Australia - you're standing in it
AlfredWallace wrote:Worth a read.
https://theconversation.com/no-costing-no-clear-timelines-no-easy-legal-...
AW.
Cheers AW...
Joke....
Coalition wanna sell & tax more Vapes for healthier donations.
Vaperz only heard = (Menthol / Mint Flavour) 85% of Vaperz instantly went Cold Turkey.
Industry sells Berry & that's wot volatile carcasses tbb cautiously picks up from the roadside.
tbb ain't gonna be picking up no Menthol Vapes...that's not healthy...gonna launch a compo claim!
Aussie Roadshow rolls on...
Pub Rock Wrecking Ball
Blow Up the Pokies Meat Tray Raffle
Die Diabetic Die Light'n'easy Stampede
Cancel Culture Concerts have been Cancelled
Don't know Testing booths at Albo's Raves
Long Queues to get Covid Queue is wearin' thin.
Torch yer Tobacconist Fireside Vigil
WSL VIP WSR Pub crawl smells fishy
PBS Anti Virals go Viral
Explosion of AC/DC Garage Band fans
'Dream Home Recurring Nightmare Tax' refunds for First Home owners.
Chem warehouse under the counter Vape Raves
Voldemort's End of all Eras Recital...'Oh please Master...exorcise tbb's demons!'
Will the last man standing shut down the Reactors Please...(Help like no one else!)
[L] Scomo : [ "I don't hold a hose Mate!" ]
We know you'll Vote for other Parties...(A Rainy Goodbye!)
[L] Dutto : [ "I don't know how much or how many I will Save" ]
Thanks AW. Good article. Very respectable researcher. big fan.
Legislation.
It's interesting that despite the ham-fisted blatant abbot-esque approach of the coalition election winning objections - opinion polls are trending towards favourable NE as part of the solution. It was the case before Dutton and remains so now after the Dutton announcement. Perhaps 10-20 years ago one could blame that on a Murdoch campaign of misinformation but that doesn't hold water now.
Its a significant hurdle to overcome the legislative ban/s but it not an unreasonable one given the trend.
https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/report/2024/climate-change-and-energy/
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/18/guardian-...
Cost.
"The CSIRO has said electricity from nuclear would be at least 50% more expensive than solar and wind, and would take at least 15 years to develop."
Is that really such a bad thing? what about when other factors are costed or considered? Habitat loss, energy security and a potential highly advanced technical industry development that is more than digging holes in the ground that provides jobs and opportunity for a STEM led workforce.
That 50% figure becomes a lot more rubbery when other (un)certainties raise their head e.g: NIMBY, war, pandemic, reliable trading partners/routes, legislation on mines etc
I am reminded of the 90/0 rule - 90% of effort (resource) is put into that last 10% of the project. its all clean sailing until shit hits the fan.
Time:
Let's be clear there is no way Dutton's (lacking) plan will ever address the emission reduction targets on the table for 2050. Let's also be clear - neither will Labor's. Further to that - there is a reckoning coming for the scientific methodology behind carbon accounting trading schemes and what that means on creative accounting net zero objectives.
For me the nuclear introduction is not about meeting those targets. It's about having an option as we approach that timeline (2030 and 2050) when the inevitable arises.
The frustrating thing is that for decades (thanks to johnny - so many ironies gotta laugh) we have been told by the environmentalists and anti-nuc mob that that "we don't have enough time". we have wasted nearly 2 decades because of that legislation and message meanwhile we are sailing past IPCC targets of 1.5C and on our way past < 2.0C.
We need to separate the scientific, economic and environmental pros and cons of nuclear energy from the political credentials of those who support or oppose it.
I am very glad we are talking about it and the implications of what it means to our landscape, economy and future. This conversation isn't going away.
bonza wrote:Thanks AW. Good article. Very respectable researcher. big fan.
Legislation.
It's interesting that despite the ham-fisted blatant abbot-esque approach of the coalition election winning objections - opinion polls are trending towards favourable NE as part of the solution. It was the case before Dutton and remains so now after the Dutton announcement. Perhaps 10-20 years ago one could blame that on a Murdoch campaign of misinformation but that doesn't hold water now.Its a significant hurdle to overcome the legislative ban/s but it not an unreasonable one given the trend.
https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/report/2024/climate-change-and-energy/
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/18/guardian-...Cost.
"The CSIRO has said electricity from nuclear would be at least 50% more expensive than solar and wind, and would take at least 15 years to develop."Is that really such a bad thing? what about when other factors are costed or considered? Habitat loss, energy security and a potential highly advanced technical industry development that is more than digging holes in the ground that provides jobs and opportunity for a STEM led workforce.
That 50% figure becomes a lot more rubbery when other (un)certainties raise their head e.g: NIMBY, war, pandemic, reliable trading partners/routes, legislation on mines etc
I am reminded of the 90/0 rule - 90% of effort (resource) is put into that last 10% of the project. its all clean sailing until shit hits the fan.Time:
Let's be clear there is no way Dutton's (lacking) plan will ever address the emission reduction targets on the table for 2050. Let's also be clear - neither will Labor's. Further to that - there is a reckoning coming for the scientific methodology behind carbon accounting trading schemes and what that means on creative accounting net zero objectives.For me the nuclear introduction is not about meeting those targets. It's about having an option as we approach that timeline (2030 and 2050) when the inevitable arises.
The frustrating thing is that for decades (thanks to johnny - so many ironies gotta laugh) we have been told by the environmentalists and anti-nuc mob that that "we don't have enough time". we have wasted nearly 2 decades because of that legislation and message meanwhile we are sailing past IPCC targets of 1.5C and on our way past < 2.0C.
We need to separate the scientific, economic and environmental pros and cons of nuclear energy from the political credentials of those who support or oppose it.
I am very glad we are talking about it and the implications of what it means to our landscape, economy and future. This conversation isn't going away.
Bonza. Thanks for your always sound and well researched comments.
Correct, this conversation isn’t going away, nor should it, to do so would extend Australia’s period of burying its head in the sand.
My personal conundrum, a bit of a battle within myself, is that I’m all for any sensible progression of renewables, be it solar, wind, hydro( I’m a bit sus on this one ) geothermal ,tidal etc.
I closely follow regions where raw materials are being extracted, the damage to construct roads on top of the Divide for wind turbines , mega dams for inappropriate agricultural/horticultural enterprises of species we shouldn’t be growing here in Oz, the list goes on.
I never agreed with really anything Slackjawedyokel posted before he fell under Stu’s hammer, alas he posted a mocked up photo of a child holding some cobalt in his hands that he intimated was heading for an electric vehicle.
We get the picture, But there is some truth to the message.
Globally , resource rich areas of the planet are having insane volumes of extractive
materials removed to manufacture this wave of all things renewable.
It’s worth noting that if you were to reconcile the amount of embodied energy required to supply, say from digging at the pit to actually driving your EV out of the showroom , the amount would astound most of us.
Balance this up against the pollution we already produce from other sources and I’d be interested to see how it stacks up.
An example, the Ertsberg and Grasberg copper and gold mines in West Papua, right next to Puncak Jaya and one of the last equatorial snow lines on earth, the Carstenz Glacier at 5500m, the environmental damage that’s been occurring there since 1957 by Freeport Mines (USA) is obscene.
So, do we keep spewing out carbon rich pollutants from historical energy plants and make the slow transition to renewables or do we speed it up.
I’m curious at how balanced the scales may be.
Out of curiosity in a medium sized wind turbine generator motor, the bit that spins internally, there’s a minimum of 4 tonnes of copper. That’s in one, do the sums if there’s 120 of them on a project my ex recently worked on.
I share Ian Lowes view, have always admired his contributions to science and the environment. I’d have to say I don’t know the solution, no Nuclear for me but I understand why Nuclear may be a yes for others.
Let’s not forget, mining the extractive materials, the production and the manufacturing of those products that fuel nuclear energy also have huge amounts of embodied energy use. Let alone the hazardous handling procedures and precautions. AW
Thanks AW.
Let's put aside the notorious criminal behaviour of mining impacts and consistent fails on post remediation despite recent attempts at legislation that allows companies to dissolve and restart as a new entity without consequence and what that means on the environment and taxpayer. Thats important to note because its the development of critical mineral mines that will navigate that risk in new and sensitive regions - not nuclear material - when compared at scale. Just to give some context of the impact of mining you only need to look to Gold. Alluvial dredging and sluicing throughout Victoria's former goldfields and or former pristine rivers and catchments is a travesty and legacy we continue to battel with today more than 150 years later. Taxpayers continue to pay for that in their council and water rates every month to this day. And it's far from enough to repair the damage of the erosion thanks to the historical land management of that industry that haunts landowners and agencies thanks to the sludge and slugs that continue to wind its way down our waterways.
For me it's an exercise in compromise as much as anything else. A good example of that is the lost opportunity in an economic robust simple methodology of polluter pays- aka carbon tax that was lost due to opposing political ideologies of the ruddon/gillard/abbott years. The result of that is that we have a perverse methodology of enviro markets fundamentally flawed yet flogged and legislated as the white horse of remediation despite being anything but.
we are potentially facing something similar. at the very least Labor could address the legislation ban.... while still sticking it to Dutton on the economic flaws... that would be a way to retain power, while showing big picture thinking, risk management and bipartisanship- if that is what they actually care about - holding power. I have no reason to think other.
Cost.
"The CSIRO has said electricity from nuclear would be at least 50% more expensive than solar and wind, and would take at least 15 years to develop."
These comparison's are close to meaningless solar, wind and batteries are not equal in what you get energy security wise to nuclear they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
And thats where the real value in nuclear is its in energy security and reliability, its not in oposition to wind or solar its completly complimentary to wind and solar its fills the shortfalls of wind and solar and even the shortfalls of batteries and pumped hydro.
There is few valid or equal carbon free comparison to compare nuclear with, maybe hydro, maybe thermal, in theory green hydrogen.
It needs to be a possible 24/7 continuous energy source.
Even comparing wind, solar with batteries is not equal because nuclear is only limited by the life of the power plant and its fuel, while batteries are limited by how much battery storage you have, but even if you wanted to do a fair comparison of only 48 hours of energy security you would need to work out the cost of wind and solar to produce the equal KW needed for enegy produced and then you would need to add in the cost of 48 hrs of storage from batteries for the costant output of the KW value.
BTW. With the world average whole process red tape included, construction time said to be 11 to 12 years and average physical construction time only 7 years, if there was poltical bipartisanship and a real will it could be built in the these world average times instead of typical Australian 15 years type time frames.
The black market for chemist supplied vapes can only exist due to the greens watering down Labor’s total ban. After October you will be able to ask a chemist for vapes and get them with no script. Chemists are so thrilled to become the new tobacconists.
These vapes will obviously be vulnerable to on selling to anyone and hence a black market.
I find the greens involvement in this bewildering and further evidence they are simply a fraud of a party using the environment as a cover for their personal agendas.
Being an ex nicotine addict and smoker from age 15 to 35, I commend any total ban on the deep down fine particle damage vapes do to the lungs.
It’s a tough time for Australian voters with no clear logical plans as all parties pull the Australian cart in different directions instead of in the same one.
Perhaps someone can start a new environment type party that actually plant billions of trees and design systems that aid agriculture, engineer and produce cheap modular eco housing and generally improve the life today of everyday Australians instead of going after anyone who doesn’t fit their ANTI judaeo christian lifestyle system…
….wouldn't it be nice to have an environment party that respected everyone else’s beliefs and allowed them the freedom to live as they believed without outside interference as long as they follow the laws of the land while planting all the trees back which in fact is the root cause of the all problems we have..
I would love to know the total amount of trees personally planted by all the leaders of the Greens party.
The earth will never heal without the trees…..end of story.
^ hahaha
"….wouldn't it be nice to have an environment party that respected everyone else’s beliefs and allowed them the freedom to live as they believed without outside interference as long as they follow the laws of the land while planting all the trees back which in fact is the root cause of the all problems we have..".
- nothin quite like a good ol story ay
.... float on captain planet ;);)
https://m.
Optimist wrote:The black market for chemist supplied vapes can only exist due to the greens watering down Labor’s total ban..
But you've changed the premise now?
From a mere black market, to a black market of "chemist supplied vapes".
I agree with your earlier premise that a black market will occur no matter what. It doesn't matter a jot what the Libs, Labs, or Greens do, that market will exist, same as it did for other semi-legal or illicit drugs - i.e marijuana.
Not sure how a black market for chemist-supplied vapes changes anything.
stunet wrote:Optimist wrote:The black market for chemist supplied vapes can only exist due to the greens watering down Labor’s total ban..
But you've changed the premise now?
From a mere black market, to a black market of "chemist supplied vapes".
I agree with your earlier premise that a black market will occur no matter what. It doesn't matter a jot what the Libs, Labs, or Greens do, that market will exist, same as it did for other semi-legal or illicit drugs - i.e marijuana.
Not sure how a black market for chemist-supplied vapes changes anything.
From my understanding there is a huge black market for regular cigarettes and tobacco, chop chop.
Prohibition does not work! Think we would have realised that by now. Some of the drugs that cause the most damage such as meth, fetynal etc probably would not exist if illegal drugs were decriminalised.
No one wants kids smoking or vaping, it's a huge problem in schools I know from first hand experience, but kids will get them whether illegal or not.
Education is needed, and harm minimisation.
There is no perfect solution, but by making things illegal, you support a criminal class.....
So you want freedom for people to choose and live as they want, and you also want things that people enjoy (and don't harm anyone else) totally banned?
Okay.......
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant in the first place the black market for chemist supplied vapes to kids via adults. I didn’t count the already thriving black market ….just the now legally activated one which will be exploited and could have been eliminated.
I’d think people should be free to smoke a good clean grown tobacco rather than those toxic chemical vape things. Thats a choice I think people should have if they want without being taxed into oblivion just because they have a habit they enjoy.
I also think that a person should be able to grow pot and tobacco at home within reason…. like just a couple of plants but it should be illegal to sell….personal use only….you can give it to a friend but selling illegal ….which would put the crims out of business and the hard drugs mostly gone.
It fascinates me that the Govt including Albos one locks up pot growers but grows and sells pot taxed like tobacco….. eg oil etc etc.
Friggin funny world eh……Australians have to be the most ripped off over charged over taxed people on earth…..and how do Govts get away with it ???
….cause Aussies are too nice.
Looks like Julian is now free.
Good news Mr Mac!
seeds wrote:Good news Mr Mac!
Indeed!
Optimist wrote:Sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant in the first place the black market for chemist supplied vapes to kids via adults. I didn’t count the already thriving black market ….just the now legally activated one which will be exploited and could have been eliminated.
I’d think people should be free to smoke a good clean grown tobacco rather than those toxic chemical vape things. Thats a choice I think people should have if they want without being taxed into oblivion just because they have a habit they enjoy.
I also think that a person should be able to grow pot and tobacco at home within reason…. like just a couple of plants but it should be illegal to sell….personal use only….you can give it to a friend but selling illegal ….which would put the crims out of business and the hard drugs mostly gone.
It fascinates me that the Govt including Albos one locks up pot growers but grows and sells pot taxed like tobacco….. eg oil etc etc.
Friggin funny world eh……Australians have to be the most ripped off over charged over taxed people on earth…..and how do Govts get away with it ???
….cause Aussies are too nice.
I would think most chemists will refuse to sell them. Bad for business when other customers are watching on.
Also, a pharmacy caused black market? One at a time? As now, with chop chop, it’s in boxes by the truck load.
I think the intention was for chemists to sell vapes to tackle the nicotine addiction process. Much like they sell nicotine patches. I think the problem with that, is that somebody forgot to tell the kids how cool it was to wear a nicotine patch.
No prescription means no medicinal purpose and in this regard no different to the old milk bar.
You can buy cigs/vapes now most places but can get em cheaper if you know.
Speaking of freedom.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/jarryd-hayne-will-not-face-a-fourth-tr...
Good stuff.
He’s paid a big price (and others) for exposing the illegal conduct of a government. All because it’s claimed that he risked the security of a nation.
Bollocks, and the judge has judged this never came to pass, in the years since.
Same shit happens here
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-25/richard-boyle-case-biggest-test-o...
bonza, I'm interested in your further thoughts on your statement - '.....there is a reckoning coming for the scientific methodology behind carbon accounting trading schemes and what that means on creative accounting net zero objectives.'
I've found myself working a bit in this space - to be clear, on a reforestation project that will generate carbon credits for trade in the voluntary market. Very different to other 'carbon credits' based on the very grey zone of 'avoided deforestation' - which I believe is generally a scam and should be scrapped. Difference with a reforestation project is it is very clear that new carbon sequestration is happening as the trees grow and this can be easily measured/verified (while acknowledging there are other complicating factors around baseline, additionality and leakage to take into consideration). A pretty basic scientific methodology behind that. Do you agree on that? And are you referring to the other 'grey zone' credits I refer to? Genuinely interested in your thoughts on the 'reckoning' as you seem to have some knowledge/experience with this. Thanks, GJ
seeds wrote:Good stuff.
He’s paid a big price (and others) for exposing the illegal conduct of a government. All because it’s claimed that he risked the security of a nation.
Bollocks, and the judge has judged this never came to pass, in the years since.
Seeds. Hi. Ditto. US military are a law unto themselves.
And we want to get in bed with them ? Meh!!!.. AW
He did plead guilty.
I’m wondering what conditions or information was in the plea deal.
Did the punishment fit the crime?
I don’t know. Time served covered the sentence.
There’s way more to this story than we’ll ever know.
etarip, good interview with one of his legal team on 7.30 ABC tonight. iview
GreenJam wrote:Difference with a reforestation project is it is very clear that new carbon sequestration is happening as the trees grow and this can be easily measured/verified (while acknowledging there are other complicating factors around baseline, additionality and leakage to take into consideration). A pretty basic scientific methodology behind that. Do you agree on that? And are you referring to the other 'grey zone' credits I refer to? Genuinely interested in your thoughts on the 'reckoning' as you seem to have some knowledge/experience with this. Thanks, GJ
Hi GJ,
Great stuff on your project. Reckon you know more than me.
