the bottler Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 it is compulsory to wear seat belts ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) And massive gapping holes cut into what was once a beautiful landscape, to dig up coal that the world is turning against is not an eye sore ? Gee give me a wind farm anyday. Top coal mining countries. I guess that means that the world is turning against itself? And even if we covered Australia with wind farms, we still could not provide enough power. [TABLE=class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter] [TR] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]China[/TD] [TD=align: left]3,650.0[/TD] [TD]46.4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]2[/TD] [TD] United States[/TD] [TD=align: left]922.1[/TD] [TD]11.7[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]3[/TD] [TD] India[/TD] [TD=align: left]605.8[/TD] [TD]7.7[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]—[/TD] [TD] European Union[/TD] [TD=align: left]580.7[/TD] [TD]7.4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]4[/TD] [TD] Australia[/TD] [TD=align: left]431.2[/TD] [TD]5.5[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]5[/TD] [TD] Indonesia[/TD] [TD=align: left]386.0[/TD] [TD]4.9 [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Edited April 22, 2015 by MARYROSE02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 once again I am going to ask ... WHY is it not compulsory to fit solar panels to new builds ? ... It is not compulsory to sell lots of things with 'extras', eg bicycles with lights, and it's not compulsory for cyclists to wear 'hi-viz' clothing, and it's not compulsory for people with old cars to replace them with new ones every time a new safety feature is introduced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 A Problem With Wind Power [www.aweo.org] [click here for printer-friendly PDF] by Eric Rosenbloom Wind power promises a clean and free source of electricity that would reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels and the output of greenhouse gases and other pollution. Many governments are therefore promoting the construction of vast wind "farms," encouraging private companies with generous subsidies and regulatory support, requiring utilities to buy from them, and setting up markets for the trade of "green credits" in addition to actual energy. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) aims to see 5% of our electricity produced by wind turbine in 2010. Energy companies are eagerly investing in wind power, finding the arrangement quite profitable. A little research, however, reveals that wind power does not in fact live up to the claims made by its advocates [see part I], that its impact on the environment and people's lives is far from benign [see part II], and that with such a poor record and prospect the money spent on it could be much more effectively directed [see part III]. Links to aid the reader's own research are provided throughout this paper as well as at the end [see Links; off-site links will automatically open to a new window or tab]. Click here for an abbreviated version of this paper. Click here for an even briefer version (a handy model for letters). This paper is also available as a 7-page typeset PDF file (156 KB) -- click here. I. [ Top • II • III • Links ] In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it has "serious environmental effects, insufficient production, and high production costs." Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary "greenhouse" gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off. A writer in The Utilities Journal (David J. White, "Danish Wind: Too Good To Be True?," July 2004) found that 84% of western Denmark's wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss) in 2003, i.e., Denmark's glut of wind towers provided only 3.3% of the nation's electricity. According to The Wall Street Journal Europe, the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken reported that wind actually met only 1.7% of Denmark's total demand in 1999. (Besides the amount exported, this low figure may also reflect the actual net contribution. The large amount of electricity used by the turbines themselves is typically not accounted for in the usually cited output figures. Click here for information about electricity use in wind turbines.) In Weekendavisen (Nov. 4, 2005), Frede Vestergaard reported that Denmark as a whole exported 70.3% of its wind production in 2004. Denmark is just dependent enough on wind power that when the wind is not blowing right they must import electricity. In 2000 they imported more electricity than they exported. And added to the Danish electric bill are the subsidies that support the private companies building the wind towers. Danish electricity costs for the consumer are the highest in Europe. [Click here for a detailed and well referenced examination by Vic Mason.] The head of Xcel Energy in the U.S., Wayne Brunetti, has said, "We're a big supporter of wind, but at the time when customers have the greatest needs, it's typically not available." Throughout Europe, wind turbines produced on average less than 20% of their theoretical (or rated) capacity. Yet both the British and the American Wind Energy Associations (BWEA and AWEA) plan for 30%. The figure in Denmark was 16.8% in 2002 and 19% in 2003 (in February 2003, the output of the more than 6,000 turbines in Denmark was 0!). On-shore turbines in the U.K. produced at 24.1% of their capacity in 2003. The average in Germany for 1998-2003 was 14.7%. In the U.S., usable output (representing wind power's contribution to consumption, according to the Energy Information Agency) in 2002 was 12.7% of capacity (using the average between the AWEA's figures for installed capacity at the end of 2001 and 2002). In California, the average is 20%. The Searsburg plant in Vermont averages 21%, declining every year. This percentage is called the load factor or capacity factor. The rated generating capacity only occurs during 100% ideal conditions, typically a sustained wind speed over 30 mph. As the wind slows, electricity output falls off exponentially. [Click here for more about the technicalities of wind as a power source, as well as energy consumption data. Click here for conversions between and explanations of energy units.] In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. Build-up of dead bugs has been shown to halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine, reducing the average power generated by 25% and more. Build-up of salt on off-shore turbine blades similarly has been shown to reduce the power generated by 20%-30% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Abbott's going after the Euro boats now, arm the waters with gunboats that will stop em he says:wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina2 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 once again I am going to ask ... WHY is it not compulsory to fit solar panels to new builds ? ... This should be required for ALL new buildings both business and residential, it should also be a requirement that water tanks to collect a minimum of 80% the buildings water needs be on ALL new buildings residential and business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 This should be required for ALL new buildings both business and residential, it should also be a requirement that water tanks to collect a minimum of 80% the buildings water needs be on ALL new buildings residential and business. Those climate change alarmists first told us all the dams would dry up, so we invested in useless and expensive desalination plants, then they changed their tune and said we would be flooded out, but the most enthusiastic of them then bought luxury homes near the coast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina2 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Those climate change alarmists first told us all the dams would dry up, so we invested in useless and expensive desalination plants, then they changed their tune and said we would be flooded out, but the most enthusiastic of them then bought luxury homes near the coast. Have you looked at what is happening out west of Qld ? Whole towns are in danger of closing due to no rain for the past 4 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 This should be required for ALL new buildings both business and residential, it should also be a requirement that water tanks to collect a minimum of 80% the buildings water needs be on ALL new buildings residential and business. so we need to also legislate that it rains at least 3 days per week to fill the tanks ? I'm not convinced on solar yet either. Too early. No I'm happy with free will. Too much Nanny state already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Have you looked at what is happening out west of Qld ? Whole towns are in danger of closing due to no rain for the past 4 years. How exactly do tanks help when there is no rain ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the bottler Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 How exactly do tanks help when there is no rain ?so it is never going to rain ever ? ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina2 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 How exactly do tanks help when there is no rain ? Have you watched the news recently ???? over 300 mil in parts of Sydney. I am begining to think you just like to make controversial comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 How exactly do tanks help when there is no rain ? They collect rain as it rains, as you well know old fruit :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 A tank is no good if it doesn't rain. So if it hasn't rained for 4 years your tanks will be empty for 3 years and 11 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Our dams are 70% full currently. And water bill doesn't change much based on usage sadly. Most of the charges are fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Have you looked at what is happening out west of Qld ? Whole towns are in danger of closing due to no rain for the past 4 years. Is four years of drought unusual in that part of Queensland, or is there a regular pattern of drought over the centuries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BacktoDemocracy Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Did I hear it right on various news sources today? On the one hand there is huge trumpet-blowing about the Government allocating $4million spread over four years in funding for victims of forced adoption (obviously a good thing but probably should have a lot more) but on the other hand (and kept a little bit quieter from the main stream media) they are also allocating $4million to a well known climate change sceptic to set up a "Concensus Centre" in WA - this a man who has been described as a "performance artist disguised as an academic". http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/17/aussie-government-gives-4-million-to-bjorn-lomborg-to-set-up-a-consensus-centre/ I simply do not understand how they get away with it, they are like naughty children who have never been disciplined, they have got the keys to the toy cupboard and nobody is going to tell them what they can or can't do. They have no understanding of the concept of acting like responsible adults, it's just a stream of infantile ego and consciousness with no concern for how they are perceived by anyone, it's the equivalent of a 3 year old having a tantrum when they are told that they can't have any more chocolate. They just seem to have no self awareness of how stupid they appear to anyone with an IQ greater than that required to cross the road safely. Are they so venal that they are simply only interested in staying in power so continue to just rely on populism, are they culpably stupid or are they, for want of a better descriptor, just plain old fashioned evil. Whichever it is, they are not held up to ridicule or held accountable by anyone for fear of what will happen to the satirist and once that mindset is in place and the power of the ruling elite becomes greater and greater then the future of democracy in Australia becomes more and more fragile and Queensland in the 70s and 80s is living proof that it can happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) I simply do not understand how they get away with it, they are like naughty children who have never been disciplined, they have got the keys to the toy cupboard and nobody is going to tell them what they can or can't do.They have no understanding of the concept of acting like responsible adults, it's just a stream of infantile ego and consciousness with no concern for how they are perceived by anyone, it's the equivalent of a 3 year old having a tantrum when they are told that they can't have any more chocolate. They just seem to have no self awareness of how stupid they appear to anyone with an IQ greater than that required to cross the road safely. Are they so venal that they are simply only interested in staying in power so continue to just rely on populism, are they culpably stupid or are they, for want of a better descriptor, just plain old fashioned evil. Whichever it is, they are not held up to ridicule or held accountable by anyone for fear of what will happen to the satirist and once that mindset is in place and the power of the ruling elite becomes greater and greater then the future of democracy in Australia becomes more and more fragile and Queensland in the 70s and 80s is living proof that it can happen. What utter BS. I'm a sceptic too, and there are many of us. Why shouldn't 'the other side' get a bit of funding? I read his biography. He is not a charlatan. $4 million! A drop in the ocean compared to what Krudd and Juliar wasted. Edited April 22, 2015 by MARYROSE02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I thought there might be a faint chance it was a proper journalistic report but did not realize (though I should have done) that it is from the Grauniad 'comic!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest51810 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I usually avoid politics when I'm out socially with people! But I cannot lie, I am a Tory! (and maybe I would vote for UKIP if I was still living in the UK.) Anyway, political views should not get in the way of friendship. A good sense of humour is more important. A tory and a snp voter going out for a pint lol lets do it! I'm sure we could get along Maybe Tom could come and be referee :laugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 A tory and a snp voter going out for a pint lol lets do it! I'm sure we could get along Maybe Tom could come and be referee :laugh: He's gone to England to run the London Marathon, and have a holiday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest51810 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Oh crap you've just reminded me that I said I'd sponsor him. I think half my wages this month is going to go on sponsorship money! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I did $20 at the last minute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Hey! This is PRIME material. Not PRO but ANTI climate change. I'm subscribing to it! Thanks to Diane! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/1...sensus-centre/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 Did I hear it right on various news sources today? On the one hand there is huge trumpet-blowing about the Government allocating $4million spread over four years in funding for victims of forced adoption (obviously a good thing but probably should have a lot more) but on the other hand (and kept a little bit quieter from the main stream media) they are also allocating $4million to a well known climate change sceptic to set up a "Concensus Centre" in WA - this a man who has been described as a "performance artist disguised as an academic". http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/17/aussie-government-gives-4-million-to-bjorn-lomborg-to-set-up-a-consensus-centre/ This sounds like another 'Captain's Pick' Diane http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/prime-minister-tony-abbotts-office-the-origin-for-controversial-bjorn-lomborg-centre-decision-20150423-1mrha2.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.