Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Environment >> Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1378343601 Message started by # on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 11:13am

Title: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by # on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 11:13am

Renewables slashing German energy prices by $8.5bn a year

By Karl-Friedrich Lenz on 4 September 2013

I just mailed my absentee ballot from Japan for the next German election. Living in Japan, I needed to fill out some forms and send them in to my last place of residence in Germany, but I thought this election is important enough to jump through those hoops.

Of course I voted for the Green Party.

One of the topics in this election season is the price of electricity. There is a lot of confusion around. Many people don’t understand that the renewable revolution caused by the German feed-in tariff model has lowered prices.

This is also a season to discuss the surcharge, which will be fixed for next year on October 15. Spiegel has an article on the topic, and Craig Morris has discussed that article here.

Morris links to an interesting study done by Brainpool for the German Green party (21 page PDF file), which looks at the next surcharge decision in some detail.

From that we learn (page 1) that German wholesale electricity prices are down from 5.115 cents estimated in 2012 to around 3.9 cents. Let’s just note that renewable energy has reduced wholesale prices by 1.2 cents per kWh.

Multiply that by the 482 TWh they expect Germany to consume next year (page 21) , and we see that renewable energy will reduce wholesale prices by EUR 5.784 billion ($A8.5 billion) next year.

Of course these lower prices will lead to a higher surcharge next year, since the surcharge is calculated by the difference between the feed-in tariff and the wholesale price.

But that’s only a temporary effect. It will be gone after a decade or two.

In contrast, the lower prices from a higher renewable share are here to stay. Those solar panels are not going anywhere.

Even if renewable energy did not reduce prices, as it already does, it would add to Germany’s price stability as a hedge against higher fossil fuel prices in the future.

But it does. Renewable energy reduces electricity prices in Germany.

And this is still only the beginning. Over the next couple of decades, electricity will reach at least 80 percent renewable share (Article 1 of the Law on Priority for Renewable Energy).

Of course there is also that “global warming” problem we seem to have. The analysis above doesn’t even mention that phasing out fossil fuels will reduce the costs from global warming damages.

We also learn from the Brainpool study I mentioned above (page 21), that the surcharges are expected to go up by 0.07 cents for another 4 GW solar over the year. That’s a killer number (007). It should lay to rest forever the outdated idea that solar is expensive.

And trying to slow down new solar in Germany right as costs have come down and we can finally reap the benefits from introducing it at rock bottom prices is a very stupid idea. If it was the right thing to build the World’s biggest solar infrastructure back when prices were really high (and it was the right thing to do), then it doesn’t make any sense at all to stop now.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by BigOl64 on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 11:30am

Does some idiot's opinion pass for facts these days in the greens supporters camp?

The box heads have some of the most expensive power charges on the planet, thanks to their embrace of renewable energy.

Jeez their energy secter is so buggered up they have to buy french nuclear power so they don't have shut the place down

The germans are not the people to look at when trying to convince others of the benefits of the cost of renewable energy.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Ajax on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 11:54am

Quote:

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and [the] Tooth Fairy.”

Jim Hansen - Father of global warming.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/jim-hansen-presses-the-climate-case-for-nuclear-energy/?_r=0

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:01pm

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

So who do we look at? The Japanese nuclear energy experts perhaps? Lol

Perhaps the USA?

Are you aware that the words biggest exporting nation s Germany? Even bigger than china which is ranked second in the world.

Not bad for a action tat pays high wages, has low working hour weeks and high electrical power costs.

So high in fact that they are similar to pathetic little Australia, the worlds biggest per capita CO2 emitter.

You haven't really thought this one through carefully ave you?

You must feel publicly embarrassed at the moment.

Keep at it though. A little bit reading and basic research and you will hopefully be able to enter this forum a little less intellectually defenseless

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Ajax on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:10pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

So high in fact that they are similar to pathetic little Australia, the worlds biggest per capita CO2 emitter.

Yes that's the only way to scare the general public isn't it.

Using economic jargon called per capita.

Australia doesn't even emit 1.5% of ALL manmade CO2 emissions.

We're not even in the top ten in the world.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:22pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

So high in fact that they are similar to pathetic little Australia, the worlds biggest per capita CO2 emitter.

