With all the hype at the moment after the recent publication of a report addressing such issues by former World Bank Chief Economist Nicholas Stern, I thought it would be interesting to start a thread about these issues…
I confess I am no greenie, but here are my thoughts:
1) Global Warming is a REAL threat to the world as we know it, and to the world in which following generations will live.
2) At some point in time, be it in our lifetime or not, our resources such as coal and oil are going to diminish to a point that almost eliminates their long-term viability. They are not only going to pollute the planet for as long as we use them, they will simply become unavailable.
3) If and when this occurs, renewable energy is going to be the only option, but truth be told, once the infrastructure is in place to make use of renewable energy, its financial cost will be much lower for the pure and simple fact that the resources used will be free.
After all, how the hell can a power company be charged for the wind it harnesses, the sunlight that falls on its panels, or the tidal flow that runs through its turbines???
What I am saying is that you have to pay for coal and oil, wind and sunlight don’t cost a cent!!! Sure, you have to service and maintain wind turbines, but the same can be said of the infrastructure of a coal-fired power station.
After some quick internet research, I also managed to find an Australian-based company that is a world leader in wind-power technology, who just happen to be planning an IPO in the not-too-distant – for those of you who might be interested…
Their website is http://www.wind-hydrogen.com and looking at the managerial credentials, I think they have a very solid foundation to run a successful company in the long-term.
If any of you have information on similar companies, I’d love to hear from you…
If you have opposing views to any of my thoughts, I would also be interested to hear them…
Age doesn’t negate effort – you can never be too young or too old.
Hey Spanky,
Great article,
Can you please tell me what evidence you have to conclusively prove global warming.
Did you knoew that the coal belt runs from Gippsland almost to Tassie?
What about Nuclear?
I personaly have not found any evidence to prove global warming, just a bunch of theories.Regards
FrankHi Spanky,
Great post.About 3 months ago I researched the idea of installing solar panels on roofs of companies and then selling back the electricity.
Sadly, if I was to charge the same price as coal power electricity payback was 40 years +. Now this does not include maintenance and worse still that solar cells have a life of about 20 years.
So the energy is clean but is still too expensive.
I did not go down the wind power lane as this requires land with optimal exposure to our wind currents.
It is very frustrating when you hear the germans will phase out nuclear power stations by 2020 (I think) and we are now thinking about firing one up.
So as I rent all I can do for the environment is conserve water/pwoer and recycle everything from food scraps to bottles. At least this will reduce some form of manufacturing.
Mat
Mathew
http://www.arrttt.com
Custom Oil PortraitsAh Ha!!!
This is just what I wanted – a few people with different views on the topic!
Frank – I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know everything about global warming, my first point was (and still is) merely a gut feeling I suppose. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is now a widely known fact that carbon emissions deplete ozone particles in the atmosphere. NASA recently published photos of the hole in the Earth’s ozone layer, which has expanded to record levels. Whether this has contributed to global warming or not, surely it has or will cause an imbalance that has some sort of effect on the planet as an ecosystem.
Secondly, my own observations tell me that something is changing – I first moved to Wagga Wagga in 1998, and the winter here was cold and wet. In 1999, I distinctly remember it raining constantly for about 4 or 5 weeks – we had 2 dry days in that time.
Since then, the winters have generally become warmer and drier – I could count on one hand the number of wet days we had this winter, only one of them bought substantial rain, albeit for about an hour or so.
While we may have an abundance of coal, remember it is not just Australia who uses it – we probably sell a vast majority of this overseas, and I think (as with many other things in society), as technology improves, the cost of installing, maintaining and operating renewable power stations is going to fall – the question is, when? In 5, 10, 15 years? In our lifetime at all? In our children’s lifetime?
Which brings me to address your point Mat – I knew solar cells were expensive, I just didn’t realise they were that expensive… I studied them in Physics when I was at school, mainly how they work. In my studies I found there are other ways to harness the Sun’s energy – there is a solar station in the States (California from memory) that uses very long parabolic mirrors that focus the sun’s rays on a pipe containing some sort of oil. It snakes itself through the desert for a number of kilometres, the thermal energy propelling the oil through the pipes until it reaches the station, at which point the heat is harnessed to produce electricity, and the cold oil simply returns to the beginning of the system… More than one way to skin a cat.
While this would not be a feasible option to place on the roofs of businesses, Blind Freddy could work out that this sort of infrastructure could be set up somewhere across our wide brown land. I know there are many farmers out there trying to sell massive farms because alas, there is too much sunlight!
I’m definitely no expert – it’s just food for thought
Age doesn’t negate effort – you can never be too young or too old.
Without a sustainable future there will be nothing to look forward to, let alone building wealth. I hear the message and try hard to our bit to make a difference.
At home we recycle, reuse, reduce waste, installed twin 4500L tanks to flush toilets and water our vege patch, do way with lawn, looking closely at harnessing solar energy as the cost has come down over time.
Some schools are better than others and have put sustainabilty issues as a core of their studies – environmentally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Instead of the general apathy I used to feel towards their future, kids are definitely learning skills appropriate for their time and creating jobs of the future evolving around the issue.
This discussion would hopefully bring about awareness amongst us on available innovative, resourceful recyclable building materials to lessen the impact on emission, and create interests enough to bring about changes to our ‘throw away’ mentality just because it is habitual and easy.
I agree it’s high time we think globally and act locally.
CT
If I had known a week or so ago that I had to write here about whether or not there are sufficiently convincing theories pointing out that there is overall global warming and that this will continue to get worse over the next 50 years, I would have kept the various articles I read about it and provided some references in this post, alas, I didn’t. In essence, many scientists who are studying global warming seem to concur that it is happening, but are unsure of its speed of development.
I recall doing a research assignment at university in 1982 where the topic I chose was about the impact of the burning of fossil fuels on the earth’s temperature. I recall quite clearly then that at that time there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that by 2020 the earth’s temperature would increase by up to 3 – 4 degrees. There were two camps, as there are now, one provided evidence that our temperature is very likely to increase by 3 – 4 degrees and the impact of that would be significant, while the other camp was entire ly unconvinced and concluded that the warming in evidence at the time would be due to natural temperature fluctuations.
It appears to me that there are now far more tents being pitched in the former camp (look for the one where the camp fire is replaced by solar-powered stoves).
The evidence we have today seems to indicate far more strongly that not only will our temperatures increase by 3- 4 degrees, but even go beyond 5 degrees. The impact on future generation’s lives (including those born today) will be tremendous.
If in doubt as to where the truth lies, there is absolutley nothing stopping any of us going to our local university’s library and start doing our own research into the matter. Don’t believe what is written in the media or bandied about by various interest groups. Do your own research and come to your own conclusion.
It is a complex subject but research into primary and secondary sources will shed enough light on the matter to enable you to draw your own conclusions.
Cheers!
Wealth Creation, Business, Self-Help, True Crime, Sci-fi and hard to find books
http://www.oztion.com.au/myauctions/aussie_book_nook.aspx
also at
http://stores.ebay.com.au/Books-and-Wonderful-ThingsHere is a thought that could support the concept of global warming:
“There is no such thing as cold, it is merely a lack of heat”
Someone once told me this and I dismissed it as stupid, probably because I didn’t understand what they were saying, but it makes sense to me now.
Heat can very easily be created as we go about our daily business – when we’re cooking, when our car burns fuel, when we boil the jug etc.
A state of being cold, however, cannot be “created” from nothing – refrigerators and air conditioners are simply heat-exchange systems, so they become cold on the inside by moving the heat outside – that is why the back of your fridge feels hot.
Put simply, you can produce heat but you can’t “produce” cold, only extract heat and move it elsewhere.
Spanky
Age doesn’t negate effort – you can never be too young or too old.
Hi All[biggrin]
My wife is a full time PhD scholar in the field of sustainability and has studied environmental issues for over 10 years.
I wouldn’t call her a greenie (yet) but her findings have raised her concerns and have changed her attitudes.
Australia (to its shame) is one of the only two developed nations in the world who have not ratified Kyoto. The other is the USA.
I view this point in time as the dawn of public awareness about global warming issues and awareness of the suppression of scientific papers that have provided the proofs of its existence for decades.
An analogy is the Cigarette /Cancer suppression of scientific data during the 50’s and 60’s.
A link to a Four Corners program about the gagging of CSIRO scientists on climate change is below.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1568867.htm
In the US approximately six months ago the New York Times reported that the government advisor on global warming was drastically altering scientific reports prior to their release to congress.
He had previously been employed by the petroleum industry and the day after his sacking (due to public outcry) he was employed by Mobil Exon.The easiest way to catch up on facts about global warming is to view the movie “An Inconvenient Truth’ which is a documentary explaining global warming in lay terms.
Other research is commonly found on the internet, Wikipedia links on some aspects are below;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Spanky
1)Global Warming is a REAL threat to the world as we know it, and to the world in which following generations will live.
I agree
2) At some point in time, be it in our lifetime or not, our resources such as coal and oil are going to diminish to a point that almost eliminates their long-term viability. They are not only going to pollute the planet for as long as we use them, they will simply become unavailable.
By then it may be too late as for if it is left unchecked it will lead to extinction of life as we know it.
Mathewc 73
About 3 months ago I researched the idea of installing solar panels on roofs of companies and then selling back the electricity.
This is already being done by a company in the US.
The link to the article in the New York Times is
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B10FB3D5B0C728EDDA90994DE404482
As it is in their archives it will cost a small amount for you to extract it.
Spankey
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is now a widely known fact that carbon emissions deplete ozone particles in the atmosphere. NASA recently published photos of the hole in the Earth’s ozone layer, which has expanded to record levels.
This is a separate issue concerning the use of the now banned CFC chemicals and the banning has resulted in the ozone hole starting to diminish.
Secondly, my own observations tell me that something is changing
Internationally the last 5 years have been the warmest on record.
While we may have an abundance of coal
This is part of the problem as it creates a group of lobbyist who pressure government to talk about changees that will occurr in 15 years time . 5 years ago the exact same statements were issued by government and I presume the same statement will be issued in another 5 years until the public place pressure on government to facilitate changes.
I knew solar cells were expensive
Both Technology and mass production will lower costs.
CT
I agree it’s high time we think globally and act locally.
That’s it in a nutshell
Platonic
Well said
Regards
Bryce Inglis
AR282821Investment & Implimentation manager
Replies on this site are intended as general information only, as any specific investment solutions/advice must only be given in accordance with the requirements set out in the Financial Services Reform Act 2001 and the ASIC guidelines as set out in PS146.An appropriate professional should be consulted for specific advice
Interesting…. Ive often wondered why we cannot create more endothermic reactions (ie you know when you open a gas bottle and as the gas comes out the valve ices up? thats cause the liquid gas absorbs energy to turn into gas). Cause if we could a fridge could run so much more cheaper!
Also they did a study on 9-11 and they recorded temperature rises on the days after. This was due to the grounding of planes. What they concluded is our polution also causes global shading that reduces the earths termperature.
So they were saying you cannot just stop the green house gasses alone.
Mat
Mathew
http://www.arrttt.com
Custom Oil PortraitsNoddies, I’m glad there’s someone out there who feels the same way as I do – and more to the point, has the evidence and knowledge to back it up. You’ve summarised my thoughts to a tee!
Mathew, your point about temperature rises in the days after 9/11 are interesting – was it a worldwide trend? Does anybody know what the long-term effects might be?
Has anybody checked out http://www.wind-hydrogen.com? It’s section on their patented hydrogen technology is interesting and I still honestly believe what you backed up Noddies – that technology and mass production of renewable energy infrastructure will bring prices down. This may be unfeasible in the short-term for solar cells, but energy from wind is certainly possible – and the input costs are much lower than a coal station once set up, as you don’t have to pay for wind! And probably will never have to…
Age doesn’t negate effort – you can never be too young or too old.
Hi all[biggrin]
Apart from the recent Stern report which excludes mention of Australia, various newspapers around the world ran the story below about a report released by the CSIRO which covers our surrounding area.
