Electricity from COAL is cheapest and best for Australia

The Energy Supply Association of Australia needs to submit their findings through a BF (bullshit filter) and you would find NOTHING coming out the other side. Why don't they admit to the public having to paid costly electricity bills, at 31 cents kWh, that they got it wrong and so too have the pollies, including John Howard, by promoting the Renewable Energy Target Scheme.

The RET legislation, that requires by 2020 our electricity be 20% supplied from renewable sources, is crazy. In Australia, hydroelectric schemes are barely possible (because of the Greens), solar and wind power are excessively expensive and should NOT be subsidized by the State Governments, if we want cheaper power. Promotion of useless wind farms must be STOPPED. If we must have a Power Target let it be 15 cents per kWh by 2020, then we WOULD have a flight of the warmists rabbits from positions of influence.

We don't need to subsidize or promote renewable energy just now when we have plentiful supplies of coal and gas to fuel power stations for the national grid. Maybe by the year 2100 renewable energy may start to be attractive in Australia, but until then let's make the most of our competitive advantage in world trade by having cheap coal-based electricity. CO2 is NOT a pollutant and CO2 emissions should be cherished by mankind and the biosphere. No more pollie bullshit allowed from 2014 onwards. Merry Xmas from Allano

Green electricity is TOO COSTLY for Africa (and Australia)

In today's "The Australian" newspaper there is an interesting article by environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg about the huge extra cost of providing electricity from wind farms and solar plants, compared to conventional power stations using coal. In South Africa coal powers 90% of electricity at a cost to the consumer of US 9 cents per kWh. It is easy and cheap to cut coal (particulate) pollution by 90% or more with scrubbers. CO2 emissions are considered to be beneficial to humanity and the biosphere.

However, in some other African countries, using a mix of hydro, gas and oil, in the grid/population centers in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Kenya the cost will likely be 25 cents per kWh. Lomborg concludes that for the forseeable future, electricity will be generated by burning fossil fuels.

Hydroelectric power stations are by far the best source of renewable energy and for some lucky mountainous countries hydro is the main power source eg New Zealand, Norway etc. However, South Australia where I live has no hydroelectric power stations, and has been UNfortunate to experience a decade of Labor Governments hell bent on making the State the leader of renewable energy in Australia. True, we have the most wind farms of any state (26 or more) and also the highest domestic cost of electricity at 31 cents per kWh because of this stupid eco-religious goal. The state elections are due in 3 month's time (March). Let's toss out this inept Labor Government of Premier Jay Weatherill and replace it with a Liberal Government that will STOP the wind farms and aid in development of our coal, gas and uranium resources for domestic power production. Merry Xmas from Allano

Hate propaganda spewed by The Age and ABC TV

The Age newspaper is out of control with it's biased journalism wanting PM Tony Abbott to fail. Likewise we get the same daily spewing of anti-Abbott and anti-carbon propaganda on the 7.30pm "TV News" .Why can't the ABC (Australian Bullshit Corporation) be made to operate within it's Charter and present fair reporting of events, instead of trying to invent news that is traitorous to our country?

The latest outrageous spin is to blame PM Tony Abbott for the alleged spying or hacking of phones of Indonesian officials. This was supposed to have been done in 2009 when Kevin Rudd was PM and has nothing to do with Tony Abbott.

The ABC TV (like the BBC)continues to pour forth ridiculous propaganda about the dangers of CO2 emissions and how we must strive for a low-carbon economy, which means abandoning carbon fuels in favor of costly wind mills and solar plants. Pox on them all. CO2 is good stuff and must be cherished. Our future prosperity depends on burning fossil fuels and will be for at least another 200 years.

What must be done to establish a prosperous future for Australia

The new Coalition Government of PM Tony Abbott must repeal the Carbon Tax legislation ASAP and then ALL related taxes, regulations and charges involving carbon dioxide which is falsely listed as an atmospheric pollutant. The details of how to do this are set out by Viv Forbes on the Climate Sceptics Blog Hopefully, this coming week of the first sitting of the new Parliament we will see progress being made. It would be nice to see Bill Shorten, Leader of the Opposition, take a bipartisan stand and say the Carbon Tax must go. We'll see what happens. Cheers Allano

Whether "Bunkum" or "Bull" we don't want any of it.

