Emission Trading and climate change

Page 228 of 377 FirstFirst ... 128 178 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 278 328 ... LastLast
Results 11,351 to 11,400 of 18819
  1. #11351
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    not in our life time
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  2. #11352
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    66
    Posts
    3,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    not in our life time
    Living under a rock are we? that is very naďve when you consider how far we have come with technology

  3. #11353
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    258

    Default Emission Trading

    the 'technology' surrounding reducing emissions is just a by - product of creating another market in order for the rich to become richer.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

  4. #11354
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    not in our life time
    Too late, Rod. Or are you speaking from the "other side" LOL! Rod

  5. #11355
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    The baseload advantage of fossil fuel is a myth. Baseload require "spinning reserve" which is another way of saying that fossil generators continue to burn fossil energy to spin the generators even when the electricity isn't being consumed, thus using a limited resource and producing pollution even for no benefit.

    On the other hand, "spinning reserve" in wind is when the turbines are feathered and the wind energy isn't all used (so what!) and in solar it means that all of the sun falling onto the solar panel isn't used as electricity (again - so what!). Spinning reserve in renewable energy generation does not burn fossil fuel or create pollution or CO2 emissions.

    Up to 65% of electricity generation is SA has come from wind, and there are several large wind farms under construction that will substantially increase the states generation capacity.

    Wind power generation has increased substantially in South Australia in the last eight years, from supplying 6% of the state’s needs in 2005/06 to 25% in 2012/13.
    This increase in wind generation has been the primary reason for a 34% reduction in CO2-e emissions due to electricity generation. The electricity network has managed to accommodate this increase in wind power without increasing the amount of electricity required from peaking power plants.
    Energy produced from these peaking plants has actually reduced during this same period, which has helped further reduce CO2-e emissions. Wholesale prices have not risen over the period (even with LGC costs included) and we conclude the cost of abatement using wind is low.


    Wind energy delivers cost effective abatement in South Australia : Renew Economy

    Germany Sets New Record, Generating 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy

  6. #11356
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey180 View Post
    the 'technology' surrounding reducing emissions is just a by - product of creating another market in order for the rich to become richer.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
    Of course this is so, the time to make money is at the start up of any market or technology, but to compete with cheap coal it has first has to be priced out of the market by an artificial means.
    regards inter

  7. #11357
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    to compete with cheap coal it has first has to be priced out of the market by an artificial means.
    Remove the massive subsidies granted to the fossil fuel industries and fossil electricity isn't cheap at all. It is already more expensive to build fossil burning electricity generation capacity (with subsidies) than renewable electricity generation capacity (without subsidies) as has been posted in this forum previously. And once built, the renewables have no fuel costs!

  8. #11358
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Remove the massive subsidies granted to the fossil fuel industries and fossil electricity isn't cheap at all. It is already more expensive to build fossil burning electricity generation capacity (with subsidies) than renewable electricity generation capacity (without subsidies) as has been posted in this forum previously. And once built, the renewables have no fuel costs!
    Thats true only if you believe in the propaganda.
    regards inter

  9. #11359
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Thats true only if you believe in the propaganda.
    Published in nearly 18 months ago: Renewable energy now cheaper than new fossil fuels in Australia | Bloomberg New Energy Finance

    There has been plenty of time for the report to be shot to pieces if it wasn't true. You seem sure it is nonsense, so what analysis do you base your claim on?

  10. #11360
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,627

    Default


    HOME | ALL STOCKS | MUTUAL FUNDS | ETFs | WIND | SOLAR | GEOTHERMAL | BIOFUEL | BATTERY | ENERGY EFFICIENCY
    SMART GRID | EFFICIENT VEHICLES | ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORT | CLEANTECH NEWS | ADVERTISE | CONTACT | ABOUT


    The Alternative Energy Fallacy

    John Petersen

    In 2009, the world produced some 13.2 billion metric tons of hydrocarbons, or about 4,200 pounds for every man, woman and child on the planet. Burning those hydrocarbons poured roughly 31.3 billion metric tons of CO2 into our atmosphere. The basic premise of alternative energy is that widespread deployments of wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles will slash hydrocarbon consumption, reduce CO2 emissions and give us a cleaner, greener and healthier planet. That premise, however, is fatally flawed because our planet cannot produce enough non-ferrous industrial metals to make a meaningful difference and the prices of those metals are even more volatile than the prices of the hydrocarbons that alternative energy hopes to supplant.

    The ugly but undeniable reality is that aggregate global production of non-ferrous industrial metals including aluminum, chromium, copper, zinc, manganese, nickel, lead and a host of lesser metals is about 35 pounds for every man, woman and child on the planet. All of those metals are already being used to provide the basic necessities and minor luxuries of modern life. There are no significant unused supplies of industrial metals that can be used for large-scale energy substitution. Even if there were, the following graph that compares the Dow Jones UBS Industrial Metals Index (^DJUBSIN) with the Amex Oil Index (^XOI) shows that industrial metal prices are more volatile and climbing faster than hydrocarbon prices, which means that most alternative energy schemes are like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.



    For all their alleged virtues and perceived benefits, most alternative energy technologies are prodigious consumers of industrial metals. The suggestion that humanity can find enough slop in 35 pounds of per capita industrial metals production to make a meaningful dent in 4,200 pounds of per capita hydrocarbon production is absurd beyond reckoning. It just can't happen at a relevant scale.

    I'm a relentless critic of vehicle electrification schemes like Tesla Motors (TSLA) because they're the most egregious offenders and doomed to fail when EV hype goes careening off the industrial metals cliff at 120 mph. Let's get real here. Tesla carries a market capitalization of $2.8 billion and has a net worth of less than $400 million, so its stock price is 86% air – a bubble in search of a pin. Tesla plans to become a global leader in the development of new electric drive technologies that will use immense amounts of industrial metals to conserve irrelevant amounts of hydrocarbons. Even if Tesla achieves its lofty technological goals it must fail as a business. Investors who chase the EV dream without considering the natural resource realities are doomed to suffer immense losses. Tesla can't possibly succeed. Its fair market value is zero. The stock is a perfect short.

