power prices and renewables

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

Peer-reviewed journals usually consist of the methodology proposed, the results, and then discussion & conclusion based upon said results obtained via the methodology applied. The journals are then peer-reviewed, by fellow scientists, and are published when consensus on the journals' findings is satisfied. In other words they are basing their papers' findings on the measurements taken and others are agreeing with them.

And yet for all the peer reviews, masses of papers, seminars... the globally agreed theory didn't predict nearly 20 years pause to temperature rises, go figure.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

Lets talk a bit more about science and the pause to temperature rises. The theory didn't predict the pause, a lot warmies would like to ignore the pause or for it to simply go away but it is what it is.

There are people like Mungo Malcolm who write about it all being a conspiracy of the right (yep the right is so powerful that they can control global temperatures).

I'm less into conspiracy however it does seem that global warming is failed science, but what would I know being surrounded by such intellect.

Yes lets discuss the science.
By its nature and own admission science is flawed. It is not as you assume knowledge and fact but assumption, experiment and reporting on verifiable observations, good science is then reviewed by expert peers and published. bad science sometimes get published before peer or ignoring Peer review. This is what i believe much of the deniers cling too.

Now since the so called pause (myth) and the anomalies in the models science has gone back and reviewed what why and how they were erroneous. Like all good science they have tested to fail and reviewed the assumptions and learned more about the science.
In the case of the myth about the warming pause, as I understand it from reading peer reviewed and published in reputable journals, (ill point out they are not the a newspaper or internet source) the scientists determined the models did not adequately take into account the ongoing and still unpredictable effects of El Nino and La nina (further science needed) and the land cooling effects of the exceptional period of trade winds combined.

Furthermore good science does not make claims per say but reports on observed findings and using further scientific knowledge predicts possible outcomes based on the stated assumptions. With caveat that the science is evoling and findings may change. Cliamte science, as opposed to personal observations and wet finger surveys, is a relatively new science and very complex.

What I read is not dramaticised by catchphrases and headlines, like newspapers et al, but by findings of trend.
Trend are statistical analysis of data that extrapolate which indicate a movement in one direction or another, in this case the trend continues to rise,

I suggest the 'pause' myth relied on land based temperature readings remaining steady. The alternate findings suggest the oceans are absorbing more then previously due to the effects mentioned above. The missing heat is ointheoceans not th eland and when the other effects are accounted for in the new models, which have now predicted actual observations we continue to see a heating trend.
And all this is again Peer reviewed and published in reputable journals.

But its easy to pick and choose the 'science' we wish. to prove our points and further our agendas. I wont argue but am yet to be convinced by a handful of scientists and a few journalists and bloggers and cheap that the vast majority are wrong.

And I put it out there, If I am wrong, we all survive, and the work we as a globe did to prevent runaway climate change bought about economic benefit to many, reduced pollution and made us aware of our environment and that would make the world a better place for all. If what I read and believe is true most people will suffer significant negative change in their environment, community and lives.

Justin

[loony888]

Unfortunately Australia is part of the "western world" where political correctness and being seen to support allies is all important.
global warming an issue? maybe, but it's worth seriously considering what's best for us as a nation, not what's best for the commonwealth, the western world or our european history. They have their own problems and they are dealing with them to suit _their_ interests.

We seem to care more about how we appear to others and what is politically palatable at the time than actually doing what's right for our country, our citizens, our economy.

there are countries who buy their fossil fuels, so for them, supplementing power production with renewable energy makes sense, every little bit helps, but for us we have more than enough fossil fuel to sell at a fair price as well as consume what we need at a sensible cost. Australia can embrace technology that makes renewable energy affordable if and when A, we need it, and B when it has become cost effective, because while we try and look responsible at the cost of our deficit and our children future countries like India, China etc are polluting the planet with impunity and becoming serious economic superpowers in the process!

Too many soft pollies paying lip service to do gooders and greenies while taxing us into poverty while they line their pockets.