The story is reproduced below but if you google CSIRO and go to their web site, http://www.csiro.au, you will probably be as surprised as I was that there is no mention of any such report.
The Associated Press Published: October 9, 2006
SYDNEY, Australia Hotter temperatures and higher sea levels could devastate many Asian economies, displace millions of people and put millions more at risk from infectious disease, according to a climate change report released Monday.
The report, conducted by Australia’s main research agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, predicted global temperatures will rise by up to 2 degrees Celsius by 2030, particularly in the arid regions of northern Pakistan, India and China.
It said there is “little room for optimism” about the effects of climate change in the Asia-Pacific region unless governments take immediate action to curb carbon dioxide emissions.
Higher temperatures coupled with changing rainfall patterns, including more tropical cyclones, flooding and heavier monsoons, could put millions of people at a greater risk of malaria, dengue fever and other infectious diseases, the report warned.
It also predicted that millions of people living in low-lying coastal communities in Bangladesh, Vietnam, China and many Pacific islands could become displaced as sea levels rise by up to 50 centimeters (20 inches) over the next 65 years.
“Local and regional economies will be hit hard from chronic food and water insecurity and epidemic disease, as well as extreme weather events,” said the report, which was commissioned by 12 environmental, church, and nongovernment organizations.
The report’s author, research scientist Ben Preston, said the region’s poorest countries would bear the brunt of climate change. “For many of these nations, they rely on agriculture not only for subsistence, but also it’s a major component of their economies,” he said. “So significant impact to agricultural productivity affects the ability of people not only to feed themselves, but also to make money.”
Global warming could also alter or destroy the coastal ecosystems upon which millions of people depend for fishing or tourism-related income, Preston said.
He said many Asian countries have little or no information about the risks of climate change, and are totally unprepared to deal with its impact on their economies.
The report calls on the Australian government to help developing countries in the region invest in renewable energy sources and better prepare for large-scale natural disasters.
It also encourages Australia to review its immigration laws to take in people displaced by climate change.
I have been unsuccessfully searching for the report over a 2 week period and have just found it.
If you read this story, you will have a great deal of difficulty finding the report online, since they never mention who actually sponsored it.
And that’s because the research was led by Ben Preston, a research scientist at CSIRO, but the research was done for the Australian Climate Change & Development Roundtable [CCDR] — a fact that the article never mentions.
Hmm no wonder I couldnt find it.
To find the report — and the executive summary and the mystery second report (which is not at all by CSIRO) — go to http://www.ccdr.org.au and click on Reports.Regards
Bryce Inglis
AR282821Investment & Implimentation manager
Replies on this site are intended as general information only, as any specific investment solutions/advice must only be given in accordance with the requirements set out in the Financial Services Reform Act 2001 and the ASIC guidelines as set out in PS146.An appropriate professional should be consulted for specific advice
Why is that just because Johnny Howard starts talking about something, then all of a sudden it is a catastrophe and we must do something now. I believe strongly that renewable energy is the only way to go, if not just to reduce that choking pollution in our capital cities, we’ll all be much healthier.
Solar power hasn’t been taken up by government because the oil and coal companies have such power over politicians, it’s as simple as that. But whether or not the globe is warming due to human contributions? Who knows, but I do beleive that the current drought is not actually unusual for Australia. Average rainfall in Victoria in the last few years is actually only marginally (10%) below average, and the time of lowest rainfall since measurement started, was actually around the time of the great depression. There weren’t any near the amount of cars and other emission producers at that time. So how can the drought be linked to global warming, I think it is just politically convenient. Maybe the government is just trying to deflect attention from it’s own problems at the moment ie AWB, Iraq invasion, etc
Hi all [biggrin]
Why is that just because Johnny Howard starts talking about something, then all of a sudden it is a catastrophe
It is only a catastrophe if we continue to ignore it; what is lacking is the political will to change and that can only be resolved thru public awareness and the subsequent political response that this brings about, we have the power to stop it from being catastrophic
Solar power hasn’t been taken up by government because the oil and coal companies have such power over politicians, it’s as simple as that
Well said
I view it as an opportunity for enhanced future economic growth thru the creation of new products.
Historically the world has overcome past crisis situations by change; for example, the creation of the industrial age was caused by the prevailing economic conditions at the time.
My wife has created an environmental time line as part of her PHD studies that explains this much better than I can.But whether or not the globe is warming due to human contributions? Who knows,
More and more scientific evidence from around the world is stating that global warming is attributed to human contribution, but the statement is partly irrelevant, the point is that if we see a house on fire, do we continue to throw logs at it.
So how can the drought be linked to global warming,
Global warming has several effects, the evaporation rate in arid countries increases with a rise in temperature and this increases the expansion of desert areas. Hurricanes increase in intensity and frequency as they are caused by a heat differential over colder water. The formation of weather gradients (Highs and lows) shift their patterns, causing areas of rainfall to change from their traditional areas.
Maybe the government is just trying to deflect attention from it’s own problems at the moment ie AWB, Iraq invasion, etc
It could be equally postulated that some situations divert public attention from global warming.
Regards
Bryce Inglis
AR282821Investment & Implimentation manager
Replies on this site are intended as general information only, as any specific investment solutions/advice must only be given in accordance with the requirements set out in the Financial Services Reform Act 2001 and the ASIC guidelines as set out in PS146.An appropriate professional should be consulted for specific advice
Hi all. This is interesting discussion.
There is a scientific proof that CO2 plays a vital role in regulating our planet temperature. There is also a scientific data that the amount of CO2 in the earth atmosphere has increased dramatically during the last century. Attached is the link to the Earth System Recearch Lab data:
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.php
I am still in the process of forming my own opinion on the global warming/cooling issue. There is an opinion that air pollution is also causing the “global deeming”, which reduces the amunt of the sun radiation reaching the earth surface and in a sense compensating CO2 warming effect.
What I don’t see in any discussions about the global warming is the amount of heat discharged into the air by fossil fuel power stations, which is probably contributing to the temperature rise. Take for exemple coal fired power station 1000 MW capacity, which generates at around 35% efficiency, minus transmission/distribution losses, at the consumer end the final efficiency is 30%. This means that for 1000 MW of useful energy delivered to consumer, power plant needs to use around 3000 MW of fuel (more for brown coal). Out of this 2000 MW is discharged into the air as heat. In addition coal fired plant evaporates huge amounts of water in cooling towers to cool down back end of the steam turbine. This is just the way thermodynamic cycle works. This water vapour also creates “blanket” and causes warming effect and helps trapping the heat generated by power plants.
In addition all useful power delivered to consumers is in the end converted into heat one way or the other. So basically all 3000 kW of fuel heat eventually ends up heating the air.
Nuclear plant works pretty much in the same way as coal fired, only uses nuclear reactor to generate steam instead of coal fired boiler. It would generate very little CO2, but more heat (it is less efficient) and more water vapour. Does this solve the global warming problem? I don’t think so.
Will renewable generation help to reduce the global warming? Yes it will, but with the current consumption there is no way renewables can replace base load coal fired generators. There is just not enough renewable resorces and their generation profile requires back up by fossil fuel generators, ie wind farms can generate only 30 – 40% of the time and the wind tend to stop blowing when you need it most.
The problem needs to be addressed from different directions and first of all from the consumption side. Reduction of every 1 MW of electricity will reduce fuel consumption by 3 MW. Regardless of the global warming improvement in consumption efficiency makes a lot of sense.
Energy waste in many industries in Australia is shocking. Some companies are actively addressing this, but most of them are not doing anything because large consumers buy energy very cheap.
There are ways to dramatically reduce emissions with virtually no cost to the economy, in fact significant benefits can be generated. One of this solution is distributed or imbedded generation (it is usually called cogeneration), where electricity is generated next to large energy consumers and the waste heat is recovered and converted into the useful energy like steam or hot water, thus eliminating the need of using extra fuel for steam raising. Efficiency of such system can get up to 80%, no transmission/distribution losses. No need to develop addtional transmission and distribution infrastructure.
OK I think I got too technical. Anyway, do I believe it is warming up? I am not sure yet. Do I see the climate is changing? Yes, I do. Can there be a natural cause for the climate change ie unusual sun activity? Maybe. But I still believe there are a lot of common sense things we can do to reduce our energy consumption rather than trying to satisfy ever increasing demand by building more and more power stations.
Regards
Gamay
While I am in a writing mood I decided to add my view on another issue: Geosequestration (spelled correctly?), or underground CO2 storage, which is being promoted as a “clean coal technology”.
This is a typical exemple of the brainwashing in order to protect coal industry. There is no proven technology and never will be.
These are the reasons:
– CO2 in power station flue gas is very diluted, separation will be very expensive (if possible at all)
– assume there is technology to separate CO2; pumping it under ground will require significant energy consumption, adding CO2 emissions
– assume all above problems are resolved and every single fossil fuel power plant starts pumping CO2 under ground. Remember how CO2 is made: C + O2 = CO2. So by locking carbon dioxide under ground we’ll be locking oxygen as well, so we would need to find new oxygen sources. Probably we will get to the stage when everyone will wear a mask and carry oxygen bottle when 02 concentration in the air drops to 5%. And trees can’t help: there is no CO2 to break down into C and O2.Regards
Gamay
Folks! There is some good discussion here, but not all accurate.
You have so far covered three separate topics. Ozone depletion, global dimming and of course climate change.
As Bryce rightly pointed out, the hole in the ozone layer is caused by the emission of ozone depleting substances (mitigation measures for this came out of the Montreal Protocol). A lack of ozone exposes us to higher levels of UV radiation. Emission levels have dropped radically, however it will take some time for the ODS’s to dissipate in the atmosphere.
“Global dimming” is caused by aerosols (small particles suspended in the atmosphere), that scatter incoming solar radiation and hence cool the earths surface. Global dimming is having a dampening effect on global warming. Emissions of aerosols are also dropping.
Climate change is happening. It is beyond theories. We are now seeing physical evidence worldwide. Also agree with Bryce that Al Gores movie is a great place to start to educate yourself on this.
I could talk about this stuff all day, but in a nutshell:
– we are now at ~420 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere (Stern review).
– CO2 levels for the past 800,000ish years (as shown by some ice cores taken in Antarctica), have been in the range of 200ish to 280ish ppm (we are looking to hit 550 ppm by 2050). Temperature tracks CO2 levels.
– we have observed an almost 1 degree increase in temperature (global average) since the start of the industrial age. Word is if we stop emitting GH gases now, temperatures would increase by a further 2 degrees.
– as pointed out by Gore, the difference between the last ice age (when the US was under 1 km of ice) and today is 5 degrees. In the first 10,000 years following the last ice age, global average temperatures increased by ~0.5 degrees every 1000 years (Flannery).
– this is the only truly global issue/threat, affecting all species. And the more one learns the more frightening it is.Other points (apologies Gamay, but I must disagree with you on a number of points):
– Power plants do not create oxygen! Tree’s do. Geosequestration will in no way effect oxygen levels.
– Heat from power plants does not cause increased temps. The radiative forcing of GH gases does (ie CO2, methane, sulphur hexafluoride etc). oh, and water vapour. Oh, and natural cycles (milankovich cycles etc). I could discuss feedbacks, but I fear losing people.
– Coal fired plant (new build) can now achieve 45%+ efficiencies through supercritical steam. Retrofitting capture technologies to existing plant for geosequestration is certainly very expensive (particularly for less efficient plant), however other technology exists to make the capture of CO2 easier ie oxyfuel firing.
– In an ideal world we would be generating all our energy from renewable sources (and it is something that will occur in the future), but unfortunately there are technological and economic barriers that will delay extensive uptake (not to mention the powerful lobby groups).But do agree with Gomay that energy efficiency (in household, business, industry and transport) will play a major role in reducing global emissions.
Could say so much more..
MarkP
It is sad when intelligent people question the bloody obvious, global warming is here and now. A plauge on your house if you think otherwise.
Ohh by the way I have solar pannels on my roof. They were easy to install (yes they were expensive) but I know that I am not contributing to the environmental destuction of the planet. When I rant on this website I know I am not using polluting brown coal unlike some some others.
Gamay,
You have obviously not checked out the wind-hydrogen website before making the comment that “Wind farms only generate 30-40% of the time and the wind tends to stop blowing when you need it most”…They have developed and patented technology to assist in balancing energy supply despite peaks and troughs in wind. i.e. excess electricity produced during stronger winds is used to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen stored under pressure to be burned later (when wind is not strong enough to keep up with demand).
I know it is not the be-all and end-all, but it is certainly showing promising signs in trials.
Spanky
Age doesn’t negate effort – you can never be too young or too old.
Hi all,[biggrin]
The way to stop or alter global warming is complex as it requires tackling on many fronts; the first step is to understand the mechanics involved. Once this is achieved further progress can be made.
To the skeptical, the changing weather patterns are not just happening in Australia, we are not experiencing a localized one off drought but an indication of things to come.
Weather is changing in every country; today the New York Times has an article “Some wonder whether this month will break the single-month record for rainfall in Seattle, 15.33 inches, set in December 1933.â€
Observations from meteorological organizations are recording extreme weather events all over the world such as monsoonal rains being heavier and two months earlier in Peru etc etc.Australian politicians are trying to downplay what is happening as they do not wish the public to be alarmed and are being lobbied by industries who wish to maintain the status quo. This is causing conflicting reports to the public.
Research paid by industries who profit from the maintenance of the present system (coal lobbyists etc) is biased, whilst bodies such as the CSIRO may be compromised as stated in the earlier post about a Four Corners program.
Once the public becomes more aware of the truth, based on hundreds of unbiased scientific reports rather than a few that are released by those who have the money and power to do so, then this will cause a change in political direction. This is the same process as the cancer /tobacco debate in the past.
There is no single answer to combating global warming but the first step is the recognition of it being a man made phenomenon. If we created it we can fix it, but to do so it needs to be tackled on many fronts. There is no one correct answer.
Just as we have learned to individually conserve water and this has been accepted as a normal part of our daily lifestyle. We can change our lifestyles to be more energy conscious.
On a personal level we have to make decisions about our individual energy consumption; for instance a decision to buy a hybrid car in the future rather than an SUV will reduce our personal generation of CO2 by approximately 70 %, a decision such as putting on a jumper instead of using a patio heater will have to become part of our thinking.
There is no single answer in how to reduce global warming but we must replace industries that generate excessive CO2 and other gasses or at least reduce the emissions that they create.
The federal government is talking about sequestration or the separation of CO2 at the source, and is quoting 15 year timelines. This technology is being piloted in a few places around the world but at the moment this is not commercialized anywhere and so the storage of the separated gasses is only theoretical.
The decision of an individual energy supplier to use sequestration will increase its production costs by 30 %, and without a level playing field would only result in its bankruptcy.
Until the government legislates for this level playing field sequestration will not happen.
Other energy sources can be intermittent in nature and generate relatively small amounts of power. The intermittency can be overcome by diversification, using solar, hydro (both on land and in the sea) and wind.
Intermittency can also be addressed through technology as pointed out by Spankey.
Technology will also address the efficiency of alternate energy sources and increase power outputs.
To address global warming all of the alternate technologies will need to be utilized.That leaves nuclear generation of power, and I will cover my thoughts on this very controversial subject in a later post and I expect it will cause much debate.
Regards
BryceReplies on this site are intended as general information only, as any specific investment solutions/advice must only be given in accordance with the requirements set out in the Financial Services Reform Act 2001 and the ASIC guidelines as set out in PS146.An appropriate professional should be consulted for specific advice
Well said Bryce,
I have done a bit of my own research on the viability of wind as an alternate source of energy, however, I feel that hydro-power generated by turbines installed across narrow coastal channels could provide a much more regular supply – the tide will flow as long as the Earth spins and the moon remains in orbit around us.
A broad spread of alternatives from the renewable sector, coupled with further developments in technology will help to cement their commercial viability.
I too have my own opinions on nuclear power, which I will leave until I have done my own further research into the subject.
Spanky.
Age doesn’t negate effort – you can never be too young or too old.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
