Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 33 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!

ajfclark
Online Now
28-Jul-2009
2:58:32 PM
On 28/07/2009 nmonteith wrote:
>Finally, something to power my hover-board and time machine.

Strapping some toast butter side up on the back of a cat should do the hover board, shouldn't it? Might only work over carpet though...

ajfclark
Online Now
28-Jul-2009
3:01:54 PM
On a more serious note, Formerly Classified Global Warming Spy Photos Released and a similar post with some different links.

evanbb
28-Jul-2009
3:02:17 PM
On 28/07/2009 ajfclark wrote:
>On 28/07/2009 evanbb wrote:
>>You can 'burn' ANYTHING in it and generate virtually unlimited, clean
>energy.
>
>Even all the waste we generated using fission in the meantime?

As long as it contains atoms. If you can get it hot enough. The bigger the atom though, the more energy you need to bang them together. So lithium is the fuel of choice ATM, but if they really get it cranking you can chuck all sorts of crap in.

anthonyk
28-Jul-2009
4:32:12 PM
On 28/07/2009 Wendy wrote:
>But his
>pet panacea was in fact nuclear fusion. Yep, something that nuclear scientists
>the world over have been desperately trying to achieve for 50 years, billions
>upon billions invested in with net results of, well, um, to my understanding,
>about zero. But wait, James informs me that they have actually succeeded
>in heating hydrogen to 150 million degrees and managed to get a fusion
>reaction happening for a whole 2 seconds and produced a fraction of the
>energy that it required to start the reaction. Obviously, this is far
>closer to being a cost effective, reliable and efficient source of power
>than any renewable.

don't bag it out, fusion is the future, and its not as far off as you think. it takes a long time to built each new design however, so when its only a few iterations off a working plant it still takes a while to go through the steps. the next step is Iter, being constructed in France, and that is expected to produce 5-10x the energy put into the system for 1000 seconds at at time, but that won't be running until 2018. once that is running it should give them enough about the process to build a production power station, but we're still talking 2030 or so.

On 28/07/2009 evanbb wrote:
>You want pies in skies? This is the stuff. But, unlike CCS, if they crack
>fusion, all our problems go away in the blink of an eye. You can 'burn'
>ANYTHING in it and generate virtually unlimited, clean energy.

it'd only run on Deuterium-Tritium, you couldn't just stick anything into a fusion reactor. and even in theory you can only get energy from fusing elements lighter than iron, the lighter the better. fusing anything heavier than iron, eg nuclear waste products, would cost energy, not release it. heavier elements give off energy through fission which brings them closer to iron.

it solves a lot of problems but its not free energy. its debatable if it would be cheaper than current energy production, but it does avoid problems of waste, instability and carbon emission.

if you want to be picky, arguably its not 'sustainable' energy since you're consuming light elements, but there's a lot of them around and it would be a LONG time before that was a problem. in fact in theory its probably the least sustainable energy production around, as even fossil fuels can be regenerated by living things taking energy from the sun, but nothing on the earth will break up fusion by-products back into hydrogen /D/T again. we go find another planet if we get to that stage i guess.. ;) or go mining comets hiding out in the kuiper belt.

anthonyk
28-Jul-2009
5:05:32 PM
>On 28/07/2009 Wendy wrote:
>>upon billions invested in with net results of, well, um, to my understanding,
>>about zero.

to some extent the solutions are there already. they've got theoretical solutions for handling the massive neutron flux you get from the plasma, needed to make a working plant, but you have to look at it experimentally before you really have confidence in what will work. and to make those experiments it takes a project costing 10s of billions of dollars and 10+ years to build, and only then can you come up with designs to make a prototype power station, and after making that you can look at production. but its already being argued that the money going into ITER is economically viable due to the returns it'll lead to from the massive benefits when it eventually comes online.

out of interest Australia chose not to support the project (under the Howard govt I believe), so we'll be left out of technology that comes out of it, or will have to buy the technology at a much higher price. it might have been political however since Australia has the best source of some of the materials needed for fusion from mines in WA (lithium etc?), so maybe they're planning to use that for bargaining.

evanbb
12-Aug-2009
9:12:12 AM
Well, it's been 2 weeks, so I've been good. Nothing much has happened recently, but Malcolms new modelling brings some interest.

Another interesting article today, about The Honorable Senator Steven Fielding's 'fact finding' trip to the States. He went to Mass. Institute of Tech and asked one person in their climate department if CC was actually happening. Turns out, the one person he asked is the only sceptic in the Climate Science department. This very much has the look of someone who wanted to have a position validated.

Here's the article:
http://media.mediamonitors.com.au/ArticlePresenter.aspx?GUID=36b226d1-8c58-4ed3-b1a6-0f5a44aaa3ed&ArticleID=55457306&output=pdfsearchable

ajfclark
Online Now
12-Aug-2009
2:22:36 PM
Carbon eating cement: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-eating-green-cemen
BA
12-Aug-2009
4:07:08 PM
On 28/07/2009 evanbb wrote:

>I wonder about nuke waste. The radioactive atoms came out of the ground
>initially; why not disperse them back to where they came from? I suspect
>the reason is that the reactor creates new, worse products, but I've never
>seen a good explanation.

Not nuke waste per se, but, just having come back from a trip to Kakadu ... We drove over a road that was being surfaced with the tailings from one of the old uranium mines. By spreading it out over the roads it was "becoming one with its original being". Dispersal via mechanical means (and in the wet?).
pete05
24-Aug-2009
9:30:16 PM
I was just looking through the forum and found some discussion regarding windfarms.
Just a few points.
Since the waubra windfarm started not one coal generator has slowed down or been turned off, despite the claims made that it would reduce emmisions by 650 000 tons per year.
The wind farm at waubra has caused a massive upheaval in the community, with numerous familys with and without turbines on their land being affected by low frequency and audiable noise.
The contact the landholders signed, signs away all their rights in regard to the noise being generated. Low frequency noise has been measured at over 80db, despite claims from the owner that there would be NONE!
Strangly enough only one windfarm has ever been knocked back by the planning panel, and the person responsible lost their job soon after!
I feel the main problem is the lack of accountability, wind farms are highly subsidised by the MRET scheme, surely they should publish electrical output data, so that we can see if our money is being spent wisely?
I have no issue with the look of windfarms, this issue is used by the developers to dumb down the argument, I do have issue with dodgy contracts that put all liability on the landowners like the one at waubra does, with a lack of transparency, with noise issues that have the potential to cause illness, with protected areas being covered in turbines and with a government that refuses to listen to communitys affected by these proposals.


evanbb
25-Aug-2009
6:12:23 AM
On 24/08/2009 pete05 wrote:
>I was just looking through the forum and found some discussion regarding
>windfarms.

Oh wow, Pete, are you following me? I've just had this exact discussion on the Crikey forum.

Much, almost all, of what you say is wrong. If you genuinely want a response I'll write a proper one from work later today.
lacto
25-Aug-2009
9:25:24 AM
Pete the last coal power station built in vic was loy yang in the early eighties . Since then population in vic has grown enormously and suburban development is massive . All these houses want power , they all have or want airconditioning and or radiators in winter . Melbourne is "growing" at 1600 people a week and power must come from somewhere . Wind is contributing to the national grid , the drought has meant hydro can supply much less than the norm .
You ask for figures from wind , Contact energy in NZ has just put out their production report with graphs and figures on the output of their wind farms , hydro , geothermal and gas power assets . They are 50+ % owned by Origin Energy .
The claims of problems from turbines may or may not be an issue but there are many wind farms in the world that operate without such claims . Cows graze contentedly underneath and around operating turbines and believe me cows wouldnt do this and their milks cell count would jump if they were under stress . If wind farms produce such huge booms and pressure waves why would any bird go into the area ( wind farms have been stopped because of risk of bird strike and yet figures are kept at some of bird strikes .
I have just got back from New York and arguments there offer the same protests re wind farms
One (86 turbine 190 mw has just been built on wolfe island at the start of the St lawrence Seaway out of lake Ontorio . The area is flat has very heavy wind profiles and is ideal for wind farms as the huge expanse of the lakes has steady wind streams . This coupled with the huge water volumes for hydro gives massive amount of power annually . about 10Ml per sec goes from lake erie to ontario 75% + of this goes through the power stations rather than Niagra
The "locals 'are concerned about the visual pollution and interference with the seaway yet we passed at least 5 nuclear power plants using the great lakes water to cool . Arent they a problem ?? 3 mile island and the Sacramento plant both caused major scares and then nuclear plants when finished operating will have to be decommisssioned and stored safely for an eon .
Wind power is not a total solution for electrical demand but it is a very effective contributor to the grid and maybe confronts people with the idea that there power has to come from somewhere and why not in their back yard ,as the certainly want the final product for their consumption ?

evanbb
25-Aug-2009
1:16:37 PM
Okay, here we go. I'll try hard to avoid getting snarky.