Crikey i'm cynical! but i work in power distribution and am confident we as a nation cannot afford to commit to"go green" just yet

[jpblue1000]

Furthermore and to the point of the thread.
I see renewable as a great economic stimulus rather than a social penalty. In the last ten years there has been massive growth in employment in the industry globally and even here in Australia. South Australia is a good example.
I don't mind subsiding renewables roll out and research, and nobody has provided much an argument that the fossil fuel industry inst and hasn't been subsidised to equal amount.
Im also not sorry that this angers you. Sometimes society just has to change around some people despite themselves.
And renewables has made me money so not sure why many complain its costing them personally. get on board and save money and the economy and maybe the world.

JP

[loony888]

i have a large solar array on my roof and reap the reward of tariff feed in subsidies as well, not because i'm green and responsible but purely because the govt. taxes me (i think) too much so i do what i can to get some back, it's called playing the game, it's what politicians do, so i'm doing it too. If there was no feed in tarrif subsidy to offset the cost of my system i certainly wouldn't cough up out of any social conscience!

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Watch this post get removed! 5...4...3...2...?

Zero.........

And I'd like to remind everyone about the T&C's, specifically #3
"Posts that are disrespectful or insulting to another forum member. Remember that everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it is expressed in a reasoned manner."

[mcflux]

Cheap - would you trust a collection of data on global temperature trends from the NASA website? This contradicts your claim on a "pause" since 1998. In fact, it specifically states that the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since... 1998.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Then again, these guys faked the moon landing.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

Cheap - would you trust a collection of data on global temperature trends from the NASA website? This contradicts your claim on a "pause" since 1998. In fact, it specifically states that the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since... 1998.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Then again, these guys faked the moon landing.

Hottest years does not equal a trend. I think you will find it is generally agreed that there's been a pause for nearly 20 years - except for NASA's Hansen and the try hard warmies.

Getting back to the OP, I really don't mind how people get their electricity, but

don't plead ignorance or deny that other people aren't paying for your decision
don't carry on about all the other subsidies that other people/industries get and;
don't harp on about how you're doing it to save the planet

economic benefit, yep, I would agree there lots of benefit for panel manufacturers in China, Germany and USA, however I'm not so sure how much economic benefit there is to Australia

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

Going by those numbers, that's either one hell of a left-wing nutcase cult pushing their broken models on us, or it's consensus amongst thousands of scientists' findings.

The trouble is that peer review and confirmation bias tend to go hand in hand... http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~wstarbuc/Writing/Prejud.htm

Not to mention the effect of governments offering funding to address a problem... you tend to get research that confirms that (a) there is a problem, (b) even more needs to be done to tackle the problem. Case in point is speeding road safety research (eg. google Kloeden's research into 50 zones, and Lambert's re-analysis of the same dataset to get a completely different set of conclusions). You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

If the government turned around and said funding would be offered to prove we weren't contributing to global warming, you'd see a lot of research showing just that.

The main issue we have is that climate science is almost exclusively model-based, and slight tweaks of those models result in big changes in their predictions. The first IPCC doom and gloom predictions on the rate of warming have to be consistently revised down year after year. Too much time is being wasted by the scientific community to prove they know what they're on about when ultimately it doesn't matter. What we should be focusing on is how to stop CO2 going up, or reducing. Instead, everyone's preoccupied with seeing just how accurate they can be, while doing nothing re: creating tech to address the physical problem.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by b0son

Not to mention the effect of governments offering funding to address a problem... you tend to get research that confirms that (a) there is a problem, (b) even more needs to be done to tackle the problem.

Former PM John Howard seems to agree with you.
From a speech last year...."The ground is thick with rent-seekers. There are plenty of people around who want access to public money in the name of saving the planet."

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-pol...106-2wzza.html

[superyob]

Does anyone make 'I love carbon' T shirts?

[mcflux]

If the government turned around and said funding would be offered to prove we weren't contributing to global warming, you'd see a lot of research showing just that.

