26th Nov 2018
We are no closer to solving our energy cost crisis
australia money power cables

The results of the YourLifeChoices’ Friday Flash Poll: Solving Australia’s energy cost crisis reveals that we are no closer to providing a solution to our rapidly rising energy costs.

The survey, which had 855 responses, presented mixed results, with many Australians seemingly confused about the complexity and volatility of our current and future power crises. Of those who participated, 48 per cent are on a full or part Age Pension, while 32 per cent are fully self-funded and 85 per cent own their home.

Opinions from our members varied between total support of renewables as a reliable, cheap resource to full backing of coal-fired power and some saying nuclear could be the best option.

The hot topic when it comes to electricity supply begins at the source – coal- or gas-fired power stations or power supplied by renewable sources, such as solar, hydro or wind. From the survey, we found that our members are split between investing in coal-fired power stations, with 46 per cent saying yes, it is responsible, and 46 per cent saying it isn’t. However, 61 per cent say coal-fired power shouldn’t be funded by taxpayers.

On the flipside, 40 per cent say all new major energy investments should be in renewable sources, and 26 per cent say it should be split between coal and renewables.

“My view on coal is slightly different from most discussions I've seen. I think it's madness for us to invest in new coal-fired stations here in Australia. However, I believe we should continue to supply coal to cover the existing demand both here and overseas until it can be phased out. The existing coal-fired stations all around the world will need to stay in operation until alternatives come online and as such, in the interim, we may as well benefit. There probably needs to be a timeline on this so that all industries affected can plan ahead for the transition from coal to renewables. Whether you believe in climate change or not, we should try to reduce our impact on the planet and stop spewing crap into the atmosphere if there are alternatives at similar or reduced prices. From what I read, the cost of power from solar and wind are now on par with coal,” wrote BDW.

It seems that cost is the prevailing factor when it comes to power – 48 per cent say they would sacrifice emissions targets for cheaper power, 42 per cent say they wouldn’t, and nine per cent are unsure.

Fifty per cent of respondents have solar panels, while six per cent don’t yet but intend to in the future. Maybe more would install solar if it was more affordable, as 14 per cent say it’s too expensive. However, 11 per cent say they don’t believe they will benefit and nine per cent say solar is not appropriate for their home.

As far as solar savings go, 17 per cent say they will save up to $500 a year on their power bills, 18 per cent would save between $501 and $1000, 16 per cent would save between $1001 and $2000 and four per cent would save $2000 or more.

Nine per cent say their payoff time would be within three years, 11 per cent three to five years, 14 per cent five to seven years, five per cent seven to eight years, three per cent eight to nine years and five per cent 10 years.

Only four per cent have their solar backed up by a battery. Thirty per cent won’t buy a battery when it becomes cheaper, 20 per cent would and 17 per cent are unsure.

Now, here’s where the confusion really begins.

When asked if you’re paying too much for power, 78 per cent said yes, but 41 per cent say they are happy with their current provider. Thirty per cent have never switched power companies and 21 per cent haven’t done so for five years or more. Still, 20 per cent have done so in the last 12 months, 15 per cent in the past two years and 13 per cent within the last five years. Many respondents were from WA where there is only one energy provider.

Maybe comparison sites could be a little easier to navigate, with 22 per cent saying they are too difficult to understand.

While 30 per cent say their energy bills are too difficult to understand, 65 per cent say they understand them just fine, and five per cent don’t care.

Our members provided more interesting opinions and suggestions for fixing our power crisis.

“Rooftop solar for houses works. For those that have it. Saves heaps. But the subsidies cost the non-solar people heaps too. So, the reality is, the non-solars pay for those smart enough to install it,” wrote Bruce.

“I was lucky to install a solar panel system when the government paid subsidies to encourage people to adopt them. I paid for the system in three years and have enjoyed free electricity since. Mind you, I am very frugal with energy using energy efficient methods.” ~ PerthSV

Some say the power to reduce our energy bills is in our hands.

“We need to just use less power – less air conditioning, less TV, fewer appliances, better designed and insulated houses. The power wasted in commercial buildings like your average shopping mall is so much higher than it needs to be due to bad design of the buildings – no natural light or ventilation,” write Pratski.

Maybe modern construction of home is just as responsible for high power prices and climate change.

“My house was built in 1958 facing north and with wide eaves that perform beautifully in winter allowing in the sun and in summer blocking the hot sun. Also have ceiling insulation and a brick veneer house. Altogether a more climate comfortable home than my neighbours,” wrote shirboy.

Pro-nuclear members also made some interesting points.

“In the Australian context, it would be impossible to take the energy needs of the country completely over to renewables. No existing renewable methods can give the year-round continuity of quality power provision. The long-term future power generation should be worked on nuclear as it is the proven safe and clean method. It is expensive because of ingrained opposition created decades ago in a political bid to prevent access to cheap power. The opposition has resulted from concerted demonization of nuclear power that has been shown to be unrealistic. The sooner the public discussions by all parties start to include nuclear the sooner Australians can be sure of affordable safe continuous power,” wrote couldabeen.

“Why don't we invest in nuclear power? We have the resources and the expertise but not the courage. We must be the only developed country without any nuclear power generator in the country. About time we moved forward out of the dark age. Let our government focus on lower petrol pricing,” commented 4b2.

It seems the debate will rage on until someone can make sense of the situation we are in and the related issues regarding cost and effect on climate that we will face in the future.

Do you agree with these comments? Are you mostly confused by the state of our energy supply and cost? What is your suggestion to solve our power crisis?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    11:04am
    I care only for the logic and the facts Leon and what people say can be influenced by many factors, none of which may have any relevance to the actual issue.
    The reality is,

    1. the world is NOT flat and that CO2 which is already multiples of what it has been over the past million years continues to rise.
    2. weather patterns are showing wild swings as predicted with extreme events being more ferocious and more frequent.
    3. the long term temperature average has had 'hottest ever' recordings some 8 years from the past 10.

    Renewable energy is a no brainer unless you have vested interest. The technology is already cheaper than coal and continues to fall. Whilst coal will continue to be a part of the mix for decades to come we need to swap over to cleaner gas to smooth out the hiccups with renewables until they are worked out.
    The problem we face in Australia is that predominantly LNP governments have sold off our gas to offshore investors. Sound familiar? Now there is none for us. Thanks Johnny!

    The South Australian battery facility has proven how successful batteries are and during the next two decades Australia WILL make the transition. The very fact that the current coal controlled government has been so badly punished and is infighting is a sign of the times. It will have to at some time abandon the coal funded teat or it will cease to exist. The latter would appear to be a blessing but the devil never rests so it'll come back in some form or other. Likely the coal industry will invest in renewables and the reborn LNP will be bought by the same money. History always repeats itself.
    Lothario
    26th Nov 2018
    4:55pm
    The SA battery facility is a white elephant
    Just wait till the next blackout
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    8:50pm
    A post straight from party HQ.

    The SA batteries had NO BLACKOUTS last summer and they stabilised the grid.
    Strange how this government and its propaganda media have blacked that out.
    Keep trying. You have zero credibility.
    Hoohoo
    27th Nov 2018
    11:57am
    Lothario, it will probably be another huge storm (like the storm that took down those 23 huge power line towers in SA), that will cause the next blackout. It doesn't matter how the power is generated, the downed towers will not transmit electricity & will cause a huge blackout, whether it is in Tasmania, WA, SA, NSW, Vic, Qld or anywhere.

    The right wing media very deceptively conflated that huge blackout in SA with renewable energy generation not being reliable, but the irony is that the huge storm may well have been the result of climate change AND OUR NEGLECT TO ADDRESS IT.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2018
    1:16pm
    Correct Hoohoo. The dishonest blame game was run by the right wing media when the towers were flattened. It has NOTHING to do with renewable energy at all but we kept getting the same lies broadcast as news. THIS IS WHY WE NEED POLITICAL ANTI PROPAGANDA LAWS.
    Lothario
    27th Nov 2018
    4:08pm
    Achtung MICK

    Only propaganda I see here is from HooHoo and Mick

    Hoohoo - you're seriously deluded and live in cloud cuckoo land with your greenie rubbish

    Renewables just dont cut it - the blackout was SOLELY due to the SA's stupid renewables policies
    musicveg
    27th Nov 2018
    4:20pm
    I think you are the one who is deluded Lothario, you just keep spreading your delusions, you supply no proof of any of your comments,yours is the propaganda.
    Misty
    27th Nov 2018
    4:54pm
    Just ignore Lothario, he is like OG, just likes to stir the pot.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2018
    5:58pm
    Yeah guys. Unfortunately the word dick**** comes to mind. Sorry Lothario. You really are not worth the time of day but I understand you are posting for payment. Guess who.
    Retired Knowall
    29th Nov 2018
    8:32am
    And yet Labor Troll Mick's Hero SHORTON will not stop the Adani Coal Mine if the Aust. Public is stupid enough to vote his party in.
    Tells QLD voters he is for the mine and tells the rest Aust he is against it.
    SHORT ON principles.
    SHORT ON Ethics.
    SHORT ON Morals.
    SHORT ON the truth.
    Misty
    29th Nov 2018
    9:41am
    Retired Knowall, just because your party is going down in flames does not give you the right to defame Bill Shorten, get over it, no one is listening to the Coalition now except the few dyed in the wool supporters.
    Retired Knowall
    29th Nov 2018
    12:29pm
    Misty, for your information I am anything but a Coalition supporter.
    I have stated that BOTH the major parties need to be wiped out, they do NOTHING for the democratic processes of this country.
    We need more INDEPENDENTS to advocate for their constituency, NOT the party line.
    As for Shorton, what part of my post was false.
    Tell us when he was ever Principled, ethical, moral or told the truth.
    Misty
    29th Nov 2018
    1:01pm
    I don't believe BS was ever unprincipled, unethical, immoral , he was not correct on the Aussie Citizen saga but that could have been because of the information he was given by the lawyers.
    maxchugg
    29th Nov 2018
    5:48pm
    I'm interested in facts too, Mick. So please provide three facts:

    1. How much did the SA battery cost? Estimates are over $200 million.

    2. How long will the battery last?

    3. A business attempting to sell me a battery was forced to admit that the purchase would not be viable on the basis of cost alone, without considering serviceable life. So, if batteries are not viable for domestic use, how can the huge one in SA be viable?
    Hoohoo
    30th Nov 2018
    12:36pm
    maxchugg, the wonderful news about the SA Tesla battery is that it stabilised the grid & averted mass blackouts last summer, despite the fossil fuel naysayers screaming & kicking & boasting that renewable energy is unreliable. Fossil fuel miners & burners can no longer claim that theirs is the only method to ensure reliable baseload energy.

    I' don't know how much the Tesla battery cost, but I know it didn't cost the Earth, like fossil fuel mining & burning will do. maxchugg, can you tell us the real cost of mining & burning fossil fuels? Don't forget to include the damage to the environment, Sacred Sites, loss of water for farmers & environmental flows. (Don't forget to add the subsidies they are given by the Govt & ATO)

    On the subject of water theft & pollution, Adani are still in court because they drilled into an aquifer for which they did not have permission. They are also trying to defend themselves for spilling coal tailings into a wetland & into the Great Barrier Reef last cyclone season. Yet they have declared they are going to start mining operations before Christmas, in less than four weeks. How can this happen? Because the Libs and Nats have sold their souls!

    Did you know Adani have been given a concession to not have to pay Australia for ANY ROYALTIES for five years?
    maxchugg
    30th Nov 2018
    6:37pm
    Hoohoo, no,I don't know how much the SA battery cost and what little information I have been able to obtain indicates that, outside of the government, nobody else knows either because the government refuses to divulge. Estimates are in the order of $200 million or more making the anticipated life of the battery a critical question. As mentioned, batteries for domestic use are not viable at present, which is an indication that that the SA battery is unlikely to be viable either.

    Since the move away from electricity generated by coal fired furnaces, Australian energy prices have risen to a point where, if not quite the highest I the world, are among the highest. So much for the argument that renewables will supply electricity at a lower cost than coal.

    I am unable to comment upon the allegations you raise against the Adani mine because of a lack of knowledge on this subject. I have to say that I consider it highly improbable that any government would allow any coal mine to persist with practices which endanger the Barrier Reef.
    Hoohoo
    1st Dec 2018
    12:39am
    I think you have jumped to an incorrect conclusion, presuming that a large battery will not be viable because small, household batteries are not viable (which isn't necessarily true, either). On the contrary, a large battery collecting excess solar-generated feed in power from thousands of households or from solar farms, will make the large battery much more efficient & therfore viable.

    I mentioned earlier that I have friends on a farm, off the grid for over 20 years because it was cheaper than connecting to the grid. Their excess power (for solar-fed batteries) is wasted. They only have 2.6KW of solar panels. Even in September they had to switch their panels off in the heat of the day.

    Overseas countries pay less for Australian gas than Australians do - go figure! Someone's making a profit & it goes some way to explaining Australia's high power prices.

    Another reason power prices are so high is because when they were privatised (& the States given GST incentives to do so - yep, by the federal LNP), the power retailers made a very sound business decision to take it upon themselves to gold-plate the poles & wires, which is why everyone is charged a minimum of 60 cents per day. Then they charge for peak & off-peak power rates, deliberately confusing their "plans" for which your average consumer is totally bamboozled. The retailers are paying solar feed-ins at as low as 6 or 8 cents per kilowatt, then selling them back to us at whatever price they wish. Who's gonna stop 'em? It's been like a license to print money.

    Adani are in court for those two issues mentioned, but our laws (& governments) are too piss weak to act against them. Apparently Adani have given large donations to QLD LNP but not so much to QLD Labor, which has soured relations. There is still a land rights issue which has not been resolved, according to some of the local Custodians.
    maxchugg
    1st Dec 2018
    8:09am
    Hoohoo, I fail to see how I have jumped to an incorrect conclusion that the unviability of domestic batteries means that large batteries are also not viable. Did anyone undertake a cost/benefit analysis before the SA battery was installed? I think the answer is obvious because my limited investigations indicate that the cost is kept secret, almost certainly to prevent such a check being made.

    As for every other comment you have made, I am in general agreement, but I note that your last paragraph relies heavily upon your use of the word "apparently".

