+ Reply to Thread
Page 18 of 24 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 238
  1. #171
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    I didn't limit it just to that, I knew that you would limit it just to coal though - as usual. You know, on account of humans not doing anything bad whatesover to the planet ever. So I was pointing out that they do other things, renewable things. Which is really good- only you could twist my statement to seem like I was saying something bad

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (19-05-2013),Kirst33  (19-05-2013)

  3. #172
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    I didn't limit it to coal. I said that shale gas was the main reason for the drop in emissions.

  4. #173
    Busy-Bee's Avatar
    Busy-Bee is offline Offending people since before Del :D
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    11,183
    Thanks
    3,660
    Thanked
    4,704
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Past Moderator - Thank you
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    Why do you limit that comment of rewable energy (sic)?
    They have also been doing some amazing things with coal! Like burning coal whilst capturing 99% of the CO2.
    http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/looping203.htm

    But I guess the Green types wouldn't like that. Much too efficient. As opposed to windmills, which can actually result in increased emissions.
    Interesting article. However 3 things came to mind.

    1. Whilst the technology looks very promising they are still relying on fossil fuels, a finite resource.

    2. The article claims they have captured 99% of the CO2 emissions, what do they do with it after they've captured it?

    3. Finally, I thought you didn't believe in CO2 emissions having any effect on our environment so why would you support such initiatives?

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Busy-Bee For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (20-05-2013),Kirst33  (19-05-2013)

  6. #174
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ~Bec~ View Post
    Interesting article. However 3 things came to mind.

    1. Whilst the technology looks very promising they are still relying on fossil fuels, a finite resource.

    2. The article claims they have captured 99% of the CO2 emissions, what do they do with it after they've captured it?

    3. Finally, I thought you didn't believe in CO2 emissions having any effect on our environment so why would you support such initiatives?
    1. Enough for the next couple of centuries at least. Technology will be greatly different by then, we could probably run a car on urine.

    2. The only by-products of this are water and coal ash. It's not like they have CO2 in a bottle.

    3. CO2 has a big effect on our environment. Without it, plants would die. I wouldn't really support this method as it will still be around 30% more expensive. But that is a hell of alot better than wind and solar, as at least it will work and can provide baseload power.

    Maybe this point can be discussed in this thread http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/f...reat-green-con

  7. #175
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Still no reply to your very informative post I see

    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    AUSTRALIA'S most needless wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, a study has found.
    The International Monetary Fund study bills itself as the first to examine 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies.
    It identifies only two periods of Australian "fiscal profligacy" in recent years, both during Mr Howard's term in office - in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007.
    and....
    The IMF study mirrors findings in a 2008 Australian Treasury study that found real government spending grew faster in the final four years of the Howard government than in any four-year period since the 1990s recession

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...#ixzz2TMRD4vxZ



    Even your pro liberal website said this : "
    While I completely agree that the later years of the Howard era were characterised by excessive spending, there is a tad too much ‘hyper bowl’ in that article."

    They then go on to make several excuses, among one that in so many words, since he still brought in a small surplus the argument of Howard's spending is moot. Also that there "is no discussion about Australia". No the report doesn't outline in words it's findings for us, but the graphs speak for themselves? I admit most people, what ever side of the fence they sit on, tend to be one eyed. but this article from
    catallaxyfiles just came across as desperately trying to find some flaw in the study bc heaven forbid the lib supporters agree that howard spent... and big.

    I can't help feeling if this same worldwide study showed the libs in glowing terms they would be trumpeting it's praises.

    Clearly I'm a leftie, but I'm under no illusions that labor aren't perfect. After 16 years I plan to vote greens. But I think Father that maybe you are only reading and processing what suits you? As a staunch labor supporter I see see the failings since Gillard has come in. But it just seems you stoically refuse to accept any study/report that might even hint the libs aren't perfect.....

  8. #176
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    386
    Thanks
    180
    Thanked
    370
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    2. The only by-products of this are water and coal ash. It's not like they have CO2 in a bottle.

    I don't think you read the article very well. It says:

    "Carbon from the coal binds with the oxygen from the iron oxide and creates carbon dioxide, which rises into a chamber where it is captured..... The carbon dioxide is separated and can be recycled or sequestered for storage."

    It is even highlighted in bold in the article "... the carbon dioxide is entirely contained inside the reactor.”


    So yes, the process does produce CO2, and no, they haven't addressed how they are going to deal with it. I think you need to look at bit more closely at some of the information that you link to.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Meg2 For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (20-05-2013),Busy-Bee  (20-05-2013),Kirst33  (20-05-2013)

  10. #177
    Busy-Bee's Avatar
    Busy-Bee is offline Offending people since before Del :D
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    11,183
    Thanks
    3,660
    Thanked
    4,704
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Past Moderator - Thank you
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    1. Enough for the next couple of centuries at least. Technology will be greatly different by then, we could probably run a car on urine.

    2. The only by-products of this are water and coal ash. It's not like they have CO2 in a bottle.

    3. CO2 has a big effect on our environment. Without it, plants would die. I wouldn't really support this method as it will still be around 30% more expensive. But that is a hell of alot better than wind and solar, as at least it will work and can provide baseload power.

    Maybe this point can be discussed in this thread http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/f...reat-green-con
    1. Only if we make a lot of investment and support into alternative and sustainable energy sources.

    2. See Meg2's response.

    3. I am well aware that plants require CO2 to survive just as we require O2, however, you seem to have completely missed my point. One of the contributing factors to anthropocentric climate change is increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (link here from NASA). If you believe (as you have stated before) that human-made climate change is non-existent then why would you have any interest or offer any support to an initiative that is seeking ways to reduce CO2 emissions? Furthermore, the process they are undertaken is stated as 30% more expensive but all new technology and new processes etc start out as less efficient. Once the technology is proved itself it is only then that improvements in the processes (and thus cost) are investigated.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Busy-Bee For This Useful Post:

    Kirst33  (20-05-2013)

  12. #178
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beebs View Post
    Still no reply to your very informative post I see
    I'm sorry. I do not know what you want me to respond to?

    Do you not like governments who spend money? Would you rather that the Howard government had even larger surpluses and kept stockpiling your tax dollars, or would you like them to give some of it back to you?
    The point is, Howard delivered surpluses whilst spending! Gillard/Swan have not.

  13. #179
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Haunted House
    Posts
    10,891
    Thanks
    1,538
    Thanked
    1,568
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    I'm sorry. I do not know what you want me to respond to?

    Do you not like governments who spend money? Would you rather that the Howard government had even larger surpluses and kept stockpiling your tax dollars, or would you like them to give some of it back to you?
    The point is, Howard delivered surpluses whilst spending! Gillard/Swan have not.
    The Liberals support the wealthy and big business, they do not spend money on infrastructure for the people and social benefits.

  14. #180
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    You really don't know anything about politics - or you choose not to see it, just like with climate change and circing.

    Howard leaving a surplus when they went out of office had NOTHING to do with good monetary managment and everything to do with selling off public assets, 75 of them to be exact.

    Here is just a few, I'm sure you'll have some come back for it, you know, like you do with the 97% of peer reviewed articles tha state that we are responsible for global warming.

    Jan 1997 – $1.5 million + annual lease payments Avalon Airport Geelong Ltd; May 1997 – $3.337 billion Melbourne-Brisbane-Perth airports; July 1997 – $408 million DASFLEET; April 1988 – $730 million Phase 2 Airports; March 1999 – $650 million National Transmission Network; November 1999 – $347 million ADI Ltd; June 2002 – $4.2 billion Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport (plus SACL debt of $1.35 billion); November 1997 – $14.2 billion Telstra 1; October 1999 – $16 billion Telstra 2; November 2006 – $15.4 billion Telstra 3.

    Honestly, trying to debate with you, is what I imagine trying to debate with the westboro baptist church on gay marriage is like.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    Busy-Bee  (20-05-2013),Kirst33  (20-05-2013)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Am i in labor?
    By jessTJ in forum Birth & Labour Questions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 17-02-2013, 06:50
  2. Nappy bins, essential item or waste of money?
    By Leahmaree in forum Pregnancy & Birth General Chat
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 09-11-2012, 19:23

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Springfree Trampoline
Give the Ultimate Christmas Gift Springfree Trampoline
The World's Safest Trampoline™ is now also the world's first Smart Trampoline™. Sensors on the mat detect your every move and your jumps control fun, educational and active games on tablet. Secure the Ultimate Christmas Gift today!
sales & new stuffsee all
Wendys Music School Melbourne
Wondering about Music Lessons? FREE 30 minute ASSESSMENT. Find out if your child is ready! Piano from age 3 years & Guitar, Singing, Drums, Violin from age 5. Lessons available for all ages. 35+ years experience. Structured program.
Use referral 'bubhub' when booking
featured supporter
Baby Monitors
Looking to buy a baby monitor? :: Read viewer reviews of baby monitors BEFORE you buy :: Buy at a local or online Baby Nursery Shop
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!