I'm sure our current govt is actively funding research to prove we are.

[poppa smurf]

Originally Posted by cheap

"don't plead ignorance or deny that other people aren't paying for your decision"




why not.....I'm a taxpayer and I pay the same as you or anybody else for my power, with or without solar, just because I made a canny decision to reduce my costs where some poo poked the idea doesn't make me wrong.




"don't carry on about all the other subsidies that other people/industries get"




why do large organisations deserve subsidies paid by people just like me but when people, just like me, get trifling payments it's wrong, in the words of pauline Hanson "please explain"

we did nothing wrong here, the government, along with the people of this land, asked and encouraged us to go solar, but when we did and big business lost a little profit the carrot was revoked and out came the stick for something not of our doing......fools then jump on the bandwagon and blame us for rising power prices.

solar adds less than 5% to the average power bill (govco figures, not mine, sprouted not long ago)......

"carbon tax" was another "large contributor" to power bills......funny how that
dwindled as the carbon charges were withdrawn




"don't harp on about how you're doing it to save the planet"




not interested in saving the planet.....lowering my family's life cost is what I'm about



"economic benefit, yep, I would agree there lots of benefit for panel manufacturers in China, Germany and USA, however I'm not so sure how much economic benefit there is to Australia

if you speak with little knowledge of the industry it would be easy to say very little, but as long as we continue to prop up other countries industries there will be none........

once again I repeat, subsidise Australian jobs and industries first for the things that we can produce and invest in industries that will gain production skills for that which we can't.

we will lose millions from Tindle alone, never lone the industry knowledge that goes with it.

the new graphite mine in the yorke peninsula is on hold, battery construction and sales with the consequent reduction in production cost of said batteries will be lost, because of fools in power.

the consequences of turning our back on renewable energy will be huge long term, of that there is no question.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by b0son

The trouble is that peer review and confirmation bias tend to go hand in hand... http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~wstarbuc/Writing/Prejud.htm

On the other hand, it's a good sign that the scientific process has the framework to identify, meaure and critically self-evaluate on any of these shortcomings when they occur. Quantifying uncertainties and flaws in any part of the scientific process and being held to account for them ultimately makes science stronger. Are there any other areas of human activity which do this? Is there any other system which could do better? The battles over major scientific issues have always been fought, lost and won in the scientific literature using these methods.

It's significant that an article exploring the weaknesses of peer review would have used that very process itself on it's way to the pages of the journal Cognitive Therapy and Research. While this article was written in 1977, a quick search on Google Scholar shows other pieces of research measuring these things and discussing improvements along the way. It's not exactly been tucked away out of sight.

Originally Posted by b0son

Not to mention the effect of governments offering funding to address a problem... you tend to get research that confirms that (a) there is a problem, (b) even more needs to be done to tackle the problem. Case in point is speeding road safety research (eg. google Kloeden's research into 50 zones, and Lambert's re-analysis of the same dataset to get a completely different set of conclusions). You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

If the government turned around and said funding would be offered to prove we weren't contributing to global warming, you'd see a lot of research showing just that.

The big accolades in science go to those who overturn conventional thinking rather than confirming it. The battles over the basic fundamentals of climate change was thrashed out decades ago in the scientific community, and is accepted in the same way that scientists now no longer argue about earth orbiting the sun or whether vaccinations against measles are effective. That's not to say "the science is settled" because there are always multitudes of lines of enquiry going on to try to refine understandings ever further. One sign that evidence is of good quality is when it can be used to build upon and branch into further lines of enquiry which make successful predictions. Bad evidence and disproven theories end up as deadend streets which can't keep contributing further.

Governments supply funding to resource scientists to do the job of finding out things. They are held at arms length by agencies such as the Australian Research Council which manages the grants. But what happens when science doesn't conform to politics - it's dismissed or attacked by different sides of the political spectrum. It's happened before with GMO tech and nanotechnology from the left, and evolution and climate science etc etc.

