+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread (/thread-4986.html)
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - Gointocarlton - 06-19-2024
(06-19-2024, 07:07 AM)DJC link Wrote:But could you rely on the State or Commonwealth Governments to collect your rubbish each week?Ill happily deal with one less layer of oxygen thieving goons thanks.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - LP - 06-19-2024
Local government has very little audience, most of the blame they wear is due to the actions at the level of the state, and the states are proving themselves to be incompetent on many levels.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - Gointocarlton - 06-19-2024
(06-19-2024, 11:19 AM)LP link Wrote:Local government has very little audience, most of the blame they wear is due to the actions at the level of the state, and the states are proving themselves to be incompetent on many levels.You obviously dont live in my LGA, incompetence personified and so out of touch with local needs you'd think they were living in not another post code, but another country. They make the state gov look like superstars. Its a corrupt disgrace and there is not a damn thing us rate payers can do about it.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - LP - 06-19-2024
There is irony in this article from Nick Foley titled "Separating Fact from Fiction"
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/cheaper-cleaner-more-consistent-do-dutton-s-claims-on-nuclear-stack-up-20240329-p5fg66.html
Nearly all the claims are either bogus or manipulated 1/2 truths, I think it contains very little truth but some of the deception is harder to debunk than other parts, the author largely relies on the ignorance of the public to argue his case.
Let's pick the one that 42% of home energy demands are already serviced by green energy, because anybody can google the facts and pull this claim apart. Firstly, 42% sounds grand, but homes are only 10% of the countries energy demand, the rest is commercial, industrial, agriculture and transport. So in reality that 42% is less than 5% of the countries total energy demand, and I'm assuming the 42% is true which I doubt. Are roughly half the houses in your street off-grid?
To get all of Australia's 11 Million homes to be self-sufficient the quickest possible way probably means SolarPV and Batteries, which seems to be the articles preferred option, only a small fraction of home already have SolarPV, and an even smaller fraction of that has Battery. I fact the percentage is so small we can assume it's zero for a ball park calculation. So 11 Million homes, with Solar PV and Battery go "Off-Grid" to achieve 10% reduction in the countries energy demand. Market cost based on $6500 for Solar and $16000 for a suitable 24/7 battery, approx $250 BIllion, 11,000,000 x (6500 + 22000) = $247.5B, that's apparently cheaper than nuclear base load? :o
That figure doesn't include recharging the family car, that market isn't developed enough yet for it to be included in the survey, but if you do want to charge an EV and remain 24/7 off-grid then increase the cost of the SolarPV and Battery to cope with one EV per household, the total cost rises by about 50%! ~$320B :o And no, you can't borrow some electrons from the friendly neighbours, they are in the same pickle!
In any case, much of your daytime energy, in fact 90% of it, will be powering hospitals, factories, cinemas, transport, farmers, fishermen and the like, etc., etc.!
Of course you can live with the smaller SolarPV and Battery, and just accept the power goes off at some point in the evening and comes back an hour or two after sunrise, of course doing that shortens the life of your battery, see the next bit.
Next, batteries last about 10 years on average, that means 2/3 of the $250B is an ongoing expense once a decade! $160B. Even old fashioned nuclear plants last 30 years, and modern ones are expected to endure at least twice that.
The next bizarre claim, they are going to do this green stuff by 2030, faster than nuclear, even if they had the available SolarPV and Battery hardware which they don't, they can't possible pay for it, and they can't role out a ten fold increase in SolarPV and Battery by 2030, it's fiction to claim they can!
If media want people to buy in, they should start printing the truth.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - DJC - 06-19-2024
I’m going with the CSIRO on nuclear power; unbiased, objective and evidence-based analysis.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - LP - 06-20-2024
(06-19-2024, 11:17 PM)DJC date Wrote:I’m going with the CSIRO on nuclear power; unbiased, objective and evidence-based analysis.I don't have a problem with that, as long as you call out when the CSIRO report is misrepresented by either side of the debate.
But do not assume the conclusions of the CSIRO report are devoid of politics, they are funded by the government and the CSIRO reports tend to make conclusions based on the government of the day!
A lot of other stuff influences the outcomes of various reports, like where the superfunds of the various people or industries involved choose to invest.
Secondly, it's very wrong to assume we will all get the same deal, the growing disquiet about the poor performance of energy providers in regional areas should be a warning for all of us, it's the regional areas that are the canary, when stuff gets tough, the suburbs will feel the bite as well.
It's completely disingenuous when critics fail to call out the bogus details on both sides of the debate, they need to do better and if they do I'll have nothing to post about. But at the moment I see each segment attacking competing low carbon alternatives, they are forcing a unilateral approach that is doomed to fail.
PS; The moment engineers make nuclear fusion reliable, CSIRO will be all in over it like a rash, despite it generating as much waste a nuclear fission!
The real smart mix is SolarPV with centralised storage for peak demand, with supplementary energy from wind and hydro, relying on nuclear for 24/7 base load and zero carbon hydrogen production for transport. That's zero carbon emission within 20 years, but it's not going to be a windfall for any one technology investor including our superfunds.
I suspect we'll still be debating the politics in 20 years, at which time 3° C has left the building!
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - DJC - 06-20-2024
(06-20-2024, 01:35 AM)LP link Wrote:I don't have a problem with that, as long as you call out when the CSIRO report is misrepresented by either side of the debate.
But do not assume the conclusions of the CSIRO report are devoid of politics, they are funded by the government and the CSIRO reports tend to make conclusions based on the government of the day!
A lot of other stuff influences the outcomes of various reports, like where the superfunds of the various people or industries involved choose to invest.
Secondly, it's very wrong to assume we will all get the same deal, the growing disquiet about the poor performance of energy providers in regional areas should be a warning for all of us, it's the regional areas that are the canary, when stuff gets tough, the suburbs will feel the bite as well.
It's completely disingenuous when critics fail to call out the bogus details on both sides of the debate, they need to do better and if they do I'll have nothing to post about. But at the moment I see each segment attacking low carbon alternatives, they a forcing a unilateral approach that is doomed to fail.
As I said, I'll just stick with the CSIRO report because I know that it is accurate, independent and absolutely devoid of political influence. The only problem is that it is clearly not influencing political party policy.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - LP - 06-20-2024
(06-20-2024, 01:46 AM)DJC date Wrote:As I said, I'll just stick with the CSIRO report because I know that it is accurate, independent and absolutely devoid of political influence. The only problem is that it is clearly not influencing political party policy.Fair enough, but I recall on this very forum or the earlier version you had previously complained about people at the head of CSIRO having agendas outside of the science, and now you're asserting it's not the case, it's a bit arbitrary.
I'm all for the science, when it is without the politics.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - DJC - 06-20-2024
(06-20-2024, 01:51 AM)LP link Wrote:Fair enough, but I recall on this very forum or the earlier version you had previously complained about people at the head of CSIRO having agendas outside of the science, and now you're asserting it's not the case, it's a bit arbitrary.
I'm all for the science, when it is without the politics.
Faulty memory LP.
Any reservations I may have had about the latest GenCost report were assuaged when I listened to Paul Graham calmly, methodically and authoritatively dismantle the arguments of the critics of the report.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - LP - 06-20-2024
(06-20-2024, 02:09 AM)DJC date Wrote:Faulty memory LP.Not faulty at all, we had quite a debate about the issue.
As you may recall I worked with a segment of the CSIRO advanced manufacturing group for almost a decade, intermittently at first then intensely for 3 years, I don't need to read a paper to know the opinions and politics of those involved, for many I can just ask them. But you won't find the opinions being published because funding is vindictive.