The new science of "Bullology" is firmly established and is a popular development in Australia (similar to the American "bunkumology"). It includes the study at the micro- and macro- level of the promotion of bull (a shortened form of bullshit) in the country, its variability with time and geography etc and concentration by means of recording (daily, weekly or monthly) the use of GREEN BUZZ WORDS, such as carbon pollution, climate change, clean coal, gay marriage, ocean acidification, healthy river and many more invented Green combo-words. Bull, for measuring purposes, is loosely defined as the use of deceptive buzz words for gaining or retaining political power and/or financial advantage and/or to create alarmism.

Preliminary findings on Australian political Parties are that concentration of bull increases exponentially on going from National to Liberal to Labor to Independents to Greens. Americans take note that our Liberal = US Republican and Labor = US Democrat. It would be interesting to hear of the variability of "bunkum" in the US political parties.

Other organizations may require a new scale, having a possibly logarithmic relation to the Political Party one. Studies are in progress on the media eg BBC, ABC and the CSIRO, Met Office and Royal Society. Progress reports on this research will be listed in this Carbon Cycle blog.

What do the terms "Gay Marriage" and "Carbon Pollution" have in common?

"Gay Marriage" and "Carbon Pollution" have a lot in common. They are favorite BUZZ WORDS used by the Greens and their gullible followers, many being in the Australian Labor Party and less so in the Coalition, also in the USA with the Democrat Party of Obama.

The answer is that both terms corrupt the real meaning of perfectly honorable words in the English language. I am against corruption of all types, and deplore the people who do it, so I would not support their causes.

A generalization that is helpful for you to decided who to vote for in the Western democracies is check out each political party and determine their frequency of use of the GREEN BUZZ words (= lies). Vote for the Party that lies the least!!

The word "gay" has its original meaning of showy, lighthearted etc but is now rarely used in this way due to its new link with homosexuality. We all know that marriage is the word to describe the special relationship between a man and a woman, and according to tradition, and the Marriage Act, will always be so, no matter that some people want to change the meaning of these words, and force their dubious ideas onto others.

Exactly the same devious Green process is imbedded in the term "Carbon Pollution". The carbon implied is the gas carbon dioxide which is an invisible harmless atmospheric gas that is vital for the growth of the biosphere and all plant life. The biosphere by photosynthesis produces oxygen which we and animals breath and need for survival.

The Greens are quite mad by demonizing and insisting that the gas be buried (sequestration). In fact, carbon is the most wonderful element in the Periodic Table and produces more chemical compounds than ALL the other elements put together. How dare they INSULT this great element by demonizing it right and left in their anti-carbon based legislation.

"Pollution" is something that is foul and filthy, according to my dictionary. No way can the wonderful gas carbon dioxide be described as polluting. Every day we drink and eat this gas and breath it out into the atmosphere (bread, soft drinks, beer etc).

My view is that these deceptive Green BUZZ WORDS are best avoided, and so too are the people who unthinkingly use them. Many more of these BUZZ WORDS are listed on my Carbon Cycle blog posted below.

Comments about this from my Facebook page:
David Andrew Howard: That's the double bluff. Climate can only change, they clipped it from the longer phrase 'Climate change from anthropogenic global warming', which makes sense but they realised as it wasn't happening they had to do something to keep the illusion going, and it worked. I think it's very easy to underestimate people but not to overestimate them, and Goebbels knew perfectly well how effing thick the majority of people are. Sad to have to say it but 50% of people have a two digit IQ.

Allano addition: The Greens are fond of asking "Do you believe in climate change?" which is a bullshit question because climate, geologically speaking is always in a state of change no matter what humans are doing. Of course I believe in climate change (and being a geologist I probably know more about it than any Greenie). Greenies believe in a static world where Nature has little if any influence (until they get wiped out by a volcanic eruption, earthquake or tsunami) the results of which are quickly hushed up, since MAN is presumed to be the greatest destroyer of the Earth, which is bunkum. If you believe in climate change, then according to the Greens and comrades, then we MUST do something about it and STOP it, by demonizing carbon and taxing it! What bunkum they expect us to believe! Allano

Green buzz words are best avoided for mostly they contain a high concentration of bunkum

Have you ever wondered who invents the catchy Green double words that are designed to surreptitiously promote the Green cause?.. like the following
global warming
climate change
carbon footprint
gay marriage
healthy river
clean coal
carbon pollution
big polluters
clean energy
carbon tax
ocean acidification
The way these double words are used, either very much distorts the genuine meaning of the words, or presents a false meaning with the aim of supporting the cause, which on deeper analysis is shown to be claptrap. A basic objective and theme is to rob tax payers' money to be wasted on some bizarre scheme. For example:

1. A decade ago we were supposed to be scared of global warming ... nothing happened. It is impossible to measure global temperature changes of a fraction of a degree in a year. Dream on. We have had about 12 years with no detectable rise in global temperature. So global warming was changed to "climate change" and anything variable with the weather is blamed on climate change (in the hope that no geologists object, by saying climate is always changing irrespective of CO2 emissions). The Government grant scam is perpetuated by applicants mentioning "climate change" and promoting the eco-religion that we must do something about it.

