Carbon Dioxide is not Pollution

Forbes

We should minimise human pollution of land, atmosphere and oceans.

But that has nothing to do with carbon dioxide from modern coal-burning power stations. No rational person could define carbon dioxide as “pollution”. It is a harmless, non-toxic, colourless natural gas that is the essential food for all plants which then produce food and oxygen for all animals.

Almost everything in coal was derived from plant material – burning it is no more dangerous than burning wood. Both will suffocate you in confined places, but when dispersed in the vast atmosphere their emissions are beneficial plant fertilisers.

Modern coal-fired power generators have extensive filtration equipment which ensures that the exhaust gases are harmless natural gases already present in the atmosphere – nitrogen, water vapour and carbon dioxide – all essential to sustaining life on Earth.

The smogs of Asia are not caused by burning washed coal in modern power stations. They are caused by burning everything else, usually in dirty open fires. They burn cow dung, wood, cardboard, plastic, paper, recycled oil, tyres, dirty coal, kerosene – anything available that will cook food, provide warmth/light or deter mosquitoes. Forest fires in Indonesia, cremations in India and dust from the massive Gobi desert all add to Asian air pollution. As do old worn-out boilers, furnaces, engines and power stations which can spew unfiltered exhaust gases, ash, soot and unburnt fuel into the air.

These all add to air pollution – carbon dioxide does not.

Fifty years ago, bans on open fires plus clean coal-fired electricity and piped coal gas solved the suffocating smogs of London and Pittsburgh.

The same will work wonders on Asian smogs today.

Viv Forbes,

Rosewood    Qld   Australia
forbes@carbon-sense.com

Green Energy is Part of the Past, not Fuel for the Future

Forbes

The growing failure of green energy in Europe should warn Australia to abandon bi-partisan policies dictating targets, mandates and subsidies for “green” energy.

I grew up at the end of the last green energy era – solar energy powered our growing crops and dried the washing, but it was weak in winter and ceased under clouds and at night; wind energy pumped water, but only when the wind blew; draft horses powered farm machinery, but they had to be fed whether they were working or not; wood gave us home heating and cooking, but it consumed energy to collect and chop it up; kids walked to school or rode bikes or ponies and ladies took the horse and sulky.

Our only help from carbon energy was kerosene for the kitchen lamp and coke used to smelt and forge the metals for farm tools and machinery.

We also practiced “sustainability” – we purchased little, and most of the farm produce was consumed on the farm by family, farm labourers and draft horses.

We were rescued from this life of sustained labour by carbon energy – a kerosene-powered tractor, a petrol-powered truck, and coal-powered electricity for lighting, heating, cooking, refrigeration, milking machines and pumps. The horses and farm labour were no longer needed and, for once, the farm produced a decent surplus of food for the growing cities.

Wind, solar, wood and muscle power are tools of the past and they work no better now than they did then. Forcing people to use these ancient technologies will just return us to laborious poverty on the farms and hunger in the cities.

Green energy should not be forced on consumers – those who want it should pay for it.

Green energy will eventually be abandoned, but the cost rises for each day’s delay.

Election day:

Something to remember:

It was Labor PM Kevin Rudd, supported by the Greens, who gleefully committed all Australians to the costly, unnecessary and now totally discredited Kyoto Agreement (Dec 2007). And it was Senator Penny Wong, a minister in both Rudd governments, who pushed her costly complex and now discredited Emissions Trading Scheme through the same parliament in 2009.

It was Labor PM Julia Gillard leading a Labor/Green coalition in July 2011 who introduced the now discredited carbon tax.

Therefore the first rule for anyone supporting a return to Carbon Sense is this:

Put every Labor/Green Candidate last.

Viv Forbes,

Rosewood    Qld   Australia
forbes@carbon-sense.com


Parasitic Power Producers

Forbes

The green energy twins, wind and solar, are parasitic power producers. They cannot produce continuous predictable electricity without sucking backup from their hosts – real power plants using coal, gas, nuclear, hydro or geothermal energy.

They start their freeloading life by attaching themselves to an electricity network built and paid for by their hosts. They seldom contribute to the capital or maintenance cost of the transmission network, and they force consumers to subsidise the feed-in price received for their unreliable output.

From day one, the green energy parasites force their hosts to support them with electricity during the frequent periods when they produce no power. At times, in cold still weather, wind farms drain power from the network to keep the turbines from freezing.

All green energy plants in a region tend to produce either peak power or zero power at the same times. This surging creates serious network instability and forces fluctuating output in backup facilities.

Because of this continuous need for backup, not one unit of real power can be closed. This causes periodic overcapacity in the network. All plants generate lower revenue and profits and both producers and consumers bear the cost of supporting the parasites.

Problems already loom in Europe where coal, gas and nuclear plants face closure because their revenue stream is weakened by overcapacity and interrupted by solar/wind surges.

Green energy has a low capacity factor, intermittent operation, more access and transmission costs and creates operational inefficiencies in back-up plants. It is a destructive and stunningly expensive way to achieve a miniscule overall reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, even if that were a sensible aim. It is a system designed by delirious politicians not prudent power engineers, and its main achievement is to harvest subsidies not energy.

If all green energy welfare was removed, the parasite power producers would die. And unless it is removed, the hosts and the customers will be continuously weakened.

Viv Forbes,

Rosewood    Qld   Australia
forbes@carbon-sense.com

 

Abolish Renewable Energy Targets

Forbes

Australia’s Renewable Energy Target Scheme is an incredibly bad idea. Coercing and bribing people to waste community savings on unpredictable and unreliable solar and wind electricity should end immediately.

There is nothing smart about trying to run a 21st century industrial society using “green energy” to generate electricity. It is costly, diffuse, intermittent and needs 100% backup capacity.

Solar power excels in growing trees, grass and crops and can be useful for heating water or providing electricity in remote locations providing there is also a back-up diesel generator or a bank of batteries in the shed.

Wind power can also be useful in applications where its capricious performance does not matter, such as pumping water to a tank or storage dam.

The green energy financial disaster developing in Europe shows that Australia should stop promoting green energy to limit further damage to consumers and businesses with soaring electricity costs and declining reliability of supply.

The dismal European green record includes bankrupt companies, spiralling electricity prices, industry closures and relocations, financial crises, unstable power supply, environmental uglification, bird slaughter, property devaluation and . . . increasing coal usage.

We must abolish all renewable energy targets, subsidies, mandates and price support.

People who feel green energy suits their needs or beliefs should remain free to invest in it. But our whole society should not be forced to gamble with something as important as our future energy supply.Viv Forbes,

Rosewood    Qld   Australia
forbes@carbon-sense.com

Kevin’s Carbon Con

Subject: Think Kevin Rudd is doing the right thing in changing the carbon tax? Think again!

This is the most important newspaper article you may read in the lead up to the election – Kevin Rudd’s Carbon Tax / ETS is actually far worse than Gillard’s proposal: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/kevin-rudd-in-classic-pre-election-ploy-over-carbon-tax/story-fni0d8gi-1226679831124 by Terry McCrann.

In summary:

·       Kevin Rudd is NOT ditching the carbon tax. He isn't even cutting it. Your power prices won't fall by a single cent on his announcement.

·       Labor is floating the carbon price with the European market to be set by Europe and/or financial speculators who won’t care at all about Australia, Australian Businesses, or consumer electricity prices.

·       The government won't have the power to guarantee what the carbon tax price would be. In July next year Rudd’s promise to end the fixed price kicks in and then it is free to rise. It is just ludicrous to assume that the European price will still be $6 then. It could be. Equally it could be $12, $20 or more – the Treasury’s own modeling forecast says it will rise to at least $38, and climbing continually higher.

·       The European decision makers want the price to be higher. The whole 'point' of this carbon tax/ETS (emissions trading scheme) is to hurt everyone with higher electricity prices so business and consumers will use less electricity; and that power companies will switch to non-coal – much more costly forms of so-called 'alternative' energy. Every single thing we buy or produce in this country could be effected.

·       On the flip side, if it did stay at $6 (as Rudd is spinning it), at least for a while, it would render Rudd’s climate change policy even more totally pointless, because it would not reduce CO2 emissions. This is the fundamental internal dishonesty of what Rudd is trying to con voters into believing. That they can have cheaper power and still save the planet. It just isn’t possible.

·       It gets worse, Australia loses control:

With a (real) carbon tax – as the existing Gillard one was, in its pre-ETS form – we are paying the money for these Carbon Permits to ourselves (As in, to the Government who in turn can spend the money in Australia as required). But with Rudd’s ETS open to global markets, we will be paying some – most? all? the money to off shore foreigners, to buy their 'permits' to do business in Australia. Whether to legitimate ones in Europe (or to the ubiquitous Nigerians). This money, which even Treasury estimates will – and indeed, should – run into billions of dollars a year, will be money paid to buy . . . absolutely nothing. It buys nothing but a bit of paper, that says in effect: you are given permission to keep your power station in Australia open.

Opposition leader Tony Abbott put it precisely right yesterday: it's a payment for the "non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one." But payment of very real dollars out of the pockets of all Australians. What’s more, its just another imposition on the cost of living and doing business in this country where jobs are disappearing. All the while, China's emissions continue to increase its emissions every year by more than our entire emissions.

Please remember why Kevin Rudd was ditched in the first place, he was more unpopular and making worse decisions than Gillard.

Real Carbon Credit Farming – the Road to Biocide

Forbes

If you were so silly as to want a sustainable long-term method to keep locking away the sparse carbon resources of the atmosphere using “carbon farming”, the ONLY way to do it is to harvest regular crops of trees, pastures, cereals and grazing animals. Then use these carbon-rich products to build homes and feed families, thus creating long-term storage of the carbon in buildings as timber, or in human bodies as flesh and bone.

Finally, when these carbon carriers reach the end of their life, bury the old timber and the dead bodies in deep holes so that the carbon never gets back into the biosphere. Such burial should attract carbon credit payments.

Such a scheme will methodically remove carbon dioxide, the gas of life, from the carbon cycle – a sure way to starve life on Earth.

It is the road to biocide, but that seems to be what the Deep Greens want.

Let’s hope they starve first.

Viv Forbes,

Rosewood    Qld   Australia
forbes@carbon-sense.com

Ram Rudd not sheepish


ForbesThe Inaugural Golden Fleece Award – for Flagrant Fleecing of Community Resources

The Carbon Sense Coalition has awarded its Inaugural Golden Fleece Award to Kevin Rudd and coal industry leaders for “flagrant fleecing of community savings in futile ‘research’ on Carbon Capture & Sequestration – a costly and complex process designed to capture and bury carbon dioxide gas produced by burning carbon fuels such as coal, oil and gas”.

It is obviously possible, in an engineering sense, to collect, separate, compress, pump and pipe gases, so new “research” is largely a waste of money. Engineers know how to do these things, and their likely costs. But only foolish green zealots would think of spending billions to bury a harmless, invisible, life-supporting gas in hopes of cooling the climate some time in the century ahead.

About 2.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide are produced for every tonne of coal burnt in a power station. To capture, compress and bury it could take at least 30% of the electricity produced, greatly increasing the cost of the limited amount of electricity left for sale – more coal used, increased electricity costs, for ZERO measurable benefits.

We have come to expect stupidity from politicians, but coal industry leaders who agreed to waste money on this should be sued by shareholders for negligence. Maybe they were just drooling at all the extra coal they would sell in order to produce the same electricity?

Kevin Rudd wins this award for “a Flagrant Fleece of $400 million taken from tax payers to fund the fatuous Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.” There is little to show for the millions already spent except a lot of receipts for high class salaries, consultants, travel, entertainment and “operational expenses”.

Pumping gases underground is sensible if it brings real benefits such as using waste gases to drive oil recovery from declining oil fields.

Normally, however, CCS will just produce more expensive electricity.

This result is not needed as politicians have already invented dozens of ways of doing just that.

Viv Forbes,

Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition

Rosewood    Qld   Australia
forbes@carbon-sense.com

Warm and well fed, or hungry in the dark?

Vic Forbes asks, which is worse – gradual man-made global warming or sudden electricity blackout?

Vic Forbes asks, which is worse – gradual man-made global warming or sudden electricity blackout?

