Global Warming

[Tiger74]

The problem with wind and solar etc is while they're a good -and should be used and used more expansively- they will never provide base load power.

Theres only 2 methods other than coal AFAIK.Nuclear and Hot rocks technology.And hot rocks sites are located too far from major cities.

That only leaves nuclear for at least some generation.I can't see any other way around.

The coal emition sequestration(clean coal) is the stupidest idea I've ever seen.

Agree on your base load comments.

Nuclear has one big ugly issue though which does need to be sorted out, and that is supply. Reactor numbers are growing exponentially, but reserves have not. At current rates, we are due to use up current reserves in 30-50 years.

There is the scope for new reserves being found, but this comes back to a similar question as for oil. Where is it, and how much will it cost to extract? I cannot answer these, but if you even read conservative US pro-nuclear websites, they predicate this is all very possible and feasible because energy prices will continue to rise. This then begs the question, is nuclear a cost effective alternative longer term?

This is a tough one, especially with "clean coal" having a bucket of research dollars thrown at it now.

 

[Tiger74]

Yeah, the storage thing is the majpr problem. Geothermal particularly, but tide, wind and wave power could help. An ex-Gas and Fuel bloke was telling me the other day of a process where hydrogen could be produced using solar power, transported by pipeline, then converted to water with release of energy. This seems likely to fix some of the problem too, although I don't know about whether it could provide the sacle of power needed. There must be other similar options going around too.

This issue of storage is a big one. Mother Nature used natural organisms to store solar engery (which then went on to eventually turn into oil). If there was a way we could cheaply store energy, suddenly solar and wind become the go in a big way.

This is where I think we need to give Optimus Prime a call. Remember in the cartoon the Autobots and Deceptacons were always fighting over those shiny little energy cubes that they made. We need that technology!!! (that and the ability to turn my Mazda into an ass-kicking robot the size of a house ;D)

 

[Disco08]

The problem with wind and solar etc is while they're a good -and should be used and used more expansively- they will never provide base load power.

I tend to disagree with this to a point. I understand bigger cities will never be run on wind power but regional cities and smaller towns certainly could be. Denmark, which is a pretty tiny country (and relatively calm) compared to Australia produces about 20% of its power from wind farms. Australia seems far more suited to wind farming because of the massive amount of unused space here and because of the high amount of wind which is typical to many areas.

In my local area wind farms have been vetoed because people don't want their view spoiled, or because they don't like the noise (despite it being barely audible). In other towns though (I saw one on TV the other day, maybe Port Augusta?) it is working well and providing large proportions of the total electrical energy consumption.

 

[evo]

Agree on your base load comments.

Nuclear has one big ugly issue though which does need to be sorted out, and that is supply. Reactor numbers are growing exponentially, but reserves have not. At current rates, we are due to use up current reserves in 30-50 years.

There is the scope for new reserves being found, but this comes back to a similar question as for oil. Where is it, and how much will it cost to extract? I cannot answer these, but if you even read conservative US pro-nuclear websites, they predicate this is all very possible and feasible because energy prices will continue to rise. This then begs the question, is nuclear a cost effective alternative longer term?

This is a tough one, especially with "clean coal" having a bucket of research dollars thrown at it now.

As you say,uranium will eventually run out too.

Geothermal seems the best long term solution.At the moment they are only looking at hot rocks because they occur closest to the surface.But eventually they may just have to drill closer to the core everywhere.Australia(along with south Africa) are actually the world leaders in digging really deep holes.We've had loads of practise.It's a good niche for us.

It's pretty hot down in hades,and it's always going to be hot. ;D We may as well use it.

 

[Tiger74]

Denmark, which is a pretty tiny country (and relatively calm) compared to Australia produces about 20% of its power from wind farms. Australia seems far more suited to wind farming because of the massive amount of unused space here and because of the high amount of wind which is typical to many areas.

Denmark has been shown to be relying more and more on nuclear power it imports from Germany, because the windmills are not adequately covering base load.

 

[evo]

I tend to disagree with this to a point. I understand bigger cities will never be run on wind power but regional cities and smaller towns certainly could be. Denmark, which is a pretty tiny country (and relatively calm) compared to Australia produces about 20% of its power from wind farms. Australia seems far more suited to wind farming because of the massive amount of unused space here and because of the high amount of wind which is typical to many areas.

In my local area wind farms have been vetoed because people don't want their view spoiled, or because they don't like the noise (despite it being barely audible). In other towns though (I saw one on TV the other day, maybe Port Augusta?) it is working well and providing large proportions of the total electrical energy consumption.

Agree.Greenies who object to wind farms are some of the stupidest greenies of all.

 

[Disco08]

Denmark has been shown to be relying more and more on nuclear power it imports from Germany, because the windmills are not adequately covering base load.

Still, 20% of the power required for 5.5 million people is quite a lot.

 

[Tiger74]

Still, 20% of the power required for 5.5 million people is quite a lot.

Completely agree, but it goes back to Evo's issue about base load.

We need something to keep my electric fairy floss running at night or when the wind ain't blowing.

(btw - I don't have one of these machines, but I thought it was more interesting than just keeping the lights on )

 

[ssstone]

here is the laymans thoughts and load up and shoot them down all you like..... 1980-1983 as my memory serves me ,we had more 40 degree days than ive ever seen.the monsoonal type rain that sth eastern aus is experincing at the moment is not too dissimaler to 85(when the last ten year drought broke).brazil is recording floods,the top half of the states is seeing record snow falls and last year england suffered their worst floods in eons? when i was driving interstate in 93-95 outback queensland was in drought,yet victoria and sthn n.s.w were in flood.. ask a resident of benalla why their libarey is on stilts..i would drive down from f.n.q to n.s.w and was witness to livestock dying of thirst to livestock drowning.bizzare times but it showed me mother nature ruled supreme.i know this is cylical ,ive seen it first hand,what i dont understand is the hysteria and overnight kneejerk reactions that our long summer induces? why every time i hear of a record high temp compared to the last recorded,that they are all 40 + years ago and 90% are from the last century when the industrial age hadnt begun? scientist's have told us the earth was flat,we couldnt go to the moon and if we achieved the speed of 30 miles an hour we would die? they also were of the opinion that the atom could not be split and ask hiroshima and nagaski the outcome of that theory..this is just cylical and as greenland was once covered in forests not ice will attest to,what goes around comes around.

 

[Tiger74]

as greenland was once covered in forests not ice will attest to,what goes around comes around.

Just for the record, Greenland was covered in ice, while Iceland was green. The Vikings called it "Greenland" to encourage migration there I believe, real estate agents were full of cr@p even back then ;D

 

[Liverpool]

Nope - you are. Your posts indicated that you had no grasp of the natural climate system; how researchers work to eliminate options (in this case the natural vs the human); how research is funded and whether it can be influenced by pressure groups; the standard of research and how it is maintained through peer review and journalistic standards).

My posts were agreed upon by 100 scientists in that open letter (that us changing our habits isn't going to change the overall course of climate change)...yet you keep saying I have no grasp of the natural climate system? ???....I quite liked a couple of the sentences, as that was what I was on about since the first page of this thread:

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming

Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Two of the signatures on the open letter were 'peer reviewers' for the IPCC report into greenhouse gases.

You may have been right in that more scientists are now casting doubt on global warming theory but I think we can put to bed your theory that the earth getting hotter is going to benefit anyone.

Disco,
Not at all!
Global warming will benefit some people....whether it be tourism in colder countries, the health of some people, stretching out the growing seasons on farms in areas that normally have longer winters, shipping lanes in the Arctic will be open longer for trasnport of goods...there are many more.
Of course, we hear about so many negatives of the global warming hysteria and I'm definitely not dismissing those, however people shouldn't dismiss the positives from global warming either.

 

[Disco08]

That's a long bow to draw Livers. The 100 prominent scientists certainly give the impression that climate change is a pressing issue for the world's citizens.

 

[Liverpool]

That's a long bow to draw Livers. The 100 prominent scientists certainly give the impression that climate change is a pressing issue for the world's citizens.

I agree.
But they have also said it is futile to try and fight it.

So the next stage is not spending loads of money on trying to change/stop something that is inevitable (and not saying we shouldn't recycle, or plant trees, or ride bikes, etc...as they are probably a benefit to the individual and the surrounding community) but adapt to this change.

How can we use global warming to our benefit?

Should we look more closely at solar energy that was all the rage in the 1980s but has since disappeared somewhat?
Should we look at warmth generated from the sun as a means of energy?
Should we diversify into areas that aren't 'traditional' for us, but might become more the norm if the earth does continue to warm up?

 

[ssstone]

Just for the record, Greenland was covered in ice, while Iceland was green. The Vikings called it "Greenland" to encourage migration there I believe, real estate agents were full of cr@p even back then ;D

i agree t74,and after just finalising the sale of mine you are spot on the money ;D

 

[ssstone]

in todays hun there is a story on the 2nd page "boffins cool on global warming". i cant link it but have a look ...it reports that more than 400 prominet scientists declared themselves climate change/global warming sceptics.whilist som concede ther may be global warming ,they claim it is caused by factors other than man.such as solar flaring and radiation ,a view that is shared by australian scientist,Dr ian plimer.

 

[Freezer]

Here ya go Stoney - sounds about right:

Boffins cool on global warming
Gerard McManus
December 27, 2007 12:00am

MORE than 400 prominent scientists worldwide declared themselves climate-change sceptics in 2007, a US Senate report says.

The report challenges the view that "the science is in" on global warming.

The US Senate environment committee minority report published the names, papers and peer reviews of the scientists from more than 20 countries who had voiced objections to aspects of the "consensus" view on man-made global warming.

Some of the scientists are present or former members of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Others were former climate-change believers. Some argued man-made attempts to "fix" the world's climate, even if it was changing, were an exercise in futility.

Some of the scientists concede there may be global warming, but claim it is caused by factors other than man-made greenhouse emissions, such as solar flaring and radiation - a view shared by Australian scientist Dr Ian Plimer.

The report was signed by nine Republican senators. The committee is dominated by 10 Democrats, including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The report follows America's last-minute backdown at the UN climate change conference in Bali this month.

The US agreed to join the "Bali road map" on targets to reduce greenhouse emissions, but the Bush Administration expressed concern the agreement had gone too far.

Senate environment committee member James Inhofe (Republican) said the report debunked former US vice-president Al Gore's claim that the global warming debate was over.

"The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less and less credible every day," the Oklahoma senator said.

Mr Gore, who has just won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to alert the world to the problems associated with man-made global warming, has likened climate change sceptics to members of the Flat Earth Society.

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged nations attending the recent UN climate conference in Bali to "listen to the voice of science".

But the authors of the US Senate report claim the number of sceptics, who include climatologists, oceanographers, geologists, glaciologists, and meteorologists, is growing rather than diminishing.

IPCC panel member David Wojick is quoted as saying: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

IPCC reviewer Dr Richard Courtney, a British-based climate and atmospheric science consultant, said: "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered."

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22974425-661,00.html

 

[ssstone]

thanks freezer ,with the two most despised vegetables as his avatar :hihi

 

[tigersnake]

The problem with wind and solar etc is while they're a good -and should be used and used more expansively- they will never provide base load power.

The coal emition sequestration(clean coal) is the stupidest idea I've ever seen.

Never is a big call evolution baby.

As has been discussed before, Solar and wind are only now beginning to attract decent research dough. Once it has real traction, a lot of people believe solar and wind baseload isn't that far away. One big venture capitalist in the US who is funding an aussie solar researcher reckons it can be done now, but will be able to be done fairly easily (via storage), very soon.

Many believe 10 years should do it. Don't believe the former Howard government jurassic, in-the-pocket-of-coal hype.

Put it another way, its far more concievable and viable than coal sequestration.

lets for arguments sake it can't provide energy in the dark, simple, just use majority solar in daylight and switch the coal on for after dark. Either way, it would can the need more MORE coal power stations.

Freezer what is the point of that article? We'vehad this discussion loads of times. You'll always be able to dig up some skeptics. Its about the overall direction of the scientific thinking that society tends to base decisioons on. And that is irrefutable. Note: "senator SAYS report bedunks,,,,etc'..Just because some individual official or scientist somewhere says so, doesn't make it so. Crude argument. Despite what the Senator says, the debate is all but over, although he, and you I assume, wishes it wasn't

 

[evo]

Never is a big call evolution baby.

As has been discussed before, Solar and wind are only now beginning to attract decent research dough. Once it has real traction, a lot of people believe solar and wind baseload isn't that far away. One big venture capitalist in the US who is funding an aussie solar researcher reckons it can be done now, but will be able to be done fairly easily (via storage), very soon.

Do you have any articles that show this? I haven't seen any.

Electricity is very hard to 'store' -it's the main reason why we aren't already all driving around in electric cars.

Furthermore it drops in power over distance.

Many believe 10 years should do it. Don't believe the former Howard government jurassic, in-the-pocket-of-coal hype.

I haven't formed the opinion on anything Howard has every said on the matter.My opinion has mainly been formed on discussions with my Dad(recently retired)who spent his whole life as an electrical engineer desgining transformers for Australia's,and some SE Asian countries, power grids.

Put it another way, its far more concievable and viable than coal sequestration.

I agree coal sequestration is a ludicrous idea,as i said.

lets for arguments sake it can't provide energy in the dark, simple, just use majority solar in daylight and switch the coal on for after dark. Either way, it would can the need more MORE coal power stations.

Base load,can't be "switched on and off" at whim.Thats why it's referred to as base load.

 

[Freezer]

Freezer what is the point of that article?

Supporters of global warming like to insinuate that all scientists are in agreeance with each other about how devastating climate change is and how it's all our fault. Clearly they're not.