Printable View
So, given the vast number of cruise ships, all we have to do is put a wind-turbine on the back of each one and we'll save a fortune's worth of emissions! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Problems getting into port? Nah, no problem, stay the *&%@ away! :D Problems in calm weather? Stay out there!
If we filled all the cruise ships, with all the politicians from around the globe, we could harvest all the Methane that they all extrude in fast quantities, an use that as a fuel too send them all to Mars!!.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Then get on with fixing stuff.
Sorry Paul for going of track a little, I couldn’t help my self.
MattQuote:
Originally Posted by Simplicity
That's OK. There is at least one I could think of who could power a cruise ship by himself.
Regards
Paul
Yes but methane is one of the very worst greenhouse gases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Let's hope he is not renewable then....Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Regards
Paul
Ye but it’s one Burn in a Rocket , then there gone, with me giving them my very best One Finger salute.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
I think it’s worth it.
Cheers Matt.
HA! :roflmao2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Just continuing with the wind farm thingy for a moment, I saw that Twiggy is getting behind it. "There's none so righteous as the converted." :wink: Forgive my little dig. It's good that he is capable of re-evaluation.
Mining magnate makes pitch as wind turbine giant (msn.com)
I still struggle to correlate Andrew Forest with the "Twiggy" of my childhood.
:)
Regards
Paul
Be more worrying if you could!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
On the topic of modular nuclear reactors. Mentioned by Peter Zeihan on YT here in relation to lack of funding in the US for them. I like this guy, he speculates a lot, and often is not accurate, but he sets out mechanisms by which things change and helps me understand something of how the geopolitical world works:
Modular Nuclear Reactors Are Not the Future of Energy || Peter Zeihan - YouTube
More from Sabine on nuclear costs: Is nuclear power really that slow and expensive as they say? - YouTube
Mic
Thanks for those links.
I particularly like the videos posted by Elina Charatsidou, who is an Ukranian nuclear physicist. Her style is factual and when she "debunks" statements, she does it in a way that is not demeaning. I certainly haven't watched a lot of her videos so I can't comment on everything she has done, but I suggest it is worth listening to her comment.
Nuclear Physicist REACTS to Cleo Abram The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste (youtube.com)
One point she makes is the economic issue. these things have to be economically viable even if, in theory, they are possible.
Regards
Paul
PS: As always, readers should do their own research on individuals posting views on the internet. Ms. Charatsidou runs a You Tube channel, although that does not imply any detraction of her views. Her aim, apparently, is public awareness.
I wonder how long that will continue to be the case. Presumably (?!) there will come a time when imminent death trumps the profit motive..... or maybe we simply fry, choke on fumes or whatever whilst maintaining a death-grip on our cash..... :?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Sabine Hosenfelder does the sameQuote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
I believe the recycling of nuclear waste limitation is more than economic. After one or two cycles it's not worth it on the basis of break-even on energy in for energy out
WarbQuote:
Originally Posted by Warb
I understand the sentiment and don't disagree, but I think it would be extremely hopeful to think that the private sector will step up to a non-profitable venture. Even if there were philanthropic persons in decision making positions, they have to answer to shareholders.
So, for the moment, I see nothing changing until the governments take control and say, "This is what we are going to do." Until that time comes, the bottom line sweeps all before it. In fact, I think I read somewhere and I may even have posted it on this thread, that nuclear power does not exist unless it has significant subsidies or other financial assistance from the government of the country concerned.
Regards
Paul
MicQuote:
Originally Posted by mic-d
Not only that, the waste material is apparently now good for weapons! So where does it go? Weapons, of course.
Regards
Paul
Jeez, you had me a little excited there for a moment! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Warb
It has been mooted in conversation several times that this is conclusive proof that climate change is a con. The logic goes that if the people in power, those with all the knowledge and wealth, do not see a requirement to do anything other than profit from the panic of the "led by the nose" population, and yet the supposed "disaster" is one from which all their wealth and power will not protect them, then clearly they don't believe that the problem really exists. Given that they do indeed have all the knowledge and power, and stand to profit from the panic of the populace, it is in their interest to allow or even encourage such panic, and harvest the profits whilst paying only lip service to addressing the supposed issue - but only if they are safe in the knowledge that the problem isn't real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Cynically I would add that much the same logic applies if they do know the problem is real, but they also know that it is unavoidable. Why not just party away the final hours?
Personally, I believe that they, and 99.9% of the population, don't actually care (believe?) enough to alter their lifestyles, almost no matter what is happening. Much the same as the owner of the V8 LandCruiser with the "We want climate action NOW" sticker in the rear window......
