By far the most annoying, bitter, nasty, know-it-all blogger on the left in the last few years is Ken Lovell at Road to Surfdom. His post this week about Iran and most of the world's (not just America's) concern about its nuclear program is his typical schtick: informed by his reflexive anti-Americanism and his apparent confidence that he can tell more about the true state of the world from Adelaide [correction: Tweed Coast?] and his selective reading on the 'net than the governments of the Northern Hemisphere. (Anyone who thinks he has a good point on Iran should read this Economist article first.)
No one bothers any more trying to engage him in debate; he was always snide and insulting in response, and presumably just enjoys the company of the regular sycophantic, and even crazier, commenters. Yet other blogs of the more moderate left refer to some of his posts every now and again with approval. I guess the left loves company, no matter how unpleasant.
I simply can't stand him.
Ah, that feels better.
UPDATE: I see that Ken has psychoanalysed my intense dislike of his blogging style as being due to my not having a regular half dozen commenters who chime in after nearly every post with stuff along the lines of "oh, that's so right, but it's even worse than that."
I don't intend making snark attacks a regular feature here. The post was inspired by the fact that I have noticed more moderate lefties linking to him lately, and my knowledge from past experience that there is absolutely no point in challenging his views at his own blog.
UPDATE 2: Good grief. Someone at Club Troppo's Missing Link today has compared me to JF Beck . It would seem they just believed Ken's characterisation of this blog, rather than actually read it. (Nothing against JF, but somehow I don't think I count as a right wing death beast.)
Also, I don't think Ken realised how few hits there normally are here. His pointing out to the world that I had a snark attack against him has probably trebled my normal weekend hit rate.
Friday, May 02, 2008
A stirling engine for the backyard
I mentioned the Infinia Corporation a year ago, and with all this talk of solar power, I thought it would checking if this alternative idea (of small scale solar thermal using stirling engines) is still around.
It is, and it seems as if they have recent significant funding and (presumably) may be selling the product soon. Their main product of interest should look something like this:
It is, apparently, a 3kW stirling engine that provides electicity, and the website claims that it has a 24 % energy conversion efficiency, low maintenance, and will be(I think they say somewhere) cheaper than solar cells.
I want one for my backyard, simply because they look cool and you can (presumably) also roast a chicken in the focal point of that dish. (Any passing crow that wants a rest on that engine part might be in for a shock, too.)
Now, if only there were economical and small electricity storage systems big enough to get your average house through the night. This calls for another round of Googling!
It is, and it seems as if they have recent significant funding and (presumably) may be selling the product soon. Their main product of interest should look something like this:
It is, apparently, a 3kW stirling engine that provides electicity, and the website claims that it has a 24 % energy conversion efficiency, low maintenance, and will be(I think they say somewhere) cheaper than solar cells.
I want one for my backyard, simply because they look cool and you can (presumably) also roast a chicken in the focal point of that dish. (Any passing crow that wants a rest on that engine part might be in for a shock, too.)
Now, if only there were economical and small electricity storage systems big enough to get your average house through the night. This calls for another round of Googling!
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Fear and loathing in London
Be very afraid: Zoe Williams on the possibility of Boris Johnson as mayor of London
Zoe Williams and a bunch of artistes are all in a frenzy over the distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will be mayor of London.
I haven't heard such hyperbole about a politician since, well since the headier days of Webdiary while John Howard was at his peak. Zoe says of Boris:
Zoe Williams and a bunch of artistes are all in a frenzy over the distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will be mayor of London.
I haven't heard such hyperbole about a politician since, well since the headier days of Webdiary while John Howard was at his peak. Zoe says of Boris:
He despises gays and he despises provincials (you are all right with Boris if you come from Liverpool but don't sound like a Liverpudlian. Once you've been to public school, then you are from postcode POSH), and he despises Africans. He despises them, and he despises those of us who would hold such judgments to be bigoted and inhuman.One of the funniest comments that follows is by fashion designer Vivienne Westwood:
"Boris as mayor? Unthinkable. It just exposes democracy as a sham, especially if people don't vote for Ken - he's the best thing in politics. Unthinkable."Yes, democracy is right and proper only if your candidate wins, hey, Vivien?
About boating accidents
Harbour death crash witness: 'They wanted to party' - National - theage.com.au
The thing that always seems kind of surprising to me about boating accidents is how easily they seem to kill people.
It's probably because the most common form of transport accidents (in cars) often occur at high speed; therefore it is easy to imagine that the crush of metal will kill. Boats, on the other hand, unless they are racing, don't give the impression of travelling fast enough to cause that much mayhem if they collide. But of course, the passengers are unrestrained, and always have water handy in which to drown.
The other thing is that boating crashes are more unusual; it's often hard to imagine how people fail to see other boats in their path or near them. It's probably the more unexpected nature of boating fatalities that make them seem more tragic.
The thing that always seems kind of surprising to me about boating accidents is how easily they seem to kill people.
It's probably because the most common form of transport accidents (in cars) often occur at high speed; therefore it is easy to imagine that the crush of metal will kill. Boats, on the other hand, unless they are racing, don't give the impression of travelling fast enough to cause that much mayhem if they collide. But of course, the passengers are unrestrained, and always have water handy in which to drown.
The other thing is that boating crashes are more unusual; it's often hard to imagine how people fail to see other boats in their path or near them. It's probably the more unexpected nature of boating fatalities that make them seem more tragic.
Not sure it's a good idea...
Tom Cruise set to make M:I4
The Mission Impossible series has gone like this:
M:I1 - Cheesily very enjoyable; that De Palma can really direct well when motivated (8/10)
M:I2 - seems to have killed John Woo's career, and none too soon. Awful (2/10, just for curiosity value of the Australian locations.)
M:I3 - better than M:I2 (well, that was no challenge), but directed by some hack who can't compose shots for the big screen, can't move a camera well, and seems to enjoy sadistic scenes a little too much. 4/10.
Can't de Palma, who admittedly is getting on a bit, make a come back? Or even Tom's pal Spielberg? Otherwise, there's not much hope.
The Mission Impossible series has gone like this:
M:I1 - Cheesily very enjoyable; that De Palma can really direct well when motivated (8/10)
M:I2 - seems to have killed John Woo's career, and none too soon. Awful (2/10, just for curiosity value of the Australian locations.)
M:I3 - better than M:I2 (well, that was no challenge), but directed by some hack who can't compose shots for the big screen, can't move a camera well, and seems to enjoy sadistic scenes a little too much. 4/10.
Can't de Palma, who admittedly is getting on a bit, make a come back? Or even Tom's pal Spielberg? Otherwise, there's not much hope.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Apostasy
A question of belief | Comment is free
Here's an interesting article on the very real problems that apostates from Islam (threat of death in some countries being the big one, but there are many other consequences in other countries.)
It was surprising to read this:
Here's an interesting article on the very real problems that apostates from Islam (threat of death in some countries being the big one, but there are many other consequences in other countries.)
It was surprising to read this:
In Sudan and in some states in Malaysia, capital punishment is permitted. In Saudi Arabia, Mauritania and Iran, death remains a real possibility for the convert as although it is not specified in law, the countries can invoke this penalty through their application of sharia.Malaysia? I wouldn't have thought it could happen there.
On going solar
The very sensible Robert Merkel has a very useful post at LP about why government subsidies for solar cell power don't really make much sense overall.
Despite the arguments he convincingly explains, individuals who install the systems and take the benefit of the government subsidies will feel as if they are doing good. It's easy to understand why, when they can look at their roof on a sunny day and think "I am making my contribution". It's a pity the world is more complicated.
Despite the arguments he convincingly explains, individuals who install the systems and take the benefit of the government subsidies will feel as if they are doing good. It's easy to understand why, when they can look at their roof on a sunny day and think "I am making my contribution". It's a pity the world is more complicated.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Itchy "art"
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Artists catch head lice for show
Clearly, after 100 years or so, it's getting harder and harder to be an avant garde artist.
Who knew primary school children and the homeless were walking art installations?
Clearly, after 100 years or so, it's getting harder and harder to be an avant garde artist.
Who knew primary school children and the homeless were walking art installations?
How to win friends and influence people
Beer and wine tax rise proposed | The Courier-Mail:
A 300 PER CENT increase in beer and wine taxes is being proposed by the Rudd Government's new preventive health taskforce as families battle rising petrol, grocery and mortgage prices.
Monday, April 28, 2008
A stupid dream, then away
Work (and tax!) pressure is likely to keep me from posting/reading the internet much for a few days.
In the meantime, on Saturday night I was woken mid-morning by a child, causing me to remember this stupid dream. Some sort of alien invasion of earth had resulted, not in death or destruction, but just in all men being treated very unfairly. Wages were docked (I forget what for), and we were forced to sleep in some tiny, claustrophobic dormitory type arrangement. At work, a woman co-worker, when shown my pay slip, just found it amusing. I was very disappointed with her inability to see the injustice.
Then a different woman and I were outside an office window, a few stories up, in some window cleaning gantry set-up. It was early morning, and a robot guard was walking down the silent street. We froze, and he didn't see us, so we continued our break in into the alien controlled building. Inside the office, there were jewels, from which voices came, and then 2 of the aliens themselves made an appearance. They just looked like men in silly colourful pantomine alien costumes. They were very easy to kill. I think I stabbed them with something.
The last impression I have is of sitting in a chair with my feet up on a desk, satisfied that I could kill as many of these aliens as I want.
Now I can usually work out pretty quickly what quirky combination of day time stuff has lead to a particular dream. In this case there was certainly an element of Dr Who, which I had been watching on Friday, but the injustice to males took a while. But then I remembered seeing the heading for an article about child support somewhere recently, and that must be it.
Either that or I just have a generic fear of aliens as feminists (or feminists as aliens?), even though they are easy to defeat.
In the meantime, on Saturday night I was woken mid-morning by a child, causing me to remember this stupid dream. Some sort of alien invasion of earth had resulted, not in death or destruction, but just in all men being treated very unfairly. Wages were docked (I forget what for), and we were forced to sleep in some tiny, claustrophobic dormitory type arrangement. At work, a woman co-worker, when shown my pay slip, just found it amusing. I was very disappointed with her inability to see the injustice.
Then a different woman and I were outside an office window, a few stories up, in some window cleaning gantry set-up. It was early morning, and a robot guard was walking down the silent street. We froze, and he didn't see us, so we continued our break in into the alien controlled building. Inside the office, there were jewels, from which voices came, and then 2 of the aliens themselves made an appearance. They just looked like men in silly colourful pantomine alien costumes. They were very easy to kill. I think I stabbed them with something.
The last impression I have is of sitting in a chair with my feet up on a desk, satisfied that I could kill as many of these aliens as I want.
Now I can usually work out pretty quickly what quirky combination of day time stuff has lead to a particular dream. In this case there was certainly an element of Dr Who, which I had been watching on Friday, but the injustice to males took a while. But then I remembered seeing the heading for an article about child support somewhere recently, and that must be it.
Either that or I just have a generic fear of aliens as feminists (or feminists as aliens?), even though they are easy to defeat.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
An anecdote too far...
I Peed On Fellini - Book Reviews - smh.com.au
Bruce Elder provides a short review of David Stratton's autobiographical "I Peed on Fellini". (I have read somewhere that Stratton was not sure that the title was a good idea, but presumably someone in publishing convinced him. Let's hope it's not the same editor advising Peter Costello.)
Anyway, the review notes that the book has:
Bruce Elder provides a short review of David Stratton's autobiographical "I Peed on Fellini". (I have read somewhere that Stratton was not sure that the title was a good idea, but presumably someone in publishing convinced him. Let's hope it's not the same editor advising Peter Costello.)
Anyway, the review notes that the book has:
... some very amusing and extraordinary anecdotes (the story of Bob Ellis and the used condom is as fascinating as it is grotesque).There's no way I'm going to buy the book just to find out what that is about, but it's impossible not to be curious.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
That renewable target
This is another post where I try to get my head around energy issues from some Web sources. Anyone who has more accurate figures readily at hand is welcome to correct me.
I just saw some of Skynews Eco Report, in which the Rudd government's 2020 target of 20% energy from renewable sources was being discussed. (Can't find it on the Web yet.)
I think the female guest said that by 2010, Australia will have 2% of its electricity generated from renewables, and the 20% target by 2020 is made even worse by expected growth in demand for electricity (via population growth, presumably) in the same period.
However, this 2 % figure isn't right (or maybe I misheard her); a parliamentary paper from 2000, which I have referred to before, said we were already at something like 10% for electricity from renewables, but it was supposed to increase (by mandated government target) by 2% by 2010. Maybe that is the source of the 2% figure?
This 2004 fact sheet, from the Renewable Energy Generators Association, gives a better idea of the problem. It appears that, as of 2004, it didn't look likely that the mandated increase would be met. The problem has been that, after the enormous boost the Snowy Hydro scheme gave to renewable energy, the total proportion of renewable energy for the nation subsequently went into a pretty steady decline, as growth in demand was met by fossil fuels.
If I can follow the second table on that fact sheet correctly, it seems to be saying that:
a. total 1997 renewables was 16,000 GWh;
b. even to keep at 10.5% of total electricity by 2010, it would require an additional 9,500 Gwh from renewables;
c. to get to 12.5% by 2020 would take an additional 21,000 GWh;
d. to get to Labor's 20% target will take close to 45,000 GWh.
But: that government paper I linked to above said that close to 90% of the renewable electricity in 2000 was from hydro electric; a source which is presumably incapable of any significant further growth.
Actually, looking at the government's 2004 MRET (Mandated Renewable Energy Target) Review, it seems that they are now counting solar hot water as a renewable energy source, and in a table in that paper, they have hydroelectric down to 36% of renewables, and "deemed solar hot water" at 26%. (That figure for solar hot water seems kind of high, and almost a bit of a fudge to me.)
The MRET report does seem to confirm that an extra 20,000 GWh is needed by 2020 just to get to 12.5% renewables target. I assume that the REGA paper is therefore correct in its figure of 45,000 GWh to get to 20%.
The issue of how to treat hot water systems confuses the issue. If it were not for them, I would have said the following seems to be the case: we currently seem to get only about 2,000 KWh from renewables other than hydroelectric (that's 10% of 16,000 GWh, plus some extra to allow for changes since the 2000 paper). To get to 20% renewables by 2020 (an additional 45,000 GWh,) would therefore require the amount of current non-hydroelectric renewable electricity to be increased by a factor of (roughly) 23!
So, whatever windfarms, solar and other (non hydroelectric) electricity we have now, it has to increase about 23 times in 12 years.
(As I say, maybe intensive increase in solar hot water changes the figures somewhat, but as that seems not to be discussed much as a strategy, I am guessing that it won't be what rescues us.)
No wonder there is scepticism as to the target, and the Liberals are starting to argue that it will divert resources from the more important task of developing clean coal, which is actually much more important on a global scale. Greg Hunt may well have a good point here.
Anyway, it still seems pretty clear to me that the general public has no idea of the scale of the problem.
I just saw some of Skynews Eco Report, in which the Rudd government's 2020 target of 20% energy from renewable sources was being discussed. (Can't find it on the Web yet.)
I think the female guest said that by 2010, Australia will have 2% of its electricity generated from renewables, and the 20% target by 2020 is made even worse by expected growth in demand for electricity (via population growth, presumably) in the same period.
However, this 2 % figure isn't right (or maybe I misheard her); a parliamentary paper from 2000, which I have referred to before, said we were already at something like 10% for electricity from renewables, but it was supposed to increase (by mandated government target) by 2% by 2010. Maybe that is the source of the 2% figure?
This 2004 fact sheet, from the Renewable Energy Generators Association, gives a better idea of the problem. It appears that, as of 2004, it didn't look likely that the mandated increase would be met. The problem has been that, after the enormous boost the Snowy Hydro scheme gave to renewable energy, the total proportion of renewable energy for the nation subsequently went into a pretty steady decline, as growth in demand was met by fossil fuels.
