This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Jump to new
sptrawler said:
South Australia expects to be 0% carbon, by 2030, why isn't that in the Fairfax press?
Western Australia will have shut down 50% of its coal by 2025, why isn't that in the Fairfax press?
Click to expand...
Power generation data or the last 12 months:

Note that figures are for consumption and don't add to 100% due to export to other states / import from other states and rounding.

Net pumping = more pumped up than came back down during the year.

Queensland = Fossil = 94.4%. Renewables = 13.6%. Export to NSW = 8%.

NSW = Fossil = 79.1%. Renewables = 15.4%. Net imports from other states = 6.2%. Net pumping to storage = 0.6%

Vic = Fossil = 78.0%. Renewables = 21.9%. Net imports from other states = 0.1%

SA = Fossil = 50.1%. Renewables = 55.8%. Net export to Victoria = 5.8%

Tas = Fossil = 3.4%. Renewables 95.0%. Net import from Victoria = 1.7%

I don't have data on the same basis for WA and NT but both are predominantly fossil.
 
I wonder how much more will be exported from S.A when the inter connectors are completed?
 
Smurf1976 said:
I don't have data on the same basis for WA and NT but both are predominantly fossil.
Click to expand...

WA: Fossil = 92.3%. Renewable = 7.7%

NT: Fossil = 96.5%. Renewable = 3.5%

Australia total: Fossil = 81.1%. Renewable = 18.9%

These figures are for the 2017-18 financial year whereas those I previously quoted for other states are for the past 12 months to yesterday. Note that these figures are for electricity production only and do not include other forms of energy.
 
Malcolm Turball is weighing in again on teh need to take urgent action to deal with global warming.


Malcolm Turnbull ✔ @TurnbullMalcolm

· Feb 23, 2020

Replying to @TurnbullMalcolm
Reverse deforestation, reforest wherever possible. A decade ago the “how” was hard to see and very expensive relative to BAU. Now we can see a feasible, affordable route to net zero - the alternative is catastrophic.



Malcolm Turnbull ✔ @TurnbullMalcolm

The consequences of this transition: a habitable planet, cheaper energy, more economic growth and jobs. Regions? Most of the renewable investment is in the regions. To get there above all we need a coherent integration of climate and energy policy.

.................................

There is no economic case for building a new coal-fired power station in Australia anymore, regardless what you think about carbon policy – and everyone in the energy sector knows that.

But if you read the News Limited newspapers and listen to debates in Canberra, it’s a parallel universe.

As to the future of the coal industry, we should all hope that thermal coal is going to go out of business, not just in Australia but around the world.

Because if it doesn’t, and we’re still burning coal to generate energy in 30 or 40 years, we’re moving into a 3C environment, which is catastrophic.”
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...limate-morrison-coalition-labor-politics-live




1,503
9:37 AM - Feb 23, 2020
 
WOW, how long ago did we say on here, buy out the farmers on marginal land and reforrest it? Did he do it when in office?
When Colin Barnett, suggested piping water from the Ord River down the coast of W.A and irrigating, did Turnbull back him?
That is the trouble, they are all full of it and just want to be heard, a very common trait with ex politicians these days.
It is a shame most didn't take up a career in acting, they all prove that the limelight is what they yearn, not a better Australia. IMO
 
sptrawler said:
When Colin Barnett, suggested piping water from the Ord River down the coast of W.A and irrigating, did Turnbull back him?
IMO
Click to expand...

Come on SP you worked in energy cannot remember the numbers but the energy costs alone for Barneys cluster was ridiculous for each litre far cheaper to go desal.
 
IFocus said:
Come on SP you worked in energy cannot remember the numbers but the energy costs alone for Barneys cluster was ridiculous for each litre far cheaper to go desal.
Click to expand...
It actually was, UNLESS you used gas driven p/p's, therein lies the reason he was pushing so hard for James Price Point onshore processing.
It would have put the Kimberly's on steriods, but hey the media didn't like it, Bob Brown didn't like it and now it's history.
The clever Country, NOT.
 
sptrawler said:
WOW, how long ago did we say on here, buy out the farmers on marginal land and reforrest it? Did he do it when in office?
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that we’re in an environment where being an MP, or even Prime Minister, isn’t a particularly effective way to get something done due to the workings of politics.

Unlisted companies realistically have the most ability to “just do it” these days followed by listed companies.

If you want to run the country then in 2020 politics isn’t the path to doing so that it traditionally was.

If you want to get a big project off the ground these days then of all people you could meet with, the PM would be well down the list and really just a “tick the box” exercise if you actually needed government on side. If you don’t need them, you’re not asking for any changes to laws or anything like that, well why would you bother? Better off meeting with councils, contractors, potential suppliers and customers, landowners and so on.
 

Nope the numbers never added up of course that could change with renewables but still think the material to build the pipe / canals etc would build hundreds of desal plants still run by renewables.

Wasn't a lot of it canals? Evapouration was another issue if I remember correctly.
 
My manager (Ray Kirkpatrick, amazing guy RIP) was involved in costing the idea and I actually drove him through the Kimberly's to visit the Ord and the other regional stations up there. So we talked at length about the proposal and he told me about the two planned desal plants, I posted it on here years ago.
The canal plan was put forward after the media backlash, as a way of reducing the cost from the original $9billion.
It was visionary, an idea that would have set up W.A's future IMO.
 
I believe that the only reason that Malcolm was in the Liberal Party is that he did not want to move house.

True Blue Liberal seat at the time so he joined the Libs.

If he had bitten the bullet and leased his house and moved somewhere that he could win as Labor everyone would have been far happier.

Consider the turmoil with him and Abbott, if MT was Labor then it all falls into place for MT.

Bill Shorten would have been the only loser I suppose, although deputy Prime Minister is better than beaten leader of the opposition.

Either MT retires gracefully or he joins the Labor Party, I think he is belittling himself with petty politics, he really is an intelligent guy, just in the wrong Party.
 
Turnbull was a true Liberal. Still is.
Wouldn't suck up to Murdoch so had to go.
Hopefully they will get back on track.
 
Knobby22 said:
Turnbull was a true Liberal. Still is.
Wouldn't suck up to Murdoch so had to go.
Hopefully they will get back on track.
Click to expand...

Liberal in the international sense, he would be a Democrat in the USA but by our standards well and truly Labor.

I do believe that if he had joined the Labor Party he would have done just as well, he probably would have lasted longer as PM.
 
No he was a British style conservative in my view. Educated, successful in business, erudite, able to understand science.

It's a shame for Australia Rupert got rid of him.
 
Knobby22 said:
No he was a British style conservative in my view. Educated, successful in business, erudite, able to understand science.

It's a shame for Australia Rupert got rid of him.
Click to expand...
Malcolm is a social democrat. Though some in the Oz Liberals and UK Conservatives approach that ideology, vis a vis the "red tories", most more align with center right ideologies.

Mal would be on the extreme left of the conservatives and in no way representative of the mainstream of that party.
 

More like Woodside didn’t like it because Browse is still in the pipeline excuse the pun
 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/barnetts-water-pipeline-theory-mocked-20110407-1d609.html
Gravity lol
I don’t think engineering was one of Cols strong points
 

I think it just got a run around every time old mate Col was heading to an election

Most importantly, the Barnett government is tapping into long-held anxieties not unique to Western Australians, that there simply is just not enough water. Somehow, then, more should be conjured. “Give the people water and their votes will follow,” wrote Clive Hamilton of the policies of the Howard government. With the 2013 state election due in one of Perth’s hottest months, a thirsty city might well favour the party that turns on the tap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
607
Smurf1976
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
Fake News - Global Warming Consensus
40 41 42
Replies
831
Views
46K
SirRumpole
What does Lloyds think is happening?
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
springhill
M
Rothschild Australia, leaders in carbon trading market
Replies
2
Views
5K
So_Cynical
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...