    However, I have to comment that, unlike another correspondent on this subject, you have not seen fit to resort to personal abuse when your views are questioned which causes me to respect your point of view.
    Hoohoo
    2nd Dec 2018
    8:07pm
    The same respect applies to you, max.

    Last week I heard a commentator on the ABC's "The Drum" make that comment about Adani recently donating more to the Libs than to Labor. Personally, I think it's corruption for Adani to donate to any party or government. Of course they expect something in return! Why else would they be handing money over?

    Elon Musk promised the SA battery to be up & running by last Christmas, or he would give back $1 million (I think that was the figure). So he delivered on time, stabilised reliability from solar & averted major blackouts. How do you measure the cost of that against the alternative? No other power generator or storage could've been set up in that timeframe.

    So all the people & businesses threatened by power outages were able to live their lives & run their businesses without interruption. How do you measure such a saving in a cost/benefit analysis? It was the only option to deliver a solution in the timeframe available, so it was the only "benefit" on the table. (Besides firing up a privatised gas station who were going to charge a premium price, & with the government incapable of preventing customers from being ripped off).
    temp81
    26th Nov 2018
    11:27am
    I have solar panels with a battery and this system is saving money, but the payback period is long. My main interest is reducing our carbon footprint.
    My main concern is that the electricity grid is not designed for the ever increasing flood of new solar systems.
    On a normal sunny day our solar system shuts down for a couple hours, ie produces no electricity, because of high voltages on the power lines.
    The power company made adjustments in May but with the spring/summer sun and the increase in solar systems around us the problem is back.

    We are being bombarded with announcements re new solar schemes but there is minimal public discussion about the fact that these systems will not operate at full capacity due to high voltages on the power grid .
    Old Geezer
    26th Nov 2018
    11:38am
    Yes the grid is now full and unreliable in many places due to too much solar. Don't you realise that's what is behind Labor's $2000 battery subsidy. They want people to invest in batteries at considerable cost even after the rebate to fix a problem they should be fixing themselves.

    I have decided that the payback for a battery for me is over 25 years but a battery only last 10 years so it is economically stupid to invest in a battery. Cheaper to run a generator during blackouts too.
    TREBOR
    26th Nov 2018
    12:04pm
    That's now what he said, OG - he said that his system shut down supplying into the grid because of high voltages etc... in hot weather that will get worse since the wires are not as conductive... it's all about the much-vaunted 'poles and wires' that Blackbaird The Privateer (in NSW) flogged to us as a going concern for sale...

    I'm looking at another property and plan to go stand-alone...
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    12:07pm
    You need to inform yourself OG. whilst payback for batteries makes them a still marginal investment the grid is still quite stable and the issue, as reported a few days ago, is that the voltage is turned up too high. Been there done that. My system works like a charm.

    Society will need to face voltage issues soon but that is where batteries even out the surges. The bigger the batter the better the solution. If you are looking to blame then blame your government which has DONE NOTHING because it wants to build coal fired power generators for its sponsor (the coal industry) and has also refused to rejigging the grid. It was fine with wasting money on poles and wires but it won't touch the aging transmission equipment. Perhaps because its game plan has always been to destroy renewable energy. The truth will come out when the culprits are all retired or dead or both. Nobody will ever be held to account for the betrayal and treachery.
    Old Geezer
    26th Nov 2018
    1:05pm
    Mick o Labor wants to con everyone to buy a battery with a measley $2000 rebate instead. That's where the real con lies.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    1:34pm
    Its an individual choice but solar + battery is the road to the future. You just seek to enslave Australians to planet destroying coal.
    The nigger picture is about the future of this planet and the unimaginable cost which is being reeked upon mankind with natural disasters every other day. When sea levels rise think about how many coastal cities will be gone.

    This is not about a measley $2000 rebate. That's the doorway into changing for the better. Its about the future of the planet as we remember it. Of course you do not give a tinkers because you'll be gone shortly OG. For me personally I'd like to leave the planet better than I found it. Not too many business people would agree with on that of course because business plunders and destroys most of the time.
    Hoohoo
    27th Nov 2018
    1:04pm
    I'm with you TREBOR - my next property will not be connected to the grid.
    I think this issue is what frightens both Labor & the LNP: What will happen when we solar producers stop feeding back into the grid? The energy companies have become so reliant on solar to prop up the grid (& they get it for peanuts & re-sell it back to us at a premium price!) but what will happen to them when people opt out of the system altogether? Only Labor has even thought about this, thus their battery plan. But they all still want you tied into the grid & with us "consumers" paying about 60 cents per day for the privilege, for the retailers' gold-plated poles & wires.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2018
    1:18pm
    I'm not wanting to agree with a troll like OG but batteries are not yet cost effective and the payback period is still too long. A small battery yes but not a unit big enough to go off grid is still a few years away. Having said that folk in rural areas put in lead acid batteries but these only last about 5 years.
    Its coming.
    Hoohoo
    27th Nov 2018
    7:14pm
    I think it is highly possible, MICK, but our inefficient household appliances & unthinking building practices are the main problem for many urban properties.

    I have friends who live off-grid on a farm in NSW. Over 20 years ago they decided to set up solar & batteries with a diesel generator back-up, as it would've cost them more to connect to the grid. They built their house to capture the northerly winter sun, use low energy household appliances, have timber floors throughout & high ceilings. They've only got 2.6KW of solar panels! Their batteries are always full & the generator is no longer needed. They have a small woodworking business & run large power tools while the sun shines.
    The solar panels & the batteries have been replaced with much more efficient ones recently. They have a slow combustion stove to heat their hot water & a gas cooktop.
    Hoohoo
    27th Nov 2018
    7:18pm
    I forgot to mention they switch the lights off when they leave a room!
    And they don't watch TV.
    Charlie
    26th Nov 2018
    11:30am
    When everybody is debating if renewables are better coal, we get a local power outage because of infrastructure failure. A fault in the electricity supply equipment.

    This gets back to whether it was a good idea to privatize electricity, with the government owing some things and the supply authority owning others.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    12:08pm
    Of course.
    musicveg
    27th Nov 2018
    2:01pm
    Yes, money has to be spent on new infrastructure. My power went half off last night with the lights flickering and some not working. TV stayed on though luckily I was in the middle of watching something.
    Buggsie
    26th Nov 2018
    11:33am
    Conventional nuclear power is now being phased out around the world - the existing power generators are wearing out and are heavily polluted, and sites will need to be sealed off and left alone for well over 300 years after decommissioning. However there are exciting developments being led by Chinese research, where scientists and engineers have developed the precursor to nuclear fusion. Test runs have produced power outputs greater than the energy used to generate them, using nonpolluting fuels that produce no radioactive wastes and most importantly no plutonium that can be used to make nuclear bombs. According to the press release, 33 countries have joined with China to commence the building of a commercial power generator based on this continuing research. Based in France, the nuclear fusion generator is planned to come on line in about a decade or so, producing clean power with no CO2 pollution and no radioactive wastes. Is Australia one of these forward thinking countries? Of course not, we are still fixated on coal and to hell with global warming. Some leadership from Canberra would be good, but don't expect it soon! Buggsie
    Old Geezer
    26th Nov 2018
    11:40am
    Renewables are the problem. People think renewables are green and clean however they are only called renewables as they wear out and need to be renewed with considerable disposal issues to the environment and considerable cost to the environment to make new ones.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    12:09pm
    No, you and your government are the problem. Both have been prostituted for money.
    Your BS about the cost to the environment is farcical at best but then you are working the room for your employer OG.
    Old Geezer
    26th Nov 2018
    1:01pm
    Mick I guess it shows that people must be doing very well if all they worry about is the environmental folly.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    1:23pm
    Gah gah......
    Hoohoo
    27th Nov 2018
    1:12pm
    OG, I wonder how you'd feel when your "environmental folly", in the form of salt water, is inundating your home, as is already happening to people in the Kiribati Islands?

    Perhaps you will volunteer to house the climate refugees in YOUR home, when they drift onto our shores?
    Hoohoo
    29th Nov 2018
    1:05pm
    People live subsistently on the Kiribati Islands, so they rely on their small garden plots to grow vegetables & fruit to feed themselves. Their whole existence is threatened by climate change, not just the loss of their home & job.

    So I ask you again, OG, how would you feel if this was happening to you?
    maxchugg
    1st Dec 2018
    7:52pm
    Hoohoo, I well remember that in 1990 we were told that the Maldives would be under water by the year 2000, and quickly followed by other low lying islands in the Pacific, Kiribali included. Eighteen years after that prediction, the Maldives are still not flooded and Kiribali has gained in area.

    As for sea level rise, if it really does happen the world will know all about it in short time. All of the artificial islands built by the United Arab Emirates at staggering costs and their infrastructure will end up a similar condition to Hiroshima and Nagasaki after they were on the wrong end of atom bombs.

    Climate change is ever present in the earth and is beyond the ability of man to control. Even the Chief Scientist admitted that if Australia completely eliminated production of the so-called greenhouse gases, the effect upon the world climate would be insignificant.

    Another correspondent routinely complains about the massive funding of a program he imagines to exist, funded by the petroleum industry. In reality, any funding which might flow from that source is infinitesimal in comparison with that which governments spend promoting the current, politically correct but scientifically unsustainable argument that human activity has a significant impact upon climate.

    Finally, many of the people now vigorously promoting the theory of runaway global warming were, a few decades back, promoting with equal enthusiasm their opinion that ongoing global cooling was taking place.
    Misty
    1st Dec 2018
    8:45pm
    How can you deny that the factories pumping out poisen into the atmosphere, aircraft, road traffic, loss of forests, over population, does not have an effect on our climate, none of this was around in the past so how can today be compared with previous times?.
    Lothario
    1st Dec 2018
    8:53pm
    Misty - give it a rest with your greenie nonsense
    You fell for the climate change lie used by interest groups and politicians for their own greedy self interest
    Misty
    2nd Dec 2018
    1:21am
    You are the one who needs to get real Lothario, even the farmers believe in Climate Change and so do the Firies fighting the fires in Qlnd and so do our young generation, you are a lone voice in the wilderness.
    musicveg
    2nd Dec 2018
    1:34am
    Misty it is useless trying to convince some people of the benefits of renewable energy, it makes me wonder why they are so passionate about supporting coal all the time, maybe they have vested interests. It is incredible they ignore the environmental damage in building mines, the destruction of wetlands and wanting to destroy native titles, plus the use of huge amounts of water in a country as dry as Australia.
    maxchugg
    2nd Dec 2018
    1:57pm
    I have solar panels and would be more than happy to switch from energy obtained by burning fossil fuels to that produced by renewable energy if the source was cost effective and reliable, but at present renewable energy fails on both counts.

    You complain about the environmental damage caused by mining, but appear to not take into account identical damage caused in the obtaining and processing of the materials needed to construct systems which generate renewable energy. Later there will be an additional problem as the solar panels etc. go into landfill.

    The problem with the debate about energy production is the massive amount of deceit and one sided reporting combined with total failures of all of the predictions made by those claiming to be climate scientists when they are nothing of the sort. Scientific method requires that effort must be made to test any hypothesis to destruction and only when this process has been followed does the theory become scientific fact, a temporary situation which exists only until destruction happens. For example, it was once accepted scientific fact that matter can be neither created nor destroyed, which had to be reviewed after the invention of the atomic bomb which destroyed matter.

    As for your comments upon native title, they are also far from being established fact. Check the internet and discover that Sen. Matt Canavan has complained that the Aborigines in favour of the Adani mine are not being heard, he goes so far to claim that proponents outvoted the opponents by 294:1.

    Those with a smart TV can hear the other side of the argument about climate change presented by reputable scientists on the Youtube app. One of those who comments is a scientist who was involved in the preparation of computer models but now explains why they are useless.
    musicveg
    2nd Dec 2018
    2:10pm
    Strange that you are more worried about cost and you can afford a smart TV and internet data to watch Youtube, I cannot do either. Why is it always about the money, what about the many children who are suffering from polluting coal powered stations? The environmental damage from mining is far greater than the processing of solar panels, clean air and no coal dust flying around in transportation and leaving big holes in the ground. What about the use of water in a drought country like Australia? What about the fuel used to transport coal? Most of our coal goes overseas and we do not receive tax from it? Subsidies galore too.
    maxchugg
    2nd Dec 2018
    6:52pm
    Musicveg, it seems you should change your name to "green eyed monster". What a load of rubbish to attempt to counter my argument that there is an unbiased section of media where highly informed and qualified scientists debunk the theory of anthropogenic climate change with naked jealousy about the fact that I have a smart TV. By the way, I haven't checked, but I am confident that you would be able to visit the sites I have mentioned by going to YouTube on your computer - you're not going to try to say you don't have a computer and internet access are you?

    And where are the many children suffering from coal polluting coal powered stations? If they really existed, we would never stop hearing about it from the Greens in particular. Where is the evidence to support this claim, as opposed to the fact that coal fired power stations have played a major role in raising the standards of living in many parts of the third world. What do you think is best for the environment and the health of the individuals concerned - food cooked with electricity or cooked on open fires fueled with cow dung?

    You provide your opinion, totally unsupported by evidence, that environmental damage from mining is far greater than the processing of solar panels, completely ignoring the point that I clearly made, all of the materials used to make solar panels and batteries are obtained by mining, the steel for the windmill towers, the lithium for the batteries, not forgetting bauxite which is mined and processed into aluminium, using massive amounts of electricity in the process. Still, as you believe in anthropogenic global warming, it is possible that you also believe that these materials are picked from trees!

    I am not well informed about water consumption in the coal mining industry, without checking I would be willing to bet that water consumption for the manufacture of solar panels etc is no less, taking into account the need to mine iron and bauxite to produce iron and aluminium.

    Then your argument about transport. How do the materials used to make equipment required to produce renewable energy get moved from the mine sites to the factories and on to the end users?

    Finally, your opening ambiguous statement accuses me of being more concerned about cost, completely ignoring that the concern I expressed was about the supply of electricity being cost effective and reliable. And the opening statement on this thread clearly indicates that I am not alone with this concern, stating that " We are no closer to solving our energy cost crisis." Is it merely coincidental that this crisis commenced the moment the process of destroying coal fired stations began?
    Hoohoo
    3rd Dec 2018
    1:45pm
    Lothario, it is you who should give up with your fascist nonsense. It is big business who is benefitting from the "business as usual" trainwreck we are on now. The only ones to benefit from us stopping adding more & more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will be our children & their children. Greedy self interest, you say? Yep, stinking greedy business!
    This particular thread was decent & respectful until you entered the fray. You are not helpful or adding knowledge to the debate at all.

    Maxchugg, I'm still not convinced about your "...highly informed and qualified scientists (who) debunk the theory of anthropogenic climate change..." Who sponsors these scientists & who do they work for? How do we know if their opinions are really independent?

    The coal dust from mines (that affect many people's health) is not confined to the mine sites. The open carriage coal trains chug all the way to the ports. As I crossed a rail bridge near Hexham in the Hunter Valley recently, the open coal trains go for as far as the eye can see, in both directions. The rail line is a cancer map, as it threads through the suburbs of Newcastle on its way to Kooragang Island at the coal loader. Kooragang Island is a humungous coal pile, which sheds coal dust all over the surrounds, including Newcastle, the Hunter River & the Pacific Ocean.

    Food cooked with electricity is fine, as long as you haven't had to burn coal to add more greenhouse gas to generate the electricity. India is very suitable for renewable energy generation, especially if they haven't already set up coal fired power stations. As the old coal fired power stations are de-commissioned, it is only sensible to replace them with renewable generators, BECAUSE WE'LL NEVER RUN OUT OF WIND & SUN. Australia is doing this too, despite no price on carbon & our government SO RELUCTANT to get behind what is vible for energy generator businesses. Businesses are no longer prepared to make large investments into something with no future. Third world countries trying to beat mass poverty can skip so much unnecessary harm to their environments AND economies, by not going down the old fossil fuel road.

    This is the real reason why right wing governments are so desperate to keep burning fossil fuels - our economic system has been set up depending on them but now there's a shiny new kid on the block, renewable energy, that doesn't have to tap into the old way of keeping business going with fuel for sale. RENEWABLE FUEL IS FREE FOREVER!
    maxchugg
    4th Dec 2018
    12:42pm
    Hoohoo, if renewable fuel is free forever, how is it that countries that rely heavily upon renewable fuel have the highest prices? What is the cause of the energy crisis that the header of this article admits is in existence here? Is it mere coincidence that this crisis commenced the moment we began to destroy coal fired power stations?
    Hoohoo
    4th Dec 2018
    11:00pm
    Please name the countries that rely heavily on renewables. And are they paying the "highest prices" you say, compared to what?

    In Australia, the so-called "energy crisis" only exists in the minds of those wanting to dig up & burn fossil fuels. The average price for energy bills is the same now as it was 10 years ago, compared with wage increases. The radical far right wing media keeps promoting the lie.

    I must say that "average" prices don't reveal the true situation for people who rent or home owners who can't or won't install solar panels. I invested in solar & paid a fair lot of $$$ to do so. The energy retailers are the ones hiking up our energy prices & the Morrison wants to "take a big stick to them". What does that suggest to you, maxchugg? It tells me that the retailers are ripping us all off by overcharging. What does that have to do with renewable power generation causing high prices?

    The problems for customers commenced the moment we sold off our State power utilities - driven by the Liberal Party with promises of more GST revenue. Now all the Govt can do to stop them from ripping us off is to hold up a big stick! Or is it just a toothpick?
    Hoohoo
    4th Dec 2018
    11:09pm
    The only way it can be sorted is for the govt to get an energy policy. But they've proven they can't do it. They even shed their own sitting PM because they are incapable.

    A price on carbon has worked out very well overseas. But in Australia neither major party is capable of doing that! Look what happened to Gillard, & all she proposed was a price on carbon for 12 months & then establish an ETS (energy trading scheme).

    Until we set a price on carbon we will remain in limbo land. We need to remove this useless government. They are absolutely pathetic!
    maxchugg
    5th Dec 2018
    9:16pm
    Out of a list of 17 countries which have the highest energy prices in the world, Australia has recently moved from being listed in the low cost to position No 4, behind Denmark, Germany and Spain, all three rely reasonably heavily on renewables, particularly Denmark.
    An alarming factor is how rapidly Australia has moved almost to the top of the list of the most expensive countries, and it appears that we will be at the top within a reasonably short time.

    A News.com site is already stating that South Australia already has the most expensive electricity in he world and cites the closing down of a plastics factory of what will be a likely consequence

    You argue that the price of electricity is in line with inflation. Estimates of price increases vary between 72% and 91% over the past decade. The Department of Census and Statistics states that the CPI index in the same period was 26.5%.

    Finally, try telling any pensioner that the energy crisis only exists in the minds of those wanting to dig up and burn fossil fuels.
    Hoohoo
    7th Dec 2018
    1:27am
    "Energy crisis"? Do you mean energy prices? If so, then just look at the energy retailers who are fleecing us. There's no correlation between high energy prices & renewable generation, except of course that conflated in the far right wing media. They are in the pockets of fossil fuel.

    Or do you mean our governments' inability to have an energy policy? Now THAT"S an energy crisis! Our federal government is unable to even govern itself. Again, blame the far right wingers. You really need to shed these dinosaurs if you want to save the Liberal Party. And again, big donations from fossil fuel have hijacked the agenda. Labor, too.

    I was quoting a University financial expert when I said energy prices had stayed in line with wages, not the CPI. He cited this applied both 20 years ago & 10 years ago.
    At least the pension is now tied in with average male wages, unlike the poor buggers on Newstart who are only tied in with the CPI.

    Stop blaming renewable energy for high power prices. It's a lie that many people have swallowed - hook, line & sinker. What has happened to Morrison's big stick? Perhaps he has realised that threatening the power retailers to lower prices has exposed them for price gouging - nothing to do with renewable power. As I said earlier, people with solar are the ones who have paid big $$$ for investing in power generation. Our excess solar power goes back to the grid at a fraction of the price the power retailers re-sell it for.
    Mutley
    26th Nov 2018
    11:57am
    Although I'm 100% for renewable energies, I also believe in keeping our current electricity producers, providing renewables get full government backing. A carbon emissions tax could assist in renewables like solar, wind, hydro. Any future plans are only good if they are put into action.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    12:11pm
    We had a Carbon Tax. It worked. But the current government along with the Murdoch propaganda machine and the local media right wing parrots killed it off.
    We all need to heed what we accept as news and fact.
    Old Geezer
    26th Nov 2018
    1:06pm
    Mick all a carbon tax will do is make the rich even richer.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    1:23pm
    What it WAS doing was to allow a cleaner and cheaper technology to compete with a monopoly owned by wealthy Australians. The last part was why we cannot have renewable energy in this country. Once the 0.1% have their money in renewables they will let coal die.
    Old Geezer
    26th Nov 2018
    1:25pm
    Rubbish Mick.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    2:02pm
    Must be a bit tough for an LNP funded troll to hit a brick wall. The only thing which is rubbish is the continual betrayal of the country and the planet by your employers who have no morals and no responsibility to the planet or the country.
    The problem with politics is that is that they can do as they like with rarely a case to answer. A bit like corporations who plunder, kill and then leave.
    Hoohoo
    29th Nov 2018
    1:23pm
    Yes MICK, this is their MO & unfortunately, capitalism not only enables it, but encourages & rewards it!

    It flies in the face of anything like the concept of democracy. While it's legal to act like this without being truly accountable for the negative consequences of their business to our society, we can't really blame politicians. What we can do is vote for pollies who want to change the rules of engagement, which obviously excludes the two major parties.

    The LNP has been taken over by the far right wing & have snookered themselves, so Labor is a better bet for now. But we need a groundswell of Independents who will cherry-pick the best of both parties, govern for the long term (not the electoral cycle), represent their constituents & be guided to vote for policies by their conscience, not kickbacks from big business.

    Yes, we need a functioning economy but we also need a healthy environment to sustain us in the long term. They're not mutually excluding - to the contrary.
    floss
    26th Nov 2018
    12:22pm
    The Government lost all control when they privatised OUR power system, this mess will never be correct by a Liberal party that can't even run itself.Panels are the only answer backed by base load gas that the Libs in their wisdom sold.The clever country I don't think so.
    Old Geezer
    26th Nov 2018
    1:03pm
    Now Labor wants everyone to invest in batteries to help fix the problem but for most it is not economic to do so even with the $2000 rebate. Talk about a real con.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    2:03pm
    You can stay with your coal master as long as you wish OG. Please do not come over when you see the costs going against you. We do not want you and you should put up with what you push.
    Retired Knowall
    29th Nov 2018
    8:36am
    So why is SHORTON backing the ADANI MINE?
    Hoohoo
    29th Nov 2018
    1:26pm
    Because LNP & Labor have both sold their souls.
    Hoohoo
    29th Nov 2018
    1:29pm
    At least Labor have refused to use tax-payers' money, The NAIF or the Future Fund to build Adani's rail & port, which is more than we can say about the Liberals!
    Retired Knowall
    29th Nov 2018
    3:55pm
    Get it straight, it's not about Labor V's The Coalition, both are TOXIC and are leading us to ruin.
    We need more Independents to represent US not their Party Line.
    Hoohoo
    30th Nov 2018
    12:43pm
    The LNP & Pauline Hansen are more toxic than Labor on this issue. Vote for Independents by all means, but make sure your preferences put the LNP & Pauline Hanson last.
    Agnomen
    26th Nov 2018
    12:33pm
    Buggsie mentions a fusion reactor in France. I assume this is ‘ITER’. It is designed to prove the concept of a large scale Tomac reactor, but is unlikely to be energy positive. I expect we will have to wait a while for fusion reactors to be realised on a scale.
    dstark
    26th Nov 2018
    1:03pm
    "It seems the debate will rage on until someone can make sense of the situation we are in and the related issues regarding cost and effect on climate that we will face in the future."

    The suggested lack of sense is because many don't understand the scientific facts that climate has been changing more before the industrial revolution than since. Indeed, it has been changing before mankind evolved.

    The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide rose rapidly from 1965 to 2000, but since then it has plateaued, yet mankind has burnt more coal since 2000 than in all time before 2000.

    Hence, mankind is NOT the cause of climate change. It is caused by Earth's changing proximity to our Sun resulting from Earth's elliptical orbit of our Sun, and because our Sun emits energy intermittently.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    2:09pm
    Completely untrue. Only last week I heard the 'News' claim that CO2 was higher than ever in 2018. Look at the graph half way down the following link for CO2:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    I keep seeing the coal industry try on the 'seasonal variation' rhetoric when the past 10 years have never been equalled: year on year new temperature highs records, rising ocean temperatures, CO2 off the scale and natural disasters becoming more severe and reoccurring in shorter and shorter time frames.

    I love it when somebody ignore all the evidence and comes to a conclusion. Are you sure you're not posting as Old Man as well? That's his style as well.
    Agnomen
    26th Nov 2018
    2:19pm
    Mick is correct. Atmospheric CO2 levels are still increasing.
    TREBOR
    26th Nov 2018
    2:34pm
    Maybe we should be applying the 'hot spots' principle to pollution and environmental change... countless years ago I read a Swedish study on Strontium 90 in children's bone structures (no - you may now ask why etc), and the study found that while the overall radiation count was within 'limits' - the Strontium 90 had actually concentrated in specific 'hot spot' areas....

    Anyway - my point is this... while it may well be that overall pollution (man-made Mk 1) is lower or not as disastrous as often promoted - it is distinctly possible that Planet Earth may develop 'hot spots' where the concentration of pollution etc creates a problem that may eventually kill the patient... even when the overall pollution is 'within limits'.

    I doubt any scientist has looked at this... it is complex and involves local weather patterns and such, and contains a host of variables bordering on chaos theory...


    Words for today:-
    Politution - the pollution of politics and its impact on a nation....

    Polstitution - political sellout of a nation

    Environ Mental - a crazy concept/owner of concept as regards environmentalism...
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    5:51pm
    TREBOR - welcome back.
    We all have Strontium in our bones compliments of nuclear testing in the 50s and 60s.
    The issue with pollution is part of the bigger picture.
    Mankind is strangling the planet, wiping out other species and changing nature in a manner that even the self correcting mechanisms in nature cannot deal with. When the ocean currents which move heat around the planet stop then those who are creating this scenario will be nowhere to be seen and will be at the front of the queue blaming others.
    I fear the next 50 years although I won't be around for likely more than half of that time.
    Hoohoo
    27th Nov 2018
    1:26pm
    TREBOR, that Swedish study sounds interesting to me. I always suspected those nuclear tests in SA, & the resulting Strontium 90 fallout, was the contributing factor that caused my brother's death. He was conceived in 1958 & we lived in the direct firing line from the prevailing winds.
    Is the brain one of the hotspots you mention?
    Old Geezer
    26th Nov 2018
    1:12pm
    If Labor was serious about climate change they would stop all exports of coal and not be backing the likes of Adani. We are such fools in this country to pay for expensive so called renewable energy and at the same time have our huge coal deposits exported so others can have cheap electricity and pollute the world. Seems we live on a different planet to Labor.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    1:36pm
    They do not back Adani....but it appears they are going to turn a blind eye to this crooked company. I agree with your sentiments about stopping coal exports and our coal deposits need to be shut up.
    Perhaps the game plan is to take their money and let renewables do the job for them.
    TREBOR
    26th Nov 2018
    2:40pm
    We are fools to believe that any government will actually look to the best interests of the nation and its people ... each potential government has its own peculiar ideological stance that it feels a desperate need to promote over all else.... for the greater good, of course... trouble is that this incorporates the concept of 'acceptable casualties' in the pursuit of the objective.

    For instance - if the socialist pussy-whipped lot continue affirmative action, at least 50% of the community will suffer exclusion (rather than inclusion) and will suffer direct loss as a result.... since one woman's meat is another man's poison and robbing Peter to pay Paula hasn't worked yet for this nation.

    If the Robber Baron lot continue their devastation of the working classes, countless people will suffer direct loss and be cast down into the deepest dungeons of struggle and near poverty, while Nero fiddles with the books as Rome burns.....

