[Patrick Turner]

There are piles of ppl who deny global warming is occuring despite the
CO2 from their cars, and from their wife's use of the stove, and their
son's hot-rod, and their daughter's 40 minute showers and their grand
parent's air conditioning etc, etc, etc.

I'll never convince any of them of anything.

But we've had record November temperatures and a very warm winter, and
the latest views from space about melting antarctic ice is a real
worry.
Sea level rise has not been enough yet to alarm anyone because when
floating ice melts there is little rise. But when ice on land masses
melts, then you have direct volume rise in sea levels, and that means
big trouble for coastal infrastructure.

Australia has maybe 40% of ppl who reckon we shouldn't do anything
about the problem because its all bull****, and we didn't cause the
problem, or if we did, we only caused 1% of the problem. Weel, they
are outnumbered by those who think we ought to lead the world even if
the US and China won't. Fence sitting won't fix the problem.

I'd love to see how cheerful Lord Valve becomes when he gets an
electricity bill in 5 years time that is 3 times higher than now, and
he has to pay 3 times for gas and food, and when he finds out the
pension has been attenuated 10dB, and health cost is still high
because Lord issa gettin old. But I am sure he's ready and willing
like millions of others that once they understand the problem, they'll
happily pay to fix it up. Not to mention the new tax to fund the war
in Afghanistan, and to fund weaning the returning soldiers off the
drugs they took while over in Ghan. America is the richest country on
Earth, and reputably the best country, and there ain't nothin' an
american can't do once he gets a move on it. Think of all the money
that was wasted on the Arms Race which could have been spent on
alternative energy research, and getting ppl off carbon, and being
nicer to little brown people in little $10 countries.

It sure is a queer world, now ain't it?

Patrick Turner

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

Well, I'm glad you're HOT, Patrick, because I'm effing freezing. But,
er, aren't you *supposed* to be hot roundabout now, in the summer in
Australia? Jes' askin'. -- AJ

On Nov 25, 1:03*pm, Patrick Turner wrote:
There are piles of ppl who deny global warming is occuring despite the
CO2 from their cars, and from their wife's use of the stove, and their
son's hot-rod, and their daughter's 40 minute showers and their grand
parent's air conditioning etc, etc, etc.

I'll never convince any of them of anything.

But we've had record November temperatures and a very warm winter, and
the latest views from space about melting antarctic ice is a real
worry.
Sea level rise has not been enough yet to alarm anyone because when
floating ice melts there is little rise. But when ice on land masses
melts, then you have direct volume rise in sea levels, and that means
big trouble for coastal infrastructure.

Australia has maybe 40% of ppl who reckon we shouldn't do anything
about the problem because its all bull****, and we didn't cause the
problem, or if we did, we only caused 1% of the problem. Weel, they
are outnumbered by those who think we ought to lead the world even if
the US and China won't. Fence sitting won't fix the problem.

I'd love to see how cheerful Lord Valve becomes when he gets an
electricity bill in 5 years time that is 3 times higher than now, and
he has to pay 3 times for gas and food, and when he finds out the
pension has been attenuated 10dB, and health cost is still high
because Lord issa gettin old. But I am sure he's ready and willing
like millions of others that once they understand the problem, they'll
happily pay to fix it up. Not to mention the new tax to fund the war
in Afghanistan, and to fund weaning the returning soldiers off the
drugs they took while over in Ghan. America is the richest country on
Earth, and reputably the best country, and there ain't nothin' an
american can't do once he gets a move on it. Think of all the money
that was wasted on the Arms Race which could have been spent on
alternative energy research, and getting ppl off carbon, and being
nicer to little brown people in little $10 countries.

It sure is a queer world, now ain't it?

Patrick Turner

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 25, 8:03*am, Patrick Turner wrote:

It sure is a queer world, now ain't it?

Sure is.

Now, Australia may be hotter due to global warming (or not) , and
Andre may be colder due to his thin blood and lack of 'vintage Jack
Daniels' - but it is a fact that the Gulf Stream can (and does on
occasion) shift quickly and with dire consequences for Northern
Europe.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9986 And that
should such a change take place the results will be felt very
quickly.

And the general ocean currents, if they shift, could make what is
happening at present in Australia far worse.

http://whatonearth.olehnielsen.dk/currents.asp
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/fahan_mi...nfohut/acc.htm
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/.../currents.html

Whether this is global warming or a 1000 year 'normal' cycle - the
effects will be the same and all the ranting, whining and puling will
near as make no difference. As to taking action (whether one agrees on
its efficacy or not) can do no harm and might do some good. An
ecological Pascal's Wager if nothing else. Railing against the need is
the functional equivalent of Atheist railing against the existence of
God. Might be true, but effectively futile and so utterly wasteful of
energy and intelligence. As the old expression goes, lead, follow or
get the hell out of the way. Nothing wrong with getting out of the way
and doing nothing. Many things wrong with knee-jerk obstructionism.

As to Valve - and what happens to him, I seriously doubt he has given
it much thought. Putting food on the table day-to-day pretty much
occupies all that his frontal lobes can manage - it ain't nohow an
easy world for purveyors to the fringe. Writing for myself, I do know
we are socking away everything we can, we are tightening down the
house a little bit more each day and we are planning for the future so
that we will still be able to enjoy ourselves when we choose to stop
working. It doesn't take much more than a bit of willpower and a bit
of patience, and careful choices. But cutting our water use to less
than 50 gallons per day on average for 2 people in a fully mechanised
society wasn't hard. Cutting our total energy bill from about $2.00/
square foot of house to about $0.90/square foot for the same comfort
level was initially costly but given the size of the house and the
actual savings the actual payback is under 4 years - faster when the
rate-caps come off in 13 months.

And none of this is particularly related to global warming one way or
the other - just simple "home defense" and protection of our chosen
life-style. That there are positive ecological results is kinda-sorta-
feelgood-nice. But entirely beside the point.

I would not want to be out in the North Atlantic shivering on an
island smaller than Pennsylvania when the gulf-stream shifts. Nor
would I like to be at any shore when the sea level rises. Our summer
house is in the mountains and our main house is comfortably well above
sea-level and away from any major rivers, but both in water-rich
locations. It has stood since 1890, I fully expect to enjoy another
100 years out of it. And while on the feel-good aspect, neither of our
houses were built on farmland, recent or past.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[MarkS]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
There are piles of ppl who deny global warming is occuring despite the
CO2 from their cars, and from their wife's use of the stove, and their
son's hot-rod, and their daughter's 40 minute showers and their grand
parent's air conditioning etc, etc, etc.

I'll never convince any of them of anything.

But we've had record November temperatures and a very warm winter, and
the latest views from space about melting antarctic ice is a real
worry.
Sea level rise has not been enough yet to alarm anyone because when
floating ice melts there is little rise. But when ice on land masses
melts, then you have direct volume rise in sea levels, and that means
big trouble for coastal infrastructure.

Australia has maybe 40% of ppl who reckon we shouldn't do anything
about the problem because its all bull****, and we didn't cause the
problem, or if we did, we only caused 1% of the problem. Weel, they
are outnumbered by those who think we ought to lead the world even if
the US and China won't. Fence sitting won't fix the problem.

I'd love to see how cheerful Lord Valve becomes when he gets an
electricity bill in 5 years time that is 3 times higher than now, and
he has to pay 3 times for gas and food, and when he finds out the
pension has been attenuated 10dB, and health cost is still high
because Lord issa gettin old. But I am sure he's ready and willing
like millions of others that once they understand the problem, they'll
happily pay to fix it up. Not to mention the new tax to fund the war
in Afghanistan, and to fund weaning the returning soldiers off the
drugs they took while over in Ghan. America is the richest country on
Earth, and reputably the best country, and there ain't nothin' an
american can't do once he gets a move on it. Think of all the money
that was wasted on the Arms Race which could have been spent on
alternative energy research, and getting ppl off carbon, and being
nicer to little brown people in little $10 countries.

It sure is a queer world, now ain't it?

Patrick Turner




Must be damn hot down under Patrick; what in the world is going on in the
Sydney Clock Tower these days??!!! 8)

heh heh!

M

[Bret L]

On Nov 25, 7:03*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
There are piles of ppl who deny global warming is occuring despite the
CO2 from their cars, and from their wife's use of the stove, and their
son's hot-rod, and their daughter's 40 minute showers and their grand
parent's air conditioning etc, etc, etc.


If Australia is so concerned they should become the first 100 percent
nuclear power country and stop their contribution to the mess.
Australia is the most nuke-suitable place on earth.

[Trevor Wilson]

Bret L wrote:
On Nov 25, 7:03 am, Patrick Turner wrote:
There are piles of ppl who deny global warming is occuring despite
the CO2 from their cars, and from their wife's use of the stove, and
their son's hot-rod, and their daughter's 40 minute showers and
their grand parent's air conditioning etc, etc, etc.


If Australia is so concerned they should become the first 100 percent
nuclear power country and stop their contribution to the mess.
Australia is the most nuke-suitable place on earth.

**You'd think, except for a couple of things:

* The population is none too happy about nukes.
* Australians know that there is only 100 years' of easily avaiable Uranium
left on the planet, making nukes a short-sighted, short-term solution.
* Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products,
which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time.
* Australia is the best place on the planet for Solar energy.
* Solar energy manufactures no inconvenient by-products.
* Solar power is due to run out in around 4,500,000,000 years.
* Australia is the best place on the planet to generate geo-thermal energy
(aka: hot rock).
* Geo-thermal energy generates minute levels of inconvenient by-products.
* There is sufficient geo-thermal energy easily available to last Australia
more than 100,000 years.
* Whilst the costs of Solar are slightly higher than nukes, geo-thermal is
about the same.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Peter Wieck]

Note the interpolations:

On Nov 27, 7:14*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


**You'd think, except for a couple of things:

* The population is none too happy about nukes.

Mostly because the population is ignorant of the byproducts of burning
coal, damming rivers, burning oil and burning natural gas.

* Australians know that there is only 100 years' of easily avaiable Uranium

Utter codswallops. If the political will existed to install fast-
breeder reactors there is enough fuel already in existence to last
~1,000 years or more at present rates of consumption. Add the 100
years and that doubles. Boiling Water reactors are particularly
inefficient users of nuclear fuel. On the order of 5% of the actual
available enrgy.

left on the planet, making nukes a short-sighted, short-term solution.
* Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products,
which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time.

Yes they do. And there are quite a number of sufficiently stable
locations on the planet to take 100% of what has and will be generated
for the next 2,000 years. _ANY_ underground test site is already
contaminated for the next few thousand years - and the access already
exists to them, and the volume in each location is roughly a sphere of
~500 feet in diameter per test.

* Australia is the best place on the planet for Solar energy.

And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount of
energy they produce. That is the from-mined-to-disposed. It is getting
better - but it will be no better than marginal as compared to any of
the other means-and-methods.

* Solar energy manufactures no inconvenient by-products.

Utter Bullsh*t. More even than the availability of nuclear fuel. Mine
tailings, heavy metals, toxic gases - all quite inconvenient. But also
quite distant (mostly in China these days - the most polluted country
on earth.

* Solar power is due to run out in around 4,500,000,000 years.

See above.

* Australia is the best place on the planet to generate geo-thermal energy
(aka: hot rock).

Sure. And 400% efficient as compared to straight electrical
equivalent. But not for making power unless one has access to
geothermal steam such as Iceland. Thernocouple power generation is
probably 300 -/+ years away as a practical matter.

* Geo-thermal energy generates minute levels of inconvenient by-products.

Actually none other than some very large dirt-piles. But not amenable
to actually making power. Concentrating solar collectors making steam
are more efficient that way.

* There is sufficient geo-thermal energy easily available to last Australia
more than 100,000 years.

Yes. And with present technology and anticipated technology, it is
still net-minus in terms of power requirements. Good for heating and
good for cooling in a 30F range, no more. Do the research.

* Whilst the costs of Solar are slightly higher than nukes, geo-thermal is
about the same.

About the same, but not capable of making power with present
technology unless steam is available. How many actual "hot springs"
does Oz have?


Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Trevor Wilson]

Peter Wieck wrote:
Note the interpolations:

On Nov 27, 7:14 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


**You'd think, except for a couple of things:

* The population is none too happy about nukes.

Mostly because the population is ignorant of the byproducts of burning
coal, damming rivers, burning oil and burning natural gas.

**Mostly because they know that the by-products of a nuke lasts for tens of
thousands of years and no one has a solution for those by-products for
Australia. The US sure doesn't. They've asked if we can take their
by-products from their nukes.


* Australians know that there is only 100 years' of easily avaiable
Uranium

Utter codswallops.

**Nope. Fact.

If the political will existed to install fast-
breeder reactors there is enough fuel already in existence to last
~1,000 years or more at present rates of consumption.

**At what cost?

Add the 100
years and that doubles. Boiling Water reactors are particularly
inefficient users of nuclear fuel. On the order of 5% of the actual
available enrgy.

left on the planet, making nukes a short-sighted, short-term
solution. * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive
by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time.

Yes they do. And there are quite a number of sufficiently stable
locations on the planet to take 100% of what has and will be generated
for the next 2,000 years. _ANY_ underground test site is already
contaminated for the next few thousand years - and the access already
exists to them, and the volume in each location is roughly a sphere of
~500 feet in diameter per test.

* Australia is the best place on the planet for Solar energy.

And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount of
energy they produce.

**Absolute ********. In Australia, the payback period is less than 2 years.
In places like Germany, the payback period is longer - around 4 years. Most
PV cells are good for at least 25 years.

That is the from-mined-to-disposed. It is getting
better - but it will be no better than marginal as compared to any of
the other means-and-methods.

**All very well, except that your figures are complete ********.


* Solar energy manufactures no inconvenient by-products.

Utter Bullsh*t.

**Nup. Fact.

More even than the availability of nuclear fuel. Mine
tailings, heavy metals, toxic gases - all quite inconvenient. But also
quite distant (mostly in China these days - the most polluted country
on earth.

* Solar power is due to run out in around 4,500,000,000 years.

See above.

* Australia is the best place on the planet to generate geo-thermal
energy (aka: hot rock).

Sure. And 400% efficient as compared to straight electrical
equivalent. But not for making power unless one has access to
geothermal steam such as Iceland. Thernocouple power generation is
probably 300 -/+ years away as a practical matter.


**The geo-thermal energy being generated in Australia is in a more or less
conventional thermal power station. In fact, it is very much like a nuke,
without the Uranium.


* Geo-thermal energy generates minute levels of inconvenient
by-products.

Actually none other than some very large dirt-piles. But not amenable
to actually making power. Concentrating solar collectors making steam
are more efficient that way.

**Indeed. Geo-thermal is probably better for base-load power though.


* There is sufficient geo-thermal energy easily available to last
Australia more than 100,000 years.

Yes. And with present technology and anticipated technology, it is
still net-minus in terms of power requirements. Good for heating and
good for cooling in a 30F range, no more. Do the research.

**Already done. Costs are roughly similar to nukes, but:

* No messy insurance problems.
* No messy by-products.
* Long life.


* Whilst the costs of Solar are slightly higher than nukes,
geo-thermal is about the same.

About the same, but not capable of making power with present
technology unless steam is available. How many actual "hot springs"
does Oz have?

**I suggest YOU do some research. The technology you are looking for is
called 'hot dry rock'. aka: 'hot rock'.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Peter Wieck]

Mpffffff. Note the interpolations

On Nov 27, 8:20*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
Note the interpolations:

On Nov 27, 7:14 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**You'd think, except for a couple of things:

* The population is none too happy about nukes.

Mostly because the population is ignorant of the byproducts of burning
coal, damming rivers, burning oil and burning natural gas.

**Mostly because they know that the by-products of a nuke lasts for tens of
thousands of years and no one has a solution for those by-products for
Australia. The US sure doesn't. They've asked if we can take their
by-products from their nukes.



* Australians know that there is only 100 years' of easily avaiable
Uranium

Utter codswallops.

**Nope. Fact.

*If the political will existed to install fast-

breeder reactors there is enough fuel already in existence to last
~1,000 years or more at present rates of consumption.

**At what cost?

About the same as a boiling water reactor per MW generated. More than
a fluidized-bed reactor, more than a graphite pile reactor, but much
more efficient than all three in a somewhat smaller package.


left on the planet, making nukes a short-sighted, short-term
solution. * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive
by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time.

Yes they do. And there are quite a number of sufficiently stable
locations on the planet to take 100% of what has and will be generated
for the next 2,000 years. _ANY_ underground test site is already
contaminated for the next few thousand years - and the access already
exists to them, and the volume in each location is roughly a sphere of
~500 feet in diameter per test.

* Australia is the best place on the planet for Solar energy.

And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount of
energy they produce.

**Absolute ********. In Australia, the payback period is less than 2 years.
In places like Germany, the payback period is longer - around 4 years. Most
PV cells are good for at least 25 years.

OK. Let's check those figures. SOTA (practical production-level) solar
cells cost about US$7800/kw installed. About 10% more than a boiling-
water reactor per KW installed. SOTA solar cells generate about 10W
per square foot, with some iridium/gallium arsenide cells reaching 15W/
s.f/hour. but at a cost of nearly twice as much and are nowhere near
practical production levels. But, let's assume so and let's assume no
cost premium. Let's also assume no cost for storage (until the sun
shines all night, storage will be required and about 2.5 x the average
load will have to be made during the daylight hours).

So, to make 1MW (1000 KW) of power, we would have to spend 1000 x
$7800 or $7,800,000. And, let's assume the value of the power is about
$0.16/kwh leaving the plant - about 3 x the average leaving the plant
value in the US. The plant has to operate for 48,750 hours to break
even. That is a bit over six years. And again, discounting all the
peripheral costs necessary and focusing only on the raw (and wildly
optimistic) figures. Oh, and do you think Iridium and Gallium are cost-
free environmentally? I guess if all that mining and processing is
done elsewhere, as far as you are concerned it is.

So much for your figures.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[robert casey]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

* Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products,
which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time.

Yes, but, to a first order approximation, the amount of damage a coal
fired power plant is about as bad, but the nuclear waste is contained,
not spewed all over the environment (usually!). You do have to be very
careful with the nuclear stuff, however. So we stash it in very stable
caverns, and we may find a use for some of it later on in the future.

[Trevor Wilson]

"robert casey" wrote in message
m...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

* Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products,
which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time.

Yes, but, to a first order approximation, the amount of damage a coal
fired power plant is about as bad, but the nuclear waste is contained, not
spewed all over the environment (usually!). You do have to be very
careful with the nuclear stuff, however. So we stash it in very stable
caverns, and we may find a use for some of it later on in the future.

**No argument from me. The thrust of my point is that there are other,
safer, viable alternatives, that a

* Publically acceptable.
* Virtually non-polluting.
* Enjoy a far longer lifespan.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Patrick Turner]

On Nov 26, 12:43*am, Andre Jute wrote:
Well, I'm glad you're HOT, Patrick, because I'm effing freezing. But,
er, aren't you *supposed* to be hot roundabout now, in the summer in
Australia? Jes' askin'. -- AJ

Well, this November has set new records for hot weather we might
normally see in mid January. And all before spring has finished.

There is much SCIENTIFIC evidence that warming is well underway. The
latest observations of oceans and waterways around Oz show changing
patterns of mangroves and northern fish species are being found much
further south than ever before.

We look like experiencing another Elnino effect and hence another
drought, but in parts of Oz the last drought has never ended.....

Meanwhile federal opposition party on Oz, the Liberal Party is in
turmoil about the proposed new Emissions Trading Scheme which it wants
to block in the Senate this week so our Prime Minister Kevin Krudd
cannot take a passed bill along with him to the Copenhagen
conferencing about global warming solutions.

I don't give a rat's ****ing arse about the polititics of all this
very much except to say that whoever is in power in many nations will
have a hell of a job to convince anyone that the proposed carbon
trading will have any effect on reducing CO2 emissions. The ETS has
been hi-jacked by the coal industry lobbyists, and proposed CO2 cuts
are way to low to do anything much, and main polluters are to be
rewarded with billions in compensation.

