Upcoming Australian election thread.

[Natboy]

Kind of. It's a fair measurement in regards to equity. Per capita is still not the best way to count it because international trade skewers the results (using energy for other countries, but also potential GDP raising), but it's the most equitable measurement because it counts every person as an individual.

Think of it like food. If each Australian is eating 2kgs of food each day (on average) and each Indian is eating 0.2kgs of food each day, is it fair to say that India should eat less food just because the country as a whole eats more than us?

I understand your point but India are also building coal fired power stations whilst ours are closing down. We need to lift our game yes but I don’t think it needs to be the immediate sole focus. You watch energy and fuel prices continue to rise and everyone complain

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Not a perfect science either way but more logical to me is to look at total emissions vs other countries and reasons for said emissions ie: measurement beyond population. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for new tech including renewables and a transition away from fossil fuels over the longer term - but we’re a long way from being able to do that. Take hydrogen cars. A great idea that probably isn’t realistic for 10-15 years. Meanwhile, we pay ~$2/L for fuel because even electric cars have their limits and are still too expensive for a decent one.

I personally think that total emissions is only a viable if you also support population control. But there's always other ideas, like working to make central Australia habitable. Then we could expand our population and stop caring about emissions per capita.

Renewable tech is another thing which I have spent some time looking into and it's always polarising. There's always huge downsides. Like the fact that electric vehicles have very little benefit when powered by a fossil fuel grid. Plus the fact that they use Lithium which is difficult to mine and expensive, not the mention the waste issue due to the batteries having limited life. That goes for residential batteries too. Then there's the long haul issue with no infrastructure in place. And as you said, hydrogen is a long way off, but not so long off for storage and conversion which is what we'll need for future grid storage, but that's another long conversation altogether.

We're a while off getting a real carbon neutral system. But unfortunately coal isn't the future. Renewables are already at the point that they are cheaper than fossil fuel, which means that regardless of how much anyone cares about the environment or climate change, it's the economic damage we should worry about.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I understand your point but India are also building coal fired power stations whilst ours are closing down. We need to lift our game yes but I don’t think it needs to be the immediate sole focus. You watch energy and fuel prices continue to rise and everyone complain

Yep. I don't doubt that. Prices are going to increase for us. And there is definitely issues. India is pumping out power stations right now because they're trying to become a first world economic country. That means that they need to use any system they can that's viable, and unfortunately the most viable for India is coal. So they will increase coal use and increase CO2 output the same way China did when they were considered "developing". The only saving grace will be that they're massively expanding their renewable capabilities too, the same way China did.

Eventually India will probably get close to China's emissions though as China's emissions are coming down and India's are rising. And we'll criticise them for it but each time we try to same "India" at a global summit, we'll be laughed at because we're still one of the highest emitters per capita. And that's what they care about when it comes to climate summits.

 

[DinkumDog]

I personally think that total emissions is only a viable if you also support population control. But there's always other ideas, like working to make central Australia habitable. Then we could expand our population and stop caring about emissions per capita.

Renewable tech is another thing which I have spent some time looking into and it's always polarising. There's always huge downsides. Like the fact that electric vehicles have very little benefit when powered by a fossil fuel grid. Plus the fact that they use Lithium which is difficult to mine and expensive, not the mention the waste issue due to the batteries having limited life. That goes for residential batteries too. Then there's the long haul issue with no infrastructure in place. And as you said, hydrogen is a long way off, but not so long off for storage and conversion which is what we'll need for future grid storage, but that's another long conversation altogether.

We're a while off getting a real carbon neutral system. But unfortunately coal isn't the future. Renewables are already at the point that they are cheaper than fossil fuel, which means that regardless of how much anyone cares about the environment or climate change, it's the economic damage we should worry about.

Hence now the big test comes for the Teals.
They mostly got elected on climate action (and disillusioned centre-right voters), so let’s see what they actually deliver in the next 3 years. Zali Steggall could start by dumping the large SUV she gets around town in - practice what you preach Zali .

