Japanese firm plans 250 mile wide solar belt around the moon

Moon Solar

I gather it would cost a bomb but considering we piss against the wall spend globally $359bn per year fighting imaginary AGW for ZERO real benefit and this certainly beats installing millions upon millions of 1,100 AD bird/bat chomping wind totem technology across our planet’s landmass then why not give it ago…

Via the Telegraph


A Japanese construction firm is proposing to solve the well-documented energy problems facing Japan – and ultimately the entire planet – by turning the moon into a colossal solar power plant.

Tokyo-based Shimizu Corp. wants to lay a belt of solar panels 250 miles wide around the equator of our orbiting neighbour and then relay the constant supply of energy to “receiving stations” on Earth by way of lasers or microwave transmission.

The “Luna Ring” that is being proposed would be capable of sending 13,000 terawatts of power to Earth. Throughout the whole of 2011, it points out, the United States only generated 4,100 terawatts of power.

“A shift from economical use of limited resources to the unlimited use of clean energy is the ultimate dream of mankind,” Shimizu says in the proposal on its web site. “The Luna Ring … translates this dream into reality through ingenious ideas coupled with advanced space technologies.”

…Shimizu is reluctant to put a price tag on the construction costs involved but, given adequate funding, the company believes construction work could get under way as early as 2035.

Robots and automated equipment would be developed to mine the moon’s natural resources and produce concrete and the solar cells required for the scheme.

Once completed, the belt would stretch 6,800 miles around the equator and ensure constant exposure to the sun – without the interference of cloud cover – and an equally constant transfer of energy to the Earth.

Shimizu believes that “virtually inexhaustible, non-polluting solar energy is the ultimate source of green energy”.



Follow Andy on Twitter

Like us on Facebook

Carefully considered or bad decision?


Jim McCrudden 

Dr Dennis Jensen, BAppSci, MSc, PhD, has worked with distinction in industry and with the CSIRO. His PhD is in Materials Science and Physics. At the CSIRO he worked as a researcher but also as an analyst at the Defence Science and Technology Organization. 

He still makes serious contributions with regards to the Joint Strike Fighter debate, climate change, nuclear energy, scientific research, National Broadband Network, and education matters. He is on the Advisory Board of the Australian Research Council (Centre of Excellence) for Anti Matter/Matter Research.

Cutting it short, he is the most highly qualified Federal MP in science—on all sides.

So when the opportunity arose of appointing Jensen Minister for Science he was obviously the favourite in the minds of anyone who was interested.

Abbott clearly thought about it.

But rather than put this highly qualified man in that position, Abbott, in an act of craven cowardice abolished the position of Minister of Science altogether!!

The ALP had done the groundwork of effectively destroying the position of Science Minister and reshaping it into a sinecure for speechmakers by appointing schoolteachers and economists and union bosses to be Science Ministers. Simultaneously, they twisted the CSIRO so much that the initials now stand for the Corrupted Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. But in that, it could be argued, they were merely short of competent people. The Coalition had been no better.

Corrupting the CSIRO was another thing altogether, of course. That was political and was done cynically to get support for their Global Warming agenda.

But why did Abbott abolish the Ministry altogether rather than appoint Jensen? Why not keep it? Reform it? Take science seriously?

Because Jensen carries baggage. Nearly ten years ago when even men like Howard were running scared from the Global Warming scare, Jensen proclaimed that the so-called evidence was ridiculous and that the models were worse – they didn’t even half work.

Oh, God, thought Abbott as he went on his knees at church, I will be slandered and shamed in the Fairfax press if I appoint a climate skeptic to the position. And the ABC will eat me up. There will be snide remarks in Crikey! Jokes about science hating misogynists. Only one thing to do – take the coward’s way out.

Abbott could choose between dishonour and vilification.

He chose dishonour and got vilification. Every scientist polled in the country was astonished and disbelieving. What, keep a Sports Minister and remove the Science Minister? Are you nuts, the cry went? Crazy?

Abbott said science would “largely” be in the industry portfolio, under incoming minister, Ian Macfarlane.


What the hell does that mean? 60%? 90%? What? And who will be doing the rest? The Minister Responsible for Sitting Behind the PM and Nodding When the PM Addresses Parliament? The Attorney General? The Under-secretary to the Tea-lady’s Deputy Assistant?

Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, complains that development of science is already too fragmented, “Already it’s spread across multiple budget lines; at the last count we had something over 70 spread over something to the order of 14 portfolios and we could miss things if we aren’t strategic in the way we go about it.”

So why not appoint the best man for the job?

Because it was politically inexpedient.

Appointing someone with no qualifications would carry huge criticism. It would run for years. It will smear all the other appointments.

Anyway, he thought, Jensen talks too much. The coalition’s policy on emissions has exactly the same target as Labor had, and Jensen may have words to say about that.
Abbott abolished the Ministry of Science because it was politically expedient?

That – because it was the gutless thing to do.



The Hon Dr Peter Phelps MLC on the "research" gravy-train: 

I woke to the news this morning that the ANU now has a bright and shiny supercomputer called "Raijin".
That's nice, I thought.
The academic concerned further related that half the cost had come from the Federal Government.
Well, that's to be expected, I thought.
He said that the remainder of the funding had come from a consortium.
Excellent, get the private sector involved in capital costs, I thought.
The professor said that the other partners consisted of the ANU itself, the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Research Council.
What?!  So almost 100% of this is being paid for by the Federal Government.  It is just going through the façade of routing taxpayers'' money through a number of agencies, I thought.
The scientist said that the computer's main use would be for modelling weather patterns, and was part of the government's research priority for climate change.
Of course it is. Of course it is, I thought.
What is interesting about this story?

1. The disconnect between what is "government money";
2. The bandwagon effect between government agencies;
3. The need to 'hit' a specific nerve in your application to get substantial government funding for research; and 
4. The myth that government-funded research is in any way "more independent" than private research.
It would be fascinating to know whether the funding for the supercomputer scheme had been knocked back previously, or had been put on hold because of a lack of available funds, prior to it being badged as being for "climate modelling".
Moreover, I am sure that the computer will provide many other valuable services for the non-bogus areas of science into the future.
But let us be clear about this: under Labor, if you want a research grant, you have to toe the "global warming" line if you want to see the dough – and that is not "independent' research, it is advocacy.

Peter Phelps is the Government Whip in the New South Wales Legislative Council, and is a former long-term staffer in the Howard Government. He has a PhD in Australian History. 

Toby’s Sunday light


Struggling to make ends meet under the present government, even the gadabout Toby Jug has to adapt. He seeks help in a new venture GC.Ed.@L.

Dear Editor,

you know I have been a loyal contributor to Menzies House, travelled great distances and exposed myself to considerable harm to get that scoop you told me was necessary to meet your publication standards.

It is with some embarrassment and much humility that I appeal to your good nature in the following matter. The truth is, living expenses have increased so steeply even Claude, my pet piranha is on short rations.

Therefore, I hope you will allow me to plug my new business venture that should net me a bundle, especially as my product is unique and rare.

I speak of Higgs bosons now for sale on ebay, (click here for full details) at prices that reflect the scarcity of supply, but I am pleased to announce that MH readers are offered, free, with no conditions attached, three, yes, three Higgs bosons.

(For readers who have been living in a parallel universe and have not been within earshot of TV; the Higgs field is something like a magnetic field.)

Push two magnets together and you will feel a force that either attracts or repels. If an electron is the particle of the magnetic field, then the Higgs boson is the particle of the Higgs field. It is everywhere, binds everything together and gives everything mass on which gravity needs to function. The great news is that scientists have finally confirmed their existence.
 It is not to be confused with the Pigg’s field, which is rather similar in that it binds the Labor government together, and is equally hard to find.

These bosons may be mounted on a plaque, or embedded in acrylic, or even placed in a vase for placing on your dining room table. Think how envious your friends will be when the news gets out that you are amongst the first to have a Higgs boson in your home, when they cannot even get them on ebay.

How can Toby Jug make this amazing offer, you may ask? 

Well, it’s because Morgan Pierrepont Rockefeller Rothschild Jug is my uncle and it is he who registered a patent of the Higgs boson some time ago, when no one was looking. 

MPRRJ Inc. has now lodged a ‘cease and desist’ letter against Apple and Microsoft from using his patent in their computers.

As you cannot have mass without the Higgs boson; he has signed a Concordat with the Vatican exempting catholic clergy from payment for the Mass on Sundays.

And in another gesture to show it is not all about money he has agreed to supply three bosons to all board members of the federal Reserve Bank free of charge.

So get in early. Send absolutely no money at once and remember this places me, Toby Jug, under no obligation whatever.

However, be aware there are unscrupulous persons in the community who will offer to supply Higgs bosons. Be careful; only accept the genuine Toby Jug Higgs Boson.

UPDATE. Julia Gillard has dispatched Treasurer Wayne Goose to Monaco for talks to see if she can tax its use here provided a percentage flows to MPRRJ Inc.

UPDATE. I have been advised that the Higgs Bosons for sale on ebay are not genuine and have not been tested in cyclotron conditions.

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.

The warmistas are desperate

It seemed that Global Warming and terrifying tales of pestilence had faded away. No, the manipulators of data have been beavering away for their next assault with "new proof" of…, "I told you so."

Joanne Nova, however, is one who holds questionable climate science up for scrutiny rather than a tug at the forelock in humble acquiescence.

In May it was all over the newspapers, in June it was shown to be badly flawed. By October, it quietly gets withdrawn.  The apology and press release are coming soon…right?

Thanks to help from the Australian Research Council it only took 300,000 dollars and three years
to produce a paper that lasted all of three weeks. But it scored the
scary headlines! It was “confirmation”, it was “unprecedented warming”,
and it was a scientific certainty that was based on “27 natural climate
records” and  “over the last 1000 years”. What could possibly go wrong?
They had 2 whole proxies that went right back a thousand years, and
they’d used computers (!) to rehash the data 3000 ways!  Frankly, I’m
surprised it lasted three weeks…

Read more: www.joannenova.com.au

What Global Warming?

Polar bear

Good news for the Polar Bear but bad news for the Al Gore Tim Flannery CO2 alarmist team. The El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) went south this decade and the warming has stopped.

ENSO 5 yr running mean

The above chart is plotted from the MEI Index data (last update: 7 December 2011) http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html

And the ENSO isn't the only thing that went south.

ICE ECX CER Futures 419 010112

Prices for Certified Emission Reductions, known as CERs, for December 2012 delivery settled at 4.19 euros ($5.32 AUD) per metric ton on the ICE Futures Europe exchange on Friday 30 December 2011. The credits have lost over 80 per cent from their peak of 25.00 euros in July 2008.

Thanks to Julia Gillard and Bob Brown, Australian businesses will be paying $23.00 ($18.12 euros) per metric ton come 1 July 2012.

2012 New Year’s Resolutions for Climate Scientists everywhere.

  1. I will admit that warming has been much slower than we expected
  2. I will admit that recent sea level rise is nothing unusual or threatening
  3. I will admit that our forecasts of declining snow cover were wrong
  4. I will admit that Arctic temperatures are cyclical, and that we have no idea what will happen to Arctic ice over the next 50 years
  5. I will admit that our forecasts of Antarctic warming have been a total failure.
  6. I will admit that Polar Bear populations are not threatened
  7. I will admit that climate models have demonstrated no skill, and are nothing more than research projects
  8. I will admit there was a Medieval Warm Period
  9. I will admit that that there was a Little Ice Age
  10. I will stop pretending that we don’t have climate records prior to 1970
  11. I will admit that the surface temperature record has been manipulated and is contaminated by UHI
  12. I will stop making up data where none exists
  13. I will honestly face skeptics in open debate.
  14. I will quit trying to stop skeptics from being published
  15. I will admit that glaciers have been disappearing for hundreds or thousands of years
  16. I will stop telling people that the climate is getting more extreme, without producing any evidence
  17. I will admit that hurricanes are on the decline
  18. I will admit that severe tornadoes are on the decline
  19. I will admit that droughts were much worse in the past
  20. I will admit that efforts to shut down power plants have potentially very serious consequences for the future
  21. I will pay for my own tickets to tropical climate boondoggles like Cancun, rather than improperly using taxpayer money for political activism
  22. I will admit that there is no missing heat
  23. I will admit that temperatures have been cooling for at least the last decade
  24. I will publish the raw data and not lose it.
  25. etc. etc. etc.


Follow Andy on twitter

The CSIRO’s Presumptuous Title Conclusion

The advert below is from the CSIRO was found on page 7 of today’s copy of the Australian.

CSIRO workshop

Note the title: “A Warming Earth. What the cost of doing nothing?

Since the title is CSIRO’s conclusion, what’s the point of the one day workshop?

I think the cartoon below now accurately best describes the CSRIO.

Gravy train

Show me the money, I’ll show you the “Science”.

Former Principal Research Scientist at the CSIRO, Colin M Barton PhD, expresses his disappointment.

I refer to the seminar titled ‘A Warming Earth’ and note that the very title prejudices an open discussion on climate change in that it gives a definitive conclusion to a complex un-resolved issue.

The selection of speakers is clearly biased practically exclusively towards Global Warming advocates and excludes any of the very significant numbers of highly qualified scientists that have sound scientific reasons for holding alternative interpretations. 

Such bias in a scientific seminar, debases the past reputation of a fine organization and ultimately bring into disrepute the reputation of independent science.

Please do not consider this a case either for or against Global Warming but rather as a protest against political interference in the compromization of science.

How come eminent scientists such as Professor Bob Carter, Dr. David Evans and Professor Ian Plimer aren’t guest speakers? Oh that’s right, they’re all climate sceptics.

Welcome to politicised science – progressive style.

Andy Semple

Follow him on twitter @Bulmkt