Introduction by Dee McLachlan
I’m all for using less resources, polluting less, and having a lighter footprint on the earth. I have hiked in pristine and very remote areas, and when you return to civilization, you realize humans have the skill, the contempt and the capacity to foul anything up.
But ever greater than their ability to destroy things, is our capacity to lie and deceive, to gain the upper hand — power. I posted an article some time ago about the fake JFK Jr. photograph doing the rounds on the internet (a link from QAnon). The above is the Hazelwood power station in Victoria’s La Trobe Valley — credited to Greenpeace, and published on Australia’s ABC. I say it’s doctored.
In close up, the cloud coming from the stacks is completely different. A sloppy job. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)
My point is that dishonesty is used as a means of persuasion, and control — especially by elites. They have caused wars, and those in power don’t give a thought to good ‘ol false flags, like Port Arthur or 9-11.
So when it comes to climate, you can’t believe what governments are telling us. Controlling resources, and thereby controlling people. The whole climate debate has been hijacked by power-mongers with an agenda.
Many years ago, I was in Africa talking to scientists on the ground — discussing their raw data. So I will, at some stage, do a series on climate which may shock both sides of the climate debate — as there is denial from both sides.
Gil, one of our readers forwarded me some work from Terry Cardwell. I contacted Terry and he sent more material to me. Terry spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units — including (his last one) the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle.
We’ll start off with coal, with an article from Terry (published some time ago).
Terry Cardwell’s Article – The Coal Power Debate
Written By Terence Cardwell terrycar@iinet.net.au
The Editor The Morning Bulletin.
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made ‘carbon emissions’ which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economizers and re heaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
(Petrol engine are 35 – 40 % efficient and 40 – 45 % diesel, and produce more pollution)
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitants or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don’t have the coal supply for the future. Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don’t have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem—It doesn’t exist.
Yes – there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a ‘base load’ because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can pump it back but it costs to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on a average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators. As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar
Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
According to the ‘believers’ the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years. To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1 percent of the world’s total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world’s total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels? By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years. Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent. Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me). Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous is that.
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Crippling and even closing some smaller business.
T.L. Cardwell
—I would be pleased to supply you any information you
may require. www.secondtonone.com.au and www.terrycardwellsblog.blogspot.com.au
stopthecrime.org
Thank you Terry, for making the true situation that simple that even the dullest in our society should be able to understand. Globalists and Politicians, please take note.
Further education is that CO2 does NOT increase atmospheric temperatures.
More education! If CO2 emissions are increased, so to is the uptake by forests (if they are not decimated by the same clowns bitching about CO2) the agriculture and horticulture industries. We need carbon in our bodies, so this must be a good thing.
When you see emissions from chimney stacks it is not CO2 as that gas is invisible. What you see is steam, water vapour, which makes up the highest percentage of greenhouse gases by a long way. Along with the steam is any smoke that may have got through the filters.
Eddy Grand Solar Minimum(solar hibernation-Prof Valentina Zharkova) minus reliable base load power generation ( Coal fired power) equals catastrophy for Australia.By the way C02 FOLLOWS temperature not vice versa.
Dee, nice article, but…
The masses are dumbed-down. Yes, it is obvious that the photo is photo-shopped, but you will never get the ‘true believers’ to acknowledge it. It just doesn’t get past their belief systems. It is like when I kept correcting the NSW Solicitor at the Environmental Law function about Port Arthur – she finally blurted out “I don’t care if Martin Bryant is innocent, I don’t like guns!” – How do you have a discussion with someone like that? Hell, that was from a person allegedly educated in the Rule of Law.
It seems that for such people “it’s OK to lie if you’re telling the truth”.
Cardwell’s article is filled with mathematics, Crikey, as if the average person on the street can conceptualize the numbers. They can’t, I’ve given speeches and had discussions with people about thing like ‘compound interest’ and they don’t get it. It’s like ‘too hard’, ‘makes my brain hurt’ – they don’t want to be ‘wage slaves’, but they aren’t willing or capable of avoiding it.
Please don’t get me wrong, continue to post such articles as I think there is a small minority of people who will take the time to try to understand what is being conveyed.
I was going to post “tale of Two Cities – gun control” but noticed all those facts seem a bit out of date, or a bit off. But generally it is a good comparison. Will deal with that sometime.
I haven’t even read the above article yet but I know it’s gonna be better than discussing “Russian meddling in the 2016 election!”.
Here is another perspective…
Atmospheric CO2 is plant food. A century ago green house operators used to promote plant growth with CO2-making machines, with great results. Not surprising really as life is carbon and carbon is life.
In the Jurassic era, there was five times more atmospheric CO2 than there is today. The Jurassic was this planet’s peak period of plant and animal proliferation so, clearly, tiny increases of CO2 are not going to be harmful in any way.
But, yes, there is a small increase in CO2 and the cause of this is obvious… massive deforestation. Bugger all trees and leaves means less CO2 is consumed. The deforestation cause is supported by a matching decline in oxygen… which is pretty conclusive. So why bother elevating such an exotic and speculative hypothesis as “industry-caused?”
Another thing: when ancient ice core samples were analysed, it was eventually realised that CO2 does not cause temperature increases. It is vice versa… higher global temperatures precede CO2 increases by 800 years.
So why the global warming hysteria? It is pretty simple. The global investment bankers want national economies such as Australia’s to be destroyed because only this can prevent Australians from rebelling against globalisation; hence our cultivated reliance on imports. That places economic power overseas. To restore national sovereignty, we need to bring back tariffs, which would cause an explosion of manufacturing, which in turn would eliminate unemployment. Australia would then be independent of foreign manipulation. We could scrap exports altogether and actually get richer.
ie stop selling ore and produce our own steel and aluminium, then make our own cars and machinery.
Actually, if we also removed the 40% taxes off fuel, and terminated the Oil Price Parity Agreement, our bowser prices would be 12 cents per litre or thereabouts (25 C according to Lyndon LaRouche).
Expanding our coal powered energy production, together with such cheap fuel, in a matter of five or six years Australia would become the most prosperous nation on earth; and the most influential.
The Rockefellers and Rothschilds are terrified of this prospect.
One problem;
If coal is so clean and produces cheap and plentiful electricity it would mean we will be tied to a centralised electrical distribution system for many years to come.
In relation to smart meters this is not good news.
To escape or limit the amount of control excerisible by the smart meter owners over personal behavior, we need individual home based power generation at a minimum ASAP.
How many of the above comments would have been made if the contributor knew that if we upset the smart meter owners and controllers, we just might suffer an accidental power outage that might get longer each time we make comments on sites like this?
Man-made climate change is a scam. We all know it’s a bogus, money-making hoax of “Disneyesque proportions”, designed to concentrate control in the hands of the supposed “Elite” as well as making billions from the exercise. We get it.
Idiot academics have bought into it, because their livelihoods depend on it. Self interest reigns supreme. Political correctness keeps everyone else quiet.
The climate change agenda has several purposes, chiefly being to line the pockets of the insiders, who probably have financial interests in wind turbine companies, solar panel production and installation corporations and carbon credit derivative trading schemes. That’s a given.
But the biggest agenda is to weaken the industrial capacity of western nations, thereby making them dependant on imports from other nations.Food, clothing, energy and just about ever manufactured item must now be imported from overseas. Give it long enough, and the economy of Australia collapses. Welcome to Venezuela. A desperate population will do whatever it is told to avoid starvation.
Think it can’t happen here??
Think again.
These people are sick.
The belief that coal fired energy could be eliminated without creating a host of more detrimental problems is just plain naive. Ridding the Planet of poverty also sounds like a great idea; problem is that superimposing simplistic solutions on highly complex problems is invariably counter-productive. Furthermore, those who can least afford it always wind up bearing the brunt.
read also the site jonova and as for the ABC sack the lot and privatise
Why generate cheap power by coal powered plants as was done in the past , at the same time keep many locals working , when we can go to war invade nations ship the oil half way around the world and then pump it into generators to keep the dream alive at ever increasing costs to consumers ???
Our rulers are beyond idiotisam they are pure evol .