Friday, November 20, 2009

No more windmills

Letter to the Editor #20 "The Guardian Messenger", Adelaide, 2 Dec 2009
(78 words), by Allan Taylor, Hove.

Heat waves and wind farms don't mix! Just when power demand surges to drive air-conditioners we get days of stagnant hot air and no wind generated electricity! Wind turbines are a serious fire hazard with their contained gallons of inflammable oil. Both wind and solar energy are the worst and most costly ways of generating electricity.

Premier Mike Rann, what we want in South Australia is a "weather-proof" , cheap and reliable supply of electricity! Stop your promotion of useless wind farms!
The uselessness of windpower is well documented here, on the website

Monday, November 16, 2009

Copenhagen blabfest is a scam

Letter to the Editor #19; "Gladstone Observer", ca 10 Nov 2009 (and others).
66 words, By Allan Taylor of Adelaide.

Coal is Great. The third world can modernize by burning coal to generate much needed cheap electricity. The CO2 sent into the atmosphere will fertilize our crops and forests, improve growth rates, and so greatly benefit mankind. We need more atmospheric CO2 not less.

The coming Copenhagen blabfest on climate change is a fraud and carbon trading a dangerous scam, both best avoided by Australian politicians.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Time to eat the dog to reduce carbon footprint

Letter to the Editor # 18; "Gladstone Observer" 26th October, 2009;
158 words; by Allan Taylor of Adelaide

On the Internet recently was posted a review of the book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by Robert and Brenda Vale, who are New Zealand based Green academics. They say that keeping a medium-sized dog has the same ecological impact as driving 10,000 kms a year in a 4.6 litre Land Cruiser.

They recommend down-sizing one’s pet in order to reduce one’s carbon footprint thus helping to lower greenhouse emissions and so save the world from disastrous global warming. Two goldfish are considered to be more environmentally friendly pets than dogs. The authors don’t actually say to eat your dog and no recipes are given.

An ongoing poll in Queensland of dogs and their loving owners, when presented with this valuable Government financed research information, indicates zero acceptance of the Green-inspired idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 100% support for the dog-friendly National and Liberal National Parties who are against Labor’s ETS legislation.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Swap diesel subs for nuclear

Letter to the Editor #17, "The Australian" Fri 23 Oct 2009; (104 words)
by Allan Taylor of Hove, SA

Our Navy’s $6 billion investment in six Collins Class submarines which don’t work is an embarrassment ("Engine problems cripple subs" Australian 21/10/09). It is suggested that the Swedish supplied Hedemora diesel engines may have to be replaced, costing many $100 millions.

One decent sized nuclear powered submarine is worth more than six malfunctioning diesel powered submarines. The activity of one such submarine helped the British win the Falklands War.

India has recently built and launched its first nuclear powered submarine of Russian design, and is building a second. Why don't we do likewise?

Let’s start afresh and scrap, or sell off our Collins Class submarines on eBay.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Bizarre ETS is bunkum

Letter to the Editor #16, "Rockhampton Bulletin" , 21 October, '09.
(149 words). by Allan Taylor of Adelaide.

I applaud your publishing Ronald Kitching’s satirical letter "Only Vandals and Dills want an ETS" (15/10/09). He forgot to lampoon the Green Party, aka the Fear Party, which ultimately, together with the Greenpeace Organisation, is responsible for this dangerous promotion of a false eco-religion.

It has long be known that atmospheric CO2 has nothing to do with global warming and its observed rise is beneficial to the biosphere. Higher CO2 levels allow us to improve crop yields and so feed the slowly rising world population, plus more easily help the existing starving millions.

The idea of the need to cut "greenhouse gas" emissions is bunkum. Atmospheric greenhouse gases consist of 95% water vapour (harmless) and the rest mainly CO2 (also harmless and very beneficial to mankind). The politicians (Labor, some Liberals, Greens, but not the Nationals) who promote this bizarre ETS legislation should all be sent to the nearest lunatic asylum.

Global warming - It's hot when the sun shines

Letter to the Editor #15, 'The Gladstone Observer" 20th October,2009.
(200 words) ; by Allan Taylor of Hove, Adelaide.

MEREDITH PAPAVASSILIOU is correct to say it is obvious global warming is happening. (Editorial 9/10/09). In fact, it happens every day and every year with monotonous regularity.

