As for Barnaby “implying that Green jobs meant unemployed miners were going to be sent to Nimbin to make wind chimes”, he has some of the best quotable quotes in parliament these days.

Regarding the ETS, Barnaby said something to the effect that the ETS is a “political fascinator” – “a bit of fishnet and a few feathers, stick it on your head, but it won’t keep the sun off”. Devastatingly apt!!!

Regrettably, it will be a very expensive little “fascinator”. Rudd and Wong aren’t paying for it with their own money, but they want to prance about with it stuck on their heads at Copenhagen…

Anyone else noticed that Wong’s negotiating style bears a certain resemblance to the CCP?

Given that geo’s use infrared pictures to detect minerals the idea of complete blocking at some wavelengths is a bit surprising.

“What observation would satisfy posters here that the theory was in some way incorrect? ”

An experiment or observation proving that carbon dioxide does not absorb IR in the wavelengths at which the Earth emits.

I don’t wonder at all at the motives of the execs. I mainly wonder if Rudd is in on the con-trick too

Bound to be. Whatever he is, he’s nobody’s fool. In his case though I think cognitive dissonance is also at work. He needs to deflect attacks based on claims that fixing the environment will “destroy Aussie jobs”. Seeming to go after miners and heavy industry is a hugely useful wedge for a conservative opposition –one that makes Latham’s Tasmanian timber stumble look like a fairly minor (ha! an unintentional pun!) event. I mean, power workers and mining — it doesn’t get any more Labor heartland than that. The coal bosses know that and you will recall Barnaby Joyce implying that Green jobs meant unemployed miners were going to be sent to Nimbin to make wind chimes.

Essentially, this is a featherbedding social porkbarrell. The truth is that 20 years from now, the mines will still be operating and although coal-fired capacity will be much less many will have retired and the rest will still be employed in one of the new industries. But it’s impolitic to say that, so we have to pay up to keep Rudd from being wedged. The other side would do it too. I spoke to Empty outside Q&A one might in early 2008 and he was all for it.

Only Bob Brown has been straight on this.

EXACTLY SO!!! Couldn’t agree with you more!!!

Of course they have no intention of really taking this up. They would have done the numbers already. That is not the game they are playing.

It comes back to my far-fetched story about Bush and a hypothetical claim to leading the world on “gun control”. The idea isn’t to actually come up with a solution. The idea is to GIVE THE IMPRESSION that they are earnestly working on a solution, while continuing business as usual. The longer they can string out their story, the longer they can make profits.

It matters not a damn to the execs, because they will be retiring by the time their technologically-challenged and/or gullible audience realises they have been taken for a ride.

I don’t wonder at all at the motives of the execs. I mainly wonder if Rudd is in on the con-trick too?

The only reason I quoted a figure at which CC&S might be viable is to underline how far from reality the idea is. At the moment, industry people who don’t like an ETS are miffed at $25 per tonne and yet those same people are claiming that CC&S is a viable thing to pour money into — as long as it’s public money of course. They had years to pour their own money into this, if they’d wanted. So IMO, let those who think it’s worthwhile campaign for a price that makes it viable. Of course, then NG would be very viable. It’s already viable.

The water pumping idea has drifted around for a few decades I think, but aren’t we a little short of the stuff these days?

Not at all. We have lots of waste water i.e water that is below drinking standard. A pumped storage unit isn’t bothered by elevated levels of microbacteria or PM5. As above, I’d be combining with local water treatment so the pumped storage could double as a local supoply point for potable water sourced locally. The reservoirs themselves could likewise act as catchments. The aim would be to avoid moving water one metre further than necessary (ecept to recover power) since all that requires power from the system. Power saved is as good as power produced — better really since there are no parasitic losses.

One should note also that we are surrounded by water and the vast majority of us live within 50km of the coast in a handful of cities and large towns. That’s also where most precipitation occurs. Hmmmm

Fran

Aluminium has been called “solidified electrical energy”, IIRC. Agree that aluminium smelters really should be located where you have renewable power, like using hydro power in Norway, and using geothermal power in Iceland. We are mad to be using coal-fired power for such an energy intensive process. Works for Alcoa, but a tragedy of the commons…

Your reference to coal-fired power: “the older ones are closer to 25%, and yes, this does make CC&S a dead dog from the start. The estimates I’ve seen indicate that $100 per tonne of CO2 would probably make CC&S commercially viable…”

It is a mad concept, regardless of costs, to propose a process which uses a large proportion of what it generates, just to dispose of the flue gas. A fool’s errand…

The water pumping idea has drifted around for a few decades I think, but aren’t we a little short of the stuff these days?

IIRC, the best anthracite plants were running at about 45% last I heard — but the 35% figure was an average.

It would be good though if you refrained from talking about things you don’t have a grasp on – namely most things agricultural. You don’t do yourself any favours from people who actually do it for a living.

Nothing I’ve posted above is factually incorrect and your reasoning was also poor but I’m going to leave you to re-read what we’ve written when you’re sufficiently calm to reflect on it and see whether you wish to persist in your claims.