ok

lets keep it simple and say 40 billion was wasted building million dollar tucker shops for schools and school halls and the doomed roof insulation scheme that ended up killing people

lets imagine what 40 billion in renewables could have bought

wind turbines

The costs for a utility scale wind turbine range from about $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW of nameplate capacity installed. Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed.
http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost

lets say due to incompetency and other aggravating circumstances the cost was 5 million instead

we could have installed 8000 wind turbines with a potential of 16 GW of power being created for homes/ industry and the great thing is that given this is money that was being tipped into the dustbin anyway – you’d never go looking to make any money selling the power to the grid

solar energy

with a 40 million solar plant off grid pumping out 10MW you could have put 10 GW of solar power free onto the grid

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australias-largest-off-grid-solar-power-plant-will-cost-40-million-and-be-built-in-the-desert-2015-7

wookiemeister said:

and the doomed roof insulation scheme that ended up killing people

Home insulation is a far more effective way of reducing GHG emissions than either wind turbines or solar electricity.

The fact that worker safety was mishandled, and then used as a political football, does not change that.

In 2012 the electricity was produced from 63 gigawatts (GWe) capacity, of which 30.3 GWe (48%) was coal-fired, 18.1 GWe gas or multi-fuel, 8.8 GWe hydro and 4.0 GWe other renewables

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/Appendices/Australia-s-Electricity/

so we could have supplied a sixth of the power being produced with renewables

if small towns in Australia had been supplied by stand alone systems it would mean that we would no longer have to maintain the thousands of kilometres of electrical network – thus saving hundreds of millions of dollars

Cheap or even free power and water should be a basic human right

The Rev Dodgson said:

wookiemeister said:

and the doomed roof insulation scheme that ended up killing people

Home insulation is a far more effective way of reducing GHG emissions than either wind turbines or solar electricity.

The fact that worker safety was mishandled, and then used as a political football, does not change that.

Yes I am not sure its fair to blame the government for the deaths

The Rev Dodgson said:

wookiemeister said:

and the doomed roof insulation scheme that ended up killing people

Home insulation is a far more effective way of reducing GHG emissions than either wind turbines or solar electricity.

The fact that worker safety was mishandled, and then used as a political football, does not change that.

they were repeatedly being told beforehand it would become a problem

simply providing virtually free power to small towns in regional Australia would have saved untold millions

by having stand alone it means the power authority no longer has to buy and install power poles and cable, it can be hundreds of kilometres between towns

just install power plants for farmers to build reliability into the food chain

Cymek said:

Cheap or even free power and water should be a basic human right

right

a small regional town with access to lots of electrical power for cheap would start using that power to build the economy

it would be cheaper for tourists to stay – no humungous power bills for hotel owners gets passed onto tourists (if they are clever)

local industry would flourish as power becomes cheap and plentiful

Cymek said:

Cheap or even free power and water should be a basic human right

What a strange thing to want.

If people had an adequate income as a basic human right then they could spend how they liked.

Subsidising power and water (what about food and housing?) is a very wasteful way of providing people’s basic needs.

they could have spent money providing reliable water to farms via robust pipelines

using renewable power to pump that water from dams

wookiemeister said:

Cymek said:

Cheap or even free power and water should be a basic human right

right

Shouldn’t the human race with our advancing technology be heading down the road of free power, water and medical care for all instead of an ever increasing user pays system.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Cheap or even free power and water should be a basic human right

What a strange thing to want.

If people had an adequate income as a basic human right then they could spend how they liked.

Subsidising power and water (what about food and housing?) is a very wasteful way of providing people’s basic needs.

UN declares internet access a human right

• Shouldn’t the human race with our advancing technology be heading down the road of free power, water

You can get them both from the roof of your house, if you so chose…

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Cheap or even free power and water should be a basic human right

What a strange thing to want.

If people had an adequate income as a basic human right then they could spend how they liked.

Subsidising power and water (what about food and housing?) is a very wasteful way of providing people’s basic needs.

no this is how great civilisations bloom

rome had cheap power in the form of slaves as did Athens

Sparta had cheap power in the form of slaves too

the slave is now electricity – if you’ve got lots of it then suddenly data centres start springing up if its cheaper to power them – then you have employment

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

Cymek said:

Cheap or even free power and water should be a basic human right

right

Shouldn’t the human race with our advancing technology be heading down the road of free power, water and medical care for all instead of an ever increasing user pays system.

yes

I would do away with money if I had it my way

too much time being spent sending people to do stupid work

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

Cymek said:

Cheap or even free power and water should be a basic human right

right

Shouldn’t the human race with our advancing technology be heading down the road of free power, water and medical care for all instead of an ever increasing user pays system.

No, it shouldn’t.

Hiding costs doesn’t make them go away, it just increases waste.

• UN declares internet access a human right

The UN: wasting time on inconsequential crap since 1945…

many of the jobs we do at the moment are garbage jobs – they produce very little in the way of any value to the human race or help the planet

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Cheap or even free power and water should be a basic human right

What a strange thing to want.

If people had an adequate income as a basic human right then they could spend how they liked.

Subsidising power and water (what about food and housing?) is a very wasteful way of providing people’s basic needs.

Housing and food is harder to provide as a basic human right as would people be happy with what they are given

at the kibbutz you did a small amount of work then had the rest of the day to yourself

this should be how civilisation should be set up

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Cheap or even free power and water should be a basic human right

What a strange thing to want.

If people had an adequate income as a basic human right then they could spend how they liked.

Subsidising power and water (what about food and housing?) is a very wasteful way of providing people’s basic needs.

Housing and food is harder to provide as a basic human right as would people be happy with what they are given

So you are saying that people should have power and water as a basic human right, but not adequate food and shelter?

How very strange.

wookiemeister said:

many of the jobs we do at the moment are garbage jobs – they produce very little in the way of any value to the human race or help the planet

I think of my job like that, paper shuffling

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

wookiemeister said:

and the doomed roof insulation scheme that ended up killing people

Home insulation is a far more effective way of reducing GHG emissions than either wind turbines or solar electricity.

The fact that worker safety was mishandled, and then used as a political football, does not change that.

Yes I am not sure its fair to blame the government for the deaths

inexperienced companies with inexperienced workers are to blame

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

many of the jobs we do at the moment are garbage jobs – they produce very little in the way of any value to the human race or help the planet

I think of my job like that, paper shuffling

Hiding costs will only increase the garbage jobs.

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

many of the jobs we do at the moment are garbage jobs – they produce very little in the way of any value to the human race or help the planet

I think of my job like that, paper shuffling

you could do away with millions of accountants jobs and harness them to do something else with real purpose

CrazyNeutrino said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Home insulation is a far more effective way of reducing GHG emissions than either wind turbines or solar electricity.

The fact that worker safety was mishandled, and then used as a political football, does not change that.

Yes I am not sure its fair to blame the government for the deaths

inexperienced companies with inexperienced workers are to blame

Who was to blame has nothing to do with the benefits of better building insulation.

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

many of the jobs we do at the moment are garbage jobs – they produce very little in the way of any value to the human race or help the planet

I think of my job like that, paper shuffling

I think the forum would agree that my job is the epitome of what Wookie is saying.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What a strange thing to want.

If people had an adequate income as a basic human right then they could spend how they liked.

Subsidising power and water (what about food and housing?) is a very wasteful way of providing people’s basic needs.

Housing and food is harder to provide as a basic human right as would people be happy with what they are given

So you are saying that people should have power and water as a basic human right, but not adequate food and shelter?

How very strange.

No but most people would use roughly the same amount of water and power, would everyone be happy with a basic house and food staples if so then that not a problem

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Cheap or even free power and water should be a basic human right

What a strange thing to want.

If people had an adequate income as a basic human right then they could spend how they liked.