And right at my back door too! Before dawn it may be only 10 degrees but by noon often it gets to 25 degrees. In summer, temperatures may reach over 30 degrees each day for weeks on end. A daily variation of 15 to 20 degrees is normal and we take it in our stride.

Being an observant person I have noticed that daytime heating coincides with the presence of the sun overhead. Coldness occurs when the sun is not visible, such as at night time. It's the sun, you idiot!

I put forward this radical hypothesis for global warming (and cooling) as an alternative to the now popular among politicians "greenhouse gas" hypothesis which seems to blame a minute amount (385 ppm) of CO2 gas present in our atmosphere. Furthermore, we are supposed to be scared that over the past 100 years increasing greenhouse gases have apparently caused a global temperature rise of less than 1 degree! Therefore, the pollies say, we must pass the ETS/CPRS bill to save the earth (but also destroy the Australian economy).

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Writings on CO2, Energy and Climate

The easiest way to access about 50 of my articles on these topics is to go straight to my Helium home site "About Me"
Happy reading ... while there learn how to catch or smoke trout, or find out where to vacation in Latin America.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Desal plant is no solution

Letter to Editor #14, "Sunday Mail" (Adelaide) 11 Oct, 2009
(97 words) by Allan Taylor of Hove

MIKE Smithson has done an admirable job reviewing the SA water controversy with his article "Floodgates open now on stormwater debate" (4/10).

Building a 100 Gigalitre desalination plant only compounds the problem of potable water distribution. Expensive drinking water will be wasted on watering the garden and flushing the toilet!

The Liberals and Greens wisely promote storm water capture, purification and recycling, plus more supply from aquifers. To put this in perspective, Mexico City, with a population of 20 million and rainfall of 700 mm a year, relies on water from aquifers. No desalination plant is needed there.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

No dogs at car boot sale

Letter to Editor #13 "Guardian Messenger" 7 Oct., 2009 (135 words)
by Allan Taylor of Hove (foto: Brighton Jetty)

How dare the Hon. Jane Lomax-Smith, Labor member for the City of Adelaide, interfere with the enjoyment of the Brighton community's fortnightly Sunday car boot sale held at Brighton Secondary School!

We are now directed by her that this popular function is to be a Smoke-free and Dog-free event as from 11th October. I suggest that she keep her Puritanical belief system to herself and not venture into the Brighton region.

Everybody should ignore this ridiculous directive. The dogs enjoy this wonderful community event as much as the buyers. Many stall owners enjoy a quiet smoke in this open air environment. We are a happy community the way things are managed now.

The March state election is soon to come. I suggest all dog lovers and smokers vote out Premier Mike Rann's Labor Government, for this and many other reasons.

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Let nuclear turn the windmills of your mind, Mike

Letter to the Editor #12 "Sunday Mail" (Adelaide) 3 Oct 2009; Readers' "SUNDAY ROAST" column, (370 words) by Allan Taylor

Premier Mike Rann has his vision for the future of South Australia. He says SA must become the center for renewable energy and climate change research. There is a State Office of Sustainability and Climate Change and an Adelaide University department of Climate Change headed by the admirable Prof. Barry Brook.

What do we get? Useless and ugly wind mills desecrating our beautiful landscape.

Federal Labor has recently passed their "Renewable Energy Target" bill which sets a target of 20% electricity being derived from renewable sources by 2020. Prof. Brook says this is impossible and advocates developing nuclear power, as does Ziggy Switkowski of the Australian Nuclear and Science Technology Association.

To be a prosperous and vibrant State we must have abundant and reasonably priced electricity. Prof. Brook says there is no evidence that the existing wind farms in SA have reduced green house gas emissions.

Utility companies have their work cut out meeting the daily and unexpected peak electricity demands using conventional power stations burning coal and natural gas. Such power stations must still be kept on standby if and when an erratic dribble of electricity comes from wind or solar sources. Last summer's heat wave caused rolling power blackouts throughout the State due to excessive demand.

The small, unpredictable, intermittent and variable electricity produced by wind farms serves only to destabilize the national grid and has no environmental benefit. Let's forget about renewable energy. It is not necessary and very costly.

The alternative is to go nuclear. Adelaide could become the center for the nuclear power industry. The universities must teach nuclear sciences and technology and so train the scientists and technicians required.

The Olympic Dam copper/uranium mine expansion will require an additional 650 MW of power, to make it the largest uranium mine in the world. This is best supplied by a nuclear power plant. We could pioneer the use of small nuclear power plants to revitalize the Outback. The present use of diesel generators and remote solar plants is unsatisfactory and unreliable.

We could even build nuclear powered submarines and electrify our city rail system. The mind boggles at the possibilities when you have abundant electricity.

With Premier Rann all you will get is more obsolete wind mills, more power blackouts, and a stagnant dismal economy.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Why renewable energy?

Letter to the Editor #11, "Gladstone Observer" (Gladstone QLD), September 2009
(137 words) by Allan Taylor

The current fetish of renewable energy is like the olden day’s search for perpetual motion or the "philosopher’s stone" which could turn base metals into gold. All are false ways ahead to achieve prosperity, except for those snake oil merchants who promote and manipulate the bandwagon.

Why do we need renewable energy in Australia? Our coal, gas and uranium resources are enormous and sufficient to last out hundreds of years. The technology involved to generate electricity from these sources is soundly established and of minimal cost.

Yet we waste R & D funds, both private and public, on wind farms, solar voltaic projects and geothermal drilling and "clean coal" projects, all of which is bizarre, very costly and unnecessary.

Let us return to the real world of common sense, instead of searching for a Green Utopia that doesn't exist.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Priorities all wrong

Letter to Editor #10, "The Advertiser", (Adelaide), Wed 30th September, 2009
230 words; by Allan Taylor of Hove.

Winter rains have now almost filled our Adelaide Hills nine reservoirs.

The city water supply is roughly 60% Adelaide Hills catchment and 40% pumped from the River Murray.

Premier Mike Rann has arrogantly ignored all opposition to the proposed Port Stanvac 100 Gigalitre desalination plant, said to now cost 1.8 billion dollars with an estimated annual running cost of 75 million. It seems SA is committed to this huge unnecessary expenditure.

Greens MP Mark Parnell has done an excellent job explaining to Government that the sensible way ahead is to further develop storm water recycling and aquifer supply. The real problem is the horrendous waste of potable water being used for non-potable use, such as watering the garden, domestic washing and flushing toilets etc. Probably 90% of expensive desalinated water will not actually be used for drinking and so is wasted.

To put this in perspective, Mexico City with a population of 20 million and rainfall 700mm/year gets its water supply from aquifers in the Mexico Basin. No desalination plant is needed there.

This is mismanagement on an enormous scale. Combine this with the proposed Railyards Hospital (another 1.7 billion dollars) which is unwanted by the doctors who prefer extension of the existing hospital, plus the miserable refusal to replace the Magill Youth Training Center ( a back flip now on this) and it is clear the Government has got its priorities wrong.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Nuclear Advantage (2)

Letter to the Editor #9, "The Independent Weekly" (Adelaide)
27 Sept 2009, (194 words).
by Allan Taylor of Hove.

The professor of climate change at Adelaide University, Barry Brook, is promoting nuclear power in Australia, and so too is Ziggy Switkowski, chairman of the Australian Nuclear and Science Technology Association.

However, Premier Mike Rann maintains his opposition to a nuclear plant in SA, but encourages the expansion of the Olympic Dam uranium mine to produce uranium for export. Both State and Federal Labor are promoting renewable energy for our future and seem not at all interested in the nuclear option.

Labor’s recently passed Renewable Energy Target bill specifies 20% electricity being generated from renewables by 2020. Both Ziggy and Prof. Brook say that this is impossible and suggest the alternative of nuclear power with no greenhouse gas emissions.

It would be more sensible to develop nuclear power in SA rather than waste money on unnecessary and expensive renewable energy (wind, solar and geothermal). Prof Brook also says that there is no evidence to show that existing wind farms in SA have caused any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Top priority in any energy plan is security of supply. The optimum mix is most likely one third each of electricity supplied from coal, gas and nuclear sources.

Monday, September 21, 2009

A lot of hot air

Letter to the Editor #8 "The Advertiser" (Adelaide), Tues 22 Sept., 2009
(89 words)
by Allan Taylor

Nothing will be decided at the UN sponsored Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December (thank goodness) but maximum time will be spent arguing at what luxury resort next year's conference will be held. Our PM Kevin Rudd will no doubt suggest Brisbane

On the supposed evils of greenhouse gases they all publicly agree, but they choose to ignore the miracle of how atmospheric CO2 is causing the global warming that isn't happening. Such a useless and glorious bureaucratic junket would be funny if it wasn't financed by our tax money.


Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Our Nuclear Future

Letter to the Editor #7 "The Australian" 14th September 2009 (103 words)
by Allan Taylor of Adelaide SA

The Energy Supply Association of Australia lists 15,000 MW of natural gas-fueled power stations either under development or planned across the country ("Energy boom job bonanza", 12-13/09.

It says that new gas-fired plants will be needed to support intermittent supply from wind farms expected to gain the lion's share of RET investment.

Why build the wind farms in the first place? They are uneconomic, a bird hazard, a potential fire hazard and an unsightly blot on the landscape.

No mention is made of starting a nuclear power industry. Forget about renewable energy and obsolete windmills. The money saved is better put towards our nuclear future.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Costly misdirection

Letter to the Editor # 6, The Advertiser (Adelaide) 15th September 2009
(206 words) ; by Allan Taylor of Hove.

Business SA CEO, Peter Vaughan, says that narrow minded thinking and an inflated bureaucracy are holding SA back. How true it is.

The Rann Labor Government is to blame for a costly misdirection of the economy.
For example, water management: the commitment to building a desalination plant costing $1.8 billion when the emphasis should have been on storm water capture and recycling in order to reduce the draw on the River Murray.

The wastage of potable water on non-potable use is horrendous. Aquifer supply of potable water needs further exploration. Even the Greens advocate this approach.

Mike Rann’s religious promoting of renewable energy will continue to push our electricity costs sky high.

It is madness to build wind farms which are uneconomic at the best of times and only serve to destabilize the national grid with their intermittent and variable dribble of electricity.
SA would be better off if all present wind farms were demolished.

The zero attention to the future role of nuclear power industry in SA shows how out of touch with reality is Mike Rann. The planned expansion of the Olympic Dam uranium mine is estimated to require another 650 MW of power, plus now we have to power a desalination plant costing $75 million per year to run.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Windmill idea ludicrous

Letter to the Editor #5 "The Guardian Messenger" (Adelaide) 9th September 2009 (112 words)
by Allan Taylor of Hove.

WHAT madness is this proposed State Government $295,000 project, to trial four wind turbines for one year at the Somerton Surf Life Saving Club, and, hopefully, save the club $2000 to $3000 on electricity?

That's a 100 year pay back!

Recent independent consultant's review of all Australian wind farms show they are a complete waste of money, uneconomic even when the wind blows, a bird hazard, a potential fire risk, noise pollutant and are an ugly blot on the landscape.

The idea of installing windmills in a residential area is ludicrous. I suggest the Government's Sustainability and Climate Change office relocate the project, and themselves, to Heard Island, which is near Antarctica.
PS: This experimental windmill project of Premier Mike Rann has now been cancelled due to the many objections of the local residents. Its location is about 2 kms from where I live. I like to think that my letter helped in this decision.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Nuclear debate is long overdue

Letter to the Editor #4, "Sunday Mail" (Adelaide), 6 Sept., 2009, (188 words)
awarded "Letter of the Week"
by Allan Taylor

Our State MP for Bright, Chloe Fox, wants to open up the nuclear power debate and so too do the Young Liberals. Both leaders Mike Rann and Isobel Redman don't want this to happen, probably because they are uncertain how the cards will fall with regard to votes.

The nuclear power debate is long overdue. Australia is seen by the world's major powers as a backward third world country with regard to nuclear technology.

I note that Chloe Fox has spent some years working in France. She knows that this country generates 80% of its electricity from 60 nuclear power stations and is a world leader in nuclear power technology. France exports electricity to neighbouring countries (Spain and Denmark) which to their misfortune have taken the Green Path and promote windmills.

Mike Rann, we don't want wind farms in South Australia. They are an ugly blot on the landscape. They are a very inefficient and costly way to generate electricity, plus being a fire hazard and bird hazard. Get rid of them.

It seems that Premier Rann has a lot to learn from "Bright" Chloe Fox.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Wind power not answer

Letter #3 to the editor: Adelaide "Sunday Mail", 30 August 2009
(53 words) by Allan Taylor

So Labor's Renewable Energy Bill has been passed. It mandates 20 per cent energy from renewable sources by 2020.

This would be OK if it was from hydroelectricity, like the Snowy Mountain Scheme, but I object to having our beautiful landscape defiled by ugly windmills which are uneconomic even when the wind blows.
Reference: Helium article "Are wind farms good sources for environmentally safe energy?" by Allan Taylor

Friday, August 28, 2009

Carbon Capture and Storage is bizarre

Letter #2 to the Editor of "The Australian", Friday 28th August, 2009
(170 words) by Allan Taylor of Hove, SA
The proposed development of the Gorgon Gas Field and processing plant on Barrow Island in Western Australia includes the removal of any CO2 and pumping it to a supposed underground storage region, an activity that may or may not work.

I suggest to you that this is a gross waste of money and is unnecessary. If Chevron has no immediate use for the CO2 extracted, then it should be released into the atmosphere.

The idea of pumping CO2 underground was developed 50 years ago on the depleted oil fields of the US Mid West. The reason was to pressurize the fluids at depth and so boost the supply of residual oil. It had nothing to do with preventing "greenhouse gases" being liberated to the atmosphere.

The Rudd Government operates within the erroneous "global warming belief system" which considers CO2 gas to be an atmospheric pollutant, which it most certainly is not. It is bizarre to try and bury CO2 gas when it is the lifeblood of the biosphere.
Reference: Helium article, "Carbon sequestering: A critical issue to explore in the global warming debate" by Allan Taylor

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Gladstone's Aluminium Smelter

Letter #1 to Editor of "Gladstone Observer" newspaper; published Sat 22 August 2009
(151 words)
by Allan Taylor

Gladstonites, do you realize that at your doorstep you have Australia's largest aluminium smelter?

The Rio Tinto smelter employs about 1400 workers and contractors. It produces ca 600,000 tonnes of aluminium each year. It is the life blood of Gladstone. It is a wonderful concern.

Are you going to allow the Rudd Labor Government to jeopardize its existence by introducing an unnecessary ETS or CPRS bill which is destined to curb CO2 emissions? This would have a devastating effect on the economic viability of the smelter?

All this carry on about greenhouse gas emissions is a load of nonsense. If you don't believe me then read Prof. Plimer's recently published book "Heaven and Earth". I assure you that afterwards you will sleep more easily at night. The world is not coming to an end!

Gladstone has a great future if you reject the spin and deception emanating from the Rudd Labor Government.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Labor's Renewable Energy Bill

Labor's Renewable Energy Bill will do Australia more harm than good. It is unnecessary legislation typical of Labor Party dreamers e.g., Fuel Watch, Grocery Watch etc.

By far the best renewable energy is hydroelectric power. If we could have another Snowy Mountain type Hydroelectric Scheme in Victoria or elsewhere I would consider it worthwhile.

But no. We are going to push wind and solar energy to produce expensive "Green Power". Already the Government spends (wastes) a billion dollars each year to subsidize these activities.
Now Premier Mike Rann (SA) has approved a 60 turbine wind farm for the Barossa Valley, one of our prime wine producing regions. How embarrassing it will be to take visitors there and see these ugly monstrosities of windmills amongst the vineyards. Watch out Hunter valley!

We don't need to mandate renewable energy. It will come on its own accord without subsidy when it is viable to do so.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Hydroelectricity is the Best Renewable

Hydro power is the most desirable and cheapest way of generating electricity in a renewable fashion, therefore it should be used as much as possible. This is done well in NZ and Australia (Snowy Mountain Scheme and Tasmania.

There are pluses and minuses, though.

Plus #1
When combined with thermal plants in a high load (city) region you can operate base load supply with thermal plants at full steam ahead and use no hydropower. Twice a day or so, or during times of peak demand, or in summer when there is a heat wave and high demand, you can essentially "turn on the tap" at the hydroplant and immediately meet that extra electricity demand. (Not very likely with a wind farm!). With a spare thermal plant it takes along time to "stoke it up" and you would have to keep operating on standby to do this.

So the hydro dam storage of water represents stored energy available whenever you need it. This the problem with wind and solar energy, there is no easy way to store it and the supply is intermittant and unreliable anyway, and so is a nightmare to feed it into the national grid. Hydroelectricity is good to met those peak demands. Even a small hydroelectric plant is very useful.

Hydroelectricity supply is actually dependent on the weather or climate. Last summer the dams in NZ got down to 50% capacity and they were worried about the situation.

Plus #2:
Hydrodams can be stocked with trout and made into a valuable recreational region, as they are in New Zealand. Some of my best trout I have caught in hydrodams, or in the river oulet below.

Minus #1
Most of the best hydrodam sites are already being used. To get another one would require a huge battle with the Greens and environmental movement. Look at Brumby in Vic ignoring the alternative of daming the Mitchell River for water supply, but instead building a desalination plant costing 2 or 3 billion dollars. There is a lot of water there going to waste, but the Greens mean votes for Labor!

Hydroelectric plants are by far the best renewable source of electricity. The worst and least economic are windfarms, about which I will have more to say.

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Do we need a "Renewable Energy Target Bill" ?

Linked to Labor's ETS/CRPS bill is their Renewable Energy Target Bill which they hope to sneak approval of. Why on earth is the Liberal Party supporting it? The Liberals seem to be a branch of the Labor Party!

The idea of having a mandatory goal for renewable energy was brought in by the Howard Government at a suitable low level of 2% probably as a sop to the Greens. Now Christine Milne sees the opportunity of really putting the Australian economy in Green Shackles by helping Labor boost the target to 20% by year 2020.

This goal of approx 60,000 GWh in 2020 will come predominantly from windfarms and will deliver emissions reductions of 342 tonnes of Greenhouse Gases, so they say!

An independent analysis of wind power generation in Australia has shown it to be a total disaster and not worth the effort of doing. Read about it in Terry McCrann's article "Sanity Still Blowing in the Wind" in the Herald Sun, August 4, 2009

We don't NEED any mandatory target for renewable energy in Australia. Renewable energy will come on its own accord when it is viable to do so without Government coersion or subsidy. We don't want expensive Green Power.

What do you think?

Monday, August 3, 2009

Is Nuclear Power the Answer to Global Warming?

This is a provocative question of relevance to the Australian scene since we have no nuclear power stations. It is also a "loaded question" in the sense that it assumes that global warming is a problem and that mankind can and should do something about it. The concern may be real or imaginary.

A fear or phobia present in the populace is often used by promoters of products. Auto manufacturers will cater to the fantasies of the global warmers by advertising that their model has lower CO2 emissions than a competitive product. Other buyers couldn't care less, or think that CO2 is good stuff and take no notice.

It is the same with political parties. They too have a product to sell and need votes to stay in power. Now we have two lines of thought: the Party position and what the individual party member thinks of the proposition.

In Australia we have the Greens' position that nuclear power is evil and should never be contemplated for Australia. It is easy and important for them to promote this fear (one of many) so that they can gather votes and retain their few Members of Parliament. The Greens are really a Fear Party.

The Labor Party, our present Government, is also against nuclear power at the Party level, because it knows that by taking this position it is assured of Green preferences in an election.
The individual Labor members may be ambivalent about nuclear power but know that to stay in power they must not upset the Greens, either those within or outside the Labor Party.

The same situation occurs with the Liberal Party, but more particularly with inner city electorates where the Greens have a strong urban vote. The Nationals are lucky that they can usually speak their mind on the matter.

Then we have the individual scientists, like our Ziggy, who helpfully promotes nuclear power for Australia. He seems to use the fear of global warming and closing down of coal-fired power stations to justify the introduction of nuclear power. It is not really necessary to do this; he has a defeatist attitude with regard to the global warmers; maybe he is one?.

How do Americans think on the topic of using nuclear power? What is the view of the "man-in-the-street". How is the average man in the US influenced by the Green Movement?

You can find out by checking with the US Helium writers' website where the topic "Is Nuclear Power the Answer to Global Warming" is presented for debate among members. So far there are 33 articles with 19 articles on the NO side and 14 on the YES side. The voting of individual Helium members is 63% No and 37% Yes. Why not join Helium and give your Australian viewpoint? It's for free. Explore

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Australia’s Energy Policy (Part B)

Transport Fuels:

What does the future hold for us?

Let us consider the short term, up to 5 years ahead,
the medium term, 5 to 10 years ahead,
and the long term, from 20 years and on to year 2100.

Also, I define the system under consideration as being devoid of eco-religious anti-carbon influence from particularly the Labor Party and the Greens. Oh, what a refreshing view of the world this is!

My opinion is that our transport fuel needs of the future will very predominantly met in the long term by hydrocarbon (HC) fuels (diesel, gasoline, LPG etc). In the year 2100 I predict that you will still be driving your car or truck on these wonderful HC fuels!

Farmers will know the importance of having a cheap and reliable supply of diesel fuel. The truckies have to transport the farm produce to market so the price of diesel effects the price of foodstuffs in the supermarkets, where the Green urban voter blithely shops in a fool’s paradise.

