Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[wayneL]

The four tenants. Move up and down depending on audience.

1. Global warming is not real. It's about scientists' falsifying data.

2. OK my nuanced opinion is that maybe it s real but it's natural, not man made.

3. OK Even if it's man made We can't do anything about it so should ignore the problem.

4. Ok , the shts hitting the fan but anyone who who mentions it shall be called a ###.

Numbskull thinking, sorry not sorry.

 

[Smurf1976]

If you really want to make a difference some how, why don't you actually address the real issue.

Regarding the map you posted, I'll simply point out that if we look at the places where emissions are falling then it's largely in spite of organised environmentalism not because of it.

Nuclear and hydro are doing a great deal of the heavy lifting there either directly or by firming intermittent renewables and not without the usual suspects opposing it.

I note Sarawak being one on the list with falling emissions indeed there's a very definite Australian connection to that. This picture does sum up the problem however:

Says it all really.

I won't deny it's done a lot of good for whales, forests and so on but when push comes to shove, mainstream environmentalism is worse than useless when it comes to climate. It opposes the very things we need - industrial scale wind and solar farms, massive hydro projects, transmission lines and, in some parts of the world, nuclear. None of which mainstream environmentalists are even slightly keen on and that's the problem with all this.

If the argument is we need lots of omelettes then don't complain when the engineers come up with a plan to break lots of eggs.

If you then protest "Save the Eggs" well don't complain that nobody made the omelettes and the planet cooked in the meantime.

All sides of politics are part of the problem, the only real difference being environmentalism pretends it's innocent while conservatives generally admit guilt on the issue.

Then we have things like this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-26/why-taxpayers-are-paying-to-keep-coal-plants-online/102778072

Tim Buckley, a director of Clean Energy Finance

"If I go and flood the NSW market with a shedload of solar, that's going to gut Eraring, it's going to gut Bayswater because they have zero flexibility," Mr Buckley says.

He's actually a director of Climate Energy Finance, a think tank, not Clean Energy Finance which is government backed.

There's another glaring error there too. All the Eraring units are able to run anywhere between 30% to 100% of capacity so it's nonsense to say it has zero flexibility.

Trouble is, the general public and most politicians wouldn't spot the error. They think oh, OK, that's how it is and don't realise this is isn't a statement of fact.

If we want to actually fix it then it's not rocket science. By all means keep the public informed but ultimately it's about putting competent people in charge and letting them get on with it, accepting there are going to be some impacts from any actual solution since, as I've said many times on this forum, all power pollutes something in some way.

 

[Sean K]

The four tenants. Move up and down depending on audience.

1. Global warming is not real. It's about scientists' falsifying data.

2. OK my nuanced opinion is that maybe it s real but it's natural, not man made.

3. OK Even if it's man made We can't do anything about it so should ignore the problem.

4. Ok , the shts hitting the fan but anyone who who mentions it shall be called a ###.

I assume you're replying to the data regarding Australia's contribution to global CO2 emissions, which might be point number 3.

Should we ignore the problem (if it's real), no.

But, what should we do?

Should Melbourne City Council commit $15m of ratepayers money to climate initiatives that do nothing to change the temperature? Should our schools be teaching 8 year olds that they are going to imminantley die because their parents drive an ICE vehicle?

Should we allow ourselves to go into energy poverty putting us at geostrategic security risk while others have a free pass to destroy the planet and build the World's largest unfriendly military in our backyard? Any student of history knows where this is heading.

Our children are not going to blame us for global warming, they are going to blame us for not looking after our best interests as a nation.

 

[Smurf1976]

Should we allow ourselves to go into energy poverty putting us at geostrategic security risk while others have a free pass to destroy the planet and build the World's largest unfriendly military in our backyard? Any student of history knows where this is heading.

Indeed.

I'm not a climate scientist but common sense says that changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere should bring some sort of consequence. Given the irreversibility of it that's an inherently high risk thing to be doing.

On the other hand it's delusion in the extreme to think that simply de-industrialising the West and relocating the point source of emissions to China is even the slightest bit of progress. Quite the reverse is true, first because it means we've lost control of the issue, second because the economic effects mean we'll lose the ability care about it anyway, and third because it's the path to major war which most certainly won't do the planet any good whatsoever.

I see both sides. I absolutely agree there's a lot of problems with fossil fuels and I'll add that there are very good reasons to not dam every last river for hydro, there are places wind farms shouldn't be built and so on. Likewise nuclear power undeniably has serious downsides too.

On the other hand, we live in an imperfect world and suffice to say I cannot grasp why anyone wants to de-industrialise the West or why they're opposed to all dams or all nuclear. Unless they're an agent working for some foreign country, it's an irrational stance and it's sending us down the path to poverty and war, ironically casting aside the environment in the process.

With some sense and logic we could largely fix this problem in a way that even those unconvinced of the need won't sensibly object to. That doesn't involve de-industrialisation however, and it does involve breaking some eggs when it comes to building the required infrastructure.

 

[SirRumpole]

I'll add that there are very good reasons to not dam every last river for hydro, t

Surely there are other alternatives to on river hydro, like coastal hydro where the water is pumped from the ocean to a dam on the land then let back into the ocean?

I don't t know how many suitable sites there would be, but in conjunction with offshore wind turbines it would seem to have fewer objections environmentally ?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

We had quite a pleasant coldish winter up here in Townsville. I just wonder about global warming and whether it will self correct or become manageable.

When was a young child all the talk was about another ice age and global cooling.

Anyway, we are heading in to the change of season and I will let all know how hot it becomes during summer.

gg

 

[basilio]

We had quite a pleasant coldish winter up here in Townsville. I just wonder about global warming and whether it will self correct or become manageable.

When was a young child all the talk was about another ice age and global cooling.

Anyway, we are heading in to the change of season and I will let all know how hot it becomes during summer.

gg

Indeed you may wonder GG. And indeed anything, maybe , could happen.

But the observations and analysis of the overwhelming scientific community tell a different story don't they ?

With regard to another ice age ? Yep we would be normally due for an ice age in a few hundred/thousand years all things being equal. But they aren't are they ? This article explains what scientists currently understand about historical Ice ages and teh impact that human created GG has had on the climate.

We’re Due For Another Ice Age But Climate Change May Push It Back Another 100,000 Years, Researchers Say | The Weather Channel

Researchers are still trying to understand how often ice ages happen. - Articles from The Weather Channel | weather.com

weather.com

 

[basilio]

Indeed.

I'm not a climate scientist but common sense says that changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere should bring some sort of consequence. Given the irreversibility of it that's an inherently high risk thing to be doing.

On the other hand it's delusion in the extreme to think that simply de-industrialising the West and relocating the point source of emissions to China is even the slightest bit of progress. Quite the reverse is true, first because it means we've lost control of the issue, second because the economic effects mean we'll lose the ability care about it anyway, and third because it's the path to major war which most certainly won't do the planet any good whatsoever.

I see both sides. I absolutely agree there's a lot of problems with fossil fuels and I'll add that there are very good reasons to not dam every last river for hydro, there are places wind farms shouldn't be built and so on. Likewise nuclear power undeniably has serious downsides too.

On the other hand, we live in an imperfect world and suffice to say I cannot grasp why anyone wants to de-industrialise the West or why they're opposed to all dams or all nuclear. Unless they're an agent working for some foreign country, it's an irrational stance and it's sending us down the path to poverty and war, ironically casting aside the environment in the process.

With some sense and logic we could largely fix this problem in a way that even those unconvinced of the need won't sensibly object to. That doesn't involve de-industrialisation however, and it does involve breaking some eggs when it comes to building the required infrastructure.

Not quite sure what you mean by de-industrialise the West . De carbonise industrial production is the goal. The process of sending major industries offshore to China was driven by economic considerations. When China looked like a friendly or at least neutral political arena it seemed like a good idea.

There is at least one technology in the pumped hydro area that seems promising in terms of quickly and hopefully cost effectively creating widespread "energy banks". It would be very useful to see at least a couple of commercial demo models constructed in Australia.

RheEnergise High-Density Hydro - How it works

If you want to know how RheEnergise pumped energy storage works

www.rheenergise.com

 

[basilio]

The Climate Majority project is another effort at mobilising a mass community response to the climate crisis. It has evolved as a "conservative "response to the more aggressive Extinction Rebellion project. It aims to pull the majority of citizens across the political and social spectrum into public and personal activism.

Worth checking out.

Across the UK in communities, workplaces and wherever they have power, people from all walks of life are organising the kinds of serious climate action that will make governments take notice.

The Climate Majority Project is a rallying place for citizen climate action. We help projects to grow, get funding, and connect with as many willing hands as possible. The first year of the Climate Majority Project has seen amazing progress, with media coverage far exceeding our hopes - particularly after our founding statement was signed by Lord Deben, Swampy, Caroline Lucas, Dale Vince, and other prominent figures across the political spectrum. https://ClimateMajorityProject.com/ge...

To support the next important steps in ambitious, mainstream climate action, we have now launched a Crowdfunder. Donations will support the work of the Climate Majority Project Incubator https://ClimateMajorityProject.com/in..., which has already provided seed funding to four fantastic initiatives. All have gone on to increase their impact and secure up to 10x further funding. Your donations will directly help identify, resource, and fund the next cohort of high-impact initiatives.

We focus on ambitious, scalable solutions with the potential to ‘move the dial’ on climate – by getting more citizens involved in shifting public awareness, and using their power to create change. Crowdfunder URL https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/power... Thank you for getting involved!

 

[basilio]

A local ABC story on the origins and objectives of The Climate Majority

What comes after Extinction Rebellion? The future depends on the emergence of a climate majority​

.....What is needed now is a broader movement: something between conventional holding actions and full-fledged rebellion. Over the last five years, Extinction Rebellion has functioned as “a radical flank” to the environmental movement. It has successfully changed the conversation — most dramatically, I think, in the UK — and opened up space for new forms of action. We now need a moderate flank to Extinction Rebellion, something that can enjoy wider appeal (in part, by being a little less demanding of participants) and be more genuinely inclusive of those who are neither “woke” nor versed in identity politics — including citizens whose politics are more centrist and right-wing. These citizens, whose numbers will no doubt increase in the coming years as we sink further into climate breakdown, may well come to feel called to try to mitigate the worst of the devastation, even if they don’t think of themselves as “Green”.

The suggestion I made in my book Parents for a Future was that such a mass “moderate” movement should focus on us parenting the future together. It could prove profoundly unifying to bring together parents — along with aunts, uncles, godparents, “Gaiaparents”, and so on — to struggle side-by-side so that their children can have a future. In other words, the next “post-Extinction Rebellion” wave would be “us” (parents and the public-at-large) and not just “them” (the activists), because what is required is action on a wider and more quotidian scale than mere “activism” can accommodate.

The future depends on finding an effective alternative to Extinction Rebellion - ABC Religion & Ethics

Over the last five years, Extinction Rebellion functioned as a “radical flank” to the environmental movement — but its strategy of public disruption alienated the very people who would otherwise be concerned about climate collapse.

www.abc.net.au

 

[IFocus]

Should we allow ourselves to go into energy poverty putting us at geostrategic security risk while others have a free pass to destroy the planet and build the World's largest unfriendly military in our backyard? Any student of history knows where this is heading.

Actually the reverse is true if government and policy settings were bi-partisan and focused.

They are not hence a dogs breakfast.

If that were to happen we would be energy self dependent unlike the current situation where we have 20 or more days of fuel in the country, that's a security risk on steroids.

As for power generation the solutions exist today that includes so called green energy.

 

[Smurf1976]

Surely there are other alternatives to on river hydro, like coastal hydro where the water is pumped from the ocean to a dam on the land then let back into the ocean?

The big problem isn't how to deal with short duration peaks in power demand. Batteries can do that and so can relatively simple, low impact pumped hydro projects.

The real problem is how to deal with 10 days straight of above average demand and dismal output from both wind and solar. We know that happens at least once practically ever year.

For that the options are basically something that burns, large storage hydro projects, or nuclear. Noting there that nuclear is horrendously uneconomic in that usage, but technically it's doable. Either that or massively scale up the wind and solar and simply accept most of it being unused the rest of the time - that's about as bad as nuclear economically though.

Present planning in Australia, in the context of the NEM, is to do the job using the existing hydro assets with some minor enhancement + Snowy 2.0 for just under 50% of the task on a capacity basis and to the rest, which is just over 50%, using natural gas and diesel.

So what we'll have is a system that's circa 97% renewable (the actual figure varies a couple of % depending on assumptions etc).

