Climate Change- CSIRO

josko said:
Hi all,

I had the pleasure of attending the No Carbon Tax Rally down at Canberra on Tuesday.

Loads of fun..Angry Anderson sung a tune and the Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd impersonators were hilarious...especially when Kevin turned around to walk off stage and there was a (fake of course) knife sticking out of his back....:p

The most interesting speaker was a man who had been employed by the CSIRO for 35 years.

Dr Art Raiche, retired CSIRO Chief Research Scientist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-IYJUDskds

(Skip to 8mins into it for the best bits if u haven't got time:))


He talked of the days when the CSIRO was a world class organisation and worked for Australia, Agriculture and Industry.



And people wonder why this topic has impassioned me so much.:mad:

Regards JO
Click to expand...

Anyone know why the video has been removed from youtube?
 
funny ................we want to become less reliant on Fossil..............

yet the same gov that feels a carbon tax is a good way to make that happen cans the best bang for KW saving solar HWS rebate scheme..............

How counter intuitive, yet im sure someone can explain it to me

ta
rolf
 
Hi guys,

Where's Tim Flannery these days, - The $180,000 advisor on Gillard's Climate Commission:

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".

Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane's dam levels: 100 per cent full.

In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster.
Click to expand...

"In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."

One premier, Queensland's Peter Beattie, took such predictions - made by other warming alarmists, too - so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayers' money on a desalination plant, saying "it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate".

But check that desalination plant today: mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned.
Click to expand...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...says-andrew-bolt/story-e6frfhqf-1226004644818

Boy oh boy! :mad:

Regards JO
 
Rolf Latham said:
funny ................we want to become less reliant on Fossil..............

yet the same gov that feels a carbon tax is a good way to make that happen cans the best bang for KW saving solar HWS rebate scheme..............

How counter intuitive, yet im sure someone can explain it to me

ta
rolf
Click to expand...

Hi Rolf

I'm almost in two minds about this.

This subsidy only supported switching from electricity - switching from a gas HWS was ineligible. With today's electricity prices, Solar HWS are a shoe in by themselves on that basis. Anyone solely using electricity for hot water below the 26th Parallel is burning money. The only thing this scheme helped with was to reduce the capital cost barrier for people who have trouble saving the necessaries to make the upfront payment. Everyone else was getting money for doing something they should have been doing anyway in their own self interest. I'm not into govts handing out money to people for doing things they would normally do anyway...

Of course the looming issue is gas prices in Australia. In WA we have legacy gas contracts and a potential gas reservation policy to hold prices well below the current market. On the east coast it's currently a stranded gas market and everyone is just waiting for the Gladstone terminals to get going for the price of gas to get up to international parity, which could double the retail price of gas on average. Holding down gas prices below true (international) market value means that we become more and more reliant on it as nothing else can compete with it - and more at risk from supply disruptions (e.g. Varanus island). If gas prices were allowed to rise with market forces then we would see massive uptake of Solar HWS. It will happen one day - govts can only hold back the tide for so long. Hopefully we can get rid of reservation policies that depress the market price as they are just not in our own long term interest - like most other subsidies.

And the idea that govt support such as this would help reduce the unit price of Solar HWS through higher volumes is just bunkum. The evidence shows the real price has hardly moved over the years, regardless of volume.

So I don't support this subsidy but I would also like to see others removed as well, such as those supporting lower gas prices.

As to cutting it off early, well it does help stop the end of year rush when you've already gone close to the projected budget for the scheme - so if you have to you have to.
 
HiEquity said:
Hi Rolf

I'm almost in two minds about this.

This subsidy only supported switching from electricity - switching from a gas HWS was ineligible. With today's electricity prices, Solar HWS are a shoe in by themselves on that basis. Anyone solely using electricity for hot water below the 26th Parallel is burning money. The only thing this scheme helped with was to reduce the capital cost barrier for people who have trouble saving the necessaries to make the upfront payment. Everyone else was getting money for doing something they should have been doing anyway in their own self interest. I'm not into govts handing out money to people for doing things they would normally do anyway...

Of course the looming issue is gas prices in Australia. In WA we have legacy gas contracts and a potential gas reservation policy to hold prices well below the current market. On the east coast it's currently a stranded gas market and everyone is just waiting for the Gladstone terminals to get going for the price of gas to get up to international parity, which could double the retail price of gas on average. Holding down gas prices below true (international) market value means that we become more and more reliant on it as nothing else can compete with it - and more at risk from supply disruptions (e.g. Varanus island). If gas prices were allowed to rise with market forces then we would see massive uptake of Solar HWS. It will happen one day - govts can only hold back the tide for so long. Hopefully we can get rid of reservation policies that depress the market price as they are just not in our own long term interest - like most other subsidies.

And the idea that govt support such as this would help reduce the unit price of Solar HWS through higher volumes is just bunkum. The evidence shows the real price has hardly moved over the years, regardless of volume.

So I don't support this subsidy but I would also like to see others removed as well, such as those supporting lower gas prices.

As to cutting it off early, well it does help stop the end of year rush when you've already gone close to the projected budget for the scheme - so if you have to you have to.
Click to expand...

Solar HWS has been around for donkeys and has always had a BIG ticket price. In terms of real dollars id say they are at less real cost today than ever before ?

If I was a provider of the service/product and had geared up, id be less than impressed .............

On the gas price front csg here we come then

ta

rolf
 
Rolf Latham said:
Solar HWS has been around for donkeys and has always had a BIG ticket price. In terms of real dollars id say they are at less real cost today than ever before ?
Click to expand...

Yes but we're not talking sheep stations here... more "incremental" improvements.

Rolf Latham said:
If I was a provider of the service/product and had geared up, id be less than impressed .............
Click to expand...

My favourite saying in this industry was related to me by a colleague many moons ago and goes like this:

"If you live by the subsidy, you die by the subsidy"

:)
 
HiEquity said:
My favourite saying in this industry was related to me by a colleague many moons ago and goes like this:

"If you live by the subsidy, you die by the subsidy"
Click to expand...
Without the subsidy they will just have to reduce the ticket price. Technologies such as evacuated tubes, which have not qualified, will become more attractive and the older stuff will just have to compete. The free market lives again.
 
..and just to be clear, the solar subsidy of 2007, (it was only ever going to be insitu x 5yrs-then 'reviewed') was brought in by coalition (Malcolm Turnbull to be specific). It was always going to finish 2012, by shutting down end Feb allows (as HiE pointed out), to wind it up finance wise for end of financial year.

The other concern of it being 'finished' is that there is still:

Households installing solar hot water can still qualify for a separate incentive payment of up to $1000 under the small-scale renewable energy scheme.
Click to expand...
 
Sunfish said:
Without the subsidy they will just have to reduce the ticket price. Technologies such as evacuated tubes, which have not qualified, will become more attractive and the older stuff will just have to compete. The free market lives again.
Click to expand...

Hi Sunfish

My understanding was that evacuated tubes were always eligible - but I could be wrong - are you sure they weren't?

When I last looked they were more expensive and their advantages only dominate in a cold climate. I know a few people who were trying to get them going in Hobart, where it was marginal. Heaps (i.e. millions of rooftop sets everywhere you look!) of them around in China where the temp regularly gets below freezing - but even getting container loads of those over wasn't a particularly attractive idea at the time. Could be wrong now but...
 
josko said:
Hi guys,

Where's Tim Flannery these days, - The $180,000 advisor on Gillard's Climate Commission:





http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...says-andrew-bolt/story-e6frfhqf-1226004644818

Boy oh boy! :mad:

Regards JO
Click to expand...

It's elementary, my dear Bolt

Solid article of Bolt's 'history' here, (but there are lots more, don't just go by my sourcing):

Melbourne Talk Radio’s Andrew Bolt “blames” scientist Tim Flannery for rise in climate scepticism



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
HiEquity said:
Yes but we're not talking sheep stations here... more "incremental" improvements.



My favourite saying in this industry was related to me by a colleague many moons ago and goes like this:

"If you live by the subsidy, you die by the subsidy"

:)
Click to expand...

I always think these subsidies should be phased in and out, if they reduced it by 25% every 3 months until it expires it would give every one an opportunity to act without missing out on too much subsidy.

It would also give the industry an opportunity to adjust stock and staff levels.
 
So based on my denier friends logic, that look out the window on a winters day and proclaim "global warming is a crock, we've had 6 days of very cold temperature", I will apply their logic to the supportes of the peer reviewed science.
We've had quite a few days of over 40 degrees, therefore there is global warming.

Both conclusions are wrong of course from people who don't spend their time modeling climate variables, but there is further support from bom, csiro, British met etc that declare that the current heat wave is unprecedented and 2013 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record. Oh I forgot, there is a conspiracy between the various world meteorological organisations, to keep publishing false data to attract more funding for their various research.
 
pieman said:
...yet 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
Click to expand...

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. If the summer is hot (like it is now), it's caused by AGW. If it's cold, it's caused by AGW due to 'climate change'. If it stays the same it's still AGW as we apparently have more cyclones/hurricanes (not true either). Even if that were all true (which I doubt), there's not much we can do about it but adapt to the changing conditions - but that's for another day.
 
pieman said:
...yet 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
Click to expand...

Where'd ya pluck that figure from?

Since when do we listen to the majority?

Isnt cattle farting a major cause too?

Or is it all our fault?

What about volcanoes erupting?

Etc etc....you say i say.

:rolleyes:
 

Similar threads

P
Chile
2 3
Replies
50
Views
14K
PJ1
P
MarkB
Should Australia Go Nuclear? (or at least move further down that path)
2 3
Replies
51
Views
6K
HotRod
HotRod
Gockie
Most fun jobs you've ever had
2 3
Replies
41
Views
8K
chindonly
C
I
Themes for next few decades in Australia?
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
Angel
A
KangaBanga
Top End owned by corrupt officials
Replies
15
Views
4K
Freckle
Freckle
Back
Top