Carbon Tax

[connieguy]

They have amazing technology these days. Any water can be made fresh. All depending on cost.

Yes but you need to factor in the CO2 generated in the desal process. Sure now it is not a cost but not for long. Also doing desal on a Oz coastal city basis will chew very LARGE amounts of kWhs that we don't currently have the capacity to generate, even with all our thermal fossil generators running at 100% capacity.

As for nuclear, well lets not get started on the embedded energy cost (how much energy building one of these will cost) of a 1 GW nuclear generator nor the fact that a nuclear plant has ever been totally green field decommissioned.

You do realize the solar energy available on the land surface of the planet (under clouds) is ~120,000 TWs and we humans use (factoring in all forms of energy) use about 13 TWs? If we used 40% efficient solar generators, we would need to capture 32.5 TWs or about 0.027% of what is available to replace ALL other forms of energy usage. In doing so the negative effect on the planet would be so small as to not be measurable and the beneficial benefit would be beyond belief.

Why are we not doing this a a major priority? Because our miners wish to continue to sell what they dig up from under the ground. Stuff that this planet spend billions of years burying and storing the excessive CO2 inside of so our atmosphere would work well and maintain a liveable environment for ALL life forms on this planet.

Sorry but nuclear (in it's present form) is not the answer and neither is current solar technology nor is geosequestrated CO2 storage.

So YES we need a price on carbon but not to reduce CO2 emissions as such but to cause commercial pain and via that pain start the inventive process to find the next energy generation systems that will make low cost CO2 and radiation free energy generation possible.

 

[connieguy]

You can add to that list the work that China is doing to switch to nuclear power

The Chinese Thorium reactors are not yet real world and may never be.

What is real world about China and I suspect they are trying to keep out of sight with their SAFE nuclear talk, is they are putting on line a 1 GW thermal fossil fuel generator every week. To put that into context, Oz has about 45 GWs of total generating capacity including the Snowy Hydro capacity.

 

[Sifor]

[selfish comment]

If we either pay now or later I elect to pay later 100-200 years down the track when I'm gone!

[/selfish comment]

No really I have a feeling civilisation will be lucky to last that long given the fact that humans tend to kill each other. It only takes one stupid move between US and China to end it.

 

[gumpy]

1. Another one confused by my nickname. Go get yourself a suit that is 2cm thick lead and tell me how well you can walk in that. The guys in japan were not wearing funky stuff at all. Are gumboots and paper suits funky? I can walk into any safety store and buy that funky gear. Personally, I hate armchair experts who know nothing, yet still make absolutely outrageous comments about radiation and are incapable of listening when someone bothers to try to educate them.

2. Only when it cost the same or less than oil.

3. They have amazing technology these days. Any water can be made fresh. All depending on cost.

4. Again how do you know I don't do those things? What are these status runs that you imagine I do? I have never done a status run. Don't be confused because I know how to maximise status. I guess you choose to ignore my point about sustainably maintaining current standards of living. Typical denier to equate going back to the dark ages with reducing consumption of limited resources and being more sustainable.

As for walking into green headquarters it is very clear that I support nuclear power so why would in walk into green headquarters. Well I realise your trying to insult me, but if you had the slightest idea about me you might understand how wrong you are.

Anyway, since you know me sooooo well. I'll look forward to you logical and non-dumb reply. In fact, why don't you have the whole conversation.



Bolt is the champion, the figure head. I use his name as a derogatory term for all deniers.

1. I said fair enough, there was no sarcasm there in the previous reply. One of the problems with typing.

2. yep so we agree on something

3. Yep - the developing countries have no money for this. It's something so basic and need by life but good clean sources of water a becoming more and more scarce. A lot of the water systems are quite stressed now from over population. There are multiple quotes from the Middle East and Africa region saying the next war will be over water.

4. Living at your current level is selfish and not doing your part (this applies to me and basically everyone in the developed world). To think your current levels of living a sustainable is wrong. If everyone consumed like an Australian we'd need 8 earths to sustain us. So your current level of living is not sustainable. It's just that parts of the world a consuming so little we are able to get away with our levels of consumption. This area I do know a fair bit about and you don't. What I described to you ie no fridge, bikes etc is the level everyone needs to get to if 6 billion humans are to share resources equally. Now lets be honest you're not prepared to do this? No. I'm not, but they are the facts. Now if you did make the changes and lived like in the dark ages would it change the world? No. So you even going to try? no. Like wise with Australia with the ets.

Finally how am I a denier? I agree with the science as stated in the thread, I just don't agree with the solution. The solution is simple 5 larges counties all turn to nuclear (thorium) on charge the rest of the world the additional costs in their exports and the problem is fixed. China at one stage was replicating our coal power grid every year... That's were the fix needs to happen. China as a massive net exporter then can charge the world back for the increase costs.