Subsidising power and water (what about food and housing?) is a very wasteful way of providing people’s basic needs.

I think a small amount of water should be free for drinking and hygiene

but above that costs should be imposed to keep down water wastage

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

many of the jobs we do at the moment are garbage jobs – they produce very little in the way of any value to the human race or help the planet

I think of my job like that, paper shuffling

Hiding costs will only increase the garbage jobs.

by doing away with money or at least the financial system we have at the moment you provide everything everyone needs

everyone gets some pocket money to do what they want with

with a house , a holiday 4 weeks a year, a car, education up to university and free time to spend

what more would you really want from life?

you could work more hours at work if you think it worthwhile

Divine Angel said:

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

many of the jobs we do at the moment are garbage jobs – they produce very little in the way of any value to the human race or help the planet

I think of my job like that, paper shuffling

I think the forum would agree that my job is the epitome of what Wookie is saying.

don’t worry many people including myself are included

i’m saying sweep away all the crap and make a new generation of harnessing human labour effectively

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Cheap or even free power and water should be a basic human right

What a strange thing to want.

If people had an adequate income as a basic human right then they could spend how they liked.

Subsidising power and water (what about food and housing?) is a very wasteful way of providing people’s basic needs.

I think a small amount of water should be free for drinking and hygiene

but above that costs should be imposed to keep down water wastage

no you have a sizeable fine if you cant be reasonable with your water useage

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

Cymek said:

Cheap or even free power and water should be a basic human right

right

Shouldn’t the human race with our advancing technology be heading down the road of free power, water and medical care for all instead of an ever increasing user pays system.

yes I think if humanity wants to progress, we need to get away from an ever increasing user pays system, which only favors the rich.

solar power and batteries for the house

hydrogen fuel cells for the car

more people growing their own veggies

at the kibbutz you did a handful of hours working every day except Saturday, so every day was like a weekend

your clothing was washed for you in a large washing machine

shared showers etc

spare time could be used for self improvement – hiking / learning/ sleeping

CrazyNeutrino said:

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

right

Shouldn’t the human race with our advancing technology be heading down the road of free power, water and medical care for all instead of an ever increasing user pays system.

yes I think if humanity wants to progress, we need to get away from an ever increasing user pays system, which only favors the rich.

solar power and batteries for the house

hydrogen fuel cells for the car

more people growing their own veggies

you could grow your own food but its not practical

use robots to grow food

furious said:

• UN declares internet access a human right

The UN: wasting time on inconsequential crap since 1945…

I think they mean communication is a basic right.

you might have someone working a few hours a day installing a solar system for example

or repairing / maintaining robotic farm equipment

you could move stuff around to farms in chinook helicopters

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Cymek said:

Yes I am not sure its fair to blame the government for the deaths

inexperienced companies with inexperienced workers are to blame

Who was to blame has nothing to do with the benefits of better building insulation.

agree, there is nothing wrong with better building insulation

I am all for it

but having people who can install it properly does help

wookiemeister said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

I think of my job like that, paper shuffling

Hiding costs will only increase the garbage jobs.

by doing away with money or at least the financial system we have at the moment you provide everything everyone needs

everyone gets some pocket money to do what they want with

with a house , a holiday 4 weeks a year, a car, education up to university and free time to spend

what more would you really want from life?

you could work more hours at work if you think it worthwhile

You could declare a year zero, kill all the managers and return to the fields and a happy simple agrarian lifestyle.

CrazyNeutrino said:

furious said:

• UN declares internet access a human right

The UN: wasting time on inconsequential crap since 1945…

I think they mean communication is a basic right.

Information is power and if you live in some repressive nation you might think the entire world is like this but access to the Internet tells you no and then you can demand change hopefully

wookiemeister said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What a strange thing to want.

If people had an adequate income as a basic human right then they could spend how they liked.

Subsidising power and water (what about food and housing?) is a very wasteful way of providing people’s basic needs.

I think a small amount of water should be free for drinking and hygiene

but above that costs should be imposed to keep down water wastage

no you have a sizeable fine if you cant be reasonable with your water useage

whats the difference between higher costs for more usage and a fine?

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Housing and food is harder to provide as a basic human right as would people be happy with what they are given

So you are saying that people should have power and water as a basic human right, but not adequate food and shelter?

How very strange.

No but most people would use roughly the same amount of water and power, would everyone be happy with a basic house and food staples if so then that not a problem

I assure you that very many people organise their power and water usage to minimise costs, and if it was free would consume a great deal more.

wookiemeister said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

I think of my job like that, paper shuffling

Hiding costs will only increase the garbage jobs.

by doing away with money or at least the financial system we have at the moment you provide everything everyone needs

everyone gets some pocket money to do what they want with

with a house , a holiday 4 weeks a year, a car, education up to university and free time to spend

what more would you really want from life?

you could work more hours at work if you think it worthwhile

If that’s what you really think why are you endlessly dribbling on about taxes being too high?

> If only they had spent Rudds stimulus package on renewable energy

Behind me in the lounge room is our “Kevin Rudd memorial lounge”.

Bought Australian from the money in Kevin Rudd’s stimulus package.

> we could have installed 8000 wind turbines

Where?

It’s a serious question. There are a limited number of good sites for wind turbines. For example, you can rule out central Australia (other than Alice Springs) because of the cost of connecting it to the grid and because wind speeds there are typically lower than on the coast and lower than on smoothly rolling hills.

Or to put it another way, the output of the world’s largest wind farm, in China, (itself a conglomerate of 18 individual wind farms) is about the same as for a single nuclear power plant.

>lets keep it simple and say 40 billion was wasted building million dollar tucker shops for schools and school halls and the doomed roof insulation scheme that ended up killing people

You’re taking the art out of rhetoric. When done otherwise the vast territory of difference between what you’re saying(the propositional content), and the reason you’re saying it (the motive/intention) isn’t meant to excite revulsion like dog’s vomit, or dog shit.

You know when me dog larry sometimes shits in the front of the ute, I hop back in the ute and it takes my breath away, but I forgive him because he’s tied to the gearstick and I know he’d much rather have done it outside the ute. Mostly he barks at me and gives me a grumpy curled up lip look which says stop the ute I want a shit, but i’m often busy out of the ute when nature calls urgently.

> If only they had spent Rudds stimulus package on renewable energy

If these 8000 wind turbines were built overseas then Australia would have immediately lost all of the stimulus package money to, for example, Denmark or China.

mollwollfumble said:

> If only they had spent Rudds stimulus package on renewable energy

If these 8000 wind turbines were built overseas then Australia would have immediately lost all of the stimulus package money to, for example, Denmark or China.

It seems that the concept of economic stimulus has been misunderstood in the first place.

furious said:

• Shouldn’t the human race with our advancing technology be heading down the road of free power, water

You can get them both from the roof of your house, if you so chose…

So solar systems & water tanks are now given away free?

• So solar systems & water tanks are now given away free?

I am not sure of the current situation but in the past they have been subsidised and after the initial outlay on the method of collection, all that is collected is free…

mollwollfumble said:

> we could have installed 8000 wind turbines

Where?

It’s a serious question. There are a limited number of good sites for wind turbines. For example, you can rule out central Australia (other than Alice Springs) because of the cost of connecting it to the grid and because wind speeds there are typically lower than on the coast and lower than on smoothly rolling hills.

Or to put it another way, the output of the world’s largest wind farm, in China, (itself a conglomerate of 18 individual wind farms) is about the same as for a single nuclear power plant.

its just a figure to demonstrate what could have been bought with it

solar is another option

theres another system condensing superheated steam under pressure and holding it in a heated tank

the liquid is released through a regulator into a reciprocal engine and flashes into steam to push a piston which drives a generator (not a turbine)

mollwollfumble said:

> If only they had spent Rudds stimulus package on renewable energy

If these 8000 wind turbines were built overseas then Australia would have immediately lost all of the stimulus package money to, for example, Denmark or China.

well you’d build them here instead

my favourite are the vertical turbines that have a self limiting speed by virtue of the shape of the wing

furious said:

• So solar systems & water tanks are now given away free?