On 24/08/2009 pete05 wrote:
>Since the waubra windfarm started not one coal generator has slowed down
>or been turned off, despite the claims made that it would reduce emmisions
>by 650 000 tons per year.
Ignoring the fact that there's no way you could tell if any coal generators had slowed down, this is explained by growth in energy demand, as lacto has indicated above. All of the figures I reference here will be from ABARE, and probably available on their website. I have a copy of the 2009 report on my desk, (doesn't everyone?) so sorry, no direct links. Their homepage is www.abare.gov.au

Anyway, growth in demand has been at or above 2% since 1992. Says a lot.

>The wind farm at waubra has caused a massive upheaval in the community,
>with numerous familys with and without turbines on their land being affected
>by low frequency and audiable noise.
There's no way to dispute this, and possibly few ways to prove it? All I can add really is that noise does come from other things apart from windfarms as well. Like roads, trains, airports, neighbours. Not saying that their mistaken, just that noise is not a concern limited to windfarms. This should of course be included in planning laws. Like it is with everyone else.

>The contact the landholders signed, signs away all their rights in regard
>to the noise being generated.
I'd be very interested to see this proven.
>Low frequency noise has been measured at over 80db, despite claims from the owner >that there would be NONE!
I strongly doubt the owner claimed there would be no noise. Physical impossibility and all that. He might have said it will be inaudible at XX distance.

>Strangly enough only one windfarm has ever been knocked back by the planning
>panel, and the person responsible lost their job soon after!
This is complete bullshit.

Bald Hills was knocked back by the Minister, and he lost his job by being voted out. The concern there was a 1/1000 year chance of an Orange Bellied Parrot being killed. This has since been approved.

Also rejected:
From 2005 http://www.petroleumnews.net/storyview.asp?storyid=56913§ionsource=s0
Cape Bridgewater and Cape Nelson (Vic)
Kemiss Hill (SA)

There are probably others, but I can't find a list anywhere. Presumably there's some people at DEWHA (Env, Water, Heritage and the Arts) who would know. Might not be public information?

>I feel the main problem is the lack of accountability,
What sort of accountability are you after?

>wind farms are highly subsidised by the MRET scheme,
This is quite wrong. There were no direct subsidies under MRET for a start. The whole scheme set a nationwide benchmark for energy sourced from renewables, which it is the retailers responsibility to purchase. This was set in GWh, and aimed to max out at 9500GWh. Since demand continues to grow, this percentage of overall renewables has slipped from 12% to 8%.

Now, wind makes up a very small part of this; ~2.5%. So, if you count 2.5% of an 8% encouragement to purchase wind power as 'highly subsidised', your definition of subsidised and mine differ greatly.

>surely they should publish electrical output data, so that we can see if our money is >being spent wisely?
Well, they sort of do. Bulk generation for all types of generation is published through ABARE. Individual farms however, will, (and should in my opinion) keep their generation stats private, as this information is commercially sensitive.

>I have no issue with the look of windfarms, this issue is used by the
>developers to dumb down the argument, I do have issue with dodgy contracts
>that put all liability on the landowners like the one at waubra does, with
>a lack of transparency, with noise issues that have the potential to cause
>illness, with protected areas being covered in turbines and with a government
>that refuses to listen to communitys affected by these proposals.

Well, for starters, it takes 2 to sign a contract. I bet the land owners with dollar signs in their eyes had the opportunity to read the contract before signing it. What do you mean by lack of transparency? You want all commercial contracts to be available to the public? God, imagine it. No protected areas will have wind farms installed; violates planning laws. Hence 'protected'. I acknowledge that these are all potential problems of wind farms, but the same could be said for all generation options. How close would you live to a coal power plant? It is, and always will be a question of balancing the pros and cons. At the moment, wind is the cheapest by a mile and if you agree that we need to reduce GHG emissions, then you've probbaly got to support them.

Oh, and thanks for taking the time to join the forum and wade into what was a long dead discussion. I had a pretty clear diary through the middle of the day, and researching this almost looks like work.

>
>




oweng
25-Aug-2009
1:54:07 PM
This article was in this weekends Australian. It talks about noise (not just audible noise issues) that some local residents claim is an issue.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25964195-5006785,00.html

Im just posting this as it was an interesting article and I think its relevent to the posts above. Not trying to make any points!

evanbb
25-Aug-2009
2:12:03 PM
On 25/08/2009 oweng wrote:
>This article was in this weekends Australian. It talks about noise (not
>just audible noise issues) that some local residents claim is an issue.
>
>http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25964195-5006785,00.html
>
>Im just posting this as it was an interesting article and I think its
>relevent to the posts above. Not trying to make any points!

The infrasound is interesting. I've heard a theory that it's the cause of jetlag. IE, the very low frequency noise of the engine stuffs your body systems in some way. I've heard of bogans at car shows getting similar symptoms to jet lag, while at loud car stereo competitions.

I've also heard a theory that the cause of jet lag is that your soul can only travel as fast as a camel, and you won't feel better until it arrives. Not sure which theory I like better.
Wendy
25-Aug-2009
2:56:15 PM
On 25/08/2009 evanbb wrote:

>
>I've also heard a theory that the cause of jet lag is that your soul can
>only travel as fast as a camel, and you won't feel better until it arrives.
>Not sure which theory I like better.

Just how long do these people reckon said camel would take to swim to europe from here? Or, on the not unreasonable assumption that camels don't like swimming, does that mean your soul is going to be stuck on the north western coastline somewhere waiting for you to come back and you just won't be the same person until you come home again? I reckon we can extrapolate this camel theory to homesickness, too ...
psd
25-Aug-2009
3:02:45 PM
On 25/08/2009 evanbb wrote:
>>wind farms are highly subsidised by the MRET scheme,
>This is quite wrong. There were no direct subsidies under MRET for a start.
>The whole scheme set a nationwide benchmark for energy sourced from renewables,
>which it is the retailers responsibility to purchase. This was set in GWh,
>and aimed to max out at 9500GWh. Since demand continues to grow, this percentage
>of overall renewables has slipped from 12% to 8%.
>
>Now, wind makes up a very small part of this; ~2.5%. So, if you count
>2.5% of an 8% encouragement to purchase wind power as 'highly subsidised',
>your definition of subsidised and mine differ greatly.

That's a bit cheeky Ev - sure there's no direct subsidy but do you reckon we'd see so many wind farms being built if there wasn't a market for RECs, that is, would they be economically viable without MRET and the cost to retailers (as passed through to customers) of purchasing RECs?

evanbb
25-Aug-2009
3:17:51 PM
On 25/08/2009 psd wrote:
>That's a bit cheeky Ev - sure there's no direct subsidy but do you reckon
>we'd see so many wind farms being built if there wasn't a market for RECs,
>that is, would they be economically viable without MRET and the cost to
>retailers (as passed through to customers) of purchasing RECs?

No, they wouldn't be economically viable. However, this is WAY different to a subsidy. There's economic risk involved in trading RECs, and no risk in subsidies.

Also, some demand for RECs is generated through voluntary contributions. I've tried to find out how much (how much power goes to voluntary subscribers) but the stats aren't available.
Wendy
25-Aug-2009
3:26:05 PM
holycamoly! just loosely on the topic of climate, I'm currently wondering if the horizontal hail hammering at my windows is able to break them .... the weather in Nati is abysmal this week.

billk
25-Aug-2009
3:32:16 PM
On 25/08/2009 Wendy wrote:
>holycamoly! just loosely on the topic of climate, I'm currently wondering
>if the horizontal hail hammering at my windows is able to break them ....
>the weather in Nati is abysmal this week.

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.
psd
25-Aug-2009
3:35:30 PM
On 25/08/2009 evanbb wrote:
>No, they wouldn't be economically viable. However, this is WAY different
>to a subsidy. There's economic risk involved in trading RECs, and no risk
>in subsidies.

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).

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).

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!

 Page 33 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