Originally Posted by b0son

The main issue we have is that climate science is almost exclusively model-based, and slight tweaks of those models result in big changes in their predictions. The first IPCC doom and gloom predictions on the rate of warming have to be consistently revised down year after year. Too much time is being wasted by the scientific community to prove they know what they're on about when ultimately it doesn't matter. What we should be focusing on is how to stop CO2 going up, or reducing. Instead, everyone's preoccupied with seeing just how accurate they can be, while doing nothing re: creating tech to address the physical problem.

I'm not sure that's not being done. Isn't that what those who research and develop renewable/low carbon tech are doing? It's not the job of a climate scientist to do it; they are tasked with studying atmospheric sciences. It's important to know how accurate the data is, how the future may play out and how much confidence you have in your predictions, otherwise how would we know how urgently we need to problem solve?

Climate science isn't just model based. Scientists involved in chemistry, physics, paleogeology, meteorology, remote sensing etc are out there measuring, testing and collecting data in the real world and then analysing what all that actually means. In science there's only one thing better than empirical measurements made in the real world, and that's multiple independant measurements all pointing to the same thing. With climate science, these multiple lines of evidence all point in the same direction. Some of these lines of evidence include measuring emissions and carbon buildup, satellite measurements of things like outgoing infrared radiation, measuring fall of oxygen levels, changes in atmospheric layers, and studying past climates and how they reacted to changing inputs.

Climate models are mathematical representations of systems. They're based on the real world physical properties of their components. The tweaks you mentioned are used when someone wants to see what happens when a range of scenarios are put on the table. Models have to be tested to see if they actually work before they can be used to predict future trends. They use "hindcasting" which tests whether they can accurately predict past climate changes from a given starting point. If their predictions from that point match what actually happened, it's one sign they can be used with reasonable confidence.

[chamb0]

Just something to end with - a couple of interesting articles I've read recently in New Scientist. One article explored whether our civilisation (or another) could ever have reached this current point without tapping into fossil fuels. The answer was 'very unlikely' - centuries ago they allowed us to overcome negative feedbacks and constraints that limited land area imposed on us, by unlocking vast reserves of energy. Cheap coal killed off early renewable energy technology and powered further technological advances. In the absence of coal, hydropower could have delivered Western Europe to around the year 1800 level.

The second article looked at some of the psychology behind how we react to news about climate change, wherever you are on the political spectrum. I think it's a pretty interesting read.

DANIEL KAHNEMAN is not hopeful. "I am very sorry," he told me, "but I am deeply pessimistic. I really see no path to success on climate change."

Kahneman won the 2002 Nobel prize in economics for his research on the psychological biases that distort rational decision- making. One of these is "loss aversion", which means that people are far more sensitive to losses than gains. He regards climate change as a perfect trigger: a distant problem that requires sacrifices now to avoid uncertain losses far in the future. This combination is exceptionally hard for us to accept, he told me.

Kahneman's views are widely shared by cognitive psychologists. As Daniel Gilbert of Harvard University says: "A psychologist could barely dream up a better scenario for paralysis."

People from other disciplines also seem to view climate change as a "perfect" problem. Nicholas Stern, author of the influential Stern Review on the economics of climate change, describes it as the "perfect market failure". Philosopher Stephen Gardiner of the University of Washington in Seattle says it is a "perfect moral storm". Everyone, it seems, shapes climate change in their own image.

Which points to the real problem: climate change is exceptionally amorphous. It provides us with no defining qualities that would give it a clear identity: no deadlines, no geographic location, no single cause or solution and, critically, no obvious enemy. Our brains scan it for the usual cues that we use to process and evaluate information about the world, but find none. And so we impose our own. This is a perilous situation, leaving climate change wide open to another of Kahneman's biases – an "assimilation bias" that bends information to fit people's existing values and prejudices.

So is climate change really innately challenging, or does it just seem so because of the stories we have shaped around it? For example, the overwhelming and possibly hopeless struggle portrayed by the media and many campaigners provokes feelings of powerlessness. Scientists reinforce distance with computer predictions set two generations in the future and endless talk of uncertainty. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uses the word "uncertain" more than once per page.

Discussions about economics, meanwhile, invariably turn into self defeating cost-benefit analyses. Stern offers a choice between spending 1 per cent of annual income now, or risking losing 20 per cent of it in 50 years' time. This language is almost identical to that Kahneman used two decades earlier in his experiments on loss aversion. Is it surprising that when a choice is framed like this, policy-makers are intuitively drawn towards postponing action and taking a gamble on the future?

If cost and uncertainty really are universal psychological barriers, it is hard to explain why 15 per cent of people fully accept the threat and are willing to make personal sacrifices to avert it. Most of the people in this group are left wing or environmentalists and have managed to turn climate change into a narrative that fits with their existing criticisms of industry and growth.

Conservatives may justify climate inaction on the grounds of cost and uncertainty but they, too, are able to accept both as long as they speak to their core values. As former US vice-president and climate sceptic Dick Cheney said: "If there is only a 1 per cent chance of terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction, we must act as if it is a certainty."

Strongly held values can explain the convictions of those at the ends of the political spectrum, but they do not adequately explain the apparent indifference of the large majority in between. If asked, most agree that climate change is a serious threat, but without prompting they do not volunteer it.

This silence is similar to that found around human rights abuses, argued the late Stanley Cohen, a sociologist at the London School of Economics. He suggested that we know very well what is happening but "enter into unwritten agreements about what can be publicly remembered and acknowledged".

Our response to climate change is uncannily similar to an even more universal disavowal: unwillingness to face our own mortality, says neuroscientist Janis Dickinson of Cornell University in New York. She argues that overt images of death and decay along with the deeper implications of societal decline and collapse are powerful triggers for denial of mortality.

There is a great deal of research showing that people respond to reminders of death with aggressive assertion of their own group identity. Dickinson argues that political polarisation and angry denial found around climate change is consistent with this "terror management theory". Again, there is a complex relationship between our psychology and the narratives that we construct to make sense of climate change.

For all of these reasons, it is a mistake to assume that the scientific evidence of climate change will flow directly into action – or, conversely, that climate denial can be dismissed as mere misinformation. The systems that govern our attitudes are just as complex as those that govern energy and carbon, and just as subject to feedbacks that exaggerate small differences between people. The problem itself is far from perfect and the situation is not hopeless, but dealing with it will require a more sophisticated analysis of human cognition and the role of socially shared values in building conviction.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

I'm sure our current govt is actively funding research to prove we are.

Have a look at the ARC's stated priority areas if you think it the case.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

the new graphite mine in the yorke peninsula is on hold, battery construction and sales with the consequent reduction in production cost of said batteries will be lost, because of fools in power.

How much more subsidy do they need? The R&D tax concessions are already quite generous.

[zilo]

Sorry Cheap..Just added you to the ignore list.

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by b0son

Have a look at the ARC's stated priority areas if you think it the case.

TBH it was sarcasm. I'd write to our Minister of Science on the matter, but...

[poppa smurf]

Originally Posted by b0son

How much more subsidy do they need? The R&D tax concessions are already quite generous.

the subsidy for the mine may be there but the fiscal economic outcome is no longer.

I was speaking with a good friend of mine who happens to be our local representative as an independent, Geoff Brock.

the possible goal for the mine was to take the outcome a whole step further and start up a manufacturing industry in Port Pirie, everything is there, rail, shipping, land and labour.

this would have been a huge injection for not only the region but the state, with renewables, mainly home solar, on the chopping list the companies (that may have been interested) have pulled out and invested elsewhere.

South Australia has the largest take up of renewables in the country and it is not slowing, but Govco continue to put stumbling blocks in the way simply in the name of profits for multinationals.

