Climate Change Performance Indicator

18% Nuclear.

Australia = 0%

Land mass of UK tiny.

Australia huge.

Transmission losses are a major factor for Australia.

 

Not sure where you got the mis-information about mismanagement. The fire brigades and governments have been bending over backwards for 5+ years to try and get hazard reduction burns to happen, but they are totally reliant of favourable weather conditions - and social factors. Sadly, over those 5+ years conditions have not be favourable.

They can't burn off if it's too hot - if it's too windy - if it's too wet - if it's too dry ... and if there is a social event (ie, fun run) ... they are prevented from burning off as they risk the fire from becoming uncontrollable, it won't ignite or they get in trouble with the populace. And the Greens are most certainly NOT against hazard reductions burns, as 10+ years of FB posts and tweets will attest to.

Listening to the radio, I caught the end of a talk from a government climate specialist (didn't catch a name or department) who wanted the information to get out that 2019 was abnormally hot - and exceptionally dry - and that this is the first time in recorded history that these two factors have overlapped ... previously it has either been hot and wet (monsoonal) or cool and dry (non-monsoonal) ... if that's not a change in climate then I'm not sure what is.

People have to realise that change in climate causes weather - not changes in weather causing climate

 

That the great thing about renewables - they can be set up in smaller networks so do not require extensive grids. Pretty sure, with Australia's natural assets, we can follow suit without the addition of nuclear ... however ... this factor that I'm pointing to is the UK significant reduction in reliance on coal, and if Australia insists on going down the coal path while the rest of the world is shedding it's usage, we will be caught out badly

 

There really is no downside to taking action

 

What renewable's are you referring to? Using a catch-all is hardly productive.

I'm all for technological innovation, show me the science based solutions people are putting forward so i can get behind them.

 

But it has to be a catch all ... as often pointed out it is a combination of production and storage options that is required to ensure continuation of supply ... there is no benefit to limiting the country to one form of supply so why would we?

 

Is there some instance, even theoretical that can show self sustainment on renewables you suggest?


That's what I mean by a catchall, just say renewables and people are to agree, yeah, renewables will fix it, the government needs to fund renewables. 99% have no idea what that entails, so how can they possibly be informed?

I haven't once suggested we should only use coal energy, seems a bit of a misnomer to straw man me like that when I'm completely for innovation/efficiency/technological advancement.

Not sure where Thorium reactors are at, but supposedly they burn 97% of the fuel and have very little waste, seems like a good way to go to reduce carbon emissions.

Even nuclear as it stands would stop carbon production from fossil fuels, killed far less people than coal ever has, and can provide the energy required to capture carbon from the atmosphere that is so desperately needed as everyone claims.

 

Not sure what your point is.

No one says the government should fund renewables, but they do need to put in the foundation legislation so private industry feels secure in investing in such. ATM the government is still pushing coal.

Technology is changing so rapidly that our backwards looking government is in danger of being caught out ... and hence Australia

Only have to look at the likes of Craig Kelly as an example of backward narrow thinking, who made such a fool of himself on international television the other day spruiking coal to a country that is no longer in reliance on such, in complete denial about climate change and the future of technology ... when one does deeper research, apparently he's at the core of the backroom faction that supports fossils fuels at all cost. Makes one wonder what kickbacks he's getting. ... but that is also what is at the core of the government of today

I'm currently on my phone, but if you Google the stats of many Europe counties, they are not reliant on coal. Several use nuclear, but also have to remember that they are blanketed in snow for several months of the year and don't have our 24/7/365 sun/wind assests ... and using the UK as an example ... they are 32% reliant on nuclear and a smidge of coal. This means they use 68% renewables. For a country with little sun, and snowed in winters ...

 

Given that is IS a discussion about man made CC, are you in the wrong thread?

Yeah, that number looks a little weird. When I read it again, it looks like they mean that $372b is 10% of fossil fuel subsidies. That is a significant amount to be spent by governments to promote renewables, this would be on TOP of private investment.

 

Supposedly!! Why not use technology that actually works now and has a considerably shorter start up time. Plus, its very very expensive compared to renewables, so for the same $ we get more generation faster. For security purposes, I also prefer more decentralised solutions.

The next climate denier argument is about storage/baseload/etc. This has been addressed many times.

Can renewables provide baseload power?

BTW, I am not pro or anti nuclear. In fact I would love for Australia to become a nuclear waste storage place. We have lots of empty land, good stable geology, scientific knowhow, a somewhat stable western government. The revenue would be immense.

Here is a wonderful example of what you can do with renewables. We do this in South Australia. NOW. Not in 30 years.

Home - Sundrop

 

Published but I guess not many of the representatives go to the Parliamentary Library to read these.

The potential for renewable energy to provide baseload power in Australia – Parliament of Australia

 

I'm saying they need to be researched further, it sounds too good to be true, as thorium is 3 times more abundant than uranium.

That report is saying that "Biomass (burning vegetation)" would be used to supply baseload power currently, isn't that burning carbon which we are trying to move away from, also biogas which is methane is also a greenhouse gas, as farting cows are also blamed for global warming.

If Australia adopted nuclear power to supplant coal fired supply then we could be net negative if we employed carbon capture technology.

We actually burn average grade coal in australia and the best stuff is sent overseas, as china and overseas interests own the coal in australia and export it.

There will still be high demand for coking coal to refine iron ore into steel as it will be needed to build dams/solar panels/wind turbines etc.

Decentralised is definitely good, we have distributed computing that is far more effective than centralized for data processing, we could definitely do it for energy generation, especially given the land area Australia has on offer.

There is technology for solar glass, so many new buildings should have forms of energy production, they could be their own power plants essentially, I've seen some good designs that have passive cooling as well, so no need for demanding air-con.

