Global Warming

[Willo]

?? 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.

Well if you read the entire post you would have grasped the context, not take one little bit out to critique.
It’s not a tactic! It’s a fact. It’s like taking a sentence out of page and dismissing the preface and the post face. In isolation it doesn’t mean anything..
And it is the same point I was making. If you’d read it.

Your view of my logic is totally misguided and plainly wrong. I haven’t said “not anywhere/ so nowhere.“. Silly comment.There are plenty of solar and wind farms in use now. With plenty more in the planning.
I said you just can’t plonk them willy nilly for a lot of reasons. Reasons that are valid as I explained.

No I haven’t claimed anything for “every native title holder” but given their often stated connection to the land, it’s not far fetched they’d like to see it kept that way.

They’re not going to bung a few hundred wind turbines or acres and acres of solar panels for a few years. They’ll be there for many years. That’s the plan anyway. If equipment fails they’ll replace it. So it might be there for decades

Once again you missed the point of my post. There is ample land. But it’s got to be where the need is. Connect-ability to the grid, Redundancy, Switchgear, transformer yards all have be nearby. Then there’s constant wind speed for turbines,too fast, too slow, hours of clear sunshine for solar, hours of too much sunshine There are many factors that determine the optimum siting of these .
Let alone the environmental factors. Ownership, leasing and all the rest.
If you can’t see the logic in any of that. That’s not my problem. But its just fact.
Just do some research into what these companies have to factor in. It’s not that easy.

its not see land…build it anywhere. But as I said previously we’re in a better position than a lot of other countries.

 

[TigerMasochist]

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?

Warm up the sewage n speed up the composting process????

 

[mrposhman]

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?

Theres massive scope for solar on heaps of our structures, whether that be buildings or car parks. Car park canopies again IMO are no brainers.

 

[tigersnake]

Well if you read the entire post you would have grasped the context, not take one little bit out to critique.
It’s not a tactic! It’s a fact. It’s like taking a sentence out of page and dismissing the preface and the post face. In isolation it doesn’t mean anything..
And it is the same point I was making. If you’d read it.

Your view of my logic is totally misguided and plainly wrong. I haven’t said “not anywhere/ so nowhere.“. Silly comment.There are plenty of solar and wind farms in use now. With plenty more in the planning.
I said you just can’t plonk them willy nilly for a lot of reasons. Reasons that are valid as I explained.

No I haven’t claimed anything for “every native title holder” but given their often stated connection to the land, it’s not far fetched they’d like to see it kept that way.

They’re not going to bung a few hundred wind turbines or acres and acres of solar panels for a few years. They’ll be there for many years. That’s the plan anyway. If equipment fails they’ll replace it. So it might be there for decades

Once again you missed the point of my post. There is ample land. But it’s got to be where the need is. Connect-ability to the grid, Redundancy, Switchgear, transformer yards all have be nearby. Then there’s constant wind speed for turbines,too fast, too slow, hours of clear sunshine for solar, hours of too much sunshine There are many factors that determine the optimum siting of these .
Let alone the environmental factors. Ownership, leasing and all the rest.
If you can’t see the logic in any of that. That’s not my problem. But its just fact.
Just do some research into what these companies have to factor in. It’s not that easy.

its not see land…build it anywhere. But as I said previously we’re in a better position than a lot of other countries.

Let me try to put it another way. You're saying you can't put solar farms everywhere. I accept that. It's irrelevant and self evident, but I accept it.

I'm saying, and there are a shipload of economic analysis that says the same thing, that it a competitive advantage that we have, is that there is an absolute shipload, a heap, a truckload, a few European countries worth, where we CAN put solar farms.

 

[DavidSSS]

Fusion not the answer many have hoped for, just read this:

https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/

in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

The conclusion is revealing

To sum up, fusion reactors face some unique problems: a lack of a natural fuel supply (tritium), and large and irreducible electrical energy drains to offset. Because 80 percent of the energy in any reactor fueled by deuterium and tritium appears in the form of neutron streams, it is inescapable that such reactors share many of the drawbacks of fission reactors—including the production of large masses of radioactive waste and serious radiation damage to reactor components. These problems are endemic to any type of fusion reactor fueled with deuterium-tritium, so abandoning tokamaks for some other confinement concept can provide no relief.


