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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

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.

---

Neil

You were way ahead of me as I had never heard of Bluewater and had to look it up. It is in WA so well outside my sphere. My take on that one is that the original contractors had financial issues, but it has been bought by a japanese consortium (of two?) and functions well enough now. They talked of building two more units, which if undertaken, would bring the station to roughly the same size as Millmerran: Millmerran is a small station. There was precious little information on the type of installation other than it has IHI boilers, Alstom turbines/generators and fired on sub bituminous coal (all coal fired power stations burn rubbish coal). Tey maintain is is one of the most efficient units of that type in WA. The detail is in the wording "that type" and "WA." Firstly it is sub critical. The other last six units built, which are all in QLD (Tarong North x 1, Callide x 2, Kogan creek x 1 and Millmerran x 2) are super critical units. Without troubling too much on the technical details it basically means they are the most efficient units in Australia of this type.



It seems they are due to re finance so it will be interesting to see how that goes. certainly it will not be easy and difficult to see how they will gain support for another two units. I also picked up on this

"The company is owned by Japanese energy giants Sumitomo and Kansai Electric, who paid about $1.2 billion in 2011. The Japanese investors bought the power stations from KordaMentha, which was selling in its capacity as administrator of Griffin Group.The Bluewaters 1 power station - one of the two company owned generators - recorded $129.2 million revenue and a $2 million loss before tax in the year to March 31, according to accounts filed with the corporate regulator. It had assets worth $430 million and $446 million liabilities."

Presumably Bluewaters was bought in a fire sale at a bargain basement price. Despite that, the cost per MW is still about twice that of Millmerran, admittedly a few years earlier.



I also saw in a WA newspaper report that a $4 million grant has been given for a feasibility study for a coal fired station in North QLD!

Australia one step closer to new coal-fired power station in Queensland’s north with $4 million committed to feasibility study | The West Australian

Are they stupid or what?

The battery issue is a glaring example of how politicians from either side embellish to suit their agenda or otherwise gain credibility. If they had turned around and said the Tesla battery is a gigantic emergency backup supply, albeit quite an expensive backup, nobody would have raised an eyebrow. However the SA government subtly led the populace to believe it would save them against catastrophes of nature. Musk was very happy to promote the wonderful attributes of his grid saving Tesla battery. Both ran a successful PR campaign. Don't get me wrong, it was not in fact a waste of time, but it was never going to be capable of saving the grid from major trauma. It will save marginal and brief under supply and as I mentioned before it has an excellent frequency control capability, primarily because of the exceptionally fast response rate, which is far better than even hydro power (previously the fast rate response provider). My memory is that it cost $500,000. That is expensive for 100MW for one hour.

Something else I feel bound to remind readers of this thread is that the grid is huge. I have not done the sums, but over 4000Kms long I would guess.

Attachment 468441

A facility in Adelaide or Melbourne (or even Sydney) is of no assistance to Brisbane and vice versa.

Regards
Paul

The uses for CO2 are vast. I like the methanol, alcohol and "reverse coal" ideas.

Now, all we need is energy! If only Australia had access to a vast, limitless, abundant source of renewable energy....


Full Page Reload

Carbon XPRIZE

Bushmiller I have enjoyed the insight from your posts on this subject and your practical approach so thankyou for that
Would it be fair to say that Australia’s situation is far more complicated than most countries due to our sparse population over a huge area compared to the much smaller densely populated European ones that can share/trade supply across the border or easily piggy back new technology onto their system ?

And with that, given we don’t know what form the “new” alternative base supply will come We can’t really set up infrastructure apart from tinkering adhock like we are with our present setup ?

Or am I misunderstanding the situation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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

---

Some weeks prior to FF starting this thread, I called in to say G'day to him and one of our main discussions was climate change and what you have stated as above was basically the gist of my side of our conversation.
As I said in my 2nd last post prior to this, the facts and answers are somewhere in the middle of the two camps and they need to work together without getting hysterical about their respective views.
Progress progresses exponentially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

The uses for CO2 are vast.

---

Yep, you can even change a climate with it, provided you are able to produce enough of it! :roflmao2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Would it be fair to say that Australia’s situation is far more complicated than most countries due to our sparse population over a huge area

---

This is an issue that complicates a great many things for us (not the least of which is transport infrastructure and cost). That is where more localised solutions become more practical like sharing Solar panels (buying elec from your neighbour), neighbourhood battery sharing in a mini-grid. That would also go some way towards getting around the problem of a roof that can't take panels (mine is asbestos we think), or are too shaded to be properly effective, and renters that can't get panels put on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Bushmiller I have enjoyed the insight from your posts on this subject and your practical approach so thankyou for that
Would it be fair to say that Australia’s situation is far more complicated than most countries due to our sparse population over a huge area compared to the much smaller densely populated European ones that can share/trade supply across the border or easily piggy back new technology onto their system ?

And with that, given we don’t know what form the “new” alternative base supply will come We can’t really set up infrastructure apart from tinkering adhock like we are with our present setup ?

Or am I misunderstanding the situation?

---

Beardy

Thank you for your kind words. I do have a slight advantage being directly involved in the business. However, I have to tell you that there is still a large range of views regarding climate change among my colleagues, many of whom I regard as friends. I am based in QLD after all and it is arguably the most conservative (think fearful and frightened here) state there is, although WA may rival it, but I have never even visited WA so I am even more unqualified than normal to comment.

Yes, Australia is in the invidious position of a small population and a vast land. Simple things become difficult. I think it was in another thread that the subject of transmission was dismissed as not being an issue. It is of course an issue in the same way roads are an issue. We are a relatively wealthy country so we get away with it, but every long road or transmission line has fewer people to pay for it than in most other countries. It is ironic that we have all this sun and all this space and still it is difficult to position solar farms economically. It is also ironic that back in the 70s and 80s Australia was a leader in solar development. The old story. There was just not the interest here for research and other counties where the sun hardly shone romped ahead. Even if we did not use it ourselves (because of our abundance of coal and other resources) we should have pursued it to sell onto other countries less fortunate than us with resources.

nother potential export lost. Oh, the benefit of 20/20 hindsight!

I think in some ways you have hit on the key to the problem. It is that we need a replacement base load system to the current coal fired stations (and the gas fired stations, except they tend to be more expensive to run, but are more flexible). None of the renewables for the moment (note please "for the moment") or unless there is a significant breakthrough, are in a position to reliably produce base load power. Base load power has nothing to do with size, although in the past it was indeed the larger stations that did this, but more to do with the ability to produce reliable power at any time. That is the crucial criteria: at any time.

Sure, we should be moving towards alternatives and if we don't life is going to become very difficult and much less attractive than it has been in recent times. I will still trot out my mantra that the alternative has to be economic or it will not gain traction, because of the competitive market.

What are the alternative base load options? Really? Sweet Fanny Adams your honour! :( Currently we have coal but the only alternative is nuclear. In Australia in particular I doubt nuclear will fly for these reasons.

Nuclear plants are expensive to build and expensive to maintain. When they are built they tend to be larger installations to maximise the economy of scale (I have heard that there are some "pocket" sized plants being considered, but I know nothing about them to the extent they may not even have been built). Large plants do not suit Australia because of our relatively small grid (Megawatt wise, not distance). What do we do with the waste? Still no solution to that. What about safety if something goes wrong? Are they more susceptible to terrorist attack? No, but more of a disaster if they are "hit." And which one of you wants one in his back yard? No, no, no, we are not going to stick them out in the desert because there aren't any power lines and it is too costly to put them up and the government won't give them to us for free: This of course is the chant of the private owners. On top of that, the pay back period is going to be long (remember it has to be economically viable) and in the meantime a renewable might get sufficient traction that it becomes both cheaper and more reliable all around the clock!

There is one nuclear alternative that dispenses with some of the concerns above. It is Thorium powered nuclear, but nobody seems to be terribly interested primarily because you can't make bombs with thorium. If Chernobyl and Fukushima had been powered by thorium there would not have been the catastrophic disasters experienced in those two locations. However, that it a bit glib of me as thorium is a very different product. It's big advantages are that the half life of the spent fuel rods are nowhere near as long as the isotopes of Uranium and Plutonium and the reaction can be shut down at the flick of a switch thus eliminating the melt down potential.

