Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday July 06 2015, @01:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the burning-more-than-beds dept.

A year on from the abolition of the carbon price, greenhouse pollution from electricity generation has rebounded as Australia burns more brown coal to meet its power needs.

Carbon dioxide emissions from the national electricity grid jumped by 6.4 million tonnes in the financial year after the Abbott government repealed the scheme that required big industry to buy pollution permits, according to analysis by consultants Pitt & Sherry. The 4.3 per cent increase unwound part of an 11 per cent fall in emissions across the grid in the two years the carbon price was in place.

It can mainly be attributed to Victoria's four large brown coal generators running at greater capacity more often as the electricity they generate became cheaper. Output from the ageing Latrobe Valley quartet was up about nine per cent.

With the exception of burning oil for power – a practice favoured in Saudi Arabia – burning brown coal is the most greenhouse-intensive way to create electricity. Cutting emissions from the electricity supply is widely considered the central battle in tackling climate change in coming decades. It pumps out about a third of Australia's carbon pollution.

The new data comes as the federal cabinet is set to this month consider Australia's climate change targets beyond 2020 amid international pressure over Prime Minister Tony Abbott's contrarian stance on the issue.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by BK on Monday July 06 2015, @05:23AM

    by BK (4868) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 06 2015, @05:23AM (#205496) Journal

    I can, because it's a propaganda term.

    I won't disagree that there's been major improvements, but when the coal industry came up with "clean coal" they were selling the idea that they had made coal consequence-free.

    Look, if you want to call B.S. on "Clean Coal", I'll support you so long as you denounce "Renewable Energy" and "Climate Change". These are propaganda terms that massively misrepresent truths that everyone should know.

    "Renewable Energy" falsely implies "free energy" and that that use is without consequence and is infinite.

    Solar Energy - Not renewable. The Sun will run out of hydrogen and even helium which we cannot renew. Solar energy is, at best, passive recovery of sunk cost at the GSP level. At worse, it denies solar inputs into the atmosphere's conduction/convection cycles. Which causes climate to change.

    [Admittedly, I'll be dead by the time solar energy needs to be renewed, but the label is misleading propaganda all the same.]

    Wind Energy - Not renewable. This is just climate altering harvesting of convective solar energy. ++Consequences, though admittedly, nobody has modeled them because we just would rather not know... Do you know how to renew the wind?

    "Climate Change" is a propaganda term replacing "Global Warming" because some places haven't been warming much. Climate Change implies negative consequence because everyone knows change... any change... is bad. Honestly, "Global Warming" was a more honest description of the bit we're worried about.

    Propaganda.

    Say it with me: The use of "Renewable Energy" will cause "Climate Change".

    I also denounce propaganda!

    That said, "Renewable Energy" sources may be the most horrible forms of energy apart from the others, but the term is still evil propaganda.

    --
    ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=3, Interesting=3, Underrated=1, Total=7
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday July 06 2015, @07:08AM

    by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 06 2015, @07:08AM (#205504) Journal

    At worse, it denies solar inputs into the atmosphere's conduction/convection cycles. Which causes climate to change.

    This is just climate altering harvesting of convective solar energy.

    These are the dark corners we prefer not to look into, but which MUST have some effect somewhere down the line.
    We tend to dismiss this out of hand, saying that one more windmill or one more acre of solar cells can't make any difference.
    But mention one more smoke stack, and everybody comes unglued.

    When wind patterns and velocities are permanently changed over a mountain ridge, you have to allow for some eventual impact. Not just there, but down wind for many many miles.
    And when a boat load of insolation never reaches the desert floor or the hillside, and instead is whisked away as electricity, that has to have an effect down the line. Maybe some of that is good, reducing the heat island effect. But who knows?

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Absolutely.Geek on Monday July 06 2015, @09:32AM

    by Absolutely.Geek (5328) on Monday July 06 2015, @09:32AM (#205532)

    I call BS on your whole rant.

    Solar Energy - Not renewable. The Sun will run out of hydrogen and even helium which we cannot renew. Solar energy is, at best, passive recovery of sunk cost at the GSP level. At worse, it denies solar inputs into the atmosphere's conduction/convection cycles. Which causes climate to change.

