Ultralight aircraft 2 strokes to be banned
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaz
Rutan Doesn't that make you wonder why there were trees growing there all that time ago. Were the levels of CO2 then much higher than they are today?
I read somewhere they used to grow crops in Iceland ( or it might have been Greenland) in areas that it is impossible to do so today.
I read somewhere they used to grow crops in Iceland ( or it might have been Greenland) in areas that it is impossible to do so today.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read somewhere they used to grow crops in Iceland ( or it might have been Greenland) in areas that it is impossible to do so today.
Nuuk the Capital city of Greenland is in the area settled by Eric the Red. Today in summer they grow grain and vegetables (even potatoes) to supply the city.
Today scientists think that the couple of Little Ice Ages that have occurred since 1300 were caused by volcanic eruptions .
If you're interested there is some interesting reading here.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...noes-affect-w/
This one is also good reading and may explain your trees under ice .
Volcanoes linked to cultural upheaval since early Roman times | ScienceNordic
Climate is not a static thing but change always has some cause.
Today there is no obvious cause to be seen for the changes happening other than man and his bolshie attitude that we can destroy the lungs of the earth (trees) while at the same time pump 50 gigatons of heat trapping gas into the atmosphere every year.
There are solutions but we have to act. The first thing to do is get rid of our current wishy washy politicians who can't even make a decision about a marriage act without spending $122 million.
How the hell will they ever be able to make big decisions?
Last edited by rutan around; 17th Sep 2017 at 22:34. Reason: clarification
Thread Starter
Senator Malcolm Roberts contacted Joanne Nova to clarifie the One Nation position on 2 strokes...
"...Thanks to Malcolm Roberts for contacting me tonight with more information. CLARIFICATION: It’s not a complete ban on two-strokes, but a change to increase standards on motors..."
UPDATE: Malcolm Roberts, One Nation replies the two-stroke mower *change* is about real pollution, not CO2 « JoNova
.
"...Thanks to Malcolm Roberts for contacting me tonight with more information. CLARIFICATION: It’s not a complete ban on two-strokes, but a change to increase standards on motors..."
UPDATE: Malcolm Roberts, One Nation replies the two-stroke mower *change* is about real pollution, not CO2 « JoNova
.
I'll have to think about that for a bit Rutan. Volcanos causing ice age sounds plausible ( getting into Mythbusters mode here ). But what caused the obvious warming that allowed the trees to grow before the current glacier?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Senator Malcolm Roberts contacted Joanne Nova to clarifie the One Nation position on 2 strokes...
Boltie...you need to read up on Greenland history.
About 500 years ago when there were Norse settlements there, they raised crops and stock. A mini ice age..due volcanism?..caused them to be dying off, so move on ...to where is a mystery. Labrador, Newfoundland..?? recent finds of sites.
I see on a recent doco the fluctuations in weather, as ever, has again allowed grazing and crops in parts of southern Greenland..
And we suffer severe 'snow-jobs' in the country too, but not related to extreme cold.
Indians scientist reckon Indias big coal push is going to knacker the place. Deaths due pollution and along with China, wreck the global atmosphere.
And we are going to sell them the coal to do it..!!
And we sell uranium to those who are building nuclear power stations and we dont/cant even entertain one.!
The clever country indeed !
About 500 years ago when there were Norse settlements there, they raised crops and stock. A mini ice age..due volcanism?..caused them to be dying off, so move on ...to where is a mystery. Labrador, Newfoundland..?? recent finds of sites.
I see on a recent doco the fluctuations in weather, as ever, has again allowed grazing and crops in parts of southern Greenland..
And we suffer severe 'snow-jobs' in the country too, but not related to extreme cold.
Indians scientist reckon Indias big coal push is going to knacker the place. Deaths due pollution and along with China, wreck the global atmosphere.
And we are going to sell them the coal to do it..!!
And we sell uranium to those who are building nuclear power stations and we dont/cant even entertain one.!
The clever country indeed !
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burning cow dung to do your cooking must do wonders for your health, as well as local pollution levels.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
affordable A very subjective description.
Our local coal fired station uses 4million tons of quality thermal coal per year. I haven't been able to find out what is paid for that coal as I'm not privy to the contracts. however if we use a middle of the road figure of $50 / ton it means an annual cost of $200,000,000 just to fuel it. Fuel for renewables $0
Costing must include health effects on miners and people living in the smoke plume plus long term CO2 effects on climate. I'm sure others will add to this list.
Thread Starter
I think any proper objective assessment would come to the same conclusion if all the costs of both systems were included from the turning of the first sod for the start of construction to the site cleanup at the end of useful life.
Our local coal fired station uses 4million tons of quality thermal coal per year. I haven't been able to find out what is paid for that coal as I'm not privy to the contracts. however if we use a middle of the road figure of $50 / ton it means an annual cost of $200,000,000 just to fuel it. Fuel for renewables $0
Costing must include health effects on miners and people living in the smoke plume plus long term CO2 effects on climate. I'm sure others will add to this list.
Our local coal fired station uses 4million tons of quality thermal coal per year. I haven't been able to find out what is paid for that coal as I'm not privy to the contracts. however if we use a middle of the road figure of $50 / ton it means an annual cost of $200,000,000 just to fuel it. Fuel for renewables $0
Costing must include health effects on miners and people living in the smoke plume plus long term CO2 effects on climate. I'm sure others will add to this list.
"...Australians are set to pay $300 million in subsidies to an outback solar farm owned by a Saudi Arabian billionaire..."
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/tax...-plants-power/
.
Last time I looked at a solar panel it appeared to have an aluminium frame.
I'd like to see them make aluminium with renewable power, and keep the lights on. I think they would have 3 chances. None, Buckley's and bugger all.
I'd like to see them make aluminium with renewable power, and keep the lights on. I think they would have 3 chances. None, Buckley's and bugger all.
"We're happy for the sceptics to watch what we do, and they'll learn what's possible."
“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean the atom would have to be shattered at will.” - Albert Einstein, 1932
Last edited by Cloudee; 20th Sep 2017 at 11:37.
Thread Starter
Steelmaker Sanjeev Gupta teams with Ross Garnaut to run factories using renewable energy - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
"We're happy for the sceptics to watch what we do, and they'll learn what's possible."
"We're happy for the sceptics to watch what we do, and they'll learn what's possible."
...the plan will include some coal and gas..."
Yep, there's a rube born every minute..
If the power these scam artists are going to produce is so cheap why do they need a "market mechanism" If they can power their business from sun and wind then go right ahead and do it - No market mechanism required..
Clouded, no one doubts that solar panels and wind generators produce power. It is just at this stage it is not a sane, cheap and reliable power source to power a nation that is blessed with 100's of years of coal supply.
.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clouded, no one doubts that solar panels and wind generators produce power. It is just at this stage it is not a sane, cheap and reliable power source to power a nation that is blessed with 100's of years of coal supply.
If you haven't any sane affordable ideas for clean energy please go back to fantasizing about Jo Nova and stop being a handbrake on those who are genuinely seeking the best way to achieve a clean affordable energy future.
[QUOTE=Cloudee;9897883]Steelmaker Sanjeev Gupta teams with Ross Garnaut to run factories using renewable energy - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
"We're happy for the sceptics to watch what we do, and they'll learn what's possible."
From another life I found that Ross person's reputation well exceeded his abilities. A good talker.
"We're happy for the sceptics to watch what we do, and they'll learn what's possible."
From another life I found that Ross person's reputation well exceeded his abilities. A good talker.
Before this thread deteriorates further, we need to get back to basics.
Firstly, pollution is actually wasted money if you think about it. Nobody wants to waste money.
In any argument, life cycle costs need to be considered as well as what economists call "externalities". For example, there is no saving on CO2 emissions from using electric cars if the power comes from coal fired power stations. You are just changing the location of the pollution.
There is a simply massive difference between theory and practice for new technologies. What works in the Lab may not work economically in the field. Dont believe what scientists and axe grinders tell you, ask the engineers who have t make stuff work.
Investments in existing technology are massive. In addition we have worked the bugs out of automotive technology and internal combustion engines over a hundred year period. It would be nice if we didn't have to throw all that away and start again.
All that stuff about LNG/liquid Ammonia/fairy dust/ electricity or whatever the latest solution is suffers from the comparison costs of deployment. What irks me is how the proponents gloss over the hurdles involved in practical engineering solutions to these issues.
Examples: Mum with three little kids in her SUV trying to fill it with liquid ammonia. The design of an electric power grid capable of powering electric recharging stations for electric car/truck traffic on the Hume highway, let alone the design of stations that can accommodate cars and trucks for thirty minute charging times.
Our best solution, absent a quantum leap in technology for example super duper batteries, is incremental improvement over time.
I have 9kw of solar on my roof, solar hot water as well, but I am not rushing for batteries any time soon. I used a Tesla taxi in Amsterdam, which was nice, but completely impractical over Australian scale inter city distances with current battery technology. As for alternative fuels, show me something that is less toxic than what we currently employ, that is available now on a massive scale and that can be distributed with existing infrastructure.
Firstly, pollution is actually wasted money if you think about it. Nobody wants to waste money.
In any argument, life cycle costs need to be considered as well as what economists call "externalities". For example, there is no saving on CO2 emissions from using electric cars if the power comes from coal fired power stations. You are just changing the location of the pollution.
There is a simply massive difference between theory and practice for new technologies. What works in the Lab may not work economically in the field. Dont believe what scientists and axe grinders tell you, ask the engineers who have t make stuff work.
Investments in existing technology are massive. In addition we have worked the bugs out of automotive technology and internal combustion engines over a hundred year period. It would be nice if we didn't have to throw all that away and start again.
All that stuff about LNG/liquid Ammonia/fairy dust/ electricity or whatever the latest solution is suffers from the comparison costs of deployment. What irks me is how the proponents gloss over the hurdles involved in practical engineering solutions to these issues.
Examples: Mum with three little kids in her SUV trying to fill it with liquid ammonia. The design of an electric power grid capable of powering electric recharging stations for electric car/truck traffic on the Hume highway, let alone the design of stations that can accommodate cars and trucks for thirty minute charging times.
Our best solution, absent a quantum leap in technology for example super duper batteries, is incremental improvement over time.
I have 9kw of solar on my roof, solar hot water as well, but I am not rushing for batteries any time soon. I used a Tesla taxi in Amsterdam, which was nice, but completely impractical over Australian scale inter city distances with current battery technology. As for alternative fuels, show me something that is less toxic than what we currently employ, that is available now on a massive scale and that can be distributed with existing infrastructure.
Thread Starter
Oil has naturally seeped out of the ground since it were first formed all those millions of years ago. There are many oil 'lumps' found on beachs around the world that originated from an undersea oil seep. Much coal country around Australia originally had surface exposure and just lay around with out hurting anything.
The volume of 2 stroke engines in Oz is trivial. And yet we have idiotic Oz politicians 'inspired' by the european global warming hysteria looking to impose yet more costly bureaucratic red tape on Oz business and consumers.
.