pommie bastard

Australia does open its doors to the ignorant like myself so your country has little hope of rising above the crowd , we Pom refugees are what the black death was in the Middle Ages a plague on these shores.

mr mover

YOU sir are more than that, you are a "wank stain , on the sheet of humanity"[i forget}................. MM

kaleb777

I buy into bollocks? Who's fallen for the greenies baseless fantasy hook, line and sinker?

If you knew anything about the subject you would know the amount of CO2 increase in the atmposphere does not equal the amount produced minus the amount absorbed by trees. Most CO2 is absorbed by the oceans not by land based plant life, so I doubt that would result in an uneven distribution of emissions. Heard of wind? That tends to distribute things evenly around the planet.

Forestry has a negligible effect of CO2 levels. The carbon credits thing is yet another effort by industry to shut wacko greens up and it has worked for a lot of them despite the fact that the numbers of trees planted don't come anywhere near reducing atmospheric CO2 levels (if that were a real problem).

By saying "more sensible energy regimes" I assume you are talking about wind and solar. Do a little research and find out the energy and resource costs of manufacturing enough windmills and solar cells to replace fossil fuels. Again, if you knew anything about the subject you would know that these lame attempts at alternative energy sources cannot ever come close to the cost and energy output of fossil fuels. Do you have any concepts of the area needed to be covered in solar cells to power a small city like Perth? The only reason people like you don't see fossil fuels as the sensible energy regime is that you buy into the lie that CO2 levcels of 360ppm is somehow unnatural for Earth. Where is science does it state for optimum plant growth 260ppm is required? It doesn't, in fact all of (real) science will tell you that more CO2 is better for life on Earth. Where do you get the silly idea that pre-industrial revolution levels were optimum?

The website you quote and provided links to is that of the Native Forest Network. Their mission statement is "To protect the Earth's remaining Native Forests, be they temperate, or otherwise, to ensure they can survive, flourish, and maintain their evolutionary potential". They also state that a "plantation is not a native forest. Plantations or tree farms vary in their ability to regenerate native forest ecosystems and are established to meet human demands. " I smell an agenda here. I know that forestry has a minimal effect on CO2 levels but these people don't say that established forests, yes even native forests" have even less impact than forest that has been cleared and is regenerating. Growing forests absorb more CO2, but you won't get the NFN telling you this. That site is full of lies and half truths in order to sway people into protecting established native forests. They have as much credibility as you do.

pommie bastard

Your Australian wannabe side is showing Sir .

pommie bastard

Australia is full of lies and half truths its comes from importing cons and conmen then voting them into power.

kaleb777

You're funny. Ignorant, but funny.

TimEh?

Well said.

Re: "Do a little research and find out the energy and resource costs of manufacturing enough windmills and solar cells to replace fossil fuels."

I also understand that the costs can never be recouped over the life time of what ever windmill or solar panel project is instigated. In other words a net loss in energy.

We have in Southern Alberta (in the Pincher Creek area - where the average wind speed is something quite phenomenal) beautiful foothills near the Rockies covered in these bloody ugly windmills. A sore site for sore eyes.

Silly sods can actually specify if they want their energy (to heat their homes) to come from this source and then they pay a premium rate. The daft sods actually think it's coming directly from the windmill turbines instead of them getting the same power as the rest of us and merely subsidising the windmills.

cresta57

People are often conned into thinking that these wind-turbines are best suited to windy areas this is not true as the sails need to turn at a constant speed. As the pitch of the blades is only adjustable to certain tolerances in windy conditions they have to be shut down.

TimEh?

I would have thought that it needed to be reasonably windy for the things to work efficiently. Maybe they can also change the direction the blades face (not just the pitch) which would effectively "spill" any excess wind. Here's a site that deals with this subject:

http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wtrb/powerreg.htm

Pincker Creek area is known for it's constant high wind enabling the turbines to generate power 86% of the time. Here's one "turbine farm" in that area:

kaleb777

Ha! A fool and their money are easily parted. Here we have Energex offering green energy at a higher rate. The fact that the energy in some places all comes from coal means nothing to the ignorant people who are willing to pay more for wind power. The fact that wind power actually produces more pollution over the life of the windmill than it saves means nothing to them either. It's like most solutions the left come up with - they cause more problems than they solve, then it is left to the conservatives to clean up the mess.

gOD

So are you saying that wind production is no better the the planet, or the environment, than fossil fuels?

kaleb777

If you take into consideration the amount of energy spent mining the materials used in the windmills and in their manufacture, the huge maintenance needs, they are often net energy users rather than producers. It's the same with catalytic converters which actually result in more pollution over their life than what they eliminate. Wind and solar power makes sense in remote areas where transmission of electricity by power lines is expensive. Transmission of electricity over long distances is inefficient due to a loss of power as the distance increases. In areas where populations can support a power plant, fossil fuels are far more efficient. The only problem with fossil fuels is the perception that CO2 is somehow bad for the environment. The idea is as ludicrous as saying oxygen is bad for the planet because it feeds forest fires and causes oxidation. Any biologist will tell you that higher concentrations of CO2 promotes growth of all life since it is the autotrophs that all life is dependant on. If you consider that c3 and c4 plants evolved to cope with a lack of atmospheric CO2, then the atmosphere is clearly CO2 deficient. Humans are only liberating trapped CO2 when fossil fuels are utilised. With the lie that CO2 is bad for Earth removed, there really is no good reason to convert to inefficient modes of energy production like wind.

PeteY

This conversation reminds me of sea defence.

The most efficient method of defening a cliffline against the eroding effects of the sea is to use a reventment, which is a set of small wooden planks (or somtimes boulders) that absorb the wave energy.

However.....to make the public "THINK" they are getting more from the local council, the council builds ridiculously large and expensive sea walls. Sea walls may look grand, but they only last a short period of time. Hydraulic action soons erodes the tar joins in the wall, then the cracks get bigger, and before you know it sea wall (at £2000 per metre) is lying in pieces on the beach.

Its the publics perception that the council/government are trying to pander too. If they stuck reventments up everywhere there would be a public outcry as to "why they are'nt protecting out coustlines".

People like to think they are helping by buying green energy, even if its not helping in the long run...

kaleb777

It's like the way recycling paper often costs more than using wood chips from forestry but people are willing to pay more and allow dangerous bleaches to remove ink so long as we don't use any trees which are renewable anyway.

gOD

Interesting...

Personally, I can't argue with what you have said. Only other problem with fossil fuels though is that they run out!