Quote:

Shredding stupidity on renewable energy ROBERT Bryce came to town and in 45 minutes of clinical, highly entertaining, fact-filled presentation, completely shredded the fantasies of so-called renewable energy.    In summary, we use carbon-based energy — oil, gas and mostly coal — because it works. Renewable, whether wind or solar, does not. It’s ultimately as simple and undeniable as that. More to the point, the overwhelming majority of the earth’s population, which either has no access to electricity or very poor and limited access, is going to keep using more and more energy. That’s, more and more carbon-based energy, mostly coal. The entire developed world, the US, Japan, all of Europe and little ’ol Australia, could reduce its use of carbon-based energy to zero — obviously, it won’t; indeed, it would be lucky to knock off even 10 per cent anytime soon — and that would be swamped by the increase in the use of carbon-based energy by developing countries which aspire to our prosperity. That is to say, there is zero prospect of any global reduction in the use of coal and carbon-based energy in total; and so of the associated carbon dioxide emissions. Indeed, both coal use and CO2 emissions will continue to rise relentlessly. Which countries have recorded the fastest growth in the use of coal-fired power generation and so CO2 emissions? We’ve all heard about China of course — now the world’s single biggest source of CO2 emissions by far, approaching one-third of the global total; with India following behind. This reality produced of course a most extraordinary variation of the cognitive dissonance which is the most pervasive social disease of our time among the Labor governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. While Rudd described climate change — and reducing CO2 emissions — as the “biggest moral challenge of our time”, both were galloping enthusiasts for selling more and more coal and iron ore to China and other places to our north. It was a cognitive dissonance wrapped up in a thick layer of hypocrisy. Like the pianist in the brothel, what did Gillard think the coal and iron ore were ‘doing upstairs’ in China, so to speak? Presumably she concluded that if she just figuratively closed her eyes, she could avoid ‘seeing’ that the mammoth expansion in CO2 emissions facilitated by our coal and iron ore, would swamp, would utterly overwhelm, the 5 per cent cut mandated by their tackling (sic) that great moral challenge. But as Bryce pointed out the biggest increases in coal use and CO2 emissions had been recorded by Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia. In Indonesia alone, this has given over 100 million people access to electricity — and critically, they were really only getting started on their power usage. It is exactly this reality that Bryce who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute think tank in the US set out in clinical detail in a speech to Institute of Public Affairs Tuesday night. It was to a certain extent a more focused exposition of his latest book: Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper. Bryce discussed the energy reality under five headings: scale, the centrality of energy for wealth and freedom, coal as the pivot, the big fibs of renewables, and iteration equalled innovation. The world used 256 million barrels of oil equivalent (mboe) of energy every day. About one-third of that is actual oil, 87 per cent in total comes from oil, coal and gas. Barely 2 per cent came from wind, solar and biomass — the renewable that kills people rather than just birds as wind does. The rest is of course nuclear and hydro. Over the last decade global CO2 emissions have risen 29 per cent — and, my comment, the six billion people not in the developed world, are just getting started on their energy consumption. The additional energy will be produced mostly by increased use of coal. As Bryce detailed, over the last 20 years some 800 million people have been given access to electricity by the use of coal; only 65 million have got it from wind and solar. Coal usage has been growing by 2 mboe per day every year. That is more than three time the entire total of existing solar energy in the world. The big fib — I‘d describe it as the ultimate mother of all lies — is that renewable energy could be the answer to the world’s appetite for energy. Just to meet the growth in energy demand — not to make any inroad into that 87 per cent of total carbon-based supply — would require installing wind farms covering the area of the UK every year, he explained. That’s one Manhattan — the island, not the institute — every day. In his book Bryce characterises environmentalists — I would extend it to all those preaching the renewable energy nonsense — as driven by fear; and knowingly or (perhaps, mostly) reject modernity and economic growth. He concludes his book with a stirring call for an outlook that embraced “humanism, optimism and technology”. Technology and economic growth had brought — and were bringing — tens of millions of people “(literally) out of the dark and into the electric-lit world of ideas, education, and fuller healthier, freer, more fulfilling lives”. Indeed. Terry McCrann    Herald Sun  September 11, 2014 12:00AM

nice one Terry...

but the loopys aren't going to like a slap in the face of reality..

Pity you can hardly even breathe in Chinese cities thanks to carbon based fuels.

This article is absolute nonsense. There is no need to switch directly 100% renewables worldwide, it should be done progressively where it works and fits first. Australia just happen to a be a place where it fits.

"Shredding Stupidity" ?    You will have the righties in here soon screaming Heiner Affair!!   Heiner Affair!!
Perhaps we could "Shed" some light on that

Kytro wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 8:16am:

Pity you can hardly even breathe in Chinese cities thanks to carbon based fuels. This article is absolute nonsense. There is no need to switch directly 100% renewables worldwide, it should be done progressively where it works and fits first. Australia just happen to a be a place where it fits.

kytro's reply to the opening post is best known as "bullshit".


BULLSHIT:* definition of: the bowel movements of a male bovine ie: faeces forced out of the male bovine's {bovinuses} anus.

also [loosely] includes the droppings of a female bovine.

[in some circles known as a soppy old cow]

in many communities, "BULLSHIT" is persevered as a revered pastime in the spoken sense of the word, often used by uni students and other such "moronic" people with a severe sense of stupidity minded people, and used to further promote their very own inane arguments of any topic that comes to mind.

in short, renewable energies can never EVER be sufficient to run the power grids of life as we know it.

*an excerpt from the "you bastards never know what you are talking about" handbook of "sufficient renewable energy is bullshit"**

see above for the definition of "" BULLSHIT.

So, General True Blue, do you think the price for access to electricity from fossil fuelled power stations is acceptable? 

Do you think rising sea levels, with the accompanying flooding of the fertile coastal plains where most of the world's rice - a staple foodstuff of the poor who are being provided with this electricity is acceptable?

So you think increased and more ferocious storms cause by Global Warming is acceptable to the poor will suffer most because they are being provided with cheap electricity from fossil fuelled power stations is acceptable?

Do you believe that increased and less stable weather patterns cause by Global Warming is acceptable to the poor will suffer most because they are being provided with cheap electricity from fossil fuelled power stations is acceptable?

I mean, it's obvious they'll now be able to afford to power the air-conditioners they'll need to survive increased temperatures but will they be able to afford the air-conditioners themselves?   ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

Renewable energy resources will be the future of our race.  It is inevitable.  Each year, energy requirements for individuals from both developed and developing world increase.  And by virtual of non renewable energy, there will be a finite limit.  One can only continue to produce more coal based electricity station before the environment is degraded to such an extent that its incompatible with human. 

Even at our stage of scientific development, we already knew that there are vast amount of other energy avaible in our universe.  And that getting energy by burning of biological remains are the least available form and the least efficent form. 

The article author also used this excuse:


Quote:

Just to meet the growth in energy demand — not to make any inroad into that 87 per cent of total carbon-based supply — would require installing wind farms covering the area of the UK every year, he explained. That’s one Manhattan — the island, not the institute — every day.

I expect this sort of argument from a primary school student.  Even as a high school student, I know that there are other forms of renewable energy.    The energy that arrive from the Sun for 1 minute on Earth, holds enough energy to power our entire modern world for one year.  If we as a race want to reach out to the stars, to be a meaningful part of the universe, then we will eventually have to move out of non renewable energy. 

So how much did Robert Bryce pay for his non-baseload renewable sunlight energy today or did he walk around with a torch or drive around with his headlights on ?

And what happens when the filthy sh.t runs out then what does Robert suggest as an alternative ?

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 1:08pm:

So how much did Robert Bryce pay for his non-baseload renewable sunlight energy today or did he walk around with a torch or drive around with his headlights on ? And what happens when the filthy sh.t runs out then what does Robert suggest as an alternative ?

Probably less than YOU pay for Base load power.

Who Is Robert Bryce?