Out of 195+ nations in the world, Australia is ranked 17th on a gross CO2 emission basis. Utterly Disgraceful for a nation of only 22 million people. (And we don't even manufacture anything significant for export)

Do you think china or India should set themselves goals of matching Australia's world record per capita CO2 emissions?

Or are Australians the only people allowed this level of per capita CO2 emissions? I hope you're not a racist.

And seeing as Australia has one of the most ideal regions for solar energy capture and usage, the story becomes even more pathetic

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Ajax on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:43pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Do you want to go back to living in caves then.....????

You first, set the example and I'll see how you fair and decide later.

Quote:

Do you think china or India should set themselves goals of matching Australia's world record per capita CO2 emissions?

Why not, they should be entitled to live just like we do.

Quote:

Or are Australians the only people allowed this level of per capita CO2 emissions? I hope you're not a racist.

You said we are 17th in the world, you'll notice that after the top three or so, manmade CO2 emissions really drop off.

Quote:

And seeing as Australia has one of the most ideal regions for solar energy capture and usage, the story becomes even more pathetic

I'm not against clean energy provided its as cheap as fossil fuels.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by BigOl64 on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:46pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

Hang on a tick

None of your argument that Im supposed to be all embarrassed about, has anything to do with what I said You have just gone off on your own little rant about a series of facts that not only do not counter my argument but have nothing at all to do with my argument.

So am I embarrased, no, but you should be

The germans import nuclear power from france, because they shut down their own nuclear plants

The germans have some seriously expensive power, subsidising renewables will do that

Notice, nothing about japan, usa or exports, china, wages, per capita CO outputs, nothing at all about those things.

Well done ;D

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:53pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Do you want to go back to living in caves then.....????

You first, set the example and I'll see how you fair and decide later.

Quote:

Do you think china or India should set themselves goals of matching Australia's world record per capita CO2 emissions?

Why not, they should be entitled to live just like we do.

[quote]Or are Australians the only people allowed this level of per capita CO2 emissions? I hope you're not a racist.

You said we are 17th in the world, you'll notice that after the top three or so, manmade CO2 emissions really drop off.

Quote:

And seeing as Australia has one of the most ideal regions for solar energy capture and usage, the story becomes even more pathetic

I'm not against clean energy provided its as cheap as fossil fuels.[/quote]

Lol.

Actually burning fossil fuels is more akin to living in the Stone Age than going forward with a sustainable and renewable energy based society.

At the moment the atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 400 ppmv, up from 384 ppmv in the pre industrial era.

How much of the fossil fuel reserve do you wish to burn?

What CO2 levels do you wish humanity reaches?

What rights do states and corporate players who are profiteering from fossil fuel combustion activities have to alter or destroy the planet?

Who the hell are you to defend these psychopaths?

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Ajax on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 1:02pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

Lol.

Actually burning fossil fuels is more akin to living in the Stone Age than going forward with a sustainable and renewable energy based society.

Is it now....take away everything made from fossil fuels in your life and what are you left with....??????

Quote:

At the moment the atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 400 ppmv, up from 384 ppmv in the pre industrial era.

And....???....... is this a problem....??

Quote:

How much of the fossil fuel reserve do you wish to burn?

As much as we need to.

Quote:

What CO2 levels do you wish humanity reaches?

Well once upon a time we had 7000ppm and the planet Earth thrived.

Quote:

What rights do states and corporate players who are profiteering from fossil fuel combustion activities have to alter or destroy the planet?

I would be much happier if we kicked out the corporation and our government took over all of Australia's mining.

That way 100% of the profits could actually go to Australians and Australia.

Imagine that eehh...now that's a lucky country imo.

Lower taxes, pensioners could shop top shelf with more money.

Better services....the list goes on.

Imagine if we also took back all the other cash cows, like our commonwealth bank, our telecommunications, our public transport, our utilities...etc etc.

No taxes, pensioners would be rich...???

Good to have wet dreams sometimes.... :o

Quote:

Who the hell are you to defend these psychopaths?

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 1:21pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 1:02pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

Lol.

Actually burning fossil fuels is more akin to living in the Stone Age than going forward with a sustainable and renewable energy based society.

Is it now....take away everything made from fossil fuels in your life and what are you left with....??????

Quote:

At the moment the atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 400 ppmv, up from 384 ppmv in the pre industrial era.

And....???....... is this a problem....??

