Thread: Environment problems

You didn't read the site, did you Bob?

"Solar energy only works in the daytime, and it can't provide the reliable power we need."
Solar thermal power plants can store energy during daylight hours and generate power when it's needed. Ausra's power plants collect the sun's energy as heat; Ausra is developing thermal energy storage systems which can store enough heat to run the power plant for up to 20 hours during dark or cloudy periods. To learn more about how Ausra's plants store energy, click here.

woodbe.

Not long on detail is it woodbe, but sounds interesting.

Yea, they're not exactly forthcoming, but it looks like they have some plants in service, which is something. Dunno if they do the day/night thing though.

Winter is no much of a problem in the desert. It's usually the best time of year, and loads of sunshine, Bob. Ask anyone from Death Valley or anywhere between Port Augusta and north of Alice...

woodbe.

woodbe, most of these alternative energy sources are fine for "top-up" power but not base load. That's where nuclear has an advantage and so does geothermal. They are doing trials in the Cooper Basin (GeoDynamics) but have struck problems with the drilling technology to get down to the hot rocks.

Like everything else, it sounds fantastic, almost a closed loop, pump the water down on the hot rocks, capture the steam through turbines, generate electricity, collect the water, pump on to hot rocks...................

I hadn't heard they had struck problems with the drilling. bugga.

That's what caught my attention with the Ausra mob. They are talking base load, in fact, they are talking about the complete US day and night load coming from their solar-thermo plant. It sounds amazing but is it really possible?

woodbe.

Originally Posted by Groggy

Why do people keep ignoring the plain and simple fact we are overpopulating?

Can someone answer that? It does not matter how efficient we become, or how clean our fuels, unless we slow population growth, then reduce it, we are stuffed.

Cause its too hard. And there are too many catholics

But you are correct. Overpopulation will screw us

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Thanks Bob, interesting.

I think we all have our own hobby horse re alternative energy sources. One of my favoutites and one that is sadly underexploited in OZ is geothermal energy. Not only the systems where you pump water down a hole in the earth on to hot rocks and the generated steam drives a turbine, but also the "backyard" systems with buried pipes and heat exchangers for heating and cooling houses. Much more popular in the States than here.

Here's a cool one that uses your idea.

Originally Posted by silentC

.
If you're going to take that line, we might as well just join Rod and pretend it's not happening.

No Silent C I just don't agree that the science has proved or even close to proving that its man made.

I also dont agree that science has proved that it will be as bad as they make out.

I also don't agree with the alarmist views of the ramifications of Global Warming.

I agree the globe as warmed by a total of .7 deg this century. I also note that it has not increased since 1998.

I just dont pretend that we are looking at doomsday like you guys want to believe.

History is full of examples of this kind of scaremongering that never come to pass. Chicken Little springs to mind!

The expression about heat and kitchens springs to mind

I can take any heat you want to dish out mate but if you want to start pushing my buttons by calling me naive, expect me to get irritated.

Bad decisions in the past have no bearing, please!

What you are saying is that because some scientists have been wrong in the past, we shouldn't trust any of them to be right in the future.

What I want to know is who you think is going to come up with solutions to problems in the future if we are like you and have a distrust of scientists? Who is the better option?

Tempting silentc, tempting.

Don't hold back on my account. If you've got something to say, say it.

Chicken Little springs to mind!

Umm, I hate to tell you this, but Chicken Little is a children's fairy tale, not a real event.

I just dont pretend that we are looking at doomsday like you guys want to believe.

You are still characterising the debate as being between people who think the world is going to end and people who don't. I don't believe the world is going to end. I happen to be a recent convert to the 'risk management' way of thinking, which says that there MAY be something bad coming, because respected scientists are telling us there is, and we should be prepared for it. I think that is a very logical attitude to hold.

If you want to challenge that way of thinking, do so. But please stop telling me the sky is not falling because I'm not saying that it is.

I just want to summarise the points of disagreement, because it's getting lost in a slanging match:

Big Shed: Your first post yesterday was a link to what you called 'facts rather than melodramatic hype'. That suggests that you believe there isn't anything much to worry about. You also say you believe the scientists who tell you that global warming is taking place but you don't believe the ones who say it is man made. You say that if people like Al Gore "walked the talk" you would take "this whole argument a bit more seriously" (note you said "this whole argument" not "his argument"). You say that if global warming is man made, then there is nothing we can do about it. You are cynical towards the ability of science to solve any problems and believe they will most likely stuff it up.

So here are my questions to you:
1. What basis do you use to decide which scientists you believe? Have you heard of confirmation bias, and do you agree that you might be susceptible to it?

2. Given you believe that global warming is taking place, there's nothing we can do to stop it, and assuming you think it is a bad thing, who do you believe is best able to take any action that needs to be taken to prepare for it? What part, if any, should science play in this?

3. If Al Gore moved from his mansion to a small house with solar power and stopped catching aeroplanes, would you change your views on any of this?

Rod: You say that the whole climate change debate is a fraud. Nothing is happening, nothing is going to happen. You believe this because you have seen no proof. Nothing anyone has said to you would convince you that the Earth's climate is changing or is going to change and so we should just carry on as usual.

My questions to you:

1. What is the purpose of this fraud? Who benefits from it?

2. How do you decide what arguments to believe? Do you concede that you could be wrong about it?

3. Do you think there is any possibility that what we have been doing for the last 200 years might have caused some long term problems?

Hi C,

We've been here before mate. This debate goes on and the deniers keep on denying, no amount of documented evidence or scientific concensus will change it. There is still a flat earth society. I think its OK to be sceptical. But I do think its stupid to adopt the head in the sand approach. If your cars brakes were playing up you'd get it fixed wouldnt you?, even if you hadnt crashed yet? Its called risk management.

