Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop

DMM: DMM "Bug". (Anodised Grey) Great all-rounder with exceptional friction. IMO)- NB NEW lighter model with scalloped sides. Not as pictured. NB Only 3 left!  $25.00
22% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 34 of 41. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 240 | 241 to 260 | 261 to 280 | 281 to 300 | 301 to 320 | 321 to 340 | 341 to 360 | 361 to 380 | 381 to 400 | 401 to 420 | 421 to 440 | 441 to 460 | 461 to 480 | 481 to 500 | 501 to 520 | 521 to 540 | 541 to 560 | 561 to 580 | 581 to 600 | 601 to 620 | 621 to 640 | 641 to 660 | 661 to 680 | 681 to 700 | 701 to 720 | 721 to 740 | 741 to 760 | 761 to 780 | 781 to 800 | 801 to 818
Author
OT: Skeptics vs Alarmist Cage Match unSpectacular!
Wendy
25-Aug-2009
3:53:32 PM
On 25/08/2009 billk wrote:

>
>It's a matter of taste. Forty refugees from Tibet have arrived in Melbourne
>over the past fortnight and they think the weather is lovely here. Reminds
>them of home. Although they possibly enjoyed the 2 or 3 sunny 17C days
>more than days like today.

There's a reason I don't live on a 4000m plateau Bill! Just as a further tangent on this very tangental thread, how did the Chinese govt respond to our recognising Tibetan refugees? Assuming that they are refugees because of persecution by the Chinese govt.


evanbb
25-Aug-2009
5:09:28 PM
On 25/08/2009 psd wrote:

>I don't think it's that different - I think most people would equate paying
>more than they would have for a given product as a result of a statutorily
>imposed obligation to support something that's in the public interest as
>either a subsidy or a tax (even though it doesn't fit the definition of
>either).

Splitting hairs but probably true. However, the REC scheme does not favour wind in any way; just encourages renewables. In any case, either does not support the assertion from above that wind is "heavily subsidised".
>
>The risk is neither here nor there as it's factored into the REC price
>(by project developers and their financiers) or the price passed on customers
>(by retailers).

Ergh, not sure what you mean there, but the financial risk during planning is that the value of RECs would drop to zero. This has happened in the NSW GGAS scheme, and would have happened if the MRET bill had not been passed last week.
>
>I don't think there's a material number of people that buy greenpower
>products but happy to be proved wrong - it would be an interesting statistic!

From the 2009 1st quarter report
Total Greenpower customers 984,024
From: http://www.greenpower.gov.au/admin/file/content13/c6/greenpower_quarter_01_final.pdf
Page 4 of the pdf.

That's almost 1 million people! A lot more than I would have guessed. 1/22 or so. Very interesting indeed. I thought it was closer to 300,000.
psd
25-Aug-2009
5:41:26 PM
On 25/08/2009 evanbb wrote:
>That's almost 1 million people! A lot more than I would have guessed.
>1/22 or so. Very interesting indeed. I thought it was closer to 300,000.

Quite amazing! Way more than I would have thought too - and about 1/2 a Gig of power is not insignificant either.

allroundgoodguy
26-Aug-2009
10:18:48 AM
On 25/08/2009 evanbb wrote:
>On 25/08/2009 psd wrote:
>
>>I don't think there's a material number of people that buy greenpower
>>products but happy to be proved wrong - it would be an interesting statistic!
>
>From the 2009 1st quarter report
>Total Greenpower customers 984,024
>From: http://www.greenpower.gov.au/admin/file/content13/c6/greenpower_quarter_01_final.pd
>
>Page 4 of the pdf.
>
>That's almost 1 million people! A lot more than I would have guessed.
>1/22 or so. Very interesting indeed. I thought it was closer to 300,000.