Does it matter? Well I won't claim the ability to answer that one. It means a lot less CO2 being emitted but it's not zero.

Bearing in mind electricity's only 25 - 35% of present total emissions depending on which statistics you prefer to look at. For the other 65 - 75%, a lot of that also isn't likely to go to zero at least not rapidly:

The direct use of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons is so utterly entrenched, there's literally a few billion consuming devices all up, that any decline is going to be extremely long and drawn out. Cars, railway locomotives, ships, trucks, buses, aircraft of all types both civilian and military, ovens both domestic and commercial, boilers, water heaters, central heating, BBQ's, boat engines, tools and on it goes. Even gas streetlights aren't actually extinct, there's still some use of them as functional lighting today and they've been technologically obsolete for over a century.

Cement which by its very nature releases CO2.

Steel and other industrial processes where full replacement of fossil fuels is problematic at best.

Agriculture has emissions from both fuel combustion sources and non-fuel sources and that's an industry we're definitely not going to simply do away with.

Meanwhile population and overall consumption continue to trend up.

Put that all together and the concept of "net zero" relies very heavily on sinks and accounting trickery. In reality, it's not happening by 2050 in the manner it's intended to mean. Whether that matters or not I don't know but if anyone's pinning their hopes on net zero by 2050 they're in for a shock unless society radically changes course.

What I do know however is society needs to make its mind up about this. There's no point collectively running around in circles saying we want net zero ASAP but we don't want to do the things required in order to achieve it. One or the other, we need to make our collective minds up. Either we're doing it and we're going to get on and do it using the technology available right now, or we're not doing it with present technology and are just aiming for lower but not zero emissions so stop complaining that fossil fuels aren't going completely extinct unless / until new technology comes along. One or the other.

Noting this isn't simply about hydro versus gas. The same basic problem exists globally, that's partly what all the drama in Europe was about, a sustained period of poor wind yields, and depending on which country the answer varies. Suffice to say enthusiasm for new nuclear is growing, there's a reason for that, but it does raise the same question - do we need fully non-emitting electricity? Or will mostly non-emitting with a bit of oil and gas here and there be good enough? Answer that and it settles the debate about what needs doing, which is probably why there's a reluctance to answer it.

In terms of biases, personally I'm not really that keen on "dam the lot" approaches and I wouldn't seek to fully eliminate gas in the medium term but that said, as a generic concept I'd pick hydro over oil or gas yes. The basic reasons being it's inherently long lasting, it uses a sustainable renewable resource, and it doesn't come with the price shocks and potential wars and human misery that oil and gas do. So long as building it hasn't wiped out a species etc, I'll argue it's a less bad alternative.

For the industry as a whole, no secret the bias is toward gas turbines. That's the default position, it's the preferred solution absolutely, because it ticks the boxes private investors and even many governments are looking at. Essentially zero technical risk with "off the shelf" standardised equipment running on standardised fuel that requires essentially no in house technical expertise, relatively low capex, pretty easy to site and thus far pretty much immune to anyone protesting about them. It's hydro, coal, nuclear, wind and transmission lines that cop the opposition, not gas turbines hidden in plain sight.

What's not clear is what politics and the media wants. One day they want zero emissions, 100% renewable energy and so on on a timescale that's incredibly ambitious to say the least. Then they're dead against any attempt to actually do it. That's not a new thing, it's gone on for decades now.

End result is, and there are surveys which do back this, public support is eroding at this point. The general public does see climate change as a problem, they want something done about it, but they're tired and weary of the whole thing. Sentiment is shifting from "it's an emergency" to "slow and steady, no need to rush" as an approach.

That shift is of course not at all surprising. If on one hand someone runs around screaming about an emergency, whilst on the other hand they're worried about making a mess, well that doesn't stand scrutiny. If the house really is on fire you don't complain that the fire brigade trampled the garden, woke the neighbours up and parked in a no standing zone. Nah, you keep right out of the way and let them get on with it unless you're actually doing something to help.

So how important really is it?

If I listen to what's claimed then it's an emergency. Planet's cooked in the near future.

If I look at the actions of governments and the environmental lobby then it's perhaps a problem, but one that a slow and steady approach will be sufficient to address. Their actions don't align at all with the notion of an emergency. They're not akin to saying the theatre is on fire, they're more akin to saying the show is now over, there's no encore, but we're still selling merchandise and while you will need to leave, there's no hurry just amble out in an orderly manner.

In the real world, well practically every new house built in Adelaide has one thing in common. Gas. There's the odd exception but it's in the overwhelming majority and that being so, no chance gas is being done away with for a very long time yet. Politicians of all colours can huff, puff and try blowing the house down whilst flapping their wings but bottom line is once installed this stuff has a fairly long lifespan. Go to Victoria and there's over 5 million gas appliances in the state. 5 million.....

 

[Smurf1976]

Not quite sure what you mean by de-industrialise the West . De carbonise industrial production is the goal. The process of sending major industries offshore to China was driven by economic considerations.

The issue is simply that increasing the cost of energy in the West, without increasing the cost of energy in China etc, massively tilts the table.

If a major energy using industry in Australia pays an emissions tax or otherwise incurs a substantial cost to address emissions, whilst the same industry somewhere else doesn't, then in a "free trade" global market it's game over.

Politically a very large portion of the issue can be summed up by saying the Australian government seems willing to add costs to Australian industry but won't add the same costs to imports. That's treason and a very large part of the politics surrounding the overall issue.

If we don't allow company x in Australia to use coal, then it goes without saying we don't allow product from somewhere else made with coal into the country either. Otherwise it simply weakens Australia economically and fails to fix the problem if emissions are relocated rather than eliminated as such.

That basic issue is, in my view, probably 80% of the politics surrounding the whole thing. The perception that government's willing to throw Australian business under the bus to the advantage of others and same applies to other developed countries. If it wasn't for that aspect, the problem would be well on the way to being fixed by now.

When China looked like a friendly or at least neutral political arena it seemed like a good idea.

Even if a country is "friendly" that doesn't remove the need for this country to have viable industry if it's to survive economically in the long term.

If the country is unfriendly that's just an added problem but it's still a problem as such if our industry all goes to NZ or England.

 

[SirRumpole]

but it's still a problem as such if our industry all goes to NZ or England.

Or the US under the inflation reduction scheme.

 

[basilio]

The big problem isn't how to deal with short duration peaks in power demand. Batteries can do that and so can relatively simple, low impact pumped hydro projects.

The real problem is how to deal with 10 days straight of above average demand and dismal output from both wind and solar. We know that happens at least once practically ever year.

For that the options are basically something that burns, large storage hydro projects, or nuclear. Noting there that nuclear is horrendously uneconomic in that usage, but technically it's doable. Either that or massively scale up the wind and solar and simply accept most of it being unused the rest of the time - that's about as bad as nuclear economically though.

Present planning in Australia, in the context of the NEM, is to do the job using the existing hydro assets with some minor enhancement + Snowy 2.0 for just under 50% of the task on a capacity basis and to the rest, which is just over 50%, using natural gas and diesel.

So what we'll have is a system that's circa 97% renewable (the actual figure varies a couple of % depending on assumptions etc).

Does it matter? Well I won't claim the ability to answer that one. It means a lot less CO2 being emitted but it's not zero.

Bearing in mind electricity's only 25 - 35% of present total emissions depending on which statistics you prefer to look at. For the other 65 - 75%, a lot of that also isn't likely to go to zero at least not rapidly:

The direct use of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons is so utterly entrenched, there's literally a few billion consuming devices all up, that any decline is going to be extremely long and drawn out. Cars, railway locomotives, ships, trucks, buses, aircraft of all types both civilian and military, ovens both domestic and commercial, boilers, water heaters, central heating, BBQ's, boat engines, tools and on it goes. Even gas streetlights aren't actually extinct, there's still some use of them as functional lighting today and they've been technologically obsolete for over a century.

Cement which by its very nature releases CO2.

Steel and other industrial processes where full replacement of fossil fuels is problematic at best.

Agriculture has emissions from both fuel combustion sources and non-fuel sources and that's an industry we're definitely not going to simply do away with.

Meanwhile population and overall consumption continue to trend up.

Put that all together and the concept of "net zero" relies very heavily on sinks and accounting trickery. In reality, it's not happening by 2050 in the manner it's intended to mean. Whether that matters or not I don't know but if anyone's pinning their hopes on net zero by 2050 they're in for a shock unless society radically changes course.

What I do know however is society needs to make its mind up about this. There's no point collectively running around in circles saying we want net zero ASAP but we don't want to do the things required in order to achieve it. One or the other, we need to make our collective minds up. Either we're doing it and we're going to get on and do it using the technology available right now, or we're not doing it with present technology and are just aiming for lower but not zero emissions so stop complaining that fossil fuels aren't going completely extinct unless / until new technology comes along. One or the other.

Noting this isn't simply about hydro versus gas. The same basic problem exists globally, that's partly what all the drama in Europe was about, a sustained period of poor wind yields, and depending on which country the answer varies. Suffice to say enthusiasm for new nuclear is growing, there's a reason for that, but it does raise the same question - do we need fully non-emitting electricity? Or will mostly non-emitting with a bit of oil and gas here and there be good enough? Answer that and it settles the debate about what needs doing, which is probably why there's a reluctance to answer it.

In terms of biases, personally I'm not really that keen on "dam the lot" approaches and I wouldn't seek to fully eliminate gas in the medium term but that said, as a generic concept I'd pick hydro over oil or gas yes. The basic reasons being it's inherently long lasting, it uses a sustainable renewable resource, and it doesn't come with the price shocks and potential wars and human misery that oil and gas do. So long as building it hasn't wiped out a species etc, I'll argue it's a less bad alternative.

For the industry as a whole, no secret the bias is toward gas turbines. That's the default position, it's the preferred solution absolutely, because it ticks the boxes private investors and even many governments are looking at. Essentially zero technical risk with "off the shelf" standardised equipment running on standardised fuel that requires essentially no in house technical expertise, relatively low capex, pretty easy to site and thus far pretty much immune to anyone protesting about them. It's hydro, coal, nuclear, wind and transmission lines that cop the opposition, not gas turbines hidden in plain sight.

What's not clear is what politics and the media wants. One day they want zero emissions, 100% renewable energy and so on on a timescale that's incredibly ambitious to say the least. Then they're dead against any attempt to actually do it. That's not a new thing, it's gone on for decades now.

End result is, and there are surveys which do back this, public support is eroding at this point. The general public does see climate change as a problem, they want something done about it, but they're tired and weary of the whole thing. Sentiment is shifting from "it's an emergency" to "slow and steady, no need to rush" as an approach.

That shift is of course not at all surprising. If on one hand someone runs around screaming about an emergency, whilst on the other hand they're worried about making a mess, well that doesn't stand scrutiny. If the house really is on fire you don't complain that the fire brigade trampled the garden, woke the neighbours up and parked in a no standing zone. Nah, you keep right out of the way and let them get on with it unless you're actually doing something to help.

So how important really is it?

If I listen to what's claimed then it's an emergency. Planet's cooked in the near future.

If I look at the actions of governments and the environmental lobby then it's perhaps a problem, but one that a slow and steady approach will be sufficient to address. Their actions don't align at all with the notion of an emergency. They're not akin to saying the theatre is on fire, they're more akin to saying the show is now over, there's no encore, but we're still selling merchandise and while you will need to leave, there's no hurry just amble out in an orderly manner.

In the real world, well practically every new house built in Adelaide has one thing in common. Gas. There's the odd exception but it's in the overwhelming majority and that being so, no chance gas is being done away with for a very long time yet. Politicians of all colours can huff, puff and try blowing the house down whilst flapping their wings but bottom line is once installed this stuff has a fairly long lifespan. Go to Victoria and there's over 5 million gas appliances in the state. 5 million.....

POTY . Sums up the situation excellently.
Well done

 

[Knobby22]

I assume you're replying to the data regarding Australia's contribution to global CO2 emissions, which might be point number 3.

Should we ignore the problem (if it's real), no.

But, what should we do?

Should Melbourne City Council commit $15m of ratepayers money to climate initiatives that do nothing to change the temperature? Should our schools be teaching 8 year olds that they are going to imminantley die because their parents drive an ICE vehicle?

Should we allow ourselves to go into energy poverty putting us at geostrategic security risk while others have a free pass to destroy the planet and build the World's largest unfriendly military in our backyard? Any student of history knows where this is heading.

Our children are not going to blame us for global warming, they are going to blame us for not looking after our best interests as a nation.

Our children know it is real and they will have to live with it and expect out nation to be a force pressuring other nations as well as showing best practice. We will over time do this because governments want young people's votes.
I work as an an electrical engineer and can tell you 15 mil is nothing to the City of Melbourne as a percentage of their total budget. They have to CH1 building which is world standard for low emissions. The money is going into the CH2 building which they are going to redevelop to get a similar result.

The CH1 building has an experimental external evaporative cooling system. They have a 10 floor office with no air conditioning and 95% fresh air compared to a normal office building with cosily air conditioning and 5% fresh air.
I have been there many times. It's much better than the office building I have to exist in.

 

[Knobby22]

Numbskull thinking, sorry not sorry.

Reminds me of Moe from the 3 stooges. But some people are stooges.
Refer point 4.

The four tenants. Move up and down depending on audience.

1. Global warming is not real. It's about scientists' falsifying data.

2. OK my nuanced opinion is that maybe it s real but it's natural, not man made.

3. OK Even if it's man made We can't do anything about it so should ignore the problem.

4. Ok , the shts hitting the fan but anyone who who mentions it shall be called a ###.

 

[Smurf1976]

The CH1 building has an experimental external evaporative cooling system. They have a 10 floor office with no air conditioning and 95% fresh air compared to a normal office building with cosily air conditioning and 5% fresh air.

Without shooting it down or being negative, I'll question how well this really stacks up?

Or more specifically, how the place is heated?

Reverse cycle A/C leaves any other common means of heating for dead so far as efficiency is in concerned, even a bad one will save two thirds of the energy otherwise used and a good one will be far better than that. Bearing in mind that in Melbourne's climate a typical building is going to need far more heating than cooling.

There's a local government building in Tasmania that, for whatever reason, insisted they weren't going to put air-conditioning in when they built it ~20 years ago despite pretty strong advice that they ought to. Let's just say their total energy use is roughly double what it otherwise would be due to that, the resistive heating burns up some pretty serious amounts of energy. Just installing split system A/C's would cut their heating cost hugely.

Even a simple box type A/C, the old "window rattler" albeit a modern version, will save 70% on heating costs compared to resistive.

 

[Knobby22]

Without shooting it down or being negative, I'll question how well this really stacks up?

Or more specifically, how the place is heated?

Reverse cycle A/C leaves any other common means of heating for dead so far as efficiency is in concerned, even a bad one will save two thirds of the energy otherwise used and a good one will be far better than that. Bearing in mind that in Melbourne's climate a typical building is going to need far more heating than cooling.

There's a local government building in Tasmania that, for whatever reason, insisted they weren't going to put air-conditioning in when they built it ~20 years ago despite pretty strong advice that they ought to. Let's just say their total energy use is roughly double what it otherwise would be due to that, the resistive heating burns up some pretty serious amounts of energy. Just installing split system A/C's would cut their heating cost hugely.

Even a simple box type A/C, the old "window rattler" albeit a modern version, will save 70% on heating costs compared to resistive.

It does have a heating system which is to do with the floor slabs. It uses some tech which gets the heat from special sources. Can't remember. Also the floors are very solid and have a large thermal mass reducing temperature change.

The staff however do not get a flat 22 degrees inside the office. The temperature range is between 18 and 28 degrees. They have to dress for the conditions. The Tassy building was probably based on natural cooling through window ventilation and the chimney effect that this building partially uses however people will not accept this as a solution on really hot days. I can see why that happens.

The building is partly experimental (and some elements failed, I know the turbo geneation (wind) doesn'tworkbecausethey are too heavyto turn and they had a plan with the seweragethat doesn'tworkproperlydue to contaminationfrom shiny toiletpaperandother stuff) but it has a 6 star rating, very low energy costs. Information below.

https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/building-and-development/sustainable-building/council-house-2/Pages/council-house-2.aspx

 

[Smurf1976]

The Tassy building was probably based on natural cooling through window ventilation and the chimney effect

There's no real cooling in it (the one in Tas) just relying on thermal mass and that the state generally doesn't get prolonged periods of hot weather.

But having resistive heating in each room is just an energy guzzler due to what can only be described as a "religious-like" insistence on not having air-conditioning. I can only assume the mayor or someone else with influence just didn't like it and wasn't interested in facts.

Even a current model box A/C has a COP of 3.3 which leaves resistive for dead and any decent split system will be even better.