Action Blogs

Sunday 28th December - The Latest

by The GetUp team

GetUp! has launched a new advertisement in response to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s back-down on climate change.

\r\nWe\\\'ve cleared the remaining hurdles and uploaded the broadcast version to satellite ready for the TV networks to play - the ad will play tomorrow afternoon in Sydney and Melbourne, and Monday afternoon in the rest of the country!

\r\nStay tuned between 1pm and 6pm during the cricket to see it air!

\r\nWatch it now and chip in to help get it on the air!

\r\n

[For the media]

CoalDan

Posted by CoalDan 12/30/2008

While you criticize the government approach you don't seem to put forward and economically responsible alternative.
Australia as a small fish in a big sea. But you, as I do rely on Australia's economic prosperity.
Maybe we could all cut back to 2 hours internet per day. Sweat instead of use our aircons. We really all need to take a step back for any plan to work. Not just miners losing their jobs.
So what I am saying is that many of you may not have the opportunities that you now enjoy if it wasn't for our primary industries. It will take a total community and world support to make a difference.

reply »

smurray

Posted by smurray 1/7/2009

For me, the most important reason that this 5% target is completely unacceptable is that it basically condemns us to the loss of the Great Barrier Reef, increasing droughts and uncertain weather conditions, and the loss of our unique alpine habitats as we know them.

Whether its Howard or Rudd or my nana who developed this policy is immaterial.

This policy means giving up trying to stop climate change without even asking us what we want as a nation, let alone what our children might want.

reply »

phildeerhound

Posted by phildeerhound 1/8/2009

There is a difference in that I believe the Rudd government would be responsive to a public push for better targets

I see the problem as being that what is being proposed in terms of alternatives is based on mythology rather than on scientific reality

The problem is simple - to replace existing power use based on fossil fuels, with practical alternatives.

All practical alternatives, as far as large scale energy supply is concerned, depend on the production of electrical energy

There is no practical method whereby a block of apartments can be supplied with energy generated from solar or wind on its own building block - and for most freestanding houses - let alone semi-detached and terraces, whilst some power can be produced it is at phenomenal cost, unreliable, and simply not enough.

So we are back to power stations. Domestic villages can be powered using windmills and some solar, provided there is sufficient surrounding land - This would mean windmills in National Parks for example to supply areas in Southern Sydney and down to Woollongong and beyond. Escarpments could also be used. The same applies to Northern Sydney. You could put windmills in Kuringai perhaps - if you are so inclined

But again that is insufficient to power an industrial high density population city

So what do you use? - solar and wind and PV will not power your industrial city so it becomes a question of which fuel. That leaves us using fossil fuels (whilst available) with massive anti pollution technology much of which doesn't exist (for example "clean coal") - biomass which means vast exploitation of land using intensive farming chemical techniques - wave power, which close to shore is ecologically disastrous, hydro where possible but also with environmental consequences (for example the Snowy River region) - geothermal which on a large scale is difficult and may have consequences (worth exploring)

The only viable alternative when you add it all up is nuclear - like it or not. This would easily supply ALL our power needs for a couple of hundred years at least, and backup otherwise impractical renewable alternatives

So what is the real obstruction to reducing Australia's carbon emissions? Surely it is an supposedly "Green" movement that has a bee in its bonnet about nuclear power

And yet the uranium will still be supplied to a high percentage of the 442 reactors worldwide that are currently chugging away.

So how about the so called environmental movement changing its tune and asking for all present fossil fuel power stations to be replaced with nuclear power within a decade and a parallel move towards electrically power vehicles and vehicles powered by clean fuels produced using electrical power - such as hydrogen and compressed air?

How about pressing for vast areas of reforestation brought into being using desalinated water produced using nuclear power

At the moment the biggest obstruction to stopping climate change is the refusal for political reasons to utilise existing technology

The Green movement itself is a major such source of this difficulty - and I find that horrifying. We are being crucified on a cross made of mythology, ideology and horror stories and fairy tales

How about getting real on the "environmental movement" side and THEN approaching government with a practical alternative to "climate change".

I believe we would get it

Promise at least to think about it and CHECK your understanding of the nuclear alternative. But please do it before the lights start going out around this planet.

reply »

phildeerhound

Posted by phildeerhound 1/10/2009

Here is an example of Government wasting taxpayers money on non solutions.

I have just had my attention drawn to a current offer from a perfectly respectable PV grid exchange installer

These are the figures

Photo voltaic system 1080 watts (that's just over 1 Kw) Grid exchange

Quoted price includes:

• The installation of six 180 watt solar power panels
• The installation of one power inverter.
• The supply and installation of AC and DC circuit breakers, cabling, conduits and power isolators.
• The issuing of one Certificate of Electrical Safety
• Electrical inspection fees for this project only.
• *Buy back of Renewable Energy Credits (REC’s – subject to daily market pricing), Photovoltaic Rebate Program (PVRP) and the power distribution grid agreement paperwork.

The price structure is as follows:

Materials & Labour $11,400.00
G.S.T. $ 1,140.00
Sub Total $12,540.00
Less PVRP Rebate $ 8,000.00
*Less REC buy back $ 630.00

TOTAL COST (GST Included): $ 3,910.00

Now this effectively means that the Government is subsidising the cost of a 1KW system to the tune of 8000 dollars out of the basic $11400 cost

But such a system does not fulfil anything like the average households power needs which are at least around 20KWH daily - If we had 365 sunny days a year one might average around 12kwh - but I earnestly doubt it since we appear to be looking at the peak production summer figure. If not then the supplier would be advised to clarify this

So what on earth is the point in wasting government money subsidising such systems? It is 8000 down the drain

Let's get real with government subsidies and set the bar at 5kwh measured in winter. That might encourage the industry to build systems that actually come close to tackling the problem and might therefore have some effect on climate change

Unrealistic subsides help no-one except to be lazy. Once again this is hardly the suppliers fault it is the Government's policy's fault.

reply »

honest john

Posted by honest john 1/10/2009

phd
where did you say you cut and pasted that from???
HJ

reply »

phildeerhound

Posted by phildeerhound 1/11/2009

To take another company's offer, a 5kw system will cost you about $44000 and will be subject under certain conditions to the Government rebate of $8000, this rebate being capped at the 1kw output level.

I'm not giving company names, because all such information can be personally researched on the internet, and I urge "renewable energy" advocates to rely on their own researches - I am not into putting out propaganda.

The installations generally appear to be measured at peak output, often using figures achieved in Brisbane. Your "5kw system" will likely NOT be putting out 5kw at nine oclock in the morning in Sydney or Melbourne, so you will not be getting 20kwh per day from it most of the year, which means you will still be taking quite heavily from the grid, rather than supplying it, in the average household, especially in the period mid autumn to mid spring

The system will also require connection via a smart meter which will cost between three and five hundred dollars installed (so long as that is a straightforward job.)

The bottom line is that the Government rebate is being wasted on system that are ridiculously expensive before the ludicrously high rebate that wastes public money. Their output is still so low as to be almost worthless unless you shell out well over 35 thousand dollars plus maintenance costs.

My experience with solar water heating is similar. In summer I indeed get a useful output but in winter the output is worthless. I would say the system is 50% dysfunctional

Still I tried. My own researches have indicated to me that propaganda about renewable energy on a domestic level is almost entirely wishful thinking for all but the extremely low hot water and power user. I do not believe any system is capable of being economic unless it - for a start - is supplied at factory gate price. There is NO room in this industry for middle men suppliers. Government should take over the retailing role.

Even at that price the systems are highly dubious. They will come nowhere towards solving climate change. They are mostly only middle class toys that aim at the purchaser's desire to "do the right thing". They exploit "concern". Their advertising is particularly responsible for this and is highly questionable in terms of advertising standards. it is misleading people - especially environmentalists

Getting real about climate change is something we ALL have to do - not least in the Environmental Movement. I urge everyone to stop spouting ideological rubbish and wishful thinking and to go back and do the figures yourself - and only then express what you have found from your own conclusions

Mine are that with present technology domestically produced power is almost pure fantasy, that is spread by capitalist hype from supplying companies. That Government money is better spent of research into viable systems than promoting the present dysfunctional arrays

And that the key to solving climate change caused by emissions still lies purely with the technology of the central power stations that power the grid - and that solar energy, PV cells and windmills do not have sufficient power to supply large industrial cities - and further that wave power and hydro are potentially environmentally disastrous on a large scale. Geothermal? - the jury is still out.

So come on "Environmental Movement" If you want to rule out fossil fuels, what is your answer? You won't persuade people to cut their consumption much because most people worldwide are running at levels pretty close to minimal needs anyway, personal energy "waste" is itself a bit of a myth.

The clock is ticking away. The Greens, Environmentalists and movements such as Greenpeace - of which - for other reasons - I remain a contributing supporter - desperately need , in the planet's interest, to have a a complete rethink of their policies. The idealistic games are over. Accusing people of selfish excessive consumption won't solve the problem - it just creates antagonism.

So what are you going to DO?

Regards

reply »

honest john

Posted by honest john 1/11/2009

gooden morgen phil
do you think there is any connection with phosphorous bombs now being drop on GAZA and climate change??

reply »

phildeerhound

Posted by phildeerhound 1/12/2009

Just a momentary diversion responding to HJ's post.

For those interested Hamas films can be found on YouTube including giving details of the Qassam rocket for those who think that action is limited to throwing stones and using slingshots

An entry point for these videos is:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=6MPkic4HNrs

You may need to register and log-on to see them

Statistically the whole of Israel is twice the size of Metropolitan Sydney in area. The level of mortar and rocket attacks on Israel last year - mostly from Gaza - is therefore equivalent to 1500 similar attacks on Metropolitan Sydney in one year

I put those figures down to draw attention to what the term "cease fire" actually means. All of Israel's major population centres would be within Qassam rocket range from the West Bank, Syria Jordan Egypt,Gaza and Lebanon. In fact all of Israel - urban and rural would

Let's hope for a speedy return to peace in the region, so that all the children can grow up and help build a better world rather than to spend their lives bombing, shooting and hating each other.

And HJ lets get back to climate change on this blog

reply »

This is the place for yours and others' views on this blog post. Robust debate is great, but please be civil.

For full details see our Terms and Conditions.

You can do some limited formatting in comments with BB tags. You just need to put the words you want formatted inside tags. You can [b]bold text[/b], [i]italcise[/i], [u]underline words[/u], [s]strike-through words[/s], and put material in [quote]quotes[/quote].