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

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.

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.

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.

"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
:) :) :)

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.

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.

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 2:09pm:

Labor and the Greens introduced the cheapest, most economically rational way to reduce GHG emissions.

As opposed to the cheapest most economically rational way to provide reliable electricity. ;)

lee wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 2:11pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 2:09pm: Labor and the Greens introduced the cheapest, most economically rational way to reduce GHG emissions. As opposed to the cheapest most economically rational way to provide reliable electricity. ;)

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?

John Smith wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 5:52pm:

Only in your head.

Nope. But good try. ;D ;D ;D ;D


John Smith wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 5:52pm:

Everyone else,  including those in the energy industry,  disagrees with you.

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

lee wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 2:11pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 2:09pm: Labor and the Greens introduced the cheapest, most economically rational way to reduce GHG emissions. As opposed to the cheapest most economically rational way to provide reliable electricity. ;)

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".

lee wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 6:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 5:52pm: Only in your head. Nope. But good try. ;D ;D ;D ;D John Smith wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 5:52pm: Everyone else,  including those in the energy industry,  disagrees with you. 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

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

John Smith wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 6:13pm:

There you go again,  going on about batteries  whenever the cost of nuclear comes up.

The thread is about climate targets not nuclear. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


John Smith wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 6:13pm:

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?

You are the one says everyone knows. So I suggest you do your research and show it. ;)

Quote:

The thread is about climate targets not nuclear

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

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 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.

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.

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 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.

Nuclear generators could be built within a few years, if there was a committment to such power generators.

John Smith wrote on Jun 9^th, 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.

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.

John Smith wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 6:35pm:

So you don't want to say which energy provider didn't cost for batteries when deciding to invest in nuclear or renewable .

It is your claim that everyone knows. Your claim, your proof. ;)


John Smith wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 6:35pm:

It must be a secret they only shared with you.

No, You are the one saying everyone knows, therefore you must know. ::)

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 6:57pm:

freediver wrote 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. 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.

Do you mean like electric vehicles dickhead???

::) ::) ::)

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 6:59pm:

freediver wrote 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. Nuclear generators could be built within a few years, if there was a committment to such power generators.

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???

:-? :-? :-?

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 6:59pm:

freediver wrote 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. Nuclear generators could be built within a few years, if there was a committment to such power generators.

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.

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

Quote:

Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target

It would be news if they didn't. there is no surprise here at all.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 7:02pm:

John Smith wrote 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. 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.

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

lee wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 7:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:35pm: So you don't want to say which energy provider didn't cost for batteries when deciding to invest in nuclear or renewable . It is your claim that everyone knows. Your claim, your proof. ;) John Smith wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:35pm: It must be a secret they only shared with you. No, You are the one saying everyone knows, therefore you must know. ::)

Not surprisingly you run from your argument  ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 5:19pm:

Not surprisingly you run from your argument

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

lee wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 5:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 5:19pm: Not surprisingly you run from your argument 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

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.

John Smith wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 5:34pm:

What assertion?

.


John Smith wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 5:52pm:

Everyone else,  including those in the energy industry,  disagrees with you.

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 10^th, 2024 at 5:34pm:

There's nothing asserted, it's asking you for your opinion.

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 10^th, 2024 at 5:34pm:

That you ran away from a straight answer can only be because you don't even believe your crappy excuses.

You are the one saying that the energy companies have done the sums. Show them.


John Smith wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 6:35pm:

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

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.

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!  🤣🤣🤣

Quote:

So tell me who these "everyones" are

Every energy supply company.  Absolutely none are investing in nuclear.


Quote:

My opinion is that it will cost vastly more than Lazard's calculations of how many hours of storage

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

Quote:

Oh, no!! Thicko Smiff is trying to argue facts with Lee!!

Lee doesn't do facts  ::)

John Smith wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 7:17pm:

Every energy supply company.

So where are their figures John, it is your claim. ::)


John Smith wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 7:17pm:

That only you have the correct costings.