2. Next "carbon footprint" was invented to scare people .. what a load of bunkum. It is a foolhardy eco-religion that thinks we can have a prosperous society without burning carbon and hydrocarbon fuels. The gas carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant and its emission is welcomed by the biosphere and farmers as it is a free fertilizer. This is not to be confused with "carbon farming" which also is a nonsense.

3. Gay marriage does not exist. Leave the Marriage Act and the traditional meaning of the word alone. Find another word to describe a gay relationship.

4. "Healthy river" is an inapropriate term to describe Australia's Murray River which is supposed to always flow out to sea at the ocean mouth. This is a nonsense. Over a decade in the Murray-Darling Basin you may on average have about 6 years low flow in drought , 3 years normal flow and 1 year flood. It is ridiculous to expect the river to always flow to sea by stealing more water from the irrigators. It is necessary to maintain water (sea) levels in the Lower Lakes during times of drought.

5. "Clean coal" is a bizarre scheme whereby the CO2 liberated at coal-fired power stations is captured and buried underground in order to stop the "pollution". It is called carbon sequestration (hiding carbon) which is a complete nonsense. CO2 is NOT an atmospheric pollutant.

6. "Carbon pollution" This is a double falsehood. What is meant by carbon is carbon dioxide which is an invisible harmless atmospheric gas vital for the biosphere, and it is implied to be dirty, thus causing pollution. The word pollution is defined in the dictionary as something that is foul or filthy. Using this word to describe the element carbon is a great insult to the most wonderful element in the Periodic Table, that forms more compounds than all the other elements put together, and is an essential component to all life forms.

7. "Big polluters" these are industries that emit large amounts of Greenhouse gases such as CO2, which is considered pollution. None of the major Greenhouse gases are polluting, eg water vapor and CO2. ABC TV continues with TV News images of white steam issuing from the cooling towers at power stations implying that it is "pollution". This is fraudulent media coverage and must be stopped

8. "Clean energy" is supposed to be superior to any other, presumably coal energy, which is the cheapest and we have plenty of it to last hundreds of years. The Greens want us to use solar and wind energy both of which are very costly and have only a limited economic use today, and are not worth doing.

9. Carbon tax: what is being taxed is CO2 emissions, now at $23/tonne, thanks to PM Julia. How crazy can you get? What does an ex-trade union lawyer know about chemistry?

10."Ocean acidification" The oceans are an enormous buffer solution having a stable alkaline pH of ca 8.1

These double buzz words are very deceptive and are largely used to squeeze or demand money from gullible Governments for the development of bizarre Green Projects, with an accompaning threat of the end of the world coming, or its equivalent. Governments should NOT be in the business of picking winners. Leave this to the private sector and R & D financing will automatically follow the most promising lead and at the appropriate speed.

In conclusion, I suggest that these catchy Green Buzz words be forgotten, and/or exposed as inappropriate when used by the Australian Labor Party and the Greens, the US Democrats, and unfortunately in the UK both Labour and the Coalition, God help the UK.

Renewable Energy has a high concentration of Bunkum

In Australia, at last the Federal Coalition is looking at the underlying cause of the continual hike in electricity prices, which is due to the mandated uptake of Green/Labor energy supply (solar and wind) regardless of cost, to meet the 20% renewable energy target by 2020.

So what's the big rush? Why doesnt the Coalition push to amend the legislation by simply changing the target date to year 2200? This gives another 200 years to develop any technologies, and in the meantime we use cheap power from our huge coal and lignite deposits, which are sufficient to last hundreds of years without looking for more.

Rumblings in the Coalition are increasing on this matter. So far, cautious Tony Abbott, Coalition leader, says that most people saw generating renewable energy as an important issue requiring Government support and subsidy. Therefore the Coalition goes along with this idea. Very true! HOWEVER, when such an important issue as energy generation is based on lies and eco-religious bunkum and is causing enormous and undesirable distortion of the Australian economy, the time has come to be brave and rectify matters. The idea of amending the RET legislation by changing the target date to year 2200 is a gentle way of returning to energy sanity.