The Pickering Post
Tuesday, 24th October 2017

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


"LIGHTS OUT"

Viv Forbes

Viv has a degree in Applied Science Geology and is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

BLOG



For yonks they waged a war on coal
And painted miners black;
They threw explorers on the dole
And shut the gates outback.

The land was closed to oil and gas
And nukes were always banned;
While wind and sun got all the brass
And uglified the land.

Poles and turbines all in ranks
Sprouted on the hills;
The carbon credits pleased the banks
And households got the bills.

Then all the factories fled offshore
As puny power flickered;
More jobs were lost for evermore
As politicians dickered.

Then one still night the lights went out
And blackouts stalked the land;
The pollies quickly turned about
And Greens were spurned and banned.

(Art by Steve Hunter)
 



Comments

Britain's remaining coal-fired power plants could enjoy an 11th-hour revival in the early 2020s despite the Government’s drive to cut carbon emissions, if ministers choose not to risk raising household energy prices.

Fresh research has revealed a change of fortunes for the dwindling fleet of power plants, unless ministers use the autumn budget to raise taxes on carbon at a cost of almost £1bn to consumers.

Coal plants have closed apace in ­recent years as the tax made it more economic to burn gas for power. But analysts predict economics will swing back in favour of coal after 2020 as cheap gas prices begin to rise and coal prices fall. A glut of liquefied natural gas projects, which export globally via tankers, has kept a lid on the commodity price of gas but rising demand will squeeze supplies within the next five years, according to Aurora Research.

This article appeared in the Rockhampton morning Bulletin on 22.12.09.

This is an excellent piece for anybody who needs to be educated about Australia's Coal driven power houses.
Terry is now retired and is in excellent health at age 69. Nobody paid him to write the article which was, (to their credit), published by the local press.

Written By Terence Cardwell <[email protected]>


The Editor

The Morning Bulletin.


I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being
put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power
stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading
Scheme.

Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about
global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example.
The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that
that comes out of any kettle.

Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made 'carbon
emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is
supposedly doing to our planet.

Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the
deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace
fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous
carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.

And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got
a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting
ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no
knowledge of.

First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up
the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and
the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters and heat
the air and water before entering the boilers.

The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation
and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the
precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost
is heat through boiler wall convection.

Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat
loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can
generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt
and cost wise that is very low.

The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost
of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major
production cost.

As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes
of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for
bulk power generation.

We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the
raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one
is laughing at Australia - exactly the reverse, they are very envious
of our raw materials and independence.

The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because
they don't have the coal supply for the future.

Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk
supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a
genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't
exist.

Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the
world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.

The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be
attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces
of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is
sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are
located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly
well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a 'base load'
because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used
for load control.

The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately
50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy
Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is
only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes
they can pump it back but it costs to do that. (Long Story).

Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric
generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They
also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is
only a small amount of total power generated.

Based on a average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable
power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.

As for solar power generation much research has been done over the
decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar
Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large
amounts of electricity.

Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER
have the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your
heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the
facts not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme
greenies.)

We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about
our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some
idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around
holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside

Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial
madness the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for
yourselves.

According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to
.038% in air over the last 50 years.

To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;

If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1
mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m
x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.

Australia emits 1 percent of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the
government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions
by .2 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions.

What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?

By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to
.038% in 50 years.

Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by
.004 percent.

Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting
confusing -but stay with me)

Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to
rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.

Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by
20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year
they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.

That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!

For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes,
Solar and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable
energy, etc, etc.

How ridiculous it that.

The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple
and even closing some smaller business.

T.L. Cardwell



To the Editor I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the
Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the
various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station
near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you
may require.

Alternating couplets, with an octameter followed by a hexameter; also grimly amusing. Unfortunately it is ruined by the false hope at the end.

Brilliant! Absolutely Brilliant.

BJORN LOMBORG
When it comes to the Paris Agreement, even the best-case scenarios promise tiny improvements at too high a cost.

There has been a good job done of hijacking the legitimate concerns of country people about fracking . Green interests have managed to turn this movement into an AGW painted front. This is not peculiar to Oz either. There is only one way to fix our gas shortage , nationalise some.

Onya Viv! Please come over to NZ, when we have a government, and spread the word.

The Greens run out of town!! Now there is something I would love to see!

Are the farmers who have had gas wells installed on their properties getting paid anything ?

Very good Viv.

This was started by Whitlam and the Lima declaration!

I am fed up with media lies.

Channel 7, Mark Riley:

Wrong Mark, Tony Abbott did not set the present RET as you alleged tonight, he tried to abolish the RET and related subsidies.

The hostile Senate rejected the Bill but decided to put a cap on the Labor 23% RET.

Your lie is about a Senate decision and not an Abbott decision.

Advance Australia Fair! – But Who Owns the Commonwealth?
.
https://realnewsaustralia.com/2016/04/24/1973-the-birth-of-corporate-australia/
.

http://www.peoplesmandate.iinet.net.au/Government_as_Foreign_corporation.html
.
https://fyrst.wordpress.com/2016/03/05/the-year-your-family-went-bankrupt-changed-their-name-and-moved-to-another-country/
.
http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/1973-The-Birth-of-Corporate-Australia_printer.shtml

12 hours ago ... US officials say the United States is pulling out of UNESCO, after repeated criticism of resolutions by the UN cultural agency that Washington ...
World Heritage: State Forests now National Park and logging banned; Marine Parks where commercial fishing is banned - so seafood is imported and our trawlers abandoned; Wild Rivers legislation in Qld banning dams and use of norther rivers for irrigation of new agricultural lands, etc. Trump knows that UNESCO are economy vandals.

It really is actually quite simple. These green galoots are all indoctrinated Marxists. The aim of Marxists prior to impose their own utopian regime upon us ( you know the type of government the same as the one presently thriving in Venezuela) they state they will need to “ destroy ” the existing regime. Well you have got to hand it to them to date the are doing a pretty fair job of it. The car industry is gone, the cattle export industry was mortally wounded, They are now focussing on the live sheep export industry. Mining and even mineral and gas exploration is precluded. We have the highest electricity charges in the world and we are soon to be totally denied the right to use our natural resources to produce electricity. The Communists, Marxists, Progressives are winning.

It is becoming fashionable for leftists to blame Tony Abbott for Australia signing and ratifying the Paris Agreement, he set the target goal etc.

On 15 September 2015 following a ballot in the Liberal Party by MPs Abbott was defeated by Turnbull 54 votes to 44 votes. No National Party MPs were able to vote.

The Paris Conference was held from 30 November 2015 to 12 December 2015.

Today Minister Bishop is rewriting history and claiming that PM Abbott set the targets Australia would agree to at the Conference. Of course he was involved in the cabinet discussions, he was prime minister. But he talked the target down from what some of his cabinet ministers wanted.

It is an easy cop-out for Politicians and the Media to blame Terrorism events on people with Mental Health issues..... After all it is a forgone conclusion...To believe in the Terror infused Cult of Islam, the first prerequisite is to believe in the Qur'an...The teachings of the Qur'an will invariably turn them into a Lunatics given time.....There are 1.7 Billion Islamic Lone Wolves, all capable of morphing without warning into Terror fueled killing machines.....This is what your government is funding and are importing to walk among your children.....It is nothing short of State Sanctioned Genocide to unleash this Cancer upon Australia, It's Western Culture and Values... but that is just my humble opinion....

Tony Abbott's speech on climate change has done more harm than good - Malcolm Turnbull.

Women are either good at their job or good on the job!

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/10/13/abbotts-views-matter-him-pm

Malcolm Turnbull has left it up to Tony Abbott to explain whether his views on climate change are inconsistent or not, insisting it's a matter for him.

Malcolm Turnbull says it's up to Tony Abbott to explain his changing opinions on climate change, noting his own stance on the issue has been consistent.

The prime minister said a number of views Mr Abbott aired in a speech to climate sceptics in London this week were "quite different" to those he expressed when leader.

While he understood the interest, he wouldn't say if he was baffled by the turnaround.

"It is a matter for him," he told the Seven Network on Friday.

"He can explain his speech and whether it is consistent or inconsistent."

Mr Turnbull insists the federal government is focused on delivering affordable and reliable energy to Australians, while also meeting the country's international commitment to cut emissions in accordance with the Paris Climate Agreement - which Mr Abbott supported when prime minister.

"As he said at the time, it is right," he said.

"I am consistent. I have been making the same points for a very long time."

It follows a rebuke from Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop, who called on her former boss to offer an explanation for his change of opinion.

"He is entitled to change his mind, but I am sure that is why there is a deal of interest in what he has to say," Ms Bishop said told ABC TV on Thursday night.

"But the important thing is the government's position and under Prime Minister (Malcolm) Turnbull we are working hard to come up with a plan that delivers affordable and reliable energy that will meet our international obligations."

The foreign minister baulked at questions about whether Mr Abbott's constant undermining of the Turnbull government could cost the coalition the next election, or whether he ought be expelled.

Former Liberal leader John Hewson has urged Mr Turnbull to call out his predecessor, especially over energy policy.