Has there been any self sufficient communities built in Australia, off the grid that is, using renewables/solar/battery, as well as off grid sewer treatment and water?

 

By all means, lets do research. But work needed to start 20 years ago on carbon free energy sources. How long until this tech is safe and viable? What are the risks and hazards? How long does it take to plan and build?

Biomass is burning green stuff and then growing more green stuff to burn. The key point is we grow stuff to burn, we don't use fossil fuels, we burn carbon that has been store in plants.

I want to see more research into using chemical or biological processes to create fuels from atmospheric carbon.

I'm sure there are self sufficient communities. The tech for this exists, all these problems have been solved, but communities don't necessarily need to be "off the grid".

 

The proof is in the pudding ... and I add this fire season is just one canary in the coal mine (unfortunate metaphor)

(in chart below the observations are in red, with estimate beyond 2019 and the model projections are within the range of the blue band, the black line represents the mean model projection)

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

Extract:

For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels, and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however, is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been?

Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: most of the models have been quite accurate.

 

Thought this was interesting for those who are more visual rather than chart driven:

 

What I find frustrating is, not only a CSIRO report of 40 years ago commissioned by the federal government, warned the of the situation we are now in ... but there is another government commissioned report from 12 years ago stating "exactly" what would happen by 2020 and is now unfolding.

Every government, stretching back 40 years, has been aware of the situation but chosen to ignore or deny what their own scientists investigated, concluded and reported

"The Garnaut Climate Change Review's final report said projections of fire weather suggest that fire seasons will start earlier, end slightly later, and generally be more intense.

This effect increases over time, but should be directly observable by 2020"

Garnaut Climate Change Review - Wikipedia

How a climate change study from 12 years ago warned of this horror bushfire season

 

Yes the long term trend within that timeframe is increasing.
There is however bias introduced by truncating the data to this period and here is an example:

Look at a smaller subset of data within that 110 yrs.... For example 1967 to 1976 there is a trend down so “obviously we did something great in the late 60’s” to push down average temps for a few years....

Now scale that data sub-set from ~10 yrs, to ~100 yrs to ~1,000 yrs to 10,000 yrs.... is there any evidence of macro climate cycles? Yes there is and this is what a lot of climate change deniers often refer to, so, using the following long term global CO2 trends is a far better way, IMHO, to demonstrate the relative urgency of the problem: Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet as it can be coupled with the temp data to clearly demonstrate we have a rather urgent problem (in earth’s history terms)

 

Currently coal exports account for 67 billion dollars in revenue for Australia in 2018. To implement world climate change protocols right now for the next decade would stipulate shutting down this export trade which is Australia's number one source of revenue. It was also entail introducing more taxes to fund developing so they can get out of poverty and to afford renewables themselves.
With both Labor/Green and Liberal/National already implementing globalist free trade agreements we have moved almost all manufacturing jobs to other countries. We have also sold many of our agriculture industries, port and energy infrastructure to overseas interests.
When you tax a country and make running costs too high, reduce competitiveness and most small and medium businesses will have no option but to let go workers and shut down businesses. You effectively going from a diverse mixed economy into one that is purely reliant on education and tourism. The finance industry is already dangerously exposed to derivatives and some of the largest companies are operating at junk status with their balance sheets. With the ageing population we have many people who are currently on 7 percent guaranteed portfolios in an environment where many countries are close to or already at negative interest rates. Japan is a prime example here. There is a shortfall that will need to be made up, particularly for government employees, so the government will need to fund this out our taxes.
Once you knee cap Australia this way, you wont be investing in any new technology or green jobs.
Australia currently already sits on 20 percent renewables and accounts for roughly 1 percent of all of the worlds emissions. This going to 100 percent renewables urgency in the current form wont make any difference to the temperature of the planet, it may in fact it may just make things worse.

 

So your point is Australia has ****ed up its economy to such an extent the only way it can sustain itself is by continuing to sell coal?

You are seriously pushing this point despite billions lost locally due to bushfire even this year? Never mind moving forward to the next 10 years which will more than likely cost us more than 100bn+ due to climate disasters.. let's just give up eh?

You are defending an export industry that will be probably dead in 10 years because only 3 countries out of 195 want this commodity?

Giving up and refusing to acknowledge climate change and going against maybe 90% of the rest of the *civilised* world who are at least trying do something is showing true leadership ?

A 5 year old won't do something because the other boy in the class refuses to do the same.. When one grows to be an adult, one realises you need to set an example, because unless you so, the rest of the world will continue to act like children.

You can give up all you like, but there are many left in Australia that will not be doing so any time soon.

In fact, if you are so completely defeatist, why are you even bothering to continue posting on this issue?

 

Look at this way, the scientists at the IPCC are saying that the world has 12 years to decarbonise otherwise permanent damage is done and catastrophe will result. Firstly China produces more total C02 than the U.S. and Europe combined, more than a 1/4 of all total emissions. Australia produces 1 percent. Most manufacturing is now done in China and we along with almost every other country are now importers from China. We along with most of the 1st world countries don't make anything anymore. China has the largest population in the world and has the fastest rate of industrialisation going on. Australia exports it's coal to China. If we ban these exports to China we will easily decrease our emissions whereas China will continue to use coal but import the coal from other counties. They will not decarbonise in the next decade, it's not feasible. It should have been done 40 years ago before the UN thought about the globalisation strategy.
I'm not defending any export industry, just saying how I see it. Anything we do in the next 10 years, well the planet won't feel the effects for at least another 40 years, so we will keep getting bush fires, droughts and floods, and emmissions will keep rising. I'm happy shut up and leave it up to you guys to talk among yourselves here, after all who needs all the abuse and insults.