Queensland’s vision splendid at Larvatus Prodeo
It's not often that I link to anything at LP with approval, but yesterday I was quoting Greenpeace, so I may as well continue my out-of-character run.
I mean, it is pretty ridiculous to be fretting about reducing our relatively tiny emissions while shipping millions of tonnes of coal to countries to burn or use in whatever manner they like.
The ALP thinks you should not sell uranium to countries that don't sign up to obligations to use it properly, yet when it comes to coal anything goes. (Has there been some talk of helping China build efficient power plants?; I can't recall. But there is certainly no legal tying of coal exports to any such efficiencies in its use.)
If you want to get top marks for idealism, and leading by example, then you would not cite the response "well if we don't sell it to them, they'll just buy it elsewhere."
UPDATE: those LP-er's are not taking the government's greenhouse plans at all well. Yep, it was a pretty good election for the Liberals to lose.
I think somewhere here before I have suggested the best answer to global warming may be for the US to wage war on China. (Well, if you must, just a limited war on their coal-burning facilities. Cruise missiles could be very handy that way. If the Chinese want to retaliate against US coal power stations, so much the better!) I work on the theory that there are very few problems in the world that can't be solved with high explosives.
Don't say I am not trying to be helpful.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Local problems with CO2 sequestration
Inside Business - 13/07/2008: Coal capture could be problematic
See the link for a short but interesting story on plans (and the initial pilot project) for CO2 sequestration in Australia.
Apparently, the current cost problem is more in the CO2 capture technology, not the storage.
I'll take their word for it, but I still assume that a major cost in the future will be getting the CO2 to the sequestration site. In this article they talk of using the Moomba area, which already has pipe in place which could be used for transporting the CO2. But for other areas, surely the transport costs are going to be huge.
I see that the trial Otway project will pump 100,000 tonnes of CO2 into the ground. Sounds quite a lot, but how much CO2 does Australian power generation generate each year? According to this BBC site: 205,000,000 tonnes. So the total Otway project (I am not sure over what period it runs) will remove about .048% of annual emissions.
See why I remain deeply sceptical about this as a concept?
UPDATE: here's a generally sceptical look at CO2 sequestration from the 7.30 Report earlier this year. (I missed it at the time.) I see that the 200 millions tonnes a year figure seems correct, but it will rise to perhaps 300 million by 2030. (!)
It just seems a hopeless task. Surely you would be better off giving high priority to decommissioning coal powered stations and replacing them with, well, virtually anything. (Natural gas as an interim, it emits much less. Then nuclear and solar.)
UPDATE 2: apparently, the government (and Martin Ferguson in particular) is a believer in sequestration. All to be revealed tomorrow, perhaps.
I also wonder how hard the government is looking at the possibility of using "algae reactors" to scrub CO2 from power stations? Here's an article from a 2006 CSIRO publication in which an American company argues that it has many advantages over sequestration.
The company is GreenFuel Technologies, and its FAQ section is worth reading. They estimate that, for an average American coal fired power station, you would need 3400 hectares of algal farms to get a 40% reduction in CO2. Sounds a hell of a lot, doesn't it? (A square kilometre is 100 hectares.) But then solar farms are not exactly small either. Maybe I would be aiming for less than 40% reduction....
Still, sequestration is not a walk in the park either, and at least algal farms have a potential product at the end which may help offset the cost. (It is also less energy intensive. You have to remember with CO2 sequestration, you have to use more energy just to get the CO2 out of the exhaust.)
UPDATE 3: Greenpeace put out a paper in May 2008 detailing why it is against sequestration. In the section on Australia, it says:
See the link for a short but interesting story on plans (and the initial pilot project) for CO2 sequestration in Australia.
Apparently, the current cost problem is more in the CO2 capture technology, not the storage.
I'll take their word for it, but I still assume that a major cost in the future will be getting the CO2 to the sequestration site. In this article they talk of using the Moomba area, which already has pipe in place which could be used for transporting the CO2. But for other areas, surely the transport costs are going to be huge.
I see that the trial Otway project will pump 100,000 tonnes of CO2 into the ground. Sounds quite a lot, but how much CO2 does Australian power generation generate each year? According to this BBC site: 205,000,000 tonnes. So the total Otway project (I am not sure over what period it runs) will remove about .048% of annual emissions.
See why I remain deeply sceptical about this as a concept?