Wouldn't that be a million customers, ie households, based on 2.5 people per house thats over 10% of the population

evanbb
26-Aug-2009
10:24:13 AM
On 26/08/2009 allroundgoodguy wrote:
>Wouldn't that be a million customers, ie households, based on 2.5 people
>per house thats over 10% of the population

Yeah you're probably right. But, there's a bit of weirdness that people also work and have homes, so they could get counted twice.

allroundgoodguy
26-Aug-2009
12:46:56 PM
On 26/08/2009 evanbb wrote:
>On 26/08/2009 allroundgoodguy wrote:
>>Wouldn't that be a million customers, ie households, based on 2.5 people
>>per house thats over 10% of the population
>
>Yeah you're probably right. But, there's a bit of weirdness that people
>also work and have homes, so they could get counted twice.
Any way you add it up, a lot of people already voting with their wallets

billk
26-Aug-2009
3:18:32 PM
On 25/08/2009 Wendy wrote:
>On 25/08/2009 billk wrote:
>
>>
>>It's a matter of taste. Forty refugees from Tibet have arrived in Melbourne
>>over the past fortnight and they think the weather is lovely here. Reminds
>>them of home. Although they possibly enjoyed the 2 or 3 sunny 17C days
>>more than days like today.
>
>There's a reason I don't live on a 4000m plateau Bill! Just as a further
>tangent on this very tangental thread, how did the Chinese govt respond
>to our recognising Tibetan refugees? Assuming that they are refugees because
>of persecution by the Chinese govt.
>

Yep refugees from persecution by the Chinese govt. I can personally attest for the physical scars some of them are carrying. A number of them were jailed for 12 years, probably for involvement in the 1989 uprising when you do the maths. If you have been a political prisoner you won't be getting any job that is under Party control when you get out. And there will be people bent on putting you back behind bars. So your best bet is to escape.

Given how public the Chinese gov't is being with its bullying of Australia lately, we can possibly expect them to say something public about it. However, two weeks ago there were already 1000 Tibetan refugees in Australia. The Chinese might think the number climbing to 1043 is too small an increase to make a fuss about.
pete05
26-Aug-2009
8:48:06 PM
Evan, your assesment of much of what i have said is totally incorrect.
If you dont think the MRET is a subsidy, then what is it? i was told by a large energy company that without it not one single windfarm would go ahead.
You claim that power consumption has increased, yes this may be true, but we are also told that wind farm will STOP emmisions from coal, this is simply a lie.
Wind farms are not in the public interest, unless you happen to be a union super fund recipient or developer making money from the subsidy.
Why is low frequency noise not part of the assesment for noise nuisance in developments? Like i said it has been measured at over 80 db at Waubra and at least 20 people in the area are ill, many have left their homes.
Could you also let me know why the consumer should pay for REC's that are generated at night, when power usage is at a minimum. The producers still gets paid the same amound, shouldnt they be subject to spot market pricing? why a special deal for wind?
Why has no cost/benefit study been done by government? are they scared of the result?
The wind industry is a highly subsidised con on the consumers of Australia, even those paying for green power are not getting what they pay for.

evanbb
26-Aug-2009
8:51:06 PM
On 26/08/2009 pete05 wrote:
>Evan, your assesment of much of what i have said is totally incorrect.

Sorry Pete, I'm not going to be baited over this. Read the other posts. I hope the march of windfarms across the country doesn't make you too grumpy/
pete05
26-Aug-2009
9:01:19 PM
Evan, both cape bridgewater and bald hills have been approved and are awaiting finance now.
I stand by my statement that only 1, (Yalloak, near Ballan) has been knocked back.
Engineers from the Ballarat university have confirmed the noise levels at Waubra, I have personally seen the db meter working and it is incredible. Yes you are right that other mechanisms can generate low frequency noise, but in a area where there are no major roads or railways and only wind turbines with are known to produce LFN it seems highly likely they are the source.
If you would like to see a contract just google it, there is a contract from wind power pty ltd from the waubra windfarm on the net. It places all legal liability for noise on the landholder which i find disturbing.
You say no protected areas will have turbines installed, and yes you would hope so, but wind power have a proposal at smeaton that was to cover 3 volcanic cones of national significance that are all protected, which seems crazy but true. No wonder the community out there were outraged.

evanbb
26-Aug-2009
9:16:09 PM
On 26/08/2009 pete05 wrote:
>Evan, both cape bridgewater and bald hills have been approved and are awaiting
>finance now.

You're working very hard to pick a fight that I'm not going to fight. You've got problems with turbine planning laws. Write a letter to your member.
pete05
27-Aug-2009
6:49:31 PM
Im not in the business of picking a fight with anyone Evan, Im much more interested in explaining the facts about windfarms that the developers deliberatly omit.
Have called my local member and sent many emails over the years, unfortunatly our local member is also the agriculture minister who doent know didly squat about that either!

evanbb
28-Aug-2009
8:20:22 AM
On 26/08/2009 pete05 wrote:
>Evan, both cape bridgewater and bald hills have been approved and are awaiting
>finance now.
Okay, but how about your statement that the only person to have knocked one back has been sacked? Seems a bit exaggerated to me.

>Engineers from the Ballarat university have confirmed the noise levels
>at Waubra,
No dispute on the noise levels. Of course turbines make noise. Everything that moves does.
>It places all legal liability for noise on the landholder which i find disturbing.
Sure, that sounds like a shit contract; but that is not a feature of wind farms. There are shit contracts everywhere, not related to wind farms too. People are greedy. read the fine print.
>
>You say no protected areas will have turbines installed, and yes you would
>hope so, but wind power have a proposal at smeaton that was to cover 3
>volcanic cones of national significance that are all protected, which seems
>crazy but true. No wonder the community out there were outraged.

Again, if it is approved, it is not the fact that it's a wind farm, but because the approving officer broke the law. I don't agree with this, but it might happen. Be vigilant.

evanbb
28-Aug-2009
8:29:17 AM
On 26/08/2009 pete05 wrote:
>Evan, your assesment of much of what i have said is totally incorrect.
>If you dont think the MRET is a subsidy, then what is it?
Look up what a subsidy actually is. Read my comments about how MRET works and how it doesn't favour wind farms but encourages renewables in general.
>You claim that power consumption has increased, yes this may be true,
Not a claim. It is true. Indisputable.

>but we are also told that wind farm will STOP emmisions from coal, this
>is simply a lie.
Well, we could play semantics with this all day. If the farm wasn't built, more fossil fuels would have been burnt. Take that as you like.

>Wind farms are not in the public interest, unless you happen to be a union
>super fund recipient or developer making money from the subsidy.
That's outrageous polemic. They generate low Co2 power. If you buy the whole AGW argument, then this is a good thing.

>Could you also let me know why the consumer should pay for REC's that
>are generated at night, when power usage is at a minimum. The producers
>still gets paid the same amound, shouldnt they be subject to spot market
>pricing? why a special deal for wind?
It's not a special deal for wind; it applies to all renewables. Do you have any idea how complex it would be to have tradable certificates with variable value?
>Why has no cost/benefit study been done by government? are they scared
>of the result?
It was done when the MRET was suggested, but I suspect these documents will be Cabinet-In-Confidence. In any case, Garnaut recommended against an MRET because it distorts the market. I don't think it's a great mechanism, but with such a weak CPRS it's probably necessary.
>The wind industry is a highly subsidised con on the consumers of Australia,
>even those paying for green power are not getting what they pay for.

This last sentence is utter bullshit. For all the reasons I've stated previously.
>

evanbb
28-Aug-2009
8:45:44 AM
On 27/08/2009 pete05 wrote:
>Have called my local member and sent many emails over the years, unfortunatly
>our local member is also the agriculture minister who doent know didly
>squat about that either!

Not surprised your local member is useless. Try Martin Ferguson at Dept Resources, Energy and Tourism, or Uncle Pete at DEWHA. It might take a bit of time, but they'll definitely respond.
pete05
31-Aug-2009
10:35:13 PM
How you can say the MRET is not a subsidy is utter rubbish, it is nothing more, nothing less.
Operators of qualified renewable energys get paid in REC's. Like I stated earlier, why should they, especially wind and solar, who produce undispatchable energy be paid extra for something that is not even being used? it just doesnt add up!
All it does is contribute to higher electricity bills for everyone and for no benefit.
When electricity is generated at night and not even used, it is still counted towards so called "green power" the next day or week, depending on how much was made and REC's generated. Therefor the consumer is not purchasing green power, but is being conned by a system that is set up to earn renewble operators money, but not have any effect on coal generation.
The only way we will stop coal is to use reliable baseload power that can directly replace it.
Wind is basically a paper shufflers delight, make some power one day, sell it a week later, even though it no longer exists.
By the way power consumption was expected to increase, but it has actually fallen due to the current economic climate, yes you would expect it to increase in the future though. I wonder will it be reliable though?

evanbb
1-Sep-2009
6:27:36 AM
On 31/08/2009 pete05 wrote:
>How you can say the MRET is not a subsidy is utter rubbish, it is nothing
>more

Okay, so you've ignored all my points about subsidies. And now you're angling towards 'baseload' as if it's something that wind and solar can't provide. Your posts started with an emotional tirade against wind.

