Energy Matters Forums

[EnergyMatters]

Tony Abbott announced the Coalition's Emissions Reduction Fund a short time ago, which includes a range of measures to support the increased uptake and use of renewable energy in homes and communities in Australia.

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.p ... cle_id=751

[Tracker]

.
Tony must be a simple thinker - like me.
I could not understand why the simple things were bypassed for the most complex. I am confident that Climate Change is purely natural and cyclic, but our stupid memories just don't remember.

Apart from Kiribati sinking more likely from Geological subduction, there are no real reports of other places disappearing. .. .. Where is the sea rising? ... Anywhere????

We KNOW that fossil fuels WILL disappear, so why not preserve as much as we can now.

'onya Tony -- don't Monk-ey around - just do all the practical things that will help anyway.
.
.

[Willandra]

At last!! A sensible policy from a politician!!

Basically his core proposal is an emissions trading scheme, but without the need for a third party to take a commission on the way through. It is all handled by the government - those who pollute too much pay, and those who pollute below their allowance get a refund. No involvement by the coiffured-hair financial services brigade. They contribute absolutely nothing to society, just take a commission for doing nothing.

I also note with pleasure Mr Abbots proposal to fund hot rocks schemes, the best possible alternate energy available. Further, he is investigating the placement of electricity cables underground to rid our society of those hideous pylons that blight our landscapes.

Now if we can just get him to ban wind factories in favour of schemes that provide base load power....

Cheers all,

Paul

[Tracker]

.

Now if we can just get him to ban wind factories in favour of schemes that provide base load power....

Not sure that I agree.
Wind farms surely are of an ecological advantage.. .. We can't have it both ways..

What we do need is Responsive Base-Load, that can be quickly brought on line to ensure that Alternative Energy is complemented.

The ONLY way that this will work is for the Tax-Payer, to own the Fast-Response-Generators.

A "Private" or "Corporate" owned generator will not be happy at having their plant running at half capacity, because the wind-generators are supplying power needs.

.. .. Only the Govt. ( ie. us ) can accept that financial loss, and responsibility.

Bring on Nuclear Power !!!!
.
.

[Willandra]

.

Now if we can just get him to ban wind factories in favour of schemes that provide base load power....

Wind farms surely are of an ecological advantage..

What we do need is Responsive Base-Load, that can be quickly brought on line to ensure that Alternative Energy is complemented.

The ONLY way that this will work is for the Tax-Payer, to own the Fast-Response-Generators.

A "Private" or "Corporate" owned generator will not be happy at having their plant running at half capacity, because the wind-generators are supplying power needs.

.

Yes, an excellent point. If we had available a good fast response generator, and as you say it was publicly owned, then yes, wind farms could have merit. Similarly, if we had a viable low-loss method of storing the energy from wind factories, then again, they would be a good thing.

However, as they stand they are a blight on the landscape causing great loss and misery to some people and they achieve very, very little.

If and when the extra utilities are available to render wind turbines useful, then roll them out by all means, but with sensitivity to the environment and compensation to their victims.

[Gordon-Loomberah]

However, as they stand they are a blight on the landscape causing great loss and misery to some people and they achieve very, very little.

If and when the extra utilities are available to render wind turbines useful, then roll them out by all means, but with sensitivity to the environment and compensation to their victims.

Eh? Wind power contributes over 30% of Denmark's power needs, hardly what anyone could call a "very very little" contribution!

I have wind generators, but I dont consider myself a victim! I quite enjoy the gentle swishing sound, in the knowledge that they are harnessing the power of the wind.

I have visited quite a few wind farms with large turbines in NSW, Qld and WA, and they are actually quite quiet, you can really only hear them when you are quite close.

[PeterReefman]

I find it amusing that the liberals want to reduce carbon through government incentives and spending, whereas labor wants a market based approach...

Oh and both of their actual 2020 targets are off by a country mile

Funny? Er, the first part yes, the second part - no.

[Willandra]

However, as they stand they are a blight on the landscape causing great loss and misery to some people and they achieve very, very little.

If and when the extra utilities are available to render wind turbines useful, then roll them out by all means, but with sensitivity to the environment and compensation to their victims.

Eh? Wind power contributes over 30% of Denmark's power needs, hardly what anyone could call a "very very little" contribution!

I have wind generators, but I dont consider myself a victim! I quite enjoy the gentle swishing sound, in the knowledge that they are harnessing the power of the wind.

I have visited quite a few wind farms with large turbines in NSW, Qld and WA, and they are actually quite quiet, you can really only hear them when you are quite close.

Errr...We are not in Denmark. In Denmark, the grid regularly calls on electricity suppliers in neighbouring countries to top up their power needs with on-demand available electricity. We can't do that in Australia.

Wind factories are a dud. The embodied energy is much greater than the proponents state. The promoters of wind factories only quote the embodied energy of the generator and the tower. They ignore the embodied energy of the hundreds of tons of concrete under each tower; they ignore the embodied energy of the roads needed during construction; they ignore the embodied energy of the fuel used in the trucks during construction; they ignore the embodied energy of de-commissioning. In short, it is a money-making con, like so much of the climate change industry.

It is a disgrace that the movement to save the planet has been so hijacked by money makers. Please note that EVERY solution suggested involves big money and MORE industry. Global warming if man made is a technological problem. The money-makers would have us solve it with more technology. We SHOULD be solving it organically, but where is the money in that?

Oh, and wind turbines ARE noisy. Most of the noise is sub-sonic and causes stress to most people subjected to it. You will note that the wind-farm industry when quoting noise levels from wind turbines quotes an "A" weighted figure. Basically this removes the sub-sonic noise from the reading! What a scam!

[EnergyMatters]

Some interesting comments here, but sort of getting away from the topic. Perhaps a new one could be started up for the wind-specific debate.

[zelda]

I am amazed that anyone would take Abbots plan seriously. It is not going to reduce carbon emmisions, in fact they will go up. Try and get voluntary tree planting, when farmers go on hunger strikes because they can't clear as much as they want. Tony's plan does not even mention any reductions on clearing, coal fired power stations etc. Tony keeps talking about the ETS as a big new tax, because it scares people....it is just the opposite: households will get 50% of the money generated by the sale of permits to assist them paying their bills and installing solar power etc. Tony's plan is the biggest tax, because families will be paying for the poluting industries to be assisted. Rudd's trading scheme at least has a cap on carbon, but the amendments made by negotiations with the Turnbull Liberals have made it less effective. I reckon the greens proposal of a interim Carbon tax is the only practical option at the moment.