Climate Change
BB- So everyone who does anything of quality is welcome to produce as much CO2 as they want .
Is welcome to fly in a private jet whenever they want .
Is welcome to tell us other mere mortals that we have to make the sacrifices .
No wonder you don't believe in net zero CO2 by 2050 .
You have no suggestion on how we can absorb CO2 and allaud people like George who use enough CO2 in a week that a poor family of 100 would use in a year .
.
Hutchy 19 wrote:If a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser does around 6,000 miles a year, it uses 55.1 gigajoules of energy.
That would take 0.41 hectares to produce, so the SUV’s eco footprint is less than half the dog’s."
Daily mail .
That's absolutely incredible. So by not having a dog, I could rock 2x URJ202 Landcruisers (the petrol V8, 4.6L, quite rare in Australia compared to the diesel) and have less of a carbon footprint than a dog owner? By having just 1 Landcruiser, I'm making positive change.
Seems so johnno . I do miss my dog though .
The Landcruiser will get you to all the good surf spots and you can park on the beach ( where allowed ) .
Land Cruiser 13.3L per 100km
4WD hybrid RAV4 5.8L per 100km
Feed the dog a mixed diet, mostly kangaroo and assorted leftovers. She’s healthy as, according to the vet. Chickens get kitchen scraps and leafy greens from the veggie garden (broccoli etc). Rest of the scraps go in the compost.
Reckon we fill a small garbage bag per week at the moment. Family of 4. Always trying to reduce further.
Anyone done the thing where you buy a cow with a few others? That’s on our list. A mate of mine on a bit of land swears by it. One cow, couple of sheep per year with the neighbours. Deep freezer and away you go.
For sure Blindboy, the post was slightly in jest (you could have 4x RAV4 Hybrids). I was just a bit spun out about the doges. Etarip, yep that was about the farm kelpie's diet and they were very healthy. And yes, my wife's family had a wheat/sheep farm so the deep freezer mutton was a thing.
Still reckon the petrol Landcruiser is a useful thing if you don't use it much but occasionally need the capability. The diesel ones are more economical and are made to do the big kms touring all over the country. Edit: also, a well kept one for a long time spares the need to upgrade often, which saves lots of CO2.
Concerned surfers check these out, ex-Japan grey import Corolla Fielder hybrid wagons:
https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/details/2016-toyota-corolla-fielder-hyb...
I found 2.9L/100km here, an incredible 81mpg:
https://www.auto-data.net/en/toyota-corolla-fielder-xi-facelift-2017-1.5...
No idea on maintenance, would it be similar to the domestic hybrids or 24V system? Anyway.
Yeh we have a Corolla hybrid it's a great car and seems to go forever on a tank.
Good choice. I reckon our family are down on CO2 consumption since Corona, and it's got me questioning the need for chemical things eg blanks (a couple of beauties to finish before this though... red cedar, mmmm). Electricity prices rising means that a battery bank for the solar is nearly a 4 year payoff on money saved (that's my prerequisite for deploying funds to upgrade things ) - just as the solar was. Upgrading to gas on demand will help a bit as well from a tank, and rising gas prices increase the likelihood I find funds to do this one. Overall, it's replacing technology as one can, and being cleaner as a result. Cars are not being used half as much, but we've got through the teenage years where there's work/friends/party/learning to drive trips to and from town very often. I do want to keep a couple of classics, but they are hardly used, just maintained.
All electric is the way to go. A heat pump is the most energy efficient way to heat a house and if you have enough panels and a big enough battery zero emissions and no usage charges. Gas produces NOx gases which are unhealthy.
Cheers I'll look further into that, the Ms has mentioned the heat pump.
velocityjohnno wrote:Cheers I'll look further into that, the Ms has mentioned the heat pump.
Can recommend the heat pump option (v quiet/v efficient). Looking into batteries at the moment
Is Barnabubby Labor's most effective member of parliament?
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/joyce-expects-colleagues-to-reje...
BB - I am very surprised you posted this article !
One , people like me that don't subscribe to the SMH ( there are some ) can only see the headline and a the intro .
Two -the intro said "as the party on Sunday night asked for more time to decide on a net zero climate strategy for 2050."
You have the same position as the Nationals , FFS . No plan at the moment for absorbing CO2 and no willingness to make major sacrifices .
Amazing how things transpire , I never ceased to be amazed !
Heard this morning that EV penetration is forecast to rise from 21% to 34% in 2030 .
Work related so no link will be provided .
I heard wrong - penetration now forecast to be 62% in 2030 ( previously 45% ) .
This is pretty impressive …..,,World record: Toyota Mirai travels 1360km on one hydrogen tank
https://www.drive.com.au/news/world-record-toyota-mirai-travels-1360km-o...
Hutchy, are you a black hole? If so, you are clear evidence for the General Relativity prediction that information passing the event horizon is lost forever. In your case the event horizon seems to be about 1m from your body in all directions. Just in case I am recording my observations to pass onto the Journal Of Astrophysics.
Paris-Glasgow 1919-2021
They say that history does not repeat but it does rhyme or echo or behave in deeply weird ways that suggest events can be connected across the space-time continuum by some kind of wormhole or general quantum weirdness that is not yet even on the horizon of our understanding. So the connection 1919-2021, Paris Peace Conference - COP 26. Opportunities to end serious fuck ups and make a better world….and if the parallels are right, if COP26 ends up with some Treaty of Versailles level cock up……….
But let's not get too far into this. Let's not assign mere coincidence into some Blue Book weirdness until it has actually unfolded. But the signs are there. Times are not normal. If truly bizarre shit is about to unfold we need to be ready. We need to stare into the void, brace ourselves and hope things are not going to become totally unwired.
I'm talking major shit here. The sun blowing us off into the dark wilderness of interstellar space. The black hole at the centre of the Milky Way sucking in the whole grand shebang in a sudden sharp in breath that drags the whole fucking galaxy beyond its event horizon, drawing it out into nanospaghetti. Shit we could be talking about the collapse of the dark matter endo skeleton holding everyfuckingthing together, unravelling the entire fabric of the universe.
But it's late and yes I am a bit stressed so maybe I'm overstating things. Probably. Almost certainly. It's been a tough day. Maniacs on the highway, weirdos in the water riding strange surf craft that rise up out of the water and float like some sort of flying saucer, all the time bouncing up and down like a demented toddler who can't quite get the hang of a trampoline. And then Barnabubby on TV, suffering an intense anxiety attack, his eyes roaming wildly around in their sockets, unable to focus on anything, stuttering and spluttering, trying to drag the rest of the world into his own personal alternate universe, in desperate need of medication, serious medication, anti-convulsants, anti-psychotics, Valium, Librium, Endone, anything capable of relieving the psychic pain, of turning off the nagging doubts tearing what's left of his soul apart on national television. Anything that will help him cling to his delusions, help stop the ever increasing understanding that he is WRONG in every sense of the word, factually, emotionally, spiritually, financially, anything that will help deaden the sense that he is hanging out on a narrow rock ledge above a thousand metre drop in a howling ice storm. Freezing? Falling?
And Scomo, anaesthetised to the eyeballs announcing, through gritted teeth and a smile capable of curdling the milk of human kindness, that everything is just fine, that he is in control Winging it, making up the shit as he goes along. No logic, no consistency, yesterday it was a party decision, now it's …… well who knows? Barnabubby’s? A toss of a coin? A quick casting of the I Ching? Any fucking thing but rational planning based on the available evidence
Yep there he is, an adult man on prime time TV, talking absolute fucking crap, unable to make the simple moral judgement that going to Glasgow with something resembling a plan acceptable to the rest of the world is THE RIGHT THING TO DO! But no, he will appease the fossil fuel parasites crawling out of their foul nests at the chance for one last grab at the money tree that they have been feeding on for decades, while we watch on in the kind of deep psychological unease that usually precedes some kind of spiritual crisis in those still in possession of a soul, and the symptoms of acute food poisoning in the rest.
But it's time to get back to the point, it's here somewhere, just give me a couple of sentences or maybe a paragraph and I'll be into it. Something to do with the Paris-Glasgow connection. Oh yeh, it's the way shit has just jumped across a century and is ready to emerge from a conveniently located wormhole. Are we ready for a replay? Are we ready to witness the whole sordid business of a bunch of world leaders washing their hands of all responsibility but self-interest and the next election. AGAIN?
Good one BB. You and Blowin share one thing in common - an ability to spin a good yarn if you turn your mind to it.
Kindred spirits.
BB - I do feel that I am in a Black Hole whenever I read your posts and interact with you .
A feeling of dealing with someone in a parallel , upside down universe .
A comparison with Versailles and Glascow is appropriate . Two one sided meetings but hopefully Glascow won't lead to another World War .
As you point out there is no currently available absorption technology for CO2 . You are right to say planting trees and carbon capture and storage won't absorb enough . You are also right that humans will not sacrifice their current standard of living . Poorer people will also strive for a higher standard of living .
The International Energy Agency admits that most of the technology needed to get to net zero is still unproven or hasn't been invented yet . Green hydrogen at scale is hype from billionaires to enable them to get richer .
There is no such thing as emissions-free production of steel , cement , aluminium , meat , solar panels , wind mills or transport .
The current state of play means that net zero is impossible unless you have another absorption technology in mind ( which you refuse to reveal ) . Glascow will be just another jaunt for the rich and mighty and achieve nothing of substance .
I am very disappointed in our PM . Trying to turn green for a few votes . In 1974 Bob Menzies wrote to his daughter lamenting the rise of Liberals with a small "l" who " believe in nothing but will believe in anything if they think it worth a few votes ".
.
Just my opinion Connie. Style is subjective
Hutchy19. Crapping on until the Glascows come home.
Constance B Gibson wrote:Hahaha. Talk about false equivalence!
Flip sides of the same coin perhaps.
Hiccups - I like that reference to cows and crappy ! Very apt as the only thing it will produce is methane and shit .
It is the biggest story in Climate Change ( even without China attending ( I wonder why )) so you will see a lot more about it - burpa .
As BB is unable to come up with any suggestions on absorption technologies I will have a go at offering a different solution .
Storage of Green power .
It will not get us to net zero but it may help reduce CO2 emissions .
Producing hydrogen on a large scale is like storing energy . Use renewable energy to produce hydrogen ( which can be stored ) energy . I have big doubts that this can happen to provide peak power .
MEGA batteries are unfortunately not an option . There will be not enough lithium , nickel cobalt etc to even supply the small batteries for EV vehicles and homes .
The only mega storage option is Snowy 2 like projects . It is like a huge battery . Reversible turbines that pump up water during the day and letting gravity produce energy at night .
Good luck getting a hundred of these approved and built . Probably easier getting the greens to approve nuclear energy .
The recent estimate of $US 150 trillion to get us to net zero will obviously be spent on building vast Green Infrastructure . This will produce VAST amounts of CO2 . Vast amounts of CO2 will be needed to upkeep and replace this technology .
Without absorption of VAST amounts CO2 net zero is IMPOSSIBLE .
If ANYONE believes it can be achieved I invite you to explain HOW .
Here’s some incentive for you .
Elon Musk is giving $100 million to anyone who can find a way to pull carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere or oceans and sequester it durably and sustainably.
— Peter H. Diamandis, MD (@PeterDiamandis) October 18, 2021
Personally, I think $100 million is a bargain.
Once we get to net zero emissions the level of forcing from greenhouse gases will stabilise as the amount entering the atmosphere will be the same as that being absorbed by the natural processes of the carbon cycle. So reducing emissions is the highest priority. We have tried some industrial technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere but most have failed either totally or when there has been an attempt to scale them up to the level necessary to make a difference. It is worth a try but we cannot rely on a technology that has so far failed. Emission reduction to net zero is not only the main player in the game, it is the only player at the moment.
Hitchy, like I said previously, one of the best solutions for storage is off river-closed circuit-pumped hydro.
There are thousands of suitable locations for these arrangements. They can easily and quickly be filled by either pumping, Vic desal could fill a 1000ML reservoir in 2 days, or natural means. They can also be protected from evaporation. So once filled they’re ready to go.
Minor earth works, no need to destroy a river system or locate in a naturally significant area.
Typically operate at 80% efficiency. Which is 20% better than hydrogen. Output and duration can be suited to demand profiles.
The only issue is getting a company to invest in something that will only be required for use 5% of the time or less.
Carpetman - Thanks for reminding me ! You did and it is just like Snowy 2 on a smaller scale and much cheaper .
You must have a giant brain hutchy. From no idea how hydrogen fits into the picture to expert in 48hrs. Impressive!
The word dilettante is very pretty, If anyone can own it and make it sound like a good thing I’m sure you can.
Dawn - have no idea on Green hydrogen CO2 free energy . Please enlighten me !
Was surprised that it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than it provides .
Only benefit I assume is that hydrogen energy can be stored .
Ha ha ha, priceless ignorance.
Ha ha dilettante...
Hutch, this is the sort of thing you are looking for.
lol
BB - not looking for those but not surprised they are your suggestions .
They look interesting but would doubt their ability to absorb much CO2 .
At least you have come up with your fist absorption suggestion so I will refrain from criticism .
I will give you a C- for effort but will ask you to please try harder.
" Without tackling consumption and population, global warming won't be solved."
Not sure how you plan to cull humans but will remind you we will not solve global warming without CO2 absorption technologies either ( as you I expect you know ) . No absorption no net zero .
I am hoping the the $US100 million that Musk is offering provides a good incentive for someone to invent something that can work . It may also be a self promotion ruse as he believes it can't be done .
Also take a look at the Direct Air Capture method.
Iceland is leading the way. Baby steps so far, but in the right direction.
https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/worlds-largest-direct-air-capture-and-co2...
At this stage these technologies are largely irrelevant. As you say they are baby steps but to go from 4000 tons a year to 40 billion tons, which are the current emissions, is simply not going to happen in time to make a difference. Once we have net zero then the technology may be useful in returning to pre-industrial levels. I only posted the link to shut Hutchy up.
Hutchy 19 wrote:Dawn - have no idea on Green hydrogen CO2 free energy . Please enlighten me !
Was surprised that it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than it provides .
Only benefit I assume is that hydrogen energy can be stored .
Obviously you never tuned into Dr Karl on Triple J in the 90s.
It always takes more energy to produce another form of energy as you will always have a loss from the energy used to transfer the energy, even sending electricity down power lines you lose energy i think through heat.
The real benefit of hydrogen is its more than a stored energy its a fuel that has advantages over other types of storage, but it also has issues as a fuel, highly flammable and very hard to contain compared to other fuels we currently use like gas, petrol, diesel..
Sorry BB but you haven't shut me up as you hoped . I doubt if you have read the piece of helpful garbage you linked .
Le me summarise some of it . Norway is a small exporter of oil but is the third highest exporter of gas behind Russia and Qatar . The produce nearly all their energy from hydro ( 98%) .
So the make ALL their money ( continuing to fill the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world ) selling ALL CO2 producing energy to other countries while they pretend to be green using CO2 free hydro .
Wait , they get nicer . They won't talk about their plans to use FRACKING to get more out of their fields .
"However the Norwegian officials seemingly also avoided discussing another key aspect of their strategy: using the imported greenhouse gas to squeeze out more fossil fuels from declining reserves through a process called Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).
EOR revolves around injecting polymers or carbon dioxide into oil and gas formations to re-pressurize and displace more of the resource, thus allowing it to be captured by the extraction infrastructure. Although Norway is selling the CCS concept as a way to help save the environment, the CO₂ storage plan is actually a way of unlocking more oil reserves."
"Many environmental experts believe that without CCS, the objectives of the Paris Climate Treaty will be impossible to reach. However, its long-term consequences are still unknown. "
As I said no net zero without absorption . Long term consequences from this unprove technology unknown !!!!!!!! The Norwegians invited people over to " learn about evolving strategies ".
Wait there is more . The Sales director of some company said it REALLY works and can store all the CO2 in the world ( in our wells with chemicals so we get more gas and oil out - my words ) . This may be good enough for you to give it the Green light but not me . I am not that gullible .
Also Norway wants to make heaps more money for their Sovereign Fund IF it ends up working and fuck the long term consequences . As with vaccines the long term consequences don't matter and should not be considered .
She'll be right !
You really should read BEFORE you post to ensure you don't provide support for my views . But keep up the good work as you a being an invaluable help !
I did read it.
Blind boy is the latest post on 4 out of the 8 forum threads.
At time of posting
Beautiful
You are an idiot then .
What did you think of their idea to use an unproven technology to pump CO2 and chemicals ( Fracking ) to extract more gas and oil .
A REALLY good idea ?
I think if they can prove the technology works and that the long term consequences are minimal it could be a good option .
The Sales directors views should be ignored
What do others think ? Has BB finally come up with a good solution ?
I am REALLY interested to hear the views of as many as possible .
The COALition rolls on.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/not-a-pantomime-joyce-names-four...
Hutchy, I will give it one last try. There is no need to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to achieve net zero emissions. Emissions refers to the gases ENTERING the atmosphere, so removing them makes no difference. To state then that you cannot achieve net zero without CCS or a similar process simply does not make sense in terms of simple logic.
You make these very basic errors frequently. This morning you said you were surprised that it took more energy to produce hydrogen than could be obtained from burning it. This revealed a complete lack of understanding about the most simple concepts related to energy. Indo was kind enough to explain the problem to you later. Involving yourself in discussions in which you express strong opinions while demonstrating a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the subject invites disrespect.
Morning folks
Thought provoking analysis of the oil market, worth a read no matter the side one is on:
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/one-bank-crunches-numbers-oil-supplyde...
My interpretation was that new production is being underinvested in, for varying reasons while demand could vary but logic (people developing) seems to see a continuation of relatively strong demand.
"As we argued above, oil prices disconnected from marginal production costs already some time ago. Instead, they are searching for the level at which demand destruction starts to kick in."
Now getting to the demand destruction bit, I found some more cool tech last night on the hydrogen front. It appears Toyota has taken a 3-fold path. One might remember they ran the Prius hybrid as an environmental loss-leader for many years only to mature the technology and are cleaning up with it now. They have
Mirai - fuel cell hydrogen
Hydrogen Corolla - burning hydrogen in ICE
Prius Hydrogen - hybrid with an ICE I think?
https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/hydrogen-powered-toyota-corolla-an...
It's going to take different approaches combining to get to net zero emissions IMO, hydrogen could be really interesting. These cars are of interest as they do not necessarily require too much/any lithium or rare earths in the battery tech (anyone had a look at supply of these minerals vs anticipated demand with worldwide adoption? Hutchy at your work?) and could see conventional technology adapted to produce net zero transport in the case of the hydrogen Corolla. Wonder which will prove better?
Then, the energy generation/infrastructure chestnut.
.