For the naysayers, base load can be resolved with high temperature solutions that can be stored. These can be heated by solar, geothermal etc. Another opportunity for coastal dwellers is tidal power. There are plenty of solutions. Way back in the 70's Buckminster Fuller proposed that a big integrated grids would level supply and demand across continents. Another solution is to use less power.

Unfortunately, climate change is only one issue. Overpopulation (get the snip when you're done), loss of biodiversity (up to 30% of all species will disappear this century), loss of biomass (90% of the large sea critters are already gone), and pollution (ever wondered what happens to the unmetabolised drugs that you pee, eg antibiotics) must also be addressed.

These issues can only be really addressed by governments forcing mass behaviour change. The best way is by incentives, eg Germany is now leading in solar. Disincentives eg Carbon Trading will have a role as well.

Sebastiaan

I agree that governments have to drive it (and in turn we should drive them) but we have to rely on science and scientists to tell us where to best focus the efforts. I just don't know what alternative there is.

My main concern here though is this attitude people seem to have that they can understand the science well enough to cherry pick the arguments. I have no hope of ever understanding all the complexities of climate change. It's far too late for me to start and I don't have the keen interest in it that would be required. How can anybody who is not an expert in that field decide which arguments to believe, other than on some sort of gut feeling?

This is why I mentioned confirmation bias. The only way I can see that you could support some arguments and reject others, unless you have a deep understanding of the subject, is through a preconception of the truth. You seek out arguments that support your preconception (and people do this subconsciously, so it's not a criticism) and avoid or dismiss arguments that don't.

I think if I can get one of these guys to concede that it's possible they have it wrong - even to themselves, then I have done what I set out to do. That's all. I'm not trying to convert anyone - it's a waste of time and to be honest, I don't really think it matters what they believe, as long as enough people are stirred into action.

Originally Posted by silentC

Rod: You say that the whole climate change debate is a fraud. Nothing is happening, nothing is going to happen. You believe this because you have seen no proof. Nothing anyone has said to you would convince you that the Earth's climate is changing or is going to change and so we should just carry on as usual.

My questions to you:

1. What is the purpose of this fraud? Who benefits from it?

2. How do you decide what arguments to believe? Do you concede that you could be wrong about it?

3. Do you think there is any possibility that what we have been doing for the last 200 years might have caused some long term problems?

Ok SilentC for a start I don't dissagree that there has been some Global warming over the past 100 years (I have already stated that). What I believe is that the effects and the cause have been grossly exagerated to cause pannic to dirive home the green mantra.

I also believe that the belief in Global warming has been hijacked by the UN as a mean to redistribute wealth to developing countries from developed countries. Why else would developing countries be allowed to continue to increase emissions at the expense of developed countries. Why are developed countries forced to pay a fine to undeveloped countries to buy carbon credits that will not solve the problem if it exists.

Please at lease include China nad India

I have an issue with the fact Australia only contributes a minor portion of world emissions yet could be forced to reduce living standards here for what purpose? Can anyone say how much a 60% cut in our emissions will reduce Global Temperature?

I believe that extremists have hijacked the GW debate and by making outlandish and false claims have discredited the scientific process which cast doubt on the validity of any claims. Requiring that all claims need to be carefully analyised before conclusions are made. It is a well known fact that the whole AGW debate is based on theories and not scientific facts. it is a matter of do you believe the theory or not based on probabilities. In my view they have not made a clear cut case that can be believed without question. Yet they will have you believe the debate is over.

There are many logical arguments about that discredit the AGW theory. The British court debunked 11 claims made by Al Gore in his film. There are many scientific concerns regarding the validity of the data used to form the computer models that forms a large part of the AGW mantra. The hockey stick model was discredited. The temperatures used were incorrect and later quietly corrected by Nassa. Claims the Antartic ice is reducing is false. So many false and blatant lies have been told to try and convince people that the AGW theory is in fact a fact.

On the balance of scientifc evidence I have read I simply cannot bring myself to follow the herd. If there was not such a hysterical push based of so many untruths and exaggerations I might be more apt to be a little more sympathetic. But my Bull S*** radar goes off when I see people making ridiculous claims about AGW.

The world temperatures have gone up by point 7 Deg's in 100 years the fear factor was that temps would increace 3 to 4 deg within 20 years based on the infamous hockey stick graph. That graph has been discredtited and is false. Since 1998 the temps have not increaced and yet people are declaring that they have. There are just so many holes in the AGW theory.

I really believe that the world will heat and cool quite naturally and that regardless of what we do it will not change. The Sun has the biggest influence on our temperatures by a huge factor therfore it is more logical that any minor change in the suns out put due to many reasons, would have more influence over world temps. I believe that there is evidence of this being the main factor behind Global temp change both now and in the past.

What would sway me?

Well conclusive scientific evidence that reducing Co2 emissions WILL not MAY reduce global temperatures.

Now I don't expect you to agree on anything I have posted Nor will anything you post in reply alter my opinion as it is based on the balance of information I have read, of which arguments you pose form a part of that information.

You have asked for my reasoning and now you have it. I don't discredit you for your opinion although I don't agree with it. So I do not expect to be discredited for mine.

Nor am I going to get into a prove this prove that argument, everything I have mentioned can be found on the web. I don't propose to be an expert on anything to do with AGW.

I have simply looked at all the facts from both sides, (as there is definitly a contrary view), then made my own assesment based on probabilities of who is more likely to be right or wrong. In the end it matters little to anyone other than myself what I think or in fact what you think.

I will continue to be careful that I keep my own emissions low without be excessive or paranoid about it, simply because I agree that less polution is better. I will continue to encourage alternative fuel simply because it is the right thing to do long term for future generations. No way will I "sell the farm" over this.

BTW I do realize chicken little is a fairy tale