Australian Politics Forum | |
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1717893341 Message started by whiteknight on Jun 9th, 2024 at 10:35am |
Title: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by whiteknight on Jun 9th, 2024 at 10:35am
Coalition to dump Australia's 2030 climate target, arguing 43 per cent emissions reduction is unachievable :(
9 June 2024 ABC News In short: The Coalition says Labor will fail to meet the Paris Agreement emissions reductions target but will damage Australian industry in trying. Recent projections indicate Australia is not on track for the 2030 target, but could get close if existing policies are implemented as promised. What next? The Coalition is focusing on gas and nuclear power, which the Australian Conservation Foundation describes as a "fantasy which Australia does not need". The federal Coalition has confirmed it will dump Australia's commitment to reduce emissions by 43 per cent by 2030, arguing it is unachievable. Australia has committed under the Paris Agreement to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent on 2005 levels by the end of the decade. Abandoning the target would also mean withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. The Coalition argues Labor will fail to meet the target, while significantly damaging Australian industry in the process of trying. But it remains committed to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, arguing nuclear power should play a key role in getting there. Shadow Energy Minister Ted O'Brien said the cost would simply be too great. "If Labor is going to achieve its 2030 targets, which industry is it going to attack?" he said. "Is it manufacturing, is it agriculture, is it resources? "The only way now that Labor can achieve its 2030 target, is to collapse industry. We will not have a bar of it from the Coalition." Ted O'Brien says Labor's only chance to meet the 2030 target is to collapse industry. The most recent projections from the Climate Change Authority found Australia was not on track to meet the 2030 target. But it suggested if the government implemented policies as promised, the country could come very close to making the goal. The heavy lifting will largely be done by the energy sector, and the government has a separate commitment to run the national grid on 82 per cent renewables by 2030. CSIRO finds nuclear would cost twice as much as renewables Building a large-scale nuclear power plant in Australia would cost at least $8.5 billion and take 15 years to deliver, the country's leading scientific institution has found. :( The Coalition argues that too will be impossible to meet, and is preparing to detail a very different energy policy — relying more heavily on gas, while nuclear power plants are built on the sites of retired coal-fired generators. The release of that policy has been repeatedly delayed. Mr O'Brien was pressed on whether the Coalition would adopt any targets at all before 2050, but was unwilling to say. "When it comes to our energy policy — that will be released in due course," he said. "But we will not accept from Labor an ongoing dishonesty, trying to tell the Australian people that everything is going well. "This is turning into a trainwreck for our economy." In May, Peter Dutton told parliament that Australia must become a nuclear-powered nation. :( Scrapping commitment would withdraw from Paris Agreement The federal government has heavily criticised the announcement, arguing it risks Australia's international reputation and certainty for industry. It says there is simply no way to revise the 2030 target backwards without withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. Energy Minister Chris Bowen said the Coalition needed to spell out how it would handle that. "The Paris Accord is very clear — you can't backslide, you can't reduce your commitments," he said. "So is [opposition leader] Peter Dutton proposing to leave the Paris Accord, or is he just hoping no one notices? "At the moment, the countries outside the Paris Accord are Libya, Yemen and Iran. Is Mr Dutton proposing to take Australia into that company?" Does it take 19 years to build a nuclear reactor? Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen says the average build time for a nuclear power plant in the United States has been nearly two decades. Is that correct? RMIT ABC Fact Check runs the numbers. The Coalition argues Labor is going to fail to meet the 2030 target, and needs to make its own explanations as to how it would meet the Paris commitment. The announcement has also been criticised by climate groups, who argue Australia is building momentum towards reaching the 2030 target. Jennifer Rayner from the Climate Council said dumping the targets would be a step backwards. :( "Peter Dutton is talking about doing a huge U-turn on the momentum and progress Australia is already making," she said. Kelly O'Shannessy from the Australian Conservation Foundation said the cost of abandoning the targets would be significant. "Mr Dutton's plans would be an international disgrace and it would trash our relationships with key allies who are depending on Australia to adhere to keeping 1.5 degrees alive," she said. :( "Mr Dutton is also banking on a nuclear fantasy which Australia does not need |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 9th, 2024 at 10:44am
Of course it's unachievable, for the coalition. They don't want to achieve it. They have just been lying to voters for the last 20 years claiming to take climate change seriously.
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 9th, 2024 at 10:52am
Mr potato Head will never learn. A large reason the teals decimated the libs in the last election was due to their inaction on climate change. Mr Potato Head won't even win his seat if this is the route he chooses.
According to a story I saw on TV, this decision is based on polling in 8 areas they want to build reactors in, where the residents were polled on whether or not they wanted new jobs in nuclear. The people polled were never told the reactors were planned for their backyards nor were they asked if they agreed to a reactor in their backyard. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 9th, 2024 at 10:57am
Now I get it. They signed up to a 2030 deadline. So in 2024 they announced they could get nuclear reactors built in 5 years. It's not their fault if no-one believes them.
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by aquascoot on Jun 9th, 2024 at 1:28pm
"If Labor is going to achieve its 2030 targets, which industry is it going to attack?" he said.
"Is it manufacturing, is it agriculture, is it resources? "The only way now that Labor can achieve its 2030 target, is to collapse industry. We will not have a bar of it from the Coalition." couldnt have put it better :) :) :) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 9th, 2024 at 2:00pm
With the electrification of housing, Motor vehicles etc, NO ONE has calculated the INCREASE of reliable energy required. NO fossil fuels means NO Gas, NO Coal and NO Oil.
There are over 6000 products that rely on oil alone for their manufacture. And then there are the batteries required. The CSIRO cites Lazard, Lazard's cost of storage is based on a mere 4 hours of battery use. Estimates are far higher, about 1700 hours to account for wind and solar drought. Hornsdale battery cost about $100 million for a claimed 100MW or 129MWh. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 9th, 2024 at 2:09pm
Labor and the Greens introduced the cheapest, most economically rational way to reduce GHG emissions. The coalition removed it, while still promising they are committed to emissions reductions, but delivering only decades of doubt and confusion. The coalition are economic vandals. That's why they are losing their heartland seats to the teals.
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 9th, 2024 at 2:11pm freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 2:09pm:
As opposed to the cheapest most economically rational way to provide reliable electricity. ;) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 9th, 2024 at 5:52pm lee wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 2:11pm:
Only in your head. Everyone else, including those in the energy industry, disagrees with you. Perhaps it's time you upgraded from your abacus to a calculator? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:04pm John Smith wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 5:52pm:
Nope. But good try. ;D ;D ;D ;D John Smith wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 5:52pm:
So you don't believe the CSIRO cites Lazard? Or you don't believe Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy only uses 4 hours of battery? Or you don't believe we need more than four hours of battery? Which is it? I mean you must KNOW. Apparently Everyone says so. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:07pm lee wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 2:11pm:
The coalition fails there also. They have been heavily subsidising some of the most expensive and economically irrational alternative energy sources. Also known as "buying votes". |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:13pm lee wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:04pm:
There you go again, going on about batteries whenever the cost of nuclear comes up. Do you think the boards of every electricity supplier in the country didn't weight up the cost of batteries when deciding where they'd invest in nuclear or alternatives? :D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:22pm John Smith wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:13pm:
The thread is about climate targets not nuclear. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D John Smith wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:13pm:
You are the one says everyone knows. So I suggest you do your research and show it. ;) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:35pm Quote:
So you don't want to say which energy provider didn't cost for batteries when deciding to invest in nuclear or renewable . It must be a secret they only shared with you. I understand. We won't tell anyone. :D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by UnSubRocky on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:57pm freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 10:44am:
If they figure out a way to make car emissions down to zero, you could see 45% carbon emission drop. Otherwise, it seems near impossible for this emissions reduction to take place inside 6 years. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by UnSubRocky on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:59pm freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 10:57am:
Nuclear generators could be built within a few years, if there was a committment to such power generators. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by UnSubRocky on Jun 9th, 2024 at 7:02pm John Smith wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 10:52am:
Mr Potato Head was not the reason behind the last federal election defeat of the coalition. Scott "Smuggo" Morrison was. If we did not see the sociopathy of Scott Morrison in his prime ministerialship, the Liberals would have won the last election. Nobody gives a damn about the bs climate change initiatives. They give a damn, though, if the politicians are acting like dickheads. Albo would be feeling the pressure of losing the next election. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 9th, 2024 at 7:04pm John Smith wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:35pm:
It is your claim that everyone knows. Your claim, your proof. ;) John Smith wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:35pm:
No, You are the one saying everyone knows, therefore you must know. ::) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by philperth2010 on Jun 10th, 2024 at 9:35am UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:57pm:
Do you mean like electric vehicles dickhead??? ::) ::) ::) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by philperth2010 on Jun 10th, 2024 at 9:39am UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
Do you have a link to support this claim....Australia needs to lift the ban on nuclear energy before any planning or construction can begin....Were do you get your timeline that supports your bullshit??? :-? :-? :-? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 10th, 2024 at 9:46am UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
If they approached it with religious zeal perhaps. But not a modern religion. I am thinking something aztec with a lot of corpses lying around. Also lots of money. Pretty much all of it. This seems to be the coalition's approach. Leave everything to the last minute, do a few backflips, then try to ruin the economy doing what they promised they would in the most expensive and dangerous way possible, then do another backflip and just break their promises. Meanwhile we have investors with billions of dollars available to put into our energy future who are holding back because the government is doing a headless chook routine. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Captain Nemo on Jun 10th, 2024 at 12:21pm
Interesting.
Newspoll has the two major parties at 50-50 in the latest poll and Dutton gaining on Albo as Preferred PM. Perhaps the Coalition has figured out that anything that gets Chris Bowen on TV more often boosts the Coalition vote? ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Dnarever on Jun 10th, 2024 at 12:27pm Quote:
It would be news if they didn't. there is no surprise here at all. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 10th, 2024 at 5:18pm UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 7:02pm:
It was the libs ignoring global warming that got the teals in, regardless of who was leader, it was the libs policies. Continuing to ignore global warming could very well see Mr potato head lose his seat |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 10th, 2024 at 5:19pm lee wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 7:04pm:
Not surprisingly you run from your argument ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 10th, 2024 at 5:28pm John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 5:19pm:
Not surprisingly you can't back up your assertion. It was your argument. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D "Everyone knows" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 10th, 2024 at 5:34pm lee wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 5:28pm:
What assertion? I asked you if you thought the energy providers didn't consider the costs of batteries. There's nothing asserted, it's asking you for your opinion. That you ran away from a straight answer can only be because you don't even believe your crappy excuses. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 10th, 2024 at 6:12pm John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 5:34pm:
John Smith wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 5:52pm:
So tell me who these "everyones" are. You must have the information, you are so sure you are right. But just don't want to commit. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 5:34pm:
My opinion is that it will cost vastly more than Lazard's calculations of how many hours of storage are needed. ;) John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 5:34pm:
You are the one saying that the energy companies have done the sums. Show them. John Smith wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:35pm:
So the secret is you don't know. Thanks for that. Well there is this I found - "Federal energy minister Chris Bowen said on Friday that his department is preparing to launch the first CIS tender for WA’s wholeslae energy market (WEM) in June, with an indicative target of 500MW of four-hour equivalent (2 GWh) “clean dispatchable capacity.” " https://reneweconomy.com.au/bowen-takes-capacity-tender-out-west-in-search-of-2gwh-of-energy-storage/ 500MW of 4 hour equivalent is 5 times larger that Lazard's equivalent. Hornsdale battery at 100MW cost about $100million dollars and WA is only a small proportion of the National figure. Of course feel free to supply better figures on how little it will cost. ;) "Australian government seeks to deliver 4.2 GWh of battery energy storage" ... "ARENA said with a total project value of about $1.8 billion and a combined capacity of 2.0 GW/4.2 GWh the projects represent a ten-fold increase in grid-forming electricity storage capacity currently operational in the NEM." https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/12/19/australian-government-seeks-to-deliver-4-2-gwh-of-battery-energy-storage/ That's 400 times larger. I haven't seen any figures of needed storage from any energy suppliers. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 10th, 2024 at 6:31pm
Oh, no!! Thicko Smiff is trying to argue facts with Lee!!
Come on thicko, keep showing off just how amazingly stupid you are. Keep at it, bozo, there are a coupla garlic flavoured concrete cannolis in it for ya. Atta boy! 🤣🤣🤣 |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 10th, 2024 at 7:17pm Quote:
Every energy supply company. Absolutely none are investing in nuclear. Quote:
You should contact all the energy companies and tell them they are all wrong. That only you have the correct costings. There's no reason why they shouldn't get a laugh too |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 10th, 2024 at 7:18pm Quote:
Lee doesn't do facts ::) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 10th, 2024 at 7:26pm John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 7:17pm:
So where are their figures John, it is your claim. ::) John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 7:17pm:
You are the one who won't supply costings. ::) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 10th, 2024 at 7:37pm John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 7:18pm:
Do YOU, thick as innumerable planks, do YOU? Provide them. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 10th, 2024 at 8:18pm Quote:
You don't need their costings. That they didn't invest in nuclear says it all. Do you think companies deliberately invest in what gives them the lowest returns :D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 10th, 2024 at 8:19pm Frank wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 7:37pm:
Sure Fact 1. Frank is as dumb as dogshit Over to you dumbarse :D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by buzzanddidj on Jun 10th, 2024 at 8:35pm John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 7:18pm:
... the poor old coot doesn't do a lot of ANYTHING ! Though he seems to have stopped following ME around, at least, (Allah be praised), trying to start tit-for-tat arguments, that go nowhere. But I'm sure most of us miss his funny little graphs and charts, etc. - claiming to present "the truth" - but also go nowhere. . |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 10th, 2024 at 8:55pm John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 8:19pm:
Yeah, scuttle little cockroach. Run, run, run. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 10th, 2024 at 8:55pm John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 8:18pm:
You were the one carrying on about their costings for batteries. Give us the figures and stop changing the argument. ::) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 10th, 2024 at 9:31pm buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 8:35pm:
You are even more mentally negligible, Audrey, than thicko Smiff. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 11th, 2024 at 12:10pm John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 8:18pm:
The fact that nuclear, is at the moment, illegal, makes your claim as silly as you. ::) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 11th, 2024 at 12:30pm Frank wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 9:31pm:
But he is trying to emulate his hero, Smith, with his trolling. Must be Deprivation Syndrome. ;) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Belgarion on Jun 11th, 2024 at 1:00pm
A victory for common sense. The climate scam is beginning to unravel.
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by SadKangaroo on Jun 11th, 2024 at 3:23pm freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 10:44am:
Their stand has always been about spruiking Nuclear because it has decades long lead time so more coal and gas can be used in the void since they're doing everything they can to stop renewables filling that void. They've gone into full attack mode against the CSIRO which should the Libs regain power, will see further reductions in funding which will be great for the rest of us, again... |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by SadKangaroo on Jun 11th, 2024 at 3:32pm freediver wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 9:46am:
They're not and that's the problem. You can't even get sitting members to answer questions about where they plan to build the power plants and what they expect to do with the waste. They don't even have a plan for the legislated changes needed to make it happen. And they're basing their entire environmental and climate change policy on this. The sad reality is that they're again lying to us, protecting the interests of their donor lobbyists over us. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 11th, 2024 at 3:33pm Belgarion wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
So if climate change is a scam, why do you think it is common sense to abandon coal fired power for a more expensive and more dangerous option? You have to fairly creative to project any kind of common sense onto coalition policy. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 11th, 2024 at 6:34pm Frank wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 8:55pm:
who's running? You asked for a fact, I gave you one. Can you show one energy supplier that hasn't included the costs of batteries when deciding which energy method to invest in? Do you really think those companies are as stupid as you or lee? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 11th, 2024 at 6:37pm lee wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 12:10pm:
Since when has that stopped them? Marijuana was illegal too at one stage, didn't stop companies lobbying govts to make it legal. Who is lobbying for nuclear to become legal? If nuclear was cheaper you'd have every energy supplier and their dog petitioning govt, not just mr potatoe head and those in the nuclear industry with a vested interest :D :D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 11th, 2024 at 6:39pm lee wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 8:55pm:
All I asked was did you believe energy supplier didn't account for the costs of batteries when deciding where to invest their money? You ran away from an answer Unlike you, I've never made claims about the actual costs and whether they are right or wrong. :D :D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 11th, 2024 at 7:10pm John Smith wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 6:39pm:
That was your claim. Something which you haven't backed up. So tell us more about the energy companies not doing nuclear. John Smith wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:35pm:
To "invest in nuclear or renewable". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 11th, 2024 at 7:43pm lee wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 7:10pm:
It's not a claim dumbarse, it's a question. One you keep running from. Why is that ? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 11th, 2024 at 7:44pm lee wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 7:10pm:
When 'deciding' to invest, you dumbarse. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 11th, 2024 at 8:05pm freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 3:33pm:
Very good point. Nobody has demonstrated it scientifically, only politically. Anthopogenic Climate Change is a crock of nonsense. Clean air, water are good aims. CO2 is not a pollutant, so there's the hoof, characterizing plant food as a 'pollution'. Climate is not changing because of humans. Humans ARE part of nature. AGW is based on some weird quasi-religious notion that humans are APART or BEYOND nature, manipulating it from outside. Ridiculous. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by UnSubRocky on Jun 11th, 2024 at 8:08pm
The radio journalist today has said that Australia has achieved a 29 of the 43% percent climate target. I would say that getting that last 14 of the 43% is not out of the question.
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 11th, 2024 at 8:09pm John Smith wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 7:44pm:
But they couldn't decide to invest in nuclear. So what were the comparisons? ;) Renewables vs Renewables? ;) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 11th, 2024 at 9:38pm Frank wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 8:05pm:
I think you missed the point entirely. The coalition policy is "common sense" only if you believe in climate change as well as wasting huge sums of money. Bottom line: the coalition lies. You don't know which promises they are going to keep. Just that it will be bad for the economy and the environment. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 11th, 2024 at 10:15pm lee wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 8:09pm:
Still running away from an answer I see. To be expected. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Dnarever on Jun 11th, 2024 at 10:28pm
Australia's she'll be right attitude is like Putting Homer Simpson in charge of a nuclear plant. The outcome would be the same. There probably isn't a culture in the world less suited to this discipline.
In the end not even Japan could do it right and their culture and discipline would be a near perfect fit. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by buzzanddidj on Jun 12th, 2024 at 8:20am John Smith wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:13pm:
Dutton has proven himself a bigger liar than his predecesor could ever aspire to be. He KNOWS now - as he's ALWAYS known - any hypothetical government of his will NEVER unveil a nuclear power plant in 2045 (the first possible completion date of the first nuclear power plant), or at any later date. If he has any skill in anything, it's in political "dog whistling" In this case to placate - and curry favour with - the fossil fuel lobby, the anti-renewable energy lobby - and the broader climate change denial lobby. (You'll find each group well represented in these forums) He has no intention of taking Australia out of the Paris Agreement - to sign and ratify the Middle East (Iran, Libya and Yemen) Agreement. Once the targets agreed to are slashed - the entire Paris Agreement becomes null and void. In a media interview, today, Dutton declared there would be no change to Paris Agreement targets till AFTER the next Federal Election. So, there IS no policy - just another blast of hot air. Not that this is any reason for concern. Over the last decade, the Liberal Party has put up a new Climate Change and Energy Policy averaging a new one once every five and a half months. . |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by SadKangaroo on Jun 12th, 2024 at 8:39am UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 8:08pm:
That's positive news. I'll have to research more into it. Funny what can happen when the adults are in charge. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Jun 12th, 2024 at 9:50am
29% of 43% = 14.8% of the total.
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Belgarion on Jun 12th, 2024 at 10:00am freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 3:33pm:
Nuclear power is clean, efficient, less dangerous and cheaper than any other form of mass energy production. This is a problem for the climate scammers who are making billions out of so called 'renewables' that are both inefficient and environmentally harmful. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 12th, 2024 at 10:22am Quote:
LOL. No it isn't. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by SadKangaroo on Jun 12th, 2024 at 10:34am freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 10:22am:
It is if you ignore the plant construction, operation, maintenance and waste disposal costs. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 12th, 2024 at 11:14am
Just to be clear:
Peter Dutton will not leave the Paris climate change agreement and remains committed to the Coalition’s pledge of net zero by 2050, despite attempts by the Albanese government to wedge Liberal and Nationals MPs over near-term emissions reduction targets. The Australian understands that instead of promising unachievable 2030 and 2035 targets, the Coalition will argue detailed modelling and economic impact assessments must be conducted before committing to interim goals on the road to net zero. With Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen launching scare campaigns over nuclear power and the Paris accord, Mr Dutton on Sunday promised to “deliver a sensible and measured energy policy, which will be cheaper, consistent and cleaner electricity”. “If we do that we will grow the economy – not shrink it like Labor is doing,” Mr Dutton said. “There will be a big difference between the Prime Minister and I at the next election. Mr Albanese and Minister Bowen will be promising higher electricity prices, blackouts and an energy policy that will drive manufacturing and jobs offshore. “As prime minister I will work day and night to bring power prices down and to make electricity reliable and cleaner. Labor is slowly wrecking the economy.” Opposition energy and climate spokesman Ted O’Brien told The Australian “the Coalition’s position remains unchanged”. “We remain committed to Paris and to net zero. Any shorter-term targets will be informed by the state of the economy, the trajectory of emissions and our suite of policies,” Mr O’Brien said. “Nobody believes Labor will achieve its 43 per cent target by 2030 and we do not want to be associated with Chris Bowen’s false prophecies saying otherwise.” In an interview with The Weekend Australian, Mr Dutton said the Coalition would oppose Labor’s 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030 because there was “no sense in signing up to targets you don’t have any prospect of achieving”. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 12th, 2024 at 11:18am Quote:
LOL. 20 years later and they decide it is time to start thinking about how to keep the promises they made. Asleep at the wheel. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 12th, 2024 at 11:56am
Net zero, to use the first great climate change metaphor, hasn’t got a snowflake’s chance in hell. It’s a fraudulent concept. It’s not real. It requires an heroic leap of faith, magical thinking. It cannot exist in the physical universe.
Yet it’s the centre of Australian national policy. All our state governments are signed up to it. Net zero pledges of one kind or another – albeit often over timeframes which recall a Star Trek voyage more than a policy commitment – cover, notionally, two thirds of the global economy. What does net zero mean? It’s the idea that the world gets its total greenhouse emissions – now about 40 billion tonnes annually – down to a manageably small amount and then, by wondrous technology, takes carbon back out of the atmosphere equal to that still being emitted. I am slightly overstating things by saying it’s absolutely impossible. It is possible if you believe in miracles. Miraculous technology may emerge which can extract vast amounts of carbon. Such technologies don’t exist today and are not in prospect. Today, net zero is impossible. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/emission-impossible-net-zero-carbon-reduction-goal-is-a-quest-for-space-cadets/news-story/bb036082777ab4969690455b27854ece International Energy Agency works closely with the UN and is all on board with the net zero zeitgeist. In its Global Energy Transitions Stocktake it recognises that “half the emission reductions needed to reach net zero come from technologies not yet on the market”. Got that? We cannot ever get to net zero unless we develop technologies that are “under development” or yet to be invented. Czech-Canadian scientist Vaclav Smil is the author of 40 books mainly focused on outlining complex realities and dilemmas. His 2022 book How the World Really Works contains bad news for those climate activists who just want to “do something” about climate change and believe the solution is easy – just decarbonise. The real wrench in the works,” warns Smil, is that “we are a fossil-fuelled civilisation whose technical and scientific advances, quality of life and prosperity rest on the combustion of huge quantities of fossil carbon, and we cannot simply walk away from this critical determinant of our fortunes in a few decades, never mind years.” He is not a complete pessimist, just anchored in the reality: “Complete decarbonisation of the global economy by 2050 is now conceivable only at the cost of unthinkable economic retreat, or as a result of extraordinarily rapid transformations relying on near miraculous technical advances.” This is because we rely on fossil fuels not just to generate most of our electricity but to fuel our road, rail, air and sea transport, heat homes, power industry, mine minerals, create chemical and plastic products, manufacture fertilisers and grow food. While wealthy countries such as ours can make some expensive changes to improve efficiency and reduce emissions, more than half of the world’s population is still racing to get the energy it needs, massively expanding global energy demand. “Annual global demand for fossil carbon is now just above 10 billion tons a year,” writes Smil, “a mass nearly five times more than the recent annual harvest of all staple grains feeding humanity, and more than twice the total mass of water drunk annually by the world’s nearly eight billion inhabitants – and it should be obvious that displacing and replacing such a mass is not something best handled by government targets for years ending in zero or five.” |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 12th, 2024 at 12:16pm John Smith wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 10:15pm:
You are the one running. They couldn't do a comparison with nuclear. It was and is still illegal. So you mean they didn't do a cost comparison? That stands to reason. You still haven't come up with ONE energy provider who did any number crunching. You just go back to your mantra "I was only asking a question". But you were the one saying "everyone knows". Are you now saying "everyone but you knows"? ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by philperth2010 on Jun 12th, 2024 at 12:17pm
The Coalition cannot meet the 2030 targets without an investment in renewable energy which will tank if Dutton becomes Prime Minister....The Coalition propose to use gas to support the system until new Nuclear Power Plants are constructed and operational....This is why Dutton will not release his energy policy UNLESS he wins the next election....Dutton wants the Australian public to trust him without question???
:-? :-? :-? https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/news/new-independent-research-nuclear-six-times-the-cost-of-renewables#:~:text=The%20report%20has%20these%20key,form%20of%20new%2Dbuild%20electricity. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 12th, 2024 at 12:24pm
phil, neither can Labor.
It is just 6 years away. "Based on its current trajectory, no — and this is why. In an unreleased WA government-commissioned report obtained by the ABC, it was said WA's emissions would need to be 11 per cent below 2005 levels in 2030 and 42 per cent below in 2035 in order to meet its own net zero target. Internal 2030 projections raise questions about WA's net zero plans West Australian Premier Roger Cook says his state is on track to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, but 7.30 understands internal modelling is projecting it will not, based on its current trajectory. An aerial shot of the Gorgon gas project on the coast of Western Australia. Read more But the projections are a far cry from that. The modelling shows under the current state of play, WA's emissions would be just 2 per cent below 2005 levels in 2030 and 20 per cent below in 2035." ... "That's according to Professor Mark Howden, the director of the Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions at the Australian National University. Professor Mark Howden says reaching Australia's net zero targets would be a challenge if WA continued on it's current trajectory.(ABC Landline) He said if WA's trajectory continued, "it would seem unlikely that Australia can meet its international obligations". https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-25/can-australia-reach-net-zero-climate-targets-explainer/103879150 And that is just WA. BTW - I note your cited report does not go into Lazard's calculations. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by philperth2010 on Jun 12th, 2024 at 12:33pm
There is no way the Conalition can get anywhere near the 43% target by 2030 with there current (lack of) policy which would decemate investment in renewable energy....Labor may miss the target by 1% according to the latest report from the Climate Change Authority!!!
Quote:
:) :) :) https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/blow-our-budget-why-australias-2030-emissions-reduction-target-matters/4ndflj8zg |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 12th, 2024 at 12:40pm
The current level is 610.6MT.
The 43% is BELOW the 2005 level of 466MT. 43% below 2005 level is 265.6MT. That would mean a drop of 345MtT by 2030. Not achievable. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by philperth2010 on Jun 12th, 2024 at 12:56pm lee wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 12:40pm:
Do you have a link to this report Lee??? :-? :-? :-? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Belgarion on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:06pm freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 10:22am:
You are a victim of the relentless fear campaign that has been waged in Australia for decades, encouraged by the vested interests that are making billions out of so called 'renewables' . Good summary here: https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/06/the-big-renewable-energy-lie/ |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Belgarion on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:06pm
..
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by UnSubRocky on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:06pm SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 8:39am:
I seriously believe that even if we get to 40% reduction in carbon emissions, that would be quite reasonable. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by UnSubRocky on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:08pm Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 9:50am:
It means that we have lowered our emissions by 29% of where we were. It means that we still have a little way to go before we get to 43% of where we were with carbon emissions. I find the number 43% to be a rather random figure, too. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:08pm lee wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 12:40pm:
Nonsense. From a quick google search: The original Sun Cable proposal was 20GW. Oz uses c. 30GW. So 2 of the 'Suncable' projects plus storage, plus rooftop solar and batteries in Oz would enable 100% renewables for both Oz and Singapore's requirements; indeed 50% by 2030 would be easy. It just needs politicians to pull their fingers out. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:16pm Belgarion wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:06pm:
While some countries will need to develop nuclear energy, Oz isn't one of them. The 'nuclear in Oz' proposal is a front for the fossil-fuel industry. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:28pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:08pm:
And when is it going to happen? How many GigaWatt HOURS? Ah back to batteries. How many Gigawatt hours of batteries at about $600,000 per MegaWatt hour? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:39pm philperth2010 wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 12:56pm:
It is freely available. You just need to do the maths. "In the year to June 2005, Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions were 610.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent, according to the latest government data available." https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-08/fact-check-carbon-emissions-under-the-coalition/11662018 "Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions were 467 million tonnes in the year ending June 2023, an increase of four million tonnes on the previous year. " https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/annual-progress-advice-0 "Committing to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions by 43% from 2005 levels." https://www.aofm.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-02-02/Climate%20change%20slides%20updated%20February%202024.pdf |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:47pm lee wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:28pm:
It's not going to happen because a couple of billionaires couldn't agree on the design for the scheme. Government could get the job done in 5 years, funded by utilizing its currency-issuing capacity (making the billionaire's money redundant). Quote:
(quick google) Total electricity generation in Australia was estimated to be 265,232 gigawatt hours (GWh) in calendar year 2020. Google also says: "to convert GWH into gigawatts (GW), you would divide the GWh value by the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). Quote:
The currency-issuing government can subsidize batteries and pumped hydro storage. Once completed, Oz will have the world's cheapest electricity. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:54pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:47pm:
The currency-issuing government can subsidize batteries and pumped hydro storage. Once completed, Oz will have the world's cheapest electricity. [/quote] :D :D :D Magic, innit! |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 12th, 2024 at 2:07pm Frank wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:54pm:
:D :D :D Magic, innit![/quote] The PV and battery technology is 'magic', certainly. (whereas windmills and pumped-hydro are simple and very old technology). Whereas your refusal to consider the currency-issuing capacity of the state is blind, obsolete (from the 'gold- standard' era), flat earth economics. [From the MMT thread today:"To that end, the primary aim of GIMMS is education that provides the tools to enable people to understand that the state of the public finances per se is not a limiting factor in government spending, and that the central question revolves around the development and distribution of real resources, along with the political nature of those decisions. GIMMS’ mandate is to challenge the household budget narrative of the state finances that dominates the daily political and media discourse and to encourage a discussion about the full range of government’s priorities and policy options and how best they can serve the public purpose". Educating the blind...ain't easy. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 12th, 2024 at 2:34pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:47pm:
Which will only GROW with electrification. No gas appliances, more EV's etc. Now how many weeks storage do you need. The sun might be shining somewhere, but unless your PV's are on wheels that is no guarantee. Hail storms create havoc with PV arrays. thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:47pm:
Yes numpty so how many hours storage? thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:47pm:
Ah subsidies? To whom do we pay these subsidies? The nice renewables people currently holding Germany etc to ransom? ::) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 12th, 2024 at 2:43pm lee wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 2:34pm:
Stop stalling. Build 2 Sun-cable projects, and then get back to us before you start bleating about how much storage we need. Quote:
Addressed above, let's find out what storage we need to to ensure 24 hour stable output from 2 Sun-cable projects. Quote:
See the answer to Frank above. Germany may well need to start up its nuclear plants. No doubt Russia is big enough to go renewables. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 12th, 2024 at 3:10pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 2:43pm:
So you don't think you need storage? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D That's putting the cart before the horse. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 2:43pm:
So why not do that before it is built? ::) So why don't you want to admit go where these subsidies will go? ::) We know you don't have the knowledge to teach anybody, let alone the blind. You don't even acknowledge that Keen etc use models with their own, known and unknown, uncertainties. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 12th, 2024 at 5:05pm
(corrected next post).
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 12th, 2024 at 5:08pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 5:05pm:
Low IQ , or fraudulent.... Renewables need storage, let's build 2 Sun-cable schemes, and then see how much storage we need, while gradually 'turning off the gas'. Quote:
So fossil-fuel goons like you can't insist we must know how much variable renewable energy we need before we start building the PVs and windfarms required to meet our Paris commitments. Quote:
Low IQ - not fraud in this case - you simply don't understand the monetary system. Subsidies can go where the government thinks fit (householders and/or private companies). Here's someone who does understand the monetary system. https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=61799 IMF holds a religious gathering in Tokyo – to keep the troops in line (note: lee being a prime example of an obedient foot- soldier)... Prof. Mitchell, quoting heterodox economist Joan Robinson: "The neo-classical heritage still has a great influence, not only on the teaching of economics but in forming public opinion generally, or at least in providing public opinion with its slogans. But when it comes to an actual issue, it has nothing concrete to say. Its latter-day practitioners take refuge in building up more and more elaborate mathematical manipulations and get more and more annoyed at anyone asking them what it is that they are supposed to be manipulating. In so far as economic doctrines have an influence on the choice of objectives for national policy, on the whole it is obscurantist rather than helpful. The solutions offered by mainstream economists are no less delusory than those of the theologians they displaced". ...."solutions" like - employment is increasing, so let's kill the economy by lifting interest rates....a Reverse Bank speciality. As for "learning", it's moot in your case. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 12th, 2024 at 5:32pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 5:08pm:
Wow. So you really don't think storage is necessary. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 5:08pm:
So you don't know either of the propositions but 2 x Cable Suns will do it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 5:08pm:
Yes. Subsidies only mask the cost. ::) And quoting Bill Mitchell? An MMT'er. That's rich. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 5:08pm:
You mean like the fanciful models of Keen? "more and more mathematical manipulations" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by aquascoot on Jun 12th, 2024 at 6:00pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 2:07pm:
The PV and battery technology is 'magic', certainly. (whereas windmills and pumped-hydro are simple and very old technology). Whereas your refusal to consider the currency-issuing capacity of the state is blind, obsolete (from the 'gold- standard' era), flat earth economics. [From the MMT thread today:"To that end, the primary aim of GIMMS is education that provides the tools to enable people to understand that the state of the public finances per se is not a limiting factor in government spending, and that the central question revolves around the development and distribution of real resources, along with the political nature of those decisions. GIMMS’ mandate is to challenge the household budget narrative of the state finances that dominates the daily political and media discourse and to encourage a discussion about the full range of government’s priorities and policy options and how best they can serve the public purpose". Educating the blind...ain't easy. [/quote] hi great divide, arent you chinese? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by buzzanddidj on Jun 12th, 2024 at 6:07pm freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 10:22am:
I'll attribute that quote to someone from 'the bat-sh!t crazy hour' on SKY TV NEWS . |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 12th, 2024 at 6:26pm buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 6:07pm:
That's because you are mentally negligible, Audrey. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 12th, 2024 at 6:46pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 2:07pm:
BTW - First solar was 1839. So 1839 is not old technology? ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Brian Ross on Jun 12th, 2024 at 9:58pm |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by buzzanddidj on Jun 13th, 2024 at 11:11am Frank wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 6:26pm:
The name Audrey, delivers a definition of 'noble strength' - so I'll take this as an accidental compliment. It is also my mother's name So, I'm not sure where you thought you were headed with this one ? Perhaps a bit of research wouldn't have gone astray ? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 13th, 2024 at 11:32am lee wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 5:32pm:
Proving you are blind, dumb and fraudulent; I said "storage is necessary". Quote:
Crippled brain, blind and frauldulent: I already linked to Suncable's capacity ie 20GW cf Oz 30GW consumption Quote:
No; Mitchell quoting Robinson critiquing flat-earth neoclassical economists before MMT was developed. Quote:
No. Unlike you, Keen exposes and beats the neoclassicists at their own silly game. Meanwhile: (microsoft news): Climate donations 'soar' as coalition attacks targets A climate lobby group that backed successful independents at the last federal election has experienced a 20-fold increase in donations since the opposition leader came out against emission reduction targets. Small individual donations worth almost $950,000 have come in over the past six weeks but there was a major increase in the past weekend, Climate 200 billionaire founder Simon Holmes a Court said. Peter Dutton attack on the targets for 2030 and 2035 made his job easier, he said, with the climate group set to back 30 independents in next year's election. ..... See you after the next election, loser. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 13th, 2024 at 12:23pm
Poor TGD.
Fail to Plan - Plan to Fail. And that's what you are doing by not planning how much storage is required. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13th, 2024 at 11:32am:
So Keen is into silly games. Nice to know. ;) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13th, 2024 at 11:32am:
Oh dear the madness of crowds strike again. Nothing to do with science, just fear porn. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D But perhaps you can elucidate on the "climate emergency". "There's still time to avert catastrophic global climate change. The greatest threat to meaningful action is despair among those who care about the climate, according to renowned climate scientist Michael E. Mann. “I push back on doomism because I don’t think it’s justified by the science, and I think it potentially leads us down a path of inaction,” said Mann during a March 28 talk at the Belfer Center. “And there are bad actors today who are fanning the flames of climate doomism because they understand that it takes those who are most likely to be on the front lines, advocating for change, and pushes them to the sidelines, which is where polluters and petrostates want them.” " https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/climate-science-doesnt-support-doomers-says-scientist-michael-mann |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Brian Ross on Jun 13th, 2024 at 12:55pm |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 13th, 2024 at 12:58pm Brian Ross wrote on Jun 13th, 2024 at 12:55pm:
He still believes in 2050, he knows we won't get to 43% of 2005 emissions by 2030. And Labor has locked that in. ;) But in other news -- "The anti-windfarm ‘odd couple’ joining forces to fight the renewable energy projects Australia’s already failing to build Deep in coal country, a lifelong environmentalist and one-time Greens candidate is feeling the applause. It’s Thursday night at a Gladstone pub and Steven Nowakowski has won over sceptical locals. His message is a simple one; he believes a wave of new windfarm developments threatens to smash hilltops and turn koala habitat into “industrial zones”. The green movement, he says, are in “la-la land” over windfarms, a comment that draws nods and knowing smiles from the audience. But its only when one local suggests building a new coal-fired power station does the crowd erupt in spontaneous applause. This is the front line of Australia’s latest climate war. Nowakowski, a nature lover who says he’s been arrested fighting for forests, shares the stage with ultra-conservative federal MP Colin Boyce, a man who claims burning fossil fuels creates “plant food”. “We’re an odd couple,” Nowakowski admits. “I shake my head in disbelief. I cannot believe that I’m in this situation.” … “We’re going down the wrong path,” he says. “We can’t destroy biodiversity to save the planet.” … https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-10/renewable-energy-projects-wind-farm-face-opposition-four-corners/103951940 Greens against windfarms? How bizarre. ;) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 13th, 2024 at 1:17pm
The Conversation - an article on the CSIRO's report
https://theconversation.com/known-unknowns-controversy-over-csiros-electricity-report-reveals-an-uncomfortable-truth-231691 The known and unknowns. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 13th, 2024 at 1:43pm lee wrote on Jun 13th, 2024 at 12:23pm:
That's what the coalition has been doing for 2 decades. Making promises they cannot keep. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 13th, 2024 at 2:13pm
And Labor's promises are somehow better? ::)
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 13th, 2024 at 3:29pm lee wrote on Jun 13th, 2024 at 2:13pm:
They don't wait 20 years to start thinking about how to keep them. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 13th, 2024 at 3:39pm freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2024 at 3:29pm:
So the 43% reduction is set in stone. No chance of falling short? ;) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 14th, 2024 at 6:08am lee wrote on Jun 13th, 2024 at 3:39pm:
Sure there is. The coalition were doing their best to make sure of it, at the same time as promising they were committed to it. Do you ever get concerned that they might keep their promises, are are you quietly confident they have been lying the whole time? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Belgarion on Jun 14th, 2024 at 10:16am
Reducing pollution and protecting the environment is something everyone can get behind, however this obsession over a trace gas that is essential for life on Earth, and the environmental destruction happening in order to 'save' the planet is the greatest scam that has ever been pulled.
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 14th, 2024 at 10:34am
“Complete decarbonisation of the global economy by 2050 is now conceivable only at the cost of unthinkable economic retreat, or as a result of extraordinarily rapid transformations relying on near miraculous technical advances.”
This is because we rely on fossil fuels not just to generate most of our electricity but to fuel our road, rail, air and sea transport, heat homes, power industry, mine minerals, create chemical and plastic products, manufacture fertilisers and grow food. While wealthy countries such as ours can make some expensive changes to improve efficiency and reduce emissions, more than half of the world’s population is still racing to get the energy it needs, massively expanding global energy demand. “Annual global demand for fossil carbon is now just above 10 billion tons a year,” writes Smil, “a mass nearly five times more than the recent annual harvest of all staple grains feeding humanity, and more than twice the total mass of water drunk annually by the world’s nearly eight billion inhabitants – and it should be obvious that displacing and replacing such a mass is not something best handled by government targets for years ending in zero or five.” |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 15th, 2024 at 1:33pm Belgarion wrote on Jun 14th, 2024 at 10:16am:
That's not what the AGW science says. And around the globe, people are becoming more and more concerned with the increaing fires, tornadoes, droughts, floods and record heatwave temps predicted by the science. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 15th, 2024 at 1:48pm Frank wrote on Jun 14th, 2024 at 10:34am:
Do not despair: "unthinkable economic retreat" is avoidable by overthrowing your flat-earth neoclassical monetary system, and authorizing funding the transition to green with free state-issued money - as opposed to states begging for private-sector money and instituting carbon taxes and carbon markets which will indeed force prices through the roof, as private fossil-fuel companies fight to maintain their lucrative, but destructive industry. As for technology, it's already available; it's a matter of mobilizing the required resources. Quote:
A confused narrative, the issue is mobilization of resources to replace the fossil industry. Global cooperation is key. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by UnSubRocky on Jun 15th, 2024 at 1:53pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 15th, 2024 at 1:33pm:
Are there more extreme weather events occurring? There does not seem to be the case. I recall -- and yes I am doing another personal anecdote -- riding home from school and having a near even odds of getting hit by an afternoon thunderstorm. These days, 30 years later, you get the occasional afternoon storm that breaks the monotony. Droughts are usually no longer than 2 months. And extended droughts are just underwhelming rainfall totals for 6 months of the year. Floods seem to be every 3 years, which is not as often as it was in the 1980s and 1990s. I have not had a heatwave for a few years. I think there were a few weeks when we had daytime temperatures between 35 to 40°C, during a summer a few years back. People might be falling for the climate science. But, when those scientists get it wrong and the weather events are either mild or more severe than predicted, we can safely assume that we cannot control the weather. I suspect that you are one of those that watches repeats of news reports and counts up the number of times they repeat the same scenes. Then you consider that these are the number of times this weather event has occurred. You are being misled. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 15th, 2024 at 2:14pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 15th, 2024 at 1:48pm:
You understand nothing, especially not money. Governments are throwing untold trillions in subsidies and support - and yet, the 'decarbonisation' is impossible. You are never going to have wind powered aviation or shipping or metalurgy, concrete and fertiliser production, etc, etc. You can have a rooftop solar for your shower and for your car but modern life as we know it is impossible without fossil fuels: "This is because we rely on fossil fuels not just to generate most of our electricity but to fuel our road, rail, air and sea transport, heat homes, power industry, mine minerals, create chemical and plastic products, manufacture fertilisers and grow food." |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 15th, 2024 at 2:18pm whiteknight wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 10:35am:
Unachievable is the operative word. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 15th, 2024 at 3:00pm freediver wrote on Jun 14th, 2024 at 6:08am:
So no guarantee. And no hope of achieving a 43% reduction of 2005 levels. So it is just a lie? Or are unachievable "goals" all good no matter the cost? ::) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 15th, 2024 at 4:11pm freediver wrote on Jun 14th, 2024 at 6:08am:
Australia’s most powerful group of solar and wind farm developers say Anthony Albanese will fail to hit his target of 82 per cent renewables by 2030, as slow planning and onerous environmental approvals are stymieing efforts to build enough green energy this decade. In a blistering declaration, the Clean Energy Investor Group – which represents companies such as Andrew Forrest’s Squadron Energy, Macquarie and French giant TotalEnergy – hit out at new federal guidelines for project approvals it warns would torpedo the Albanese government’s signature renewable target. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water has issued a guidelines paper outlining a raft of measures required to get environmental sign-off on dozens of proposed wind farm projects, including a specific focus on their impact on “protected matters” such as birds and bats. The Australian Energy Market Operator estimates the country needs 57GW of grid-scale solar and wind generation capacity to be installed by 2030 – a rise from the current capacity of 19GW. But planning remains so problematic that many wind farms take more than five years to secure planning and environmental approvals. The investor group alone collectively has a 46GW pipeline of renewable projects to be rolled out in Australia but urged the government to rethink how it assessed wind farm developments or risk the target of 82 per cent by 2030 along with emissions goals. The warning encapsulates Labor’s struggle to reconcile its renewable energy target with existing environmental standards. The tension has created unusual bedfellows, combining environmentalists with opponents to renewable energy in an attempt to block new wind farms. Mr Zelcer said the government must, however, be forthright and frank. “The (Clean Energy Investment Group) advises that (the department) clearly communicate, through policy and decision-making criteria, that it is accepted that clean-energy projects will have some impacts in light of broader policy objectives,” he said. Doing so, however, would be contentious. Many of Australia’s proposed wind farms are in environmentally sensitive regions, but if the country has any hope of rapidly weaning from coal to renewables it must embrace large-scale new developments. A growing number of communities is heightening opposition to new developments and some states are moving to placate their concerns with higher standards. Last year Queensland’s Labor government said it would require developers of wind farms to clear a higher threshold in order to secure licences amid local opposition, despite the sunshine state setting an ambitious target for transitioning away from its dependency on coal. Queensland said it would strengthen environmental protections, increase rehabilitation requirements and require proponents to investigate the impact of their construction on workforces and accommodation. While placating community concerns, any curtailing of onshore wind developments will further jeopardise federal Labor’s energy transition targets. Authorities have admitted there must be an urgent uptick in renewable energy generation development if 2030 targets are to be met and enough new capacity is in place to allow for the orderly exit of coal. Coal is the dominant source of Australia’s electricity, producing about 60 per cent of the nation’s power. But the traditional bedrock is rapidly waning and nearly all coal power stations are expected to close within 15 years, amid sustained economic and social pressure. Australia’s record proliferation of rooftop solar generation means wholesale electricity prices are often below zero, meaning coal power stations – which typically generate consistently throughout the day – are losing money. Coal can recoup losses in the evening when the sun has set and demand increases, but the rise of batteries has dented the capacity of traditional generators to remain profitable. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/renewable-energy-target-at-risk-as-onshore-wind-farm-endure-onerous-burdens-industry-says/news-story/748ae526d5f1cb8b9bb6c9b1547711be |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Belgarion on Jun 15th, 2024 at 5:43pm
Australia’s most powerful group of solar and wind farm developers say....