I guess that is just one of many many problems I have with this market. It’s not basic. The systematic interactions and real world practicality of governance are highly complex and the market is failing to account for that complexity.
measuring soil carbon changes from management effort over time is notoriously difficult due to changing weather patterns and soil moisture. Is the carbon levels a result of management effort or a wet period? Given we are going to see more and increased hotter and drier conditions we also know that carbon will be lost from landscape.
In both these cases carbon credits are being awarded “freely” in the former and, not returned when a project has been awarded initially for credit only to see that carbon “lost” in the latter.
I’m guessing you are familiar with the Macintosh reports into these mechanisms?
Thanks mate. Full respect to your work.
thanks bonza, but I cannot take any credit for 'establishing' this project. I'm just a small bit player, and a little torn on it also... Pros and cons to it - yes, the work is establishing new diverse largely native forests (95% native species, I dont know why they bother with a few exotics, but that's another story...) on formerly cleared degraded lands and in doing so is employing poor locals and helping contribute to improved livelihoods for them and all the local environmental benefits... BUT, its ultimately about a very large petrochemical company playing the game to 'offset' their massive impact on the planet, and I believe the reality is it aint going to offset anything. Said company arent going to slow down or stabilise at current levels of activity (damage to planet), they are all about growth and profits... So my work is in one way supporting their continued damage... anyway, I think we all know this problem. My dilemma is obvious - we'll see how long I last. Other work will hopefully eventually be sorted and be far more appealing from that ethical equation.
yes, I hear you on the soil C - I'm not a fan of that either. I will likely learn more on that soon, as I believe our project will be trying to account for that.
And yes I heard about and followed up on the work of Macintosh when it came out a little while back, and was in full agreeance with his scathing assessments of it all. But again, the projects he was referring to were not about new tree plantings. I feel the whole thing should be pulled back to just that - new tree planting only. The rest is just a massive grey zone that has been proven ripe for scamming
and just on the weather changes you note, it'll be interesting to see how things are managed when all those type of scams Macintosh points to are burnt/lost if/when the big fires happen again...
Thanks GJ. That is admirable work - regardless who is paying you - and you will get some good outcomes regardless of the integrity of the carbon scheme.
I think my position on this is broadly covered by the following article.
"If they are to succeed, these kinds of schemes must be legitimate. To make these credits worthy of investment and tradeable, you need a governance framework, measurement systems, certification, registration, contracting, trading, monitoring, reporting, accounting, auditing, and a bureaucracy for administering, consulting and advising on all of it.
https://theconversation.com/would-a-nature-repair-market-really-work-evi...
The intent is good but it becomes flawed due to the sheer level of complexity that allows room for error, corruption and manipulation opportunity. You only need to look at the water trading scheme in the Murray Darling Basin to see the perverse outcomes from that scheme despite some good and early wins.
I think there is hope to improve these markets but they are inherently complex mechanisms that allows charlatans and corporations and polluters to profit at the expense of not only the environment but landholders themselves who may find themselves locking up land for no real benefit to them, emission abatement or biodiversity. I think there is opportunity in large parcels of degraded and or cleared land west of the divide, given all those things above are addressed - but this side of the range without significant aggradation of multiple smaller landholdings (super challenging) for the reforestation activities the market will struggle with uptake unless cronyism thrives.... highly likely.
We just need to reduce emissions. The best way to do that is to penalise polluters. That is a carbon tax. It's not a difficult concept. The kind of thing that incentives new technology and up take into renewables.
Instead we've got our politicians and senior bureaucrats on the kool aid using Nature Repair and other buzz words at every opportunity.
Supafreak wrote:
The sun is really just a big nuclear reactor bathing us in radiation, problem is we only get it's enegy half the time.
And the worst thing is, there’s absolutely no way known to be able to store that energy.
bonza
When we were sold the Green Transition Scheme , 15 years ago , there was NO mention of Electricity Prices going Up 4 or 5 times , as a result .
No explanation of US reducing Electricity or Air Cons , to reduce emissions .
No discussion on the disastrous effect this has , on our productivity as a Country .
U seem to want us to Reduce Business , stop driving and flying and put on a fn Carbon Tax , on Everything ffs !
We are now 15 years into the Green Shift and the rubber is hitting the road .
Let's see if Australia agrees with you , going Back to the Dark Ages !
Pop Down wrote:bonza
When we were sold the Green Transition Scheme , 15 years ago , there was NO mention of Electricity Prices going Up 4 or 5 times , as a result .
