T
terryc
Guest
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:29:32 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
But are instead paid/funded by the global warming industry.
K
KR
Guest
On Sep 8, 3:08 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
Bingo !
Bingo !
T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
terryc wrote:
noted. I accept your acknowledgement that I am correct. However, I will
address you point, since it is an oft-cited misconception used by fossil
fuel apologists, morons and religious nutters.
* IF Australia moved to renewable energy sources and/or zero CO2
emission technologies for power generation, then very little would need
to change in our non-personal transportation requirements.
* IF Australians were encouraged to switch to modern, inverter style air
conditioners, then our electricity demands would plummet. My own
experience bears this out. In the middle of Winter I used a 2kW radiant
heater for about 6 hours per day to heat my workshop. I now use a 620
Watt, inverter style air conditioner for around 2 hours per day to
accomplish the same task.
* IF governments (notably the utterly useless NSW government) poured
more resources into public transport systems, then far less oil would be
consumed via the use of automobiles.
* IF more resources were poured into railway systems, then long distance
trucking could be dramatically reduced, leading to far fewer accidents,
raod repairs and oil needs.
* IF dramatic changes were made to recycling and taxation, then wasteful
packaging could be reduced dramatically.
* Low energy alternatives to concrete are available right now.
None of the above requires dramatic changes to the way we live, yet
would reduce our carbon footprint significantly.
Or do you
responsible government would make the change gradual, rather than
ignoring it.
Trevor Wilson
**Your refusal to answer my question and your constant snipping is duly
noted. I accept your acknowledgement that I am correct. However, I will
address you point, since it is an oft-cited misconception used by fossil
fuel apologists, morons and religious nutters.
* IF Australia moved to renewable energy sources and/or zero CO2
emission technologies for power generation, then very little would need
to change in our non-personal transportation requirements.
* IF Australians were encouraged to switch to modern, inverter style air
conditioners, then our electricity demands would plummet. My own
experience bears this out. In the middle of Winter I used a 2kW radiant
heater for about 6 hours per day to heat my workshop. I now use a 620
Watt, inverter style air conditioner for around 2 hours per day to
accomplish the same task.
* IF governments (notably the utterly useless NSW government) poured
more resources into public transport systems, then far less oil would be
consumed via the use of automobiles.
* IF more resources were poured into railway systems, then long distance
trucking could be dramatically reduced, leading to far fewer accidents,
raod repairs and oil needs.
* IF dramatic changes were made to recycling and taxation, then wasteful
packaging could be reduced dramatically.
* Low energy alternatives to concrete are available right now.
None of the above requires dramatic changes to the way we live, yet
would reduce our carbon footprint significantly.
**The entire planet faces the same problem. The entire planet must act.
**Why? Be precise in your answer.
Or do you
**You need to explain your claim, before I can answer your question.
**Of course. Coal miners will suffer. It's just a matter of time. A
responsible government would make the change gradual, rather than
ignoring it.
Trevor Wilson
T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
terryc wrote:
ANY scientist who is in the employ of a fossil fuel industry can be
ignored.
ANY scientist who is in the employ of a renewable energy company can be
ignored.
Those scientists who are employed by organisations such as the CSIRO,
NASA, EPA, IPCC are objective and should be listened to.
Trevor Wilson
**Are they? Got any proof of that? Let me expand on that point:
ANY scientist who is in the employ of a fossil fuel industry can be
ignored.
ANY scientist who is in the employ of a renewable energy company can be
ignored.
Those scientists who are employed by organisations such as the CSIRO,
NASA, EPA, IPCC are objective and should be listened to.
Trevor Wilson
T
terryc
Guest
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:00:56 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Real scientific huh?
will have a wonderful, highly paid career.
Where do you think they get their funds from?
on other countries?
In any case, any EPA just enforces a set of laws decided by politicians.
Real scientific huh?
with them can pump global warming scare for all they are worth, then they
will have a wonderful, highly paid career.
Self contradiction noted.
T
terryc
Guest
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:56:54 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
ships to run off these renewable energy sources. Big IF.
"right". Where your assumption falls down is that not everyone has air
conditioning, and that all those that do, still have old style power
units.
would all need to use less heating.
OTOH, I also used less than half the normal heating fuel here this year,
only 3 ton of wood compared to 8 normally.
where is that renewable energy going to be obtained from?
ATO is pretty good at minimal packaging on the stuff they send you,
although we usually have to make three request to get all the forms we
need.
produce than standard concrete, then they would be cheaper and thus more
widely adopted.
And you are saying that everyone in the world could rise to our standard
of living are you?
going to benefit equally by acting.
your solutions. Look very deeply at them. Look at all the components and
work it out. Only when you crumble your church of carbon green wash, will
you see the message.
tales is amply demonstrated below.
I am really curious as to how you are going to convert all trucks, and
ships to run off these renewable energy sources. Big IF.
Aah, the guilt trip and why you continually demand absolution of being
"right". Where your assumption falls down is that not everyone has air
conditioning, and that all those that do, still have old style power
units.
Well, it stands to reason, if you are right about global warming, then we
would all need to use less heating.
OTOH, I also used less than half the normal heating fuel here this year,
only 3 ton of wood compared to 8 normally.
And the buses are all going to run on what renewable energy exactly?
where is that renewable energy going to be obtained from?
What exactly does this feel good statement mean?
ATO is pretty good at minimal packaging on the stuff they send you,
although we usually have to make three request to get all the forms we
need.
Then why are they not being adopted now? If they require lower energy to
produce than standard concrete, then they would be cheaper and thus more
widely adopted.
Lots of highly unlikely IFs
And you are saying that everyone in the world could rise to our standard
of living are you?
Why? Your posts below make it very clear that the entire world is not
going to benefit equally by acting.
You work it out, because you will not accept my word. Look exactly at
your solutions. Look very deeply at them. Look at all the components and
work it out. Only when you crumble your church of carbon green wash, will
you see the message.
T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
terryc wrote:
OTOH, simply snip questions and comments you cannot deal with.
questions. By snipping them, you avoided them. Therefore, I accept your
admission that I am correct.
as you feel necessary. Perhaps you will read what is written. Or, more
likely, you won't. You'll probably just snip it. With renewable energy
sources, Australians will barely need to alter their daily POWER NEEDS
at all. Transport needs are different and I deal with them elsewhere.
Modern, quality air conditioning is far more efficient than resistive
heating and even gas heating systems (as regards CO2 emissions).
variances will, of course, be minor.
not be.
use electricity, which can, in turn, be generated by renewable energy
sources. Buses can and are run on natural gas, which has a much lower
CO2 footprint than oil. Although bio-Diesel is a possibility,
personally, I find the idea of great concern, given the cost of growing
food.
Wind
Geothermal
Hydro
Tidal
Et al.
in the case of plastics, a carbon cost.
quite some time) an effective and paperless electronic system for
dealing with all taxation issues. Well, all MY taxation issues anyway. I
am confident that this would apply to at least 99% of all Australians.
Everything I need to know is available on line.
If they require lower energy to
present systems. Eventually, that will probably change. As energy costs
rise, then the advantages of a lower energy concrete manufacturing
system will be more competitive.
eaters. 6 Billion vegetarians, yes. Meat is an exceptionally
innefficient way to support nuitritional needs (on a planetary scale).
should not have to repeat myself.
Your posts below make it very clear that the entire world is not
duly noted.
Look exactly at
**Lack of response duly noted. Inability to provide a precise answer
duly noted.
Trevor Wilson
**I provided some credible examples of what can and is being done. You,
OTOH, simply snip questions and comments you cannot deal with.
**Yes, you did. Otherwise, you would have dealt with those comments and
questions. By snipping them, you avoided them. Therefore, I accept your
admission that I am correct.
**POWER GENERATION, POWER GENERATION, POWER GENERATION. Repeat as often
as you feel necessary. Perhaps you will read what is written. Or, more
likely, you won't. You'll probably just snip it. With renewable energy
sources, Australians will barely need to alter their daily POWER NEEDS
at all. Transport needs are different and I deal with them elsewhere.
**Read what I wrote. Pay particular attention to the word: "encourage".
Modern, quality air conditioning is far more efficient than resistive
heating and even gas heating systems (as regards CO2 emissions).
**Indeed. Over time, that will certainly be the case. Year to year
variances will, of course, be minor.
**Of course. It has been a record warm Winter this year. Next yer may
not be.