If there were to be a group with all the knowledge, as close as anyone anyway, it would be climate scientists. All of the knowledge and little of the power. Those with power who may have some knowledge, well you’re confusing knowledge and wisdom and you’re aestheticising power, they’re just human with human foibles such as greed, avarice etc…Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
And I wouldn’t be judging the little guy doing an apparently hypocritical thing like driving an old gas guzzler and wearing a pro climate change sticker. You don’t know what else they’re doing in their life, and I know you’re just making the analogy, but keeping old things reduces your carbon footprint over consumerism and buying new, if not the local air quality
I don't think that is true, but nevertheless...if we assume that it might be:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
Market forces will bring about change whether people like it or not. There are enormous new industries developing (EVs, solar tech, battery tech, heat pumps etc etc). Whilst ever there is a buck to be made (and lots of them in this case) then the market is going to ensure that these changes are brought in. If they don't then they will have capitalised their start-ups for nowt, and would be back to the same tired old ways of doing things.
EVs present bonus money to be made: they need virtually nil servicing, yet in the transition period while people are still gullible and cling to old ideas (i.e. right now) they are sold with "Six year service plans" for significant additional dough.That seems to me to be money for jam: put the EV in the workshop for a few hours while bugger-all is done to it, tell the customer all is well, and get paid up-front for 6 years worth of that bludge. What a deal! (for the car company, that is)
It's a very interesting question, isn't it? The climate scientists with "very little power". Really? 40 years ago nobody had heard of "climate scientists", and indeed they had zero power. These days they have conferences in glamorous places and are on the TV all the time. They have found some leverage, and they have profited by it. Almost every piece of research now has "climate change" somewhere in it, because that's what gets the grant $'s rolling in, and that's what gets the results publicised in the media. Is it in their interests to say anything that doesn't reinforce their statements?Quote:
Originally Posted by mic-d
Evolution has made us an avaricious species, we'll do whatever we think we can get away with to advance ourselves, almost without exception. I don't think businessmen, politicians or scientists are any different in this regard. We have always created "threats" to steer the populace, whether those threats are based on an angry god, the reds under the bed, or climate change. Is it coincidence that small groups of people have used these (and other) levers to control populations?Quote:
Originally Posted by mic-d
I entirely agree, and have said the same myself, but in this case it was a late model V8 LandCruiser 200 SUV.Quote:
Originally Posted by mic-d
Interesting.
A Chinese Company Has Developed A Nuclear Battery. We Have Questions (msn.com)
Not much detail on cost, viability, safety and ability to scale up.
Regards
Paul
I'd really prefer to think it wasn't true either, but everything I see suggests that it is. How many people have actually given something up, or changed their lifestyle to adopt a better approach? Solar panels, EV's, these aren't a negative impact on lifestyle, or even a change of lifestyle, they're done because they save money, or provide boasting points (or both!). Even if motivated by the right reason, there is zero lifestyle change involved - they might have a net benefit effect, but they still fit the category of "not caring enough to alter their lifestyles". Even leaving the air conditioner off, or switching off lights is too much for most people. I understand your comments about market forces, and I entirely agree. But none of it translates into a belief in the need to change, it is simply an opportunity to profit. If the driver is belief in the need to change, then that itself ensures the change produces a net beneficial effect. If the driver is profit, then can we be sure the same applies? As an example, looks at the number of PV components suppliers and installers who, over the last 20 years, installed systems that now produce vastly less power than specified, or have failed completely, because of poor design, construction or installation. I have seen systems installed on roofs that had almost no sun exposure. The motivator in all these cases was profit, the medium and long term outcomes were negative - those systems now have to be removed and disposed of. I was (though not anymore) licensed to trade REC's, and as a result I used to get updates about components and installers that no longer qualified for REC's due to various issues, almost all of which came down to "profit over quality" somewhere along the chain. Do we believe that the current makers of PV systems (or EV's and other "climate friendly" products"), when driven by the need for profit, are any more intent on a positive long term outcome?Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
People aren't always very bright! However..... I know a good many people who only discover that their tyres are bald, or they have bits hanging off the underside of their car, when it gets its annual service. Given that rego checks don't apply for the first 5 (?) years, perhaps some compulsory inspection for service-free vehicles should be required?Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
That coin in the article is a China 5 jiao coin (half a juan) which is 20.5 mm in diameter. So those batteries are hearing aid size - and they last 50 years without charging.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
If they never go flat, how many to power a car? And all the charging problems go away!
From that article it appears that they have a higher energy density than lithium, but a very low power output. From what I can see, a Tesla 5.3kW module is rated at 1000A for10 seconds (or maximum 1500A, or 225A continuous) at around 25V. 1000A at 25V is 25,00watts. It weighs 25kg. The nuclear battery in the article is stated to produce 100 microwatts. So you need 10,000 per watt. Or 250million to produce the same power as the single Tesla module. OTOH, you could go very slowly for 50 years!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
WarbQuote:
Originally Posted by Warb
Agreed. We have become incredibly lazy even to the extent of not turning off our own unnecessary power sources. My pet hobby horse is boiling the electric kettle for coffee. I put in just enough water. If i filled the kettle, which would equate to approximately five or more times my need, this process would cost five times as much in heating the water.
I was going to say that not all energy development is for profit and was going to quote my own example where we installed solar PV on the roof of our house we built nearly forty years ago in NSW. Today it is a rental property. I was going to say I don't derive any benefit from having put solar on the roof, but even that is not quite true as I see it as an "attraction" for a tenant to rent that property and in fact an incentive for a tenant not to look for a different property. As to the quality of work etc, this installation burnt out. If the house had been built in weather board it would have burnt down. Fortunately, I couldn't afford timber and used Hardiplank instead. Otherwise the house would have burnt down.
Attachment 534520
Rego checks vary quite a lot around the different states. In QLD you only require a rego check if you sell a vehicle. Otherwise, none at all. I am not saying this is how it should be, just how it is.
Regards
Paul
Ouch!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
I found the number of REC Registry notifications to be quite alarming at times, and it's one of the main reasons why I'm sceptical about "profit" being a good driver in this area. That, and a lifetime spent watching unscrupulous people and companies doing anything they can to make a $ without any concern of who gets hurt.
I'm presently watching the BBC news and hearing how Fujitsu knew that their software was dodgy, even whilst helping prosecute people who were innocent of everything except being users of dodgy software!
And if you consider that a major car manufacturer deliberately made vehicles that cheated the emissions tests, can the same company (or any other) be relied upon to accurately evaluate the environmental benefits of its products, and put those benefits above profit?
I'm old and cynical!!
... and remember Raplh Nader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
When rellies turn up and do this it drives me nuts! They fill the kettle and then make tea in a two cup (at most) tea pot!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Here's a video Sabine made on the recent nuclear battery story
This New Nuclear Battery Could Soon Go On the Market - YouTube
A method of steering the populace could be trying to dismiss climate science by suggesting climate scientists are fooling us to milk a system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
Absolutely! So now we're back to my original issue - if profit is the motive, how can we tell what is genuine as opposed to what is in the interests of the person "telling the story"? This applies to solutions to the supposed issue, as well as the issue itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgcc
Much like religion, it seems to come down to beliefs - if an individual believes climate change is true, they believe everything the climate scientist says and dismiss naysayers as liars. If they don't believe it's true, then they dismiss those same scientists and cling to every word of the naysayers.
Also, like religion, I suppose one could examine the actions of the leaders of the movements. A religious leader preaching peace and then declaring war, abusing children etc. is not living the life they are preaching, which in my view diminishes their argument. So, are the two sides in the climate argument living according to their own advice?
Well I suppose one can always stick one's head out the window and see if they are noticing anything odd going on. It sure seems that way up here, and various other wild weather events seem to be far more plentiful these days.
Then, if one does come to the conclusion that things seem to be changing at something approaching the speed of light, compared to geological timeframes, one has to wonder why that might be the case, particularly when equipped with incontrovertible truth that methane and CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere, and that both these gases have increased their atmospheric % substantially since the industrial revolution.
For me, the science is largely settled, and we have to clean up as best we can. If that means that various corporations will make staggering profits, and that there will be raging greed, then so be it. It's better than the alternative of faffing about arguing the toss until it becomes too late to achieve the goal, and it's not like there isn't astonishing greed running rife already.
Same greed, different smell.
One can both believe in climate science but be insufficiently motivated to do much about it personally for any number of reasons. People do act hypocritically.
Frankly it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that because climate scientists don't as a rule live off mung beans, ride a bicycle exclusively and refuse to ever get on an airplane, that climate science as a whole can all be dismissed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
Just finished a book called "Powering Up" by Australian Former Chief Scientist (Alan Finked) on how we "unleash the Clean energy supply chain".
Worth a read.
RE; Appearances can be misleading. About 20 years ago I met a senior US climate scientist and he took me for a ride in his beautifully maintained 1970? 454 ci Chevy V8 that gave him about 7mpg. His daily commute of ~4 miles was a bicycle but on really cold or snowy days (about 20 days a year) he would drive the Chevy to work. On weekends and holidays he would occasionally take the Chevy out for short runs, but for any long distance travel he drove hie wife's Hyundai. He'd had the Chevy since new and done ~ 230,000+ miles in it and reckoned it was good for at least another 100,000 miles which he said would easily get him through to retirement.
I'll continue to play Devils Advocate......Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Is it really the case that the weather is getting wilder? Or is it that we notice things far more when our attention is drawn to them by outside influences? Have you ever found yourself itching when you see someone else scratching? Or yawning when someone else yawns? There's an ad on CNN, I have no idea what it's for, but it talks about humans and their ability to "see" shapes and patterns where none exist. It's a survival trait - we take odd hints, bits and pieces, and our brain processes them and "realises" that there's a lion behind that bush. But the same system also "sees" faces in clouds, or a dragon in the tree down the valley. Put these things together and you have "the power of suggestion".
A year ago I bought a car, because my "farm ute" is too tall for the carparks in Canberra. At the time, I didn't think there were many of the particular model of car on the roads. Since buying it, I have realised that every other vehicle in Canberra is the same as mine. Or maybe I just notice them more?
Currently, every time you switch on the TV you'll see references to a storm, flood, drought or whatever. Very often, if you actually think about it, you'll find that you are watching predictions (forecasts), rather than outcomes. Additionally, we are being shown weather events that in the past would never have reached our TV screen because they weren't newsworthy TO US. They were the other side of the planet, and irrelevant. These days they are front and centre in the media, so we notice them. In the past, a tree falling down in a street somewhere wouldn't have been news. It still happened back then; it just wasn't publicised. Now it is, and we think "wow, this never happened before".
Then we have the man-made disasters. We build houses on flood plains, because it's the only land left. We cover all the rain-absorbing ground with concrete, run the stormwater it into a budget-friendly sized drain, allow that drain to be blocked with rubbish, and then act surprised when our house floods.
We can also get confused because we tend to move around and live in different places. I moved from mid-west NSW down to the Canberra area, and in the middle of summer I had to buy warmer clothing. And an umbrella!
So; remove the news articles and rose tinted hindsight, and consider whether there are really more wild weather events in your immediate vicinity (assuming you have lived there for 20+years!) than there were in the past. If you do that honestly, then you have your answer!
That's either Freudian or deliberate Bob, because Alan Finkel certainly got finked by the Prime Minister of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
You are doing the politician's / pundit's method of, instead of stating a position and justifying it, just throwing out rhetorical questions or observations to avoid actually having to defend a position.
The frequency and severity of extreme weather events is measurable and objectively ascertainable.
If you want to suggest extreme weather events are not in fact increasing in frequency and severity, say so and identify your source, rather than musing about the ways in which humans can make faulty conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
What's the point of that, in this case?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
There would only be a point to that if there was any doubt that the climate is changing at an unprecedented and very rapid rate.
If there is no doubt then consideration of the non-existent alternative is just a waste of pixels.
AFAIK, you are a scientist in the field of Industrial Chemistry (if I'm not mistaken), and you no doubt put that knowledge to great use and effect in your farming days. Do you not believe the opinions of 99% of the climate scientists – experts in their field – that climate change is largely man-made? They forecast more frequent and more extreme weather events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
Do you not think that all of those climate scientists are massively frustrated with the various Govts and bureaucracies faffing about kicking the can down the road whilst we hurtle towards the point of no return?
- 2023 has been declared as the hottest on record for the whole planet. (yes I know reliable records are not all that old, but ice core samples etc are backing up many of these findings)
- It was the same in Katoomba.
- We had 3 records (in a row) for hottest months here.
- Icebergs as big as Manhattan breaking off Antarctica.
- Pacific Islanders freaking out because they can see what is happening, know that it is not their doing, but are powerless to act to prevent their homelands from becoming uninhabitable to a greater or lesser extent.
- An El Niño was forecast, but so far it is the exact opposite. BOM is yet to explain what is going on, but I'm sure they will when they can figure it out properly – and that's the whole point: their forecasts these days are pretty reliable, so there must be some new "curve ball" going on to make that forecast so ridiculously wrong. I'm awaiting the update eagerly.
I'll accept that as rhetoric. I don't even have a TV, and I generally read my news from a number of sources, watching occasional videos that are embedded. I see nil advertising, and nil promos (sensational or otherwise) for whatever it might be that any broadcaster might be pushing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
I doubt I've ever been better informed.
I have enough nouse to stop reading or watching anything that smells like bollocks, and seek an alternative view if I consider it worthwhile.
I am not generally thinking "Wow, this has never happened before", I am thinking "this seems to be happening more frequently and with increasing devastation".
Trying to correlate suddenly seeing more of the latest vehicle that one owns with suddenly seeing lots of weather events is.... a bit of a stretch. Moving-pictures-media always wants the most sensationally explosive footage, especially for promos, because they almost exclusively rely on advertising revenue. Eyes glued to the tube is what they need. I doubt they give a toss about the program content – it just needs to attract viewers to be bombarded with adverts, just as long as those adverts get watched.
I have lived here for 14 years. Prior to that I lived within Sydney for all but 2 of the previous 53 years.