[quote]How much of the fossil fuel reserve do you wish to burn?

As much as we need to.

Quote:

What CO2 levels do you wish humanity reaches?

Well once upon a time we had 7000ppm and the planet Earth thrived.

Quote:

What rights do states and corporate players who are profiteering from fossil fuel combustion activities have to alter or destroy the planet?

Who the hell are you to defend these psychopaths?

Just your average joe blogs who despises the moguls for wanting to tax the air we breath so they can form a $2 trillion dollar carbon credit market that will make sure AGW emissions just keep rising.

:D ;D >:( :( :o

[/quote]

So you have very little to say on the topic.

Isnt it Lucky for the worlds people that you are not in a position of responsibility?

You can continue wearing your black Hollywood batman mask and living a life of self delusion.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 1:32pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 1:02pm:

[quote author=Chimp_Logic link=1378343601/8#8 date=1378436004]

Well once upon a time we had 7000ppm and the planet Earth thrived.

I suppose you can call trilobites and stromataphiles as thriving life in high CO2 low O2 environments.

Do you wish to return to a 7000+ ppmv CO2 level in the earths atmosphere, over 450 million yeas ago?

image_136.jpg (10 KB | 28 )

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by # on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 2:18pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 1:02pm:

...
Well once upon a time we had 7000ppm and the planet Earth thrived.
...

Can you substantiate that? What was the human population at the time?

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Ajax on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 3:49pm

# wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 1:02pm:

...
Well once upon a time we had 7000ppm and the planet Earth thrived.
...

Can you substantiate that? What was the human population at the time?

Are you saying mammals wouldn't survive if there was 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere......???

http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by muso on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 7:17pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:

Do you want to go back to living in caves then.....????

You first, set the example and I'll see how you fair and decide later.

It's ironic that you speak about living in caves when we're talking about renewable energy in Germany.

While Australia talks about high speed trains by say 2050, Germany is already doing it. You're talking about the richest nation in Europe.

That well worn cliche of living in caves has seen better days.

http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2013-07-29/the-battle-for-the-luxury-electric-car

Nice Video on BMW's latest luxury vehicle there. The BMW i3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ovpMYj_blD4

Living in caves indeed ::)

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by muso on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 7:23pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 3:49pm:

Are you saying mammals wouldn't survive if there was 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere......???

Correct. They wouldn't survive. What kind of mammals lived on Earth when the Atmospheric CO2 was in that range?

Ignore that question if you want. I wouldn't like you to go to the trouble of Googling Prehistoric Life in the Cambrian Period" or "First Mammals"`

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 7:25pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 3:49pm:

# wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 1:02pm:

...
Well once upon a time we had 7000ppm and the planet Earth thrived.
...

Can you substantiate that? What was the human population at the time?

Are you saying mammals wouldn't survive if there was 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere......???

http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

Looks as though you want to drag humanity even further back than the Stone Age.

Why do you detest renewable energy options?

It's a disgrace that a nation such as Germany has more solar energy uptake than Australia when their solar resources due to geography are far less than ours.

I suppose that's why Germany is the worlds biggest exporter hey?

They can not only think, but think many decades ahead.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by muso on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 9:54pm

That temperature graph over geologic time has been got at! I just looked at the original. The graph also doesn't correspond with the paper that you posted. The wonderful use of colour suggests that it was the work of Monckton. I'm going to investigate further.

Whoever did it, changed the graph and removed Delta T and replaced it with a temperature scale.

How sneaky. I bet it was Monckton.

Here is a respectable paper:

http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange101.html

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by miketrees on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 10:15pm

Its an interesting exercise to rank countries by CO2 per head of population.

So if Australia doubled its population it would halve its per head CO2 production.

Not sure if that would be a good idea for the environment.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 10:40pm

miketrees wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

Its an interesting exercise to rank countries by CO2 per head of population.

So if Australia doubled its population it would halve its per head CO2 production.

So you are saying that if Australia doubled its population from 22 million to 44 million, the additional 22 million people will not contribute to Australia's net CO2 emissions

You haven't quite grasped the per capita idea it seems.

If Australia doubles its population or halves it or triples it, all things being equal the per capita CO2 emissions will not change.

To change the per capita emission value, Australia would need to to reduce its CO2 net emissions for a fixed population. This can be done by conservation of energy, shifting to carbon neutral or a carbon less energy option, or even capturing and storing carbon.

