Australian Politics Forum - Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17224
Gender: male

Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target
Reply #195 - Jun 21^st, 2024 at 12:39pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 11:40am:

You forgot large-capacity pumped hydro; and batteries store energy - the fact you can't get exactly as much out as you put in doesn't matter when the input is from excess free renewable energy in the middle of the day.

You mean like Snowy 2.0 capable of 15 hours at capacity?

NEM shows an average use of 200TWh. Divide by 365 gives you about 550MWh per day.

"The NEM generates around 200 terawatt hours of electricity annually, supplying around 80% of Australia’s electricity consumption."

https://www.aemc.gov.au/energy-system/electricity/electricity-system/NEM

"It is expected to supply 2.2 gigawatts of capacity and about 350,000 megawatt hours of large-scale storage to the national electricity market"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_2.0_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station

"In practice if Snowy 2.0’s lower dam is operated in future as it is now – almost always close to full – the cycling capacity of Snowy 2.0 may be as low as 40 GWh – around one tenth of the promised number."

https://theconversation.com/snowy-2-0-will-not-produce-nearly-as-much-electricit...

You mean that "large capacity"? Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 11:40am:

I certainly do (see above), and it seems you have forgotten that 2 Suncable-scale schemes are sufficient to power Oz, the uncertainty is whether we need baseload nuclear in case of drained pumped-hydro-storage capacity during unusual weather (extended cloudiness and no wind).

Nope. It should say "2 Suncable-scale schemes are maybe sufficient to power Oz"

You don't have any engineering we know. Just doubling an uncertain number doesn't guarantee doubling of output. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 11:40am:

All addressed above, but clear thinking is not your strong suit.

None of it is addressed above. You just have this naive belief that if you double something you will get a doubling of rated output.

"Singapore-based Sun Cable has submitted its Environmental Impact Statement to the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority. The document reveals the full extent of the project’s enormity, specifically a 17-20 GW solar farm tied to 36-42 GWh of battery energy storage, which is set to be transmitted by subsea cables to Singapore."

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/04/27/suncable-reveals-full-extent-of-its-giant...

36GWh of battery? that's 36,000MWh. 360 100MWh batteries at $90 million each. That's $32.4 billion for batteries. Cheap innit? Grin

But we know you are also mathematicaly challenged, perhaps that's why you have no engineering. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12283
Gender: male

Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target
Reply #196 - Jun 21^st, 2024 at 1:06pm

lee wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 12:39pm:

You mean like Snowy 2.0 capable of 15 hours at capacity?

Yes. Now multiply by 10, with schemes up and down the Great Dividing Range.

Quote:

"In practice if Snowy 2.0’s lower dam is operated in future as it is now – almost always close to full – the cycling capacity of Snowy 2.0 may be as low as 40 GWh – around one tenth of the promised number."

It won't be operated that way; connections with other pumped-hydro schemes will enable all of them to operate on a coordinated empty-to-full cycle.

Quote:

Nope. It should say "2 Suncable-scale schemes are maybe sufficient to power Oz"

Maybe is close enough, while we turn off gas and determine if we need nuclear backup for heavy industry.

Quote:

You don't have any engineering we know. Just doubling an uncertain number doesn't guarantee doubling of output. Wink

Proving the crippled conservative brain doen't do empiricism or pragmatism or estimation.

Quote:

None of it is addressed above. You just have this naive belief that if you double something you will get a doubling of rated output.

Refuted above, stop showing the limitations of the conservative brain.

Quote:

36GWh of battery? that's 36,000MWh. 360 100MWh batteries at $90 million each. That's $32.4 billion for batteries. Cheap innit?

Free in fact, if you use your brain: public money issued in national Treasuries is free, as opposed to taxpayer debt-money issued in (private) banks.

Quote:

But we know you are also mathematicaly challenged, perhaps that's why you have no engineering. Wink

You just proved you know nothing about money (it's created out of thin air, whether in (public) national Treasuries or private banks).