I am not sure of the current situation but in the past they have been subsidised and after the initial outlay on the method of collection, all that is collected is free…

So, not free in any way!

maybe all regional centres X kilometres from the coast should have stand alone power units

as I said before this would save a fortune because you aren’t maintaining the power grid from the coast to the interior of the continent

all power might be generated via these steam systems / PV cell or wind turbines

the regional areas now have an abundance of cheap electrical power

more isolated areas might have a situation where a farmer can access their own power supply to help run a process

ideally solid state is best as maintenance can become problematic

Forget our wasted 40 billion & consider the over 1,000 billion it will cost to hold just pne climate conference in Paris

• So, not free in any way!

Apart from the fact that you do not have to pay for the actual water or electricity…

I think burning coal to produce heat for power generation is a terrible waste of material

coal should be used to make diesel, fertilisers, plastics

these are more the favourable ways of using coal

with an abundance of coal you could make plastic houses free from termite damage/ harder to burn, resilient to weathering

furious said:

• So, not free in any way!

Apart from the fact that you do not have to pay for the actual water or electricity…

Yes, you pay for the solar system, its upkeep h eventual replacement, & water tank, installation, & filtration if using for drinking.
there’s nothing free about it

The_observer said:

Forget our wasted 40 billion & consider the over 1,000 billion it will cost to hold just pne climate conference in Paris

Is that the cost of the catering?

LOL.

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

Forget our wasted 40 billion & consider the over 1,000 billion it will cost to hold just pne climate conference in Paris

Is that the cost of the catering?

Dessert

• there’s nothing free about it

Apart from the fact that you do not have to pay for the actual water or electricity…

The Rev Dodgson said:

wookiemeister said:

and the doomed roof insulation scheme that ended up killing people

Home insulation is a far more effective way of reducing GHG emissions than either wind turbines or solar electricity.

The fact that worker safety was mishandled, and then used as a political football, does not change that.

Note that the rate of deaths due to insulation installation was lower during the Rudd govt’s scheme than during the Howard years.

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/we-really-must-talk-about-the-pink-batts,5622

Four lives were lost, several workers were injured and about 120 houses caught fire in a program employing more than 12,000 people in the space of a year. During this time, more than a million homes were insulated. This was up from about 67,000 homes a year previously.

Of course, those deaths are tragedies. But what was the rate of house fires, injuries and deaths prevailing during the Howard years?

The CSIRO’s basic research – developed further by Possum Comitatus at Crikey – found the rate of fires, injuries and deaths was actually four times higher during the Howard years than during the period of the home insulation program.
—-

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Hiding costs will only increase the garbage jobs.

by doing away with money or at least the financial system we have at the moment you provide everything everyone needs

everyone gets some pocket money to do what they want with

with a house , a holiday 4 weeks a year, a car, education up to university and free time to spend

what more would you really want from life?

you could work more hours at work if you think it worthwhile

You could declare a year zero, kill all the managers and return to the fields and a happy simple agrarian lifestyle.

Just like the Khmer Rouge!

Rudd’s stimulus package did get spent on solar, in my house at least. The Rudd government gave $900 to each taxpayer to go out and stimulate the economy… we spent ours on a solar PV system.

was that to run the plasma tv you got with the baby bonus PJ?

;-)

ChrispenEvan said:

was that to run the plasma tv you got with the baby bonus PJ?

;-)

Sprung!

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/we-really-must-talk-about-the-pink-batts,5622

you try telling the rightwingers of today that and they wont believe you!!

ChrispenEvan said:

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/we-really-must-talk-about-the-pink-batts,5622

you try telling the rightwingers of today that and they wont believe you!!

I try to keep in mind that Turnbull was the leading misleader on the pink batts program. He’s no saint.

wookiemeister said:

I think burning coal to produce heat for power generation is a terrible waste of material

coal should be used to make diesel, fertilisers, plastics

these are more the favourable ways of using coal

with an abundance of coal you could make plastic houses free from termite damage/ harder to burn, resilient to weathering

there are far more efficient ways to make hydrocarbon products

How many men died building the sydharb bridge?

efficient is not the wookie way.

Michael V said:

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

by doing away with money or at least the financial system we have at the moment you provide everything everyone needs

everyone gets some pocket money to do what they want with

with a house , a holiday 4 weeks a year, a car, education up to university and free time to spend

what more would you really want from life?

you could work more hours at work if you think it worthwhile

You could declare a year zero, kill all the managers and return to the fields and a happy simple agrarian lifestyle.

Just like the Khmer Rouge!

Yay, someone got the reference. And killing the managers worked well with wookies disdain for anyone who has ever worked in an air conditioned office.

i’ve lived in a few houses with no insulation
asbestos place out the farm was shocking

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

wookiemeister said:

and the doomed roof insulation scheme that ended up killing people

Home insulation is a far more effective way of reducing GHG emissions than either wind turbines or solar electricity.

The fact that worker safety was mishandled, and then used as a political football, does not change that.

Note that the rate of deaths due to insulation installation was lower during the Rudd govt’s scheme than during the Howard years.

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/we-really-must-talk-about-the-pink-batts,5622

Four lives were lost, several workers were injured and about 120 houses caught fire in a program employing more than 12,000 people in the space of a year. During this time, more than a million homes were insulated. This was up from about 67,000 homes a year previously.

Of course, those deaths are tragedies. But what was the rate of house fires, injuries and deaths prevailing during the Howard years?

The CSIRO’s basic research – developed further by Possum Comitatus at Crikey – found the rate of fires, injuries and deaths was actually four times higher during the Howard years than during the period of the home insulation program.
—-

I always like to go to the source. I went to the refernce and the CSIRO research was not found, the findings “further developed” started a few alarm bells ringing.

“With the 2008 figures on the numbers of fires, we don’t know how many of them were as a result of new installations and how many of them were caused by insulation that was already in the ceiling and may have been there for years. So what we need to do is differentiate between the fires caused by the insulation stock (the pre-existing insulation) and new installations.

To do this we’ll create three scenarios:

Scenario 1: 10% of fires were caused by existing insulation and 90% caused by new installations

Scenario 2: 50% of fires were caused by existing insulation and 50% caused by new installations

Senario 3: 90% of fires were caused by existing insulation and 10% caused by new installations.

Hmmmm. Another scenario is that if you take as a baseline all domestic fires, with no clue if they are related in any way to insulation at all, let alone installation, and relate that to fires that are proved to be directly caused by installation within a defined period then the latter number will obviously be lesser.

Dead dodgy.

furious said:

• there’s nothing free about it

Apart from the fact that you do not have to pay for the actual water or electricity…

Well then i get my grid electricity for free & just pay small monthly payments towards the power plant

transition said:

i’ve lived in a few houses with no insulation
asbestos place out the farm was shocking

I grew up in a fibro house.
But I turned out okay…

this might be something to do with that Curve. dunno.

http://www.homeinsulationroyalcommission.gov.au/Hearings/Documents/Evidence15April2014/ABC.002.001.1341.pdf

dv said:

transition said:

i’ve lived in a few houses with no insulation
asbestos place out the farm was shocking

I grew up in a fibro house.
But I turned out okay…

I reckon you could be an intellectual if you wanted to.

If something is free it has no value and gets abused. Ask anyone who has kids and who pays the electricity bills. It is the kids who are leaving lights on, use the dryer cos it is easier than putting the clothes out on the line and has heating or cooling going 24/7 instead of putting on a jumper. It is the person paying the bills closing doors and turning off lights.

