Wednesday, 20 June 2012

The Coalition: what’s wrong with them?

The Coalition:
what’s wrong with them?
Double?                or               Nothing?
by Anthony Cox
Recently the Coalition party room featured a major bout of dissent about the Renewable Energy Target [RET], a particularly odious bit of legislation which is a spin-off from the nation destroying CO2 tax.
In the end, however, the dissent against the coalition’s support of the RET was quashed by Abbott.
This is inexplicable. The RET is ghastly; it mandates that 20% of Australia’s power must come from renewable, which means wind and solar, by 2020.
Wind and solar do not work.

There are myriad examples to prove this, but the best example is summed up in one word: California.
California is the fountain of all things green, including green energy. California started investing in wind and solar in 1976, after the first oil shock. It has spent $billions over the last 38 years on the best R&D in the world; this is the home of Silicon Valley and the best scientific brains on the planet. And after all that money and time and research, how much power is produced in California by wind and solar? 
That is produced; that doesn’t mean used. With renewable there is a crucial difference between the Installed Capacity [IC], what the plant would produce if it were operating 24/7, and what they do produce which is a % of the IC and is called the Capacity factor [CF]. With wind and solar the CF, on average over a period of time, usually at least a ¼, more commonly, a year, is about 20%.
But even this 20% does not tell the whole story. Because wind and solar are intermittent from minute to minute there is no continuous power; at any one time the plant may be operating at full IC, the next minute, if a cloud goes over, or the wind ceases there is nothing. Apart from placing great strain on the grid through these surges, this intermittency means the power produced by wind and solar is effectively unusable.
The coalition must know this. It must know that the crippling electricity prices are entirely due to the CO2 tax because the so-called infrastructure expenses supposedly responsible for the electricity price hikes are in fact infrastructure expenses to do with connecting the growing number of useless wind and solar farms. These useless farms [sic] require new wiring and posts as well as extra sub-stations and surge protection.

In addition the Solar Panel Feed in Tariff which the O’Farrell government inherited is crippling NSW. When Robertson, the current opposition leader, who must have the hide of a Rhinocerous, introduced the feed in tariff, he claimed it would cost $362 million. Even the prior ALP government had the wit to realise that the scheme was in fact going to cost $4 billion and cut back the ridiculous 60c per KwH to 20c.

When O’Farrell got into government, because he had not said he would abolish the scheme all he could do was close it to new parasites. Even by doing that the scheme is still going to cost NSW somewhere between $1.75 and 1.9 billion.

That is money which every electricity user has to pay for; and for nothing because effectively none of that power is used; it’s too expensive and too intermittent.

But the real infrastructure cost has and will be through the government subsidisation of wind and solar via the government agencies, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation {CEFC] and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency [ARENA].

Between them the CEFC and ARENA have spent $3.2 billion and will spend another $10 billion on useless wind and solar projects.

The coalition must know that. So why do they prevaricate and pussy-foot around this obscene waste of taxpayers’ money which is not only raising electricity prices but which will also drive the economy into the ground as similar Green schemes have done in Europe?

Are there vested business interests they want to protect; after all a lot of finance, bank and sundry other spiv sections of the community are up to their necks in the trough of public money which is connected with renewable and AGW generally?

Is the coalition soft and, at the end of the day, going to be spineless about this?

Or does the coalition actually believe in AGW and the Chimera of renewable in stopping the world from exploding?

Part of the coalition’s policy is the Direct Action Plan, which although only [sic] costing $10.5 billion over 10 years, compared to the ALP/Green’s CO2 tax which will cost somewhere between infinity and eternity, has already been lampooned by the CSIRO for not being up to the job of carbon sequestration; not that criticism from the CSIRO in respect of anything to do with AGW has any credibility. However, the point is, the coalition are on the same page with the ALP/Greens in respect of CO2 emissions reduction targets.

Given this how can we believe Abbott when he says he will get rid of the CO2 tax when he believes in the science, which is still “crap”, and he has another worthless plan to solve the ‘problem’ which only has the advantage over the CO2 tax of costing less?

Did Treasurer Wayne Swan Mislead Parliament?

Hysterical - but not funny!
Yesterday, in Australian Federal Parliament (as reported by the ABC's PM Program)
WAYNE SWAN: Over the four years, over the four years to July 2011, European carbon prices have traded in the range of $16 to $50, $16 to $50. Now what countries could be there around the G20 who might be in that situation? Well, of course, there's France, there's Italy, there's the United Kingdom; there's a whole range of developed economies that are part of the European scheme.

