Australia offered zero-emission coal partnership

This is a story on the ABC web-site – it's very good news – potentially having zero-emission coal-fired electricity plants… the story is here…

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1670006.htm

18 Responses to Australia offered zero-emission coal partnership

  1. Steve says:

    I wonder if there are any estimates on what clean coal electricity costs to produce?

  2. Sacha says:

    There must be – I don’t know myself… I heard that Germany will be introducing them in the next few years.

  3. Sacha says:

    I couldn’t find any more information on it after a quick search.

  4. Steve says:

    This appears to be the conference announcement, although there seems to be no information on papers and outcomes as far as I can tell.

  5. graemebird says:

    These people are so lost in their own propaganda that they are no longer even willing to differentiate between soot and poisons like SO2 on the one hand…… and CO2 on the other.

    Why waste the money when CO2 is clearly a net plus?

  6. Sacha says:

    Graeme, submit a paper with your views to a scientific journal. If you’re right, you’ll be lauded as a hero around the world. There is no conspiracy.

  7. Sacha says:

    Do you think that chemists can’t distinguish between SO2 and CO2?

  8. GMB says:

    They cannot seem to on a moral level. Can you?

    One is a health hazard the other is what plants breathe, and airborne fertilizer, and a natural preserver of life on earth due to its reducing of heat differentials everywhere.

    You at least have the responsibility of not putting about the environmentalist lies by default. Imagine grouping CO2 with poisons and soot and calling them all emissions. Get your act together Sacha and don’t lazily pass on this wicked leftist insanity.

  9. GMB says:

    “Graeme, submit a paper with your views to a scientific journal. If you’re right, you’ll be lauded as a hero around the world. There is no conspiracy.”

    You are just being silly here Sacha.

  10. Sacha says:

    No Graeme, I am not being silly.

    You are saying that higher levels of CO2 are fine, if not a good thing. Most people think the opposite. Write your ideas up and submit them to a scientific journal. You’ll be seen as some crazy crackpot if you don’t.

    Do you honestly think that there is some “wicked leftist conspiracy” going on amongst scientists?

  11. GMB says:

    No you ARE being silly. Thats an idiotic suggestion.

    What has MOST PEOPLE believing something got anything to do with it. Thats just totally irrelevant. And I never once said anything about a conspiracy. Left-wingers are just stupid. They get things wrong all the time.

  12. GMB says:

    Look why do you believe that CO2 release is a bad thing?

    Why do you believe such trash?

    There must be some reason why you believe this. Surely there is some reason that you can rely on.

    Now I go looking when I find no reasons to believe these sorts of propositions. And this time when I looked I found nothing. You can search and search and you will not find a valid argument for imposing costs on people in order to reduce CO2 release.

    Instead you will find a pseudo-biblical horror-show. Every bit of it unsupportable and against what logic and science would tell you.

    You haven’t looked for the justification. And believe me if you did look you wouldn’t find it.

  13. Sacha says:

    It’s an “idiotic suggestion” to submit to a scientific journal the idea that CO2 release is a positive thing???? How is this idiotic, considering that if this idea has merit, then people will behave in very different less costly ways?

    Why is it “idiotic”? Is it because there is some conspiracy that will prevent your ideas being published or that they will not be properly considered? If so, you’re confusing politics and culture with scientific debate.

    Look at this: http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/guide/ – you can ask the CSIRO to send it out to you for free (it’s a nice hard cover book) – in this book a look is taken at predicted results of increasing CO2 emissions.

  14. GMB says:

    Its idiotic since

    1. there is no study that even begins to prove that extra CO2 would mean a all these terrible things will happen.

    2. That you can change peoples mind through reason on conclusions that they have not arrived at through reason.

    I’m doing the right thing by doing what I’m doing RIGHT NOW. Pointing out that there is neither Rhyme nor reason nor even plausibility to this stupidity.

    Since there are no studies that lend weight to this intellectual fraud how could you have a study that could detract from what are essentially pseudo-religious idiotic fantasies?

    Just ask yourself….

    Why do you believe this nonsense?

    Because very few authentic climate scientists do.

  15. GMB says:

    I downloaded the whole thing. And had a quick look on page 85 under hydrology. And already we see this irrational propaganda.

    While they admit that precipitation would be increased they then just toss this aside and conflate the increased demand for fresh water with the idea that this could be a problem.

    Now you would think RIGHT THERE that these committed irrationalists would come out and say that CO2 was good and needed to offset increases in demand for fresh water. But instead they QUOTE THE FUCKING UN???

    I shit you not. Instead of admitting that with increased demand for water increased precipitation would be good they brush it aside an QUOTE THE UNITED FUCKING NATIONS.

    And they quote the united fucking nations alleging that climate change will contribute 20% to the scarcity of water. Even after admitting that we expect more precipitation.

    Now its this dishonesty that we are dealing with.

    I’m not going to break the back of this with a study.

    We have to get sackings. And we have to attack attack attack anyone who is lazily going along with this.

    Shortages of water means we need something that provides more water. More CO2 supplies more water as does the free market.

  16. Sacha says:

    Graeme:

    1. You can’t “prove” anything outside of logic and pure mathematics. It’s all about using one’s best judgement.

    I can’t take you seriously on this until you contibute something in a serious way and not just on blogs. Blogs are not the place to attempt to make a real contribution. If you don’t want to submit a paper to a journal, submit one to the pre-print archive at http://xxx.lanl.gov

    Failing that, read all kinds of relevant material.

  17. graemebird says:

    But why do you believe this shit?

    You know that I’m right about glaciations right? That is all standard stuff. So given that the natural tendency is toward glaciation where is your own logic on this matter. You should be able to see a fraud when you trip over it.

    Its not a scientific attitude you are taking here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: