Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

Of course..Have I stated otherwise?

---

No, just asking for clarification (as I was with someone else who seemed to take extreme offence at merely being asked for clarification - oh well :shrug: ).

Ok, so if it's a greenhouse gas which causes the planet to warm, AND we know that there are other sources of CO2 output which are also increasing output (fires), as well as other greenhouse gases such as methane from cattle, should we
A) continue burning fossil fuels just as we are until they run out (oil 50 years, coal 150 years), or
B) casually transition to reducing fossil fuel dependence, but only when and if you think we can afford it, or
C) proceed apace with developing technologies to reduce our emissions as quickly as we can?

Or something else?

Note that they are just questions to seek a clarification, without a presumption of your position.

While I put my thinking cap on, a question for you. Does c) involve getting rid of coal mining all together?

Post #334 has already addressed that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Lappa, when I get to hell, I will save you a spot, I think you are gonna need it. Looks like you are only a day or so behind me. :rolleyes:

---

I suspect many people of the east coat thought they were burning in hell this last few months :)

Its still not over. My brother has a "fire" that is "over 4km away". He feels this is OK. Keep in mind he is a captain (or something) on the RFS and was helicopter dropped into the new southern fires this last fortnight.... (J.H.C, the bravery)... so when he says "fire" it probably is more like Nagasaki on Day 0....

We have some very big fish to fry as a country.

Ive said it before a dozen times: solar, renewables, recycling, replanting, reversing past damage, living harmoniously with nature, respecting the forests... nobody disagrees with this.

I have to admit, I'm not enjoying this division that is occurring between friends on this thread. We are all passionate conservationists, lovers of trees, greenery, growth and high (and low) tech. We are solutions people, mostly, and artist, all. This is a cause of unity, not animosity.

Actually, it didn’t. All it talked about was reducing to 10% energy production from coal for a period of 20 to 30 years. What happens to coal mining after that?
The reason I ask is the Greta Thunbergs of this world (see the banners for Climate Activists’ marching world wide) want coal mining to stop.
i can’t answer a), b) or c) to your question until I know what is implied in the questions. It may mean I come up with option d)?

Your right Woodpixel in all respects.
The problem is that the solution is not cut and dried as some people here think.
I am by no means an expert on all aspects of Climate Change and no one here is either.
For those who may think they have ALL the answers, I call it the Greta Thrunberg syndrome. Here’s someone who has a point of view and shoves it down everyones throats. She’s the Messjah and we are the unworthy yet she went to a conference in a carbon fibre yacht that generated more CO2 in manufacture than her plane would have produced.
There is no simple answer to this such as a) b) or c)

A question for those who would have chosen c) in fencefurniture’s questionnaire . What are you doing to achieve it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

A point that I want to make clear is that as far as I'm concerned, it's ok to have some coal fired energy to produce base load for industry (if that's the only way it can be done for a while). What we have to do is cut the buggery out of the general usage domestic and small business usage, with renewable. Just to use a number - if we can cut our coal fired energy to perhaps 10% of what is is now (and as quickly as possible) then that might be viable until other technologies are invented to completely eradicate coal. That might be 20-30 years for all I know, but a radical reduction is what is required.

Same with oil/petrol/diesel - no doubt some types of vehicles such as a D10 bulldozer won't work so well on batteries. No worries - it's the 100s of millions of cars that are by far the biggest problem.

Everything in moderation, and all that. Science has and can produce the answers. We just need our Govts and nay-sayers to let them get on with it apace.

---

I think I made myself pretty clear Lappa, especially with the "everything in moderation" part. So just for the very pedantic amongst us:
I do not know where technology will eventually go or how it will get there, but I strongly suspect that it will be much cleaner technology, and fairly soon. If we need to do some coal mining and burning on a vastly reduced scale for a long time to come then so be it. I can't provide the answers to that, but I do think that coal mining will eventually go altogether. Furthermore, even if we have to burn coal at a vastly reduced rate for a helluva long time I would think that there will be a technology to capture the various nasties coming out.

Directed at nobody in particular: I do find it interesting that deniers want to nail down every mortal point they can think of when it comes questioning/grilling/bickering with the people who see the need for immediate change. However, when it comes to the other way around the deniers just won't answer - even to say what they are afraid of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

Thanks for the articles Paul. While I do believe that NASAs article aren’t fake ( I note that some believe they are the great conspirators ie fake moon landing etc) I do take some umbridge with their diagrams then wording.

Their diagram shows apparent CO2 levels going back 800,000 years yet they state “are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years”
If their data is so accurate, why not state 800,000 years?

Then they state “In 2013, CO2levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history.” If They are so confident in their data, why not say “ for the first time in 800,000 years”

Maybe picking at straws, but if the data is so accurate and they have great confidence in it, why not utilise it?