    Neither of these extremist policy platforms is acceptable....
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    5:55pm
    Quite so TREBOR. Corporations are plundering the planet with no end in sight. According to the bible there will be an end though.
    I feel guilty when you talk about Robber Barons as we own rental property, not that we make more than a meagre living out of this. Don't be too tough on the little fish as we get zero pension and do not inflict ourselves on the country's tax base......which I can't say about the wealthy who have engineered their undeserved and obscene tax cuts when they have/had no need.
    Retired Knowall
    29th Nov 2018
    8:39am
    IF SHORTON is not backing the ADANI mine perhaps you can show us a statement to that effect.
    Misty
    29th Nov 2018
    9:53am
    Retired Knowall, I have just contacted my local Labor MP Mike Kelly about he Adani Mine and Bill Shorten and the Federal Labor are adamantly against the mine in QLND.
    Retired Knowall
    29th Nov 2018
    12:46pm
    Show us a statement to that effect.
    From the Guardian "Yet under the cover of yet another seismic convulsion inside the Turnbull government, Bill Shorten looks to be lining up for the dubious double on the controversial Adani coal mine. After signalling quite clearly in late January that Labor would toughen its position on the project, the Labor leader has cooled off noticeably on that notion".

    From the SMH, "Mr Shorten said Labor was the party of the environment, but “if one government enters into contracts then a future government can't simply rip them up. To do so would be [a] sovereign risk.”
    “I’ve been to Queensland, from the outback to the coast, it's a beautiful country and it's worth preserving.

    “But I also travel to mining communities and coal communities. It’s not an either-or [proposition]. We are a resource nation, a mining nation.”
    Hoohoo
    29th Nov 2018
    1:43pm
    Federal Labor are keeping quiet until after the election. They appear to have a foot in both coffins, as the far right media will eat them alive as soon as they commit to one side or the other.
    There's not much point having Federal Labor against Adani, while the QLD Labor Government is doing nothing to stop Adani, bar restraining themselves from giving over our hard-fought tax dollars to build the rail & port for the whole Carmichael mine, WHICH IS WHAT THE LNP WANT TO DO.
    Labor are compromised by the mining jobs & their Unions, while the LNP are compromised by big business. Neither of them are representing the average Aussie on this issue.
    Retired Knowall
    29th Nov 2018
    3:56pm
    So make your vote count....Vote Independent.
    Misty
    29th Nov 2018
    11:22pm
    What part of my comment above do you 2 not understand, Retired Knowall and Hoohoo?, I have it from our local member who is not in the habit of lying or are you both calling BS AND lABOR LIARS?, perhaps you would rather believe the garbage printed in the Murdoch press, believe who you may but I know who I believe.
    Misty
    29th Nov 2018
    11:27pm
    Sorry Hoohoo, on reading your comments again I realise I have misjudged you and should not have included your name in my comment above, I apologise for that mistake.
    Retired Knowall
    30th Nov 2018
    8:22am
    Just this morning on the ABC QLD premier and Labors Tanya were asked to comment on the ADANI mine starting straight away, albeit in a smaller scale (as they will increase it later).
    Both waffled on and would not answer the direct question "Will you stop the mine".
    Fair to say both parties are allowing this rape and pollution of our land.
    VOTE Independent and remove these traitors.
    Hoohoo
    30th Nov 2018
    3:32pm
    No problem, Misty - I only just read it now. Mike Kelly seems like a very decent MP.

    As I said, it's QLD Labor who are for Adani, tho they seem to be not so keen al of a sudden. I campaigned vigorously to get rid of the LNP's Premier Campbell Newman because of his disastrous environmental record, only to have Annastacia Palaszczuk sweep into power & the first thing she declared was for the Adani mine! ARRGH!
    KB
    26th Nov 2018
    1:35pm
    Battery power will not solve the energy crisis for renters Unless the can be dismantled and taken from house to house when people move. Electricity should not have been privatized. Too many greedy energy companies wanting our money We need renewable green energy,
    pedro the swift
    26th Nov 2018
    3:12pm
    One thing that I have never seen explained about a socalled "carbon tax" is how it is calculated.
    Lets see the figures for how much actual CO2 (using properly calibrated instruments) every bit of plant puts out the Maybe we could have a fair "carbon tax". Till then its just dreamtime!
    TREBOR
    26th Nov 2018
    4:01pm
    Tax China on their coal imports from Oz? Go the whole hog on tariffs to preserve the environment?

    **throws a canard in the ring** .. this will open up a can or worms...
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    6:00pm
    You are playing a game of ignorance pedro. The calculation you demand would be meaningless to you but they did factor in all facets of life and business to come up with a figure. Unlike the current government which fabricates figures the ones you demand were the best case calculation. AUSTRALIANS WERE THEN COMPENSATED THROUGH TAX CUTS BEFORE THE CARBON TAX WAS BROUGHT IN. I find it aggravating that the trolls who push this button NEVER mention the tax free threshold which went from $5200 to $18000 and the other tax cuts on top of that. These were never taken back after Abbott destroyed the policy. Also never mentioned.
    Dreamtime? That's what you call Affirmative Action - another Abbott blatant lie as emissions went up, not down. What a surprise that is.........
    Retired Knowall
    30th Nov 2018
    8:24am
    Will your puppet masters stop the Adani Mine?
    Placido1
    26th Nov 2018
    3:48pm
    OG
    Offshore wind generation, tidal (wave generation) can provide 24 hour power generation.

    Also excess daily renewable power can be used to produce hydrogen which in turn can be burnt when the sun isnt shining to produce power, can also be a big export earner (See CSIRO hydrogen developments)

    Solar thermal is another renewable that can be used to provide power in the dark or when wind is not blowing.

    A solar thermal plant IS being built in South Australia (progressive ALP developments that LP is now benefiting from) LP in SA is "surprise surprise" subsidising BATTERIES to solar households.
    Old Geezer
    26th Nov 2018
    3:56pm
    None of which produce cheap power.

    All wear out and then have to be replaced at the expense of the environment too.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    6:04pm
    Renewable energy is cheap and getting cheaper.
    Your post is the usual dishonest post OG. What does a new coal fired power generator cost? No comment? How surprising.
    Retired Knowall
    30th Nov 2018
    8:24am
    Will your puppet masters stop the Adani Mine?
    Bottle-O-Rum
    26th Nov 2018
    4:06pm
    Get out of the Paris fraud now and wind down all subsidies ASAP. Encourage investment for sound commercial outcomes. I am astounded that so many otherwise rational people are so deluded.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    6:08pm
    Geez, nowhere to go. How else can you sell coal?
    You are deluded if you think that Paris is not important. The world is starting to understand the issue and responding. You can post the propaganda but you can't stop this movement.
    Oh by the way....when renewables come PLEASE DEMAND COAL FIRED POWER. You should not accept the cheaper renewable energy. Enjoy.
    Hoohoo
    28th Nov 2018
    5:57pm
    Bottle-O-R, if only the government would "wind down all subsidies ASAP." Cut subsidies to coal mining & burning would be great, then cut power subsidies to aluminium smelters as well. Stop giving CSG & coal mining water for free. Make them pay for polluting ground water. Then we could start accurately measuring that renewable power is much cheaper than coal burning.

    "Encourage investment for sound commercial outcomes." you say. YES YES YES. Invest in the future - of course I'm talking renewables. Why? Because they'll never run out!

    I too, am astounded that so many otherwise rational people are so deluded.
    Jim
    26th Nov 2018
    4:44pm
    I am sure most people have had a gut full of this argument, everyone has their own view point and the information currently available is confusing to say the least, I think from what I have read batteries are going to be eventually the way forward, and as with all things they will become cheaper as more and more people invest in them, when that will be is anyone’s guess, I don’t believe Labor will any better at solving the problem, as I have said in previous posts, we don’t have a large enough manufacturing base for solar panels, so it’s pointless investing in batteries until we have got something to charge them up with, we rely too heavily on overseas manufacturing, so we need to start there first, once we are up and running with a sustainable solar panel manufacturing industry then we can start looking at batteries, if we don’t take these steps we will be paying through the nose to import them. Instead of putting the horse before the cart, which in my humble opinion is the way Labor is proposing we go forward, with the subsidies for batteries. We can blame past governments for mistakes that have been made as much as we like, it won’t solve the problem, both Labor and the Libs can be called to tasks for things that have happened in the past. As an aside regarding which has been the best party in recent history, it’s my firm belief that Hawke and Keating come in at No 1 followed very closely by Howard and Costello, everyone one since has left a lot to be desired, I am sure that not everyone will agree, but that’s the great thing about our democracy.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    6:15pm
    We had a panel manufacturing business but the Howard government refused to subsidise it, so the company went to the US. What else would you expect from traitors funded and owned by coal interests. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
    Batteries? Give it time. There is technology still being worked on which can make battery storage limitless. If that comes off it is game over.

    The future is exactly that but Australia will end up a third world country if governments continue to work against the country whilst backing mining ventures and ignoring tech companies. They go to America and make Americans wealthy but our LNP governments never change. That's one reason I cannot fathom why Australians never wake up.
    Lothario
    26th Nov 2018
    6:19pm
    Collapse of RCR Tomlinson is proof that solar industry cannot survive without billions of $ of subsidies

    Labor is going to waste $2.5 billion and more on a disastrous project that will leave us with additional committed expenditure ion the billions year on year

    Rudd did it during GFC, now its Shorten's turn. Our debt will skyrocket to $1.5 trillion as a consequence of Shorten's wastefulness
    Jim
    26th Nov 2018
    7:02pm
    I sometimes wonder what the source of your information is Mick, I am not doubting your integrity but my information completely disagrees with your comment, the Libs under John Howard started discussing subsidies for solar energy in 1999, when it was first proposed the Labor party were the ones to reject it, the Libs did in fact bring in the subsidies before Labor took office in 2007, I know because I was receiving them, they subsidised the installation, then I was receiving 66 cents per Klw hour produced from the state government, I was with AGL, the point being that the Libs did in fact introduce the subsidies so I am not sure why the company mentioned went broke, or are you talking about a different subsidy. Also if you look at the government papers dealing with the energy plans going forward from 1999 you will see the government had to get the support of the minor parties to get the deal through, so in fact it was Labor that delayed the start of subsidies, if I can figure how to do it I will try and put the link up for you to check for yourself or anyone else that is interested.
    Jim
    26th Nov 2018
    7:14pm
    http://www.tai.org.au/sites/defualt/files/PB%2021%20SHCP%20final_4.pdf
    Don’t know if I have done this right, but here is the link that shows some of the debate regarding solar subsidies, in the first couple of pages it states that the deal went through the senate with assistance of the democrats who held the balance of power, after Labor voted against it
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    9:03pm
    I was not closely following politics when Howard was PM. What I did see was Howard flogging off magnificent Aussie assets and he flogged off my superannuation investment. That was Gorgon, the third largest LNG deposit on the planet. I think that puts Howard's energy policy into perspective. Now apparently we have no gas....and not a molecule is available for us to buy.
    I can't say what Howard did or did not do for solar. All I know is that in 1999 our only solar panel manufacturer asked for help and both state and federal Liberal looked the other way and did not from memory even discuss. Likely we are talking about the protection of coal....so they let a future money spinner go and now we hear the same party lamenting about fracking because "we have no gas".
    We may have to agree to disagree Jim. Cheers.
    Jim
    26th Nov 2018
    9:58pm
    No the discussion in 1999 was regarding solar subsidies Mick, and it was Labor that tried to block it, as I commented earlier it was only with the backing of the Democrats that the bill for subsidies on solar was legislated, so it wasn’t Howard that blocked subsidies and put a solar panel manufacturer out of business, they may have gone out of business because of the uncertainty created by Labor refusing to back the passing of the bill, the original discussion on solar subsidies actually started a few years earlier, if Howard was the cause of the issues with the selling off of the gas and affected your superannuation I can understand your attitude towards the Libs, but can you trust Labor when they were the ones who affectedly blocked renewables and created the uncertainty that exist today, I mean who would invest in something, that both parties seem to change their minds on a whim, if Labor hadn’t blocked subsidies in the 90s how much further ahead could we have been, and how much would the average person have saved on electricity, there is always two sides to a story, but there is usually only one mob that suffer every time and that’s joe public. Time for bed.
    Jim
    26th Nov 2018
    9:58pm
    No the discussion in 1999 was regarding solar subsidies Mick, and it was Labor that tried to block it, as I commented earlier it was only with the backing of the Democrats that the bill for subsidies on solar was legislated, so it wasn’t Howard that blocked subsidies and put a solar panel manufacturer out of business, they may have gone out of business because of the uncertainty created by Labor refusing to back the passing of the bill, the original discussion on solar subsidies actually started a few years earlier, if Howard was the cause of the issues with the selling off of the gas and affected your superannuation I can understand your attitude towards the Libs, but can you trust Labor when they were the ones who affectedly blocked renewables and created the uncertainty that exist today, I mean who would invest in something, that both parties seem to change their minds on a whim, if Labor hadn’t blocked subsidies in the 90s how much further ahead could we have been, and how much would the average person have saved on electricity, there is always two sides to a story, but there is usually only one mob that suffer every time and that’s joe public. Time for bed.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2018
    1:24pm
    As I said at that time I was not an activist of any kind but I recall the company approached the state government and I thought they had also approached the Howard government.
    what I do recall is that the Howard government sold us all out and energy had no value to Howard whatsoever. If it had been he would not have allowed the Gorgon asset, owned by an Australian company called Ampolex, to be flogged off. No government of any worth would allow the world's third largest LNG deposit to go to offshore investors. Howard did and one has to wonder if that was because of electoral donations. One thing's for sure and that is Howard and his government sold us out. Sorry but no other way you can play the history Jim.
    Hoohoo
    3rd Dec 2018
    2:03pm
    It is true that Labor, historically, have been pro-coal mines because of Union workers in the mines. They are at the brink now - which way will they go?

    The fact that all these fossil fuel polluters give big donations to both major parties, tells the real story. Together, Liberals & Labor will most likely allow Adani to proceed, despite them breaching pollution laws already & still in Court trying to wrench Native Title from the Custodians.

    If you don't want Adani to proceed, vote for any Independent who says they oppose Adani, or the Greens. Whether it's a State or Federal election, at least vote Green in the Senate or give them your preference.
    Lothario
    26th Nov 2018
    4:51pm
    What energy crises
    It's just propaganda mischief making and electioneering from labor and greens
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    6:09pm
    No...it's propaganda from YOUR government trying to entrench the toxic coal imdustry. You are a paid troll.
    TREBOR
    26th Nov 2018
    7:53pm
    What 'energy crisis'? The subject is energy COST crisis....

    **spelling of crisis corrected for you**... no wonder you sound so familiar......

    (ahhhh -ha, ha,ha, ha...)

    We have an energy cost crisis due to the false god of privatisation that was supposed to be more efficient and more cost-effective..... a total and absolute failure to produce the goods... if I left my car in trust with the mechanic and got it back fitted with a motor that cost me twice as much to run it - he'd be in deep water... flog off the power supply system and cause doubling of cost to the end user... nothing happens...

    Just business... the business of how to rip off a captive audience public with their own utilities.
    Lothario
    26th Nov 2018
    8:00pm
    There is no energy cost crisis

    Save your lies for your labor and greenie mates who will swallow anything
    MICK
    26th Nov 2018
    9:06pm
    No energy crisis? Laughable. You now turn the truth into claims of lies. YOU ARE A LIAR Lothario. Quite sick really but it shows the desperation of a government doing absolutely anything to hold onto power. Next they'll be calling out the army to shout down the ABC abd GetUp. Oops they already silenced GetUp.
    ex PS
    27th Nov 2018
    8:04am
    No energy crises for me I went Solar as soon as I did a cost analysis, it just made sense at the time.
    Misty
    27th Nov 2018
    9:37am
    What planet are you living on Lothario?, obviously not this one or do you have your head in the sand?, or maybe you just made that ridiculous statement to see what reaction you would get.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2018
    1:25pm
    The post from this troll defies logic. He's an idiot at best but likely just pushing the buttons. To be ignored methinks.
    MD
    26th Nov 2018
    9:53pm
    It may only take one key player to pull the plug on their current generator to plunge a significant portion of Oz into darkness. The total wind generation would then amount to the equivalent of the populations' combined flatulence capacity...far too many know-alls talking outa their arse. You ain't heard nothin' yet, but wait, when the lights go out... then you'll both hear and smell MORE whinging stinkers.

    It doesn't matter one iota; who is to blame, what the reason(s) or why the situation has degenerated (pun) to the present (and foreseeable crisis). Pointing accusing fingers, scoring points and generally inane comment will do little to fix the problem.

    Coal just happens to be one of our biggest exports and the industry employs thousands. For more decades than most of us have existed Aussies have enjoyed the privilege of a reliable power service, compliments of this dirty black commodity. Now, fashion dictates, scare mongering and holier than thou 'save the planet for my grandchildren' zealots seem to think that coal is passe and the answer is "blowin in the wind" - apologies to Bob.
    Get real people, while you're at it, head outa the clouds (or arse) be thankful to the coal industry for the massive contribution to/for the entire population and resigned to the fact that we are RELIANT to its ongoing commitment. Change may well be in any one - or mix of - wind, water, rocks, gas or some form of radium isotope... in the fullness of time.
    For the present - 'sufficient unto the day are the problems therein' - or something to that effect.
    Retired Knowall
    29th Nov 2018
    4:01pm
    Fair comment.
    ex PS
    27th Nov 2018
    8:02am
    There is no need for confusion, just look at the facts and disregard political spin. If I did not have Solar Panels, I would be spending about $1,600.00 a year on electricity. Instead I make a modest $600.00 a year by supplying the grid with my overflow. That puts me $2,000.00 a year ahead.
    To me that indicates that a solar panel and battery system will pay for itself in about ten years, and that is not taking into account power price rises which will surely occur if the government subsidizes coal fired power plants.
    Old technology will not solve modern day problems, I would gladly pay a bit more for my power today in order to ensure a healthy future for my grandchildren.
    How much would you pay a year to save your grandchildren, $100.00, $500.00, $1000.00, $2000.00. From what the government is saying we will save less than $200.00 a year, is that really worth gambling with our grandchildren's future?
    Rae
    27th Nov 2018
    8:44am
    Exactly right ex PS. If we can get the emissions down, stabilise the population explosion and sort out the plastic issue and extinctions of flora and fauna our Grandkids will have a chance and it's worth trying.

    It's not going to be easy though.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2018
    1:27pm
    Correct. Because we have 10 kW cranking away we actually get credits and only have to pay a few dollars during the winter months. If we had a decent sized battery it would be nix all year around.
    You have to tune out to the LNP deceit and lies. This is what a conflicted government does and that's why this one has no credibility left. People know what they are.
    Misty
    27th Nov 2018
    5:06pm
    ex PS how many KW are your panels?, we have 6 and a half(26 panels) and I still pay about $1,000.00 per quarter for our electricity after our credit which is usually around $200.00, we don't have gas, maybe our panels are not working properly.
    ex PS
    28th Nov 2018
    8:50am
    Misty. It's no secret, I have declared my particular position several times. I upgraded the 1.5 kW system included in my house package to 3 kw, I do have gas for my stove and hot water after getting rid of the Solar Hot water system that was not designed to operate effectively in my area ( It kept blowing anti frost valves at $320.00 a pop).

    My big advantage is in the fact that I am getting a 0.44 Cent rebate on energy that is fed back to the system.

    In regards to your panels not working, it is worth having them checked out, the first year that we had our panels installed, I thought we were not getting enough back so I had them checked by an independent installer. It turned out that the original installer had failed to hook up half of the panels. I had them hooked up and have made money ever since.

    All up the upgrade cost about $4,000.00, but panels are so much cheaper now.
    Misty
    28th Nov 2018
    8:44pm
    Do you mind telling me the name of your energy supplier please ex PS, I only get 0.8 cents for my solar rebate with Origin in NSW.
    ex PS
    29th Nov 2018
    10:19am
    Misty, we are with Ergon in Queensland, I have no idea what their current feedback remuneration is, but I would guess it is no where near 44 cents.

    We managed to get that rate just before the Liberal Government took over for a short time and stuffed up the Green Energy Scheme for the state. They only lasted one term, but did a lot of damage while they were in. We don't have a choice in suppliers Ergon is it for this area.
    Misty
    29th Nov 2018
    11:01am
    Thank you for your reply ex PS, hope you can continue to keep that solar rebate.
    Misty
    29th Nov 2018
    11:01am
    Thank you for your reply ex PS, hope you can continue to keep that solar rebate.
    Retired Knowall
    29th Nov 2018
    4:13pm
    Misty, your panels may be working fine, your problem may be the configuration of your Smart Meter. You may be wise to get an Independent Level 4 Electrical Installer to check your installation and meter configuration. This even more critical if you have more than 1 phase installed or if the meter installer was from the power supply company. I'm with DODO and get 11.6 cents feed in tarrif from my 5 KW system and I'm in credit to the tune of over $300.
    If you are paying $1000 / Quarter, something is drastically wrong.
    Misty
    29th Nov 2018
    11:35pm
    Thank you for that info Retired Knowall, I will look into it, my son is an electrician I am sure he will know someone with the right qualifications to do the checking, btw I didn't know DODO were energy suppliers too, I haven't heard or seen their name on any comparison site yet but I may have missed them, I thought they were more into telecommunication.
    Retired Knowall
    30th Nov 2018
    8:45am
    DODO are in Vic, NSW, SA and QLD.
    Looking at their Web Site they have different schemes for each state.
    A 6kW solar system should generate approximately 24kWh per day or approximately 2000KWh per quarter, (depending on your location and a variety of other factors. (age of installation, angle of panels, condition of panels) You can determine your daily energy use from your power bill, but, I have found that a large factor is how you now use the power system. We now use the heavy load appliances Dishwasher, Washing Machine, Pool Pump) during the peak production period during the day thereby running these free.
    Misty
    2nd Dec 2018
    8:45pm
    Just saw an ad by Dodo on the TV for energy, first time I have seen that in our area so will check them out tomorrow.
    Misty
    27th Nov 2018
    9:28am
    Well the Victorian election results show what the people in that state think of the Coalition policies, today even Kelly O'Dwyer came out and said the Coalition are Climate Change deniers. We need more renewable energy that is for sure.
    Misty
    27th Nov 2018
    9:41am
    Today it was announced that in SA a new Battery Storage Facility will open in the old Holden factory.
    Lothario
    27th Nov 2018
    4:04pm
    HAHAHAHA - more millions on another white elephant

    How dumb is the SA government and its people
    Misty
    27th Nov 2018
    5:08pm
    The only dumb person I can see is YOU Lothario, take your blinkers off.
    JoJozep
    27th Nov 2018
    12:11pm
    Stop! Stop! this ongoing debating madness - my head hurts.

    Why don't we look at the energy/climate change issues and take out politics, coal interests, costs and exploitation of the environment, making a few very rich for starters. Let’s look at the causes, effects and pollution problems first.

    Causes: Build up of CO2 Carbon Dioxide). CO2 is either a gas or a solid, depending on its temperature. Its rare to find frozen CO2 except in deep space, or artificially man made under strict conditions.

    If we had pure air, as in sometime before the industrial revolution, its concentration is about 0.04% of the gases making up air. Here is a general breakdown of gases in our atmosphere:.

    According to NASA, the gases in Earth's atmosphere include:
    :
    • Nitrogen — 78 percent.
    • Oxygen — 21 percent.
    • Argon — 0.93 percent.
    • Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent.
    • Trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton and hydrogen, as well as water vapour.

    So why should we be concerned about CO2? Its concentration is normally very low.

    CO2 is a relatively heavy gas (1 Atom of Carbon and 2 atoms of Oxygen) and in the undisturbed state , migrates to the lowest level on the earth’s surface, that is where most humans, plants animals and fish live. We can’t breathe CO2 in high concentrations, so if it wasn’t for the plants and forests of this world we would rapidly become extinct. By the way, the amount of CO2 released in the California bushfires and in NSW and Queensland most recently, would in my estimation have doubled the world’s CO2 pollution in a few months., and summer is yet to come. I’ve noticed few mention the effects of bushfires on the environment. Maybe, there is no or little political gain here.

    CO2 is absorbed by plants and trees. So what do our greedy farmers and developers do? Yep, cut down the forests and clear the land, anything to make a fast buck. Stuff the coming generations, the older rich people will be dead by the time they inherit our polluted earth. That’s the way our ageing politicians (or at least as some in the LNP see it) - note OG. How do we tolerate a prime minister with sand between his ears and denying the obvious, what, to show how strong he is at the expense of common sense? How can we tolerate such a buffoon, worse in some respects to that other idiot previous prime minister, another climate change denier. Let’s get back to the science.

    Because CO2 is a dense gas, it traps the earth’s heat, so temperature on earth slowly rises over time. The more we pollute, the more bushfires we get as temperatures rise and sea ice melts. But is CO2 pollution the only cause of climate change? No it isn’t. What you say, what else can it be?

    It’s the Earth’s wobble (or scientifically: changing tilt of the earth’s axis in space orbit). We know full well that we have four seasons, being more pronounced between the earth’s equator and the poles as the earth moves around the sun. This is an elliptical orbit, with the ellipses extremes producing winters at one end, summers at the other and spring and autumn at roughly midway points . We know as the earth spins on its axis, we get night and day, with sunrise and sunset. But what happens as the tilt of the earth changes over thousands of years?. At the maximum tilt, places closer to the equator get cooler, the poles get more sun exposure and the ice melts. See the summary below of this changing environment.


    Today, the Earth's axis is tilted 23.5 degrees from the plane of its orbit around the sun. But this tilt changes. During a cycle that averages about 40,000 years, the tilt of the axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. Because this tilt changes, the seasons as we know them can become exaggerated.

    We are moving into the warming phase over much of the earth as we approach maximum tilt. That’s what is causing climate change, though trapped heat is also to blame and is exaggerating this variance in temperature. There are other motions of the earth which also have an impact on the cycle repletion of the ice age and warming periods, that vary between 100,000, 80,000, and 40,000 years with mini ice ages every 10,000 years. There was a mini ice age in the 16th Century..

    Aside from the earth’s tilting axis, there is variance in the earth’s elliptical path, the effect of gravitational “pull” of other stars and planets, and the movement of the sun itself. Let’s hope the Earth’s rotation will never stop, as then the net gravitational pull of the earth’s center will be so massive, any living thing will become a pool of ooze washing over the landscape.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2018
    1:30pm
    Look at the CO2 graph half way down the page:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    That is not moving into any phase other than a mankind created one.
    Good try but Jo but ask your coal company for a payrise. Nobody will believe a word of your so called analysis.
    maxchugg
    30th Nov 2018
    7:31pm
    As I have previously pointed out to Mick, his graphs of global temperature alone prove nothing in relation to the argument about atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. The evidence is clear that global warming has always preceded increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, obviously because of the fact that when the oceans warm they release carbon dioxide, when they are cold they absorb and retain it.

    So, forget useless graphs and go to the following site which provides irrefutable proof that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is an outcome of global warming and not its cause:

    joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core

    Finally, Senator Ian McDonald asked Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel "If we (Australia) reduced the world's emissions by 1.3% (our annual contribution) what impact would that have on the changing climate of the world?"

    Professor Finkel's answer: "Virtually nothing."
    Hoohoo
    1st Dec 2018
    12:54am
    max, how about counting the coal & gas Australia exports? It'll be burned overseas, yes, but we only have one world, & if Adani & the Carmichael mine coal is burned, we'll all be in deep doo doo.

    So Australia's annual contribution is actually much more than 1.3%
    maxchugg
    2nd Dec 2018
    2:28pm
    Hoohoo, I'm so glad that you mentioned the amount of Australian coal that is being burned overseas. If it was burned here the amount of atmospheric pollution could be contained, when it is burned overseas there are no controls.

    You assume that the burning of coal obtained from the Adani and Carmichael mines will place us in "deep dodo" and from this assumption you conclude that Australia's annual contribution is actually much more than 1.3% Why, then, did the Chief Scientist cite this figure, why do other sites agree with it? One site on the internet lists the ten countries which contribute the highest percentages of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and Australia is not even listed, the country in position 10 is Saudi Arabia which contributes 1.56% Another site places Australia as number 12 on this list.

