Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Jump to new
basilio said:
On the one hand major business groups, the CC scientists , the economists and the environment groups see the opportunity and urgent need for a renewable energy based recovery.
Click to expand...
Well it has been proven they are cheaper than fossil fuels, so they might as well get on with it and put them in, why should the taxpayer fund it?
As has been proven by Rio, BHP and Fortescue, all it requires is the 'major business groups' to get on with it, rather than waiting for more taxpayer subsidies.
Some major property trusts are starting to install solar/batteries on their shopping centers.
There is nothing to stop 'major business groups' from installing renewables at their 'major business' to mitigate their usage.
 
sptrawler said:
Well it has been proven they are cheaper than fossil fuels, so they might as well get on with it and put them in, why should the taxpayer fund it?
Click to expand...

Indeed.

So in which xxxxing universe should $2.25 B of tax payers funds be showered on terminal fossil fuel industries to develop projects that will never be economically viable to capture carbon emissions ? :speechless::speechless::speechless:

The deniers still rule. xxxx every last god dammed one of them.:mad:
 
basilio said:
Indeed.

So in which xxxxing universe should $2.25 B of tax payers funds be showered on terminal fossil fuel industries to develop projects that will never be economically viable to capture carbon emissions ? :speechless::speechless::speechless:

The deniers still rule.
Click to expand...
Maybe you could supply a link to the non viable expenditure.
 
sptrawler said:
Maybe you could supply a link to the non viable expenditure.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that adding significant extra costs to capturing CO2 from fossil fuel makes an already noncompetitive fuel even more economically disastrous.

The economic value lies in rapid movement to an more economically and environmentally viable technology - renewable energy.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...olluters-have-been-free-to-increase-emissions
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-carbon-capture-hasnt-saved-us-from-climate-change-yet/
https://theconversation.com/its-tim...-failed-heres-what-we-should-do-instead-82929
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1062693641
 
Now I know from what you have said, you admire the Government for its handling of the corona virus and following the guidance of the professionals rather than listening to white noise from the press.
So you no doubt agree with the Government continuing in this vein and following the scientists direction.
https://www.sustainabilitymatters.n...lls-for-carbon-capture-and-storage-1212453137
Carbon capture and storage is absolutely critical, according to Australia’s Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel.

The comments were made at an address to the National Press Club, and have been welcomed by CO2CRC.

During his address, Finkel called for a technology-driven, orderly transition to clean energy and the need for carbon capture and storage (CCS), alongside renewables, to decarbonise Australia’s energy and industrial sectors.

CO2CRC CEO David Byers said that Finkel’s comments are an important acknowledgement of the role for CCS in meeting the dual challenge of supplying more energy but with fewer emissions.

“CCS is a proven technology with a critical role to play in delivering reliable, secure low-emissions energy and supporting the development of Australia’s burgeoning hydrogen industry,” he said.

“As Dr Finkel noted: ‘By producing hydrogen from natural gas or coal, using carbon capture and permanent storage ... we have four primary energy sources to meet the needs of the future — solar, wind, hydrogen from natural gas and hydrogen from coal.’
 
This analysis also underlines the difference in directions the government could take.
The second story highlights just how bad the policies of the Coalition have been in reducing GG emissions.

Is the Coalition's gas nirvana just an attempt to have its fossil fuel cake and eat it too?
Katharine Murphy

Ten years ago politicians used to talk up the virtues of gas as a transitional fuel. But that was 10 years ago
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...t-to-have-its-fossil-fuel-cake-and-eat-it-too

'For your children': former top Australian public servants call for carbon price
Ex-Treasury head Ken Henry tells Four Corners he looks back on a decade of failed climate policy and feels ‘gutted’
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...tralian-public-servants-call-for-carbon-price
 
sptrawler said:
Now I know from what you have said, you admire the Government for its handling of the corona virus and following the guidance of the professionals rather than listening to white noise from the press.
So you no doubt agree with the Government continuing in this vein and following the scientists direction.
https://www.sustainabilitymatters.n...lls-for-carbon-capture-and-storage-1212453137
Carbon capture and storage is absolutely critical, according to Australia’s Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel.

The comments were made at an address to the National Press Club, and have been welcomed by CO2CRC.

During his address, Finkel called for a technology-driven, orderly transition to clean energy and the need for carbon capture and storage (CCS), alongside renewables, to decarbonise Australia’s energy and industrial sectors.

CO2CRC CEO David Byers said that Finkel’s comments are an important acknowledgement of the role for CCS in meeting the dual challenge of supplying more energy but with fewer emissions.

“CCS is a proven technology with a critical role to play in delivering reliable, secure low-emissions energy and supporting the development of Australia’s burgeoning hydrogen industry,” he said.

“As Dr Finkel noted: ‘By producing hydrogen from natural gas or coal, using carbon capture and permanent storage ... we have four primary energy sources to meet the needs of the future — solar, wind, hydrogen from natural gas and hydrogen from coal.’
Click to expand...

The article deals with carbon capture from brown hydrogen. Frankly I think this is a sop to the fossil fuel industry to give them a piece of the action.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/finkels...n-light-but-could-be-lifeline-for-coal-69939/
 
Screenshot_20200520-172924.png

But the folk talking about CC probably didn't lose their jobs
 
sptrawler said:
So the Govern.ent should believe ghe scientist, untill you disagree.:xyxthumbs
Click to expand...
Finkel's comments were wholly in relation to a hydrogen economy where that gas was the product of fossil fuels.
His comments also reflect his definition for "clean hydrogen."
So yes, if you want zero net CO2 emissions from producing hydrogen from fossil fuels it IS essential to use carbon capture technologies.
The thing is, Finkel also notes that carbon capture is not necessary for producing hydrogen from electrolysis.
 
basilio said:
This analysis also underlines the difference in directions the government could take.
The second story highlights just how bad the policies of the Coalition have been in reducing GG emissions.

Is the Coalition's gas nirvana just an attempt to have its fossil fuel cake and eat it too?
Katharine Murphy

Ten years ago politicians used to talk up the virtues of gas as a transitional fuel. But that was 10 years ago
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...t-to-have-its-fossil-fuel-cake-and-eat-it-too

'For your children': former top Australian public servants call for carbon price
Ex-Treasury head Ken Henry tells Four Corners he looks back on a decade of failed climate policy and feels ‘gutted’
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...tralian-public-servants-call-for-carbon-price
Click to expand...

At the begining of the corona virus outbreak, everyone and his dog had an opinion and posted up stuff like you have to support the reasoning that the Government was going down the wrong track, the Government stuck with the recommendations of the Chief Medical officer and his scientists.
Many other Governments around the World, did their own thing, which in some cases was quite different from our Government did and had different outcomes.
Our Chief Scientist, who you often quote recommends a course of action to the Government, which they are following.
Now all of a sudden the Chief Scientist is an idiot, or bought off, because you don't agree with him.
Not only that, but you have to use massive block capitals, to somehow give yourself more credibility.
Jeez Bas.:rolleyes:
 
rederob said:
Finkel's comments were wholly in relation to a hydrogen economy where that gas was the product of fossil fuels.
His comments also reflect his definition for "clean hydrogen."
So yes, if you want zero net CO2 emissions from producing hydrogen from fossil fuels is IS essential to use carbon capture technologies.
The thing is, Finkel also notes that carbon capture is not necessary for producing hydrogen from electrolysis.
Click to expand...
At last, something sensible from you, congratulations.:xyxthumbs
By the way, I actually worked on a commercial size hydrogen/electrolysis unit in the early 1970's, so I am aware of how they work.;)
 
sptrawler said:
At the begining of the corona virus outbreak, everyone and his dog had an opinion and posted up stuff like you have to support the reasoning that the Government was going down the wrong track, the Government stuck with the recommendations of the Chief Medical officer and his scientists.
Many other Governments around the World, did their own thing, which in some cases was quite different from our Government did and had different outcomes.
Click to expand...
All successful outcomes have involved lockdowns; the harder the more successful.
Not all countries are geographically isolated islands and have Australia's advantage. Yet land-locked Jordan, at the opposite end of the spectrum and with over half a million refugees, has been far more successful.
Had Australia followed Taiwan's lead we would have had significantly fewer cases.
 
rederob said:
All successful outcomes have involved lockdowns; the harder the more successful.
Not all countries are geographically isolated islands and have Australia's advantage. Yet land-locked Jordan, at the opposite end of the spectrum and with over half a million refugees, has been far more successful.
Had Australia followed Taiwan's lead we would have had significantly fewer cases.
Click to expand...
Generally the consensus appears to be, that the Australian Government following the chief medical officers advice, has done exceptionally well.
We could probably have done as well as Jordan, if they had received the cruise ships instead of us, but being landlocked probably avoided the cruise ship problem we had.
Taiwan, well they knew who they were dealing with and instantly closed its border to China and also banned cruise ships from docking, we were still helping cruise ships untill a couple of weeks ago. But that is the Australian way.
You will always get negativity, especially when politics comes into the debate, as you probably know.
 
Interesting article on the Governments discussion paper, as a precursor to the renewable roadmap due later this year.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...-hot-on-gas-cool-on-coal-20200520-p54uw9.html
From the article:
The paper says the medium-term will see an expansion of the domestic hydrogen industry, seen as a way to store and export clean energy, and in one of the most contentious elements of the paper, it names carbon capture and storage as a key technology for the long-term. Environmental groups see it as a way to encourage continued investment in coal and gas projects.
The paper casts doubt over the future of coal power in the electricity grid and highlights the case for growth in gas usage and production.

The paper said switching from coal to gas can provide "quick wins" that reduce global energy sector emissions by 10 per cent. Citing a recent CSIRO forecast, it said domestic gas usage would rise "at least 20 per cent by 2060" and gas production would climb at least 90 per cent in the same timeframe - driven largely by exports to fill Asia's growing demand for liquefied natural gas.

Angus Taylor said last month that the current low price of gas, caused by plummeting demand as a result of coronavirus travel restrictions, was a "big opportunity" to increase renewable energy.
"More gas means more capacity to absorb renewables [into the grid] because gas is flexible, dispatchable generation,” Mr Taylor said.
The paper echoed this view, noting that "gas is already playing an increasingly important role in South Australia to balance intermittent renewable electricity".

The Snowy 2.0 project in NSW and Tasmania's $4.5 billion plans for the Marinus Link can promote "the penetration of renewables by storing excess energy in high-altitude dams and flexibly generating electricity in periods of high demand", the paper said.

The Tasmanian government is seeking federal support to double its renewable energy production, store the surplus in hydro dams under the Battery of the Nation scheme and export power to the mainland via the 1500 megawatt Marinus Link interconnector under Bass Strait.
Hydroelectric power also has an "important role" as a backup battery to intermittent wind and solar power supplies, the paper said.
"The largest single influencing factor in the economic viability... is the trajectory of coal-fired generation retirement," the study said. "The benefits of Marinus Link are likely to be greater than costs when approximately 7000 megawatts of the national electricity market's present coal-fired capacity retires."

NSW produces about 8000MW of coal power, while Victoria produces about 4500MW.
The roadmap said Marinus "is an essential part of the future National Electricity Market".
 
N.S.W looks as though they will be replacing some fossil fueled generation, with hydrogen over the next few years.

https://www.h2-view.com/story/2-7bn-plans-unveiled-to-transition-new-south-wales-to-green-hydrogen/
From the article:
New South Wales in Australia could be transitioned from fossil fuel-based electricity to green hydrogen by 2027 under bold billion-dollar plans unveiled today by Infinite Blue Energy.

Dubbed project NEO, the $3.5bn initiative will target one gigawatt (GW) of 100% green hydrogen reliable baseload power using a combination of solar PV, wind turbines and hydrogen fuel cell technology.

The project will commence with a feasibility study and detailed design over the next 18 months, focusing on transitioning away from reliance on coal fired and/or gas fuelled electricity to green hydrogen generated baseload electricity.
 
Tasmania, not wanting to be left behind on the H2 front.
https://www.h2-view.com/story/tasmanian-renewable-energy-plan-pioneers-hydrogen/
From the article:
Tasmania is in a unique position where a large-scale renewable hydrogen production and distribution industry could be developed now using competitively priced existing and new renewables.”

The Renewable Energy Action Plan references the Tasmanian Renewable Hydrogen Action Plan which was released late last year and highlighted the state’s high hydrogen potential.

Key hydrogen-based goals that are outlined in the report include:

By 2022 to 2024:
  • Tasmania has commenced production of renewable hydrogen.
  • Locally produced renewable hydrogen is being used in Tasmania.
  • Export based renewable hydrogen production projects are well advanced.
By 2025 to 2027:
  • Tasmania has commenced export of renewable hydrogen.
From 2030:
  • Tasmania is a significant global producer and exporter of renewable
  • Locally produced hydrogen is a significant form of energy used in Tasmania.
 
Global temperatures are rising at record levels. The opportunity to use the COVID crisis to reset our economy to deal with the climate crisis still stands.

The climate crisis looms as the Coalition fiddles with fossil fuels
Greg Jericho
The government is like a smoker switching to low-tar cigarettes. Its energy policy is just a sop
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ms-as-the-coalition-fiddles-with-fossil-fuels

... Nasa estimates that last month was the hottest April on record and the first four months of this year are the second hottest start to a year.

The past seven months have all been 1C or higher than the 1951-1980 average (roughly around 1.3C above the pre-industrial average) – tied with the longest streak set from October 2015 to April 2016. But unlike in 2015 and 2016 the Bureau of Meteorology records we are currently not in El Niño.

That very much suggests the pace of warming is speeding up.
 
1. Faster, sooner
A two-hour cloudburst drenched Charleston on Wednesday, turning downtown streets into swirling rivers. Nearly 5 inches fell over the city’s hospitals, turning the medical district into an island. Five inches fell on Johns Island, turning parking lots into lakes. It was a mess. And it’s not normal.

Set aside the notion of climate change. The climate has always changed. The real story is about speed. The pace of change. From rain bombs to higher sea levels, the impacts are coming faster. This is as real as Wednesday’s storm. And the one four weeks ago. And so many others in the past five years.

https://www.postandcourier.com/risi...-JeT0tsaYHF92EaK13XxBOdcAdHmKVfaav6rPhBsAiKG4
 

Similar threads

basilio
What does Lloyds think is happening?
2
Replies
22
Views
5K
springhill
springhill
2020hindsight
  • Poll
Which IPCC Scenario is your guess?
2
Replies
32
Views
10K
2020hindsight
2020hindsight
Top