TONY ABBOTT: Can the Acting Prime Minister tell the house when the European carbon price ever hit $50 a tonne, and can he please tell the House what it is now?
Did Wayne Swan mislead parliament? Was there ever - not only just in the four years to July 2011 - a carbon dioxide tax of $50 a tonne? Treasurer Swan muttered: "Look it up."

Well, I have tried without avail.

We must remember that this is the treasurer, who said before the last election:
Well certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax from the Liberals in their advertising. We certainly reject that.”
Meet the Press, 15 August 2010.
"No it's not possible that we're bringing in the carbon tax, that is a hysterically inaccurate claim being made by the Coalition."

Elevated CO2 enriches Ginger Varieties


 Hot spicy news!

Ali Ghasemzadeh and Hawa Z. E. Jaafar have been studying ginger and have compared plants under 400ppmv CO2 and doubled to 800ppmv. The two Malaysian researchers report that the antioxidant activities of the leaf and rhizome extracts were "increased significantly" by the elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration.

From CO2 Science:

What it means
Ghasemzadeh and Jaafar conclude their paper by stating that their results suggest that "enriched ginger varieties by elevated CO2 concentration could be employed in ethno-medicine for the management of breast cancerous diseases." But they indicate that "more focused clinical studies are necessary to establish whether these varieties can be exploited to reach cancer blocking or remedial effects in the human body."

Ghasemzadeh, A. and Jaafar, H.Z.E. 2011. Antioxidant potential and anticancer activity of young ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe) grown under different CO2 concentration. Journal of Medicinal Plants Research 5: 3247-3255. 

Warming and rising atmospheric CO2 is GREENING the Earth

CO2 Science reports -In a team led by Rogier de Jong as published in Global Change Biology - that "it can readily be appreciated that the twin evils of the world's climate alarmists - rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global warming - have actually been what has fueled the last quarter-century's greening of the earth."

What was done
In a study designed to determine the net long-term trend in vegetative vigor of the entire planet, De Jong et al. employed "detection of trend changes in normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) satellite data between 1982 and 2008," based on "time series of 648 fortnightly images [that] were analyzed using a trend breaks analysis procedure," which feat was accomplished for fourteen different classes of land cover (biomes).

What it means
In discussing the current state of knowledge in this area, De Jong et al. write that "over the last few decades of the 20th century, terrestrial ecosystems acted as net carbon sinks, as evidenced by ecosystem process models and satellite vegetation data (Myneni et al., 1997; Schimel et al., 2001; Zhou et al., 2001)." And they say that "the easing of climatic constraints on plant growth as a result of increased CO2 concentrations and higher temperatures is a likely explanation for this effect (Nemani et al., 2003)." Thus, it can readily be appreciated that the twin evils of the world's climate alarmists - rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global warming - have actually been what has fueled the last quarter-century's greening of the earth.

De Jong, R., Verbesselt, J., Schaepman, M.E. and De Bruin, S. 2012. Trend changes in global greening and browning: contribution of short-term trends to longer-term change. Global Change Biology 18: 642-655.

New Record Antarctic Ice Coverage

Despite what you are told by the Alarmist proagandists, Antarctic Ice is not lessening but in fact increasing. There is a new peer reviewed paper by three Australian scientists published in Climate Dynamics 38: 57-73 reported by CO2 Science.

The authors say that in the Southern Hemisphere there has been a modest increasing trend in sea ice extent (SIE) around Antarctica over the era of satellite coverage, citing the studies of Watkins and Simmonds (2000), Zwally et al. (2002), Parkinson (2004), Turner et al. (2007) and Comiso and Nishio (2008).

What it means
Noting that "southern sea ice has shown modest increases and established new record ice coverage in the summer of 2008 by a wide margin," Pezza et al. conclude their study by rhetorically wondering how this "peculiar behavior" meshes with the theory of currently-unprecedented anthropogenic-CO2-induced global warming.

Pezza, A.B., Rashid, H.A. and Simmonds, I. 2012. Climate links and recent extremes in Antarctic sea ice, high-latitude cyclones, Southern Annular Mode and ENSO. Climate Dynamics 38: 57-73.

Read  more at  CO2 Science.