Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread (Read 163929 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #825 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/16/let-rome-burn-coalition-mp-colin-boyce-says-blackouts-the-only-way-to-turn-voters-off-renewable-energy

Oh dear.  What a c0ckhead. I just couldn't come up with any more articulate response to such an absurd suggestion.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #826 –
Quote from: Baggers – on
Quote from: PaulP – on
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/16/let-rome-burn-coalition-mp-colin-boyce-says-blackouts-the-only-way-to-turn-voters-off-renewable-energy

Oh dear.  What a c0ckhead. I just couldn't come up with any more articulate response to such an absurd suggestion.

Sailing close to the wind there Shane … but you’re right 😇
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #827 –
We are already seeing SA / Adelaide suffer, things are only going to get worse when NSW and Vic are under the pump and they choose to cut SA's energy artery.

I mean, people in SA surely do not believe if the sh1zen hits the fan on the east coast that SA will be given priority?

Anybody watched COBRA Season 1?
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #829 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02325-x
That's great data, in this wider debate, not specific to this report, I'm not sure about any conclusions and actions.

While you can blame the wealthy for much of the industrialisation which spews emissions, the world's poorest turn out to be a huge percentage of the client base for some of the dirtiest industries. But if those industries stopped tomorrow would the those defined as victims of economic or climate injustice be better off?

The targets are critical of industrialists like those making low cost packaging, that deliver low cost food in safe and consumable condition to locations have the least cold storage because they have little access to refrigeration or energy.

People think of oil and gas, mining, etc., etc., but they are only responsible for a fraction of the emissions while providing the resource that generates further emissions, it is the industrialists and transport doing the bulk of the emitting. In this regard a Pratt is much worse than a Rinehart, but a Pratt delivers clean, safe food in a timely manner on a global scale. Rinehart might fuel the plastics or airline industry, but she also fuels agriculture.

it's a very complex issue, and there are no obvious solutions without harming someone, because there are just too many people.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #830 –
I understand this is a contentious topic, but I'm in favour of renewables providing most, and preferably all, of Australia's energy needs. This young scientist makes what is IMO a fairly compelling case for renewables, that is easy enough for the layperson to understand . The video is 12 months old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_47LWFAG6g
 

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #831 –
90% of our power will come from renewables in 9 years.  That seems very optimistic.   The talk about the nuclear plants coming online in 15 odd years is neither here nor there when you boil that down.  Better to start now if we need it in 10, even if it takes 20 years to come, than to start in 10 years, and then wait 20 years for it.  This is a tale of historics going on here too, so its possible that older plants took longer to come on line due to different requirements, working conditions.  If you compare building it where its rainy and cold vs somewhere like here, we might be able to bring it online much quicker as there is more chance to work when it aint raining particularly when talking concrete.

Before anyone says shes right/wrong about the renewables timeline she muted, its in line with where we get power from currently according to her.  I.e.  she states we get 30% from renewables and this grows 3% on average every year.  Whilst that will compound over time, in 10 years time, it will not be any more than 70% of todays power generation, right when she says that we will stop using Coal Power and we will get 90% of our power from renewables.  Where does that extra 20% come from to bridge the gap to her claim of 90%?

Integration is neither here nor there.  The renewables not working nicely with other power sources is currently true enough too.  Ultimately when push comes to shove, when you pick a model including mixed types of power, the same fundamental issue will be there.  Sometimes you need more, sometimes you need less.  Renewables are no better or worse in this regard and ultimately it looks like you need a medium to store power in temporarily to limit this, irrespective of power source.  Saying it doesnt play nicely is politics at play really. 

Costs are rubbery figures.  Estimates are estimates and there are lots of qualifying statements used when talking costs.  Labelled too expensive, and it might be to build, but once built is the cheapest form of power to consume.  If you dont build any solar, and focus on nuclear as well is it still expensive?  Does the expense change based on where it is built?  Interesting question.

I have no issues with her points on number 4. 

Ultimately, the other part that is also a bit hard to measure, is that all the assumptions are based on history.  i.e.  Nuclear plant tech could change.  It may be cheaper and more efficient to bring online in time.  We wont know until we do it.  Still lots of points well made.


For me the number 1 argument against nuclear power is the backyard test.  If there was a solar farm next to you, you would get on with it and not think twice about it.  A nuclear plant hanging out in your backyard, you would feel much differently about.  It would absolutely detract from your house value, and the desirability of people to live in that location.  The desal plants are already enough of a reason not to build a nuclear plant.  The gippsland folk ive spoken to dont like the thing nearby. 
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #832 –
We don't get 30% of base load yet, it being a little creative with the figures, we only get roughly 8% of base load from renewable energy.

The renewables boosters quote 30% by using midday peak figures, much of which isn't utilised, and cherry picking that time slot excludes breakfast and dinner peak demands when the biggest deficit occurs.

Forrest is the one to watch, he's in it for the long haul unlike most of the hit and run investor types.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #833 –
So where is the outrage and indignation from the hardcore, Labor has just extended the North West Shelf agreement for 50 years, isn't SolarPV and Wind farming the future that makes all other 10, 20 or 30 year energy projects no longer viable?

People(Media) said you can't trust Twiggy Forrest, yet here we are today, where he predicted!

This fossil fuel extension is the harsh reality, Labor knows it yet campaigned with the exact opposite. The vast bulk of what you hear about clean and green, zero carbon, no coal, no gas, no nuclear, and other "market dominant" renewable alternatives is completely vacuous, it's spin driven by billionaire and investment bankers to get a slice of your superannuation.

The claims made about "clean and green" based on current technologies are unsustainable, unrealistic and largely inaccurate, those options have nearly zero hope of delivering low or zero carbon within the next 30 years. There is little or no acceleration coming, they just do not have the resources available to do it, and they are almost broke already even without the pending rise in the raw materials that is inevitable. As the resources drop in abundance, becoming harder to mine and refine, they skyrocket in price.

It's going to take decades longer and cost far more than most current alternatives! It will make Labor's Anti-Nuclear $600B rhetoric look like chump change.

In the meantime, the mind numbingly stupid anti-nuclear stance taken by the Australian government will see us become energy poor and remain carbon emitting for many decades to come.

The game is carbon emissions reduction nothing else matters, how you get there makes little difference but you have to actually get there in a timely and sustainable manner.

What Labor did this week was reality, what they claim they would do is all smoke and mirrors.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #834 –
The current scholarly and expert consensus, as best as I can determine, is that Australia's energy needs can be reliably met by renewables playing a large part, with appropriate energy storage and a small part to be played by gas as back up power.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #835 –
@PaulP‍ , yes I'm quite close with many in entities like the CSIRO and other energy and advanced materials segments which include mining and materials processing of rare resources to develop renewable energy.

There are a couple of things in common with many of the utopian claims from certain segments;

It's often theoretical, terrific expertise and experience in the lab that is largely completely detached devoid of real world experience, which you will find ironic in the context of a point below.

They are funded by entities that have a vested interest, often profiting from renewables via superannuation funds or trusts, they know who butters their bread. The tell is that opinions swing with election results, it will be interesting to watch how official reports and conclusions now vary given the recent demise of the The Greens from minority government.

The very entities that make the utopian claims actually have to resources to put their money where their mouth is, yet they don't. If questioned why not they often start to make excuses like, "We aren't energy market experts!" If the claims matched reality, they could self-fund their own future and detach from the public purse, but they don't! I'd assert it's because there remain devils in the detail.

A great example existed right here in Victoria's Central region. A utopian energy production scheme, just buy a share, earn money, install your SolarPV or we will install it for you, sell clean green energy to the less informed or less fortunate, a micro-grid cash cow, until post COVID the governments removed the subsidies and the venture went bankrupt, too good to be true, it was all going to be so easy, the remaining resources sold off ironically to a superannuation fund then to AGL. More subject matter for Ayn Rand.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #836 –
Thousands of men and women :
study 3 years for degree
study 3 more for PhD
Join lab, start working
Spend years studying problem
Form hypothesis, gather evidence
Test hypothesis, form conclusion
Report findings, clear peer review
Findings published, reported to press, disseminated to public

Man on internet : utopian BS

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #837 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
Thousands of men and women :
study 3 years for degree
study 3 more for PhD
Join lab, start working
Spend years studying problem
Form hypothesis, gather evidence
Test hypothesis, form conclusion
Report findings, clear peer review
Findings published, reported to press, disseminated to public

Man on internet : utopian BS
I'm one of the thousands @PaulP, the consensus regarding energy solutions isn't anywhere near as ubiquitous as you wish to paint. The general consensus is climate change is very real, as is the consensus regarding the cause of climate change which is carbon emissions, but there is no associated agreement or consensus regarding the specific energy solutions, as a segment of the cause and / or solution.

If you think carbon emissions are the primary cause and point of concern, low or no carbon emissions solutions should be the ubiquitous solution, but that is clearly not the case, it's because the drivers of consensus on the energy solution are often finances and income over emissions.

btw., Energy is only about 1/3rd of the total problem, but if we electrify energy becomes a bigger and bigger slice of the problem, the problem is relocated not solved. If we 100% electrify transport we move about 60% of it's current emissions to energy, but energy cannot cope with the increased demand, the basic engineering fails. The available energy from the grid in a typical street is in the order of 30kva to 50kva, you can't charge a 80kva battery in 5, 10 or even 30 minutes without blacking out your neighbours and risking the ignition of pole mounted transformers.

SolarPV, Batteries and Wind are not a clean industries, and they are not zero emissions industries, they rely on carbon offsets, it's just they are not dirty in your backyard, at least not yet! ;)

You do realise one of the major arguments made against nuclear was that carbon offsets of construction weren't really zero carbon, do you see the irony?

If we by some miracle had fusion power tomorrow, it would require carbon offsets to be "zero emissions".

There are no solutions requiring infrastructure that are zero emissions, and that includes SolarPV, Wind, et al.!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #838 –
Fossil fuels generate power / energy for commercial transport and industry at about 40% efficiency, far higher efficiency than typical residential or domestic use.

Add energy recovery to commercial process and you can improve efficiency to between 50% and 60%, some have touted higher but I doubt it.

Electrification with associated energy recovery improves that efficiency to about 80%, double the efficiency of fossil fuels, but still well short of what is needed for future zero emissions. That waste is heat and that heat is climate change in the presence of carbon dioxide.

I'm not a climate change skeptic, but my anti-nuclear colleagues love to paint people like myself as such, I think some of my similarly age colleagues spent too much time in their youth watching Dr Strangelove.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #839 –
There's another school of thought that the climate emergency is BS and its all part of maximums and minimums the earth is consistently going through every so often.

Our recording and measure of data is far too recent to really make strong declarations and the sort of catergoric statements that get bandied about.

Imho we can't afford not to take it seriously but I do remember all the CFC talk from the 80's. 
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson