2020 Make a change

[Peter Ward]

Today marks the beginning of 2020, plus neatly ties into the end of my first quarter of EV ownership.

This was heralded by my quarterly bill from Origin Energy (punctual, if nothing else) for the princely sum of $2.65. Seems the PV panels on our roof have managed to drive our EV for over 2700Km in the same period, plus power our house/pool/aircon. It struck me as a fairly reasonable figure....even though we exported about 120Kw back to the grid more than we consumed.

Rather than pay like a heroin addict to dealers like British Petroleum, Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron for a weekly hit of automotive fuel, plus government coffers an obscene fuel excise and GST to burn fossil fuels and further bugger up the only planet we have, we now pay effectively nothing.
In Australia that's a rare decision (I have seen just one other Tesla model 3 in the Shire, and a hand full of S/Y variants). Only 1% or so of new vehicle sales are currently EV's. In Norway it is 60% and climbing. Norway’s 25% sales tax was removed from new EV purchases in 2001, and drivers were permitted to use bus lanes from 2005 and do not have to road pay toll fees. They actually want ICE powered vehicles off their roads as soon as possible. Fancy that. Really progressive and effective policy.

Australian EV buyers are offered zero incentives, still pay tolls, and have to pay about $7000 luxury car tax to support a car industry that no longer exists. It gets better, as the notion that EV drivers who do not pay fuel tax, should instead pay a road tax has already been floated. This duplicity and hypocrisy beggars belief.

My hope for 2020 is also that for the literally thousands of Aussies who have become de-facto refugees due the tragic bushfires over the last few days, that a few may ask: WTF?!

These fires had been modelled and predicted four decades earlier in a paper published in 1988 “Australian bushfire danger under changing climatic regimes” by Dr Thomas Beer (CSIRO). Yet the warnings went unheeded. Is this disconnect between Australians and what has proved to be excellent science, simply driven by ignorance or by greed? Perhaps both. In any event it was ignored by the likes of Fraser, Hawke, Keating, Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison. Oh...and the people who voted for them.

If the events of the summer of 2019/20 do not cause some to also actively pursue their local MP and Federal MP's and ask: why are you still approving coal mines? Why is there no thermal solar grid power? What are you doing to incentivise EV's? What will it take?

So...my NYE 2020 resolution is to get into the face of my MP's.

I am going to write to them. And really annoy them.

My hope is other IIS members might do so as well. Happy New Year!

[Wavytone]

Quite a few Tesla’s over my way Peter, in the upper north shore possibly more than Volvos or Jags.

Agree re the hypocrisy... might pursue that further with contacts in TfNSW.

[peter_4059]

While I agree with your sentiment, Peter I have two questions:
1. What powers your aircon at night?
2. How do you make jet fuel without making petrol?

Solve those and you might be on to something.

[multiweb]

Sounds good Peter but the big picture is not as simple as that. Renewables, solar, wind are not pilotable. If they had to provide the supply on demand the only alternative we know is battery storage and then they're not that green anymore. Solar panels manufacturing relies on a lot of various alloys, metals, chemical processes so do EVs. So to some extent everything we use and all our service industry relies on coal for electricity and petrol for transport. We sure need to cut our emissions. But solar and wind are a minute part of the whole energy used. We stop coal or petrol, we might as well turn all the lights off and stop moving. And we don't make solar panels either or EVs.

[Renato1]

Yep - we've never had bushfires like this before - except that the 100 years trend for bushfires is down instead of up, and while the current ones are bad, we've had far worse.

You cite a predictive paper from 1988 as proof, when even climate alarmists like Professor Andy Pitman are reluctant to link bushfires to Climate Change in the manner catastrophists do.
https://www.climatescience.org.au/content/395-links-between-global-warming-and-nsw-bush-fires

And, let's get lots more subsidies for solar panels and heaps more concessions and subsidies for electric cars, so that the poorest members of our society can pay for the elitist rich - so that the latter can virtue signal about how environmentally concious they are. The poorest pay the big power bills that subsidise the rich, but it's kind of hard for renters to afford to put up solar panels and take them with them when they have to switch houses.

As for your Norway example, despite the huge subsidies, as the Guardian article states, most electric cars are people's second car - not their primary car.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/02/norway-electric-cars-subsidies-fossil-fuel

So that the poor and poorer middle class people here would wind up subsidising rich people's $80,000 to $200,000 second car - given that the poorer are usually driving second hand $5000 to $20,000 cars - which is all they can afford to buy. I'm sure it would give them great pleasure to know their taxes are subsidizing all the Teslas in the richest suburbs.

Finally, you blame Fraser, Hawke, Keating, Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison for the current bushfire situation. If any of them had done the right thing by your logic and closed down ALL of Australia's fossil fuel power generation, what would have been the result of our grand sacrifice?

Answer - given that China alone typically adds as much coal-fired power in any three to eight month period as Australia's total capacity, result would be zilch. And with countries like India, Germany and Japan also furiously building new coal fired plants, the answer becomes double-zilch.

Regards,
Renato

[AndyG]

@Peter Ward
That's nice Peter, we're all really happy for you, and wish you God speed in your effort to persuade the local Pollies.

May I add a few questions to Peter_4059's list?

1. Who is the 2nd biggest exporter of oil in Europe (after Russia)
2. How would this allow Norway (Woops, I just answered #1), in subsidising their glamourous decisions, whilst the rest of the world burns said oil anyway?
3. How can I, with a single income house, mortgage and 2 young children partake in this exciting EV adventure? (I'd love to btw, because I feel really dirty driving my 4L Falcon ute). Maybe I should just "Step up" (?).

My Pathology Professor friend bought a Model 3 some months ago. He kindly offered to lend it to me for a week. He's a very nice guy. Seeing as though I don't have the dough spare to pay the insurance excess (should the worst have happened), I declined the opportunity. Pity - I would have enjoyed pretending for a week at least.

On a lighter note, my new years' resolution is to spend more time with my kids. Hopefully include (enslave?) them in the multitude of DIY jobs our house needs to stay standing.

Happy New Year to all :D

[Retrograde]

Utter nonsense. We've never had bushfires this extensive and long-lasting. These bushfires started in winter and have affected almost every state. We also have much more effective fire-fighting tools than ever before - aerial bombardment etc but they're still unstoppable. Rainforests have dried out and burned!



Rhetorical dribble.
Renewable power is set to drive the cost of electricity down and we'd likely already be there if it wan't for pollies working on behalf of fossil-fuel interests.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australians-to-save-on-power-bills-thanks-to-renewable-energy

I'm certainly not claiming that renewable energy is some sort of magic bullet but it's certainly a step in the right direction.



Dishonest absolutism. If we had a government that took the issue seriously we could've been well on the way to a planned transition by now.



This is simply wrong.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3005366/chinas-thermal-coal-imports-will-fall-10-12-million-tonnes-2019

Germany is not furiously building new coal plants. They plan to phase out all coal by 2038 and are investing big in renewables.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-energy-coal-idUSKCN1PK04L

If countries like ours did their share & didn't sabotage global agreements then the likes of China and India might make more of an effort too.

Climate change deniers have been wrong non-stop for a decade now and are just adding noise to the debate - not facts.

No doubt this thread will be locked very soon :(

[Peter Ward]

We have a Tesla II Powerwall. It runs the A/C just fine overnight.

In the 1970's during the first "Oil shock" the likes of Lockheed had plans for liquid hydrogen fueled engines. The low fuel density meant cryogenic tanks in the fuselage, but it was feasible. one and sundry decided it was doable when the globe ran out of oil :lol:.
Cost was the only real issue.
Not much has changed.