    Finally I bring to your notice the Petition Project which was signed by 31487 scientists and stated:

    "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

    Isn't it strange that a totally bogus circular is cited to prove around 95% of scientists accept the theory of anthropogenic climate change continues to be used while very few people are aware of the Petition Project which is disregarded because it is, in the words of the high priest of the religion of anthropogenic climate change, "an inconvenient truth."
    Hoohoo
    2nd Dec 2018
    11:51pm
    The Chief Scientist sites the 1.3% figure of Australia's contribution to greenhouse gases because this is the estimation. It is a most inconvenient truth that coal & gas we export contributes much more than this figure, to the global problem. Sure, we don't burn it here but we are truly adding to the problem. IT'S JUST NOT COUNTED on Australia's ledger.

    I'd like to see the qualifications of those 31,487 scientists on this Petition Project. I presume they are not the 98.5+% of scientists who are warning us about global warming & the devastating effects it will cause to our economy, populations & environment.

    Whether you believe people are fully the cause or not, there is no doubt that humans are contributing to the problem.
    maxchugg
    3rd Dec 2018
    10:35am
    Hoohoo, find more information about those who signed the Petition Project statement by searching "Oregon Petition - Wikipedia" ore one of the other sites available. You will also discover that Skeptical Science is making a strong effort to discredit this report, whether or not you accept their arguments is your call.

    My objection to the Sceptical Science report is that in the rebuttal they rely heavily upon the opinions of recent graduates, opinions which are almost certainly influenced by the opinions of the academic teachers who themselves would quickly lose their jobs if they fail to toe the current line of opinion. Conversely, rewards are heaped upon supporters of the new industry. David Suzuki, for example, a zoologist, after making a total ass of himself on a Q&A episode, then continued to argue that politicians who deny the science should be jailed has been given an honorary degree of doctor of science from the University of Alberta.

    As you will have observed, opponents of the theory of anthropogenic climate change are invariably subject to vicious personal attacks, those from within the scientific community most of all because of the threat they present to those obtaining a comfortable living by working within this industry. This hysterical process will increase, thanks to Donald Trump as is indicated by the following site:

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/trump-budget-climate-funding-20907

    The concern over the influence of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been discredited by the Vostok ice cores which show that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide always comes after global temperatures have risen, the apparent reason is that when the oceans are cold they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, when they warm they slowly return it to the atmosphere.

    Finally, as you have been defensive of the SA battery, I have so little information I find it impossible to put forward a strong case for my doubts about its viability. I remain unconvinced that the fact that small domestic batteries are not viable does not indicate that a big battery will be an exception to the rule, but we will have to wait and see on that one, because I doubt that up until now the system has been adequately tested in a time of chronic power shortage.
    Hoohoo
    5th Dec 2018
    12:45pm
    Teachers are still allowed to brainwash children into believing the world was made in 7 days, so there's no reason to believe climate deniers can't teach their views. I would like to hope that University lecturers have an open mind on the subject & teach the current scientific knowledge of the day, based on the experts' analyses. You are correct, lecturers would quickly lose their jobs if they taught errant nonsense. I certainly hope so. It is certainly errant nonsense to believe that humans are NOT contributing to the problem by emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

    Science regularly trashes an old theory when a new paradigm of knowledge becomes evident, but until that new paradigm is established, we can only rely on the current experts. As Einstein himself said, all scientists stand on the shoulders of the scientists who have gone before them.

    The problem is that large corporations would like to continue business as usual, so spend many billions of dollars on scientific research to "prove" their case. Not to mention them donating directly to political parties. Thus the dilemma the LNP now faces - how can they continue to take their money & not deliver big business's bidding? Thus they have no energy policy at all. The Labor Party is also conflicted, taking Union donations & then having to try to protect miners' jobs.

    I noticed just this morning the LNP has promised to thrash the energy retailers with a very large feather, if they don't lower energy prices. Pathetic! Morrison, with his best smug smiling face, even managed to say that Labor were traitors to poor energy customers, by not agreeing to punish the retailers with this very large feather. Surely people won't be fooled by this idiotic rubbish.

    Get a proper policy, you bludging LNP bastards! Do your job!
    maxchugg
    5th Dec 2018
    9:46pm
    Hoohoo, you are quite wrong in arguing that teachers are allowed to teach that the world was made in 7 days. I can't speak for other states, but this is not the case in the state where I live, even chaplains are not permitted to provide religious instruction, and I am reasonably confident that all other states are the same.

    Conversely there is no problem in allowing children to be brainwashed, as we have just seen with children protesting to the government, demanding action on climate change. Clearly they have been force fed the normal lies of 90+ scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change, and that the science is settled, just don't mention that scientific method was totally abandoned when the theory was developed.

    No doubt this brainwashing has also included lurid details of how the evil fossil fuel companies are financing those who reject the current, politically correct point of view, but told nothing of how much is spent promoting only one side of the argument. What is spent each year in Australia is not known, in the US it is way in excess of $22 billion - yes, billion.

    Searching media reports will produce practically nothing which gives the other side of the argument available on smart TV. For example, a scientist who played a major role in developing the computer models at the IPCC but now declares them to be useless because the predictions they made a decade go have been wildly inaccurate, and used in reverse they have also come up with information about what the past climate should have been, and again they were wrong.

    You have asked me to provide proof of my statements, now I am going to ask you for something. Please tell me:

    1. How has human activity caused the polar icecaps to melt, as has been happening, according to NASA?

    2. Please give details of any predictions in relation to climate made by "climate scientists" which have come true.
    2.

    1.
    maxchugg
    6th Dec 2018
    10:44am
    Hoohoo, I note a couple of typos on my last post.

    When I commented about 90+ scientists, I meant 90+%

    In question 1. I was referring to the melting of the polar icecaps on Mars which NASA has confirmed is happening.

    https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole

    Regularly further proof of the complete failure of the claims of the “climate scientists” emerges.

    A few years back the Antarctic refused to obey the computer models and failed to shrink as predicted. The joy when a large chunk of ice broke away, as has happened regularly, was tempered when the lost ice was quickly replaced. No problem, the loss of the ice and the rapid recovery was also proof of the science, and currently the stories of massive ice loss in Antarctica are everywhere again, even though the NSDIC pictures show that the ice is at a normal level.

    Recently it was announced that the Atlantic is cooling rapidly, an outcome has been injury and death to sea turtles. Of course the "climate scientists" claim that their computer models predicted this event, but don't seem to have told anybody. Amazingly, the computer models came up with the right answer for once and they didn’t tell anybody, failed to exploit an example where they could prove they were right all along? Perhaps they might have been intimidated by the fact that the Atlantic is known to go through periods known as multi decadal oscillation.

    NSDIC pictures of the Arctic ice which appear each day and yet again logic is defied. The ice is very close to the nonsensical, meaningless 1981 - 2010 mean which they use. However, despite this rapid increase in the volume of ice, until yesterday they were commenting about warm conditions in the Arctic ice. Are we being asked to believe that ice grows faster in warmer weather!
    Hoohoo
    7th Dec 2018
    1:51am
    A huge peninsular of ice broke off Antarctica just last autumn/winter! I don't think your sources are reliable, maxchugg.

    I hope you understand that fresh water (that has melted due to global warming) freezes at a higher temperature than does sea water? This explains why more visible ice is appearing, if that is actually true, & the reports of warmer weather in the Arctic therefore isn't a contradiction. It goes to explaining why the Kiribati Islands are being inundated with salt water. Do you deny this is happening right now?

    The warmer the ocean the more it will "displace" in terms of volume - it's basic physics.
    maxchugg
    7th Dec 2018
    10:57am
    Hoohoo, you don't think my sources are reliable and presume that I am unaware that yet another ice shelf is about to break off from Antarctica. How you arrive at this conclusion is beyond my comprehension when the internet has dozens of articles promoting this latest “proof” that global warming is real, even if the Antarctic ice not only refuses to obey the computer models and disappear, but has doggedly maintained its area and in recent times has grown rapidly, to the chagrin of the climate scientists, which even The Guardian admits:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels-despite-global-warming

    Remember the climate scientist, Professor Wadhams, who predicted in June, 2016 that Arctic ice would fall to less than 1 million square kilometres that year, and the polar bears would drown. The ice shrank to 4.72 million sq. Km and the polar bears survived!

    That ice shelves break away from Antarctica is unremarkable because as the ice expands away from the continent it becomes increasingly susceptible to the actions of the surrounding oceans which are the roughest in the world. Arctic ice, by comparison, is in a lake and not similarly affected. My unreliable sources tell me that ice shelves are breaking away regularly, such as Larsen A, January 1995; Larsen B, which was huge, in March 2002; Larsen C, July 2017.

    You ask do I deny that Kirabaldi Islands are being inundated right now? No, I understand that these low lying islands are affected by salt water on a reasonably regular basis, just like the loss of ice shelves from Antarctica, this happens periodically. Remember the scam circulated in 1990 that the Maldives would be under water by 2000, and the other low lying islands in the Pacific would quickly follow? Yet currently the Maldives are still accepting tourists and spending millions on infrastructure, the Kirabaldi Islands are not sinking, they are growing:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/tuvalu/7799503/Pacific-islands-growing-not-shrinking-due-to-climate-change.html

    You hope that I understand that fresh water freezes at a lower temperature than sea water, how about 28 deg F for salt water and 32 for fresh? But have you remembered that pressure lowers the melting point of ice, hence the difference in temperature of water coming from the base of icebergs will be close to the temperature of the seawater it encounters.

    Finally, I remind you that I have asked you to explain how human activity on Earth has caused the polar icecaps on Mars to melt. I have presented this question to dozens of the members of the Church of Al Gore, have yet to receive an answer.
    Hoohoo
    7th Dec 2018
    6:16pm
    I've never heard about nor mentioned anything about "how human activity on Earth has caused the polar icecaps on Mars to melt." I can't comment because I know nothing about it. Mars, you say? It all sounds very strange to me.

    I've never been a follower of Al Gore. He was made a massive fool of when he turned up in Australia to back a Nat or Liberal Party person prior to an election. He'd been duped into believing the LNP pollie was genuine, but was only giving lip service. Gore's advisor was most likely sacked on the spot.

    I don't follow populists (entertainers or politicians) who jump onto a cause. They are just like you & me - people who depend on experts to give their expert opinion. Trouble is these days, it's becoming very hard to know who to trust. A lot of corporate money is pumped into flooding the airwaves with all sorts of nonsense. Trump is largely to blame - he is fake news personified. He deliberately makes no sense, knowing his slogans & tweets will appeal to his unquestioning fans, despite any logic applied. For example "Russia is fake news." Huh?

    I know someone who believes in the flat earth theory. This person is intelligent, but has convinced himself that his sources are true. He has a scientific explanation for every logical objection I offer him. It doesn't matter what I say, he won't change his mind. A bit like Trump supporters - it doesn't matter how badly Trump behaves, his fans stay loyal. This person just happens to support Trump, btw.

    Regarding fresh water ice melting - I appear to have mixed my double negatives there. Apologies. Antarctica is the highest continent on Earth. So as the ocean waters warm, fresh water melting off its glaciers enters the salt water ocean, & will freeze over the top of the salt ocean. This explains why ice floes are seen to be growing. But you can't conclude that oceans aren't rising, just because ice is appearing on the surface. The Larcen C ice shelf broke off in the middle of the Antarctic winter - that's quite frightening!

    They are the Kiribati Islands, btw, not Kirabaldi. So, you say the Earth's tilt is increasing, causing the polar caps to melt & for the Equators to become cooler. I don't doubt that this is true, but again, we are relying on experts to inform us. So how is it that low lying Pacific islands are increasingly affected by salt water inundation? You say this happens "on a reasonably regular basis..." so why is it getting worse & worse now, NEAR THE EQUATOR? It contradicts your Earth tilt theory's own prediction, that the Tropics are cooling. I know there are many, many factors involved, like the 11 year El Nino/La Nina cycle shifting water heights from coast to coast of the Pacific via equatorial currents.

    So it comes down to this: what experts do you believe? The 1.5% or the 98.5%?
    Or maybe we should just follow the money - insurance corporations are now assessing their premiums on the presumption that the waters are rising.
    Misty
    7th Dec 2018
    8:09pm
    Interesting observation Hoohoo. a letter in our local paper stated, a person decided to go with a certain insurance company after being bombarded with TV ads but when he gave them his address he was told, "Sorry we cannot cover that property it is in a flood zone".
    Hoohoo
    8th Dec 2018
    1:16pm
    First up, I'd like to retract my apology regarding fresh water ice melting off a glacier & then refreezing at a warmer (higher) temperature than the surrounding ocean's salt water will freeze. My original statement was correct.

    I'd like to go back to the SA battery & the efficiency of a large battery gathering excess solar energy generated, compared to the inefficiency of single household battery back-up. Consider these points:
    - My friends on the farm waste their excess solar power when their batteries are full (because they're off the grid). So when households on the grid have excess power, the grid takes that power & it could be store in a large, local battery.
    - Maybe that's why the fossil fuel industry is so very reluctant & critical about the SA battery. The energy retailers might miss out on re-selling my excess solar power to other suckers on their books at a hugely marked up price (like 400% mark up). They might have to sell it to the Big Battery at a much cheaper price, but only if Morrison's large stick come toothpick/feather works!