However, no bombs and the initial reaction is quite a lot more difficult to establish. Incidentally, Australia just happens to have one of the largest thorium resources in the world.

I am starting to ramble, but on your last point we do need to know where we are going before we build roads just on the off chance.

Regards
Paul

Paul do you have any feel for roughly what % of our power needs to be base load?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

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)

---

Brett

And there I was feeling very pleased that we had 40mm on Friday (looks like you could be getting nearer to 400mm!) and all but one of our tanks are full. Nearly 50,000L. We just ordered two more tanks on Thursday. I think that is what did it! :rolleyes:

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

This is an issue that complicates a great many things for us (not the least of which is transport infrastructure and cost). That is where more localised solutions become more practical like sharing Solar panels (buying elec from your neighbour), neighbourhood battery sharing in a mini-grid. That would also go some way towards getting around the problem of a roof that can't take panels (mine is asbestos we think), or are too shaded to be properly effective, and renters that can't get panels put on.

---

It is probably also the reason why our per capital emissions are higher than other countries which is why I don’t think it is a relevant point of data.p apart from its propaganda use.
Sharing of power with your neighbors is fine and panels on your house can make economic sense for the owner but it is in no way a solution to our problem of running public infrastructure and industry. Batteries are still not up to the task yet either

Curious as to why you can’t put panels on an asbestos roof? Is it just the installers that don’t want to touch it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Brett

And there I was feeling very pleased that we had 40mm on Friday (looks like you could be getting nearer to 400mm!) and all but one of our tanks are full. Nearly 50,000L. We just ordered two more tanks on Thursday. I think that is what did it! :rolleyes:

Regards
Paul

---

i have just installed an additional 100,000 litres of tanks to my place and they have already filled in the last couple of days :)

..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

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.

---

..
Attachment 468454

Lucky buggers, just looked at gauge, 3.5mm in 36 hrs :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwbuild

Lucky buggers, just looked at gauge, 3.5mm in 36 hrs :(

---

My gauge was overflowing at 200mm an hour or so ago so have emptied it to start again. Are you forecast to get a bit more ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Is it just the installers that don’t want to touch it?

---

Pretty much. It's also a bit steepish and mossy. Apart from that I don't own it anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

My gauge was overflowing at 200mm an hour or so ago so have emptied it to start again. Are you forecast to get a bit more ?

---

Supposed to but don't hold much hope looking at the radar, big sandstone fence in the way.......

We had 193mm until 9am this morning, and I'd reckon we've had that much again since then. If that is right then it'll be a half a metre since Friday morning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwbuild

Supposed to but don't hold much hope looking at the radar, big sandstone fence in the way.......

---

You're a fair way out of range of maritime weather, Ray. Normally, I'm right on the edge of it but the stronger East Coast lows, like the one we're having now, penetrate a bit further to the West. I haven't measured my guage but I estimate >50mm so far. The paddocks are greening up and we're in for a second Spring, not a day too late. Two weeks ago it was brown paddocks, no feed and a dry river bed.

I hope you get some rain soon.

mick

Yep but at least the catchment of the Lachlan-Wyangala Dam will get some of it, at least Cowra hasn't had to bring any water restrictions in yet and a lot of the farmers are getting some in the N & NW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Paul do you have any feel for roughly what % of our power needs to be base load?

---

That is actually quite a complex question and probably up for some debate.

It could be the generators that are always on line up to their normal loading. For example, at Millmerran we run at full load most of the time and only reduce load when there are limitations on our plant. Those limitation are primarily, but not exclusively, during elevated ambient temperatures. Other stations reduce load probably at times for similar reasons and sometimes also because it is not economic for them to run at a higher load with the prices being offered (actually price are not offered as it is a bidding system). So under these circumstances the amount of base load power is dictated by the night time demand during the week. It may be less at the weekend. That could be construed as the effective base load.

I think this base load would be between 50% and 60% of normal maximum loads for the day. Coal fired stations could be producing up to 70% at times but there are so many variables with solar and wind.