This says it all. The 'renewables' scammers are afraid their gravy train will be derailed. ::) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 15th, 2024 at 6:08pm
Meanwhile Twiggy's green scheme is still losing executives at a fast rate.
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 15th, 2024 at 7:54pm Belgarion wrote on Jun 15th, 2024 at 5:43pm:
Exactly. Gissa secure subsidies. A massive scam, with fortunes to be made from it. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 16th, 2024 at 8:44am lee wrote on Jun 15th, 2024 at 3:00pm:
The coalition was lying about their commitments. I could guarantee you that it would be achieved, but that guarantee would only be worth as much as a coalition election promise. The targets would have been easy to achieve when they were first made, but they are getting harder each year, hence the coalitions absurd little "nuclear in 5 years" plan. Do you ever get concerned that the coalition might keep their promises, or are you quietly confident they have been lying the whole time? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 16th, 2024 at 12:37pm Frank wrote on Jun 15th, 2024 at 7:54pm:
Er...the AGW science says the globe has to exit fossils by 2050. Most people agree. You? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 16th, 2024 at 1:45pm freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2024 at 8:44am:
What a load of codswallop. Renewables and huge battery backup can never replace reliable electricity supply. With the removal of gas etc houses will have to be all electric. EV's have by their very definition have to be electric. And yet the CSIRO says that electricity usage has not and will not increase. Never heard of solar and wind drought? "An example of when high amounts of storage would be needed include when there are wind or solar ‘droughts’. In South Australia across the financial years of 2015 and 2016, there was a deficit between average wind production and minimum wind production over a two-week period of 60GWh." https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/faqs/ And that's only going back 8 years. It doesn't claim to be the longest. So you need something in excess of 2 weeks storage. Australia's usage is 1,6000,000 GWh. 2 weeks of average use is in excess of 615,000GWh. Hornsdale 100MW (and a claimed 130MWh) battery cost $90 million. I will let you do the maths. "We therefore systematically analyse the relationship between compound solar radiation and wind speed droughts with weather systems and climate modes of variability over multiple time scales. We find that compound solar and wind droughts occur most frequently in winter, affecting at least five significant energy-producing regions simultaneously on 10% of days. The associated weather systems vary by season and by drought type, although widespread cloud cover and anticyclonic circulation patterns are common features." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-023-00507-y Ah winter when electricity usage increases. So much for averages. ::) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 16th, 2024 at 1:47pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 16th, 2024 at 12:37pm:
Does it? DO you have the relevant paper? Is that to do with keeping warming below 2C (invented by an economist) or something else? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 16th, 2024 at 2:05pm lee wrote on Jun 16th, 2024 at 1:45pm:
And yet the coalition signs up to it every election. Do you ever get concerned that the coalition might keep their promises, or are you quietly confident they have been lying the whole time? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 16th, 2024 at 2:18pm freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2024 at 2:05pm:
And yet Labor has shown no concern about cost, which you didn't address. Don't want to say eh? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D BTW - The CSIRO Nextgen report shows the cost of battery storage falling each year, even though many countries are going to be trying to purchase the same batteries, as are the EV makers of course. ::) You have heard of supply and demand? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 16th, 2024 at 2:31pm Quote:
Because that is not the topic under discussion. I have addressed it plenty of times. And I did address it when I pointed out that the policy they enacted a decade ago was the cheapest, most economically rational way to reduce GHG emissions. Do you ever get concerned that the coalition might keep their promises, or are you quietly confident they have been lying the whole time? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 16th, 2024 at 3:37pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 16th, 2024 at 12:37pm:
I don't. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by aquascoot on Jun 16th, 2024 at 3:41pm
time to stop the nonsense
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 16th, 2024 at 4:06pm freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2024 at 2:31pm:
And a decade ago they knew the true costs? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D So tell us about the true costs now. ::) And still nothing about exactly which GHG emissions you want reduced. Cite scientific papers please. And what these GHG emissions have done, apart from some beneficial warming coming out of the LIA, of course. ::) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 16th, 2024 at 4:16pm Quote:
Are you asking which greenhouse gasses? Do you ever get concerned that the coalition might keep their promises, or are you quietly confident they have been lying the whole time? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 16th, 2024 at 4:31pm
It is critical that we review the whole story of ‘Climate Change’ as this is underpinning the government drive for the removal of carbon-based fuels from our society. The climate may well be changing, it may well be that there is a minor increase in global temperatures, but this has not been shown to be caused by anything that we humans have, or are doing. The science is incomplete and there are serious disagreements. Many scientists are afraid to actually speak out against the dogma of climate change for fear of losing their jobs and grants. Most politicians and their supporters in the media are ignorant and work purely on emotions and fear.
The ‘Climate Change’ fear mongers proclaim that the burning of carbon fuels, but especially coal, and oil for transport, is producing large masses of carbon dioxide which reside in the atmosphere and create a greenhouse effect, warming the planet. This hypothesis is unproven but it is very simplistic and enables proponents to generate fear amongst the unknowing public who will then accept the solutions proposed by the ‘Climate Change’ activists. In Australia there is a false suggestion that Australia, by eliminating the burning of carbon fuels, will have some effect upon worldwide atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is false as China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia, along with other smaller nations, are still building coal-fired power stations, far in excess of the total number of coal-fired power stations in Australia. Coal-fired power stations are being built because they are generally the cheapest method of producing bulk electricity, an essential for industry and our developed lifestyle, anywhere. https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/06/energy-for-the-future/ |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 16th, 2024 at 5:06pm freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2024 at 4:16pm:
Yes. Water vapour? CO2? Methane? You do know don't you? BTW - McKinsey did a report back in the day for Australia. It concentrated on CCS, still not been shown to work commercially, geothermal, which failed spectacularly as ways of reducing GHGF's. They also have significant reductions in Agricultural and Transport emissions. But they didn't have battery backup in the equations. The Rudd Government's Green Paper also has no storage listed apart from CCS. "Carbon capture and storage, solar and geothermal technologies have been identified as strategic priorities for Australia" So they accepted the Mckinsey Report. In fact costings don't come into the Green Paper, it is simply the Green Dream. https://library.bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/980/1/greenpaper.pdf But perhaps you are talking about something else - with costings. ;) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 16th, 2024 at 5:44pm Quote:
Sure. CO2 and methane mostly. Whichever is the cheapest way to combat climate change. I think the initial efforts, such as the carbon tax from last decade, were targeted only at CO2. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 16th, 2024 at 7:24pm freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2024 at 5:44pm:
So here is the thing. Methane has apparently 89 times the Global Warming Potential based on equal weights. But they are not equal weights. Methane has a molecular weight of 16.043 or about 0.717kg/m3. CO2 has a molecular weight of 44.01 or about 1.977kg/m3. Not even close to the same weights. One is measured in ppb and the other ppm, which should tell you a lot. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gas-density-d_158.html Methane is measured in dry air in the laboratory, good luck finding dry air in the atmosphere. The deserts including the polar deserts still have some water vapour. "Methane is an odourless gas with a concentration in the troposphere of 1.8 ppm (parts per million as mole fraction in dry air). " https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1943815X.2012.694892 |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 16th, 2024 at 8:50pm lee wrote on Jun 16th, 2024 at 7:24pm:
Do you have a point, or are you just yet again demonstrating your ability to copy and paste things you do not understand? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 16th, 2024 at 9:07pm
Anthropogenic Global Warming - AGW - is a complete lie and nonsense.
The warming bit of the idiotic slogan was replaced some years ago already by 'climate change'. So If this year is not like the last - climate change!! When a clown like Chris Bowen is blowing hot about something you KNOW it's a load of bollocks. ScoMo - Turnbull Light - went along with the wheeze, hoping to be loved by the teals (blue and green - geddit?) doctors' wives (nobody else takes this nonsense seriously) but of course you can't please spoiled old women. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 16th, 2024 at 9:10pm Quote:
Because the internet became full of morons saying things like frost this morning, therefor no global warming. BTW, it is still global warming. And what do you think of the coalition policy of lying to voters about their commitment to tackling climate change? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 16th, 2024 at 9:18pm freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2024 at 9:10pm:
It's sly propaganda. The work of public relations spivs. Certainly not scientific. Just look at ANY challenge to the narrative- it's medieval, hell and brimstone 'how very dare you'. That's not reasoning, that is not dispassionate science. That's religious, righteous fervour. Mad *&^*ing monks in latter day lab coats - with the hoof is still showing. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 16th, 2024 at 9:41pm freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2024 at 8:50pm:
The point is that you don't understand AGW at all. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 17th, 2024 at 8:55am
The latest Resolve political survey revealed Mr Dutton held a narrow lead with 36 per cent of voters support, slightly ahead of Mr Albanese’s 35 per cent.
It comes after the Liberal leader sharply rejected Labor’s climate policy last week, vowing to abandon its interim legislated carbon emissions target to focus on the economy. The results of the poll, conducted for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age, surveyed over 1,600 eligible voters last week. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by SadKangaroo on Jun 17th, 2024 at 10:28am Frank wrote on Jun 16th, 2024 at 9:07pm:
The messaging has to be changed for the lowest common denominator, like the "warning hot" on coffee cups. Those like you need the short bus treatment. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 17th, 2024 at 10:51am Frank wrote on Jun 16th, 2024 at 9:18pm:
How is it "sly propaganda" to call it climate change rather than global warming? Both terms are correct. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by SadKangaroo on Jun 17th, 2024 at 12:37pm Frank wrote on Jun 17th, 2024 at 8:55am:
The things you can achieve with the almost full media landscape on your side. Dutton's climate policy, if you can even call it that, is not being questioned, only parroted. It would not last the day if exposed to 1% of what is being asked of Labor. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by SadKangaroo on Jun 17th, 2024 at 12:43pm SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 17th, 2024 at 12:37pm:
And yes, I realise they're in opposition, but they're not even facing the same level of scrutiny Labor did in opposition. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 17th, 2024 at 1:00pm lee wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 2:11pm:
Given the universal acceptance (the entire UN membership) of the AGW science - yes. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 17th, 2024 at 1:15pm Frank wrote on Jun 17th, 2024 at 8:55am:
Labor is making a lot of mistakes in the cost of living crisis; re this thread's subject, Labor should defuse Dutton's nuclear push by saying 'alright, let the private sector fund it, without government subsidies', while the government gets on with funding - as fast as possible - the green transition with government-created money (as opposed to debt-bearing, private bank-created money). Won't be too many nuclear investors in that scenario.... |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 17th, 2024 at 1:37pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 17th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
You do realise the UN are not scientists? Remember Guterres "Ocean boiling" at 100ºF? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D The UN is full of unelected plutocrats. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 17th, 2024 at 4:21pm lee wrote on Jun 17th, 2024 at 1:37pm:
Your crippled conservative brain... AGAIN? The UN accept the findings and policy recommendations of AGW scientists - reinforced as the climate indeed appears to be turning VERY nasty, all around the world. Quote:
People chosen by individual nations to represent those nations in the UN. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 17th, 2024 at 4:27pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 17th, 2024 at 4:21pm:
And yet you never cite what these nasties are. Why is that? The IPCC, a UN organisation disagrees with you. So crippled brain, you tell us. ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 17th, 2024 at 4:21pm:
So unelected as I said. ;) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 18th, 2024 at 1:50pm lee wrote on Jun 17th, 2024 at 4:27pm:
Another question from a crippled conservative brain. The nasties are the increasing climate AGW catastrophes noted previously. Quote:
Yes, your crippled conservative brain again: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/reports?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwvb-zBhCmARIsAAfUI2tNLpPNk6qYTykt2iYSTr6DnPNlnlsNBfET_LBAMbyFK6AdouiGz7oaAhZgEALw_wcB UNFCCC | NDC Synthesis Report National climate action plans remain insufficient to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius and meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. Read the report Quote:
Ah.... the crippled conservative brain thinks only people who are elected by the non-scientific electorate are legitimate, when a nation's representatives chosen by consensus are more likely to be better qualified for the job. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 18th, 2024 at 3:10pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 1:50pm:
Which ones? Stop hiding. You haven't proclaimed any that I have not shot down using the IPCC AR6 Physical Science Basis. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 1:50pm:
Oh Nationally Determined Contributions? You mean the ones all the climate states are failing? And Simon Stiell? a Grenadier Politician. NO AGW science at all. He is a Telecommunications Engineer. I thought you were talking about AGW scientists. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D He has also said we have TWO years to save the planet. Talk about unreachable goals. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 1:50pm:
So tell us more about those elected by "consensus". Who was elected for Australia, for example? Kristin Tilley is a Public Service wonk, with no discernible education in science. ;) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Daves2017 on Jun 18th, 2024 at 3:33pm
Thank you Lee for taking the time to point out the inconsistency
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 18th, 2024 at 4:43pm lee wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 3:10pm:
Quote:
Yes. Quote:
(google) The AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023 finds that, despite progress in policies and legislation around climate mitigation since the previous such report in 2014, it's “likely that warming will exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century”.20 Mar 2023 ie, same conclusions as the UN NDC report. Quote:
Yes, that's an unreachable goal, so we better pull our finger out, to achieve a reachable goal. Quote:
Public Service wonks (who passed the required exams), and the government itself, generally have better access to experts than the usual dumb electors who are led by eg, blind Sky News ideologues. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 18th, 2024 at 4:58pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 4:43pm:
The AR6 Synthesis Report disagrees with the Physical Science Basis. But we know you don't do science. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 4:43pm:
So tell us about this Climate emergency, you haven't yet, just offered dribs and drabs of BS. ;) The Synthesis Report is used for the SPM. The Summary Pack for Morons, otherwise known as the Summary for Policymakers. And they go through the report line by line and decide what should be said. And that's precisely what they do. It does not reflect the science. ;) "The Summary for policymakers (SPM) [1] is a summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports intended to aid policymakers. The form is approved line by line by governments: "Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy."" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Summary_for_Policymakers So much for AGW scientists. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 4:43pm:
Ah the unknown experts, with unknown qualifications. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D But you seem to know more about Sky News tha me. Why is that? ;) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 18th, 2024 at 5:52pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 1:50pm:
What is the difference? Whose consensus are you talking about if not the consensus of an electorate? And if not of the electorate - who gets to be in on the consensus and who is left out? How is it decided whether you are in our out of consenting? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 19th, 2024 at 11:02am
This is the concept design of a zero emissions small modular reactor.
