Wind and Solar are Worse than Coal and cause the waste of gas. (Part One)

BY Viv Forbes

"Carbon Sense" 
Common sense on carbon, food, energy and climate.
 


We are told we must replace coal powered electricity with wind and solar, 
because of the “dangerous carbon dioxide” produced when coal is burnt. 
But a bit of investigation shows that carbon dioxide is a benefit to the biosphere, 
whereas wind and solar do real damage to the environment and the economy.

James Hansen, an outspoken world climate alarmist says: “Coal-fired power plants are factories of death”. The Australian Greens want a fast end to coal mining in Australia, and support a swift expansion of wind and solar power. As the Greens are part of the coalition which governs Australia, the electricity industry is now being coerced by carbon taxes and green subsidies and mandates to replace efficient and reliable coal-powered electricity with costly and unreliable wind and solar plants.

All of this paranoia is driven by climatist claims that carbon dioxide causes environmental harm by triggering dangerous global warming. Let’s look at whether coal energy or green energy does more harm to the environment.

There is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide causes any measurable changes to climate. In fact, the evidence indicates that changes in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are a result, not a cause, of variations in global temperatures.

Moreover, burning coal in clean modern power stations has definite benefits for the biosphere – it puts food and drink for all life back into the atmosphere. The major coal combustion products are – nitrogen plant food from the air (69%), carbon dioxide plant food from the coal (21%) and water vapour, the liquid for life, from the coal (7%). The other 3% comprises mainly inert atmospheric gases from the air and an ash residue of trace minerals from the coal. The green bogey-man, carbon dioxide, is the gas of life and a free gift from coal combustion to the biosphere. More carbon dioxide has proven benefits in making plants grow faster in good weather and helping them survive better in droughts or frosts. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is insurance for the biosphere no matter what climate change is in store for us.

Green energy, however, can affect local climate and does cause environmental damage.

Wind turbines work by extracting kinetic energy from the wind. To extract significant energy in any particular location, there needs to be an almost impenetrable thicket of these whirling scythes.

IMAGE Trapping the Energy from the Wind

Source of picture: 


This has three adverse consequences - it changes the local climate, takes a terrible toll on birds and bats, and the throbbing noise pollutes the local environment.

A wall of wind turbines acts like a mini coastal range – slowing the wind and making it rise over the obstacles. Whenever air rises over a range, it cools and tends to drop its moisture as rain. As it goes down the other side it tends to warm up, lowering its relative humidity. This is why the apparently insignificant coastal range from Cooktown to Cooma is naturally covered with thick scrub and the land in the rain shadow behind the coastal range is dry. Wind towers inevitably have a similar effect on climate, creating new rain shadows in the areas robbed of wind. The effect is magnified if turbines are placed along the ridgeline.

IMAGE How to increase the Height of the Wind & Rain Barrier – The Hallet Wind Farm in South Australia 2012

To add to the environmental risk, some turbine motors have caught fire in high winds, causing bushfires in this more vulnerable rain shadow area.

Nothing like a good fire to clean up the Environment

Stand-alone solar farms also cause environmental damage. Solar, like wind, is a very dilute form of energy that requires a huge area of collectors to harvest significant energy. Green plants need that same solar energy on their leaves to grow, but solar collectors shade the ground and steal their energy, creating even greater deserts than wind towers. This is not a problem in real deserts, but the massive populations needing electricity seldom live near deserts – they flock to the warm green coasts. Solar panels on roofs are expensive feel-good status symbols. They production seldom recovers their real costs.

Peak production from solar panels in Australia occurs at noon.

Peak annual demand on the power grid occurs in mid-winter at 6.30pm, after the sun goes down.

Therefore in winter, solar panels on roofs are about as much use as an ashtray on a motorcycle.

In addition, both wind and solar need far bigger networks of maintenance access roads, fire breaks and transmission lines than coal. The existing environment is destroyed by dozers and graders and the disturbed land is covered by roads and concrete, or re-colonised by aggressive weeds.

(Continued)

Libertarian councilor blocks ‘war on grannies’

Image: The Northern Star (which wants councils to get tough on them)

Mobility scooters have been a great innovation, giving those with limited mobility the ability to get around, do the shopping, and meet friends.  Nanny though, has been balefully eyeing them and mooting ideas of regulating, licensing, and registering them: 

Holroyd Council wants the state government to make it mandatory for all motorised mobility scooter owners to obtain a ''certificate of ownership and competence'' before getting behind the wheel. 

Cr Whitfield is confident the state's councils will support the idea when Holroyd puts it to them at the Local Government Association's conference in Dubbo this month. 

It wants the government to come up with a clear regulatory distinction between those who are required by law to share the footpath: pedestrians who can walk and those who rely on either a mobility scooter or motorised wheelchair to get around. 

Holroyd has already sought to address the ''public hazard'' posed by mobility scooters with a series of workshops for local users, who are limited by law to travel at no more than 10km/h. Some mobility scooters can reach 15km/h. ...

Fortunately for the ageing and infirm, during the last New South Wales Local Authority elections, two libertarian candidates from the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) were elected to councils, Clinton Mead in Campbelltown, and Jeff Pettett in Ku-Ring-Gai. 

Clinton was a delegate at the conference and was the only speaker against this motion. Without objecting, it would most likely have passed without opposition, but this time things were different.  Normally when a ‘public safety’ issue is raised, the herd mentality kicks in, with nobody wanting to appear to oppose something they are told is in the common good.

This time, when confronted with reason, logic, and a pro-liberty message, many of them took a reasoned approach.  Well over 100 delegates ended up voting against the motion to licence scooter users, and as a result it failed. The war on grannies was stopped due to the Liberal Democrats.

Press outlets advocating regulation were quoting accident figures and reports of wild and crazy grannies hooning along at possible top speeds of 15 km/hr (9.3 MPH) and demanding that they be brought under control.  This was all that the ‘if it could save one life it will be worth it’ crowd needed to bring them to their feet.

The downside is that many of them could lose their independence and contact with friends, as well as forcing them to rely on family and others to get about.  The thing that most of these people hate most about their situation is the worry of being a burden.  Clinton has been a true friend to them.

So, what was that rot that do-gooders say about libertarians being an uncaring bunch of nasties who would toss the aged out into the street to fend for themselves? 

The really heartless people out there, are those who would destroy the lives of this section of the community in the interests of promoting their own jaundiced idea of how the world should be.  

US; Election fatigue setting in

In the US politics is played hard, and with the massive budgets available to candidates and parties, voters are inundated with advertisements, posters, rallies, and even calls. By the end of our relatively short campaigns, Australians tend to be sick and tired of it, so we can empathize with our American cousins who cop much worse. Massachusetts Republican, Richard Tisei seems to think that voters in his district need a break from the constant barrage and has come up with something different. Libertarian Republican suggests it is either the best or stupidest political ad of all time:

 Four year old Abigael Evans has become an internet sensation after expressing her frustration with both major party candidates:


We are all a bit tired of 'Bronco' and Mitt. As one headline put it, “We are all Abigael Evans now.”

Tax that raised no revenue, costs taxpayers money

You have to wonder when the penny is going to drop, and Gillard and Swan start to wonder if getting the big three mining companies to negotiate a tax to be imposed on them was a good idea.

The mining, or Mineral resource rent tax has plagued the Labor government since it was first mooted.  It caused outrage within the mining sector, resulting in a massive campaign of opposition in which millions of dollars were spent by both sides in advertising.  The ensuing stalemate and climate of hostility played an important part in the ousting of Kevin Rudd as PM.

 Gillard managed to stitch a compromise together with BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata, after she gained the top post, but as with everything else she has involved herself in, it turned into a disaster.

Overseas observers must shake their heads in wonderment at the sheer unmitigated incompetence of a government that institutes a tax that raises no revenue. (We’ve gotten used to it): 

THE Federal Government is standing by revenue projections from its mining tax, despite revelations it has raised zero revenue in the first three months. 

Falling commodities prices mean major miners BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata have no liabilities under the minerals resource rent tax (MRRT) for the financial year to date, and the industry has warned global economic forecasts could seriously reduce their company tax contributions. … 

… Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the government's economic strategy was in a mess.  Mr Swan had "frauded" the Australian people over the tax and had some explaining to do, he said. 

"Only Labor could introduce a new tax that doesn't raise a single cent but has billions of dollars of expenditure against it," Mr Hockey told ABC radio.

But it gets worse than that.  Apparently in the rush to defuse the battle, the government agreed to offset state royalties against the tax.  As result, rather than raising revenue, the government is actually accruing liabilities to the companies: 

THE Gillard government faces a new threat to the estimated $2 billion in revenue it expects to raise this year from the mining tax because the biggest iron ore and coal producers are rapidly building up state royalty "credits" to offset their commonwealth payments. 

While BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata did not make any profits-based payments under the new minerals resource rent tax in the first quarter of its existence, they are accruing millions of dollars in unexpected deductions from the tax. 

The three mining giants all calculated a zero liability for the MRRT in the July-September quarter, but remain liable for billions in state royalties from iron ore and coal production that are "credited" against the federal tax. 

Treasury forecasts for the MRRT revenue, almost halved to $2bn in 2012-13, take into account the offsets for state royalties, but assumed there would be tax revenue. 

Under the mining tax negotiated with Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan after the removal of Kevin Rudd as prime minister in 2010, the big three miners insisted on all state royalties being offset against the MRRT and for those credits to accrue at a compound interest rate of 10 per cent. 

