Climate Change Debate Thread

How can you possibly say this ? This would be like a Colombian in the 80s saying there is no cocaine issue as Colombians dont use that much.

 

As I covered in my original post.

Let's say tomorrow. ScoMo announces that all production of coal and gas were to stop. No more!
Do you really think that China, India and all other recipients of our exports are simply going to say. "Oh, gee, Australia is no longer mining coal. Better shut our coal fired power plants and steel mills." "That's it ladies and gentleman, get out your wind mills coal is dead".
Please. Give it a rest.
They would have new contracts signed and sealed before you could say "Good one ScoMo we are now heading for economic suicide"

Not to mention, since I already did, that Australian coal is cleaner than a of of overseas coal and therefore by cutting Oz coal out the equation you will likely see a negative impact on the environment...

Our global emission are less than 2%. Period. You can't start including things that someone else burns. They will burn it with or without us.

edit; link to global coal reserves incase you think coal burners can't survive without us.
Which countries have the highest coal reserves in the world?

 

So we're just going to do nothing?

As pointed out numerous times, the rest of the world is rapidly moving away from coal (including China and India) - even the USA where the governments are rusted on fossils - and Australia needs to set a foundation for transition away from coal. Both for personal use and for export.

If not, within the next 20 years we'll be caught with a product no one wants (ergo no income and no jobs) - a national grid structure that fails regularly - and a country that is either in constant drought/fire or flood

If you think 20 years is waaaaaay in the future - cast your mind back the last 20 years to 2000. Still feels like only a few years ago (still got the hangover), yet the technology has changed so significantly in that period - and accelerating.

Australia needs action now with a solid long term vision, achievable long term plan and not just the current papering over of the gaps and loophole accounting

 

Please read my original post. I am clearly stating that we must do something.

But by putting forward suggestions that by Australia stopping to supply China etc with coal it will actually have an effect, you dilute the argument. Most people know that this will cripple our economy and not make one iota of difference.

I said in my original post that we need to reduce per capita emissions. We do. And we must.

It won't make much difference to global emissions. But as you say, we need to start now so that we can work towards a renewable future.

I 100% agree with you on needing an achievable long term plan. That was kinda my point. Not a knee jerk reaction based on hysterical claims about the bush fires.

Please read my original post and reply with your thoughts.

 

Okay - then why put a comment such as "Let's say tomorrow. ScoMo announces that all production of coal and gas were to stop. No more!" That is a ridiculous statement because no one - including those who are passionate about moving on from fossil fuels - is demanding this.

And this was my reply ... "the rest of the world is rapidly moving away from coal (including China and India) - even the USA where the governments are rusted on fossils - and Australia needs to set a foundation for transition away from coal. Both for personal use and for export.

If not, within the next 20 years we'll be caught with a product no one wants (ergo no income and no jobs) - a national grid structure that fails regularly - and a country that is either in constant drought/fire or flood"

The problem is that the current (and past for the last 20+ years) governments have failed to acknowledge the situation and forward plan for any semblance of a transition. They simply spout "head in the sand" business as usual rhetoric - and approve new coal mines

 

I've mention this organisation previously which is developing climate modelling but forgot to provide the link. So here it is. Caltech.

Home

 

I'm not sure why we need to copy and paste our previous posts... It is all there to be read. But needs to be read in full.

My clearly over the top example of ScoMo was in reply to radson who was countering a previous post of mine, that Australia was not a heavy polluter globally, by posting a table showing that we export fossil fuels. I won't explain my position on this again, as I have rebutted this point twice and have not yet had a reasonable rebuttal as to why my opinion is incorrect. However the reason for posting the extreme example was to point out the gaping hole in his argument.

As for coal.
Coal is a commodity, it is cyclical, naturally there will come a time when it is no longer in demand.
However I am not sure I agree that this is happening rapidly as you say.

