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.