    I won't even get into the sophistry of wind turbines and solar panels.

    Next on my list of investment catastrophes in the making are the lithium-ion battery developers like A123 Systems (AONE), Ener1 (HEV), Valence Technologies (VLNC) and Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI) that plan to use prodigious quantities of industrial metals as fuel tank substitutes, or worse yet for grid-connected systems that will smooth the power output from inherently variable wind and solar power facilities that also use prodigious quantities of industrial metals as hydrocarbon substitutes. Talk about compounding the foolishness.

    I can only identify one emerging battery technology that has a significant potential to reduce hydrocarbon consumption and industrial metal consumption at the same time while offering better performance. That technology is the PbC® Battery from Axion Power International (AXPW.OB), a third generation lead-acid-carbon battery that uses 30% less industrial metals to deliver all of the performance and five to ten times the cycle life. There may be other examples, but I'll have to rely on my readers to identify them.

    Humanity cannot reduce its consumption of hydrocarbons by increasing its consumption of industrial metals. The only way to reduce hydrocarbon consumption is to use less and waste less. There are a world of sensible and economic fuel efficiency technologies that can help us achieve the frequently conflicting long-term goals of reduced hydrocarbon consumption and increased industrial metals sustainability. They include but are not limited to:

    • Better buiding design and insulation;
    • Smarter power management systems;
    • Telecommuting;
    • Denser cities with shorter commutes;
    • Smart transportation management to reduce congestion;
    • Buses and carpooling;
    • Bicycles and ebikes;
    • Shifting freight to rail from trucks;
    • Smaller vehicles that use lightweight composites to replace industrial metals;
    • Deploying solar and wind with battery backup for remote power and in developing countries;
    • Shipping efficiency technologies, such as better hull coatings, slow steaming, etc.; and
    • Recycling, recycling and recycling

    My colleague Tom Konrad wrote a 28 part series on "The Best Peak Oil Investments." While I'm skeptical about the future of biofuels after suffering major losses in the biodiesel business, Tom's work provides an exhaustive overview of the energy efficiency space and a wide variety of investment ideas that have the potential to make a real difference. Since we can't simply take a couple of giant leaps into the future, we'll just have to get out of our current mess the same way we got into it – one step at a time.

    We live in a cruel world. There is no fairy godmother that can miraculously accommodate the substitution of scarce industrial metals for hydrocarbons that are a hundred times more plentiful. We can and we must do better, but we can't solve humanity's problems until we accept the harsh realities of global resource constraints without the filters of political ideology and wishful thinking.

    Disclosure: Author is a former director of Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) and owns a substantial long position in its common stock.





    The Alternative Energy Fallacy was posted on AltEnergyStocks.com.



    Tweet
    in[COLOR=#333333 !important]Share[/COLOR][COLOR=#04558B !important]2[/COLOR]




    [/COLOR]
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  11. #11361
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Yep, that's right. You have to build power plants from something. Alternative energy plants use lightweight materials with embodied energy in them, but they reap the benefits of zero emissions in use, zero raw materials costs once deployed. They pay back the embodied energy within a few years of savings from zero emissions compared to coal plants and after that they have 20+ years of emission free production.

    Its a surprise a former director and stock holder of Axion Power International would be arguing against it.

    Axion Power International: Imagine a world where energy efficiency meets cost effectiveness…

    Renewables are taking a growing slice out of coal fired power stations. Here in SA we have one coal fired station that is dormant and the other is used about 50% capacity. Doubt they will ever be replaced with new coal power plants, they are just too expensive to build and run compared to Alternative energy.

    And it's not just here this is happening, look at Minnesota:

    Dayton calls for eliminating coal from Minnesota's energy production | Minnesota Public Radio News

    Gov. Mark Dayton today challenged a group of energy policy and business leaders to figure out a way for Minnesota to eliminate coal from the state's energy production.
    David Mortenson, president of Mortenson Construction, said his company and others are embracing renewable energy as a cost-competitive solution. He said the cost of wind and solar has dropped while coal and natural gas markets become increasingly volatile.


    "And when you can guarantee the price of delivering a kilowatt 20 years from today, because that's what you can do with solar and wind, you have a competitive advantage because coal, natural gas, they can't tell you want the cost to produce power in six months will be," he said.
    Get used to it, the Fossil Fuel industry is strong but no longer strong enough to deliver cheaper power than alternative energy. Its a dying dinosaur in terms of the environment and economics.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  12. #11362
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    The only way to reduce hydrocarbon consumption is to use less and waste less.


    • Better buiding design and insulation;
    • Smarter power management systems;
    • Telecommuting;
    • Denser cities with shorter commutes;
    • Smart transportation management to reduce congestion;
    • Buses and carpooling;
    • Bicycles and ebikes;
    • Shifting freight to rail from trucks;
    • Smaller vehicles that use lightweight composites to replace industrial metals;
    • Deploying solar and wind with battery backup for remote power and in developing countries;
    • Shipping efficiency technologies, such as better hull coatings, slow steaming, etc.; and
    • Recycling, recycling and recycling


    You are sounding like a gay chardonnay drinking, tree hugging, green hippy, Marc...

  13. #11363
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    You are sounding like a gay chardonnay drinking, tree hugging, green hippy, Marc...
    He's got solar panels on his roof too!

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  14. #11364
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Published in nearly 18 months ago: Renewable energy now cheaper than new fossil fuels in Australia | Bloomberg New Energy Finance

    There has been plenty of time for the report to be shot to pieces if it wasn't true. You seem sure it is nonsense, so what analysis do you base your claim on?
    there is that much propaganda & mis-information out there it's near impossible to believe anything these days! We will see what comes out in the wash now the idiotic carbon tax has bit the dust.
    regards inter

  15. #11365
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    ^^ that would be: you don't have anything to base your claims on...

  16. #11366
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    66
    Posts
    3,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Yes you read it right! What is clear you don't understand the statement! Maybe it will dawn on you one day?

    regards inter
    If yo dun rigt beterer may bee weed understand

  17. #11367
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    ^^ that would be: you don't have anything to base you claims on...
    that would mean I haven't seen enough unbiased sources to verify your claim, I'm not making any claims!
    Regards inter

  18. #11368
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    I'm not making any claims!
    Regards inter
    And what is this, then?

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    there is that much propaganda & mis-information out there it's near impossible to believe anything these days!
    regards inter
    If it walks like a lame duck and quacks like a lame duck, it's an intertd6 claim!

  19. #11369
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Yep, that's right. You have to build power plants from something. Alternative energy plants use lightweight materials with embodied energy in them, but they reap the benefits of zero emissions in use, zero raw materials costs once deployed. They pay back the embodied energy within a few years of savings from zero emissions compared to coal plants and after that they have 20+ years of emission free production.

    Its a surprise a former director and stock holder of Axion Power International would be arguing against it.

    Axion Power International: Imagine a world where energy efficiency meets cost effectiveness…

    Renewables are taking a growing slice out of coal fired power stations. Here in SA we have one coal fired station that is dormant and the other is used about 50% capacity. Doubt they will ever be replaced with new coal power plants, they are just too expensive to build and run compared to Alternative energy.

    And it's not just here this is happening, look at Minnesota:

    Dayton calls for eliminating coal from Minnesota's energy production | Minnesota Public Radio News





    Get used to it, the Fossil Fuel industry is strong but no longer strong enough to deliver cheaper power than alternative energy. Its a dying dinosaur in terms of the environment and economics.
    Obviously all this hype means nothing in china, or can't they add up over there, or maybe coal powered generation is so cheap & reliable there is not better alternative to meet their energy demands? We don't make anything anymore so how can we be objective about it?
    regards inter

  20. #11370
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    And what is this, then?



    If it walks like a lame duck and quacks like a lame duck, it's an intertd6 claim!
    one nit pickers claim is another's statement of their views.
    regards inter

  21. #11371
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Obviously all this hype means nothing in china, or can't they add up over there, or maybe coal powered generation is so cheap & reliable there is not better alternative to meet their energy demands? We don't make anything anymore so how can we be objective about it?
    regards inter
    "New coal capacity dips as hydro utilization fallsIn 2012, new generation from coal slowed to a near standstill as wind, hydro and nuclear all had historic years."

    China and Electricity Overview | The Energy Collective

  22. #11372
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    If yo dun rigt beterer may bee weed understand
    No need to disguise it hasn't dawned on you yet!
    regards inter

  23. #11373
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    ^^ IT hasn't dawned on someone - but that isn't johnc LOL

  24. #11374
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    "New coal capacity dips as hydro utilization fallsIn 2012, new generation from coal slowed to a near standstill as wind, hydro and nuclear all had historic years."

    China and Electricity Overview | The Energy Collective
    what do you think in china they're going to burn coal to not produce goods because of the global downturn & appear to be trying to reduce emissions.
    regards inter

  25. #11375
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    ^^ IT hasn't dawned on someone - but that isn't johnc LOL
    second prize is just beside the carbon tax for the losers.
    regards inter

  26. #11376
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    what do you think in china they're going to burn coal to not produce goods because of the global downturn & appear to be trying to reduce emissions.
    regards inter
    Er... the global downturn is over... Power demand typically follows economic cycles and began to rebound in 2010 as the Chinese economy recovered from the recession. China has the world's second largest wind generation capacity and has been doubling wind generation capacity each year since 2005. China was the world's largest producer of hydroelectric power in 2011, yet China's hydroelectric generation grew massively with the Three Gorges Dam project opening in 2012. Following Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in March 2011, China suspended government approvals for new nuclear plants. China has prohibited companies from building new coal-fired power plants around its three major cities - Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou.


    China - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)


  27. #11377
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,627

    Default

    UK: outgoing minister slams the ‘Green Blob’

    20 July, 2014 by Simon 5 Comments







    28 Votes


    Our very own Green Blob (© Bill Leak)
    Owen Paterson, who has been moved on from his post as the UK’s Environment Secretary, unloads:
    I leave the post with great misgivings about the power and irresponsibility of – to coin a phrase – the Green Blob.

    By this I mean the mutually supportive network of environmental pressure groups, renewable energy companies and some public officials who keep each other well supplied with lavish funds, scare stories and green tape. This tangled triangle of unelected busybodies claims to have the interests of the planet and the countryside at heart, but it is increasingly clear that it is focusing on the wrong issues and doing real harm while profiting handsomely.

    Local conservationists on the ground do wonderful work to protect and improve wild landscapes, as do farmers, rural businesses and ordinary people. They are a world away from the highly paid globe-trotters of the Green Blob who besieged me with their self-serving demands, many of which would have harmed the natural environment.


    I soon realised that the greens and their industrial and bureaucratic allies are used to getting things their own way. I received more death threats in a few months at Defra than I ever did as secretary of state for Northern Ireland. My home address was circulated worldwide with an incitement to trash it; I was burnt in effigy by Greenpeace as I was recovering from an operation to save my eyesight. But I did not set out to be popular with lobbyists and I never forgot that they were not the people I was elected to serve.


    Indeed, I am proud that my departure was greeted with such gloating by spokespeople for the Green Party and Friends of the Earth.

    It was not my job to do the bidding of two organisations that are little more than anti-capitalist agitprop groups most of whose leaders could not tell a snakeshead fritillary from a silver-washed fritillary. I saw my task as improving both the environment and the rural economy; many in the green movement believed in neither.

    Their goal was to enhance their own income streams and influence by myth making and lobbying. Would they have been as determined to blacken my name if I was not challenging them rather effectively?

    Every country has its own Green Blob. I think ours is Christine Milne…
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  28. #11378
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    That's right John2b. China views coal power as a stop gap measure while they build their renewable energy infrastructure.



    Source: Pew Charitable Trusts, Bloomberg New Energy Finance.



    China: Proportion of installed power capacity from renewable sources (hydro, wind and solar): 2006-2013
    Source of primary data: data up to 2011 available from the US EIA, data for 2012 and 2013 available from the China Electricity Council

    South Australia is the best example of renewable energy in Australia with ~30% of annual power provided from renewables. China is reaching the same proportion on the national scale.

    Edit: SA is the best non-hydro example of RE in Australia. Tasmania is of course holding the top spot with nearly 100%, mostly hydro.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  29. #11379
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Er... the global downturn is over... Power demand typically follows economic cycles and began to rebound in 2010 as the Chinese economy recovered from the recession. China has the world's second largest wind generation capacity and has been doubling wind generation capacity each year since 2005. China was the world's largest producer of hydroelectric power in 2011, yet China's hydroelectric generation grew massively with the Three Gorges Dam project opening in 2012. Following Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in March 2011, China suspended government approvals for new nuclear plants. China has prohibited companies from building new coal-fired power plants around its three major cities - Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou.


    China - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

    I hope you don't believe all of that? Not many would. But there is always one!
    regards inter

  30. #11380
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    That's right John2b. China views coal power as a stop gap measure while they build their renewable energy infrastructure.



    Source: Pew Charitable Trusts, Bloomberg New Energy Finance.



    China is reaching the same proportion on the national scale.
    no it isn't.
    regards inter

  31. #11381
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    no it isn't.
    regards inter
    Another vacant claim. Where are your sources?

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  32. #11382
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Another vacant claim. Where are your sources?
    Some posts back I supplied a link showing the mix, of course you obviously were to lazy to read & understand it!
    regards inter

  33. #11383
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Every country has its own Green Blob. I think ours is Christine Milne…
    So what evidence do you have that Christine Milne is "enhancing her own income streams and influence by myth making and lobbying" and have you raised your concerns with the Attorney-General's Department?

    Oh, and by the way, Greenpeace did not burn an effigy of Owen Paterson ever, so one has to question why he should be believed when he needs to make such crap up.

  34. #11384
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Some posts back I supplied a link showing the mix, of course you obviously were to lazy to read & understand it!
    regards inter
    Oh, you mean this old graph you quoted?



    Conveniently chosen not to show the results of the Three Gorges Dam (22,500 MW fully on line July 2012) and other renewable sources coming on line since 2010.

    Not at all, I read that post and it doesn't refute that China is growing it's RE capacity. It's also 3+ years out of date and as you can see on the provided information above, China has continued to invest heavily in renewables since then. If you add the hydro, nuclear and renewable together they look pretty close to the 2010 <26% shown on the graphic I posted earlier.

    Here are the 2013 figures:
    Total installed capacity in 2013 was 1247 GW. [3] Coal 801 GW [4]
    Other thermal, natural gas, bio-mass 61 GW[5]
    Hydropower capacity 280 GW [6]
    Wind power capacity was 91.4 GW [7]
    Solar power capacity was 18 GW [8]
    Nuclear power capacity was 15.69 GW[9]
    Conclusion: Use current data and don't waste our time with vacant and unsupportable claims.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  35. #11385
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,627

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Originally Posted by YandeWell now at least I understand this Forum. Previous statements such as "The Chinese just want to conquer the world" took me by surprise. But now I realise just how many shiny tails, living off their super, with nothing better to do than sprout about their latest reno, and right leaning beliefs, spend their time here..

    So the Tax is gone... Wooppee, now I can burn the electrics day and night.. Especially as i am going to be $550 better off!! (No tony didn't say that, Bill did, apparently.) And according to most here, I need have no regard to the CO2 emissions I create. Unreal. Burn the plastic. Recycle?? No Too hard. Burn..


    Honestly, of late, it is embarrassing being a 7th generation Australian.. One only has to look at the clowns telling us what is right... Abbott, Hockey, and that douzy.. Pine.. If you voted for them fine.. I'm just smarter than most. [/QUOTE]
    Originally Posted by Marc
    What a pathetic post. If you don't like people writing about their renovation, what are you doing here? As far as self funded retirees, you will find that most people posting here are either tradies or owner builders in full time employment. Oh yes with the few exceptions like you I suppose.
    So a 7th generation Australian, is that some sort of badge of honour? Why not use an Australian avatar then? Obviously you would have liked the same mob that delivered the worst 6 years of government we ever had, to win the elections. Wouldn't that be great! Would you like to see a tax on non Australians? perhaps a doubling of Centrelink payments?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    I'm eighth generation, don't make an issue of it, you weren't born here, you can't have been because you have continually carried on about being born in a communist country. Those of us who have deep roots with this land have welcomed you here and for once show a bit of respect for the decency you have been shown.
    In every debate there are occasions when this happens, a woman will claim "misogyny" a minority person discrimination or racism or denyer, the poor oppression or classism, the rich reverse discrimination or something else.
    It is a fact that this claims do not help the debate and lead to political correctness, or unwanted and unnecessary caution to avoid being branded the usual popular anti something or other.

    It is however highly interesting when the same exact sort of slander comes from the group using this worn out tactics. The silence is deafening.
    If a man that is in the public eye would say he likes women with lots of money and tight between the legs and that it does not matter she can't talk, he would be crucified upside down in a public place. However a women elected representative can say the equivalent about a man and the feminist turn the other side.

    It is of course no surprise but very interesting show of the mind of the minority cults.

    I reserve a special mention for the generation counting. I can understand when the measuring tape comes out, at least those personal attribute belong to each of those doing the measuring, however in this case, the relevance is missing. When does a person become "more" and when is a person "less"? 2,3,4 generations? Is that all there is to our national pride? the number of time we reproduce? Isn't there a place for personal achievements?, or perhaps, why not ancestor's achievements?

    Last but not least ... To say that someone or some mysterious collectivity welcomed me is a gratuitous comment since the opposite is more the case.
    To say I should be grateful, is an affront since it implies I did not deserve to be let in yet was let in as a gesture of goodwill.

    And just to satisfy your curiosity and stop you repeating poorly construed guesses, no, I did not live in a communist country, in fact I can boast of possessing a genealogy tree that goes back to the 1200 containing a large number of professionals, doctors, pharmacist, lawyers, politicians, in the distant past and in the present time, currently in my family I have 4 doctors, one architect, 2 lawyers and one Quantum physicist, and a minister in a western europe country only recently retired and even a town founder many centuries ago whose surname I still carry and who gave the name to a well known western europe town.
    All of which does not make me any different or special.
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  36. #11386
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Some posts back I supplied a link showing the mix, of course you obviously were to lazy to read & understand it!
    regards inter
    Your link was four years out of date. Do try to keep up - look what's happened in the last three years of this graph, which has happened since your vintage data:


  37. #11387
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    [QUOTE=Marc;942960]

    It is however highly interesting when the same exact sort of slander comes from the group using this worn out tactics. The silence is deafening.
    If a man that is in the public eye would say he likes women with lots of money and tight between the legs and that it does not matter she can't talk, he would be crucified upside down in a public place. However a women elected representative can say the equivalent about a man and the feminist turn the other side.


    1. What has this got to do with the current forum?
    2. Don't you follow the news? Lambie has been crucified for her comments...


    I can boast of possessing a genealogy tree that goes back to the 1200 containing a large number of professionals, doctors, pharmacist, lawyers, politicians, in the distant past and in the present time, currently in my family I have 4 doctors, one architect, 2 lawyers and one Quantum physicist, and a minister in a western europe country only recently retired and even a town founder many centuries ago whose surname I still carry and who gave the name to a well known western europe town.
    All of which does not make me any different or special.
    So why bother to mention it?

  38. #11388
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,627

    Default

    Wind Power Investors: Get Out While You Can

    May 5, 2014 by stopthesethings 12 Comments
    RUN! Don’t walk.
    For anyone still foolish enough to have their hard earned cash invested in wind power companies the warnings to grab your money and run couldn’t be louder or clearer.
    The members of the RET review panel have signalled their intention to take an axe to the RET: spelling out the fact that the review has absolutely nothing to do with “climate change” or CO2 emissions – their task is simply to analyse, model and forecast “the cost impacts of renewable energy in the electricity sector” (see our post here).

    The Treasurer, Joe Hockey entered the fray last week – during an interview with Alan Jones – when he branded wind turbines “a blight on the landscape” and “utterly offensive”. However, it’s what he went on to say about the “age of entitlement” that should have wind power investors quaking in their boots (see our posts here and here).


    Joe outlined the Coalition’s plans to scrap a raft of public sector departments and agencies ostensibly charged with controlling the climate (there are currently 7 climate change agencies, 33 climate schemes and 7 departments).


    Joe went on to say that the Coalition’s attack on the “age of entitlement” will be directed at “business as much as it applies to each of us.” If ever there was a beneficiary of the “age of entitlement” it was the wind industry and the rort created in its favour by the mandatory RET/REC scheme – quite rightly described by Liberal MP, Angus “the Enforcer” Taylor as: “corporate welfare on steroids” (see our post here).


    The chances of the mandatory RET surviving the RET Review panel – and a Coalition itching to scrap it – are slimmer than a German supermodel.


    With the wind industry on the brink of collapse there are three main groups facing colossal financial losses: retailers, financiers and shareholders.


    Wind power companies – like any company – raise capital by borrowing (debt) or issuing shares (equity). Bankers price the risk of lending according to the likelihood that the borrower will default and, if so, the ability to recover its loan by recovering secured assets. Share prices reflect the underlying value of the assets held by the company and projected returns on those assets (future dividends). Share prices fall if the value of the assets and/or the projected returns on those assets falls.


    Retail power companies saw the writing on the wall as the Green-Labor Alliance disintegrated at the end of 2012, presaging the Coalition’s election victory in September 2013. The risk point for retailers sits in their Power Purchase Agreements with wind power generators – the value of which depends on the amount of “renewable” energy fixed by the mandatory Renewable Energy Target and the value of Renewable Energy Certificates. Scale back the mandatory RET and the price of RECs will plummet; scrap it and RECs won’t be worth the paper they’re written on. Faced with that increasingly likely scenario, (sensible) retailers stopped entering PPAs around December 2012.

    RECs are transferred from wind power generators to retailers under their PPAs, and the retailer gets to cash them in at market value. Retailers that haven’t signed PPAs can thank their lucky stars – chances are they will have avoided the very real prospect of being left with millions of worthless RECs.

    Bankers have also baulked at lending to new wind power projects, keeping their cheque books firmly in the top drawer over the last 18 months or so. However, having lent $billions to wind power developers over the last 13 years, Australian banks have more than their fair share of exposure – exposure, that is, to the insolvency of the wind power company borrowing from it.


    Ordinarily, bankers protect themselves by holding valuable security over the assets held by the borrower (eg the mortgage you granted over your patch of paradise when you borrowed to buy it). However, the value of the security granted by a wind power company is principally tied up in the future stream of income guaranteed under its PPA with its retail customer (the true value of which is tied to the value of RECs).


    In the event that the RET were scaled back or scrapped it is highly likely that retailers (left with a bunch of worthless RECs) will seek to get out of their PPAs, making the bank’s security largely worthless. A wind farm with a fleet of worn-out Suzlon s88 turbines – on land owned by someone else – is unlikely to yield all that much for a receiver or liquidator charged with recovering the assets of an insolvent wind power company for its creditors.


    Were banks forced to write off $billions in loans to wind power companies as bad and doubtful debts, then shareholders in that bank can expect to see the value of their shareholdings fall. Now would be a prudent time for those with shareholdings in banks to find out just how much that the bank has lent to wind power companies and, therefore, the bank’s exposure and risk they face as shareholders of that bank.


    Shareholders in wind power companies, of course, have direct exposure to the declining fortunes of the wind industry. A decline in the share price obviously reduces the value of the shareholder’s investment. However, in the event of insolvency shareholders rank last behind all creditors, which means their shares are, ordinarily, worthless. In the case of wind power companies this will be invariably the case, as the companies in question are merely $2 companies with no real assets to speak of.


    However, it is superannuation funds that have, by far, the greatest total exposure to the imminent collapse of Australian wind power companies. Australian superannuation funds (particularly industry and union super funds) have invested very heavily in wind power. These investments are either directly through shareholdings (equity) or through investment banks lending to wind power companies (debt). Examples include Members Equity Bank and IFM Investors (outfits run by former union heavy weight, Gary Weaven and Greg Combet) which have channelled $100s of millions into wind power operator, Pacific Hydro. It’s little wonder then that Labor apparatchiks and Union bosses come out swinging whenever the RET faces attack.


    If you think that superannuation funds are somehow magically immune from the risk of the financial collapse of the companies they invest in, then cast your mind back to the wholesale corporate collapse of companies involved in Managed Investment Schemes that saw banks and super funds lose $100s of millions (see this story).


    Anyone with their money in superannuation should be asking their fund just how much exposure their fund has to wind power companies?

    Since the RET review panel outlined their mission a couple of weeks ago it seems that the word “RISK” – associated with investing in, or lending to, wind power companies – is the word that’s on everyone’s lips. Here’s the Australian Financial Review.

    Green energy on tenterhooks

    Australian Financial Review
    Tony Boyd
    30 April 2014


    Contrary to popular opinion, leading businessman Dick Warburton does not have any pre-determined views about the future of Australia’s $20 billion Renewable Energy Target scheme.

    While it is reassuring he is determined to be completely impartial in his rapid fire review of the RET scheme, Warburton makes it clear in an interview with Chanticleer that there will not necessarily be a grandfathering of existing arrangements.

    “We have not made a decision on that – how could we when we have just started consulting with the industry,” he says.

    In other words, it is possible that Warburton’s committee will abandon the RET targets and the accompanying certificates that are used by renewable energy developers to subsidise operations.


    That helps explain why the renewables industry is starting to be priced for a disastrous outcome that could wipe out billions of dollars in existing investments and see a wave of bankruptcies and restructuring.


    Shares in wind farm operator Infigen Energy have fallen 25 per cent since the RET scheme review was announced. Its shares are being priced for a negative outcome from Warburton’s review.

    Chief executive Miles George says Infigen’s Australian business would lose roughly 40 per cent of its revenue in the event of existing targets and certificate arrangements not being honoured.
    “Our business would fail, along with most other wind farms in Australia,” he says. Infigen has 20,000 shareholders split about one third between mums and dads and two thirds institutions. They could lose their entire investments.”

    Infigen is not the only company worried about the potential damage to its business from changing the RET target, which is 41,000 GWh. One of Australia’s largest infrastructure investors, IFM Investors, is concerned its renewable energy business, Pacific Hydro, will have to shut down and move its investment offshore. Garry Weaven, chairman of IFM Investors and Pacific Hydro, tells Chanticleer that while he respects Warburton’s independence and ability as a businessman, he is particularly worried by the “climate change vibes” emanating from the Abbott government.


    Weaven told CEDA in a speech last month that renewable energy development in Australia has been severely handicapped by inconsistent and untimely interventions by successive governments.

    He makes the perfectly valid point that investors in renewables have to measure their investments over at least 25 to 30 years.
    “It is simply not possible to generate an acceptable project IRR for a wind farm without that assumption, and other forms of renewable energy generation are still less economic and also require a very long investment life-cycle,” he told CEDA.

    Weaven’s broader point is that with the plan to scrap the carbon tax and the uncertainty surrounding the government’s Direct Action policy, there is no new investment in any form of energy generation in Australia at the moment. Banks are unwilling to go anywhere near power generation investment unless it is the purchase of existing assets, such as Macquarie Generation, which is being sold by the NSW Government. Warburton says George and Weaven should not be barking at shadows, especially since the expert panel has only just begun speaking to industry participants.


    But he is also crystal clear that every aspect of the RET scheme is up for grabs.

    As Warburton says, there is good reason why sovereign risk is one of the five key areas being examined by an expert panel which also includes Brian Fisher, Shirley In’t Veld and Matt Zema.

    The key words used in the terms of reference in relation to sovereign risk are as follows: “The review should provide advice on the extent of the RET’s impact on electricity prices, and the range of options available to reduce any impact while managing sovereign risk.”


    Sovereign risk is not something normally associated with investment in Australia. It last raised its ugly head when the former Labor government introduced the Mineral Resources Rent Tax. But investors around the world are getting used to escalating sovereign risk in democratic countries with normally predictable long term policies.


    Recently in Norway, the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) was severely burned when the government changed the tariff that can be charged by a private company that bought the rights to manage a gas pipeline.

    CPPIB’s return from its company, Solveig, was slashed from 7 per cent to 4 per cent.

    Warbuton says potential management of sovereign risk would not have been a part of the terms of reference for the RET scheme review if all options were not on the table. Warburton, chairman of Westfield Retail Trust and Magellan Flagship Fund, will use a cost-benefit analysis from ACIL Allen as the foundation of the RET review. ACIL Allen has been accused of being in the pocket of the fossil fuel lobby but its data was used on Tuesday by the Clean Energy Council in a document in support of keeping the RET scheme in its current form.


    The Clean Energy Council report, which was prepared by ROAM Consulting, modelled three scenarios: a business as usual case, a no RET scenario, where the RET is repealed, with only existing and financially committed projects being covered by the scheme and an increased and extended RET scenario where the RET is increased by 30 per cent by 2030 target and extended to 2040. The report concluded that the legislated large scale RET can be met under the business as usual scenario.

    It also says that both RET scenarios result in lower net electricity costs to consumers in the medium to long term.

    Australian Financial Review

    When AFR refers to “the $20 billion Renewable Energy Target scheme” – it underplays the cost of the RET by at least $30 billion (probably just small change to the AFR?).
    The energy market consultants engaged by the RET review panel, ACIL Allen produced a report in 2012, that showed that the mandatory RET – with its current fixed target of 41,000 GW/h – would involve a subsidy of $53 billion, transferred from power consumers to wind power generators via Renewable Energy Certificates and added to all Australian power bills. From modelling done by Liberal MP, Angus “the Enforcer” Taylor – and privately confirmed by Origin Energy – ACIL Allen’s figure for the REC Tax/Subsidy is pretty close to the mark.

    Adding $53 billion to power consumers’ bills can only increase retail power costs, making the Clean Energy Council’s claims about wind power lowering power prices complete bunkum (see our post here). And that figure is a fraction of the $100 billion or so needed to roll out the further 26,000 MW in wind power capacity needed to meet the current RET – and the duplicated transmission network needed to support it (see our post here).


    Yet again, the wind industry and its parasites seek to hide behind the furphy of “sovereign risk”. “Sovereign risk” and “regulatory risk” are two entirely different animals: the wind industry is the product of Federal Government regulation which, of course, is prone to amendment or abolition at any time.

    Sovereign risk” is the risk that the country in question will default on its debt obligations with foreign nationals or other countries; and, by some definitions, includes the risk that a foreign central bank will alter its foreign-exchange regulations thereby significantly reducing or completely nulling the value of foreign-exchange contracts.
    It has nothing at all to do with changes in legislation that impact on industry subsidy schemes – which is precisely what the mandatory RET/REC scheme is: the prospect that a subsidy might be reduced or scrapped is simply “regulatory risk”.

    To claim that the alteration of a government subsidy scheme is “sovereign risk” is complete nonsense.

    At one point during the RET review panel’s meeting in Sydney, as Dick Warburton spelt out the panel’s mission, the boys from Infigen howled from the back of the room: “but, what about sovereign risk?!?” To which a nonplussed Warburton retorted: “what about it? Sovereign risk is your problem, it’s not our problem.”

    And, indeed, it appears that Infigen has serious problems (whether or not “sovereign risk” is one of them).

    Infigen is bleeding cash (it backed up a $55 million loss in 2011/12 with an $80 million loss, last financial year). It’s been scrambling to get development approvals for all of its projects so they can be flogged off ASAP. If it finds buyers it can use the cash to retire debt and fend off the receiver – who must be circling like a vulture all set to swoop.
    Reflecting its fading fortunes, Infigen’s share price has taken a pounding in the last 8 months (if the graphs below look fuzzy, click on them, they’ll open in a new window and look crystal clear):

    Note the drop after the Coalition took office in September; the dive after the RET Review was announced in January; and the plummet in April, when the Panel defined what its mission was about, as it called for submissions (see our post here).
    The drop seen above – from the year high of $0.32 (in August 2013) to $0.20 (now) – represents a 36% loss for investors who bought in at the top of the market this financial year. But spare a thought for those that bought in back in 2009 – when Infigen emerged from the ashes of Babcock and Brown:

    The early movers have seen their shares freefall from over $1.40 to $0.20 – representing an 80% loss. Ouch!
    The collapse in Infigen’s share price simply highlights our warning to bankers and investors. Remember this is an outfit that used to be called Babcock and Brown – which collapsed spectacularly in 2009 – taking $10 billion of investors’ and creditors’ money with it on the way out (see this story). Get set for a replay.
    Consider this STT’s fair warning to anyone with exposure to wind power companies – be it shareholders, bankers or those who face exposure through their super fund’s investments – grab your money and get out while you can.
    Passengers, please take this time to locate your nearest exit.
    Share this:








    Related

    German Energy Giant E.On says: It’s Time for Wind Power to Grow UpIn "Australia"
    Australian Wind Industry’s House of Cards CollapsingIn "Australia"
    Energy Market Gorillas Beat Up on the Wind Power MonkeysIn "Australia"




    Filed Under: Australia, Big wind industry, Big wind politics, RET ReviewTagged With: Coalition RET review, collapse in renewables, collapse wind power companies, Infigen, Infigen Energy, infigen share price, insolvency wind power, investor risk wind farm, Pacific Hydro, RET review, RET review panel, Union Super Funds, wind farm shares

    « Joe Hockey keen to scrap Infigen’s “utterly offensive” Lake George Wind Farm
    Wind Power in Britain: it’s Robin Hood in Reverse »

    About stopthesethings
    We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.

    Comments


    • Tim brew says:
      May 7, 2014 at 6:44 pm

      The capitulation will not be complete until the fraud investigation has been undertaken, all liability paid to sufferers and refunds of all the monies received from non-complying turbines!

      Reply


    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  39. #11389
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,627

    Default

    • Bon says:
      May 6, 2014 at 10:31 am

      I don’t recall hearing these bleating, wind weasels express any concern about the lack of regulatory consistency that saw coal and gas generation industry assets devalued when they had their competitive free market removed overnight by politically motivated mandatory subsidies and taxes propping up useless uneconomic wind farms? Furthermore the prospect of future investment in large scale, cost effective, base load power generation plant has been put on hold due to the distortion of the electricity market caused by the RET and the Labor/Green carbon dioxide tax.
      Facing massive unemployment and economic ruin Spain made the only sensible decision it could and stopped subsidising renewables – it’s now time for Australia to do the same. And please no tears for these wind rent seekers, they’ve long had it coming to them!

