Greta Thunberg slams COP26 ‘failure’ and more ‘blah, blah, blah’ at youth rally 
November 6 2021 New Daily.

Climate campaigner Greta Thunberg has slammed the COP26 summit as a “failure” and “greenwash festival” as thousands of young people took to the streets of Glasgow in protest.   :(

On the sixth day of the world meeting which has achieved a series of agreements, Greta rejected the gathering of powerful leaders as more “blah, blah, blah” which followed decades of “blah, blah, blah”.

The Swedish activist called for action, including “immediate drastic annual emission cuts unlike anything the world has ever seen” instead of just another talkfest.

“The people in power can continue to live in their bubble filled with their fantasies, like eternal growth on a finite planet and technological solutions that will suddenly appear seemingly out of nowhere and will erase all of these crises just like that,” she told the gathering in George Square.

“All this while the world is literally burning, on fire, and while the people living on the front lines are still bearing the brunt of the climate crisis.”

Ms Thunberg rejected the UN climate change summit as a “two-week long celebration of business as usual and blah, blah, blah”.

“It is not a secret that COP26 is a failure. It should be obvious that we cannot solve a crisis with the same methods that got us into it in the first place and more and more people are starting to realise this,” she told the crowd.

“Many are starting to ask themselves, ‘What will it take for the people in power to wake up?’ But let’s be clear, they are already awake. They know exactly what they are doing.

“COP26 has been named the most exclusionary cop ever. This is no longer a climate conference, this is now a global north greenwash festival.”


Youth climate march at COP26 draws thousands
Thousands of young climate activists, Greta Thunberg among them, marched through Glasgow on Friday demanding action on the climate that will protect their future.

The protest was organised by Fridays for Future Scotland and young people chanted and carried placards before gathering in George Square.

Another speaker included Vanessa Nakate from Uganda who described the real effects of climate change being experienced in her country.

“Historically, Africa is responsible for only 3% of global emissions and yet Africans are suffering some of the most brutal impacts fuelled by the climate crisis.

“But while the global south is on the frontlines of the climate crisis, they’re not on the front pages of the world’s newspapers.”

The show of youth force followed 77 signatories a COP26 pledging to phase out coal but not countries such as Australia, the US, India, and China.

Meanwhile a study has shown carbon dioxide emissions are back on the rise.

The United Nations says a rise above 1.5C will trigger potentially irreversible climate impacts that would dwarf the intensifying storms, heatwaves, droughts and floods that the planet is already experiencing.

Carbon dioxide emissions fell by 5.4 per cent in 2020 as economies ground to a halt.

But a new report by the Global Carbon Project forecasts they will rebound by 4.9 per cent this year.

“We were expecting to see some rebound,” said the report’s lead author Pierre Friedlingstein, a climate modelling researcher at the University of Exeter.

“What surprised us was the intensity and rapidity.”

She summed it up nicely.

Blah, blah, blah.

Glasgow was totally predictable, and bloody disgusting. The LNP Net Zero 2050 announcement was vapid. A pathetic attempt to look like they care. I don't vote for Governments, I vote against them, and PEP 11 will seal the deal.

issuevoter wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 7:56am:

Glasgow was totally predictable, and bloody disgusting. The LNP Net Zero 2050 announcement was vapid. A pathetic attempt to look like they care. I don't vote for Governments, I vote against them, and PEP 11 will seal the deal.

Yep.

It was just one giant wankfest.

Wanna know what one of the biggest (if not the biggest) contributors to pollution and climate change is?

https://flightaware.com/live/

Zoom in or out to suit.

Wonder how many of these climate change protesters are busy booking their next overseas holidays for when Covid border restrictions are lifted?

Not to mention the hypocrisy of most of these so called leaders (including our own bumbling Scotty from Marketing) flying to and from Glasgow to attend this pointless wankfest.

To sum up... nothing will change, even when it gets to the point where we can't breathe.

https://i.postimg.cc/90wXHcV8/image.jpg

The ABC journalists have been hammering Morrison for a week, and rightly so in some ways, but I didn't see much about Chinese CO2. So why the omission when China is the worlds biggest polluter? If you didn't know better, and believed the ABC, you'd think Australia's CO2 is greater than China's.

issuevoter wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 10:00pm:

The ABC journalists have been hammering Morrison for a week, and rightly so in some ways, but I didn't see much about Chinese CO2. So why the omission when China is the worlds biggest polluter? If you didn't know better, and believed the ABC, you'd think Australia's CO2 is greater than China's.

And of course Probyn of the ABC was quick and vocal in his support of "Macaroon" and "ScoMo lied".

The hoof is showing.


Climate activists demanded an end to capitalism, “black liberation”, and the abolition of police at a demonstration outside the United Nations COP26 summit in Glasgow, Scotland.

Gathering in George Square in central Glasgow on Saturday, an array of climate activists, including those from indigenous communities in South America, Asia, and Africa, came together to denounce Western imperialism and the alleged racism inherent in climate change.

This is not just a crisis of climate or emissions, this is a crisis of justice, of inequality, of poverty, of racism, of classism, of workers’ rights, and women’s rights and every intersection in between,” Stewart explained.

Prior to the demonstration, teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg declared that “climate justice also means social justice and that we leave no one behind. So we’re inviting everyone, especially the workers striking in Glasgow, to join us.”

During her speech, the Swedish activist said that Western nations owe a “historical debt” to the so-called Global South due to the legacy of colonialism.




The climate crisis is a metastasised soviet. It's activists are the vanguard of the proletariat in climate and anti-racism guises.

Frank wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 10:17am:

The climate crisis is a metastasised soviet. It's activists are the vanguard of the proletariat in climate and anti-racism guises.

Unfortunately they - like you -  don't understand the world now has access to the technology that can enable the economy of every nation to be based on free electricity.

Namely,

Solar/wind + pumped -hydro storage + smart grid;

The problem is the private sector's desire for profits based on exploitation of fossils fuels, which is a barrier to the fastest possible rollout of this currently available technology. 

Meanwhile it's estimated $150 trillion is needed to fund the transition from fossils to renewables, but the private sector is conflicted, because the transition means there will be reduced opportunity for private sector profits as the world is progressively powered by free sunshine and wind.   

That's why the public sector - which can be authorized to spend money into existence via their own currency-issuing treasuries and central banks  - will be required to step up to the job, if indeed the climate emergency is real.

Interestingly, Matt Canavan actually defended China today (!) - in an interview with a somewhat surprised Sky News host -who wanted to blame China for the failure of the talks at Glasgow -  by saying "China knows it has to use coal until it can transition to renewables, and is doing everything it can" (to roll out solar/wind while still keeping the lights on for 1.4 billion people).

The Sky News host wasn't expecting that reply.....

And you are reverting to 'soviet' terminology, in an attempt to avoid facing the role that the public sector must play in a timely transition to renewables. (for reasons explained above)

Like the absurdly contradictory  argument from a Shell company rep who yesterday said "Shell needs the cash profits from it's fossil industry to pay for the transition to renewables".

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 11:32am:

Solar/wind + pumped -hydro storage + smart grid;

Now give us the engineering that will give that.

Solar and wind are old technologies.

Solar was used to dry grain grasses. Still is in some countries.

Remember the Dutch windmills? They suffered the same failures of wind turbines. Wind is flukey where you can have periods of wind drought.

Pumped hydro storage has its own limitations. You need a suitable place for a dam and you need fall. Without fall there is not enough energy to turn the generators.

Smart grid? It can tell when there is not enough solar and wind and generates its own electricity?

lee wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 12:42pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 11:32am: Solar/wind + pumped -hydro storage + smart grid; Now give us the engineering that will give that.

Australia needs about 55 GW of renewable power to exit the fossil industry.

Are you asking how many solar panels and wind turbines  are required?  And as for pumped-hydro storage, the ANU has identified more than enough suitable sites in Oz (look at the Great Dividing Range for example), as well as the rest of the  world, in fact.   


Quote:

Solar and wind are old technologies.

And they are available now. If the climate emergency is real we don't have time to wait for ....CCS (which has cost billions and achieved nothing so far) .....  or even nuclear which would take 15 years before switch-on in Oz.


Quote:

Solar was used to dry grain grasses. Still is in some countries. Remember the Dutch windmills? They suffered the same failures of wind turbines. Wind is flukey where you can have periods of wind drought.

The sun shines for more than half the day in Australia's north (over more than 4000 klms from east to west); and the wind blows f24/7 at least in some land-area location, and more so around the Oz coastline reaching into the roaring 40's. 


Quote:

Pumped hydro storage has its own limitations. You need a suitable place for a dam and you need fall. Without fall there is not enough energy to turn the generators.

Addressed above, see the ANU study. 


Quote:

Smart grid? It can tell when there is not enough solar and wind and generates its own electricity?

Smart grid refers to nation-wide interconnection between household rooftop solar, solar/wind farms, and pumped hydro dams.   And metering of nation wide electric car battery charging, to enable most efficient use of the grid; EV  batteries can themselves become 'power plants' depending on use at certain times  of the day. etc etc, when the entire fleet is electric. 

Carl D wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 9:34am:

Wanna know what one of the biggest (if not the biggest) contributors to pollution and climate change is? https://flightaware.com/live/ Zoom in or out to suit. Wonder how many of these climate change protesters are busy booking their next overseas holidays for when Covid border restrictions are lifted? Not to mention the hypocrisy of most of these so called leaders (including our own bumbling Scotty from Marketing) flying to and from Glasgow to attend this pointless wankfest. To sum up... nothing will change, even when it gets to the point where we can't breathe.

thats a bullshit argument. The argument for action on climate change was never a call to return to the caves. It's a call to use alternative sources of energy where possible. It doesn't mean you don't drive a car, it means that if an electric car is suitable as an alternative, you use it.

The same goes for airlines. For now there is no suitable alternative to jet fueled planes. Electric planes are still in the infancy stage. No one is saying not to travel, but you can bet that when a suitable alternative becomes available, the airline industry will be pressured to act and use alternatives to jet fueled planes.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 2:12pm:

Australia needs about 55 GW of renewable power to exit the fossil industry.

Renewables are weather dependent. How many Gigawatt hours is that? That is the energy required.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 2:12pm:

And as for pumped-hydro storage, the ANU has identified more than enough suitable sites in Oz (look at the Great Dividing Range for example), as well as the rest of the  world, in fact.

I don't care about the rest of the world. But ANU has found suitable sites? How much land needs to be drowned to create the lakes? Will it impinge on current households? Where would the Government of the states resettle them?

From ANU -
""Australia needs only a tiny fraction of these sites for pumped hydro storage - about 450 GWh of storage - to support a 100 per cent renewable electricity system," said Professor Blakers from the ANU Research School of Engineering."


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 2:12pm:

And they are available now.

Very good. The reason they were discontinued was because they don't have the energy density required for a modern society. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 2:12pm:

.CCS (which has cost billions and achieved nothing so far) .....  or even nuclear which would take 15 years before switch-on in Oz.

Which is why we need to get rid of green tape.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 2:12pm:

The sun shines for more than half the day in Australia's north (over more than 4000 klms from east to west); and the wind blows f24/7 at least in some land-area location, and more so around the Oz coastline reaching into the roaring 40's.

Solar panels are only good from about 1000 hours to 1500 hours daily, otherwise they are not effective.

They just had a wind drought over UK and Europe that lasted for more than 7 days.

Then of course they need all that steel, concrete, copper etc for the towers and turbines. More than for stationary plant as each tower needs it.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 2:12pm:

Addressed above, see the ANU study.

Answered above.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 2:12pm:

Smart grid refers to nation-wide interconnection between household rooftop solar, solar/wind farms, and pumped hydro dams.   And metering of nation wide electric car battery charging, to enable most efficient use of the grid; EV  batteries can themselves become 'power plants'

So what would the cost be of the interconnection of WA and NT to the rest of the grid?

EV's can become power plants? Yes I have seen that claim. So what happens when you want to use your EV and it has been supplementing the grid and the battery is flat? ::)

If anyone is interested I can summarize what Lee has said here.

Blah blah blah blah.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 6:02pm:

If anyone is interested I can summarize what Lee has said here. Blah blah blah blah.

Thank you for the technical feedback. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

Renewables are weather dependent. How many Gigawatt hours is that? That is the energy required.

 

Renewables are not weather dependent when backed by pumped-hydo storage.  Northern Australian alone can create enough stored solar energy to power Oz many times over. 


Quote:

But ANU has found suitable sites? How much land needs to be drowned to create the lakes? Will it impinge on current households? Where would the Government of the states resettle them? From ANU - ""Australia needs only a tiny fraction of these sites for pumped hydro storage - about 450 GWh of storage - to support a 100 per cent renewable electricity system," said Professor Blakers from the ANU Research School of Engineering."

Good to see you doing your own homework.

"A tiny fraction" of uninhabited areas is required for 450 GW 
(more than the 55GW I read somewhere; there may be a difference between GW and GWhours, eg the figures may relate to differences between generating versus  storage facilities. Google tells me the output of Snowy2 is 2 GW which seems low.


Quote:

Very good. The reason they were discontinued was because they don't have the energy density required for a modern society. ::)

Wrong, the ANU study shows there is no lack of renewables + storage in Oz to prevent transition to 100% green energy.

Energy density doesn't matter when you can potentially have solar + wind + storage producing far more energy than you need.

The reason why the government isnt rolling out renewables ASAP is the private sector is too conflicted -- wanting to maintain its fat profits in the fossil industry.




Quote:

Which is why we need to get rid of green tape.

No we need to nationalize the energy sector, like premier Playford did in SA after WW2. Then we can get on with the job without all the private sector contradictions including the calls for hated carbon taxes to make the market economy work...but the market won't work in a global climate emergency.  

Note: Menzies paid for the the Snowy River Scheme with deficit funding; there's something for you to study.


Quote:

Solar panels are only good from about 1000 hours to 1500 hours daily, otherwise they are not effective.

Irrelevant, if they can store more in batteries  (home)  or pumped hydro (grid scale) than you will ever need.   


Quote:

They just had a wind drought over UK and Europe that lasted for more than 7 days.

Which would have been immaterial if it wasn't for the failure of the market over the last decade -  to enable fast transition from fossils to green, nowhere near enough renewable infrastructure has been built.  Eg the Sahara desert alone could power the EU and UK, and certainly act as back up for more local infrastructure.  The market has failed.  


Quote:

Then of course they need all that steel, concrete, copper etc for the towers and turbines. More than for stationary plant as each tower needs it.

BHP, Rio etc etc can supply many more times the quantity of materials needed.


Quote:

So what would the cost be of the interconnection of WA and NT to the rest of the grid?

Good question; and this is the the main stumbling block to renewables, among people who don't understand economics.

A government owned system need not concern itself with "cost" because ultimately the government will own a facility that produces free electricity (from sun and wind) across the entire nation, with tremendous benefits for the nation's productivity.  So the currency-issuing Oz government can 'lend" the money to itself,  to fund the green infrastructure. See the Menzies example.


Quote:

EV's can become power plants? Yes I have seen that claim. So what happens when you want to use your EV and it has been supplementing the grid and the battery is flat? ::)

That's where the smart grid comes in. Customers who know they won't be using their car during a certain period, can dial the information into the grid and send excess power to the grid, instead of letting the home's roof solar output going to waste each day in the case of a fully charged EV sitting around doing nothing for days on end. ..

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 7:27pm:

Renewables are not weather dependent when backed by pumped-hydo storage.

having storage does not change the fact they are weather dependent. 7 day wind drought and 7 days overcast ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 7:27pm:

"A tiny fraction" of uninhabited areas is required for 450 GW h

Now all you have to do is get greenies agree to damming places. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 7:27pm:

more than the 55GW I read somewhere; there may be a difference between GW and GWhours, eg the figures may relate to differences between generating versus  storage facilities.

If you provide 100MW for 10 hours that is 1 GigaWatt hour.  But it's nice to know how technically minded you are. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 7:27pm:

Wrong, the ANU study shows there is no lack of renewables + storage in Oz to prevent transition to 100% green energy.

At what cost? Don't forget we are continually told renewables are FREE.

" Thus, the expected cost of a 1,000 megawatt pumped hydro energy storage system with a head of 600 m and 14 hours of storage is about $1.8 billion."

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp20

Now multiply that 450GWh by 1.8 Billion 450*1.8 billion.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 7:27pm:

nergy density doesn't matter when you can potentially have solar + wind + storage producing far more energy than you need.

So tell us how the energy density of wind and of solar. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 7:27pm:

The reason why the government isnt rolling out renewables ASAP is the private sector is too conflicted -- wanting to maintain its fat profits in the fossil industry.

If renewables are so cheap why re investors hanging back. It would mean more fat profits if what you say is true.  Warren Buffet says the only reason to invest in renewables is the subsidies.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 7:27pm:

No we need to nationalize the energy sector, like premier Playford did in SA after WW2. Then we can get on with the job without all the private sector contradictions including the calls for hated carbon taxes to make the market economy work...but the market won't work in a global climate emergency.

Playford did in SA and WA is state owned too. That's because of small population bases.

And nowhere is there a "global climate emergency". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 7:27pm:

Note: Menzies paid for the the Snowy River Scheme with deficit funding; there's something for you to study.

So you want to increase government deficits? Labor don't want that to happen. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 7:27pm:

rrelevant, if they can store more in batteries  (home)  or pumped hydro (grid scale) than you will ever need.

And yet you haven't made that case. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 7:27pm:

Which would have been immaterial if it wasn't for the failure of the market over the last decade -  to enable fast transition from fossils to green, nowhere near enough renewable infrastructure has been built.

When 230 wind turbines put out zero multiply say1000 turbines it is still zero. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 7:27pm:

Eg the Sahara desert alone could power the EU and UK, and certainly act as back up for more local infrastructure.

What technology? Not solar - sand scours the panels badly reduces output. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 7:27pm:

BHP, Rio etc etc can supply many more times the quantity of materials needed.

And you have no idea what you are talking about.

"How about 50% wind power worldwide?

What would we need for wind power alone for the year 2050, with then 10 billion people worldwide? Based on current energy consumption levels, probably 80,000 terawatt hours (TWh) of wind power alone would be needed annually worldwide by 2050. That is, if we want to end hunger and lift the third world out of poverty. That would be equivalent to some 20 million wind turbines. Each wind turbine requires more than 6,000 tons of material, mainly steel and concrete, aluminium, copper and rare earth metals. That adds up to some 120 billion tons of material. "

https://notrickszone.com/2021/11/03/glasgow-the-stampede-to-mass-poverty-120-billion-tonnes-of-materials-for-wind-turbines-by-2050/


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 7:27pm:

A government owned system need not concern itself with "cost" because ultimately the government will own a facility that produces free electricity (from sun and wind) across the entire nation, with tremendous benefits for the nation's productivity.  So the currency-issuing Oz government can 'lend" the money to itself,  to fund the green infrastructure.

So does the government then need concern itself when the renewables need changing? ;D ;D ;D ;D

tbc

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 7:27pm:

That's where the smart grid comes in. Customers who know they won't be using their car during a certain period, can dial the information into the grid and send excess power to the grid, instead of letting the home's roof solar output going to waste each day in the case of a fully charged EV sitting around doing nothing for days on end.

So not a smart grid. The customer has to tell the supplier when he can't take. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 8:55pm:

having storage does not change the fact they are weather dependent. 7 day wind drought and 7 days overcast ::)

You forgot sunshine in north Oz, which interconnected with pumped hydro will never 'run out'. Likewise the wind is always blowing somewhere in or offshore Oz. 


Quote:

Now all you have to do is get greenies agree to damming places. ::)

Good point, but if the climate emergency is real, they'll  have to agree....at least until nuclear fusion is mastered, when they will be able to return all those dams back to nature.


Quote:

If you provide 100MW for 10 hours that is 1 GigaWatt hour.  But it's nice to know how technically minded you are. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So you might answer these questions: what is the projected output  (power storage)  of  Snowy 2?   2GW or 2GW hours? And does that mean  225 Snowy2 equivalents are needed to back up (supply)  the 450 GW mentioned in the ANU study, as opposed to the 55 GW which is the size of Oz power output i read somewhere?


Quote:

At what cost? Don't forget we are continually told renewables are FREE.

After  the infrastructure is built, they ARE free.

Note: a currency-issuing government with its own treasury and central bank can spend  money into existence when the resources on which to spend the money are available.


Quote:

" Thus, the expected cost of a 1,000 megawatt pumped hydro energy storage system with a head of 600 m and 14 hours of storage is about $1.8 billion." https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp20 Now multiply that 450GWh by 1.8 Billion 450*1.8 billion. So tell us how the energy density of wind and of solar. ;)

Cost is irrelevant for the currency-issuer, if the resources are available as explained above; and energy density is only relevant for liquid fuels, not solar panels or wind turbines. 


Quote:

If renewables are so cheap why are investors hanging back. It would mean more fat profits if what you say is true.  Warren Buffet says the only reason to invest in renewables is the subsidies.

Building the green infrastructure is expensive, but once completed, there are no profits to be had from free sun and wind. That's why the private sector wants carbon taxes, to make electricity expensive enough for them to build green infrastructure while closing fossil plants - which they don't want to do, because the latter are so lucrative for private investors. . 


Quote:

Playford did in SA and WA is state owned too. That's because of small population bases.

Just to show the concept of nationalization actually works...


Quote:

And nowhere is there a "global climate emergency". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

aha ...so I'm debating a climate denier; the science says there is a climate emergency, but let's move on...


Quote:

So you want to increase government deficits? Labor don't want that to happen. ;)

Correct. That's because they don't understand MMT either.  But if the climate emergency is cooking us all in a decade's time, they will discover MMT's applicability quick smart....


Quote:

When 230 wind turbines put out zero multiply say1000 turbines it is still zero. ::) What technology? Not solar - sand scours the panels badly reduces output. ;)

The Sahara is not all shifting sand, PV's can be built on elevated platforms.

There is no lack of materials which would prevent transition to 100% global renewable economy.


Quote:

"How about 50% wind power worldwide? What would we need for wind power alone for the year 2050, with then 10 billion people worldwide? Based on current energy consumption levels, probably 80,000 terawatt hours (TWh) of wind power alone would be needed annually worldwide by 2050. That is, if we want to end hunger and lift the third world out of poverty. That would be equivalent to some 20 million wind turbines. Each wind turbine requires more than 6,000 tons of material, mainly steel and concrete, aluminium, copper and rare earth metals. That adds up to some 120 billion tons of material. " https://notrickszone.com/2021/11/03/glasgow-the-stampede-to-mass-poverty-120-billion-tonnes-of-materials-for-wind-turbines-by-2050/

That figure of 80,000 TWh is likely wrong. eg, a google site  says annual global consumption is c. 24,000 TWh or 24,000 billion kw hrs. That is obviously wrong; the latter figure (in kwh) is only 24 TWh. ie 24,000,000,000,000 kwh

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 6:55pm:

You forgot sunshine in north Oz, which interconnected with pumped hydro will never 'run out'. Likewise the wind is always blowing somewhere in or offshore Oz.

So it never rains in norther Australia? No cyclones with heavy clouds?

So you are going to move the wind turbines to wherever the wind is blowing? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 6:55pm:

Good point, but if the climate emergency is real, they'll  have to agree.

Ah - the bid IF. Perhaps you can point to something that is existential in climate that has changed. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 6:55pm:

So you might answer these questions: what is the projected output  (power storage)  of  Snowy 2?   2GW or 2GW hours?

I thought you were the full bottle. But it appears you haven't even checked it yourself. ;D ;D ;D ;D But it is 350,000MWh. Providing of course that it works as planned. They don't mention anything about evaporation. They just say no more water will be needed.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 6:55pm:

After  the infrastructure is built, they ARE free.

How about replacing the panels and wind turbines? They are part of the infrastructure. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 6:55pm:

Cost is irrelevant for the currency-issuer, if the resources are available as explained above; and energy density is only relevant for liquid fuels, not solar panels or wind turbines.

Nope. How many cubic kilometres of solar panels to replace 350Mw power station? How many cubic kilometres of wind turbine to replace same?

"Renewable energy sources can take up to 1000 times more space than fossil fuels"

"They found that power densities can vary by as much as 1000 times, with biomass the lowest (at 0.8 W/m2) and natural gas the highest (at 1000 W/m2). Solar and wind power needs around 40-50 times more space than coal and 90-100 times more space than gas."

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-renewable-energy-sources-space-fossil.html


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 6:55pm:

Just to show the concept of nationalization actually works...

And ignore the size of the land mass to be covered. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 6:55pm:

aha ...so I'm debating a climate denier; the science says there is a climate emergency, but let's move on...

No I don't deny climate. I don't even deny climate changes. But perhaps you can direct me to a site that shows our climate is suffering a catastrophic change? ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 6:55pm:

But if the climate emergency is cooking us all in a decade's time, they will discover MMT's applicability quick smart....

Do you have the paper that says that? Not Chuckles or Greta.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 6:55pm:

The Sahara is not all shifting sand, PV's can be built on elevated platforms.

So how high are these elevated platforms. Do you really mean sandstorms only blow a couple of feet off the ground? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 6:55pm:

That figure of 80,000 TWh is likely wrong. eg, a google site  says annual global consumption is c. 24,000 TWh or 24,000 billion kw hrs. That is obviously wrong; the latter figure (in kwh) is only 24 TWh. ie 24,000,000,000,000 kwh

So people won't increase power consumption over the next 30 years? That is so comforting. Not. An increase i population, people in poorer countries wanting better or at least some electricity.

"It is not an exaggeration to say energy poverty is one of our continent’s most pressing problems: Only 56% of Africa’s population has access to electricity today, and in many places that power is still inadequate and unreliable at best. We address this topic in our recently released report, The State of African Energy 2022.

“Comprehensive energy access across the continent remains a central target, with some 600 million people without access to electricity today,” says the report. “Moreover, households themselves, facing low and inadequate supply of electricity, often rely on highly polluting traditional energy sources such as hard biomass, which constitutes 45% of total primary energy demand in Africa.”"

https://energychamber.org/gas-to-power-an-opportunity-that-africa-cant-toss-away-after-cop26/

But the world wants them to be the poor cousins and not have reliable energy.

lee wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 7:33pm:

But it is 350,000MWh. Providing of course that it works as planned. They don't mention anything about evaporation. They just say no more water will be needed.

350 GWh? That's certainly more impressive than the 2GW I previously found on google. But another google search  explains the discrepancy:

"Snowy 2.0 will provide an additional 2,000 megawatts of dispatchable, on-demand generating capacity and approximately 350,000 megawatt hours of large-scale storage to the National Electricity Market. To provide context, this is enough energy storage to power three million homes over the course of a week."
 

The difference in the two figures is between generating capacity (in GW) and storage (in GWh). Thanks for highlighting  the difference. That means Oz would only need a dozen or so Snowy equivalents (with sufficient solar/wind as supply) to go 100% renewable. Certainly do-able. 


Quote:

How about replacing the panels and wind turbines? They are part of the infrastructure. ;)

All paid for by the government which should own the electricity generation system, by spending the money into existence (as already explained).


Quote:

Nope. How many cubic kilometres of solar panels to replace 350Mw power station? How many cubic kilometres of wind turbine to replace same?

Surprisingly small area of land required. Haven't looked for the figures for OZ yet,  but I recall a google search I made for the US: an area of c.140 square miles of PVs  in a US desert is sufficient to power the entire US economy (15 times the size of the Oz economy).


Quote:

"Renewable energy sources can take up to 1000 times more space than fossil fuels"

Ah...yes but who cares,  if that 140 square miles of desert is sufficient (in the US)?


Quote:

"They found that power densities can vary by as much as 1000 times, with biomass the lowest (at 0.8 W/m2) and natural gas the highest (at 1000 W/m2). Solar and wind power needs around 40-50 times more space than coal and 90-100 times more space than gas."

Like I said, so what, when we can utilize a small percentage of  otherwise useless desert and run the economy on free electricity.  Which is why - climate emergency or not - we should go green, for a healthier, cleaner atmosphere... vital in Asia where the air smells like exhaust fumes and looks like smog.


Quote:

And ignore the size of the land mass to be covered. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Addressed above. Just think, by utilizing  a fraction of the world's deserts, the globe can run on free electricity, managed by a UN agency,  even before we master nuclear fusion. 


Quote:

No I don't deny climate. I don't even deny climate changes. But perhaps you can direct me to a site that shows our climate is suffering a catastrophic change? ;)

What I can point out is that people - including global  insurance companies - are becoming increasingly concerned by an apparent increase in climate related catastrophes all around the world. After having experienced record temps.(49C) and fires in Canada last year, record floods in Europe and Asia,  people are not so inclined to dismiss scientific projections re sea-level rise etc


Quote:

Do you have the paper that says that? Not Chuckles or Greta.

The point is: we can do what we must do, if the AGW climate emergency is real,  meaning we can no longer burn fossil fuels.  Finance is not the issue; resource mobilization is (to build the necessary green infrastructure NOW,  not in 30 years time).  "Planning, not pricing" .

btw if you want to learn about the difference between resources and money, read Stephanie Kelton's best seller 'The Deficit Myth'.


Quote:

So how high are these elevated platforms. Do you really mean sandstorms only blow a couple of feet off the ground? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Of course engineers are capable of designing cleaning systems to deal with that problem.



Quote:

So people won't increase power consumption over the next 30 years? That is so comforting. Not. An increase i population, people in poorer countries wanting better or at least some electricity.

They will increase power consumption; and China, which intends to be as wealthy as the US on a per capita basis by mid century, has the plans to achieve net zero emissions by then. And if China, then so the rest of the world.


Quote:

"It is not an exaggeration to say energy poverty is one of our continent’s most pressing problems: Only 56% of Africa’s population has access to electricity today, and in many places that power is still inadequate and unreliable at best. We address this topic in our recently released report, The State of African Energy 2022.

Africa has c. the same population as China. The same solutions for green resource mobilization can apply, in order to power the continent with renewables, AND eliminate poverty. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 11:01am:

The difference in the two figures is between generating capacity (in GW) and storage (in GWh). Thanks for highlighting  the difference. That means Oz would only need a dozen or so Snowy equivalents (with sufficient solar/wind as supply) to go 100% renewable. Certainly do-able.

And the cost? oh that's right put on the credit card. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 11:01am:

All paid for by the government which should own the electricity generation system, by spending the money into existence (as already explained).

Ok So they are going to be replaced for free or will consumers have to pay for it? Actually consumers always pay. Even the creation of money has a cost.;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 11:01am:

Surprisingly small area of land required. Haven't looked for the figures for OZ yet,  but I recall a google search I made for the US: an area of c.140 square miles of PVs  in a US desert is sufficient to power the entire US economy (15 times the size of the Oz economy).

Can I have the link? In Australia 1,000 hectares is good for 529GWh. According to Energy Australia we use 264,000 GWh. 1,000 Ha is 10Sq Km. So about 500sq km of panels. That's 193 sq mile. But apart from that desert sands abrade the the panels. They won't last 5 years let alone 25.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 11:01am:

Ah...yes but who cares,  if that 140 square miles of desert is sufficient (in the US)?

I have already shown it isn't. Not even under optimal conditions.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 11:01am:

Like I said, so what, when we can utilize a small percentage of  otherwise useless desert and run the economy on free electricity.

So they just sit there and generate electricity day after day. No cleaning required to remove dust or anything. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 11:01am:

vital in Asia where the air smells like exhaust fumes and looks like smog.

But we are not in Asia. We don't have anywhere near the population density. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 11:01am:

What I can point out is that people - including global  insurance companies - are becoming increasingly concerned by an apparent increase in climate related catastrophes all around the world.

OK can you point me to the study that says the costs are increasing above the cost of GDP? We know costs go up every day, month, year. We can't use 1980's dollars to compare to 2020 dollars.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 11:01am:

The point is: we can do what we must do, if the AGW climate emergency is real,  meaning we can no longer burn fossil fuels.  Finance is not the issue; resource mobilization is (to build the necessary green infrastructure NOW,  not in 30 years time).  "Planning, not pricing" .

Temps 49C in Canada? That's weather. If it remains at 49C for 30 years ( as per WMO) that is climate. Record floods in Europe and Asia? Only if you don't go back in history. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 11:01am:

The point is: we can do what we must do, if the AGW climate emergency is real,  meaning we can no longer burn fossil fuels.  Finance is not the issue; resource mobilization is (to build the necessary green infrastructure NOW,  not in 30 years time).  "Planning, not pricing" .

No- The point is you haven't provided the paper that show that. BTW- not a modelled study either. Models can show anything and everything dependent on the underlying assumptions.;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 11:01am:

Of course engineers are capable of designing cleaning systems to deal with that problem.

Actually no they can't. Suppose you design a sprinkler system for them. One head blocks up. What happens. You also need to put wipers n the to dry the surface otherwise it dribbles down the glass leaving streaks, which impacts the output. Water at the bottom can't drain of the support mechanism - leads to rust.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 11:01am:

They will increase power consumption; and China, which intends to be as wealthy as the US on a per capita basis by mid century, has the plans to achieve net zero emissions by then.

Actually China has said they will try. They have also said that they will do what is best for China. Same with India. They also want 1 trillion dollars to try to achieve it. That money of course come from everyone but them.

You know there is a difference between saying and achieving?


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 11:01am:

Africa has c. the same population as China. The same solutions for green resource mobilization can apply, in order to power the continent with renewables, AND eliminate poverty.

