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.
........... 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.
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.
"aviation biofuel production of about 15 million litres in 2018 accounted for less than 0.1% of total aviation fuel consumption."
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/sustaina...climate-change
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddity
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.
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.
Last edited by Retrograde; 01-01-2020 at 05:09 PM.
Reason: updated url
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".
Well, I agree that their money does influence policy.
I also agree that the money goes to both sides of political spectrum.
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?
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.
............
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.
If it was that good why did we move to fossil fuels?
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.
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?
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??
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
The virtue signalers in our society appear to totally ignore the aspirations of thousands of millions in developing countries.
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..
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.
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)...
Energy intensity. Yep. You can't support the world machines supplying ~7billion people living like we do with wind and solar.
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/ren...stment-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/ne...9e2e528d015d79
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.
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.
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!
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.
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...