    Why is it that so many people who want us to ignore global warming are also against renewable energy generation? I suppose they have just believed the lie that fossil fuel is cheaper than renewables. Adani's coal mine won't have to pay Australia any Royalties for the first 5 years of operation, so I guess that makes their poor quality brown coal look very cheap.
    musicveg
    8th Dec 2018
    1:26pm
    Adani will also get free water, billions of litres!! Unlimited groundwater for 60 years and billions of litres every year for free from a Queensland river!! Madness, I wonder what the farmers think of that?
    Hoohoo
    9th Dec 2018
    8:53pm
    True, musicveg. The National Party no longer represents farmers. The only ones who vote for them now are either the sheep who vote just like their parents did & have never stopped to think for themselves, or the rusted on right wing who will vote for anyone other than Labor or Green.
    The Farmer's Union has been hijacked by politics rather than issues that really affect farmers. They had better organise themselves properly soon, before their livelihoods are stolen from them.
    mike
    27th Nov 2018
    1:52pm
    Can someone please explain to me why the Greenies are not allowing us to use our own coal whilst we are selling, or should i say, Giving away our coal to China who is building coal fired power stations at an increasing rate. I say get rid of the Greenies in Australia, they should be banned as a political party
    Retired Knowall
    29th Nov 2018
    4:16pm
    It's called Democracy.
    musicveg
    27th Nov 2018
    1:58pm
    No nuclear, far too dangerous and waste storage is a problem. Who wants it stored in their backyard for hundreds of years?
    Renewable yes, the way of the future, clean and un-polluting.
    Coal, a dead horse, costly and a health hazard.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2018
    5:55pm
    Correct. If it comes it needs to be stored in Abetz's backyard and he has to live there until the day he dies.
    Retired Knowall
    29th Nov 2018
    4:20pm
    We will need coal for a few decades yet unless we come up with a reliable Base Load Generation solution. A gradual reduction to 30% would be ideal.
    But whats the point if BOTH major parties seem gutless in preventing the startup of the ADANI mine.
    musicveg
    29th Nov 2018
    5:34pm
    News just on hand Adani says it has the finance and whats to start digging before Christmas.
    Lothario
    29th Nov 2018
    5:55pm
    What a shame all that coal is going overseas instead of being used in Oz to mitigate the enormous cost of renewables
    JoJozep
    28th Nov 2018
    3:57pm
    Mike, sad to see you have completely missed the point I was making. It is not just my analysis I rely on, it's undeniable facts. I said in summary, that man made pollution and release of CO2 is increasing the warming effect, but the fundamental cause is the earth's changing tilt as it wobbles around the sun.

    You don't need to be Einstein to work that one out. By the way, I hate polluting coal fired power stations as they generated tons of CO2. That's the bulk of pollution plus of coarse motor vehicles causing emissions but wait, there's more:- you never mention bush fires. Are you silly enough to ignore these polluting sources (bushfires)or are they not considered in the mix because they may be acts of God?

    Like I tried to explain in simple terms, when the earth reaches maximum tilt, the poles, for one, are exposed to more sunlight. Just relying on my primary school physics (not my University Degree), we were taught that ice melts as soon as its temperature rose above 0 Deg C. That is indisputable. So if the net effect of more sunlight falling on the poles for longer, that area warms up quicker and triggers more ice melt. Generally I agree with most of your posts, but your reply to my recent post was offensive, totally wrong and in my view totally unacceptable and devoid of and denial of facts. In fact, denial of causes causing climate change is not reality, as you stated in your very first post.

    Ipso Factum Est!
    JoJozep
    28th Nov 2018
    4:28pm
    Mick- you raised my curiosity when you advised me to look at Nasa's analysis of the graph, so I did and guess what, it completely supports my case and analysis. Here is an excerpt immediately below the CO2 graph from your reference.

    "The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives."

    What? seven major shits in CO2 levels in past 650,000 years, ie once per 100,000 cycles, from maximum to minimum, there were very few humans running around 650,000 years ago, so who raised the CO2 average to peak then? Surely not the Chimps and Apes. And what does the last statement say? "Small variations...........solar energy our planet receives". So what did I state - exactly this, though I explained the reason was because of the Earth's varying tilt. I'm not denying man has contributed to global warming, but man is adding to a natural phenomena that exists whether man exists or not. So who and what science do you state believes your analysis and why would no one believe my analysis? Please stop talking rubbish as I find your conclusions wrong and lacking facts. Ipso factum est. (I rest my case if you didn't study Latin at school)
    maxchugg
    29th Nov 2018
    11:29am
    Despite its endless vilification, carbon dioxide is doing more good than harm. In recent years increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused record crops to be produced, and also the earth to become more green when seen from space:

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

    Interestingly, the totally bogus argument that over 90% of scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming continues to be promoted, yet the Petition Project, declaring that there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide is causing, or will cause in the forseeable future, catastrophic global warming, is ignored. It adds that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments.

    Why is it that a bogus report obtained by totally flouting the established scientific method of sampling is promoted and a report signed by 31,487 scientists ignored? Silly question, of course, as someone observed, if you want to understand the promotion of global warming, follow the money trail.

    The Antarctic ice has remained at a constant level for decades, the Arctic ice is almost back to the meaningless average level for the period 1979 – 2018 used by the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Further, as the North Atlantic continues to cool the Arctic ice will increase.

    To complete the nonsense, many of the current “scientists” who so assiduously promote their fairy stories and collect billions each year in subsidies from gullible governments are the same people who, a couple of decades ago, were warning of imminent global cooling.

    Never forget, when the Chief Scientist was asked what would be the effect if Australia completely stopped emitting. His reply was along the lines that the change would be insignificant - the exact quote is impossible to find on the internet - wonder why?
    JoJozep
    30th Nov 2018
    6:59pm
    To Maxchugg's comments. I do agree with your statements that increased carbon dioxide is probably a very good thing if it promotes plant life.

    What I fear is that CO2 is helping to retain the earth's heat and accelerate global warming.

    The real cause of heat build up and reason (and to Mick, this is not my analysis, it's a statement of fact) is the way the earth is tilting towards maximum tilt relevant to the elliptical orbit around the sun. This causes cooler parts of the Earth (the poles) more exposure to the sun, causing ice melt, plus warming buildup as the winds and oceans warm up.

    Land masses like Australia, rotate at same speed as before, but because they are now facing the sun at a more direct angle thus causing more sun exposure, and consequently, Australia warms up. Look at Queensland, north NSW and middle of WA at present. Therefore, the heat waves will continue and get worse in the next thousands of years plus, till maximum tilt is reached and slowly we move back to an ice age.

    There will be no living humans left at this point (unless we devise enclosed and cooled cities), so no more CO2 will be produced and we no longer have to worry. Cities will be fighting for a share of oxygen. I can't help feeling the Mel Brookes comedy movie is closer to the truth and shows the brilliance of this man, far beyond his comedy as to where we're headed. I've only a few years to go, but at least catastrophe will spare my grand children. I hope!

    That's life!
    maxchugg
    3rd Dec 2018
    8:09pm
    JoJozep, I find your arguments interesting but not convincing.

    From what I have been able to discover, the Earth's axis has changed several times, in both directions. Many of the sites I have visited attribute these changes to the size of the polar icecaps which, to me, is nonsense. Despite the predictions of massive Antarctic ice loss which were flying around a decade ago, there is now practically total silence on this subject because the ice has remained at a constant level in that time. if carbon dioxide causes global warming, the Arctic ice should have reacted to the massive amount of industrial activity due to an inevitable massive increase of atmospheric CO2 as the nations manufactured weapons of war in the periods 1910 - 1919 and again 1930 - 1945, yet during these periods the volume of the ice remained unaffected.

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850

    Yet another important argument against the theory of anthropogenic climate change is the fact that the polar icecaps on Mars are melting. How could human activity on Earth affect the climate on Mars? Why do the "climate scientists" keep well clear of that argument? And how many more dud predictions will have to be made by these people before someone questions their credibility? Simply guessing the future climate would have produced an accuracy of around 50%, which is far better than was done with the computer models.

    Having asked the previous question, It is apparent that the reason why there is so much agreement from the scientific community in the reality of anthropogenic climate change emerges from protests against Trump's plan to cut expenditure to this new industry.

    Here are some of the U.S. climate related budgets for the promotion of this scam according to information available on the internet:

    Energy Department $8.5 billion
    Interior Department $1.1 billion
    State Department $0.984 billion
    NASA $1.9 billion
    EPA $1.1 billion

    This list is not exhaustive either, as other organizations also have smaller budgets, NOA gets a miserable $190 million, and there are also substantial budgets in Defense, Agriculture and Transportation. Little wonder that recent graduates were so anxious to defend the bogus claim that 98% of scientists believe the theory and to discredit the Petition Project which showed that the number of scientists who were true believers was very much smaller. Yet in this case, evidence which supports the theory has been exaggerated by an astonishing amount, that which calls it into question totally ignored.

    On the other side of the ledger there is no evidence of any genuine effort to consider alternatives to the theory, an abundance of evidence to show what happens to those who dare to question, irrespective of the merits of the objections which are raised. Most sections of the media are hostile to criticism of the theory and will assiduously publish anything which supports the theory and ignore anything which is in opposition.

    The claim that "the science is settled" because is further evidence of the fraud because what has been done in the name of science is nothing better than prostitution of the discipline.
    JoJozep
    30th Nov 2018
    7:14pm
    I see "Dstark" came to the same conclusion as any one with a brain. No one would deny CO2 is helping world warm up, but by itself is not the only cause of global warming, hence climate change. Far more effective at warming the earth is global exposure to the sun. Mick, in your rebuttal of Dstark, you are WRONG, WRONG in your assumptions, and I await an apology. Else stop using up space on this blog. JOJOZEP!
    Adrianus
    1st Dec 2018
    10:11am
    maxchugg, is it actually 1.3% of the 2% of man made carbon? Gosh that's only 0.026%. Its kind of hard to believe that we are running around in a panic here in Australia with our small contribution while China is in no such panic and building 160 new coal fired power stations. I believe their carbon contribution combined with India's is something like 45%.

    I think this is one way to raise people out of poverty (in those two countries at least) at our expense.
    musicveg
    1st Dec 2018
    12:49pm
    Sadly there will be a lot of people suffering from respiratory diseases as the coal pollution increases. And most of the poor will not be able to afford the electricity costs anyhow.
    Adrianus
    1st Dec 2018
    2:42pm
    Happily a whole lot less than in previous years because of the new technology.
    Surely you're not suggesting that they do what our Australian government is doing? Set in place the Greens/Labor policy to make the poor people suffer with high prices?
    Misty
    1st Dec 2018
    3:10pm
    Sorry Adrianus but it is not the Greens/Labor policies that have sent energy prices skyrocketing, it is the last 5 years of Coalition policies that have caused this.
    Adrianus
    1st Dec 2018
    6:16pm
    I'm not sorry Misty because my power bill has come down under the LNP government. Julia Gillard traded her PMship for Bob Browns anti coal policy. and that's why prices under labor went up 100%. That's a fact.
    Misty
    1st Dec 2018
    7:24pm
    What rot Adrianus, my power bill is 3 times what it was when Labor was in power and we have installed 10 more solar panels since then.
    Lothario
    1st Dec 2018
    7:28pm
    Yep
    Had we not dumped billions into renewables , our power bills would all be a quarter of what it it is now
    Only ones who have gained are those who were able to afford subsidised solar and the companies given our hard earned tax dollars to build these uneconomic monstrosities
    Lothario
    1st Dec 2018
    7:29pm
    Not to mention our national debt would be hundreds of billion of $ less
    Adrianus
    2nd Dec 2018
    9:44am
    Lothario, you are absolutely correct. When Al Gore left politics his net worth was $1.7m.
    But his solar panel business has provided him with Hundreds of millions and all he had to do was the same as he did when VP for the Democrats. Alarm people into action.
    I still have this image of Al Gore flying into Australia to have breakfast with Clive Palmer in order to cut a deal to save the $10b Green Fund.
    How much did the Gillard government give the Clintons Foundation Fund?
    Like MICK says, 'follow the money trail."
    maxchugg
    4th Dec 2018
    2:04pm
    AdrIanus, Wikipedia lists 49 countries plus international aviation and international shipping which contribute anthropogenic carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. China tops the list at 29.5%, shipping is 1.78%, aviation 1.39% and Australia in position 17 on the chart contributes 1.24%.

    Attempting to compare anthromorphic and natural additions of CO2 is difficult because practically every site admits that CO2 produced by humans is only a tiny portion of the total, then immediately goes on to explain why the CO2 produced by humans is harmful and that produced naturally is not. The IPCC admits that natural sources of CO2 are 30 times greater than that which comes from humans, then gives an impression that Mother Nature is very choosy, removing only the CO2 that she has produced.

    I recall being ridiculed and told to pass on to the IPCC my brilliant observation when, around 5 years ago, I predicted on a blog that increased CO2 would have no effect other than to enhance plant growth which would absorb the extra CO2. Perhaps the IPCC have only recently discovered this fact which any nurseryman could have brought to their attention without any help from computer models.

    The IPCC has listed annual output of CO2 from the earth each year at 30 billion tons which is almost certainly exaggerated, but will be accepted with its statement that human activity creates 1/30th of this amount. So, according to their figures, 1.3 billion tons comes from human activity.

    In the case of Australia,1.24% of 1.3 billion tons is 0.024%, which is close to the figure you have calculated
    JoJozep
    1st Dec 2018
    4:47pm
    Can we keep politics out of this? Climate change is happening now. All politicians know this, including our LNP leader, (assuming he is more cynical than dumb). I have set down the causes, using basic science. Man is not helping by coal emissions especially CO2 gases, whether here in Australia, or overseas.

    Of course, future trends say we can no longer export coal, so the coal lobby is furious. They hide under the mantra that Australia's pollution contribution is slight compared to India, China and the good old USA. Somebody tell me how much coal we export, and I bet it's enormous, well beyond what we burn here. So no more coal based bullshit please.

    Even if we take an unbiased view of our future, we are stuck with global warming on a massive scale as we head into the future. The sun's radiation is increasing, over countries like Australia, and the more direct exposure we get, and this happens as the equator moves (in our present orbit) upwards or northwards. As Australia and parts of South Africa move towards the equator, there is more sunlight exposure, so we will heat up more.

    Where the present tropics move upwards, they will experience a slight cooling effect, but their relatively high moisture content will eventually dissipate as they endure a more temperate climate. Australia on the other hand, has already lost its canopy of green plants and trees, so is unlikely to generate much moisture. Therefore we will have little in the way of a protective blanket, despite the high CO2 blanket mentioned previously, and Australia will cook to perfection, just a few thousand years down the track.

    The real problem is to find a way how to mitigate the problem. Reducing CO2 emissions is only a short term solution. This will help stall the warming process for the next 1000 years or so, but not prevent it once Australia moves towards our present equator. especially over certain countries like Australia.

    So how do we get our protective blanket, if we don't have a moisture one? Believe it or not, we may have to increase our CO2 levels to a higher level than today, or plant 3/4 of the mainland with trees cleared in the name of progress, or design space suits with air conditioning and gas purifiers, or simply leave this planet and find another in pristine natural condition before man ruined it for all time like Earth.

    I hate to say it, but you can't blame the politicians, they are powerless to do anything serious or forestall the inevitable future, but they can help to make our current existence as pleasant as possible.

    Only when they start to die of sunburn or sunstroke will they see the light! No pun intended.
    musicveg
    1st Dec 2018
    5:22pm
    Good comments. I think most people just think oh well we will just produce more power so we can all live in air-conditioning, not taking into consideration being able to grow food, oh that's right we can do it hydroponically (more power needed). What I cannot understand is why are they still clearing tree's on a massive scale to breed beef for export? Meanwhile many animals and birds are threatened with extinction in our lifetime if not our children or grand children. Also to consider is the pollution that goes into the atmosphere contributing to ill health of many children especially those that live near power stations and industrial areas.
    Adrianus
    2nd Dec 2018
    9:49am
    We export 75% of our coal and use the other 25%. I would also like to see OZ using more coal.
    Misty
    2nd Dec 2018
    11:35am
    Why?.
    musicveg
    2nd Dec 2018
    1:41pm
    http://econews.com.au/59359/report-australia-on-track-to-hit-50-renewable-generation-by-2030/

    Australia rates at last among the top 20 economies for it's action to implement the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change.
    But we are on track to have more renewable energy than coal, so why the push by some people here to use more coal? I am still waiting for answers why they have such a vested interest?
    musicveg
    3rd Dec 2018
    8:52pm
    We also need to concentrate on fixing the coal power stations so they do not spew out poison.

    The findings of a report show that power station pollution causes 279 premature deaths, 361 new cases of type 2 diabetes and 233 low birth weight babies in NSW each year.

    It’s shocking and entirely preventable.

    If these coal-fired power stations use available technology to cut pollution, they can reduce toxic pollutants by up to 98 percent.

    Right now, the licences for these ageing coal-fired power stations are under review. We need to make sure the NSW government feels pressure to crack down on pollution hurting our communities.
    Lothario
    3rd Dec 2018
    8:57pm
    Findings of a report ?
    Sounds like absolute b/s to me
    Coal station emissions cause diabetes ?????? Hahahaha

    A report I read recently found solar panels on roofs cause skin cancer and wind turbines cause a higher incidence of suicides
    Misty
    3rd Dec 2018
    9:52pm
    And there are fairies at the bottom of the garden Lothario.
    musicveg
    3rd Dec 2018
    10:22pm
    Misty, have you noticed Lothario does not agree with anything I post? It is impossible to encourage these types of stuck in the mud people to even consider other ways of thinking or possibilities.
    Misty
    4th Dec 2018
    1:10am
    Lothario rarely agrees with anything that people comment on here unless it is posted by Old Geezer and Adrianus.
    JoJozep
    4th Dec 2018
    11:24am
    Hi! to all contributors to this debate.

    I find it incredulous that some people still question my statements. My statements are my conclusion on the facts I study. Facts are Facts. I am not a scientist, I am an architect. In my profession, physics, chemistry and maths play a big part in designing and constructing buildings. Anything that impacts on this, for example the amount of sunlight a building receives, has a bearing on comfort, power required to cool or heat a building, thermal efficiency and general impact on the environment.

    Therefore if a major influencing factor like the impact of thermal warming, whether accelerated by man made pollution or actually caused by the increasing exposure to the sun through changing of the Earth's axis, is just as important as designing a building that will not collapse.

    To those who say my statements are not convincing, I'm sorry, but facts are facts. If the varying tilt of the earths axis expose more temperate climate countries to more sunlight doesn't increase temperatures, they are in denial. The poles are tilting so they get more exposure. Australia, Middle Africa and South America are shifting on the Earth's surface towards the old equator and get more sunlight (I don't mean physically shifting, though this happens) but because the Earth's rotation is wobbling. Conversely, all countries above the equator, are also going to get more sun exposure in the coming decades and thousands of years of the varying tilt of axis cycle.

    These are facts. Anyone who studied basic astronomy would know this. Anyone who is in denial is an idiot, period.

    This b/s about the earth being flat and that the centre of the universe was the earth, not our sun, was proven wrong in medieval times, mainly by Galileo. Why? because he actually came close to being burnt at the stake as a heretic. You see his findings upset the status quo.

    Surely, I don't have to prove the earth wobbles in 40,000-100,00 year cycles and with a wobble where the axis move slightly over thousands of years. This change in tilt moves the earth to receive more or less sunlight, causing warming periods and glacial periods.

    Please, prove me wrong if you have a scientific case, but accept I may be right and you might be wrong, but I wouldn't put money on it.

    Like Napoleon said, "You can call a person a fool, but you can't convince him he is one".
    maxchugg
    4th Dec 2018
    2:21pm
    JoJozep, you have added to my confusion!

    "The Chandler wobble or variation of latitude is a small deviation in the Earth's axis of rotation relative to the solid earth, which was discovered by American astronomer Seth Carlo Chandler in 1891. It amounts to change of about 9 metres in the point at which the axis intersects the Earth's surface and has a period of 433 days. This wobble, which is a nutation, combines with another wobble with a period of one year, so that the total polar motion varies with a period of about 7 years."

    There has been a development in the process of understanding this phenomenon, scientists have discovered........guess what.....it’s caused by climate change!

    So we now have a situation where climate scientists are telling us that the wobble is caused by climate change, you are arguing that climate change is caused by the wobble.
    JoJozep
    4th Dec 2018
    6:14pm
    TO Maxchugg. Thank you for your query regarding the Earth's tilt and wobble
    .

    Please refer to Milutin Milankovitch's (1879-1958) theory on the earth's motions. Look up his name in Wikipedia the link is:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt

    also, you can look up Nasa"s site dealing with motions of the planet.

    Here is a clip from Google dealing with the matter:

    Milutin Milankovitch - NASA Earth Observatory
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php
    Mar 24, 2000 - As the axial tilt increases, the seasonal contrast increases so that winters are colder and summers are warmer in both hemispheres. Today, the ...

    The earth's axial tilt in a 40,000 year cycle is 2.4 Degrees. At present, that represents approximately 300 kilometers in round figures. Look at google maps and check how far below the equator 300 kilometers lands you. You will see it's close to Kavieng's location in New Ireland, Papua and New Guinea. Here is a sample extract of the effects this has on climate:

    Obliquity (change in axial tilt)
    As the axial tilt increases, the seasonal contrast increases so that winters are colder and summers are warmer in both hemispheres. Today, the Earth's axis is tilted 23.5 degrees from the plane of its orbit around the sun. But this tilt changes. During a cycle that averages about 40,000 years, the tilt of the axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. Because this tilt changes, the seasons as we know them can become exaggerated. More tilt means more severe seasons—warmer summers and colder winters; less tilt means less severe seasons—cooler summers and milder winters. It's the cool summers that are thought to allow snow and ice to last from year-to-year in high latitudes, eventually building up into massive ice sheets. There are positive feedbacks in the climate system as well, because an Earth covered with more snow reflects more of the sun's energy into space, causing additional cooling.

    On top of that, seasonal changes occur every 100,000 as the earth's elliptical orbit changes from an ellipse to more rounded towards a circle, changing extreme distances from the sun, thus affecting winters and summers. From the above, one can see that all countries below the equator move 300 kilometers roughly upwards relative to today's equator location, approximately over 6 months of the year, and the countries north of the equator come towards the equator for the other 6 months of the year. The North and South poles follow suit, (we are all on the same Earth).

    The earth is moving towards Maximum tilt, so the sunlight exposure will increase on the earth and reach maximum warmer temperatures in approximately 16,600 years according to my calculations. I don't know exactly how much the average has increased over the past 100 years, but if it is say 0.1 Degrees net, then we can expect an increase of 16.6 Degrees in average temperatures by this time. Melbourne's 20 Degree days in Spring will become 46.6 degrees and in summer, maximums of 56.6 or more would be common. Pollution (CO2) doesn't help if it traps this heat build up in addition.

    So it's the changing tilt of the axis of the earth plus other changes in rotational eccentricity which is contributing greatly to increased global warming. The CO2 pollution blanket can trap heat received from the sun, but it can also absorb heat and shield us to some extent from the sun's direct rays.

    Also, if we move into the glacial age, 20,000 years from now, the CO2 blanket will help to keep us warm. so we may have to start polluting in earnest. (this is hopefully not required).

    The wobble you mention where the tilt causes only 9 metres variance at the poles, is over a short period, roughly one year. The one I'm talking about is over 40,000 years is closer to 300 kilometers. And by the way, I think you will find the variance would be about correct if your 9 metres per year is multiplied by 40,000, equaling 360 kilometers. The movement you speak of is compounding over time, the earth's axis don't realign in just 1 year.

    Confusing I agree, but we should have faith that man, having existed through maximum heat warm up
    and an ice age, we could do it again in the future, with more technology making our stay on earth bearable, and livable. Who knows, we might get visitors from space by then. Cheers!
    maxchugg
    4th Dec 2018
    8:07pm
    JoJosep, interesting article which is food for thought. There are several sites which indicate that the earth's temperature moves through heating/cooling cycles, my understanding is that Russian scientists are expecting global cooling in the next 15 years.

    I do not accept the argument that increased atmospheric CO2 has any significant impact upon climate or global temperature. Natural generation of CO2 is 30 times as much as that produced by humans, according to the IPCC. We also know, from the Vostok ice cores that global warming comes before increased CO2.

    The wobble theory appears to fit in with what is known of past global temperatures, and would appear to account for climate change, which has always been an ever present reality. I am inclined to agree with the Russians that solar activity was the primary cause of the heating that was present a couple of decades ago.

    Assuming that the wobble theory is correct, all the sacrifices Australia has made up to now, and projected sacrifices will achieve nothing.
    JoJozep
    8th Dec 2018
    11:03am
    Can we agree of some facts in this debate please. Here are what I consider undeniable facts.

    1. We are spewing more pollutants into the atmosphere. This we breathe in, whether we want to or not. To me, that's the danger we and our future generations face.
    2. The Earth is slowly warming overall.
    3. Ice melting at the poles is happening, thus slowly raising sea levels.
    4. Weather patterns are becoming more extreme, causing cyclones droughts, bushfires, dust storms, torrential rain and more often.
    5. Our stabilizing component- the mass of sea water, is warming, causing ocean current changes and thus affecting marine life, coral reefs and degrees of rainfall.

    The majority of these events can only change by a massive change in the Earth's environment. This can only be the sun and the degree to which the earth is exposed to it. Change the exposure pattern as the earth moves around the sun, and presto! we have winter, spring, summer and autumn. This has been happening since the earth evolved.

    What I would like the scientists to unravel, is how come we, as humans can breathe the present air we live in.

    We are breathing 78% Nitrogen quiet happily (plus oxygen and other gases of course), but nitrogen on its own is an inert gas and cannot sustain life in its pure form. It far outweighs (in volume terms) all other polluting gases put together. If we double Carbon Dioxide levels (and that’s a big, big change), we are still only talking 0.08%, sweet nothing compared to Nitrogen’s 78% by volume.

    Can we evolve to breathe more pollutants? Because if we can, we can adapt to the new regime of the future. Also, how come early man and American Indians, Eskimos etc. didn't die out as they slept next to small fires in their caves or tents spewing CO2, CO (deadly) and other gases?

    Someone please explain! As one earnest politician put it.
    musicveg
    8th Dec 2018
    12:56pm
    Good points JJZ, I too believe we are breathing in far too many chemicals, they also come from fumes from transport, pesticides and fertilizers and the toxic chemicals in washing powers, personal products and more. Our livers are working in overload thus causing many people to have sluggish livers and then cause more disease. I would like to see us clean up the air for the future of children today. Coal pollution is a big one and many other industries, you only have to look at China and see how bad it is for children breathing in pollutants. I think we need to get off the argument and climate change and energy crisis and concentrate on cleaning up industries. Healthier people makes a healthier planet, and less burden on Governments and the people who have to pay for sick people and when they have to be on welfare because they are too sick to work or do anything.
    musicveg
    9th Dec 2018
    10:30pm
    http://econews.com.au/59429/study-renewables-reduces-power-prices-but-gas-reason-prices-are-high/
    This article was interesting to read that gas is the reason power prices are high.
    JoJozep
    10th Dec 2018
    3:41pm
    Thanks MusicVeg!

    I still say we are not at doomsday's doors just yet. But, we could make life more bearable for our future generations. Yes i was in both Beijing and Shanghai as my son worked in Shanghai for several years. Yes the pollution was really bad at times, but not as bad as it was last year. Shanghai being close to the sea enjoyed refreshing wind changes, but one wonders where the pollution went, no doubt towards Alaska and California, pushed by strong Westerlies. So North America has a direct influence and say on how much pollution hits them from China and India. At the same time, President Non-Braino doesn't see that competing with China is causing millions of Americans to get progressively sicker. Just to save a some low paid jobs (and hence his voting rump), and a few Millions of dollars he is prepared to slosh around in the gutter promoting polluting industries. To placate the arms dealers in the States, he is happy to ignore one man's death because he dared speak his mind as long as the arms deal with the Saudis went through.

    What a disgusting money hungry and morally corrupt stand over merchant, leading what is progressively becoming a second rate country.

    Politicians have a lot to answer for. Like I said, I'm sorry Politics has come into the equation, but it's very hard to separate politics from reality, because politicians are in power.

    Sad, Sad we are headed for a more dismal future. The solution: get rid of individual greed. The funny part of all this is if there was no money in excavating coal, the greedy rich would drop it like a hot turd, as would the self centered politicians. What's in it for them?
    musicveg
    10th Dec 2018
    7:17pm
    I enjoyed reading that, I feel the same but could not have put the words as good as you did. I am finding more and more that nothing gets done unless there is money attached to it, what a sad world, have you heard of the Third Revolution, look it up, interesting stuff.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles