OVERSEAS trips may become a once-in-lifetime experience and car travel needed to be cut by 80 per cent if we have any hope of avoiding "dangerous" climate change, experts say.
Energy experts from Monash University said the carbon emission standards recommended by the government-hired Professor Ross Garnaut would not be possible if Australia’s love affair with cars and planes continued.
Continue reading Car travel 'cut by 80 per cent'
"So why are they correct? Is this what you want to believe?"
.6C so far for 40% of a doubling. And that is with solar variability helping.
"Most studies show that with normal constraints of nutrients the growth rate is increased for a short while only."
The growth rate is long enough to increase food harvests. And it produces more drought resistant plants. I'm not sure about the "short while" argument. I think it is exaggerated by people trying to get more AGW grants. Many greenhouses inject CO2 to a level between 600 and 1000 ppm. I'm sure they wouldn't be doing it if they didn't get a strong benefit.
"Right so oil is now $102.45 per barrel and you think that peak oil is a scare?"
Oil supplies and reserves are also at an all time high.
"So nuclear is safe and clean as long as only people you like have it?"
You jumped to that little victory even before you read my response didn't you. Go back and read it again. I'm saying that Iran should have nuclear power. But only if we can establish that their motives are not to make nuclear weapons. The Russians have offered to build them nuclear plants if they allow the Russians to control the fuel. The Iranians rejected that. Guess why. Or is it possible that you don't know the difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants.
"Have you any idea of the amount revolutionary new shale oil projects that have come and gone over the last 50 years?"
Have you any idea how many revolutionary electric car projects have come and gone over the past 50 years? It's really an irrelevant question. The point is that they have the technology to use shale oil economically now. It has already been done in a pilot project. The only battle that remains is the political one. People like you want to warn us about peak oil while at the same time preventing us from developing the massive oil resources we have. Once again, your objective isn't to solve problems, but rather to shape the world in your immage. "You'll take windmills or you'll get nothing!"
I don't have a problem with building nukes close to cities.
"who will pay for the pipeline" - ultimately the customers for the liquid fuel as happens now.
If you can't use the waste heat from electricity generation just use nukes to generate process heat. Better still you could switch them to electricity generation and reduce liquid fuel production when you do this which enables you to use the nukes for peak load power. Works for water desalination too. I bet preheating the brown coal with waste heat would reduce your high temperature heat requirement too.
The transmission lines already exist from the Latrobe Valley, you could build base load nukes closer to the population centers.
Last I heard pipelines were the cheapest way to shift bulk liquids. You want to use diesel trucks, trains or ships instead?
Tilo - "I believe that the people who propose that climate sensitity is between .5C and 1.5C are correct."
So why are they correct? Is this what you want to believe?
"I believe that the biomass will be increased by both the extra temperature and the extra CO2"
Which is fine until the growth is constrained by either water or nutrients. Most studies show that with normal constraints of nutrients the growth rate is increased for a short while only.
"I've seen enough "peak oil" alarms missed that I'm very very skeptical about "peak coal". The problem with ringing the alarm bell all the time is that people start ignoring you after a while."
Right so oil is now $102.45 per barrel and you think that peak oil is a scare? Oil is finite and will dip short of demand as it is doing now.
"And Iran would be correct if their only motive was to generate electricity."
So nuclear is safe and clean as long as only people you like have it? Other people cannot have it - what do they do for energy if nukes are the savior of mankind.
"'m afraid that your knowledge about shale oil is woefully out of date. A company named Oil Tech from Utah has built a successful pilot plant and they are able to produce shale oil at a price between 13 and 30 dollar per barrel."
Have you any idea of the amount revolutionary new shale oil projects that have come and gone over the last 50 years? Apparently all they needed was oil to be a bit more expensive that what it was at the time. When this process is producing a couple of million barrels per day then you might be right - until then it is vapourware.
"In any case, I see no down side to starting a steady and unhurried process of building nuclear reactors today."
But only in countries that you like right?