They haven't as yet applied in China. So do you want them to be your guinea pig?;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 1:30pm:

Ok So they are going to be replaced for free or will consumers have to pay for it? Actually consumers always pay. Even the creation of money has a cost.;)

The 'cost' you are talking about refers what economists call  'opportunity costs',  which is the consumption which is foregone, by mobilizing resources toward green infrastructure, rather than non-essential, discretionary market based consumption such as advertising, transporting, constructing more factories, to sell.... more grog, for example.
For a currency-issuer, 'cost' is immaterial, resource availability is all important.  So - apart from the 'opportunity cost' defined above, there is no cost to consumers if the transition is managed by the currency-issuer.


Quote:

Can I have the link? In Australia 1,000 hectares is good for 529GWh. According to Energy Australia we use 264,000 GWh. 1,000 Ha is 10Sq Km. So about 500sq km of panels. That's 193 sq mile.

(quick google yields the following):

"With the conservative numbers from NREL’s land use report, we can estimate that roughly 14,000,000 acres or 22,000 square miles of solar panel-filled land would be required to generate enough electricity to solar-power the U.S. This is about the size of the Mojave desert."

ok an area 220 times 100 miles  in the US. Lets say 2000 sq.miles in Oz, 200 by 10  miles. ?? this is 10 times more than shown in your own link.

I note also discrepancy in these figures from google:

storage capacity in GWh, whereas the total generating capacity  - in GW  - required to power OZ via renewables alone, is given as c. 50GW.

eg the answer to the question (on google): what is Australia's power generating  capacity,  is c.65GW .

cf .."how much power does oz use?" answer 265TWh.

I don't understand  the discrepancy in these figures.


Quote:

But apart from that desert sands abrade the the panels. They won't last 5 years let alone 25.

Check out the massive PV plan for the Pilbara, the engineers don't see that problem.

(to be continued)

lee wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 1:30pm:

But we are not in Asia. We don't have anywhere near the population density.

News flash: the whole world must eliminate CO2 emissions if the AGW science is correct. As for smog and other health-destroying pollution produced by burning fossil fuels, (cancerous particulates etc), it's worse in high-population density areas.


Quote:

OK can you point me to the study that says the costs are increasing above the cost of GDP? We know costs go up every day, month, year. We can't use 1980's dollars to compare to 2020 dollars.

Stop worrying about "costs" . Admittedly the Left  think we need carbon taxes and 'green bonds' but the Left is as mis-led by orthodox economists are you are (on the Right, obviously) .

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=48650

It's all to do with the necessary resource mobilization
(by the public sector); cost is immaterial to a currency- issuer. (Repeat that 100 times, before leaving the class-room).


Quote:

Temps 49C in Canada? That's weather. If it remains at 49C for 30 years ( as per WMO) that is climate. Record floods in Europe and Asia? Only if you don't go back in history. ;)

OK you dispute the AGW science. But like I said, with global co-operation , the world can run on free electricity with present technology. Exit global poverty and inequality.


Quote:

No- The point is you haven't provided the paper that show that. BTW- not a modelled study either. Models can show anything and everything dependent on the underlying assumptions.;)

By now you might notice I'm not particularly interested in climate models. I want a global economy that is powered by sunshine and wind in a nationalized power sector.


Quote:

Actually no they can't. Suppose you design a sprinkler system for them. One head blocks up. What happens. You also need to put wipers n the to dry the surface otherwise it dribbles down the glass leaving streaks, which impacts the output. Water at the bottom can't drain of the support mechanism - leads to rust.

I had jets of compressed air in mind. But there is also a wonderful employment opportunity (cleaning), in a continent that has high unemployment


Quote:

Actually China has said they will try. They have also said that they will do what is best for China. Same with India. They also want 1 trillion dollars to try to achieve it. That money of course come from everyone but them.

I'm disappointed that even China doesn't seem to be  aware the PBofC can pay for the transition in China. and doesn't need your $1 trillion. Hopefully in the next decade they will understand they are being led astray by Western economic orthodoxy...orthodoxy based on classical economics which we ourselves must abandon. 


Quote:

You know there is a difference between saying and achieving?

Yes, tell it to Morrison.

Meanwhile, Africa, unlike China , will need outside assistance to develop its engineering capacity.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 11:52am:

News flash: the whole world must eliminate CO2 emissions if the AGW science is correct. As for smog and other health-destroying pollution produced by burning fossil fuels, (cancerous particulates etc), it's worse in high-population density areas.

That's because of energy poverty. Many small fires because there is no electricity.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 11:52am:

Stop worrying about "costs" . Admittedly the Left  think we need carbon taxes and 'green bonds' but the Left is as mis-led by orthodox economists are you are (on the Right, obviously) .

The costs will be inherited by the grandchildren; not me.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 11:52am:

It's all to do with the necessary resource mobilization (by the public sector); cost is immaterial to a currency- issuer. (Repeat that 100 times, before leaving the class-room).

yeah, only the poor slobs paying tax.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 11:52am:

But like I said, with global co-operation , the world can run on free electricity with present technology. Exit global poverty and inequality.

And yet you haven't provided any evidence. Why is that?


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 11:52am:

I want a global economy that is powered by sunshine and wind in a nationalized power sector.

Ah now we are getting to the nitty-gritty. A global economy will need a global government.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 11:52am:

I had jets of compressed air in mind.

Who replaces the compressed air?


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 11:52am:

But there is also a wonderful employment opportunity (cleaning), in a continent that has high unemployment

Oh yeah, Thousands of low paying jobs for people to go out to the boonies to do it. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 11:52am:

I'm disappointed that even China doesn't seem to be  aware the PBofC can pay for the transition in China. and doesn't need your $1 trillion.

Then why do they want it? ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 11:52am:

Meanwhile, Africa, unlike China , will need outside assistance to develop its engineering capacity.

They need more than that. They have energy poverty to start with. Stable electricity supplies enable growth, enables education, enables higher paying jobs. And as I said there is nowhere in the world running on 100% renewables. Why do you want the Africans to be a mendicant class? New Age Slavery?

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2021 at 3:53pm:

That's because of energy poverty. Many small fires because there is no electricity.

And energy consumption based on dirty fossils in 'the world's factory' (China).


Quote:

The costs will be inherited by the grandchildren; not me.

Old wives' tale. Sovereign currency issuing governments don't need to issue debt which "will be a burden on our grandchildren".  Governments  need to mobilize resources to maximize productivity potential - and hence the standard of living for our grand- children.
Taxes are not required to fund government spending. Drop down to the lower class .... 


Quote:

And yet you haven't provided any evidence. Why is that?

1+1 = 2 doesn't need evidence.


Quote:

Ah now we are getting to the nitty-gritty. A global economy will need a global government.

Only in power generation.. 'the nitty gritty' indeed, but not  government  which decides whether abortion is legal, what traffic speed limits apply,  type of judicial system etc which are in the jurisdiction of  national governments; "world government" is a misnomer, because only international, not national  matters are adjudicated.

Ready for free electricity yet - all around the world? 


Quote:

Who replaces the compressed air?

The on site compressed air machines operated remotely by dust storm sensors etc.


Quote:

Oh yeah, Thousands of low paying jobs for people to go out to the boonies to do it. ::)

No, high paying jobs, to maintain the free electricity supply.

China doesn't want money, India is the country asking for $1 trillion. China only needs the time to build the green infrastructure, since it already has the engineering capacity to proceed ASAP (with the largest engineering capacity in the world)


Quote:

They need more than that. They have energy poverty to start with. Stable electricity supplies enable growth, enables education, enables higher paying jobs. And as I said there is nowhere in the world running on 100% renewables. Why do you want the Africans to be a mendicant class? New Age Slavery?

Yes the transition, including education and industrial capacity building etc  will need to be supported by rich  countries in the case of Africa and India. Note: "rich" means having transferable technological and engineering  capacity.

In fact, I want to eliminate all poverty, via national economies based on free electricity.

You still gonna bleat about "world government"? ...which make you the one who wants to maintain poverty-wage slavery in Africa.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2021 at 4:46pm:

And energy consumption based on dirty fossils in 'the world's factory' (China).

So no peer-reviewed paper for you because you just know things. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2021 at 4:46pm:

Governments  need to mobilize resources to maximize productivity potential - and hence the standard of living for our grand- children.

Yep no spending needed. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2021 at 4:46pm:

Taxes are not required to fund government spending.

Gee you are funny. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2021 at 4:46pm:

1+1 = 2 doesn't need evidence.

But power generation does. So we need a peer-reviewed paper that says it is workable not someone who says unfunded economics will work. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2021 at 4:46pm:

Only in power generation..

So not a global economy then. Do make up your mind.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2021 at 4:46pm:

"world government" is a misnomer, because only international, not national  matters are adjudicated.

So no global energy mandate then. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2021 at 4:46pm:

The on site compressed air machines operated remotely by dust storm sensors etc.

Ah onsite compressed air machines. Machines that need grease and oil. machines that need servicing. Machines that break down especially in dusty environments. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2021 at 4:46pm:

No, high paying jobs, to maintain the free electricity supply.

High paying jobs? to dust solar panels? And the electricity will be free despite the on costs. So how does the worker get paid? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2021 at 4:46pm:

China doesn't want money, India is the country asking for $1 trillion.

They are both "developing" countries. The Green fund is for "developing" countries.

"China, India and Other Developing Nations Seek $1.3 Trillion a Year in Climate Finance"

"African nations and a group called the Like-Minded Developing Countries, which includes China, India and Indonesia, said in a document they submitted to the United Nations at the summit that half the money should go toward funding renewable energy in the developing world and half toward protecting these countries from the effects of global warming."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-finance-china-india-11636039142


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2021 at 4:46pm:

Yes the transition, including education and industrial capacity building etc  will need to be supported by rich  countries in the case of Africa and India. Note: "rich" means having transferable technological and engineering  capacity. In fact, I want to eliminate all poverty, via national economies based on free electricity.

That won't happen with Weather Dependent Renewables.

Ah yea free electricity again. No one pays for it. Everyone can use as much as they like. But somehow there is going to be a limit; because you have already said it won't be that large. And of course if you have a cyclone - no sun, too much wind - absolutely no power and that 450GWh storage will supply Australia for how long? Don't forget we need the industry and the homes.

So it seems we used 4.57Twh/day in 2019-20 and that was somewhat low because of Covid. I will let you work out how big a 450Gwh storage would last. ;)

[url]https://www.energy.gov.au/sites/default filesAustralian%20Energy%20Statistics%202021%20Energy%20Update%20Report.pdf[/url]

"MMT burst on the scene in an unusual way. From its name, one might guess that it arose at top universities, as prominent scholars debated the fine points of macroeconomic theory. But that is not the case. Instead, MMT was developed in a small corner of academia and became famous only when some high-profile politicians—particularly Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—drew attention to it because its tenets conformed to their policy views.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mankiw/files/skeptics_guide_to_modern_monetary_theory.pdf

Well that there is serious knowledge. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

https://www.iass-potsdam.de/en/news/making-aircraft-fuel-sunlight-and-air

Making Aircraft Fuel From Sunlight and Air

Scientists at ETH Zurich have built a plant that can produce carbon-neutral liquid fuels from sunlight and air. The next goal will be to take this technology to industrial scale and achieve competitiveness. In a paper published in the scientific journal "Nature", researchers from Zurich and Potsdam describe how this novel solar reactor functions and outline a policy framework that would provide incentives to expand the production of "solar kerosene".



04.11.2021

Carbon-neutral fuels are crucial for making aviation and maritime transport sustainable. The plant developed in Zurich can be used to produce synthetic liquid fuels that release as much CO2 during their combustion as was previously extracted from the air for their production. CO2 and water are extracted directly from ambient air and split using solar energy. This process yields syngas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which is then processed into kerosene, methanol, or other hydrocarbons.



https://www.iass-potsdam.de/sites/default/files/styles/cinematic_xxl/public/2021-11/ETH_Gas_to_Liquid_32.jpg

Bobby. wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 7:39am:

The next goal will be to take this technology to industrial scale and achieve competitiveness

Call me when they get it that large and for minimal cost.

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2021 at 6:30pm:

So no peer-reviewed paper for you because you just know things

?? we were discussing poisonous pollution from burning fossil fuels of all types, which is the reality in highly populated areas (apart from CO2 'pollution'). London has banned older diesel cars  (with pre EU6 standards) in the CBD for that very reason.


Quote:

Yep no spending needed.

Step down  to a lower class, again.... You will find yourself in the class for sub-70's IQ group  if you keep spouting statements like that one. It's resource mobilization, not spending,  which is the limiting factor for a sovereign currency issuing government.

So sovereign currency issuing governments don't need to tax in order to spend. OK not what you were taught at school, based on obsolete classical economics and more confused by a since  abandoned 'gold standard'.


Quote:

[But power generation does. So we need a peer-reviewed paper that says it is workable not someone who says unfunded economics will work

You are in effect saying we don't have the resources or know how to build sufficient solar/wind + p.hydro + smart grid to transition to a green economy.


Quote:

So not a global economy then. Do make up your mind.

In the sense that the world can run on free electricity, so an economy which is based on free electricity in every nation.....


Quote:

So no global energy mandate then.

That's  what Glasgow is all about, seeking a global agreement/mandate. Excruciating, I agree.  In a decade it should be clearer to what extent we have to abandon the private sector free market (depending on severity of fires, floods, sea rises and wind damage).


Quote:

Ah onsite compressed air machines. Machines that need grease and oil. machines that need servicing. Machines that break down especially in dusty environments.

 
Yep, unemployment will be eliminated.


Quote:

High paying jobs? to dust solar panels? And the electricity will be free despite the on costs. So how does the worker get paid?

By government decree funding green economy workers, not determined by free market forces.


Quote:

They are both "developing" countries. The Green fund is for "developing" countries.

Never mind, I am trying to explain to the Chinese they can transition to green  faster than any country in the world, because they already have the largest engineering capacity in the world.


Quote:

"China, India and Other Developing Nations Seek $1.3 Trillion a Year in Climate Finance"

Last I heard (at Glasgow)  India said they wanted $1 trillion, not much left for other 'developing' countries.


Quote:

"African nations and a group called the Like-Minded Developing Countries, which includes China, India and Indonesia, said in a document they submitted to the United Nations at the summit that half the money should go toward funding renewable energy in the developing world and half toward protecting these countries from the effects of global warming."

Certainly China doesn't need a paranoid US  - seeking to maintain global hegemony in the face of a rising China - slapping tariffs on Chinese PVs. China is already the world's largest investor in PV's and wing turbines.



Quote:

That won't happen with Weather Dependent Renewables.

 

Yes it will, the ANU has already identified sufficient renwables storage sites around the world.


Quote:

Ah yea free electricity again. No one pays for it.

Correct


Quote:

Everyone can use as much as they like.

Incorrect: up to a regulated  limit, after which fees will apply. 


Quote:

But somehow there is going to be a limit; because you have already said it won't be that large.

Addressed above.


Quote:

And of course if you have a cyclone - no sun, too much wind - absolutely no power and that 450GWh storage will supply Australia for how long? Don't forget we need the industry and the homes.

A smart  grid includes intercontinental connection to deal with temporary lack of renewables in any given locality.   


Quote:

So it seems we used 4.57Twh/day in 2019-20 and that was somewhat low because of Covid. I will let you work out how big a 450Gwh storage would last.

No need, I point to the ANU-examined global storage capacity.  Meanwhile Oz itself has the potential to produce the world's largest supply of green hydrogen and hence ammonia, another source of backup. (That's why 'Twiggy' is so enthusiastic about the transition opportunities. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

we were discussing poisonous pollution from burning fossil fuels of all types, which is the reality in highly populated areas (apart from CO2 'pollution').

So which pollution then? PM2.5? Did you know trees emit PM2.5 particles? They are called terpenes. Oh noes. And of course CO2 is not pollution. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

It's resource mobilization, not spending,  which is the limiting factor for a sovereign currency issuing government.

Yes the spending you have when you don't have spending. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

So sovereign currency issuing governments don't need to tax in order to spend. OK not what you were taught at school, based on obsolete classical economics and more confused by a since  abandoned 'gold standard'.

And still not accepted fact. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

You are in effect saying we don't have the resources or know how to build sufficient solar/wind + p.hydro + smart grid to transition to a green economy.

No petal I am saying Weather Dependent Renewables don't cut it.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

In the sense that the world can run on free electricity, so an economy which is based on free electricity in every nation.....

Ah yes I have heard of that it, is called UNOBTAINIUM. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

That's  what Glasgow is all about, seeking a global agreement/mandate.

And that failed. 26 years of failure. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

In a decade it should be clearer to what extent we have to abandon the private sector free market (depending on severity of fires, floods, sea rises and wind damage).

What severity? Have any of them increased? I mean sea level has been rising since the last Ice Age.


Wind damage? We are getting stronger winds? According to studies increasing wind farms cause lessening of the wind. We are save; saved I tell you.

But perhaps you can post this stuff of which you speak? You haven't provided anything else. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

Yep, unemployment will be eliminated.

Ah these are the high paying jobs of which you speak. Who will be employing them as the electricity will be free? Therefore there will be no middleman, no employment unless it is government. And they won't need to pay them as they won't collect taxes. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

By government decree funding green economy workers, not determined by free market forces.

With all the money that they aren't collecting. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

Never mind, I am trying to explain to the Chinese they can transition to green  faster than any country in the world, because they already have the largest engineering capacity in the world.

And they are increasing coal mining and coal plant at a greater rate than anywhere else in the world. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

Last I heard (at Glasgow)  India said they wanted $1 trillion, not much left for other 'developing' countries.

India called for the one trillion at the LMDC event. A joint communique was issued. You don't research much do you?

"The Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change Bhupender Yadav called upon the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) to work closely to protect the interests of developing countries on Tuesday, and urged that climate finance cannot continue at the levels decided in 2009 and should be increased to at least 1 trillion dollars to meet the goals of addressing climate change.."

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/india-calls-hike-climate-finance-one-trillion-dollars-bhupender-yadav-united-nations-framework-convention-on-climate-change-latest-news-updat-743456

"Underscores that the post 2025 mobilization goal must reflect the ambition, progression and the collective agreement to stay well below 2c and aspire to stay within the 1.5c temperature goal, and therefore agrees that the deliberations on the a quantum  mobilization target should start from range of a commitment by developed countries to mobilize jointly at least USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2030, of which 50% for mitigation and 50% for adaptation and a significant percentage on grant basis from a floor of USD 100 billion, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries outlined in the Updated NDCs;"

https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/3_11_21_%20Joint_CPR_New%20Goal.pdf


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

China is already the world's largest investor in PV's and wing turbines.

Using fossil fuelled sources. ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

Incorrect: up to a regulated  limit, after which fees will apply.

So we have unlimited power but it is limited. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

A smart  grid includes intercontinental connection to deal with temporary lack of renewables in any given locality.

So these intercontinental connections - will they be lossless? ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

No need, I point to the ANU-examined global storage capacity.  Meanwhile Oz itself has the potential to produce the world's largest supply of green hydrogen and hence ammonia, another source of backup.

Ah yes. The Green Hydrogen myth. It hasn't even started. The power required is huge. And it is a process full of losses, so you get less energy out than you put in. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

(That's why 'Twiggy' is so enthusiastic about the transition opportunities.

He is free to spend his money where he wants. ;)

And all this is based on IF we have a climate emergency. So much money for so little.
All you have is some kind of feeling we might have a climate emergency? ;D ;D ;D ;D

And you still haven't responded about Africa. We know renewables haven't been installed on any large scale. So do you want a mendicant Africa? A new Age Slavery.

Lee is right on all points.

Start with climate emergency and corresponding climate action  - it is a statistical swindle answered by accounting sleights of hand.

The point on Africa (and China, India) are studiously avoided by the 'clima taction now' kids.  Africa's population will DOUBLE to 2.5 billion by the net zero year of 2050. India, 1.6 billion. China, 1.4 billion. Australia, 35 million. Roughly like Canada or Morocco today.

Even if Australia, or the entire West, went zero today, Africa, India, China and the rest of the world would wipe out any gain in the CO2 stats, not least because most of the energy intensive products are made in China and other cheap third world countries.

lee wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 2:34pm:

So these intercontinental connections - will they be lossless?

No, but transmission technology is improving all the time.


Quote:

Ah yes. The Green Hydrogen myth. It hasn't even started. The power required is huge. And it is a process full of losses, so you get less energy out than you put in

Er...most mechanical/chemical processes create  less output energy than the required input energy.  (energy efficiency <100%)


Quote:

. He is free to spend his money where he wants.

japan and S. Korea , for example, are interested  because they don't have vast sunny deserts like Oz and because they want to exit fossils.


Quote:

And all this is based on IF we have a climate emergency. So much money for so little. All you have is some kind of feeling we might have a climate emergency?

No I already told you I want free electricity, AND clean air in big cities . (I won't be running the explanation past you again). The climate change thingy is just a bonus...and an incredibly BIG BONUS ...if AGW climate science is correct.

You happy to take the gamble? Fewer and fewer people are.......whatever happened at Murdoch's press (re the 180 degree turn on the AGW climate change "myth"?


Quote:

And you still haven't responded about Africa. We know renewables haven't been installed on any large scale. So do you want a mendicant Africa? A new Age Slavery.

We must install renewables on a large scale for many reasons eg, climate, clean air which is fit to breathe - impossible in high-density cities with diesel vehicles everywhere.  Technical advances may be needed for the last 20% or so of de-carbonization; we will have a clearer picture by 2030.

Heard from Glasgow today: " the great powers EU, US  and China agreed to a last minute change of words in the final text from "phase out" (of coal) to "phase down", in order to get India to sign. (China GDP and GDP per capita is over 5 times that of India, with similar populations; 40 years ago India's economy was bigger than China,  I'll leave you to ponder why the change in wealth occurred).

Btw, OAC is a layperson who has understood MMT, but there are many professors of economics who are now on board with its revelations.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 5:41pm:

No, but transmission technology is improving all the time.

All cables have losses. So tell us how they are improving.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 5:41pm:

Er...most mechanical/chemical processes create  less output energy than the required input energy.

That's true. So they will be using Solar? Wind? for their energy supply? Of course the supply has to be stable. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 5:41pm:

japan and S. Korea , for example, are interested  because they don't have vast sunny deserts like Oz and because they want to exit fossils.

So how will they get their energy? No spare land for solar or wind. And too far for your intercontinental energy from Australia.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 5:41pm:

No I already told you I want free electricity, AND clean air in big cities .

I want free gummy bears for life. But wishing it won't make it so.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 5:41pm:

The climate change thingy is just a bonus...and an incredibly BIG BONUS ...if AGW climate science is correct.

ONLY IF it is correct. Otherwise it is a big drain. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 5:41pm:

You happy to take the gamble?

Oh yes. You haven't enunciated just what you are scared of. Why is that?


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 5:41pm:

whatever happened at Murdoch's press (re the 180 degree turn on the AGW climate change "myth"?

Who knows? They know as much about climate as you I suspect. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 5:41pm:

We must install renewables on a large scale for many reasons eg, climate, clean air which is fit to breathe - impossible in high-density cities with diesel vehicles everywhere.

So there you go again about climate and according to you IF it is CORRECT it is a big bonus. ::)

And again you dodge the question on Africa. The technology hasn't been proved on large scale, even small scale has its problems. But you want Africa to go all in for the sake of the planet? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So tell us about the dirty air deaths in Delhi for example. ;) What is the life expectancy?


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 5:41pm:

I'll leave you to ponder why the change in wealth occurred).

They built far more coal plant. ::)

India has 281 coal plants for 229.2 GW. China has 1,082 for 1,042.9GW.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/530569/installed-capacity-of-coal-power-plants-in-selected-countries/


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 5:41pm:

Btw, OAC is a layperson who has understood MMT, but there are many professors of economics who are now on board with its revelations.

And yet you can't cite these converts. AOC couldn't understand  her own gibberish.;D ;D ;D ;D

It is worth considering how borderline psychotic the demand for Net Zero is in a world in which 84 per cent of our energy comes from fossil fuels. The ‘deep and urgent’ reduction in fossil-fuel use that greens dream of would, if it ever came to fruition, be a calamity for humankind. It would do far more to bring about the parched, impoverished conditions of their apocalyptic fantasies than carbon emissions ever could. As Alex Epstein, author of the brilliant book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, puts it: ‘Environmentalists’ climate proposals would result in exactly the kind of apocalyptic scenario they claim climate change is causing.’ Climate change is a problem, but a ‘middling one’, as Bjorn Lomborg describes it. It threatens nothing as horrendous as a sudden reduction in fossil-fuel use would.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/11/12/keep-burning-those-fossil-fuels/

lee wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 7:05pm:

All cables have losses. So tell us how they are improving.

https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=18258

"Another option could be the use of high-voltage direct current (DC) transmission lines, which can provide higher efficiencies over alternating current (AC) lines. This is a high-cost approach that is most viable for long-distance transmission."
(remember, cost is irrelevant for a currency-issuer, on the journey to free electricity (MMT).


Quote:

That's true. So they will be using Solar? Wind? for their energy supply? Of course the supply has to be stable.

 
Irrelevant. A large PV farm in the Pilbara could power all of Australia. We should be leading the world, we have vast areas of useless hot deserts, and a vast coastline in the "roaring  forties", for offshore wind turbines.


Quote:

So how will S.Korea and Japan) get their energy? No spare land for solar or wind. And too far for your intercontinental energy from Australia.

From burning Oz-made green ammonia or hydrogen in power plants.


Quote:

I want free gummy bears for life. But wishing it won't make it so.

I want free electricity as the basis for eradicating poverty in the 3rd world. (I already told you that. ...but I realize I am fighting your RW free-market ideology all the way in this debate).  No doubt free global electricity sounds like "communism" to you. And no "wishing" required, just a determination to create a better world.


Quote:

ONLY IF it is correct. Otherwise it is a big drain.

On the contrary, it just changes opportunities to use some resources in different ways. But clean healthy air itself  - impossible in a fossil based economy - is also priceless. 


Quote:

Oh yes. You haven't enunciated just what you are scared of. Why is that?

The whole world is "getting scared" eg, smoke seeping into bedrooms in ALL of Sydney, for weeks on end, in summer 2019....


Quote:

Who knows? (Murdoch press)  know as much about climate as you I suspect

They were your 'shining beacon on the hill' ...until  the sudden about-turn 2 months ago. Perhaps they are good at judging public opinion...and they have to sell newspapers.

So we are left with YOUR opinion, which is as worthless as mine, when it comes to the facts of AGW climate science.


Quote:

So there you go again about climate and according to you IF it is CORRECT it is a big bonus

Addressed above. You can't attack me on the climate issue, because I'm agnostic...though climate catastrophes do seem to be increasing around the world, which even Murdoch seems to have noticed. Clean healthy air in Asia and everywhere else, and free access to a basic necessity (electricity powered  by sun and wind)  is the important thing.

[/quote]And again you dodge the question on Africa. The technology hasn't been proved on large scale, even small scale has its problems. But you want Africa to go all in for the sake of the planet?[ /quote]

Lets' see:  20,000 sq miles of PV required to power the US.  Say 100,000 sq.miles for Africa..  the Sahara is 3.6 million sq. miles. I rest my case.


Quote:

So tell us about the dirty air deaths in Delhi for example. ;) What is the life expectancy?

You are arguing my case now. Thanks. Fossil burning vehicles as well as  wood fires are major sources of deadly smog pollution in  Delhi.

"Delhi, often ranked the world's most polluted capital, faces extremely bad air in winter due to the crop stubble burning, emissions from transport, coal-fired plants outside the city and other industrial emissions, open garbage burning and dust."


Quote:

They built far more coal plants[quote], yes ...and created a pollution hazard as bad as Delhi's, which is why they are now the world's largest investors in renewable electricity, made possible because they are 5 times richer than poor retarded India. But you display the limit to your ability to explain the wealth difference ... [quote]India has 281 coal plants for 229.2 GW. China has 1,082 for 1,042.9GW.

Thanks for the figures. Obviously lots of Indians are still burning cow dung for fuel; 700 million Indians still officially living in absolute poverty. China officially exited that category for all its population this year; all Chinese homes are now powered by electricity, which the CCP plans to decarbonize ASAP.   


Quote:

And yet you can't cite these converts. AOC couldn't understand  her own gibberish

You want me to cite a million names? But here is a colourful refutation of your orthodox flat-earth economics, from prof. James Galbraith.

https://www.jordantimes.com/opinion/james-k-galbraith/whos-afraid-mmt

As anyone who has ever been responsible for legislative oversight of central bankers knows, they do not like to have their authority challenged. Most of all, they will defend their mystique, that magical aura that hovers over their words, shrouding a slushy mix of banality and baloney in a mist of power and jargon.

Priceless.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 12:05pm:

"Another option could be the use of high-voltage direct current (DC) transmission lines, which can provide higher efficiencies over alternating current (AC) lines. This is a high-cost approach that is most viable for long-distance transmission."

And they still have losses. Just not reactive losses. No new ideas there.::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 12:05pm:

A large PV farm in the Pilbara could power all of Australia.

Could? You really have no clue.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 12:05pm:

We should be leading the world, we have vast areas of useless hot deserts, and a vast coastline in the "roaring  forties", for offshore wind turbines.

And we still come back to solar power maintenance and sea borne wind turbine maintenance. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 12:05pm:

From burning Oz-made green ammonia or hydrogen in power plants.

Now all you have to do is build the special containers to do it in bulk. And hope nothing goes wrong. Hydrogen green, blue or grey is explosive at many temperature and leakage points. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 12:05pm:

No doubt free global electricity sounds like "communism" to you.

Nope it is unobtainable. That's why it's called unobtainium. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 12:05pm:

On the contrary, it just changes opportunities to use some resources in different ways.

And all for freeeeee. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 12:05pm:

The whole world is "getting scared" eg, smoke seeping into bedrooms in ALL of Sydney, for weeks on end, in summer 2019....

So the whole world is scared for Sydney?  ;D ;D ;D

You do understand Australia has always had bushfires? They need fuel to burn. Failure to clean up forested areas creates more fuel. But numpties like to believe if we lock them up it can't happen. Humans cause most fires. Climate change doesn't cause fires. A match burns at 600-800ºC.

Edit:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Australia-bushfires-hectares-burned-by-year-scaled.jpg

data from wiki Bushfires in Australia. 2019-20 season figure is now 18,626.000 Ha


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 12:05pm:

They were your 'shining beacon on the hill' ...until  the sudden about-turn 2 months ago.

Wrong again. They were never my  'shining beacon on the hill'. You are just trolling and making sch!t up.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 12:05pm:

So we are left with YOUR opinion, which is as worthless as mine, when it comes to the facts of AGW climate science.

But I actually look at the science. You obviously don't because you haven't quoted anyone in the past. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 12:05pm:

ddressed above. You can't attack me on the climate issue, because I'm agnostic...though climate catastrophes do seem to be increasing around the world, which even Murdoch seems to have noticed

Then you should have no trouble providing a reference. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 12:05pm:

Lets' see:  20,000 sq miles of PV required to power the US.  Say 100,000 sq.miles for Africa..  the Sahara is 3.6 million sq. miles. I rest my case.

You can't even provide a link apart from ANU which doesn't address any concerns.  ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 12:05pm:

Obviously lots of Indians are still burning cow dung for fuel; 700 million Indians still officially living in absolute poverty.

Yes it does. And cheap STABLE electricity supply will help overcome that.
thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 12:05pm:

China officially exited that category for all its population this year; all Chinese homes are now powered by electricity, which the CCP plans to decarbonize ASAP.

Actually no. It hopes to reach carbon neutrality by 2060. There is no guarantee.

"China is targeting an ambitious clean energy goal of reducing fossil fuel use to under 20 percent by 2060, according to an official plan published by state media on Sunday."

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/china-aims-to-cut-fossil-energy-use-to-below-20-by-2060/ar-AAPTIcr


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 12:05pm:

You want me to cite a million names?

You were the one who cited lauded AOC as understanding MMT. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 12:05pm:

As anyone who has ever been responsible for legislative oversight of central bankers knows, they do not like to have their authority challenged. Most of all, they will defend their mystique, that magical aura that hovers over their words, shrouding a slushy mix of banality and baloney in a mist of power and jargon.

You do realise it applies equally to MMT? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 1:18pm:

And they still have losses. Just not reactive losses. No new ideas there

So? (ie irrelevant)


Quote:

And we still come back to solar power maintenance and sea borne wind turbine maintenance

yes,  good well paying work, ensuring free electricity for all.


Quote:

Now all you have to do is build the special containers to do it in bulk.

Transporting green ammonia (from which green hydrogen is extracted  when needed) is as simple as transporting LNG.


Quote:

Nope it is unobtainable.

As unobtainable as authorizing the central bank to spend debt-free money to fund a smart grid in Oz?


Quote:

And all for freeeeee.

Already addressed: see "opportunity costs".


Quote:

So the whole world is scared for Sydney?

Gosh, concrete thinking is difficult to deal with; California wild fires on a vast scale, record floods in Germany and China...


Quote:

You do understand Australia has always had bushfires?

but not in moist rain forests as occurred in 2019.


Quote:

Wrong again. They were never my  'shining beacon on the hill'. You are just trolling and making sch!t up.

Sky News? Alan Jones? - identical views to yours on climate change...


Quote:

But I actually look at the science. You obviously don't because you haven't quoted anyone in the past

Yet your view is disputed by real climate scientists, while I'm agnostic.


Quote:

Then you should have no trouble providing a reference.

  Addressed above. You have a majority of climate scientists lining up against you.


Quote:

You can't even provide a link apart from ANU which doesn't address any concerns.

https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/

"Starting with some conservative assumptions from a 2013 National Renewable Energy Labs (NREL) report, we know that it takes, on average, 3.4 acres of solar panels to generate a gigawatt hour of electricity over a year. Given the U.S. consumes about 4 petawatt hours of electricity per year, we’d need about 13,600,000 acres or 21,250 square miles of solar panels to meet the total electricity requirements of the United States for a year.

So... say 100,000 sq miles required in Africa , a fraction of the Sahara (c.3% of total area)

And if we add total potential rooftop solar, your "unobtainable" case is immediately blown away, when that MASSIVE generating capacity is also  connected to the grid.


Quote:

Actually no. It hopes to reach carbon neutrality by 2060. There is no guarantee.

And peak emissions by 2035. Unlike OZ, the Chinese actually formulate 5-year plans, and implement them.


Quote:

"China is targeting an ambitious clean energy goal of reducing fossil fuel use to under 20 percent by 2060, according to an official plan published by state media on Sunday."

If that means net zero by 2060, then the statement is correct. However China could also build renewables infrastructure much faster than it plans to, but China has been misled by Western-trained economists who think you need carbon taxes in a market economy to fund the transition, just as the phony 'housing as get-rich-quick' market investment schemes caused the Evergrande catastrophe (but it appears the CCP now has that financial disaster in hand). 


Quote:

You were the one who cited AOC

after you replied to someone else who mentioned AOC, who apparently  offends you mightily.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 12:05pm:

As anyone who has ever been responsible for legislative oversight of central bankers knows, they do not like to have their authority challenged. Most of all, they will defend their mystique, that magical aura that hovers over their words, shrouding a slushy mix of banality and baloney in a mist of power and jargon.

Quote:

You do realise it applies equally to MMT?

Not according to professor Galbraith, and thousands like him. eg, professors Harvey, Mitchell, Wray, Tcherneva, Kelton to name a few off the top of my head. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

lee wrote Today at 11:18am: And they still have losses. Just not reactive losses. No new ideas there So? (ie irrelevant)

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 5:41pm:

No, but transmission technology is improving all the time.

So no increase in transmission technology then. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

good well paying work, ensuring free electricity for all.

You still haven't said who will pay the workers on this free electricity. You have said no taxes.

or perhaps
thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

Transporting green ammonia (from which green hydrogen is extracted  when needed) is as simple as transporting LNG.

No it is not. It is much more dangerous.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

As unobtainable as authorizing the central bank to spend debt-free money to fund a smart grid in Oz?

or perhaps So we have no money, we pay workers, and it is all freee. ; ;D ;D ;D ;D

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

Gosh, concrete thinking is difficult to deal with; California wild fires on a vast scale, record floods in Germany and China..

Guess what? California has a history of fires and suffers from the same illogical thinking of locking up the forests and not clearing the fuel load.

Record floods in Germany? Going back how far? The German floods of 1790 or perhaps 1910?

China and the 3 Gorges Dam? Dams will always create floodwaters if not sited correctly.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

but not in moist rain forests as occurred in 2019.

Oh you mean like the Blue Mountain fires in 1895 or perhaps those in 1937? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

Sky News? Alan Jones? - identical views to yours on climate change...

He must be more cluey than I thought. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

et your view is disputed by real climate scientists, while I'm agnostic.

And yet you can't cite these scientists or the relevant paper/s. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

Addressed above. You have a majority of climate scientists lining up against you.

Replied above.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.". Consensus is politics.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts "


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

"Starting with some conservative assumptions from a 2013 National Renewable Energy Labs (NREL) report, we know that it takes, on average, 3.4 acres of solar panels to generate a gigawatt hour of electricity over a year. Given the U.S. consumes about 4 petawatt hours of electricity per year, we’d need about 13,600,000 acres or 21,250 square miles of solar panels to meet the total electricity requirements of the United States for a year.

And nothing there about intermittency? You just don't get it. People don't use average power. The demand is when they want it.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

And if we add total potential rooftop solar, your "unobtainable" case is immediately blown away, when that MASSIVE generating capacity is also  connected to the grid.

And will the this kind and beneficent government change their solar panes for freee as well? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

And peak emissions by 2035. Unlike OZ, the Chinese actually formulate 5-year plans, and implement them.

You have heard of the phrase "there is many a slip between cup and lip". Is that like the five year plan that caused so much starvation? ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

If that means net zero by 2060, then the statement is correct. However China could also build renewables infrastructure much faster than it plans to, but China has been misled by Western-trained economists who think you need carbon taxes in a market economy to fund the transition, just as the phony 'housing as get-rich-quick' market investment schemes caused the Evergrande catastrophe (but it appears the CCP now has that financial disaster in hand).

back to the old "coulds" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

after you replied to someone else who mentioned AOC, who apparently  offends you mightily.

Nope. I cited AOC. I also edited. You were the one lauded her for being a layperson who understood MMT. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

Not according to professor Galbraith, and thousands like him. eg, professors Harvey, Mitchell, Wray, Tcherneva, Kelton to name a few off the top of my head.

Wow. You have added two to  the original 3 plus Galbraith. it is easy to see you don't follow Feynman's logic in the belief in the ignorance of experts.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Like a football tournament with an official beer, COP26 had an official energy provider: the Griffin wind farm in Perthshire, operated by SSE. Trouble is that for much of the conference it was not paid to generate electricity. Instead, it received £500,000 in ‘constraint payments’, which are given to owners of wind farms when they are generating too much electricity for the grid to absorb. The payments expose a huge hole in Britain’s renewables-heavy energy policy: we have little means of storing energy when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining so that we can use it on dull, windless days.

According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, 3.7 TWh of wind energy in 2020 — enough to power every home in Wales for the whole year — was wasted because the national grid could not accept it. Wind farm owners were paid a total of £274 million in ‘constraint payments’ to turn off their turbines — which was passed on to consumers’ bills.

The problem is exacerbated because over-generous constraint payments have given wind-farm operators a perverse incentive to build in places where there is little demand for electricity: they get paid more when they are not generating electricity than when they are.

If this is what happens when wind is generating 24 per cent of our electricity, as it did last year, imagine the outcome when we try to meet the PM’s ambition of having all our electricity generated by low-carbon sources by 2035 — when we will no longer have any gas-fired power stations as back-up.

It ought to be obvious that wind and solar power cannot form the backbone of the nation’s electricity supply without vast quantities of storage. Yet our national enthusiasm for wind and solar power has run ahead of solving the storage problem. In spite of a boom in battery installations over the past couple of years, most of Britain’s energy storage capacity is in the form of hydro-electric pumped systems built between the 1950s and 1980s in order to improve the efficiency of nuclear power stations (there is another planned for Loch Lochy in the Great Glen but it will take years to build). This is a disarmingly simple way of storing energy: when electricity is plentiful and cheap, during the night, you pump water uphill to a reservoir. When demand is greater during the day, you release it to run downhill, through turbines.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-the-uk-cant-rely-on-renewablesyet

But Britain’s four pumped storage power stations were designed to iron out diurnal cycles in supply and demand, not to supply electricity for days on end when renewables are not delivering the goods. The battery boom has attracted investors after green assets — two investment trusts which specialise in batteries, Gresham House Energy Storage and Gore Street Energy Storage, are both trading at premiums of 15 per cent to their underlying assets — but it has hardly helped Britain to cope with the regular droughts in wind and solar power. According to National Grid ESO — the demerged bit of National Grid which looks after the actual grid — Britain currently has 25.4 GWh of energy storage. Given that we consumed 346,000 GWh of electricity in 2019, this amounts to just 38 minutes’ worth of supply. Imagine that the nation’s electricity was supplied entirely by wind and solar. If the Cup Final was held on a dull and windless day, we wouldn’t even get to half-time before the TV flickered and died.

Big batteries are not without risk, either. Australia has seen vast battery installations in recent years, one of which, the Victoria Big Battery, burst into flames in July, taking 30 fire engines four days to put it out. While big batteries were credited with helping south Australia get by for 29 days in October on wind and solar power alone, that was an especially windy and sunny month. The state’s massive 129 MWh Hornsdale battery will store just 24 minutes’ worth of energy when the adjoining wind farm is working at full pelt.

When you store energy, you have to pay twice: once to generate it and again to store it. In many cases, the latter costs more than the former. A study last December by the US Department of Energy put the lifetime cost of energy from a 100 MW pumped storage system at around $100 (£75) per MWh and that from a lithium ion battery installation at $300 (£225) per MWh. Prior to this autumn’s spike, the wholesale price of electricity was hovering around £60 per MWh.

We are told that wind and solar power are cheap because the price of turbines and panels has crashed. But you can’t have an electricity grid dominated by wind and solar without supplementing it with massive amounts of storage. The cheapest way of storing energy according to the US Department of Energy, by the way, is by using surplus power to fill an underground chamber with compressed air, then releasing it to drive turbines. There has been such a plant operating in the US since 1991 — although it is not an easy solution because it needs a very particular kind of geology.

I recognise some sincere people on either side of the debate over Global Warming. But the Elephant In The Room is going to trample everyone. We can develop renewable energy, sustainable industries, and land on Mars, but its all meaningless when you crunch the numbers of the population explosion, and that subject has its denialists too. Here they come: "studies have shown . . ." Well they may make you feel better, but we cannot even agree on vaccination against disease. The big societies will collapse under their own weight.

lee wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 4:24pm:

Wow. You have added two to  the original 3 plus Galbraith. it is easy to see you don't follow Feynman's logic in the belief in the ignorance of experts

Unfortunately  for you, in relation to the dominant mainstream New-Keynesian economic schools based on obsolete classical economics,  Feynman is referring to the pernicious stranglehold of this orthodoxy's "experts", caused by their failure to correctly describe economic reality.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=48682&cpage=1#comment-73574

"UK Office of Budget Responsibility demonstrating the well-trodden GIGO format"


Note: economics is more sociology and politics than science. Whereas Einstein was a science 'expert' who correctly described physical reality eg E= mcc (until a deeper understanding of physics is achieved); meanwhile  climate scientists are undoubtedly refining their observations of the atmosphere all the time.

Btw, that you are still  asking me whether I can differentiate between CO2 "pollution" and poisonous, cancerous, particulate 'pollution', (and fossil-burning which causes acid rain, smog etc etc) after this lengthy debate, shows - at best -  your limited powers of comprehension. I clearly identified the distinction between the two types of "pollution"  several posts ago.   

In conclusion, relax; clean, free, electricity for the whole world is not too far away. Then we will all be able to adapt to whatever the climate throws our way, and live healthy lives.  Hint: start selling down your fossil shares....

All this could be solved if Thorium power gets up and running:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0


To me it's our only hope yet I don't even hear it mentioned
in the climate debates.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 11:07pm:

Unfortunately  for you, in relation to the dominant mainstream New-Keynesian economic schools based on obsolete classical economics,  Feynman is referring to the pernicious stranglehold of this orthodoxy's "experts", caused by their failure to correctly describe economic reality.

perhaps you can provide the link to the "and thousands like him" of economists who champion MMT. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 11:07pm:

Note: economics is more sociology and politics than science. Whereas Einstein was a science 'expert' who correctly described physical reality eg E= mcc (until a deeper understanding of physics is achieved); meanwhile  climate scientists are undoubtedly refining their observations of the atmosphere all the time.

And yet you still believe them? Why is that?

Please provide a paper from a "climate scientist" who supports your views. You are the one saying they disagree. Just on what do they disagree? You say you are agnostic yet keep telling me I an wrong.  You have so far failed spectacularly to do that.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 11:07pm:

Note: economics is more sociology and politics than science. Whereas Einstein was a science 'expert' who correctly described physical reality eg E= mcc (until a deeper understanding of physics is achieved); meanwhile  climate scientists are undoubtedly refining their observations of the atmosphere all the time.

And you still believe them. They use models. Model output depends on their i puts. GIGO.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 11:07pm:

Btw, that you are still  asking me whether I can differentiate between CO2 "pollution" and poisonous, cancerous, particulate 'pollution', (and fossil-burning which causes acid rain, smog etc etc) after this lengthy debate, shows - at best -  your limited powers of comprehension. I clearly identified the distinction between the two types of "pollution"  several posts ago.

CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food. Indeed it is necessary for humans to live. CO2 is that tells the lungs to breath.

Rain is naturally acidic.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 11:07pm:

Hint: start selling down your fossil shares....

Poor petal. I don't own shares ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

"MMT: Not Modern, Not Monetary, Not a Theory"

https://mises.org/power-market/mmt-not-modern-not-monetary-not-theory

BTW - To make the link live - highlight it and click on the world map. ;)

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 11:07pm:

Note: economics is more sociology and politics than science. Whereas Einstein was a science 'expert' who correctly described physical reality eg E= mcc (until a deeper understanding of physics is achieved); meanwhile  climate scientists are undoubtedly refining their observations of the atmosphere all the time.

Note: climate science is more statistics and computer modelling than science.

Having only a single planet at their disposal, climate scientists are unable to carry out any scientific experiments about the climate. All they can do is observe the weather around the world and make statistical assumptions and then build computer models, complete with those assumptions.

Also note that the complexity of planetary climate is not well understood. The interaction of all the known aspects of the climate is only partially understood and there are significant known contributors whose impact is not understood at all because they have not been measurable/measured (underwater volcanos, say. Do remember that 70% of the planet is under the sea).

The slogans about 'stopping global warming at 1.5 degrees or at 2 degrees" is laughable, arrogant stupidity.

He also hasn't divulged how with all this free electricity who is going to pay the "highly paid" workers who will do the maintenance.

If it is government owned they will need to be on the government's tit. But they won't be raising taxes.

If the electricity is free only up to a certain amount and the government is not taxing excess use they will have to limit the power to bigger users - Companies - ergo employers. That means less work available because they haven't the power to run full speed.

Having walked the Franz Joseph glacier valley and seen how far the ice has receded in 50 years, I don't believe Industry could just pump CO2 into the sky for 200 years without effect. The retreat of sea ice in the North West Passage is another indication, at least to me, if other people want to believe its all a hoax.

But I cannot believe the chronic bias and sophistry of the Left and the ABC in demonising Morrison over the LNPs reluctance to hamstring Australia with CO2 restrictions when China is building 43 new coal fired power stations. This is the China that the ALP and Greens say we should "work with" for better relations.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/25/china-to-build-43-new-coal-fired-power-plants/

Glaciers advance and retreat. So what would you have them do?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Mackintosh-et-al.-2017-Fig2-1024x764.png

So who belleves the straight lines across the decades?


issuevoter wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 1:16pm:

The retreat of sea ice in the North West Passage is another indication, at least to me, if other people want to believe its all a hoax.

You mean the one that needs icebreakers to pass?

Bobby. wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 9:21am:

All this could be solved if Thorium power gets up and running: https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0 To me it's our only hope yet I don't even hear it mentioned in the climate debates.

Is it available now, not in 10 years time (or more?)? And even if it were, we would still face resistance from the fossil industry who will want compensation to the tune of an estimated  $50 trillion for stranded fossil assets. And countries who rely on income from coal exports (like Oz).   
, and fossil workers who may not be able to successfully transfer to the green economy.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 6:02pm:

And even if it were, we would still face resistance from the fossil industry who will want compensation to the tune of an estimated  $50 trillion for stranded fossil assets. And countries who rely on income from coal exports (like Oz).    , and fossil workers who may not be able to successfully transfer to the green economy.

Ah yes. The stranded assets because China is NOT building more coal plant and neither is India. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BTW - The UK and Eu is looking at the Nuclear option again because of fossil fuel prices. It is a part of their decarbonisation vow. ;)

issuevoter wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 1:16pm:

Having walked the Franz Joseph glacier valley and seen how far the ice has receded in 50 years, I don't believe Industry could just pump CO2 into the sky for 200 years without effect. The retreat of sea ice in the North West Passage is another indication, at least to me, if other people want to believe its all a hoax.

Agreed


Quote:

But I cannot believe the chronic bias and sophistry of the Left and the ABC in demonising Morrison over the LNPs reluctance to hamstring Australia with CO2 restrictions when China is building 43 new coal fired power stations. This is the China that the ALP and Greens say we should "work with" for better relations.

Agreed again, but I suspect you - like the Left -  don't have a solution to that conundrum.

China intends to peak CO2 emissions by 2035; but China simply cant build enough PV, wind turbines, backed by pumped hydro storage,  quickly enough to keep raising its living standards (and keep the lights on)  without building more coal plants over the next few years.

Note: Coal plants are quicker, easier and cheaper to deploy than fully backed renewables supplying an equivalent amount of (base load) power.

I've been explaining the solution to lee, but his ideology makes him blind, like an ISIS theologian interpreting the Koran :-(.

The BIS hinted at the solution a few years back at Davos, when they said: "central banks might have to buy the fossil industry" (ie, using their unlimited currency-issuing capacity).

But no doubt free market ideologues would need to see their own real estate disappearing under the ocean, before acceding to that funding method.   

lee wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 6:11pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16th, 2021 at 6:02pm: And even if it were, we would still face resistance from the fossil industry who will want compensation to the tune of an estimated  $50 trillion for stranded fossil assets. And countries who rely on income from coal exports (like Oz).    , and fossil workers who may not be able to successfully transfer to the green economy. Ah yes. The stranded assets because China is NOT building more coal plant and neither is India. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D BTW - The UK and Eu is looking at the Nuclear option again because of fossil fuel prices. It is a part of their decarbonisation vow. ;)

See my reply to issuevoter above. Stranded assets in the US Germany Poland  Australia, Russia, S.Arabia Iraq, Iran ...and eventually China and India when they have built sufficient renewables + storage to close down fossils.  Meanwhile Germany and Japan are still closing their nuclear plants.

But they are all hypocrites, like you,  pointing at someone else to do the heavy lifting ie closing fossils and building PV/wind + pumped hydro. You just want to assuage your hypocrisy including finger pointing at India and China, by insisting there  is no climate emergency at all.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 6:42pm:

See my reply to issuevoter above. Stranded assets in the US Germany Poland  Australia, Russia, S.Arabia Iraq, Iran ...and eventually China and India when they have built sufficient renewables + storage to close down fossils.

You do realise the amount of land required. Land is scarce in both India and China.
thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 6:42pm:

Meanwhile Germany and Japan are still closing their nuclear plants.

And Germany is increasing lignite mining.

"Electricity demand in Europe rebounded from the pandemic-induced slump in 2020. At the same time, wind power feed-in in the first half of 2021 was very low compared to the average. In Germany, electricity generation by onshore wind turbines fell by 21 percent compared to the previous year, while offshore turbines fell by 16 percent. Thus, more thermal power plants have generated electricity. The rising fuel costs and also higher CO2-prices of over 50 EUR/tonne thus had a price-increasing effect on electricity prices as well.

The aforementioned effects of low generation from renewable energy and higher consumption led to a significant increase in coal-fired power generation, at least in Germany (source: Fraunhofer ISE). Lignite-fired power plants, which had to calculate with rising CO2 prices but not with rising fuel costs, experienced an increase in electricity generation of almost 38 percent in the first half of 2021 compared to the same period last year. Similarly, by the end of June 2021, generation from coal-fired power plants was 39 percent higher than in the first six months of 2020. However, generation from coal-fired power in the first half of 2021 was still below the levels seen in 2019. Figure 2 presents the percentage changes in net electricity generation from the different generation technologies in the 1st half of 2021 compared to 2020."

https://energypost.eu/germany-2021-coal-generation-is-rising-but-the-switch-to-gas-should-continue/

If there is little or no wind the turbines will still put out little or no power. But the wind always blows somewhere right? ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 6:42pm:

But they are all hypocrites, like you,  pointing at someone else to do the heavy lifting ie closing fossils and building PV/wind + pumped hydro.

So seeing as how not just Australia but the whole Southern Hemispher is a CO2 sink - how low should we go?


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 6:42pm:

You just want to assuage your hypocrisy including finger pointing at India and China, by insisting there  is no climate emergency at all.

Not at all. I am all for them to continue to put CO2 in the air.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 6:26pm:

China intends to peak CO2 emissions by 2035; but China simply cant build enough PV, wind turbines, backed by pumped hydro storage,  quickly enough to keep raising its living standards (and keep the lights on)  without building more coal plants over the next few years.

They are already building the coal plants.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 6:26pm:

But no doubt free market ideologues would need to see their own real estate disappearing under the ocean, before acceding to that funding method.

So when is this catastrophic SLR due? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BTW- you failed to provide your source of "and thousands like him" for your MMT promoting economists.

You still haven't given even one name of a climate scientist and the relevant paper on which he relies for CAGW/CCC. (Catastrophic  AGW/CC). ;)

lee wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 7:29pm:

The aforementioned effects of low generation from renewable energy and higher consumption led to a significant increase in coal-fired power generation, at least in Germany (source: Fraunhofer ISE).

We have covered all this before in this debate.....Sahara as backup for the EU, a massive project which should have been completed by now. (only 3% of the Sahara's area required, remember?) Plus replacement of electricity from burning coal  with electricity fueled by burning green ammonia (an opportunity for Oz). That you lack engineering know how is irrelevant.


Quote:

So seeing as how not just Australia but the whole Southern Hemispher is a CO2 sink - how low should we go?

Fact is your opinions on AGW climate change are irrelevant; 190 nations have signed a decarbonization pledge, including  a time table for  future COP meetings, to measure progress. Get used to it.


Quote:

Not at all. I am all for them to continue to put CO2 in the air.

AGW climate deniers like you point to India and China as an excuse not to do anything, as opposed  to the hypocrites who accuse  India and China of not doing enough. Both groups - ruled by blind self-interest - are hypocrites.

lee wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 7:37pm:

They are already building the coal plants.

Because it's the cheapest and fastest way to generate the base load electricity they need to lift their populations out of poverty.

That's why the rich world has to step up, if the rich world wants India and China to transition out of coal more quickly.
But the rich world are self-interested hypocrites, preferring to point fingers at others. 

Meanwhile  you are an AGW climate denier, so you can go back to sleep.....


Quote:

So when is this catastrophic SLR due?

Like I said.....I give you permission to go back to sleep.....



Quote:

BTW- you failed to provide your source of "and thousands like him" for your MMT promoting economists.

MMT has thousands of followers; Stephanie Kelton's book 'The Deficit Myth' reached the NYT best seller list. The New Keynesians still have the upper hand in academia and central banks, but that is changing. Like Feynman said: "the tyranny of experts"  is still dominating economics schools with their  obsolete,  classical-based dogma.

But use your own brain: Obviously central banks with an unlimited fiat currency-issuing capacity COULD be authorized to fund the transition, following the BIS declaration: "central banks might have to buy the fossil industry".   

http://www.rossgittins.com/2021/03/funding-budget-by-printing-money-is.html

Yes, Oz's own Ross Gittins, in a SMH article...and Alan Kohler:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mzmJexSbm4

The usual objections from the orthodox no-hopers - re inflation -  obviously do not apply, because the printed money is not being put into the pockets of consumers who might bid up prices, but is being used by government to purchase the existing fossil industry and other resources, to fund transition to renewables....for 'free' apart from opportunity costs. .



Quote:

You still haven't given even one name of a climate scientist and the relevant paper on which he relies for CAGW/CCC. (Catastrophic  AGW/CC). ;)

As you know AGW is not my chief interest: anyone can find the names of  thousands of scientists who have signed the IPCC declaration.

My interest is clean air which is healthy to breathe, and in poverty eradication via free electricity. But your self-interested ideology  blinds you the processes required to achieve both.


(Btw How do I make those links live, again?}

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 11:18am:

Obviously central banks with an unlimited fiat currency-issuing capacity COULD be authorized to fund the transition, following the BIS declaration: "central banks might have to buy the fossil industry".    http://www.rossgittins.com/2021/03/funding-budget-by-printing-money-is.html Yes, Oz's own Ross Gittins, in a SMH article...and Alan Kohler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mzmJexSbm4 The usual objections from the orthodox no-hopers - re inflation -  obviously do not apply, because the printed money is not being put into the pockets of consumers who might bid up prices, but is being used by government to purchase the existing fossil industry and other resources, to fund transition to renewables....for 'free' apart from opportunity costs. .

I am not surprised that people like you, agitating for 'climate action' regardless of reality,  are economic illiterates, carried forward on nothing more than righteous Emotional Correctness and Ross Gittins.

Inflation is here already.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 10:19am:

We have covered all this before in this debate.....Sahara as backup for the EU, a massive project which should have been completed by now.

That's right. Your stated position was to elevate them. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 10:19am:

Fact is your opinions on AGW climate change are irrelevant; 190 nations have signed a decarbonization pledge, including  a time table for  future COP meetings, to measure progress.

But I am asking for your preferred scientist and the relevant paper. ;D ;D ;D ;D
.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 10:19am:

AGW climate deniers like you point to India and China as an excuse not to do anything, as opposed  to the hypocrites who accuse  India and China of not doing enough.

So you have lost the argument again. I do believe climate changes.. According to theory CO2 will cause some warming. So far there have been no increases demonstrated to be of human caused changes. So how much warming is the question. The atmosphere is not a greenhouse.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 11:18am:

Because it's the cheapest and fastest way to generate the base load electricity they need to lift their populations out of poverty.

And yet you want to deny it to the people of Africa. Why is that.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 11:18am:

That's why the rich world has to step up, if the rich world wants India and China to transition out of coal more quickly.

Ah yes. GIVE them the technology. But you keep saying China has the technology, quite apart from which they have shown a propensity to steal any copyrighted technology.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 11:18am:

Meanwhile  you are an AGW climate denier, so you can go back to sleep...

Poor petal. So you can't provide a paper and your preferred scientist. That means you are talking from ignorance.

You lauded AOC for being a layperson who understood MMT. But you can't explain it yourself. Paraphrasing  - "Governments don't need money - just create it", "Thousands of economists" - You can't provide evidence of that.  Governments don't need taxes - because the unicorn farts will pay for it.

Nothing about paying Government workers. Just create more debt we don't have to pay down. So money has no value. So much BS i so many posts. ;D ;D ;D ;D

So really you are just ignorant and don't even realise it.

Edit: Global inflation hasn't been this high since 2008

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/02/economy/inflation-oecd/index.html.

Oh well I guess inflation cn be a problem.

"MMT proponents argue that governments can spend as necessary on all desirable causes – reducing unemployment, green energy, better healthcare and education – without worrying about paying for it with higher taxes or increased borrowing. Instead, they can pay using new money from their central bank. The only limit, according to this view, is if inflation starts to rise, in which case the solution is to increase taxes. "

https://thecorner.eu/news-the-world/world-economy/modern-monetary-theory-the-rise-of-economists-who-say-huge-government-debt-is-not-a-problem/87584/

But you were saying there was no need for taxes. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 11:18am:

As you know AGW is not my chief interest: anyone can find the names of  thousands of scientists who have signed the IPCC declaration.

You mean those scientists who signed this?

In summary there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale. Confidence is in general low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence because of a limited number of studies and differences in the results of these studies, and large modelling uncertainties.

IPCC  AR6 WG1 11.5.4


There is medium confidence in the ability of ESMs to simulate trends and anomalies in precipitation deficits and AED, and also medium confidence in the ability of ESMs and hydrological models to simulate trends and anomalies in soil moisture and streamflow deficits, on global and regional scales

IPCC AR6 WG1 11.6.3.6

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_11.pdf

So no high confidence on Extremes. ;)

Frank wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 12:01pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17th, 2021 at 11:18am: Obviously central banks with an unlimited fiat currency-issuing capacity COULD be authorized to fund the transition, following the BIS declaration: "central banks might have to buy the fossil industry".    http://www.rossgittins.com/2021/03/funding-budget-by-printing-money-is.html Yes, Oz's own Ross Gittins, in a SMH article...and Alan Kohler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mzmJexSbm4 The usual objections from the orthodox no-hopers - re inflation -  obviously do not apply, because the printed money is not being put into the pockets of consumers who might bid up prices, but is being used by government to purchase the existing fossil industry and other resources, to fund transition to renewables....for 'free' apart from opportunity costs. . Quote: I am not surprised that people like you, agitating for 'climate action' regardless of reality,  are economic illiterates, carried forward on nothing more than righteous Emotional Correctness and Ross Gittins. Note the bolded. Alan Kohler ... an economic illiterate?  Please don't look in a mirror,  it will shatter... [quote]Inflation is here already.

And Philip Lowe is so concerned about inflation he is giving the bond vigilantes the middle finger....

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 8:27pm:

Alan Kohler ... an economic illiterate?  Please don't look in a mirror,  it will shatter...

Climate action illiterate. Anyone manipulating money supply, productivity, interest rates etc for 'climate action' is an economic illiterate or a spiv cashing in on the climate tulip mania.

I like Kohler but he knows nothing about climate. He knows about the political opportunism of 'climate action'.

lee wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 5:06pm:

[quote]You mean those scientists who signed this? In summary there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale. Confidence is in general low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence because of a limited number of studies and differences in the results of these studies, and large modelling uncertainties. IPCC  AR6 WG1 11.5.4 There is medium confidence in the ability of ESMs to simulate trends and anomalies in precipitation deficits and AED, and also medium confidence in the ability of ESMs and hydrological models to simulate trends and anomalies in soil moisture and streamflow deficits, on global and regional scales IPCC AR6 WG1 11.6.3.6 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_11.pdf So no high confidence on Extremes. ;)

Have fun with that nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change:

"Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[4]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[5][6] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors."


So no future in that controversy, the scientists are refining their observations, as the ice-sheets on Greenland are melting at ever faster rates.

So lets look at MMT instead, which correctly describes economic reality, enabling better outcomes  for  "the dismal science"

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/mmt-overcoming-the-political-divide.569365/

Frank wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 8:38pm:

I like Kohler but he knows nothing about climate. He knows about the political opportunism of 'climate action'.

But is Kohler an "economic illiterate?"
That is the question we are asking, not his opinion on AGW climate change.   

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 8:51pm:

Have fun with that nonsense.

You were the one referred me to the IPCC and climate scientists. And now you don't want to know? ;D ;D ;D ;D
thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 8:51pm:

"Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[4]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[5][6] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors."

Oh you mean like Cook et al 97.1% of 33.3%? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming"

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

They should have been done for statistical abuse.. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Nope you meant Anderegg.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 8:51pm:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change:

"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."

Take out the colon. BTW - still not learned to properly link?

Anderegg - "Then in 2010, William Anderegg and colleagues concluded that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support … [the view that] … anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth’s average global temperature” over a recent but unspecified time period. (Emphasis in original.)

To make this extreme assertion, Anderegg et al. compiled a database of 908 climate researchers who published frequently on climate topics, and identified those who had “signed statements strongly dissenting from the views” of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The 97–98% figure is achieved by counting those who had not signed such statements."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/10/deep-sixing-another-useless-climate-myth/

So if you didn't strongly disagree, in writing, then you agreed. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The paper is at - https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/107/27/12107.full.pdf

You really do know nothing. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
the BTW - 2% was a it piece by the same cartoonist John Cook with Nuccitelli. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D



thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 8:51pm:

So lets look at MMT instead, which correctly describes economic reality, enabling better outcomes  for  "the dismal science"

You mean the one where you said that governments didn't need to raise taxes? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 1:16pm:

You lauded AOC for being a layperson who understood MMT. But you can't explain it yourself.

{by-passing the first part of your post, since everything you posted there  has been covered earlier}

1. Sovereign currency-issuing governments can purchase whatever is available for purchase (in the nation's own currency) without taxing or borrowing from the private sector (households, you and me).

2.Such currency-issuing governments face a resource constraint, not a money (purely financial)  constraint.

In other words, the nation's resources and productive capacity  limit is the actual inflation constraint.

Note: taxes are not required for governments to spend (recall point 1 above), taxes may be needed to reduce unsustainable or excessive demand on resources which are beyond the capacity of the economy to supply. 

There it is. simple.

Now do your homework:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/mmt-overcoming-the-political-divide.569365/

And a NYT article with the heading "No-one really knows how the economy works".

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=48571

"The New York Times article (October 1, 2021, updated October 15, 2021) – Nobody Really Knows How the Economy Works. A Fed Paper Is the Latest Sign – reported on a paper by one Jeremy B. Rudd, who is a senior advisor in the Research and Statistics division at the Federal Reserve Bank in the US. The paper – Why Do We Think That Inflation Expectations Matter for Inflation? (And Should We?) – published as Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2021-062, by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, argues that a core aspect of New Keynesian macroeconomic orthodoxy “rests on extremely shaky foundations … and adhering to it uncritically could easily lead to serious policy errors.”


Quote:

Nothing about paying Government workers. Just create more debt we don't have to pay down. So money has no value. So much BS i so many posts.

Like me with climate science, now YOU are showing YOUR ignorance. Regular public sector workers are paid by government, as are workers in the government funded Job Guarantee scheme (in MMT.)

By the way, a currency issuing government can never go broke  provided it doesn't borrow in another country's currency.

Money IS created ex nihilo whether in private banks as at present, or in the 'government's' (central) bank, which in MMT implements government policy, not independently of government as at present. 


Quote:

Edit: Global inflation hasn't been this high since 2008 https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/02/economy/inflation-oecd/index.html. Oh well I guess inflation can be a problem.

Yes.... after a pandemic which has created all sorts of supply chain blockages. The solution is price controls on critical  inputs like oil and gas, until the bottlenecks can be removed.


Quote:

"MMT proponents argue that governments can spend as necessary on all desirable causes – reducing unemployment, green energy, better healthcare and education – without worrying about paying for it with higher taxes or increased borrowing. Instead, they can pay using new money from their central bank. The only limit, according to this view, is if inflation starts to rise, in which case the solution is to increase taxes. " qhttps://thecorner.eu/news-the-world/world-economy/modern-monetary-theory-the-rise-of-economists-who-say-huge-government-debt-is-not-a-problem/87584/ But you were saying there was no need for taxes.

I addressed this issue above; but I copied and pasted your link; here is the last paragraph in that article:

"If there is inflation, the Bank of England’s task will be to choke it off by raising interest rates, and/or reversing QE. Or the government could try out the MMT proposal to stifle the inflation with higher taxes. The trouble is that all these responses will also depress economic activity. In such circumstances, the MMT doctrine of free spending will not look so attractive after all."

Thr last paragraph is wrong, MMT has a number of tools to deal with inflation, depending on the nature of the inflation (eg supply push or demand pull inflation etc), as I already pointed out above. It's absurd to raise taxes or increase interest rates when the pandemic induced supply chain blockages we are experiencing at present are responsible for price rises. That'd why Philip Lowe is resisting calls to raise interest rates.

So the author needs to rethink his proposition that "all these responses will depress the economy". Certainly the orthodox response - central banks increasing interest rates -will depress the economy. He is in effect claiming there is nothing we can do to prevent governments being over-whelmed by covid rescue debt on the one hand,, and price rises due to supply chain blockages after emerging from the pandemic, on the other. 

He should look at that NYT article: no-one really knows how the economy works".   
Well MMT can make it work.

Think about it: if the pandemic had forced governments to lock down their (non-essential sectors of their) economies for several years, then debt-free government-issued money would be the only means by which locked-down workers could pay their bills and stay alive, without bankrupting even the wealthiest countries.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 10:32pm:

1. Sovereign currency-issuing governments can purchase whatever is available for purchase (in the nation's own currency) without taxing or borrowing from the private sector (households, you and me).

Yes. No taxes. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 10:32pm:

In other words, the nation's resources and productive capacity  limit is the actual inflation constraint.

And yet economists point to inflation as a key problem with MMT.

"Of course, there are many counterexamples in which these conditions have been associated with hyperinflation, such as Argentina in 1989, Russia at the breakup of the Soviet Union, and more recently Zimbabwe and Venezuela. But in all these cases there was an assortment of additional problems such as government corruption or instability, a history of defaults on government debt, and an inability to borrow in the country’s own currency. Thankfully, the UK does not suffer from these problems."

https://theconversation.com/modern-monetary-theory-the-rise-of-economists-who-say-huge-government-debt-is-not-a-problem-141495


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 10:32pm:

Note: taxes are not required for governments to spend (recall point 1 above), taxes may be needed to reduce unsustainable or excessive demand on resources which are beyond the capacity of the economy to supply.

again - no taxes


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 10:32pm:

Regular public sector workers are paid by government, as are workers in the government funded Job Guarantee scheme (in MMT.)

But how to do it with NO TAXES?

"The only limit, according to this view, is if inflation starts to rise, in which case the solution is to increase taxes. "

ibid

To increase taxes you need to be taxing in the first place. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 10:32pm:

He should look at that NYT article: no-one really knows how the economy works".    Well MMT can make it work.

That there is right funny. NO ONE really knows but MMT proponents are part of that NO ONE. ;D ;D ;D ;D

But tell us more on those climate scientists you believe ;) and what they have said,

lee wrote on Nov 19^th, 2021 at 12:13pm:

No taxes?

Correct; a sovereign currency issuing government, with its own treasury and central bank,  can issue debt-free money, hence it doesn't need  to tax or borrow from the private sector (you and me) in order to spend. This public sector money issuance contrasts with private sector money issuance in private (commercial) banks, in the form of interest bearing debt. Got it now?


Quote:

And yet economists point to inflation as a key problem with MMT.

That's because they don't understand MMT,  which correctly identifies the economy's  resource and productivity limit as the inflation constraint.


Quote:

"Thankfully, the UK does not suffer from these problems".

That's correct. The UK can cancel it's covid-accumulated debt at any time without causing inflation, because the UK's productive capacity potential remains intact (when the pandemic ends)


Quote:

again - no taxes

Wrong: no taxes in order for the government to spend, that's correct; but taxes (if required) to restrain a level of spending which exceeds the economy's productive capacity.

Price rises following  supply constraints caused by the pandemic, are not structural 'inflation', because the supply chains will be fixed when the pandemic ends.


Quote:

But how to do it with NO TAXES?

Hasn't it tweaked yet? A government with its own treasury and reserve bank can 'print' the stuff - debt free. (ie change the digits in the bank accounts of citizens, as desired by the government's chosen policies (eg, so locked-down workers can pay their essential bills).   


Quote:

"The only limit, according to this view, is if inflation starts to rise, in which case the solution is to increase taxes".

Re current inflation caused by supply chain covid related problems, taxes are NOT the only solution (as already noted above: price controls, not taxes,  until the supply chain is fixed)

But in general, sales taxes will reduce excess demand as required, without reducing income. And the MMT JG price stabilizer is always avaiiable, if  the private sector starts shedding jobs due to loss of demand in the economy, ensuring full employment is maintained.


Quote:

To increase taxes you need to be taxing in the first place

Wrong again (careful -there is a dunce cap waiting for you in the corner). Having explained (above) how taxes work in MMT, and how debt free public sector money is created in MMT,  I expect you can now see the error in that statement.


Quote:

That there is right funny. NO ONE really knows but MMT proponents are part of that NO ONE.

Good point, but orthodox market economists will create such a mess in the pandemic stressed and fossil poisoned global economy, they will soon be begging for the MMT solution. 


Quote:

But tell us more on those climate scientists you believe ;) and what they have said,

I'll let the world's insurers and financiers decide how they intend to deal with climate related catastrophes  (whether AGW-related or not), to avoid a global financial meltdown due to uninsurable property losses which are increasing at an alarming rate.   

But in any case the poisonous polluting, health destroying  fossil industry has to be closed ASAP.

"Fossil Fuels Responsible for 1 in 5 of All Global Deaths in 2018: Report"

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/fossil-fuels-air-pollution-1-in-5-global-deaths/?

Meanwhile, it's because of the increasing occurrence of un-insurable climate related catastrophes that the BIS said "central banks might have to buy the fossil industry"..... and pay for the property damage via issuance of debt free central bank money.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 20^th, 2021 at 3:34pm:

"Fossil Fuels Responsible for 1 in 5 of All Global Deaths in 2018: Report"

So how many global deaths for people with NO access to fossil fuels. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 20^th, 2021 at 3:34pm:

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/fossil-fuels-air-pollution-1-in-5-global-deaths/?

"It examines a specific form of particulate matter called PM2.5 — basically, a mixture of microscopic droplets in the air like smoke and dirt, smaller than a single human hair, that’s released by things like cars. "

Oh dear. There has not been a single death reported as caused by PM2.5.

So it is a statistical "study". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

"By Steve Milloy

Below is my testimony at today’s public meeting of EPA’s CASAC PM subpanel concerning EPA’s updated assessment of PM2.5 science. Not surprisingly, the EPA air pollution mafia declined my challenge to point out where I was wrong… because I’m not. Please support JunkScience.com!

Good afternoon. I am Steve Milloy. I publish JunkScience.com.

EPA’s assessment of the PM2.5 science is a case study in science fraud.

First, the PM epidemiology is not science — it’s just statistics and dishonest statistics at that.

Statistical associations by themselves are not science.

EPA admitted in federal court with me that the PM epidemiology alone is inadequate for determining causality.

That should be no surprise.

It’s basic epidemiology – not that the PM epidemiology is worth anything to start with.

In fact, the data used in the PM epidemiology are mostly garbage.

The exposure data are poorly guesstimated and often overwhelmed by other PM exposures, especially smoking, occupational exposures and indoor air.

PM health endpoints like mortality are common and multifactorial, and so are not plausibly studied via epidemiology.

It’s no wonder that EPA allows agency grantees to hide their data from public scrutiny.

Even so, all the PM epidemiology essentially reports zero correlations.

Honest epidemiologists know that epidemiology is only useful for studying high rates of rare disease – not low rates of common health endpoints like death.

And let’s not forget that EPA staff continues to essentially ignore all the PM epidemiology that expressly reports no association between PM and death  like the 2017 study by Young, Smith and Lopiano that considered every death, two million of them, that occurred in California between 2000-2012 and reported no association between PM and deaths.

Let’s consider at PM toxicology which should be able to shed light on whether there is any biological plausibility to the notion that PM kills.

There is no lab animal experiment that has produced deaths in animals – despite intense PM exposures.

There is no human clinical experiment that has produced health effects – let alone deaths – despite exposing elderly and sick people to intense PM.

None of this is surprising since there are no real-world examples where PM has killed anyone ever.

Yet EPA staff dishonestly assesses this body of literature as supporting its false assertion that PM causes death.

Please EPA, show us the body of someone who has been killed by PM. Just one, please. Aren’t you even curious yourselves? There are supposed to be 8 million deaths worldwide caused by PM2,5. And you can’t find a single body?

Studies show that smokers who quit by age 40 will have inhaled thousands of times more PM than nonsmokers – yet both groups have the same life expectancy.

PM levels in Chinese and Indian cities can be 100 or more times greater than US outdoor air – but there are no reports of actual deaths from inhaling Chinese or Indian air.

Historic incidents of deadly air pollution during the 20th century were caused by acidic gases concentrated in the air by weather phenomena.

They weren’t caused by PM2.5.

Coal miners and diesel workers have relatively large exposures to PM – but they have greater life expectancy than workers not occupationally exposed to PM.

And guess what, when PM levels are reduced, deaths don’t go down.

Yet, EPA staff ignores this real-world data, doubles down on the fraudulent and secret science and raves that PM2.5 is more dangerous than ever.

It’s a shameless con. And it’s getting worse.

EPA staff now claims that the cleaner air is, the more dangerous it is.

EPA staff claims that when it comes to cardiovascular mortality, the dose-response curve goes supralinear at low doses.

Of course that would mean that tightening the PM2.5 NAAQS would actually kill people.

There is not a single toxic substance known to science that operates on the principle that a little exposure is worse than a lot. Not a single one.

All the foregoing is indisputable. At least I have no seen anyone dispute it.

So how did all this fraud take hold in the first place?

Since 1996 – the first time CASAC told EPA that there is no evidence PM2.5 kills – EPA staff has funneled at least $600 million to university researchers willing to commit scientific fraud in order to invent and maintain the lie that PM kills.

More  at -

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/18/milloy-epas-assessment-of-pm2-5-is-science-fraud/

And as I have pointed out Terpenes, which are natural, are less than PM2.5. I guess we need to cut down all those damn Terpene emitting trees.

There has however now been one death due to Climate Change. ;D ;D ;D ;D

In other words:

Blah Blah Blah.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 20^th, 2021 at 10:48pm:

In other words: Blah Blah Blah.

Duck brain's intelligence doesn't run to anything more than this.  And this was an effort for him.

lee wrote on Nov 20^th, 2021 at 3:59pm:

So how many global deaths for people with NO access to fossil fuels.

A comparatively MUCH smaller number; even people in Africa are dying from poisonous fossil fumes in the crowded cities with fossil fuel vehicles spewing poisonous gases.


Quote:

Oh dear. There has not been a single death reported as caused by PM2.5.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191113-the-toxic-killers-in-our-air-too-small-to-see

"PM2.5 may be too small to see, being roughly 30 times smaller than the width of a human hair. But it’s a relative heavyweight. PM2.5 stomps in at 2,500 nanometres (nm), while nanoparticles are 100nm or below. PM2.5 and PM10 (10,000nm) are killers in their own right, typically causing lung and respiratory conditions. Yet nanoparticles can reach, and wreak havoc in, any organ in the body"

Gotta love google. So much for your "shameless con".

Your support of the filthy fossil industry is the con.

And I see you have no comment on "central banks might have to buy the fossil industry".. not your concern?

Hope you aren't living in bush-lands or a floodplain; you will  soon find you will not be able to afford  property insurance.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2021 at 1:55pm:

Yet nanoparticles can reach, and wreak havoc in, any organ in the body

Did you notice that they didn't say they had evidence of this occurring? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

From a peer-reviewed paper -

"Enstrom1 does a reanalysis of a large national cohort study and, unlike the original authors, finds no effect of small particulate matter, PM2.5, on total mortality. "

"In a response to a request from the EPA to suggest regulations in need of examination,2 Young3 points to 21 studies, including Enstrom,1 that find no evidence of an association PM2.5 with mortality. Two of these studies are essentially experiments that directly negate causality.4-5 Also, Young6 analyzed a very large time series data set from California, years 2000 to 2012, 8 air basins, over 37 000 days of exposure, and found no effect of PM2.5 on mortality. Young6 provides their analysis code and their analysis data set. Anyone asserting a causal relationship should make their data sets public. Logically, the game is over. Enstrom drives an important stake into the heart of EPA asserted causality.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1559325817750485

Whom to believe. A peer-reviewed publication or the BBC? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2021 at 1:55pm:

And I see you have no comment on "central banks might have to buy the fossil industry".. not your concern?

No. Why should I, on something that might happen. And anyway the MMT proponents have the fix - right? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2021 at 1:55pm:

Hope you aren't living in bush-lands or a floodplain; you will  soon find you will not be able to afford  property insurance.

I do live in the bush. ;)

lee wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2021 at 6:02pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 1:55pm: Yet nanoparticles can reach, and wreak havoc in, any organ in the body Did you notice that they didn't say they had evidence of this occurring? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D From a peer-reviewed paper - "Enstrom1 does a reanalysis of a large national cohort study and, unlike the original authors, finds no effect of small particulate matter, PM2.5, on total mortality. " "In a response to a request from the EPA to suggest regulations in need of examination,2 Young3 points to 21 studies, including Enstrom,1 that find no evidence of an association PM2.5 with mortality. Two of these studies are essentially experiments that directly negate causality.4-5 Also, Young6 analyzed a very large time series data set from California, years 2000 to 2012, 8 air basins, over 37 000 days of exposure, and found no effect of PM2.5 on mortality. Young6 provides their analysis code and their analysis data set. Anyone asserting a causal relationship should make their data sets public. Logically, the game is over. Enstrom drives an important stake into the heart of EPA asserted causality. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1559325817750485 Whom to believe. A peer-reviewed publication or the BBC? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 1:55pm: And I see you have no comment on "central banks might have to buy the fossil industry".. not your concern? No. Why should I, on something that might happen. And anyway the MMT proponents have the fix - right? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 1:55pm: Hope you aren't living in bush-lands or a floodplain; you will  soon find you will not be able to afford  property insurance. I do live in the bush. ;)

And your bridge will be flood impacted.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2021 at 6:30pm:

And your bridge will be flood impacted.

Such a numpty. Trolling again. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Trying to take JS job? CT- Chief Troll

I wasn't talking Seance, I believe you may be an expert on that. ;)

lee wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2021 at 6:02pm:

Did you notice that they didn't say they had evidence of this occurring? From a peer-reviewed paper - "Enstrom1 does a reanalysis of a large national cohort study and, unlike the original authors, finds no effect of small particulate matter, PM2.5, on total mortality. "

From the link I supplied:

"Most countries including the US and the EU have legal limits for the most harmful air pollutants, including PM2.5, NOx, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide. But no similar regulatory limits exist for nanoparticles. The typical rebuttal is that “PM2.5 includes everything down to 1nm”, which technically it does, but as we have seen, literally millions of nanoparticles still give a low PM2.5 reading. A low PM2.5 reading on government website or mobile phone app can therefore give a false impression of clean air when it is, in fact, swirling with particles entering our arteries."

Still want to breathe all that fossil filth?


Quote:

"In a response to a request from the EPA to suggest regulations in need of examination,2 Young3 points to 21 studies, including Enstrom,1 that find no evidence of an association PM2.5 with mortality. Two of these studies are essentially experiments that directly negate causality.4-5 Also, Young6 analyzed a very large time series data set from California, years 2000 to 2012, 8 air basins, over 37 000 days of exposure, and found no effect of PM2.5 on mortality. Young6 provides their analysis code and their analysis data set. Anyone asserting a causal relationship should make their data sets public. Logically, the game is over. Enstrom drives an important stake into the heart of EPA asserted causality.

No the game is not over; nanoparticles are a thousand times smaller than PM2.5 ....and fossils are killing people.


Quote:

Whom to believe. A peer-reviewed publication or the BBC?

"In 2003, Surbjit Kaur was a young researcher finishing her Masters at Imperial College London[/b]"...is not the BBC.


Quote:

No. Why should I, on something that might happen. And anyway the MMT proponents have the fix - right?

Correct, and the mainstream market economists with their stupid carbon taxes will be begging for the MMT solution, provided we have time, and we aren't faced with a runaway climate catastrophe beforehand, in which case - btw -  living in the bush will be suicidal.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 3:22pm:

A low PM2.5 reading on government website or mobile phone app can therefore give a false impression of clean air when it is, in fact, swirling with particles entering our arteries."

Oh CAN not DOES. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 3:22pm:

No the game is not over; nanoparticles are a thousand times smaller than PM2.5 ....and fossils are killing people.

And yet you provide no evidence.. Fossils kill people? is that old farts or fossilised dinosaurs? Did bones fall on them? Old farts falling asleep at the wheel?



thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 3:22pm:

"In 2003, Surbjit Kaur was a young researcher finishing her Masters at Imperial College London[/b]"...is not the BBC.

True. But she found nanoparticles on suits and shoes and even more IN vehicles. And not ONE reported death. That is what MORTALITY is about. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 3:22pm:

Correct, and the mainstream market economists with their stupid carbon taxes will be begging for the MMT solution, provided we have time, and we aren't faced with a runaway climate catastrophe beforehand, in which case - btw -  living in the bush will be suicidal.

Perhaps you can link to this runaway climate change? Where? Is it Global as in AGW or regional?

Living in the bush will be suicidal? Is that because of those nasty PM2.5's that exist in the city? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You are getting sillier by the post. ;)

lee wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 5:03pm:

Oh CAN not DOES.

You OK with being in a closed shed with a fossil engine belching exhaust fumes?  (I thought not...)



Quote:

And yet you provide no evidence.. Fossils kill people? is that old farts or fossilised dinosaurs? Did bones fall on them? Old farts falling asleep at the wheel?

"Fossils"...shorthand for the filthy industry you are supporting, like the tobacco industry claimed no negative effects on health .



Quote:

True. But she found nanoparticles on suits and shoes and even more IN vehicles. And not ONE reported death. That is what MORTALITY is about

Like tobacco, fossils have a cumulative negative effect on health.


Quote:

Perhaps you can link to this runaway climate change? Where? Is it Global as in AGW or regional?

It's global of course, if AGW climate change is real, as asserted by the IPCC.


Quote:

Living in the bush will be suicidal? Is that because of those nasty PM2.5's that exist in the city?

(Sigh, it's difficult dealing with concrete thinkers)...no, it's because bush fires are becoming more frequent, more destructive, and more widespread.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/24/world-heritage-queensland-rainforest-burned-for-10-days-and-almost-no-one-noticed

"World heritage Queensland rainforest burned for 10 days – and almost no one noticed
The blaze, which took place in an environment supposedly resistant to fire, is the clearest sign climate change has affected the tropics"


Quote:

You are getting sillier by the post. ;)

I think that's an ad hominem...whatever.

Frank wrote on Nov 21^st, 2021 at 12:58am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 20th, 2021 at 10:48pm: In other words: Blah Blah Blah. Duck brain's intelligence doesn't run to anything more than this.  And this was an effort for him.

I had a bet with myself that you wouldn't understand even this. Looks like I won.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 5:36pm:

You OK with being in a closed shed with a fossil engine belching exhaust fumes?  (I thought not...)

Does it have an exhaust fan? ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 5:36pm:

"Fossils"...shorthand for the filthy industry you are supporting, like the tobacco industry claimed no negative effects on health .

Oh dear. Confusing fossil fuels with smoking. Maybe you can tell us all what the fossil fuel industry knew or knows about AGW/CC. Hint: No more than experts.;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 5:36pm:

Like tobacco, fossils have a cumulative negative effect on health.

Link? I smoked, I no longer smoke. I drive still. No negative health effects from either.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 5:36pm:

It's global of course, if AGW climate change is real, as asserted by the IPCC.

Ah so if it is GLOBAL. Why are some parts cooling, some parts warming and some not doing much at all? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Sorry IF it is real it is global? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 5:36pm:

(Sigh, it's difficult dealing with concrete thinkers)...no, it's because bush fires are becoming more frequent, more destructive, and more widespread.

No they are not.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 5:36pm:

World heritage Queensland rainforest burned for 10 days – and almost no one noticed The blaze, which took place in an environment supposedly resistant to fire, is the clearest sign climate change has affected the tropics"

Edit: BTW - did you read down?

"A single story in a local newspaper"
follow the link? - "He said locals were concerned not enough had been done to penalise or deal with the person responsible for the blaze, questioning whether it had been a permitted burn. "

https://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/fnq-heatwave-firefighters-investigate-cause-of-rainforest-blaze/news-story/f955030307b8deb82dc987403d2e663f

But -

You mean like this -

"BRISBANE, Wednesday.—Hundreds of square miles of drought stricken south-eastern Queensland were aflame to-night. From Bundaberg to the New South Wales border (about 300 miles) bush fires driven by a strong south-westerly wind were menacing homesteads, station properties, stock, and Army buildings, and destroying the last rem-
nants of winter feed. Major outbreaks have been reported from Kilcoy, Woodford, Beaudesert, and West Burleigh, where police, soldiers, and civilians have been unable
to control the fires, which have already burnt out thousands of acres of grass lands."

"Army Camp Threatened . More than 150 firemen, police, and civilians were unable to control a major outbreak between Beaudesert and Tamborine, on Mondoolum
Station. By nightfall, Beaudesert police estimated that more than 6,000 acres , had been destroyed, and the fire was then sweeping on a two-mile front towards Camp Cable, which was the biggest war-time Army camp in Queensland. Built for the United States Army, Camp Cable was later handed over to the Australian Army. Police were sent from Brisbane tonight to join forces with fire-fighters from Beaudesert, Moongalpa, Tamborine, and Jimboomba in an attempt to stem the blaze."

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/17984881

1946

Damn that AGW is good.

But exactly how does Climate Change light fires? People light fires, occasionally lightning lights fires - But I have never heard of climate lighting fires. ::)

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 5:36pm:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/24/world-heritage-queensland-rainforest-burned-for-10-days-and-almost-no-one-noticed "World heritage Queensland rainforest burned for 10 days – and almost no one noticed The blaze, which took place in an environment supposedly resistant to fire, is the clearest sign climate change has affected the tropics"

Maybe you should try trove.nla.gov.au and input "Cairns bushfires".

lee wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:58pm:

Maybe you should try trove.nla.gov.au and input "Cairns bushfires".

"BUSHFIRES BURN OUT 100
ACRES AROUND CAIRNS
Worst Outbreak for Two Years
In the worst outbreak of bushfires for two
years, over 100 acres around Cairns were burnt out
during the week-end. Eleven outbreaks were fought
by Cairns firemen in one of the brigade's busiest
week-end"

What.. 100 acres in Cairns' outer regions?

meantime, you can't address cumulative effects of tobacco smoke, or poisonous filthy fossil gases.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 24^th, 2021 at 10:43pm:

"BUSHFIRES BURN OUT 100 ACRES AROUND CAIRNS

So you only found one? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

But even one is more than none and before AGW too. ;D ;D ;D ;D

How about Kuranda? Mareeba? Atherton?

You really are a dill. Does that sound like an ad hom?

Perhaps AGW denier is also. People in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones or something... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 24^th, 2021 at 10:43pm:

meantime, you can't address cumulative effects of tobacco smoke, or poisonous filthy fossil gases.

Meanwhile you haven't posted anything of substance, except tobacco smoke; just nanoparticles and no SHOWN health detriment. ::)

lee wrote on Nov 25^th, 2021 at 11:50am:

But even one is more than none and before AGW too. ;D ;D How about Kuranda? Mareeba? Atherton?

Er... yes there have always been bushfires in Oz, but not in virgin tropical rain-forest, according to the link I provided.

But my sights are set more on the filthy fossil industry which needs to be eliminated for the same reason tobacco smoking is being taxed out of existence by governments, ie known negative effects on health.   


Quote:

You really are a dill. Does that sound like an ad hom? Perhaps AGW denier is also. People in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones or something...

"You are a dill" certainly is; and no, "climate denier" is not, it relates to a contested field of climate observation. 


Quote:

Meanwhile you haven't posted anything of substance, except tobacco smoke; just nanoparticles and no SHOWN health detriment. ::)

Unfortunately for you, poisons from tobacco smoke and poisons from burning filthy fossils all enter the body in the same way, regardless of sizes of PM2.5 or indeed nanoparticles 1000 times smaller.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 25^th, 2021 at 1:44pm:

Er... yes there have always been bushfires in Oz, but not in virgin tropical rain-forest, according to the link I provided.

That's not what it said. Don't paraphrase you are hopeless at it. If it was virgin forest there has never been afire there.  ::)

Did you follow the link -

"Experts and rainforest authorities say the remarkable extent of the damage, across an environment supposed to naturally suppress fires, is among the clearest evidence that climate change has shifted the paradigm in the tropics."

the link says -

"Rainforest fires are rare, according to Queensland Herbarium ecologist Dr Rod Fensham.

"Rainforest is fire retardant," he said.

"It has this shady canopy that supresses all the ground fuel, it has a cool moist microclimate, it breaks the wind, it has every trick in the book to supress fire, but in extreme conditions it can burn." "

"Rare' is not the same as "never happens". ::)
thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 25^th, 2021 at 1:44pm:

But my sights are set more on the filthy fossil industry which needs to be eliminated for the same reason tobacco smoking is being taxed out of existence by governments, ie known negative effects on health.

And yet you can't cite one paper showing this harm. Theorising isn't evidence.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 25^th, 2021 at 1:44pm:

"You are a dill" certainly is; and no, "climate denier" is not, it relates to a contested field of climate observation.

And yet you haven't cited where I denied climate or even global warming. As opposed to AGW and especially CAGW. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 25^th, 2021 at 1:44pm:

Unfortunately for you, poisons from tobacco smoke and poisons from burning filthy fossils all enter the body in the same way, regardless of sizes of PM2.5 or indeed nanoparticles 1000 times smaller.

And yet you can't cite one paper that shows this harm. ::)

Statistical studies show nothing.

lee wrote on Nov 25^th, 2021 at 2:38pm:

That's not what it said. Don't paraphrase you are hopeless at it. If it was virgin forest there has never been afire there.  ::)

Definition of "virgin forest"? How about  'not cleared by Man'....


Quote:

"Rare' is not the same as "never happens"

Yet increasing  frequency, caused by AGW,  of the formerly  rare event,  is what we are talking about.


Quote:

And yet you can't cite one paper showing this harm. Theorising isn't evidence.

The tobacco industry is collapsing under the weight of evidence, same for the filth fossil industry.


Quote:

And yet you haven't cited where I denied climate or even global warming. As opposed to AGW and especially CAGW

"Climate denier"  is my short-hand for AGW denier and has always been my usage in this debate, as you well know.

(like "fossils" means...you know...) 


Quote:

And yet you can't cite one paper that shows this harm Statistical studies show nothing.

Tell that to the authorities who are closing down tobacco, and banning fossil ICEs in congested traffic areas in high density cities. 

Dnarever wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 6:20pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 21st, 2021 at 12:58am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 20th, 2021 at 10:48pm: In other words: Blah Blah Blah. Duck brain's intelligence doesn't run to anything more than this.  And this was an effort for him. I had a bet with myself

And who won?  With schizophrenia, you are never alone...



Dnarever wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 6:20pm:

..that you wouldn't understand even this. Looks like I won.

:D :D :D

Lucky ducky!!

Bbwian - you are dethroned!! tsk, tsk ::) ::)

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2021 at 1:15pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 6:20pm: Frank wrote on Nov 21st, 2021 at 12:58am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 20th, 2021 at 10:48pm: In other words: Blah Blah Blah. Duck brain's intelligence doesn't run to anything more than this.  And this was an effort for him. I had a bet with myself And who won?  With schizophrenia, you are never alone... Dnarever wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 6:20pm: ..that you wouldn't understand even this. Looks like I won. :D :D :D Lucky ducky!! Bbwian - you are dethroned!! tsk, tsk ::) ::)

Blah Blah Frank Blah.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 26^th, 2021 at 12:52pm:

Definition of "virgin forest"? How about  'not cleared by Man'....

How about "not shown"? ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 26^th, 2021 at 12:52pm:

Yet increasing  frequency, caused by AGW,  of the formerly  rare event,  is what we are talking about.

So where exactly is it "increasing"? Data? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 26^th, 2021 at 12:52pm:

The tobacco industry is collapsing under the weight of evidence, same for the filth fossil industry.

Where is the fossil fuel "collapsing" Data?


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 26^th, 2021 at 12:52pm:

"Climate denier"  is my short-hand for AGW denier and has always been my usage in this debate, as you well know.

Nope. a new age revisionist. So what "evidence" is there of AGW? Peer-reviewed of course. Not climate models they rely on the underpinning assumptions. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 26^th, 2021 at 12:52pm:

(like "fossils" means...you know...)

Fossils are climate? Oh dear.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 26^th, 2021 at 12:52pm:

Tell that to the authorities who are closing down tobacco, and banning fossil ICEs in congested traffic areas in high density cities.

I haven't queried things you have said on tobacco. Strawman .

Exactly how many of the world's authorities have banned ICE vehicles. Not "will ban"  "currently banned" ;)

lee wrote on Nov 26^th, 2021 at 2:29pm:

I haven't queried things you have said on tobacco. Strawman

.

Good - so you have credibility on tobacco at least


Quote:

Exactly how many of the world's authorities have banned ICE vehicles. Not "will ban"  "currently banned"

Like tobacco in the past, fossil ICE bans will take time to implement. However:

"Countries with proposed bans or implementing 100% sales of zero-emissions vehicles include China, Japan, the UK, South Korea, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Slovenia, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Canada, the 12 U.S. states that adhered to California's Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Program"

Bye bye fossils.....

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 27^th, 2021 at 11:01am:

Good - so you have credibility on tobacco at least

Wow. That didn't take you long did it? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 27^th, 2021 at 11:01am:

Like tobacco in the past, fossil ICE bans will take time to implement. However: "Countries with proposed bans or implementing 100% sales of zero-emissions vehicles include China, Japan, the UK, South Korea, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Slovenia, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Canada, the 12 U.S. states that adhered to California's Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Program"

So the answer is NONE. Thank you. They may be targets. But politics means targets move. A stroke of the pen. ;)

Poor petal An AGW agnostic who labels others deniers. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And no data for you mental perambulations. ::)

lee wrote on Nov 27^th, 2021 at 12:20pm:

So the answer is NONE. Thank you. They may be targets. But politics means targets move. A stroke of the pen.

Oh dear, not only are you an AGW denier, you deny reality itself... as if governments will reverse all these plans; you are beginning to look like the knight in the Monty Python spoof.



Quote:

Poor petal An AGW agnostic who labels others deniers

Addressed above.


Quote:

And no data for you mental perambulations.

Still unconcerned by your missing limbs?

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 27^th, 2021 at 1:59pm:

Oh dear, not only are you an AGW denier, you deny reality itself..

Oh dear. So much for being a climate agnostic. One who doesn't know whether it is true or not. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 27^th, 2021 at 1:59pm:

as if governments will reverse all these plans; you are beginning to look like the knight in the Monty Python spoof.

Once governments actually get to look at the cost of increasing the grid for the much greater demand, there will likely be a huge drop-off. ;)

But perhaps MMT can fix it. After all the proponents are part of those that doesn't know how the economy really works. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D.

.

lee wrote on Nov 27^th, 2021 at 2:35pm:

Oh dear. So much for being a climate agnostic. One who doesn't know whether it is true or not.

Which is more in touch with reality? Agnostic or denier?

If AGW is real, obviously the agnostic is closer to reality than the denier who will eventually be forced to accept reality. 
If AGW is not real, the agnostic will have no trouble accepting reality if it is proved that AGW is not real (highly unlikely possibility). 


Quote:

Once governments actually get to look at the cost of increasing the grid for the much greater demand, there will likely be a huge drop-off.

There you go again, banging on about the cost. There is no cost apart from opportunity costs, if AGW is real and we have no choice but to close filthy fossils (...and central banks have to buy the fossil industry, to save  the global financial system - not to mention civilization itself).

And apart from AGW, a clean healthy atmosphere which will be regained when filthy fossils are closed is....priceless.


Quote:

But perhaps MMT can fix it. After all the proponents are part of those that doesn't know how the economy really works.

MMTers are the only ones who can take a pragmatic approach to macroeconomic reality; certainly the NYT editor  who made the comment  that "no-one really knows how the economy works" was referring the the various stripes of economic orthodoxy in which no two orthodox economists will agree on anything. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 10:55am:

Which is more in touch with reality? Agnostic or denier?

And yet you haven't shown me to be an AGW denier. So really you are just a semi-normal pro-AGWer, but without the guts to admit it. ;D ;D ;D ;D
thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 10:55am:

There you go again, banging on about the cost. There is no cost apart from opportunity costs, if AGW is real and we have no choice but to close filthy fossils (...and central banks have to buy the fossil industry, to save  the global financial system - not to mention civilization itself).

Oh dear if it is real? OK. IF it is real - how bad is it? Please show a peer-reviewed study that shows the amount of change entirely due to changing GHG's. We know it is not runaway AGW. ;)

Oh noes. Now that evil CO2 is an existential threat to civilisation. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D



thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 10:55am:

MMTers are the only ones who can take a pragmatic approach to macroeconomic reality; certainly the NYT editor  who made the comment  that "no-one really knows how the economy works" was referring the the various stripes of economic orthodoxy in which no two orthodox economists will agree on anything.

There you go again banging on about MMT again. But it apparently is a magic cure-all.

So do MMT'ers all agree on every aspect of economic theory or do they differ? ;)

BTW- Did you know it was an economist who decided 2C increase was bad? The IPCC decided on 1.5C because it wasn't changing fast enough.