If reactors can be made to operate using only deuterium fuel, then the tritium replenishment issue vanishes and neutron radiation damage is alleviated. But the other drawbacks remain—and reactors requiring only deuterium fueling will have greatly enhanced nuclear weapons proliferation potential.


These impediments—together with the colossal capital outlay and several additional disadvantages shared with fission reactors—will make fusion reactors more demanding to construct and operate, or reach economic practicality, than any other type of electrical energy generator.


The harsh realities of fusion belie the claims of its proponents of “unlimited, clean, safe and cheap energy.” Terrestrial fusion energy is not the ideal energy source extolled by its boosters, but to the contrary: It’s something to be shunned.

The guy writing the article: Daniel Jassby was a principal research physicist at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab until 1999. For 25 years he worked in areas of plasma physics and neutron production related to fusion energy research and development. He holds a PhD in astrophysical sciences from Princeton University.

Even if we could get it to work, it ain't going to be the panacea.

Need to concentrate on renewables.

DS

 

[Willo]

Let me try to put it another way. You're saying you can't put solar farms everywhere. I accept that. It's irrelevant and self evident, but I accept it.

I'm saying, and there are a shipload of economic analysis that says the same thing, that it a competitive advantage that we have, is that there is an absolute shipload, a heap, a truckload, a few European countries worth, where we CAN put solar farms.

I’m not disagreeing there. Ive said we do have an advantage over other countries.
”We do have ample land.“ was in my previous post. I don’t get what you’re arguing about

 

[eZyT]

The guy writing the article: Daniel Jassby was a principal research physicist at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab until 1999. For 25 years he worked in areas of plasma physics and neutron production related to fusion energy research and development. He holds a PhD in astrophysical sciences from Princeton University.

yeah but Debbies friend on Facebook said they work and her shop sells those glow in the dark wrist bands

 

[RoarEmotion]

Left wing view - https://reneweconomy.com.au/aemo-issues-another-gas-shortage-warning-but-analysts-question-why/
Right wing view - https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...af92749a?btr=0d88fa0e9a70771dbf05d1040ac2471b

Somewhere in the middle will be the truth

 

[tigersnake]

yeah but Debbies friend on Facebook said they work and her shop sells those glow in the dark wrist bands

Yeah what would that guy know? He's just a nerd trying to get grants.

 

[tigersnake]

Left wing view - https://reneweconomy.com.au/aemo-issues-another-gas-shortage-warning-but-analysts-question-why/
Right wing view - https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...af92749a?btr=0d88fa0e9a70771dbf05d1040ac2471b

Somewhere in the middle will be the truth

The Australian is great. Supposedly despise 'alarmism', yet they're happy to go the alarmism when it suits.

 

[eZyT]

good analysis. if your not going to objectively listen to advice from your chief scientist, I dont see any point having them.

this confirms most of the hunches I had about nuclear. part of the future.

Here’s why there is no nuclear option for Australia to reach net zero | Alan Finkel

Any call to go directly from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years

www.theguardian.com

I think this one is a good test for ideologs. if they reject this out of hand, their position is bankrupted

 

[Willo]

good analysis. if your not going to objectively listen to advice from your chief scientist, I dont any point having them.

this confirms most of the hunches I had about nuclear. part of the future.

Here’s why there is no nuclear option for Australia to reach net zero | Alan Finkel

Any call to go directly from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years

www.theguardian.com

I think this one is a good test for ideologs. if they reject this out of hand, their position is bankrupted

Yes good article
*excerpt from the article*
*Still, introducing nuclear power when we can, starting in the 2040s, would bring benefits. Most importantly, nuclear power generation would reduce the ongoing mining footprint for the regular replacement of solar panels, wind turbines and batteries and the expanded electricity generation to support decarbonising our exports and population growth.

if your not going to objectively listen to advice from your chief scientist, I dont any point having them

For these reasons, it would be worth removing the ban on nuclear power so that we can at least thoroughly investigate the options.* Finkel said

So obviously the options haven’t been investigated.
I wrote earlier in a post, that the pros and cons and costings couldn’t be done accurately until the ban was removed. I’m glad Finkel agrees with that.



Finkel also talks about using renewables with peaking gas generation. How does that get us to net zero by 2050? It seems like it’s going to be a huge challenge. But at least he recognises the need for reliable peak generation l

I also like how he compares the different technologies, land usage and costs. It’s the first time I’ve seen those comparisons. A 1 gw battery will be interesting. The size, location and built-in redundancy and grid connection will be a challenge. As well as the ability to have a ring main arrangement for connectivity to other grids. All a challenge, but no doubt future technology may make it achievable. Operative word being “may”.

 

[eZyT]

Yes good article
*excerpt from the article*
*Still, introducing nuclear power when we can, starting in the 2040s, would bring benefits. Most importantly, nuclear power generation would reduce the ongoing mining footprint for the regular replacement of solar panels, wind turbines and batteries and the expanded electricity generation to support decarbonising our exports and population growth.

For these reasons, it would be worth removing the ban on nuclear power so that we can at least thoroughly investigate the options.* Finkel said

So obviously the options haven’t been investigated.
I wrote earlier in a post, that the pros and cons and costings couldn’t be done accurately until the ban was removed. I’m glad Finkel agrees with that.



Finkel also talks about using renewables with peaking gas generation. How does that get us to net zero by 2050? It seems like it’s going to be a huge challenge. But at least he recognises the need for reliable peak generation l

I also like how he compares the different technologies, land usage and costs. It’s the first time I’ve seen those comparisons. A 1 gw battery will be interesting. The size, location and built-in redundancy and grid connection will be a challenge. As well as the ability to have a ring main arrangement for connectivity to other grids. All a challenge, but no doubt future technology may make it achievable. Operative word being “may”.

I think the take out is we need to take advice from chief scientists, rather than someone in the corner at gina rhinehart's birthday party

Nukes are a bit of a no brainer long term for a continent with a shittonne of Uranium and a population who refuse to reduse energy consumption.

but the climate war ideology is absurd and destructive.

wind solar nukes, transition to everything and everything that expedites the end of coal and gas asap.

basically, watch SkyNews, and do the total opposite

 

[tigersnake]

good analysis. if your not going to objectively listen to advice from your chief scientist, I dont see any point having them.

this confirms most of the hunches I had about nuclear. part of the future.

Here’s why there is no nuclear option for Australia to reach net zero | Alan Finkel

Any call to go directly from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years

www.theguardian.com

I think this one is a good test for ideologs. if they reject this out of hand, their position is bankrupted

Only thing I don't buy is the talking down of accidents. He is not incorrect, major accidents are rare in absolute terms, but he neglects to mention the size of the impacts, the effects, when they do happen, they are catastrophic, render huge swathes of land and water toxic and uninhabitable and incredibly expensive. 3-mile Island took 15 years and $1 billion to clean up, thats 80s money, and thats not counting the fact the cost of construction was massive, and the accident shut it down. Fukushima $500b and still going 13 years later. Chernobyl, the worst of the 3, huge cost in human fatalities, estimates vary from 5 to 20K, $50-odd billion cleanup bill, and and exclusion zone the size of a small country.

Bit diffferet to an accident at a wind or solar farm.

thats the thing for me, IF nuclear was cheaper that the alternatives, you may take the risk of accidents and take on the waste issue. Or Alernatively IF it was guaranteed safe and had inert waste, you'd pay the high costs to set-up. But it isn't. It is expensive AND risky.

 

[Willo]

Only thing I don't buy is the talking down of accidents. He is not incorrect, major accidents are rare in absolute terms, but he neglects to mention the size of the impacts, the effects, when they do happen, they are catastrophic, render huge swathes of land and water toxic and uninhabitable and incredibly expensive. 3-mile Island took 15 years and $1 billion to clean up, thats 80s money, and thats not counting the fact the cost of construction was massive, and the accident shut it down. Fukushima $500b and still going 13 years later. Chernobyl, the worst of the 3, huge cost in human fatalities, estimates vary from 5 to 20K, $50-odd billion cleanup bill, and and exclusion zone the size of a small country.

Bit diffferet to an accident at a wind or solar farm.

thats the thing for me, IF nuclear was cheaper that the alternatives, you may take the risk of accidents and take on the waste issue. Or Alernatively IF it was guaranteed safe and had inert waste, you'd pay the high costs to set-up. But it isn't. It is expensive AND risky.