You are the one who won't supply costings. ::)

John Smith wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 7:18pm:

Quote: Oh, no!! Thicko Smiff is trying to argue facts with Lee!! Lee doesn't do facts  ::)

Do YOU, thick as innumerable planks, do YOU?

Provide them.

Quote:

So where are their figures John, it is your claim.

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

Frank wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 7:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 7:18pm: Quote: Oh, no!! Thicko Smiff is trying to argue facts with Lee!! Lee doesn't do facts  ::) Do YOU, thick as innumerable planks, do YOU? Provide them.

Sure
Fact 1. Frank is as dumb as dogshit


Over to you dumbarse  :D

John Smith wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 7:18pm:

Quote: Oh, no!! Thicko Smiff is trying to argue facts with Lee!! Lee doesn't do facts  ::)

... 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.



.

John Smith wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 8:19pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 7:37pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 7:18pm: Quote: Oh, no!! Thicko Smiff is trying to argue facts with Lee!! Lee doesn't do facts  ::) Do YOU, thick as innumerable planks, do YOU? Provide them. Sure Fact 1. Frank is as dumb as dogshit Over to you dumbarse  :D

Yeah, scuttle little cockroach. Run, run, run.

John Smith wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 8:18pm:

You don't need their costings. That they didn't invest in nuclear says it all.

You were the one carrying on about their costings for batteries. Give us the figures and stop changing the argument. ::)

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 8:35pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 7:18pm: Quote: Oh, no!! Thicko Smiff is trying to argue facts with Lee!! Lee doesn't do facts  ::) ... 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. .

You are even more mentally negligible, Audrey, than thicko Smiff.

John Smith wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 8:18pm:

That they didn't invest in nuclear says it all

The fact that nuclear, is at the moment, illegal, makes your claim as silly as you. ::)

Frank wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 9:31pm:

You are even more mentally negligible, Audrey, than thicko Smiff.

But he is trying to emulate his hero, Smith, with his trolling. Must be Deprivation Syndrome. ;)

A victory for common sense. The climate scam is beginning to unravel.

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 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.

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...

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 9:46am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 6:59pm: freediver wrote 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. Nuclear generators could be built within a few years, if there was a committment to such power generators. If they approached it with religious zeal perhaps.

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.

Belgarion wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 1:00pm:

A victory for common sense. The climate scam is beginning to unravel.

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.

Frank wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 8:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 8:19pm: Frank wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 7:37pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 7:18pm: Quote: Oh, no!! Thicko Smiff is trying to argue facts with Lee!! Lee doesn't do facts  ::) Do YOU, thick as innumerable planks, do YOU? Provide them. Sure Fact 1. Frank is as dumb as dogshit Over to you dumbarse  :D Yeah, scuttle little cockroach. Run, run, run.

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?

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 12:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 8:18pm: That they didn't invest in nuclear says it all The fact that nuclear, is at the moment, illegal, makes your claim as silly as you. ::)

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

lee wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 8:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 10th, 2024 at 8:18pm: You don't need their costings. That they didn't invest in nuclear says it all. You were the one carrying on about their costings for batteries. Give us the figures and stop changing the argument. ::)

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

John Smith wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 6:39pm:

All I asked was did you believe energy supplier didn't account for the costs of batteries when deciding where to invest their money?

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 9^th, 2024 at 6:35pm:

So you don't want to say which energy provider didn't cost for batteries when deciding to invest in nuclear or renewable .

To "invest in nuclear or renewable".  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 7:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 6:39pm: All I asked was did you believe energy supplier didn't account for the costs of batteries when deciding where to invest their money? That was your claim.

It's not a claim dumbarse,  it's a question.  One you keep running from.  Why is that ?

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 7:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 6:39pm: All I asked was did you believe energy supplier didn't account for the costs of batteries when deciding where to invest their money? 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: So you don't want to say which energy provider didn't cost for batteries when deciding to invest in nuclear or renewable . To "invest in nuclear or renewable".  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

When 'deciding' to invest, you dumbarse.

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 3:33pm:

Belgarion wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 1:00pm: A victory for common sense. The climate scam is beginning to unravel. 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.

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.

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.

John Smith wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 7:44pm:

When 'deciding' to invest, you dumbarse.

But they couldn't decide to invest in nuclear. So what were the comparisons? ;)

Renewables vs Renewables? ;)

Frank wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 8:05pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 3:33pm: Belgarion wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 1:00pm: A victory for common sense. The climate scam is beginning to unravel. 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. 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.

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.

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 8:09pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 7:44pm: When 'deciding' to invest, you dumbarse. But they couldn't decide to invest in nuclear. So what were the comparisons? ;) Renewables vs Renewables? ;)

Still running away from an answer I see.

To be expected.

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.

John Smith wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 6:13pm:

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

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.





.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 11^th, 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.

That's positive news.  I'll have to research more into it.

Funny what can happen when the adults are in charge.

29% of 43% = 14.8% of the total.

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 3:33pm:

Belgarion wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 1:00pm: A victory for common sense. The climate scam is beginning to unravel. 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.

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. 

Quote:

Nuclear power is clean, efficient, less dangerous and cheaper than any other form of mass energy production.

LOL. No it isn't.

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 10:22am:

Quote: Nuclear power is clean, efficient, less dangerous and cheaper than any other form of mass energy production. LOL. No it isn't.

It is if you ignore the plant construction, operation, maintenance and waste disposal costs.

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”.

Quote:

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.

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.

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.”

John Smith wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 10:15pm:

Still running away from an answer I see.

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

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.

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.

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:

Is Australia on track to achieve its 2030 targets? Labor has dismissed suggestions it's not on track to meet its 2030 target. The latest Climate Change Authority report released in 2023, projected Australia's emissions to be 42 per cent below 2005 levels in 2030. That's only 1 per cent below the target of 43 per cent.

:) :) :)

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/blow-our-budget-why-australias-2030-emissions-reduction-target-matters/4ndflj8zg

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.

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 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.

Do you have a link to this report Lee???

:-? :-? :-?

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 10:22am:

Quote: Nuclear power is clean, efficient, less dangerous and cheaper than any other form of mass energy production. LOL. No it isn't.

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/

..

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 8:39am:

UnSubRocky wrote 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. That's positive news.  I'll have to research more into it. Funny what can happen when the adults are in charge.

I seriously believe that even if we get to 40% reduction in carbon emissions, that would be quite reasonable.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 9:50am:

29% of 43% = 14.8% of the total.

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.

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 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.

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.

Belgarion wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 1:06pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 10:22am: Quote: Nuclear power is clean, efficient, less dangerous and cheaper than any other form of mass energy production. LOL. No it isn't. 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/

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. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 1:08pm:

The original Sun Cable  proposal was 20GW. Oz uses c. 30GW.

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?

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 12:56pm:

Do you have a link to this report Lee???

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

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 1:28pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:08pm: The original Sun Cable  proposal was 20GW. Oz uses c. 30GW. And when is it going to happen?

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:

How many GigaWatt HOURS?

(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:

Ah back to batteries. How many Gigawatt hours of batteries at about $600,000 per MegaWatt hour?

The currency-issuing government can subsidize batteries and pumped hydro storage. Once completed, Oz will have the world's cheapest electricity.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 1:47pm:

lee wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:28pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:08pm: The original Sun Cable  proposal was 20GW. Oz uses c. 30GW. And when is it going to happen? 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: How many GigaWatt HOURS? (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]Ah back to batteries. How many Gigawatt hours of batteries at about $600,000 per MegaWatt hour?

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!

Frank wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 1:54pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:47pm: lee wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:28pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:08pm: The original Sun Cable  proposal was 20GW. Oz uses c. 30GW. And when is it going to happen? 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: How many GigaWatt HOURS? (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]Ah back to batteries. How many Gigawatt hours of batteries at about $600,000 per MegaWatt hour? The currency-issuing government can subsidize batteries and pumped hydro storage. Once completed, Oz will have the world's cheapest electricity.

: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.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 1:47pm:

Total electricity generation in Australia was estimated to be 265,232 gigawatt hours (GWh) in calendar year 2020.

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 12^th, 2024 at 1:47pm:

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)

Yes numpty so how many hours storage?


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 1:47pm:

The currency-issuing government can subsidize batteries and pumped hydro storage

Ah subsidies? To whom do we pay these subsidies? The nice renewables people currently holding Germany etc to ransom? ::)

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 2:34pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:47pm: Total electricity generation in Australia was estimated to be 265,232 gigawatt hours (GWh) in calendar year 2020. 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.

Stop stalling.

Build 2 Sun-cable projects, and then get back to us before you start bleating about how much storage we need. 


Quote:

Yes numpty so how many hours storage?

Addressed above, let's find out what storage we need to to ensure 24 hour stable output from 2 Sun-cable projects.   


Quote:

Ah subsidies? To whom do we pay these subsidies? The nice renewables people currently holding Germany etc to ransom? ::)

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.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 2:43pm:

Build 2 Sun-cable projects, and then get back to us before you start bleating about how much storage we need.

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 12^th, 2024 at 2:43pm:

Addressed above, let's find out what storage we need to to ensure 24 hour stable output from 2 Sun-cable projects.

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

(corrected next post).

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 5:05pm:

TGD:Build 2 Sun-cable projects, and then get back to us before you start bleating about how much storage we need. So you don't think you need storage? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D That's putting the cart before the horse. ::)

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 why not do that before it is built? ::)

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:

So why don't you want to admit go where these subsidies will go? ::)

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.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 5:08pm:

Low IQ , or fraudulent....

Wow. So you really don't think storage is necessary. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 5:08pm:

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.

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 12^th, 2024 at 5:08pm:

Subsidies can go where the government thinks fit (householders and/or private companies).

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 12^th, 2024 at 5:08pm:

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.

You mean like the fanciful models of Keen? "more and more mathematical manipulations" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 2:07pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:54pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:47pm: lee wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:28pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 1:08pm: The original Sun Cable  proposal was 20GW. Oz uses c. 30GW. And when is it going to happen? 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: How many GigaWatt HOURS? (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]Ah back to batteries. How many Gigawatt hours of batteries at about $600,000 per MegaWatt hour? The currency-issuing government can subsidize batteries and pumped hydro storage. Once completed, Oz will have the world's cheapest electricity. :D  :D :D Magic, innit!

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?

---

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 10:22am:

Quote: Nuclear power is clean, efficient, less dangerous and cheaper than any other form of mass energy production. LOL. No it isn't.

I'll attribute that quote to someone from 'the bat-sh!t crazy hour' on SKY TV NEWS


.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 6:07pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 10:22am: Quote: Nuclear power is clean, efficient, less dangerous and cheaper than any other form of mass energy production. LOL. No it isn't. I'll attribute that quote to someone from 'the bat-sh!t crazy hour' on SKY TV NEWS .

That's because you are mentally negligible, Audrey.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 2:07pm:

The PV and battery technology is 'magic', certainly.  (whereas windmills and pumped-hydro are simple and very old technology).

BTW - First solar was 1839.

So 1839 is not old technology? ;D ;D ;D

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Frank wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 6:26pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 6:07pm: freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 10:22am: Quote: Nuclear power is clean, efficient, less dangerous and cheaper than any other form of mass energy production. LOL. No it isn't. I'll attribute that quote to someone from 'the bat-sh!t crazy hour' on SKY TV NEWS . That's because you are mentally negligible, Audrey

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 ?

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 5:32pm:

Wow. So you really don't think storage is necessary. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Proving you are blind, dumb and fraudulent; I said "storage is necessary". 


Quote:

So you don't know either of the propositions but 2 x Cable Suns will do it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Crippled brain, blind and frauldulent: I already linked to  Suncable's capacity ie 20GW cf  Oz 30GW consumption


Quote:

Yes.  Subsidies only mask the cost. ::) And quoting Bill Mitchell? An MMT'er. That's rich. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

No; Mitchell quoting Robinson critiquing flat-earth neoclassical economists  before MMT was developed.


Quote:

You mean like the fanciful models of Keen? "more and more mathematical manipulations" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

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. 

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 13^th, 2024 at 11:32am:

Unlike you, Keen exposes and beats the neoclassicists at their own silly game.

So Keen is into silly games. Nice to know. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 11:32am:

Climate donations 'soar' as coalition attacks targets

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

Just two years ago, Peter Dutton was committed to a 2030 emissions target. So what's changed? ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 12:55pm:

Just two years ago, Peter Dutton was committed to a 2030 emissions target. So what's changed? ::) ::)

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. ;)

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.

lee wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 12:23pm:

Poor TGD. Fail to Plan - Plan to Fail.

That's what the coalition has been doing for 2 decades. Making promises they cannot keep.

And Labor's promises are somehow better? ::)

lee wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 2:13pm:

And Labor's promises are somehow better? ::)

They don't wait 20 years to start thinking about how to keep them.

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 3:29pm:

They don't wait 20 years to start thinking about how to keep them.

So the 43% reduction is set in stone. No chance of falling short? ;)

lee wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 3:39pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2024 at 3:29pm: They don't wait 20 years to start thinking about how to keep them. So the 43% reduction is set in stone. No chance of falling short? ;)

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?

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.

“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.”

Belgarion wrote on Jun 14^th, 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.

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. 

Frank wrote on Jun 14^th, 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.”

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:

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.”

A confused narrative, the issue is mobilization of resources to replace the fossil industry.

Global cooperation is key.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 15^th, 2024 at 1:33pm:

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.

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.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 15^th, 2024 at 1:48pm:

Frank wrote 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.” 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: 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.” A confused narrative, the issue is mobilization of resources to replace the fossil industry. Global cooperation is key.

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."

whiteknight wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 10:35am:

Coalition to dump Australia's 2030 climate target, arguing 43 per cent emissions reduction is unachievable

Unachievable is the operative word.

freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2024 at 6:08am:

Sure there is.

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? ::)

freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2024 at 6:08am:

lee wrote on Jun 13th, 2024 at 3:39pm: freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2024 at 3:29pm: They don't wait 20 years to start thinking about how to keep them. So the 43% reduction is set in stone. No chance of falling short? ;) 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?

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

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.  ::)

Meanwhile Twiggy's green scheme is still losing executives at a fast rate.

Belgarion wrote on Jun 15^th, 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.  ::)

Exactly.

Gissa secure subsidies.

A massive scam, with fortunes to be made from it.

lee wrote on Jun 15^th, 2024 at 3:00pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 14th, 2024 at 6:08am: Sure there is. 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? ::)

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?

Frank wrote on Jun 15^th, 2024 at 7:54pm:

Belgarion wrote 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.  ::) Exactly. Gissa secure subsidies. A massive scam, with fortunes to be made from it.

Er...the AGW science says the globe  has to exit fossils by 2050.

Most people agree.

You?

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2024 at 8:44am:

lee wrote on Jun 15th, 2024 at 3:00pm: freediver wrote on Jun 14th, 2024 at 6:08am: Sure there is. 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? ::) 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?

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. ::)

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 16^th, 2024 at 12:37pm:

Er...the AGW science says the globe  has to exit fossils by 2050.

Does it? DO you have the relevant paper? Is that to do with keeping warming below 2C (invented by an economist) or something else?

lee wrote on Jun 16^th, 2024 at 1:45pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2024 at 8:44am: lee wrote on Jun 15th, 2024 at 3:00pm: freediver wrote on Jun 14th, 2024 at 6:08am: Sure there is. 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? ::) 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? What a load of codswallop.

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?

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2024 at 2:05pm:

And yet the coalition signs up to it every election.

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?

Quote:

And yet Labor has shown no concern about cost, which you didn't address.

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?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 16^th, 2024 at 12:37pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 15th, 2024 at 7:54pm: Belgarion wrote 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.  ::) Exactly. Gissa secure subsidies. A massive scam, with fortunes to be made from it. Er...the AGW science says the globe  has to exit fossils by 2050. Most people agree. You?

I don't.

time to stop the nonsense

---

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2024 at 2:31pm:

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.

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. ::)

Quote:

And still nothing about exactly which GHG emissions you want reduced. Cite scientific papers please.

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?

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/

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2024 at 4:16pm:

Are you asking which greenhouse gasses?

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. ;)

Quote:

Yes. Water vapour? CO2? Methane? You do know don't you?

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.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2024 at 5:44pm:

CO2 and methane mostly. Whichever is the cheapest way to combat climate change.

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

lee wrote on Jun 16^th, 2024 at 7:24pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2024 at 5:44pm: CO2 and methane mostly. Whichever is the cheapest way to combat climate change. 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

Do you have a point, or are you just yet again demonstrating your ability to copy and paste things you do not understand?

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.

Quote:

The warming bit of the idiotic slogan was replaced some years ago already by 'climate change'.

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?

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2024 at 9:10pm:

Quote: The warming bit of the idiotic slogan was replaced some years ago already by 'climate change'. Because the internet became full of morons saying things like frost this morning, therefor no global warming. BTW, it is still global warming.

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.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2024 at 8:50pm:

Do you have a point, or are you just yet again demonstrating your ability to copy and paste things you do not understand?

The point is that you don't understand AGW at all. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

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.

Frank wrote on Jun 16^th, 2024 at 9:07pm:

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!!

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.

Frank wrote on Jun 16^th, 2024 at 9:18pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2024 at 9:10pm: Quote: The warming bit of the idiotic slogan was replaced some years ago already by 'climate change'. Because the internet became full of morons saying things like frost this morning, therefor no global warming. BTW, it is still global warming. 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.

How is it "sly propaganda" to call it climate change rather than global warming? Both terms are correct.

Frank wrote on Jun 17^th, 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.

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.

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 17^th, 2024 at 12:37pm:

Frank wrote 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. 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.

And yes, I realise they're in opposition, but they're not even facing the same level of scrutiny Labor did in opposition.

lee wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 2:11pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 2:09pm: Labor and the Greens introduced the cheapest, most economically rational way to reduce GHG emissions. As opposed to the cheapest most economically rational way to provide reliable electricity. ;)

Given the universal acceptance (the entire UN membership) of the AGW science - yes.

Frank wrote on Jun 17^th, 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.

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....  

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 17^th, 2024 at 1:00pm:

Given the universal acceptance (the entire UN membership) of the AGW science - yes.

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.

lee wrote on Jun 17^th, 2024 at 1:37pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 17th, 2024 at 1:00pm: Given the universal acceptance (the entire UN membership) of the AGW science - yes. You do realise the UN are not scientists?

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:

Remember Guterres "Ocean boiling" at 100ºF? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D The UN is full of unelected plutocrats.

People chosen by individual nations to represent those  nations in the UN.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 17^th, 2024 at 4:21pm:

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.

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 17^th, 2024 at 4:21pm:

People chosen by individual nations to represent those  nations in the UN.

So unelected as I said. ;)

lee wrote on Jun 17^th, 2024 at 4:27pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 17th, 2024 at 4:21pm: 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. And yet you never cite what these nasties are.

Another question from a crippled conservative brain.