Robert Bryce Is A Senior Fellow At The Manhattan Institute.
Bryce is "a senior fellow with the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment at the Manhattan Institute."
The center "seeks to influence today's energy policy debate by developing and advancing ideas rooted in free-market economic principles" and disseminates its message "through research papers, op-eds and interviews."
According to The Manhattan Insitute's 2009 990 form, accessed through GuideStar.org, the center had expenses of $496,692. [Manhattan Institute, accessed 10/6/11]

Manhattan Institute Is Funded By ExxonMobil.

According to ExxonSecrets.org, the Manhattan Institute has received $385,000 from Exxon since 1998, including $50,000 in 2010. [Exxonsecrets.org, accessed 9/13/11]

Manhattan Institute Has Received Funding From The Koch Family Foundations.

The Manhattan Institute has received over $1.3 million total from the Claude R. Lambe Foundation and the David H. Koch Foundation over the years, both of which are associated with Koch Industries, an oil, gas and chemical corporation.

From 2001 to 2009 (the most recent year for which data is available), the Lambe Foundation gave The Manhattan Institute $200,000 annually.
The Lambe Foundation's board of directors is "comprised entirely of Koch family members, senior Koch executives, and staff who serve Koch foundations," including the CEO of Koch Industries Charles G. Koch.

Manhattan Institute Was Previously Funded By Tobacco Industry

In a 1990 memo, tobacco company RJ Reynolds said: "For the past few years, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company has been a corporate sponsor of the Manhattan Institute," which "has done much to stimulate thought at policy-making levels about the ramifications on American life of the product liability situation."

The Manhattan Institute also received money from other tobacco companies. A 1997 RJ Reynolds strategy memo brainstorming ways to improve the image of the tobacco industry proposed working with the Manhattan Institute to "educate the public about epidemiology and put risk in perspective." [Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, 10/19/90, 12/10/90, 4/11/95, 10/19/95, 10/25/95, 1/14/97, 2/4/97]

Manhattan Institute Worked With Philip Morris On Piece Criticizing Clinton Health Care Plan.

A Philip Morris memo revealed that the tobacco company "worked off-the-record" with the Manhattan Institute's Betsy McCaughey on her "three-part expose in The New Republic on what the Clinton plan means to you." The plan included an increase on tobacco taxes

http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/10/07/who-is-robert-bryce/181888





Oh MY !

Robert Bryce leaves QUITE a nasty "paper trail" of "cash for comment"

|dev|null wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 12:43pm:

So, General True Blue, do you think the price for access to electricity from fossil fuelled power stations is acceptable?  Do you think rising sea levels, with the accompanying flooding of the fertile coastal plains where most of the world's rice - a staple foodstuff of the poor who are being provided with this electricity is acceptable? So you think increased and more ferocious storms cause by Global Warming is acceptable to the poor will suffer most because they are being provided with cheap electricity from fossil fuelled power stations is acceptable? Do you believe that increased and less stable weather patterns cause by Global Warming is acceptable to the poor will suffer most because they are being provided with cheap electricity from fossil fuelled power stations is acceptable? I mean, it's obvious they'll now be able to afford to power the air-conditioners they'll need to survive increased temperatures but will they be able to afford the air-conditioners themselves?   ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

im not sure what you want me to say when you've totally and utterly missed the point...

[quote author=buzzanddidj link=1410421933/8#8 date=1410519875]Who Is Robert Bryce?


Robert Bryce Is A Senior Fellow At The Manhattan Institute.
Bryce is "a senior fellow with the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment at the Manhattan Institute."
The center "seeks to influence today's energy policy debate by developing and advancing ideas rooted in free-market economic principles" and disseminates its message "through research papers, op-eds and interviews."
According to The Manhattan Insitute's 2009 990 form, accessed through GuideStar.org, the center had expenses of $496,692. [Manhattan Institute, accessed 10/6/11]

Manhattan Institute Is Funded By ExxonMobil.

According to ExxonSecrets.org, the Manhattan Institute has received $385,000 from Exxon since 1998, including $50,000 in 2010. [Exxonsecrets.org, accessed 9/13/11]

Manhattan Institute Has Received Funding From The Koch Family Foundations.

The Manhattan Institute has received over $1.3 million total from the Claude R. Lambe Foundation and the David H. Koch Foundation over the years, both of which are associated with Koch Industries, an oil, gas and chemical corporation.

From 2001 to 2009 (the most recent year for which data is available), the Lambe Foundation gave The Manhattan Institute $200,000 annually.
The Lambe Foundation's board of directors is "comprised entirely of Koch family members, senior Koch executives, and staff who serve Koch foundations," including the CEO of Koch Industries Charles G. Koch.

Manhattan Institute Was Previously Funded By Tobacco Industry

In a 1990 memo, tobacco company RJ Reynolds said: "For the past few years, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company has been a corporate sponsor of the Manhattan Institute," which "has done much to stimulate thought at policy-making levels about the ramifications on American life of the product liability situation."

The Manhattan Institute also received money from other tobacco companies. A 1997 RJ Reynolds strategy memo brainstorming ways to improve the image of the tobacco industry proposed working with the Manhattan Institute to "educate the public about epidemiology and put risk in perspective." [Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, 10/19/90, 12/10/90, 4/11/95, 10/19/95, 10/25/95, 1/14/97, 2/4/97]

Manhattan Institute Worked With Philip Morris On Piece Criticizing Clinton Health Care Plan.

A Philip Morris memo revealed that the tobacco company "worked off-the-record" with the Manhattan Institute's Betsy McCaughey on her "three-part expose in The New Republic on what the Clinton plan means to you." The plan included an increase on tobacco taxes

Oh MY !

Robert Bryce leaves QUITE a nasty "paper trail" of "cash for comment"
[/quote]
[/size]

another one that's missed the "POINT" ..

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 1:08pm:

So how much did Robert Bryce pay for his non-baseload renewable sunlight energy today or did he walk around with a torch or drive around with his headlights on ? And what happens when the filthy sh.t runs out then what does Robert suggest as an alternative ?

don't attack the author.. do try and understand the point..

he is, of course, 100% right

I know that.. you know that too..

Kytro wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 8:16am:

Pity you can hardly even breathe in Chinese cities thanks to carbon based fuels. This article is absolute nonsense. There is no need to switch directly 100% renewables worldwide, it should be done progressively where it works and fits first. Australia just happen to a be a place where it fits.

so the sun only shines in Australia then.. ?

General True Blue wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 10:48pm:

Kytro wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 8:16am: Pity you can hardly even breathe in Chinese cities thanks to carbon based fuels. This article is absolute nonsense. There is no need to switch directly 100% renewables worldwide, it should be done progressively where it works and fits first. Australia just happen to a be a place where it fits. so the sun only shines in Australia then.. ?

Do you have evidence to the contrary?  ;D What was the point?

tickleandrose wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 1:00pm:

Renewable energy resources will be the future of our race.  It is inevitable.  Each year, energy requirements for individuals from both developed and developing world increase.  And by virtual of non renewable energy, there will be a finite limit.  One can only continue to produce more coal based electricity station before the environment is degraded to such an extent that its incompatible with human.  Even at our stage of scientific development, we already knew that there are vast amount of other energy avaible in our universe.  And that getting energy by burning of biological remains are the least available form and the least efficent form.  The article author also used this excuse: Quote: Just to meet the growth in energy demand — not to make any inroad into that 87 per cent of total carbon-based supply — would require installing wind farms covering the area of the UK every year, he explained. That’s one Manhattan — the island, not the institute — every day. I expect this sort of argument from a primary school student.  Even as a high school student, I know that there are other forms of renewable energy.    The energy that arrive from the Sun for 1 minute on Earth, holds enough energy to power our entire modern world for one year.  If we as a race want to reach out to the stars, to be a meaningful part of the universe, then we will eventually have to move out of non renewable energy.

and yet, this is what the green Loopys want us to do, that's why he's addressed it in that way... its insane..

there is NO rush to get into renewables.. none at all...

government subsides on renewables is only increasing the cost from filthy suppliers..

we are already on our way to renewable energy and better equipment..

there's a kid who they reckon has invented 3D solar power.. in theory.. if it works you'll get a solar panel that's 4 times better than old tech..

so why rush into OLD TECH..

renewable energy at this stage should be paid for by either the private sector or the individual....

and don't get me wrong on renewable energy... I love it  :)

I haven't had a power bill over more than 3 years now...

I free camp in my caravan relying mostly on my off grid solar energy...

I transfer warmth from my northern facing back room to my southern living areas via a 4" duct using a solar panel and battery... of which im still experimenting with

im looking into importing an off grid solar system to power items in the house so that more of my ongrid solar goes back into the grid so that I get paid more by the elec companies...

as individuals, we could massively reduce carbon based energy ...

but 99% or our population are not doing it.. its all too hard... can't the government do it..  ::)

jerks..  >:(

but, back to the point..

no matter what we do here in Australia or the vast majority of other western countries... there's an explosion in energy consumption about to happen and there's nothing we can do about it... nothing we do with either solar or wind etc will compensate for the massive increases that we'll see in the following decades.. nothing...

General True Blue wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 10:45pm:

[quote author=buzzanddidj link=1410421933/8#8 date=1410519875]Who Is Robert Bryce? Robert Bryce Is A Senior Fellow At The Manhattan Institute. Bryce is "a senior fellow with the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment at the Manhattan Institute." The center "seeks to influence today's energy policy debate by developing and advancing ideas rooted in free-market economic principles" and disseminates its message "through research papers, op-eds and interviews." According to The Manhattan Insitute's 2009 990 form, accessed through GuideStar.org, the center had expenses of $496,692. [Manhattan Institute, accessed 10/6/11] Manhattan Institute Is Funded By ExxonMobil. According to ExxonSecrets.org, the Manhattan Institute has received $385,000 from Exxon since 1998, including $50,000 in 2010. [Exxonsecrets.org, accessed 9/13/11] Manhattan Institute Has Received Funding From The Koch Family Foundations. The Manhattan Institute has received over $1.3 million total from the Claude R. Lambe Foundation and the David H. Koch Foundation over the years, both of which are associated with Koch Industries, an oil, gas and chemical corporation. From 2001 to 2009 (the most recent year for which data is available), the Lambe Foundation gave The Manhattan Institute $200,000 annually. The Lambe Foundation's board of directors is "comprised entirely of Koch family members, senior Koch executives, and staff who serve Koch foundations," including the CEO of Koch Industries Charles G. Koch. Manhattan Institute Was Previously Funded By Tobacco Industry In a 1990 memo, tobacco company RJ Reynolds said: "For the past few years, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company has been a corporate sponsor of the Manhattan Institute," which "has done much to stimulate thought at policy-making levels about the ramifications on American life of the product liability situation." The Manhattan Institute also received money from other tobacco companies. A 1997 RJ Reynolds strategy memo brainstorming ways to improve the image of the tobacco industry proposed working with the Manhattan Institute to "educate the public about epidemiology and put risk in perspective." [Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, 10/19/90, 12/10/90, 4/11/95, 10/19/95, 10/25/95, 1/14/97, 2/4/97] Manhattan Institute Worked With Philip Morris On Piece Criticizing Clinton Health Care Plan. A Philip Morris memo revealed that the tobacco company "worked off-the-record" with the Manhattan Institute's Betsy McCaughey on her "three-part expose in The New Republic on what the Clinton plan means to you." The plan included an increase on tobacco taxes Oh MY ! Robert Bryce leaves QUITE a nasty "paper trail" of "cash for comment"

[/size]

another one that's missed the "POINT" .. [/quote]

As do you, I think.

Bryce sounds like a well paid schill,  He spreads disinformation on behalf of the fossil fuel industry and it appears people such as yourself lap it up.   ::)

General True Blue wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 10:45pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 9:04pm: Who Is Robert Bryce? Robert Bryce Is A Senior Fellow At The Manhattan Institute. Bryce is "a senior fellow with the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment at the Manhattan Institute." The center "seeks to influence today's energy policy debate by developing and advancing ideas rooted in free-market economic principles" and disseminates its message "through research papers, op-eds and interviews." According to The Manhattan Insitute's 2009 990 form, accessed through GuideStar.org, the center had expenses of $496,692. [Manhattan Institute, accessed 10/6/11] Manhattan Institute Is Funded By ExxonMobil. According to ExxonSecrets.org, the Manhattan Institute has received $385,000 from Exxon since 1998, including $50,000 in 2010. [Exxonsecrets.org, accessed 9/13/11] Manhattan Institute Has Received Funding From The Koch Family Foundations. The Manhattan Institute has received over $1.3 million total from the Claude R. Lambe Foundation and the David H. Koch Foundation over the years, both of which are associated with Koch Industries, an oil, gas and chemical corporation. From 2001 to 2009 (the most recent year for which data is available), the Lambe Foundation gave The Manhattan Institute $200,000 annually. The Lambe Foundation's board of directors is "comprised entirely of Koch family members, senior Koch executives, and staff who serve Koch foundations," including the CEO of Koch Industries Charles G. Koch. Manhattan Institute Was Previously Funded By Tobacco Industry In a 1990 memo, tobacco company RJ Reynolds said: "For the past few years, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company has been a corporate sponsor of the Manhattan Institute," which "has done much to stimulate thought at policy-making levels about the ramifications on American life of the product liability situation." The Manhattan Institute also received money from other tobacco companies. A 1997 RJ Reynolds strategy memo brainstorming ways to improve the image of the tobacco industry proposed working with the Manhattan Institute to "educate the public about epidemiology and put risk in perspective." [Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, 10/19/90, 12/10/90, 4/11/95, 10/19/95, 10/25/95, 1/14/97, 2/4/97] Manhattan Institute Worked With Philip Morris On Piece Criticizing Clinton Health Care Plan. A Philip Morris memo revealed that the tobacco company "worked off-the-record" with the Manhattan Institute's Betsy McCaughey on her "three-part expose in The New Republic on what the Clinton plan means to you." The plan included an increase on tobacco taxes Oh MY ! Robert Bryce leaves QUITE a nasty "paper trail" of "cash for comment" another one that's missed the "POINT" ..

Not at ALL

The evidence is UNEQUIVICAL

This Bryce character is a spokesperson for - and in the pockets of - the OIL, GAS, COAL and TOBACCO industries - and the multi-billionaires that own them

Windbags: where does Terry McCrann and Andrew Bolt get their science? Hint, not actual scientists…



One thing I’ve noted about News Limited’s commentators ceaseless war on science is how hostile they are to the work of actual scientists, preferring the misinformation of conservative think tanks such as the IPA,  fully-fledged cranks such as Lord Christoper Monckton and contrarian scientists out of step with their peers (Ian Plimer)


If that wasn’t bad enough, it would appear they’ll happily accept any old drival their readers send them without taking the care to check the references or the facts.

Indeed, fact-checking seems to have become passe at News Limited: why check facts, when the the information presented to you easily  confirms your world view?

Now before accuses me of hypocrisy, of course I’ve received emails from readers alerting me to new research and reports. On occasion these have become posts. But in every instance, the references are to legitimate sources which I make every attempt to validate.

Not so Terry MaCrann and Andrew Bolt

Last week McCrann provided a delicious example of the kind of polemical, fact-free propaganda that has become the hall mark of the work of News Ltd columnists.


His target: wind farms.

His source: what ever emails readers throw into his inbox.

Windbag: McCrann’s war on wind farms

Terry McCrann – Associate Editor for business at the Herald Sun – has been beating the denialist drum for years. Last week I was amused to see him raging against wind farms, the death of millions of birds and Green Leader Bob Brown



Cont ...

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/windbag-where-do-you-get-your-science/







Let's get rid of all the useless wind farms


Terry McCrann
Herald Sun
October 30, 2013


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/lets-get-rid-of-all-the-useless-wind-farms/story-fni0d8gi-1226750008876