 

[Hacky McAxe]

The important thing to keep in mind for us is that it's currently cheaper to keep our old coal stations running. But these coal stations have major pollutant issues. New coal stations release less CO2 but new coal stations cost more than renewables. So maybe we shouldn't be shutting down old coal power stations. We're doing it to show the world we are doing something so we don't get kicked out of the climate summit like ScoMo did.

But shutting them down immediately isn't a smart decision any way you put it. Only shut them down when they become too costly to run.

It's still not as stupid as what Germany did when they shut down their nuclear power plants to switch to renewables, considering that nuclear is one of the lowest emission technologies.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Hence now the big test comes for the Teals.
They mostly got elected on climate action (and disillusioned centre-right voters), so let’s see what they actually deliver in the next 3 years. Zali Steggall could start by dumping the large SUV she gets around town in - practice what you preach Zali .

My guess is that they'll raise a bunch of Bills that will be outlandishly over the top, they won't get through, they'll blame Labor for blocking the bills, and it'll all end in a stalemate.

 

[Natboy]

Yep. I don't doubt that. Prices are going to increase for us. And there is definitely issues. India is pumping out power stations right now because they're trying to become a first world economic country. That means that they need to use any system they can that's viable, and unfortunately the most viable for India is coal. So they will increase coal use and increase CO2 output the same way China did when they were considered "developing". The only saving grace will be that they're massively expanding their renewable capabilities too, the same way China did.

Eventually India will probably get close to China's emissions though as China's emissions are coming down and India's are rising. And we'll criticise them for it but each time we try to same "India" at a global summit, we'll be laughed at because we're still one of the highest emitters per capita. And that's what they care about when it comes to climate summits.

Agreed. I guess I just can’t see them removing those coal fired power stations if/when they do become a third world country. Who knows what China will do. If they said the sky was blue you’d have to walk outside and check

 

[Natboy]

The important thing to keep in mind for us is that it's currently cheaper to keep our old coal stations running. But these coal stations have major pollutant issues. New coal stations release less CO2 but new coal stations cost more than renewables. So maybe we shouldn't be shutting down old coal power stations. We're doing it to show the world we are doing something so we don't get kicked out of the climate summit like ScoMo did.

But shutting them down immediately isn't a smart decision any way you put it. Only shut them down when they become too costly to run.

It's still not as stupid as what Germany did when they shut down their nuclear power plants to switch to renewables, considering that nuclear is one of the lowest emission technologies.

I only heard it briefly on the radio today and may have misheard but thought they said Germany are running out of power and opening or reusing coal fired power stations due to the drama with Russia and the German renewables being so unreliable

 

[speedy2460]

If we destroy carbon (Co2) completely, what are the trees going to live on. Simple question I know.
The other question is why do we only act on the opinions of the Climate Change supporters, and ignore
the experts with a different opinion?
The recorded evidence shows that there has been very little change in the last 200 odd years.
Every time I look at Climate Change, it takes me back to the money.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Agreed. I guess I just can’t see them removing those coal fired power stations if/when they do become a third world country. Who knows what China will do. If they said the sky was blue you’d have to walk outside and check

Yep. China is a bit trickier. But they're no longer listed as a developing country, so they don't get an emissions credit reduction. Which basically means that they'll have to meet the requirements too or face future trade restrictions. That's if we don't go to war considering that it looks like Russia and China are testing Japan at the moment.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I only heard it briefly on the radio today and may have misheard but thought they said Germany are running out of power and opening or reusing coal fired power stations due to the drama with Russia and the German renewables being so unreliable

Yeah, it was a stupid idea from the start. Basically Germany shut down it's nuclear plants to switch to renewables with gas as a baseline. With Russia's gas line being unreliable right now, it means Germany has to power back up its stations.

So basically in an attempt to become more carbon neutral, they increased their CO2 output.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

If we destroy carbon (Co2) completely, what are the trees going to live on. Simple question I know.

We don't actually "destroy CO2". We reduce the amount we put into the atmosphere. CO2 is great for plants to a certain point. The raising CO2 in the atmosphere means that the plants aren't absorbing it fast enough, and it also has an unfortunate feedback look effect. Plants can't survive in a climate that's too hot. So less plants means less CO2 absorbed, which means even more CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants also don't fully hold on to CO2. They absorb a lot, then when they die they release some. If they are burned then they release a lot more.

Then there's also the fact that 70% of the oxygen is produced by plant and other life in the oceans. With ocean acification from the CO2 increase, that life in the ocean is dropping as well which makes it harder to absorb CO2 and harder to produce oxygen.

Simple question, complex answer.

The other question is why do we only act on the opinions of the Climate Change supporters, and ignore
the experts with a different opinion?

That's a bit mixed. We primarily act on behalf of the climatologists and other earth scientists. There are still some scientists who say that anthropogenic climate change is a myth, but there's very few of them and they are almost all employed or funded by fossil fuel companies.

The most recent and most comprehensive analysis on the scientific consensus on climate change has nearly 100% climatologists agree that humans are having a very large impact.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266

The recorded evidence shows that there has been very little change in the last 200 odd years.

There has actually been a huge change and it's accelerating very fast

Climate change: global temperature

Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1850. It may seem like a small change, but it's a tremendous increase in stored heat.

www.climate.gov

Every time I look at Climate Change, it takes me back to the money.

Definitely good to focus on. Look at any scientist that disagrees on anthropogenic climate change, then look who funds them.

 

[SARGE]

Is nuclear power and tide power being considered? Or is it just solar power and some oversized fans?

 

[Gene Krupa]

Coalition delayed news that electricity prices are set to rise until after federal election

Outgoing energy minister Angus Taylor rejects suggestion delay was political and regulator says it was necessary to include ‘most recent network costs’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Is nuclear power and tide power being considered? Or is it just solar power and some oversized fans?

Unfortunately nuclear isn't being considered. It's one of the best options but Australia has generally been against it for a long time. Mainly because it would reduce our reliance on coal, which the mining companies don't want. And the mining companies tend to fund many government initiatives.

Tide power isn't very efficient right now. They're working on better tidal tech but it's a while off. The main issues are:

- it kills sea life

- sea life kill it (sharks love chewing through cables)

- the sea is full of sediment that clogs up any tidal tech

There are other ideas in development, like geothermal. But geothermal requires perfect conditions so it's not very viable.

 

[Disposable Hero]

Can we change the name of this post to the been and gone Elction?

 

[DinkumDog]

 

[Doogie]

I know you’re an expert on everything, particularly water but if the Libs have sold 50% of the country to China, plus what Labor have sold what is left? I’m sure you’ll know the exact figure. What did China do to us?!? Apparently you’re a health expert too. Covid?

Expert on everything - far from. Just can see blind stupidity from a mile off. And love poking the bear - eventually the reactions get so stupid I get a chuckle.

China inflicted CVD on us? As a general rule - weapons are designed for the opposition, not yourself. Unless your Okunbor. But he's an exception.

 

[Doogie]

Is nuclear power and tide power being considered? Or is it just solar power and some oversized fans?

Nuclear I won't touch because thats political but tidal was tested at Port Kembla. Worked ok - until it flooded. Its very Australian when u think about it.

Energy and the Environment-A Coastal Perspective - A Case Study on Wave Energy: Port Kembla, Australia

Know some of the people involved in it and it was hilarious. Cannot remember the official reason it flounded but the off the record reason, someone left a door open during a king tide.

 

[Psycho Doggie]

Is nuclear power and tide power being considered? Or is it just solar power and some oversized fans?

Nuclear power would be extremely viable, except for one problem, it is run by humans. If you have Netflix check the "Meltdown - Three Mile Island" series (4 eps).