Australia with an ETS won't solve anything, China, India, Indonesia, US and Russia and maybe Brazil going fully nuclear will. Fix everything... except sustainability.

edit: your profession was a guess from a different argument on the 737-8 build issue. You talked about how the responsibility fell in the medical scenario. I didn't link it with your nick name.

 

[connieguy]

I elect to pay later 100-200 years down the track when I'm gone!

So it is OK by you for your grand children to pay for your lack of concern? :shock:

We are, as a species, only what each passing generation works for and gives to the next generation, so they have a better life.

 

[gumpy]

The Chinese Thorium reactors are not yet real world and may never be.

What is real world about China and I suspect they are trying to keep out of sight with their SAFE nuclear talk, is they are putting on line a 1 GW thermal fossil fuel generator every week. To put that into context, Oz has about 45 GWs of total generating capacity including the Snowy Hydro capacity.

Thorium, at the moment it's the best chance we've got =/ I personally would prefer no Nuclear but can't see how you can support large cities without them.

Yes it's crazy how quickly their fossil fuel power grid is growing.

The hydro system is great but you need to be blessed with the right landscape. Also you'll annoy a lot of greenies if you kill of a lot of habitat flooding it.

 

[connieguy]

Thorium, at the moment it's the best chance we've got =/ I personally would prefer no Nuclear but can't see how you can support large cities without them.

Yes it's crazy how quickly their fossil fuel power grid is growing.

The hydro system is great but you need to be blessed with the right landscape. Also you'll annoy a lot of greenies if you kill of a lot of habitat flooding it.

I would consider Helium 3 as having a better chance than Thorium. Why? Because the radiation is extremely small, the reaction is sort of like Hydrogen fusion but much easier to contain and our mining companies have the cash to fund the lunar mining operations as it is worth $4 million per kg and 1 shuttle load of Helium 3 (25 tons) would run the US for 12 months.

ExplainingTheFuture.com : Helium-3 Power

China Launches Second Moon Mission: Is Mining Rare Helium 3 an Ultimate Goal?

This Moon was Made for Mining (Helium-3) : Discovery News

So tax the earthly mining companies for their carbon emissions and give them reason to mine the moon for Helium 3 and to become climate and green heroes.

There is even a movie about mining Helium 3 on the moon:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2715252/moon_movie_trailer/

 

[Sifor]

So it is OK by you for your grand children to pay for your lack of concern?

We are, as a species, only what each passing generation works for and gives to the next generation, so they have a better life.

Completely true, however I refer you to my second comment. My grand children will no doubt have more important things to worry about 100 years down the track like where the bombs will be falling rather than climate change. Throughout history there have been wars, it will happen again and priorities will shift.

Again, looking to the past has shown that we as humans have got it wrong many times. What science says today may change in the future as we develop a new understanding. Remember, at one stage we thought the earth was flat..Asbestos was safe and a good building material - now it isn't. People had "blood poisoning" but today we now know it is leukemia. We may say "climate change is happening and must act now" today but in the future we look back and see how wrong we were; alternatively we act now and in the future it turns out to be a good decision.

Given that we have not experienced the "effects" of climate change before and unless someone has a crystal ball the whole notion of whether climate change is real or not is any man's guess. Only time will tell who is right. I don't know the right answer.

 

[connieguy]

Given that we have not experienced the "effects" of climate change before and unless someone has a crystal ball the whole notion of whether climate change is real or not is any man's guess. Only time will tell who is right. I don't know the right answer.

With respect the only people who say climate change is not real are those with a vested interest in it not being so.

The earth has experienced CO2 atmospheric changes before but never so much and so rapid a rate of change. What may happen next is a large scale Methane release and after that what happens is, well you really do not want to know.

Here is a Scientific American article that may just scare you into doing something because, even if this has a 1% chance of happening, then we need to do everything in our power to ensure it does not happen again. Yes I did say again. It has happened before and when it did, it killed off most of the life on this planet. Are you willing to take that chance?

http://www.chicagocleanpower.org/ward.pdf

 

[Sprucegoose]

So it is OK by you for your grand children to pay for your lack of concern? :shock:We are, as a species, only what each passing generation works for and gives to the next generation, so they have a better life.

Glibone liners and Your opinion GW. I think climate change is real, not generated by humans.....

 

[connieguy]

Glibone liners and Your opinion GW. I think climate change is real, not generated by humans.....

Not my opinion. I have done a lot of research and talked with people on both sides. You maybe interested in these graphics I put together:

Here it is seen that global population growth is the main driver behind quite a few of our major problems:




Here is what is happening with the way we currently generate energy:




Ice core data of temperature and CO2 for 450,000 years. Current CO2 is 395 PPM and not the 380 PPM as shown:


These are real measured numbers. No theory here as to why it is happening but the curves do tell a story of a relationship.