[Nikolas]

I can see this thread being closed in a few hours the way it is going

[Lucinda]

Peter,
I seem to recall (back in 2013) you signalling your intent to vote for the guy who platformed on repealing the carbon tax (Tony Abbot)?

[DarkArts]

On many forums and social media discussion groups (not mentioning any names), you will find politically-motivated "spruikers" regurgitating their standard talking points, sometimes with a little embellishment for colour. I have often wondered whether they do it out of ideological fervour or just for the money ... I suppose I will never know. The most common sort are climate change deniers and fossil-fuel advocates.

The science doesn't lie, but people do.

PS: This is my first and last post in this thread.

[Peter Ward]

@ Retrograde (Pete)

Thanks. On the money :thumbsup: and saved me responding to Renato.

BTW on the bushfire issue, my family has a couple of active RFS members.

Older hands at our local brigade, not to mention retired RFS State heads
who were wanting a summit with Morrison, all say it's never been this bad....

[Peter Ward]

Ah...you missed the irony. I think I listed all Oz PM's since the 80's. My
point being both sides are beholden to Coal/fossil fuel industries...and the national Australian pastime of apathy has let the political class do SFA about emissions for too long.

My hope is recent events will be the catalyst for real change...as so far nothing is happening

https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/Latest-greenhouse-gas-data

[Oddity]

Not entirely true; three major-party leaders on both sides of the isle attempted to do something about emissions (Rudd, Turnbull and Gillard); unfortunately all were quickly knived for their efforts by party powerbrokers because it wasn't the populist choice.

[Oddity]

Not entirely true; three major-party leaders on both sides of the isle attempted to do something about emissions (Rudd, Turnbull and Gillard); unfortunately all were quickly knived for their efforts by party powerbrokers because it wasn't the populist choice.

[Peter Ward]

Moot point. Either side has done nothing.

In 2017-18, fossil fuel companies donated $1,277,933 to the ALP, Liberal and National parties. This was up 32% from $968,343 in 2016-17 ($1.03 million in 2015-16). Yet given Australia’s political party's penchant for "paper bags" stuffed with cash and pathetic political donation disclosure rules, the true figure could be an order of magnitude higher.

I wondered: did these donations have an effect? If you consider: tax-based subsidies, direct contributions, concessional loans from the public purse to fossil fuel producers and in pathetic environmental laws, the answer was a resounding yes!

Schmoozing of the Australia political class, according to Origin Energy's CEO Gordon Cairns, at their political functions is "money well spent".

[Oddity]

Again not true. The ETS was not "nothing".

I am going to reiterate my previous post into list 3 historical facts:
1) Only one party has implemented a major action (ETS) and were voted out because of it.
2) One party was elected when their leader at the time had a clear repeal-ETS platform.
3) That same party was reelected despite the fact their present-day leader once carried a lump of coal into parliament, while the other party in this year's May election had a significant election platform based on clear action.

Without getting into who voted for who, to state that both parties are equal in their inaction is plainly untrue.

[strongmanmike]

I love the way people try to say "ah they're all the same" or "Both sides of politics are to blame" etc But on several issues, particularly this one, that is just embarrassing Bollocks, usually uttered by people who are worried about this, worsening issue, but are subtly ashamed of how they generally vote....it's called a politicised issue and it makes them feel less culpable.

Mike

[Peter Ward]

A look at the Cape Grim (aptly named) and Mauna Loa data (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/)shows global emissions are rising.

So explain to me again how you see Cap and Trade schemes as effective?

Despite much government posturing about on-again, off-again 1.5 billion dollar "Clean Energy Flagship" programs, they only appear to have kept rooms-full of Australian bureaucrats employed.

Australia has but one thermal solar power station. A 9.3 MW facility that has been added to the Liddell coal-fired power plant in NSW. Here is the kicker....it is used to pre-heat feedwater for the coal-fired power station.

Rather like humping (I had to clean that up) for virginity.

[Lucinda]

Not just the ETS.
Another big factor was the NBN which, had it been properly implemented would have had a serious impact on Murdoch's satellite subscription service.
The coalition undertook to sabotage it.
So Rupert undermined the government of the day using any means at his disposal. ie) Manipulating public opinion in order to influence behavior at the ballot box.

[lazjen]

There are methods to make jet fuel carbon neutral by using Solar, H2O and CO2 as inputs. Plants to do this are ramping up after pilot studies to prove the process. If you're interested in details, do some searches and you'll get the details.

I will be switching to an EV when I can, but it has to be a real, practical vehicle for me, something like the Rivian for example. A Tesla, while it looks nice, is just useless for what I need.

And, while I do have decent solar now and almost cover our usage, I will also ramp up my system when I go to EV as well (that may happen earlier for other unrelated reasons).

I think our government(s) have let us down over the years and have made things worse for us overall (we could be an energy exporting superpower by now). It seems we will have to work around the stupidity of our government and implement the solutions ourselves as best we can. Where possible use your wallet as a tool to fight back - and make sure it's known why you are doing it.

[Peter Ward]

Bravo Chris!

[peter_4059]

"aviation biofuel production of about 15 million litres in 2018 accounted for less than 0.1% of total aviation fuel consumption."

Interesting article here....
https://www.iea.org/commentaries/are-aviation-biofuels-ready-for-take-off

[Retrograde]

Acting individually is to be commended and is definitely worthwhile but without political action many of the world's biggest companies will simply keep on spewing out emissions.
Putting all the onus back on the individual is exactly what they want. Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change



All sides of politics deserve opprobrium for their failures but only one side of politics has consistently stood in the way of action using every dirty trick in the book.

[Lucinda]

Well, I agree that their money does influence policy.
I also agree that the money goes to both sides of political spectrum.

But!
Context is everything.
Which side gets 80% of the donations from the mining, energy (and banking) sectors?
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/political-donations-mining-hits-back-at-labor-20150205-1372gf.html

[multiweb]

What he said. :thumbsup:

When will people realise like it or not that our whole society is built on fossil fuels. You can spin it any way you want or keep arguing about it until you're blue in the face, to date we have not found any substitute. When you're talking about renewables you're only talking about the end product, a delivery mechanism that transforms one source of energy into another one that machines can use, that itself needs to be built from resources mined, transformed and transported to be assembled and delivered. All this requires a lot of energy and to date it's fossil fuels. Not renewables. We were 100% renewables in the past. We had wind mills and water wheels. If it was that good why did we move to fossil fuels?

[Peter Ward]

Google tells me fossil fuel companies are obscenely rich.

In 2018 their global revenues were around $US3.7 trillion. To put that number in perspective, about triple the entire GDP of countries like Australia.

More than enough to buy the entire country, let alone a few Australian political-party favours.

That said my own sample of one, at an individual level you can curb your emissions....save significant $ and ruin their business model. My hope is this ripple will turn into a Tsunami.

[Lucinda]

There is no single answer to that, but in no particular order:

Convenience.
Corruption.
Energy intensity.
Greed.
And, operating in an environment where you can avoid taking responsibility for the deferred costs (like the effects of pollution).

It's now clear that with respect to that last point, if on the other hand, we live in a world where we do eventually have to pay the deferred costs (enhanced bush fires, flooding, drought, ocean acidification, biosphere collapse, coral reef bleaching, famine, climate refugees, sea level rise, etc, etc) Then fossil fuels are not the panacea the industry would have you believe.

There will come a point, and it will probably be in our life time, when the costs are higher than the benefits.
Unfortunately, when we reach that point there will be no turning back the clock and we will all collectively keep paying those costs indefinitely even if we decide globally to stop burning fossil fuels.

[Outcast]

So Marc,

Whilst what you state is completely true, are you suggesting that we should just shrug our shoulders & say, well, nothing can be done as yet so, we'll do nothing??:shrug:

Or, we transition what we can to renewables, paving the way for greater research, more affordable prices & looking at future ways to remove or at the very least significantly reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels?

It has to start... if it doesn't start... it will never get going, the research won't happen.... we won't fail & thus we won't learn..

We can't wait until we have the perfect solution to everything... we haven't in the past why do we have to wait now with this argument that you & others seem to present.. oh, we can't do this & we can't do that... seemingly indicating we should simply wait til we have all the answers...

So yes, you are right, we can't just snap our fingers & change overnight but, we could have been transitioning years ago & likely we would have then made more progress in the more challenging areas.. interesting irony for you BTW... a lot of mines use, wait for it... electrically powered digging machines & haulers..... LOL.... so, actually, what you say isn't entirely correct...

There is already considerable advances on electric aircraft, short haul 800 - 1000km range which could be considered for use on short point to point hauls even in a country as big as ours.. there is so much work going on the world to transition in a smart fashion to better energy sources.. the more the uptake, the more challenges for researchers, becomes a capitalist market & voila... suddenly, the technology begins to emerge...

Right now, it's why bother challenging the status quo... coal & oil works fine.. oh, we can't do much on our own, that little effort makes no difference & a plethora of other convenient excuses..

Do I own an electric vehicle.. well, no I don't.. but, then, I live in Cairns where although there is infrastructure for charging in our little regional town.. if I want to go further than Townsville right now.. I can't... however, when the technology & infrastructre & cost allows, I will happily move to an EV...

Imagine if the Apollo program took the approach we have to renewables... suspect we wouldn't have gotten to the moon.. Look at the progress aviation made after the Wright Bros... look at the automobile industry after Ford made the ICE car affordable...

Same will happen with alternate power... make it affordable, increase the uptake, companies will undertake further research.. becomes even more affordable.. the market then begins to dictate.. the research ramps up even more... & suddenly.. we are there..

Same thing happened in the Industrial revolution when we replaced the wind & waterwheel renewables... same thing can happen again.. if there is a political will to allow it... which right now, together with a general malaise in society there just isn't...

It's called progress... we've done it before because we both wanted to & needed to... now the need to has never been higher but, our want to... is sorely lacking...

[The Mekon]

Sure you an Peter, as long as you are as wealthy as you are, you can substantially reduce your "carbon footprint" because it was so high to start with! I reckon I could do just as well as you without having any fancy solar panels, EV or whatever else, just by planning my lifestyle better and living more frugally. And if you ask anyone who knows me, they will say that is just what I do. Our electricity consumption is less than half what they reckon a 2 person household should consume, I ride my bicycle whenever I can, or a motorbike that does 100 mpg.

The virtue signalers in our society appear to totally ignore the aspirations of thousands of millions in developing countries.

[multiweb]

Energy intensity. Yep. You can't support the world machines supplying ~7billion people living like we do with wind and solar.

Good day Carlton. I don't have an answer to the world energy problem. But what I'm sure of is that sinking money into renewables is definitely not the solution. It's very fashionable nowadays to talk about wind and solar. Makes people feel good about themselves. That's pretty much all it achieves. Numbers show that it's only a very small part of the total energy consumption.

The money would be better spent in fixing what we have. There is technology now to capture C02 emissions from a coal fired plant. It requires energy. About 30% of its energy output. Let's start doing that first before scrapping our only reliable source of electricity. That'll buy us some time while we think about fixing the rest one step at a time.

[CeratodusDuck]

Take the US military offensive (it’s not defence that’s for sure) budget of almost $800 billion US per year and I dunno - put that into research for saving this planet...

But nope, still need to let oil companies make billions while they still can.

[Outcast]

Yes, far better to just carry on as we are.. that will work out just fine eh...

Or perhaps we virtue signallers might just start to effect change across not only our small sector but, across the world thus making it possible for the thousands of millions in developing countries to also achieve their aspirations... like, I don't know, perhaps actually being alive in the future.. no?

Have we considered their aspirations in our goal for cheaper prices? What about when we dump our plastics on them? Or pretty much anything the western world has done to advance itself.. that's had a pretty positive impact on the aspirations of 3rd world developing nations now hasn't it...

Or maybe they aspire to mass extinction... as the developed world currently seems to be content with moving towards...

See, it's not just about 'climate change', it's far more complex than that.. it's Ocean acidification as the CO2 uptake increases reducing & in some cases killing off marine stocks, it's the continued destruction of the ecology of our world, it's about the dumping ground we have turned our habitat into in the drive to have a 'more convenient' world to live in without acknowledging that our actions have always had & will continue to impact upon (generally in a negative way).

It's about everyone doing what they can (either as they can afford or, is practical to their circumstance)... what is so hard to grasp in this concept?

This in fact was the premise of the Kyoto & Paris accords, wealthier countries assisting poorer countries to improve the overall global state.. funnily enough, that's what all the developed countries & most of their inhabitants object to!! How dare we consider the aspirations & economic status of developing nations when considering how to tackle environmental impacts of our lifestyle...

Or we can just continue to do SFA... as seems to be the overwhelming theme in this thread... sigh...

See, it's not about saving our planet... as many skeptics are keen to point out, we've had billions of years of climate change, gee, don't you know, once upon a time the earth had way more CO2 than it does now.. yep... we weren't here though so, net effect on us was zero... but, there was an effect.. 97% of all life on earth became extinct during the P-Tr Extinction is one example...

It's about continuing as a species... why is it that no-one actually seems interested in this... afterall, I would have thought that was a common aspiration of every human... regardless of origin, economic status or otherwise..

[Outcast]

Actually Marc, I disagree.. there are significant models currently in existence that show that moving to solar & wind will have a substantial impact upon the problem.. there are right now, countries investing in solar farms within our own country to address their energy concerns.

Interestingly, South Australia, now under an LNP government who lampooned Jay Weatherill's renewable targets has just upped the anti on it's renewables target... see, you know that battery that Elon Musk delivered (that one everyone laughed at)... it paid for itself in under one year & the SA grid is the most stable it's been in decades.. now who'd a thunk...

In fact, South Australia is so convinced, it just incentivised battery installation for home use... probably just making themselves feel good I spose...

I can (& will if necessary) produce large numbers of quotes from energy generators who see Wind, Solar (and other yet to be discovered renewable sources) as the most cost effective means of continuing their own business.. hmmm, since their goal is staying in business & making profits.. seems interesting that this is the way they themselves want to move...

My point is.. we can actually make a difference with what we have now.. so, instead of waiting for that perfect solution.. why the hell don't we just start going there... If we continue to just sit here & spin the wheels, I'm pretty sure we all actually know (even if many don't want to admit it) where it's gonna head.. & it ain't likely to be pretty...

FWIW, there is one, grand total one coal fired plant using carbon capture in the world... despite all the claims of clean coal technology... it exists sure but, has actually only been put in place in one coal fired plant & on only one stack in the entire world... why, because the net return on investment is crap... wanna know what they do with the CO2 they capture? They inject it into oil wells to free up the stubborn oil deposits..

Suggest you do some more reading on Clean Coal my friend... sure, it's possible but, is it worth it? If it was, I'm pretty sure there would be more than just one plant in the world currently actually using it...

I'm gonna bow out of this topic.. I continue to not understand how a species can be so ambivalent towards it's own survival.. (Not specifically directed at you Marc)...

Sorry, I just don't get it...

[Lucinda]

Well, you absolutely cannot do it for much longer with fossil fuels either!