I smell a nuclear advocate

I'll tear that argument down once you go to it, but until then, I recommend you learn about Electricity storage, which already exists on the grid, and can easily sture and buffer the piddling amount of wind currently on the grid. Then, do some research into the despatchable solar projects that exist.

Start with Lloyd energy graphite storage, then Wizard dissociated amonia storage and lastly, check out NGK's sodium-sulfur batteries, probably the most promising large scale battery kicking around.

Then, if you intend on mentioning nuclear, you'll have to read The Switkowski report or if 294 pages is too much for you to stomach (it's too much for me) try Ian Lowes summary http://www.quarterlyessay.com/qe/pastissues/index.php

If you're going to argue about it'll be a lot more fun if you're better informed.
Wendy
1-Sep-2009
8:38:34 AM
Now this thread is alive and kicking again, I heard 2 ideas recently which basically conclude that Nati will never have a lake again, both of which exasperate the effects of climate change.

Point A was that over the past 10 years, lots of farmers have invested in laser levelling of their paddocks, the idea of which is that a flat field holds water and therefore absorbs water. As a result, water runoff into natural water systems is dramatically reduced.

Point B was that this area is predominantly heavy clays, which are to some degree water retardant and water would ran over the surface of the clays and into the creeks etc. Over the last 150 years, farmers have been pumping gypsom into their soil to make them more water absorbant and thus there is also less runoff.

Nati lake is kind of odd in that it's catchment is basically just the farmland around Noradjuha - it doesn't come from any of the usual suspects, being mountain ranges. The Wimmera river does arise in the Pyrenees but is also reliant on lot of tributaries from what is now farmland. Of course, plenty of these have been dammed, diverted, pumped out of as well. We hear lots of stories of how the lake has dried up before, it's a natural cycle, it will come back, yardyyardyyaya, but I'm wondering if these interventions in the catchment really are the last straw. We've had 2 years in this drought when we did have a noticable wet period, being now and spring a few years ago, forgotten which one it was, yet we didn't see any great flow on effect in the river or lake (except in Horsham where the stormwater runoff from the town plus the weir have seen the river rise dramatically in town). I've forgotton what it's like to live next to a lake and I'm depressed that hydrology experts see our chances of having one again as abysmal.
lacto
1-Sep-2009
8:49:45 AM

>When electricity is generated at night and not even used, it is still
>counted towards so called "green power" the next day or week, depending
>on how much was made and REC's generated. Therefor the consumer is not
>purchasing green power, but is being conned by a system that is set up
>to earn renewble operators money, but not have any effect on coal generation.
>The only way we will stop coal is to use reliable baseload power that
>can directly replace it.
>Wind is basically a paper shufflers delight, make some power one day,
>sell it a week later, even though it no longer exists.
>By the way power consumption was expected to increase, but it has actually
>fallen due to the current economic climate, yes you would expect it to
>increase in the future though. I wonder will it be reliable though?

wind power generated at night isn't used ??? yesterday minimum power use was around 18000 Mw and expected to peak at 28000 MW for the eastern seaboard . so I presume you think that wind capacity exceeds 18000 Mw. Power is arranged to be delivered by various generators and it is easy to allocate expected output from wind farms as it is to allocate to coal ,hydro and gas fired power plants . Probably the major drop in power consumption has been as slow down in the refineries due to lower metal prices and demand,domestic demand is growing though it is being reduced by smarter use and energy saving measures . personally with my power usage I use 60% of my off peak power use as peak power . With solar hot water heating ,pv power with feedback , together with poorer seasonally conditions and prices my peak usage has dropped to 25 % of my off peak use

evanbb
1-Sep-2009
2:24:52 PM
One hot day does not make a summer, but does one hot winter?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25987685-421,00.html

Hottest on record apparently.

 Page 34 of 41. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 240 | 241 to 260 | 261 to 280 | 281 to 300 | 301 to 320 | 321 to 340 | 341 to 360 | 361 to 380 | 381 to 400 | 401 to 420 | 421 to 440 | 441 to 460 | 461 to 480 | 481 to 500 | 501 to 520 | 521 to 540 | 541 to 560 | 561 to 580 | 581 to 600 | 601 to 620 | 621 to 640 | 641 to 660 | 661 to 680 | 681 to 700 | 701 to 720 | 721 to 740 | 741 to 760 | 761 to 780 | 781 to 800 | 801 to 818
There are 818 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | High Country Mountain Huts | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints