Skip to main content
Topic: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread (Read 44579 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #255
MrsE had a TS Astra, worst car we have bought and it also had the big chunky Pillar problem which obscured your view but that was the least of its problems.
Had the brakes replaced three times under warranty although Holden fought me the last time because we had Michelin tyres put on the car and removed their rubbish Goodyears,  and then the auto transmission planetary gear set failed just out of warranty and fecked the entire transmission sending metal through it. 3k later and consumer law complaints they still wouldnt come to the party so I had to get it independently repaired which was a full strip down a new gear set, torque converter and pump assy.
The dealer was going to get a transmission sent over from europe which was going to cost me 5k...couldnt wait to sell it once it was fixed and say goodbye to GM cars for good.
Isnt it funny how different people have different experiences. My mum has a 2000 Astra, my daughters both had 2002 ones as their first car. Three in our family, absolutely bullet proof was our experience. Normal fuel costs and services. I think mums had a coil pack issue which our mechanic fixed on the cheap (Holden wanted $1500, he did for $200-300). The thing is still going. My daughters have moved theirs on, drove them for 4-5 years and got the same money we paid them. I thought they were very solid and fun cars to drive, very heavy for their size but zippy. Didn't notice the A pillar on them TBH.
2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #256
Isnt it funny how different people have different experiences. My mum has a 2000 Astra, my daughters both had 2002 ones as their first car. Three in our family, absolutely bullet proof was our experience. Normal fuel costs and services. I think mums had a coil pack issue which our mechanic fixed on the cheap (Holden wanted $1500, he did for $200-300). The thing is still going. My daughters have moved theirs on, drove them for 4-5 years and got the same money we paid them. I thought they were very solid and fun cars to drive, very heavy for their size but zippy. Didn't notice the A pillar on them TBH.
When it was running it was a nice car and zippy as you say, ours was Black with tinted windows and looked an evil little beast when it was on the road. Air Con worked a treat too and froze your jewels off but apart from that it was a piece of junk IMO and when we sold it for a better than expected price I felt guilty handing over the keys. Its had low ks because it was always at the dealers which probably helped the resale value......the pillar issue wasnt helped by MrsE only being a little lady at 5'2 and struggling to see over the dashboard much less past the pillars, think the rear windscreen also bothered her too being rather small.



Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #257
All later model GMs had serious issues, do some digging on C(r)aptivas....

Caveat emptor on MGs.

I also went from Toyotas to a Ranger.  Theyre so much more confortable and easier to manage but I'd be happier to chuck hay bales in the old Hilux.  Though I'd hate to drive that in traffic.
DrE is no more... you ok with that harmonica man?

 

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #258
I also went from Toyotas to a Ranger.  Theyre so much more confortable and easier to manage but I'd be happier to chuck hay bales in the old Hilux.  Though I'd hate to drive that in traffic.
Thats the key, if you are out bush, or on a farm, then you go the hilux. You won't need all the bells and whistles that the ranger has and the ultra reliability is a premium.

If you are doing any decent driving on suburban roads or highways, go the ranger. More comfortable, easier to drive, can still go bush and do some hard work when you want it too.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #259
You just have to love the brazen nature of modern media.

For years they have been telling us climate change is fake, giving unqualified sceptics equal time and space with trained experts all in the name of 'fairness'!

Now today, having constantly denied the effects of climate change, The Hun and Sky News types are running with story lines that claim extreme weather is about to be the next global catastrophe!

So my The Hun take away, Climate Change is fake while Extreme Weather is Real, but caused by what?

I suspect mostly a load of Murdoch hot air! ::)
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #260
You just have to love the brazen nature of modern media.

For years they have been telling us climate change is fake, giving unqualified sceptics equal time and space with trained experts all in the name of 'fairness'!

Now today, having constantly denied the effects of climate change, The Hun and Sky News types are running with story lines that claim extreme weather is about to be the next global catastrophe!

So my The Hun take away, Climate Change is fake while Extreme Weather is Real, but caused by what?

I suspect mostly a load of Murdoch hot air! ::)

Is it possible that extreme weather events were on the way regardless of what happens with the glob?  Scientific programs have shown that large amounts of volcanic activity have contributed to the cooling of the globe and previous ice ages.  After watching such programs its possible that these events would happen anyway isn't it?

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #261
Is it possible that extreme weather events were on the way regardless of what happens with the glob?  Scientific programs have shown that large amounts of volcanic activity have contributed to the cooling of the globe and previous ice ages.  After watching such programs its possible that these events would happen anyway isn't it?

No. 

The extreme weather events that we have been experiencing since the last decades of the 20th century are the result of climate change brought about by human activity.  That's why many earth scientists favour the use of the Anthropocene to denote the current  geological epoch that's defined by significant human impact on Earth's geology and ecosystems.  That includes, but is not limited to, anthropogenic climate change.

There might be the odd earth scientist that denies the reality of climate change but the overwhelming majority accept that anthropogenic climate change is real and we've probably waited too long before trying to redress the problem.  Those that come after us won't thank us, if they manage to survive.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #262
Is it possible that extreme weather events were on the way regardless of what happens with the glob?  Scientific programs have shown that large amounts of volcanic activity have contributed to the cooling of the globe and previous ice ages.  After watching such programs its possible that these events would happen anyway isn't it?


2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #263
It won't go unnoticed by many of you, but make sure you make note of the rock spider like silence from the likes of Panahi and Bolt regarding the floods and global warming!

Extreme weather events becoming more severe and frequent is exactly what scientists have been warning about for two decades.

It's usual for Bolt to claim rain is evidence global warming is bogus, but the creep has slithered under a rock!
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #264
Greta Thunberg who always has plenty to criticize but offers little in the way of solutions has decided that nuclear is a better way to go than burning coal .
Vlad with his dictator ways has made energy a priority fix in Europe and with gas reserves only good for a year it appears rather than burn fossil fuels Greta has decided she would rather have her greeny cabin in the woods lit and warmed via a bit of uranium much to the shock of her supporters.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #265
Greta Thunberg who always has plenty to criticize but offers little in the way of solutions has decided that nuclear is a better way to go than burning coal .
Vlad with his dictator ways has made energy a priority fix in Europe and with gas reserves only good for a year it appears rather than burn fossil fuels Greta has decided she would rather have her greeny cabin in the woods lit and warmed via a bit of uranium much to the shock of her supporters.

the numbers make sense.  Whilst its the worst pollutant of any energy source its pollution to energy generated is unmatched.

Its cheaper, its more efficient, and now to do some real science on how we might be able to use or reuse any waste.  I suspect that this is where our technology future lies rightly or wrongly.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #266
The nuclear power fear mongering is promoted more by the Solar PV industry than coal or oil.

The truth is Solar POV is not as clean as people think, even people in the game admit that there are warehouses full of old / defective panels they have no idea how to recycle or process, and may never. Also making them is horrendously damaging for the planet, they aren't just sand based glass, they are full of rare heavy metals and other exotic chemistry.

A rapid solution is the best option, and in terms of developing capacity and then genuinely reducing emissions modern nuclear is so far ahead of the alternatives it's almost a joke to suggest anything else.

Fearmongers point to Three Mile Island, Chernobyl or Japan, but these are 1950s technology built in the 1960s, and 1960s tech built in the 70s.

Finally, opponents like to refer to Japan as a nuclear disaster, but so far it's nuclear fallout has hardly struck a blow, let's not forget Japan was a tsunami that killed nearly 20,000 people, but politically motivated it was renamed as the Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami so the anti-nuclear brigade could focus on Japan. Tohoku by the way is not inaccurate, but deliberately renaming the event was a deliberate choice not an accident. (Even the activists in IT also ensure Fu4ush1ma is renamed screwushima to paint it a certain way!)

Nothing online happens by accident, it's all the result of deliberate human actions, and the protagonists aren't all altruistic or innocent.
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #267
the numbers make sense.  Whilst its the worst pollutant of any energy source its pollution to energy generated is unmatched.

Its cheaper, its more efficient, and now to do some real science on how we might be able to use or reuse any waste.  I suspect that this is where our technology future lies rightly or wrongly.

Nuclear power plants are way more expensive than alternatives and require very long lead times.  We’ve missed the boat on conventional nuclear power by several decades.

I recently watched a fascinating documentary on one of Scotland’s nuclear power plants.  Apart from the technology and environmental requirements, the youth of the highly qualified technicians was surprising.

Part of the conversation was about the inevitable de-commissioning of the power station.  The head honcho explained that no more power stations using that nuclear technology would be built in the UK.  It wasn’t clear what would replace them; perhaps smaller plants.

I also saw a documentary that briefly looked at the last “coal-fired” power station in the UK.  It burns sustainably harvested timber by-products 🤔
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #268
Nuclear power plants are way more expensive than alternatives and require very long lead times.  We’ve missed the boat on conventional nuclear power by several decades.
Compared to, when you add the decommission / disposal cost of Solar PV because it's cannot be recycled, the huge land area it must cover and the growing value of that land, and accept that the Solar VPO waste contains rare earths heavy metals and other toxic chemicals, ignoring the 10, 20 or 30 life time spin which is mostly false. the differential cost per kWh isn't that much different.

Even the new biodegradable / recyclable printed Solar PV that I've worked on with CSIRO is about 1/10th the energy density, meaning even though it's very cheap per square meter to make it needs about 20x - 30x the surface area coverage to make the same energy, and it won't last 10 years! The Solar car travelling around Australia at the moment to demonstrate the printable solar PV technology needs to roll out a strip about 1.2m wide x 400m long just to recharge is a sensible timeframe (4 - 8hrs)!

The long term plan is to cover every available surface with the stuff, roofing, driveways footpaths even roads. But given it doesn't last forever so you will need massive facilities just to deal with and recycle the decaying product. To replace conventional power, a city like Melbourne would be dealing with 1,000,000,000m² of waste annually after the first 10 years, as much polymer material as 11 very large industrial factories can pump out a year! This is "The Greenest" solution renewables have to offer! :o

By the way, how do you mount this new technology film? Using double sided tape, doubles the cost, doubles the waste, if the tape can last ten years good luck getting that off a surface and ready to be re-applied, maybe we can just plaster a new layer over the top! ;) You know how we got the old test films off, grit blasting / pressure washing, polymers lost down the drain, not a gram recycled.

It's great technology, but the devil is in the detail, and the sales pitch is a con design to attract short term investment and government funding.
The Force Awakens!