So let ALL the politicians make huge fools of themselves. Its all so
likely to turn out like this.

Its all because global CO2 reductions will be at least +100dB more
difficult to achieve by cordial international co-operation in the same
way the ozone hole was prevented from becoming far bigger than it did,
and thus more threatening farming with far too high levels of UV
radiation. Queensland is about the global capitol for skin cancer.
With a bigger Ozone Hole things could only have become a LOT worse.

The people of the world ain't all complete fools, and in Oz we do have
democracy, and if Krudd's governemnt ****s up big time over Emissions
Trading Scheme its quite OK because Krudd will be removed by the balot
box. This could be very likely because CO2 will continue to rise
alarmingly, and people will find the cost of living has risen 20% and
so what will they think their politicians have achieved for them? -
SWEET **** ALL I'd say.

Where is all the money of the carbon trading going to ****ing go? Not
into my ****ing pocket for the huge increases in electricity and food
prices. So ****ing where? If only the politicians with their forked
tongues were able for a minute to prevent the present 80% of the
population from being ignorant about what they should not be ignorant
about.

The people will find out about the real meaning of the costs of ETS,
and then pity help the politicians, and the ppl will try to vote for
better ones but methinks that no matter who comes to power, there will
still be believers, fence sitters or deniers, the problem of global
warming will continue because its a bigger problem than man can fix
himself.

I like what James Lovelock has said abouty GW - its all too late to
make much of a change, and our species will just have to put up with a
huge KICK in the BUTT until balance in GAIA is resolved.

I am serene about not having had any children.

Patrick Turner.

[Trevor Wilson]

Peter Wieck wrote:
Mpffffff. Note the interpolations

On Nov 27, 8:20 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
Note the interpolations:

On Nov 27, 7:14 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**You'd think, except for a couple of things:

* The population is none too happy about nukes.

Mostly because the population is ignorant of the byproducts of
burning coal, damming rivers, burning oil and burning natural gas.

**Mostly because they know that the by-products of a nuke lasts for
tens of thousands of years and no one has a solution for those
by-products for Australia. The US sure doesn't. They've asked if we
can take their by-products from their nukes.



* Australians know that there is only 100 years' of easily avaiable
Uranium

Utter codswallops.

**Nope. Fact.

If the political will existed to install fast-

breeder reactors there is enough fuel already in existence to last
~1,000 years or more at present rates of consumption.

**At what cost?

About the same as a boiling water reactor per MW generated. More than
a fluidized-bed reactor, more than a graphite pile reactor, but much
more efficient than all three in a somewhat smaller package.

**The information I've found suggests that the costs, per MWh of generated
power is around 400% higher than regular reactors. That may explain why
breeder reactors are not popular.



left on the planet, making nukes a short-sighted, short-term
solution. * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently
radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a
very long time.

Yes they do. And there are quite a number of sufficiently stable
locations on the planet to take 100% of what has and will be
generated for the next 2,000 years. _ANY_ underground test site is
already contaminated for the next few thousand years - and the
access already exists to them, and the volume in each location is
roughly a sphere of ~500 feet in diameter per test.

* Australia is the best place on the planet for Solar energy.

And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount of
energy they produce.

**Absolute ********. In Australia, the payback period is less than 2
years. In places like Germany, the payback period is longer - around
4 years. Most PV cells are good for at least 25 years.

OK. Let's check those figures. SOTA (practical production-level) solar
cells cost about US$7800/kw installed. About 10% more than a boiling-
water reactor per KW installed. SOTA solar cells generate about 10W
per square foot, with some iridium/gallium arsenide cells reaching
15W/ s.f/hour. but at a cost of nearly twice as much and are nowhere
near practical production levels. But, let's assume so and let's
assume no cost premium. Let's also assume no cost for storage (until
the sun shines all night, storage will be required and about 2.5 x
the average load will have to be made during the daylight hours).

So, to make 1MW (1000 KW) of power, we would have to spend 1000 x
$7800 or $7,800,000. And, let's assume the value of the power is about
$0.16/kwh leaving the plant - about 3 x the average leaving the plant
value in the US. The plant has to operate for 48,750 hours to break
even. That is a bit over six years. And again, discounting all the
peripheral costs necessary and focusing only on the raw (and wildly
optimistic) figures. Oh, and do you think Iridium and Gallium are
cost- free environmentally? I guess if all that mining and processing
is done elsewhere, as far as you are concerned it is.

So much for your figures.

**Dream on. Quoting the retail price of Solar cells has zero to do with your
original statement and NOTHING to do with the energy cost of production. The
retail price of cells is solely related to supply/demand issues, not the
cost of manufacture. Moreover, the cost of producing PV cells is falling
month by month. As supply is ramped up to meet demand (which is currently
outstripping supply quite comfortably), the further price falls will be
seen. Ultimately, when thin film cells are available in sufficient
quantities, the retail price of PV cells can be expected to be around 5% of
their present price, given the fact that thin film cells use less than 1% of
the silicon that poly and mono crystalline sells use.

The payback period I referred to (and the numbers YOU were speaking about)
were related to the amount of energy used to produce the cells (I've left
your quote in place). Stop being so intellectually dishonest in future. The
ENERGY payback period (which was what you SPECIFICALLY referred to) is
between 2 and 4 years, depending on location and cell type.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:39:00 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"robert casey" wrote in message
m...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

* Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive
by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long
time.

Yes, but, to a first order approximation, the amount of damage a
coal fired power plant is about as bad, but the nuclear waste is
contained, not spewed all over the environment (usually!). You do
have to be very careful with the nuclear stuff, however. So we
stash it in very stable caverns, and we may find a use for some of
it later on in the future.

**No argument from me. The thrust of my point is that there are
other, safer, viable alternatives, that a

* Publically acceptable.
* Virtually non-polluting.
* Enjoy a far longer lifespan.

Except for the not so trivial problem of being insufficient to meet
the world's energy demands.

**********. Here in Australia, we have sufficient KNOWN geo-thermal energy
sources, capable of supplying all our energy requirements for several
thousand years. And that is base load power. Unknown reserves could boost
that figure several-fold. Solar energy capabilities would easily exceed that
figure for several billion years.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 29, 4:15*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
Mpffffff. Note the interpolations

On Nov 27, 8:20 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
Note the interpolations:

On Nov 27, 7:14 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**You'd think, except for a couple of things:

* The population is none too happy about nukes.

Mostly because the population is ignorant of the byproducts of
burning coal, damming rivers, burning oil and burning natural gas.

**Mostly because they know that the by-products of a nuke lasts for
tens of thousands of years and no one has a solution for those
by-products for Australia. The US sure doesn't. They've asked if we
can take their by-products from their nukes.

* Australians know that there is only 100 years' of easily avaiable
Uranium

Utter codswallops.

**Nope. Fact.

If the political will existed to install fast-

breeder reactors there is enough fuel already in existence to last
~1,000 years or more at present rates of consumption.

**At what cost?

About the same as a boiling water reactor per MW generated. More than
a fluidized-bed reactor, more than a graphite pile reactor, but much
more efficient than all three in a somewhat smaller package.

**The information I've found suggests that the costs, per MWh of generated
power is around 400% higher than regular reactors. That may explain why
breeder reactors are not popular.







left on the planet, making nukes a short-sighted, short-term
solution. * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently
radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a
very long time.

Yes they do. And there are quite a number of sufficiently stable
locations on the planet to take 100% of what has and will be
generated for the next 2,000 years. _ANY_ underground test site is
already contaminated for the next few thousand years - and the
access already exists to them, and the volume in each location is
roughly a sphere of ~500 feet in diameter per test.

* Australia is the best place on the planet for Solar energy.

And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount of
energy they produce.

**Absolute ********. In Australia, the payback period is less than 2
years. In places like Germany, the payback period is longer - around
4 years. Most PV cells are good for at least 25 years.

OK. Let's check those figures. SOTA (practical production-level) solar
cells cost about US$7800/kw installed. About 10% more than a boiling-
water reactor per KW installed. SOTA solar cells generate about 10W
per square foot, with some iridium/gallium arsenide cells reaching
15W/ s.f/hour. but at a cost of nearly twice as much and are nowhere
near practical production levels. But, let's assume so and let's
assume no cost premium. Let's also assume no cost for storage (until
the sun shines all night, storage will be required and about 2.5 x
the average load will have to be made during the daylight hours).

So, to make 1MW (1000 KW) of power, we would have to spend 1000 x
$7800 or $7,800,000. And, let's assume the value of the power is about
$0.16/kwh leaving the plant - about 3 x the average leaving the plant
value in the US. The plant has to operate for 48,750 hours to break
even. That is a bit over six years. And again, discounting all the
peripheral costs necessary and focusing only on the raw (and wildly
optimistic) figures. Oh, and do you think Iridium and Gallium are
cost- free environmentally? I guess if all that mining and processing
is done elsewhere, as far as you are concerned it is.

So much for your figures.

**Dream on. Quoting the retail price of Solar cells has zero to do with your
original statement and NOTHING to do with the energy cost of production. The
retail price of cells is solely related to supply/demand issues, not the
cost of manufacture. Moreover, the cost of producing PV cells is falling
month by month. As supply is ramped up to meet demand (which is currently
outstripping supply quite comfortably), the further price falls will be
seen. Ultimately, when thin film cells are available in sufficient
quantities, the retail price of PV cells can be expected to be around 5% of
their present price, given the fact that thin film cells use less than 1% of
the silicon that poly and mono crystalline sells use.

The payback period I referred to (and the numbers YOU were speaking about)
were related to the amount of energy used to produce the cells (I've left
your quote in place). Stop being so intellectually dishonest in future. The
ENERGY payback period (which was what you SPECIFICALLY referred to) is
between 2 and 4 years, depending on location and cell type.

Um. Trevor, the figures quoted are present-day figures installed here
in the United States. And as you also noted, solar is more expensive
per installed KW than nuclear - and will be so into the future. So,
let's be both *honest* and *realistic* with photovoltaics, and not
live in a fool's paradise. Sure, production is ramping up and demand
exceeds supply at present. But the cost still remains at/about $7800/
kw installed at utility-level quanitities. And the _VERY BEST_ thin-
film solar cells using the very best technology - which realizes about
a 5% success rate at present - 95% of what comes out of the process is
waste - get about 15 watts/s.f./hour at the equator. So, do the math
from there. I gave you cutting-edge technology, 24-hour sunlight, 3x
the wholesale price of power as your realized revenue and discounted
the cost of any storage or additional infrastructure - And still the
payback was over 6 years. Right now, in Pennsylvania with a 30% state
subsidy and a 30% federal tax credit, the given payback for a 3kw
residential non-storage installation runs about $13,000 and is
expected to pay off in about 10 years. That is _with_ an ultimate 60%
subsidy.

Your figures are absolute pie-in-the-sky blather unsupported by any
source whatsoever.

http://www.solarbuzz.com/solarindices.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics

http://www.ecoworld.com/fuels/the-tr...ovoltaics.html

http://www.gosolarnow.com/pdf%20files/solarvalue.pdf

Nuclear is coming down:

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/...OfNuclearPower

And so forth and so on.

Remember, subsidies do not count when caculating the cost of solar
power. Subsidies are when the government uses tax money to pay for
short-sighted but politically correct feel-good solutions. But the
money is still spent.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Trevor Wilson]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 29, 4:15 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
Mpffffff. Note the interpolations

On Nov 27, 8:20 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
Note the interpolations:

On Nov 27, 7:14 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**You'd think, except for a couple of things:

* The population is none too happy about nukes.

Mostly because the population is ignorant of the byproducts of
burning coal, damming rivers, burning oil and burning natural gas.

**Mostly because they know that the by-products of a nuke lasts for
tens of thousands of years and no one has a solution for those
by-products for Australia. The US sure doesn't. They've asked if we
can take their by-products from their nukes.

* Australians know that there is only 100 years' of easily
avaiable Uranium

Utter codswallops.

**Nope. Fact.

If the political will existed to install fast-

breeder reactors there is enough fuel already in existence to last
~1,000 years or more at present rates of consumption.

**At what cost?

About the same as a boiling water reactor per MW generated. More
than a fluidized-bed reactor, more than a graphite pile reactor,
but much more efficient than all three in a somewhat smaller
package.

**The information I've found suggests that the costs, per MWh of
generated power is around 400% higher than regular reactors. That
may explain why breeder reactors are not popular.







left on the planet, making nukes a short-sighted, short-term
solution. * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently
radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a
very long time.

Yes they do. And there are quite a number of sufficiently stable
locations on the planet to take 100% of what has and will be
generated for the next 2,000 years. _ANY_ underground test site is
already contaminated for the next few thousand years - and the
access already exists to them, and the volume in each location is
roughly a sphere of ~500 feet in diameter per test.

* Australia is the best place on the planet for Solar energy.

And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount
of energy they produce.

**Absolute ********. In Australia, the payback period is less than
2 years. In places like Germany, the payback period is longer -
around 4 years. Most PV cells are good for at least 25 years.

OK. Let's check those figures. SOTA (practical production-level)
solar cells cost about US$7800/kw installed. About 10% more than a
boiling- water reactor per KW installed. SOTA solar cells generate
about 10W per square foot, with some iridium/gallium arsenide cells
reaching 15W/ s.f/hour. but at a cost of nearly twice as much and
are nowhere near practical production levels. But, let's assume so
and let's assume no cost premium. Let's also assume no cost for
storage (until the sun shines all night, storage will be required
and about 2.5 x the average load will have to be made during the
daylight hours).

So, to make 1MW (1000 KW) of power, we would have to spend 1000 x
$7800 or $7,800,000. And, let's assume the value of the power is
about $0.16/kwh leaving the plant - about 3 x the average leaving
the plant value in the US. The plant has to operate for 48,750
hours to break even. That is a bit over six years. And again,
discounting all the peripheral costs necessary and focusing only on
the raw (and wildly optimistic) figures. Oh, and do you think
Iridium and Gallium are cost- free environmentally? I guess if all
that mining and processing is done elsewhere, as far as you are
concerned it is.

So much for your figures.

**Dream on. Quoting the retail price of Solar cells has zero to do
with your original statement and NOTHING to do with the energy cost
of production. The retail price of cells is solely related to
supply/demand issues, not the cost of manufacture. Moreover, the
cost of producing PV cells is falling month by month. As supply is
ramped up to meet demand (which is currently outstripping supply
quite comfortably), the further price falls will be seen.
Ultimately, when thin film cells are available in sufficient
quantities, the retail price of PV cells can be expected to be
around 5% of their present price, given the fact that thin film
cells use less than 1% of the silicon that poly and mono crystalline
sells use.

The payback period I referred to (and the numbers YOU were speaking
about) were related to the amount of energy used to produce the
cells (I've left your quote in place). Stop being so intellectually
dishonest in future. The ENERGY payback period (which was what you
SPECIFICALLY referred to) is between 2 and 4 years, depending on
location and cell type.

Um. Trevor, the figures quoted are present-day figures installed here
in the United States.

**Here are your precise words:

"And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount of
energy they produce."

I say again: ********. The energy produced (NOT THE RETAIL PRICE OF THE
CELLS) is paid back in a 2 to 4 year period.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 29, 6:07*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 29, 4:15 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
Mpffffff. Note the interpolations

On Nov 27, 8:20 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
Note the interpolations:

On Nov 27, 7:14 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**You'd think, except for a couple of things:

* The population is none too happy about nukes.

Mostly because the population is ignorant of the byproducts of
burning coal, damming rivers, burning oil and burning natural gas.

**Mostly because they know that the by-products of a nuke lasts for
tens of thousands of years and no one has a solution for those
by-products for Australia. The US sure doesn't. They've asked if we
can take their by-products from their nukes.

* Australians know that there is only 100 years' of easily
avaiable Uranium

Utter codswallops.

**Nope. Fact.

If the political will existed to install fast-

breeder reactors there is enough fuel already in existence to last
~1,000 years or more at present rates of consumption.

**At what cost?

About the same as a boiling water reactor per MW generated. More
than a fluidized-bed reactor, more than a graphite pile reactor,
but much more efficient than all three in a somewhat smaller
package.

**The information I've found suggests that the costs, per MWh of
generated power is around 400% higher than regular reactors. That
may explain why breeder reactors are not popular.

left on the planet, making nukes a short-sighted, short-term
solution. * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently
radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a
very long time.

Yes they do. And there are quite a number of sufficiently stable
locations on the planet to take 100% of what has and will be
generated for the next 2,000 years. _ANY_ underground test site is
already contaminated for the next few thousand years - and the
access already exists to them, and the volume in each location is
roughly a sphere of ~500 feet in diameter per test.

* Australia is the best place on the planet for Solar energy.

And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount
of energy they produce.

**Absolute ********. In Australia, the payback period is less than
2 years. In places like Germany, the payback period is longer -
around 4 years. Most PV cells are good for at least 25 years.

OK. Let's check those figures. SOTA (practical production-level)
solar cells cost about US$7800/kw installed. About 10% more than a
boiling- water reactor per KW installed. SOTA solar cells generate
about 10W per square foot, with some iridium/gallium arsenide cells
reaching 15W/ s.f/hour. but at a cost of nearly twice as much and
are nowhere near practical production levels. But, let's assume so
and let's assume no cost premium. Let's also assume no cost for
storage (until the sun shines all night, storage will be required
and about 2.5 x the average load will have to be made during the
daylight hours).

So, to make 1MW (1000 KW) of power, we would have to spend 1000 x
$7800 or $7,800,000. And, let's assume the value of the power is
about $0.16/kwh leaving the plant - about 3 x the average leaving
the plant value in the US. The plant has to operate for 48,750
hours to break even. That is a bit over six years. And again,
discounting all the peripheral costs necessary and focusing only on
the raw (and wildly optimistic) figures. Oh, and do you think
Iridium and Gallium are cost- free environmentally? I guess if all
that mining and processing is done elsewhere, as far as you are
concerned it is.

So much for your figures.

**Dream on. Quoting the retail price of Solar cells has zero to do
with your original statement and NOTHING to do with the energy cost
of production. The retail price of cells is solely related to
supply/demand issues, not the cost of manufacture. Moreover, the
cost of producing PV cells is falling month by month. As supply is
ramped up to meet demand (which is currently outstripping supply
quite comfortably), the further price falls will be seen.
Ultimately, when thin film cells are available in sufficient
quantities, the retail price of PV cells can be expected to be
around 5% of their present price, given the fact that thin film
cells use less than 1% of the silicon that poly and mono crystalline
sells use.

The payback period I referred to (and the numbers YOU were speaking
about) were related to the amount of energy used to produce the
cells (I've left your quote in place). Stop being so intellectually
dishonest in future. The ENERGY payback period (which was what you
SPECIFICALLY referred to) is between 2 and 4 years, depending on
location and cell type.

Um. Trevor, the figures quoted are present-day figures installed here
in the United States.

**Here are your precise words:

"And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount of
energy they produce."

I say again: ********. The energy produced (NOT THE RETAIL PRICE OF THE
CELLS) is paid back in a 2 to 4 year period.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Lifetime cost = Cost to produce + cost to install + cost to maintain +
cost to remove + Cost to dispose of safely.

Cost to produce = Cost of the raw materials + the cost to repair the
environmental consequences of producing the raw materials + the cost
to manufacture the raw materials into the cells + the cost of
transportation to their installed location + the cost of transporting
them to where they are disposed of safely.

The retail cost of a solar cell = the cost to make it and transport it
to its installed point. That is about 3/5 the actual cost as
maintenance and disposal are _NOT_ part of that cost.

Retail cost = the cost to get a solar cell to its place of use. Does
not include the cost of installation, the cost of the infrastructure
required to make the power it produces compatible with the grid (or
any given end-user for that matter), the cost of maintenance nor
anything other than what it costs to buy said cell on the open market.
Similar the cost of a raw chicken does not include the cost of cooking
it, or cleaning up after it is cooked. And following that analogy, KFC
might purchase chicken at a far better price than I can, and Giant
Foods may purchase it at a far better price than I can - but what gets
to me is what becomes the "Retail Price". As what - I - pay for
electricity becomes the retail price - not what it costs the plant to
make it or the transporter to carry it or the distributor to bring it
to my house - those are pieces of the retail price.

So, cutting to the chase, at 10w/sf and at $7800/kw installed, and at
_your_ 25-year life-span and at the present retail cost of power-at-
the-plant in the US on-average, nationwide at $0.07/kwh - let's do the
math.

1MW = $7,800,000. That figure is pretty indisputable and encompasses
100% of the present SOTA in practical photovoltaic manufacturing.
Assume at the equator, so a true average of 12 hours of useful
sunlight per day. Assume an average cost-of-power at $0.14kwh for
argument's sake. 2 X the present average - and what I can get a 20-
year contract for right now. IOW an insane price. Do the math, you are
at an 11+ year payback however you slice it or dice it. And if you
factor maintenance, infrastructure and all the other parts and pieces
(comes to as listed per published utility tariffs) that *adds* an
additional $0.11/kwh premium to solar costs.

Brings that payback to something on the order of 40 years or so. Less
if we taxpayers subsidize it. But that 'less' is to the producer, not
to the consumer.

That is if the plant were built with available SOTA technology today.
Few are as most solar installations today are built either for
political reasons or because there are no practical alternatives. I
have seen some pretty massive solar arrays in Saudi in the empty
quarter - because bringing in power is simply too expensive or
impractical for any of several pretty obvious reasons.

So, technology gets 2 x as good. Payback = 20 years. Right now the
curve looks not nearly that good, and not anytime so soon. Much as
your "Hot Rocks" technology. All 100% experimental today - with some
hopeful signs - but nothing practical to-date. And quite a few
signficant issues to be addressed and as-yet unsolved.

Get real. Repeating bad information will not ever make it better. That
is Andre's forte - try not to imitate him.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[KeithR]

flipper wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble but Australia, wonderful though it may be,
is not the world.

True, everybody knows that the US is.

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

About 11,500 years ago there was a catastrophic climatic event. The
earth's mean temperature rose by 7 degrees in 15 years. Of course, back
then there was no man made CO2 of any significance whatsoever, so it is
hard to make a case for this being AGW. At that time, the UK was
connected to the continent of Europe by a large clay basin the size of
England, which archaeologists now call Dogger Land. Soon after this
catastrophic event the climate settled down once more. Despite the rapid
melting of ice that resulted, it took several thousand years for the
Dogger Land to be completely covered by water and create what is now the
North Sea. Since then, the mean sea level has risen by about 1 metre in
the last 4000 years.

Now my questions for the AGW alarmists are these:


Can you explain what caused this sudden temperature rise? Can you
explain why the climate settled down so quickly after? Do you current
models include the the mechanisms that caused this catastrophe?

Cheers

Ian

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 30, 7:15*am, Ian Bell wrote:
About 11,500 years ago there was a catastrophic climatic event. The
earth's mean temperature rose by 7 degrees in 15 years. Of course, back
then there was no man made CO2 of any significance whatsoever, so it is
hard to make a case for this being AGW. At that time, the UK was
connected to the continent of Europe by a large *clay basin the size of
England, which archaeologists now call Dogger Land. *Soon after this
catastrophic event the climate settled down once more. Despite the rapid
melting of ice that resulted, it took several thousand years for the
Dogger Land to be completely covered by water and create what is now the
North Sea. Since then, the mean sea level has risen by about 1 metre in
the last 4000 years.

Now my questions for the AGW alarmists are these:

Can you explain what caused this sudden temperature rise? Can you
explain why the climate settled down so quickly after? Do you current
models include the the mechanisms that caused this catastrophe?

Cheers

Ian

Ian:

But the climate didn't "settle down so quickly after" or the water
that made the North Sea would have re-frozen and 'dogger land' would
have reappeared. And a rise of that nature over that period of time in
that general area could also mean that the glaciers were melting (and
they were).

I don't think that anyone denies that there are natural cycles and
that what is happening to the climate today could be from any number
of reasons up to and *including* human activities - but what I think
is the gist of the issue is exactly as it is for a professional boxer
- one is going to get hit, that goes with the territory. But whyinhell
would you lean *into* the punch?

I am not so sure I have anything to worry about. Nor the kids. But I
am a wee-touch concerned after what the grandchildren will experience -
and to the extent that I can mitigate the potential negatives, I will.
Pretty simple and not much debate or thought required at that level.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 30, 12:15*pm, Ian Bell wrote:
About 11,500 years ago there was a catastrophic climatic event. The
earth's mean temperature rose by 7 degrees in 15 years. Of course, back
then there was no man made CO2 of any significance whatsoever, so it is
hard to make a case for this being AGW. At that time, the UK was
connected to the continent of Europe by a large *clay basin the size of
England, which archaeologists now call Dogger Land. *Soon after this
catastrophic event the climate settled down once more. Despite the rapid
melting of ice that resulted, it took several thousand years for the
Dogger Land to be completely covered by water and create what is now the
North Sea. Since then, the mean sea level has risen by about 1 metre in
the last 4000 years.

Now my questions for the AGW alarmists are these:

Can you explain what caused this sudden temperature rise? Can you
explain why the climate settled down so quickly after? Do you current
models include the the mechanisms that caused this catastrophe?

Cheers

Ian

More a man-interpreted "catastrophe" than a "manmade" catastrophe, I
think, Ian. Heh-heh!

Andre Jute
Riddle me that one, Batman

[Trevor Wilson]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:21:11 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:39:00 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"robert casey" wrote in message
m...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

* Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive
by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long
time.

Yes, but, to a first order approximation, the amount of damage a
coal fired power plant is about as bad, but the nuclear waste is
contained, not spewed all over the environment (usually!). You do
have to be very careful with the nuclear stuff, however. So we
stash it in very stable caverns, and we may find a use for some of
it later on in the future.

**No argument from me. The thrust of my point is that there are
other, safer, viable alternatives, that a

* Publically acceptable.
* Virtually non-polluting.
* Enjoy a far longer lifespan.

Except for the not so trivial problem of being insufficient to meet
the world's energy demands.

**********. Here in Australia,

Hate to burst your bubble but Australia, wonderful though it may be,
is not the world.

**Read the title of the thread.

Oz = Australia. I am perfectly on topic.


we have sufficient KNOWN geo-thermal energy
sources, capable of supplying all our energy requirements for several
thousand years. And that is base load power. Unknown reserves could boost
that figure several-fold. Solar energy capabilities would easily exceed
that
figure for several billion years.

Terrific. Build away.

**Already in progress.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 30, 8:14*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 30, 12:15*pm, Ian Bell wrote:





About 11,500 years ago there was a catastrophic climatic event. The
earth's mean temperature rose by 7 degrees in 15 years. Of course, back
then there was no man made CO2 of any significance whatsoever, so it is
hard to make a case for this being AGW. At that time, the UK was
connected to the continent of Europe by a large *clay basin the size of
England, which archaeologists now call Dogger Land. *Soon after this
catastrophic event the climate settled down once more. Despite the rapid
melting of ice that resulted, it took several thousand years for the
Dogger Land to be completely covered by water and create what is now the
North Sea. Since then, the mean sea level has risen by about 1 metre in
the last 4000 years.

Now my questions for the AGW alarmists are these:

Can you explain what caused this sudden temperature rise? Can you
explain why the climate settled down so quickly after? Do you current
models include the the mechanisms that caused this catastrophe?

Cheers

Ian

More a man-interpreted "catastrophe" than a "manmade" catastrophe, I
think, Ian. Heh-heh!

Andre Jute
Riddle me that one, Batman- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And

You would dearly like to think so - given your age, condition,
accomplishments and emotional limitations, you have nothing much to
lose in any case.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[William Asher]

Ian Bell wrote in
:

About 11,500 years ago there was a catastrophic climatic event. The
earth's mean temperature rose by 7 degrees in 15 years. Of course,
back then there was no man made CO2 of any significance whatsoever, so
it is hard to make a case for this being AGW. At that time, the UK was
connected to the continent of Europe by a large clay basin the size
of England, which archaeologists now call Dogger Land. Soon after
this catastrophic event the climate settled down once more. Despite
the rapid melting of ice that resulted, it took several thousand years
for the Dogger Land to be completely covered by water and create what
is now the North Sea. Since then, the mean sea level has risen by
about 1 metre in the last 4000 years.

Now my questions for the AGW alarmists are these:


Can you explain what caused this sudden temperature rise? Can you
explain why the climate settled down so quickly after? Do you current
models include the the mechanisms that caused this catastrophe?

You are talking about the end of the Younger Dryas event aren't you?
This was nothing like the current warming, since the warming at the end
of the YD was from glacial to interstadial conditions. The YD is
thought to have been caused by a shutdown in the N. Atlantic
thermohaline circulation (NATHC), although that is open to some debate.
There are also some differences in terms of the timing of the warming in
different regions and hemispheres, between this event and the modern
era.

Current climate models can simulate large-scale regional cooling
associated with cessation of the NATHC. Coupled ocean-atmosphere models
can also simulate a shut-down of the NATHC with increased freshwater
inflow to the N. Atlantic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Your comment is sophism since there are many known differences in
mechanisms between a radiatively forced change in climate and one due to
large-scale shifts in ocean circulation. That one can happen in the
absence of the other is nothing new to climate physicists. But then,
I'm betting you knew that.

--
Bill Asher

[KeithR]

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:01:52 +1100, keithr
wrote:

flipper wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble but Australia, wonderful though it may be,
is not the world.
True, everybody knows that the US is.

Speak for yourself because neither I, nor anyone I know, thinks that.

That is what they all say when put on the spot about it, but you don't
have to look too far in Usenet or the US media to see the attitude.

[Trevor Wilson]

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:52:25 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:21:11 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:39:00 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"robert casey" wrote in message
m...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

* Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive
by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long
time.

Yes, but, to a first order approximation, the amount of damage a
coal fired power plant is about as bad, but the nuclear waste is
contained, not spewed all over the environment (usually!). You
do have to be very careful with the nuclear stuff, however. So
we stash it in very stable caverns, and we may find a use for
some of it later on in the future.

**No argument from me. The thrust of my point is that there are
other, safer, viable alternatives, that a

* Publically acceptable.
* Virtually non-polluting.
* Enjoy a far longer lifespan.

Except for the not so trivial problem of being insufficient to
meet the world's energy demands.

**********. Here in Australia,

Hate to burst your bubble but Australia, wonderful though it may be,
is not the world.

**Read the title of the thread.

Oz = Australia. I am perfectly on topic.

Why don't you try reading what was written. I said "insufficient to
meet --- the world's --- energy demands," to which you replied
"bullocks. Here in Australia..."

Oz is not "the world."

**READ THE THREAD TITLE. (I hate to shout, but you are terminally stupid)


I am thrilled you think geothermal energy is sufficient to power
Australia but it's insufficient for -- the world--.

**Is it? How do you know? What are the reserves of the entire planet?


For example, the U.S. currently produces more thermal power than any
other country but estimates indicate it's only practical in 13 of the
50 states.

**So? Are you unaware of high Voltage transmission lines?



we have sufficient KNOWN geo-thermal energy
sources, capable of supplying all our energy requirements for
several thousand years. And that is base load power. Unknown
reserves could boost that figure several-fold. Solar energy
capabilities would easily exceed that
figure for several billion years.

Terrific. Build away.

**Already in progress.

Terrific

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1111116967563

"Experts have estimated that Australia could draw nearly 7 per cent of
its electricity from hot rock power stations by 2030..."

What do you plan for the other 93%? And that's just electricity.

**There are no technical reasons why geo-thermal energy could not be
dramatically expanded. The reasons are purely financial.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Peter Wieck]

On Dec 1, 5:27*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
flipper wrote:

**There are no technical reasons why geo-thermal energy could not be
dramatically expanded. The reasons are purely financial.

No Sh*t, Sherlock!

And why Solar power is 30 years out.
And why practical geothermal *electricity* is between 30 and 50 years
out.
And this having nothing to do with the cost/future/lack/surplus of
fossil fuels or even their cleanliness.

It has to do with simple execution.

Hybrid cars are only just practical - for technical reasons. The drive
towards their development is political. Eventually it will become
practical as the cost/benefit threshold is much closer. Keeping in
mind that electric cars as a standard-technology-of-the-industry is
over 100 years old. What killed them was (the need for) speed.

Geothermal electric power installations have a definite service life,
a very high cost and have some environmental concerns. Similar in many
ways to nuclear power. All it takes is political will to overcome all
of the objections. But even with 100% will, it is still 30 years out
from any level of execution. And to make even Australia go off the
fossil-fuel grid - just do the math. Only this time honestly and with
actual figures.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[KeithR]

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:11:09 +1100, keithr
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:01:52 +1100, keithr
wrote:

flipper wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble but Australia, wonderful though it may be,
is not the world.
True, everybody knows that the US is.
Speak for yourself because neither I, nor anyone I know, thinks that.
That is what they all say when put on the spot about it, but you don't
have to look too far in Usenet or the US media to see the attitude.

Hogwash. That 'Americans', or any other nationality for that matter,
may strongly express they feel their country is 'right' on issues
like, say, Iran building nukes, or whatever, does not say, nor mean,
they think the U.S. is 'the world'.

How much is "The world" mentioned on US network news? Or on cable news
for that matter.