2020 Make a change

[Lucinda (Lucinda)]

Originally Posted by 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...

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 (Carlton)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by 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/australi...newable-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/poli...on-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-g...-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

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/cons...29-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/201...-2030-climate/
https://www.wired.com/story/china-is...w-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/ger...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...-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 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

@ Retrograde (Pete)

Thanks. On the money 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....

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 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.instituteforenergyresear...wind-turbines/

[multiweb (Marc)]

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

[CeratodusDuck (George)]

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 (Carlton)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[CeratodusDuck (George)]

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 (Chris)]

Originally Posted by Outcast

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...

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 (Carlton)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Carlton)]

Originally Posted by 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?

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 (Paul)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

"Devastated" areas look fine only several years later.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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 (Peter)]

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 (Carlton)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Outcast

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'...

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

[Astronovice (Calvin)]

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 (SIMON)]

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&#128522, 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 (Calvin)]

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.