If I can follow the second table on that fact sheet correctly, it seems to be saying that:
a. total 1997 renewables was 16,000 GWh;
b. even to keep at 10.5% of total electricity by 2010, it would require an additional 9,500 Gwh from renewables;
c. to get to 12.5% by 2020 would take an additional 21,000 GWh;
d. to get to Labor's 20% target will take close to 45,000 GWh.
But: that government paper I linked to above said that close to 90% of the renewable electricity in 2000 was from hydro electric; a source which is presumably incapable of any significant further growth.
Actually, looking at the government's 2004 MRET (Mandated Renewable Energy Target) Review, it seems that they are now counting solar hot water as a renewable energy source, and in a table in that paper, they have hydroelectric down to 36% of renewables, and "deemed solar hot water" at 26%. (That figure for solar hot water seems kind of high, and almost a bit of a fudge to me.)
The MRET report does seem to confirm that an extra 20,000 GWh is needed by 2020 just to get to 12.5% renewables target. I assume that the REGA paper is therefore correct in its figure of 45,000 GWh to get to 20%.
The issue of how to treat hot water systems confuses the issue. If it were not for them, I would have said the following seems to be the case: we currently seem to get only about 2,000 KWh from renewables other than hydroelectric (that's 10% of 16,000 GWh, plus some extra to allow for changes since the 2000 paper). To get to 20% renewables by 2020 (an additional 45,000 GWh,) would therefore require the amount of current non-hydroelectric renewable electricity to be increased by a factor of (roughly) 23!
So, whatever windfarms, solar and other (non hydroelectric) electricity we have now, it has to increase about 23 times in 12 years.
(As I say, maybe intensive increase in solar hot water changes the figures somewhat, but as that seems not to be discussed much as a strategy, I am guessing that it won't be what rescues us.)
No wonder there is scepticism as to the target, and the Liberals are starting to argue that it will divert resources from the more important task of developing clean coal, which is actually much more important on a global scale. Greg Hunt may well have a good point here.
Anyway, it still seems pretty clear to me that the general public has no idea of the scale of the problem.
Newt and climate change
Here's a video that I didn't see coming:
The We Can Solve It Project, which the Pelosi/Gingrich ad promotes, has close connections to Al Gore. Although it seems Gingrich has been promoting Green conservatism for some time, it is surprising that he should promote a Gore project, given other comments he has made about him and environmentalism generally in the recent past.
The We Can Solve It Project, which the Pelosi/Gingrich ad promotes, has close connections to Al Gore. Although it seems Gingrich has been promoting Green conservatism for some time, it is surprising that he should promote a Gore project, given other comments he has made about him and environmentalism generally in the recent past.
Spielberg time
Return of the storyteller | The Australian
Steven Spielberg is doing publicity for the new Indiana Jones movie, and The Australian has a long interview today.
Nothing too surprising in it for someone (like me) who reads or watches every Spielberg interview he can. But there is this slightly amusing bit:
Steven Spielberg is doing publicity for the new Indiana Jones movie, and The Australian has a long interview today.
Nothing too surprising in it for someone (like me) who reads or watches every Spielberg interview he can. But there is this slightly amusing bit:
Spielberg is courteous and generous, without front, yet with that slight distance celebrities adopt to stay sane. He’s just seen Kevin Rudd on television, meeting George Bush: “I was very impressed – is he Labor or Liberal?”
Tracee's excited
From a little sorry, big things may grow - Opinion - theage.com.au
With sentences such as this, Tracee Hutchison will not just be in Tim Blair's sights, she's painting a big red bullseye on her pants and waiting for the kick:
With sentences such as this, Tracee Hutchison will not just be in Tim Blair's sights, she's painting a big red bullseye on her pants and waiting for the kick:
...when I heard those historic words from Rudd's landmark sorry speech again this week — as part of a re-recording of an anthemic song about Aboriginal land rights due for release on Monday — few things could have convinced me more of the magnitude and significance of the metamorphosis this country is experiencing on a daily basis.And this:
A little thing is growing. We have a chance to sing from the same songbook. And we can dare to be hopeful again.Calm down, Tracee. Just get back to us in 5 years time, and tell us if your excitement was justified.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)