    Yes solar is non-renewable on galatic time scales. But on anything even resembling human time scales it is very renewable....in fact it is inexhaustable. It just sounds like you just want to have a cry about something.

    Do you know how to renew the wind?

    Sure do; what you need to do is spin your planet around; this creates alternating hot/cold cycles. These cycles (lets call them the day/night cycle) will cause differential heating; this will cause your atmosphere to increase in pressure in some areas and decrease in others. These differences or pressure gradients will cause the atmosphere to flow from high pressure to low pressure. The effects can become quite complex but you get the general idea.

    "Climate Change" is a propaganda term replacing "Global Warming" because some places haven't been warming much. Climate Change implies negative consequence because everyone knows change... any change... is bad. Honestly, "Global Warming" was a more honest description of the bit we're worried about.

    Ok I have to agree with you on this one; it was originally "global warming" then we had "climate change" to make it easier for the general public to digest....I say screw them; let them learn something for a change.

    Propaganda.

    Say it with me: The use of "Renewable Energy" will cause "Climate Change".

    I also denounce propaganda!

    The use of energy will cause climate change. Best if we just stop all energy use right now!!!!!

    That said, "Renewable Energy" sources may be the most horrible forms of energy apart from the others, but the term is still evil propaganda.

    Really.....coal is horrible dirty shit; have you ever been to a coal fired power station? They are not clean places; natural gas plants by comparison is lovely, what great stuff to burn compared to coal very little in the way of filth. Solar by comparison; clean super clean, once the system was installed on my uncle's roof and the constructon area had been cleaned up..no more mess.

    And before you point out that solar maunfacturing is a source of pollution; hvae you ever been to a foundry where the parts for large generators and boilers are made....also not very clean places.

    --
    Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
    • (Score: 1) by Absolutely.Geek on Wednesday July 08 2015, @12:23AM

      by Absolutely.Geek (5328) on Wednesday July 08 2015, @12:23AM (#206284)

      Been modded Troll twice now.....wonder who is doing it.

      Calling BS != Troll.
      I think the original post was far more trollish; and I usually don't feed the trolls.

      --
      Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by RedBear on Monday July 06 2015, @09:38AM

    by RedBear (1734) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 06 2015, @09:38AM (#205534)

    I can, because it's a propaganda term.
    I won't disagree that there's been major improvements, but when the coal industry came up with "clean coal" they were selling the idea that they had made coal consequence-free.

    Look, if you want to call B.S. on "Clean Coal", I'll support you so long as you denounce "Renewable Energy" and "Climate Change". These are propaganda terms that massively misrepresent truths that everyone should know.
    "Renewable Energy" falsely implies "free energy" and that that use is without consequence and is infinite.
    Solar Energy - Not renewable. The Sun will run out of hydrogen and even helium which we cannot renew. Solar energy is, at best, passive recovery of sunk cost at the GSP level. At worse, it denies solar inputs into the atmosphere's conduction/convection cycles. Which causes climate to change.
    [Admittedly, I'll be dead by the time solar energy needs to be renewed, but the label is misleading propaganda all the same.]
    Wind Energy - Not renewable. This is just climate altering harvesting of convective solar energy. ++Consequences, though admittedly, nobody has modeled them because we just would rather not know... Do you know how to renew the wind?
    "Climate Change" is a propaganda term replacing "Global Warming" because some places haven't been warming much. Climate Change implies negative consequence because everyone knows change... any change... is bad. Honestly, "Global Warming" was a more honest description of the bit we're worried about.
    Propaganda.
    Say it with me: The use of "Renewable Energy" will cause "Climate Change".
    I also denounce propaganda!
    That said, "Renewable Energy" sources may be the most horrible forms of energy apart from the others, but the term is still evil propaganda.

    I know I shouldn't bother but, really? Are you really in all seriousness sitting there and telling us that solar and wind energy are not infinitely renewable in a very practical sense within the bounds of the probable time period during which the human race will exist on this planet?