When I am next back on shift I will see if I can put some ballpark figures together just based on what I see over a few days. They will not be official figures and I am not sure that such a breakdown even exists.

The base load may be able to be defined as the minimum load on average at night and a base load station is one that contributes either wholly or partially to that demand. Any other load at other times may partially be supplied by the "base" load stations ramping up, if they have capacity, as well as other players coming into the mix.

One other point I should make about base load stations is that they are often not very flexible at lower loads. To give an example, it might be cheaper to stay on line at a very low (or even negative) price than coming offline completely and restarting. Restarting a coal fired station is costly and sometimes protracted. The gas turbine stations, some of which are completely unmanned can come on (and off) at the flick of a switch. One ex colleague previously worked at a facility near us and he would log in on his phone from home, start the machine and drive in to see if everything had gone as expected. Another ex colleague now controls a number of gas turbines around QLD from his Brisbane base. These are the peaking machines. They only fire up when the prices are high. When the first colleague joined us he said that the gas turbines at his previous location had only run twice the previous year.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

We had 193mm until 9am this morning, and I'd reckon we've had that much again since then. If that is right then it'll be a half a metre since Friday morning.

---

Whoa! I'd be participating a little more on the boating section of this Forum. :D

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Whoa! I'd be participating a little more on the boating section of this Forum. :D

---

Yeah, it's pretty insane. Having had nil precipitation to speak of for maybe 3-4 months I hadn't had to really mow the lawns until Tuesday 11 days ago. And only then because we'd had about a week of light rain rain on and off. Around the shady edges it was a little longer but the main part was still only about 60mm after months of summer. Since then (11-12 days) it's grown about 100mm! Problem is that we have still got a week of rain ahead (poor bugger me :D) so I may need to invest in a scythe by the time things dry out.

North Richmond bridge covered, first time since Feb 1992 and without ANYTHING released from the catchment dams.

The low appears to be heading down the coast, so maybe the southern NSW/Vic firegrounds are going to get a good dousing. Maybe even a bit more heading Cowra way for you Ray.

Attachment 468470

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Having had nil precipitation to speak of for maybe 3-4 months I hadn't had to really mow the lawns until Tuesday 11 days ago.

---

We hadn't fired up the mower for well over a year! The two back tyres were flat. Battery, surprisingly, was OK. A bit of air in the tyres. a full tank of fuel and SWMBO was good to go. A full day enjoying the wind in her hair :2tsup: .

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

The low appears to be heading down the coast, so maybe the southern NSW/Vic firegrounds are going to get a good dousing. Maybe even a bit more heading Cowra way for you Ray.

Attachment 468470

---

Bright sunny day here, but the farmers need it desperately, some of them have started working ground in anticapation

Just revisiting this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glider

I'd like to see the fire spotting towers manned again. Someone told me they stopped the practice for safety reasons. I'm trying to understand why the people in the tower couldn't see the danger approaching and get out. Water bombing a small blaze must surely be more effective than a major inferno.

---

Bums on seats with binoculars is the preferred method in WA apparently.
West Australian tower watchers are the state's first line of defence against bushfires - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

i have just installed an additional 100,000 litres of tanks to my place and they have already filled in the last couple of days :)

---

''

An additional 100,000L! I'm suitably impressed. We will be at 100,000 when the new tanks arrive in about three weeks: After the rains have subsided?

Regards
Paul

Bugger having people sitting around watching.

This is the VIIRS and MODIS infrared satellite feed. It shows hotspots that develop in patches of 375 metres.

Historical data, overlays, intensitys, changes... the works. The Advanced data and options show EVERYTHING.

This is Aus... simply zoom in, the URL is bookmarkable one you reach your own area FIRMS - Fire Map

This is an example of what the public data can do: Bushfire.io | Alpha | A bushfire map

Absolutely no need for people. This data has a resolution of 15 minutes, is instantly updated and may be readily imported into a map.

Alerts can be sent to crews before anyone even knows its started!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

Bugger having people sitting around watching.

---

Maybe....'cept for this bit:

Note: Cloud cover may obscure active fire detections.

and this was in my Bloomberg trading feed this morning Bloomberg - Climate Models Are Running Red Hot, and Scientists Don’t Know Why

So, if its good enough to trade on (i.e. make money with*), why isn't it good enough to use for mitigation?

Is "Climate Change" so made up that we can use it to invest, but it isn't real enough to act upon?

It can't be both!

God damned CCD'ers. God damned conservative politicians. They'll be the death of us.



* Or better still, avoid massive losses!

So yesterday was the wettest February day EVER for Katoomba since 1886, with 226mm until 9am this morning, bringing the total since Thursday 9am to:
32.0 (T)
66.0 (F)
193.4 (S)
226.0 (S)
517.4mm in four days

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

So yesterday was the wettest February day EVER for Katoomba since 1886, with 226mm until 9am this morning, bringing the total since Thursday 9am to:
32.0 (T)
66.0 (F)
193.4 (S)
226.0 (S)
517.4mm in four days

---

Brett

That level of rainfall here would result in the Island of Millmerran (it has already happened in the 2010/2011 floods) and we would be able to cede from the Toowoomba shire, although that may not be the best time to emulate the Kingdom of Hutt River. I imagine that all your water flows down the hill, But what happens at the bottom of the hill?

These records actually emphasise that climate change is not just about heat: Climate Change is about extremes in every sphere: More of just about everything.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

These records actually emphasise that climate change is not just about heat: Climate Change is about extremes in every sphere: More of just about everything.

---

Yes, and it's the very frequency of these records falling that should be alarming to everyone.

Your point about extremes in every sphere brings up a point that may have been mentioned earlier, but certainly bears repeating. Somebody mentioned huge snow dumps in North America means the climate can't be warming. Part of the cause of that was that Lake Erie didn't freeze over and therefore there was much more evaporation which created much more snow.

Even evidence supposedly supporting deniers can be evidence to the contrary when examined properly.

Indeed Brett

It was a similar phenomena when in the arctic some, but not all, glaciers extended for a while. This was in fact because there was more melt water than normal and the deniers latched on to that quick smart. It was explained, but I doubt it was accepted. The extended glaciers weren't, of course, sustainable.

Regards
Paul

I've just watched last week's 4 Corners "Black Summer".

Anyone reading this thread who hasn't seen it should watch it, but be warned - it's harrowing. (and for the ABC knockers who think it might be stacked with whatever - it's reportage without opinion)

Four Corners : ABC iview

It was a politician free zone on Q&A last night (the best kind of Q&A by far). The topic was Transitioning from Coal to Renewables, which is absolutely smack on the theme of this thread (how to do the transitioning). There was no discussion of whether or not CC was happening - none whatsoever. Much discussion of what a golden economic opportunity is staring Australia in the face. Matt Evans summed it up at the end when he said "Everybody wants this to happen except a small bunch of federal politicians".

One of the points made at about 21:30 was from our representative at the recent Davos summit (Sophia Wang). She said that the eyes of the world's commerce leaders were on Australia, so we sure are NOT a "nobody". BTW, her start up business is pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere to make building materials.

A very good show indeed - extremely informative, albeit with a stacked audience (stacked with concerned coal miners, farmers, young people and other similar super-radicals).



One slightly disappointing note however, was to see two people in a row (the questioner and the first answerer) both thinking that there are only two "u"s in Nuculur when everyone knows there are at least three. :doh:

I have been following this conversation with interest and appreciate all contributors for your interesting views. Up to now I've not commented because I don't think I have the intellect to add anything meaningful.
Except this may be of interest. I owned a truck delivering concrete from 1980 to 2oo7, the initial truck was replaced in 2003. I used to calculate that I was getting about 3 km for each litre of diesel burnt. I dug out my old log book and did a bit of maths. In 23 years the truck did 708,827 km which at 3km/L is 236,275 litres of diesel. The computer tells me that each litre of diesel produces 2.68 kg of CO2 which equates to 633,217kg.
The agitator on the back of the truck utilised a petrol burning donkey motor. Having no record of petrol consumption I conservatively worked on burning 10 L per day. I said conservative, some days I burnt 80 litres other days none. At 60 L/week x 50 weeks x 23 years equals 69,000 litres of petrol. Once again Mr Google tells me that each litre of petrol produces 2.31 Kg of CO2, which equals 159390kg. Add the two together (792,607kg) and I am responsible for nearly 80 Tonnes of CO2 from that source alone.
On the upside the vintage car enthusiasts inform us that the manufacturing process of any vehicle creates more pollution than that vehicle will produce in its lifetime. On that basis I am giving myself a pat on the back for making that 1976 Ford Louisville last from 1980 to 2003 and it didn't end there, after I sold it, it went on for a few more years as a skip bin hauler.
Cheers,
Geoff.

In the absence of any answers to repeated requests of what the remaining deniers and fence sitters are afraid of, one can only assume that it is economic loss (for themselves and/or the country) combined with fear of the unknown aka staunch conservatism. I believe that those two assumptions are not only correct, but also that there are no other reasons for denial.



When I started High School in 1968, to play the sport of our choice we had to be able to swim a lap of the Gunnamatta Bay Baths....out at the 7 metre deep Pontoon, otherwise we had to take compulsory swimming lessons.

I could swim just fine, but I was afraid to go out of my depth.
I wanted to play tennis for school sport, so I had a problem to overcome.

At the very last minute...the day before the swimming test....Dad took me down to the pontoon, we both held on to the ladder. No worries.
Dad said "We both know you can swim, right?"
"Yep"
"So......let go of the ladder......"
And with a deep intake of air, and no doubt a bit of a charge of adrenalin.....I swam away from the ladder....and played tennis the next week.

I didn't know what I was scared of. I was just bloody scared.



All of our entrepreneurs, captains of industry, scientists etc etc are telling us that we have a golden opportunity to lead the world in renewable energy technology, and create a very strong foundation for our future economy.

We are being held back by a diminishing number of people who are scared, but who cannot - or will not elucidate what they are scared of. I have previously noted (in here) that I said in October that I thought this summer may well change a lot of minds about the reality of CC (given that the bushfire season started in mid-winter, for crying out loud). I would be fascinated to see data on people who have changed their minds in the last 6 months.



The inescapable facts are:

1. We will run out of oil by ~2070, and will no longer have reason to meddle in the Middle East.
2. Electric vehicles and hydrogen powered vehicles are being widely developed, and at an increasing rate. Infrastructure for their ongoing support is dragging the chain right now - at least in Oz, but will start to catch up reasonably soon. That is known as transition.
3. Burning fossil fuels puts CO2 into the atmosphere, which has increased by 33% as a component since about 1950. We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
4. Coal is on the nose for all of the world's banks and other lenders - very soon it will be impossible to find external finance for CF power (simply because a return on investment will not be seen)
5. Australia will have no say in the world wide demand for our coal (as high quality as it is) falling through the floor, which will savage our national income
6. We have an abundance of other resources that will used in tech of the future
7. There are multiple emerging technologies to change our energy sources, and the next five years or so will see tremendous advances
8. The world IS going to transition away from coal (and it's sounding like hydrogen and perhaps methanol might do the heavy lifting part of coal)
9. Australia is being presented with a golden opportunity to cash in on this energy transition. If we do not jump in and lead then we will have lost the impetus that a small nation like ours needs, because other nations or large corporations WILL seize the opportunities that we ignored. We will then have to explain to our grandchildren why we sat on our hands as the country burnt to a crisp, and our economy went overseas.

How, in all conscience, can anyone suggest we should not just go along for the ride, but drive the damned bus? It is recklessly and reprehensibly irresponsible not to. If we do not go along we will have ensured the very thing that deniers are so afraid of - WRECKING THE ECONOMY! (leaving the planet out of it for a moment)


This is not Sophie's Choice - Sophie can keep both kids.

Or lose them both if we are reckless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boringgeoff

On that basis I am giving myself a pat on the back for making that 1976 Ford Louisville last from 1980 to 2003

---

:U And Geoff that was no doubt purely for economic reasons (which is why deniers will be dragged along the transition path, like it or no)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boringgeoff

each litre of diesel produces 2.68 kg of CO2
each litre of petrol produces 2.31 Kg of CO2

---

I don't dispute the veracity these figures at all, BUT I don't understand them.
Uncle Albert told me that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
A litre of petrol weighs 0.75kg, and presumably there are other things produced besides CO2 when it is burnt, but surely that means a minimum of 2.31 - 0.75 = 1.56kg of oxygen is taken in during the process. At sea level and 21°, 1.56kg of O2 is 1176 litres, which seems extraordinary - over a m³ of pure oxygen to burn a litre of petrol! (and that assumes that ALL the petrol is converted to CO2 which is clearly far from the case)

What am I missing? Mick? :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

In the absence of any answers to repeated requests of what the remaining deniers and fence sitters are afraid of, one can only assume that it is economic loss (for themselves and/or the country) combined with fear of the unknown aka staunch conservatism. I believe that those two assumptions are not only correct, but also that there are no other reasons for denial.



When I started High School in 1968, to play the sport of our choice we had to be able to swim a lap of the Gunnamatta Bay Baths....out at the 7 metre deep Pontoon, otherwise we had to take compulsory swimming lessons.

I could swim just fine, but I was afraid to go out of my depth.
I wanted to play tennis for school sport, so I had a problem to overcome.

At the very last minute...the day before the swimming test....Dad took me down to the pontoon, we both held on to the ladder. No worries.
Dad said "We both know you can swim, right?"
"Yep"
"So......let go of the ladder......"
And with a deep intake of air, and no doubt a bit of a charge of adrenalin.....I swam away from the ladder....and played tennis the next week.

I didn't know what I was scared of. I was just bloody scared.



All of our entrepreneurs, captains of industry, scientists etc etc are telling us that we have a golden opportunity to lead the world in renewable energy technology, and create a very strong foundation for our future economy.

We are being held back by a diminishing number of people who are scared, but who cannot - or will not elucidate what they are scared of. I have previously noted (in here) that I said in October that I thought this summer may well change a lot of minds about the reality of CC (given that the bushfire season started in mid-winter, for crying out loud). I would be fascinated to see data on people who have changed their minds in the last 6 months.



The inescapable facts are:

1. We will run out of oil by ~2070, and will no longer have reason to meddle in the Middle East.
2. Electric vehicles and hydrogen powered vehicles are being widely developed, and at an increasing rate. Infrastructure for their ongoing support is dragging the chain right now - at least in Oz, but will start to catch up reasonably soon. That is known as transition.
3. Burning fossil fuels puts CO2 into the atmosphere, which has increased by 33% as a component since about 1950. We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
4. Coal is on the nose for all of the world's banks and other lenders - very soon it will be impossible to find external finance for CF power (simply because a return on investment will not be seen)
5. Australia will have no say in the world wide demand for our coal (as high quality as it is) falling through the floor, which will savage our national income
6. We have an abundance of other resources that will used in tech of the future
7. There are multiple emerging technologies to change our energy sources, and the next five years or so will see tremendous advances
8. The world IS going to transition away from coal (and it's sounding like hydrogen and perhaps methanol might do the heavy lifting part of coal)
9. Australia is being presented with a golden opportunity to cash in on this energy transition. If we do not jump in and lead then we will have lost the impetus that a small nation like ours needs, because other nations or large corporations WILL seize the opportunities that we ignored. We will then have to explain to our grandchildren why we sat on our hands as the country burnt to a crisp, and our economy went overseas.

How, in all conscience, can anyone suggest we should not just go along for the ride, but drive the damned bus? It is recklessly and reprehensibly irresponsible not to. If we do not go along we will have ensured the very thing that deniers are so afraid of - WRECKING THE ECONOMY! (leaving the planet out of it for a moment)


This is not Sophie's Choice - Sophie can keep both kids.

Or lose them both if we are reckless.

---

That all sounds fine but the two points that I still struggle with are ;

1- What is this golden opportunity that Australia is presented with? I hear this touted a bit but don’t understand what it is.

2- This coal replacement item/ product has yet to come to fruition as we have recently discussed, I don’t understand how we are meant to be going full steam ahead and leading the world when we don’t even know what direction we are meant to face.