UPDATE: here's a generally sceptical look at CO2 sequestration from the 7.30 Report earlier this year. (I missed it at the time.) I see that the 200 millions tonnes a year figure seems correct, but it will rise to perhaps 300 million by 2030. (!)
It just seems a hopeless task. Surely you would be better off giving high priority to decommissioning coal powered stations and replacing them with, well, virtually anything. (Natural gas as an interim, it emits much less. Then nuclear and solar.)
UPDATE 2: apparently, the government (and Martin Ferguson in particular) is a believer in sequestration. All to be revealed tomorrow, perhaps.
I also wonder how hard the government is looking at the possibility of using "algae reactors" to scrub CO2 from power stations? Here's an article from a 2006 CSIRO publication in which an American company argues that it has many advantages over sequestration.
The company is GreenFuel Technologies, and its FAQ section is worth reading. They estimate that, for an average American coal fired power station, you would need 3400 hectares of algal farms to get a 40% reduction in CO2. Sounds a hell of a lot, doesn't it? (A square kilometre is 100 hectares.) But then solar farms are not exactly small either. Maybe I would be aiming for less than 40% reduction....
Still, sequestration is not a walk in the park either, and at least algal farms have a potential product at the end which may help offset the cost. (It is also less energy intensive. You have to remember with CO2 sequestration, you have to use more energy just to get the CO2 out of the exhaust.)
UPDATE 3: Greenpeace put out a paper in May 2008 detailing why it is against sequestration. In the section on Australia, it says:
In Australia, CCS would lead, at best, to a 9% emissions reduction in 2030 and a cumulative emissions reduction from 2005 to 2030 of only 2.4%.[88] This is partly due to the lack of suitable storage locations. For example, in the Newcastle-Sydney-Wollongong area of New South Wales and at Port Augusta in South Australia, which together produce about 39% of Australia’s current net CO2 emissions from electricity generation, there are no identified storage sites within 500 km of the coal-fired power stations.[89] In comparison, a modest improvement in energy efficiency could – at zero or even negative cost – decrease emissions in 2030 by about the same amount, and cumulative emissions by twice as much.[90]Well, they might just have a point.
Henderson and the Pope
The sorry sport of Pope bashing - Opinion - smh.com.au
Gerard Henderson's take on the current round of Catholic bashing is spot on.
Gerard Henderson's take on the current round of Catholic bashing is spot on.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Joe's pain
Admit it, you're as bored as I am | Classical and opera | guardian.co.uk Music
Joe Queenan writes a very funny column that confirms all my suspicions about what passes for modern classical music and opera. (The stuff that seems to appear once and is rarely heard of again.)
His contention: it is not popular because it is generally awful. Queenan says he has tried, really tried, to get into it, but failed:
Joe Queenan writes a very funny column that confirms all my suspicions about what passes for modern classical music and opera. (The stuff that seems to appear once and is rarely heard of again.)
His contention: it is not popular because it is generally awful. Queenan says he has tried, really tried, to get into it, but failed:
When I was 18, I bought a record called The New Music. It featured Kontra-Punkte by Karlheinz Stockhausen and Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima by Krzysztof Penderecki. I was incredibly proud of myself for giving this music a try, even though the Stockhausen sounded like a cat running up and down the piano, and the Penderecki was that reliable old post-Schoenberg standby: belligerent bees buzzing in the basement. I did not really like these pieces, but I would put them on the turntable every few months to see if the bizarre might one day morph into the familiar. I've been doing that for 40 years now, and both compositions continue to sound harsh, unpleasant, gloomy, post-nuclear. It is not the composers' fault that they wrote uncompromising music that was a direct response to the violence and stupidity of the 20th century; but it is not my fault that I would rather listen to Bach. That's my way of responding to the violence and stupidity of the 20th century, and the 21st century as well.Queenan writes that this year when he did see an audience respond reasonably well to a new composition, the explanation is that:
...nothing thrills a classical music crowd more than a new piece of music that doesn't make them physically ill.Quite the wit, is Joe.
Slow down
The Urge to End It - Understanding Suicide - NYTimes.com
I missed this last weekend, and found it via the always interesting Mind Hacks blog.
It's a fascinating article on suicide, and what can be done to decrease the rate.
The key point is that anything which slows down the process by which the victim intends killing him or herself helps drive down the rate. Even putting drugs in a blister pack instead of a bottle helps, as do bridge barriers, laws requiring guns to be stored unloaded in locked cabinets, etc.
A great read.
I missed this last weekend, and found it via the always interesting Mind Hacks blog.
It's a fascinating article on suicide, and what can be done to decrease the rate.
The key point is that anything which slows down the process by which the victim intends killing him or herself helps drive down the rate. Even putting drugs in a blister pack instead of a bottle helps, as do bridge barriers, laws requiring guns to be stored unloaded in locked cabinets, etc.
A great read.
The Pope should visit more often...
Channel Ten evicts Big Brother
It's a miracle, I say. Can the burning of the Big Brother house begin now?
It's a miracle, I say. Can the burning of the Big Brother house begin now?
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Scoop
I get all my relationship advice from the Times of India. How could you not, when they quote:
...Rita Gangwani, image enhancer and personality architect...So now we know where Kevin Rudd got his makeover advice from.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Tony Snow
Sad to see former White House press secretary Tony Snow has died. I thought he came across as very natural and likeable in his Colbert Report appearance earlier this year. (You get the feeling that Colbert genuinely likes him too, I think.)
Pebble bed updates
Pebble bed nuclear reactors have been getting a bit of attention lately:
* The Economist mentioned the South African plans for them in a favourable fashion in mid-June.
* China's version gets coverage here, and here.
* In South Africa, it seems there is some criticism about the amount of government money being put into the project, the cost of the program, and licensing delays with approval for the first demonstration reactor. It looks like they don't expect to start building until 2010 and then have it running by 2015. (Even so, I expect that around that time Australia will still be scratching around for safe places to pump CO2 into the ground at less than exorbitant expense.)
* The Economist mentioned the South African plans for them in a favourable fashion in mid-June.
* China's version gets coverage here, and here.
* In South Africa, it seems there is some criticism about the amount of government money being put into the project, the cost of the program, and licensing delays with approval for the first demonstration reactor. It looks like they don't expect to start building until 2010 and then have it running by 2015. (Even so, I expect that around that time Australia will still be scratching around for safe places to pump CO2 into the ground at less than exorbitant expense.)
Brideshead Revised
It's hard to see why anyone would think Brideshead Revisited should be made into a film, given the great success of the TV series in the 1980's. It's hard to imagine a more faithful adaption of a novel into another medium, and the intensely Catholic themes of grace and redemption (it is a book all about religion) came through entirely intact.
If the preview is anything to go by, the forthcoming movie version looks like an absolute travesty. If you know the book or the series, go and have a look. You will see what I mean. (The whole style of the preview even seems wrong, almost laughable, for this type of movie. It seems to be hyping up the drama in what comes across as a very Hollywood way.)
Interestingly, Andrew Davies (the screenwriter) was quoted in The Independent in 2002 as saying that he wanted the movie to concentrate more on the religious tensions in the book. That was a rather odd comment, given that the series seemed to be made by tearing out the pages of the novel and having the cast read the lines.
Fast forward to 2008, and The Independent has a lengthy article about the new movie, pointing out the clear changes to the story evident from the preview, and explains that Davies is now credited as only one of the writers. I wonder if he in fact might now want to disown his involvement.
That Independent article also presents an amusing vignette of Waugh at the time he wrote it. As most readers who have made it this far into this post probably know, he was, to put it mildly, a man with many character flaws, despite his religiosity and renown as an author with a very dry wit. Pretty fascinating all the same:
If the preview is anything to go by, the forthcoming movie version looks like an absolute travesty. If you know the book or the series, go and have a look. You will see what I mean. (The whole style of the preview even seems wrong, almost laughable, for this type of movie. It seems to be hyping up the drama in what comes across as a very Hollywood way.)
Interestingly, Andrew Davies (the screenwriter) was quoted in The Independent in 2002 as saying that he wanted the movie to concentrate more on the religious tensions in the book. That was a rather odd comment, given that the series seemed to be made by tearing out the pages of the novel and having the cast read the lines.
Fast forward to 2008, and The Independent has a lengthy article about the new movie, pointing out the clear changes to the story evident from the preview, and explains that Davies is now credited as only one of the writers. I wonder if he in fact might now want to disown his involvement.
That Independent article also presents an amusing vignette of Waugh at the time he wrote it. As most readers who have made it this far into this post probably know, he was, to put it mildly, a man with many character flaws, despite his religiosity and renown as an author with a very dry wit. Pretty fascinating all the same:
For most of 1943, Waugh was sunk in gloom. He was fed up with army life. After serving in Crete with the Special Services Brigade, he had spent a year waiting to be given a company to command. None was forthcoming. It was agreed among the senior officers that the author-turned-soldier was spectacularly ill-equipped to command ordinary soldiers, because of his "total incapacity for establishing any sort of human relations with his men". He was, all agreed, a 24-carat, card-carrying shit. His rudeness, his dislike of the working classes, his fondness for bullying and horror of social contact with strangers made him, in the words of his commanding officer, Lord Lovat, "a total misfit".For a year, he'd hung out in a London office,drinking gallons of wine with friends. In July, his father Arthur died. Evelyn's wife and children remained in Combe Florey, Somerset and rarely contacted him. "I should like to feel," he wrote to his wife Laura, "that, once or twice a week, you felt enough interest in me to write and say so... If by any chance the children should die, do come to London. I miss you."
Then he received the final kiss-off. He was advised to resign from the Commandos "for the Brigade's good". It wasn't just rejection and bereavement that brought him low; it was the condition of England at this point of the war, and the predictions of its aftermath. "Everyone I meet is despondent about the future," he confided to his diary. Wherever he looked, life was grotty, grey, sloppy, utterly lacking in style, grace and chic. By the year's end his nerve had broken. He asked the army for leave, and travelled to Chagford in Devon. In that frame of mind , at the beginning of February 1944, he began to write Brideshead.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Listen to the Church, Kevin
Health levy plan to 'hurt poorest': Catholic Church | The Australian
Well, they took their own sweet time coming out to criticise it, but the Catholic Church's health wing finally makes a detailed criticism of Labor's ideological attack on health insurance. Good.
Well, they took their own sweet time coming out to criticise it, but the Catholic Church's health wing finally makes a detailed criticism of Labor's ideological attack on health insurance. Good.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
International notes
* A good essay about how American films have given up portraying realistic heroes. (The writer doesn't count superheroes, which is fair enough.) Much of what he says makes sense. It's a reflection of the Western Zeitgeist, I suppose, but you also have to worry a bit about whether Hollywood leads as much as it reflects.
* Everyone knows it is coming, and the early signs are already there. It's the question of what to do with the huge number of Chinese males who are going to be left single with a lot of aggression left to burn. Some extracts:
* Still at The Independent, this article makes beavers sound so endearing I think we should try introducing them to Australia. (I guess they don't like the taste of eucalyptus trees, though.)
* Israeli schools are trying out the Bible in comic version, to encourage students who find the old Hebrew a bit of a problem. The example in the article looks a little in the style of Tintin to me.
* And finally, in Las Vegas, Michael Jackson looks even more pathetic on a shopping trip, if that's possible.
* Everyone knows it is coming, and the early signs are already there. It's the question of what to do with the huge number of Chinese males who are going to be left single with a lot of aggression left to burn. Some extracts:
In the 2020s, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences researcher Zheng Zhenzhen, estimates in a People's Daily interview that 10 percent of Chinese men will be unable to find wives, which could have a huge impact on Chinese society....Chinese authorities did not show much subtlety in its posters for the one child policy, apparently:
Over the past decade, as the boys hit adolescence, the country's youth crime rate more than doubled. In December, Chinese Society of Juvenile Delinquency Research Deputy Secretary General Liu Guiming told a Beijing seminar that today's teens were committing crimes "without specific motives, often without forethought."...
....the government is adopting a softer tone in its propaganda. The red characters painted on village walls throughout the countryside have evolved from the 1980s slogan YOU BEAT IT OUT! YOU CAN MAKE IT FALL OUT! YOU CAN ABORT IT! BUT YOU CANNOT GIVE BIRTH TO IT! Now they read: IMPLEMENT FAMILY PLANNING FOR THE GOOD OF ALL CITIZENS. And, recently, the government added BOYS AND GIRLS ARE BOTH TREASURES. In 2003, it unveiled the Care For Girls program, which gives stipends to parents of girls in some provinces.* Over in India, skin whitening products for women are big business, but a recent soap-opera style advertisement is annoying people. You can watch and read about it at The Independent.
* Still at The Independent, this article makes beavers sound so endearing I think we should try introducing them to Australia. (I guess they don't like the taste of eucalyptus trees, though.)
* Israeli schools are trying out the Bible in comic version, to encourage students who find the old Hebrew a bit of a problem. The example in the article looks a little in the style of Tintin to me.
