Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[sptrawler]

And I don't believe any of them live in caves either...

It would certainly fix the global warming problem if we did.
Even if we just got rid of all the a/c's it would help, we managed for a long time without them, now everyone has one.

 

[basilio]

It would certainly fix the global warming problem if we did.

Hi Sp

Please, please pass me toke on whatever it is your smoking. It must be really amazing stuff

 

[sptrawler]

Hi Sp

Please, please pass me toke on whatever it is your smoking. It must be really amazing stuff

Times are a changing Bas a lot of this stuff will be taken out of peoples hands. ?

Europe takes on cheap flights and landlords in race to net zero emissions

Trains instead of flights, fossil fuel ad bans and charging landlords for tenant’s heating emissions will be legislated in parts of Europe.

www.smh.com.au

From the article:
Trains instead of flights, fossil fuel ad bans and charging landlords for their tenant’s heating emissions – these are not pie-in-the-sky but newly endorsed policies being implemented across Europe as governments prepare to make good on their net zero targets.

Last month France passed a law banning domestic flights of less than two-and-a-half hours where train routes also exist. The ban, which won’t apply to connecting international flights, is actually a watered-down version of what President Emmanuel Macron’s Citizens Climate Convention originally recommended. It will apply to eight routes inside France.
European countries are enacting laws to cut greenhouse gas emissions at least 40 per cent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels and the European Union agreed to a new 55 per cent reduction target in December.

Austria, which has pledged to become carbon neutral by 2040, last year banned flights of three hours where train travel is already possible. Further, it wants to make cheap flights a thing of the past, imposing a €30 ($47) tax on flights less than 300 kilometres.

The German government recently prepared legislation forcing landlords to pay half of a new carbon tax, also paid by tenants who live in buildings heated by oil and gas.

 

[basilio]

Times are a changing Bas.

Europe takes on cheap flights and landlords in race to net zero emissions

Trains instead of flights, fossil fuel ad bans and charging landlords for tenant’s heating emissions will be legislated in parts of Europe.

www.smh.com.au

From the article:
Trains instead of flights, fossil fuel ad bans and charging landlords for their tenant’s heating emissions – these are not pie-in-the-sky but newly endorsed policies being implemented across Europe as governments prepare to make good on their net zero targets.

Last month France passed a law banning domestic flights of less than two-and-a-half hours where train routes also exist. The ban, which won’t apply to connecting international flights, is actually a watered-down version of what President Emmanuel Macron’s Citizens Climate Convention originally recommended. It will apply to eight routes inside France.
European countries are enacting laws to cut greenhouse gas emissions at least 40 per cent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels and the European Union agreed to a new 55 per cent reduction target in December.

Austria, which has pledged to become carbon neutral by 2040, last year banned flights of three hours where train travel is already possible. Further, it wants to make cheap flights a thing of the past, imposing a €30 ($47) tax on flights less than 300 kilometres.

The German government recently prepared legislation forcing landlords to pay half of a new carbon tax, also paid by tenants who live in buildings heated by oil and gas.

Visionary and practical and will certainly be important. It stands in stark contrast to our current Federal Government policies which don't get close to recognising what is required of Australia to meet it's essential tasks in the field.

Nah. They just gave $600m to mates in fossil fuel industry to build a gas powered powered generator that no credible person in the power industry believe has any economic or environmental credibility.

And that issue was a core one for the students who protested across Australia on Friday.

 

[sptrawler]

Nah. They just gave $600m to mates in fossil fuel industry to build a gas powered powered generator that no credible person in the power industry believe has any economic or environmental credibility.

And that issue was a core one for the students who protested across Australia on Friday.

It just shows how easily people are conned into believing whatever is fed to them and what little understanding they have of the power system.
The fact that the Eastern States need a gas fired plant is obvious, the only ones who don't agree are those with vested interests.

 

[basilio]

It just shows how easily people are conned into believing whatever is fed to them and what little understanding they have of the power system.
The fact that the Eastern States need a gas fired plant is obvious, the only ones who don't agree are those with vested interests.

Rubbish.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/sustainability/energy-economic-experts-slam-600m-kurri-kurri-gasfired-power-plant/news-story/5aa591790ac

But Andrew Stock, a senior energy executive with over 40 years experience, said the construction of a new gas power station would not lower electricity prices for homes and businesses as promised by the government. He claimed it would only raise them.

“Gas is expensive and gas peakers that rarely run need to drive up prices to get a return … Federal interference in the electricity market also discourages private sector investment,” he said.

“Any potential shortfall created by the closure of Liddell Power Station (in 2023) would have been filled by the NSW state government and energy industry’s announced plans to build renewable energy zones and big batteries across the state.

“Renewables are the cheaper, smarter choice to meet future energy demand compared to gas, which is expensive, polluting and worsens climate change. This decision is an all-round poor move for Australian taxpayers.”

 

[sptrawler]

@basilio, you believe whatever you like, time will tell. The guy is from the climate council, what do you think he is going to say?
Jeez i see Trump is falling off your radar. ?
Bas, if the Government builds a gas fired station, once there is enough renewable hydrogen generating plant, the gas turbines can be run on Hydrogen, so it actually becomes clean backup/ storage.
Meanwhile, while we are waiting for the renewables, there is dispatchable power for firming capacity.
Plus it will bring forward the closing of more coal generators, which I would have thought you would be happy with, but lets not let reality get in the way of a good scare campaign.

 

[macca]

Meanwhile China happily increases its pollution all the way through to at least 2030... nothing to see here folks

 

[rederob]

Meanwhile China happily increases its pollution all the way through to at least 2030... nothing to see here folks

China seems to be leading from a long way back!

Or a world view?

Or even at the gross level since the Industrial Revolution:

Getting more recent data for the world was not possible, and clearly China will have increased its footprint since the above were available. Nevertheless, a nation with around 20% of global population and the greatest manufacturing capacity by a long margin is not number one on any of the above measures.
Europe and the USA combined have around half of China's population but since the Industrial Revolution have more than tripled China's CO2 output.

 

[sptrawler]

The thing is China has probably emitted most of their output in the last 30 years, as opposed to the EU, U.S etc over the last 200 years, but it doesn't change the fact that their total is far less.
It will be interesting to see the totals in 20 years time.

 

[basilio]

This is what is happening as oceans become warmer and warmer due to global heating. Worth checking out the rest of the story

Turkey struck by ‘sea snot’ because of global heating​

Increasing blanket of mucus-like substance in water threatens coral and fishing industry

An aerial view of sea snot in Istanbul. Photograph: Anadolu agency/Getty Images

Seascape: the state of our oceans is supported by
About this content
Selin Uğurtaş in Istanbul
Tue 25 May 2021 19.36 AEST
Last modified on Tue 25 May 2021 23.29 AEST


When seen from above, it looks like a brush of beige swirled across the dark blue waters of the Sea of Marmara. Up close, it resembles a creamy, gelatinous blanket of quicksand. Now scientists are warning that the substance, known as sea snot, is on the rise as a result of global heating.
t The gloopy, mucus-like substance had not been recorded in Turkish waters before 2007. It is created as a result of prolonged warm temperatures and calm weather and in areas with abundant nutrients in the water.

The phytoplankton responsible grow out of control when nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are widely available in seawater. These nutrients have long been plentiful in the Sea of Marmara, which receives the wastewater of nearly 20 million people and is fed directly from the nutrient-rich Black Sea.

In ordinary amounts, these tiny, floating sea plants are responsible for breathing oxygen into the oceans, but their overpopulation creates the opposite effect. Under conditions of stress, they exude a mucus-like matter that can grow to cover many square miles of the sea in the right conditions.

In most cases, the substance itself is not harmful. “What we see is basically a combination of protein, carbohydrates and fat,” said Dr Neslihan Özdelice, a marine biologist at Istanbul University. But the sticky substance attracts viruses and bacteria, including E coli, and can in effect turn into a blanket that suffocates the marine life below.

Sea snot near the Maltepe, Kadiköy and Adalar districts of Istanbul. Photograph: Anadolu agency/Getty Images

Turkey struck by âsea snotâ because of global heating

Increasing blanket of mucus-like substance in water threatens coral and fishing industry

www.theguardian.com

 

[basilio]

An old drum that has been bought out for another beating.

Could we make a huge difference to chasing global heating reduction by just consuming less? Could we also take the strain off collapsing environmental systems with a bit of Make, Do and Mend thinking ? How about improving our social connections and skill sets ?

Thoughtful discussion on the latest book around this topic,

How might a lower-consuming society look? Everything is reoriented because people, brands and governments are no longer striving for economic growth. Individuals are more self-sufficient, growing food, mending things and embracing wabi-sabi, the Japanese concept of imperfect aesthetics (think patched-up pockets or chipped ceramics). Brands produce fewer but better-quality goods, while governments ban planned obsolescence (the practice of producing items to only function for a set period of time), stick “durability” labels on items so shoppers can be assured of longevity, and introduce tax subsidies so it’s cheaper to repair something than to bin it and buy a new version.

Overconsumption and the environment: should we all stop shopping?

Over-consumption is at the root of the planet’s environmental crisis. One solution, proposed by author JB MacKinnon, is that we should simply buy less. But would that really work?

www.theguardian.com

 

[sptrawler]

An old drum that has been bought out for another beating.

Could we make a huge difference to chasing global heating reduction by just consuming less? Could we also take the strain off collapsing environmental systems with a bit of Make, Do and Mend thinking ? How about improving our social connections and skill sets ?

Thoughtful discussion on the latest book around this topic,

How might a lower-consuming society look? Everything is reoriented because people, brands and governments are no longer striving for economic growth. Individuals are more self-sufficient, growing food, mending things and embracing wabi-sabi, the Japanese concept of imperfect aesthetics (think patched-up pockets or chipped ceramics). Brands produce fewer but better-quality goods, while governments ban planned obsolescence (the practice of producing items to only function for a set period of time), stick “durability” labels on items so shoppers can be assured of longevity, and introduce tax subsidies so it’s cheaper to repair something than to bin it and buy a new version.

Overconsumption and the environment: should we all stop shopping?

Over-consumption is at the root of the planet’s environmental crisis. One solution, proposed by author JB MacKinnon, is that we should simply buy less. But would that really work?

www.theguardian.com

Kind of what I've been saying to you for a long time Bas, the quickest way to shut down coal and reduce emissions, is to get people to reduce the amount of power they use.
It's great having all these people marching in the street, telling everyone to save the world, yet we are one of the biggest consumers per head of electricity in the World.
We have one of the largest average house sizes in the World, we have one of the highest vehicle ownerships in the World, most houses have two T.V's a fridge a freezer a beer fridge.
Yet we march in the streets telling everyone to clean up the electricity production, so we can indulge ourselves while feeling we are doing our bit, oh how hypocritical we can be. ?

 

[rederob]

Kind of what I've been saying to you for a long time Bas, the quickest way to shut down coal and reduce emissions, is to get people to reduce the amount of power they use.

That's not true at all as it does not change the generation base.
Also, if that's all the government wanted to achieve It would be quicker if they increased the price of electricity, just as putting up cigarette prices reduced smoking.
Far more practical and unavoidable is to move off coal/gas to renewables and facilitated it, rather than continue its laissez faire stance on energy.
You keep forgetting that it's government policies that drive commercial power generation decisions, and the inept Morrison government keeps laying out money for the fossil fuel industry.

 

[sptrawler]

That's not true at all as it does not change the generation base.
Also, if that's all the government wanted to achieve It would be quicker if they increased the price of electricity, just as putting up cigarette prices reduced smoking.
Far more practical and unavoidable is to move off coal/gas to renewables and facilitated it, rather than continue its laissez faire stance on energy.
You keep forgetting that it's government policies that drive commercial power generation decisions, and the inept Morrison government keeps laying out money for the fossil fuel industry.

Your wrong yet again, Rob, if the load is reduced, the ability and amount of renewables and storage is increased as a percentage of that load.
Also as the load is decreased, the viability of fossil fueled generation is decreased, as income produced is decreased but the holding costs remains constant i.e wages, fuel storage, maintenance.
It isn't government policy that drives commercial generation, it is the size of the commercial load that drives commercial fossil fueled generation, if there is no load there is no market because the plant isn't required to operate.
But you keep telling everyone how it is, and keep bashing the political tambourine, eventually everyone will tire of your nonsense.

 

[rederob]

Your wrong yet again, Rob, if the load is reduced, the ability and amount of renewables and storage is increased as a percentage of that load.
Also as the load is decreased, the viability of fossil fueled generation is decreased, as income produced is decreased but the holding costs remains constant i.e wages, fuel storage, maintenance.
It isn't government policy that drives commercial generation, it is the size of the commercial load that drives commercial fossil fueled generation, if there is no load there is no market because the plant isn't required to operate.
But you keep telling everyone how it is, and keep bashing the political tambourine, eventually everyone will tire of your nonsense.

Unless the fossil fuel generation footprint is reduced then CO2 emissions are not likely to change meaningfully, so your logic misses on this point. For example China is significantly inceasing its total share of renewables generation, but it's not reducing its CO2 footprint.
Another point is that the increasing take up of rooftop solar allows millions of Australian housholds to maintain their energy use while simultaneously reducing their CO2 footprint and their power bills. Aside from that per capita (and household) electricity use has actually been declining for over a decade as the energy efficiency of consumer products increases.
What you have instead explained is how commercial operators tap into the available supplier market, and I know you are right as cheaper renewables are going to be purchased for distribution whenever possible.
My point about commercial power generation related to capacity investment decisions - sorry if not clear. If you were right then the government would not be building Snowy2.0 nor the gas power plant at Kurri Kurri.
Morrison's ineptitude on climate change is at an all time high because he has no credible policies to drive it.

 

[sptrawler]

Unless the fossil fuel generation footprint is reduced then CO2 emissions are not likely to change meaningfully, so your logic misses on this point. For example China is significantly inceasing its total share of renewables generation, but it's not reducing its CO2 footprint.
Another point is that the increasing take up of rooftop solar allows millions of Australian housholds to maintain their energy use while simultaneously reducing their CO2 footprint and their power bills. Aside from that per capita (and household) electricity use has actually been declining for over a decade as the energy efficiency of consumer products increases.
What you have instead explained is how commercial operators tap into the available supplier market, and I know you are right as cheaper renewables are going to be purchased for distribution whenever possible.
My point about commercial power generation related to capacity investment decisions - sorry if not clear. If you were right then the government would not be building Snowy2.0 nor the gas power plant at Kurri Kurri.
Morrison's ineptitude on climate change is at an all time high because he has no credible policies to drive it.

You obviously have no understanding of how an electrical grid works, the generation footprint, is reducing, as smurf has posted up on several occasions.
Liddel is a 2,000MW coal station that is being closed, Kurri Kurri is going to be a 700MW gas fired station, that will reduce CO2 emissions just by capacity deferential alone there will be a further reduction due to the fact it is gas fired as opposed to coal fired.
Snowy2.0 is a hydro station, so fairly clean.
Of course the government needs to build Snowy 2.0 and other firming capacity, as the coal generation is closed and renewables take over the major generating capability.
You may be unaware, but renewables are intermittent generators, therefore until storage is sufficient, projects like Snowy2.0 and Kurri Kurri will be required.

 

[rederob]

You obviously have no understanding of how an electrical grid works, the generation footprint, is reducing, as smurf has posted up on several occasions.
Liddel is a 2,000MW coal station that is being closed, Kurri Kurri is going to be a 700MW gas fired station, that will reduce CO2 emissions just by capacity deferential alone there will be a further reduction due to the fact it is gas fired as opposed to coal fired.
Snowy2.0 is a hydro station, so fairly clean.
Of course the government needs to build Snowy 2.0 and other firming capacity, as the coal generation is closed and renewables take over the major generating capability.
You may be unaware, but renewables are intermittent generators, therefore until storage is sufficient, projects like Snowy2.0 and Kurri Kurri will be required.

I am pleased you mentioned the grid.
It's role is to move electrons as efficiently as possible.
But it's not, and underinvestment is stymying renewables take up. You can read about that in the many AEMO papers over recent years.
The grid also needs an improved and properly planned network of interconnectors, along the lines ofwhat has been put in place in Europe, to better balance solar and wind differentials.
Your claim that "the generation footprint, is reducing," is not true for the NEM.

The fossil fuel mix has decreased steadily since 2009 as more renewables capacity is being added, and its cheaper offtake cuts into fossil fuel generation.
Your claim that Snowy2.0 was needed is only true because of the failure of the COALition to provide an investment framework that was going to be commercially viable. That situation is true to this day, and again you need only read the dozens of submissions from generators to AEMO that continure to make this point.
What I am most aware of is the failure of the present government to facilitate or incentivise energy storage so that the likes of Kurri Kurri are not paid for by taxpayers.

 

[sptrawler]

Snowy 2 will always be needed, as will many, many more pumped hydro facilities, if renewables are to be the only source of generation.

Pumped hydro, hydrogen and or nuclear are the only current forms of bulk storage currently available, that can handle extended periods of low output from intermittent renewables.

 

[sptrawler]

Something to get your teeth into @rederob .

Outcry at Australia's coal plant closures misses the point: change is coming | Adam Morton

Trying to heavy owners won’t hold back the renewables tide. It’s time to plan, and the blueprint exists

www.theguardian.com

From the article:
If ever there is a case where the headline doesn’t tell the full story it is the news that Victoria’s Yallourn power generator – one of Australia’s oldest and dirtiest coal plants – will shut earlier than planned.

The basic facts are clear: the owner, EnergyAustralia, had previously said the Latrobe Valley generator would close in 2032, and now it will be gone by 2028.

Despite the seven-year-notice period, much of the initial reaction to the announcement focused on fears of electricity price hikes and blackouts at a distant future date.

To some extent, it masked what had really happened. In reality, EnergyAustralia had made a deal with the Victorian government to keep the plant open longer than it almost certainly otherwise would have been.