And this also pre-supposes that the modern western lifestyle is something that everyone should aspire to anyway.

The claim that renewables are ineffective says more about our lack of commitment to the transition more than anything else, and that is a perfect reflection of priorities.

For example, since its inception in 2012, the CEFC has made loan and equity commitments in the order of 1/2 $Billion per year (in renewable energy infrastructure) That's not even technically investment.
source:
https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/australian-renewable-energy-investment-em6028/

Contrast that to the $8 Billion a year in fossil fuel subsidies in this country (corporate welfare handouts) and the $20 odd billion a year in tax breaks given to the Australian LNG industry alone.
From the perspective of the general public, we spend $26 Billion a year just betting on horse racing and other sports, and that doesn't include the millions spent actually playing or watching those sports.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/proof-australia-is-a-nation-of-punters-with-a-record-26-billion-spent-on-race-and-sports-betting-this-year/news-story/185afbebc8ddf4858e9e2e528d015d79

[Wavytone]

Has been and is being done across Europe - and quickly. UK has closed the last of its coal-fired power stations. It uses a mix of nuclear, renewables couple with water storage dams/hydro generation, and gas-fired turbines to meet peak demands.

Only compelling need for coal remains steel production, for which there really is no alternative for the Bessemer process. The rest is economic, not a technical challenge.

Australia could make the switch in under 10 years and possibly 5 if the will was there from the government - but it seems the federal government has turned its back on this subject. AEMO doesn’t want the change either.

[Lucinda]

Well.
Solar might be commercially viable in countries like Germany and the UK,
but we don't have access to large tracts of land for solar farms nor do we get nearly as much reliable sunshine here in Australia as they do in Europe.

It would just be a colossal waste of money I tell you!

;)

[DJT]

Damn..I switched on my 5KW system 2 weeks ago which is enough to make me net neutral in a household of 2.in fact the way we live means I pump lots back to the grid. (Thanks Peter)

After grants it cost $5.5k. We don’t run airco..


I had no idea I would become a Virtue signaller..help..


I also work in an organisation which invests big time in making their properties self sufficient on energy and which also invests in tech to reduce usage in the first place reducing running costs and their carbon footprint.


It really is going to take individuals and organisations to make the changes that need to be done, 1 panel at a time if needs be. The government of the day certainly won’t.

[strongmanmike]

Carlton, incredibly frustrating huh? :doh: :sadeyes:

Mike

[Outcast]

Okay, I lied... I can't quite bow out just yet...

Yes Sir, it is...

I'm waiting for someone to throw in how our economy will crash if we stop exporting coal.. you know.. how the loss of a grand total of 2.2% contribution to our GDP will lead to economic ruin for us all...

Coz, you know, that's what the LNP & Labor & every other nutbag is selling the average punter on why Coal is good...

[Outcast]

:thumbsup: Yep... hence why I have a 10.8Kw system going on my roof this month... 5 years to pay off investment & then direct savings of between $1800 - $2300 per annum.. (obviously dependant upon weather conditions across the year & changing some of our power consumption habits) sadly, we have to run aircon at least half the year... 34 degrees & 80 - 95% humidity ain't much fun without it...

10.8 Kw on the roof, 8.2Kw inverter is basically hedging my bets on batteries coming down to an affordable price/government incentives such as has occurred in SA just recently plus taking advantage of soon to be non-existent STCs...

Guess I'll just have to join you in signalling my virtues... :lol:

[Outcast]

:rofl:

[Peter Ward]

According to Geo-Science Australia " The Australian continent has the highest solar radiation per square metre of any continent and consequently some of the best solar energy resource in the world".

With pubic awareness and leadership, the west of NSW/QLD and northern VIC/SA and much of WA could be the *thermal-solar powerhouse of the globe.

*Heat significant quantities of super-saline liquid to well above boiling point.

Run a heat exchanger through them, make steam, drive a turbine.
With a big saline storage tank, thermal inertia means it works 24/7 i.e base-load power. No emissions. Not my idea. UNSW.

As for the cheap shots at myself for reducing my footprint to into negative territory....well...some mother's do 'ave em. ;)

[Outcast]

And there in a nutshell is the problem Peter.. :mad2:

[lazjen]

When I mentioned carbon neutral jet fuel, I wasn't referring to biofuel. I meant a "true" neutral system like:

https://www.solarpaces.org/how-desert-solar-can-fuel-centuries-of-air-travel/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-neutral_fuel

Note that this is not a cure for climate warming, but it does stop the need to pull oil out of the ground, refine, burn, etc - which is obviously not carbon neutral.

We NEED something like this for air travel, because it will be many years before the battery energy density gets to level required to make electric planes truly feasible (we're at about 1/20th the energy density required about now - some near term gains might jump that by 5 to 7, but still a long way to go).

It beyond infuriates me that, once again, this could be another industry we have in this country with multiple benefits: jobs, reduce imports of oil, potential exports of this fuel, reducing (added) carbon emissions.

And I would not be surprised if this fuel could be used in other creative ways as well.

So, with this, plus an abundance of land for solar panels (+ batteries), just why the ^&$# aren't we exporting energy to the world?

[lazjen]

Don't know if you've seen this: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/14/just-a-matter-of-when-the-20bn-plan-to-power-singapore-with-australian-solar but if it goes ahead, it's a great step forward.

[Peter Ward]

Now for some interesting numbers. There are around 80,000 members of the Australian Liberal party, (current government ) and
16 million registered voters. Simple arithmetic tells us just one in 200 voters are actually party members that create policy and put up their ilk to be voted into parliament.

Think about that.

Go into a crowded Woolies, Coles or Aldi store...and you probably won't pass by someone who actually has pre-selected a "candidate" .

One nation has just 5000 odd members...less than that subscribed to IIS :sadeyes:

Indeed, just half of one percent of voters determine who will be the actual individuals in our government.

So....next election and some party prat gets up and says "vote for me"
Make them answer some hard questions and work to represent you...and I'd also say the future of our planet....or give 'em hell!

Don't for a minute think there is some god-given right for only the Coke and Pepsi parties to rule.

[peter_4059]

"According to the SOLAR-JET Project Coordinator at Bauhaus Luftfahrt, Dr. Andreas Sizmann, a solar reactor with a 1 square kilometer heliostat field could generate 20,000 litres of kerosene a day. This output from one solar fuels refinery could fly a large 300-body commercial airliner for about seven hours."...promising technnology but sounds like it has a way to go.

[PRejto]

I suppose this comment is quite off-topic, however whilst we can argue endlessly about the bush fires and possible connection to global warming the fact remains that Australia has always been a relatively dry continent. It may very well be getting worse. I very much doubt that even were all the countries in the world to suddenly agree to reduce emissions drastically that we would ever live to see a reversal of this drying/heating trend. In fact, all one commonly reads is that we might be able to slow the temperature rise. Thus, it would seem that whatever we might do about climate change is going to be a long term problem and solution, if there even is one.

But Australia's current situation demands much more immediate attention with respect to water. I am just gobsmacked that no government has had the courage or guts to go after this issue. I look at the Hoover Dam project in the USA and marvel that it was started during the great depression. That took guts, put people to work, continues to supply vast amounts of water to the arid Southwest, and in addition supplies hydro-electric power. There are certainly areas of Australia in the North that could harbour dams of this magnitude where the majority of water just flows directly into the ocean. If Libya can pipe water across their whole country why can't Australia use a system of dams to fill the river systems? Water and clean power could transform this country. It certainly won't end a drought but surely it would mitigate many of the risks. Even a government opposed to the validity of the climate activists claims could embrace such a project. In my view we have over populated the planet as a direct consequence of our industrialization and scientific progress. I believe our best immediate course of action is to mitigate what we have done to ourselves in the short term while not ignoring the necessity of long term policy with respect to the environment. Neither is happening and that is an utter disgrace as is the sad fact that the NBN is the largest infrastructure project in Australian history. What a ridiculous populist project this has become in the face of other vastly more important potential undertakings! While I understand the passion of both sides of the argument re energy production, compared to the water problem, the debate almost appears trivial.