Alarmists try to scare us by claiming that man’s activities are causing global warming. Whether and when we may see new man-made warming is disputed and uncertain. If it does appear, the world will be slightly warmer, with more evaporation and rainfall; plants will grow better and colonise some areas currently too cold or too dry; fewer old people will die in winter and sea levels may continue the gradual rise we have seen since the end of the last ice age.

There may even be a bit more “green” in Greenland. There is no evidence that man’s production of carbon dioxide is causing more extreme weather events. Any change caused by man will be gradual and there will be plenty of time to adapt, as humans have always done. Most people will hardly notice it.

What is certain, however, is that global warming policies are greatly increasing the chances of electricity blackouts, and here the effects can be predicted confidently – they will be sudden and severe.

Localised short-term blackouts can be caused by cyclones, storms, fires, floods, accidents, equipment failure or overloading. People will cope with them. The more widespread blackouts, caused for example by network collapse or insufficient generating capacity, will have severe effects.

All modern human activities are heavily dependent on electricity. Blackouts will stop lifts, trains, traffic lights, tools, appliances, factories, mines, refineries, communications and pumps for fuel, water and sewerage. People will be trapped or stranded in trains, ports, airports, lifts, hotels, hospitals and traffic jams. ATM’s, credit cards and supermarket checkouts will not work. Cash, cheques, IOU’s and pocket calculators will be required to buy anything.

Immediately a blackout occurs, those with emergency generators, fuel or batteries will start using them. But within a very few days, batteries will run flat, emergency fuel supplies will be exhausted, food supplies will disappear from stores and pumped water will not be available. Intensive dairies, hatcheries, piggeries and feedlots will all face critical problems in keeping their animals alive and cared for.

If the blackout is extensive and prolonged, looting will infect the big cities and then spread to country areas. People who are old, sick, incapacitated or alone will be forgotten as able-bodied people focus on feeding and protecting their own.

The real threat to humanity today is not the theoretical dangers from gradual man-made global warming. A far bigger real danger is the growing threat to reliable electricity supplies from deep-green climate policies.

The most reliable electricity supplies come from coal, gas, hydro, nuclear, geothermal or oil. Misguided politicians and uncompromising nature are conspiring to ensure that few of these will be available to generate Australia’s future electricity.

The carbon tax and renewable energy targets threaten the financial viability of using coal, gas or oil to generate electricity. Banks and investors will not risk their capital on new carbon-powered stations dependent on an unstable and polarised political environment. And the declining profitability of existing stations under the carbon tax and mandated market sharing makes it risky and uneconomic to spend money maintaining existing aging stations.

The same green zealots who plot to destroy carbon energy will also work to prevent the construction of new nuclear or hydro plants in Australia. And Australia’s geothermal resources, being generally deep and remote, are unlikely to provide significant electricity for decades.

We are thus being forced to rely on fickle breezes and peek-a-boo sunbeams to generate expensive and intermittent electricity. And it will not be economic to continue building backup gas plants that are run below capacity or sit idle, earning insufficient income as they try to fill the unpredictable production gaps in the supply of green energy. The margin of supply safety will disappear.

Therefore, if we continue to allow green zealots to dictate our electricity generation, blackouts are inevitable. Britain and Germany already face this grim prospect.

All actions have consequences. We cannot continue pouring billions of dollars of community savings down the climate-change sink-hole, without starving our essential infrastructure. We cannot keep adding taxes and political risk to traditional electricity generators without reducing new investment in real base-load generating capacity. And we cannot keep adding unstable solar and wind elements to our electricity network without adding greatly to electricity costs and the risks of network failure.  

When the lights fail, and the supermarket shelves are cleaned out, we will return, at great cost and after much misery, to cheap reliable continuous electricity using coal, gas or nuclear fuels.

Gaia worshippers will find that “Earth Hour” will not be such fun when it becomes “Earth Week”.

Viv Forbes has no vested interest in electricity generation, except as a consumer. And he gets no funds from the government Climate Change Industry. He holds shares in a small Australian coal exploration company which will benefit by exporting coal if expensive unreliable electricity in Australia forces more power-using industries overseas.