Brilliant article about the futility of wind and solar for national power by Viv who really knows his subject.




The Green Elephant in the Snowy Mountains
VIV FORBES Fri 31 Aug 2018 09:58:25 am/3827 COMMENTS

http://pickeringpost.com/kyola/resources/articles/pac.jpg

Canberra breeds many white elephants, but now they are breeding a gigantic new breed of pachyderm in Australia’s Snowy Mountains – a Green Elephant. Grandly named “Snowy 2.0 Hydro-Electric”, it has the compulsory green skin, but it is just another big white elephant under a thick layer of green paint.

Snowy 2.0 plans a hugely expensive complex of dams, tunnels, pumps, pipes, generators, roads and powerlines. Water will be pumped up-hill using grid power in times of low demand, and then released when needed to recover some of that energy.

To call it “hydro-electric” is a fraud – it will not store one extra litre of water and will be a net consumer of electric power. It is a giant electric storage battery to be recharged using grid power.

http://pickeringpost.com/uploads/f7d4c6bf19a4c7433d61123c835974ae0dc3e35c.png

This is just the next episode in an expensive and impossible green dream to run Australian cities and industries, plus a growing electric vehicle fleet, on intermittent wind and solar energy and without coal, gas, oil or nuclear fuels.

Surely we can learn from the unfolding disaster of a similar German Grand Plan:
https://carbon-sense.com/2018/08/29/german-plan-to-abolish-carbon-fuels-fails/

The first stage of Australia’s green dream was to demonise coal and nuclear power, set onerous green energy and CO2 emissions targets, subsidise and mandate the use of intermittent energy from wind and solar, and give electric cars financial and other privileges. All of this costs Australian electricity users and tax payers at least $5 billion per year. This destructive force-feeding of solar and wind power is well advanced.

Solar energy peaks around mid-day, falls to zero from dusk to dawn and is much reduced by clouds, dust and smoke. Over a year it may produce about 16% of name-plate capacity. Thus a solar-battery system would need installed solar capacity of six times the demand. These solar “farms” are very land-hungry per unit of usable energy, often sterilising large areas of agricultural land.

Wind energy is much more erratic - it can produce about 35% of peak capacity but often produces peak power during the night when there is low demand. It may produce zero power for several days. A sudden high wind can send wind power surging onto the grid, and it falls to zero as the wind dies. Wind power driving a wind-battery system would need installed wind capacity of triple the expected demand, but even that may not cope with a long windless spell.

There can be days with zero production from either wind or solar, and neither can increase output to meet demand which often peaks around dinner time and breakfast time when green power is scarce. Wind “farms” are a blight on the landscape and are often built in scenic areas where farming and forestry are prohibited.

The price of electricity fluctuates wildly as these floods and droughts of intermittent green energy surge into the grid. This creates instability, increases the chance of blackouts and destroys the viability of reliable coal-fired generators which are unable to ramp up fast enough to profit from soaring power prices during green energy droughts and are forced to keep running while accepting close-to-zero prices during the green deluges. To speed up this destruction of reliable energy, politicians are still using subsidies and targets to encourage more green energy to be dumped randomly onto the grid.

For a short very clear video on the cost and reliability problems caused by wind power in Minnesota see:

https://youtu.be/0vaIYttrL88


                Warren Buffett puts it bluntly:
                       “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms.
                        That’s the only reason to build them.
                        They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

The solution to green energy disruption is simple. Do not allow any new spasmodic generators like wind and solar to connect direct to the grid. They must construct or contract for battery or other backup to moderate their fluctuations and increase reliability and predictability. Existing wind-solar farms already connected to the grid should lose all subsidies and be paid what their second class product is worth at the time it floods on to the grid.

Backing up and taming green energy is simple in principle – it can be done using lithium batteries like the Musk monster in South Australia, or giant pumped-hydro schemes like Snowy 2.0. Or conventional reliable generators like hydro, gas, oil, coal or nuclear can be operated intermittently to fill green energy gaps.

Read the full guide to ScoMo winning the election on energy here

http://pickeringpost.com/story/the-green-elephant-in-the-snowy-mountains-/8517

Will Blo Mo honour Aborts $550 a year promise or will we all die waiting.....waiting....waiting....waiting.....  ?? :D LOL

http://oi63.tinypic.com/29lfd74.jpg

The silly old dead in the head TROLL VIRUS crawls out from under the floor boards.

ScoMo is moving in the correct direction but just how fast can he move ? Will ScoMo copy Clive Palmer's energy policies ?

Is the Paris Agreement FRAUD really just a smoke screen for the Greenies' Agenda 2030?




DON'T CANCEL PARIS... just let the red windmill keep turning
Sat 8 Sep 2018 10:50:56 am/98 COMMENTS

http://pickeringpost.com/kyola/resources/articles/1412567674328.jpg

Why make a song and dance about telling Paris to shove their CO2 targets up their arse? It’s not necessary, as we are already well within their insanely destructive targets and we will also be by 2030, due mostly to Abbott's sensible "Direct Action".

http://pickeringpost.com/uploads/d819c93727930f86e0ea7988398eb5827714a1df.jpg
Two of the world's biggest con artists

Paris only needs to worry about our coal firing up 1600 existing power stations across the world along with one station a week being completed by India and China… China, India and the US have simply ignored the crazy hoax of global warming, and so will we as we go about supplying the world with our coal... and that won't stop.

So we just need to silently walk away, which I suspect ScoMo is doing now that he needs to placate the pro Turnbull Liberal warmists.

http://pickeringpost.com/uploads/b12eb4df0985fb22cd772b8620a1751e781c8b1d.jpg

The entire IPCC scam is coming apart at the seams anyway now that their ideological lies have been exposed. 

http://pickeringpost.com/glance/don-t-cancel-paris-just-let-the-red-windmill-keep-turning/8543   

The new rort - imaginary ocean level rising.




PACIFIC FORUM FARCE
LARRY PICKERING Fri 7 Sep 2018 09:17:21 am/2926 COMMENTS

http://pickeringpost.com/kyola/resources/articles/Marise_0002%20S.jpg

If Australia thinks it can outspend China in the South Pacific now that the obese Island Jifs (chiefs) have discovered the rising sea-level ruse, then it’s kidding itself. But the three la femme musketeers of Gillard, Bishop and now Payne have given it their best shot. With stolen funds of course… stolen from our future generation.

Let’s get this straight… sea levels have not, and will not, in the next many millennia rise or fall beyond the normal miniscule centimetre cycles. After seven years of helicopter search and rescue operations in the area I can assure you the only sea level rises anywhere have been tsunamis caused by undersea volcanic movement. And you can’t spend your way out of avoiding those.

http://pickeringpost.com/uploads/f9466d041f0e281ff577ca5986d1c29bb35dd10e.jpg

Hundreds of populated islands, barely inches above high tide, have been there for thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of years. But that won’t stop the ever-opportunistic island Jifs from taking advantage of the current climate change scam encouraged by the fraudulent UN’s IPCC and Left leaning politicians and media.

It’s confounding that an air head like Turnbull’s “little” token female, Marise Payne, has flummed the Stick Insect’s old job. It’s embarrassing. It seems you must first prove to be a portfolio failure to qualify for the plum DFAT post.

UN envoys have assured Island Jifs that they need to express “fear” of “expected” rising sea levels to cash in on this global warming bonanza.

Fear of Australian droughts and floods doesn’t seem to raise one hair on one neck. It certainly doesn’t seem to get Treasury all upset to the extent it would put its grubby hands even deeper into our pockets.

The UN, since it was the League of Nations, has been as useful as an ashtray on a motor bike. But for some reason we need to pay loyalty and royalties to an Islam dominated orgy of greed and corruption as a “responsible” member of the World’s nationhood.

http://pickeringpost.com/uploads/b82e0ca2d3fec19d14f64d5bdf94ef758d283b64.jpg

Trump is leading the way out of this Left insanity and the even more Left media is refusing to allow the World to be cleansed of this madness by denying democracy and ignoring the electoral process.

I said to my doctor last week, “surely you don’t go along with this global warming bullshit, do you?” He slipped his glasses down his nose and said, “Well, 97 per cent of scientists can’t be wrong”.

I didn’t bother telling him that the well-publicised 97 per cent was of IPCC “scientists” only (most of whom are neither scientists, nor climatologists, but charlatan warmists on huge UN salaries with massive perks).

Thirty thousand real scientists and climatologists say it’s a hoax.

Oh well, we are getting there as we watch the EU and UN slowly collapse under the weight of lies and corruption.

ScoMo should get on the Trump wagon, because he resists media collusion.

http://pickeringpost.com/story/pacific-forum-farce/8539

The dumb gullible CO2 breathing Greeny types are looking sillier by the day as they parade their Global Warming HOAX fueled by harmless essential to life on earth CO₂.




CO2, OXYGEN, AND THE WORLD'S "POLLUTED" CITIES ARE DOING FINE THANKYOU...only Al Gore's bank account is suffering
LARRY PICKERING Tue 11 Sep 2018 07:06:27 am/1040 COMMENTS

http://pickeringpost.com/kyola/resources/articles/Central%20Park.jpg

New York city surrounds its historic four kilometer long Central Park that has thrived for 160 years on CO2 and methane. Yet it is falsely cited as one of the world's most "polluted" cities.


http://pickeringpost.com/uploads/fc742fe28f30a7600eff3c5d444b0c5418797e06.jpg

http://pickeringpost.com/uploads/d057092c476b0ef866be8d03138055458c5b3dca.png

Saudi Arabia’s capital, Riyadh, (above) is one of the ten most “polluted” cities on earth yet this corrupted capital has dozens of beautiful, imposing parks, thriving with vegetation ingesting the copious plant food CO2.


http://pickeringpost.com/uploads/53373ddb0804e12eed10d56208ae0a47020b1464.jpg

Iran’s Tehran, (above) not known for its environmental concerns, is also highly “polluted” yet sports dozens of thriving parks and gardens, with healthy trees competing for sunlight.


http://pickeringpost.com/uploads/fcec6ebf69a75d5a896e0fd83bfe99fd01a94c2d.jpg

Famous for its "pollution", Tokyo supports a population of over 36 million and many magnificent old-growth parklands.


http://pickeringpost.com/uploads/ab8fd6986253af37a5c3666d7b98674eb1b10146.jpg

The same applies for vehicle-choked Los Angeles, yet the warmists still maintain CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. But LA's sequoias (above) don't appear too distressed.


http://pickeringpost.com/uploads/94c129893c1a85532f8d2bc235c0c533f5545c4b.jpg

The World Health Organisation claims fossil fuel's toxic fumes blanket large cities. The WHO tells lies, this is steam, H2O, and will return to earth as distilled water.


Vegetation sucks up CO2 and returns the oxygen we need. The constant photosynthesis process only needs light.

So while little Josh Friedanegg bemoans the loss of his NEG, this four billion year-long process continues, whether it's recycling dinosaur methane or CO2.

There is nothing for little Josh to worry about.

But there's plenty for Al Gore to worry about now that his "convenient" hoax is unravelling across the world.   

http://pickeringpost.com/story/co2-oxygen-and-the-world-s-polluted-cities-are-doing-fine-thankyou/8547

Not related to Herb are you dill?

Using Pickering the crook as a source.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Reddy shows just what MT vessels the Lefties really are.

Reddy only can say and think what GetUp! has told him.

Reddy has not got the vaguest clue about the topic and so he gravitates to the usual Lefty dribble scribble.

You would wonder why he even bothers.

Redmond Neck wrote on Sep 14^th, 2018 at 11:59am:

Using Pickering the crook as a source.

Just shooting the messenger. Have you got a cogent argument?

You know like the temperature has risen so fast? About 1C in a century? Except of course the uncertainty is at least +/- 0.5C.

Phil Jones from CRU has said 3 warming periods from 1880-2010 were statistically indistinguishable from each other. How bizarre is that? It seems to point to CO2 not being any kind of driver in climate change.

But if you have reputable sources to refute what I say; feel free.

SkepSci, Guardian are not reputable sources. Use scientific papers.

Leaving Reddy to his Lefty futility and back to the topic which is far too hard for Reddy to even begin to understand.

Viv explains just why renewables are futile in supplying the national grid.

Of course the Lefties and Greeny types won't understand a word of it.




Politicians again show “Real Genius”
VIV FORBES Fri 14 Sep 2018 07:36:33 am/330 COMMENTS

http://pickeringpost.com/kyola/resources/articles/tide.jpg

Back in the chaotic dying days of the Whitlam-Cairns-Connor government, Canberra was buzzing with Rex Connor’s grand plans for a national energy grid and gas pipelines linking the NW Shelf to the capital cities, all to be funded by massive foreign loans arranged by a mysterious Pakistani named Khemlani. Malcolm Fraser staged a parliamentary revolt. The economy slumped.

A British observer at that time was asked who was the greater Prime Minister - Harold Wilson or Gough Whitlam. He replied:

“Any fool can bugger up Britain but it takes real genius to bugger up Australia.”

Australian politicians are again showing real genius.

Now, we have incredible tri-partisan plans to cover the continent with a spider-web of transmission lines connecting wind/solar “farms” sending piddling amounts of intermittent power to distant consumers and to expensive battery and hydro backups - all funded by electricity consumers, tax-assisted speculators and foreign debt.

We are the world’s biggest coal exporter but have not built a big coal-fired power station for 11 years. We have massive deposits of uranium but 100% of this energy is either exported, or sterilised by the Giant Rainbow Serpent, or blocked by the Green-anti’s.

Australia suffers recurrent droughts but has not built a major water supply dam for about 40 years, and the average age of our hydro-electric plants is 48 years. And when the floods do come, desperate farmers watch as years of rain water rush past to irrigate distant oceans.

Once, Australia was a world leader in exploration and drilling – it is now a world leader in legalism, red tape and environmental obstructionism.

Once, Canberra and the States encouraged oil and gas exploration with geological mapping and research - now they restrict land and sea access and limit exports.

Once, Australia was a world leader in refining metals and petroleum - now our expensive unreliable electricity and green tape are driving these industries and their jobs overseas.

Once, Australia’s CSIRO was respected for research that supported industry and for doing useful things like controlling rabbits and prickly pear and developing better crops and pastures. Now CSIRO panders to global warming hysteria and promotes the fairy story that carbon taxes and emissions targets can change the world’s climate.

Once, young Australians excelled in maths, science and engineering. Now, they are brain-washed in gender studies, green energy non-science and environmental activism.

Once, the opening of a railway or the discovery of oil, coal, nickel or uranium made headlines. Today’s Aussies harass explorers and developers, and queue at the release of the latest IPad.

https://s22.postimg.cc/z271ndvip/ac3b09a4450e38081393b885ffbcd3707d80188b.png

As Australia’s first people discovered, if today’s Australians lack the will or the knowledge to use our great natural resources, more energetic people will take them from us.

http://pickeringpost.com/story/politicians-again-show-real-genius-/8557

Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations At 400 PPM Are Still Dangerously Low For Life On Earth
By P Gosselin on 17. May 2013

With atmospheric CO2 concentrations reaching the 400 ppm level, the media and a number of alarmist scientists have set off the mega-alarm bells, claiming “record high levels” of CO2 had been reached, and that the planet is on the verge of an overdose. This is based purely on ignorance of the Earth’s history.

Worrying that 400 ppm is too high is like worrying about your fuel tank overflowing when it reaches the 1/8 mark during filling.

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Fuelgauge_2.gif
At 400 ppm CO2 levels are actually dangerously low in historical terms.

From a historical perspective, an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 400 ppm is actually almost scraping the bottom of the barrel. Over the Earth’s history, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have ranged from 180 ppm to 7000 ppm, see Figure 1 below. On that scale we are in fact today barely above the Earth’s record lows.

https://s22.postimg.cc/sd53l1mox/Phanerozoic_CO2-_Temperatures.png
Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 concentration is just barely above the life-sustaining levels of 150 ppm. For life to have real buffer against mass extinction, CO2 needs to be closer to 1000 ppm. Source: http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/.

That 400 ppm is actually dangerously low is a fact the alarmists keep avoiding and suppressing. Below 150 ppm, plant-life dies off on a massive scale. The Earth actually came very close to that point many times over the last 2 million years during the ice ages. At the bottom of the last ice age just 20,000 years ago, life on the planet literally teetered on the brink when CO2 fell to a level of just 180 ppm. Do we really want to live on the brink of extinction?


It’s a fact that biologists have shown that once the atmospheric CO2 level falls below the 500 ppm level, plants really begin to suffer. Many of us have seen the video showing how plants grow faster under higher CO2 concentrations. The following charts show the growth curves of some plants as a function of CO2 concentration:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Soybean-and-CO2.gif
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Avena-CO2.gif

Climate Myth: CO2 was higher in the past
"The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation."
(The Lavoisier Group)

Over the Earth's history, there are times where atmospheric CO2 is higher than current levels. Intriguingly, the planet experienced widespread regions of glaciation during some of those periods. Does this contradict the warming effect of CO2? No, for one simple reason. CO2 is not the only driver of climate. To understand past climate, we need to include other forcings that drive climate. To do this, one study pieced together 490 proxy records to reconstruct CO2 levels over the last 540 million years (Royer 2006). This period is known as the Phanerozoic eon.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppm-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/

juliar wrote on Sep 14^th, 2018 at 11:49am:

The new rort - imaginary ocean level rising.

That's right the islands are sinking aren't they socko :D LOL ! What a deadbeat you are socko. This is why the LNP is about to become permanently extinct just like some of the animal species it has helped to become extinct with its fake oil economy :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 14^th, 2018 at 8:03pm:

That's right the islands are sinking aren't they socko

Samoa is or do you want to look at another island? ;)

"Geological subsidence and sinking islands: the case of Manono (Samoa)"

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/arco.5099

lee wrote on Sep 14^th, 2018 at 12:11pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 11:59am: Using Pickering the crook as a source. Just shooting the messenger. Have you got a cogent argument? You know like the temperature has risen so fast? About 1C in a century? Except of course the uncertainty is at least +/- 0.5C. Phil Jones from CRU has said 3 warming periods from 1880-2010 were statistically indistinguishable from each other. How bizarre is that? It seems to point to CO2 not being any kind of driver in climate change. But if you have reputable sources to refute what I say; feel free. SkepSci, Guardian are not reputable sources. Use scientific papers.

Then why don't you submit it as a paper for peer review instead of doing the Andrew Bolt trick of hoodwinking the gullible with selective data taken out of context. :D LOL

lee wrote on Sep 14^th, 2018 at 9:08pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 8:03pm: That's right the islands are sinking aren't they socko Samoa is or do you want to look at another island? ;) "Geological subsidence and sinking islands: the case of Manono (Samoa)" https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/arco.5099

Yes they all must be sinking :D LOL Why ? Because Andrew Bolt says so in his rag and the rightards don't want to feel guilty about profiting out of destroying the planet :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 14^th, 2018 at 10:21pm:

Yes they all must be sinking

I gave you the opportunity to tell me which ones weren't sinking. Perhaps that was too hard.

"The Pacific nation of Tuvalu—long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels—is actually growing in size, new research shows.

A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu's nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.

It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu's total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

Co-author Paul Kench said the research, published Friday in the journal Nature Communications, challenged the assumption that low-lying island nations would be swamped as the sea rose.

"We tend to think of Pacific atolls as static landforms that will simply be inundated as sea levels rise, but there is growing evidence these islands are geologically dynamic and are constantly changing," he said.

"The study findings may seem counter-intuitive, given that (the) sea level has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion."

It found factors such as wave patterns and sediment dumped by storms could offset the erosion caused by rising water levels."


https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html#jCp

Hmm Not Tuvalu either.

Perhaps you can tell us which ones are being drowned by SLR.

Bolt? Don't read him. You will have to come up with new material. ;)

Here you are just for you ! :D LOL

https://www.skepticalscience.com/coral-atoll.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Tuvalu-sea-level-rise.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/coral-atoll.htm

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 15^th, 2018 at 12:49am:

Here you are just for you !

Oh Skep Sci?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/coral-atoll.htm - 2013

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Tuvalu-sea-level-rise.htm - 2015

https://www.skepticalscience.com/coral-atoll.htm - 2013 ( the same paper as the first. You must have really liked that one.)

But of course you forgot to read the science that I referred to above.

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html#jCp

From 2018 published in Phy.org a major peer-reviewed magazine.

But from your coral atolls one perhaps you missed the last bit?

"Although they appear like permanent features, Pacific coral atolls have only existed for about two thousand years. These atolls are stable because the solid foundations protect them from major erosion. This protection is only likely to continue until mid century for some atolls. So, although coral atolls may indeed grow as sea level rises, this hasn't always been the case in the past, and won't be the case in the future."

Another view -

"For the atoll to persist, continued erosion or subsidence must be at a rate slow enough to permit reef growth upwards and outwards to replace the lost height."

Source wiki

Wiki reference - Erickson, Jon (2003), Marine Geology, Facts on File, pp. 126–8, ISBN 0-8160-4874-6

And SLR has been occurring since the end of the LIA (about 1700). Which is before industrialization.

But sea level rise could never be the cause of course :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 15^th, 2018 at 12:47pm:

But sea level rise could never be the cause of course

Of course I never said that.

BTW - you haven't shown evidence of any island being drowned by SLR.

The Maldives? Nah - they got funding for a new runway. Can't do that if it is going to be underwater.

All you have given us something may happen. Not something has happened.

BTW - did you know that satellite altimeters that they use for SLR have a resolution of between 32 - 43 mm? And calculating SLR of 3.3mm?

That's the problem with you lot, when it does happen you start blaming everyone else for your own ignorance and stupidity.

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 15^th, 2018 at 7:08pm:

That's the problem with you lot, when it does happen you start blaming everyone else for your own ignorance and stupidity.

That's the problem with you lot. You blame everyone for something that hasn't even happened. ;)

Lee,

it is just a waste of time trying to get any sense out of a troll with a shrunken head that is as thick as a brick. A disgrace to the human race.

lee wrote on Sep 15^th, 2018 at 7:09pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 15th, 2018 at 7:08pm: That's the problem with you lot, when it does happen you start blaming everyone else for your own ignorance and stupidity. That's the problem with you lot. You blame everyone for something that hasn't even happened. ;)

The problem with most conservatives is they have no concept of probability and statistics which is why they keep expecting climate change models to predict exactly when and where the next extreme weather event will occur. Also they have no concept of risk mitigation. To them the climate is always changing so there is no problem to solve.

juliar wrote on Sep 16^th, 2018 at 3:54pm:

Lee, it is just a waste of time trying to get any sense out of a troll with a shrunken head that is as thick as a brick. A disgrace to the human race.

You're a piece of sh.t socko. Even your own ilk doesn't like you. You keep plastering this forum with mistruths as though the rest of the world is going to sit up and take notice of some deadbeat in Australia who has got absolutely nothing to offer except to down tools and don't change anything. This is you lot in a nutshell :D LOL

http://www.raamstijn.nl/eenblogjeom/images/stories/no%20thanks%20we%20are%20too%20busy%20verbeteren%20improvement.jpg

The shrunken heads of the lying SPAMMING TROLLS are drowning in their own uneducated GROSSLY IGNORANT TECHNICALLY OBTUSE SLIME.

The shrunken heads of the lying Spamming Trolls could not argue their way out of a wet paper bag they are just so thick.

Typical MT headed Greeny types.

You've got no head at all socko. The only futile thing about renewables is people like you and lee. And btw how much did you pay for your free renewable sunlight energy today ? You do use renewable sunlight energy don't you socko or do you draw the curtains and turn on your dingy dim coal fired powered Edison light bulbs ? :D LOL

See if you can run an economy without free renewable sunlight energy socko :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 16^th, 2018 at 9:01pm:

The problem with most conservatives is they have no concept of probability and statistics which is why they keep expecting climate change models to predict exactly when and where the next extreme weather event will occur.

I would like the climate models to at least come close. They don't. The reasons they don't are many. They have never been verified, validated or calibrated.

They don't do clouds well.

They don't do water vapour well. (Not the same thing).

There is no evidence of CO2 doing anything.

You like those graphs? Do you like the fact that according to Gavin Schmidt, Director of GISS, that the uncertainty is +/-0.5C. Of course that is an estimate. With large tracts of land having no measurements and the oceans not completely covered, I have extreme doubts as to the size of the uncertainties.


Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 16^th, 2018 at 9:01pm:

Also they have no concept of risk mitigation.

Risk mitigation is not clamping down on CO2. The Paris Agreement would result in a cooling of 0.2C by 2100.


Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 16^th, 2018 at 9:01pm:

To them the climate is always changing so there is no problem to solve.

Yep. Now all you have to do is, without climate models, which aren't good, prove what effect CO2 has had on climate.

If CO2 were the driver surely the ever increasing level would be rising faster?

http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/temperature_and_vapor_trop20_V4.png

Look at the decadal rate.

All the shrunken head of the thick and sick troll can do is chunder out spamming irrelevant ridiculous retarded rubbish.

And as a service to the good guys I have shrunk Lee's whopper graph.

https://i.postimg.cc/hGh3pcfr/temperature_and_vapor_trop20_V4.png



This shrinking reminds one of the shrunken heads of the Village Idiot Troll VIRI with IQ's < 10.

juliar wrote on Sep 16^th, 2018 at 10:44pm:

All the shrunken head of the thick and sick troll can do is chunder out spamming irrelevant ridiculous retarded rubbish.

I'll give you a shrunken head socko. Why don't you turn your narrow arse around and head back under your floorboards along with the rest of the LNP swill.

Hey socko, put this in your pipe and smoke it you dickhead :D LOL

https://cleantechnica.com/files/2018/09/US-Best-Selling-Cars-in-August.png

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 10:31am:

Hey socko, put this in your pipe and smoke it you dickhead

How many houses would one of them power?

Oh that's right they need a house or other power source to power them.

lee wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 12:03pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 10:31am: Hey socko, put this in your pipe and smoke it you dickhead How many houses would one of them power? Oh that's right they need a house or other power source to power them.

why would u want to power a house with a car Lee ?
I usually travel in my vehicle :D…..

lee wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 12:03pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 10:31am: Hey socko, put this in your pipe and smoke it you dickhead How many houses would one of them power? Oh that's right they need a house or other power source to power them.

as opposed to filling up at a fossil fool bowser where you literally waste energy driving to. :D LOL

No I'll take the free charge ups from my rooftop solar PV array thank you very much. You and socko can take it up the arse at your local fossil and hydrogen fool bowser. And don't forget your shopper dockets and wait for the weekly discount cycles ;) Be my guest :D LOL

Until such time as Fusion reaction is perfected, we are in big trouble. Natural Gas will probably run out in under 50 years. Even Nuclear is not renewable. So-called "breeder reactors" are still not truly renewable forever.

Real Renewables are the medium term answer. Solar, Wind, tidal.

Bring it on.  8-)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 12:09pm:

why would u want to power a house with a car Lee ? I usually travel in my vehicle

Because the thread is about renewables as a power source. Never mind back to sleep for you.

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 12:18pm:

as opposed to filling up at a fossil fool bowser where you literally waste energy driving to.

Completely off topic. Renewables as a power source; capiche?

Still on the sauce I see.

Lee of the Off Topic Police Reporting   SAH !!!!!!
:D

lee wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 12:58pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 12:09pm: why would u want to power a house with a car Lee ? I usually travel in my vehicle Because the thread is about renewables as a power source. Never mind back to sleep for you.

can you power your house from your fossil fool car ? Maybe you could use it as a heater in winter because they are very good at throwing away valuable energy as wasted heat ;)

The shrunken heads of the lying SPAMMING TROLLS are drowning in their own uneducated GROSSLY IGNORANT TECHNICALLY OBTUSE SLIME.

The shrunken heads of the lying Spamming Trolls could not argue their way out of a wet paper bag they are just so thick.

Typical MT headed Greeny types.

The Renewable Energy Disaster
by Christopher Calder

If we have fancy boutique priced energy, we will have fancy boutique priced food!

It is a mathematically provable fact that you cannot replace oil, coal, and natural gas with windmills, solar panels, and biofuels. 

Hobbits may be able to live poetically, generating energy from the wind, the Sun, and the soil. 

Real human beings living in an industrialized civilization need highly concentrated nonrenewable energy sources to survive.

Renewable energy schemes other than hydroelectric and geothermal power are resource hogs that take up huge amounts of space while providing very little usable energy in return. 

Contrary to popular belief, solar, wind, wave energy, and biofuel schemes are not "energy efficient," and their ultra-high cost is an accurate measurement of that inherent inefficiency.  If they were efficient they would cost less than using fossil fuels, not dramatically more than using fossil fuels.   

     WIND AND SOLAR FUTILITY  To satisfy 100% of New York City's electricity needs with wind power would require impossible around-the-clock winds within a limited speed range, and a wind farm the size of the entire state of Connecticut.

Solar photovoltaic cells are so inefficient that even with recent improvements in solar panel design it would take about 30 square miles of expensive solar panels to generate just one gigawatt of electricity. 

How much wind and solar energy can we collect on a still, windless night?  Solar and wind are inherently intermittent and unreliable energy sources. 

Would you hire a drunken employee who only showed up for work part of the time, and on his own erratic schedule, not yours?  On top of that, the sloppy drunk demands a far higher salary than do reliable workers.


http://renewable.50webs.com/windmill%20scam.jpg



Wind Energy
Lawrence Solomon exposes the lies and hype of the renewable energy faddists in his Financial Post article, "Are solar and wind finally cheaper than fossil fuels? Not a chance"  "Virtually every major German solar producer has gone under." 

As both wind and solar subsidies are withdrawn, wind and solar projects become a financial burden rather than an economic asset.  "The cost to the German economy of its transition to renewables is estimated to reach 2 to 3 trillion euros by 2050."  "As Warren Buffett said, wind farms don’t make sense without the tax credit."

Because of their extremely low power to weight ratio, windmills require the use of huge amounts of steel and other materials in their construction.  Wind turbines are being sold to the public as a carbon neutral product, but manufacturing windmill components is not a carbon neutral process. 

Windmills are mainly made from power generated by burning coal and other fossil fuels.  Because of the enormous amount of resources required for windmill construction, and their intermittent and unreliable performance, windmills do not reduce CO2 emissions. 

Building wind turbine farms covering vast areas of land will kill large numbers of birds and bats, and torture animals and humans living nearby with audible sounds as well as infrasound.  Infrasounds are very low frequencies below 20Hz that travel long distances and can cause headaches, insomnia, and other serious negative health effects.

According to "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL," "The states with (wind power/renewable energy) mandates paid 31.9% more for electricity than states without them.”



Solar Energy
Simple passive solar design features for home construction and passive solar hot water heating are sound investments, but solar power is a wasteful and counterproductive investment for large scale energy production. 

You don't get any solar energy at night; you get less on cloudy days, less in the morning, and less in the late afternoon.

That makes large scale solar  power schemes horribly inefficient no matter how high we can pump up the theoretical peak output of solar panels. 

Solar panels will always be exposed to the weather, and their lifespan is short; about 25 years.  Unlike other power systems, solar panels cannot be repaired and upgraded to extend their usefulness beyond their very limited lifespan. 

This fact dramatically increases their cost per kilowatt hour compared to other more affordable alternatives.  Solar power is great for running pocket calculators, remote vacation cabins, and other small scale high cost per watt uses, but solar power is inherently the wrong choice for large scale power grid use. 

As William Tucker points out in Food Riots Made in the USA, solar power is an extraterrestrial nuclear power system where the nuclear reactor is located 93 million miles away from us in outer space,...the Sun. 

We need terrestrial nuclear reactors right here on Earth so we can affordably capture their highly concentrated energy without taking up huge amounts of land space.  Our extraterrestrial nuclear power source is great for growing crops, but its output is far too diffuse and intermittent for practical large scale electricity production.

Read the whole gory story of renewable futility here

http://renewable.50webs.com/

nobody reads your copy and paste sh.t socko. Give it up and stick to origami :D LOL

The shrunken heads of the lying SPAMMING TROLLS are drowning in their own uneducated GROSSLY IGNORANT TECHNICALLY OBTUSE SLIME.

The shrunken heads of the lying Spamming Trolls could not argue their way out of a wet paper bag they are just so thick.

Typical MT headed Greeny types.

There are reasonable expectations within the power industry that renewables will provide a large proportion of electrical energy during the daytime within the next few years. Based on this expectation, I've recently heard a rumor at my workplace that one Queensland power station with 350 MW units have been asked to determine if it is possible to run their units at 75 MW during the day. Apparently, this is a question being asked by all coal fired power stations in Queensland and I imagine all coal fired power stations on the east coast.

I still have my concerns regarding the stability of a grid with a high proportion of renewables, but if such requests are being made to coal fired power stations we're getting renewables whether we like it or not.

The renewable rubbish is headed for a great fall as it has in Germany.

It is basically uneconomic WITHOUT the massive subsidies.

It cannot supply industry which requires non-stop power 24/7.

What the Greeny advocates always avoid is comparing like with like. They rattle about a tiny solar farm being able to replace a huge coal station.

The sheer many square kilometers area of treeless land required for both solar and wind is enormous if it is to be able to supply the huge power output of coal power station.

The catch with solar is that it doesn't work every day due to overcast weather and so the essential primary coal has to be ever ready to take over. Otherwise a blackout follows.

Similarly for wind.

Industry requires power day and night and so puts a constant load on the coal station which is ideal.

What Australia needs is MORE industry fed by cheap coal power.

juliar wrote on Oct 29^th, 2018 at 3:53pm:

The renewable rubbish is headed for a great fall as it has in Germany. It is basically uneconomic WITHOUT the massive subsidies. It cannot supply industry which requires non-stop power 24/7. What the Greeny advocates always avoid is comparing like with like. They rattle about a tiny solar farm being able to replace a huge coal station. The sheer many square kilometers area of treeless land required for both solar and wind is enormous if it is to be able to supply the huge power output of coal power station. The catch with solar is that it doesn't work every day due to overcast weather and so the essential primary coal has to be ever ready to take over. Otherwise a blackout follows. Similarly for wind. Industry requires power day and night and so puts a constant load on the coal station which is ideal. What Australia needs is MORE industry fed by cheap coal power.

Really socko !! How much free renewable sunlight energy did you use today and how much did you pay for it ? :D LOL

The village idiot troll VIRUS is annoyed at being repeatedly shown to be nothing more than a dumb dill. This exacerbates her neurotic inferiority complex. And she certainly is an inferior individual.

It is fun psycho analyzing the neurotic confusion of such specimens.

The penalty of mental inadequacy and poor education and low IQ. Should not have mucked up so much while at school.

Perhaps the specimen being analyzed should follow her own advice and stay away ?

You parrot the same words all of the time but have no idea of the meaning :D LOL

The village idiot troll VIRUS is annoyed at being repeatedly shown to be nothing more than a dumb dill. This exacerbates her neurotic inferiority complex. And she certainly is an inferior individual.

It is fun psycho analyzing the neurotic confusion of such specimens.

The penalty of mental inadequacy and poor education and low IQ. Should not have mucked up so much while at school.

Perhaps the specimen being analyzed should follow her own advice and stay away ?

You see. Repeats the same crap all of the time. Either copy and paste or accusing everyone of being a troll. Can't debate a single issue. Useless just like the rest of the conservatives.

The neurotic specimen is fixated on me because she admires and envies my superior ability so much that it makes her feel inferior which she is.

This psycho analysis of the neurotic complexes of the dumb drongos is fun.

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2018 at 9:15am:

Repeats the same crap all of the time.

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 29^th, 2018 at 8:45pm:

How much free renewable sunlight energy did you use today and how much did you pay for it ?

You mean like this?

Gee it is a full time job psycho analyzing the neurotic problems of the dingbat drongos.

Good to see Lee is rubbing the drongo's dial in their own smelly slime.


Electric vehicles? Cannot be fitted with a towbar as the extra weight overheats them and they catch fire this includes all Tesla cars. So how and when is Tesla going to pull a 35 tonne trailer for 300 miles to include hills with this truck ?

juliar wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2018 at 5:26pm:

Gee it is a full time job psycho analyzing the neurotic problems of the dingbat drongos. Good to see Lee is rubbing the drongo's dial in their own smelly slime. Electric vehicles? Cannot be fitted with a towbar as the extra weight overheats them and they catch fire this includes all Tesla cars. So how and when is Tesla going to pull a 35 tonne trailer for 300 miles to include hills with this truck ?

U do realize the Tesla x can tow 2 tonnes.... and the 2 Tesla semi’s have been used for the last year and towing quite well.........if u have real stuff to say instead of rubbish fire away jules
Ohh and 800 cars catch on fire everyday in the USA....... go on hand pick a few Tesla’s again  ;)

Fuel cells prolly be better.

Term Dog wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2018 at 10:36pm:

Fuel cells prolly be better.

Yes 1 day in the future......... today’s technology they just aren’t viable yet.
Biggest problem atm is for bulk use they use lpg to make it so basically still a fossil fuel and they need to pump it up to 10000 psi to be usable so very inefficient.
Also With a battery electric vehical every one with a power point has a filling station, where a hydrogen filling station to power a car costs around 1.5 million dollars instead of $500 for a car wall charger. :)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2018 at 8:06am:

Term Dog wrote on Nov 2nd, 2018 at 10:36pm: Fuel cells prolly be better. Yes 1 day in the future......... today’s technology they just aren’t viable yet. Biggest problem atm is for bulk use they use lpg to make it so basically still a fossil fuel and they need to pump it up to 10000 psi to be usable so very inefficient. Also With a battery electric vehical every one with a power point has a filling station, where a hydrogen filling station to power a car costs around 1.5 million dollars instead of $500 for a car wall charger. :)

The Power required to fuel say a few million clean electric cars will require more of the only fuel that can feasibly meet the demand ie............


Power is generated at your wall socket.

See the problem?

Term Dog wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2018 at 8:10am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Nov 3rd, 2018 at 8:06am: Term Dog wrote on Nov 2nd, 2018 at 10:36pm: Fuel cells prolly be better. Yes 1 day in the future......... today’s technology they just aren’t viable yet. Biggest problem atm is for bulk use they use lpg to make it so basically still a fossil fuel and they need to pump it up to 10000 psi to be usable so very inefficient. Also With a battery electric vehical every one with a power point has a filling station, where a hydrogen filling station to power a car costs around 1.5 million dollars instead of $500 for a car wall charger. :) The Power required to fuel say a few million clean electric cars will require more of the only fuel that can feasibly meet the demand is ............ See the problem?

Well the thing is even if we usd 100% fossil fuels to run the vehicals, battery electric vehicals bev’s for short are so much more efficient than combustion motors that u will use about a quarter of the fuel to power the BEVs. Start putting in renewable energy and the real big thing is no reliance for overseas oil it starts to add up using electric. Also even if it is a coal plant powering  1 million cars the pollution can be away from the city and not a million exhaust pipes in the city poisoning everyone. :)
In Australia we have so much coal we could sever the Middle East entirely and as renewable get cheaper and better the air will get better to breath. ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2018 at 8:17am:

Term Dog wrote on Nov 3rd, 2018 at 8:10am: DonDeeHippy wrote on Nov 3rd, 2018 at 8:06am: Term Dog wrote on Nov 2nd, 2018 at 10:36pm: Fuel cells prolly be better. Yes 1 day in the future......... today’s technology they just aren’t viable yet. Biggest problem atm is for bulk use they use lpg to make it so basically still a fossil fuel and they need to pump it up to 10000 psi to be usable so very inefficient. Also With a battery electric vehical every one with a power point has a filling station, where a hydrogen filling station to power a car costs around 1.5 million dollars instead of $500 for a car wall charger. :) The Power required to fuel say a few million clean electric cars will require more of the only fuel that can feasibly meet the demand is ............ See the problem? Well the thing is even if we usd 100% fossil fuels to run the vehicals, battery electric vehicals bev’s for short are so much more efficient than combustion motors that u will use about a quarter of the fuel to power the BEVs. Start putting in renewable energy and the real big thing is no reliance for overseas oil it starts to add up using electric. Also even if it is a coal plant powering  1 million cars the pollution can be away from the city and not a million exhaust pipes in the city poisoning everyone. :) In Australia we have so much coal we could sever the Middle East entirely and as renewable get cheaper and better the air will get better to breath. ;)

Having 24/7 free or cheap public transport in cities I believe without proof a better option than the urban population having electric cars would take some planning tho.

I doubt many Greenies would agree that burning more coal to provide power for electric cars would be met warmly.

It's like water, the ost gains are made improving efficiency, improving efficiency of power is smarter right now than talk of replacement. Older eg most power generators run around 30℅ efficiency. They can be improved a lot now and is more prudent to do so than replacing them with renewables that absolutely can not meet demand at this point.

Yes it’s a changing world we live in and lots of ppl r scared of change ... even if it’s poisoning them.
It’s very easy to stick your head in the sand and pretend everything is fine.
I don’t see a problem changing how we do stuff to make our lives better even if It does hurt existing business who seam to be running the show. ;)

Term Dog wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2018 at 8:10am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Nov 3rd, 2018 at 8:06am: Term Dog wrote on Nov 2nd, 2018 at 10:36pm: Fuel cells prolly be better. Yes 1 day in the future......... today’s technology they just aren’t viable yet. Biggest problem atm is for bulk use they use lpg to make it so basically still a fossil fuel and they need to pump it up to 10000 psi to be usable so very inefficient. Also With a battery electric vehical every one with a power point has a filling station, where a hydrogen filling station to power a car costs around 1.5 million dollars instead of $500 for a car wall charger. :) The Power required to fuel say a few million clean electric cars will require more of the only fuel that can feasibly meet the demand ie............ Power is generated at your wall socket. See the problem?

Not necessarily. They are having problems with solar PV inverters during the day because they are feeding to much power into the grid and causing the line voltage to rise too much. This is an opportune time to be charging up an EV whilst people are at work to soak up this excess capacity ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2018 at 9:40am:

Term Dog wrote on Nov 3rd, 2018 at 8:10am: DonDeeHippy wrote on Nov 3rd, 2018 at 8:06am: Term Dog wrote on Nov 2nd, 2018 at 10:36pm: Fuel cells prolly be better. Yes 1 day in the future......... today’s technology they just aren’t viable yet. Biggest problem atm is for bulk use they use lpg to make it so basically still a fossil fuel and they need to pump it up to 10000 psi to be usable so very inefficient. Also With a battery electric vehical every one with a power point has a filling station, where a hydrogen filling station to power a car costs around 1.5 million dollars instead of $500 for a car wall charger. :) The Power required to fuel say a few million clean electric cars will require more of the only fuel that can feasibly meet the demand ie............ Power is generated at your wall socket. See the problem? Not necessarily. They are having problems with solar PV inverters during the day because they are feeding to much power into the grid and causing the line voltage to rise too much. This is an opportune time to be charging up an EV whilst people are at work to soak up this excess capacity ;)

Sounds hella convenient and reliable, all those people busily working for a living will jump at it.

Off you go and start a business now you solved it in one sentence on the internet. You will make millions I can tell.

Term Dog wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2018 at 9:46am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 3rd, 2018 at 9:40am: Term Dog wrote on Nov 3rd, 2018 at 8:10am: DonDeeHippy wrote on Nov 3rd, 2018 at 8:06am: Term Dog wrote on Nov 2nd, 2018 at 10:36pm: Fuel cells prolly be better. Yes 1 day in the future......... today’s technology they just aren’t viable yet. Biggest problem atm is for bulk use they use lpg to make it so basically still a fossil fuel and they need to pump it up to 10000 psi to be usable so very inefficient. Also With a battery electric vehical every one with a power point has a filling station, where a hydrogen filling station to power a car costs around 1.5 million dollars instead of $500 for a car wall charger. :) The Power required to fuel say a few million clean electric cars will require more of the only fuel that can feasibly meet the demand ie............ Power is generated at your wall socket. See the problem? Not necessarily. They are having problems with solar PV inverters during the day because they are feeding to much power into the grid and causing the line voltage to rise too much. This is an opportune time to be charging up an EV whilst people are at work to soak up this excess capacity ;) Sounds hella convenient and reliable, all those people busily working for a living will jump at it. Off you go and start a business now you solved it in one sentence on the internet. You will make millions I can tell.

What business ? I just stated a well known fact. There is plenty of spare capacity to charge up EV's during the day. All car parking places should have an EV charging point and/also there should be more super charging stations at various locations. It's a matter of thinking in terms of the future rather than the past.

The dumb trolls are showing what it is like to have a child's mind in an adult body. Wonder if they were born like that or suffered head injuries in an accident ?

Forget about the gimmicky toy electric heaps that can't do a decent day's work without overheating.

The opportunity for Australia to produce hydrogen and export it is HUGE!!!!!

When will Australia get its first hydrogen powered power station ?



Solaris to present new generation hydrogen bus
21 June 2018

https://i.postimg.cc/664Q1cXb/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef022ad37ad10e200d-550wi.jpg
Now here is grunt with go that CAN do a good day's work


Solaris Bus & Coach has announced the Solaris Urbino 12 hydrogen, a new generation hydrogen fuel cell bus. The official premiere of the vehicle is slated for 2019.

Energy needed to power the driveline of the Solaris Urbin 12 hydrogen will be obtained from the fuel cell; range on a single refueling will be more than 350 km (217 miles). The vehicle will be also fitted with one of Solaris’ small High Power traction battery of 29.2 kWh which is to support the fuel cell when the demand for energy is biggest.

The battery will be charged with power from the fuel cell. In addition, it will be possible to recharge it by means of a plug-in charging outlet (as is the case in standard electric buses). An axle with dual integrated electric motors, with a nominal power of 60 kW each, will constitute the drive unit. The twelve-meter bus will be able to carry up to 80 passengers.

The new generation Solaris Urbino 12 hydrogen represents the continuation and development of a concept unveiled in 2014, when two articulated electric buses (Solaris Urbino 18.75) powered with hydrogen fuel cells as range extenders, were delivered to Hamburg. Batteries constituted the basic drive source of the buses showcased four years ago.

In the new hybrid bus, electric energy propelling the vehicle will be derived from hydrogen, whereas the battery will only have a support function.

The twelve-metre Solaris Urbino hydrogen will be equipped with latest-generation 60 kW fuel cells. Hydrogen is stored in composite tanks on the roof; the mass of the tanks will be reduced by about 20% compared to previous models.

In order to optimally reduce energy use in the vehicle, it will feature a climate comfort system with a CO₂ heat pump; the system will allow to use waste heat from the fuel cell. This is an efficient proposition that will also improve the driving range of the bus.

The revolution in terms of green public transport has become a fact—Solaris has decided to respond to market demand with a whole new product. Hydrogen buses have the potential to be very popular on the market: they are cheap in use, lighter than electric buses, can cover a distance of 350 km on a single hydrogen refueling (that is also the average daily range of a city bus) and they are completely emission-free—the only substance emitted while the bus is driving is steam.
—Dariusz Michalak, vice-CEO of Solaris Bus &Coach, in charge of the research and development division

Both fuel-cell-fitted Solaris Urbino 18.75 buses delivered to Hamburg in 2014 still cover bus route 109 on a regular basis. The Polish bus producer supplied the first trolleybus with fuel cells to Riga last year. This year, 10 such vehicles will drive across the capital of Latvia in total.

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/06/20180621-solaris.html



Comments that will make the dumb trolls squirm more than usual

Posted by: Davemart | 21 June 2018 at 02:49 AM
Fuel cell buses have two substantial advantages over BEVs.

The duty cycle of a diesel bus can be done, a BEV can only do some routes, and cold weather hits capabilities hard.

The far smaller battery pack is less costly and consumes far less resources, especially embodied energy in manufacture.

They are also entirely compatible with BEV buses, which can be used on the short runs.



Posted by: HarveyD | 21 June 2018 at 08:37 AM
Yes, long range electrified city buses using FCs as range extenders can be converted to shorter range EV units. Both versions are available.

H2 could easily be produced at the FC-Bus depots or trucked in?



Posted by: Lad | 21 June 2018 at 06:13 PM
Industry is finding hydrogen useful for replacing fossil fuels when manufacturing steel:
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/21/hybrit-fossil-fuel-free-steel-demonstration-plant-starts-construction/

When it comes to the BIG stuff the toy gimmicky all electric rot just misses the bus.




New Flyer orders H2 tanks from Hexagon for 25 fuel cell buses
02 November 2018

https://ngtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/xcelsior-family-bus.jpg

North America’s largest transit bus maker, New Flyer of America Inc. and New Flyer Canada ULC have ordered high-pressure hydrogen tanks from Hexagon Composites to be used on 25 of its Xcelsior hydrogen fuel cell (or fuel cell-electric) transit buses.

The new hydrogen tanks, which rely upon Hexagon’s internally developed technology, will be used to store compressed zero-emission hydrogen gas. The high-pressure tanks have successfully completed requirements for North American and European standards.

This tank joins a global product line of long length hydrogen tanks for the medium and heavy-duty fuel cell vehicle market. The products store hydrogen at 350 bar and 700 bar to feed the fuel cell that provides electrical power to the drivetrain and accessories.

The high-pressure hydrogen cylinders have been delivered to New Flyer. The Xcelsior transit buses, which will operate in the state of California, US, are currently being manufactured at New Flyer’s facility in Anniston, Alabama.

Posted on 02 November 2018 in Brief

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/11/20181102-hexagon.html

I had a vacation scholarship to work on solid metal rods that stored hydrogen for use as fuel tanks when I was a third year at uni.

The hydrogen atoms were stored inside the solid metal lattice right in the gaps between atoms, serious high pressure to get them in there.



juliar wrote on Nov 4^th, 2018 at 5:06pm:

When it comes to the BIG stuff the toy gimmicky all electric rot just misses the bus. New Flyer orders H2 tanks from Hexagon for 25 fuel cell buses 02 November 2018 https://ngtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/xcelsior-family-bus.jpg North America’s largest transit bus maker, New Flyer of America Inc. and New Flyer Canada ULC have ordered high-pressure hydrogen tanks from Hexagon Composites to be used on 25 of its Xcelsior hydrogen fuel cell (or fuel cell-electric) transit buses. The new hydrogen tanks, which rely upon Hexagon’s internally developed technology, will be used to store compressed zero-emission hydrogen gas. The high-pressure tanks have successfully completed requirements for North American and European standards. This tank joins a global product line of long length hydrogen tanks for the medium and heavy-duty fuel cell vehicle market. The products store hydrogen at 350 bar and 700 bar to feed the fuel cell that provides electrical power to the drivetrain and accessories. The high-pressure hydrogen cylinders have been delivered to New Flyer. The Xcelsior transit buses, which will operate in the state of California, US, are currently being manufactured at New Flyer’s facility in Anniston, Alabama. Posted on 02 November 2018 in Brief https://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/11/20181102-hexagon.html

Term dog,  Examples of high pressure hydrogen tanks being made now:- https://www.google.com.au/search?q=high+pressure+hydrogen+storage+tanks&sa=X&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ved=2ahUKEwi-i9DZ0bveAhUILY8KHemjBy0QsAR6BAgCEAE&biw=1920&bih=1007

Big versatile multi purpose Hydrogen is simply swallowing the limited gimmicky toy small car all electric market.



Hexagon Lincoln making tanks for U.S.'s first hydrogen-powered boat
Lincoln Journal Star  Jun 26, 2018

https://i.postimg.cc/gJHhLkt6/5b3294f3a1daf-image.jpg
Hexagon Lincoln is making the fuel tanks for the first hydrogen-powered boat in the U.S. The 70-foot-long Water-Go-Round will be deployed next year in the San Francisco Bay area. Golden Gate Zero Emission Marine

The first hydrogen fuel cell boat to be used in the U.S. will have a Lincoln connection.

Golden Gate Zero Emission Marine on Monday announced it had received a $3 million grant from the California Air Resources Board to help it build a 70-foot-long aluminum catamaran that will be powered by hydrogen fuel cells.

The fuel tanks to hold the hydrogen will be made at Hexagon Lincoln.

"We're really pleased to have been chosen by Golden Gate Zero Emission Marine to work on the first hydrogen fuel cell vessel in the U.S.," said Trond Seth, vice president of the Hydrogen Business Unit at Hexagon Composites, the parent company of Hexagon Lincoln, said in a news release.

The boat is expected to be deployed in mid-2019 and will operate as a passenger ferry in the San Francisco Bay area.

https://journalstar.com/business/local/hexagon-lincoln-making-tanks-for-u-s-s-first-hydrogen/article_1129be83-718f-5fa2-af30-bbe176a821b3.html

Socko conveniently misses this announcement by the current Victorian State labor government ;)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-30/electric-cars-set-to-bring-500-jobs-to-latrobe-valley/10448344


Quote:

Electric vehicles set to bring hundreds of jobs to Victoria's Latrobe Valley About 500 jobs are set to be created in the Latrobe Valley, with the Victorian Government announcing a deal to bring the manufacturing of electric vehicles to the region. The company aims to eventually assemble up to 5,000 per year at the site. As well as meeting the country's growing demand for electric cars, the deal is expected to create hundreds of jobs. "Our announcement today, the partnership with SEA Electric, is all about making sure the Latrobe Valley is the national capital for electric vehicles," Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said. "We said we would stand with the Latrobe Valley, we'd back the Latrobe Valley, that's exactly what we've done." SEA Electric executive chairman Tony Fairweather said the company was close to choosing an exact site for the factory, and planned to start training up local workers at its Dandenong plant as soon as possible. "We're also well advanced with starting the recruitment process for Latrobe Valley residents that are willing to … start working with SEA Electric immediately in our Dandenong facility with the ability to transition back into the Latrobe Valley facility once it's ready," he said. The announcement is not an election promise, and Opposition Leader Matthew Guy said the deal would go ahead regardless of who won the November 24 poll. Jobs are a key concern in the marginal seat of Morwell, which has been hit hard by the closure of the Hazelwood power station last year. Government support for the deal has come from the $266 million Latrobe Valley Support Package, though Mr Andrews refused to detail how much the Government had provided. Other car manufacturers have taken government support, only to close down local production. Mr Andrews would not say what conditions were attached to the Government's commitment. Infrastructure to help drive electric car demand The announcement comes as Australia's first ultra-rapid Chargefox charging station opened at Euroa, in north-east Victoria, this month. It charges electric cars around 15 times faster than other charging stations currently on the market. Another ultra-rapid station will soon open at Barnawartha North, near Wodonga, and more are flagged for Melbourne, Ballarat, Horsham, Torquay and Traralgon, with 22 stations expected all up. The chargers are capable of power output of at least 150kW and up to 350kW, fully charging an electric vehicle in under 15 minutes, with power sourced from 100 per cent renewable energy. The charge will allow electric vehicles to travel for about 400 kilometres before needing to be recharged. "The charging stations we're installing are much, much more powerful than those installed in Australia today," Chargefox CEO Marty Andrews said. "There's probably about 20 to 30 of these chargers worldwide, on only a handful of sites, so this is really world-leading technology that's being installed right here in Australia." The company said it would continue to add more sites over time to create a network around Australia to make travel more accessible to electric vehicle owners. "There's not that many electric cars in Australia right now, probably a little over 10,000," he said. "But all of the forecasts show those numbers growing very dramatically to the point where we have millions in about a decade." The Victorian Government has committed $2 million to getting the stations installed, in line with its legislated target of net-zero emissions by 2050. "Uptake of electric vehicles will help us reduce emissions and to tackle climate change", Victorian Minister for Energy, Environment & Climate Change Lily D'Ambrosio said. "More Victorians will be driving electric vehicles in the future, that's why we're building the infrastructure to be ready to meet this demand." Build it and they will come Australian Motoring Services said the barriers to people driving electric cars — the cost of purchasing a vehicle and the difficulty accessing charging stations — were likely to come down. "Last year we saw probably less than 3,000 EVs [electric vehicles] sold," CEO Michael Reed said. "With the number of manufacturers soon to roll out their EVs, it's going to be a very different situation." He said fast-charging stations were a positive start. "If you build it, they will come," he said. "As production cost comes down and the prices become more affordable, we're going to see a much larger intake and sale of EVs."

The neurotic Village Idiot Troll shows the danger of a child's "mind" in an adult body. Was the troll born like that or did she suffer head injuries in an accident ?



Tesla Troubles Illustrate the Futility of Subsidized Energy
Natural Gas NOW Tom Shepstone Posted on October 16, 2017

https://cs.copart.com/v1/AUTH_svc.pdoc00001/PIX134/a7e515c9-ed69-4633-9fd3-237b42c99583.JPG
Not quite ready to go Tesla 3 
   
Elon Musk is a great con man but his Tesla troubles suggest that will only take you so far when your business is subsidized energy – milking the government.

Renewables and natural gas are natural partners; a point we’ve made numerous times here but many renewables advocates suppose they don’t need a partner, except for the government. No one better exemplifies this subsidized energy business model than Elon Musk, the pasty-faced trendy fellow who has captured the minds and hearts of millennials and investors desperately hoping to be on ground floor of the next Amazon.

Musk is a hustler’s hustler, though; a man with an imagination bigger than the universe and the ability to sell others on his visions. Nonetheless, a string of recent bad news for Tesla may signal the approaching end of his subsidized energy scam, requiring him to pack up the wagon and move on to the next town.


https://naturalgasnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/9.23SolarCity2-512x289.jpg
Cuomo and Musk cousin who presided over the SolarCity fiasco in happier times

First, there was the news we reported here in June about the sweetheart deal Musk talked New York Governor Andrew Corruptocrat Cuomo into giving him on SolarCity. It was a “get out of jail free card” contract provision effectively allowing Tesla (which now owns SolarCity, having taken over the failing company from Musk’s two cousins) to bail on New York at no cost. owe nothing back for that part of the Buffalo Billion awarded to SolarCity by Cuomo.

Read the rest of the great renewable scam here

https://naturalgasnow.org/tesla-troubles-illustrate-futility-subsidized-energy/

Yeh renewable energy from the sun is a real scam isn't it socko :D LOL

Gosh my devoted admirer the Village Idiot troll with the "mind" of a neurotic child in an adult body crawls out from under the floor boards to kneel before me. Was the troll born like that or did she suffer head injuries in an accident ?

dream on socko. People only reply because they see you as a nuisance poster who can't debate anything properly. Just copy and paste or bag posters that don't agree with you. You should be banned like your predecessor longprong for wasting other peoples time. And this idea of posting pictures of car accidents is going to deter people from buying Teslas is complete fantasy.

Gosh that poor Village Idiot troll with the neurotic child's "mind" in an adult body just can't stay away from me her HERO.
Perhaps she is hoping I will be able to psycho analyze her neurotic feelings of inferiority ?

Now for some FACTS which will be far too difficult for the meager mentality of the troll's neurotic child's mind in an adult body to even begin to understand. Technical FACTS are all Greek to the technical obtuse troll with empty head filled with lying Greeny bulldust.

http://imgc-cn.artprintimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/60/6069/PNYD100Z/posters/john-klossner-a-line-of-windmills-is-powered-by-electric-fans-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg
Dumb Greenies' "solution" for no wind - electric fans!!!!!




WIND IS AN IRRELEVANCE TO THE ENERGY AND CLIMATE DEBATE
By: Matt Ridley Published on: Monday, 15 May, 2017

Even after 30 years of huge subsidies, it provides about zero energy.

My Spectator article on the futile numbers behind wind power:

The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.

You may have got the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any BBC story or airport advert about energy, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.

Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.

[One critic suggested I should have used the BP numbers instead, which show wind achieving 1.2% in 2014 rather than 0.46%. I chose not to do so mainly because that number is arrived at by falsely exaggerating the actual output of wind farms threefold in order to take into account that wind farms do not waste two-thirds of their energy as heat; also the source is an oil company, which would have given green blobbers a excuse to dismiss it, whereas the IEA is unimpleachable But it's still a very small number, so it makes little difference.]

Such numbers are not hard to find, but they don’t figure prominently in reports on energy derived from the unreliables lobby (solar and wind). Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority — three quarters — is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’; sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation.

Even in rich countries playing with subsidised wind and solar, a huge slug of their renewable energy comes from wood and hydro, the reliable renewables. Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.

If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area [half the size of] the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area [half] the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs. [para corrected from original.]


The well known futility of renewables continues overleaf

The well known futility of renewables continues...

Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.

As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.

As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.

It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.

A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output.

Forgive me if you have heard this before, but I have a commercial interest in coal. Now it appears that the black stuff also gives me a commercial interest in ‘clean’, green wind power.

The point of running through these numbers is to demonstrate that it is utterly futile, on a priori grounds, even to think that wind power can make any significant contribution to world energy supply, let alone to emissions reductions, without ruining the planet. As the late David MacKay pointed out years back, the arithmetic is against such unreliable renewables.

MacKay, former chief scientific adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, said in the final interview before his tragic death last year that the idea that renewable energy could power the UK is an “appalling delusion” -- for this reason, that there is not enough land.

The truth is, if you want to power civilisation with fewer greenhouse gas emissions, then you should focus on shifting power generation, heat and transport to natural gas, the economically recoverable reserves of which — thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — are much more abundant than we dreamed they ever could be. It is also the lowest-emitting of the fossil fuels, so the emissions intensity of our wealth creation can actually fall while our wealth continues to increase. Good.

And let’s put some of that burgeoning wealth in nuclear, fission and fusion, so that it can take over from gas in the second half of this century. That is an engineerable, clean future. Everything else is a political displacement activity, one that is actually counterproductive as a climate policy and, worst of all, shamefully robs the poor to make the rich even richer.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/wind-still-making-zero-energy/

juliar wrote on Nov 6^th, 2018 at 4:34am:

Gosh that poor Village Idiot troll with the neurotic child's "mind" in an adult body just can't stay away from me her HERO. Perhaps she is hoping I will be able to psycho analyze her neurotic feelings of inferiority ? Now for some FACTS :o :o which will be far too difficult for the meager mentality of the troll's neurotic child's mind in an adult body to even begin to understand. Technical FACTS are all Greek to the technical obtuse troll with empty head filled with lying Greeny bulldust. http://imgc-cn.artprintimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/60/6069/PNYD100Z/posters/john-klossner-a-line-of-windmills-is-powered-by-electric-fans-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg Dumb Greenies' "solution" for no wind - electric fans!!!!! WIND IS AN IRRELEVANCE TO THE ENERGY AND CLIMATE DEBATE By: Matt Ridley Published on: Monday, 15 May, 2017 Even after 30 years of huge subsidies, it provides about zero energy. My Spectator article on the futile numbers behind wind power: The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’. You may have got the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any BBC story or airport advert about energy, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance. Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry. [One critic suggested I should have used the BP numbers instead, which show wind achieving 1.2% in 2014 rather than 0.46%. I chose not to do so mainly because that number is arrived at by falsely exaggerating the actual output of wind farms threefold in order to take into account that wind farms do not waste two-thirds of their energy as heat; also the source is an oil company, which would have given green blobbers a excuse to dismiss it, whereas the IEA is unimpleachable But it's still a very small number, so it makes little difference.] Such numbers are not hard to find, but they don’t figure prominently in reports on energy derived from the unreliables lobby (solar and wind). Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority — three quarters — is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’; sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation. Even in rich countries playing with subsidised wind and solar, a huge slug of their renewable energy comes from wood and hydro, the reliable renewables. Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours. If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s. At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area [half the size of] the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area [half] the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs. [para corrected from original.] The well known futility of renewables continues overleaf

so this dill is saying u need 100 acres of land for 1 wind generator.... hmm I can see its a usual jules post...….. :D :D

The other Village Idiot troll with a neurotic Child's "mind" in an Adult body crawls out from under the floor boards to display her gross technical ignorance.

Maybe she is trying to impress me her HERO so I will psycho analyze her feelings of neurotic inferiority ?

Now what is all Greek to the technically obtuse troll with the Child's Mind in an Adult Body- FACTS.

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/turbine-backup.gif





Coal-Hard Facts: Australia’s Energy Minister Gripped by Renewables Delusion
June 4, 2018 by stopthesethings 9 Comments

General failure: Frydenberg just can’t get a grip on reality.

https://i.postimg.cc/j2Tp0g6y/monash7.png
Where General Sir John Monash built Victoria’s electricity system, Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg is determined to destroy it.

When the aptly named Monash Forum (a group of 30 Liberal and National MPs) formed a few months ago, all hell broke loose in Canberra.

Armed with common sense and compassion, this group is out to restore Australia’s once wholly reliable and comfortably affordable power supply. In doing so, they raised the ire of renewables rent seekers and eco-zealots, alike.

Eco-zealots trotted out a couple of Monash’s disgruntled descendants, who claimed (based on no particular evidence) that their highly decorated ancestor would have promoted windmills and solar panels as if he was heading up the Clean Energy Council.

Monash’s life story suggests otherwise.

Monash, as one of Victoria’s leading engineers before he headed to Turkey and then France to serve with the AIF, rose to command the entire Australian Army Corps in France with exemplary prowess (many regard him as the first truly modern general).

In 1919, on his return to his home town of Melbourne from the Western Front, to a hero’s welcome, he set about establishing an electricity grid that would serve his home State, and the coal-fired power plants located in the Latrobe Valley that would power it.

Immediately after the Armistice was struck with the Germans on 11 November 1918, Monash sent officers to infiltrate German coalmines near Cologne and elsewhere to get an understanding of how the Germans managed to achieve the successful use of their brown coal reserves, similar to those found in the Latrobe Valley. Armed with knowledge of the German’s techniques and engineering, Monash drove the development of those reserves and their exploitation, and Melbourne and Victoria never looked back: the State Electricity Commission delivered reliable and affordable power for all Victorians, fuelling manufacturing, industry and the rapid growth in wealth and prosperity, almost unparalleled anywhere in the world.

Read the FACT FILLED rest here

https://stopthesethings.com/2018/06/04/coal-hard-facts-australias-energy-minister-gripped-by-renewables-delusion/

The troll must be hiding under the floor boards too ashamed to show the shrunken head.

Like the technically obtuse troll has a shortage of brain power the world has a shortage of land for the all wonderful all powerful all not performing very well solar and wind Greeny dream time.

The IPCC obviously has an ulterior motive and it is definitely NOT in Australia's interest.



Data 2, Windmills 0
AMM 06/11/2018

http://morningmail.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/wind_farms-and-Eric-e1541378642343.jpg

It is not really impossible knowing the character of the movers and shakers on the IPCC (think a bureaucracy of Turnbulls) that their ballyhooed new timetable for the destruction of the earth by fire was hot on the heels of a report by on wind power.

The IPCC emphasised “fast deployment of renewables like solar and wind” – the earlier report from Harvard blasted wind power on its demands.

The Harvard paper showed that trying to fuel today’s energy-intensive society solely with renewables would require laughable-if-they-were-not-serious millions of acres of land.

How laughable? Meeting America’s current demand for electricity alone—not including petrol or jet fuel, or the natural gas required for fertilizer production—would require covering a territory the entire size of California twice over. This is of interest with the US elections today.

The IPCC and climate-change activists are besotted with solar and wind energy while knowing nearly zilch about the elephant in the room – energy policy and land-use policy are inextricable.

In today’s US mid-term election one of the sideshows is the battle in Colorado over Proposition 112, which will prohibit oil- and gas-drilling activities within 2,500 feet of homes, hospitals, schools and “vulnerable areas.” Environmental groups including 350.org, the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace – the usual suspects- have endorsed the initiative.

If it passes, Proposition 112 would effectively ban new oil and gas production in Colorado, one of the biggies in natural gas production. The 2500 feet – basically a limit of a kilometre from any home at all, is the usual green spoonful of sugar helping the medicine go down as the day after being carried they can make it 5000 feet – its a regulatory thing.

largest natural gas producer. Or consider the months-long demonstrations that ended last year in South Dakota over the Dakota Access pipeline. More than 700 climate-change activists and others were arrested during protests claiming that Dakota Access, by crossing the traditional lands of the Standing Rock Sioux, was violating the tribe’s cultural and spiritual rights. These energy- and land-use battles are waged by climate activists and environmental groups whose goal is to shutter the hydrocarbon industry. Most of these groups, including 350.org and Sierra Club, routinely claim that the American economy can run solely on renewables. Further, the Sierra Club has tallied 74 U.S. cities that have pledged to get all of their electricity from renewable energy.

The Harvard study, published in Environmental Research Letters, shows for the umpteenth time again that wind energy’s Achilles heel is its paltry power density – the number of windmills per acreL- “We found that the average power density—meaning the rate of energy generation divided by the encompassing area of the wind plant—was up to 100 times lower than estimates by some leading energy experts,” said the lead author Lee Miller PhD, a who coauthored the report with physics professor David Keith.

The point about the paper is that the figures are out – not arguably out, not possibly out, not possibly out in some circumstances – out to blazes in nothing more than barefaced lying. Nobody could be so far out without lieing for the cause – or, charitably, hard-to-believe incompetent.

In short, the official Department of Energy, the IPCC, and numerous academics figures stink like the judge’s room in a Skunk’s Only farting competition.

The problem is that most estimates of wind energy’s potential ignore “wind shadow,” an effect that occurs when turbines are placed too closely together: the upwind turbines rob wind speed from others placed downwind.

The study looked at 2016 energy-production data from 1,150 solar projects and 411 onshore wind projects. The combined capacity of the wind projects totaled 43,000 megawatts – roughly half of all U.S. wind capacity that year so it is a significant finding because it relies on stone-hard data – not bloody models authorised by grants – grants like the despicable grant of nearly half a billion to save the Barrier Reef one more time.

Further: “While improved wind turbine design and siting have increased capacity factors (and greatly reduced costs), they have not altered power densities.” In other words, though Big Wind has increased the size and efficiency of turbines—the latest models stand more than 700 feet tall—it hasn’t been able to wring more energy out of the wind. Due to the wind-shadow effect, those taller turbines must be placed farther and farther apart, which means that the giant turbines cover more and more land. As turbines get taller and sprawl across the landscape, more people see them.

The futility of reneewable stuff continues overleaf

The futility of reneewable stuff continues...

Rural residents are objecting to wind projects because they want to protect their property values and viewsheds. They don’t want to see the red-blinking lights atop those massive turbines, all night, every night, for the rest of their lives. Nor do they want to be subjected to the health-damaging noise—both audible and inaudible—that the turbines produce.

The figures have come at an appropriate time – not just the mid-term time.

The backlash against Big Wind is increasing all over the US . In New York, which has mandated fifty percent wind and solar in the next 11 years, individual towns like Yates and Somerset are fighting against Lighthouse Wind, a 200-megawatt wind project proposed for the shores of Lake Ontario. In Oklahoma, the tiny town of Hinton continues its battle against NextEra Energy, the world’s biggest wind-energy producer, over the siting of wind projects nearby. In California, which just boosted its renewable-electricity mandate to 60 percent by 2030, wind turbines are so unpopular that the industry has effectively given up trying to site new projects there. Meantime, in deep-blue Vermont, both gubernatorial candidates—incumbent Republican Phil Scott and Democratic challenger Christine Hallquist—favor renewable energy in principle but oppose further wind-energy development in the state.

In other words – both Republicans and Democrats have the same message – wind power is wonderful beyond measure, but try somewhere else.

Big Wind has attempted to intimidate some of its rural opponents by filing lawsuits against them. Last year, NextEra sued the town of Hinton in federal and state court after the town passed an ordinance restricting wind-energy development. The wind-energy giant also sued local governments in Michigan, Indiana, and Missouri, all of which had passed measures restricting wind-energy development.

Why the in-your-face tactics? Simple: rural residents stand between Big Wind and tens of billions of dollars in subsidies available through the Production Tax Credit. It has been estimated that in the next ten years subsidies will better 40 billion dollars.

Wind energy has been sold as a great source of “clean” energy. The reality is that wind energy’s expansion has been driven by subsidies. It can’t ever meet a significant portion of future energy needs because it requires too much land and too high a price in subsidies.

And that is forgetting how it everlastingly ratchets up electricity costs.

The fact that nuclear is simply a priori rejected as a solution to the energy needs of the US(and the world) is ridiculous. It’s easy to see why the climate activists don’t like it, it’s not sexy, it doesn’t scream “I’m progressive and forward thinking!”. It doesn’t fit their ideological orthodoxies and being “on the right side of history”, therefore it has to be condemned.

In one way the greens are so like ISIS – crazy dangerous zealots.

Leftist media saturates the news. Fight back. Send articles to your friends, politicians, local media, and facebook.

http://morningmail.org/data-2-windmills-0/#more-92785


COMMENT

DT 06/11/2018, 7:03 am
A contributor at JoNova Science website, an electrical engineer with work experience in electricity generation at power stations, wrote some time ago that he had calculated that to provide the State of California with electricity from wind turbines, assuming they delivered 24/7, which they never do, would require three rows three deep from border to border offshore, Mexico to Canada.

More recently a society of engineers in Great Britain estimated that if the transport fleet was converted to EV an area equal to all of Scotland would have to be covered with wind turbines just to provide electricity for transport.

Our politicians are a disgrace for allowing the RET to continue, consumer rip off and no way the electricity grid can maintain essential base load with unreliable energy.

LOL

By definition, non-renewable energy is futile. It is going to run out. (In the case of natural gas ... only about 80 years left.)  :o

Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 6^th, 2018 at 9:08am:

LOL By definition, non-renewable energy is futile. It is gong to run out. (In the case of natural gas ... only about 80 years left.)  :o

The greedy conservatives only live for today. They have no concept of a future.

But Capt N. HYDROGEN IS RENEWABLE.

Hydrogen can power cars, trucks, ships, trains, etc as it a direct replacement for petrol and diesel.

The subtle point you may have missed is the huge area that would be required for solar + wind to generate the same amount of power as the existing coal does.

See the energy density of sunlight and wind is quite low and there is a theoretical maximum amount of energy that can be extracted from it. Wind turbines are already close to this limit. Solar is only about 20% efficient and there is no huge improvement on the horizon.

The problem is exacerbated for wind which varies dramatically and so a backup windfarm is required sufficiently far away to avoid the local wind null.

Storage is more a myth than reality as yet because the capacity is so small. Consider SA Tesla white elephant 200MW and SA's load gets up around 2000MW.

So wind and solar is basically a dead end as reliable hydro and coal is required to generate the huge amounts of power that is normally required.

juliar wrote on Nov 6^th, 2018 at 9:56am:

But Capt N. HYDROGEN IS RENEWABLE. Hydrogen can power cars, trucks, ships, rains, etc as it a direct replacement for petrol and diesel. The subtle point you may have missed is the huge area that would be required for solar + wind to generate the same amount of power as the existing coal does. See the energy density of sunlight and wind is quite low and there is a theoretical maximum amount of energy that can be extracted from it. Wind turbines are already close to this limit. Solar is only about 20% efficient and there is no huge improvement on the horizon. The problem is exacerbated for wind which varies dramatically and so a backup windfarm is required sufficiently far away to avoid the local wind null. Storage is more a myth than reality as yet because the capacity is so small. Consider SA Tesla white elephant 200MW and SA's load gets up around 2000MW. So wind and solar is basically a dead end as reliable hydro and coal is required to generate the huge amounts of power that is normally required.

Well, good to see that you are in favour of one type of renewable energy at least (Hydrogen).  8-)

The truth is big populations will need nuclear power.... that is the truth of the matter--> because they are too big!

The stockmarket means by law the customer is no longer a priority: POLITICS IS NOT ENTERED INTO LIGHTLY FOR A REASON!

yes drah, the next generation of nuclear generators (4th gen) look to be contained ones and able to reuse existing fuel and meltdown prrof…. probably about 20 years from now they will be around with a lot of scientist all working on them

Hydrogen though will always be a fuel of the future...….

;)

I am glad Capt N approves. I favor genuine energy supply that really does the job.

See Futility in search of Failure has come out of the woodwork at the Nursing Home.

And my devoted admirer the Village Idiot troll with the "mind" of a neurotic child in an adult body crawls out from under the floor boards to kneel before me her HERO.

God these creeps must be sick in the head to carry on like they do.

Problem for us all is the next generation of scientists will be less skilled than the current ones because of all the discrimination against boys in schools and early career male scientists getting discrimated against as Gov goes nuts promoting STEM to females because feminism not merit.

Thank God for China, India etc for insisting on installing people inyo STEM on merit. Sux for us tho.

Term Dog, you speak the unfortunate truth.

The 2 useless trolls that hang around like a bad smell are classic examples of the FABIAN Socialist dumbing down of Australia.

The horrible truth is that there is not enough land for renewables.


Renewables are incapable of replacing hydrocarbons at scale
BY KATHLEEN HARTNETT WHITE - 03/30/16 07:00 AM EDT  781

https://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/article_images/windturbinepower_063015getty.jpg

Conspicuously missing from public chatter about the climate issue is recognition of the staggering costs and likely insurmountable engineering challenges of these grand plans to decarbonize human society within several decades.


Policymakers intent on imposing a swift end to the era of fossil fuels, such as President Obama and Gina McCarthy, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are either unaware or indifferent to the colossal scale, futility and economic risks of a forced transition from energy-dense fossil fuels to the relatively diluted renewable energy sources (wind, solar and biomass).

The U.N. pact sealed in Paris, as well as the climate goals of the EU, California and the White House, assume that carbon dioxide emissions — a ubiquitous byproduct of human activity — can be reduced 95 percent by 2050.

For a dose of reality, consider master energy number-cruncher Vaclav Smil's estimate of a cost approaching $2.5 trillion to build enough new wind and solar facilities in the United States to replace the 1,100 gigawatt (GW) generating capacity of our fossil-fueled electric system. And couple that colossal sum with another $2 trillion in capital assets now imbedded in fossil-fueled generating hardware and related infrastructure. With a national debt of $19 trillion that is increasing $2 trillion a year, an anemic economy and a shrinking middle class, how can taxpayers afford to subsidize such wasteful projects?

The viability of plans to power our energy-intensive society exclusively with renewables is defied by simple arithmetic and basic physical laws. Yet, policies to avoid dangerous global warming all assume that a mass deployment of renewable energies can replace fossil fuels and still provide abundant, affordable and diverse energy services on which modern societies are utterly dependent. The climate scientists and policy wonks who developed these energy plans remain oblivious to what is increasingly obvious to the engineers who make such things work. As the engineers tasked by Google to develop a realistic, affordable plan to decarbonize concluded: Renewables are a false hope that simply won't work.

Michael Kelly, Prince Philip Professor of Engineering at Cambridge University and member of Britain's Royal Society, notes: "If the climate scientist community was to learn that engineering will not be able to 80% mitigate CO2 emissions by 2050 without inflicting massive harm on the global economy and mankind in general, it might improve the quality of the public debate." Renewable energy from wind, sunshine and biomass are inherently ill-suited to replace the energy service now handily delivered by coal, natural gas, oil and uranium. Renewables are inherently diffuse and uncontrollable in energy content and power density, while fossil fuels are highly concentrated, reliable and versatile.

Over the last decade, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent to subsidize aggressive installation of renewable facilities in Europe and the United States. Yet, the share of energy contributed by wind and solar farms remains minute. In 1990, wind and solar energies accounted for 0.45 percent of global primary energy. In 2010, after deployment of thousands of wind turbines, the renewable share rose only to 0.75 percent of the energy pie. By 2014, the renewable share rose only to 1 percent — barely a dent in the world's energy mix still dominated by fossil fuels contributing 85 to 90 percent of global energy. In spite of 20 years of subsidy, lavishly amplified over the last seven years by the president's almost $800 billion stash of stimulus funds, wind and solar in the U.S. supplied slightly less than 2 percent of energy consumption in 2013.

As a generating system, renewables cannot claim zero-carbon status. Wind and sunshine may be carbon-free, but they require more hardware to generate electricity than energy-dense fossil fuels. As Professor Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University notes: "Although a present natural gas-fired combined-cycle plant uses about 3 metric tons of steel and 27 cubic meters of concrete per average megawatt electric, a typical wind-energy system uses 460 metric tons of steel and 870 cubic meters of concrete."

Because wind and solar are intermittent and unpredictable, it takes two to three units of wind generating capacity to replace one unit of capacity from reliable fossil fuels. Renewable advocates tout the "installed capacity" of wind or solar — a measure of the maximum sustained output of electric power from a given facility. They typically omit, however, the far lower numbers for "capacity factor" — a measure of actual generating performance. Coal and nuclear plants can generate electricity all night long, any time of the year. Wind- and solar-fueled electric generation obviously cannot do so.

The futility of renewables continues overleaf

The futility of renewables continues...

For this reason, intermittent renewables are parasitic on back-up power from reliable fossil fuels — a hidden but highly expensive inefficiency. With years of experience in Europe, the EU estimates the average capacity factor for wind at only 20 percent. For the United States, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) assigns a capacity factor of 90 percent for nuclear power plants, 60 to 70 percent for coal plants and 30 percent for wind facilities.

The much larger spatial requirements for wind and solar generating facilities — covering areas thousands of times larger than needed for hydrocarbon or nuclear fueled plants — do not bode well for using renewables to power huge cities or to preserve natural ecosystems. The EPA's Clean Power Plan envisions new wind farms that would cover 7 million acres of the U.S., but they would only meet a small fraction of total electric demand.

Living generations are the first beneficiaries of a vast energy system developed across the world over the last century. The components of this system number in the tens of thousands. Mines, oil and gas wells, pipelines, transmission and distribution lines, electric grids, fuel terminals, ports, trains, trucks, tankers, fueling stations, extraction hardware, processing and refining facilities, power plants, petrochemical manufacturing: This energy infrastructure is all designed around fossil fuels. The system is present in all prosperous countries and developing countries long to replicate such infrastructure.

Prevailing climate policies presume we will simply abandon fossil fuels and the existing energy system. Mass operation of renewables would demand that extensive new infrastructure be designed to concentrate the diffused energy in contrast to the current system designed to diffuse the energy in fossil fuels.

As Lewis Page notes in The Register:

Far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewable future rely on implicitly, we would end up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewable farms — and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.

A wholesale shift from hydrocarbons to renewables presage energy scarcity and exorbitant price, as has already occurred in Germany and the U.K. As Smil reminds us, "Any rapid substitution by low power renewable densities is illusory without dismantling existing urban societies," and such is the path on which developed world has now set itself.

The climate crusaders need to listen from the engineers and to be upfront about the scale, risks, costs and likely futility of grand green plans. Economy-wide impacts and human pain are already palpable in European countries, whose officials are nonetheless determined to pursue even more draconian climate goals like prohibiting vehicles powered by the internal combustion engine!

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the legal fate of EPA's Clean Power Plan likely for a couple of years, the wind industry is accelerating installation of renewable facilities owing to the multi-year extension of renewable subsidies approved by Congress in the spending package for 2016. Likely a political tradeoff for repealing the 40-year ban on oil exports, the subsidies for wind and solar mask what the engineers have revealed.

Without subsidies, renewable systems could find useful niches, but if they are deployed as a means of replacing fossil fuels, they simply won't work. Just ask the almost 1 million households in Germany that no longer can afford electricity at rates three times higher than the average U.S. rate.

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/274645-renewables-are-incapable-of-replacing-hydrocarbons-at

Hey socko, did it ever occur to you that nobody reads your copy and paste sh.t ?? I certainly don't !!

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 6^th, 2018 at 8:47pm:

Hey socko, did it ever occur to you that nobody reads your copy and paste sh.t ?? I certainly don't !!

Would you prefer pictures?

Term Dog,

It is just that the dumb troll who hangs around like a bad smell gets frustrated and angry because he/she can't read and is totally ignorant of anything technical because he/she does not have sufficient intelligence to even begin to understand it.

Term Dog wrote on Nov 6^th, 2018 at 8:50pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 6th, 2018 at 8:47pm: Hey socko, did it ever occur to you that nobody reads your copy and paste sh.t ?? I certainly don't !! Would you prefer pictures?

I don't bother looking at its pictures that it has copied either. When it learns how to debate issues properly instead of copying and pasting or bagging people that don't agree with it then perhaps others might take it seriously. Otherwise it is just a waste of oxygen and internet bandwidth.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1541458470
this what everyone in the forum thinks of u Jules the joke ;) ;)

The sick in the shrunken heads trolls are trying to justify themselves. Who cares what trashy trolls that aren't worth the paper they are printed on reckon ?

Why don't they stay in their own trashy threads where they can rant and rave their piebald Greeny rubbish till the cows come home ??

Now what the illiterate uneducated troll imbeciles HATE - articles which have big words in them that they cannot understand.

But intelligent educated real people (obviously not the trolls) know only too well that knowledge and understanding is gained from reading well written articles.

This article refers to the USA and points out that renewables are leading to a dead end as there is not enough free land to build enough inefficient solar and wind farms on to be able to produce the enormous power output from existing coal and gas. a Catch 22 if ever there was one!!

And of course there is the sky high cost of the unreliable renewable futility stuff.



100 Percent Renewable Energy—Poor Policy for Electricity Rate Payers
By Steve Goreham Guest Blogger / 3 days ago November 3, 2018

https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/image_thumb.png
Solar is not much chop when covered by snow.

Two states and more than 80 cities and counties have now announced a goal of receiving 100 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. Wind, solar, and biofuels are proposed to replace electricity from coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants. But evidence is mounting that 100 percent renewables is poor policy for US households and businesses.

More than 80 cities announced commitments to get 100 percent of their energy from renewable sources. Minneapolis committed to attaining 100 percent renewable electricity by 2030, Salt Lake City by 2032, and St. Louis by 2035. Nine counties and two states, California and Hawaii, have also made 100 percent renewable pledges.

Some cites already claim to get all power from renewables, generally by using a little electricity “sleight of hand.” Rock Port, Missouri claims to be the first US community powered by wind because it has a local wind farm. But when the wind doesn’t blow, Rock Port gets power from other generators in Missouri, a state that gets 77 percent of its electricity from coal and 97 percent from non-renewables in total.

On September 10, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100, committing California to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2045. Brown stated, “It’s not going to be easy. It will not be immediate. But it must be done…California is committed to doing whatever is necessary to meet the existential threat of climate change.”

But cities and states pursuing 100 percent renewable electricity lay the foundation for a future painful lesson. Households and businesses will experience the shock of rapidly rising electricity prices as more renewables are added to the system.

Wind and solar cannot replace output from traditional coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants, despite claims to the contrary. Wind and solar are intermittent generators. Wind output varies dramatically from high output to zero, depending upon weather conditions. Solar output is available for only about six hours each day when the sun is overhead and disappears completely on cloudy days or after a snowfall. Hydropower is a renewable source that can replace traditional power plants, but even this source is insufficient in years of drought or low snow runoff.

Experience shows that utilities can only count on about 10 percent of the nameplate capacity of a wind or solar facility as an addition to power system capacity. For example, on December 7, 2011, the day of peak winter electricity demand in the United Kingdom, the output of more than 3,000 wind turbines in the UK was less than five percent of rated output. The UK House of Lords recognized the problem a decade ago, stating “The intermittent nature of wind turbines…means they can replace only a little of the capacity of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants if security of supply is to be maintained.”

https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/image_thumb-1.png

To achieve “deep decarbonization,” states will need to keep 90 percent of traditional power plants and add increasing amounts of wind and solar to existing systems. Total system capacity must first double and then triple as 100 percent renewable output is approached. A 2016 study by Brick and Thernstrom projected that California’s system capacity would need to increase from 53.6 gigawatts to 90.5 gigawatts at 50 percent renewables and to 123.6 gigawatts at 80 percent renewable output.

https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/image_thumb-2.png

Rising system capacity means enormous electricity cost. In 2017, California received 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, excluding power from large hydroelectric plants. California 2017 residential electricity rates were 18.24 cents per kilowatt-hour, 50 percent higher than any other US western state.

From 2008 to 2017, California power rates rose 25 percent compared to the US national average increase of about 7 percent. But the worst is yet to come. As California adds renewable capacity to approach 100 percent renewables, generated cost of electricity will likely triple.

This Solar and Wind dead end disaster continues overleaf

This Solar and Wind dead end disaster continues...

International examples show soaring electricity prices from renewables penetration.

High levels of wind and solar in Germany and Denmark produced household electricity prices four times US rates.

Renewable programs pushed power prices in five Australian provincial capital cities up 60 to 160 percent over the last decade.

Wind, solar, and biofuel penetration in Ontario, Canada drove electricity prices up more than 80 percent from 2004 to 2016. Renewable output in these locations remains far below 100 percent.

Green energy advocates recognize renewable intermittency and hope that advances in battery technology will save the day. Large-scale commercial batteries, they claim, will be able to store power during high levels of renewable output and then deliver power to the grid when wind and solar output is low.

https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/image_thumb-3.png

But batteries are not the answer because of the large seasonal variation in renewable output. For example, wind and solar output in California in December and January is less than half of the output in summer months. Commercial large-scale batteries available today are rated to deliver stored electricity for only two hours or ten hours duration.

No batteries exist that can store energy in the summer and then deliver it during the winter when renewable output is very low.

Superstition is powerful. There is no evidence that 100 percent renewable efforts, all combined, will have a measurable effect on global temperatures. Instead, cities and states that pursue 100 percent renewable policies will learn the hard lesson of skyrocketing electricity prices.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/03/100-percent-renewable-energy-poor-policy-for-electricity-rate-payers/

Leftist policy:

Like just tell those engineer guys to make energy that's free and readily available and and no pollution and zero impact on environment and and  reduces inequality and brings the world together in peace and and racial and gender harmony and like.

Simple answers for simple people.

Term Dog wrote on Nov 7^th, 2018 at 6:57am:

Leftist policy: Like just tell those engineer guys to make energy that's free and readily available and and no pollution and zero impact on environment and and  reduces inequality and brings the world together in peace and and racial and gender harmony and like. Simple answers for simple people.

Yes it's called sunlight energy and we would be all dead without it ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 7^th, 2018 at 11:58am:

Term Dog wrote on Nov 7th, 2018 at 6:57am: Leftist policy: Like just tell those engineer guys to make energy that's free and readily available and and no pollution and zero impact on environment and and  reduces inequality and brings the world together in peace and and racial and gender harmony and like. Simple answers for simple people. Yes it's called sunlight energy and we would be all dead without it ;)

Are you serious?

Certainly life as we know it could not exist without the Sun.

Wouldn't take long for the temperature to approach absolute zero.

Now that's a cold snap.  ;)

Perhaps the mentally compromised troll that hangs around like a bad smell is suffering from sunstroke ? Makes a person go a bit balmy just like the silly old troll.

Now a welcome relief from the disturbed troll's deranged ravings.


What is stopping the green energy (solar, wind) push for advancements? It's been more than 40 years for solar (which is the most promising) but have no breakthrough.
26 May 2018

There has been no breakthrough because none is possible. It’s a question of physics vs. cost, and cost wins. Here are the conditions:

Solar and wind power are intermittent sources of energy.
A modern society requires constant power.
So in order for “renewable energy” to be viable you have to arrange things so that constant power is provided. If you don’t have constant power businesses tank and people die when the lights go out.

Here is where physics comes in. There are only 3 ways to get constant power from solar and wind. They may be used in tandem.

1. Provide backup power sources. This has been by far the most common “solution”. Instant on, instant off generators, mostly turbines fired by natural gas, have been employed for this purpose. The Germans are trying to do it with coal (which they have a lot of) meaning that they have to burn coal constantly to keep their generators hot even when said generators are not providing power to the grid.

However burning any form of fossil fuel defeats the whole purpose of “green energy” because it continues to put CO2 into the air and increases Global Warming. And burning coal in particular puts carcinogenic particulates into the air which kill millions of people around the world every year.

2. Provide energy storage. In an earlier answer I summed up what has been done so far in the US along those lines: Jeff Barry's answer to Which is better, solar panels or natural gas? I can't tell. Summing up the projects which had storage capacities listed there is enough storage capacity to provide electrical power to the United State for 40 minutes, and 97.3% of that is pumped hydro storage, ie dams. Batteries, thermal and other storage methods sum up to just 2.7% of that.

The problem with energy storage is that the cost of providing massive amounts of it is worse than linear for large scale storage, and it’s expensive to begin with. Yes, battery building factories are becoming more efficient at building batteries, but that says nothing about the cost of materials for making those batteries.

For massive quantities of batteries (or other storage devices) you start to have competition for the materials to make that storage, so the sellers of those materials raise their prices. If it costs $X for storing Y KWH of electricity, then it will cost WAY MORE THAN 1,000,000 times as much to build storage for Y GWH. Furthermore digging up the ore for making all those batteries will cause more than 1,000,000 times as much environmental damage because the miners will have to start using lower and lower grade ore since the good stuff will get used up. This will push up the cost of materials even more and dump environmental problems on the earth and us.

The same goes for pumped storage; you have to dam rivers or dam hanging valleys above rivers, and there just are not a lot of places left where you can do that easily or at all. The good places have already been taken or they are FAR from where the electricity is needed.

3. Provide extensive interconnection of “renewable energy” sources so that when you have a calm, cloudy day in location X then the grid can be fed from location Y where the sun is shining and the wind is blowing.

A complicating factor is that we KNOW that the sun does not shine at night so we might have to link the Americas to the rest of the world via multi-megavolt undersea cables.

The problem with interconnection is that it is expensive. Just building the power lines to get from the solar and wind farms to the nearest big city costs a lot. Texas did a project a while back to connect their windy plains to their cities which cost $7 billion. The cost of building power lines in the US from the windy plains and the sunny deserts to the coasts where most of our population lives would be staggering. The cost of wiring the whole earth together to handle the day-night problem is, well, I don’t even want to think about it.

So, it’s physics vs cost. With “renewable energy” you can override physics and physical reality with cost. The costs are horrendous, and that is why there has been no “breakthrough” with “renewable energy”.

Oh, BTW, that $7 billion Texas spent on wiring their windy plains to their cities could have been put to a better use. $7 billion would likely be enough to design and build a working prototype of a small scale, modular, mass producible, inherently safe, Thorium Breeding Liquid Fuel Reactor (TBLFR) such as a LFTR. The technology works. We already know that from work done a half a century ago right here in the US.

Instead we have a bunch of wires strung across Texas and many tens (hundreds?) of $billions wasted on other intermittent power sources and wiring which are totally useless for running a modern society. The cost for making “renewable energy” reliable is far too high, and we will never do it. Physics overrides wishful thinking.

I am sure the fossil fuel people are happy.

Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 7^th, 2018 at 12:45pm:

Certainly life as we know it could not exist without the Sun. Wouldn't take long for the temperature to approach absolute zero. Now that's a cold snap.  ;)

Are you trolling or just low IQ?

Term Dog wrote on Nov 7^th, 2018 at 6:57am:

Leftist policy: Like just tell those engineer guys to make energy that's free and readily available and and no pollution and zero impact on environment and and  reduces inequality and brings the world together in peace and and racial and gender harmony and like. Simple answers for simple people.

Right policy
like just tell those engineers to make energy that needs to be sold with dwindling supply , who cares about impact on the environment and what ever u do we don't want equality or peace , there is no profit in it :)

Term Dog wrote on Nov 7^th, 2018 at 5:17pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 7th, 2018 at 12:45pm: Certainly life as we know it could not exist without the Sun. Wouldn't take long for the temperature to approach absolute zero. Now that's a cold snap.  ;) Are you trolling or just low IQ?

Sir Lastnail mentioned that without Solar energy we would all be dead ... to which you said: "Are you serious?"

Did you need my reminder that the Solar system would be a frozen lump without the Sun?

;D

Capt N the troll IS a FROZEN LUMP!!!!

Trying to ignore the bad smell of the 2 Village Idiot trolls with child's minds in their shrunken heads.

Unsustainable uneconomic unreliable impractical Renewables are climbing a slippery slope with unjustified subsidies pushing them from behind. Renewables have hit the ceiling with nowhere to go as there is not enough land to build the thousands of solar and wind farms.

https://www.vu.edu.au/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_at_small_breakpoint/public/images/renewable-energy.png




Renewables Fail: fossil fuels, coal, same dominance of our energy mix as 20 years ago
June 17th, 2018

Despite 20 years of non-stop propaganda and belligerent namecalling, strangely, expert green policies have achieved exactly nothing of what they said they aimed for. Coal provided 38% of our power in 1998 and it is still the same 38% in 2017. The non-fossil fuel sector has actually declined slightly as nukes decrease.

We spent billions doing exactly what was asked. Perhaps following the advice of people who think the debate is over and “denier” is a scientific term might not be the best national energy policy?

https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/graph/energy/electricity/bp-energy-report-2018-fuel-shares-graph.gif

Fuel shares in global power generation for the last 20 years  |  BP Energy Review, 2018.

Long-term dominance of fossil fuels unchallenged
Graham Lloyd, The Australian

Global demand for coal and gas to generate electricity was back on the rise last year …

Most striking had been the failure of renewable energy to make an impact on the fossil fuels share of power generation, BP group chief economist Spencer Dale said.

“Despite the extraordinary (global) growth in renewables in recent years, and the huge policy efforts to encourage a shift away from coal into cleaner, lower carbon fuels, there has been almost no improvement in the power sector fuel mix over the past 20 years,” he said.

The share of coal in the power sector in 1998 was 38 per cent, ­exactly the same as 2017.

“The share of non-fossil fuel in 2017 is actually a little lower than it was 20 years ago, as the growth of renewables hasn’t offset the ­declining share of nuclear,” ­Mr Dale said.

h/t Pat.

Engineers and other skeptics predicted this would happen. At this point, honest Greens who care about CO2 emissions would be asking for help. Since they aren’t, we can  assume the expert green policies are achieving what the Greens want, they just aren’t being honest.

If renewables were cheap and reliable the developing world would be rushing to follow the west. The Chinese are not stupid, they sign pacts to do nothing while they use coal and nukes. They tried solar, but realized it’s toxic, costs more and are cutting subsidies.

Make no mistake, renewables policies are achieving “Green” aims
Policies pretending to reduce CO2 have shrunk the role of the free market, turned a fifth of all homes in Australia into subsidized generators, and increased government control of our energy as a larger sector becomes dependent on handouts. They’ve demonized independent energy producers, created a crisis and are using that crisis to blame “privatization” and the free market. They’ve polluted the concept of a free market to the point where people came to think that a fake market where the government entirely  and artificially fixed supply and demand was “free”. They’ve polluted the word pollution…

If the Greens/Labor really cared about CO2 they’d be doing something different.

BP toes the line of the Ruling Class perfectly
Why wouldn’t BP? It profits from it – gas sales increase with more unreliable wind and solar generation, plus pandering holds the bullies at bay.

Spencer Dale, Group Chief Economist at BP gnashes teeth, “Oh Woe”

The power sector really matters. It’s by far the single biggest market for energy: absorbing over 40% of primary energy last year. And it’s at the leading edge of the energy transition, as renewables grow and the world electrifies. This year’s Statistical Review for the first time includes comprehensive data on the fuel mix within the power sector, aiding our understanding of this key sector.

Global power generation increased by 2.8% in 2017 close to its 10-year average. Almost all that growth came from the developing world. OECD demand edged up slightly, but essentially the decoupling of economic growth and power demand in the OECD seen over the past 10 years continued, with OECD power broadly flat over the past decade.

Spot a problem: half the growth in total power generation and yet only making 8% of total power?

The increase in global power generation was driven by strong expansion in renewable energy, led by wind (17%, 163 TWh) and solar (35%, 114 TWh), which accounted for almost half of the total growth in power generation, despite accounting for only 8% of total generation. Although wind continued in its role of the bigger, more established, elder cousin, it was solar energy that made all the waves.


The renewable disaster continues overleaf

This is striking and worrying, and we recommend …doing more of the same.

Standing back from the detail of what happened last year, the most striking – and worrying – chart in the whole of this Statistical Review is the trends in the power sector fuel mix over the past 20 years.

Striking: because despite the extraordinary growth in renewables in recent years, and the huge policy efforts to encourage a shift away from coal into cleaner, lower carbon fuels, there has been almost no improvement in the power sector fuel mix over the past 20 years. The share of coal in the power sector in 1998 was 38% – exactly the same as in 2017 – with the slight edging down in recent years simply reversing the drift up in the early 2000s associated with China’s rapid expansion. The share of non-fossil in 2017 is actually a little lower than it was 20 years ago, as the growth of renewables hasn’t offset the declining share of nuclear. I had no idea that so little progress had been made until I looked at these data.

Worrying: because the power sector is the single most important source of carbon emissions from energy consumption, accounting for over a third of those emissions in 2017. To have any chance of getting on a path consistent with meeting the Paris climate goals there will need to be significant improvements in the power sector. But this is one area where at the global level we haven’t even taken one step forward, we have stood still: perfectly still for the past 20 years. This chart should serve as a wake-up call for all of us.

Keep calm and keep doing what we’re doing

Conclusion: Global energy markets in 2017 took a backward step in terms of the transition to a lower carbon energy system: growth in energy demand, coal consumption and carbon emissions all increased. But that should be seen in the context of the exceptional outcomes recorded in the previous three years. Some backsliding was almost inevitable. The road to meeting the Paris climate goals is likely to long and challenging, with many twists and turns, forward lurches and backward stumbles. To navigate our progress will require timely, comprehensive and relevant data. That’s the role of BP’s Statistical Review.

Remember coal and nukes are the enemy of gas.

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/06/renewables-fail-fossil-fuels-coal-same-dominance-of-our-energy-mix-as-20-years-ago/


148 comments to Renewables Fail

PeterS June 17, 2018 at 1:56 pm
In the words of Richard Feynman:
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
https://www.fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/

So why is CSIRO, the government and many others still believe we must use renewables at the expense of our only source of base load power? It’s certainly not based on real science.


el gordo June 17, 2018 at 2:05 pm
CO2 has been demonised in an unscientific manner and eventually this academic nonsense will stop, but in the meantime we get a chance to witness the carnage its creating. This from China Daily.

‘Coal continues to supply the bulk of China’s energy needs with signs that consumption growth is picking up speed again this year. Consumption rose 0.4 percent in 2017, the NBS has said, breaking a three-year string of declines.

‘Despite the environmental consequences, coal demand has been driven up by the combined forces of economic growth, higher power consumption, gas shortfalls, and reduced hydropower.

‘Frequent changes in regulation have aimed at managing the market but they have also added to uncertainty.’


Glen Michel June 17, 2018 at 10:49 pm
This classification of CO2 as a pollutant – if I’m correct was a marginal assessment needs to be corrected. We KNOW this is central to the argument . CO2 is a gas that varies in the system by small degrees over contemporaneous time scales.What qualifies when assessing the effect of a 250 ppm to 400 change on the biosphere. Planet warms; CO2 increases.
-


PeterS June 18, 2018 at 5:38 am
We know CO2 is not a pollutant because if it were then soft drink companies would not be allowed to put so much of it into their soft drinks. Sure too much CO2 kills but so does too much water (drowning) or too much air (extremely high pressure). As usual the left use a different system of values and logic that are false to come up with the crazy ideas.


OriginalSteve June 18, 2018 at 9:37 am
Well, we couldn’t have got tot his point unless gummint, big business and the greens hadn’t colluded….


Latus Dextr June 18, 2018 at 8:35 am
15% greening of Earth in the last 30 years … one of those inconvenient truths.


PeterS June 17, 2018 at 9:00 pm
I was expecting someone to give me the right answer. Here it is. The two major parties continue down the path to a much higher focus on renewables with the explicit support of the public or at worst with a complete lack of interest. The politicians are not budging one mm from their current stance on renewables. If they did they would lose lots of votes and hence would be unelectable. That’s the sad reality we are facing today here.


Just Thinkin' June 17, 2018 at 9:48 pm
PeterS,
We need to write to our politicians voicing our dis-pleasure at their actions.
And tell them that “our will” is to bring on more cheap power supplies from the cheapest, coal, and to remove ALL
subsidies from the “ruinables”…

Smell the fear socko. Smell the fear :D LOL

Charging up a Tesla EV with FREE energy from the sun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI166Ps8DIo&t=32s

;D ;D ;D Repeat after me socko - FREE ENERGY FROM THE SUN !  ;D ;D ;D

The troll with the shrunken head and the brain of a child appears from under the floor boards to gabble incoherently with one of those silly YouTube thingies that nobody ever bothers to look at. You'd wonder why she bothers. You'd think she would stay in her own threads and rant and rave uncontrollably.

juliar wrote on Nov 8^th, 2018 at 3:16pm:

The troll with the shrunken head and the brain of a child appears from under the floor boards to gabble incoherently with one of those silly YouTube thingies that nobody ever bothers to look at. You'd wonder why she bothers. You'd think she would stay in her own threads and rant and rave uncontrollably.

As opposed to your copy and paste bullshit of car accidents :D LOL

Go away you brain dead boring useless waste of space troll. Go and defecate in your own dumb threads.

What is really futile is continuing to rail against the fact of Global Warming and that we need renewables to take a greater role as time goes on as non-renewables start to run out.  ;)

Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 8^th, 2018 at 4:03pm:

What is really futile is continuing to rail against the fact of Global Warming and that we need renewables to take a greater role as time goes on as non-renewables start to run out.  ;)

Is that the IPCC Global Warming or someone else's Global Warming?

Capt N don't tell me that you actually believe the Global Warming HOAX ? You will be shivering in your slippers when you learn this!!!!


Climate change causes exploding rat plagues, locusts, cockroaches of the oceans…
November 5th, 2018

https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/photo/life/animals/taxidermied-rats.jpg

Horror Story #241: Rat Plagues coming.

How biblical can it get?

If you aren’t scared of a 2 degree rise (really, who is?) then be afraid, plagues of rats shall explode upon your house!

Climate Change Is Scary; ‘Rat Explosion’ Is Scarier
Faye Flam, Bloomberg Opinion

What’s so scary about climate change?

The term is not scary — at last not in a visceral, skin-crawling sense. Scientists have shown that the likely 2 degrees of global warming to come this century will be extremely dangerous, but, you know, “2 degrees” is hardly a phrase from nightmares and horror films.

How about “rat explosion”?

As the climate warms, rats in New York, Philadelphia and Boston are breeding faster — and experts warn of a population explosion.

Climate change only makes bad things live and grow stronger:

The physics of climate change doesn’t have the same fear factor as the biology. … so populations will crash or explode as anthropogenic climate change continues to make wet areas more sodden and dry areas, more parched.

What genius research is this:

… rats have a gestation period of 14 days. The babies can start reproducing after a month. That means that in one year, one pregnant rat can result in 15,000 to 18,000 new rats.

Holy Rodent! Someone has discovered exponential growth and applied no limits. And E.Coli shall take over the world in the next 48 hours, except they never do.
It’s the Mathusian Growth Model, without even Malthus’ limits.

But it’s not just rats, think locusts and marauding urchins!
Rats are just the beginning. Biologists have calculated that with the expected warming this century of 2 degrees Celsius, populations of dangerous crop-eating insects are likely to explode as temperate areas warm, reducing crop yields by 25 to 50 percent. Similar horrors lurk offshore, where biologists have found that a population explosion of purple sea urchins — “cockroaches of the ocean” — is choking out other denizens of Pacific kelp forests.

Forget rodents, we are being over by pop-psychologists:
The worst thing about ignorant, uninformed waffle is that the people doing it are Professors of Psych:

In recent years, psychologists have accused conservatives of being more innately fearful than liberals, but that never quite squared with the fact that conservatives express less fear over environmental problems.

There’s a difference between fear of real things, and fear of fake ones. Anyone who studies conservatives knows that they are afraid of losing jobs, quality of life, and the building blocks of a fragile, brilliant civilization. Anyone who studies the modern incarnation of “progressives” knows they worry about forests that are greening, crops that are increasing, and whether we have got the labels right on toilet doors.

Naturally, we all can’t wait to go back to a time when CO2 levels were perfect and rat plagues never happened.


http://joannenova.com.au/2018/11/climate-change-causes-exploding-rat-plagues-locusts-cockroaches-of-the-oceans/

juliar wrote on Nov 8^th, 2018 at 3:58pm:

Go away you brain dead boring useless waste of space troll. Go and defecate in your own dumb threads.

That sounds like longweekend speaking. Finally given the game away socko ;)

https://images.coplusk.net/project_images/148616/image/CB660_Sock_Pup_19e.jpg

lee wrote on Nov 8^th, 2018 at 4:46pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 8th, 2018 at 4:03pm: What is really futile is continuing to rail against the fact of Global Warming and that we need renewables to take a greater role as time goes on as non-renewables start to run out.  ;) Is that the IPCC Global Warming or someone else's Global Warming?

So when it finally all runs out how do you keep your fake oil economy going ? What are you going to do then ?

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 8^th, 2018 at 8:02pm:

lee wrote on Nov 8th, 2018 at 4:46pm: Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 8th, 2018 at 4:03pm: What is really futile is continuing to rail against the fact of Global Warming and that we need renewables to take a greater role as time goes on as non-renewables start to run out.  ;) Is that the IPCC Global Warming or someone else's Global Warming? So when it finally all runs out how do you keep your fake oil economy going ? What are you going to do then ?

wont matter we will be dead by then.... bugger our grandkids , they can deal with it... ;)

Does Global Warming also increase the activity of Village Idiot trolls with shrunken brains in shrunken heads ? Genetic mutation ?

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 8^th, 2018 at 8:02pm:

So when it finally all runs out how do you keep your fake oil economy going ?

Hmm Economics and Global warming? yes there is a link. it was an economist who came up with the original 2C. Still trying to maintain the "Raj" (sic).


Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 8^th, 2018 at 8:02pm:

What are you going to do then ?

I'll let someone else worry about putting enough CO2 into the atmosphere for vigorous plant growth.

You know that free solar energy you talk about? That is what creates coal out of plants that have died. I guess that makes coal renewable. It is just the time frame is too long for some to grasp. ;)

so it's all going to renew itself in 500 years time when it has all been used up ? :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 9^th, 2018 at 9:13pm:

so it's all going to renew itself in 500 years time when it has all been used up ? :D LOL

Wow. Fancy proving how little you know about long time frames.

lee wrote on Nov 9^th, 2018 at 9:49pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 9th, 2018 at 9:13pm: so it's all going to renew itself in 500 years time when it has all been used up ? :D LOL Wow. Fancy proving how little you know about long time frames.

so what is it then ? what are you going to fill up yout fossil fool cars with and how much is it going to cost since cost is something you dumbarse conservatives always like to emphasize ?

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10^th, 2018 at 9:05am:

what are you going to fill up yout fossil fool cars with and how much is it going to cost since cost is something you dumbarse conservatives always like to emphasize ?

Who cares. i won't be here. Methuselah I ain't. ;D ;D ;D

But that of course is only if you believe humans have achieved peak ingenuity. ;)

lee wrote on Nov 10^th, 2018 at 2:23pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10th, 2018 at 9:05am: what are you going to fill up yout fossil fool cars with and how much is it going to cost since cost is something you dumbarse conservatives always like to emphasize ? Who cares. i won't be here. Methuselah I ain't. ;D ;D ;D But that of course is only if you believe humans have achieved peak ingenuity. ;)

Spoken like a true conservative arsehole willing to spread total mistrusts because of its own greed.

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10^th, 2018 at 2:31pm:

Spoken like a true conservative arsehole willing to spread total mistrusts because of its own greed.

Oh dear. Someone who believes humans have reached peak ingenuity. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 10^th, 2018 at 2:38pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10th, 2018 at 2:31pm: Spoken like a true conservative arsehole willing to spread total mistrusts because of its own greed. Oh dear. Someone who believes humans have reached peak ingenuity. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

in your case it's ingenuity in dick pulling sessions :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10^th, 2018 at 2:46pm:

in your case it's ingenuity in dick pulling sessions

Oh dear, the poor bugger is envious that I have a penis. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 10^th, 2018 at 4:55pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10th, 2018 at 2:46pm: in your case it's ingenuity in dick pulling sessions Oh dear, the poor bugger is envious that I have a penis. ;D ;D ;D ;D

yeh you got two dicks for christmas with one hand on each one :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 11^th, 2018 at 8:44am:

yeh you got two dicks for christmas with one hand on each one

I will give you one if you want. It will save you diddling yourself with your recorder.

lee wrote on Nov 11^th, 2018 at 12:32pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 11th, 2018 at 8:44am: yeh you got two dicks for christmas with one hand on each one I will give you one if you want. It will save you diddling yourself with your recorder.

save it for the rest of dunderheads at your local branch meetings :D LOL

Lee has skillfully shown this troll abomination with a shrunken brain in a shrunken head is the result of a genetic malfunction.

And Global Warming exacerbates the cerebral malfeasance of these horrid creatures. Hope it doesn't also increase their breeding rate.


"Global Warming is Unprecedented"

Is it really?

If global warming is indeed in some way unprecedented, then we would expect to find no match for the current global warming trend in the geological record. Let us consider just the most recent Holocene epoch - dominated by human history.


http://geologist-1011.net/net/climate/HoloceneTemperatures.png

graph of climate data over the past 11000 years depicting two major Holocene Optimums (warm periods), the Minoan Climate Optimum, the Roman Climate Optimum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the less significant current warm period.

Average near-surface temperatures of the northern hemisphere during the past 11,000 years compiled by David Archibald after Dansgaard et al. (1969) & Schönwiese (1995).


Looking at just the historical picture, shown in the graph above, we can see that global warming has happened many times before in human history.

We've had the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Climate Optimum, and the Medieval Warm Period in addition to the current warm period (Dansguard et al., 1968; Schönwiese, 1995; Keigwin, 1996).

Note the steepness of the rise in temperature at the beginning of the Minoan warm period. This rate of warming far exceeds that of the current warm period.

Huang et al. (1997) determined that the depiction of the Medieval Warm Period in this graph may be somewhat conservative. According to their study of 6000 boreholes worldwide, the global mean temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period dwarf the changes of the Twentieth Century.

The evidence shows repeatedly that global warming is not unprecedented and according to Ruddiman (2001) as well as Singer & Avery (2006), global warming is a regular cyclic phenomenon on planet Earth.

In fact, the normal global mean temperature for planet earth given the Phanerozoic history, is actually 19.5 degrees Celcius; a full three degrees higher than the present mean.

give it a break socko. This has all been flogged to death.

take your pick socko. All your stupid comments are addressed here.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Oh that horrible smell as the despised troll sneaks out from under the floor boards.

;D ;D ;D Repeat after me socko - FREE ENERGY FROM THE SUN !  ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D Repeat after me socko - FREE ENERGY FROM THE SUN !  ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D Repeat after me socko - FREE ENERGY FROM THE SUN !  ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D Repeat after me socko - FREE ENERGY FROM THE SUN !  ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D Repeat after me socko - FREE ENERGY FROM THE SUN !  ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D Repeat after me socko - FREE ENERGY FROM THE SUN !  ;D ;D ;D

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 12^th, 2018 at 9:23am:

give it a break socko. This has all been flogged to death. take your pick socko. All your stupid comments are addressed here. https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Is that the same Skep Sci whose owner had a paper that everyone said showed 97% of climate scientists endorsed AGW?

The reality? 97.1% of 33.6% of abstracts (not climate scientists) endorsed AGW in some form. From benign to catastrophic. 64 papers out of  over 11,000 claimed it was catastrophic. About 0.5%.

BTW - about those "myths". -
There really was an Ice Age scare in the 70's. Over 285 papers to say so.
CO2 does indeed lag temperature.
The models are unreliable. That's why they keep having to reinvent them.
Animals and plants can adapt. Animals can move, that's why they have legs. Plant spores are wind borne.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lee effortlessly rams the thick as a brick Village Idiot Troll into the garbage can.

The sunburnt from Global Warming troll with the malfunctioning missing brain just keeps vomiting the lying Greeny rubbish the drongo saw somewhere.

But with an IQ < 10 the Globally Warmed creature is totally incapable of understanding anything even remotely technical. Probably is even confused by the menu at MacDonalds!!!

What the braindead creature from under the floor boards just will never understand (and who cares what a fool like that thinks ?) is that there is not enough clear treeless windblown land to build enough solar and wind farms to generate the enormous amount energy that is currently being generated by coal and gas.

So wind and solar is in a DEAD END with nowhere to go.

Hence the enormous interest in the future energy of the world - HYDROGEN which is already being introduced in many forms around the world. HYDROGEN is genuinely renewable and will ultimately power the world's car, trucks, trains, ships, and machines.



To sum up the childish nonsense oozing out of the Global Warmists like these trolls from under the floor boards that hang around like a bad smell.

The scientific evidence does not support alarm over global warming. Global warming is not unprecedented, neither in rate nor in magnitude. While global warming may lead to sea level rises, melting continental ice will avail arable farmland; an increasingly diminishing commodity that is of greater benefit to humanity than some over-priced waterfront real-estate. Global warming will result in the retreat of deserts further extending arable farmland. Global warming will also result in biological radiation making it easier for us to conserve the biodiversity many of us are so fond of. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a cause of global warming and is either an indirect product of warming or a product of deforestation.

Investigation of the evidence exposes a number of tactical omissions, errors, and perhaps a hoax or two on the part of the catastrophists. Tactics employed by those pushing a catastrophist agenda are consistent with those used by other branches of pseudoscience such as Creationism. The lack of support for alarm over global warming by scientific evidence is certainly sufficient reason for some to evade discussion of the evidence by focussing on attacking those who do wish to address the evidence. There are strong economic and political arguments in favour of ignoring the evidence and using alarm over global warming as propaganda to sell the government funding of research and initiatives that will benefit select commercial sectors to the exclusion of the tax payer.

The observed expansion of deserts during the current mildly "warm" period is unprecedented in geological history. Deforestation is the only cause of desertification aside from global cooling and represents the principle human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Yet, the emphasis of public attention on exaggerated greenhouse effects only serves to divert public scrutiny from vastly more practical and important issues such as moderating land clearance, not to mention the desperate need for communities to decentralise sufficiently to bring most services within walking distance of most residences (thereby reducing reliance on motorised transport) before the impact of peak oil.

It would appear that the catastrophist movement is more concerned with curbing development in underdeveloped countries than with vital environmental issues like the expansion of deserts as a consequence of excessive and unnecessary deforestation.

Tragically, although desertification as a direct result of excessive land clearance is a far greater threat to the ability of our environment to support current human populations, this very real and well documented threat is neglected in favour of what amounts to little more than sensationalised science fiction.


https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/First_London_fuel_cell_bus_WSH62995_LK60_HPN_VDL_SB200_Wrightbus_Pulsar_Catherine_Street_route_RV1_20_May_2011.jpg
Hydrogen is all the go in London to avoid the massive overload of their power network by toy gimmicky all electric heaps that can't do a day's work.

Hang on ... on the one hand you deny Global Warming is a problem, but on the other hand you are spruiking Hydrogen that is in high demand due to concerns over Global Warming.

;)

Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 12^th, 2018 at 2:01pm:

Hang on ... on the one hand you deny Global Warming is a problem, but on the other hand you are spruiking Hydrogen that is in high demand due to concerns over Global Warming. ;)

You do understand the difference between some people having concerns and that global warming is not a problem?

They are not mutually exclusive.

Capt N you have tripped your good self up. As an amateur in this area you are forgiven.

The huge interest in HYDROGEN has far more to do with the eventually dwindling reserves of oil.

Also diesel pollution.

So eventually an alternative source of energy will be required.

As you will realize by now sun and wind will only ever be an unreliable secondary source unless man can learn to control the wind!!!!!

Now the companies developing HYDROGEN fuel and equipment using the falsity of carbon dioxide as a cause of Global Warming is simply an innocent selling misuse of a HOAX to encourage the swing over to HYDROGEN.

There are very many very gullible and uninformed people on the planet. Just look at the 2 trolls that hang around like a bad smell repeatedly displaying their gross ignorance of just about everything. But then they do have malformed malfunctioning brains as a result of genetic mutation to an earlier more primitive form.

Now for some FACTS. It is appreciated the 2 dumb trolls with their obvious low intelligence and very poor education will be unable to understand a word of this. So their gross ignorance is protected!!!!


2. The Solution: Why Hydrogen for Energy

2.1 Hydrogen is the most abundant and lightest of the elements. It is odorless and nontoxic. It has the highest energy content of common fuels by weight -- nearly three times that of gasoline.
Hydrogen is not found free in nature and must be “extracted” from diverse sources: fossil energy, renewable energy, nuclear energy and the electrolysis of water. A separate energy source (electricity, heat or light) is required to “produce” (extract or reform) the hydrogen. Today, most hydrogen is made from fossil energy using steam methane reforming (SMR) of natural gas, followed by partial oxidation (POX) and autothermal reforming (ATR), which combines SMR and POX processes.

2.2 Like electricity, hydrogen is an “energy carrier.” It can be used in a full range of applications in all sectors of the economy: transportation, power, industry, and buildings.

2.3 Hydrogen can be converted to electricity by a fuel cell, an electrochemical device. Unlike batteries, fuel cells operate continuously in the presence of hydrogen and oxygen (in ambient air).
Fuel cells are “scalable” and may be used in very small to very large sizes. The only byproducts of fuel cells are heat and water.

2.4 Hydrogen’s relationship to renewables cannot be overemphasized. The 2015 IEA Technology Roadmap for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells recognizes that hydrogen with a low-carbon footprint has the potential to facilitate significant reductions in energy-related CO2 emissions. Thus, use of renewable feedstocks for hydrogen production is very attractive from the environmental perspective.

2.5 Today, the world is witnessing significant growth in the installed capacity of renewables (primarily wind and solar). Onshore wind is the leader, accounting for over one-third of the renewable capacity and generation increase. Solar PV follows, accounting for another third of deployment.
Hydropower is also growing and accounts for one-fifth of new renewable additions, and over a quarter of the growth in renewable energy electricity generation.1

2.6 As a result of this growth, the electricity grid must sometimes restrict uptake of renewable electricity when the grid is full (saturated) in order to balance electricity supply and demand.
Consequently, renewable electricity production is curtailed. However, use of hydrogen for storage of renewable electricity (converted via water electrolysis) is a game changer. Hydrogen and  6 IEA Hydrogen electricity are in fact complementary energy carriers: hydrogen can be converted to electricity, and electricity can be converted to hydrogen.

2.7 Use of hydrogen for energy storage (short term, seasonal, long-term reserve) is sometimes referred to as “time shifting with hydrogen.”2 Underground storage of hydrogen in salt caverns and depleted oil wells is a well-established practice. The IEA HIA Strategic Plan 2015-2020 concludes that “Storage in effect optimizes the H2 value chain,”3  acting as a reserve and enhancing the security of energy supply.

2.8 Hydrogen reserves can help to buffer the electricity system, enhancing system security. Traditionally, the electricity system maintains a reserve of approximately 15-20% as a standard safety buffer to ensure smooth functioning. In the future, given increased demand for electricity, the fossil fuel supply alone may not provide sufficient buffer, so hydrogen can be used to fill the gap.

2.9 Hydrogen can be used for sector coupling by converting excess electricity (power) supply to hydrogen for non-power applications in transport, industry and buildings (heat) sectors. Inter-sectoral use enhances the integration of the energy system and leverages investment for development of the hydrogen infrastructure. Storage and sector coupling can also reduce the need for investment in new electricity transmission capacity.

2.10 Hydrogen can be used for decentralized power production in a future energy system that is increasingly inclined to consider distributed generation as an option to exclusively centralized power production. “H2 investment risk is reduced if H2 production takes place in decentralized electrolyzers, especially with low cost renewables.”4

Read the full story here

http://ieahydrogen.org/pdfs/Global-Outlook-and-Trends-for-Hydrogen_Dec2017_WEB.aspx

While Tesla unsafe heaps with fast acceleration and lousy brakes crash to a stop HYDROGEN steadily takes over.

All electric is no good for larger trucks and heavy equipment.

https://cs.copart.com/v1/AUTH_svc.pdoc00001/PIX134/d5426519-1859-43df-808f-5505caab5c48.JPG
Unsafe TESLA 3 comes to a screeeching stop with lousy brakes



Anheuser-Busch orders fuel cell trucks from Nikola Motor
By ALICIA MOORE May 9, 2018

http://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Fuel-Cell-Trucks-Truck-on-Raod.jpg
Nikola will be delivering 800 fuel cell trucks to Anheuser-Busch by 2020

Beverage maker Anheuser-Busch has set a new record by ordering 800 fuel cell trucks from Nikola Motor. This accounts for the largest single deal for heavy-duty delivery trucks powered by hydrogen fuel cells every made. Nikola aims to begin delivering the new trucks to Anheuser-Busch in 2020. Some pre-production models will be incorporated into the company’s fleet by the end of this year, however. These pre-production trucks will provide an opportunity for real-world testing.

Deal represents a major step forward for fuel cells in the trucking industry
The deal, which is estimated to be worth some $720 million, has established Nikola’s lead in the hydrogen-powered trucking space. The company has been working to promote the use of fuel cells in the trucking industry for some time. Nikola has attracted a great deal of attention to its trucks and even recently announced that it would be refunding all pre-orders because it no longer needs the funding to develop its new trucks. Several other large companies have made orders from Nikola, but no production model will be delivered to these companies until 2020.

Large companies are looking for ways to make trucks more environmentally friendly
Large commercial trucking companies, such as Anheuser-Busch, have plans to make significant reductions to the emissions they produce every year. Large trucks are notorious for the carbon dioxide they emit. Some companies have begun investing in battery technology to help solve the problem, but hydrogen fuel cells may be the more viable option. Fuel cells consume hydrogen to generate electricity and produce no harmful emissions, but they do not sacrifice performance. Some hydrogen-powered trucks actually boast of fast acceleration than conventional trucks.

Hydrogen continues to gain popularity in the transportation space
Fuel Cell Trucks - Truck on RaodHydrogen has already established a significant position in the transportation space among consumers. There are many passenger vehicles that are currently being powered by fuel cells. Automakers have been working tirelessly to promote their own vehicles to consumers interested in clean transportation. Nikola is currently well ahead of the competition when it comes to the trucking industry, however, as there are relatively few other companies that have plans to launch hydrogen-powered trucks in the near future.

http://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/anheuser-busch-orders-fuel-cell-trucks-from-nikola-motor/8534828/

Solar sabotage!!!!

White elephant solar panels: “force-feeding” high voltage, raising costs, breaking things, shutting themselves down
November 9th, 2018

Solar Rooftop panels, photo.Some days I wonder if I should spread stories that make us sound like a recidivist third-world backwater struggling to maintain our voltage. But the ABC is already smashing away.

Just when you think there couldn’t possibly be another drawback to solar panels, lo! Solar Panels are pushing up the voltage at midday often as high as 253 Volts when it supposed to be more like 230 to 240V. This means appliances are using more electricity, that makes bills even higher. It may also be breaking appliances (making other bills go higher too). We’re not really sure about that, but when that study is done, it’ll already be 1.8 million panels too late.

Non-solar users are paying for this surge (and the appliances) — for every 1% increase in voltage, the costs go up 0.7%. Then, to ice that gravy-cake, the inverters on solar panels are also shutting off at 253V, meaning that poor home owners who paid thousands are not generating power for the grid. All up, solar is bad for you, bad for them, bad for our light-globes.

The warning comes from groups running the electricity networks in Australia.


Spot the key word missing from the ABC headline — starts with ‘s’, ends in ‘lar’:

Power bills up? Appliances burning out? You may have a voltage problem
Liz Hobday, ABC

Travel 40% of the way through the article to find the key point:

Andrew Dillon, spokesman for Energy Networks Australia, the peak body for Australia’s poles and wires companies] said the rapid uptake of rooftop solar systems was a particular issue for the networks, because solar systems are supplying extra electricity to the grid, and boosting voltages.

But to be fair, the ABC did highlight “solar” in the 3 key points at the top — wait for it: “Voltage” can be a problem, but solar panels can only be victims. No sacred cows are sacrificed in this story.

Key points
Higher voltage on power supply to homes is a major concern, researchers say
Impact on home appliances and potential ‘burnout’ needs more research
Could be causing a significant amount of solar energy to be wasted
Solution: give us more money, try another experiment

“There are technologies we could adopt today, to be able to manage the voltage challenges we have from solar better than we are now,” he said.

“The problem we have is we are not willing to pay billions of dollars further on the network … [we're] after a smart, cost-effective transition.”

Some poles and wires companies are trialling voltage reduction on a large scale, and there is evidence that this could cut electricity consumption.

Don’t mention the third way: Stop subsidizing weather-changing-white-solar- elephants, and ask solar owners to cover the costs to stabilize the system as is. We could make a case that solar owners should be subsidizing bill payers who have been carrying the cost.

Higher voltage means higher bills
The results of a recent trial, by the Victorian network United Energy, showed that when voltage was reduced at 20 substations in and around Melbourne, every 1 per cent reduction in voltage saw, on average, an estimated 0.69 per cent reduction in demand for electricity.

But there is also research by the Queensland network Energex showing the scale of the problem the networks are facing.

When Energex reviewed almost 34,000 of the electrical transformers on its network in 2014, it found 76 per cent of the transformers were set too high, and were sending too much voltage through to households.

”Lucky”, a quarter of transformers in Queensland might be working properly. Err, “congrats”.

High voltages turn solar PV in white elephants
> 253V solar panel inverters themselves shut off, making the panels into white elephants just at the point when they are generating the most electricity.

High volts could mean wasted solar
There is one area where high voltage is definitely causing headaches, and that is for people who have installed rooftop solar systems.

Pensioner Paul Ryan installed solar panels on his house in the Victorian town of Warragul more than a year ago, but for much of that time they have not been working. The system often has to shut off to protect itself from high voltages coming in from the grid.

“It turned out to be a bit of a white elephant in a sense,” Mr Ryan told 7.30.

Rooftop solar systems are designed to operate at a few volts higher than the grid, so they can feed electricity back into the local network.

But with network voltage supplied to households already running at the high end, solar energy feeding into the grid can boost the volts even higher, and over the 253-volt limit — causing solar inverters to shut off.

The whole point of solar panels is to stop storms and hold back the tide which makes them a white elephant from the moment they are installed. The high voltage cut-off makes white elephants into double elephants.

Not something you want on the roof.

With 1.8 million solar systems installed in Australian homes and businesses, a significant amount of renewable energy may simply be wasted.

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/11/white-elephant-solar-panels-force-feeding-high-voltage-raising-costs-breaking-things-shutting-themselves-down/

This green hypocrisy is reaching new heights. What a ridiculous argument-that other things like cars and cats kill more birds than these hideous landscape blighting monstrosities(which are really reincarnations of old technology from the 19th century).

So now its all right to destroy bats and raptors in a “new way”.

Its now time to start also ignoring the other side of renewable wind energies dirty little secrets like, the mining and refining of neodymium in Bautou Mongolia. Here tailing lakes of acid and radioactive material have utterly destroyed farmlands and caused disease among the locals.

Meanwhile around the world these Wind factories have brought sleeplessness,tinnitus (potential cardiovascular disease according to the latest report from the WHO).

One would go one step further than describing this as green hypocrisy its really more like green form of Physcopathy where not only are humans in the sights of these zealots but also animals.

Yes what a mentality these people must have disastrous “unintended consequences” that are foist on other living creatures and are acceptable as some form of collateral damage -leaving them still feeling some how virtuous.

The idea that in a modern world of reliable and sustainable nuclear power and HELE coal fired power plants we should instead use thousands of wind turbines to power a modern society smacks of utter stupidity of the extreme kind.

Then there is the cost difference. It’s time Morrison came out and prosecuted the case more strongly for coal and nuclear and against all forms of renewables.

Not one cent more should be spent on renewables and a whole lot more spent on at least coal to help our nation sustain a viable and economic future, just as so many other nations are already doing.

The LNP has one last chance to avoid our nation being smashed by the left if ALP+Greens win. He better get cracking soon and stop playing hide and seek.

http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2017/06/Bats1-1024x536.png




Wind Turbines are new top predator in the ecosystem
November 7th, 2018

Wind turbines either kill or scare away three quarters of buzzards, hawks and kites at three sites in India. That makes them the new “top predator” in the ecosystem according to new research.  Perhaps not the niche that Greens were expecting wind farms to occupy.

It’s not all bad news though, fan-throated lizards are pretty happy about not being dinner.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/art/memes/vote-for-coal-buzzards-m.jpg
75% of Buzzards Vote For Coal Power Lizards vote for wind.


Wind farms are the ‘new apex predators’: Blades kill off 75% of buzzards, hawks and kites that live nearby, study shows
Harry Pettit for Daily Mail Online

Predatory bird numbers are four times higher in areas away from wind turbines
This is having a devastating ’ripple effect’ across the food chain
It means numbers of certain small animals are growing unchecked

Wind turbines are the world’s new ‘apex predators’, wiping out buzzards, hawks and other carnivorous birds at the top of the food chain, say scientists. A study of wind farms in India found that predatory bird numbers drop by three quarters in areas around the turbines. This is having a ‘ripple effect’ across the food chain, with small mammals and reptiles adjusting their behaviour as their natural predators disappear from the skies.

Study coauthor Professor Maria Thaker said:
‘Every time a top predator is removed or added, unexpected effects trickle through the ecosystem. What is actually happening here is the wind-turbines are akin to adding a top predator to the ecosystem.’

From the abstract:

The cascading effects of wind turbines on lizards include changes in behaviour, physiology and morphology that reflect a combination of predator release and density-dependent competition. By adding an effective trophic level to the top of food webs, we find that wind farms have emerging impacts that are greatly underestimated. There is thus a strong need for an ecosystem-wide view when aligning green-energy goals with environment protection.

300,000 wind turbines too late.

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/11/wind-turbines-are-new-top-predator-in-the-ecosystem/

lee wrote on Nov 12^th, 2018 at 11:13am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 12th, 2018 at 9:23am: give it a break socko. This has all been flogged to death. take your pick socko. All your stupid comments are addressed here. https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php Is that the same Skep Sci whose owner had a paper that everyone said showed 97% of climate scientists endorsed AGW? The reality? 97.1% of 33.6% of abstracts (not climate scientists) endorsed AGW in some form. From benign to catastrophic. 64 papers out of  over 11,000 claimed it was catastrophic. About 0.5%. BTW - about those "myths". - There really was an Ice Age scare in the 70's. Over 285 papers to say so. CO2 does indeed lag temperature. The models are unreliable. That's why they keep having to reinvent them. Animals and plants can adapt. Animals can move, that's why they have legs. Plant spores are wind borne. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

What are you saying then that the majority think there is nothing to worry about ? :D LOL

Hey socko you forgot to talk about the species who no longer have a voice because they have become extinct because of your fake oil based economy :(

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wildlife-in-40-years-wwf


Quote:

Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years, says WWF Species across land, rivers and seas decimated as humans kill for food in unsustainable numbers and destroy habitats The number of wild animals on Earth has halved in the past 40 years, according to a new analysis. Creatures across land, rivers and the seas are being decimated as humans kill them for food in unsustainable numbers, while polluting or destroying their habitats, the research by scientists at WWF and the Zoological Society of London found. “If half the animals died in London zoo next week it would be front page news,” said Professor Ken Norris, ZSL’s director of science. “But that is happening in the great outdoors. This damage is not inevitable but a consequence of the way we choose to live.” He said nature, which provides food and clean water and air, was essential for human wellbeing. “We have lost one half of the animal population and knowing this is driven by human consumption, this is clearly a call to arms and we must act now,” said Mike Barratt, director of science and policy at WWF. He said more of the Earth must be protected from development and deforestation, while food and energy had to be produced sustainably. The steep decline of animal, fish and bird numbers was calculated by analysing 10,000 different populations, covering 3,000 species in total. This data was then, for the first time, used to create a representative “Living Planet Index” (LPI), reflecting the state of all 45,000 known vertebrates. “We have all heard of the FTSE 100 index, but we have missed the ultimate indicator, the falling trend of species and ecosystems in the world,” said Professor Jonathan Baillie, ZSL’s director of conservation. “If we get [our response] right, we will have a safe and sustainable way of life for the future,” he said. If not, he added, the overuse of resources would ultimately lead to conflicts. He said the LPI was an extremely robust indicator and had been adopted by UN’s internationally-agreed Convention on Biological Diversity as key insight into biodiversity....

https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/9/30/1412065026532/Doughnutchartwildlife.png


Quote:

A second index in the new Living Planet report calculates humanity’s “ecological footprint”, ie the scale at which it is using up natural resources. Currently, the global population is cutting down trees faster than they regrow, catching fish faster than the oceans can restock, pumping water from rivers and aquifers faster than rainfall can replenish them and emitting more climate-warming carbon dioxide than oceans and forests can absorb. The report concludes that today’s average global rate of consumption would need 1.5 planet Earths to sustain it. But four planets would be required to sustain US levels of consumption, or 2.5 Earths to match UK consumption levels. The fastest decline among the animal populations were found in freshwater ecosystems, where numbers have plummeted by 75% since 1970. “Rivers are the bottom of the system,” said Dave Tickner, WWF’s chief freshwater adviser. “Whatever happens on the land, it all ends up in the rivers.” For example, he said, tens of billions of tonnes of effluent are dumped in the Ganges in India every year. As well as pollution, dams and the increasing abstraction of water damage freshwater systems. There are more than 45,000 major dams – 15m or higher – around the world. “These slice rivers up into a thousand pieces,” Tickner said, preventing the healthy flow of water. While population has risen fourfold in the last century, water use has gone up sevenfold. “We are living thirstier and thirstier lives,” he said. But while freshwater species such as the European eel and the hellbender salamander in the US have crashed, recoveries have also been seen. Otters were near extinct in England but thanks to conservation efforts now live in every county.

That horrible bad smell is the primitive Troll crawling out from under the floor boards displaying his/her gross ignorance again. But then he/she does have a malformed malfunctioning brain as a result of genetic mutation to an earlier more primitive form.

juliar wrote on Nov 12^th, 2018 at 9:09pm:

That horrible bad smell is the primitive Troll crawling out from under the floor boards displaying his/her gross ignorance again. But then he/she does have a malformed malfunctioning brain as a result of genetic mutation to an earlier more primitive form.

copy and paste answer when it can't debate the issue which is never :D LOL

How is the oil based fossil fuel economy fake??? It's precisely what built the global economy. Without we would be still agrarian villagers just trying  to get enough food to survive the winter.

It's hard to believe these leftists are from the same planet.

Term Dog wrote on Nov 12^th, 2018 at 9:14pm:

How is the oil based fossil fuel economy fake??? It's precisely what built the global economy. Without we would be still agrarian villagers just trying  to get enough food to survive the winter. It's hard to believe these leftists are from the same planet.

It is fake because the same stuff that built up the global economies will also end up destroying it !

Just like asbestos it is no good in the long run !

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 12^th, 2018 at 9:28pm:

Term Dog wrote on Nov 12th, 2018 at 9:14pm: How is the oil based fossil fuel economy fake??? It's precisely what built the global economy. Without we would be still agrarian villagers just trying  to get enough food to survive the winter. It's hard to believe these leftists are from the same planet. It is fake because the same stuff that built up the global economies will also end up destroying it ! Just like asbestos it is no good in the long run !

That doesn't mean it's fake, it just means it's value changes over time like all commodities.

I wasn't joking when I said the global economy is built on fossil fuel, do you disagree?

Can you give me an example of a not fake economy?

Technically the value of money is kind of fake especially when you get into future trading.

Term Dog wrote on Nov 12^th, 2018 at 9:38pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 12th, 2018 at 9:28pm: Term Dog wrote on Nov 12th, 2018 at 9:14pm: How is the oil based fossil fuel economy fake??? It's precisely what built the global economy. Without we would be still agrarian villagers just trying  to get enough food to survive the winter. It's hard to believe these leftists are from the same planet. It is fake because the same stuff that built up the global economies will also end up destroying it ! Just like asbestos it is no good in the long run ! That doesn't mean it's fake, it just means it's value changes over time like all commodities. I wasn't joking when I said the global economy is built on fossil fuel, do you disagree? Can you give me an example of a not fake economy? Technically the value of money is kind of fake especially when you get into future trading.

It's fake because it is not sustainable.

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 12^th, 2018 at 8:28pm:

What are you saying then that the majority think there is nothing to worry about ?

Well the UN My World global survey puts climate change last out of 16 questions asked.

I guess it is not that high on the list of priorities.
http://data.myworld2015.org/

Only dumb gullible trolls with such low intelligence actually believe the Global Warming HOAX.

Climate has been changing for centuries and is nothing new at all.

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 12^th, 2018 at 8:32pm:

The steep decline of animal, fish and bird numbers was calculated by analysing 10,000 different populations, covering 3,000 species in total. This data was then, for the first time, used to create a representative “Living Planet Index” (LPI), reflecting the state of all 45,000 known vertebrates.

Ah yes. A statistical "survey".

BTW - did you look at the pie chart?

https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/9/30/1412065026532/Doughnutchartwildlife.png

They estimate 7% due to climate change.

"Does the trend in the global LPI mean we have lost 60% of all animals?
Although the LPI uses time-series of either population size, density, abundance or a proxy of abundance, the overall trend calculated represents an average trend in population change and not an average of total numbers of individual animals or species lost. "

"Living Planet Report 2018 Technical Supplement: Living Planet Index
                                     Bird population Bear population Shark population
Initial population size     25                        50                     20
Final population size      5                          45                      8
Number of animals lost 20                           5                     12
Percentage change       80%                     10%                  60%"

http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr2018_technical_supplement_for_lpi.pdf

Wow. That is not a very deep survey. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 12^th, 2018 at 10:15pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 12th, 2018 at 8:32pm: The steep decline of animal, fish and bird numbers was calculated by analysing 10,000 different populations, covering 3,000 species in total. This data was then, for the first time, used to create a representative “Living Planet Index” (LPI), reflecting the state of all 45,000 known vertebrates. Ah yes. A statistical "survey". BTW - did you look at the pie chart? https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/9/30/1412065026532/Doughnutchartwildlife.png They estimate 7% due to climate change. "Does the trend in the global LPI mean we have lost 60% of all animals? Although the LPI uses time-series of either population size, density, abundance or a proxy of abundance, the overall trend calculated represents an average trend in population change and not an average of total numbers of individual animals or species lost. " "Living Planet Report 2018 Technical Supplement: Living Planet Index                                      Bird population Bear population Shark population Initial population size     25                        50                     20 Final population size      5                          45                      8 Number of animals lost 20                           5                     12 Percentage change       80%                     10%                  60%" http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr2018_technical_supplement_for_lpi.pdf Wow. That is not a very deep survey. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

but I bet you believe the story of Noahs ark is true no doubt :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 12^th, 2018 at 10:17pm:

but I bet you believe the story of Noahs ark is true no doubt

Oh dear - Attempted deflection. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Further -

What the LPI is                                What the LPI isn’t
An indicator of population trends     An indicator of species extinctions

Oh dear.

lee wrote on Nov 12^th, 2018 at 10:21pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 12th, 2018 at 10:17pm: but I bet you believe the story of Noahs ark is true no doubt Oh dear - Attempted deflection. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

No not at all. Just look at the mad monk and your current leader. Both have a paranormal friend call Jesus which they believe is real but both secretly deny AGW even in light of the evidence for it and the lack of evidence for the existence of their paranormal friend  ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 12^th, 2018 at 10:56pm:

Both have a paranormal friend call Jesus which they believe is real but both secretly deny AGW even in light of the evidence for it and the lack of evidence for the existence of their paranormal friend

And of course you have evidence of this?  ::)

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2018 at 12:01pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 12th, 2018 at 10:56pm: Both have a paranormal friend call Jesus which they believe is real but both secretly deny AGW even in light of the evidence for it and the lack of evidence for the existence of their paranormal friend And of course you have evidence of this?  ::)

just ask Tony at the next branch meeting. He will tell you that AGW is crap because Murdoch told him to sat it ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 13^th, 2018 at 1:50pm:

just ask Tony at the next branch meeting. He will tell you that AGW is crap because Murdoch told him to sat it

So no evidence then. Why am I not surprised?;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 12^th, 2018 at 10:15pm:

Living Planet Report 2018 Technical Supplement: Living Planet Index                                      Bird population Bear population Shark population Initial population size     25                        50                     20 Final population size      5                          45                      8 Number of animals lost 20                           5                     12 Percentage change       80%                     10%                  60%"

"There are too many polar bears in parts of Nunavut and climate change hasn't yet affected any of them, says a draft management plan from the territorial government that contradicts much of conventional scientific thinking.

The proposed plan -- which is to go to public hearings in Iqaluit on Tuesday -- says that growing bear numbers are increasingly jeopardizing public safety and it's time Inuit knowledge drove management policy.

"Inuit believe there are now so many bears that public safety has become a major concern," says the document, the result of four years of study and public consultation.

"Public safety concerns, combined with the effects of polar bears on other species, suggest that in many Nunavut communities, the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold."

Polar bears killed two Inuit last summer.

The plan leans heavily on Inuit knowledge, which yields population estimates higher than those suggested by western science for almost all of the 13 included bear populations."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/so-many-bears-draft-plan-says-nunavut-polar-bear-numbers-unsafe-1.4173058

But maybe the Inuit don't know what they are talking about. They have only been there a short time. /sarc

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2018 at 2:40pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 13th, 2018 at 1:50pm: just ask Tony at the next branch meeting. He will tell you that AGW is crap because Murdoch told him to sat it So no evidence then. Why am I not surprised?;D ;D ;D

There is plenty of evidence as long as you are not willing to twist the words and data like you usually do. Perhaps you can come up with your own data set for a change instead of riding off the backs of other peoples hard work. ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 13^th, 2018 at 3:43pm:

There is plenty of evidence as long as you are not willing to twist the words and data like you usually do.

So how come you offer none that "both secretly deny AGW even in light of the evidence for it "?

Humans have some impact on climate. But you say it is bad, catastrophic even. And it is still cooler than the Holocene Optimum.

So what words or data do I twist? You must have some reference for it surely?

Perhaps you can come up with some science rather than bloviating. You keep taking things out of context.

Yesterday - Quoting the Garudian and the LPI-
"Hey socko you forgot to talk about the species who no longer have a voice because they have become extinct ]because of your fake oil based economy"



lee wrote on Nov 12^th, 2018 at 10:24pm:

What the LPI isn’t An indicator of species extinctions

or were you twisting the data? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D



Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 13^th, 2018 at 3:43pm:

Perhaps you can come up with your own data set for a change instead of riding off the backs of other peoples hard work.

You mean like you do? Hypocritical much. ;)

Hydro electric is renewable and the cheapest method for producing electricity, for some reason the global warming religion isn't keen to embrace it.

Provides baseload and can vary output on need which is something solar and wind cannot do.


Why does the global warming religon reject hydro electric?

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 13^th, 2018 at 6:58pm:

Hydro electric is renewable and the cheapest method for producing electricity, for some reason the global warming religion isn't keen to embrace it. Provides baseload and can vary output on need which is something solar and wind cannot do. Why does the global warming religon reject hydro electric?

Not if the rainfall is inadequate which seems to be the case lately !

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 13^th, 2018 at 9:33pm:

Not if the rainfall is inadequate which seems to be the case lately !

Isn't that why they are trumpeting pumped storage?

Pumped hydro seems to be a very sensible option. Use cheap solar power to pump the water back up the hill during the day, enjoy the free hydro coming down the pipe again.

Pretty much a fool proof system that will provide "base load" power ... (Should be calling it "dispatchable " these days I suppose.)

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2018 at 9:48pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 13th, 2018 at 9:33pm: Not if the rainfall is inadequate which seems to be the case lately ! Isn't that why they are trumpeting pumped storage?

you mean like this ? :D LOL

http://www.kilty.com/graphics/escher.gif

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 13^th, 2018 at 10:37pm:

you mean like this ?

That's about your level of competence

Congratulations to Lee for showing the Village Idiot troll to be just a dumb dill. That is not hard to do as the dumb troll has an IQ < 10.

The poor village idiot troll gets so frustrated because her mental inadequacy and poor education and low IQ prevents her from being able to constructively contribute.

So she does what all mentally deprived Greeny types do - attack the hated vastly superior poster who keeps making her look silly.

It is all because the dumb troll has a malfunctioning malformed mind that has been genetically mutated into a previous more primitive form.

https://edge.alluremedia.com.au/m/g/2017/03/snowy-hydro.jpg


Capt N and BH,
Actually the pumped hydro idea is rather dodgy. It is quite difficult to make these things worthwhile because of the inefficiency of the pumping process. Hence the concern about the viability of the Snowy 2 Scheme.

They are viable with coal or hydro where the generator runs continuously as during low load times the generator can be loaded up with the pump to pump up the water.

But we are talking about vast huge amounts of power like 2000MW etc.

Now we come way down to the tiny mousepower renewables which barely generate enough power to even turn the huge pumps over. So renewables are a case of the mouse that roared - like that extremist Commo Socialist Feminazi sheila who is trying to revive the dying unions.


Read all about it here:- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-16/snowy-hydro-expansion-wont-be-magical-solution-to-power-problems/8360320

And this must be correct as it is from the ABC Socialist Propaganda Station.

But the Greenies are drying up the water in the Snowy area:- https://theconversation.com/snowy-hydro-scheme-will-be-left-high-and-dry-unless-we-look-after-the-mountains-74830

And the mad as cut snakes extremist Greenies will do everything they can to stop this evil development in Australia.

juliar wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 7:23am:

Now we come way down to the tiny mousepower renewables which barely generate enough power to even turn the huge pumps over. So renewables are a case of the mouse that roared - like that extremist Commo Socialist Feminazi sheila who is trying to revive the dying unions.

Yes but that mouse power is enough to charge up some EV's at home which is all that matters to the average punter socko ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI166Ps8DIo&t=34s

It gets boring to keep on showing the Village Idiot troll to be just a dumb dill. That is not hard to do as the dumb troll has an IQ < 10.

The poor village idiot troll gets so frustrated because her mental inadequacy and poor education and low IQ prevents her from being able to constructively contribute.

So she does what all mentally deprived Greeny types do - attack the hated vastly superior poster who keeps making her look silly.

;D ;D ;D Repeat after me socko - FREE ENERGY FROM THE SUN !  ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D Repeat after me socko - FREE ENERGY FROM THE SUN !  ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D Repeat after me socko - FREE ENERGY FROM THE SUN !  ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D Repeat after me socko - FREE ENERGY FROM THE SUN !  ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D Repeat after me socko - FREE ENERGY FROM THE SUN !  ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D Repeat after me socko - FREE ENERGY FROM THE SUN !  ;D ;D ;D

It gets boring to keep on showing the Village Idiot troll to be just a dumb dill. That is not hard to do as the dumb troll has an IQ < 10.

The poor village idiot troll gets so frustrated because her mental inadequacy and poor education and low IQ prevents her from being able to constructively contribute.

So she does what all mentally deprived Greeny types do - attack the hated vastly superior poster who keeps making her look silly.