Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[sptrawler]

Really ? Truly ? For keeps ?
Is that why the Business groups are imploring the Federal Government to create a clear set of policy guidelines for the rapid orderly movement to renewable energy ?
And why the CC deniers in the government have steadfastly refused to entertain such a policy ?

www.afr.com › politics › business-and-industry-to-go-it-alone-on-a-new..
Business and industry to 'go it alone' on a new energy policy ...
Sep 7, 2018 - State governments, business groups and industry are going it alone and preparing a framework to provide certainty for investment in the energy sector, saying they are dismayed by the implosion of the Coalition's National Energy Guarantee and the policy vacuum that has followed.

When haven't Business groups implored the Government to intervene, which usually means subsidies, pump money into or public funding IMO?
The NBN, pink batts, etc
The State Goevrnments are installing H.V transmission upgrades and interconnects, the Federal Government is helping fund Snowy 2.0.
Untill the inter State H.V interconnects are finished and sections of the transmission system upgraded, from what I've read and posted there is a bit of a hold by the AEMO on any more major solar installations.
There is absolutely no point in the Government making commitments, that basically underwrite private sector investment, how many times do we have to get caught before we learn?
When the time is right, for the Government to intervene in the market place, I'm sure they will. In the recent past the Government drove the market place and it turned into a pigs ear, as is usually the way because it becomes driven by greed and ideology, rather than technical objectives and system needs.
Just my opinion.

 

[basilio]

The simple overarching policy statement that isrequired is that Australia intends to move quickly to a renewable energy economy as quickly as possible.
If we are taking any notice of the France agreements it would be around 50% renewables by 2030

 

[sptrawler]

The simple overarching policy statement that isrequired is that Australia intends to move quickly to a renewable energy economy as quickly as possible.
If we are taking any notice of the France agreements it would be around 50% renewables by 2030

We are doing it as quickly as possible, as can be seen by the solar plants having to be backed off because the infra structure isn't there to support it. Now the infra structure is getting put in place, then more renewables can be put in.
What business want is subsidies to build the renewables, whether we can use them or not and guaranteed offtake of what they produce. All that leads to is a World of pain for the taxpayer, as has happened before with take or pay contracts.
The reality is the storage and transmission load/ generation shifting ability has to be improved so that the renewables are available when required, not all at the same time.
If we can get to 50% by 2030 I'm sure we will, just saying it doesn't in reality do anything, most of it will happen as is realistically possible. IMO

 

[Knobby22]

We are doing terribly by world standards.

 

[sptrawler]

We are doing terribly by world standards.

Well it is expected Australia's electricity generation will be 50% renewables by 2030, that sounds reasonable to me.
http://www.environment.gov.au/syste...tralias-emissions-projections-2019-report.pdf

Like I've sad before, we could all help reduce coal burning by reducing our usage, I see Queensland is going to pay you to do so.
I suppose all the 'greenies' will be signing up and the kids from school that march on the streets, can read and do homework instead of watching t.v and gaming.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/program...emand-response-to-keep-the-lights-on/11771884

 

[IFocus]

SP you have lost the plot there is no energy policy, there is no climate policy hasn't been for the entire term of 3 LNP governments, this is no secret or conspiracy where have you been.

It is not and never has been an orderly change over to renewables its a total cluster and due to the lack of policy it will cost a mosta the later its addressed.

Not to mention the serious security issues around energy supplies as a result of.....you guessed it no energy policy.

 

[sptrawler]

SP you have lost the plot there is no energy policy, there is no climate policy hasn't been for the entire term of 3 LNP governments, this is no secret or conspiracy where have you been.

It is not and never has been an orderly change over to renewables its a total cluster and due to the lack of policy it will cost a mosta the later its addressed.

Not to mention the serious security issues around energy supplies as a result of.....you guessed it no energy policy.

Well IFocus everyone has their right to their own beliefs, I see W.A changing over to renewables and gas, in an orderly manner.

I can only go off my observations of what the AEMO say and those who have something to do with the electrical distribution system over east, then from that decide what parts of the media story makes sense, and which parts sound like ramping.
Time will tell if my assumptions prove correct, that is unless Labour get in, then I assume $billions will be thrown out the window all over again and there will be rejoicing in the corridors of business.

Also where in my posts did I say anything about energy policy? I think I have said the Government should stay out of it untill it is absolutely necessary, most of the issues are at State level, as they are actually responsible for their generation and distribution. The AEMO is responsible for system security and the Federal Government probably know as much about system stability and generation as you.
But never the less your post was very emotive, but lacking in any facts or observations on which to build, basically a rather nice rant.

 

[orr]

Well IFocus everyone has their right to their own beliefs, I see W.A changing over to renewables and gas, in an orderly manner.

I can only go off my observations of what the AEMO say and those who have something to do with the electrical distribution system over east, then from that decide what parts of the media story makes sense, and which parts sound like ramping.
Time will tell if my assumptions prove correct, that is unless Labour get in, then I assume $billions will be thrown out the window all over again and there will be rejoicing in the corridors of business.

Also where in my posts did I say anything about energy policy? I think I have said the Government should stay out of it untill it is absolutely necessary, most of the issues are at State level, as they are actually responsible for their generation and distribution. The AEMO is responsible for system security and the Federal Government probably know as much about system stability and generation as you.

If Labor get in, or had they of, They would have implemented the National Energy Garrentee.. Ever heard of it?
you might like to find out a little about it. And what lead to this fithed rate reponce of a policy being the the only politicallly feasable possibility at the time.
And ahh Ross Guarnet had a bit to say about where things were going in ...ahhh ...2008.
The U.K the Stern report 2006... But these were thinking people, not controlled by the Minerals Council of Australia.

 

[sptrawler]

If Labor get in, or had they of, They would have implemented the National Energy Garrentee.. Ever heard of it?
you might like to find out a little about it. And what lead to this fithed rate reponce of a policy being the the only politicallly feasable possibility at the time.
And ahh Ross Guarnet had a bit to say about where things were going in ...ahhh ...2008.
The U.K the Stern report 2006... But these were thinking people, not controlled by the Minerals Council of Australia.

Another nice rant, that actually says nothing, the 'Guarantee'? Was that the one that Labour criticised, when the Coalition put it before Parliament?
Here is something for you to read, unfortunately it isn't by an Australian media outlet, so it isn't full of the usual BS.
Saudi Arabia have most things in their favour, one plenty of sunshine and two plenty of money, also if they change to solar they have more fuel to sell to other Countries that need it for energy.
So they are very interested in changing to renewables, here is a report on their stance, written by a reporter from solar energy technology media.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnpa...wable-energy-crossroads-in-2019/#7caa1a2a738b

And for your info here is the N.E.G history:
In the years leading up to the proposed NEG, energy policy in Australia included the Rudd government's proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the introduction and repeal of the Gillard government's Clean Energy Act 2011, the Abbott government's Emissions Reduction Fund,[5] and proposals for an Emissions Intensity Scheme (EIS)[6] and a Clean Energy Target (CET)[7] among others. Throughout this time, energy prices in energy resource rich Australia continued to rise. In October 2017 the Turnbull government announced a new proposal, the National Energy Guarantee,[8], intended to "lower electricity prices, make the system more reliable, encourage the right investment and reduce emissions".[8] Subsidies and incentives for renewable energy will be scrapped under the plan.[2] The Labor opposition argues the plan will destroy the renewables sector,[2] but the government argues renewables can be competitive without subsidies,[2] and expects Australia will still meet its Paris Agreement obligations under the plan.[2] The Climate Council called the NEG "a woefully inadequate response" to climate change

And despite all the ranting and chanting, we are in line to meet our Paris Agreement obligations.

 

[rederob]

Also where in my posts did I say anything about energy policy?

It's the wrong thread,
But you began by suggesting the "general public" bore a lot of responsibility. Nowhere have you shown that to be true.
You think this is about "opinions," but it's actually about the factual basis of where we are and how we compare with the rest of the world. Germany has comparatively little renewables capacity yet generates 4 fold more energy from it than Australia because of government POLICIES. There was no such thing as an "orderly transition" in Europe, and nations like the UK implemented government policies to reach 20% energy from renewables: remember this is a small nation with almost 3 times Australia's population.
The reality is that where governments act, renewables take up is substantial. Australia's government has no cogent energy policy and as a result we are a comparative international renewables backwater.
AEMO is a partnership between governments and industry and the idea that there is an orderly transition taking place is nonsensical. States have a role in shaping their energy markets and this is easy for the isolated State of WA, but not for the interlinked Eastern States. In the East it is imperative that the federal government sets a clear path for energy generators to follow, and this has not happened.

 

[sptrawler]

AEMO is a partnership between governments and industry and the idea that there is an orderly transition taking place is nonsensical. States have a role in shaping their energy markets and this is easy for the isolated State of WA, but not for the interlinked Eastern States. In the East it is imperative that the federal government sets a clear path for energy generators to follow, and this has not happened.

The H.V transmission link between S.A and NSW, is due to be completed by 2022, and Snowy 2.0 has commenced, then the renewable excess from S.A can be used in NSW.
We have been through it endlessly, the Government can only throw money at it, the time it takes is a physical constraint. Currently the expectation is that Australia will be 50% renewables by 2030, that is good considering 10 years ago we were nearly 100%fossil fuel.
But nothing will stop the media from ramping up the emotion, it is a circulation goldmine.
It is the same as your example of Germany, a Country surrounded by other Countries, that is interconnected with them for security of supply and gets its Gas from Russia. WTF
Why not compare Germany with S.A, it is further ahead than Germany in uptake of renewables and it is connected to other States for security of supply.
Compare apples with apples.
As for the general public, we will be right up there with the U.S on personal usage, it just boils down to affluence. Per capita car ownership in Australia is right up there, same as personal computer and technology uptake in Australia is one of the World leaders, it isn't unsubstantiated it is common knowledge.
With affluence comes energy usage.
So if we cut back our usage, we will cut back our emissions, it isn't that hard to follow.
The State Government could make it mandatory in the building codes that P.V and batteries are installed in new houses, there are lots of things that could be enacted, that don't require the Federal Government intervening.

 

[Smurf1976]

Texas for instance is now mainly renewable power, based, not on political decisions but on price. California has always been a leader.

Which Texas?

If you mean the US state then about 80% of it's from gas, coal and nuclear.

California it's about 50% from gas and nuclear although it's more complex if electricity generated outside the state and send to California is included. Some of that's hydro, some of it's fossil or nuclear (and some of it was built outside the state specifically to avoid various rules which apply there).

 

[Smurf1976]

Gee, we have a lot of fugitive emissions. Better catch some of them. (Dad Joke)

Actually there's more truth to that than you might think.

It's one thing to mine coal, there are environmental arguments against it but there's also at present an ongoing use of it so mining will still be around at least in the short term, but it's borderline criminal to be mining black coal without extracting the gas from it first.

That's a waste of gas for a start and a completely unnecessary source of methane emissions.

If the coal's going to be mined then extracting the gas from it first ought to be mandatory so long as there's any ongoing use of gas (and it seems likely that the use of gas will continue at least as long as the use of coal so no problem with that approach).

 

[sptrawler]

Which Texas?

If you mean the US state then about 80% of it's from gas, coal and nuclear.

California it's about 50% from gas and nuclear although it's more complex if electricity generated outside the state and send to California is included. Some of that's hydro, some of it's fossil or nuclear (and some of it was built outside the state specifically to avoid various rules which apply there).

The media and the way they present things has a lot to answer for, people take anything that is said as gospel.
It wasn't long ago someone said the U.K was 50% renewables, in fact the story was renewable generation hit 50% for a very short period of time on a very good day.

I can do the same, Australia hits 50% renewables and here is the proof.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/10/australian-grid-hits-50-renewables-for-first-time/
Shame all the activists and CC chanters, don't use the same methodology when going on about Australia.

 

[rederob]

Compare apples with apples.

What I have spelled out is that there is no such thing as your "orderly transition." You note that even in Australia the federal government has had to intervene to build Snowy 2.0 so as to give intermittent renewables a firming capacity. In the USA some firming capacity is nowadays being required via battery capacity when solar farms are being built. No such integration is part of Australia's energy policy, so no "orderly transition" is occurring.
Your have yet to show your claim that the general public bears a great responsibility for CO2 emissions and instead divert discussion to other matters.
The reason the media focus on Australia's energy policy is because we have none. It's not brain science!

 

[Knobby22]

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/texas-us-wind-power-renewable-energy/

 

[wayneL]

Effect of Global warming/rising sea levels on coastal cities.

How the 'Venice of Africa' is losing its battle against the rising ocean
Ameth Diagne points to a single tree submerged in the ocean. It is barely visible from the patch of land where he is standing, 50 metres away. The few branches emerging from the water mark the place where he proposed to his wife 35 years earlier.
It used to be the town square of Doun Baba Dieye, a vibrant fishing community on the outskirts of Saint-Louis in northern Senegal. The village has been wiped off the map, with only the tree and crumbling walls of an abandoned school remaining as testament to its existence. Everything else is 1.5 metres under water.
“This was home. I was born here. Everything which was important to me happened here,” says Ameth, the former village chief.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...is-losing-its-battle-against-the-rising-ocean

This is by nobody believes alarmists, baz. There is no mentioned in The guardian article about the subsidence do with them messing about with the Senegal River.

It's nothing to do with rising oceans and all to do with a civil engineering **** up.

 

[sptrawler]

What I have spelled out is that there is no such thing as your "orderly transition." You note that even in Australia the federal government has had to intervene to build Snowy 2.0 so as to give intermittent renewables a firming capacity. In the USA some firming capacity is nowadays being required via battery capacity when solar farms are being built. No such integration is part of Australia's energy policy, so no "orderly transition" is occurring.
Your have yet to show your claim that the general public bears a great responsibility for CO2 emissions and instead divert discussion to other matters.
The reason the media focus on Australia's energy policy is because we have none. It's not brain science!

Do you live in a cocoon or something Rob, or is it just you like to ignore facts?
https://www.smh.com.au/business/com...-help-rise-of-renewables-20200129-p53vs7.html
From the article:
One of Australia's biggest batteries will be built in Queensland under a deal involving energy giant AGL, which backers say will strengthen the grid's ability to shift from coal to renewable power generation by smoothing out the intermittent nature of wind and solar power.

The giant new grid-scale battery at Wandoan, costing $120 million, will be built by independent power supplier Vena Energy in 18 months, the Queensland state government said
Onward it marches, untill at last you will have to concede, are you on big business payrole or what? The way you seem to be begging the Government to pump money into renewables.

It is happening as fast as is safely possible, which I think you already know, your not that stupid. It has been explained to the point a simpleton could understand and there is nothing wrong with your faculties. IMO

 

[rederob]

Do you live in a cocoon or something Rob, or is it just you like to ignore facts?

Why not go to the correct thread for these issues?
Your claim was about the general public playing a big role in CO2 emissions, and it was patently false.
With respect to the Wandoan battery project, it is one of many underway. However, none of the present projects has the capacity to meet Australia's overall energy needs into the future and none of them are able to rely on existing grid infrastructure.
AEMO knows that there is inadequate existing infrastructure to properly accommodate renewables, and that is limiting the ability for renewables to flow energy into the market. This is a clear failure of POLICY.

 

[sptrawler]

.
The reason the media focus on Australia's energy policy is because we have none. It's not brain science!

I think you are just acting, as though you can't understand the problem, you probably work for a solar farm.
I will explain the problem, in simple terms it may help you.
For the sake of the explanation I will use water as the medium, it is often used in electrical analogies as the theoretical characteristics are similar.
Right lets say all of S.A water is fed from a dam located next to Adelaide, from there the water is reticulated out to Cooper Pedy, Birdsville, Murray Bridge etc and all the Towns on the way.
When the water leaves the dam, it requires a huge main pipe possibly 4-6' diameter, as it has to carry all the water the whole system requires, as it moves further away from Adelaide and the Towns become smaller, so does the size of pipe required and the pipes installed are smaller.
By the time it gets out to Cooper Pedy, Birdsville etc, it is probably down to a 10" main.

Right 80 years later, because of climate change, the dam in Adelaide isn't getting the rainfall, but Cooper Pedy and Birdsville are getting heaps, the answer is easy build dams at Cooper Pedy and Birdsville and feed it down the pipe back to Adelaide.
The problem is you can't get enough water down the pipe, it is too small, no matter how many dams you build the water can't be used untill the pipes all the way back are increased and more dams put in along the way.
By putting more dams along the way, the size of pipe wont need to be as big, but it will still need replacing.
But add to that, we have so much water out there but it is intermittent so we are going to pipe it to NSW as well, so that water can be moved both ways.

Now lets get back to the AEMO, they are saying the HV transmission system needs upgrading and new HV interconnectors installed, which is being done as we speak, the HV link to Tasmania is being done and the connection between NSW and S.A.
Also at local levels the H.V transmission requires upgrading, switchyards will require upgrading, electrical protection systems upgraded which is being done, it takes time.
We already have too much renewable generation for the grid and there is heaps more ready to be installed, the hold up is the time required to replace and upgrade the transmission sytem which has FA to do with the Government or a Government policy IMO.
What, if the Government says we are going to be 100% renewables in 5 years, means that will happen?
I think the batteries are flat in your magic wand mate.