A tiny example but it should be obvious to anyone if you don’t pay for it, you don’t care if the hose is running all day, hell it makes the grass green so why not?

Well then i get my grid electricity for free & just pay small monthly payments towards the power plant

maybe you need to look at your bills a little closer.

ChrispenEvan said:

this might be something to do with that Curve. dunno.

http://www.homeinsulationroyalcommission.gov.au/Hearings/Documents/Evidence15April2014/ABC.002.001.1341.pdf

Jeebers, that’s 112 pages, I am only here for half an hour while Judge Judy is on. I’ll have a squizz later.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

transition said:

i’ve lived in a few houses with no insulation
asbestos place out the farm was shocking

I grew up in a fibro house.
But I turned out okay…

I reckon you could be an intellectual if you wanted to.

Yeah probably but I am too much a man of the people

ChrispenEvan said:

Well then i get my grid electricity for free & just pay small monthly payments towards the power plant

maybe you need to look at your bills a little closer.

No, & solar systems r free & last forever, don’t u know

AwesomeO said:

If something is free it has no value and gets abused. Ask anyone who has kids and who pays the electricity bills. It is the kids who are leaving lights on, use the dryer cos it is easier than putting the clothes out on the line and has heating or cooling going 24/7 instead of putting on a jumper. It is the person paying the bills closing doors and turning off lights.

A tiny example but it should be obvious to anyone if you don’t pay for it, you don’t care if the hose is running all day, hell it makes the grass green so why not?

Bullshit, such a generalisation.

ChrispenEvan said:

Well then i get my grid electricity for free & just pay small monthly payments towards the power plant

maybe you need to look at your bills a little closer.

No, & solar systems r free & last forever, don’t u know

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

Forget our wasted 40 billion & consider the over 1,000 billion it will cost to hold just pne climate conference in Paris

Is that the cost of the catering?

Dessert

“Financing

The conference was budgeted to cost €170m (£122m). The French government said that 20% of the cost will be borne by firms such as EDF,Engie (formerly known as GDF Suez), Air France, Renault-Nissan, BNP Paribas and the French foreign minister.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference#Financing

I suppose there might be a currency where 1000 billion is equivalent to 170 million Euro, but I think we are entitled to assume Aus$, unless stated otherwise, which makes your estimate out by a factor of about 3800.

AwesomeO said:

If something is free it has no value and gets abused. Ask anyone who has kids and who pays the electricity bills. It is the kids who are leaving lights on, use the dryer cos it is easier than putting the clothes out on the line and has heating or cooling going 24/7 instead of putting on a jumper. It is the person paying the bills closing doors and turning off lights.

A tiny example but it should be obvious to anyone if you don’t pay for it, you don’t care if the hose is running all day, hell it makes the grass green so why not?

Perhaps I thought people might be responsible which was stupid of me

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

Is that the cost of the catering?

Dessert

“Financing

The conference was budgeted to cost €170m (£122m). The French government said that 20% of the cost will be borne by firms such as EDF,Engie (formerly known as GDF Suez), Air France, Renault-Nissan, BNP Paribas and the French foreign minister.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference#Financing

I suppose there might be a currency where 1000 billion is equivalent to 170 million Euro, but I think we are entitled to assume Aus$, unless stated otherwise, which makes your estimate out by a factor of about 3800.

Did you ever think of a career in engineering, t_o?

t_o seems to be doing ok on the comedy circuit, why change?

Off grid solar works well.
I’ve got 700 ah of batteries and 600 watt of solar cells.
I only use it for lighting and running the water pump and laptop and small 12 v TV.
The thing is that as long as you have daylight you are charging but I’ve got a week of redundancy built in anyway and if it’s dark for months during the apocalypse I’v still got the big mother genny that I use for power tools to fall back on.
It’s all good.
And the 25000 litre water tank is always full, take a drought of biblical or flannery proportions for that to run dry.
No it’s all worked out well.
Harvesting your water and electricity from mother nature is the shizzle.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

Is that the cost of the catering?

Dessert

“Financing

The conference was budgeted to cost €170m (£122m). The French government said that 20% of the cost will be borne by firms such as EDF,Engie (formerly known as GDF Suez), Air France, Renault-Nissan, BNP Paribas and the French foreign minister.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference#Financing

I suppose there might be a currency where 1000 billion is equivalent to 170 million Euro, but I think we are entitled to assume Aus$, unless stated otherwise, which makes your estimate out by a factor of about 3800.

here’s one breakdown

40,000 politicians and flunkies, being hosted for a week 11 days. I’m assuming they won’t be going for the budget end of Parisian accommodation, and no doubt enterprising Parisian hoteliers will be putting their prices up, in anticipation of the expected influx of guests. So lets allow $1000 / night, for 7 nights.

That immediately puts our budget up to 40,000 people x 11 nights x US $1000 = $440 million dollars.

Of course, we have to add meals to the total. I’ve been to Paris, you can order a decent meal for a restaurant for about US $40, but we know these conference types on an expense account are unlikely to opt for the budget option. Many of the delegates will be armed with big expense accounts, which their host countries will expect them to use to win influence for their agenda. So I don’t think its unreasonable to suggest meals will cost an average of US $500 / day / person.

Cost of food: 40,000 × 11 days x $500 = $220 million dollars.

Then of course there is the cost of flights. This is a little harder to pin down, but its reasonable to assume airlines will see an opportunity to make a quick profit, from such a large influx of people, and that many of the delegates will be arriving on private jets from remote locations. Even if you can’t swing your own private jet, if you have enough pull to get a seat at the COP21, it seems unlikely you will be travelling cattle class.

Shall we say an average of $2000 / delegate, to fly to and from Paris?

Cost of flights: 40,000 x $2000 = $80 million dollars.

And of course, there is the cost of limousine hire. Limousine drivers, like everyone else, will undoubtably charge a premium from their well funded conference clients.

Say $800 / day / delegate

Cost of limousines: 40,000 × 11 x $800 = $352 million dollars.

Finally, there is, how shall we put it, entertainment. France prides herself on her social liberty, the social acceptability of transactional activities which are sometimes frowned upon in stricter countries. What happens in Paris might stay in Paris – but the cost of any nocturnal journeys of personal discovery will undoubtably make its way onto various taxpayer and donor funded expense accounts.

Lets assume that only 10% of the delegates decide to partake on any single night. I think it reasonable to assume that they are unlikely to choose the budget option, so lets say a rather conservative $1000 / night.

40,000 × 11 x $1000 × 10% = $44 million dollars.

There are other costs, such as the cost of hiring the conference facilities – but I doubt that comes to much, compared to the other expenses I’ve identified – lets say $10 million.

Total cost: $1146 million

how much does god charge for the rain and sunshine that falls upon you property, PWM?

ChrispenEvan said:

how much does god charge for the rain and sunshine that falls upon you property, PWM?

Makes him go to church, Sundays?

ChrispenEvan said:

how much does god charge for the rain and sunshine that falls upon you property, PWM?

He wants my soul.

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

Dessert

“Financing

The conference was budgeted to cost €170m (£122m). The French government said that 20% of the cost will be borne by firms such as EDF,Engie (formerly known as GDF Suez), Air France, Renault-Nissan, BNP Paribas and the French foreign minister.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference#Financing

I suppose there might be a currency where 1000 billion is equivalent to 170 million Euro, but I think we are entitled to assume Aus$, unless stated otherwise, which makes your estimate out by a factor of about 3800.

here’s one breakdown

40,000 politicians and flunkies, being hosted for a week 11 days. I’m assuming they won’t be going for the budget end of Parisian accommodation, and no doubt enterprising Parisian hoteliers will be putting their prices up, in anticipation of the expected influx of guests. So lets allow $1000 / night, for 7 nights.

That immediately puts our budget up to 40,000 people x 11 nights x US $1000 = $440 million dollars.

Of course, we have to add meals to the total. I’ve been to Paris, you can order a decent meal for a restaurant for about US $40, but we know these conference types on an expense account are unlikely to opt for the budget option. Many of the delegates will be armed with big expense accounts, which their host countries will expect them to use to win influence for their agenda. So I don’t think its unreasonable to suggest meals will cost an average of US $500 / day / person.

Cost of food: 40,000 × 11 days x $500 = $220 million dollars.

Then of course there is the cost of flights. This is a little harder to pin down, but its reasonable to assume airlines will see an opportunity to make a quick profit, from such a large influx of people, and that many of the delegates will be arriving on private jets from remote locations. Even if you can’t swing your own private jet, if you have enough pull to get a seat at the COP21, it seems unlikely you will be travelling cattle class.

Shall we say an average of $2000 / delegate, to fly to and from Paris?

Cost of flights: 40,000 x $2000 = $80 million dollars.

And of course, there is the cost of limousine hire. Limousine drivers, like everyone else, will undoubtably charge a premium from their well funded conference clients.

Say $800 / day / delegate

Cost of limousines: 40,000 × 11 x $800 = $352 million dollars.

Finally, there is, how shall we put it, entertainment. France prides herself on her social liberty, the social acceptability of transactional activities which are sometimes frowned upon in stricter countries. What happens in Paris might stay in Paris – but the cost of any nocturnal journeys of personal discovery will undoubtably make its way onto various taxpayer and donor funded expense accounts.

Lets assume that only 10% of the delegates decide to partake on any single night. I think it reasonable to assume that they are unlikely to choose the budget option, so lets say a rather conservative $1000 / night.

40,000 × 11 x $1000 × 10% = $44 million dollars.

There are other costs, such as the cost of hiring the conference facilities – but I doubt that comes to much, compared to the other expenses I’ve identified – lets say $10 million.

Total cost: $1146 million

Let’s accept all that for the sake of reaching an agreement.

Reduces the magnitude of the error to just under 1000.

But still 3 orders of magnitude.

South Australia has done quite well. They originally had a target of deriving a third of their power from renewables by 2020, but they surpassed that in 2014, are now at around 35%: the new target is to be at 50% by 2020. The investment is not “free”, and the extra cost of electricity per household is estimated to peak at $4 per week in 2022.

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

I think burning coal to produce heat for power generation is a terrible waste of material

coal should be used to make diesel, fertilisers, plastics

these are more the favourable ways of using coal

with an abundance of coal you could make plastic houses free from termite damage/ harder to burn, resilient to weathering

there are far more efficient ways to make hydrocarbon products

yes but we’ve got thousands of years of coal reserves, maybe ten thousand years

more coal than we can shake a stick at

use what we have here that’s cheap

AwesomeO said:

Michael V said:

AwesomeO said:

You could declare a year zero, kill all the managers and return to the fields and a happy simple agrarian lifestyle.

Just like the Khmer Rouge!

Yay, someone got the reference. And killing the managers worked well with wookies disdain for anyone who has ever worked in an air conditioned office.

no the Khmer rouge were killing teachers and any kind of learned person they could lay hands on

The Khmer Rouge regarded traditional education with undiluted hostility. After the fall of Phnom Penh, they executed thousands of teachers. Those who had been educators prior to 1975 survived by hiding their identities.

Aside from teaching basic mathematical skills and literacy, the major goal of the new educational system was to instill revolutionary values in the young. For a regime at war with most of Cambodia’s traditional values, this meant that it was necessary to create a gap between the values of the young and the values of the nonrevolutionary old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia#Education_and_health

The regime recruited children to spy on adults. The pliancy of the younger generation made them, in the Angkar’s words, the “dictatorial instrument of the party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia#Education_and_health

bill shortens wish for children to vote is the first step to creating a new order

children are pliable in thought – they can manipulated easily because they don’t have the life experience afforded to an adult

hitler did the same thing with the hitler youth

the Russians no doubt did the same thing but I’ve heard that he took them from the parents and they ended up with the grandparents – traditionally the staunch opponents of any “revolution”!

wookiemeister said:

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

I think burning coal to produce heat for power generation is a terrible waste of material

coal should be used to make diesel, fertilisers, plastics

these are more the favourable ways of using coal

with an abundance of coal you could make plastic houses free from termite damage/ harder to burn, resilient to weathering

there are far more efficient ways to make hydrocarbon products

yes but we’ve got thousands of years of coal reserves, maybe ten thousand years

more coal than we can shake a stick at

use what we have here that’s cheap

coal-to-liquids plants are very, very expensive to build and run especially when compared to traditional hydrocarbon cracking plants

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

diddly-squat said:

there are far more efficient ways to make hydrocarbon products

yes but we’ve got thousands of years of coal reserves, maybe ten thousand years

more coal than we can shake a stick at

use what we have here that’s cheap

coal-to-liquids plants are very, very expensive to build and run especially when compared to traditional hydrocarbon cracking plants

that’s why you have to have a bit of a think about it and get other people to think about it

i’m sure some bright spark that’s studied industrial chemistry could up with something

go out there on you tube and there are plenty of plants that have been made to extract liquids/ gas from coal

just recently it was announced that a company was going to that very thing here in Australia to make gas and fertiliser

wookiemeister said:

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

yes but we’ve got thousands of years of coal reserves, maybe ten thousand years

more coal than we can shake a stick at

use what we have here that’s cheap

coal-to-liquids plants are very, very expensive to build and run especially when compared to traditional hydrocarbon cracking plants

that’s why you have to have a bit of a think about it and get other people to think about it

i’m sure some bright spark that’s studied industrial chemistry could up with something

go out there on you tube and there are plenty of plants that have been made to extract liquids/ gas from coal

just recently it was announced that a company was going to that very thing here in Australia to make gas and fertiliser

I’ve done a fair bit of work for a little company in South Africa called Sassol, not sure if you’ve heard of them.. you see, they made quite a business out of CTL back during apartheid and are probably the world leaders in application of the technology… anyway, the bright sparks over there have spent tens of billions on design and construction of large scale CTL plants and they are struggling to do what you suggest is easy-peezy…

I don’t necessarily want to go back through the thread but why is the coal to liquids thing being discussed?

wookiemeister said:

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

yes but we’ve got thousands of years of coal reserves, maybe ten thousand years

more coal than we can shake a stick at

use what we have here that’s cheap

And condoms that never wear out or fail!
coal-to-liquids plants are very, very expensive to build and run especially when compared to traditional hydrocarbon cracking plants

that’s why you have to have a bit of a think about it and get other people to think about it

i’m sure some bright spark that’s studied industrial chemistry could up with something

go out there on you tube and there are plenty of plants that have been made to extract liquids/ gas from coal

just recently it was announced that a company was going to that very thing here in Australia to make gas and fertiliser

bob(from black rock) said:

wookiemeister said:

diddly-squat said:

And condoms that never wear out or fail!
coal-to-liquids plants are very, very expensive to build and run especially when compared to traditional hydrocarbon cracking plants

that’s why you have to have a bit of a think about it and get other people to think about it

i’m sure some bright spark that’s studied industrial chemistry could up with something

go out there on you tube and there are plenty of plants that have been made to extract liquids/ gas from coal

just recently it was announced that a company was going to that very thing here in Australia to make gas and fertiliser

Sorry stuffed up that post should have read
And condoms that never wear out or fail!

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

diddly-squat said:

coal-to-liquids plants are very, very expensive to build and run especially when compared to traditional hydrocarbon cracking plants

that’s why you have to have a bit of a think about it and get other people to think about it

i’m sure some bright spark that’s studied industrial chemistry could up with something

go out there on you tube and there are plenty of plants that have been made to extract liquids/ gas from coal

just recently it was announced that a company was going to that very thing here in Australia to make gas and fertiliser

I’ve done a fair bit of work for a little company in South Africa called Sassol,.

lulz.

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

diddly-squat said:

coal-to-liquids plants are very, very expensive to build and run especially when compared to traditional hydrocarbon cracking plants

that’s why you have to have a bit of a think about it and get other people to think about it

i’m sure some bright spark that’s studied industrial chemistry could up with something

go out there on you tube and there are plenty of plants that have been made to extract liquids/ gas from coal

just recently it was announced that a company was going to that very thing here in Australia to make gas and fertiliser

I’ve done a fair bit of work for a little company in South Africa called Sassol, not sure if you’ve heard of them.. you see, they made quite a business out of CTL back during apartheid and are probably the world leaders in application of the technology… anyway, the bright sparks over there have spent tens of billions on design and construction of large scale CTL plants and they are struggling to do what you suggest is easy-peezy…

you can use the heat of the sun to help the process along instead of trying to burn the product to do it

I found this

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-10-23/coal-to-liquids-breakthrough-produced-at-lincs/6240894

but it doesn’t go anywhere

people can and do find new ways to extract things to make a product from a raw material

Leigh Creek coal might produce gas and fertiliser under ambitious plan after SA mine closure

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-08/leigh-creek-coal-for-gas-and-fertiliser-justyn-peters/6836762

dv said:

I don’t necessarily want to go back through the thread but why is the coal to liquids thing being discussed?

It’s the wookinomic awesome method of producing our own hydrocarbons cheaply.

the germans were making diesel from gas in WW2 it didn’t seem to worry them that it couldn’t be done

i’ll have to reiterate this or people will only choose what they want to see and hear

“What we’ll end up doing is we’ll actually be producing gas from the coal that is there and from that gas we’ll either be selling it into the pipeline or producing fertiliser.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-08/leigh-creek-coal-for-gas-and-fertiliser-justyn-peters/6836762

poikilotherm said:

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

that’s why you have to have a bit of a think about it and get other people to think about it

i’m sure some bright spark that’s studied industrial chemistry could up with something

go out there on you tube and there are plenty of plants that have been made to extract liquids/ gas from coal

just recently it was announced that a company was going to that very thing here in Australia to make gas and fertiliser

I’ve done a fair bit of work for a little company in South Africa called Sassol,.

lulz.

you’ve spelt it wrongly diddly

its called SASOL

I think if you had worked for them you’d get the spelling right

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

I don’t necessarily want to go back through the thread but why is the coal to liquids thing being discussed?

It’s the wookinomic awesome method of producing our own hydrocarbons cheaply.

Well thanks to fracking hydrocarbons are already fkn cheap.

dv said:

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

I don’t necessarily want to go back through the thread but why is the coal to liquids thing being discussed?

It’s the wookinomic awesome method of producing our own hydrocarbons cheaply.

Well thanks to fracking hydrocarbons are already fkn cheap.

No, you don’t get it, it’s cheaper when someone comes up with the idea to make it from coal…

the great beauty of making fuel from coal is that you don’t need to BUY in fuel from elsewhere, thus losing hundreds of billions of dollars from the economy

the oil tankers are turned away from Australia as we start using our own cheap diesel to power vehicles

farming costs become cheaper as diesel becomes plentiful and cheap

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel

and looking at this I see you can make jet fuel, good if you want to supply Australian airlines with cheaper fuel to make them successful on the world market

I think wookie has caught permeatefree’s sybil syndrome.

Started off spruiking renewables and ended up on coal to liquids.

Coal to hydrocarbon ends up producing a lot more CO2 per kWh than just starting with hydrocarbons (largely because the latter are starting at a more reduced state).

Indeed Coal to hydrocarbon ends up producing more CO2 per kWh than just coal.

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

poikilotherm said:

It’s the wookinomic awesome method of producing our own hydrocarbons cheaply.

Well thanks to fracking hydrocarbons are already fkn cheap.

No, you don’t get it, it’s cheaper when someone comes up with the idea to make it from coal…

SIR! SIR! SIR!, I know why don’t we make coal from coal?

Security considerations

A central consideration for the development of synthetic fuel is the security factor of securing domestic fuel supply from domestic biomass and coal. Nations that are rich in biomass and coal can use synthetic fuel to off-set their use of petroleum derived fuels and foreign oil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel

dv said:

I think wookie has caught permeatefree’s sybil syndrome.

Started off spruiking renewables and ended up on coal to liquids.

Coal to hydrocarbon ends up producing a lot more CO2 per kWh than just starting with hydrocarbons (largely because the latter are starting at a more reduced state).

Indeed Coal to hydrocarbon ends up producing more CO2 per kWh than just coal.

there are no electric airliners

farmers don’t / cant use electric tractors or ploughs

electric cars are still expensive

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

I think wookie has caught permeatefree’s sybil syndrome.

Started off spruiking renewables and ended up on coal to liquids.

Coal to hydrocarbon ends up producing a lot more CO2 per kWh than just starting with hydrocarbons (largely because the latter are starting at a more reduced state).

Indeed Coal to hydrocarbon ends up producing more CO2 per kWh than just coal.

there are no electric airliners

farmers don’t / cant use electric tractors or ploughs

electric cars are still expensive

SO use hydrocarbons … not coal-to-hydrocarbons.

No one is going to thank you for creative ways of producing more emissions than necessary.

we could have had the best of both worlds

use renewable energy to supply lots of clean energy for industrial/ commercial/ residential use

used our coal reserves to power the army/ airforce and navy, industrial/commercial/private use vehicles/ equipment

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

I think wookie has caught permeatefree’s sybil syndrome.

Started off spruiking renewables and ended up on coal to liquids.

Coal to hydrocarbon ends up producing a lot more CO2 per kWh than just starting with hydrocarbons (largely because the latter are starting at a more reduced state).

Indeed Coal to hydrocarbon ends up producing more CO2 per kWh than just coal.

there are no electric airliners

farmers don’t / cant use electric tractors or ploughs

electric cars are still expensive

SO use hydrocarbons … not coal-to-hydrocarbons.

No one is going to thank you for creative ways of producing more emissions than necessary.

use coal

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

there are no electric airliners

farmers don’t / cant use electric tractors or ploughs

electric cars are still expensive

SO use hydrocarbons … not coal-to-hydrocarbons.

No one is going to thank you for creative ways of producing more emissions than necessary.

use coal

Coal means more emissions, see above.

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

Michael V said:

Just like the Khmer Rouge!

Yay, someone got the reference. And killing the managers worked well with wookies disdain for anyone who has ever worked in an air conditioned office.

no the Khmer rouge were killing teachers and any kind of learned person they could lay hands on

The Khmer Rouge regarded traditional education with undiluted hostility. After the fall of Phnom Penh, they executed thousands of teachers. Those who had been educators prior to 1975 survived by hiding their identities.

Aside from teaching basic mathematical skills and literacy, the major goal of the new educational system was to instill revolutionary values in the young. For a regime at war with most of Cambodia’s traditional values, this meant that it was necessary to create a gap between the values of the young and the values of the nonrevolutionary old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia#Education_and_health

What do you mean no? You think the Khmer Rouge did not target management?

wook, keep your eye on the ball. The goal is to make Australia carbon neutral within a generation.

I concede that there would be some advantages to making sure we are ready for coal-to-liquids just in case, for instance, there is a global war that cuts us off from our trading partners.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

SO use hydrocarbons … not coal-to-hydrocarbons.

