrelevant trace gas. . .”

https://skepticalscience.com//pics/FeldmanGrowingRF.png

Somehow that “irrelevant trace gas” seems to be doing something. Since you probably can’t work out the graph I posted it shows that over a period of years the CO2 in the atmosphere has reflected infra red radiation back to the surface.

The surface is trying to lose heat by radiation so if a significant part of the radiation gets reflected back to the surface then it necessarily warms, can’t get rid of the heat.

The graph shows that as CO2 increases with time the amount of IR blocked from escaping the surface increases. Also, within each year you see the carbon cycle: CO2 high in winter then decreases in spring and summer as plants grow, deciduous trees put on leaves etc, all of this affecting the amount of IR that can escape to space and the amount that is blocked and sent back to the surface.

Pretty good for a “trace gas” eh?

Another reason why this “trace gas” bullshit does not hold water: CO2 and water vapor combine to allow only a small window of IR frequencies through which IR can escape.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 6:56pm:

Another reason why this “trace gas” bullshit does not hold water: CO2 and water vapor combine to allow only a small window of IR frequencies through which IR can escape.

That's not what Harries shows. ;)

Correlation is causation eh?

H2O is a condensing GHG so studies normally remove the influence of water vapor. The other gases increase in concentration over time as we continue burning fossil fuels.

Lees knows this but his desperation forces him to constantly cover up the effect of the CO2 he says he is comfortable with  ;)

This chart:

https://skepticalscience.com//pics/FeldmanGrowingRF.png

shows the effect of CO2 really well. What it charts is CO2 concentration and the amount of infrared radiation redirected back down to the surface.

Have a good look at it, it makes AGW denial just ridiculous.

The world receives energy, light, ultraviolet and near–IR radiation from the sun which warms the planet. It can only get rid of excess heat by radiation: infra red.

It has been known for 200 years that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and just as well it is a greenhouse gas too: the world would be bloody chilly without it! However, since the industrial revolution picked up, errr, steam we have been creating and emitting CO2 by burning fossil fuels and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 46% since 1880. So, as a direct result, have temperatures.

Lees has dragged up another stale argument “CO2 is not a wellmixed gas” which is wrong. Not only that the chart above shows the carbon cycle not geographical dispersion. Stations from the Arctic to the Antarctic have shown the same increase in CO2.

But with more and more CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere means the planet is warming up, like a car engine with insufficient coolant in the radiator.

Costs of on and off shore windfarms:

https://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/RE_Technologies_Cost_Analysis-WIND_POWER.pdf

Offshore is higher cost (building and maintaining) but may generate more electricity per turbine if it gets more constant or stronger wind.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 2:04pm:

but may generate more electricity per turbine if it gets more constant or stronger wind.

You mean like a fossil fuel plant may generate more electricity if we up the increase the fuel?  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 1:55pm:

It has been known for 200 years that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and just as well it is a greenhouse gas too: the world would be bloody chilly without it!

"Water is the main absorber of the sunlight in the atmosphere; without it, the Earth would be in a permanent ice-age. The [highlight]13 million million tons of water in the atmosphere (~0.33% by weight; compare CO2 ~0.04% ) is responsible for about 70% of all atmospheric absorption of radiation[/highlight], mainly in the infrared region where water shows strong absorption."

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_vibrational_spectrum.html

That makes all the all the other GHG's responsible for ~30% of warming. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 1:55pm:

Lees has dragged up another stale argument “CO2 is not a wellmixed gas” which is wrong. Not only that the chart above shows the carbon cycle not geographical dispersion. Stations from the Arctic to the Antarctic have shown the same increase in CO2.

If it was a well mixed gas it would not vary over time,  It would be instantaneous.

As for geographical dispersion we have NASA's OCO-2 for that.

https://youtu.be/_UEZqyGU5RU

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 6:56pm:

Also, within each year you see the carbon cycle: CO2 high in winter then decreases in spring and summer as plants grow

Actually, if you look at NASA's video, CO2 increases over Spring and Summer. The trees are dormant in winter.

You can check the time stamp at bottom right.

No gas mixes over all the atmosphere instantaneously, you don’t understand what a well mixed gas is. CO2 has risen over the whole planet, sounds like a well mixed gas to me.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 2:04pm:

Costs of on and off shore windfarms: https://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/RE_Technologies_Cost_Analysis-WIND_POWER.pdf Offshore is higher cost (building and maintaining) but may generate more electricity per turbine if it gets more constant or stronger wind.

I notice the use of words like 'may' and 'if' feature in your post...not very inspiring, but I guess its enough for the useful idiots to chant along.

That is because I have not been able to read the full document yet.

So tell us about CO2 emissions being high in Winter again. ;)

lee wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:50pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 2:04pm: but may generate more electricity per turbine if it gets more constant or stronger wind. You mean like a fossil fuel plant may generate more electricity if we up the increase the fuel?  ;)

Exactly. But without the equivalent increase in CO2 emissions.

You're learning... so very, very, very, very, very slowly...  ;D

A snail leaves Lees panting in its train.

Moriaty wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 9:09pm:

Exactly. But without the equivalent increase in CO2 emissions.

But far more likely than a "may increase" electricity output.

If it gets a stronger wind it may shut down completely to prevent damage.

"Controller:
    Starts up the machine at wind speeds of about 8 to 16 miles per hour (mph) and shuts off the machine at about 55 mph. Turbines do not operate at wind speeds above about 55 mph because they may be damaged by the high winds."

https://energy.gov/eere/wind/inside-wind-turbine-0

Not talking about a huge gale, talking of good strong, productive winds.

Even coal fired generators need to close occasionally—maintenance.

lee wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 9:18pm:

Moriaty wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 9:09pm: Exactly. But without the equivalent increase in CO2 emissions. But far more likely than a "may increase" electricity output. If it gets a stronger wind it may shut down completely to prevent damage. ]

Correct. Note that the same storms that caused wind turbines to shut down and lock in, also smashed the transmission grid in SA recently thereby cutting off the coal and gas powered gen.

So your point is that damaging weather systems cause damage?

A valid point. But valid for every gen capacity regardless of fuel origin.

lee wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 9:18pm:

Moriaty wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 9:09pm: Exactly. But without the equivalent increase in CO2 emissions. But far more likely than a "may increase" electricity output.

aaahhh the use of the word likely, indicating statistical grounds for discussion....

And how "likely" is the increase in output vs CO2 emissions?

Elucidate. Explain. Educate...  :-?

Moriaty wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 9:39pm:

And how "likely" is the increase in output vs CO2 emissions?

Likely.

How likely an increase in wind generated electricity with more wind? ;)

So more wind offshore?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 10:04pm:

So more wind offshore?

No. It must be all those trees and buildings reducing the wind. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Offshore?

We know you are not up to speed on technical matters but. . .

Oh dear. JM does not understand sarcasm. How sad. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

With you I find it is far safer to think lies/incompetence etc than sarcasm.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 10:21pm:

With you I find it is far safer to think lies/incompetence etc than sarcasm.

yes. You believe others are exactly like you. ;)

No, I think you are a dull little plod with no idea about technical/scientific matters but terrified by AGW.

Good orderly room clerk maybe.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 10:27pm:

No, I think you are a dull little plod with no idea about technical/scientific matters but terrified by AGW. Good orderly room clerk maybe.

Actually that's the problem. You don't think. That's why I believe you more a bureaucrat. Your "knowledge" comes from around the water cooler. No BSc for you.

lee wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 9:53pm:

Moriaty wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 9:39pm: And how "likely" is the increase in output vs CO2 emissions? Likely. How likely an increase in wind generated electricity with more wind? ;)

Are you able to answer any question with actual numbers?

Or will you admit defeat, utter and total, by simply waffling on about crap?

Numbers, dollars, statistics, Lee. Anything less and you admit you're a total failure.  :-*

Moriaty wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 10:51pm:

Are you able to answer any question with actual numbers? Or will you admit defeat, utter and total, by simply waffling on about crap? Numbers, dollars, statistics, Lee. Anything less and you admit you're a total failure.

You mean I should quote numbers just like you? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lees has no answers. Lees just has this overwhelming fear about AGW.

Moriaty wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 9:36pm:

Note that the same storms that caused wind turbines to shut down and lock in, also smashed the transmission grid in SA recently thereby cutting off the coal and gas powered gen.

Yeah. The wind turbines shut down, put excessive load on the grid. Heywood interconnector broke. The SA grid couldn't cope and THEN the transmission lines went down. Read the AEMO report. ;)

Lees claims to have served in an “electric/electronic + cipher unit” which someone who had served in such a unit would have described as a signals unit.

That was not the first clue that Lees did not have a clue what he was talking about: he thought the “greening of the deserts” caused more CO2.

I think when Lees said “don’t you recognise sarcasm” he had actually realised he had made a big mistake.

Quote:

which had surrounded the Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm. The UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has been trying valiantly to prevent the construction of as much as 2.3 gigawatts (GW) worth of offshore wind off the coast of Scotland, due to concerns over the impact on migratory seabirds. In July of 2016, a judge in the Outer Court of Session in Scotland revoked consent for four separate wind farms — the 600-megawatt (MW) Inch Cape Offshore wind farm, the 450 MW Neart Na Gaoithe offshore wind farm, and the 525 MW (each) Seagreen Alpha and Bravo projects. This May, however, the Inner House at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland, overturned the July revocation. . . . “It will create more than 500 direct jobs during construction and over 100 direct permanent jobs once operational.  £540 million will be directly invested in Scotland during the construction phase with a further £610m during the operational phase.”

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/21/go-ahead-given-450-mw-neart-na-gaoithe-offshore-wind-farm/

Wish we could do something like that! In Backstairs Passage between Kangaroo Is and the mainland would be a great place. Jobs and investment, clean power.

lee wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 10:42pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 10:27pm: No, I think you are a dull little plod with no idea about technical/scientific matters but terrified by AGW. Good orderly room clerk maybe. Actually that's the problem. You don't think. That's why I believe you more a bureaucrat. Your "knowledge" comes from around the water cooler. No BSc for you.

Sorry Lees but 1971 there I was in gown and cap getting my BSc from some notables at Adelaide University.

I even tried to help you with theory and null hypotheses etc, you could have learned something but you were terrified that by listening to me you might learn something about AGW I suppose.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 11:17pm:

Sorry Lees but 1971 there I was in gown and cap getting my BSc from some notables at Adelaide University.

So you slipped some people some money. Not hat big a deal to pass then.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 11:17pm:

even tried to help you with theory and null hypotheses e

And this proves a BSc how? ;D ;D ;D ;D

I have a BSc and you have this huge fear of AGW.

You thought when leaves were rotting on the ground and trees etc dormant the CO2 was at a minimum. No tech knowledge, no ability to think either.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 2:20pm:

I have a BSc

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BWCK - Bachelor of Water Cooler Knowledge. ;)

Think that if it makes you happy. It isn’t true but if it makes you happy.

lee wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 11:02pm:

Moriaty wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 9:36pm: Note that the same storms that caused wind turbines to shut down and lock in, also smashed the transmission grid in SA recently thereby cutting off the coal and gas powered gen. Yeah. The wind turbines shut down, put excessive load on the grid. Heywood interconnector broke. The SA grid couldn't cope and THEN the transmission lines went down. Read the AEMO report. ;)

Not quite, Corporal Lees, Orderly Room clerk:


Quote:

On Wednesday 28 September 2016, tornadoes with wind speeds in the range of 190–260 km/h occurred in areas of South Australia. Two tornadoes almost simultaneously damaged a single circuit 275 kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a double circuit 275 kV transmission line, some 170 km apart. The damage to these three transmission lines caused them to trip, and a sequence of faults in quick succession resulted in six voltage dips on the SA grid over a two-minute period at around 4.16 pm. As the number of faults on the transmission network grew, nine wind farms in the mid north of SA exhibited a sustained reduction in power as a protection feature activated. For eight of these wind farms, the protection settings of their wind turbines allowed them to withstand a pre-set number of voltage dips within a two-minute period. Activation of this protection feature resulted in a significant sustained power reduction for these wind farms. A sustained generation reduction of 456 megawatts (MW) occurred over a period of less than seven seconds. The reduction in wind farm output caused a significant increase in imported power flowing through the Heywood Interconnector. Approximately 700 milliseconds (ms) after the reduction of output from the last of the wind farms, the flow on the Victoria–SA Heywood Interconnector reached such a level that it activated a special protection scheme that tripped the interconnector offline. The SA power system then became separated (“islanded”) from the rest of the NEM. Without any substantial load shedding following the system separation, the remaining generation was much less than the connected load and unable to maintain the islanded system frequency. As a result, all supply to the SA region was lost at 4.18 pm (the Black System). AEMO’s analysis shows that following system separation, frequency collapse and the consequent Black System was inevitable.

https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Market_Notices_and_Events/Power_System_Incident_Reports/2017/Integrated-Final-Report-SA-Black-System-28-September-2016.pdf

Yet another lie by Corporal Lees. Tornadoes came first.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 6:09pm:

Yet another lie by Corporal Lees. Tornadoes came first.

Which is quite different to the update to the preliminary report.


Quote:

Data now shows that nine of the 13 wind farms online at the time of the event did not ride through the six voltage disturbances, resulting in a loss of 445 MW of generation. Preliminary discussions with wind farm operators suggest this inability to ride through all disturbances was due to ‘voltage ride-through’ settings set to disconnect or reduce turbine output when between three to six disturbances are detected within a defined time period. Thermal generators remained connected up until the SA system disconnected from the remainder of the National Electricity Market (NEM). The Heywood Interconnector remained connected up until the sudden increase in electricity flow resulting from the loss of generation caused the automatic protection mechanism to disconnect the lines.

https://www.aemo.com.au/Media-Centre/Update-to-report-into-SA-state-wide-power-outage


Quote:

Generation initially rode through the faults, but at 16:18hrs, following multiple faults in a short period, 315 MW of wind generation disconnected, affecting the region north of Adelaide. The uncontrolled reduction in generation increased the flow on the main Victorian interconnector (Heywood) to make up the deficit and resulted in the interconnector overloading.

https://www.aemo.com.au/Media-Centre/Media-Statement-South-Australia-Interim-Report

Not being in SA I was not aware of the new improved report. ;)

But you go ahead and apply labels. You do it so well. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Nope, bet you knew of the final report, Cpl Lees.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 6:26pm:

Nope, bet you knew of the final report, Cpl Lees.

As I said in my amended post - You are so good at applying labels. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You have lied before.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 6:30pm:

You have lied before.

Of course the dog has eaten your homework. ;)

And you of course merely embroider the truth, because this is merely a blog and therefore truthfulness is not necessary. ;)

You outright lie.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 6:36pm:

You outright lie.

Oh you mean like when you modified "Why is climate science so resilient?" twice in 5 minutes and claimed it was because you had written "to be cont later"?

Where you removed the word "consensus" from the posts and changed it to "consilience"? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

WTF.

To be cont’d—and I did?

Did you look up the word “consilience?”

No—you just lie.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 8:14pm:

To be cont’d—and I did?

Yes. Which one of your edits was it. The first one or the second one. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 8:14pm:

Did you look up the word “consilience?”

The word consilience was there. However originally you had consensus, it was in the title. It was such a small change. Why did you need to -

a. change it?
b. Lie about it?

Not only do you lie you act to destroy any worthwhile discussion of environmental matters.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 10:06pm:

Not only do you lie you act to destroy any worthwhile discussion of environmental matters.

And truth is your middle name.

You are such a fabulist.  The truth is not in you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I can understand why you are scared shitless by AGW but why spoil non–AGW threads?

And yes, it is fright, that is why the lies and the senseless babbling when you can’t think of a way out of agreeing with AGW theory.

Trying to stop people reading this board?

Quote:

which had surrounded the Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm. The UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has been trying valiantly to prevent the construction of as much as 2.3 gigawatts (GW) worth of offshore wind off the coast of Scotland, due to concerns over the impact on migratory seabirds. In July of 2016, a judge in the Outer Court of Session in Scotland revoked consent for four separate wind farms — the 600-megawatt (MW) Inch Cape Offshore wind farm, the 450 MW Neart Na Gaoithe offshore wind farm, and the 525 MW (each) Seagreen Alpha and Bravo projects. This May, however, the Inner House at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland, overturned the July revocation. . . . “It will create more than 500 direct jobs during construction and over 100 direct permanent jobs once operational.  £540 million will be directly invested in Scotland during the construction phase with a further £610m during the operational phase.”

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/21/go-ahead-given-450-mw-neart-na-gaoithe-offshore-wind-farm/

Wish we could do something like that! In Backstairs Passage between Kangaroo Is and the mainland would be a great place. Jobs and investment, clean power.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 11:27pm:

Trying to stop people reading this board?

Trying to give a balanced opinion. But you keep bringing your stupid posts "to the front", in an attempt to deny any thing that disagrees with your meme.

No, you contribute little that is useful. You post to cover up and denigrate papers others post about, that seems to be your mission here, cover up and deter others from reading and contributing here. What a proud mission, dragging your crappy crappy bum across threads to derail discussion.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 11:48am:

No, you contribute little that is useful. You post to cover up and denigrate papers others post about, that seems to be your mission here, cover up and deter others from reading and contributing here. What a proud mission, dragging your crappy crappy bum across threads to derail discussion.

Oh Dear. JM has the rags on. Can't stand any difference of opinion.

I don’t mind differences of opinion. I have debates with BigOle and MrHammer and so on.

But those are debates, not dragging a shitstained arse across nearly all threads on a subject, that is your specialty.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 1:52pm:

not dragging a shitstained arse across nearly all threads on a subject, that is your specialty.

You really are good at ad homs. i have said before you a a master. Of course it does nothing to enforce your view, ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 1:52pm:

I don’t mind differences of opinion. I have debates with BigOle and MrHammer and so on. But those are debates, not dragging a shitstained arse across nearly all threads on a subject, that is your specialty.

Ill give Lee this. He has his argument style down to a fine art. The key is never try and prove or push any explanation for anything. just pick at minutiae in others work, endlessly. you just give up after a while.

He is getting testy, maybe he will give up?

Dunno why he does all this, being so “relaxed and comfortable with CO2 and all.”

That is probably why he developed the nitpicking—doesn’t have to read to the end or think about conclusions, e.g. his schtick of pretending 1997 was the hottest year ever?

Pho Huc wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 12:46am:

The key is never try and prove or push any explanation for anything. just pick at minutiae in others work, endlessly. you just give up after a while.

Pho Huc re-enters the fray. Have you managed to determine how those Arctic voyagers occurred yet. You know the ones the paper you provided said didn't occur?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 12:53am:

e.g. his schtick of pretending 1997 was the hottest year ever?

Have you come up with the proof that the NOAA 1997 "data" has been "debunked" yet? ;)

There have been hotter years since.

I have actually shown that but Cpl Lees has chosen to not see that  ;) Very very carefully chosen to not see that.

Actually, Cpl Lees, orderly room clerk, showed proof of that, talking about uncertainty about which was the hottest year. 1998 was only 5% likely to be the hottest year.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 12:28pm:

There have been hotter years since. I have actually shown that but Cpl Lees has chosen to not see tha

So is NOAA lying about 1997 being 62.45ºF or not?

IF they are not lying about 62.45ºF, then you have yet to show any hotter years.

IF they are lying about 197 and 62.45ºF, why should we trust them?


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 12:28pm:

Very very carefully chosen to not see that.

Lee would see it if JM could or would post it. ;)

JM did post it  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 1:12pm:

JM did post it  ;)

Then JM should enlighten us all. Was NOAA lying or not? Which temperatures have exceeded 62.45ºF? The "data" that NOAA shows.

BTW - what do you think that txt file you published shows? Hint: it is not absolute temperatures. Now that would have to be your job, because you are saying that the 62.45ºF is somehow not real. ;)

Aahh, so Cpl Lees, the whizz with a paybook, DID see the evidence that 1997 is no longer the hottest year EVAH!

I don’t have to do anything to the data in that .TXT file.

You also provided proof babbling about uncertainty. It is VERY uncertain, like 5-5%, that 1997 is the hottest year EVAH!

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 1:44pm:

DID see the evidence that 1997 is no longer the hottest year EVAH!

Nope. Not in NOAA's annual "data".

Did you find any evidence they had "debunked" their own data? ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 1:44pm:

You also provided proof babbling about uncertainty. It is VERY uncertain, like 5-5%, that 1997 is the hottest year EVAH!

So what is the range in 5-5%?

Now if 62.45ºF only makes it about 5% uncertainty, how certain are they that 2016's 58.69ºF is the "hottest year EVAH"? It must be a higher uncertainty. ;)

I see NASA say they are more than 95% confident on 2016 being warmer. How odd a lowering of temperature can increase confidence against a warmer temperature. ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 1:44pm:

I don’t have to do anything to the data in that .TXT file.

Nope. But then you might not be able to debunk what I wrote about the NOAA "data".

Perhaps that's your "schtick", making allegations and not proving them. ;)

:) :) :)

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 7:40pm:

:) :) :)

I thought so.

Quote:

which had surrounded the Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm. The UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has been trying valiantly to prevent the construction of as much as 2.3 gigawatts (GW) worth of offshore wind off the coast of Scotland, due to concerns over the impact on migratory seabirds. In July of 2016, a judge in the Outer Court of Session in Scotland revoked consent for four separate wind farms — the 600-megawatt (MW) Inch Cape Offshore wind farm, the 450 MW Neart Na Gaoithe offshore wind farm, and the 525 MW (each) Seagreen Alpha and Bravo projects. This May, however, the Inner House at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland, overturned the July revocation. . . . “It will create more than 500 direct jobs during construction and over 100 direct permanent jobs once operational.  £540 million will be directly invested in Scotland during the construction phase with a further £610m during the operational phase.”

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/21/go-ahead-given-450-mw-neart-na-gaoithe-offshore-wind-farm/

Wish we could do something like that! In Backstairs Passage between Kangaroo Is and the mainland would be a great place. Jobs and investment, clean power.


Maybe that will happen. With the Libs not doing anything and aging coal fired generators reaching their end of life it may be that the Labor states will take matters into their own hands:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/22/jay-weatherill-renews-warning-labor-states-could-go-it-alone-on-energy-policy

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 11:21pm:

it may be that the Labor states will take matters into their own hands:

Well it is a state responsibility, unless you sell it off to someone else. And then there is no responsibility. Problem solved, No responsibility - not the state governments fault when it goes pear-shaped. ;)

The problem is AGW and aging coal fired power stations for which no succession plan seems to exist.

If I was the SA govt I would be looking to get some big windfarms in/around Backstairs Passage. But if more states join in, Qld/Vic/SA I think the beginnings of an ultra high voltage DC grid connecting the various renewable energy generators then the beginnings of a real succession to coal power will be in place.

Hopefully as soon as next year a federal Labor govt can enact policies that will see renewable energy really take off. Still would like a nuke generator tho.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 12:35pm:

Hopefully as soon as next year a federal Labor govt can enact policies that will see renewable energy really take off.

So what policies, apart from subsidies, will do that? ;)

An RET will.

Or an emissions intensity scheme.

More work on energy efficiency, especially for buildings

The above could also be achieved with an ETS.

Raise the excise on fuel (or on petrol, exempting diesel.)

Planning the replacement of aging coal fired reactors as they reach end of life.

Encouraging remote communities to switch to solar and wind instead of diesel.

Lots of things like that.

Working with the states to create a special grid connecting the main renewable energy sites so an excess of wind energy say can be sent to where wind is missing in action.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 6:35pm:

An RET will.

How? Subsiding Renewables?
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 6:35pm:

Or an emissions intensity scheme.

Make everything dearer if it is not a renewable. A reverse subsidy. Hit the poor because of increased costs. hey can afford it. The Climate Council has declared war on gas as well.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 6:35pm:

More work on energy efficiency, especially for buildings

Increase the costs of new or refurbished buildings. Might mean investors build less new or refurbish less.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 6:35pm:

Raise the excise on fuel (or on petrol, exempting diesel.)

Raise costs of fossil fuels. Make them more expensive. Of course the poor will go out and buy a Tesla. No problems.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 6:35pm:

Planning the replacement of aging coal fired reactors as they reach end of life.

But not with new fossil fuelled powered stations.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 6:35pm:

Working with the states to create a special grid connecting the main renewable energy sites so an excess of wind energy say can be sent to where wind is missing in action.

Only those states that have enough population.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 6:35pm:

so an excess of wind energy say can be sent to where wind is missing in action.

Providing of course it is not summer, when winds tend to drop.

Or solar.

The Gillard ETS reimbursed, even over-imbursed people via the tax system, pension increase etc. Just a price increase to drive changes in behavior that led to lower power consumption.

Brace yourself: Labor will introduce at least an emissions intensity scheme but I hope they will reintroduce an ETS, one where permits are auctioned.

There is no replacement for Hazelwood, there are no planned replacements for any of the aging coal fired generators.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 6:35pm:

An RET will. Or an emissions intensity scheme. More work on energy efficiency, especially for buildings The above could also be achieved with an ETS. Raise the excise on fuel (or on petrol, exempting diesel.) Planning the replacement of aging coal fired reactors as they reach end of life. Encouraging remote communities to switch to solar and wind instead of diesel. Lots of things like that. Working with the states to create a special grid connecting the main renewable energy sites so an excess of wind energy say can be sent to where wind is missing in action.

You mean like the whole state of South Australia?   80,000lt of diesel per hour....go you good thing!

It could mean that SA can keep going while Vic & NSW have blackouts.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 3:18pm:

It could mean that SA can keep going while Vic & NSW have blackouts.

We will just cut the extension lead, youll be in the dark, again.

You might have to, with Hazelwood gone.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 3:38pm:

You might have to, with Hazelwood gone.

Absolutely.

Another classic Dan Andrews accomplishment,  after paying for a road not to be built, he taxes a power station out of business, then buys a timber mill after shrinking the timber harvesting quota....

If Working Dog script writers came up with this they'd have to can it because it would be deemed too stupid even for their audience....and yet...

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 8:19pm:

Just a price increase to drive changes in behavior that led to lower power consumption.

Nothing to do with the GFC, businesses closing? ;D ;D ;D ;D

What are you babbling about Cpl Lees? Been hitting the turps this afternoon?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 6:28pm:

What are you babbling about Cpl Lees? Been hitting the turps this afternoon?

Oh dear JM has forgotten all about the GFC. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That was years before the ETS.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 8:19pm:

Just a price increase to drive changes in behavior that led to lower power consumption.

https://industry.gov.au/Office-of-the-Chief-Economist/Publications/Documents/aes/2016-australian-energy-statistics.pdf

That isn't what fig 3.2 shows.

Quote:

3.2 By sector The electricity supply, transport and manufacturing sectors accounted for three-quarters of Australian energy consumption in 2014–15 (Table 3.3). The electricity supply sector accounted for 28 per cent of Australia’s energy consumption in 2014–15. Energy consumption in this sector (including fuel inputs to electricity generation, own use and losses) rose by 5 per cent in that year, in response to increased electricity demand in the National Electricity Market (NEM) and off-grid, and an increase in the share of coal in the fuel mix. This is in contrast to the recent trend, with energy use for electricity supply generally in decline between 2008–09 and 2013–14 (Figure 3.3). When measuring energy consumption, an increase in coal fired generation contributes more to primary energy consumption than an increase in renewable generation, because coal has a lower conversion efficiency. The transport sector accounted for 27 per cent of Australian energy consumption. Increased energy use in road transport resulted in a 2 per cent increase in the transport sector in 2014–15 (Table 3.4). Road transport accounted for nearly three-quarters of energy consumption in the sector. Air transport, which accounted for a further 19 per cent of consumption, fell slightly in 2014–15 in line with a fall in activity, particularly passenger transport.

From Lees’ link.

Doesn’t say what Cpl Lees says it did. Oh dear, lying again Lees?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 10:32am:

Doesn’t say what Cpl Lees says it did. Oh dear, lying again Lees?

Your comprehension issues again. FIGURE 3.2.

Of course if you want to look at Table 3.3 Electricity -0.4% over 10years. You are the supposed statistics master. How significant is that? Rounding errors?

Can’t copy Fig 3.2. but the text preceding it was what I quoted.

You lied, again.

As to the electricity stats—10 years so nothing to do with the ETS.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 11:38am:

As to the electricity stats—10 years so nothing to do with the ETS.

So what years are you putting on the ETS? When electricity consumption dropped.

Don’t you know, Cpl Lees?

When was it enacted, when did it come into effect, when did abbott rescind it?

Pretty recent sort of history.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 5:23pm:

When was it enacted, when did it come into effect, when did abbott rescind it?

Yep. I wanted to know what dates you wanted to use. ;)

Enacted Nov 2011, rescinded Jul 2014

Rather strange. The data is different in the annual reports to the data in Table L. Apparently they changed methodologies, but it is too hard to explain.

So you looked it up? Clever little Lees.

The coalition clowns have managed to kill business and INcrease emissions. What wonderful clowns they are!

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 8:52pm:

The coalition clowns have managed to kill business and INcrease emissions. What wonderful clowns they are!

How wonderful. More electricity generated, more emissions and business still died?

Your fantasies are getting on top of you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 9:05pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:52pm: The coalition clowns have managed to kill business and INcrease emissions. What wonderful clowns they are! How wonderful. More electricity generated, more emissions and business still died? Your fantasies are getting on top of you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Libs have killed business—witness the steady loss of full time work, decreases in hours worked etc yet emissions INcreased.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 10:28pm:

Libs have killed business—witness the steady loss of full time work, decreases in hours worked etc yet emissions INcreased.

The old correlation  =  causation mantra. ;D ;D ;D ;D

No, I just said the Libs had killed business, reduced employment and hours worked yet increased emissions. I did not say they were related: don’t know what caused the emissions increase.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 31^st, 2017 at 5:22pm:

No, I just said the Libs had killed business, reduced employment and hours worked yet increased emissions. I did not say they were related: don’t know what caused the emissions increase.

Lee is a nice bloke and very patient with you dopey- why dont you pay him some respect?

Agnes wrote on Aug 31^st, 2017 at 5:38pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 31st, 2017 at 5:22pm: No, I just said the Libs had killed business, reduced employment and hours worked yet increased emissions. I did not say they were related: don’t know what caused the emissions increase. Lee is a nice bloke and very patient with you dopey- why dont you pay him some respect?

:-?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 31^st, 2017 at 5:22pm:

No, I just said the Libs had killed business, reduced employment and hours worked yet increased emissions. I did not say they were related: don’t know what caused the emissions increase.

"Electricity  generation  in  Australia rose  by  2  per  cent in  2014–15 to  252terawatt  hours "

"Brown  coal fired  generation  rose  by  11  per  cent in 2014–15, while  black coal  rose  by  2  per cent, "

https://industry.gov.au/Office-of-the-Chief-Economist/Publications/Documents/aes/2016-australian-energy-statistics.pdf

Maybe it was all those put out of work, and closed businesses that caused the increase in electricity consumption. ;)

Well, those figures look weird. Mining took less energy—so what boosted the coal fired electricity needed? Specifically the 11% increase in brown coal?

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 7:14am:

Well, those figures look weird. Mining took less energy—so what boosted the coal fired electricity needed? Specifically the 11% increase in brown coal?

Ask the government industry body. ;)

Mining and manufacturing both decreased in that year while energy efficiency increased—so why the increase in power generation and emissions?

Decidedly odd and dodgy looking.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 12:16pm:

Mining and manufacturing both decreased in that year while energy efficiency increased—so why the increase in power generation and emissions? Decidedly odd and dodgy looking.

m\

Maybe it is a Government conspiracy. ;)