    As long as the sun shines (billions of years) and the Earth orbits the sun and spins on its axis we will have plenty of wind and solar, and hydro too. Yes, will be extracting some kinetic energy from the wind and it will have some effect on weather patterns eventually. But weather patterns are getting more extreme due to global warming so the net effect will probably be a wash for a long, long time.

    The term "Renewable Energy" being propaganda just because of the eventual non-renewability of the sun itself isn't even in the same multi-verse as the B.S. propaganda level of terms like "Clean Coal".

    I swear, I've read your post over and over and still can't figure out whether I've just been trolled by someone being very cleverly facetious in support of renewable energy or trolled by someone who really believes they've just made some kind of valid logical statement against it. Totally stumped. I can't even.

    --
    ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
    ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by BK on Monday July 06 2015, @12:48PM

      by BK (4868) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 06 2015, @12:48PM (#205594) Journal

      I know I shouldn't bother but, really? Are you really in all seriousness sitting there and telling us that solar and wind energy are not infinitely renewable

      The word you want is "Available". Renewable means something else. Quick, name a form of energy that is, in fact, renewable by humans.

      The term "Renewable Energy" being propaganda

      It is used to tell a lie that makes people believe someone's truth. Or to tell a lie in a way that implies something that could be true. Or something. 1984.

      I swear, I've read your post over and over and still can't figure out whether I've just been trolled by

      You stepped into the middle a pedantic argument about whether the terms used to describe energy in popular media are properly descriptive or misleading propaganda. Unlike so many other discussions around energy policy, it doesn't matter where you stand on energy policy or climate issues, but on whether you actually understand the nuanced meanings of English words used to describe it all.

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 06 2015, @06:37PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 06 2015, @06:37PM (#205780)

      I know I shouldn't bother but, really? Are you really in all seriousness sitting there and telling us that solar and wind energy are not infinitely renewable in a very practical sense within the bounds of the probable time period during which the human race will exist on this planet?

      This definition opens another can of worms. There is enough uranium and thorium available to power humanity for a least a couple of hundred years (ok, in reality a couple of thousands) - however we fully expect to have working fusion before this happens. This means that along the same reasoning nuclear (fission) are for all intents and purposes inexhaustible.

      I personally prefer the phrase "practically inexhaustible" over "renewable".

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday July 07 2015, @04:42AM

        by HiThere (866) on Tuesday July 07 2015, @04:42AM (#205989) Journal

        You may "we fully expect to have working fusion before this happens", but you shouldn't feel too certain. The universe may be so set up that only large lumps of gravitationally compressed matter spontaneously fuse. One *hopes* that this isn't the way things are set up, but to be certain seems to me to be excessive hubris.

        We *know* that solar energy systems can be made to work. We *know* that wind power systems can be made to work. We *expect* that reasonably good storage systems are developable. But human scale fusion reactors? Expect may the the correct verb to use, but it's an optimistic assumption. And we don't know what the hidden costs will be. I *really* hope that we can develop decent fusion reactors suitable for powering apartment complexes, but I'm not at all sure that anything stronger than "hope" is a reasonable term to use.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07 2015, @11:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07 2015, @11:42PM (#206276)

          (Same AC)

          Well, if it comes to that we will be unable to build human scale fusion we still will have an extra couple of hundred years of research - and by that time we probably have built either a space elevator and/or a launch loop and therefore can launch solar power satellites cheaply..

          Regardless nuclear is a decent stopgap until something better comes along (and current solar and wind still falls short)

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday July 06 2015, @03:17PM

    > Solar Energy - Not renewable

    A completely disingenuous argument. The sun is, and will continue to be, generating energy at a pretty much constant rate until long past the expected survival of our species. And its deviation from that is not, as you seem to think, that it will burn out and fade as it runs out of fuel. It will not - it will burn hotter and hotter, until the earth is utterly uninhabitable, as all the water will be boiled off into space.

    Repeat after me - the sun we are nearest to will never fail to provide humans with energy, the only way humans will see Sol stop providing energy is if we've found another sun to be nearest to and looking at it through a telescope.
    --
    I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.