Carbon Pollution? A Summary

[Xtreme]

Here's a practical way to understand Mr. Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen. That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot. 97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere. And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre. Less than the thickness of a hair.

Out of a kilometre! As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what Mr. Rudd calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr. Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean.
Except that Mr. Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.

It's hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones.

And I can't believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.


Pass this on quickly while the ETS is being debated in Federal Parliament.

[spudboy]

It's sounding remarkably like the Y2K bug, that caused such disruption 9 or 10 years ago ......

[3 Sisters]

Imagine a 2ton landrover, you could remove a 1gram fuse, and it won't run.
Puts on flame suit.

[vnx205]

All very amusing, but it doesn't prove anything. Argument by analogy is seldom valid.

I could present an analogy which may not be quite as amusing, but is probably just as valid.

Imagine that same bridge. It has been carefully checked by engineers prior to the planned opening ceremony and found to be structurally sound except for one tiny problem.

There is a small crack about 0.18mm, about the thickness of a human hair running right through one of the main supporting structures.

The engineers want to postpone the opening until it can be repaired. However Xtreme insists that the opening should go ahead because most of the bridge is safe.

You might or might not be right about the extent of the CO2 problem, but your analogy is no more convincing or valid than mine. :p I will concede that it is more amusing though. :D

[spudboy]

Imagine a 2ton landrover, you could remove 1gram off electrical wire, and it won't run.
Puts on flame suit.

Good point! 100Kg Body + 1g of cyanide = unhappy human.

Same sort of analogy I guess.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

with Australia's population of 20 million and the Worlds Population of almost 7 billion, if all human life in Australia was extinct, we would only reduce the World's total carbon by around 2% and that would be taken up in about 1 year by the birthrate in Asia.

I would rather pay a little more to buy electricity guaranteed to come from solar-photovoltaic, solar-thermal, geo-thermal, wind, wave or tidal flow, than to give coal producers 1 cent in tax breaks (or carbon offsets).

The government should be giving research incentives and tax breaks to new energy technologies rather than invest in old carbon consuming technologies, or the mythical "clean coal technology".

The reason we don't have clean technology power already is because, BHP-Billiton and Exxon-Mobil or Shell Oil can not find a way to take over ownership of the sun, the waves and hot rocks so they can sell us the proceeds of that ownership at vastly exaggerated prices. It is their lobbying power and the government's want of a new tax (call it carbon tax if you want) that we are having this debate today.

Diana

[feral]

It's sounding remarkably like the Y2K bug, that caused such disruption 9 or 10 years ago ......

...and a few more hyped up scare campaigns like SARS, Swine flu and others.

There seems to be a current trend of sexing up every possible problem that just so happens to be led by the politicans. Is it their role in life to hype perceived problems, throw billions of taxpayers money at it, more so inefficiently at that, and then tell us how great they are at fixing problems?

For example as Australia came out of winter with the Swine Flu with only a few hundred recorded deaths, British and European politicans were talking it up that the Swine Flu will record deaths at 1 in 200. It was rightly pointed out that even though Australia has much milder winters than Europe or Britain it would take a quantum leap of the virus to reach that death rate. And what have we heard lately of the Swine Flu....

Don't get me wrong, I do believe there is Climate Change caused by us but the ETS was definitely the wrong direction to take. It was only a tax.

[Hymie]

The 7 Billion Dollars offered to Electricity producers in the Latrobe Valley to halt production by 2015 is a farce.
All it does is pay the financial institutions what is owed on the principal and leaves the power generators no return or equity.
All they will do is reinvest in power stations in China and India.
Imagine a compulsory acquisition of your house to build a freeway that only pays your mortgage out and leaves you with nowhere to live.
The Unions reckon that it will encourage investment in new technologies.
Like what?
90% of Victoria's base load power comes from Brown coal, can that be realistically be replaced in 5 years? 50 Years more likely.
10 Years ago Brown Coal was considered "clean" as it had lower sulphur emissions than Black coal, now, because of its moisture content and the resultant production of water vapor it's considered "Dirty".
The Latrobe Valley will become a ghetto in 5 years if it all happens.

[3 Sisters]

:blush:The question for me is, what laws do they pass on other topics while everyone gets revved up with induced fear on topics like climate change, sars etc.
We're having our liberties/freedom/rights pulled out from under us while a picture of a scary monster is shown to us.
You can now be arrested and held for as long as desired for no reason.
and then theirs all the fair trade agreement crap.
I know I've not put much effort into learning facts about this sort of stuff(as it seems to serve no point as I'm powerless), but from what I hear, scares the **** outta me.
Everything is controlled with fear, fear of debt, fear of this fear of that, drives me frickin nuts.
Sorry for my off topic rant

[haggisbasher]

The government should be giving research incentives and tax breaks to new energy technologies rather than invest in old carbon consuming technologies, or the mythical "clean coal technology".




Here , here!

Was just chatting to my 10 yr old and wife about this last night!

[Hymie]

Imagine a 2ton landrover, you could remove a 1gram fuse, and it won't run.
Puts on flame suit.

Imagine there's an electrical problem.
1 group of Auto Elecs say the Alternators overcharging, another group say theres a dead short somewhere and a third group say it's cosmic rays from the planet Zorg causing the problem. Rudd wants to ban electricity and tax fuses

Every group will have its followers.

[Scallops]

Imagine there's an electrical problem.
1 group of Auto Elecs say the Alternators overcharging, another group say theres a dead short somewhere and a third group say it's cosmic rays from the planet Zorg causing the problem. Rudd wants to ban electricity and tax fuses

Every group will have its followers.

Yeah, but the premise of the initial post was concerned with the size of one part of the equation, and extrapolating that because it is small, it can't have a significant effect - it was not a commentary on the solution to the problem.

[Hymie]

Fair call.

[Gavo]

The thing I find interesting is how strongly the case is put and how with a religon type ferver the people who have the oposing idea are silenced ( by the government like the csiro scientist) or dismissed by the media as confused people.
I wonder me Kev will fine us for talking bad about him like football people do when they say anything against the reff.
We could get our guns out like they do in the middle east but crap they already took them

[seano87]

Whilst the original post is an amusing analogy, I agree with others that despite our contribution being so small, that doesn't make it any less significant or worrying. If every nation thought of it like that and did nothing, it does end up being a significant proportion. I think despite being a small part of a perceived huge problem, we can still at least do our best and make even a small difference, if one can be made.

My 2c on the whole overall issue is that I am very glad the emissions trading scheme was voted down.

Although, apparently that makes me a luddite, climate change sceptic, irresponsible person blah blah blah. The thing is I DO believe climate change is occurring. I am unconvinced that humans are playing a significant role, but just because I am unconvinced doesn't mean I think we should sit around and do nothing, in fact I think we should all take the opportunity to do something while we can, who cares if its a big a problem as politicians keep saying it is, or in fact is over-inflated loads of crap? We should still look at our practices and see where we can improve. I just don't think an ETS is really a good idea.

How about incentives for companies? Funds for research into better technologies? I would be happy to pay a bit more for electricity if I felt the extra money was being used for a better environment or better sustainable practices. I don't support extra money being used for a company with inefficient resource management to buy themselves credits at whatever the cost, with no real incentive for them to change their practices - lets face it, they'll just pass on their increased costs to the consumer and that would be that to them!

Seano.

[ATH]

Climate change may well be happening but whether it's a heating up before a cooling down, no one knows yet.
Our tiny contribution of Co2 has I believe little to do with it but the chopping down of vast forests in South America and Asia and other places certainly has an effect on changing weather patterns.
No doubt the Earth wobbling on it's axis as it's always done as shown by evidence from ice cores, is much more likely to be the real cause.
Less pollution by all of us and business should be a top priority and recycling whenever possible.
Lets have a fair go for all sides to the story, not just the onesided warming theory put forward by government scientists with a vested interest in keeping their funding going.
Or the pollies and their bootlicking entourages, the grub and grog industry that supplies their gab fests, the conference centres, hotels. airlines etc. all have an interest in keeping it going especially as the only thing they will agree on is where to have their next jolly.
And anything pollies like KRUDD are enthusiastic about, I'm deeply suspicious of.
Alan.

[JDNSW]

According to a study published at Home (http://surfacestations.org/), (surfacstationsreport_spring09.pdf) only about 10% of the US weather stations record temperatures reliably (within 1F), and most record temperatures higher than the actual ambient.

There are two reasons for this - probably the most important is the encroachment of civilisation on the stations, particularly artificial readily heated surfaces such as black car parks close to them, or airconditioning heat exchangers or other cooling systems blowing hot air on them.

The second reason is changes in the Stevenson screens which affect the temperature at the thermometer. There was a systematic change in the type of paint used in 1979 (measured effect + 0.3-0.8F), but in addition, many stations , when converted to remote reading, had heat generating electronics installed in the screen.

I have no reason to suppose weather stations anywhere else are on average better than US ones. Which raises some awkward questions about temperature trends as actually observed, particularly in the last thirty or forty years.

(Sorry about the use of Fahrenheit - the yanks haven't caught up yet!)

John

[Offender90]

...The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot. 97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural. ...

While the statement that close to 97% of CO2 is produced by "mother nature" may be correct, it is misleading to think that humans are not responsible for any of the "natural" sources.

The concentration of athmospheric CO2 depends on the earths ability to absorb it as well as its rate of production. Deforestation over the last 50 or so years has resulted in decreased rate of absorption of athmospheric CO2, while an increase in the human population and that of domestic animals farmed for our consumption has increased its production. So although "produced by nature" humans are responsile for both an increase in production and a decrease in absorption thereby shifting the equilibrium.


...I am unconvinced that humans are playing a significant role...Seano.

Based on the above, I'm not convinced that the burning of fossil fuels is playing a significant role, but I'm pretty certain that humans are.

I don't know enough about the proposed ETS to have an informed opinion, but setting up a system whereby producers are taxed (in some way or another) with the proceeds going to CO2 reduction strategies (whether R&D, cleaner energy production, tree planting, conservation of existing forrests or other means) does seem like a good idea. Ultimately, we as the end users will be paying for any cost increases, but the price of products will reflect a cost to the environment as well. This will make "green" products / choices more competitive, as their producers don't have to pay for carbon offsets.

[abaddonxi]

According to a study published at Home (http://surfacestations.org/), (surfacstationsreport_spring09.pdf) only about 10% of the US weather stations record temperatures reliably (within 1F), and most record temperatures higher than the actual ambient.

There are two reasons for this - probably the most important is the encroachment of civilisation on the stations, particularly artificial readily heated surfaces such as black car parks close to them, or airconditioning heat exchangers or other cooling systems blowing hot air on them.

The second reason is changes in the Stevenson screens which affect the temperature at the thermometer. There was a systematic change in the type of paint used in 1979 (measured effect + 0.3-0.8F), but in addition, many stations , when converted to remote reading, had heat generating electronics installed in the screen.

I have no reason to suppose weather stations anywhere else are on average better than US ones. Which raises some awkward questions about temperature trends as actually observed, particularly in the last thirty or forty years.

(Sorry about the use of Fahrenheit - the yanks haven't caught up yet!)

John

Thanks John, interesting read.

Here's the direct link to the report -
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

[JLo]

...We should still look at our practices and see where we can improve. I just don't think an ETS is really a good idea.

How about incentives for companies? Funds for research into better technologies? I would be happy to pay a bit more for electricity if I felt the extra money was being used for a better environment or better sustainable practices. I don't support extra money being used for a company with inefficient resource management to buy themselves credits at whatever the cost, with no real incentive for them to change their practices - lets face it, they'll just pass on their increased costs to the consumer and that would be that to them!

Seano.

ETS = Emissions Trading Scheme. The ability to trade/buy your emissions on an open market or you spend your money on finding a better "cleaner" way of doing it. That's not a tax. It is an incentive to find less polluting ways of doing your business. All the big polluters will be compensated initially, the government creates credits and puts them onto the market for businesses to buy them, then they are traded on a free market without government intervention. The market sets the price.

What more of in incentive do you need to cleaner ways of doing things?



According to a study published at Home (http://surfacestations.org/), (surfacstationsreport_spring09.pdf) only about 10% of the US weather stations record temperatures reliably (within 1F), and most record temperatures higher than the actual ambient.

There are two reasons for this - probably the most important is the encroachment of civilisation on the stations, particularly artificial readily heated surfaces such as black car parks close to them, or airconditioning heat exchangers or other cooling systems blowing hot air on them.

The second reason is changes in the Stevenson screens which affect the temperature at the thermometer. There was a systematic change in the type of paint used in 1979 (measured effect + 0.3-0.8F), but in addition, many stations , when converted to remote reading, had heat generating electronics installed in the screen.

I have no reason to suppose weather stations anywhere else are on average better than US ones. Which raises some awkward questions about temperature trends as actually observed, particularly in the last thirty or forty years.

(Sorry about the use of Fahrenheit - the yanks haven't caught up yet!)

John

A bit like the Defender speedo! It is just a constant error. Trends either +ve or -ve are still apparent despite the error. Some Japanese city temperatures have risen 2-5 degrees C due to the effects of radiant heat from man made structures. This has been apparent for years.

Long term temperature trends have risen above the supposed error due to paint.

It is not just surface temperatures on land that are rising, ocean temps are rising too.

Cheers
JLo

[rovercare]

Desalination plant..........nuclear power.........its won;t be far away my friends;)

[rovercare]

The Latrobe Valley will become a ghetto in 5 years if it all happens.

You mean I'll have no neighbours? dreams do come true:)

Won't happen, people who think they can take near 5000MW base load generation from the grid, without a NUCLEAR base load supplement.............well, dey iz stoopid:D

Whats happening in vic to supplement? 1 470MW gasification unit, being built in the next few years............that might keep up with ever increasing demand, I bet well be whining about brown coal in 30 years;)

Oh with 500+ years of economically viable attainable coal...........

[rovercare]

What's China doing about it all........building 350 Nuclear plants:eek:

[bruiser69]

with Australia's population of 20 million and the Worlds Population of almost 7 billion, if all human life in Australia was extinct, we would only reduce the World's total carbon by around 2% and that would be taken up in about 1 year by the birthrate in Asia.

I would rather pay a little more to buy electricity guaranteed to come from solar-photovoltaic, solar-thermal, geo-thermal, wind, wave or tidal flow, than to give coal producers 1 cent in tax breaks (or carbon offsets).

The government should be giving research incentives and tax breaks to new energy technologies rather than invest in old carbon consuming technologies, or the mythical "clean coal technology".

The reason we don't have clean technology power already is because, BHP-Billiton and Exxon-Mobil or Shell Oil can not find a way to take over ownership of the sun, the waves and hot rocks so they can sell us the proceeds of that ownership at vastly exaggerated prices. It is their lobbying power and the government's want of a new tax (call it carbon tax if you want) that we are having this debate today.

Diana

Check out Carbon Energy (Google it). I was lucky to check out this technology first hand early this year as a contractor & was blown away.
Take deep unproductive coal seams , bore down at one end with two consumable pipes (one introducing mix of oxygen /steam & the other extracting Syngas) and the other end the initial ignition well.
The whole process controlled by Gas Chromatograph. You can dial in what you want, be it ultra pure diesel to ferttiliser as end product. As high temperature combustion occurs underground virtually no CO2 is released to the atmosphere. As this underground combustion creates cavities from the burnt coal this is the perfect depository for Carbon Capture and Storage, which is the goal of the next project on this site producing clean electricity to the grid.
They have already passed the testing phase & are installing generators with guaranteed supply to Energex. I'm certain that this technology could not only supply all our carbon neutral energy needs, but also supply all our fuel &chemical needs well into the future.
Cheers..b

[THE BOOGER]

According to NASA sat observations there has not been any rise in average ocean or world air temp in the last 8 years, but we have definatly seen the climate changing round the world what is causing that we still need real convincing answers to what is happening. The ETS would have created a whole new economy in carbon trading that money had to come from someone US paying lots more with no garrentee that the money would be invested in new tech to help the situation:confused:

[Scallops]

According to a study published at Home (http://surfacestations.org/), (surfacstationsreport_spring09.pdf) only about 10% of the US weather stations record temperatures reliably (within 1F), and most record temperatures higher than the actual ambient.

There are two reasons for this - probably the most important is the encroachment of civilisation on the stations, particularly artificial readily heated surfaces such as black car parks close to them, or airconditioning heat exchangers or other cooling systems blowing hot air on them.

The second reason is changes in the Stevenson screens which affect the temperature at the thermometer. There was a systematic change in the type of paint used in 1979 (measured effect + 0.3-0.8F), but in addition, many stations , when converted to remote reading, had heat generating electronics installed in the screen.

I have no reason to suppose weather stations anywhere else are on average better than US ones. Which raises some awkward questions about temperature trends as actually observed, particularly in the last thirty or forty years.

(Sorry about the use of Fahrenheit - the yanks haven't caught up yet!)

John

Interesting John - do you suspect that even the noted relative rise in temps over the recent past is not necessarily evidence of GW for these reasons?

[JDNSW]

Interesting John - do you suspect that even the noted relative rise in temps over the recent past is not necessarily evidence of GW for these reasons?


It is certainly a possibility. One of the major problems with actual temperature measurements over a long period is that old established measuring stations tend to be where there was civilisation when they were established - and in most cases, where there was civilisation a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago there is a lot more civilisation today, generating a lot of heat. A good example is the location in Melbourne - originally set up in a rural location on the edge of the planned village, it is now in a tiny triangle of open ground surrounded on two sides by wide bitumen roads with heavy traffic, mostly moving slowly, and on the third side there is a twenty storey office block.

And moving the measuring station is not useful either - in most places even small distances change the microclimate significantly.

John

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Check out Carbon Energy (Google it). I was lucky to check out this technology first hand early this year as a contractor & was blown away.
<snip>
As high temperature combustion occurs underground virtually no CO2 is released to the atmosphere.
<snip>
They have already passed the testing phase & are installing generators with guaranteed supply to Energex. I'm certain that this technology could not only supply all our carbon neutral energy needs, but also supply all our fuel &chemical needs well into the future.
Cheers..bThe problem with this scenario is that most of our current coal fired power stations are above ground and a long way away from unproductive coal seams. So for the foreseeable future our base load will be provided by above ground coal fired power stations where the combustion will occur above ground. Finding a way to capture and sequestrate the CO2 from these existant power stations and guarantee not have the CO2 leach back into the atmosphere is the mythical carbon capture technology I'm talking about.

Using underground technologies that don't vent CO2 to the atmosphere will require a lot of study. We all know of places like Burning Mountain, where coal seam fires have been burning underground for decades and the heat and smoke vents through small fissures in the earth's surface. Finding unproductive coal seams, that don't have these risks of fissures won't be as easy as some may think.

We already have technologies that we know can provide base load by geothermal and solar-thermal and yet we have only just started the planning for the building of them, yet at the same time the Chinese are commissioning a new coal fired power station every week. I don't know how our paying a carbon tax in Australia is going to off-set the new CO2 being produced in China.


According to NASA sat observations there has not been any rise in average ocean or world air temp in the last 8 years, <snip>Hmm

Which NASA were you talking about?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/)


ADDIT: Actually when you look at the rise in global surface temperatures above and look at World Tourism Figures, http://www.world-tourism.org/newsroom/Releases/2005/january/2004numbers.htm

http://www.world-tourism.org/newsroom/Releases/2005/january/baro.gif

We can see a correlation between similar rises. Therefore it is jet aircraft flying in the stratosphere that is causing all of the global warming.

Simple, let's just ban air travel, or maybe we could sequestre the CO2 produced by turbine engines under the ground! :D

[rockyroad]

Sorry Guys but ETS is just away for some friends of Mr Rudd to make a lot of money just as Al Gore is set to make a lot of money out of Mr Obamas plan.

Until somebody can explain to me how carbon is killing the planet I am going to remain sceptical.

[incisor]

Clive Spash resigns from CSIRO after climate report &#039;censorship&#039; | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/clive-spash-resigns-from-csiro-after-climate-report-censorship/story-e6frfku0-1225806539742)

[JLo]

What's China doing about it all........building 350 Nuclear plants:eek:

China also have 12+ giga Watts of windpower generation capacity with an expected capacity of 25 gW by next year. This is expected to exceed 100 gW by 2020. So they do realise that they can't rely on coal and are doing something.


Sorry Guys but ETS is just away for some friends of Mr Rudd to make a lot of money just as Al Gore is set to make a lot of money out of Mr Obamas plan.

Until somebody can explain to me how carbon is killing the planet I am going to remain sceptical.

You don't breath carbon. Trees 'breath' CO2 and give off Oxygen. We keep cutting them down withouit replacing them. Good enough reason for you.

The CO2 with other GHGs like methane etc. adds to the blanket around the atmosphere. Sun heats up earth. Put bigger blanket around earth, blanket keeps more heat in rather than letting it escape to space. Heat is the driver of our weather systems.

Cheers
JLo

[JDNSW]

The problem with this scenario is that most of our current coal fired power stations are above ground and a long way away from unproductive coal seams. ....:D


Not as hard as you might think - for example, in the Sydney basin, there are two distinct sets of coal measures. Both are pretty much continuous across the basin (roughly from the Hunter to Wollongong and west to Lithgow, bordered in the east by the continental margin a few tens of kilometres out to sea. The coal is (economically) mineable only round the edges - were you aware that there used to be a coal mine at Balmain? This was put out of business by the construction of a rail bridge across the Hawkesbury - 100 miles horizontal haulage was cheaper than one mile vertically! All of these coal measures are accessible by drilling using well established (oilfield) techniques, and could be used for underground gasification.

Similarly, virtually all of Bass Strait is underlain by thick coal measures, and the same applies to the majority of the great Artesian and Bowen basins. Australia literally has no shortage of coal, and even readily and economically mineable coal is not likely to be in short supply for hundreds of years even at the present rate of increase of mining.

However, I remain unconvinced that underground gasification involves less CO2 emissions than mining the coal and burning it in a power station. It is a simple matter of looking at the energy balance - if you burn it, you use (at least potentially) all the available energy from oxidation of the coal. If you use underground gasification, part of the energy is lost in this process, and this is reflected in the fact that a major product of the gasification is CO - oxidation of which provides less energy than you would get if you oxidised the carbon in a power plant, but the end amount of CO2 is the same as if you had done that. The only CO2 saving I can see is that which is generated by the actual mining and transport of the coal - and I would have to be convinced that this saving is greater than the energy wasted underground in the gasification.

John

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Not as hard as you might think - for example, in the Sydney basin, there are two distinct sets of coal measures. Both are pretty much continuous across the basin (roughly from the Hunter to Wollongong and west to Lithgow, bordered in the east by the continental margin a few tens of kilometres out to sea. The coal is (economically) mineable only round the edges - were you aware that there used to be a coal mine at Balmain? This was put out of business by the construction of a rail bridge across the Hawkesbury - Wasn't the Balmain coal mine finally closed only when the Balmain Power Station closed, and that closed because it was too old to be economically viable against new stations like Liddel in the Hunter Valley.
<snip>
However, I remain unconvinced that underground gasification involves less CO2 emissions than mining the coal and burning it in a power station.
<snip>
The only CO2 saving I can see is that which is generated by the actual mining and transport of the coal - and I would have to be convinced that this saving is greater than the energy wasted underground in the gasification.

JohnAbout current power stations being a long way from uneconomic coal seams, relates to the fact that most of the main base load stations are actually supplied by open cut mines and often supplied by conveyer belt.

[clean32]

Has the CO2 content of our atmosphere increased since the industrial revolution ??

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Has the CO2 content of our atmosphere increased since the industrial revolution ??Yes (not that they had accurate measures of Global CO2 at the begining of the industrial revolution, however from ice core samples taken at the poles there has been an increase in CO2 levels in the last few centuries. Is that a factor of increased industrial production of CO2 or a reduction of carbon sinks like forrests, I don't know.)

[JDNSW]

About current power stations being a long way from uneconomic coal seams, relates to the fact that most of the main base load stations are actually supplied by open cut mines and often supplied by conveyer belt.

The Balmain coal mine was closed in 1931, as soon as coal could be shipped to the power station more economically than the mine could supply. Contrary to my earlier post, I have now looked it up and this was not when the bridge was built, but much later. The power station lasted into the 1970s.

Since the 1950s at least, power station location in NSW and most other places has been dictated by the availability of coal and water, preferably both. It is significant that they are mostly in the general Newcastle or Lithgow area, although the power stations around Lithgow are having water supply problems at present. As you say, the main power stations are in fact often within conveyor belt distance of open cut mines (but some of these belts are kilometres long).

But getting back to the original point, the Balmain mine was not closed because the coal ran out - there is still plenty there. A test bore from the bottom of the shaft confirmed the predicted presence of the lower coal measures. Also of interest is that the short Wikipedia article mentions two fatal gas explosions at the mine, neither during normal mining, but suggesting substantial gas reserves.

John

[clean32]

Yes (not that they had accurate measures of Global CO2 at the begining of the industrial revolution, however from ice core samples taken at the poles there has been an increase in CO2 levels in the last few centuries. Is that a factor of increased industrial production of CO2 or a reduction of carbon sinks like forrests, I don't know.)

is there any period in history that had the same levals of CO2 as we have now ?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

is there any period in history that had the same levals of CO2 as we have now ?
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/12/1321.jpg
Air bubbles trapped in the ice cores provide a record of past atmospheric composition. Ice core records prove that current levels of carbon dioxide and methane, both important greenhouse gases, are higher than any previous level in the past 400,000 years. (Photograph courtesy U.S. National Ice Core Laboratory) Paleoclimatology: The Ice Core Record : Feature Articles (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/)

[JDNSW]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/12/1321.jpg
Air bubbles trapped in the ice cores provide a record of past atmospheric composition. Ice core records prove that current levels of carbon dioxide and methane, both important greenhouse gases, are higher than any previous level in the past 400,000 years. (Photograph courtesy U.S. National Ice Core Laboratory) Paleoclimatology: The Ice Core Record : Feature Articles (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/)

400,000 years being about 0.00002% (if my mental arithmetic got the decimal in the right place) of the time since oxygen largely replaced carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere in the Archaeozoic. Before that the atmosphere was mostly nitrogen and carbon dioxide - the change was due to oxygen pollution by photosynthetic organisms, setting the stage for animal life.

Worth noting that the ice core record only goes back to the start of the current ice age, as through most of the earth's history there have been no ice caps and hence no ice record.

John

[de7158]

Is this all a beat up by the global warming cynics. If not what the heck is this all about and why isn't Australian main stream media all over this news?
Climategate: news spreads | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_global_warming_conspiracy_news_spreads/)

Peter

[JDNSW]

Is this all a beat up by the global warming cynics. If not what the heck is this all about and why isn't Australian main stream media all over this news?
Climategate: news spreads | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_global_warming_conspiracy_news_spreads/)

Peter

It depends mainly on your viewpoint. Andrew Bolt is the leading press commentator on the "sceptic" side of climate change, so he is looking for every bit of evidence on his side, and ignoring every bit of evidence on the other side. Same as the climate change industry is doing on their side!

Like any scientific result, there is no absolute certainty to the answer, and some degree of dispute as to how certain the results are. To a very large extent the climate change results are the result of computer modelling based on some fairly uncertain data and possibly dubious simplifications.

I suppose that whether you think it is a beatup depends to a large extent on whether you work on the basis "If there is the slightest chance it is right, we must act" or on the basis "If there is the slightest doubt it is wrong, would be silly to act now". Both could well be based on exactly the same data and models. Unfortunately both sides have adopted a religious fervour, and on both sides there are undoubtedly people who are not above fudging a few facts to push the evidence further their way.

Because of the indirectly measured data, and the elaborate modelling needed, it is very unlikely that any set of data and models that satisfies everyone will ever be forthcoming.

To make some comparisons, in 150 years there are still people sceptical of natural selection, and after almost a hundred years still some who doubt special relativity. It took fifty years or more for the concept of moving continents to become accepted. And climate change science has really only existed for perhaps fifteen years, and has far less data to support it than any of these.

Complicating the situation is that some are using it as tool in a crusade against capitalism, ignoring the fact that China has now overtaken the US as the biggest emitter, and on the other side some see the whole thing as a socialist conspiracy. Undoubtedly many scientists and politicians have jumped on the bandwagon (can you blame them? particularly for scientists, they go where the money is, and politicians pick whatever they think will get votes), but this fact does not necessarily mean that either side is right or wrong! Just that climate change is the current bandwagon.

John