It makes you wonder why Finkel said this
For these reasons, it would be worth removing the ban on nuclear power so that we can at least thoroughly investigate the options.*

But he also mentioned using peaking gas generation. Obviously knows that today’s renewables don’t equate to a reliable base load power source. He must believe that emissions net zero is near impossible, but it will take a combination of renew ales and some type of reliable base load generation for connectivity, redundancy and reliability

 

[eZyT]

Only thing I don't buy is the talking down of accidents. He is not incorrect, major accidents are rare in absolute terms, but he neglects to mention the size of the impacts, the effects, when they do happen, they are catastrophic, render huge swathes of land and water toxic and uninhabitable and incredibly expensive. 3-mile Island took 15 years and $1 billion to clean up, thats 80s money, and thats not counting the fact the cost of construction was massive, and the accident shut it down. Fukushima $500b and still going 13 years later. Chernobyl, the worst of the 3, huge cost in human fatalities, estimates vary from 5 to 20K, $50-odd billion cleanup bill, and and exclusion zone the size of a small country.

Bit diffferet to an accident at a wind or solar farm.

thats the thing for me, IF nuclear was cheaper that the alternatives, you may take the risk of accidents and take on the waste issue. Or Alernatively IF it was guaranteed safe and had inert waste, you'd pay the high costs to set-up. But it isn't. It is expensive AND risky.

yes,

but extremely efficient resource wise.

risk and return.

if everyone insists on skiing in Japan every summer, we need heaps of energy that doesn't change the climate.

if everyone was happy to go on a picnic to the local park, we might get away with renewables.

there will be a cost for Nukes, no doubt.

no such thing as a free ski trip to Japan when the planet is in its death throes.

 

[RoarEmotion]

It makes you wonder why Finkel said this
For these reasons, it would be worth removing the ban on nuclear power so that we can at least thoroughly investigate the options.*

But he also mentioned using peaking gas generation. Obviously knows that today’s renewables don’t equate to a reliable base load power source. He must believe that emissions net zero is near impossible, but it will take a combination of renew ales and some type of reliable base load generation for connectivity, redundancy and reliability

It’s less the base load and more the peaking that’s the issue.

Nuclear addresses base load which is why it isn’t that as useful a solution. By the time it’s here we should have massive ev penetration as our big source of load smoothing.

 

[TigerMasochist]

no such thing as a free ski trip to Japan when the planet is in its death throes.

Something tells me the planet has been here for around about 4,000 million years n us humans have only been around for maybe 100 or 200 thousand years at best. Got me a feeling the old planet will still be alive n kicking way long after we've *smile* off n stopped making a mess.

 

[DavidSSS]

Finkel's argument is typical of nuclear advocates.

They play down the accidents (didn't mention Three Mile Island, WIndscale, Sellafield etc).

But the real clincher is always what they don't mention:

The fact that after 70 years of the nuclear power industry there is still no safe way to dispose of the waste for the length of time necessary, it is stunning just how long we expect later generations to deal with this.

The fact that the nuclear industry themselves estimate there is 90 years of uranium at current usage levels.

Nuclear remains a very silly idea.

DS

 

[eZyT]

Finkel's argument is typical of nuclear advocates.

They play down the accidents (didn't mention Three Mile Island, WIndscale, Sellafield etc).

But the real clincher is always what they don't mention:

The fact that after 70 years of the nuclear power industry there is still no safe way to dispose of the waste for the length of time necessary, it is stunning just how long we expect later generations to deal with this.

The fact that the nuclear industry themselves estimate there is 90 years of uranium at current usage levels.

Nuclear remains a very silly idea.

DS

turns out its less harmful than coal waste?

got to take into account the waste from other energy sources.

I think renewables are the go. but they have an absolute *smile* tonne of non-renewable resources in them, and they have a shelf life.

copper is in everything 'renewable' and its running out.

like I said, best case is people consume less.

never gonna happen. in which case nukes have a place IMO. but absolutely not the LNP's place.

90 years is a pretty long time in an energy sense.

we were running steam engines 100 years ago

but I get the opposing view