Greenhouse effect and Kyoto

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #26
I have nothing against wind and solar power (though most people feel differently about it when someone wants to put a few hundred wind turbines near their house). However, even with further large advances in technology they are unlikely to ever be the main source of power. Even their advocates admit this.

Its the Greens who make stupid statements without backing them up. How can you cut our total energy consumption without effecting economic growth? How can nuclear reactors by gotten rid of without increasing carbon emissions? Its like saying that our party policy is world peace and that everyone should get rid of their nuclear weapons. Muppetry. All whingeing no sensible solutions.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #27
funkyfreo said:
Have a read and learn:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1308300,00.html

Oh no not the Guardian I hear you ask!!
Dont actually read the Guardian, however both the Times and the Torygraph supported Blair for admitting to what was well known ie with oil and gas prices going up and decreasing in supply then nuclear needed to be looked at. Their view of the viability of renewables in the UK was slightly different to that of the Guardians. Given the summer I have just had over here then I would have to sceptical about solar power in the UK for starters.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#28
medusala said:
Dont actually read the Guardian, however both the Times and the Torygraph supported Blair for admitting to what was well known ie with oil and gas prices going up and decreasing in supply then nuclear needed to be looked at. Their view of the viability of renewables in the UK was slightly different to that of the Guardians. Given the summer I have just had over here then I would have to sceptical about solar power in the UK for starters.
But look at the size of the offshore windfarms developing in the UK then.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#29
medusala said:
I have nothing against wind and solar power (though most people feel differently about it when someone wants to put a few hundred wind turbines near their house). However, even with further large advances in technology they are unlikely to ever be the main source of power. Even their advocates admit this.

Its the Greens who make stupid statements without backing them up. How can you cut our total energy consumption without effecting economic growth? How can nuclear reactors by gotten rid of without increasing carbon emissions? Its like saying that our party policy is world peace and that everyone should get rid of their nuclear weapons. Muppetry. All whingeing no sensible solutions.
Medders, It is possible to have a greener garden by using less water. Just apply the same. Expensive energy is a fact of the future, and if you think we are too stupid to figure out how to make do with less but make more then you have less faith in human inventiveness than you should have.

Your interpretation of Green's policies is laughable, ignorant, and I guess nothing will change that.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #30
I have no doubt that the rate of increase in energy use can be slowed by better conservation methods and I wholeheartedly agree with that aim but its not realistic to have a lower total consumption which is what the greens are calling for.

I actually went on the greens website and looked at their policies. They are out and out communists. Where is my interpretation ignorant and laughable? A couple of greens have actually come out and said that they would be happy to see a lower Australian population and negative economic growth. This is the logical conclusion from their environment/economic policies and one or two of them have been honest enough to admit it. I dont have as much of an issue with these people as at least they are not kidding themselves. Its the people who think we can follow greens policies and have a vibrant economy that are sadly deluding themselves. They my friend are the ignorant ones.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#31
medusala said:
I have no doubt that the rate of increase in energy use can be slowed by better conservation methods and I wholeheartedly agree with that aim but its not realistic to have a lower total consumption which is what the greens are calling for.

I actually went on the greens website and looked at their policies. They are out and out communists. Where is my interpretation ignorant and laughable? A couple of greens have actually come out and said that they would be happy to see a lower Australian population and negative economic growth. This is the logical conclusion from their environment/economic policies and one or two of them have been honest enough to admit it. I dont have as much of an issue with these people as at least they are not kidding themselves. Its the people who think we can follow greens policies and have a vibrant economy that are sadly deluding themselves. They my friend are the ignorant ones.
Sadly, there are AUstralians for Zero Population Growth nutters in all political areas. I'll admit they are around the Greens just as they are in other parties. And don;t ylou worry I argue with them too.

Out and Out Liberal policies would drive the country to ruin, as would 100% old skool Labor. The Greens, just like the major parties, are a pragmatic bunch and I can honestly say their activities in the Senate Federally and in WA have been of great benefit to Australia.

YOu arguments are old, narrow minded and boring. I'm bored of this thread. I'll keep working for the betterment of Australia's environment, and you can sit in London and whinge all you like.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #32
funkyfreo said:
Sadly, there are AUstralians for Zero Population Growth nutters in all political areas. I'll admit they are around the Greens just as they are in other parties. And don;t ylou worry I argue with them too.

Out and Out Liberal policies would drive the country to ruin, as would 100% old skool Labor. The Greens, just like the major parties, are a pragmatic bunch and I can honestly say their activities in the Senate Federally and in WA have been of great benefit to Australia.

YOu arguments are old, narrow minded and boring. I'm bored of this thread. I'll keep working for the betterment of Australia's environment, and you can sit in London and whinge all you like.
I am not whingeing, merely pointing out that the Greens are idiots. My arguments are based on fact and reasoning. I have pointed out why the greens arguments do not make sense. I would hardly call them pragmatic ie calling for all nuclear reactors to be shut down and for Australia to have negative power output is hardly pragmatic. Not sure about WA but I can tell you the greens were an unmitigated disaster in Tasmania and I cant really see what they have achieved in the senate? Well bugger all actually because when was the last time they amended a bill to go through? Its always the democrats. There are a heap of environment issues they greens could campaign on more forcefully ie ethanol, salination, plastic bags, cats, brumbies in the snowy mountains etc etc. All they do is go on about Iraq, trees and "social justice". Makes you wonder whether they really do care about the environment. No wonder there isnt a communist party left in Australia, we dont need one.
 

Tim56

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 30, 2003
Posts
3,195
Likes
6
Location
On the fine line between
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne
#33
funkyfreo said:
The Greens, just like the major parties, are a pragmatic bunch and I can honestly say their activities in the Senate Federally and in WA have been of great benefit to Australia.
Would you care to specify some of the benefits the Greens have got by negotiating on legislation in a constructive manner, or any other benefits?
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#34
Just thought I'd pop this up, from ABC website:

Energy efficiency requirement proposed for ACT
The ACT Liberal Party has proposed introducing a mandatory five star energy efficiency requirement for all new homes.

The Liberal Party today released its energy and greenhouse policy, targeting a 25 per cent cut in electricity consumption within 10 years.

Environment spokesperson Vicki Dunne say measures such as compulsory solar water heating will add to the cost of a new home, but will save money in the long run.

"The introduction of the energy rating might add a $1,000 or $2,000 to a $200,000 house and also solar hot water systems will add some cost to the outlay for building a house in the first instance," she said.

"But those costs will be redeemed by cheaper running costs for your house."

My goodness - 25% reduction in energy use!!! Those crazy libs are going to DERAIL the economy!!!!
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#36
I don't have a news clip, but suffice to say that Arnie has decided to "Terminate" the US auto industry by supporting law reform in California to reduce auto fuel consumption. The Car industry is whinging, but the bills have the support of the North East too so a massive proportion of the US new car industry.

Who the hell let this radical lefty socialist be in charge.

Oh no hang on he is a republican hand picked by Bush???

Wow - Republicans supporting energy efficiency because the gains are more than the costs?? Are they nuclear powered cars or something?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#37
ABC news: Will have to brush up but I think we get included under Kyoto even if we DON"T ratify - because Russia takes it over the required % of global emissions??

Russia expected to move to ratifying Kyoto
The Russian Government is today expected to approve a new law which would ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

The treaty aims to cut emissions of greenhouse gases and prevent global warming.

If Russia ratifies the treaty could come into force within months.

There have been mixed messages from the Russian Government for years over the Kyoto Protocol but it now appears likely that the country will sign up.

Russia's ratification would give the treaty the global authority it needs to come into force, Russia has been left with the deciding vote, when the United States pulled out three years ago.

The Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a hint of his intentions in May, when he said Russia would move towards ratifying the protocol and in the past couple of weeks Government ministries have signed off on the treaty.

But there is still strong opposition to ratification from within the President's circle, his top economic advisor says it will damage the Russian economy.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Posts
13,342
Likes
5,187
Location
Location!
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
pivotonians
Admin #38
funkyfreo said:
ABC news: Will have to brush up but I think we get included under Kyoto even if we DON"T ratify - because Russia takes it over the required % of global emissions??
Nope we still have to ratify it before it affects us. Kyoto doesn't come into force until a minimum percent actually ratify it. But it has no compunction on countries not ratifying it. Which means we continue to sit back and pollute the world while everyone else cleans up our mess, and there isn't a thing they can do to stop us. [evil maniacal laugh] ha ha ha ha ha[/evil maniacal laugh]
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#39
Sorry to keep dragging this thread back up from the depths. But look at this, a station owner in NT Gulf country - who would have thought he would be a radical greenie!!! The Nats better watch out!!! Just think how many such generators are out there just waiting for solar the super dud to replace them.

ABC website: Fuel price prompts power rethink in outback
The owner of a remote fuel station in the Gulf country of the Northern Territory says people in remote areas should consider installing alternative sources of power to combat a hike in oil prices.

Overnight crude oil prices reached new record levels at more than $US52 a barrel.

Paul Zlozkowski owns Wollogorang Station roadhouse near the Northern Territory-Queensland border where the pump price is now about $1.60 a litre.

He says he has replaced a diesel generator with a solar powered system on his cattle station and has significantly reduced fuel consumption.

Well here at Murranji it's about a litre a day I'm using now, even with a small plant here I would have been using at least a litre an hour so that's an incredible saving.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #40
FF

here in the UK, as you know they have had a big go with offshore wind power. However this has hit a rather big glitch with the turbines causing chaos with the civil aviation authority, ie cant distinguish the massive turbines from planes. The article on it said that this wasnt going to be overcome in a hurry and that it would likely seriously affect the UK's effort to get to 20% non renewables in a hurry.

Re the NT chap, the same thing has happened before in oil crises. Demand dropped and alternative fuels were used. However when/if the price drops again oil is likely to be used again.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Posts
13,342
Likes
5,187
Location
Location!
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
pivotonians
Admin #41
Another interesting article on how economic development needn't be compromised by use of green technologies.

[url="http://money.guardian.co.uk/businessnews/article/0 said:
http://money.guardian.co.uk/businessnews/article/0,11507,1327134,00.html[/url]]
[url="http://money.guardian.co.uk/businessnews/article/0 said:
BT goes green

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Contracts with British Gas and npower see depots, offices and exchanges powered from sustainable resources[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Press Association
Thursday October 14, 2004

[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Telecoms giant BT yesterday announced the world's biggest purchase of "green" electricity in a huge deal that will see virtually all the firm's power needs supplied by environmentally friendly energy.



Under three-year contracts with British Gas and npower worth several hundred million pounds, BT's depots, offices and 6,500 telephone exchanges will be powered mainly from sustainable resources such as wave, solar, wind and hydroelectric schemes.

The deal will save emissions equivalent to the amount of carbon dioxide produced by over 100,000 cars.

The move was welcomed by the government and campaign groups.

Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "The actions of leading companies such as BT are living proof that significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions need not come at the cost of economic growth."

Paul Reynolds, chief executive of BT Wholesale, said: "Energy efficiency is a key element of our purchasing strategy and sustainability is at the heart of our business.

"We are aiming to increase energy efficiency and reduce emissions and we believe we will achieve both aims with these new contracts."

Dr Steve Howard, chief executive of the Climate Group, which campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, said: "BT's initiative is globally significant and sends out a message that the purchase of green electricity is no longer a niche market - it has now gone mainstream. "BT is leading the way in showing that good business, cost savings and protecting the climate all go hand in hand."

BT has been investing in energy efficient plant and equipment and is looking at renewable technology within its buildings. The company said the contract was the biggest ever purchase of green electricity anywhere in the world.
[/font]
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #42
Another quote from the Guardian! What it failed to mention is that the UK govt had just admitted its target for renewables had no chance of being met and that realistically carbon output couldnt be cut to the levels required without more nuclear reactors being built. There was liftout in today's FT here in the UK regarding the subject. One piece gave the opinion that solar was a long term better bet than wind power because the pv cells could be made smaller and smaller and the cost could be reduced significantly but the same couldnt be said for wind as the turbines, blades etc which are necessary dont have the same scope for technological improvement and thus cost savings. Another article said that as certain countries such as china and the US had such large coal reserves (and coal is cheap in comparison even at todays inflated prices) then it was a certainty that those reserves would be used. The scientist thought efforts needed to be directed at making coal far cleaner rather than technologies such as wind which were only ever going to produce a very small % of power anyway.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Posts
13,342
Likes
5,187
Location
Location!
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
pivotonians
Admin #43
Quote from Tony Blair from his recent speech on the subject "We are on track to meet our Kyoto target". So is Blair lying, is he contratradicting himself as you claim?

I'm not really sure you even know what you're arguing for, so it makes kind of hard to rebut? You're comparing green technologies against each other but I don't recall this being a wind v. solar debate. Your saying that China and the US will use their coal reserves, well that was always obvious. Your saying they have the option of using those coal reserves in a 'clean' way. Well great, but will they?
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #44
Jim Boy said:
Quote from Tony Blair from his recent speech on the subject "We are on track to meet our Kyoto target". So is Blair lying, is he contratradicting himself as you claim?

I'm not really sure you even know what you're arguing for, so it makes kind of hard to rebut? You're comparing green technologies against each other but I don't recall this being a wind v. solar debate. Your saying that China and the US will use their coal reserves, well that was always obvious. Your saying they have the option of using those coal reserves in a 'clean' way. Well great, but will they?
That may well have been the same speech that Blair called for more nuclear. I am not saying he is lying but it is commonly accepted that the renewables target here wont be met (obviously not the same things as the Kyoto target). The point is that whilst large numbers of people jump upon wind as the biggest way of increasing renewables, most people within the industry think bigger reductions will be made by using nuclear, carbon filters, switching from oil to gas etc. With fusion, hydrogen etc looking to be so far off it may be worthwhile spending more money on making fossil fuels far cleaner rather than going for the holy grail of fuels with zero carbon emissions (other than nuclear/hyrdo which conservationists dont like). Re china, I cant see them really giving a stuff re coal if the huge dam they built was anything to go by.
 
Top Bottom