Peter

[Outcast]

Indeed true Peter but, right now there is no real alternative at the ballot box that can form a functional government...

Unless the collective population get's off it's lazy butt to demand real accountability & to force government to actually govern for everyone then I fear nothing will change.

Right now, I'm not seeing the collective will of the people to force that change..., they seem more interested in reality TV, neverending tax cuts & what's in it for me as an individual to the expense of anyone else...

[Eternal01]

I partially agree.

The problem is that the issue of climate change is complex and politically has become too polarising.

Based on my understanding of the science of climate change we can expect greater climate extremes which, when applied to Australian conditions, translates to more extremes droughts, fires and floods. This in turn will have a profound impact on our food security and economy.

Whilst I am 100% behind renewable energy, electric cars and subsidies for renewable energy, it is only part of a broader suite of issues that need to addressed.

[skysurfer]

Because we are too greedy, particularly the rich. What I miss in the energy discussion is: do we really need so much energy ?
Aircons are one of the worst offenders. These devices are the 100 year old inefficient Carrier design.

https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/global-cooling-prize-india/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/india-air-conditioning-ant-studio/index.html

The second article tells about pre-aircon ways to cool buildings.
Addintionally, why not adapt our construction styles such as white painted roofs, or more green lush in cities ? More trees in cities cools better and are a CO2 sink as well.

Aviation ? Air tickets are heavily subsidized due to the Chicago Treaty of 1944 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Convention_on_International _Civil_Aviation) because air tickets are exempt from GST and fuel is exempt from excise.
With the current low prices this is not anymore of this era.
Remembering myself: In 1986 I payed 1100 eurors (not inflation corrected otherwise it would be 3000 euros) (A$4500) for a roundtrip Amsterdam-Sydney and recently I booked the same route for upcoming Feb 2020 which is ... EUR 1100. And most air tickets barely increased in absolute price, but decreased strongly when inflation and income is taken into account.

So taxing and excising air travel is one thing to do. And short haul flights within EU with low cost carriers (e.g. Ryanair) cost in some cases even less per kilometer then a cheap international ticket 5-10 times as far away.

The next step is using synfuel (and not biofuel, because that costs lots of agriculture area which is not available for food).



CO2 capture devices are already there, those are called trees, but we are felling them in large amounts like in Brasil, Borneo and, helped by global warming, they are right now being burned away in half NSW and Victoria.

[skysurfer]

Huh ?
Australia is the most sunny continent on Earth. Almost as sunny as the Middle East and the Sahara (which are not continents in itself).
Europe receives a lot less sunshine, particularly in winter.

So building large solar plants (with collectors and PV) converting to hydrogen, would be a large export product of Australia.

[Outcast]

I think you may have missed the sarcasm font... :rofl:

[lazjen]

Both energy and water are important. And we have the technical means to solve both problems, but lack the political spine and brains to get it done.

Besides fixing up how and where we use our water, we have to move from our current system of waiting for rain, to water generation and delivery.

Will it cost a crap load to get it done? Yes, but the benefits far outweigh the problems with our current approach. And with some smarts we could be generating money from this as well (in the long term).

[Astronovice]

If the world was populated by pragmatists the obvious option would be to build one generation of nuclear plants to replace the current fossil fuelled generators. This could eliminate totally all carbon emissions from power generation and transport whilst buying time to develop renewables and energy storage options to the level required to replace that nuclear generation in 40 years time - being the average life of a nuclear station.

I know that many of you will rail against that option but as said previously it would allow the replacement of both fossil fuelled power and transport and buy us time.

Having worked in nuclear power in the 1980’s before coming to Australia from the UK i am aware of all of the associated risks and arguments, but I can say that the station I worked at still churns out around 1200MW every hour day and night and will continue to do so until it’s planned closure in 2022. Nuclear power has been around since the late 1950’s and has proven that when it is well designed (Fukushima wasn’t) and well operated (Chernobyl and Three Mile Island weren’t ) it is safe. It does have a long term waste storage legacy, but at least we would have a viable planet to live on.

[Outcast]

Peter, apologies but, I've broken up some of your thread to address a number of your points... Indeed what you say is generally very relevant however...

Australia is indeed the driest continent in the world however, you simply cannot ignore that 'climate change' or more accurately, man's acceleration of a natural cycle is also in part responsible for our land, indeed our planet getting drier..

The water problem could certainly be managed far better but, it's not as simple as you might think.. the idea of pumping water south from regions such as Darwin & Far North Queensland has been investigated more often than you might suspect & not only is it not a particularly economically viable project, in some cases, it's simply not actually possible due to the mountain ranges & lift required to get the water flowing...

Water management of our existing resources is however, woeful.. wilful mismanagement by current and past governments, introduction of water intensive crops in regions that simply don't have the water; unrestricted access to mining companies at essentially no charge to underground water sources.. greedy political fingers dipping into the water buy back schemes... let alone individual states who refuse to play ball unless they get to have everything they want from the system & bugger the rest of the states downstream...

I agree, it's outrageous that no-one is kicking up a stink (except those in the affected communities) sadly though, our governments have been & still are complicit in the mismanagement of these issues.. unfortunately in our current political climate, even changing governments will not sadly fix this issue...

The reality is, there is no long term policy on anything in this country... there is no action to mitigate what we even have now... it's all about getting re-elected in a three year cycle... that's it.. there is no infrastructure plan in this country & hasn't been for at least 30 years... what's our excuse... oh, it's those damn immigrants... you I'm sure, heard the politicians & media scream it from the roof tops... not the fact we haven't invested, just 'immigrants'...

Our population has become so self centred & self interested.. where's my tax cut... hell, last election it collectively swallowed the lie that Labor was coming after your super by outlawing tax refunds for less than 1% of retirees who didn't pay tax... but, just the fear alone (factual or otherwise) was enough to send the population into a frenzy that Labor was gonna take something away from us & vote accordingly...

You are right, there are so many issues in this country right now that need dealing with, it's hard to actually say where the priority should be but, the reality is, we don't have a priority for any of them... Our governments (past & present) priority is getting re-elected... our population's priorities seem to be only focussed on itself as an individual... if it's not affecting me directly.. don't care... or so it would seem...

One can be passionate about more than one thing & I suspect you'll find that most on here commenting about the climate are just as passionate about all those things you've mentioned...

For the record though, NBN in it's original form actually was a worthwhile project.. ask any rural community whether they would like greater connectivity & the answer is a resounding yes... just not for the reasons most city dwellers would think of... it would actually help them manage their farms better, their businesses better & a whole range of other meaningful spinoffs for their communities... so NBN a waste of time.. well actually no, not in it's original form... in what has been actually rolled out.. yep, pretty much...

So, I don't disagree with the main thrust of your post but, we can do substantially more to address all of the issues if we became a little less obsessed with tax cuts, became more interested in our country & the welfare of all it's population & demanded far better performance from our governments.. but, I see little signs of this actually happening..

[Lucinda]

This country has no shortage of people with intelligence and unimpeachable character.
What is wrong is that the system filters these people out of contention for leadership positions as a matter of policy and replaces them with dim witted, corrupt, corporate boot lickers.

[Outcast]

Sadly though, we are that system... all of us... we allow this to happen because as a collective we individually vote for the popularist policies that line our own pocket in the dream that one day, we might too be rich...

[skysurfer]

Correct, we elect them (here in EU as well), but after the elections they get power hungry and do what they want.

[Lucinda]

Carlton,
I'm reluctant to post a dissenting voice to this because I think you have more or less captured it succinctly, fairly and accurately.
However, I would say .... not all of us.

[Outcast]

You are correct but, in this case.. I used the 'Royal' We...

there are not enough of us in the latter group...

[Renato1]

In terms of fatalities, these bushfires are nowhere near as bad as past bushfires. "Devastated" areas look fine only several years later.

I point out that the poor are subsidizing the rich and your response is the illuminating "Rhetorical Dribble" and dubious claims that renewables will lower the cost of electricity which has been soaring for the last decade to the highest in the world as cheap coal fired power has been destroyed. The ACCC states that people without solar panels are subsidising those with solar panels.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/accc-calls-for-an-end-to-rooftop-solar-subsidies-20190329-p518xt.html
And people who rent are generally poorer. My point stands

I point out that if Australia closed down all its power it would have had zilch effect on CO2 level in the atmosphere given Chinese output.

Your response is "Dishonest absolutism" and claim we would have been well on the way to transition now - which is deliberate misdirection by you, since the result of that transition would be exactly what I said - zilch effect on CO2 emissions given China's output, and zilch effect on the current bushfires

You claim that my statement about China's increasing coal-fired power output is simply wrong and link me to an article saying that China is buying less coal, and digging more up themselves - which is an utter irrelevancy. perhaps you should have checked your latest Greenpeace newsletters to keep you up to date.
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-plants-2030-climate/
https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insane-number-of-new-coal-plants/
Assuming you used Google, it must have been very hard to avoid the articles about China's "insane" amount of coal-fired power plant construction.

And you say that Germany is not furiously building coal-fired power plants but instead is phasing out all its coal fired power plants - something which is an aspirational goal at best - and ignoring all the new power plants it has been building the last decade during the time that Rudd, Gillard, Abbott, Turnball and Morrison were supposed to have been shutting down our plants. And Germany decided to phase them all out in January 2019, just after the newest coal-fired power plant started operating in 2018. Really committed, aren't they?
https://www.airclim.org/acidnews/germany-still-constructing-new-coal-power-stations

So you have me there - I stand corrected - Germany has been furiously building new coal-fired power plants but has also just now decided to stop doing it - at a time when the ruling parties are facing a populist backlash.

You state,
"If countries like ours did their share & didn't sabotage global agreements then the likes of China and India might make more of an effort too.

Climate change deniers have been wrong non-stop for a decade now and are just adding noise to the debate - not facts."

You seem to not know that the Paris Accords allow for China and India to keep building the coal fired plants that they are building. And you also seem to be denying the simple facts I put forward.

As this article shows, a renewable green energy Germany would have to rely on nuclear power from France, oil power from Austria and/or coal-fired power from Poland to make up for the inevitable shortfalls from lack of base load power.
https://fcpp.org/2018/12/30/germanys-green-transition-has-hit-a-brick-wall/

As the fact-based person that you claim to be, could you suggest who we are going to get our back-up power from after we have achieved the desired "transition" that so dearly wish for? Papua-New Guinea? Timor? Indonesia?
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Hi Peter,
I was looking forward to your response, as Retrograde failed to address most of the substantive points I raised, and cited totally incorrect facts - as I pointed out in my response to him below.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

The UK still has four coal fired plants going, and 32 or 33 gas-fired plants, and 15 nuclear reactors. And Scotland relies on French nuclear power when its renewables fail miserably.

You think Australia could mirror the UK - including going nuclear - in 10 years?
I think it takes at least 15 years to get those nuclear plants going from the time of ordering them.

Also, as wind turbines only have a 20 year life, and the cost of disposing of each one safely is currently over US$500,000 per unit, are we going to follow the lead of the Europeans who have been sending them to Africa, where the Africans promise safe disposal of the huge mass of toxic chemicals in the blades? Might be best to go totally nuclear if the environment is of concern.
Regards,
Renato

P.S. I forgot to mention above the other major UK power source, namely over 1500MW of diesel generators subsidized by the government, which are used when the wind doesn't produce enough energy for the country. I think we'd need even more of them in Australia.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind/uk-must-use-diesel-generators-to-back-up-wind-turbines/

[multiweb]

Lots of well intended people here but not sure where you get your numbers from. Anyway enjoy 2020 and all the best. Keep cool. :thumbsup:

[CeratodusDuck]

So after 4 pages of commentary we’ve come to genocide/population control and making money while we still can from fossil fuel ergo destroying the Earth so “they” can spend their untold wealth on???? Oil is disappearing, so let’s further destroy the Earth digging it up for lithium and other raw materials needed to make these “suitable” replacements... the cycle never ends but keep deluding yourself you are making a difference. A pitiful, braggarts rights only difference. Greta might give you a kiss.


I’ll keep investing in gold bullion.

[Outcast]

So please George, enlighten us, other than buying gold bullion... what is your amazing plan?

[CeratodusDuck]

Given globally how much is spent on arms and “defence” we could have gotten our sorry butts off this dieing world years ago. But nope, we need to “defend” oil interests and other important elements so one nation in particular can racketeer and “own” it all. Do you think the Bolivian coup recently had a anything to do with anything other than the US installing a pro-US government for the protection of Lithium interests? (Let’s recall the failed US coup in Venezuala, all about oil) No, it was yet again the US showing it’s humanitarian side...cough cough.

Plan? We are royally effed so build a bridge and get over it. Switching to EV helps very little unless we go totally solar/wind/hydro/nuclear. Australia’s decision to not go nuclear was a historical nonesense with repercussions now and forever, thanks to the coal-oil lobby that line successive Liberal-Labor government pockets.

Money is all that matters it seems.

[lazjen]

Just on this point...

This might have been an issue in the past, but we've proven it can be over come - Brisbane's dam has been connected to Toowoomba (for a few years now), which is certainly pushing the water up to the top of the range. The technical ability is definitely there.

Also, note that the Snowy 2.0 scheme requires pumping water back up the mountains as well, which I think will be tougher than the Brisbane to Toowoomba link.

So, no real technical problems with this.

Economics - sure, but I wonder if a real cost/benefit analysis has been done based on all the factors involved with having/not having water - for people, the environment and industries in regional areas. Could having more water available "everywhere" help with dealing with the bushfire situation? Would the building and management of these systems provide jobs - directly and indirectly?

[Outcast]

Part A & Part C of your answer I completely agree with, part B, I do not entirely agree...

I'm not particularly keen to just build a bridge & get over it.. we are indeed potentially royally effed but, if we 'build a bridge' we pretty much guarantee that.. so, small as it may be... we could at least have a crack...

Nuclear, is a major sticking point for me & it's not the safety of the plants that is an issue for me... it's the waste byproduct that we just bury... for 10,000 years.. coz, you know, we don't as a species dig up stuff we know nothing about... oh wait, we do that...

Thorium Salt reactors & maybe fusion in the future & I'm listening... my understanding is that Thorium Salt was pretty much killed off as a plan globally because there was no Plutonium byproduct.. therefore no future with Nuclear weapons... so, yep.. there is that arms & defence thing throwing up it's ugly head again...

I'm not naive, pretty much every war in history has been about protecting or securing interests, in the past 100 yrs, a certain large nation seems to have it's hand deeply amongst them but, go back further & there are plenty of other players dictating terms like schoolboy bullies. Likewise, every coup in relatively recent history in otherwise relatively stable countries has been about installing regimes more sympathetic to predominantly the US's interests... So yeah, I get it... but, no-one globally get's up off it's butt to actually try & put a stop to it...

Empires fall.. history is littered with fallen empires.. you are right, it's rinse & repeat on constant playback throughout our history.. but, the alternative.. self annihilation through total inaction...?

Whilst I'm beginning to feel that maybe that's the most deserved outcome for human beings.. right now, it's not something I can just standby & let happen.. will I make a difference... perhaps not.. but, not trying at all will ensure that no difference is made.. maybe I'll reach that point when my head hurts a little more from banging that brick wall...

If there is enough of a groundswell in global population's mindset then maybe, just maybe something will change.. in sufficient time to make a global difference; personally I'm not seeing it yet but, if we all just 'build a bridge' then the mindset has zero chance of changing & yup, we will be Royally Effed indeed...

If that day arrives, I'm not sure even your gold bullion will help.. :)

[Outcast]

Chris, I think you need to take a closer look at the geography & distance of the two projects you list vs what you are proposing. No offence intended but, the scales of these two projects are not comparable to the scale of effort required to ship water from say Cairns to inland regions.

Brisbane to Toowoomba is 38km long with a total lift of 240 metres.. Atherton, up on the tablelands has an elevation difference of some 750 metres from Cairns... Even using Kuranda as the first level of lift we are at around 350 metres & it's still a long way up hill from there before we clear the range; this seems to me a very different engineering scenario & whilst I'm happy for an engineering specialist to jump in & provide a more informed opinion, I suspect that this still maybe a little beyond our ability still or at least cost effective ability... (note, my opinion.. not a solid fact.. so, completely understand I could be wrong). I looked briefly for elevation & distance figures for Snowy 2.0 but, couldn't bring anything of substance to hand so, don't have the figures for that. Let alone the distances involved here... the logistics of running a pipeline through largely inhospitable, wild tropical mountain terrain are mind boggling...

The cost of pumping water from the Burdekin to Townsville to attempt to secure Townsville's water supply is currently costing $35,000 per day... that is for a distance of a little over 230km as the crow flies (not sure what distance the actual pipeline runs for)... also, not sure what elevation changes are involved...

To be honest, I suspect (note: I have not done figures on this) a more cost effective response would be to start working on desalination plants along the coast, large scale water recycling & investigate large scale solar still operations for inland communities.. I know shipping water has & is done in this country but, it seems far from a cost effective & viable solution...

There are large cities in Europe & America using recycling of sewerage water (both black & grey) to meet or supplement their potable water needs. This water that is recycled is in fact cleaner than what currently comes out of your tap but, you just mention sewerage recycling in this country & the stupid emotive arguments that surface are pure rubbish... 'ewww, I'm not drinking my own poo'... yeah, coz we'll just put it through a sieve & pump it back into the system.. sure.. that's how it works... from those ridiculous beliefs any serious thought about water recycling just gets lost in the stupid noise & subsequently abandoned...

Tell you what is puzzling to me though.. in Cairns we are pretty much on permanent level one water restrictions because we don't capture & store enough water to meet our own needs.. in an area with around 2 - 3 metres rainfall per annum that is just ludicrous...

[The_bluester]

I disagree. I live near Kilmore and I can still see obvious, visible evidence of where the Black Saturday fire that started near Kilmore East went through, that was nearly 11 years ago.

Following that, we were impacted ourselves by the Mickelham fire nearly six years ago, which was not nearly as severe as Black Saturday. I can still see places on our property that have not recovered yet as they were reduced to mineral earth by the heat of the fire. They have a slight cover of grass at the right time of year but still turn into black sludge when they get wet. "A couple of years" is a little less than the time it will take for the saplings that sprung up to reach the size and state of the trees that were destroyed, that ranged up to around 100 years old.

Large parts of east Gippsland are going to look like moonscapes for many years, as will areas in NSW, Queensland and elsewhere.

[Peter Ward]

Renato, rather than getting bogged down with the minutia of your arguments, I'd make the observation that you seem happy with the concept of if foreign countries are burning coal, then we should too. A morally bankrupt position at best.

While Australia's industrial activities (arguably already extinct) contribute little to the planetary CO2 pool, it does export some 400 mega-tonnes of Coal to shores beyond Australia to be burned there. By doing so, the duplicitous status quo, who are declaring themselves to be vegan, are still happy to be supplying the global abattoir. Begging the question: to who's benefit?

Perversely most Australians benefit little from Coal mining. Revenues from coal exports have fallen to 2% of GDP. Only 10% of Australian mines are Australian owned. Foreign interests own the other 90% which is also where most of the profits go.

You can literally leave all of the coal in the ground with very little impact on the benefit/employment/livelihood of most Australians. The losers will be coal miners their wealthy share-holders (many of whom control Australian media outlets) and the current major political parties, who for want of a better expression, are "on the take" (both majors take donations from industries then meet with their lobbyists, it would be incredible suggest the purpose of these meetings was to exchange scone recipes ).

Over four million hectares of forest, including rainforest, have burned, the better part of two thousand homes lost and around two dozen lives were lost in the months leading up to Christmas 2019. Persuading , up until now, a climate-change denying Australia public, may no-longer be that difficult.

These events will be hard for the deniers and obfuscators to ignore. Doing nothing is no longer an option. A phased out shut down of Coal mining and serious push toward Thermal Solar or developing Thorium salt reactors would be a good start.

As for EV's, they are just part of the mix plus the die is already cast. The likes of Volvo, VW, BMW etc. are migrating all production to EV's. Like the horse and buggy. ICE's will be replaced sooner than most would expect.

[peter_4059]

more fun renewable fuel facts...

Australian jet fuel consumption is about 9,400 ML per annum.
The carbon neutral jet production from CO2, H2O and solar can make 20,000 litres per day from a square kilometre heliostat solar collector. That's 7.3 ML per annum. So to make Australia's jet fuel demand you would need 1,292 square kilometres of solar collection.

According to Google, the biggest solar farm in the world (Shakti Sthala) is 52.5 square kilometres, costing $2.2bn.

If you want to factor in diesel that's another 29,255 ML per annum. While this is completely different solar technology, it puts things in perspective in terms of the challenge of replacing fossil fuels.

[Outcast]

A significant challenge indeed but, we haven't even scratched the minutest particle of the surface in looking to seriously overcome the challenge..

No-one (well, I'm not seeing it) is disputing that we are heavily reliant on fossil fuels for the lifestyle we enjoy.. no-one is actually suggesting that we yet have all the answers nor, is anyone seriously suggesting we just switch off the fossil fuels overnight...

Interestingly, our history is littered with more efficient ICE designs that were bought up & buried by those more interested in fossil fuel profits.. So perhaps, simply by unburying those technologies & furthering those designs we could contribute to reducing our over reliance on fossil fuels...

However, there seems to be a consistant global push to simply maintain the status quo & 'she'll be right mate'...

Look at the challenges that mankind (even ancient civilisations) have overcome in the past.. are we not able to do that anymore?

Or is just considered 'not profitable' by those organisations that currently dominate the market & therefore, not worthy of the effort?

It is no small undertaking but, unless we begin a transition with what we currently have... I suspect we'll never get started.. at all...

Hardly seems in keeping with the spirit of our species history of progress.. we seem to have arrived at 'too hard, let's not bother'...

[multiweb]

We've hit the top limit of a finite world. Game over. Enjoy it while it lasts. :)

[Astronovice]

As of 2019 Australia has an installed capacity of around 48,000MW of power generation. That is 48 million kilowatts.

Over eighty percent, or some 40 million kilowatts plus of that generation comes from fossil fuels, mainly black and brown coal plus some gas. Despite the closure of Hazlewood power station Victoria still relies on 4,750MW or 4,750,000 kW of brown coal generation from Loy Yang A and B and Yallourn W power stations to keep the lights on.

If 4 million households each installed 10kW of solar and the sun shone all the time this would allow retirement of that fossil fuelled generation but as things currently are the grid system would collapse. This would occur because there are currently insufficient ways of balancing totally renewable inputs to match demand. There are ways of doing this effectively by installation of batteries and pumped storage hydro, as proposed in Snowy 2, but this will take time and dollars. None of this of course fully addresses what we do when the sun doesn’t shine.

A much better battery option would be large scale vanadium technology batteries, safer than lithium and more suitable for large capacity installations.

I am not trying to be pessimistic here, merely stating the scale of the problem given the urgency of the situation. I did my bit 6 years ago by installing 2.5kW of solar when it cost me $5,500 to do so. I didn’t do it for altruistic reasons though. I did it because I could see where power prices were going and I could get 44c / kWh for any surplus, hence in 6 years I have paid less than $500 in total over that period for electricity in an all electric household for 2 people, so $ incentives work.

I still believe we missed the boat 20years ago when climate change was recognised as a significant problem for the future by not going nuclear. As an example France has been supplying 70% of its needs from nuclear for decades now.

[SimmoW]

Excellent popcorn eating material here !

Renewables are the future, just sadly too expensive for many, esp EVs and solar batteries, that seem to be the fashion item for the Elites. But at least they can be colour coordinated with their Apple Watches 😂.

Subsidies are needed to encourage traction and uptake, but shouldn't be extended beyond the necessary time period. Like when we first bought our Solar panels, subsidies were high (68c per kwH😊), but up front costs were very high, $15k.

Ah I fondly remember our first new electricity bill, -1,265 for the quarter. My partner still loves calling up AGL, reminding them that they have yet to pay their bill!!

We really want to add a battery system, but economics still dont stack up. Hopefully different in 2-5 yrs

[Astronovice]

We are living at a time where politicians appear to lack the courage to make bold decisions. As I see it there are barriers to this, some of which have been discussed previously, but in addition the immediacy of feedback good or bad via social media and the fear this generates in politicians regarding their re-election prospects.

Australia’s 3 year terms for the Feds is counter productive in this respect in that it allows insufficient time for difficult decisions that have longer term benefit to bear fruition and be recognised as beneficial by the electorate. As a nation we may be better served to swallow our cynicism and go for 5 year fixed terms. This of course relies on the Coke and Pepsi parties coming to agreement to do so.

Speaking of the Coke and Pepsi parties and their future prospects Peter; things will only change in that respect if people have the courage of their convictions to do something. You have strong views and have voiced them here, why not go further and canvass your views in the wider press? You may have sufficient support to make something further happen or you may not, you will never know if you don’t try. Democracy relies on such things, indeed the fathers of the UK Westminster system of government were concerned that the formation of political parties would lead to the downfall of democracy as intended. They may well yet be right in their view.

[multiweb]

Few numbers: EU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjkq8V5rVy0

World:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC0IiJnuB2U

Looking for a good graph I saw showing the breakdown between nuclear and other energy sources for France only per sector (i.e industry, residential, etc). Will post shortly.

PS: Here you go. Added pic. Nuclear is yellow, Circled in blue fossil fuels (so oil/coal + gaz).

[Peter Ward]

I've explored the notion of setting up (yet another) political party. Clearly if someone like Pauline Hanson can do it, it's not impossible, but so many well meaning groups (anyone remember Don Chip and the Australian Democrats?) have self destructed after starting with the best of intentions....and if history is our guide...any new startup would need to be very savvy indeed

None other than Tony Abbott, established a trust fund called "Australians for Honest Politics Trust" to help bankroll civil court cases against One Nation, with some success.

This ultimately led to the incarceration the party's founder, Pauline Hanson, for eleven weeks on trumped-up electoral fraud charges, which were subsequently dismissed on appeal.

(I think Hanson is a twit, but her treatment/ incarceration deserves far more than a footnote in Australian politics. This grubby litigation stunk to high-heaven. Despite all charges being dismissed on appeal, she was not compensated. (Sadly, freedoms in Australia have got seriously worse since)

This clearly shows the formation of a new political party in Australia, that actually has a chance of attracting a modest (One Nation has just 5000 members) voter base, will have the incumbent parties " Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war!". (read: I don't think I have the skills)

[Lucinda]

I wouldn't take it too seriously.
He's "gas lighting" you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

[Retrograde]

Doomism is unhelpful. We owe the kids of today and future generations a lot more than just throwing our hands in the air and saying 'sorry we're out of ideas'.


Renato:


The dubious claim was always that renewables caused the highest power prices in the world. It was always a lot more complicated than that (including privatisation and lack of investment in the grid etc). Coal fired power isn't cheap - it's costing us our environment, our farms and our safety.

The good news however is that renewables have already lowered the cost of power. South Australia has now had the cheapest wholesale power in Australia for consecutive months!
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/24/south-australias-clean-energy-shift-brings-lowest-power-prices-on-national-grid-audit-finds



1.5% is not zilch no matter how many times you say it. If you add our exported emissions then we're responsible for somewhere between 3.3% and 4.8% of global emissions (depending how you measure them) which would potentially put us into the top 5 or 6 emitters in the world. Definitely not zilch!
The combined emissions of all countries who emit less than 2% individually, combine to roughly equal the US and China combined so we clearly all have to do our share.



Sorry yes I should have read the article I referenced more thoroughly. :thumbsup:
The news is still not quite as gloomy as you imply however. In 2017, renewable energy comprised 36.6% of China’s total installed electric power capacity, and 26.4% of total power generation.



That is simply an argument for stronger and more binding global agreements.

I'm pro-nuclear as well as being pro-renewables. New nuclear designs hold great promise along with/as-well-as technologies such as molten salt storage. The reality is, however, that nuclear is still a way off (at best) for our country and emissions reduced today are worth considerably more than emissions reduced in 25 or 30 years time.

[Astronovice]

Marc

I used this article to support my comments.

https://technology.ihs.com/600137/frances-energy-pledge

[The_bluester]

For gaslighting to work though there has to be some prospect of making me think I am wrong. However people who can’t go and look for themselves at the after effects take statements like that as bing correct, particularly if it lines up with their own thinking, confirmation bias style.

[multiweb]

Hi Calvin, I don't know about IHS Markit data source. That pie chart looks like power generation so I assume electricity only which makes sense. The graph Jancovici supplies is total energy allocation. From transport to heating. The country relies heavily on fossil fuels.

So does Australia. If I put solar panels on my roof I'll offset my power bill and possibly do something good for the enviroment (unless they're made in China). It's not going to help anybody else or even myself moving from A to B, get food to eat, water to drink, get medical services, education for the kids, etc... Our whole services industry is deeply rooted in fossil fuels.

So as Peter B. says, not a simple problem to solve. The graphs I posted show the huge difference in proportion between renewables and fossil fuels. We're addicted to fossil fuels. Like it or not cutting the branch we're all sitting on isn't very productive. I'm all for cutting emission. Got to be smart about it.

If we want to be serious about limiting global warming to 1.5c, forget it. We've already pumped too much CO2 in the atmosphere. 2C? we have to can all coal fired power plants by 2030 and as of tomorrow use 3 times less power than we do right now. Can we do it? Possibly. But do we want to do it? :question:

[h0ughy]

Far too many political references in this whole post. I am on holidays and don't have the time to look at all this so thread closed