Samples where taken from ice cores but are CO2 levels the same at any point on the planet!?
If not, by how much do they vary?
I have no idea re sampling so just throwing it out there.

---

Lappa

The quick answer is that I don't know. The slightly longer answer is that NASA probably requires government funding so it couches it's languages in euphemisms and given the position of the current POTUS they have no wish to cut their own throat. Governments in power can be very sensitive and are in a position to do something about it. (Ask the ABC in Australia. If the government cuts back much more the journalists will be contributing to the Liberal party coffers). However that is a guess on my part. The figures certainly indicate they could word their findings a lot more voraciously. On the other hand we all know of the rumours on statistics!

My take with the CO2 is that it is the difference between what has gone on for millenniums and what is happening now. There have always been bush fires and there have always been volcanic eruption and that begs the question of what has changed. The evidence is that this smart creature called man has happened: Except that he has become a little too smart for his own good and much, much too greedy. Ask this hominoid to pull hs belt in even a little and his basic attitude is to wave a finger in the air and declare he wants his share of whatever is going. A very understandable reaction, but not very smart.

A parallel would be water usage. We don't use water sparingly until such time as we are told to conserve water or water becomes so critical even blind Freddie can see we are going to run out. Many towns and cities have had water restrictions and some towns have run out. Recently, as part of the Toowoomba super shire (super is a poorly named adjective from the point of view of a satellite town) we had (actually still have) medium level water restrictions with a target of 175L/person/day. As SWMBO has invested a small fortune in the garden not to mention a large amount of time we reduced our water use in the house down to about 100L per day between the two of us so the remainder of the allocation could be used keeping things alive (in cattle terms it would be a maintenance diet). Shower water was used for flushing the loo for example and showering itself was not a continuous water event.

Now all this is quite inconvenient but if that is the target, that is what has to be done. At some time in the future there will be some inconvenience with fossil fuel use too as we transition.

With regards to Brett's suggestion of reducing fossil fired power station down to 10% I am not sure that is practical unless you wish to emulate North Korea and have the power shut down by 2100hrs (I am not actually sure of the time , but you get the drift). I am also not sure of exactly how much power is supplied by the fossil fired stations, but my guess is that it is at least 50%: Maybe more and as much as 70%. That includes gas as well as coal. We still have not addressed how we get power at night time with this scenario. To stand a chance of enacting such a scenario, it is necessary for the current government and succeeding governments to recognise climate change and the likelihood that mankind is significantly contributing to the problem.

The problem with this happening is that the government is much more interested in making sure it is re-elected than the overall welfare of the country. Something that I should add is I frequently hear that Australia is such a small player on the world stage that we will make no difference and there is an element of truth in that. However, we contribute as much per capita as almost anybody to the problem (thanks in part to our large distances and number of cars per household). If we say "stuff you" what do we expect large emergent nations to say and finally the irony is that as a country with a fragile and very finely balanced climate (we could say a marginal climate) we may well be prone to suffering from climate change more than almost anybody else around. We could sit on our fat arses and do nothing and suffer the consequences of everybody else doing nothing.

Having said all that, I find myself today able to contribute a little more to the debate as it is RAINING outside. :wink:

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

I have to admit, I'm not enjoying this division that is occurring between friends on this thread. We are all passionate conservationists, lovers of trees, greenery, growth and high (and low) tech. We are solutions people, mostly, and artist, all. This is a cause of unity, not animosity.

---

WP

That is very well said and just goes to show how easy it is to fall into the trap because of ideals. I see it at home so often. Fortunately, there we have a tried and tested make up policy.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

During my day shift last Monday I was watching the price in South Australia. Most of the sunlight hours it sat at -$1000/MWhr (yes minus). The system load was low (around 800MW) and my conjecture is that rooftop solar was producing almost all the supply required. This meant that almost every commercial producer would have shut down: Gas stations, solar farms and wind farms.

---

Sorry, long post gain...

I keep an eye on this real time graph of generation and use of electricity in the National Energy Market (NEM).

Nem Watch | RenewEconomy

In the middle of a typical summer day, like today.

WA - is not connected to the national grid, so always generates as much as it is using
Tas - is using more than it is generating, importing to meet its use, and waiting to export its hydro power at a premium into the national market when there is a shortfall in the NEM
SA - is generating more than it is using and exporting its excess to the south eastern states.
Vic - is generating more than it is using and exporting its excess to the south eastern states, usually to NSW.
NSW - is using a lot more than it is generating, importing to meet its use.
Qld - is generating more than it is using and exporting its excess to the south eastern states

At this time of day, solar (large and small roof top) is doing its thing , along with the other renewables, and saving us money and emissions. The renewables are providing one third of all generation at this time of day. But coal is still sitting at 60%, with Qld providing the biggest proportion of that (no surprise they are voting the way they have), although the brown coal from Vic is more polluting, so a close run thing there.

Solar drops out of the equation at night time and that is where the battery storage and the hydro come into play. If you fire up that graph at night you can see the changed dynamic without solar. The wind then becomes the variable.

Still some way to go in reducing the use of coal compared to countries like Germany, but remarkable progress given the policy vacuum in which would-be investors have been making decisions. How much further we could have gone with better political leadership here.

Our coal fired power stations in Australia are going to progressively reach their used by date, albeit now at too slow a rate. Once decommissioned they will not be replaced, at least with private investment. There has only ever been one privately funded coal powered station built in Australia, and that went bust about the time it was commissioned. Despite the talk coming from the rural right, it is very unlikely that a government of any persuasion will fund (or even partially fund) another coal fired powered station here. Although, after recent revelations, it seems that pork barrelling is fair play and the deep north may yet need a bit more of that to be rewarded for their vote!

It's not a case of whether renewables will replace fossil fuels but how rapidly. Understandably, the coal interest (unions, management and investors) are fighting a rearguard action to slow the inevitable down. An enlightened government (of either persuasion) would expedite the exit while supporting those who will be most affected (the workers and their communities). But, the investors will be on their own, and increasingly so, with stranded assets. The smart money left long ago. At this stage the industry is lobbying hard, with some success ("here, take this lump of coal into parliament and show how harmless it is"), but the last one out will get to turn off the lights in the coal mine, not the country.

Closing down our emissions from coal can't come soon enough if we are to request other countries to step up their efforts, which we must do if we are to collectively beat this globally.

It's farcical (can't think of a better word, I'm sure there is) that countries like the UK, Germany and those in Scandinavia are doing the heavy lifting while we here in Australia, where we will disproportionately suffer the most from CC, are doing so little over and above (if that is what we are actually doing) our pathetic target.

A reply from nobody in particular.
a) I believe we will still be burning and using fossil fuels until they run out. Why? The World, as a whole will not embrace alternatives be it due to cost, ignorance or plain stubbornness. Coal will always be mined if we want steel and other metals.
b) is not an option and neither is c) - it’s somewhere in the middle I believe.

Why you may ask. New technologies take time and money and you can’t bankrupt a country for the sake of a quick change so this is where b) has a showing.
Some “new” technologies require more energy to produce than old technologies and produce far more pollutants at the end of their life. I talk here about the so called saviour - the electric car. Some, not all, use permanent magnet motors and these require rare earth elements which produce many toxic substances during the extraction process. Then you have the production then disposal of lithium batteries may move to Poly unit’s but they have problems of their own. So we need a new battery that is less energy hungry to produce and less polluting at the end if it’s life and given our vast country, more storage capacity.
So, do we rush ahead and mandate by law only electric vehicles - so over its lifespan we reduce CO2 emissions but up pollution levels?
So, do we move more cautiously before axing combustion engines b) or so we swoop in and take the plunge c)

Solar panels take a lot of energy to produce but are considered energy neutral after 4 years. The biggest producer of solar panels apparently just brought into production two coal fired power plants so produce enough electricity to produce the panels.

Govt rushes in and mandates that everyone fits solar panels and batteries and provides heavily subsidised purchase and fitment.
Lots of money that has to come from somewhere and there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Then there’s the roof structure that can’t support solar panels - whose going to pay to upgrade the roof?
I persons,you can’t see c) bring an option here.

So, going by this, I believe it’s somewhere between b) and c) and a) will keep on going.

What about nuclear. Look at UK, France, USA, South Korea, Germany, China, Canada.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The problem with this happening is that the government is much more interested in making sure it is re-elected than the overall welfare of the country.

---

Two sides of politics. They rarely agree on anything because they need to be different so that people can have a choice of who to vote for based on what their policies are.

One side says climate change is a major issue and the other side plays it down. That's politics.

We all go to the election and vote for the side with the policies we want to support. Then after the votes are counted and the winner declared, they break their promises. Or worse, they try to solve the problem with a new tax, which does not work.

How do you know whether they REALLY believe in their policies or whether they just bleat about them to get the gullible public to vote for them?

With public utilities all privatized and needing to make a profit, where is the incentive to reduce emissions if it hurts the bottom line? So what happens? They try to force change by putting a tax on carbon, for example. This does not work because inevitably the cost of the tax is passed on to the end-user, not impacting on the corporate bottom line at all. It's just us mugs footing the bill again and the government pockets the extra tax as a windfall and pisses it up against the wall. Most of it would probably go in dole payments to climate protesters who block every intersection in the Melbourne CBD every Friday afternoon when all the workers (who also pay income tax to support them) are trying to get home to their families for the weekend.

There's more to be fixed in this country alone before anyone can really make a serious attempt to fix climate change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

A question for those who would have chosen c) in fencefurniture’s questionnaire . What are you doing to achieve it?

---

Well, with this thread and the previous one about Electricity, I am trying as hard as I can to perhaps change some minds, even though that is quite possibly a total waste of time and energy, as NeilS suggests. I have put considerable effort into the two threads. Some may scoff at that, but I couldn't care less what they think about it. Better to put some constructive effort in than just pass irrelevant comments that border on trolling.

• I do not have the resources to have Solar Power, although a couple of years ago I did put up a very good case to the owner of this property (who will eventually live here in perhaps 5 years). It would have meant that with the negative gearing benefits of depreciation they would have had a virtually free or heavily discounted system in place by the time they wanted to occupy, and still with around 15 or so years of life in most of the components.
• Whenever I can I use Public Transport - I only drive about 4000kms per year (in fact I did not even have a vehicle at all for 9 years until 15 months ago).
• I try to reduce my energy consumption as much as I can (today I could have the gas central heating on very low, but I am here by myself, and bugger the cats :D). If I can scrape enough money together I will install perspex sheets over the important windows as a kind of double glazing. Unfortunately this old house leaks air like a damn sieve (windows, floors, ceilings and walls all leak badly - many $1000s to correct).
• I have installed LED lights throughout, and only have lights on that are necessary. I turn off all appliances (TV etc) that consume "idle power" at the power point.
• I eat very little red meat (a lamb steak once or twice a month and a beef pie once or twice a month).
• I am not sure if I will be able to pull this off, but I am working on an idea to live in a house that is as low energy & water consumption as possible. Gas would only be for cooking (a tiny amount by comparison to heating). Hydronic heating in the slab, powered by solar panels, with batteries in place when they become economically viable (which may be pretty soon). Previous to the last 2-3 summers I would have said that aircon wasn't needed up here (1017m altitude) for more than a handful of days per year, but I am changing my mind about that - and rather quickly. In any case, if there was aircon it would be running on Solar (by default if there is too much cloud cover to produce enough elec for a/c then the a/c isn't required anyway....). If there was a viable electric alternative to a gas cooktop (i.e with fairly quick changing temp control) then I'd be happy to dispense with the gas altogether.

Now most of that also involves cost saving for me as well, but "one hand washes the other".

From a practical point of view, Australia is a minor contributor in the scheme of things so even if we reduce our emissions to 0, unless the majority of the world players did their bit the outcome will be the same.
On the world stage we are a nobody

The point I am making is we also need to be mindful that we don’t sabotage our economy for little more than a placebo effect outcome.

@Fencefurniture, slightly off topic but electric induction cooktops are a good alternative to gas. You will need comparable pots and saucepans with it though.

This...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

or so we swoop in and take the plunge

---

...is trying to characterise this..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

C) proceed apace with developing technologies to reduce our emissions as quickly as we can?

---

...as turning off everything instantly, and I won't have that characterisation put on it. I said developing technologies, not changing everything overnight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

a) I believe we will still be burning and using fossil fuels until they run out. Why? The World, as a whole will not embrace alternatives be it due to cost, ignorance or plain stubbornness. Coal will always be mined if we want steel and other metals.

---

You can't really make such a broad statement when we have no idea of what technologies will be available around the second half of this century. I strongly suspect that oil will be virtually unused a fair while before it runs out - I think the demand will drop dramatically from about 2030 onwards and that will make the production hugely expensive for any vehicles that still require it (like my bulldozer example from earlier). You can be quite sure that it will be commerce that dictates the technology that is used, and ignorance & stubbornness won't play in the equation (although maybe at first).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

New technologies take time and money and you can’t bankrupt a country for the sake of a quick change Nobody (in this thread) is suggesting such an emotive strategy

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

Some, not all, use permanent magnet motors and these require rare earth elements which produce many toxic substances during the extraction process. Then you have the production then disposal of lithium batteries may move to Poly unit’s but they have problems of their own.

---

Yes, there is no doubt that there are other problems to be overcome. The biggest existential crisis we have now though is that we MUST reduce CO2 emissions and existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

So we need a new battery that is less energy hungry to produce and less polluting at the end if it’s life and given our vast country, more storage capacity.

---

There are a great many battery technologies under development - have a search for them. Some of them sound absolutely fantastic for some applications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

So, do we rush ahead and mandate by law only electric vehicles

---

Who is suggesting that?

Your replies sometimes have a lot of extreme language in them: "rush ahead", "overnight", "bankrupt", "swoop in", "plunge".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

What about nuclear. Look at UK, France, USA, South Korea, Germany, China, Canada.

---

What about it? Show some examples of nuclear being taken up rather than phased out in favour of renewables, in those seven countries. Do you want to see the waste stored here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

On the world stage we are a nobody

---

On the contrary - EVERYBODY is watching us at the moment, and will probably continue to do so. We could harness that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

On the contrary - EVERYBODY is watching us at the moment, and will probably continue to do so. We could harness that.

---

Do you think so? I think they have probably already moved on to the next latest news worthy story and we are yesterdays news

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

With regards to Brett's suggestion of reducing fossil fired power station down to 10% I am not sure that is practical

---

I don't mean now...when it is possible to do so. "perhaps 10%" is just a figure as an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

Solar drops out of the equation at night time and that is where the battery storage and the hydro come into play.

Still some way to go in reducing the use of coal compared to countries like Germany, but remarkable progress given the policy vacuum in which would-be investors have been making decisions. How much further we could have gone with better political leadership here.

Our coal fired power stations in Australia are going to progressively reach their used by date, albeit now at too slow a rate. Once decommissioned they will not be replaced, at least with private investment. There has only ever been one privately funded coal powered station built in Australia, and that went bust about the time it was commissioned. Despite the talk coming from the rural right, it is very unlikely that a government of any persuasion will fund (or even partially fund) another coal fired powered station here. Although, after recent revelations, it seems that pork barrelling is fair play and the deep north may yet need a bit more of that to be rewarded for their vote!

It's not a case of whether renewables will replace fossil fuels but how rapidly. Understandably, the coal interest (unions, management and investors) are fighting a rearguard action to slow the inevitable down. An enlightened government (of either persuasion) would expedite the exit while supporting those who will be most affected (the workers and their communities). But, the investors will be on their own, and increasingly so, with stranded assets. The smart money left long ago. At this stage the industry is lobbying hard, with some success ("here, take this lump of coal into parliament and show how harmless it is"), but the last one out will get to turn off the lights in the coal mine, not the country.

Closing down our emissions from coal can't come soon enough if we are to request other countries to step up their efforts, which we must do if we are to collectively beat this globally.

It's farcical (can't think of a better word, I'm sure there is) that countries like the UK, Germany and those in Scandinavia are doing the heavy lifting while we here in Australia, where we will disproportionately suffer the most from CC, are doing so little over and above (if that is what we are actually doing) our pathetic target.

---

Neil

Taking your paragraphs as quoted above in turn:

Not too much battery storage. The existing battery storage is minimal and really only emergency back up (The Tesla is the most famous example, although not the only installation), but it can only deliver 100MW for a single hour and then it is history. It's main function for the moment is for frequency control, at which it is actually exceptional. Hydro is OK if you have the water. (Ask the Tasmanians.)

Agreed. If I was a private investor, having regard to the government attitudes, I wouldn't touch Australia with a barge pole.

I agree coal fired stations (and Gas fired too for that matter) will be phased out according to how economic they are. I am not sure which private station went bust after commissioning or that it was the only one ever. I work at a privately owned and built station, Millmerran, QLD, as opposed to a government station that was sold off to private enterprise and Millmerran is going strong having been first commissioned in 2002. It is true that we did not make any significant money until about 2009 when another station that ran out of cooling water caused a greater market demand. That was our first year of profit and demonstrates just how fickle the market is (not overly encouraging for potential investors). The station was conceived in the late 90s and it was deemed the economic entry point (price wise) was $35/MWhr. The station came on line and price promptly fell to $25/MWhr. Since that time we have been much more successful and are the second most energy efficient station in the country and will arguably be one of the last if not the last to be closed down: Not that I will be there.

I am surprised at the permission to open new coal mines and it is to my mind both stupid and very possibly insidious. Take the Adani mine that has just been fined in the courts ($3 million I think) for infringing their mining conditions. They had undertaken the infringement even before full approval of the mine had been given. It doesn't bode well for their future behaviour.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

From a practical point of view, Australia is a minor contributor in the scheme of things so even if we reduce our emissions to 0, unless the majority of the world players did their bit the outcome will be the same.

On the world stage we are a nobody

The point I am making is we also need to be mindful that we don’t sabotage our economy for little more than a placebo effect outcome.

---

I have to respectfully disagree with you on all three of those points, Beardy.

1. Our share of CO2 missions may only be a relatively minor contribution to global emissions, but as a country we stand to lose disproportionately from CC. It's not in our interest to do nothing. Unless we do our fair share of the heavy lifting we cannot call on other countries to lift their fair share of the weight to benefit us.
2. On the world stage we are more than a nobody. After the 2000 Olympics I was travelling overseas and even people in remote areas of the US knew who we were. Ask the residence of the little town of Villers Bretonneux about Australians. Ask Wi-Fi and cocklear implant users how useful those technologies are. Yes, we have a relatively small population for our landmass, but our population is about the same size as Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland combined. And, we are wealthy, very wealthy. Our GDP in 2019 was (est until 4th Qtr figures in) was A$1.89 trillion, according to the World Bank 13th behind the economic powerhouse of South Korea and according to the United Nations 13th in the world behind Russia. But, because of our small population, our median wealth per adult is only second to Switzerland's. Poor bugger me, no way! We are large enough, clever enough and wealthy enough to more than pull our weight on this one.
3. I disagree with you most on your last point. Not only will a shift to a green economy not sabotage our economic well-being, it will, if done properly, rescue us from our current economic torpor and set us up as a strong economy for the remainder of the 21stC. Yes, our old fossil fuel economy will be "wrecked", but that is going to happen anyway if we do nothing. The compelling economic arguments for the shift has been put very well by Prof. Ross Garnaut in his book, Superpower: Australia’s Low-Carbon Opportunity, La Trobe University Press, 2019. A brief review of the book can be read here on that hotbed of lefty thinking (not), the Lowy Institute. The reviewer summed up with the words, "Only the most recalcitrant, blinkered, and self-interested could argue with much of the blueprint outlined here. That doesn’t mean they won’t, of course. ... And yet, if we can’t address these problems in a country like Australia with all of its compelling reasons for immediate action – many of which are also surprisingly positive and in our collective interest – why would we expect any other country to do so?"

Let me be clear, I'm not arguing the science here, just for Australia's capacity to take unilateral action on our emissions if we are convinced that we should do so; how this would then allow us in all conscience to lean on other countries to come along with us; and the economic benefits that would flow from doing so compared to doing nothing or dragging the chain.

“You can't really make such a broad statement when we have no idea of what technologies will be available around the second half of this century. I strongly suspect that oil will be virtually unused a fair while before it runs out - I think the demand will drop dramatically from about 2030 onwards and that will make the production hugely expensive for any vehicles that still require it (like my bulldozer example from earlier).”

Is is that a change in tune or an example of forgetting what you previously posted?

Post #. 329 In answer to a post from Beardy that says “ by immediate future I am suggesting perhaps 5 to 10 years who knows”

You responded “I deeply suspect that will be too late”

Now your saying 2030 to the second half of this century.

Which one is it?.

I used words like swoop, rush ahead, overnight and bankrupt in response to your Option c) and your apparent belief from post 329 that the end was nigh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

On the world stage we are a nobody

---

We are a member of the G20 - the top 20 economies in the world.

You are just trying to twist my words Lappa, for reasons best known to you. You are conflating two separate things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Everyone talks about our dirty fuel source but the reality is we don’t have a viable alternative so we are stuck with it for the immediate future

---

And Beardy responded with "5-10 years". I then responded that "I deeply suspect that will be too late" (with reference to getting going properly with transitioning). That has nothing to do with when I think oil will go into decline - they are two separate things.

In other words, and hopefully to satisfy even the most pedantic amongst us: the is a body of CC scientists who think we may already be past the tipping point of terrible warming, and not being able to rectify it properly, regardless of what we do. That is a totally different thing to when I (as a non-expert) might postulate that oil will be in decline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

Now your saying 2030 to the second half of this century. Which one is it?.

---

No, that is a mischaracterisation. I actually said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

I think the demand (for oil) will drop dramatically from about 2030 onwards

---

That doesn't mean that it still won't be too late - it just means that is when I think the demand for oil will drop (and I really can't see it being earlier than then). I think that there will be dramatic developments in the next decade for Solar power & storage, electric vehicles, and the Poles & Wires grid. I think that one of the major reasons for that is the result of this summer - even SmoKo is shifting his attitude.

They are two separate things. One suspects that you just want to argue with anything I say - trying to pick the tiniest little holes, again for reasons best known to you. If you want to quote me, do get it right, and don't conflate separate issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

I have to respectfully disagree with you on all three of those points, Beardy.

1. Our share of CO2 missions may only be a relatively minor contribution to global emissions, but as a country we stand to lose disproportionately from CC. It's not in our interest to do nothing. Unless we do our fair share of the heavy lifting we cannot call on other countries to lift their fair share of the weight to benefit us.
2. On the world stage we are more than a nobody. After the 2000 Olympics I was travelling overseas and even people in remote areas of the US knew who we were. Ask the residence of the little town of Villers Bretonneux about Australians. Ask Wi-Fi and cocklear implant users how useful those technologies are. Yes, we have a relatively small population for our landmass, but our population is about the same size as Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland combined. And, we are wealthy, very wealthy. Our GDP in 2019 was (est until 4th Qtr figures in) was A$1.89 trillion, according to the World Bank 13th behind the economic powerhouse of South Korea and according to the United Nations 13th in the world behind Russia. But, because of our small population, our median wealth per adult is only second to Switzerland's. Poor bugger me, no way! We are large enough, clever enough and wealthy enough to more than pull our weight on this one.
3. I disagree with you most on your last point. Not only will a shift to a green economy not sabotage our economic well-being, it will, if done properly, rescue us from our current economic torpor and set us up as a strong economy for the remainder of the 21stC. Yes, our old fossil fuel economy will be "wrecked", but that is going to happen anyway if we do nothing. The compelling economic arguments for the shift has been put very well by Prof. Ross Garnaut in his book, Superpower: Australia’s Low-Carbon Opportunity, La Trobe University Press, 2019. A brief review of the book can be read here on that hotbed of lefty thinking (not), the Lowy Institute. The reviewer summed up with the words, "Only the most recalcitrant, blinkered, and self-interested could argue with much of the blueprint outlined here. That doesn’t mean they won’t, of course. ... And yet, if we can’t address these problems in a country like Australia with all of its compelling reasons for immediate action – many of which are also surprisingly positive and in our collective interest – why would we expect any other country to do so?"

Let me be clear, I'm not arguing the science here, just for Australia's capacity to take unilateral action on our emissions if we are convinced that we should do so; how this would then allow us in all conscience to lean on other countries to come along with us; and the economic benefits that would flow from doing so compared to doing nothing or dragging the chain.

---

Yes but a substantial part of our wealth comes from the mining sector, what I am saying is we need to be mindful of not killing that off without having something to fill the void all to further reduce our 1% input to the issue.

i am not saying don’t do it but let’s maintain a sensible approach. Everyone is talking about transitioning but we still don’t know what we are transitioning to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Well the footage in the clip you posted was already edited to only show the parts that fit the agenda before we look any further. Even then Molan was never permitted to finish a single statement without interjection by the stacked audience. From the sentence fragments from that interchange between Hamish and Molan can you conclusively answer "evidence of what" is Molan not relying?

The whole 1.25 minutes of it is "cherry picked" and totally without any definite context.

---

A little slow getting to this, but I have now had an opportunity to watch the Q&A episode, and all I can say is to draw those conclusions, you couldn't possibly have watched the episode. I watched the episode, then the news clip, then that part of the episode again.

Then I ran them in parallel in two separate browsers to compare exactly what was cut out.

The news clip was 1:25 (85 seconds) long.
The whole paragraph live was 2:50 (170 seconds) including the Moderator calming/shooshing the audience on 2-3 occasions. There was nothing edited out that changed the context or meaning of what Molan said. Nothing whatsoever. The first part was basically him saying we are getting hotter and drier, but that he's not sure that humans have had any impact, but "he's got an open mind and would love to be convinced one way or another".

What was deleted was 21 seconds from 45:30, and 64 seconds from 46:09 (where the moderator was trying to get Molan to answer the question he was asked about "what was this info that crosses his desk every day". That makes up the 1:25 that was edited out of the news clip, and didn't change the thrust of it whatsoever.

The news clip was 100% representative of what Molan said, and in particular the second part (which is really what all the contention and jeering was about) from the words "I'm not relying on evidence". In the live broadcast from the time he started saying that (47:15) to the end of the paragraph (47:50) is 35 seconds, and in the news clip it is 36 seconds, so is taken verbatim. Verbatim - exactly as it was said. Nothing added, nothing deleted.

Very obviously that means it was not cherry picked, and is absolutely in context. In fact all that was edited out (first part only) was Molan not answering the question he was asked.

As for Molan "not finishing a single statement without interjection...well he finished all of his statements except for perhaps one, and there were IIRC two audience interjections. Nothing particularly new there when someone is making contentious, or outrageous statements. Let's face it - when was the last time any politician didn't have to be drawn back to the point after waffling on with other stuff. Molan may have been a Major General in the Army, and he may have been a very good one - he probably was - but now he is just another politician with a party line to push.

The Liberal party famously even gave him an unwinnable spot on the Senate ticket, so they couldn't have valued his services or political skills too highly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

i am not saying don’t do it but let’s maintain a sensible approach.

---

Of course we should Beardy, just with more conviction and urgency, and a whole lot less doubters and nay-sayers holding things up.

Obviously everybody is mindful of our economy (which is too reliant on mining and resources). We need to develop it so that our very reliance on such things doesn't leave us stranded with bugger all income. As Attenborough said "If China jumps then so will everyone else".

Managed to take in Media Watch too, which is devoted to the reporting of the fires. (it may be on the ABC but it is not an ABC production)

My reply wasn’t about the oil situation. If you bothered to read your post that I quoted it was clear that the issue was that you said we have no idea of what technologies will be available into the second half of the century but your response to Beardy (5 to 10 years) was that you were afraid we didn’t Have that long.
So, if the Earth is doomed and Climate Change caused by CO2 emissions is irreversible in 5, 10, 20 or even 30 years, what will be the use of these new technologies developed after the event?
The quoted year of 2030 was just a 10 year period from this year.

Whatever , I am just going to agree that you want to disagree.

Co2 to methanol.

Very interesting!

Water-conducting membrane allows carbon dioxide to transform into fuel more efficiently

Yes, interesting WP. When methanol burns it produces CO2 and H2O, (press the green button) so presumably the CO2 can be treated again (although I suppose it doesn't matter which CO2 gets put through the membrane...). A similar sort of cyclic principle to burning hydrogen.

Something to remember is that much of the new technologies we are discussing would come about in the course of time anyway. The current crisis, if for a moment we can refer to a crisis, even it is only a perceived crisis such as the Y2K scenario, hastens technology along at an accelerated rate. In fact the other commonplace crisis of wars does the same thing.

Not all the technologies are going to work: Arguably most of them will fall by the wayside for economic reasons or practicality, but out of those many new ideas some will be adopted and one or two may even be game changers. Crisis accelerates accelerates invention and change. We just have to be wary of stating that every new invention is a saviour.

Perhaps it would be useful to define some of the timelines for change. To my mind immediate is this year, 2020. The near future is up to 2030 and the future perhaps to 2050. Long term would be 2100. Of course these are purely my timelines. I think we are being a little pedantic when making reference to times and getting worked up when we are talking about quite similar things.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Not all the technologies are going to work: Arguably most of them will fall by the wayside for economic reasons or practicality, but out of those many new ideas some will be adopted and one or two may even be game changers. Crisis accelerates accelerates invention and change. We just have to be wary of stating that every new invention is a saviour.

---

And no doubt that there are parts of one invention that is not taken up that can be used in another, or one technology influences another.

Even if we haven't reached crisis point, one reason why I believe we need to go much faster with the development is that it would be much safer to have some settled technologies in place before we reach the crisis point - in other words "ASAHP". In that scenario we wouldn't necessarily know when the crisis was going to arrive. If we have reached the crisis point then self-evidently we need to go even faster still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I think we are being a little pedantic when making reference to times and getting worked up when we are talking about quite similar things.

---

I think that is all more to do with a couple of people wanting to argue with anything they can about my posts. Speculated timelines are a pretty soft target for that, but if it wasn't timelines it would be something - anything - else, just to be argumentative.

[QUOTE=woodPixel;2172794]Doesnt biochar (or simply burning) produce CO2? (Biochar - Wikipedia)

No biochar made by pyrolisis doesn't produce carbon dioxide, it is made by heating carbon rich material WITHOUT OXYGEN. The complex carbohydrates that make up lignin and cellulose in wood break up under the influence of heat and you can draw off a huge range of products ranging from pure hydrogen, then methane, propane etc right down to creosote and bitumen with petrol and diesel in the middle. Not having oxygen means there can be no combustion so no carbon dioxide. I should have been a bit more clear that I was talking about modern pyrolisis and not the old dirty charcoal making. Mind you, even charcoal made by the old partial combustion method is better than nothing -The co2 being released into the atmosphere has come out of the atmosphere via plants rather than from fossil sources so it is a net zero carbon/carbon neutral while the charcoal itself, if buried in soil is carbon permanently removed from the atmosphere/carbon negative.

In a previous post I mentioned an upcoming proposal to be placed before Government re the use of household waste to produce electricity. The lads behind this idea have decided to launch in the USA instead. Why? Apathy. Not on their part, but the Governments wishy-washy attitude towards Renewables and the indecisive, short term thinking that has become a trademark in Australian politics. I wonder how many other good ideas are going to go off shore for similar reasons? Oh well, back to the coal face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I am not sure which private station went bust after commissioning or that it was the only one ever. I work at a privately owned and built station, Millmerran, QLD, as opposed to a government station that was sold off to private enterprise and Millmerran is going strong having been first commissioned in 2002. It is true that we did not make any significant money until about 2009 when another station that ran out of cooling water caused a greater market demand. That was our first year of profit and demonstrates just how fickle the market is (not overly encouraging for potential investors). The station was conceived in the late 90s and it was deemed the economic entry point (price wise) was $35/MWhr. The station came on line and price promptly fell to $25/MWhr. Since that time we have been much more successful and are the second most energy efficient station in the country and will arguably be one of the last if not the last to be closed down: Not that I will be there.

---

Paul

I stand corrected, I missed Millmerran.

I was referring to Bluewater in WA, the last coal fired power station to be commissioned here in Australia (2009).

I was interested to read your insights into large battery storage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rustynail

In a previous post I mentioned an upcoming proposal to be placed before Government re the use of household waste to produce electricity. The lads behind this idea have decided to launch in the USA instead. Why? Apathy. Not on their part, but the Governments wishy-washy attitude towards Renewables and the indecisive, short term thinking that has become a trademark in Australian politics. I wonder how many other good ideas are going to go off shore for similar reasons? Oh well, back to the coal face.

---

Is that the one that has an experimental small super-furnace somewhere in the eastern inner city of Sydney or thereabouts?

It's persisting it down - has been since lunchtime Satdy.

256km radar just now
Attachment 468440


Excellent news - the Currowan fire in the Shoalhaven is now extinguished. Funny thing is that on "Fires near me" there are still heaps of incidents - trees down! (and listed as Out Of Control :D)