As for proof that GW is real, well this is about as good a bit of proof as you can get: :shock:

 

[Vinny]

Surprise surprise..

Businesses back price on carbon | The Australian

 

[connieguy]

If you follow this logic, then why does Australia bother at all?

It is difficult to get a person to believe in something that their income requires them not to believe in.

Winston Churchill once saw a gathering storm and commented:

"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."

We are causing Global Warming. Accept it, get on with fixing it and in the process create a whole lot of new jobs and income opportunities.

 

[medhead]

Yes but you need to factor in the CO2 generated in the desal process. Sure now it is not a cost but not for long. Also doing desal on a Oz coastal city basis will chew very LARGE amounts of kWhs that we don't currently have the capacity to generate, even with all our thermal fossil generators running at 100% capacity.

As for nuclear, well lets not get started on the embedded energy cost (how much energy building one of these will cost) of a 1 GW nuclear generator nor the fact that a nuclear plant has ever been totally green field decommissioned.

You do realize the solar energy available on the land surface of the planet (under clouds) is ~120,000 TWs and we humans use (factoring in all forms of energy) use about 13 TWs? If we used 40% efficient solar generators, we would need to capture 32.5 TWs or about 0.027% of what is available to replace ALL other forms of energy usage. In doing so the negative effect on the planet would be so small as to not be measurable and the beneficial benefit would be beyond belief.

Why are we not doing this a a major priority? Because our miners wish to continue to sell what they dig up from under the ground. Stuff that this planet spend billions of years burying and storing the excessive CO2 inside of so our atmosphere would work well and maintain a liveable environment for ALL life forms on this planet.

Sorry but nuclear (in it's present form) is not the answer and neither is current solar technology nor is geosequestrated CO2 storage.

So YES we need a price on carbon but not to reduce CO2 emissions as such but to cause commercial pain and via that pain start the inventive process to find the next energy generation systems that will make low cost CO2 and radiation free energy generation possible.

RO desal is not not the only option. For example there is an Australian wave power device that that is basically a pump that can be used to provide the pressure required for desal.

Nuclear power has roughly the same whole of life cycle emissions as solar. So get start all you like nuclear compares well with solar and unlike solar is available 24/7.

With the comment about solar, is that total land area of the earth that gives that generating capacity. Or is it limited to suitable land area?

As for the answer, we need energy now from a range of sources. Nothing will every be the ultimate answer.

Radiation free???? Stop believing the ACF, they conveniently ignore that more radioactive material is emitted from coal power plants. Personally, I'd rather have radioactive stuff that will decay with time than the toxic waste from solar manufacturing that remains toxic forever.

 

[medhead]

4. Living at your current level is selfish and not doing your part (this applies to me and basically everyone in the developed world). To think your current levels of living a sustainable is wrong.

China at one stage was replicating our coal power grid every year...

You know nothing about how I live.

You seem to be getting confused. I didn't say the worlds current "lifestyle" is sustainable. I said, for the third time, that we need to maintain our standards of living sustainably. There is a massive difference.

Finally, China is also, atthe same time massively expanding it's nuclear power. It is wrong to selective focus on one power source. The fact is they are diversifying their power sources to provide their energy needs. I'm not sure about the exact numbers but the nuclear build is significant and may be roughly the same as the coal power build. They could just build all coal.

 

[gumpy]

You know nothing about how I live.

You seem to be getting confused. I didn't say the worlds current "lifestyle" is sustainable. I said, for the third time, that we need to maintain our standards of living sustainably. There is a massive difference.

Finally, China is also, atthe same time massively expanding it's nuclear power. It is wrong to selective focus on one power source. The fact is they are diversifying their power sources to provide their energy needs. I'm not sure about the exact numbers but the nuclear build is significant and may be roughly the same as the coal power build. They could just build all coal.

We can't maintain our current stantards sustainably without reducing population. You have said nothing about how you achieve your goal but you just keep putting out there that you want the current living standards (equivalent of consuming 8 earths if 6 billion did the same) some how sustainably. If you did an analysis of your carbon and ecological footprint you'd find that you'd be well in the top 2% of Australians purely due to flying. So if everyone was to live like you we'd need like 20 earths not the 8... I don't need to know how you live, flying a lot automatically puts you right at the top end, even if you didn't do anything else like eat, wear clothes etc... you'd be right at the top. Incidentally as would most others on this site.

I know they're looking into Thorium and conventional nuclear this has been mentioned. It's not wrong to focus on this as if you look at the distribution of carbon emissions it's always the single largest area. It's the low hanging fruit. You get the low hanging fruit first because it costs less and it fixes the problem.

 

[gumpy]

I would consider Helium 3 as having a better chance than Thorium. Why? Because the radiation is extremely small, the reaction is sort of like Hydrogen fusion but much easier to contain and our mining companies have the cash to fund the lunar mining operations as it is worth $4 million per kg and 1 shuttle load of Helium 3 (25 tons) would run the US for 12 months.

ExplainingTheFuture.com : Helium-3 Power

China Launches Second Moon Mission: Is Mining Rare Helium 3 an Ultimate Goal?

This Moon was Made for Mining (Helium-3) : Discovery News

So tax the earthly mining companies for their carbon emissions and give them reason to mine the moon for Helium 3 and to become climate and green heroes.

There is even a movie about mining Helium 3 on the moon:

MOON: Movie Trailer - Video

Yeah I heard of He3. Yes it's prefered BUT... it's so rare. Unlike Thorium... That's the key difference here... He3 would be so ridiculously expensive...

 

[drron]

gowatson your first graph on Antarctic Ice core data to me suggests that man is not totally responsible for the CO2 and temperature rise.It is happening regularly and has always reversed in the past.
The last part of the graph shows the temperature rise seemingly uncoupling from the CO2 rise-so just maybe the Earth is responding in a way not modelled by the computers?

 

[Sprucegoose]

gowatson your first graph on Antarctic Ice core data to me suggests that man is not totally responsible for the CO2 and temperature rise.It is happening regularly and has always reversed in the past.The last part of the graph shows the temperature rise seemingly uncoupling from the CO2 rise-so just maybe the Earth is responding in a way not modelled by the computers?

They reckon it warms up and cools off very well on it's own. I see the carbon debate like the year 2000 computer glitch that was going to destroy the world, pushed by people who financially benefited. If you don't squark climate change these days you won't get research grants or plum public service jobs.

 

[connieguy]

gowatson your first graph on Antarctic Ice core data to me suggests that man is not totally responsible for the CO2 and temperature rise.It is happening regularly and has always reversed in the past.
The last part of the graph shows the temperature rise seemingly uncoupling from the CO2 rise-so just maybe the Earth is responding in a way not modelled by the computers?

Sure our planet goes into and comes out of Ice Ages by itself as shown by the Ice Core data. However, the energy we have generated, over the last 200 years, via the burning of fossil fuels that release stored CO2, to drive our societies energy demands, is what has caused the sharp upward spike in atmospheric CO2 levels as seen in the 2nd and 3rd set of the time expanded Ice Core data. That is also very clearly shown in the 2nd graph, which links energy generation / use with atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature increases.

No modelling is used here at all. This is all measured data, which looks backward in time. When I made the Ice Core data, atmospheric CO2 was around 380 ppm. It is now around 395 ppm. Additionally the rate of increase per year is also going up.

As you can see in this graphic:

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is continually going up and going up quicker each year. Why? Well think about China building more coal fired power plants per YEAR than what Australia has in total and the increased number of vehicles, aircraft included, burning every increasing amounts of fossil fuels and releasing ever increasing amounts of CO2.

The CO2 measured in the atmosphere is a fraction of that actually emitted as the worlds' oceans absorb quite a lot, which makes the sea water more acidic and causes problems with the ocean's food chains (makes it harder and harder for shell based life forms to maintain their shells as the increased acidity attacks their shells) as well as decreasing the amount of oxygen in to water, leading to increased oceanic dead zones, where nothing lives.

There is no doubt we are the cause of the increased atmospheric CO2 levels and we are the cause of the increased acidity in the oceans.

All the modelling tries to do is to predict how bad it will get and when. That the planet has passed a few major tipping points is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the simple question.

Is it cheaper to do nothing and to pay for the resultant damages or to pay now to stop future damage? Some level of damage is already locked in and can't be reversed. Damage here is defined as loss of worldwide GDP growth.

The only problem with the economic damage models is the assumption that the planet will not change too quick and we will be able to live acceptable lives during the change. However vast amounts of frozen Methane, stored in the Arctic is starting to melt (average Arctic temperatures have gone up around 5 deg C) and to release Methane into the atmosphere, which is about 25 times as powerful a Green House Gas as is CO2. If this were to happen, then there is really very little we could do to stop it and we would be living on a very different planet, if we survive as a society in our present form.

So I see paying to do something now is like taking out an insurance policy. To do otherwise could be seen by future generations as not being very responsible and gambling with their future. Do we have the moral right to gamble with what future generation may need to pay for our lack of concern, just to save a few bucks today? I suggest we do not and as responsible adults, we do need to do what we can do today to reduce damage from the CO2 we released in the past and continue to do today, to generate the energy that has given us our society.

The energy generation systems that will power our society 25 - 30 years from now do not, IMO, currently exist. Pricing carbon will help to assist the funding required to develop then and to bring them online.

Will we solve this problem? I believe we will but not until we accept the way we generate energy from fossil fuels is that which is at fault and needs to be changed.