* And finally, in Las Vegas, Michael Jackson looks even more pathetic on a shopping trip, if that's possible.
Good Germans
My current burst of off-blog activity will soon be at an end. Here's another recommendation to fill in the time.
Last Friday, I saw an episode of a German documentary series The Wehrmacht, entitled "The Resistance". It was a quick history of the resistance within the German army in WWII, and was pretty fascinating viewing.
The episode is up on Youtube in several parts, and it's well worth watching if (like me) you are only vaguely aware of the conspiracies to kill Hitler . (There are stories of smaller acts of heroism too, which are always encouraging to hear.)
The last episode in the series, which is about the German's disasterous decision to continue fighting a losing battle, is on SBS TV tomorrow night (Friday) at 8.30.
Last Friday, I saw an episode of a German documentary series The Wehrmacht, entitled "The Resistance". It was a quick history of the resistance within the German army in WWII, and was pretty fascinating viewing.
The episode is up on Youtube in several parts, and it's well worth watching if (like me) you are only vaguely aware of the conspiracies to kill Hitler . (There are stories of smaller acts of heroism too, which are always encouraging to hear.)
The last episode in the series, which is about the German's disasterous decision to continue fighting a losing battle, is on SBS TV tomorrow night (Friday) at 8.30.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Architecture porn
Dezeen � Blog Archive � Casa 11 Mujeres by Mathias Klotz
I'm somewhat distracted at the moment, but in the meantime, have a look at a very appealing cliff-top house near the sea in Chile.
(I must admit, though, as soon as I see extensive use of glass near the ocean, there's a voice from the boring, practical corner of my mind whispering "endless cleaning".)
I'm somewhat distracted at the moment, but in the meantime, have a look at a very appealing cliff-top house near the sea in Chile.
(I must admit, though, as soon as I see extensive use of glass near the ocean, there's a voice from the boring, practical corner of my mind whispering "endless cleaning".)
Monday, July 07, 2008
Free TV
Sharp Unveils Solar-Powered TV
I'm not sure just how many of the 1.6 billion people who live off the grid can afford to buy a TV, solar cell and battery combo so that can watch the TV signal that their remote area probably doesn't have anyway, but it will be a cool item for the ostentatiously Green to have in the city.
I'm not sure just how many of the 1.6 billion people who live off the grid can afford to buy a TV, solar cell and battery combo so that can watch the TV signal that their remote area probably doesn't have anyway, but it will be a cool item for the ostentatiously Green to have in the city.
Notes of minor interest
School holidays: it must be family-friendly movie time. We went and saw Kung Fu Panda yesterday. It's good but not great. The animation itself is often lovely, but the fights are a bit too frenetic for my taste. It all seems to be over in a flash. Of Dreamworks animation, I would rate the first Shrek and Madagascar as better.
Speaking of Madagascar, they showed a trailer for a sequel that I had forgotten was coming. Here's hoping it can overcome the inevitable challenge of loss of novelty. (The penguins seem to have a lot of screen time in the preview, which is a good sign.)
The cinema also showed the shorts for Mamma Mia. It's amazing how long flakey, vacuous Euro pop can last, isn't it? I didn't rush out to see the stage show, so the movie is the first time I knew what the plot was about. Something about "free spirited" mother with adult daughter whose father could have been any one of 3 different men. The kids in the audience seemed to like the music, but this plot line may be a little hard to explain to any under 10 year old who still has a firm connection in his or her mind between marriage and having babies. Still, Tony Abbott could be accused of causing the same difficulty a couple of years ago, I suppose.
No matter how strong the reviews might be, it's not going to revive the romantic musical as an art form.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention that the cinema also showed the preview for The Love Guru. It made the film look fairly innocuous, and raised some laughs, so let's hope parents actually read reviews and know how badly it has performed in the States before they send their kids off to see it.
Speaking of Madagascar, they showed a trailer for a sequel that I had forgotten was coming. Here's hoping it can overcome the inevitable challenge of loss of novelty. (The penguins seem to have a lot of screen time in the preview, which is a good sign.)
The cinema also showed the shorts for Mamma Mia. It's amazing how long flakey, vacuous Euro pop can last, isn't it? I didn't rush out to see the stage show, so the movie is the first time I knew what the plot was about. Something about "free spirited" mother with adult daughter whose father could have been any one of 3 different men. The kids in the audience seemed to like the music, but this plot line may be a little hard to explain to any under 10 year old who still has a firm connection in his or her mind between marriage and having babies. Still, Tony Abbott could be accused of causing the same difficulty a couple of years ago, I suppose.
No matter how strong the reviews might be, it's not going to revive the romantic musical as an art form.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention that the cinema also showed the preview for The Love Guru. It made the film look fairly innocuous, and raised some laughs, so let's hope parents actually read reviews and know how badly it has performed in the States before they send their kids off to see it.
Friday, July 04, 2008
More on acidification
Acidifying oceans add urgency to CO2 cuts
This report notes an article on ocean acidification that is to appear in the July 4 issue of Science (although I can't see mention of it yet on the Science website.)
As I suspected, it's bad news for you oyster and mussel lovers out there who expect to be around in 50 year's time. But the worrying thing is, it is extremely difficult to be certain how it will affect the oceans and the planet overall:
As with the recent Nature study of a similar site in Italy, the photo indicates that sea grass really loves those conditions. Halstead also says there is a "healthy reef" metres away. But it's impossible to take that as proof that corals will happily survive acidified oceans unless you have proper measurements of the pH in the area. Indeed, we don't even know for sure that the gas is all CO2.)
I think we can take it as a sign that sea grass will do well enough in future, but just how ecologically healthy is it to have sea grasses booming in areas where they previously have not been? Especially if they replace areas that are have been extensively coral for tens of thousands of years?
I also see that the ocean acidification sceptics in the comments following that post are relying solely on Dr Floor Anthoni as their source. As I have noted before, the good doctor does not claim to have any qualification in science or biology, and appears to be pretty much an enthusiatic amateur when it comes to marine ecology and chemistry. That's not to say that amateurs can't do good science, but if you are promoting theories that are somewhat outside the mainstream, the lack of a qualification even close to the field (the qualification is in computers and electronics in Dr Anthoni's case) is not exactly adding to your credibility.
Dr Anthoni appears to have irritated many scientists in the past with claims relating to fisheries, etc. To his credit, he appears to at least be open about the disputes he has had, and you can read the exchanges on his own website.
Still, it gives me no comfort if he is the primary source of the ocean acidification sceptic's arguments.
This report notes an article on ocean acidification that is to appear in the July 4 issue of Science (although I can't see mention of it yet on the Science website.)
As I suspected, it's bad news for you oyster and mussel lovers out there who expect to be around in 50 year's time. But the worrying thing is, it is extremely difficult to be certain how it will affect the oceans and the planet overall:
"We know that ocean acidification will damage corals and other organisms, but there's just no experimental data on how most species might be affected," says Caldeira. "Most experiments have been done in the lab with just a few individuals. While the results are alarming, it's nearly impossible to predict how this unprecedented acidification will affect entire ecosystems." Reduced calcification will surely hurt shellfish such as oysters and mussels, with big effects on commercial fisheries. Other organisms may flourish in the new conditions, but this may include undesirable "weedy" species or disease organisms.While on the topic, I note that Jennifer Marohasy recently posted 2 photos from diver Bob Halstead showing an area in New Guinea which has (apparently) volcanic CO2 bubbling up through the sea floor.
Though most of the scientific and public focus has been on the climate impacts of human carbon emissions, ocean acidification is as imminent and potentially severe a crisis, the authors argue.
"We need to consider ocean chemistry effects, and not just the climate effects, of CO2 emissions. That means we need to work much harder to decrease CO2 emissions," says Caldeira. "While a doubling of atmospheric CO2 may seem a realistic target for climate goals, such a level may mean the end of coral reefs and other valuable marine resources."
As with the recent Nature study of a similar site in Italy, the photo indicates that sea grass really loves those conditions. Halstead also says there is a "healthy reef" metres away. But it's impossible to take that as proof that corals will happily survive acidified oceans unless you have proper measurements of the pH in the area. Indeed, we don't even know for sure that the gas is all CO2.)
I think we can take it as a sign that sea grass will do well enough in future, but just how ecologically healthy is it to have sea grasses booming in areas where they previously have not been? Especially if they replace areas that are have been extensively coral for tens of thousands of years?
I also see that the ocean acidification sceptics in the comments following that post are relying solely on Dr Floor Anthoni as their source. As I have noted before, the good doctor does not claim to have any qualification in science or biology, and appears to be pretty much an enthusiatic amateur when it comes to marine ecology and chemistry. That's not to say that amateurs can't do good science, but if you are promoting theories that are somewhat outside the mainstream, the lack of a qualification even close to the field (the qualification is in computers and electronics in Dr Anthoni's case) is not exactly adding to your credibility.
Dr Anthoni appears to have irritated many scientists in the past with claims relating to fisheries, etc. To his credit, he appears to at least be open about the disputes he has had, and you can read the exchanges on his own website.
Still, it gives me no comfort if he is the primary source of the ocean acidification sceptic's arguments.
Kerry and Kevin sitting in a tree...
Why on earth is Kerry O'Brien still delivering such velvet-gloved handling of Kevin Rudd? Have a look at the transcript of last night's interview, mainly about the COAG meeting and its decisions relating to the Murray-Darling. The short version goes like this:
O'Brien: Mr Rudd, scientists say there is an immediate crisis in the Murray, has COAG actually addressed that?
Rudd: [waffle, waffle, waffle, asks himself and answers 4 questions ] Yes. Sort of. It'll take a year or two, but yes.
O'Brien: So, are you really, really sure you can promise us that that's true?
Rudd: well, I can't make it rain, but [asks himself 3 questions, waffle waffle waffle] yes. In a year or so.
O'Brien: Please forgive me, I'm now going to ask a really long question. [Short version: do you think emissions trading will be a really big issue for you?]
Rudd: we were elected to make tough decisions, [waffle waffle waffle] yes, more or less.
It seems to me that O'Brien's questions indicate that he knew there were grounds to specifically attack the COAG meeting for in fact refusing to do the immediate thing that the scientists demanded, but he refuses to put tough questions directly to Rudd. (Read the reports from Fairfax, News Ltd and the ABC that complain about the COAG result here, here, here, here and here.) Instead, O'Brien's questions are all open-ended invitations to Rudd to answer in any way he pleases. Mild scepticism would seem to be the strongest emotion O'Brien can bring himself to display in his interviews with our PM.
O'Brien has always treated Rudd this way, and I want to know why. Has Rudd's staff got some dirt on him or something? I find it truly puzzling.
O'Brien: Mr Rudd, scientists say there is an immediate crisis in the Murray, has COAG actually addressed that?
Rudd: [waffle, waffle, waffle, asks himself and answers 4 questions ] Yes. Sort of. It'll take a year or two, but yes.
O'Brien: So, are you really, really sure you can promise us that that's true?
Rudd: well, I can't make it rain, but [asks himself 3 questions, waffle waffle waffle] yes. In a year or so.
O'Brien: Please forgive me, I'm now going to ask a really long question. [Short version: do you think emissions trading will be a really big issue for you?]
Rudd: we were elected to make tough decisions, [waffle waffle waffle] yes, more or less.
It seems to me that O'Brien's questions indicate that he knew there were grounds to specifically attack the COAG meeting for in fact refusing to do the immediate thing that the scientists demanded, but he refuses to put tough questions directly to Rudd. (Read the reports from Fairfax, News Ltd and the ABC that complain about the COAG result here, here, here, here and here.) Instead, O'Brien's questions are all open-ended invitations to Rudd to answer in any way he pleases. Mild scepticism would seem to be the strongest emotion O'Brien can bring himself to display in his interviews with our PM.
O'Brien has always treated Rudd this way, and I want to know why. Has Rudd's staff got some dirt on him or something? I find it truly puzzling.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Go Japan
Farming Solar Energy in Space: Scientific American
According to the article, the Japanese are looking into space based solar power:
According to the article, the Japanese are looking into space based solar power:
...by 2030 the agency [JAXA, Japan's equivalent to NASA] aims to put into geostationary orbit a solar-power generator that will transmit one gigawatt of energy to Earth, equivalent to the output of a large nuclear power plant. The energy would be sent to the surface in microwave or laser form, where it would be converted into electricity for commercial power grids or stored in the form of hydrogen.Well, can't accuse them of not being ambitious.
Hard Friends to please
I see via Andrew Bolt that ABC is doing much, much better than it was 10 years ago. Of course, this turnaround did just not happen since Rudd was elected. It happened under the Howard government, who the Friends of the ABC thought was starving it to death and beating it into ideological submission.
Friends sometimes just don't know what is good for them.
Friends sometimes just don't know what is good for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)