Planting trees will reduce the per capita CO2 emissions value for our country. Likewise deforestation will increase it.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by muso on Sep 7^th, 2013 at 7:16am

Well, more people would mean more transport sector emissions, more electricity generation emissions etc right across the board, so the per-capita emissions would probably be about the same. A lot depends on whether there was a transition to renewable energy or not.

weblarge_Graphic_PieChart.jpeg (64 KB | 24 )

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Ajax on Sep 7^th, 2013 at 9:15am

muso wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 7:23pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 3:49pm:

Are you saying mammals wouldn't survive if there was 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere......???

In your eagerness to prove me wrong you haven't done your research first.

The first mammals appeared approximately about 200 to 300 million years ago depending upon who you believe on the internet.

They still would have been exposed to 3000ppm in the atmosphere if not more.

The other thing is what is the toxic level of CO2 for humans.

Its estimated that humans can work in atmospheres with 10000ppm to about 20000ppm with 10 minute exposures to 30000ppm.

7000ppm would have been no problem at all......??!!

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pel88/124-38.html

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Ajax on Sep 7^th, 2013 at 9:16am

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 7:25pm:

I don't mind renewable energy as long as it is cheap as fossil fuels.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Ajax on Sep 7^th, 2013 at 9:17am

muso wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 9:54pm:

Knock yourself out......!!!!!

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by muso on Sep 7^th, 2013 at 10:59am

Ajax wrote on Sep 7^th, 2013 at 9:15am:

In your eagerness to prove me wrong you haven't done your research first.

I studied Geology at University. I didn't need to research something so basic.

Quote:

The first mammals appeared approximately about 200 to 300 million years ago depending upon who you believe on the internet.

The end of the Triassic. About 200 million years give or take.

Quote:

They still would have been exposed to 3000ppm in the atmosphere if not more.

Read the graph again properly. I'm not sure about the provenance of that graph, but for the moment, let's use it.

Quote:

The other thing is what is the toxic level of CO2 for humans.

Its estimated that humans can work in atmospheres with 10000ppm to about 20000ppm with 10 minute exposures to 30000ppm.

7000ppm would have been no problem at all......??!!

The toxicity is not in question, although you would start to notice some effects at 3000ppm.

It's academic since there were no humans back then. What was more to the point was the deep ocean temperature. Did you get that from the articles I linked? Imagine what the land surface temperature would have been. What was the atmospheric oxygen content in the Cambrian? Say 13%? How long would you survive that? There were no land animals or plants during the Cambrian. You do understand that?

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Ajax on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 8:29am

BTW where did you get that graph.....???

Quote:

OSHA's former limit for carbon dioxide was 5000 ppm as an 8-hour TWA. The ACGIH has a 5000-ppm TLV-TWA with a 30,000-ppm TLV-STEL, and these were the limits proposed. NIOSH has a TWA REL of 10,000 ppm with a 10-minute 30,000-ppm ceiling limit; however, NIOSH (Ex. 8-47, Table N1) concurred that the proposed limits were appropriate. After carefully reviewing the record evidence submitted in response to OSHA's proposal for carbon dioxide, the Agency has determined that exposure limits of 10,000 ppm (8-hour TWA) and 30,000 ppm (15-minute STEL) are appropriate. Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless, noncombustible gas.

Both the ACGIH (1986/Ex. 1-3) and NIOSH (1976a, as cited in ACGIH 1986/Ex. 1-3, p. 102) cite studies indicating that continuous exposure to between 1.5 and 3 percent carbon dioxide (15,000 to 30,000 ppm) results in few, if any, adverse effects. However, electrolyte imbalances and other metabolic changes have been associated with prolonged exposures to 10,000 to 20,000 ppm CO(2) (Schulte 1964/Ex. 1-366; Gray 1950, as cited in ACGIH 1986/Ex. 1-3, p. 102). Increases in the rate of respiration have been observed among resting subjects exposed to 39,500 ppm for periods shorter than a day and among exercising subjects exposed to airborne concentrations below 30,000 for the same period (Sinclair et al. 1969, as cited in ACGIH 1986/Ex. 1-3, p. 102).

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pel88/124-38.html

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 5:51pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 7:25pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 3:49pm:

# wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 1:02pm:

...
Well once upon a time we had 7000ppm and the planet Earth thrived.
...

Can you substantiate that? What was the human population at the time?

Are you saying mammals wouldn't survive if there was 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere......???

http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

They also have more pride where as our country is just full of crack smoking wankers with semi-wealthy parents that don't mind how the spare rental gets paid off as long as the try-hard dynasty appears to prevail!

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 5:54pm

muso wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:

Do you want to go back to living in caves then.....????

You first, set the example and I'll see how you fair and decide later.

Australia is no longer the clever country: too many lay back on daddys wealth and smoke crack and get arrogant at the tv behind closed doors! 8-) 8-) 8-)

GO AUSTRALIA!

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 6:41pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 5:54pm:

muso wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:

Do you want to go back to living in caves then.....????

You first, set the example and I'll see how you fair and decide later.

Australia is no longer the clever country: too many lay back on daddys wealth and smoke crack and get arrogant at the tv behind closed doors! 8-) 8-) 8-)

GO AUSTRALIA!

We have never been THE CLEVER country - the biggest self perpetuated myth to emerge from our shores

We are also ordinary in sport as well - another myth

have you noticed that in sports that everybody participates in on a level playing field, like athletics and soccer, we are basically average in the OECD - sometimes even below average

We use to dominate Tennis when hardly anybody played in the world. Now that All of Europe, Russia and Asia take the sport seriously we struggle to get a top 10 player and only have about 2 or 3 players in the top 100.

We are certainly a dumb racist nation - no doubt about that

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by muso on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 9:42am

Ajax wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 8:29am:

BTW where did you get that graph.....???

I got the table from government source material on sick building syndrome. I don't have a url for it. However, let's look at the information that is freely available.

The OSHA TLV figure thst you quoted applies to US workplaces. It agrees with the exposure standard in Australia.

The Workplace Exposure standard for carbon dioxide (TWA) in Australia is 5000ppm.

http://www.hsis.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/ExposureStandards/Details?exposureStandardID=108

A TWA exposure has a frame of reference around an 8 hour working day, working 5 days per week and normal healthy individuals.

That is totally different to a 24 hour exposure for healthy individuals (as opposed to the whole population). Worksafe Australia refers to the calculation for extended exposures. The usual calculation that applies is the Brief and Scala Model. That's the one recommended by SafeWork Australia.

Reduction Factor = [8/daily hours worked] x [24-(minus) daily hours worked/16]

For example, a 12 hour exposure standard would be 0.50* 5000 = 2500ppm.

An 18 hour exposure standard would be 0.17* 5000 = 850ppm.

Another consideration is that currently, CO2 levels inside a poorly ventilated house is typically around 600ppm. That will rise as atmospheric concentrations rise.

It's not difficult to see how continuous atmospheric levels of 1000ppm would result in concentration problems for at least some people.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Rider on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 9:59am

miketrees wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

Its an interesting exercise to rank countries by CO2 per head of population.

....

Step two is to rank countries by 'living standards' and you'll see the list of counties essentially mirrors the CO2 ranking.

If you want poverty, support a carbon tax.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by muso on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 11:20am

Well, you piqued my curiosity, so I did the exercise for you. I used GDP per capita, which is a reasonable gauge of living standards. The correlation factor is 0.65 (a moderate correlation). That's based on 2006 figures. Many countries have dramatically increased their renewable energy generation since then, so 2006 is erring on the conservative side. If you did the same exercise for 2012, the correlation coefficient would be less.

In contrast, the correlation between Global Land/Ocean temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over the last 50 years is a good one. The correlation coefficient for that data is 0.86.

Another good exercise would be to carry out the same exercise for the 40 richest countries. I doubt if there would be a correlation there.

The conclusion - it ain't necessarily so.

graph2.jpeg (60 KB | 29 )

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Ajax on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 3:40pm

Per capita economic jargon for economists.

Its the only way to make Australia look bad because of her CO2 emissions.

Just remember we emit 1.5% of all manmade CO2 emissions.

We're not even in the top ten countries for CO2 emissions

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by muso on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 4:40pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

That doesn't mean we shouldn't pull our weight. The only way we cam gauge if we're pulling our weight is by using per capita measures.

Do you think that a carbon trading system is a sure way to poverty too Ajax? You'd be surprised how many of our rich trading partners have one.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by BigOl64 on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 5:37pm

muso wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 4:40pm:

[

That doesn't mean we shouldn't pull our weight. The only way we cam gauge if we're pulling our weight is by using per capita measures.

Bullsh1t!

The only way anyone should guage pollution is by output, damage is not caused by a per capita manipulation of the facts but by by actual output.

This per capita bullsh1t argument lets off the over populated to do what ever they want, because on a per capita basis they are looking great, the reality is they are the major polluters. Yeah china is who Im talking about for a start

Just more socialist wank.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by muso on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 6:30pm

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

muso wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 4:40pm:

[

That doesn't mean we shouldn't pull our weight. The only way we cam gauge if we're pulling our weight is by using per capita measures.

Hey! - I resent the socialist bit. (and the wank bit)

China has a fair way to go too, but it's outside our control.

You are right in saying that the damage is done by the total global output, but it's a question of "how to eat an elephant".

Apart from that I was just replying to Rider's point.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 7:09pm

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

muso wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 4:40pm:

[

That doesn't mean we shouldn't pull our weight. The only way we cam gauge if we're pulling our weight is by using per capita measures.

Bullsh1t!

The only way anyone should guage pollution is by output, damage is not caused by a per capita manipulation of the facts but by by actual output.

Then you would be appalled at WHICH countries have historically contributed to the bulk of the carbon emissions

Almost 70% of the total global Carbon emissions have been due to 15 nations - all of which are WESTERN OECD nations. The USA being the biggest contributor.

Your arguments on per capita emissions are childish and ridiculous to say the least

carbon-circles2.jpg (47 KB | 24 )

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by muso on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 7:20pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 7:09pm:

Your arguments on per capita emissions are childish and ridiculous to say the least

Two posters have said this so far. I'd suggest that one of the bloggers must have written it, such as Anthony Watts or ex Professor Bob Carter. the guy who was fired early in the year for bringing James Cook University into disrepute.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 7:23pm

muso wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 7:20pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 7:09pm:

Your arguments on per capita emissions are childish and ridiculous to say the least

I don't know anything about that

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Rider on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 7:26pm

Seems the Germans aren't all that happy with green energy after all...

Green energy forcing ratepayers into the red

By Gary Lamphier, Edmonton Journal September 13, 2013

EDMONTON - Apparently the path to a cleaner, greener planet isn’t quite as painless as many eco-altruists would have you believe.

From Germany to Spain and Ontario to British Columbia, taxpayers are waking up to the fact that their power bills are going straight up.

A major reason? Poorly thought out — some would say hopelessly naive — energy policies that encouraged an explosion of highly subsidized solar, wind, biomass and hydro projects, all in the name of saving the planet from evil fossil fuels.

Ironically, in some cases, these policies have led to an increase in carbon emissions. At the same time, the promised payoff of millions of new green manufacturing jobs has failed to live up to the hype, as Chinese firms undercut their Western rivals. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s single-minded campaign to wean her country off nuclear energy in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima disaster has resulted in increased dependence on coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels. German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in all of Europe. Now there’s talk in the German press that electricity is becoming a “luxury good” that some simply can’t afford.

The country’s former Green Party environment minister once boasted that the switch to renewables wouldn’t cost taxpayers more than one scoop of ice cream. Today his successor admits consumers are paying enough to “eat everything on the ice cream menu,” according to Der Spiegel, Germany’s largest news magazine.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Lamphier+Green+energy+forcing+ratepayers/8911105/story.html

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by muso on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 8:49pm

The problem with Germany is the fact that they shut down their nuclear power plants. These were plants that had been operating reliably for years.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 11:11pm

Rider wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 7:26pm:

Germany is the worlds largest exporting nation, with even china just below them.

They pay their workers TOP dollar with many of their sectors working 32 hour weeks full time.

Oh they are happy alright.

In fact they look into our back yard and laugh their heads off at what we do as a nation.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 11:24pm

muso wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 8:49pm:

The problem with Germany is the fact that they shut down their nuclear power plants. These were plants that had been operating reliably for years.

Actually Germany still has 9 nuclear power reactors running.

The nuclear power phase out timetable currently is set for the year 2022. One reactor shut in 2015, one in 2017, one in 2019, 3 reactors shut down in 2021 and the remaining 3 reactors shut down by 2022.