The engineers who will build the solar, wind and pumped hydro plants (and nuclear if necessary) have access to the mathematics prowess required, don't you worry about that.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 21^st, 2024 at 1:11pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17224
Gender: male

Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target
Reply #197 - Jun 21^st, 2024 at 1:46pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 1:06pm:

Yes. Now multiply by 10, with schemes up and down the Great Dividing Range.

And you have these on your map? Tell us which towns and farmlands will be lost. And also the cost Snowy 2.0 now at over $12 billion multiplied by 10. Cheap innit? Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 1:06pm:

It won't be operated that way; connections with other pumped-hydro schemes will enable all of them to operate on a coordinated empty-to-full cycle.

Another one of you claims with no proof. To be fully workable you would need to completely empty the bottom lake as well as the top. It would take months to refill them. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 1:06pm:

Maybe is close enough, while we turn off gas and determine if we need nuclear backup for heavy industry.

Ah yes. The cart before the horse. "See if it works, if it doesn't we'll go the other way. Don't worry about the time lag." Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 1:06pm:

Proving the crippled conservative brain doen't do empiricism or pragmatism or estimation.

Empiricism - is proof of concept. You have shown nothing to do with that. Wink

Pragmatism - is Bang for buck. You haven't got that bit either. Wink

Estimation - only works if you have reliable models. You haven't shown that either.

All-in-all you are a total joke and failure. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 1:06pm:

Free in fact, if you use your brain: public money issued in national Treasuries is free, as opposed to taxpayer debt-money issued in (private) banks.

Nope. that's just your MMT wet dream. If it were true it would apply similarly to nuclear, which at least would be reliable. Then you don't need renewables at all for part tiume generation. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 1:06pm:

The engineers who will build the solar, wind and pumped hydro plants (and nuclear if necessary) have access to the mathematics prowess required, don't you worry about that.

But paid for by the renewables companies, in the main, nuclear is a dirt word, so doesn't carry weight. No one wants to place his job in jeopardy. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12283
Gender: male

Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target
Reply #198 - Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 2:19pm

lee wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 1:46pm:

And you have these on your map? Tell us which towns and farmlands will be lost. And also the cost Snowy 2.0 now at over $12 billion multiplied by 10. Cheap innit? Wink

Crippled conservative brain: the ANU has identified dozens of potential sites. Mountains generally aren't farmlands.

Quote:

Another one of you claims with no proof. To be fully workable you would need to completely empty the bottom lake as well as the top. It would take months to refill them. Roll Eyes

Crippled conservative brain: many lakes plural, with coordinated filling and draining.

Quote:

Ah yes. The cart before the horse. "See if it works, if it doesn't we'll go the other way. Don't worry about the time lag." ;

Crippled conservative brain: build 2 suncable equivalents and get back to us about firming requirements aka empirical learning.

Quote:

Empiricism - is proof of concept. You have shown nothing to do with that. Wink

Pragmatism - is Bang for buck. You haven't got that bit either. Wink

Estimation - only works if you have reliable models. You haven't shown that either.

All-in-all you are a total joke and failure. Grin

Your crippled conservative brain on full display; empiricism is knowledge by experiment, pragmatism is finding best solutions by adjusting to circumstances. Estimation: see the above, the 3 can operate over time simultaneously in any order as required , not according to your closed, visionless, conservative brain.

Quote:

TGD:

public money issued in national Treasuries is free, as opposed to taxpayer debt-money issued in (private) banks

.

Nope. that's just your MMT wet dream.

No it's not, it's simple logic ...which your crippled conservative brain doesn't do.

Quote:

If it were true it would apply similarly to nuclear, which at least would be reliable. Then you don't need renewables at all for part tiume generation. Grin

It IS also true for nuclear (full marks!); the point is it will be more than a decade before the first big nuclear plant can be operational in Oz (2035-37 according to Dutton), and Paris demands 50% global reduction in emissions by then. That's why we have to build 2 suncable equivalents well before then - which is doable, with gas as firming.

Quote:

But paid for by the renewables companies, in the main, nuclear is a dirt word, so doesn't carry weight. No one wants to place his job in jeopardy. Wink

Didn't think I'd be defending nuclear from fears lodged in a crippled conservative brain; France has survived half a century with nuclear plants in built up areas.

But empirical learning may in fact show we don't need nuclear in Oz, after we have actually built 2 suncable equivalents - the cheapest form of new energy - and discover how much on-off gas we need for firming.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 2:28pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17224
Gender: male

Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target
Reply #199 - Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 3:29pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 2:19pm:

Crippled conservative brain: the ANU has identified dozens of potential sites. Mountains generally aren't farmlands.

So you don't know. Why is that not surprising? And you know nothing about mountain agriculture. You need the VALLEYS to store the water. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 2:19pm:

Crippled conservative brain: many lakes plural, with coordinated filling and draining.

And many multiple fill times. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 2:19pm:

Crippled conservative brain: build 2 suncable equivalents and get back to us about firming requirements aka empirical learning.

At enormous cost, with no guarantee, as you have said. Otherwise there would be no need for nuclear if it doesn't work. Roll Eyes

But you want 2 Suncables with twice the batteries mentioned at a cost of over $64 billion. For that we could have 3 large nuclear reactors not just 7 SMR's, according to CSIRO. Meanwhile Albo's plan is $1.3 TRILLION.

""As Australians will soon see, our plan will cost a fraction of the government's $1.3 trillion dollar plan — a figure not even the prime minster cricket team of Labor spin doctors can conceal," he said."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-22/dutton-claims-nuclear-energy-will-cost-fr...

"It noted this cost could only be achieved by building reactors one after the other and warned the first power plant would likely be subject to what's called a "first of its kind" premium, which could double the price from $8.5 billion to $17 billion."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-19/cost-of-going-nuclear-missing-in-coalitio...

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 2:19pm:

Your crippled conservative brain on full display; empiricism is knowledge by experiment, pragmatism is finding best solutions by adjusting to circumstances. Estimation: see the above, the 3 can operate over time simultaneously in any order as required , not according to your closed, visionless, conservative brain.

And yet you can't provide anything. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 2:19pm:

It IS also true for nuclear (full marks!); the point is it will be more than a decade before the first big nuclear plant can be operational in Oz (2035-37 according to Dutton), and Paris demands 50% global reduction in emissions by then. That's why we have to build 2 suncable equivalents well before then - which is doable, with gas as firming.

And yet one sun cable has not been built or started in 2 years. Grin

"Sun Cable's solar project is in voluntary administration. Why has it happened, and what does it mean?"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-19/nt-sun-cable-voluntary-administration-exp...

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 2:19pm:

Didn't think I'd be defending nuclear from fears lodged in a crippled conservative brain; France has survived half a century with nuclear plants in built up areas.

And yet you are defending nothing that I wrote. Nuclear is a dirty word. Try telling Albo that it is not. Try Ardern, Biden, Starmer, try telling Germany. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 2:19pm:

But empirical learning may in fact show we don't need nuclear in Oz, after we have actually built 2 suncable equivalents - the cheapest form of new energy - and discover how much on-off gas we need for firming.

So now it is on-off gas and not nuclear. You are changeable, just like the wind. And just about as useless. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross Gold Member Offline Representative of me Posts: 40626	Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Reply #200 - Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:03pm Peter Dutton claims nuclear energy plan will cost a fraction of Labor’s pursuit of renewable energy - Watch Dutton's nose grow longer and longer with his lies. Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Back to top	Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44008
Gender: male

Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target
Reply #201 - Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:22pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:03pm:

Peter Dutton claims nuclear energy plan will cost a fraction of Labor’s pursuit of renewable energy - Watch Dutton's nose grow longer and longer with his lies. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

Au contraire.

From your link:

Dutton warned of the dangers of a minority Labor government, saying people "could not afford three years of the madness of minority government, comprising Labor, the Teals and the Greens – do not forget the manic nature of the Rudd Gillard Rudd period."

He painted Mr Albanese as a weak and dishonest leader.

"I believe he has compromised the honour of the office he holds, he has certainly broken at least 12 core promises, most egregiously in promising Australians prior to the election that they would be better off under a Labor government," Mr Dutton said.

The sentiment was echoed by Mr Dutton's deputy Sussan Ley, who earlier told the audience, "We have a prime minister who is willing to lie to you when it suits him and his politics. We have a liar in the Lodge."

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17224
Gender: male

Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target
Reply #202 - Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:34pm

"Mr Dutton pointed to the Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) estimates that capital expenditure on renewables, and the cost to maintain them out to 2050, will cost about $383bn.

“But engineer Dr David Hayden Collins says that when the replacement of panels and turbines is factored in, the cost is likely to be $1.3 trillion,” Mr Dutton said.

“Five times greater than AEMO’s estimate."

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/sustainability/peter-dutton-warns...

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12283
Gender: male

Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target
Reply #203 - Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm

lee wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 3:29pm:

So you don't know.

See the UNU study.

Quote:

And many multiple fill times. Roll Eyes

Crippled conservative brain doesn't know about AI yet; determining the required successive fill times for the entire system is a cinch.

Quote:

At enormous cost, with no guarantee, as you have said. Otherwise there would be no need for nuclear if it doesn't work. Roll Eyes

Stop bleating about cost (the issue is resources not "cost": even two billionaires alone were prepared to fund Suncable; and anyway the government can create money for free if the necessary resources are available for purchase by the government.

Quote:

But you want 2 Suncables with twice the batteries mentioned at a cost of over $64 billion.

A cinch, and for free as noted above, since the necessary resources are available. Or funded by a couple of billionaires.

Quote:

For that we could have 3 large nuclear reactors not just 7 SMR's, according to CSIRO. Meanwhile Albo's plan is $1.3 TRILLION.

Yes. And?
Australia has the necessary resources to complete the job.

"If the nation can build it, the nation can pay for it". JM Keynes.

Quote:

""As Australians will soon see, our plan will cost a fraction of the government's $1.3 trillion dollar plan — a figure not even the prime minster cricket team of Labor spin doctors can conceal," he said."

But fail to meet Paris 2030 requirements (midway to zero emissions by 2050).

Quote:

"It noted this cost could only be achieved by building reactors one after the other and warned the first power plant would likely be subject to what's called a "first of its kind" premium, which could double the price from $8.5 billion to $17 billion."

Correct - amazing, occasionally your crippled conservative brain spits out a correct statement.

Quote:

And yet you can't provide anything. Grin

First up , I can show you 2 Suncable equivalents, funded by Cannon-Brookes and Forrest, or better, for free by the Oz Treasury.

Quote:

And yet one sun cable has not been built or started in 2 years. Grin

Disastrous crippled brain again: C-B and Forrest fell out, but the scheme is doable. As for cost; Dutton doesn't mind public funding for his distant nuclear dream...now there's an ideological reverse for you...

Quote:

"Sun Cable's solar project is in voluntary administration. Why has it happened, and what does it mean?"

Low IQ crippled brain - C-B and Twiggy had a falling out.

Quote:

And yet you are defending nothing that I wrote. Nuclear is a dirty word. Try telling Albo that it is not. Try Ardern, Biden, Starmer, try telling Germany. Roll Eyes

Because most of what you wrote is crippled by blind ideology (one exception already noted...).

And those old codgers will be swept aside by young voters who want zero emissions FAST (latest polling among 20-35 age groups). They are technology neutral, but - unlike you - want zero emissions NOW.

Quote:

So now it is on-off gas and not nuclear. You are changeable, just like the wind. And just about as useless. Roll Eyes

Crippled brain and low IQ: gas is merely the transition (firming) fuel as we approach 100% renewables.

Whether Oz needs nuclear to achieve zero emissions is not yet clear; eg, I saw a tweet from former PM Turnbull today saying nuclear in Oz isn't necessary.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48816
At my desk.

Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target
Reply #204 - Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:56pm

Frank wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:22pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:03pm:

Peter Dutton claims nuclear energy plan will cost a fraction of Labor’s pursuit of renewable energy - Watch Dutton's nose grow longer and longer with his lies. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

Au contraire.

From your link:

Dutton warned of the dangers of a minority Labor government, saying people "could not afford three years of the madness of minority government, comprising Labor, the Teals and the Greens – do not forget the manic nature of the Rudd Gillard Rudd period."

He painted Mr Albanese as a weak and dishonest leader.

"I believe he has compromised the honour of the office he holds, he has certainly broken at least 12 core promises, most egregiously in promising Australians prior to the election that they would be better off under a Labor government," Mr Dutton said.

The sentiment was echoed by Mr Dutton's deputy Sussan Ley, who earlier told the audience, "We have a prime minister who is willing to lie to you when it suits him and his politics. We have a liar in the Lodge."

The carbon tax was the sanest climate policy either government has produced. The coalition is insane by comparison.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17224
Gender: male

Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target
Reply #205 - Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 5:44pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

See the UNU study.

Why? Obviously you haven't, or you would be quoting selected parts. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Crippled conservative brain doesn't know about AI yet; determining the required successive fill times for the entire system is a cinch.

AI is only as good as the initial HUMAN programmers. Roll Eyes

And that would mean they could only ever be successively emptied. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Stop bleating about cost (the issue is resources not "cost": even two billionaires alone were prepared to fund Suncable; and anyway the government can create money for free if the necessary resources are available for purchase by the government.

Oh so "Free Money" means you can use the most expensive option available. I don't think Keen even proposes that. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

A cinch, and for free as noted above, since the necessary resources are available. Or funded by a couple of billionaires.

And the billionaires are only doing it for the benefit of mankind, so monetary kickbacks at all. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Yes. And?
Australia has the necessary resources to complete the job.

Ah yes. Free other people's money. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

But fail to meet Paris 2030 requirements (midway to zero emissions by 2050).

Solar and wind turbines consume power being made, they need to be replaced, consuming more power. So because China is offshore we will beat our Paris requirements? So much for a GLOBAL solution. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Correct - amazing, occasionally your crippled conservative brain spits out a correct statement.

And which does nothing for your free money argument. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

First up , I can show you 2 Suncable equivalents, funded by Cannon-Brookes and Forrest, or better, for free by the Oz Treasury.

Only with "free money". Or those kind benevolent greenie types like in Germany where they have ramped up their sale price of their "free electricity". Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Disastrous crippled brain again: C-B and Forrest fell out, but the scheme is doable.

And yet it fell down broke. So much for doable. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

As for cost; Dutton doesn't mind public funding for his distant nuclear dream...now there's an ideological reverse for you...

But you said it could be done cheaper using nuclear. Why would you want a temporary, more expensive, replacement? Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Low IQ crippled brain - C-B and Twiggy had a falling out.

And Twiggy's Green Dream head honchos are departing at a rapid rate. Why do you think that is? Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Because most of what you wrote is crippled by blind ideology (one exception already noted...).

So one exception overrules 4. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

And those old codgers will be swept aside by young voters who want zero emissions FAST (latest polling among 20-35 age groups).

It is the youg people in the EU who are rebelling. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

They are technology neutral, but - unlike you - want zero emissions NOW.

And those same EU youngies have seen the cost skyrocket and reliability of supply dive. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Crippled brain and low IQ: gas is merely the transition (firming) fuel as we approach 100% renewables.

And still nothing from you about this nirvana needing replacement solar and wind. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

I saw a tweet from former PM Turnbull today saying nuclear in Oz isn't necessary.

Ah yes Malcolm, the closet green. Grin

You realise he was an "investment banker". All those lovely subsidies in green. Grin

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 5:49pm by lee »

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12283
Gender: male

Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target
Reply #206 - Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm

lee wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 5:44pm:

Why? Obviously you haven't, or you would be quoting selected parts. Grin

You dementing? We covered the topic previously; there are sufficient potential pumped hydro sites in Oz - though nuclear might also be required. The first job is to build 2 suncable equivalents ASAP.

Quote:

AI is only as good as the initial HUMAN programmers. Roll Eyes

Now I know you are only a 'tyre kicking' troll, or confirming your low IQ. Ofcourse the AI will be programmed to do the job.

Quote:

And that would mean they could only ever be successively emptied. Wink

No, as one is being emptied, another is being filled, with AI keeping track of the entire system.

Quote:

Oh so "Free Money" means you can use the most expensive option available. I don't think Keen even proposes that. Grin

Er...renewables are the cheapest form of new energy generation , meanwhile we are also seeking the quickest and best firming methods, to achieve secure 100% zero emissions.

Quote:

Ah yes. Free other people's money. Grin

Thatcher's old lie; and billionaires stole other people's money by definition (eg Bezos has pauperized thousands of small retailers around the world, likewise Zuckerberg is destroying local journalism and newspapers).

Quote:

Solar and wind turbines consume power being made, they need to be replaced, consuming more power. So because China is offshore we will beat our Paris requirements? So much for a GLOBAL solution. Grin

Crippled brain; excess renwables can be stored; and China is heading for peak emissions by 2030, and zero emissions by 2060. You?

Quote:

Only with "free money". Or those kind benevolent greenie types like in Germany where they have ramped up their sale price of their "free electricity". Roll Eyes

The EU - including the German Greens - are crippled by your mainstream economic orthodoxy demanding 'government fiscal responsibility'.

Quote:

And yet it fell down broke. So much for doable.

Low IQ , or just fraudulent? They had all the resources lined up, funding and ready to, but then they disagreed over the use of the electricity. But the resources are avialable ...aka doable (by the government, if the private sector can't get its greedy a*se into gear.)

Quote:

But you said it could be done cheaper using nuclear. Why would you want a temporary, more expensive, replacement? Roll Eyes

Low IQ: I said we don't know if nuclear (which can't be available for 15 years anyway) is even necesary yet.

Quote:

And Twiggy's Green Dream head honchos are departing at a rapid rate. Why do you think that is? Roll Eyes

Twiggy's hydrogen plans are complicated by as yet unproven technologies, that's why.

Quote:

It is the young people in the EU who are rebelling.

Wrong, young people -unlike you - all around the world want zero emissions NOW. Wink

Quote:

And those same EU youngies have seen the cost skyrocket and reliability of supply dive. Roll Eyes

And they are seeing billionaires' wealth ballooning, and know, and are demanding governemts can do much more to reach zero emissions.

Quote:

And still nothing from you about this nirvana needing replacement solar and wind. Wink

Low IQ: not replacement, but in addition.

Quote:

Ah yes Malcolm, the closet green. Grin

Closet green or not, he proves we don't know if we need nuclear (he says we don't) ...but you don't do empirical discovery, in this case because you want to maintain the filthy fossil industry to ensure the survival of private sector profits.

Own up, do we need nuclear?

Quote:

You realise he was an "investment banker". All those lovely subsidies in green. Grin

And he says we don't need nuclear. You?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:51pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

Belgarion Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5395 Gender:	Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target Reply #207 - Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 1:15pm Reality check:
Back to top	Nuclear_countries.jpg (56 KB \| 2 ) "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire.....(possibly) IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17224
Gender: male

Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target
Reply #208 - Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 2:58pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:

We covered the topic previously; there are sufficient potential pumped hydro sites in Oz - though nuclear might also be required.

Nope. No formal studies of ground types to determine if the ground is suitable. But keep talking about headlines rather than the actual contents. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:

The first job is to build 2 suncable equivalents ASAP.

That figure you keep quoting is the nameplate capacity. Solar output is about 30-35% of nameplate. So keep adding another one and another one. 30% of 40GW won't cut it. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:

Ofcourse the AI will be programmed to do the job.

But AI is Artificial. It is supposed to be learning. If it only learns what it has been told, it fails.

"Future historians may well regard 2023 as a landmark in the advent of artificial intelligence (AI). But whether that future will prove utopian, apocalyptic or somewhere in between is anyone’s guess. "

https://theconversation.com/ai-is-our-promethean-fire-using-it-wisely-means-know...

You just have naive belief. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:

No, as one is being emptied, another is being filled, with AI keeping track of the entire system.

Yes successivley emptied and filled. But the need to be continually emptied and filled shows that Solar and wind can't cut it. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:

Er...renewables are the cheapest form of new energy generation , meanwhile we are also seeking the quickest and best firming methods, to achieve secure 100% zero emissions.

Cheapest at $1.3 trillion? Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:

Thatcher's old lie; and billionaires stole other people's money by definition (eg Bezos has pauperized thousands of small retailers around the world, likewise Zuckerberg is destroying local journalism and newspapers).

And now those same billionaires are rorting the system with "new" technologies. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:

Crippled brain; excess renwables can be stored; and China is heading for peak emissions by 2030, and zero emissions by 2060. You?

First you have to have "excess renewables" far in excess of the limited excess. Wink

2MW excess won't push 20MW of storage. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:

The EU - including the German Greens - are crippled by your mainstream economic orthodoxy demanding 'government fiscal responsibility'.

Hey. these are your German Green New Dreams, and now you cut them loose because it didn't work? Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:

Low IQ , or just fraudulent? They had all the resources lined up, funding and ready to, but then they disagreed over the use of the electricity. But the resources are avialable ...aka doable (by the government, if the private sector can't get its greedy a*se into gear.)

So now they have gone from beneficent billionaires to "greedy a*se"s. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:

Low IQ: I said we don't know if nuclear (which can't be available for 15 years anyway) is even necesary yet.

And yet you want to commit to Weather Dependant Renewables. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:

Twiggy's hydrogen plans are complicated by as yet unproven technologies, that's why.

Yes they are. As is CCS and a whole lot of other Green Dreams. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:

Wrong, young people -unlike you - all around the world want zero emissions NOW.

"ontrary to the last EU election in 2019, when millions of young climate protesters took to Europe's streets, this year's campaign saw climate change usurped by issues including immigration, economic woes and struggling European industries."

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uphill-road-europes-climate-plan-after-eu-e...

So climate is NOT top of the pops. You are using your belief system again.

TBC

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17224
Gender: male

Re: Coalition To Dump Australia's Climate Target
Reply #209 - Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 3:04pm

Cont.

"As a reeling Continent tries to make sense of what just hit it, the role of young voters like the Sylt partygoers is coming into focus as an important factor. In Germany, the share of young people who voted for the AfD jumped between the last European Parliament election in 2019 and this one (rising by 11 percent among voters aged between 24 and 30). In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party raked in some 30 percent of the youth vote nationally — a 10-point rise compared to 2019.

Which begs the question: Why are so many of Europe’s Gen-Z and younger Millennials — whose parents and grandparents espoused left-wing politics, ushering in the sexual revolution in the 1960s — embracing the antithesis of their elders’ ideals? And whatever happened to the stigma or shame that once surrounded overtly racist and xenophobic attitudes like those on display in the Sylt video?"

https://www.politico.eu/article/far-right-europe-young-voters-election-2024-fore...

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:

And they are seeing billionaires' wealth ballooning, and know, and are demanding governemts can do much more to reach zero emissions.

Addressed above. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:

Low IQ: not replacement, but in addition.

So now you expect Solar and Wind to never need replacing. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:

Closet green or not, he proves we don't know if we need nuclear (he says we don't) ...but you don't do empirical discovery, in this case because you want to maintain the filthy fossil industry to ensure the survival of private sector profits.

Malcolm has NO expertise in Solar, Wind, Storage or Nuclear. He hasn't the knowledge to "prove" anything. Roll Eyes

And how does Nu8clear become a "filthy fossil industry". But we know you kjeep talking bullschist because that is ALL you have. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 12:46pm:

Own up, do we need nuclear?

Far more than Unreliables. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged