dutchroll Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 My 2c worth;Climate is always changing, and over the past x thousand years it has changed quite dramatically at times. Our society's prosperity and growth is based on the current stable climate. This is true, but while it has changed "dramatically" in the past, those changes have occurred over millions of years, giving species time to adapt. That is not what is happening based on the observable evidence at the moment. The change is far more rapid than anything which has ever been observed in the paleo-record, though to us humans, it still seems very slow. Perhaps this is because we only live for <100 years and anything longer than that doesn't seem worth worrying about. Whether our climate is changing because human output is causing it to, or because of a natural cycle (or a combination of both) is a question that science has not yet confirmed There is absolutely no known or observable natural explanation for the changes over the last 100 years or so (including solar activity, which in the last few decades bears no correlation to measured temperatures). There is however, a highly probable explanation which has solid foundations in physics and is not a "natural" one. The current evidence strongly favours the "unnatural" explanation. science has only confirmed that it is changing. The currently available evidence absolutely confirms that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising significantly, and that this CO2 is a result of industrial activity/population growth, and that this is trapping energy within the earth's atmosphere and surface which would otherwise be radiated back out into space. This is accurately measured by both ground-based and satellite observations, especially satellites which measure the influx versus outflux of radiation to and from the planet. Now there are two options really, try to minimize the change by controlling the atmosphere (restricting output of certain gases) or use technology and investment in infrastructure to help humans adapt to the changes (or a combination of both).There can be some good lessons for human society along the way. Sustainability (living with our means), world wide cooperation, and a deeper understanding of our planet. I agree with this. My perspective is that while there is no need to panic just yet, there is also no point in living in denial about the significant effects 6 billion+ humans can have on the planet. We're no longer living in a giant world populated by only a few hundred thousand hominids living in caves. Things are very different now. *Deep breath*. Now having said all of that, I think the carbon tax is a colossal political blunder, and as usual will be poorly targeted, unfairly managed, and probably never achieve any of its aims. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 I should have got my solar panels when the government started subsidizing them, but didn't have the cash. I recently got PVs fitted but the 60c subsidised tarriff is long gone. The power company only pays me 6c per KW/h for what I put into the grid, but charge me 22c for the power I take from them! Must be a High Court case in that! So that approach is Gross metering where what you produce and what you use are each dealt with seperately (and in this case to your significant detriment) What about looking at Net metering where you then have the option of only paying for the electricity used in advance of that you produced...... It would seem to me that a net metering connection would be significantly better for you than gross..... This is a question for your electrician, or the guy who put the electronic meter in your meter board to replace the old spinning disk meter, it will probably require you to pay for a netmeter rather than a gross meter but when loosing 16c per kwh it will probably reasonably quickly break even...... Andy (P.S when I say "probably" in fact I cant possibly know if thats true. If its a large system 5kw invertor or greater then quickly really equals fast. If its an 8 panel 1.5kw system then quickly was definately the wrong word to use......) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Your pretty much right on every count dutchroll. The simple solution for the Australian Government would have been to introduce motivational laws to get us to minimise high CO2 producing activities and maximise low Co2 producing activities. Both Parties thought that would be political suicide, but that if the fat cat big companies were charged for CO2 we would manage our own efficiencies and no one would blame the politicians. Because they thought we were too dumb to know what CO2 was they called it Carbon, then they failed to take account of the way fat cats got rich in the first place - by passing on any cost increase, with their margin added of course. So now we have crazy things going on with some prices increasing by 40% and no one understanding what we were supposed to cut back on in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 We don't have an energy shortage; we have over consumption. We could learn from the Red Kangaroo, but he's buried under a piece of 2" pipe in a street in Gunnedah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Because they thought we were too dumb to know what CO2 was they called it Carbon, then they failed to take account of the way fat cats got rich in the first place - by passing on any cost increase, with their margin added of course. That's the point I have been making for a while. People who trade in diamonds (100% carbon) and pencils (the graphite is carbon) do not get charged a carbon tax. The whole thing is a smoke-and-mirrors game designed primarily to (a) increase the wealth of a few "fat cats" as you've suggested; and, (b) increase the tax intake for the government and claiming a 'noble purpose' to justify this. The tax is imposed to "stop carbon pollution" as one person said on the radio when I was in QLD last January. I wonder if that person wrote with a graphite pencil of if she wore a diamond ring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 We could learn from the Red Kangaroo, but he's buried under a piece of 2" pipe in a street in Gunnedah. Crikey, Turbs, Red Kangaroo is a fascinating topic, but I hadn't connected him to this issue. Perhaps Wayne, being closer, can go and ask him. The Red Chief's people didn't have too much impact on the landscape, but I think it was more a result of low population density than being due to any spiritual dictates. One interesting old legend, perhaps cooked up by white fellas trying to understand why the old people never "progressed", was that Aboriginal languages are far too complex to have developed in a hunting and gathering culture. They must have descended from an advanced civilization which, following some cataclysm, renounced their technology and decided to live "in harmony with nature". Perhaps they had a cultural memory of vimanas and an ancient nuclear war on the subcontinent... now that's thread drift! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Thanks for the reply, Andy. If my PV's were allowed to "spin the meter backwards" during the day I'd pay nothing for my power, because I produce about the same as I use. They wouldn't make a quid out of me, so I guess that's why they introduced a differential rate. I understand Sain's point about the difficulties for the power companies, but they have to adapt! Did they have to build their own generators, or did they inherit them? Surely computerised power management systems could allow them to make the best use of all these tiny renewable stations. Not so long ago we had central freezing plants which sent out ice blocks to put in people's ice chests. Nobody could imagine a refrigerator in every home and car. Using technology imaginatively, every building's roof could be PV material and contributing to the grid. And yes, we could develop plenty of ways to store solar energy at night. Mass production=price crash. Eventually we could phase out burning coal, and use it to make plastics, buckeyballs and best of all, AvGas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Crikey, Turbs, Red Kangaroo is a fascinating topic, but I hadn't connected him to this issue.Perhaps Wayne, being closer, can go and ask him. The Red Chief's people didn't have too much impact on the landscape, but I think it was more a result of low population density than being due to any spiritual dictates. One interesting old legend, perhaps cooked up by white fellas trying to understand why the old people never "progressed", was that Aboriginal languages are far too complex to have developed in a hunting and gathering culture. They must have descended from an advanced civilization which, following some cataclysm, renounced their technology and decided to live "in harmony with nature". Perhaps they had a cultural memory of vimanas and an ancient nuclear war on the subcontinent... now that's thread drift! For a very circular thread drift back to aviation, here is a Vimana aircraft: http://www.icp.it/Avio/scheda_en.asp?voce=vimana#trittico .....and best of all, AvGas! I like your 'thread' of thought, O K! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 We're talking about older Vimanas - they didn't need no gas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashley Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 large brown coal power stations get paid about $20 to $40 per megawatt which is $20 to $40 for a million watts which is 2 to 4 cents per kilowatt so they are only getting less than half of what you are getting the distributors get the rest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 We're talking about older Vimanas - they didn't need no gas ...nor were they equiped with BRSs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 So, you looked it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 large brown coal power stations get paid about $20 to $40 per megawatt which is $20 to $40 for a million watts which is 2 to 4 cents per kilowatt so they are only getting less than half of what you are getting the distributors get the rest Interesting, Crashley. We don't pay much, do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 ...nor were they equiped with BRSs Probably didn't need them; magic anti-gravity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now