They really don't have the dependency on nuclear as say a country like France which is about 80% nuclear. Germany has been less than 25% reliant on nuclear.

European nations do have the advantage of imported power via an integrated grid.

image_150.jpg (35 KB | 22 )

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Ajax on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 12:17pm

The per capita statement is nonsense, its the only way to make Australia look bad to its people, that's why these treasonous politicians use it.

Have you ever heard these smacking labor or green politicians come out and say that we don't even rank in the top ten nations when it comes to human CO2 emissions.

Look at our bills ever since witchy poo introduced the carbon tax.......?????

Everything ....rates....utilities....services..... etc etc...have sky rocketed.

What about our wages........????......there not keeping up to the amount of increase....we have fallen behind big time.

The European ETS is falling apart its become corrupt and dysfunctional, their carbon credits are at rock bottom in other words not worth the paper there printed on.

And their emissions are still going up.

We send 10% of the carbon tax revenue to the United Nations....??

Who the bugger are they to receive Australian tax payer monies....????

We also send out about $ one billion dollars in the purchase of carbon credits and their derivatives.

Again I ask you WHY.......????

This money can be better spent here in Australia on Australians.

If we stopped producing CO2 emissions tomorrow it wouldn't make a difference to the world human emissions and yet we have been given a carbon tax with a value unheard of anywhere else in the world.

Our industry is suffering the Australian people are suffering and the bottom line is our CO2 emissions don't even count.

The environmental movement is communism incognito.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by BigOl64 on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 12:24pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 7:09pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

muso wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 4:40pm:

[

That doesn't mean we shouldn't pull our weight. The only way we cam gauge if we're pulling our weight is by using per capita measures.

Bullsh1t!

The only way anyone should guage pollution is by output, damage is not caused by a per capita manipulation of the facts but by by actual output.

Why the bugger would I be appalled by the fact we are not one of those countries?

Let them fix their polllution problems, it has nothing to do with our miniscule amount of pollution / CO2

Brilliant plan, you presenting a rock solid argument that has bugger all to do with what i posted. ;D

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by muso on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 2:43pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 12:17pm:

What about our wages........????......there not keeping up to the amount of increase....we have fallen behind big time.

The wages look fine. There has been a steady rise in the total sum of wages and salaries paid in Australia over the last few years. (Please let Ajax answer this)

wgs.png (17 KB | 21 )

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Ajax on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 7:30pm

Is this the theoretical wages......?????

Cause all people keep telling me is that wages aren't going up......???

The excuse is we are coming out of a GFC and therefore companies are saying to stay competitive we can't give you wage rises.

Yet electricity has risen 40%, rates have risen 15% to 20%

And the carbon tax will only continue to rise the price of all goods and services.

Ask around see how wages have risen...........!!!!!

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by muso on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 7:46pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 7:30pm:

No, that's total wages. You don't like per capita figures, so I gave you total figures. Much better, isn't it?

Remember?

Quote:

Per capita economic jargon for economists.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by muso on Sep 20^th, 2013 at 9:01pm

bump.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Ajax on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 10:15am

muso wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 2:43pm:

The wages look fine. There has been a steady rise in the total sum of wages and salaries paid in Australia over the last few years. (Please let Ajax answer this)

LMFAO have you alarmists got a hockey shhhtick for everything...............????

bugger me..........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6345.0

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by muso on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 12:47pm

That's per capita. You don't like per capita, so I gave you a total figure. My point, which went over your head completely is that it's sometimes necessary to put things in context.

Showing a graph of total wages doesn't convey the necessary information. Showing a graph of total emissions doesn't either if you're trying to get an idea how we are doing against similar sized populations elsewhere.

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by Ajax on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 2:03pm

muso wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 12:47pm:

muso are you lying again.................FFS....mate!!!!!

Where does it say that graph is per capita.....???

Please enlighten me......!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6345.0

Title: Re: Renewables save Germans $8.5bn a year
Post by muso on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 4:04pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 2:03pm:

muso wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 12:47pm:

muso are you lying again.................FFS....mate!!!!!

Where does it say that graph is per capita.....???

Please enlighten me......!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6345.0

Well if it's a change in hourly rate, then by definition, it's a cost that relates to one man hour. It's not rocket science.