      Reply
    • Terry Conn says:
      May 5, 2014 at 8:58 pm

      ‘To claim that the alteration of a government subsidy scheme is ‘sovereign risk ‘ is complete nonsense’ is absolutely correct. It is even more correct when the ‘scheme’ says in its legislation ‘that it is subject to two yearly reviews’. All investment in this country in renewable energy products that rely on the REC subsidy have always been a speculative venture (ie a gamble). I have not been able to see a ‘power purchase agreement’ between a wind farm company and a retailer of electricity but Warburton and crew should insist on it because as a solicitor admitted to practice in 1975 I cannot believe all those highly paid lawyers for electricity retailers failed to insist that a ‘get out clause’ be included in the event the REC’s were thrown out or the RET changed in accordance with existing legislation. That would be the same reason lease agreements with hosts have clauses that allow wind farm developers to give ‘notice’ to quit the lease at any time but tie a host up for 25 to 75 years. All this just goes to prove that the bigger the ‘fraud’, the bigger the ‘lie’ the more we fall for it — that includes smart Alec’s from the union movement and well meaning environmentalists. I desperately hope Mr. Warburton and the government and eventually the Australian people come to see the wind industry for the great big fraud that it is. In the event those who played the game of ‘speculating’ on a ‘crook’ horse lose their money then ‘so be it’.

      Reply
    • Godzilla is Real says:
      May 5, 2014 at 7:05 pm

      Didn’t Shorten invest a pile of his Union’s super cash in wind?


    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  40. #11390
    Slow but rough Uncle Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    North Cooma, Canberra
    Posts
    5,080

    Default

    I'm suggesting the TPTB that this thread get's either locked or deleted. Since you guys can't stop with the BS and the constant posts being reported, well, I'm over it and have been for ages. If you guys want the thread kept, then I'd suggest you clean up all your posts by getting rid of all the defamatory trolling and all the crap that's been copied from other sources which doesn't have self created content. Please use links instead of copying others work.

    Thanks Bob.

  41. #11391
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Bob View Post
    I'm suggesting the TPTB that this thread get's either locked or deleted. Since you guys can't stop with the BS and the constant posts being reported, well, I'm over it and have been for ages. If you guys want the thread kept, then I'd suggest you clean up all your posts by getting rid of all the defamatory trolling and all the crap that's been copied from other sources which doesn't have self created content. Please use links instead of copying others work.

    Thanks Bob.
    Agree 100% No point in a debate when it descends to vast copied posts from other sources with no self created content, personal attacks and defamatory trolling. The reasons for the trolling are obvious.

    The only reason I post in this thread is to try and keep it on topic and accurate to the facts on the ground and the science behind AGW/CC. If it gets closed or deleted I won't have to do that any more so I'm happy either way.

    What is a TPTB?

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  42. #11392
    Slow but rough Uncle Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    North Cooma, Canberra
    Posts
    5,080

    Default

    TPTB = The Powers That Be

  43. #11393
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    66
    Posts
    3,924

    Default

    If you read back through there are numerous vicious and quite frankly childish attacks on individuals including distortions of name in a sexist and demeaning way on a serving prime minister which fails to give satisfactory respect to the position. There are a lot of cut and pastes from places which are not even credible, facts which are not supportable and the careful grooming of information to distort the facts. There is little respect for others, a tendency to make stupid statements then either ignore questions to explain or even acknowledge the truth when it is clear the post is wrong. There is confected outrage when no offence is given and there is reams of childish sarcasm when called to account or asked for explanations.

    Can't see the slightest reason to lock the thread, I only came here when a forum resident went elsewhere to peddle his distortions and followed him back to return the compliment, I stay because I can't believe how limited some can be at basic analytical skills when they don't agree with their existing political bias, a fascinating study in human fallibility. Lock it by all means the joke has run its course.

  44. #11394
    Deactivated User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Happy to keep this thread open. Just use common sense when posting and please refrain from copy/pasting large chunks of text. A simple link to the article is sufficient.

  45. #11395
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    Happy to keep this thread open. Just use common sense when posting and please refrain from copy/pasting large chunks of text. A simple link to the article is sufficient.
    One particular person has hijacked ~40% of this very page's real-estate with pasted blah blah, all by themselves. Does that particular person have the objective of shutting down this thread, or is their objective to make so much noise that no one else can be heard?

    This forum does have a purpose - to air and test people's understanding of climate change and how to deal with it, or not, as the case may be based on the evidence. Bullys shouldn't be allowed to steamroll everyone else. Just my two bob's worth for Uncle Bob LOL.

  46. #11396
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Thanks Uncle Bob.

    James, so you must be one of TPTB ?

    Happy with your direction. If you choose to enforce it then this thread should become a more reasonable place.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  47. #11397
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    Happy to keep this thread open. Just use common sense when posting and please refrain from copy/pasting large chunks of text. A simple link to the article is sufficient.
    Definitely agree with the wholesale cutting and pasting of text/clickbait sentiment. It makes Tapatalk go completely insane (let alone Yours Truly)...and the whole forum then becomes an un-fun place on mobile devices.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  48. #11398
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Bob View Post
    I'm suggesting the TPTB that this thread get's either locked or deleted.

    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    Happy to keep this thread open.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Happy with your direction. If you choose to enforce it then this thread should become a more reasonable place.
    Phew! that was close!
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  49. #11399
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Really the debate is in it's death throws as the carbon tax is buried for the next 2 or 3 years, this will be a disappointment for the audience, you only have to look at the numbers of non members getting their daily dose of free entertainment, it's like having evangelical door knockers locked in a room & listening to them come up with every excuse which defies belief.
    regards inter

  50. #11400
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Really the debate is in it's death throws
    Which debate is that?

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    this will be a disappointment for the audience,
    You are part of the "audience". Are you disappointed?

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    you only have to look at the numbers of non members getting their daily dose of free entertainment, it's like having evangelical door knockers locked in a room & listening to them come up with every excuse which defies belief.
    Huh? What about the evidence? Doesn't that count as far as you are concerned? Oh, I think everyone knows the answer to that question...

Page 228 of 377 FirstFirst ... 128 178 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 278 328 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •