There is a lot of land but its not really suitable for solar due to the heat island effect. There are already studies done on this where land temperatures in desert areas rise 4-5 degrees hotter than normal with solar panels, as deserts are naturally reflective of sunlight, but become absorbers with big black solar panels on them. Its why I much prefer rooftops.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
There is a lot of land but its not really suitable for solar due to the heat island effect. There are already studies done on this where land temperatures in desert areas rise 4-5 degrees hotter than normal with solar panels, as deserts are naturally reflective of sunlight, but become absorbers with big black solar panels on them. Its why I much prefer rooftops.
We always talk about land use, and its a good discussion to have, but what I don't get is we grow crops on land to feed to cattle and then complain there isn't enough land, when we have a massive amount of oceans that attack as co2 sinks (and therefore build up the amount of co2 in them) when we also have the fastest growing crops in the world (seaweeds) that are grown in saltwater and EXTRACT co2 from the water to grow and replace with oxygen.
I'm still flabbergasted that we do not harvest the seas like this, sea farms set up for seaweed production for either human or animal use just seems like a no brainer for me. I just don't get what its not at the forefront of the future change that we are trying to drive. We talk about areas of the sea that do not have enough oxygen any longer to sustain life, yet more crop growth in these areas will replenish oxygen into the seas and cool them at the same time by removing co2 from the carbon sink that is the ocean.
Willo is just highlighting that nuclear is used when it is the best and cheapest option. (which kinds contradicts his posts trying to suggest people are scared of the word.) And shouldnt be used when it is not.
There are a lot of considerations as I said earlier.
also a lot of land “ just a couple of inland form the coast” would need to be cleared. That rules out any National Parks, Tribal lands, farmland(?)/ grazing land/primary producing. Also deforestation, well that’s a contradiction for renewables if you start cutting down forests.
I don’t know why I’m suddenly accused of being against renewables, as I’ve had rooftop solar for 12 years and have a home battery, just shows some people’s ignorance.
Ive said it needs to be a mix of renewables and a reliable solution for baseload energy.
There are still a lot of alternatives to look into and utilise. With the vast amount of ocean surrounding us, this provides another avenue as you suggest.
I’m not sure if cattle feed lots from seaweed would be on the cards though. There are some climate activists who want an end to cattle because of all the methane they produce.
Last edited:
Won't work, it leeches out, even the Finland example above only theoretically stores the waste for 100,000 years - that's not even half the length of time needed and it is dubious anyway.
The suggestion to shove it underground in the middle of Australia has some superficial appeal, but when the radioactive waste leeches into the Great Artesian Basin then you understand what a problem this is.
They do store it underground in New Mexico, unfortunately some of the waste blew up in 2014 and radioactive waste did escape into the environment.
And they reckon they can store this for 250,000 years? I can see the pigs flying past my window now.
As for the subs, I am not really worried about the waste because I doubt they will ever happen as underwater drones will take over. In any case, how many US administrations have to agree to this before we get them? Also, it is notable that the US is building less Virginia Class subs in the short term so there will be no spares for us. Good thing, expensive folly getting the subs and the idea we will be building the new model with the UK, given our lack of expertise, just sounds like a subsidy to the US and UK defence industries.
The solution to climate change is renewables. The reality is that there is not an inexhaustible supply of fuel unless we go renewable. Given the harm fossil fuels do, we need to transition, should have started and accelerated the transition years ago, and now we have to move even faster.
DS
Doesn't rule out tribal land. A lot of aboriginal landowners have cut deals for big solar farms.There are a lot of considerations as I said earlier.
also a lot of land “ just a couple of inland form the coast” would need to be cleared. That rules out any National Parks, Tribal lands, farmland(?)/ grazing land/primary producing. Also deforestation, well that’s a contradiction for renewables if you start cutting down forests.
I don’t know why I’m suddenly accused of being against renewables, as I’ve had rooftop solar for 12 years and have a home battery, just shows some people’s ignorance.
Ive said it needs to be a mix of renewables and a reliable solution for baseload energy.
There are still a lot of alternatives to look into and utilise. With the vast amount of ocean surrounding us, this provides another avenue as you suggest.
I’m not sure if cattle feed lots from seaweed would be on the cards though. There are some climate activists who want an end to cattle because of all the methane they produce.
Talking of superficial appeal, I hear this view over and over again, applied to submarines, warships and aircraft. But totally misunderstands the capabilities of unmanned craft.
They will become a big part of the mix, yes. Enhancing immensely the capability of manned craft. And reduce the fleet needed of manned craft. But won’t replace them entirely.
Think of a manned submarine as a mothership, carrying a fleet of unmanned minisubs. This is what will develop in years to come. Unless they too are nuclear powered, drone subs are not a like for like replacement for a nuclear sub (and likely not even then). Probably a perfect mix for a country like Australia that can only afford and crew a small fleet of manned subs (whether we had drone subs launching from a fleet of nuclear or conventional subs, it is a very handy enhancement).
I agree the sub deal could still not come to fruition, but won’t be for the reason you state above.
Last edited:
A really tricky situation when there likely isn’t even close to the quantities of required materials needed in the world to create enough renewable generation to meet global energy demand. So that isn’t inexhaustible either. Far from it.
Heard an engineer specialist in the area on ABC recently, who was saying people struggle to understand the immensity (beyond comprehension, such is the immensity) of how much renewable infrastructure would be needed to match the energy density of existing fossil fuels and nuclear power. So immense he said that he feared (well he didn’t just fear, he was pretty certain on it) it is a physical impossibility.
Reading between the lines. He seemed to suggest that unless by some miracle a barely tested technology like nuclear fusion was made viable and rolled out in QuickTime (not going to happen) we’re pretty much screwed. And that’s even leaving climate change effects of fossil fuels aside for a moment. Even if we pumped every last drop of oil and gas out of the ground, dug up every last ounce of coal, this one off energy sugar hit of the past couple of hundred years is likely coming to an end within a generation or two.
I think even some of the climate change deniers subconsciously realise this, so their defence mechanism is to deny with fingers in ears (lalala) than acknowledge the extremities of this bind we find ourselves.
Yep, the energy hungry economy we have created is unsustainable. Rising energy costs will happen. If we rely on fossil fuels they will get more expensive as the sources for fossil fuels get more difficult to exploit. Same applies to nuclear, not a fossil fuel, but also not renewable.
Then add in the resources we use to respond to the damage climate change is already doing.
A large part of the solution is going to have to be either way more efficient use of energy, or a less energy intensive economy.
The economist Steve Keen is always going on about thermodynamics, the argument being that there is a limited amount of energy available on this planet, and we have been using stored energy in the form of fossil fuels way too quickly, for it to be sustainable even before you consider the environmental effects.
This is not going to be pretty but we should have started transitioning a lot earlier.
DS
Then add in the resources we use to respond to the damage climate change is already doing.
A large part of the solution is going to have to be either way more efficient use of energy, or a less energy intensive economy.
The economist Steve Keen is always going on about thermodynamics, the argument being that there is a limited amount of energy available on this planet, and we have been using stored energy in the form of fossil fuels way too quickly, for it to be sustainable even before you consider the environmental effects.
This is not going to be pretty but we should have started transitioning a lot earlier.
DS
The UN agency's annual State of the Global Climate report confirmed it wasn't just the hottest year on record, ocean heat reached its highest level since records began, global mean sea level also reached a record high and Antarctic sea ice reached a record low.
www.abc.net.au
There's a glimmer of hope after the year that broke every single climate record
The UN agency's annual State of the Global Climate report confirmed it wasn't just the hottest year on record, ocean heat reached its highest level since records began, global mean sea level also reached a record high and Antarctic sea ice reached a record low.
www.abc.net.au
Probably gunna cause some outraged screams from some punters, but. There's a place somewhere out in Sth Aust where there was a heap of nuke testing done many years ago that probably still glows on a dark n stormy night. Place called Maralinga.
Oz being one of the oldest and most stable land masses on earth would reasonably be evaluated as a likely underground storage facility for nuke waste. Unlike perhaps a Japan, N.Z. or other heavily earth quake prone areas.
There was a proposal for a nuclear waste site not too far from there, called Kimba
The Feds dangled $10’d million in front of the locals who voted to accept it.
It was all progressing until the local aboriginal land council objected, rejected and took it to court. It is now off the table.
The Feds are looking elsewhere. I’d put it right near Canberra. Preferably under Parliament House. It wouldn’t affect anyone there
But they're already deserts Poshy. Bugger all out there but sand, a few prickles n scorpions. Who really cares if they bung up some panels n make the area a tad warmer during the day.
?? Whenever you get challenged on evidence or logic you say its not valid because I didn't read every post in the thread, its a distraction and not required, at least on this particular point. This is the kind of tactics conspiracy theorists use. I'm not saying you are one of those, but you are using the same tactics they do.
Not everywhere? Of course not, but there is a shitload where that is the case, that is my point. Your logic seems to be, not everywhere, so nowhere. Some people won't want to sell, so nobody will want to sell. Some native title holders may want to keep the land in pristine condition, so every native title holder will want to keep all their land in pristine condition.
This is ridiculous. There is a shitload of land suitable for renewable energy development in Australia. Sure there is some that isn't, its a self evident fact, but there is a shipload that is suitable, and that is also a self evident fact. This is weird. Your argument is not logical.
haven't read the nuke debate and not gonna.
but I reckon Nukes can play a part in decarbonising. a part, maybe.
Not Dutton and Littleprouds idea of nukes.
the LNP ideological climate war bullcrap has cost us 25 years of progress.
*smile* s
but I reckon Nukes can play a part in decarbonising. a part, maybe.
Not Dutton and Littleprouds idea of nukes.
the LNP ideological climate war bullcrap has cost us 25 years of progress.
*smile* s
Had a look. Basically 1 study on 1 solar farm in 2016, but a good one, published in Nature. Since then a lot of research done that shows big variation, from heating to cooling, depending in soil, vegetation, local climate factors, and design of the solar farm, in particular spacing, panel height. So yes it can be a factor, but not always, and it can be addressed with design.
There are similar studies showing the same for urban solar panels, can heat, can cool depending on various factors. So the heat affect can apply to urban or rural solar, and can be addressed with design.
in Lismore, they have a big solar set up floating on the sewage farm ponds.
this has puzzled me for years. I assumed it was someones dumb idea.
but maybe its a heat thing?