No explanation of US reducing Electricity or Air Cons , to reduce emissions .
No discussion on the disastrous effect this has , on our productivity as a Country .
U seem to want us to Reduce Business , stop driving and flying and put on a fn Carbon Tax , on Everything ffs !
We are now 15 years into the Green Shift and the rubber is hitting the road .
Let's see if Australia agrees with you , going Back to the Dark Ages !
Pop,
You could ask yourself a question.
What would the cost of energy be if we had decided to refurbish all existing coal fired power stations and build new CFPS to meet demand?
Cheers.
AndyM wrote:And the worst thing is, there’s absolutely no way known to be able to store that energy.
Batteries are great same with pumped hydro but they have severe limitations, they are short term storage soloutions because they are very limited in the amount of energy they can store, they are unlikely to ever provide the longer safety net of energy security needed.
Green hydrogen is a far far better means of energy storage because it is only limited by how much you can produce and contain, but to be viable you first need very large amounts of renewables to the point you have excess energy to turn to green hydrogen and it too has issues and big disadvantages when compared to gas.
Nuclear also compliments all the above and its energy can also be stored in all above forms if need be.
The smart mix is a varied mix, spreading the eggs into half a dozen baskets.
A Salty Dog wrote:Pop Down wrote:bonza
When we were sold the Green Transition Scheme , 15 years ago , there was NO mention of Electricity Prices going Up 4 or 5 times , as a result .
No explanation of US reducing Electricity or Air Cons , to reduce emissions .
No discussion on the disastrous effect this has , on our productivity as a Country .
U seem to want us to Reduce Business , stop driving and flying and put on a fn Carbon Tax , on Everything ffs !
We are now 15 years into the Green Shift and the rubber is hitting the road .
Let's see if Australia agrees with you , going Back to the Dark Ages !
Pop,
You could ask yourself a question.
What would the cost of energy be if we had decided to refurbish all existing coal fired power stations and build new CFPS to meet demand?
Cheers.
Lets prentend there was no such thing as global warming.
In that cases we would just go with coal and there would have been a stagering of new plants being built and older ones refurbished, we woupd most likely just have a very gradual increase in energy prices in line with the rise in cost of labour/wages etc.
Or , Lets not Pretend and just deal with the effects of Climate Change and Warming .
Thinking We can , want or are willing , 2 Change our impact on the Planet , is so silly .
Like , how much , when and who ?
Our Thermostat is not that effective , tested or agreed upon .
Then , what's the cost ffs !
Humans are roaming all over the Plant .
We leave big footprints .
The Planet can deal with it , so Live and Let LIVE :) imho .
indo-dreaming wrote:A Salty Dog wrote:Pop Down wrote:bonza
When we were sold the Green Transition Scheme , 15 years ago , there was NO mention of Electricity Prices going Up 4 or 5 times , as a result .
No explanation of US reducing Electricity or Air Cons , to reduce emissions .
No discussion on the disastrous effect this has , on our productivity as a Country .
U seem to want us to Reduce Business , stop driving and flying and put on a fn Carbon Tax , on Everything ffs !
We are now 15 years into the Green Shift and the rubber is hitting the road .
Let's see if Australia agrees with you , going Back to the Dark Ages !
Pop,
You could ask yourself a question.
What would the cost of energy be if we had decided to refurbish all existing coal fired power stations and build new CFPS to meet demand?
Cheers.
Lets prentend there was no such thing as global warming.
In that cases we would just go with coal and there would have been a stagering of new plants being built and older ones refurbished, we woupd most likely just have a very gradual increase in energy prices in line with the rise in cost of labour/wages etc.
Indo,
We cant pretend.
You have to include operation and maintenance costs over the life of the plant.
CSIRO Gen Cost Report claims coal is more expensive.
Salty
The Chinese are still building New Coal Fired Power Stations and are using the best quality coal from NSW .
They are also building Gas and Nuclear Power Stations for Base Load Power .
Qatar , with Gas reserves , use Gas , mainly .
We evolved using Cheap Coal , well managed , as the Chinese show , it still adds up .
Gas seems to be cleaner and like Qatar , we have abundant Gas .
At Least the Nuclear debate is discussing how the Old Coal Plants WILL be replaced , eventually !
Pop Down wrote:Salty
The Chinese are still building New Coal Fired Power Stations and are using the best quality coal from NSW .
They are also building Gas and Nuclear Power Stations for Base Load Power .
Qatar , with Gas reserves , use Gas , mainly .
We evolved using Cheap Coal , well managed , as the Chinese show , it still adds up .
Gas seems to be cleaner and like Qatar , we have abundant Gas .
At Least the Nuclear debate is discussing how the Old Coal Plants WILL be replaced , eventually !
Pop Down, Hi.
I’d be interested to hear what you define as best quality coal. AW
Pop Down wrote:Salty
The Chinese are still building New Coal Fired Power Stations and are using the best quality coal from NSW .
They are also building Gas and Nuclear Power Stations for Base Load Power .
Qatar , with Gas reserves , use Gas , mainly .
We evolved using Cheap Coal , well managed , as the Chinese show , it still adds up .
Gas seems to be cleaner and like Qatar , we have abundant Gas .
At Least the Nuclear debate is discussing how the Old Coal Plants WILL be replaced , eventually !
Pop,
The Chinese have a large population of cheap and expendable labour. And the emissions thing is a political topic.
Nuclear is best suited to high density populations, and the armaments industry.
We have low population density an abundance of sunlight and vacant land. We just need to upgrade the distribution system (which is being done) to cope with solar etc. As for gas, we cooked our own goose on that one.
Also, one political party (or many members therof) are of the belief the changing climate via warming is a plot to install a one world government etc etc etc, and have never really done much to establish renewable energy here, much to our detriment. That belief continues today.
Cheers!
We have one of the highest Urbanised Countries on the Planet , Salty .
With a City of 5 Million , Melbourne can't rely on Solar .
I don't like Transmission Lines that much , either .
In some cases , solar is fantastic .
Forget Nuclear imho as we can Still Cook with Gas !
The WEF love Climate Change haha and they think they already , Rule the World lol !
I am just amazed that , even IF Everyone Meets global targets , it takes a hundred years for CO2 levels to come down .
And that's a Maybe !
It's the Never Ending Story !
Pop Down wrote:We have one of the highest Urbanised Countries on the Planet , Salty .
With a City of 5 Million , Melbourne can't rely on Solar .
I don't like Transmission Lines that much , either .
In some cases , solar is fantastic .
Forget Nuclear imho as we can Still Cook with Gas !
The WEF love Climate Change haha and they think they already , Rule the World lol !
I am just amazed that , even IF Everyone Meets global targets , it takes a hundred years for CO2 levels to come down .
And that's a Maybe !
It's the Never Ending Story !
Pop Down, Hi.
Please explain why Melbourne can’t rely on solar !!! Thanks .AW
AlfredWallace wrote:Pop Down wrote:Salty
The Chinese are still building New Coal Fired Power Stations and are using the best quality coal from NSW .
They are also building Gas and Nuclear Power Stations for Base Load Power .
Qatar , with Gas reserves , use Gas , mainly .
We evolved using Cheap Coal , well managed , as the Chinese show , it still adds up .
Gas seems to be cleaner and like Qatar , we have abundant Gas .
At Least the Nuclear debate is discussing how the Old Coal Plants WILL be replaced , eventually !
Pop Down, Hi.
I’d be interested to hear what you define as best quality coal. AW
Edit. Do you know the ranking of carbon in the coal series ?
hello AW
With your super knowledge of Cell Structures , I don't need to explain a Base Load .
I want Melbourne to Grow and Prosper .
We need , deserve and should always have , Guaranteed Power , which is affordable .
Why NOT ?
We are a First World Country !
There are NO Batteries !
It could rain a lot , hail included .
A Big Volcano could explode in NZ .
A meteor could hit and we are fucked .
U can try and explain how it can , if U like !
I know that there is Met and Thermal Coal with different quality coals of both , with different levels of all different stuff .
Less crap in the emissions and the same heat means , better coal .
Thermal Coal from Newcastle , attracts the best price , due to its quality .
That's about it :) .
AlfredWallace wrote:Pop Down wrote:We have one of the highest Urbanised Countries on the Planet , Salty .
With a City of 5 Million , Melbourne can't rely on Solar .
I don't like Transmission Lines that much , either .
In some cases , solar is fantastic .
Forget Nuclear imho as we can Still Cook with Gas !
The WEF love Climate Change haha and they think they already , Rule the World lol !
I am just amazed that , even IF Everyone Meets global targets , it takes a hundred years for CO2 levels to come down .
And that's a Maybe !
It's the Never Ending Story !
Pop Down, Hi.
Please explain why Melbourne can’t rely on solar !!! Thanks .AW
Pop Down. Hi , thanks for reply.
We have the technology to manufacture anything.
If we take the current dialogue between all of us of late, Nuclear for example, we all understand the amount of technology, engineering, science and manufacturing to get a single reactor built is beyond a lot of our own comprehension.
If you extrapolate that across to solar, we can build whatever we need so as to be able to generate and store energy. It’s not the complexities of the systems, it’s the hurdles and obstacles in front of it all.
It’s still Governments and applied pressure from various factions, it’s people’s mindset, almost convincing ourselves that when the sun doesn’t shine we’re buggered, the historical context of a country built on the back of coal as its primary source of energy, its all these things combined to a point where we convince ourselves it can’t be done.
It can and will get done.
Why is there such a propensity to always think backwards and reconsider using fossil fuels when we know they are accumulative polluters. We should be looking forward to an extent and lead by example, otherwise we will slide further down that list of so called clean countries.
Surely we can do better.AW
AlfredWallace wrote:AlfredWallace wrote:Pop Down wrote:Salty
The Chinese are still building New Coal Fired Power Stations and are using the best quality coal from NSW .
They are also building Gas and Nuclear Power Stations for Base Load Power .
Qatar , with Gas reserves , use Gas , mainly .
We evolved using Cheap Coal , well managed , as the Chinese show , it still adds up .
Gas seems to be cleaner and like Qatar , we have abundant Gas .
At Least the Nuclear debate is discussing how the Old Coal Plants WILL be replaced , eventually !
Pop Down, Hi.
I’d be interested to hear what you define as best quality coal. AW
Edit. Do you know the ranking of carbon in the coal series ?
Pop Down.
From memory, geology studies .
Coal ranking series. From least polluting to the worst polluting.
Peat ~40% carbon, Lignite (light brown coal) . i.e the now defunct Anglesea power station, VIC. ~50% carbon, Bituminous ~60% carbon and the worst of all Anthracite, which may be more than 80% carbon.
Am I guessing your NSW coal you’ve referenced is lignite ? AW
A Salty Dog wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:A Salty Dog wrote:Pop Down wrote:bonza
When we were sold the Green Transition Scheme , 15 years ago , there was NO mention of Electricity Prices going Up 4 or 5 times , as a result .
No explanation of US reducing Electricity or Air Cons , to reduce emissions .
No discussion on the disastrous effect this has , on our productivity as a Country .
U seem to want us to Reduce Business , stop driving and flying and put on a fn Carbon Tax , on Everything ffs !
We are now 15 years into the Green Shift and the rubber is hitting the road .
Let's see if Australia agrees with you , going Back to the Dark Ages !
Pop,
You could ask yourself a question.
What would the cost of energy be if we had decided to refurbish all existing coal fired power stations and build new CFPS to meet demand?
Cheers.
Lets prentend there was no such thing as global warming.
In that cases we would just go with coal and there would have been a stagering of new plants being built and older ones refurbished, we woupd most likely just have a very gradual increase in energy prices in line with the rise in cost of labour/wages etc.
Indo,
We cant pretend.
You have to include operation and maintenance costs over the life of the plant.
CSIRO Gen Cost Report claims coal is more expensive.
I was only replying to your comment, im not saying its realistic to still use coal.
But the whole coal is more expensive thing is bullshit its not comparing apples with apples.
Coal powered energy generation is 100% proven, the cost for Australia to produce 100% carbon free energy 24/7 with no support from non renewables like gas cant even be costed its still theory only, countries that are close to 100% carbon free all have large amounts of hydro energy or nuclear.
Maybe one day things will be different but not for a long time, unless you have solar pannels your energy bill isnt going down anytime soon.
I still cant believe Labor tried to claim energy bills would reduce by $275 by 2025 and it was based on so called expert's data, we all know the opposite had happened.
BTW. Australia has the most roof top solar per capita in the world and it mostly happened under LNP and our renewable uptake rate has also been one of the fastest in the world during thr last LNP era. Article from a few years ago.
"Australia is the runaway global leader in building new renewable energy"
https://theconversation.com/australia-is-the-runaway-global-leader-in-bu...
John Hewson
The courage of a scoundrel It’s time to cut through the posturing and focus on Peter Dutton’s real strategy. It should now be clear the opposition leader’s basic motivation is a power grab. He will say or do whatever it takes to win the next election……………..His latest ploy has been to advocate nuclear power as an alternative to renewables. To understand this fully, it’s important to recognise Dutton doesn’t plan to implement this idea. He has three motivations. First, he aims to undermine the government’s energy transition, and second, to demonstrate he is capable of bold, strong, decisive, visionary and imaginative leadership, as a contrast to Albanese’s timidity and beigeness. He is, of course, ignoring the government’s Future Made in Australia plan, which he has denigrated since its announcement – he is certainly not willing to concede the vision of that agenda. Dutton’s third aim is to stick with coal and gas as a pay-off to his fossil fuel donors. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2024/06/26/the-courage...
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.