The nasties are the increasing climate AGW catastrophes noted previously.



Quote:

The IPCC, a UN organisation disagrees with you. So crippled brain, you tell us. ;D ;D ;D ;D

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:

So unelected as I said. ;)

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.   

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 1:50pm:

The nasties are the increasing climate AGW catastrophes noted previously.

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 18^th, 2024 at 1:50pm:

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

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 18^th, 2024 at 1:50pm:

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.

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. ;)

Thank you Lee for taking the time to point out the inconsistency

lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 3:10pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 1:50pm: The nasties are the increasing climate AGW catastrophes noted previously. Which ones? Stop hiding. Quote: I'm not hiding, i keep abreast of global news.  [quote]You haven't proclaimed any that I have not shot down using the IPCC AR6 Physical Science Basis. ::) Er ...increasing incidence of floods, tornadoes, heatwaves, droughts - do y try to kep up. Read the report

Quote:

Oh Nationally Determined Contributions? You mean the ones all the climate states are failing?

Yes. 


Quote:

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

(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:

He has also said we have TWO years to save the planet. Talk about unreachable goals. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes, that's an unreachable goal, so we better pull our finger out, to achieve a reachable goal. 


Quote:

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. ;)

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.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 4:43pm:

The AR6 Synthesis Report:

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 18^th, 2024 at 4:43pm:

Yes, that's an unreachable goal, so we better pull our finger out, to achieve a reachable goal.

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 18^th, 2024 at 4:43pm:

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.

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? ;)

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 1:50pm:

people who are elected by the non-scientific electorate ..... or   ...... representatives chosen by consensus

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?

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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GQZXBMMboAAw0yo?.jpg

Quote:

Nuclear energy has proven to get electricity prices and emissions down all over the world.

No it hasn't. Nuclear is among the most expensive options.


Quote:

As we transition away from fossil fuels, Labor’s renewables-only approach means Australia risks a massive energy black hole and extraordinary costs.

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.

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

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:

The long term cost of having nuclear power plants is lower because they have a much longer life span than wind turbines for example.

Dutton is a liar. Nuclear is one of the most expensive options, and getting more expensive, while renewables are getting cheaper.


Quote:

The waste created annually from a nuclear plant is only the size of a can of coke.

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.

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 11:16am:

Quote: Nuclear energy has proven to get electricity prices and emissions down all over the world. No it hasn't. Nuclear is among the most expensive options.

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.

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 12:08pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 11:16am: Quote: Nuclear energy has proven to get electricity prices and emissions down all over the world. No it hasn't. Nuclear is among the most expensive options. 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.

Which part is the lie?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 4:43pm:

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.

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?

Peter Dutton reveals seven sites for proposed nuclear power plants :o

Federal politics live: Premiers line up to oppose Coalition's nuclear plan, as Peter Dutton says costs will be revealed later ::) ::)

WA Labor labels Peter Dutton's promise to build nuclear plant near Collie as 'costly' and 'reckless' :o

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

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 1:23pm:

Federal politics live: Premiers line up to oppose Coalition's nuclear plan, as Peter Dutton says costs will be revealed later ::) ::) WA Labor labels Peter Dutton's promise to build nuclear plant near Collie as 'costly' and 'reckless' :o

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.

John Smith wrote on Jun 19^th, 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

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.

Captain Nemo wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 1:38pm:

John Smith wrote 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 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.

No one said indefinitely. 

lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 4:58pm:

The AR6 Synthesis Report disagrees with the Physical Science Basis. But we know you don't do science. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

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:

So tell us about this Climate emergency, you haven't yet, just offered dribs and drabs of BS. ;)

See above; the majority disagrees with you. 


Quote:

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

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:

Ah the unknown experts, with unknown qualifications. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

No, people who have passed necessary exams.


Quote:

But you seem to know more about Sky News tha me. Why is that? ;)

Because microsoft news keeps me up to date with Sky News nonsense,  daily.

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.

lee wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 12:31pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 4:43pm: 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. 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?

Poor lee: the Paris agreement followed the science which says 1.5C  is the limit we cannot exceed. 

Frank wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 5:52pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 1:50pm: people who are elected by the non-scientific electorate ..... or   ...... representatives chosen by consensus     What is the difference? Whose consensus are you talking about if not the consensus of an electorate?

Chosen by a consensus among educated peers, taking  account of the abilities of the chosen individual's expertise.


Quote:

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?

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.

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. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 2:05pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 5:52pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 1:50pm: people who are elected by the non-scientific electorate ..... or   ...... representatives chosen by consensus     What is the difference? Whose consensus are you talking about if not the consensus of an electorate? Chosen by a consensus among educated peers, taking  account of the abilities of the chosen individual's expertise. Quote: 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? 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.

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/

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 19^th, 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.

Mais non.

They will just print the money.

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.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 1:48pm:

Poor lee: the Paris agreement followed the science which says 1.5C  is the limit we cannot exceed.

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 Patre Petra Tshakert - a professor in media, social justice. ::)

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.

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...

lee wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:11pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 1:48pm: Poor lee: the Paris agreement followed the science which says 1.5C  is the limit we cannot exceed.  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 Patre Petra Tshakert - a professor in media, social justice. ::)

"Invited experts" - more thn the one you found - in AGW science, and advising the summary IPCC reports.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 11:53am:

"Invited experts" - more thn the one you found - in AGW science, and advising the summary IPCC reports.

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.

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 19^th, 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?

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:

Energy Output: How many gigawatts or megawatts of energy will the nuclear reactors add to the Australian energy system?

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:

Timelines and Feasibility: Given the ambitious timeline, what is the detailed schedule for the development and commissioning of nuclear reactors by 2035-2037?

Depends how urgent society  thinks it is.


Quote:

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?

Dutton says the Commonwealth has the  power to compulsorily acquire, with just compensation. Free marketeers won't like anything about it at all.


Quote:

Reliance on Coal, that's the biggest standout, it's the whole motivation behind this...

Most likely; it's a pity the AGW science can't prove the deadline for exit from fossils is 2050. 

lee wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 11:57am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 11:53am: "Invited experts" - more thn the one you found - in AGW science, and advising the summary IPCC reports. 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.

er ...the majority of AGW scientists aka experts advising the IPCC on 1.5C?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 12:33pm:

er ...the majority of AGW scientists aka experts advising the IPCC on 1.5C?

Now you are asking a question. Before you were stating beliefs. Make up your mind. ;)

lee wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 1:16pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 12:33pm: er ...the majority of AGW scientists aka experts advising the IPCC on 1.5C? Now you are asking a question. Before you were stating beliefs. Make up your mind. ;)

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...).   

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 3:40pm:

Sneaky - you are the one denying the fact the majority of AGW scientists are advising the IPCC re the 1.5C limit.

You are the one claiming it and provide no proof. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 3:40pm:

Even Dutton is signed up to zero CO2 emissions by 2050 (even if he is lying...).

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. ;)

Quote:

It is not achievable with current technology.

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.

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 4:30pm:

It is extremely easy to do with current technology - and likely even easier with 2050 technology.

So tell us how much wind, how much solar, how much battery backup. How many KM² would it take? How much farm land?

lee wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 4:48pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:30pm: It is extremely easy to do with current technology - and likely even easier with 2050 technology. So tell us how much wind, how much solar, how much battery backup. How many KM2 would it take? How much farm land?

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.

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 4:30pm:

Quote: It is not achievable with current technology. 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.

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.

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 5:04pm:

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.

So you don't know. All you have is BELIEF. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Frank wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 5:21pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:30pm: Quote: It is not achievable with current technology. 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. 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.

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?

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 6:44pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 5:21pm: freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:30pm: Quote: It is not achievable with current technology. 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. 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. 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?

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.