Climate Change
Macron announcing big projects for green hydrogen and nuclear innovation - an all over green re-industrialisation of France that will lead to economic independence. With 2030 as a target for reducing carbon emissions. Some election politicking no doubt, but smells fairly sincere to me.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/macron-launches-47-billion-france-20...
So it only about the team again BB .
The Labor party letting the Greens get in their bed . Nothing to do with populism , just a desire to screw their own rank and file .
It might surprise you but to get elected a polly needs to be more popular than their opposition . Can lead to problems with long term planning as you have said .
We don't do dictators ( like Singapore did which was SO successful ) or Kings here in Oz . When you get a good one you always get a bad one in the future and are stuck with them .
Why don't you give me an answer to either building two de sal plants powered by nuclear energy or one new mega dam like the Thompson ? What do you think is best for our long term future and getting to our 2050 target . The time for a long term plan is well over due .
"Our handicap is our moronic populist politics"
Interesting that you brought that up, considering that populism spans the political spectrum.
This includes, for example, Pauline on the Right and Occupy Wall Street on the Left, both of these examples claiming to support the the common people in the face of "corrupt" economic or political elites.
Point being, beware the demagogue no matter what the stripe.
I am not a particular fan of the Greens. They do some good work in highlighting climate change and other environmental issues but they are not likely to achieve any significant degree of power anythime soon. For all their faults Labor have consistently had policies which would increase the equitable distribution of the nation's wealth, and within the limits imposed by various greedy sections of the electorate, reduce the rorting that Gittins highlighted in the link I provided before. If they are guilty of a degree of populism it is minimal compared to the "we don't lead, we follow" policy dictum of the COALition.
Andy, Occupy was on the street. Pauline is a Senator in the Australian parliament.
Labor…..taking the “U” out of labour since ‘92.
blindboy wrote:Absolutely indifferent to your opinion of me Hutchy. But here's something you don't see every day.....common sense from.the high court!
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/sacked-climate-sceptic-loses-hig...
Having listened to many of Peter Ridd's interviews, this article seems intentionally misleading trying to paint Ridd as a climate denialist, in all the interviews ive listened too he has acknowledged Climate change being real and even a threat to the reef in the future, acidity levels etc
From everything ive seen his concerns are more around the accuracy of studies on the reef that are clearly being influenced by politics and money, studies that cant be replicated, problems with peer review process etc
This result isn't a win for anyone, it's just more confirmation of the bigger problems within universities that are being seen all around the world, basically they are now big business where money is king and corruption is rife.
blindboy wrote:Andy, Occupy was on the street. Pauline is a Senator in the Australian parliament.
What are you saying, that Occupy was not political, or was not a political movement?
Both are examples of populism in action.
Andy, they were operating in different dimensions. After her election as an independent Hanson connected with political insiders connected to Tony Abbot and the Liberals and they organised One Nation with her as a puppet. So it was a right wing expoitation of populist (racist) sentiment aimed, as currently with the UAP, at collecting the votes of those the Libersls could not appeal to directly without alienating their core.
Occupy, to my knowledge, was never part of the formal political process. They were protesting at the greed of the 1% and the exploitation of workers. They were not so much populist as popular. That is rather than appeal to fear and loathing (like One Nation) they raised issues that had genuine popular support, as demonstrated by their continuing influence on BLM.
BB- You are the one that operates in a different dimension . Both physical and moral .
Thanks Hutchy.
Outside of South America it's hard to come up with one modern left wing populist politician. Quite a few in Europe and elsewhere that would fit the right wing category.
Mélenchon in France looked like he was gaining some traction appealing to traditional left wing economics and opposing Le Pen, but seems to have faded, and never resorted to exploiting baser instincts. Ditto Bernie. And Varoufakis.
The absence of left wing demagogues is probably as good a proof as any of the primacy of neoliberalism and aspirational politics in the globalised liberal democracy.
Kneecapper, the court found that Ridd's academic protection did not extend to areas in which he lacked expertise, such as climate change and reef ecology. His history of denying, not climate change directly, but the seriousness of it, did him in.
Still got the shotgun at the ready for interlopers have you?
"Dr Ridd’s battle for integrity in science will not end today. The IPA is pleased to announce that Dr Ridd will become a Fellow of the IPA to lead a new research program at the IPA entitled the Project for Real Science."
The IPA, where science goes to die.
"Dr Ridd’s battle for integrity in science will not end today. The IPA is pleased to announce that Dr Ridd will become a Fellow of the IPA to lead a new research program at the IPA entitled the Project for Real Science."
The IPA, where science goes to die.
"Demand for fossil fuels will peak by 2025 if countries meet their climate pledges, according to the latest World Energy Outlook 2021 from the International Energy Agency (IEA)."
A good read: https://www.carbonbrief.org/fossil-fuel-use-will-peak-by-2025-if-countri...
This outlook would be great if it came to fruition as well (second graph)..
The encouraging news is that a New Energy Economy Is Emerging#WEO2021 shows that pursuing #NetZero can create a market opportunity for equipment like batteries & wind turbines worth over $1 trillion a year by 2050 – similar to today's oil market
— Fatih Birol (@fbirol) October 13, 2021
More: https://t.co/JXPMBBp2Ii pic.twitter.com/mvChbXQ2sJ
I hope those predictions work out Craig. There are hopeful signs but a long way to go.
Me too, seems like there's a great momentum shift right now, even though we're a decade or two behind where we could have been.
Green shoots.
Once the markets see an opportunity for a return then that is what makes the changes not so much government pledges
If Twiggy Forrests projects come to fruition then it will be a fairly hefty nail in the coffin for coal not only in Australia but overseas as well because he has been making the effort globally to establish the hydrogen generation industry in other countries. If it can be proved to work then hard to see why other countries wouldn’t get involved
And still our mob are laying out diversions.
‘With the Glasgow summit looming, Prime Minister Scott Morrison is yet to confirm if he will personally attend.
Mr Joyce conceded that he "would be told" when Mr Morrison was overseas, given his standby role as Acting Prime Minister.
But Mr Joyce would not give any hints.
"I can either say 'I don't know and I'm telling the truth,' or I can say 'I don't know, because I can't tell you the truth'. So either way, you're going to get the answer: I don't know.”
At least he is honest about being dishonest
Craig wrote:Me too, seems like there's a great momentum shift right now, even though we're a decade or two behind where we could have been.
Green shoots.
A decade or two ago the tech was only a fraction as good as it is today, tech and cost is one of the main drivers.
Anyway per captia Australia still leads the world in solar capacity and 4th per captia for wind generated energy, with the fastest renewable uptake rate in the world.
It would be interesting to know where we sit in regard to battery capacity, id expect per captia we might be in the lead there too???
Article from Feb 2021
"Australia leading world with record renewable take-up, new data finds
More than two million extra Australian homes were powered by new renewable energy generation last year as wind and solar projects hit record levels, official government data has found, despite the coronavirus-induced economic downturn.
The Clean Energy Regulator estimates a record 7 gigawatts of new renewable capacity was installed throughout Australia in 2020 off the back of record rooftop solar investment, which is 11 per cent above the previous record of 6.3 gigawatts installed in the previous year.
The renewables boom has helped Australia deploy new renewable energy 10 times faster per capita than the global average and four times faster per capita than Europe, China, Japan or the United States, the analysis found."
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-leading-world-with-rec...
indo-dreaming wrote:A decade or two ago the tech was only a fraction as good as it is today.
But we could have arrived where we are now quicker/earlier and hence, been even more advanced at this point don't you agree? We've wasted 10-20 years..
And people will live with the consequences of those delays not just for decades, but more probably for centuries, to come.
If there had been more willing, yes Craig.
@craig , what’s going to happen with air travel ? And for shipping ?
hydrogen fuel could be an option
With a half life in the atmosphere of 120 odd years, around 5% of the CO2 we're producing and have been producing will still be in the atmosphere in 500 years time. That's more than 15 generations that will have to clean up the shit we're producing. Criminally negligent doesn't begin to cover it.
Craig wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:A decade or two ago the tech was only a fraction as good as it is today.
But we could have arrived where we are now quicker/earlier and hence, been even more advanced at this point don't you agree? We've wasted 10-20 years..
I lived on Fraser Island about 05-07 and most of the houses had older solar systems with batteries(and diesel generators), the quality of those solar systems compared to today was huge, they were honestly close to useless and super expensive, if we had the same amount of panels on houses with those systems to what we have now the output wouldn't be anywhere near as great and peoples perception of solar would be based on those systems rather than todays tech.
And there is actually a disincentive for early adopters to upgrade panels, i was only recently being told by an old guy who was an early adopter who ideally would now like to upgrade his panels, but the problem is if he does he loses his great feedback rate, he said 60c, it's now something like 6c
If we are looking back with the beauty of hindsight the world and Australia would be far far better off if Nuclear hadn't been demonised and countries that were geographically stable like Australia had adopted Nuclear even if it was 20-30% of our total energy output we would have not only have cut emissions, but would now have a reliable base of carbon free energy to build on which would help deal with the storage issues, the more countries that had invested in Nuclear would have also increased investment in the tech aspect like safety and even possibly decreased building cost.
BTW. Im not saying nuclear now is the future as has cost issues, but if we are talking about should have's and could have's type scenarios.
Anyone feel competent, confident and willing to explain the fundamentals of green hydrogen energy to a layman?
You produce it by running a DC current through water so it is only as "green" as the source of the electricity.
And if produced by fossil fuels (close to pointless) its called Blue Hydrogen
@Blowin, Great explanation from a professor of engineering at Newy Uni on ABC 702 yesterday arvo.
Fucked if I can remember it all but she gave various outcomes to creating hydrogen energy from fossil fuels, or from renewables, using fresh water against salt, and what parts of society and industry could (or could not) benefit.
And Indo...c'mon mate, that's a daft answer. Hydrogen as an energy source has been used in smaller scale by industry for years, and it's been theorised for decades. Other sources and means have also been well known but have been waiting for application.
For all his faults, Twiggy Forrest has just blown open the fallacy of 'the unknown' and shown it to be government inertia, mainly owing to LNP kickbacks from fossil fuel companies.
When oh when will Oz halt the lobbying in Canberra?
From Abbott ("Climate change is crap") on down the LNP has stymied investment in R&D. Other countries have natural conditions that lean towards certain energy sources, but with abundant sun and land and coast, ours is hydrogen but with a govt hostile to anything that aint fossil fuel it's been too risky.
Funny how conservatives talk about humans responding to economic incentives, but ignore it when it suits.
Much like their interpretation of free speech I guess.
Self interest, sure but at least he is coming up with a solution. Also mentions the new ways of producing steel that are being researched overseas.
1kWh of electricity in = 0.79kWh of hydrogen out.
That is the typical efficiency of an electrolszer. Then there are further efficiency losses through compression and storage. I think generally they say around 40-60% is what you would get through the process. So 1kWh electricity in = 0.6kWh hydrogen out.
So, if paying $0.25 for a kWh of power, you will be paying ~$0.41 for a kWh of hydrogen. Not including operating costs.
In comparison to diesel, 1L has approx. 10kWh, @ $1.50/L. So $0.15 for a kWh.
So power has to be renewable and has to be cheaper than it currently is.
Hydrogen has a high-energy mass density but very low volume-energy density. Due to the low energy density storage is difficult. Meaning probably not suitable for air travel.
Some people say it will be subbed in for natural gas but this doesn't really work due to the lower volume-energy.
Cars have been taken by batteries. Buses and trucks too. Which leaves shipping and other heavy haulage. We will see.
One theory regarding the extreme levels of interest and funding into hydrogen in Europe and Aus, even when the fundamentals don't currently stack up, is basically because we've missed the boat on batteries and need to try and add something to the future energy market otherwise we're going to miss out on capitalizing on the massive energy transition currently underway.
thanks carpet
Thanks for that carpetman I think the other issue is that reducing emissions will help moderate climate change, but will only set us up for the next environmental crisis unless we can also move away from the current consumerist culture in which resources still overwhelmingly take a one way trip to waste.
indo-dreaming wrote:And if produced by fossil fuels (close to pointless) its called Blue Hydrogen
stunet wrote:And Indo...c'mon mate, that's a daft answer. Hydrogen as an energy source has been used in smaller scale by industry for years, and it's been theorised for decades. Other sources and means have also been well known but have been waiting for application.
.
Did you miss read my comment????
I was just explaining to Blowin not all hydrogen is equal Green & Blue are different.
Green hydrogen produced from renewables = good no emissions, makes sense, even though there is an energy loss you have energy stored as a fuel that can be used in many different ways that energy stored in batteries or pumped hydro can't be or is more problematic for use in things like airline industry, shipping, industrial type industry etc
Blue hydrogen produced from fossil fuels= not that great, you still have emissions creating it, you lose energy creating it, possibly might as well just use a fossil fuel like gas to start with.
Surely you agree Green Hydrogen is the future but Blue Hydrogen is not?
Worth a listen as not only does he lay out a good argument for what he is doing he mentions his discussions with the recalcitrant politicians. Basically lays bare their bullshit arguments
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/mining-magnate-a...
Spot on Indo, blue or as Angus Taylor calls it "clean" hydrogen is just fossil fuel dressed up
'Twas replying to your comment one above, Indo.
I'm very dubious of the conversation that says - or has said - that certain renewable energies can't be done. That conversation is led by capital and echoed by vested interests (such as our government) looking to extract the last great fortunes from the ground. It's now also capital who, realising they can profit, is saying it can be done.
The only thing that changed is will.
What’s the point of using one energy source to power another?
Twiggy pirouetted gracefully around the question of whether after making a fortune from fossil fuels he should be profiting from the government subsidies soon to flow to assist in the production of clean energy.
Don't think he'll be doing another backflip and advocating for the reintroduction of the MRRT in the interim.
But his enthusiasm is infectious.
And he certainly clouted Angus Taylor and Bridget Mackenzie with dismissive backhanders, set up Scomo for a kicking he gives Glasgow the flick, and poured scorn on ‘clean hydrogen’ and carbon capture and storage.
I saw a report that questioned the wisdom of Macron’s proposed smaller nuclear power stations, saying that, all things considered, nuclear is only marginally cheaper per kWh than wind, then on the other hand cited Germany turning off their nuclear power stations only to recently face days on end with neither wind nor sun, with the result that prices soared.
I wonder if the Australian government will introduce these same incentives to get people into electric cars . https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/the-electric-car-revolution-putting-...
Carpetman - 1kWh of electricity in = 0.79kWh of hydrogen out.
If this is true ( I have no reason to doubt you ) why would we even consider using hydrogen ?????
We loose energy producing it . What am I missing ?
Craig - I doubt that the 2025 prediction has taken into consideration the explosion of gas and coal needed in the last few months .
And for the dummies like me that don’t totally understand what is meant by net zero, this article may help . https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-14/what-is-net-zero-carbon-emissions...
Because it's the best clean - only? - option for powering things such as big shipping and possibly airliners?
Someone's got the blues...
Thanks Supa - I needed that article .
I need to think on this but my first thoughts are that this will be impossible to achieve . The world will need to produce more solar panels , wind farms , nuclear plants after 2050 which will create more CO2 .
We will not plant enough trees to take up this CO2 ( I would like to be wrong ) .
Unfortunately , offset programs , carbon storage , carbon trading systems are all potentially a scam .
We don't have and are not developing these technologies . Even if we were they need CO2 to create and use .
The numbers don't add up .
The only way to get to net zero is to stop human activity and who wants that ?
Net Zero is total fantasy but I hope to be proved wrong !
Considering there's a federal election early next year I don't think we should believe anything the LNP gov says. Especially when it comes to anything to do with the climate. They say they'll commit now, but if re-elected it'll soon be forgotten. As with all the rhetoric on china, keep talking up the threat way out of proportion, then when nothing happens they can say it's because they kept us safe. Typical re-election strategies used the world over.
Supafreak wrote:I wonder if the Australian government will introduce these same incentives to get people into electric cars . https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/the-electric-car-revolution-putting-...
NSW has removed stamp duty tax on EVs and ensured no user tax for 6 years, like the milage tax being introduced in Vic on EVs
Weird situation, a LNP policy trying to encourage EV uptake and a Labor state government policy that could be argued discourages EV take up, go figure.
Interesting I post about net zero and then I read this . Again reminded it is all about money . The old adage
"follow the money " is always a reliable guide .
"So what is going on, and why is it that virtually every topic these days has to do with climate change, "net zero", green energy and ESG?
The reason - as one would correctly suspect - is money. Some $150 trillion of it.
Earlier today, Bank of America published one of its massive "Thematic Research" tomes, this time covering the "Transwarming" World, and serves as a massive primer to today's Net Zero reality. The report (which is available to all ZH pro subs) is actually a must read, interesting, chock-full of data and charts such as these...
But while we don't care about the charts, that cheat sheets, or the propaganda, what we were interested in was the bottom line - how much would this green utopia cost, because if the "net zero", "ESG", "green" narrative is pushed so hard 24/7, you know it will cost a lot.
Turns out it does. A lot, lot.
Responding rhetorically to the key question, "how much will it cost?", BofA cuts to the case and writes $150 trillion over 30 years - some $5 trillion in annual investments - amounting to twice current global GDP!
At this point the report gets good because since it has to be taken seriously, it has to also be at least superficially objective. And here, the details behind the numbers, do we finally learn why the net zero lobby is so intent on pushing this green utopia - simple answer: because it provides an endless stream of taxpayer and debt-funded "investments" which in turn need a just as constant degree of debt monetization by central banks."
I would bet a trillion that the ones pushing for net zero are the ones that will make the most money .
Everyone else who pushes for it will help them line their pockets .
I will not be advocating for net zero !!!!!!!!!
.