No one is going to thank you for creative ways of producing more emissions than necessary.

use coal

Coal means more emissions, see above.

bullshit

you don’t need to go exploring or polluting the water supply on the land or the ocean if you used coal

its safer to extract fuel from coal than oil

BP did immeasurable damage to the gulf of mexico

then you’ve got “fracking”

wookiemeister said:

Coal means more emissions, see above.

bullshit

No really. Nearly twice as much. It’s just chemistry.

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

Yay, someone got the reference. And killing the managers worked well with wookies disdain for anyone who has ever worked in an air conditioned office.

no the Khmer rouge were killing teachers and any kind of learned person they could lay hands on

The Khmer Rouge regarded traditional education with undiluted hostility. After the fall of Phnom Penh, they executed thousands of teachers. Those who had been educators prior to 1975 survived by hiding their identities.

Aside from teaching basic mathematical skills and literacy, the major goal of the new educational system was to instill revolutionary values in the young. For a regime at war with most of Cambodia’s traditional values, this meant that it was necessary to create a gap between the values of the young and the values of the nonrevolutionary old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia#Education_and_health

What do you mean no? You think the Khmer Rouge did not target management?

teachers teach

managers only “manage” they are on the lower echelon in the grand scheme of things

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

Yay, someone got the reference. And killing the managers worked well with wookies disdain for anyone who has ever worked in an air conditioned office.

no the Khmer rouge were killing teachers and any kind of learned person they could lay hands on

The Khmer Rouge regarded traditional education with undiluted hostility. After the fall of Phnom Penh, they executed thousands of teachers. Those who had been educators prior to 1975 survived by hiding their identities.

Aside from teaching basic mathematical skills and literacy, the major goal of the new educational system was to instill revolutionary values in the young. For a regime at war with most of Cambodia’s traditional values, this meant that it was necessary to create a gap between the values of the young and the values of the nonrevolutionary old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia#Education_and_health

What do you mean no? You think the Khmer Rouge did not target management?

teachers teach

managers only “manage” they are on the lower echelon in the grand scheme of things

dv said:

wook, keep your eye on the ball. The goal is to make Australia carbon neutral within a generation.

I concede that there would be some advantages to making sure we are ready for coal-to-liquids just in case, for instance, there is a global war that cuts us off from our trading partners.

china is building in the spratleys

by moving all electrical supply to renewable using coal to make fuel would mean we had exceeded all targets

Let me try that formatting again

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

Coal means more emissions, see above.

bullshit

No really. Nearly twice as much. It’s just chemistry.

diesel from coal is significantly cleaner to use

you can always tell when wookie is getting an education, he goes click mad.

dv said:

Let me try that formatting again

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

Coal means more emissions, see above.

give a link then to prove this

bullshit

No really. Nearly twice as much. It’s just chemistry.

ChrispenEvan said:

you can always tell when wookie is getting an education, he goes click mad.

no i’m saying it all makes perfect sense

use a vast resource to create a valuable product that burns cleaner and creates less pollution when burnt

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

no the Khmer rouge were killing teachers and any kind of learned person they could lay hands on

The Khmer Rouge regarded traditional education with undiluted hostility. After the fall of Phnom Penh, they executed thousands of teachers. Those who had been educators prior to 1975 survived by hiding their identities.

Aside from teaching basic mathematical skills and literacy, the major goal of the new educational system was to instill revolutionary values in the young. For a regime at war with most of Cambodia’s traditional values, this meant that it was necessary to create a gap between the values of the young and the values of the nonrevolutionary old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia#Education_and_health

What do you mean no? You think the Khmer Rouge did not target management?

teachers teach

managers only “manage” they are on the lower echelon in the grand scheme of things

Well just to educate you, the Khmer Rouge did target management. In fact they had a chip on their shoulders equal to yours about management.

wookiemeister said:

ChrispenEvan said:

you can always tell when wookie is getting an education, he goes click mad.

no i’m saying it all makes perfect sense

use a vast resource to create a valuable product that burns cleaner and creates less pollution when burnt

The steam engine was less trouble.

Because of the high carbon content of coal per unit of energy, transportation fuels produced by ICL will lead to increased carbon emissions to the atmosphere compared to the use of petroleum-derived fuels if carbon capture and storage are not included as part of the ICL plant design. For example, with no CO2 storage, the carbon emissions charged to methanol with recycle-based production
would be 154 % of petroleum-gasoline emissions, even after considering the efficiency benefits of methanol engines.

https://www.princeton.edu/pei/energy/publications/texts/indirect.pdf

The concern of using coal liquefaction is the disposal of carbon dioxide, a by-product of the process. If carbon capture and storage facilities are not employed, the CO2 emissions greatly affect the carbon footprint of greenhouse gases causing more environmental damag –
See more at: http://www.miningoilgasjobs.com.au/oil-gas-energy/hydrocarbons-and-energy/energy/renewable-energy/earth/liquid-coal.aspx#sthash.SUDfHqLj.dpuf

wookiemeister said:

diesel from coal is significantly cleaner to use

Except that the CO2 emissions are much higher than they are from either biodiesel or conventional petrodiesel, and CO2 emissions are a major concern now.

Zero emission diesel is probably more likely to be part of the future

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34064072

dv said:

Zero emission diesel is probably more likely to be part of the future

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34064072

VW will be thrilled that the new diesels make no emissions.

/sarcasm.

“this is some software we prepared earlier”.

wookiemeister said:

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

that’s why you have to have a bit of a think about it and get other people to think about it

i’m sure some bright spark that’s studied industrial chemistry could up with something

go out there on you tube and there are plenty of plants that have been made to extract liquids/ gas from coal

just recently it was announced that a company was going to that very thing here in Australia to make gas and fertiliser

I’ve done a fair bit of work for a little company in South Africa called Sassol, not sure if you’ve heard of them.. you see, they made quite a business out of CTL back during apartheid and are probably the world leaders in application of the technology… anyway, the bright sparks over there have spent tens of billions on design and construction of large scale CTL plants and they are struggling to do what you suggest is easy-peezy…

you can use the heat of the sun to help the process along instead of trying to burn the product to do it

I found this

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-10-23/coal-to-liquids-breakthrough-produced-at-lincs/6240894

but it doesn’t go anywhere

people can and do find new ways to extract things to make a product from a raw material

Leigh Creek coal might produce gas and fertiliser under ambitious plan after SA mine closure

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-08/leigh-creek-coal-for-gas-and-fertiliser-justyn-peters/6836762

Have you forgotten that we’ve had this conversation several times (about how expensive it it to do coal-to-liquids) wookie?

wookiemeister said:

i’ll have to reiterate this or people will only choose what they want to see and hear

“What we’ll end up doing is we’ll actually be producing gas from the coal that is there and from that gas we’ll either be selling it into the pipeline or producing fertiliser.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-08/leigh-creek-coal-for-gas-and-fertiliser-justyn-peters/6836762

Sigh._One of the conversations we had was about _this very project.

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

i’ll have to reiterate this or people will only choose what they want to see and hear

“What we’ll end up doing is we’ll actually be producing gas from the coal that is there and from that gas we’ll either be selling it into the pipeline or producing fertiliser.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-08/leigh-creek-coal-for-gas-and-fertiliser-justyn-peters/6836762

Sigh._One of the conversations we had was about _this very project.

You obviously missed then the bit about people choosing what they want to see and hear.

wookiemeister said:

the great beauty of making fuel from coal is that you don’t need to BUY in fuel from elsewhere, thus losing hundreds of billions of dollars from the economy

the oil tankers are turned away from Australia as we start using our own cheap diesel to power vehicles

farming costs become cheaper as diesel becomes plentiful and cheap

Have you done the sums?

I have done the sums. It’s not economic.

Michael V said:

Have you forgotten that we’ve had this conversation several times (about how expensive it it to do coal-to-liquids) wookie?

The numbers I’ve seen show that the FP process starts to become economical when petrol is around $2.00 per litre.
Is that about right?

the wookie repeat is like the worldwide power system that has been shown to not be possible. but still wookie brings it up every now and again.

P.S. I’m more of a fan of algae based bio-diesel.
Apart from taking up a lot of space for the buildings needed to host the racks of algae, etc, it should be pretty cheap to run.

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

What do you mean no? You think the Khmer Rouge did not target management?

teachers teach

managers only “manage” they are on the lower echelon in the grand scheme of things

Well just to educate you, the Khmer Rouge did target management. In fact they had a chip on their shoulders equal to yours about management.

ive got no chip on my shoulder about competent management

I object to stupid people being in management that have destroyed key assets/ caused untold cost to the business i’ve worked for at the time

Spiny Norman said:

Michael V said:

Have you forgotten that we’ve had this conversation several times (about how expensive it it to do coal-to-liquids) wookie?

The numbers I’ve seen show that the FP process starts to become economical when petrol is around $2.00 per litre.
Is that about right?

Last I did the sums, it was somewhat more than that. The biggest hurdle is that a plant costs billions, and one has to bet the price of the product will keep rising, and never, ever fall back

lol, going by the tripe you believe and post here you expect us to think you are any judge of good or bad management? lol, again.

Michael V said:

Spiny Norman said:

Michael V said:

Have you forgotten that we’ve had this conversation several times (about how expensive it it to do coal-to-liquids) wookie?

The numbers I’ve seen show that the FP process starts to become economical when petrol is around $2.00 per litre.
Is that about right?

Last I did the sums, it was somewhat more than that. The biggest hurdle is that a plant costs billions, and one has to bet the price of the product will keep rising, and never, ever fall back

Ouch.

So ….. $2.20 then?

tree fiddy at least.

ChrispenEvan said:

tree fiddy at least.

I wonder how the Germans did so much of it in WW2 then?
Guess they had no real choice and just did it anyway.

Spiny Norman said:

ChrispenEvan said:

tree fiddy at least.

I wonder how the Germans did so much of it in WW2 then?
Guess they had no real choice and just did it anyway.

That’s the reason – fuel was blockaded from import into Germany. Same for Sasol – the sanctions on South Africa during the Apartheid era.

dv said:

Because of the high carbon content of coal per unit of energy, transportation fuels produced by ICL will lead to increased carbon emissions to the atmosphere compared to the use of petroleum-derived fuels if carbon capture and storage are not included as part of the ICL plant design. For example, with no CO2 storage, the carbon emissions charged to methanol with recycle-based production
would be 154 % of petroleum-gasoline emissions, even after considering the efficiency benefits of methanol engines.

https://www.princeton.edu/pei/energy/publications/texts/indirect.pdf

The concern of using coal liquefaction is the disposal of carbon dioxide, a by-product of the process. If carbon capture and storage facilities are not employed, the CO2 emissions greatly affect the carbon footprint of greenhouse gases causing more environmental damag –
See more at: http://www.miningoilgasjobs.com.au/oil-gas-energy/hydrocarbons-and-energy/energy/renewable-energy/earth/liquid-coal.aspx#sthash.SUDfHqLj.dpuf

hmmmmmmm

as far as I know the coal is heated under a partial vaccum

there’s no carbon dioxide released unless they mean gas is burnt to heat the coal – which why I say use the sun to heat the coal not gas coming off the coal

in a partial vaccum there’s NO real reaction creating carbon dioxide

ChrispenEvan said:

the wookie repeat is like the worldwide power system that has been shown to not be possible. but still wookie brings it up every now and again.

well if you could use all that lovely carbon to build a massive conductor its possible

PS use HVDC as well

CTL/CBTL/BTL economics

According to a December 2007 study, a medium scale (30,000 BPD) coal-to-liquids plant (CTL) sited in the US using bituminous coal, is expected to be competitive with oil down to roughly $52–56/bbl crude-oil equivalent. Adding carbon capture and sequestration to the project was expected to add an additional $10/BBL to the required selling price, though this may be offset by revenues from enhanced oil recovery, or by tax credits, or the eventual sale of carbon credits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel

whats cheaper in the long run?

allowing billions of dollars to leave the country EVERY YEAR or making the oil here and keeping all that lovely money here to buy things and pay off debt?

its like “off shoring”

good on paper

bad in reality because it destroys your economy as thousands of people become unemployed

wookiemeister said:

poikilotherm said:

diddly-squat said:

I’ve done a fair bit of work for a little company in South Africa called Sassol,.

lulz.

you’ve spelt it wrongly diddly

its called SASOL

I think if you had worked for them you’d get the spelling right

I am only human wookie…

Latrobe Fertilisers is currently in the development phase of a $500 million urea fertiliser plant in the Latrobe Valley of Victoria. The plant will use proven technology to produce 520,000 tonnes of urea fertiliser per annum, providing a greater security of supply to Australia in a world of increasingly competing demand.

This facility will use Victoria’s significant brown coal (lignite) reserves as feedstock as opposed to natural gas, which is the primary feedstock for other urea plants around the world.

When fully operational the plant will produce 3200 tonnes of urea per day replacing approximately $300 million of current urea imports and generate approximately $150 million of exports per annum.
http://www.latrobefertilisers.com.au/project_latrobe.html

The coal will be gasified to produce a synthesis gas. The production of urea first requires the production of ammonia (NH3) and the nitrogen to do this comes from the ASU facility at the front end of the flow sheet with the hydrogen coming from the shift reaction (CO + H2O -> H2 + CO2).

To convert the ammonia to urea, an infusion of CO2 is required which comes from the waste stream of the hydrogen production shown above.

The plant has been designed to minimise the re-engineering/design through the use of off–the-shelf designs that are already in production. This will reduce costs and risks in achieving the optimum output.

The first stage is planned to produce 520,000 tonnes per annum and is expected to cost $550 million.
http://www.latrobefertilisers.com.au/project_latrobe.html

wookiemeister said:

Latrobe Fertilisers is currently in the development phase of a $500 million urea fertiliser plant in the Latrobe Valley of Victoria. The plant will use proven technology to produce 520,000 tonnes of urea fertiliser per annum, providing a greater security of supply to Australia in a world of increasingly competing demand.

This facility will use Victoria’s significant brown coal (lignite) reserves as feedstock as opposed to natural gas, which is the primary feedstock for other urea plants around the world.

When fully operational the plant will produce 3200 tonnes of urea per day replacing approximately $300 million of current urea imports and generate approximately $150 million of exports per annum.
http://www.latrobefertilisers.com.au/project_latrobe.html

if only there was a way to account for the environmental costs associated with using carbon intensive fuel sources…

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

Latrobe Fertilisers is currently in the development phase of a $500 million urea fertiliser plant in the Latrobe Valley of Victoria. The plant will use proven technology to produce 520,000 tonnes of urea fertiliser per annum, providing a greater security of supply to Australia in a world of increasingly competing demand.

This facility will use Victoria’s significant brown coal (lignite) reserves as feedstock as opposed to natural gas, which is the primary feedstock for other urea plants around the world.

When fully operational the plant will produce 3200 tonnes of urea per day replacing approximately $300 million of current urea imports and generate approximately $150 million of exports per annum.
http://www.latrobefertilisers.com.au/project_latrobe.html

if only there was a way to account for the environmental costs associated with using carbon intensive fuel sources…

by switching power production fully to renewable it would allow other carbon products to be made that have a lower impact than the coal fired power stations that create much of the carbon dioxide.

it BUILDS a growing industry instead of throws good money after bad into defunct technology of the industrial revolution 200 years before

it allows Australia to more than meet any target that has been set beforehand AND creates a source of revenue and jobs for the future

of course all of those plants would be using renewable energy to run

you could pipe the carbon dioxide to green houses where plants could be grown