[zipping]

Originally Posted by trublu

Read your history on Federal Parliament, political parties & politicians, use to be taught in schools once!

Maybe you should go back and read it after the first PM Barton the next 3 or so years saw Prime Minister Deakin, Watson, Reid, Deakin election Deakin, Fischer, Deakin.

Not the greatest of stability there and I wouldn't claim they were effective Parliaments

[ebxr8240]

I have a motorhome with 700 watt solar , 4 X 6 volt 220 ah batteries with voltage, battery controller. It keeps enough power to run everything you want..
Now at home I have 5000w solar system . Which is max allowed for single phase inverter.. If I had solar water heating? Except for cooking I could easy go off grid with 4 X 12v batteries. To supply my lighting ( convert to 12v led) fridge, freezer, LED TV through inverter..
The politicians NEED to STOP using our elect meters as a form of tax / income.. Or we could quite easy go off grid.. LPG cylinders or ethanol / mentholated spirits can EASY be used for cooking..
Glass batteries are around $450 each for GOOD ones..
Don't ever think it can't be done.. Hell yes it can..
I worked in the electrical supply industry ..

[Franco Cozzo]

We cook with LPG here already anyway as when this house was built there was no natural gas lines in the town.

Everything else is electrical though.

[ebxr8240]

We should be making roof tiles in THIS country which are solar . If most roofs had 70% north 30% west facing roof tiles .. Our resources expenses would be way down .. Developing employment here so the dollar goes around in this country..
Btw I feel the same with ethanol as fuel.. Like it or not..

[poppa smurf]

with a little lateral thinking it is reasonably easy to go off grid.

if we want to stick with ALL our luxuries it is expensive but if we are willing to sacrifice a little it can be done relatively cheaply.

other countries are manufacturing complete roof tiles and wall panels in large buildings and domestic out of solar panels and see no need for a grid......Australia is one of the last of the developed economies that have no foresight and cannot see beyond an income stream.

Abbott stunned me with his recent statement "Australia's future lies in coal!".......incredible, absolutely unbelievable.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

other countries are manufacturing complete roof tiles and wall panels in large buildings and domestic out of solar panels and see no need for a grid......Australia is one of the last of the developed economies that have no foresight and cannot see beyond an income stream.

Funny enough we have made printed solar panels which are cheap and the efficiency is getting to good levels. A smart company would be getting their finger in that. Developing tiles with Boral/Brickworks would be a very good business move, and with Battery tech getting cheaper if they're (power companies) not throwing money into this they will end up being gone and quickly.

[ebxr8240]

We as a country need to do things long term.. Not selling off our farm ( business) for short term gains.. We don't have major schemes . Like the snowy river scheme ..
It's all about politics , being P/C these days..

[XP6]

It would be ok for the average household to off grid but for people like me who's base load is normal... my peak loads are huge batterys/invertors to support this would cost me over a 100k

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

with a little lateral thinking it is reasonably easy to go off grid.

if we want to stick with ALL our luxuries it is expensive but if we are willing to sacrifice a little it can be done relatively cheaply.

other countries are manufacturing complete roof tiles and wall panels in large buildings and domestic out of solar panels and see no need for a grid......Australia is one of the last of the developed economies that have no foresight and cannot see beyond an income stream.

Abbott stunned me with his recent statement "Australia's future lies in coal!".......incredible, absolutely unbelievable.

Are you advocating you can disconnect your house from the power grid?

Don't think you are allowed to do that & you will be still billed for administration charges even if you do not use electricity provided.

[poppa smurf]

of course you can disconnect from the grid.......quite legal......I have been involved in many "off grid housing builds".

many stations out here have never been connected to the grid and never will be.

are You saying they are all illegal?

I grew up using kero fridges, battery banks and free light generators.....a lot of these are still in use.

the power industry is so worried about this they are already preempting this scenario by discussing a "supply charge" if the lines go past your house, same as sewerage, whether you use it or not.