Paella wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 8:29pm:


You're right my error.

muso wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 8:54pm:



You're right- I apologise.

'In last week’s State of the Union (SOTU) address, President Obama reiterated his support for climate science by unequivocally stating “The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.”'

Yes Climate Change is fact it has been going on since time immemorial; but he probably didn't mean that - he probably meant-

'The role of the IPCC as stated in paragraph 2 of the Principles Governing IPCC Work is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, '

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-conflict-of-interest.pdf

Except of course the debate is not settled. More scientists are questioning the published papers, which is why we have studies on ocean currents, trade winds etc. Even if they are still proposing a human element, and I agree there is, it is still debate.

muso wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

A rather good point.

Not solely about gas, but relevant, I reckon.

GRANTHAM: The Great American Shale Boom Is A Dangerous Waste Of Time And Money

Rob Wile Feb 7, 2014, 9:47 AM

Jeremy Grantham, whose GMO LLC investment firm manages $US117 billion in assets, says the Great American Shale Boom is a dangerous waste of time and money.

Grantham, who started his career as an economist at Shell, recently contemplated attending an anti-Keystone Pipeline demonstration in front of the White House.

In his new letter to clients, Grantham explains why any country, from the U.S. to China, still going down the path of developing fossil fuels is walking into a trap.

First, he argues we are overstating the benefits of switching to natural gas:
Quote:

Next, he discusses the links between fracking and earthquakes:
Quote:



Grantham then discusses why he believes fossil fuel drilling is a waste of time: Renewables growth, he says, is lapping the growth in all other forms of energy, and that it’s pointless for the other guys to try to compete.
Quote:

And here’s the waste-of-money part: First, Grantham believes technologies costing billions to exploit things like tar sands, as well as those that would create “clean coal,” will be rendered “stranded assets” by renewables. Meanwhile, he adds, we have deluded ourselves into thinking abundant shale oil equates to cheap shale oil:
Quote:

Grantham goes on to admit that he was wrong about peak oil. But we also must remember he was right about the Internet bubble, and the housing bubble.

So we should probably pay attention.

Germ theory, evolution, the world is round, smoking causes cancer.

Are these settled? Or does the presence of a handful of nutjob contrarians render them otherwise?

There is only one way that current Energy Technology &/or anything remotely on the horizon, is going to be sufficient for the next 100 or even 50 years AND THAT WOULD BE IF THERE IS A MASSIVE DECLINE IN HUMAN POPULATION LEVELS and that is quite likely.

But, from the longer term perspective of the survival of the Human species, we will need more than a large dose of HOPIUM, we will actually need some real long term planning, which will necessitate an open & frank discussion with all of those involved including the Global Public & then some not so nice decisions must be made, NUT they MUST be fair to all sections or the whole system will come crashing down, not just part or most of it!

muso wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 5:32pm:



Maybe he should sack some science advisors.

New solar threat to networks – death spiral for gas

By Giles Parkinson on 10 February 2014

Australia’s energy utilities have added a new element to their push for solar incentive schemes to be removed, arguing that gas networks now face the same threat as the nation’s network of poles and wires – a “death spiral” scenario where rising costs push consumers to consider other technologies.

The Energy Network Association – which represents the distribution and transmission networks in the electricity and gas markets – has called on the federal government to remove the small-scale renewable energy scheme, which provides certificates for rooftop solar PV, and solar hot water systems, as well as heat pumps.

“To reduce pressure on electricity prices, we should stop subsidising technologies that don’t need it,” ENA CEO John Bradley said in a media statement accompanying its submission to the Energy White Paper. “Solar PV technology is now well established and is forecast to undergo significant growth without further subsidies.”

Bradley also said gas hot water systems – which provide significant emission reductions compared to the 4 million electric water heaters still in the market – are competing against subsidised heat pumps and solar hot water systems in distorted appliance markets.

The push to remove subsidies for solar comes as the ENA takes stock of the potential impact of the soaring gas prices that will be caused by the coal seam gas and LNG booms in eastern Australia.

It warns that the cost of wholesale gas supply will likely “significantly affect” residential customers through higher retail gas prices. But, if customers reduce gas consumption by looking at other technologies, then this could force even greater rises in gas prices because “infrastructure costs would have to be recouped over a smaller customer base.”
shutter gas

In effect, the gas industry is facing the same problem as the electricity industry, where rising prices are causing consumers to look at other options, forcing networks to try to recoup the cost of investment from falling volumes.

The ENA wants the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES) – which provides certificates for solar hot water and solar PV modules – removed. And it says the Million Solar Roofs program could increase those market distortions. As RenewEcoomy reported last year, there is considerable doubt about how the Solar Roofs program will be implemented, or what funding will finally be allocated.

If the solar schemes are not removed, then the ENA wants the SRES and other schemes extended to gas appliances, as well as solar hot water and heat pumps.

The submission comes as the gas industry grapples with rising fuel costs that is pushing generation out of the market, and flowing through to consumer bills. Last week, Stanwell Corp said it would close its biggest gas generator, Swanbank, because it was now too expensive to operate, and instead sell gas to the LNG producers.

Stanwell has blamed rooftop solar for rendering its 4,000MW of coal and gas-fired generators profitless in the last financial year. Meanwhile, the Queensland Competition Authority has flagged the first price rises from the gas boom, predicting it would be the biggest single factor in rising electricity bills in 2014/15.

The ENA is calling for the government to “intervene” and ensure that there are no blockages to gas supply in an effort to keep a lid on costs.

Network operators are caught between protecting their investment and coping with changes to fuel and delivery costs, and new technologies. The ENA recognises that the industry is going through fundamental change.

It was interesting, however, to note how the ENA responded to the CSIRO’s fascinating Future Grid report, which canvassed four scenarios for networks and consumers into the future.

One of them was ‘set and forget”, or business as usual, which can be discarded because it is improbable. Another was the “high renewables” scenario, which might be attractive but unlikely with the current government in place.

The other two scenarios predicted massive change, particularly through on-site generation and distributed energy. If the networks failed to embrace this, up to one-third of consumers may leave the grid in frustration. If the networks did respond, and embraced new technologies and business models, then “prosumers” could be providing nearly half of all generation on-site. Either scenario has major implications for incumbent industries.

[continued ...]