This dependence on diesel fuel will continue but in the long term usage can be capped by gradual electrification of the railway system. Let us start with the most strategic and most used railway system. This should be a medium and long term objective. The cheap electricity will come from coal and gas-fired power stations. Hopefully, if we have a nuclear power station near the Olympic Dam uranium mine, then we could electrify the Ghan, which is the strategy rail link between Adelaide and Darwin.

Our enormous reserves of coal and natural gas would therefore assure us of cheap electricity and therefore a reliable and economical long distance rail transport system for the future.

The Greens and their Labor sycophants cry that we are running out of petroleum and must move towards renewable energy. They are well meaning but confused, so don’t let them get into positions of political power. Every tried running a tractor on the piddling electricity generated from a windmill? Let us forget them.

Let’s look at the situation today. The price of petroleum is fluctuating around US $60. There is no doubt that the supply of petroleum from conventional oil deposits will peak and decline in the long term, but this could be 30 years away. In the short term we can expect the price to stabilize above $100 per barrel. So what’s going to happen then? Lots!

Before I explain this let me side track onto Australia’s dependence on petroleum. I think that we produce about 15% of our petroleum needs and the shortfall is imported , along with refined HC fuels. Should we be worried about this?

Not really. New Australian oil deposits will be found eventually but more likely discoveries will be made in other more prospective countries.

Australia is the most energy rich country in the world. We have ca 40% of the known uranium reserves and export enormous amounts of coal and natural gas (LNG) to countries that are not so fortunate, such as Japan, Korea, Europe, China and so on. In the interest of maintaining viable international trade and global prosperity we must continue to do this. No worries.

So, returning to the $100 plus a barrel scenario medium term.

Lots will happen.

There will be a move towards the production of synthetic HC fuels from coal and natural gas.

The technology is already being used to convert these resources into more useable products, such as diesel, gasoline and LPG (propane and butane).

The petroleum companies will move towards production from unconventional deposits such oil shales and who knows what!

What about renewables?

The only renewable transport fuel that shows any promise is biodiesel, as shown by the Shell Oil Company production, which is the world’s largest producer. This is OK provided that fertile farming land is not used for cropping in place of food production.

What about ethanol? Let’s forget it for Australia. It is half burnt already.

The future prosperity of Australia is assured provided we chose the right political leaders.

Australia's Energy Policy (Part A)

Australia's Energy Policy (A).

What does the future hold?

We all want cheap and reliable energy .... electricity and hydrocarbon fuels.

The enactment of Labor's ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) or better termed Extra Tax System, but now officially the CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) will cause enormous damage to the Australian economy. It is going backwards, instead of forwards. Our enormous carbon-based resources, which provide us with a world competitive advantage, will no longer be an economic advantage to us.


Theoretically, there is no problem here. The States Q, NSW, VIC and SA are well served by coal and gas fired power stations, and WA and NT by natural gas. The reserves of coal and natural gas are enormous and sufficient to last out this century and way beyond.

It makes no sense to promote renewable energy (wind, solar and geothermal), except for niche applications and small scale domestic use.

The legislation of goals to produce 10 or 20% of electricity from renewables, and forcing utility companies to do so is madness.

Large scale wind farms and solar plants are hopelessly uneconomic and require continuous backup from conventional power plants (coal, gas or nuclear), so why build them in the first place? Do you want your electricity bill to go sky high because of the introduction of so called Green Power, which is quite unnecessary?

Nuclear Power:
There are about 436 commercially operating nuclear power stations in the world in 30 countries. France produces ca 87% of its electricity from nuclear power stations. It is a world leader in nuclear power technology, the building of such power stations and export of electricity.

Do we need nuclear power stations in Australia? Not essentially, but a few built in outback mining regions miles away from the national grid would be advantageous. Australia needs to keep abreast of nuclear power technology which is expanding every year.

BHP Billiton, in their Olympic Dam Expansion (2009) report say that the total electricity requirement may be 650 MW. They don't mention the possibility of using nuclear power, but I say why not consider it. They have the largest uranium mine in the world all, of which is exported to Japan, Korea , Europe and the USA. The latest nuclear power plants can be build in modular form of 50, 100 or 200 MW sections, which would be ideal to supply electricity for outback mining regions in Australia. Maybe we could electrify the Ghan Railway, from Adelaide to Darwin, and save on diesel fuel?

The Australian energy future is very rosy indeed, provided we don't let the eco-religious groups, Labor and the Greens, who are well meaning but confused, try to destroy the future prosperity encased in our natural resources.

Part (B) will deal with Transport Fuels.


Thursday, July 16, 2009

Free Fertilization from Power Stations?

There seems to be a lot of wastage going on in this world.

We have umpteen billions of dollars being spent on useless or unproductive 'climate change" research in order to keep the global warming hysteria bandwagon going, which pleases our Great Green Profit, Al Gore and the mad political leaders of the Western World.

Millions of dollars are misdirected on funding "clean energy" and "clean coal technology" which is the bizarre idea of trying to bury underground the CO2 emissions coming from a coal-fired power station. To do this it is estimated to consume some 80% more of the coal resource in energy required. What a great saving! For the Greens and global warmers, black is white, red is green, up is down, and vice versa, if need be, if it will help to support their eco-religious belief system!

It is a pity that some of these research funds could not be directed towards some of the positive, or beneficial aspects of CO2 emissions!

We seem to rely solely on the gas monitoring station on top of Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii for CO2 content of the atmosphere, which produces a continuously increasing level of CO2, now ca 385 ppm, as time goes by. It is their graph that causes the concern of the global warmers. This increase of CO2 must be stopped hence we need the drastic restrictions on emissions proposed by Kyoto.

It makes me suspicious when only one source of scientific data is used to support a theory. Look at the IPCC thinking they have a monopoly of wisdom to advise Governments on climate and energy policies!

The global warmers keep very quiet about variability of atmospheric CO2. In all their offices it is sure to be up around 1000 ppm without harmful effects.

Is there any research done on the variablity of atmospheric CO2 in the region around a coal-fired power station? Is it possible to make use of the CO2 emissions from such a power station (or like industrial activity) to fertilize adjacent agricultural activity? If there were appreciable areas where CO2 content was say 500 - 600 ppm then this would benefit the growing of crops or forests. Instead of burying CO2 why not devise the technical means of using and channeling it directly for agriculture use?

Surely this idea is worthy of industry and Government support?

Friday, July 3, 2009

What is Carbon Pollution?

Carbon Pollution is the term used in the Labor Party's climate change bill., viz "Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme 2009 bill". It is a meaningless term deliberately designed to demonize carbon and its compounds.

No where is provided a definition of these words so that we know what they are talking about.

The element carbon comes in a variety of states, well known as crystalline diamond, which opens the possibility that diamond engagement rings are polluting the world.

Then we have soot, or an amorphous form of particulate carbon formed on incomplete combustion of carbon bearing material; this can rightly be classified as a pollutant.
Then we have the idea that the word carbon is used very loosely to embrace certain carbon compounds, notably CO2 gas (harmless), and CO gas (poisoness).

Geochemists do use the word "carbon" to embrace all carbon compounds, hence the term "Carbon Cycle" which is the study of how the element and its compounds move around with time through the earth's atmosphere, oceans and rocks.

However, the very minor undesirable production of the pollutants, soot and CO gas , during combustion is smeared over to include CO2 which is NOT a pollutant, but a vital component of the biosphere and all living matter.

The prevention of formation, and/or removal of these known pollutants is easily overcome.
A properly tuned engine running on hydrocarbon fuels should not produce black smoke or much CO gas. Catalytic converters are now standard equipment on cars and largely overcome the problem.

CO2 is a colorless, harmless gas, which means that you can't see it , even though TV news reporters may think otherwise. White "smoke" is simply condensed water vapor like the fluffly white cumulous clouds that you see on a fine summer's day. Oh what deception there is on TV news bulletins these days. More on this later.

These topics are pondered over in the Helium article:
"Climate change and global warming: What should we do about it"

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Some Helium Articles

Firstly, I shall provide links to some of my more important climate change articles that appear on the American writers' website "Helium" (

"The purpose behind the global warming hype"
This is a satire on how I imagine life will be in the year 2020 if will meekly following our Governments' (US and Oz) push towards a de-carbonized economy. The recent US climate change bill plans to reduce GHG emissions to 17% of 2005 levels by 2020. The result will destroy the US economy if followed through.

"California takes the lead in climate change legislation"
California has much to be proud of but climate change legislation is not one of them.

"Climate change and global warming: What we should do about it"
Global warming is a non-problem and we do nothing. Climate change is always happening and we need to study it and go with the flow, i.e., adapt to changes.

"Are we really reaching peak oil?"
Depends on how you define a resource.

"Are wind farms good sources for environmentally safe energy?"
No they are not. Wind farms are ugly blots on the landscape.

And there are about 40 more such articles on the Helium website.