**There are other transport systems than buses. Some of those systems
use electricity, which can, in turn, be generated by renewable energy
sources. Buses can and are run on natural gas, which has a much lower
CO2 footprint than oil. Although bio-Diesel is a possibility,
personally, I find the idea of great concern, given the cost of growing
food.
**Solar
Wind
Geothermal
Hydro
Tidal
Et al.
**Exactly what it says. Excessive packaging invloves an energy cost and,
in the case of plastics, a carbon cost.
**You need to move into the noughties. The ATO has (and has had for
quite some time) an effective and paperless electronic system for
dealing with all taxation issues. Well, all MY taxation issues anyway. I
am confident that this would apply to at least 99% of all Australians.
Everything I need to know is available on line.
**They are.
If they require lower energy to
**Not necessarily. Economies of scale prevent costs from equalling the
present systems. Eventually, that will probably change. As energy costs
rise, then the advantages of a lower energy concrete manufacturing
system will be more competitive.
**Unlikely. There is insufficient land area to support 6 billion+ meat
eaters. 6 Billion vegetarians, yes. Meat is an exceptionally
innefficient way to support nuitritional needs (on a planetary scale).
**The entire planet faces the same problem. Read my words in future. I
should not have to repeat myself.
Your posts below make it very clear that the entire world is not
**The entire planet will SUFFER by not acting in concert.
**Lack of response duly noted. Inability to provide a precise answer
duly noted.
Look exactly at
**Lack of response duly noted. Inability to provide a precise answer
duly noted.
Trevor Wilson
T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
terryc wrote:
being governed by that famously climate change denying bunch of idiots,
known as the Liberal Party, headed by Australia's most famous climate
change sceptic, John Howard, the CSIRO was one of the foremost
investigators into climate change. This, despite the fact that the man
who 'signed the paycheques' denied climate change right up 'till the day
he was booted out of office.
notorious climate change sceptic the planet has ever seen - The moronic,
religious nutter, who vigorously and unswervingly supported big oil -
One George W Bush. NASA, like CSIRO was at the forefront of climate
change research and has been issuing warnings for many years about
climate change. Yet, NASA'sa paycheques were signed by Dubya.
yers, despite being totally owned by the US government. Including when
it was owned and operated by Dubya and his cronies.
of climate change, whilst George W Bush and his Republican cronies were
denying climate change.
coal industry) which was set up to examine climate change.
If the people associated
the executives) of Exxon, BHP, Shell Oil and a whole host of others?
Please cite your evidence of their pay packets to justify your claim.
(Big snip expected right here)
Trevor Wilson
**Nope. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
**The government (taxpayer). Most significantly, when Australia was
being governed by that famously climate change denying bunch of idiots,
known as the Liberal Party, headed by Australia's most famous climate
change sceptic, John Howard, the CSIRO was one of the foremost
investigators into climate change. This, despite the fact that the man
who 'signed the paycheques' denied climate change right up 'till the day
he was booted out of office.
**NASA. The same organisation that was owned and operated by the most
notorious climate change sceptic the planet has ever seen - The moronic,
religious nutter, who vigorously and unswervingly supported big oil -
One George W Bush. NASA, like CSIRO was at the forefront of climate
change research and has been issuing warnings for many years about
climate change. Yet, NASA'sa paycheques were signed by Dubya.
**The US EPA. The US EPA has been warning of climate change for many
yers, despite being totally owned by the US government. Including when
it was owned and operated by Dubya and his cronies.
**You'd think, but the EPA acts independently. It was issuing warnings
of climate change, whilst George W Bush and his Republican cronies were
denying climate change.
**Not quite. It is a non-profit organisation (unlike big oil and the
coal industry) which was set up to examine climate change.
If the people associated
**Really? Will they be paid as much as (say) the CEO (or even most of
the executives) of Exxon, BHP, Shell Oil and a whole host of others?
Please cite your evidence of their pay packets to justify your claim.
(Big snip expected right here)
**Not at all. They're scientists. They report on the science. Not the spin.
Trevor Wilson
M
Mr.T
Guest
"APR" <I_Don't_Want@Spam.com> wrote in message
news:4aa4f5e5$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
seating position, and your ceiling is a dark color, then I would agree with
you.
For normal room lighting however, fluoro tubes are hard to beat.
MrT.
news:4aa4f5e5$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Which I *don't* want, and why I hate recessed halogens!
That's why you normally paint the ceilings white.
Measureable sure, but not highly significant.
I doubt that is significant, if at all. Do you have figures?
Certainly not IME, but if you specifically want a light for above a fixed
seating position, and your ceiling is a dark color, then I would agree with
you.
For normal room lighting however, fluoro tubes are hard to beat.
MrT.
A
APR
Guest
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7glifmF2p47o4U3@mid.individual.net...
doing. It is obvious that those who cannot see the realism of the other side
in informed discussion, ie, don't have an open mind but must resort to name
calling and derogatory characterisations, either have an agenda (global
warming apologists) or are the religious nutters or morons.
referenced "scientists" as religious nutters, fossil fuel apologists and
morons.
You are not dealing with facts, you are dealing with opinions however well
intentioned they may be. They are opinions based upon an interpretation of
data which is not at all well understood. For you to be pushing these
opinions as fact is deceitful and aligns with the subterfuge of the global
warming apologists
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/GACV32No1Veizer.pdf
Then read this one..
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/World%20cooling%20has%20set-in%20warns%20astrophysicist.pdf
(must be another of the religious nutters, fossil fuel apologists and
morons.)
It is noted that the scientific community is DIVIDED on the cause of global
warming, however, the proponents of global warming are still in the process
of making conflicting statements. It has been insightful how what was a
possability a few years ago is now fact, with in many instances the basis
for these facts being the same data used several years ago. It is intiguing
how much of the data that doesn't support the global warming apologists
argument has been ignored by the apologists or the researchers/authors of
the data have been discredited by the apologists. Says a lot for the ethics
of these people and really gives creditability to their arguments.
news:7glifmF2p47o4U3@mid.individual.net...
I am placing my faith in those who don't behave fanatically as you are
doing. It is obvious that those who cannot see the realism of the other side
in informed discussion, ie, don't have an open mind but must resort to name
calling and derogatory characterisations, either have an agenda (global
warming apologists) or are the religious nutters or morons.
referenced literature. I figure you will tag this fellow as well as the
referenced "scientists" as religious nutters, fossil fuel apologists and
morons.
You are not dealing with facts, you are dealing with opinions however well
intentioned they may be. They are opinions based upon an interpretation of
data which is not at all well understood. For you to be pushing these
opinions as fact is deceitful and aligns with the subterfuge of the global
warming apologists
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/GACV32No1Veizer.pdf
Then read this one..
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/World%20cooling%20has%20set-in%20warns%20astrophysicist.pdf
(must be another of the religious nutters, fossil fuel apologists and
morons.)
It is noted that the scientific community is DIVIDED on the cause of global
warming, however, the proponents of global warming are still in the process
of making conflicting statements. It has been insightful how what was a
possability a few years ago is now fact, with in many instances the basis
for these facts being the same data used several years ago. It is intiguing
how much of the data that doesn't support the global warming apologists
argument has been ignored by the apologists or the researchers/authors of
the data have been discredited by the apologists. Says a lot for the ethics
of these people and really gives creditability to their arguments.
T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
"APR" <I_Don't_Want@Spam.com> wrote in message
news:4aa72866$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
fossil fuel apologists, who promote lies in place of science. You should
certainly not bother with what I say. Just look at the science and forget
the religius mumbo jumbo and lies promulgated by the deniers.
It is obvious that those who cannot see the realism of the other side
unscientific nonsense being promulgated as fact. From no warming trend to
CO2 doesn't cause warming to zero sea level rise nonsense)? Please be
precise in your answer. What nonsense are you referring to?
ie, don't have an open mind but must resort to name
diversions.
wrong. Do I need to read the whole lot and inform you of every lie, mistake
and just plain bullshit I read? Really? Do you find the first 6 lines
credible, when they are blatantly false? The IPCC SPECIFICALLY mentions
water vapour and it's effect as a GHG. Therefore, the very first words are
lies.
Solar radiation variations have been taken into account. Of the 0.6oC rise
in global temperature, approximately 0.1oC is caused by Solar radiation
variation. None of this is news.
matter. There are a pitifully tiny number of religious nutters, morons and
fossil fuel apologists who question the climatologists. The division is
around 10:1, in favour of AGW. Hardly "divided".
however, the proponents of global warming are still in the process
continuing evolution of the data collection, there will different statements
regarding possible outcomes. That is entirely reasonable. The vast majority
of climatologists, however, are in agreement with one fact: That AGW is
real.
It has been insightful how what was a
as fact, science can see through such silliness.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
news:4aa72866$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
**That is your right. I am railing against the religious nutters, morons and
fossil fuel apologists, who promote lies in place of science. You should
certainly not bother with what I say. Just look at the science and forget
the religius mumbo jumbo and lies promulgated by the deniers.
It is obvious that those who cannot see the realism of the other side
**Other side? What side would that be (I am aware of a whole range of
unscientific nonsense being promulgated as fact. From no warming trend to
CO2 doesn't cause warming to zero sea level rise nonsense)? Please be
precise in your answer. What nonsense are you referring to?
ie, don't have an open mind but must resort to name
**I call it the way it is. Science is king. Religion and lies are just
diversions.
**The first paragraph is a lie. In fact, the first 6 liinesd are flat out
wrong. Do I need to read the whole lot and inform you of every lie, mistake
and just plain bullshit I read? Really? Do you find the first 6 lines
credible, when they are blatantly false? The IPCC SPECIFICALLY mentions
water vapour and it's effect as a GHG. Therefore, the very first words are
lies.
**I choose morons. Sheesh! This stuff has been covered by the IPCC reports.
Solar radiation variations have been taken into account. Of the 0.6oC rise
in global temperature, approximately 0.1oC is caused by Solar radiation
variation. None of this is news.
**No, it is not. The scientific community speaks with one voice on the
matter. There are a pitifully tiny number of religious nutters, morons and
fossil fuel apologists who question the climatologists. The division is
around 10:1, in favour of AGW. Hardly "divided".
however, the proponents of global warming are still in the process
**Hardly conflicting. Given the imperfection of the science and the
continuing evolution of the data collection, there will different statements
regarding possible outcomes. That is entirely reasonable. The vast majority
of climatologists, however, are in agreement with one fact: That AGW is
real.
It has been insightful how what was a
**There is no such "data". Despite attempts to present religious viewpoints
as fact, science can see through such silliness.
**Religious arguments will always be ignored by science. Rightfully so.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
A
APR
Guest
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4aa7190c$0$1785$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
paint/enamel
figures, does have some interesting info though. (is a few years old)
http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/NLPIP/lightinganswers/pdf/view/LAT8.pdf
Has been replaced by a later article that quotes higher efficacy.
http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/NLPIP/lightingAnswers/t8/abstract.asp
news:4aa7190c$0$1785$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Very few fluro fittings have an efficient reflector, often just white
paint/enamel
Here is an article that while it talks about these issues it doesn't quote
figures, does have some interesting info though. (is a few years old)
http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/NLPIP/lightinganswers/pdf/view/LAT8.pdf
Has been replaced by a later article that quotes higher efficacy.
http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/NLPIP/lightingAnswers/t8/abstract.asp
A
APR
Guest
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7gop38F2qk233U1@mid.individual.net...
are now.
news:7gop38F2qk233U1@mid.individual.net...
caused the previous rises in earth's temp of several degree above where we
are now.
T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
"APR" <I_Don't_Want@Spam.com> wrote in message
news:4aa73b58$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
link prior temperature rises to the present one (which is KNOWN to be
largely caused by CO2) is intellectual dishonesty. It is typical of those
religious nutters.
BTW: Have you actually read the IPCC reports?
No need to answer. I know you have not. You have a closed mind. I actually
read the dodgy sites you directed me to (and many others), yet you refuse to
read the most important and far-reaching report on climate change. That
tells me pretty much all I need to know about you.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
news:4aa73b58$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
**I have no idea. They are not relevant to the present rise. Attempting to
link prior temperature rises to the present one (which is KNOWN to be
largely caused by CO2) is intellectual dishonesty. It is typical of those
religious nutters.
BTW: Have you actually read the IPCC reports?
No need to answer. I know you have not. You have a closed mind. I actually
read the dodgy sites you directed me to (and many others), yet you refuse to
read the most important and far-reaching report on climate change. That
tells me pretty much all I need to know about you.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
M
Mr.T
Guest
"APR" <I_Don't_Want@Spam.com> wrote in message
news:4aa738ed$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
efficient and cost effective than most alternatives for *room* lighting.
Not so great IF you prefer concentrated hotspots though. You could add
mirrors and lenses I guess
MrT.
news:4aa738ed$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Which is not really that bad at all coupled with a white ceiling. Still more
efficient and cost effective than most alternatives for *room* lighting.
Not so great IF you prefer concentrated hotspots though. You could add
mirrors and lenses I guess
MrT.
M
Mr.T
Guest
"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:h87g5a$958$2@news.eternal-september.org...
have been forced towards larger cost recovery measures through user
payments, IP licensing etc.
MrT.
news:h87g5a$958$2@news.eternal-september.org...
Once upon a time the vast majority did. Like many other similar bodies they
have been forced towards larger cost recovery measures through user
payments, IP licensing etc.
MrT.
T
terryc
Guest
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:56:56 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Theoretical solutions? Yes.
Practical now? Definitely not.
Economical now? No.
Economical in the future? don't hold your breath.
mantras is the admission of your lack of faith in your solutions.
front that all non-personal transport s going to continue to run on
fossil fuels?
Hint, each requires certain population densities.
Your suggestions are not credible unless you explain how the current
situation is going to evolve to your proposal. e.g Sydney is not going to
dump all its buses and bring back electric trams.
have no practical renewable energy system for what is the Australian
requirement?
working hens teeth are more common.
Three decades of PV has been been (almost all) been bean-sprout hippies
or wanker show offs looking for attention. It is extremely rare to find a
long term PV installation that doesn't fall back to fossil fuels. Also
extremely rare is installations that do not cut corners; e.g. the one
that uses used submarine batteries I saw recently.
Individual PV works if you shift all energy intensive demands to other
fuel; NG/LPG, wood, etc and it is just simple an abode and nothing else.
Any sensible PV installation has a fossil fuel backup system, aka a
generator running on petroleum derivative.
Mass PV (aka solar rebate) installation may help with peak cooling
demands, but do bugger all for heating, industrial and baseload.
As to other forms, are there any baseload solar power stations? AFAIK,
that requires technological development.
expensive and major installations. Not a viable small scale installation
solution.
Still intrigued about where the water is going to come from for the one
in the middle of Australia. AFAIK, if it does work, it will only service
a few towns in central Australia anyway.
How many fault free hot rock zones are there in Australia?
(peak supply only) is currently propped up by base load coal power(pump
it back up overnight).
Natural site are extremely rare and once harnessed do not live up to
expectation apart from the fact that they don't work for about 25% of the
time.
Then there is the engineering requirements and nature has this
interesting way of demonstrating who is the boss.
Nuclear ain't it either. Has that double whammy of radioactive waste
lasting longer than the total time of human civilisation and the
humongous construction, operation and clean up costs.
Concrete consists of cement, sand and gravel and it is made in batches
for the job at hand.
What you are not saying is that the alternatives are basically
manufactured "concrete based products" to replace concrete in certain
situations. All the examples I could find were all concrete derivative
products, i.e. by substituting a certain material for part of the cement
and/or part of the sand or gravel, you can produce a concrete replacement
product. Sadly, most of them are desperate attempts to reduce waste
disposal problems from industrial processes.
They are highly unlikely to achieve economy of scale because they have
restricted/expensive source material and/or require expensive machinery.
Or, there is not sufficient local demand for the product they produce.
I am sure there is a majority of countries that have been invaded,
exploited, bombed, and otherwise treated similarly that are thinking
"what do I have to loose?" and now they are thinking "how much is the
advanced world prepared to pay for our co-operation?"
Hint, some of these don't give a toss about trade sanctions. They have
had "trade sanctions" for decades.
So get over any idea that the whole planet is going to act together. The
guy in the mud hut with one incandescent light globe is not going to turn
it off to save your comfortable life style. Nor are all those chinese/
indian peasants wanting a first or second light globe going to cut back
on their electricty demands from new coal fired power stations.
As far as I'm concerned;
1) Climate change cycles are real. The planet does what it does.
2) I am not convinced the temperature changes are anything but part of
natural weather cycles.
3) The natural world isn't the biggest threat to my well being and
existence.
4) If some humans are threatening their own survival, then they need to
change or suffer the consequences.
5) "global warming" solutions are a gigantic con and are about the
government and business ripping me off.
Credible? No.
Theoretical solutions? Yes.
Practical now? Definitely not.
Economical now? No.
Economical in the future? don't hold your breath.
No, I simply ignore green religion stuff. Your continual retreat to green
mantras is the admission of your lack of faith in your solutions.
Well, that is what I asked you and you ignored it. Why can you not say up
front that all non-personal transport s going to continue to run on
fossil fuels?
Single issue comparisons/solutions are rarely satisfactory.
And you are proposing which exactly?
Hint, each requires certain population densities.
Your suggestions are not credible unless you explain how the current
situation is going to evolve to your proposal. e.g Sydney is not going to
dump all its buses and bring back electric trams.
So you are not proposing a renewable energy system for buses and thus
have no practical renewable energy system for what is the Australian
requirement?
It is not just that it will put up the cost of food. Hint water.
In the future, it requires very efficient energy storage systems and
working hens teeth are more common.
Three decades of PV has been been (almost all) been bean-sprout hippies
or wanker show offs looking for attention. It is extremely rare to find a
long term PV installation that doesn't fall back to fossil fuels. Also
extremely rare is installations that do not cut corners; e.g. the one
that uses used submarine batteries I saw recently.
Individual PV works if you shift all energy intensive demands to other
fuel; NG/LPG, wood, etc and it is just simple an abode and nothing else.
Any sensible PV installation has a fossil fuel backup system, aka a
generator running on petroleum derivative.
Mass PV (aka solar rebate) installation may help with peak cooling
demands, but do bugger all for heating, industrial and baseload.
As to other forms, are there any baseload solar power stations? AFAIK,
that requires technological development.
there are very few viable sites available. Most efficent are very
expensive and major installations. Not a viable small scale installation
solution.
places. Is there a significant deep rock example?
Still intrigued about where the water is going to come from for the one
in the middle of Australia. AFAIK, if it does work, it will only service
a few towns in central Australia anyway.
How many fault free hot rock zones are there in Australia?
hydro. In case you are not aware of it, AFAIK, the snowy mountains hydro
(peak supply only) is currently propped up by base load coal power(pump
it back up overnight).
generation has been understood.
Natural site are extremely rare and once harnessed do not live up to
expectation apart from the fact that they don't work for about 25% of the
time.
Then there is the engineering requirements and nature has this
interesting way of demonstrating who is the boss.
Nuclear ain't it either. Has that double whammy of radioactive waste
lasting longer than the total time of human civilisation and the
humongous construction, operation and clean up costs.
Which economies of scale don't exist?
Concrete consists of cement, sand and gravel and it is made in batches
for the job at hand.
What you are not saying is that the alternatives are basically
manufactured "concrete based products" to replace concrete in certain
situations. All the examples I could find were all concrete derivative
products, i.e. by substituting a certain material for part of the cement
and/or part of the sand or gravel, you can produce a concrete replacement
product. Sadly, most of them are desperate attempts to reduce waste
disposal problems from industrial processes.
They are highly unlikely to achieve economy of scale because they have
restricted/expensive source material and/or require expensive machinery.
Or, there is not sufficient local demand for the product they produce.
But will they suffer equally?
I am sure there is a majority of countries that have been invaded,
exploited, bombed, and otherwise treated similarly that are thinking
"what do I have to loose?" and now they are thinking "how much is the
advanced world prepared to pay for our co-operation?"
Hint, some of these don't give a toss about trade sanctions. They have
had "trade sanctions" for decades.
So get over any idea that the whole planet is going to act together. The
guy in the mud hut with one incandescent light globe is not going to turn
it off to save your comfortable life style. Nor are all those chinese/
indian peasants wanting a first or second light globe going to cut back
on their electricty demands from new coal fired power stations.
As far as I'm concerned;
1) Climate change cycles are real. The planet does what it does.
2) I am not convinced the temperature changes are anything but part of
natural weather cycles.
3) The natural world isn't the biggest threat to my well being and
existence.
4) If some humans are threatening their own survival, then they need to
change or suffer the consequences.
5) "global warming" solutions are a gigantic con and are about the
government and business ripping me off.
T
terryc
Guest
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:11:42 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
You seriously think all the funds for the CSIRO come from the taxpayer?
T
terryc
Guest
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:11:14 +1000, APR wrote:
Err, why isn't that efficent?
T
terryc
Guest
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:25:52 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
String theory!