The miners are still paying state royalties that rely on production, not profits. Last year in Western Australia, royalties on iron ore amounted to $3.8bn while royalties on coal in Queensland came to $2.3bn

Essentially, what was initially intended to be a redistributive tax to “spread the benefits of the mining boom,” has become a device by which taxpayers reimburse mining companies for the costs of state royalties. 

Gillard should get a gold medal for evasiveness

Whenever an attempt is made to get Julia Gillard to answer for any of her actions, she prevaricates, generally claiming that the issue has been dealt with, or that the question has been answered before.

 This applies to everything from “There will be no carbon tax …” to matters related to her involvement in setting up fraudulent accounts that were used by her then boyfriend to rip off the AWU for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Here is a classic example of a Four Corners interviewer repeatedly attempting to pin her down over the leadership acceptance speech. It adds a new dimension to the term, “Flogging a dead horse.”
 
 She spins like a Westinghouse.

Wall St Journal answers NYT’s “Big storm requires big government”

Today’s Wall Street Journal has taken on the contention of the New York Times editorial in which it was asserted that events such as super-storm Sandy proves the ‘need’ for more big government. Followers of NYT will not be surprised, as the policy of the paper seems to be that stubbing your toe proves the same thing. First there is the Opinion Journal video ‘Left won’t let a storm go to waste’ where Bret Stephens is interviewed and comments, “You judge the quality of a persons thinking by the type of strawmen they construct:” (Contains ad)
 
 There is also an editorial column which despite being Romney centric, generally agrees with the libertarian perspective that government action should be devolved down to the lowest level possible to get the job done:

Citizens in the Northeast aren't turning on their TVs, if they have electricity, to hear Mr. Obama opine about subway flooding. They're tuning in to hear Governor Chris Christie talk about the damage to the Jersey shore, Mayor Mike Bloomberg tell them when bus service might resume in New York City, and Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy say when the state's highways might reopen. 

Energetic governors and mayors are best equipped to handle disaster relief because they know their cities and neighborhoods far better than the feds ever will, and they know their citizens will hold them accountable. The feds can help with money and perhaps expertise. 

The larger liberal fallacy here is that effective government requires bigger government. Americans expect a government, at whatever level, to do its core functions well. But the bigger and more costly the government, the more likely it is to do more things poorly. 

The rush to use Hurricane Sandy to justify a bigger federal government makes us wonder if there's an excuse liberals won't use to grow Leviathan? The reality of the federal fisc is that whoever wins next Tuesday is going to have to choose between functions best done by the federal government and those that can be done better by others. A government that can't distinguish between a big storm and Big Bird is simply too big. 

Local authorities are on the spot; as to a lesser extent are state governments, and are better placed to assess what needs to be done and by whom.  The further away the decision making is made from the area that is effected, the less interested, less responsible, and less accountable the decision makers will be.  

Pensioners endangered by unsubstantiated claim

Claim; “Average pensioner has $50,000 in cash in dwelling.”

Image: $160,000 seized in drug raid (not on pensioners)

Thugs tend to strike anywhere they think there are easy pickings to be had.  Aged pensioners are frequently victims, owing to the belief that they represent fairly soft targets and even when capable of defending themselves, probably can’t run hard enough to catch and detain the perpetrator. 

Menzies House has raised the example of a couple in their 70s who were targeted by three dropkicks with knives who threatened them and tore the place apart in search of valuables.  MH points out that an increase in these crimes could be due to an irresponsible claim by an ex- official of the Reserve Bank, who claimed that a shortage of $100 notes is due to pensioners hoarding money in their houses. 

While no causal link has been established between the two events, it seems that the press were impressed by the sensational nature of the claim and spread it far and wide.  It is therefore reasonable to assume that there are quite a few thugs out there with the idea that quick fortunes are available by robbing the aged: 

A former Reserve Bank official says the extraordinarily high number of $100 notes in circulation is the result of massive welfare fraud in which undeserving Australians get access to the pension. 

Peter Mair has written to Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens outlining his concerns.There are now 10 green $100 notes in circulation for each Australian, more than the seven more-commonly seen orange $20 notes. 

One popular explanation is that they are used for illegal transactions as part of the cash economy, something Mr Mair rejects as a ''furphy''. … 

… Mr Mair's best guess is the average pensioner couple holds around $50,000 in undeclared $50 and $100 notes in order to access the pension.

Mr Mair does not present any evidence to back his claim, which is entirely based on his possibly blinkered view of reasons for the high number of high denomination notes in circulation.  One ATO document suggests that the cash economy at 2% of GDP would have represented $13.4 billion in 2001, but points out that some estimates are in the range of 4.8-8.8% of GDP. 

Tradies love it and give a substantial discount if you pay cash and don’t need a receipt. 

While it is possible that some pensioners are holding cash to come in under whatever the threshold of the pension is, the vast majority are struggling to make ends meet.  Claims that they all have $50,000 + stashed in the mattress are not only wrong, but dangerous and irresponsible.