Nuclear energy has proven to get electricity prices and emissions down all over the world. Out of the world’s 20 largest economies, Australia is the only one not using nuclear energy or moving towards it. Zero emissions nuclear energy is part of the answer to our energy challenges. It works with renewables and would allow Australia to get to net-zero. It will keep the lights on 24/7 and keep electricity costs down. Right now, Australia's energy comes from 63 per cent fossil fuels and 37 per cent renewables. As we transition away from fossil fuels, Labor’s renewables-only approach means Australia risks a massive energy black hole and extraordinary costs. Labor is stuck in the past, and like most of their policies, it is not forward-thinking, and you are suffering because of it. The Coalition will not make the same mistake. I announced today that a future Federal Coalition government will introduce zero-emissions nuclear energy in Australia to work in partnership with renewable energy and gas as part of a balanced energy mix. Our plan will deliver net-zero electricity by 2050, lower power bills and a strong and resilient economy. https://x.com/PeterDutton_MP/status/1803224385177919791 |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 19th, 2024 at 11:16am Quote:
No it hasn't. Nuclear is among the most expensive options. Quote:
Yet renewables are cheaper and the prices are going down. Nuclear is more expensive and the price is going up. It is almost obsolete already. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Captain Nemo on Jun 19th, 2024 at 11:23am
I was watching Dutton on the ABC just before, explaining some of his Nuclear Energy plan.
He actually made a number of good points. The long term cost of having nuclear power plants is lower because they have a much longer life span than wind turbines for example. Siting them on the retiring coal power generation sites can make use of the existing power lines and associated infrastructure. The majority of people currently working in the coal powered plants can translate their roles to nuclear plant maintenance roles. The waste created annually from a nuclear plant is only the size of a can of coke. Long term storage can be co-located wherever the waste from the AUKUS subs will go (The ALP is yet to tell us where that will be - overdue to make that announcement). Heavy industry needs reliable "base load" electricity to operate and nuclear power plants provide that - attracting heavy industry. Is it safe? Points to Lucas Heights which was based in urban surrounds that has operated since 1958 to 2007. Also asks the question: would an Australian PM sign up to AUKUS if He/She didn't think it was safe to have those subs in ports close to built up areas? Also would they sign up to having our Navy personnel literally live right next to a reactor if they thought it was unsafe? It was an interesting press conference and I thought he presented himself quite well. :o |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 19th, 2024 at 11:54am
Did Dutton tell you how long that waste needs to be stored for, or how dangerous it is compared to the waste from renewables?
Quote:
Dutton is a liar. Nuclear is one of the most expensive options, and getting more expensive, while renewables are getting cheaper. Quote:
Again, Dutton is a liar. https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it On average, the waste from a reactor supplying a person’s electricity needs for a year would be about the size of a brick. The generation of electricity from a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic metres of vitrified high-level waste per year, if the used fuel is recycled. https://www.hcn.org/issues/52-1/nuclear-energy-nuclear-power-is-emissions-free-but-at-what-cost-waste/ All 88,000 tons or so of waste produced by reactors in the U.S. could fit onto a single football field, stacked just 24 feet high, it says These figures are accurate, but incomplete: They leave out several steps that precede the power generation phase, each of which produces sizable quantities of hazardous and radioactive waste. By omitting these, we risk ignoring the bulk of the nuclear industry’s human and environmental toll. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by SadKangaroo on Jun 19th, 2024 at 12:08pm freediver wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 11:16am:
They're just straight-up lying about it and nobody, at least in the media is questioning it. They just repeat the Coalition claims, yet question everything Labor does. They're very lucky. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 19th, 2024 at 12:25pm SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 12:08pm:
Which part is the lie? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 19th, 2024 at 12:31pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 4:43pm:
BTW - You do know the 1.5C target was the result of COP21, The Paris Agreement, made by governments, not scientists? So where are these AGW scientists you keep spruiking about but never name? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Brian Ross on Jun 19th, 2024 at 1:13pm |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Brian Ross on Jun 19th, 2024 at 1:23pm |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 19th, 2024 at 1:31pm
Mr potato Head doesn't care about nuclear. This is just his latest tactic to try and extend coal. In 20 yrs time, when they're still waiting for the first nuclear plant to go live, they will be paying billions to coal to keep propping it up
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Captain Nemo on Jun 19th, 2024 at 1:36pm Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 1:23pm: Well, those Premiers would say that wouldn't they? I had thought that Victorian Labor has an unassailable number of seats here to retain office at the next State election, but I'm beginning to think that the Victorian public are itching to give Labor a whack. If the Federal poll becomes a de facto method of "hitting Labor with baseball bats", then I think Albo Labor might be in strife. ;) It is hypocritical of State Premiers to endorse hosting the nuclear-powered AUKUS subs but claim to be opposed to nuclear power. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Captain Nemo on Jun 19th, 2024 at 1:38pm John Smith wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 1:31pm:
It is a given that most coal-fired power plants will be gone over the next few decades. I think it is about 90% of the generating power from coal powered plants that is slated to be removed from the grid over the medium term. Yes, some are going to be given a slightly longer extension as it has become clear that the grid is facing black-outs or brown-outs given the intermittent nature of renewable sources. No politician (not even Dutton) is going to run on a policy of extending coal-powered electricity plants indefinitely. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jun 19th, 2024 at 1:40pm Captain Nemo wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 1:38pm:
No one said indefinitely. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 19th, 2024 at 1:41pm lee wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 4:58pm:
So, disagreement among the scientists re AGW? But there is no disagreement the filthy polluting fossil industry (not counting CO2) has to go. And the majority of scientists are definitely on board with the AGW-CO2 proposition. Quote:
See above; the majority disagrees with you. Quote:
What part of this don't you understand: "Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy Obviously, given disagreement over urgency, negotiations to accurately reflect the science are necessary. Quote:
No, people who have passed necessary exams. Quote:
Because microsoft news keeps me up to date with Sky News nonsense, daily. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Captain Nemo on Jun 19th, 2024 at 1:47pm
I think the sensible mix will be: Solar / battery; Wind; Gas and Nuclear for the foreseeable future.
I love renewables myself, especially Solar and battery storage, but for heavy industry, I reckon "base-load" is the go. Solar / wind and battery storage just doesn't cut it on an industrial scale. For houses? .. fine - and I have invested over $20,000 on my own home to harness Solar and use battery storage. On a small to medium scale it works pretty well. Heavy industry needs a lot of electricity 24/7. I reckon nuclear generation in the mix has merit. This is a big risk politically for Dutton but I think the tide is turning in favor of a more balanced approach to electricity generation. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 19th, 2024 at 1:48pm lee wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 12:31pm:
Poor lee: the Paris agreement followed the science which says 1.5C is the limit we cannot exceed. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 19th, 2024 at 2:05pm Frank wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 5:52pm:
Chosen by a consensus among educated peers, taking account of the abilities of the chosen individual's expertise. Quote:
See above. A one-party consensus meritocracy is an alternative to blind leading the blind 2- party adversarial elections. btw, I have heard some experts today disagreeing over the cost of nuclear energy, so that's where the debate should be continued and resolved - ie, among the experts. 5 minute news and media interviews with politicians won't cut the mustard. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 19th, 2024 at 2:35pm
The most remarkable thing about the Coalition's nuclear policy is its funding via taxpayer money.
After 4 decades of conservative post-Thatcher privatization policy (admittedly followed by both sides of politics) which has failed dismally to provide cheap electricicty and has sold-off the nation's public housing stock, resulting in the current housing crisis, the Libs have now decided to revert to using taxpayer money to pay for it. ...the height of hypocrisy. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 19th, 2024 at 2:38pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 2:05pm:
So an oligarchy of self-appointed experts. In modern times, “oligarchy” is a term generally applied to China and Iran. China describes itself as a communist “people’s republic,” but leadership of the country has been maintained by a select few for several decades. Members of the oligarchy have included those who were part of the Communist Party and the revolution in 1949, as well as those who came into wealth and power since the opening of China to the global market in the 1980s (often descendants of the early revolutionaries). This system has helped the wealthy and powerful maintain their control, while providing relatively little power or freedom to most citizens. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/oligarchy/ |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 19th, 2024 at 2:39pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 2:35pm:
Mais non. They will just print the money. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by JC Denton on Jun 19th, 2024 at 2:45pm
maybe if we actually wanted to mitigate our impact on global carbon emissions, and we should, we should stop importing millions of people from low per capita emitter countries as the first step. there's no reconciling our putative ecological goals with the notion of a big australia. all this talk about our future energy mix would be null and irrelevant if our population was small and not eternally growing.
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:11pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 1:48pm:
Actually not true. "Beginning in 2013 and ending at the COP21 in Paris in 2015, the first review period of the long-term global goal largely consisted of the Structured Expert Dialogue (SED). This was a fact-finding, face-to-face exchange of views between invited experts and UNFCCC delegates. The final report of the SED3 concluded that ‘in some regions and vulnerable ecosystems, high risks are projected even for warming above 1.5°C’. " https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/faq/faq-chapter-1/ No mention there about AGW scientists or any scientists. Nor is there any mention of scientists in the SED3 report being part of the panel. https://unfccc.int/files/science/workstreams/the_2013-2015_review/application/pdf/sed3_summary_report.pdf So you still haven't established that there were scientists AGW or otherwise. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I found the invited experts. One Professor |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by SadKangaroo on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:47pm
I am a bleeding heart lefty and as much of a realist as I can be, BUT, I really hate Labor's smacking response of calling this "risky reactors".
There is no need to junk the tech on those grounds, especially after we know traditional coal generation kills far more than Nuclear. Drop that bullshit. There are plenty of reasons to challenge the policy, don't try to be Trump. You lot, Labor, and especially Bowen, while he might pronounce nuclear like Trump, he's no Trump. You don't have the charisma or the brain dead supporters to pull that bullshit. It's still a bad idea, but shoot it down for legit reasons. Lack of Details: The plan was announced without providing essential information such as costs, detailed modelling, and specific energy output (gigawatts or megawatts). Delayed Implementation: Even under the proposed ambitious timeline, nuclear reactors would not be operational until 2035-2037, making it one of the fastest nuclear rollouts globally in a country without an existing nuclear industry. Site Issues: Of the seven proposed sites, six owners are not interested in hosting nuclear power plants. Additionally, most sites are in states with bans on nuclear power that are unlikely to be overturned. Risks: The plan is deemed risky because it may delay investment in renewable energy, prolong reliance on aging coal-fired power stations, and is considered expensive and slow to build. The alternative proposed is to continue with the current plan aiming for 82% renewable energy, which is cheaper, quicker to implement, and has already shown significant progress. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by SadKangaroo on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:50pm
The Libs plan also raises more questions,
Cost Details: What are the estimated costs associated with implementing the nuclear energy plan, including construction, operation, and maintenance of nuclear reactors? Energy Output: How many gigawatts or megawatts of energy will the nuclear reactors add to the Australian energy system? Timelines and Feasibility: Given the ambitious timeline, what is the detailed schedule for the development and commissioning of nuclear reactors by 2035-2037? Site Selection: How will the Liberal Party address the lack of interest from six out of the seven proposed site owners in hosting nuclear power plants? State Bans on Nuclear Power: How does the Liberal Party plan to overcome the existing state bans on nuclear power in New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland? Community Opposition: What is the plan if local communities oppose the establishment of nuclear reactors, and how will the party secure alternative sites? Reliance on Coal: How does the plan ensure that Australia will not have to rely on aging and increasingly unreliable coal-fired power stations for longer periods? Economic Viability: Considering the high costs and long construction times, how does the Liberal Party justify nuclear power as a viable economic option compared to renewable energy sources? Safety and Risk Management: What measures will be in place to address the risks associated with nuclear energy, including safety protocols and emergency response plans? Regulatory Approvals: What is the strategy for obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals at both federal and state levels? Long-term Sustainability: How does the plan fit into Australia’s long-term energy strategy, particularly in relation to sustainability and carbon emission targets? Reliance on Coal, that's the biggest standout, it's the whole motivation behind this... |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 20th, 2024 at 11:53am lee wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:11pm:
"Invited experts" - more thn the one you found - in AGW science, and advising the summary IPCC reports. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 20th, 2024 at 11:57am thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 11:53am:
Invited experts has no known AGW affiliates. So we had an "expert" on social justice. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D BTW - There was also one with Special Education studies. Another not an AGW or any scientist. ;) Lars-Otto Rierson an expert on phytoplankton. Another not an AGW scientist. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 20th, 2024 at 12:20pm SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:50pm:
I've heard on radio today c.$50-100 billion, probably similar to 2 Suncable-scale developments with connections to 2 Snowy 2.0 long-term storage equivalents. Guess what: if the AGW scientists could actually prove that 2050 is the deadline to totally exit fossils, then governments all around the world would find the money immediately (with free treasury-issued public money, rather than private-sector debt-based bank money. Just so you know. Quote:
Baseload nuclear - with output of say 10% of the renewables output from that outlined above, might be sufficient insurance against the possibility of long term storage failure in the case of unusually long periods of wind-less and cloudy weather. But we have to build both to find out, since nuclear is a long time away even if we start its development now. Quote:
Depends how urgent society thinks it is. Quote:
Dutton says the Commonwealth has the power to compulsorily acquire, with just compensation. Free marketeers won't like anything about it at all. Quote:
Most likely; it's a pity the AGW science can't prove the deadline for exit from fossils is 2050. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 20th, 2024 at 12:33pm lee wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 11:57am:
er ...the majority of AGW scientists aka experts advising the IPCC on 1.5C? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 20th, 2024 at 1:16pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 12:33pm:
Now you are asking a question. Before you were stating beliefs. Make up your mind. ;) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 20th, 2024 at 3:40pm lee wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 1:16pm:
Sneaky - you are the one denying the fact the majority of AGW scientists are advising the IPCC re the 1.5C limit. Even Dutton is signed up to zero CO2 emissions by 2050 (even if he is lying...). |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:04pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 3:40pm:
You are the one claiming it and provide no proof. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 3:40pm:
Dutton is a politician. Net zero is a politicians wet dream. ;) It is not achievable with current technology. CCS has not been proven at scale. It requires vats amounts of power to compress the CO2 and inject it into any leak proof catchment they hope to find. Batteries don't cut it, they require more power in than they can put out. Wind and solar are subject to solar and wind droughts. Do you remember me schooling you on that? You would need batteries that last longer than two weeks, let alone 4 hours. And that was only going back 8 years. You need way more than that to firm supply. $90 million for 100MW which can last four hours, although Hornsdale would only supply 50,000 homes for one hour and 18 minutes. South Australia has more homes than that and according to The Conversation could provide power for 2.5 minutes. But they say that is not its purpose. But you can do the calculations for the number of hours in a fortnight, the number of 2.5 minute blocks in an hour and calculate the cost of the batteries. But I do know maths is not your strong suit. ;) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:30pm Quote:
It is extremely easy to do with current technology - and likely even easier with 2050 technology. This is the sort of stupidity the coalition is hoping for among voters. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:48pm freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:30pm:
So tell us how much wind, how much solar, how much battery backup. How many KM2 would it take? How much farm land? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 20th, 2024 at 5:04pm lee wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:48pm:
Do you have a point, or do you just like asking stupid questions? BTW, I am glad you didn't need any help figuring out how to do it with current technology. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 20th, 2024 at 5:21pm freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:30pm:
The point is: how to get TO 2050 (or whenever) nirvana - abundant cheap and reliable renewables- without getting blackouts in the next quarter century ( or whatever)? Sensible transition to cheaper, better energy. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 20th, 2024 at 5:47pm freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 5:04pm:
So you don't know. All you have is BELIEF. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 20th, 2024 at 6:44pm Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 5:21pm:
We have never been able to avoid blackouts completely. Would it not be better to have an economically rational outcome rather than have some ideologue tell people what they want? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 20th, 2024 at 6:54pm freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 6:44pm:
A blackout due to a lightning strike on a transformer is not the same as a blackout because simply there isn't enough energy generated. Don't try to get cute, you are too old for that. As for economically rational outcome - cheap, reliable, abundant energy is the only rational aim. Wind and solar are not delivering it on their own, not now, not ever. So you need something more powerful, more reliable, less resource intensive ( what goes into making and then decommissioning solar and wind?) What is that? Well, it differs and depends on natural gifts. Hydro, coal, gas, nuclear, oil, cow dung, wood, biomass, wind, solar. I think Australia could build more hydro, if only Aborigines/pinkos did not block every attempt. Nuclear seems to me very neat and efficient. The French use it well, as do dozens of other countries. Efficient coal is a great and reliable source of power. As is gas. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 20th, 2024 at 8:51pm Quote:
Do try to get your facts straight. We had massive blackouts recently because the coal fired power stations could not produce enough electricity after one of the big ones threw a rotor. How long do you think it took them to fix that? Quote:
Wrong again. If that were true, we would just stick with coal. Quote:
Why not? If wind power with storage costs half as much a nuclear, don't you think it should be the customers who decide what they want, rather than the government deciding for them? You are a blind ideologue trying to invent some twisted logic to prop up your belief system. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 21st, 2024 at 11:40am lee wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:04pm:
You forgot large-capacity pumped hydro; and batteries store energy - the fact you can't get exactly as much out as you put in doesn't matter when the input is from excess free renewable energy in the middle of the day. Batteries are excellent storage for small scale suburban and rooftop solar. Try again. Quote:
I certainly do (see above), and it seems you have forgotten that 2 Suncable-scale schemes are sufficient to power Oz, the uncertainty is whether we need baseload nuclear in case of drained pumped-hydro-storage capacity during unusual weather (extended cloudiness and no wind). Quote:
All addressed above, but clear thinking is not your strong suit. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Captain Nemo on Jun 21st, 2024 at 12:01pm
"Batteries are excellent storage for small scale suburban and rooftop solar."
I agree to a certain extent. I have Solar and battery at home, but even with that, I am not 100% self-sufficient on days when the sunlight is shorter. My system does fairly well and in Summer it is self-sufficient on sunny days. As for heavy industry? Solar batteries cannot deliver the required power supply. Large battery arrays are very expensive too. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 21st, 2024 at 12:20pm Captain Nemo wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 12:01pm:
That's where large scale pumped hydro comes in. The question is whether pumped hydro can deliver secure continuous baseload, that's why nuclear might be required to power heavy industry 24/7. But we need to start building 2 Suncable equivalents NOW to meet 2030 goals, with gas as required for backup. Then we will have a clearer picture whether we need nuclear. In the meantime, planning on nuiclear can also begin now, it would take at least five years planning in Oz before first earth bulldozing for an actual nuclear plant. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 21st, 2024 at 12:39pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 11:40am:
You mean like Snowy 2.0 capable of 15 hours at capacity? NEM shows an average use of 200TWh. Divide by 365 gives you about 550MWh per day. "The NEM generates around 200 terawatt hours of electricity annually, supplying around 80% of Australia’s electricity consumption." https://www.aemc.gov.au/energy-system/electricity/electricity-system/NEM "It is expected to supply 2.2 gigawatts of capacity and about 350,000 megawatt hours of large-scale storage to the national electricity market" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_2.0_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station "In practice if Snowy 2.0’s lower dam is operated in future as it is now – almost always close to full – the cycling capacity of Snowy 2.0 may be as low as 40 GWh – around one tenth of the promised number." https://theconversation.com/snowy-2-0-will-not-produce-nearly-as-much-electricity-as-claimed-we-must-hit-the-pause-button-125017 You mean that "large capacity"? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 11:40am:
Nope. It should say "2 Suncable-scale schemes You don't have any engineering we know. Just doubling an uncertain number doesn't guarantee doubling of output. ;) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 11:40am:
None of it is addressed above. You just have this naive belief that if you double something you will get a doubling of rated output. "Singapore-based Sun Cable has submitted its Environmental Impact Statement to the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority. The document reveals the full extent of the project’s enormity, specifically a 17-20 GW solar farm tied to 36-42 GWh of battery energy storage, which is set to be transmitted by subsea cables to Singapore." https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/04/27/suncable-reveals-full-extent-of-its-giant-solar-plus-storage-project-in-australia/ 36GWh of battery? that's 36,000MWh. 360 100MWh batteries at $90 million each. That's $32.4 billion for batteries. Cheap innit? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D But we know you are also mathematicaly challenged, perhaps that's why you have no engineering. ;) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:06pm lee wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 12:39pm:
Yes. Now multiply by 10, with schemes up and down the Great Dividing Range. Quote:
It won't be operated that way; connections with other pumped-hydro schemes will enable all of them to operate on a coordinated empty-to-full cycle. Quote:
Maybe is close enough, while we turn off gas and determine if we need nuclear backup for heavy industry. Quote:
Proving the crippled conservative brain doen't do empiricism or pragmatism or estimation. Quote:
Refuted above, stop showing the limitations of the conservative brain. Quote:
Free in fact, if you use your brain: public money issued in national Treasuries is free, as opposed to taxpayer debt-money issued in (private) banks. Quote:
You just proved you know nothing about money (it's created out of thin air, whether in (public) national Treasuries or private banks). The engineers who will build the solar, wind and pumped hydro plants (and nuclear if necessary) have access to the mathematics prowess required, don't you worry about that. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:46pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:06pm:
And you have these on your map? Tell us which towns and farmlands will be lost. And also the cost Snowy 2.0 now at over $12 billion multiplied by 10. Cheap innit? ;) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:06pm:
Another one of you claims with no proof. To be fully workable you would need to completely empty the bottom lake as well as the top. It would take months to refill them. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:06pm:
Ah yes. The cart before the horse. "See if it works, if it doesn't we'll go the other way. Don't worry about the time lag." ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:06pm:
Empiricism - is proof of concept. You have shown nothing to do with that. ;) Pragmatism - is Bang for buck. You haven't got that bit either. ;) Estimation - only works if you have reliable models. You haven't shown that either. All-in-all you are a total joke and failure. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:06pm:
Nope. that's just your MMT wet dream. If it were true it would apply similarly to nuclear, which at least would be reliable. Then you don't need renewables at all for part tiume generation. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:06pm:
But paid for by the renewables companies, in the main, nuclear is a dirt word, so doesn't carry weight. No one wants to place his job in jeopardy. ;) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 2:19pm lee wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:46pm:
Crippled conservative brain: the ANU has identified dozens of potential sites. Mountains generally aren't farmlands. Quote:
Crippled conservative brain: many lakes plural, with coordinated filling and draining. Quote:
Crippled conservative brain: build 2 suncable equivalents and get back to us about firming requirements aka empirical learning. Quote:
Your crippled conservative brain on full display; empiricism is knowledge by experiment, pragmatism is finding best solutions by adjusting to circumstances. Estimation: see the above, the 3 can operate over time simultaneously in any order as required , not according to your closed, visionless, conservative brain. Quote:
No it's not, it's simple logic ...which your crippled conservative brain doesn't do. Quote:
It IS also true for nuclear (full marks!); the point is it will be more than a decade before the first big nuclear plant can be operational in Oz (2035-37 according to Dutton), and Paris demands 50% global reduction in emissions by then. That's why we have to build 2 suncable equivalents well before then - which is doable, with gas as firming. Quote:
Didn't think I'd be defending nuclear from fears lodged in a crippled conservative brain; France has survived half a century with nuclear plants in built up areas. But empirical learning may in fact show we don't need nuclear in Oz, after we have actually built 2 suncable equivalents - the cheapest form of new energy - and discover how much on-off gas we need for firming. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 3:29pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 2:19pm:
So you don't know. Why is that not surprising? And you know nothing about mountain agriculture. You need the VALLEYS to store the water. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 2:19pm:
And many multiple fill times. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 2:19pm:
At enormous cost, with no guarantee, as you have said. Otherwise there would be no need for nuclear if it doesn't work. ::) But you want 2 Suncables with twice the batteries mentioned at a cost of over $64 billion. For that we could have 3 large nuclear reactors not just 7 SMR's, according to CSIRO. Meanwhile Albo's plan is $1.3 TRILLION. ""As Australians will soon see, our plan will cost a fraction of the government's $1.3 trillion dollar plan — a figure not even the prime minster cricket team of Labor spin doctors can conceal," he said." https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-22/dutton-claims-nuclear-energy-will-cost-fraction-of-labor-plan/104011100 "It noted this cost could only be achieved by building reactors one after the other and warned the first power plant would likely be subject to what's called a "first of its kind" premium, which could double the price from $8.5 billion to $17 billion." https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-19/cost-of-going-nuclear-missing-in-coalitions-nuclear-plan/103997284 thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 2:19pm:
And yet you can't provide anything. ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 2:19pm:
And yet one sun cable has not been built or started in 2 years. ;D ;D ;D "Sun Cable's solar project is in voluntary administration. Why has it happened, and what does it mean?" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-19/nt-sun-cable-voluntary-administration-explained/101860866 thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 2:19pm:
And yet you are defending nothing that I wrote. Nuclear is a dirty word. Try telling Albo that it is not. Try Ardern, Biden, Starmer, try telling Germany. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 2:19pm:
So now it is on-off gas and not nuclear. You are changeable, just like the wind. And just about as useless. ::) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Brian Ross on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:03pm
Peter Dutton claims nuclear energy plan will cost a fraction of Labor’s pursuit of renewable energy - Watch Dutton's nose grow longer and longer with his lies. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:22pm Brian Ross wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:03pm:
Au contraire. From your link: Dutton warned of the dangers of a minority Labor government, saying people "could not afford three years of the madness of minority government, comprising Labor, the Teals and the Greens – do not forget the manic nature of the Rudd Gillard Rudd period." He painted Mr Albanese as a weak and dishonest leader. "I believe he has compromised the honour of the office he holds, he has certainly broken at least 12 core promises, most egregiously in promising Australians prior to the election that they would be better off under a Labor government," Mr Dutton said. The sentiment was echoed by Mr Dutton's deputy Sussan Ley, who earlier told the audience, "We have a prime minister who is willing to lie to you when it suits him and his politics. We have a liar in the Lodge." |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:34pm
"Mr Dutton pointed to the Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) estimates that capital expenditure on renewables, and the cost to maintain them out to 2050, will cost about $383bn.
“But engineer Dr David Hayden Collins says that when the replacement of panels and turbines is factored in, the cost is likely to be $1.3 trillion,” Mr Dutton said. “Five times greater than AEMO’s estimate." https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/sustainability/peter-dutton-warns-renewables-only-mentality-will-come-with-13-trillion-hit-to-aussies/news-story/a32538321d49b49a43008d954f142911 |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm lee wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 3:29pm:
See the UNU study. Quote:
Crippled conservative brain doesn't know about AI yet; determining the required successive fill times for the entire system is a cinch. Quote:
Stop bleating about cost (the issue is resources not "cost": even two billionaires alone were prepared to fund Suncable; and anyway the government can create money for free if the necessary resources are available for purchase by the government. Quote:
A cinch, and for free as noted above, since the necessary resources are available. Or funded by a couple of billionaires. Quote:
Yes. And? Australia has the necessary resources to complete the job. "If the nation can build it, the nation can pay for it". JM Keynes. Quote:
But fail to meet Paris 2030 requirements (midway to zero emissions by 2050). Quote:
Correct - amazing, occasionally your crippled conservative brain spits out a correct statement. Quote:
First up , I can show you 2 Suncable equivalents, funded by Cannon-Brookes and Forrest, or better, for free by the Oz Treasury. Quote:
Disastrous crippled brain again: C-B and Forrest fell out, but the scheme is doable. As for cost; Dutton doesn't mind public funding for his distant nuclear dream...now there's an ideological reverse for you... Quote:
Low IQ crippled brain - C-B and Twiggy had a falling out. Quote:
Because most of what you wrote is crippled by blind ideology (one exception already noted...). And those old codgers will be swept aside by young voters who want zero emissions FAST (latest polling among 20-35 age groups). They are technology neutral, but - unlike you - want zero emissions NOW. Quote:
Crippled brain and low IQ: gas is merely the transition (firming) fuel as we approach 100% renewables. Whether Oz needs nuclear to achieve zero emissions is not yet clear; eg, I saw a tweet from former PM Turnbull today saying nuclear in Oz isn't necessary. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by freediver on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:56pm Frank wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:22pm:
The carbon tax was the sanest climate policy either government has produced. The coalition is insane by comparison. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 5:44pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:
Why? Obviously you haven't, or you would be quoting selected parts. ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:
AI is only as good as the initial HUMAN programmers. ::) And that would mean they could only ever be successively emptied. ;) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:
Oh so "Free Money" means you can use the most expensive option available. I don't think Keen even proposes that. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:
And the billionaires are only doing it for the benefit of mankind, so monetary kickbacks at all. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:
Ah yes. Free other people's money. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:
Solar and wind turbines consume power being made, they need to be replaced, consuming more power. So because China is offshore we will beat our Paris requirements? So much for a GLOBAL solution. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:
And which does nothing for your free money argument. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:
Only with "free money". Or those kind benevolent greenie types like in Germany where they have ramped up their sale price of their "free electricity". ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:
And yet it fell down broke. So much for doable. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:
But you said it could be done cheaper using nuclear. Why would you want a temporary, more expensive, replacement? ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:
And Twiggy's Green Dream head honchos are departing at a rapid rate. Why do you think that is? ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:
So one exception overrules 4. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:
It is the youg people in the EU who are rebelling. ;) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:
And those same EU youngies have seen the cost skyrocket and reliability of supply dive. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:
And still nothing from you about this nirvana needing replacement solar and wind. ;) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:
Ah yes Malcolm, the closet green. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You realise he was an "investment banker". All those lovely subsidies in green. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm lee wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 5:44pm:
You dementing? We covered the topic previously; there are sufficient potential pumped hydro sites in Oz - though nuclear might also be required. The first job is to build 2 suncable equivalents ASAP. Quote:
Now I know you are only a 'tyre kicking' troll, or confirming your low IQ. Ofcourse the AI will be programmed to do the job. Quote:
No, as one is being emptied, another is being filled, with AI keeping track of the entire system. Quote:
Er...renewables are the cheapest form of new energy generation , meanwhile we are also seeking the quickest and best firming methods, to achieve secure 100% zero emissions. Quote:
Thatcher's old lie; and billionaires stole other people's money by definition (eg Bezos has pauperized thousands of small retailers around the world, likewise Zuckerberg is destroying local journalism and newspapers). Quote:
Crippled brain; excess renwables can be stored; and China is heading for peak emissions by 2030, and zero emissions by 2060. You? Quote:
The EU - including the German Greens - are crippled by your mainstream economic orthodoxy demanding 'government fiscal responsibility'. Quote:
Low IQ , or just fraudulent? They had all the resources lined up, funding and ready to, but then they disagreed over the use of the electricity. But the resources are avialable ...aka doable (by the government, if the private sector can't get its greedy a*se into gear.) Quote:
Low IQ: I said we don't know if nuclear (which can't be available for 15 years anyway) is even necesary yet. Quote:
Twiggy's hydrogen plans are complicated by as yet unproven technologies, that's why. Quote:
Wrong, young people -unlike you - all around the world want zero emissions NOW. ;) Quote:
And they are seeing billionaires' wealth ballooning, and know, and are demanding governemts can do much more to reach zero emissions. Quote:
Low IQ: not replacement, but in addition. Quote:
Closet green or not, he proves we don't know if we need nuclear (he says we don't) ...but you don't do empirical discovery, in this case because you want to maintain the filthy fossil industry to ensure the survival of private sector profits. Own up, do we need nuclear? Quote:
And he says we don't need nuclear. You? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Belgarion on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 1:15pm
Reality check:
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 2:58pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:
Nope. No formal studies of ground types to determine if the ground is suitable. But keep talking about headlines rather than the actual contents. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:
That figure you keep quoting is the nameplate capacity. Solar output is about 30-35% of nameplate. So keep adding another one and another one. 30% of 40GW won't cut it. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:
But AI is Artificial. It is supposed to be learning. If it only learns what it has been told, it fails. "Future historians may well regard 2023 as a landmark in the advent of artificial intelligence (AI). But whether that future will prove utopian, apocalyptic or somewhere in between is anyone’s guess. " https://theconversation.com/ai-is-our-promethean-fire-using-it-wisely-means-knowing-its-true-nature-and-our-own-minds-219320 You just have naive belief. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:
Yes successivley emptied and filled. But the need to be continually emptied and filled shows that Solar and wind can't cut it. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:
Cheapest at $1.3 trillion? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:
And now those same billionaires are rorting the system with "new" technologies. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:
First you have to have "excess renewables" far in excess of the limited excess. ;) 2MW excess won't push 20MW of storage. ;) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:
Hey. these are your German Green New Dreams, and now you cut them loose because it didn't work? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:
So now they have gone from beneficent billionaires to "greedy a*se"s. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:
And yet you want to commit to Weather Dependant Renewables. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:
Yes they are. As is CCS and a whole lot of other Green Dreams. ;) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:
"ontrary to the last EU election in 2019, when millions of young climate protesters took to Europe's streets, this year's campaign saw climate change usurped by issues including immigration, economic woes and struggling European industries." https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uphill-road-europes-climate-plan-after-eu-election-2024-06-10/ So climate is NOT top of the pops. You are using your belief system again. TBC |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 3:04pm
Cont.
"As a reeling Continent tries to make sense of what just hit it, the role of young voters like the Sylt partygoers is coming into focus as an important factor. In Germany, the share of young people who voted for the AfD jumped between the last European Parliament election in 2019 and this one (rising by 11 percent among voters aged between 24 and 30). In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party raked in some 30 percent of the youth vote nationally — a 10-point rise compared to 2019. Which begs the question: Why are so many of Europe’s Gen-Z and younger Millennials — whose parents and grandparents espoused left-wing politics, ushering in the sexual revolution in the 1960s — embracing the antithesis of their elders’ ideals? And whatever happened to the stigma or shame that once surrounded overtly racist and xenophobic attitudes like those on display in the Sylt video?" https://www.politico.eu/article/far-right-europe-young-voters-election-2024-foreigners-out-generation-france-germany thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:
Addressed above. ;) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:
So now you expect Solar and Wind to never need replacing. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:
Malcolm has NO expertise in Solar, Wind, Storage or Nuclear. He hasn't the knowledge to "prove" anything. ::) And how does Nu8clear become a "filthy fossil industry". But we know you kjeep talking bullschist because that is ALL you have. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:
Far more than Unreliables. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 6:23pm lee wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 2:58pm:
That's the ANU's job. Quote:
30%? So pull your finger out and build 3. The Suncable project planned to cover 12,000 hectares, ie, 1% of the NT's area. Quote:
Wrong again; AI can be programmed to calculate the optimal operation of dam levels, from full to empty, in the multiple storages. Quote:
Wrong again. Successive filling is powered by excess renewables in different locations (excess power when the sun is shining in the north, while not in the south, and vice versa, ditto for wind). Quote:
That figure includes storage. Nuclear only would cost as much, and be a decade too late. Quote:
No they aren't: they ARE wanting government to lay down the rules guaranteeing them hefty returns on investment in sun and wind, while exiting fossils. Quote:
Roof top solar , home batteries and 3 ( there you go) Sun cables plus wind will produce lots of excess than can be stored. Quote:
The Green's New Dreams would have worked if their policies had been implemented, and Germany's nukes maintained. Quote:
That's the private sector for you. Quote:
Using gas as the transitiion firming fuel while turning off coal, to find out if we need nuclear as well as batteries and pumped hydro. Quote:
We need green (hydrogen based) steel, the technology only needs to reach commercial scale. CCS is worse than storing nuclear waste, CO2 can always leak out of the underground chamber. Quote:
ah...caused by your dysfunctional economic orthodoxy and the swing to the right (anti immigration etc) among young people who are equally as deluded as your mainstream economics. But Greta's crowd are as active as ever. Quote:
LOL - in your dreams: the fossil industry is DOOMED. Even Dutton is positing the exit from coal. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 7:01pm lee wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 3:04pm:
Already addressed: the failing national economies around the world leads to RW populism like the AfD and Trump and La Pen, for which your flat-earth mainstream economic orthodoxy is responsible. Quote:
Explained above: "It's the economy, stupid". Quote:
No you didn't: "capitalism sucks " is still alive among many youth, if not among the extreme right who are nevertheless struggling with housing affordability, lack of employment opportunites (both blamed on immigrants), and cost of living pressures. Quote:
Low IQ and dementia: you were talking about replacing renewables with nuclear, we may need both. Of course every energy source has a life span. Quote:
We may need both. Malcolm was PM with access to Oz's best minds on the topic - which proves we don't know - ie, there are divided opinions re whether we need nuclear in the long run (before fusion, that is) or not. Quote:
Low IQ and total confusion: Nuclear is zero emissions (therefore 'clean', apart from the stored waste), fossils are filthy in both climate-wrecking CO2 and other poisonous pollutants. Do try to keep up. Quote:
So you agree we need zero emissions fuels far more than coal? The beginning of wisdom, I suppose. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 7:27pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 6:23pm:
No. The ANU is theoretical application, not physical application. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 6:23pm:
At 3 times the expense, and 3 times the storage expense. Remember what you said about MMT and inflation? ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 6:23pm:
And AI can fail. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 6:23pm:
Ah yes, The sun is always shining somewhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. That doesn't mean the solar and windfarms are where the sun and wind are. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 6:23pm:
The cost of Nuclear has been put at $8-10 million each for Large Nuclear not $80 million. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 6:23pm:
And that is not GREED. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 6:23pm:
No it won't. Rooftop solar isonle effective about 5 hours a day. 3 Suncables is nameplate 60GW. 30% of 60GW is only 18GW. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 6:23pm:
So it was Germany's knee jerk response to Fukushima that was responsible. Damn those left whingers are really dumb. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 6:23pm:
And yet you have championed them. That makes YOU a gullible fool. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 6:23pm:
And Gas is a FOSSIL Fuel. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 6:23pm:
So where will the carbon come from? And that's right though it is not at a commercial scale. Cue Dream the Impossible Dream. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 6:23pm:
Eactly right and yet that is the preferred method of storage by dumb left whingers. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 6:23pm:
So the young voters ARE leaving in droves. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 6:23pm:
And Greta has NO known science, but you believe and that is good enough. ::) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 7:36pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 7:01pm:
And yet it is the left whingers who were leading the charge, not right wingers. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 7:01pm:
The left whinger economies. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 7:01pm:
And yet that was brought about by left whingers, whom you don't want to blame. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 7:01pm:
Yes. Nuclear greater than 60 years, Solar maybe 25 years, wind maybe 20 years onshore. offshore 10-15 years. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 7:01pm:
And Malcolm clearly didn't know. Alan Finkel as Chief Scientist was a neuroscientist. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 7:01pm:
Remember Gas is a FOSSIL fuel. So what are the POISONOUS pollutants> At what level are they poisonous and what is the current level? ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 7:01pm:
Coal is a limited and declinng resource. Haven't you learned anything. That is why RCP8.5, which is predicated on rapidly increasing coal use, is not feasible. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 7:01pm:
For you I fear it is too late. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 24th, 2024 at 5:31pm lee wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 7:36pm:
Both sides are deluded by the current mainstream orthodoxy, as noted in Bill Mitchell's latest article (see the MMT thread): The journey has to start with progressive organisations ........rejecting the mainstream macroeconomic narratives about the government being a household with financial constraints. Quote:
No; actual economics, not your flat-earth variety. Quote:
Wrong again: Thatcher's 'other poeples' money' BS wrecked the post war Keynesian welfare state economies which had created good public services affordable by all, until Friedman and Thatcher f**ked up. Quote:
100% recycling is necessary if we want to avoid drowning in our own waste in air, land and sea. Quote:
Other advisers said nuclear IS required. Quote:
Dementia? We have covered it all before. Fossil pollution is destroying health. (google) But burning fossil fules creates climate change and releases pollutants that lead to early death, heart attacks, respiratory disorders, stroke, asthma, and absenteeism at school and work. It has also been linked to autism spectrum disorder and Alzheimer's disease. Quote:
Thanks for teaching us this (.....), so that leaves gas.....which also destroys health when combusted, as noted above. Quote:
But hopefully it's not to late to save the planet from AGW-CO2, and your "market friendly" profit-gouging filthy fossil industry. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:14pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 5:31pm:
Ooh an MMT'er expounding on MMT. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 5:31pm:
You mean Left whinger economies are not real economies? Go you. ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 5:31pm:
And yet it is the left that have further propogated those philosophies. Go figure. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 5:31pm:
And as you noted those solar and wind turbine manufacturers neet to do their own recycling. That drives costs up. So much for "cheap" renewables. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 5:31pm:
But you were the one lauding him for saying it was not necessary. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 5:31pm:
And yetr you can't cite a study that says that. Fossil fuels have given earth's population extended lifetimes. We are living beyond 40 years. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 5:31pm:
And no link.Who wrote that drivel? You? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 5:31pm:
And yet you now want to use it in place of nuclear. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 5:31pm:
Poor petal. So much angst, so little substance. BTW - did you do your sums on how many Suncables you would need to get your vaunted 40GW? it goes like this - 40GW/30% = approximately 14 Suncable projects. Cheap innit? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D BTW - you forgot your claim on Poisonous fossil fuels. ;) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm lee wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:14pm:
Confirming your flat-earth economics. Quote:
Amazing - another one of your rare correct statements. Quote:
Ideological blindness; Friedman and Thatcher weren't LW. Quote:
See where your flat-earth economics leads you - and the Oz parliament who are arguing over which technology is the most expensive. Your flat-eath economics would have the planet burning before you wake up (...be careful how you reply..you will reveal yourself as a fossil lover) Quote:
Low IQ; he is an example of disagreement among high office holders and among experts. Quote:
Yes, but now there are 8 billion of us trying to consume; all-time high fossil fuel consumption is killing us. Do try to keep up. Quote:
The same people who exposed the tobacco industry. Quote:
Low IQ? As a transition technology to ASAP 100% zero emissions - whether nuclear is required or not. Quote:
Er -- you forgot to refute the points made. Try again. Quote:
Yes... "BTW" , as a diversion from saving the planet from polluting fossil filth and AGW-CO2. Quote:
You omitted rooftop solar (and then there's wind) : https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-21/rooftop-solar-cells-in-australia-to-outperform-demand/103489806 Staggering' rise of rooftop solar to put all other power generation in the shade, report finds There is already almost 20GW of rooftop solar in Australia, but this is forecast to more than triple in coming decades. According to Green Energy Markets, combined rooftop solar capacity will rise to 66GW over the next three decades, even under the most pessimistic scenario. In scenarios where governments took more aggressive action on carbon pricing and incentives for green technology, the forecast uptake would reach almost 100GW over the same period. By comparison, the total capacity of the NEM was about 55GW. Google said suncable was planned to deliver 20 GW; but anyway, it seems small scale (roof-top) solar can supply more enegy than large scale suncable schemes, so 3 or 4 Suncable equivalents should be enough. Quote:
I can't waste time on your dementia; we fully covered poisoinous fossil fuels and destruction of health, a couple a years ago. Others can confirm the egregious reality of polluting fossil poisons on health status. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 24th, 2024 at 8:00pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
Nope, Confirming your circular logic. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
And yet left whingers have been dominating in France, Germany, UK, EU generally. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
Those that folowed in their footsteps were. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
You are the one saying renewables are "cheap". ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
You must explain how a gas that is a fire retardant actually causes "planet burning". ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
And yet you defger to so-called experts; but only as long as they agree with you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
So give us the statistics. Not waffle, Cold still causes more deaths than heat. Of course that is only the Lancet. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
Ah. Now epidemiological studies can determine death causes. You do know tobacco and energy are completely different fields, they have entirely different people working them. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
First off you said nuclear then it was fossil fuel (gas) make up your little mind. ;) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
You haven't made any salient points, with references. Just your usual bullschist claims. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
Nope you made a claim. Back it up. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
As I keep telling you rooftop solar is only good for about 5 hours. Are you really too dumb to understand? ::) "AEMO warns of immediate gas shortfall threat as cold snap, renewable lulls and outages bite" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/aemo-warns-of-immediate-gas-shortage-risks-in-se-australia/104003166 thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
Ooh projections. Now all they have to do is guarantee it will be available when needed. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
So now we are up to 4 Suncables, 24GW in an increasing energy environment. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
Nope. You were hoplessly outclassed then as now. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
Always others, Never you. Because you don't have the necessary skillset. BTW - Did you know rain is naturally acidic? It only gets neutralised and alkalised once it hits the ground. ::) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jun 25th, 2024 at 8:00am
"Matt Kean named head of Climate Change Authority"
That headline alone is proof that Australia's response to the AGW wheeze is a total hoax. There is nothing in the whole world to which Kean or Bowen can possibly be the solution. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 25th, 2024 at 11:46am Frank wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 8:00am:
You showing your complete and utter ideological blindness. Deplorable. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by philperth2010 on Jun 25th, 2024 at 12:13pm
The Coalition and it's brain dead supporters claimed Global Warming was a hoax and Greenhouse gases were good for the environment....Now the denialists are claiming Nuclear Energy is the only thing that can save us from this looming catostrophy they claim is a hoax....The calim that renewable energy will destroy the environment and Nuclear is safe and cheap is a complete load of bullshit....The only reason Dutton is proposing Nuclear Energy is too argue the Coalition is serious about Climate Change whilst maintaining an opposition to renewable energy....The Coalition had a decade to run down Renewable energy only to replace it with the most expensive and long lasting envioromental impacts for centuries to come!!!
::) ::) ::) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-13/dutton-climate-2030-target-emissions-uturn/103970166 |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by aquascoot on Jun 25th, 2024 at 12:59pm
/
|
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm lee wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 8:00pm:
Wrong again, BOTH sides of politics fell into line which is why eg the UK's NHS is dysfunctional after 4 decades of neoliberalism - not that Starmer will be able to fix it after 14 years of Tory rule, because he is committed to Thatcher's low tax/government austerity delusion as well. Quote:
Low IQ supporting blind 'market friendly' ideology; adoption of renewables and closing filthy fossils requires mobilzation of available resources. "Cheap"/"expensive" is merely flat-earth economics (hint: money is created out of thin air by the authorized government agencies , do try to educate yourself) Quote:
Low IQ or bad faith actor: see the AGW-CO2 science. (See, you revealed yourself as an AGW-CO2 denier). Quote:
I agree - along with the majority of people around the world - with the majority IPCC consensus. Quote:
The majority IPCC consensus has all the stats, you are in the minority in rejecting them. Quote:
Your error: your posited "epidemiological studies" as the sole studies re health-destroying effects of smoking is false. Bio-chemical studies are also relevant. You stand exposed as a low IQ fraud. Quote:
No: your blind, low IQ brain has created that false sequence of events; I alway said we should be rolling out renewables asap, and determone whether we need nuclear, and how much, as we approach 100% renewables. Quote:
With the huge excess during that time stored in batteries, with big Suncable schemes in the Northern Oz deserts supporting the grid on cloudy days in the South. And then there's wind; and the Oz grid can be interlinked with areas in which the sun is shining for 12 hours a day, with home batteries supplying night-time energy. Quote:
That's because the SE still isn't connected to a couple of Suncable schemes, because of economic flat-earthers and AGW-CO2 deniers like you. Quote:
20 GW today isn't a "projection": and 100 GW in 3 decades is a certainty if low IQ flat earthers like you get out of the way. Quote:
Correct, on the way to 100GW from rooftop solar alone. Quote:
Funny, coming from an economic flat-earth, AGW-CO2, and poisonous fissil-fuel-pollution denier. Quote:
Unfortunately, your blind ideology always rejects the evidence, and renders invalid any "skill set" you imagine you may have. Quote:
There you go - now you are claiming there is no such thing as damaging acid-rain caused by filthy fossil pollution, because "rain is naturally acidic". Deplorable - confirming your low IQ. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:54pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
The EU is home of the Green Dream, dumbarse. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
And the left whingers could have fixed that. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
And only those " available resources" of which you approve. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
Nope. "Cheap"/"expensive" is also a comparison of quality. A windfarm that may last 20 years or a nuclear plant that will last longer then 60 years. But your ignorance of economics is telling. ;) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
Yes and it never has to have a real value, like crypto. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
So you can't expalin it. I knew that. But it shows you for the numpty you are. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
Oooh you agree with the majority. That is a comforting thought - NOT. The majority IPCC consensus is that there is no climate crisis, we are not on the "Highway to Hell". ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
And yet you never quote them. I will give them to you again, try to learn this time. This is what the IPCC Physical Science Basis shows at Table 12.12 Page 90. 1. High confidence except over a few regions (CNA and NWS) where there is low agreement across observation datasets. 2. High confidence in tropical regions where observations allow trend estimation and in most regions in the mid-latitudes, medium confidence elsewhere. 3. High confidence in all land regions. 4. Emergence in Australia, Africa and most of Northern South America where observations allow trend estimation. 5. Emergence in other regions. 6. Increase in most northern mid-latitudes, Siberia, Arctic regions by mid-century, others later in the century. 7. Decrease in the Mediterranean area, Southern Africa, South-west Australia. 8. Northern Europe, Northern Asia and East Asia under RCP8.5 and not in low-end scenarios. 9. Europe, Eastern and Western North America (snow). 10. Arctic (snow). 11. Arctic sea ice only. 12. Everywhere except WAN under RCP8.5. 13. With varying area fraction depending on basin. 14. Pacific and Southern oceans then many other region Explanation for the index from page 90. Doesn't look that scary. Nothing before 2050 using the discredited RCP8.5 It can also be found at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12.pdf page 90of 160 or page 1856 of the whole report. thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
That's for smoking. As I have said before the nicotine can be found in the lungs. Now show us the Bio-chemical studies for PM2.5. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
And you are still weeded to the idea of renewables, even though they need replacing much more often than nuclear. "But it is all free money so it doesn't count" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
Huge stored amount? Tell us about the huge stored amount in SE Australia at the moment. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
So tell us where the sun shines 12 hours a day. I am interested. TBC |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 25th, 2024 at 2:02pm http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/maps/averages/sunshine-hours/ Hours sunshine - NO average 12 hour days. thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
It still has rooftop solar. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
20GW today doesn't exist. Therefore it is a projection. ::) 100GW in 3 decades, that is slower than building nuclear at more than 100GW. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
But you just said that in the SE it wasn't working, make up your mind. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
Still stuck on your preferredmethod of attack I see. No facts, just opinions, which are valueless. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
And yet I cite science and you don't. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:00pm:
Where did I claim that? You really need to comprehend the written word. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 25th, 2024 at 3:17pm lee wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 2:02pm:
The "wriiten word" being: BTW - Did you know rain is naturally acidic? It only gets neutralised and alkalised once it hits the ground. Your low IQ, incompetence, and ideological blindness neatly revealed in those two lines alone. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 25th, 2024 at 3:53pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 3:17pm:
And nothing there about human caused acid rain. You keep seeing things that aren't there. ::) Such a tiny brain seeing only what it wants to see. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by SadKangaroo on Jun 25th, 2024 at 5:09pm aquascoot wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 12:59pm:
I love it when those with a hardon against renewables feign concern about climate change and how "green" renewable alternatives to burning coal or gas are to argue against doing anything about reducing emissions. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Carl D on Jun 25th, 2024 at 5:19pm SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 5:09pm:
lol.. I had to look back to see what he'd posted. For a minute there I thought he'd just posted "/" which, in my opinion, would have been the most intelligent post he's made lately. :) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 25th, 2024 at 9:34pm lee wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 3:53pm:
Half-wit: one of the many reasons to close filthy fossils is because of human caused acid rain. Quote:
Couldn't have said it better myself - though 'half-wit' is less verbose. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 26th, 2024 at 3:09pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 9:34pm:
So you have learned nothing of coal power scrubbers. You are so last century. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 9:34pm:
Ok You are a half-wit, A lack-wit whatever you want to call yourself. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You still fall back on AGW-CO2 and yet you don't do science. You just have this belief system. ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 30th, 2024 at 2:23pm lee wrote on Jun 26th, 2024 at 3:09pm:
Low IQ: I said ONE of MANY reasons fossils are injurious to health, as we have discussed in depth on several occasions: your early onset dementia is showing. Quote:
I'm listening to the IPCC majority AGW science, yes, but I also know we have to close the filthy injurious to health fossil industry in any case. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jun 30th, 2024 at 2:31pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 30th, 2024 at 2:23pm:
And yet you have provided nothing except for smoking. Smoking is entirely optional. First class electricity is not an option, it is a must. So give us the "MANY reasons". With links of course. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 30th, 2024 at 2:23pm:
So you proved you could not read the graphic I posted of the Physical SCIENCE Basis. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 1:11pm lee wrote on Jun 30th, 2024 at 2:31pm:
No I proved you are like the knight in the Monty Python sketch: AGW climate change is begining to concern everyone now - except you. And major cities are banning diesel ICE vehicles for a reason.... |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by John Smith on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 2:16pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 1:11pm:
;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 3:39pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 1:11pm:
Nope. You haven't even proved that. "There’s been a decline in the breadth of support for wind and solar power. "Interest in buying an electric vehicle (EV) is lower than a year ago" "The survey, conducted May 13-19 among 8,638 U.S. adults, finds a fairly modest share of U.S. adults (25%) say it’s extremely or very important to them personally to limit their own “carbon footprint.” " https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/06/27/how-americans-view-national-local-and-personal-energy-choices/ And of course the Green parties suffered huge losses in the EU elections, on the back of young people. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 1:11pm:
Where are Diesel vehicles banned? |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by Frank on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 8:29pm
Smith backs nuclear, says CSIRO ‘misled’ government
Renowned Australian businessman John` Smith has backed the Coalition’s nuclear energy push and called on the Albanese government to scrap the “absolutely ridiculous” nuclear moratorium. Mr Smith said the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator “misled” the government and were “completely biased” against nuclear energy because they were afraid of “offending the party in power”. Mr Smith ran a newspaper advertisement spruiking nuclear energy and warning of blackouts in a future of entirely wind and solar power generation. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 1:49pm lee wrote on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 3:39pm:
https://www.prinsautogas.com/en/news/four-major-cities-move-ban-diesel-vehicles-2025 Four major cities move to ban diesel vehicles by 2025 The use of diesel in transport has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, as concerns about its impact on air quality have grown. The World Health Organization (WHO) says that around three million deaths every year are linked to exposure to outdoor air pollution. But manufacturers misled governments about their ability to clean up the local pollution effects, so now diesel vehicles are being banned to clean up local air. As for the UK : All new petrol and diesel-powered cars and vans are set to be banned from sale in the UK in 2035, following a government move to postpone the measure that was originally scheduled to come into effect in 2030. (Hmm... my VW Transporter diesel will be fine in Oz, then). |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 6:05pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 1:49pm:
So none are banned as yet. ::) I wonder what they will do when they realise their deliveries of food etc are from diesel powered trucks. They can carry more for longer. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 1:49pm:
And not yet in the UK. There is many a slip between cup and lip. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by thegreatdivide on Jul 4th, 2024 at 12:34pm lee wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 6:05pm:
Don't you worry about that - o ye of little vision: hydrogen fuel cells for larger trucks are already under development with some on the road. Quote:
2035 sees the end of ICE vehicle production. Quote:
But your crippled brain has scant capacity to determine the slips. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jul 4th, 2024 at 1:08pm thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 12:34pm:
And the cost of hydrogen vs power out. Under development? pilot projects. Let us know when the real projects start. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 12:34pm:
Maybe. Things in the future are not written in stone. "Europe steps back from 2035 ICE ban" https://www.sae.org/news/2023/03/european-ice-ban Do try to keep up. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 12:34pm:
And yet you are the one sipping the Kool-Aid. ::) |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by SadKangaroo on Jul 4th, 2024 at 1:45pm lee wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 6:05pm:
They really should though. Diesel emissions are some of the worst, especially in terms of carcinogens. I am part of the problem though with the work ute. |
Title: Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Post by lee on Jul 4th, 2024 at 2:09pm SadKangaroo wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 1:45pm:
You mean like PM2.5 where even academics have doubts about it? Do you use LNT also as the metric? It has been shown that people can recover from radiation, so LNT is a bust. They use radioactive emissions in cancer treatment. ::) |
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved. |