Here's an exert from IEA's report on Coal 2019.
"The IEA expects coal-fired electricity to rise only marginally between 2020 and 2024, at less than 1% a year, which should see its share of the global electricity mix fall to 35% in 2024 from 38% last year."

Mining companies control the amount of coal that is exported, not the government. If demand falls then production will fall accordingly. I do not think the government should interfere with market forces in relation to our export of coal.

As for government action, I have already posted my opinion on this twice, so I'm not going to repeat it again. We essentially agree.
I'll say again, my position is pretty clear in my original post if you take the time to read it.
Climate Change Debate Thread

 

This goes to show you know nothing about how or why climate change is happening. You state we are 1.1% of global emissions, which is a common argument. Completely ignoring the compounding effect of this over a long period of time. This 1.1% doesn't disappear, it continually builds. I realise you picked a random number to get your point across but your just factually wrong.

 

ok that’s actually fair. I probably got a bit carried away with that one. It may have delayed the current climate situation a little bit.

Let's take a look at that.

"The World Resources Institute estimates that Australia was responsible for 1.1% of all CO2emissions between 1850 and 2002.[5]"

So, between 1850 and 2002 is 152 years.
1.1% of 152 years is 1.6 years.
So you are correct. If we add a bit for the extra 18 years. The current bush fire season we have just experienced would have been 20 months later...
IF Australia had zero emissions ever....
Which is unrealistic but I'll give you the 20 months anyway.

Again. I will state. We MUST adapt and create sensible policies for a renewable future.
But we MUST do it without the hysterics around the current situation including blaming our current government for a fire season that is 98.9% caused by the actions of: past governments, from countries other than our own.

 

Unfortunately - with the public hysteria the government (all governments) has a history of doing sweet nothing.

I agree, the current government was simply at the pointy end of 40 years of inaction ... it's been 40 years since the CSIRO first identified climate change as an issue, and predicted massive climate induced bushfires around 2020

 

Sadly, I think you are right.

it feels to me like there is little room for middle ground in this debate. From both governments and the public.
Which is where my frustration comes from. We must find a balance and achieve bipartisan support. Otherwise it will be very difficult to actually acheive a successful transition.

The one positive is that some of our state governments are just getting on with it despite lack of action from a federal level. I saw last week that SA is to be connected to the NSW electricity grid in the near future.

This will provide a better business case for energy companies to continue to invest in SA based renewables.

Aussie researchers are also making big moves for new battery technology.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/res...rd-battery-of-the-future-20200109-p53q5s.html

The other no brainer for me is nuclear, to provide affordable base load power, but it appears Australian's are too ill-informed and the politicians too weak to have this conversation.

 

Sorry - meant it to say "without" public hysterical they do nothing

 

I was very anti-nuclear ... until I took the time to read up on the new Travelling Wave technology - that governments seem determined to stifle (perhaps backed by the fossil industry). All current nuclear plants run on technology 60-80 years old ... which is shown to be extremely dangerous if something goes wrong

Now I'd like to see the first full scale prototype of this technology/plant constructed so the world can see for themselves

The Traveling Wave Reactor: Design and Development - ScienceDirect

 

Thanks for the link.
That sounds very promising, especially being able to use spent uranium...

Interestingly, and it rebuts my above comment, in the US they are now achieving utility scale solar for less per MWh than nuclear... The only caveat here is having large scale batteries or hydro storage along side the solar plants.

A few notes;
* battery lifespan. I'm not sure about the big battery but the warranty for standard Tesla batteries is only 8 years... Hopefully our Aussie scientists at Monash (as above) can help solve this issue.
There are also major environmental issues with all lithium ion batteries.

* There wasn't mention of lifespan of the panels either. Is this cost per MWh comparing apples with apples? I didn't find an answer to this, but I think not.

So are we ready for 100% renewable?
With two coal stations due to close this decade, you would hope we can replace that with renewable fairly easily.
Another 6 are planned to close between 2030-40. That is some 12,180MW.
I feel like this is going to be harder to achieve, but with a decade to plan and implement, it should be possible.
If we can build this to power Singapore, we can build another one to power ourselves...
Australia to Build the World’s Largest Solar Farm to Power Singapore

However this project is absolutely enormous.
The Nyngan solar plant in NSW has 1.35 million solar panels and only outputs 102MW.
So this new plant is going to need something like 132 million panels...
Well I guess we have the land for it...

But that is what it will take, that is only 10,000MW, to replace all of the coal fired power stations we would need around double that. Obviously not all will come from solar. But I would guess that the majority probably will.

The above plan seems to be allowing 8 years from the announcement, probably had at least 12 months in planning prior to that. So it is essentially a decade to bring to production.

As a side note, the misnomer that modern nuclear plants are based on 80 year old technology is false. People associate nuclear with Chernobyl. But modern plants are so much more technologically advanced and secure than the old plants.
Fukushima was a result of poor location - earth quake prone area near salt water... Bad combo.
We are lucky to have much more secure geographic locations.
Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors | Generation III+ Nuclear Reactors - World Nuclear Association

 

The future of coal has already been decided in boardrooms around the globe

"These weren't knee-jerk reactions to the horror, the wholesale destruction and tragic loss of life across rural Australia, unfolding on television screens around the world.

Nor were they the actions of the "green left".

These were considered, long-term, strategic decisions made individually by disparate groups united by a single cause — the unbridled pursuit of profit.

The message each is broadcasting is clear. When it comes to investment, coal, particularly thermal coal for electricity generation, has little, if any, future.

It's a message our politicians should heed if they want to limit the damage to communities that rely upon the coal industry."

 

Do we need the land for mass solar plants - or simply evoke the "internet" model and divest the power from a solitary site?

I've got a 6.6kwh system, with battery, that provides (year round average) 65% of our power needs. I'm not shy about using the aircon (currently on now), dryer in winter and I don't get fussy about the "time of day" for other appliances ... we could easily produce more than 100% if we doubled the size on our roof, which has plenty of room.

Now - I know not everyone has sufficient roof space for their personal use, such as apartments, and we do need a higher base load for industry and public infrastructure but the technology to produce solar power is advancing in leaps ... solar film - nano-particle hairs - road material - night time panels (see the "exciting developments" thread) ... combined with mini-grids that can feed into each other if required ...

 

Very true, and I agree.
I have often said that if every building in Australia doesn't have some form of solar in 50 years time we will have failed.

It does create some issues with the grid though, WA is getting close to having too many roof top panels. Not a problem as such, but will require investment in the grid to deal with it and it needs to be part of the plan.
How the runaway success of rooftop solar in WA is a warning for all Australia

 

Yes, but IMO this is a jobs creation issue more than a renewable future issue.
Coal mines will continue to run until they are no longer economical. Like all types of mines and industries throughout history.

There will still be a vast mining industry in Australia.
Steel will still be in demand so iron ore and coal will still be required for this.
Copper demand is increasing as everything we own now has electronics.
Uranium, lithium, gold etc etc etc

We should also be piping water from our tropical areas to irrigate more farm land and create a larger agricultural industry which will go some way to offsetting job loses and GDP in the coal industry.

 

... and that's why I keep harping on about the need for a foundation, either physically or via legislation, must put in place by our governments (federal, state, local) - and soon. If they don't begin investing in grid upgrade and power storage very soon, we'll be caught out badly

 

Al Jazeera have just released an excellent documentary on the climate denial machine. Pretty damning stuff, including a prominent ex-denier who explains how they succeeded in getting so many to accept such bunkum.

Sadly the bad guys lost on the science but won the war- if you want to manipulate and deceive millions of people against science to protect your bottom line then you do it by stealthily embedding your commercial interests in such a way that they'll defend them based on emotion and political tribalism. This ingenious strategy was crafted quickly but took years to employ.

The Campaign Against the Climate: Debunking climate change denial