Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[HelloU]

so, to help this layman, is the problem the 'rate of change' rather than the actual fact it is changing? (previous blokes response was unhelpful to my understanding)

If it is indeed the rate of change that is of concern (awaiting confirmation there) then are we heading to same climate change "end point" just faster ? or to another end point entirely?

 

[Ann]

I take heart in the continual improvements in renewable energy. When a state like Texas is taking it up with gusto you know everyone will eventually, even backward countries like Australia.

I bloody hope so Knobby, I have money in the markets on renewables I am holding a straw up to be able to keep breathing at the moment! Holding staunch though.

On the contrary. China is the global leader in most forms of renewables in terms of investment dollars and capacity build. India is making massive investments in renewables, considering their lack of wealth.

In their own country or as an investor in other countries? If it is not 100% in their own countries, then they are paying lip service to the whole deal and looking to make money.

China still has still has tens of millions while India has hundreds of millions of rural folk living in third world conditions. I think it reasonable that these nation aspire to give them a semblance of western world lifestyle benefits.

I agree totally. Although having said that I wonder if it will truly enhance their lives to be boxed up in cities with all the stress related to that or a slow rural lifestyle. I think a lot of us crave a third world existence of a slow rural life. A few chickens, your own home grown veg, fresh air and peace. Damn it is a hard choice!

 

[Ann]

so, to help this layman, is the problem the 'rate of change' rather than the actual fact it is changing? (previous blokes response was unhelpful to my understanding)

If it is indeed the rate of change that is of concern (awaiting confirmation there) then are we heading to same climate change "end point" just faster ? or to another end point entirely?

To all the world's really hard questions you only need to follow one thing, the money trail.

 

[Knobby22]

True, look up Koch brothers.
Also look up arctic charts, satellite measurements of arctic melt.

 

[HelloU]

the money trail is digging up copper, lithium, and nickel and vanadium to make the world a 'better place'. Some want to 'leave the world a better place' by digging huge holes.

science says:
"Scientists analysed the dozens of mammoth fossils and now think rising temperatures melting the mammoths' habitat drove them to extinction".

this is global warming in practice .......
global warming has an impact ........
whether that impact leaves the world a better place, a worse place or just a different place is open to interpretation. The world no longer has Mammoths, but is the world a worse place now? The world does have Bordetella Pertussis but would it be a better place without it? It is subjective.

I do not understand if global warming is taking us to the same future (just faster) or if it is taking us to a whole new place that is as yet unknown ........

 

[kahuna1]

Hi Hello u.

nail upon the head. It is the RATE which is one concern. Its likely what took 200,000 years, an asteroid hitting the planet will take around 300 years to reach 2000 PPM CO2. Maybe 350 years so 2200 and this is IPCC ... the UN climate change numbers along with both Oxford and Cambridge and 5 other very good universities with the top climate change departments. NOT plucked out of some mad magazine.

Even here, at 400 PPM, temperatures will rise 5-6 degrees C but will take if the past is anything to go by around 600 years. Sadly, and without any doubt, not among 97% of the climate change community and that's 10,000 or so scientists, they agree on this issue. Consensus on one or more of the feedback loops occurring which will rapidly take us up from today's 411 PPM CO2 to 1,200 by about 2125 is actually 100%.

100%. And that's just One feedback, the melting of the Arctic and permafrost releasing 1.8 trillion tons of CO2 in frozen dead plants and animal matter. There sadly are likely 3 if not four post 2100. We can possibly avoid some of them. Others, impossible to stop even if we tried.

What ended each of these mass extinction events was capture of CO2 over a very long time, 800,000 to 3 million years and either continents hitting each other and burying forests, which turned into coal and seas of plankton which became oil, and we, now in our wisdom BURN it and expect what occurred already 5 times not to occur.

The previous Utube is a good one on the denial side of it and as one person shared, its akin to denial smoking caused cancer. In this case, where did coal come from ? Or Oil ? if we use it, burn it, release the energy and CO2 back out, a simple few chemical and exothermic reactions, what occurs ?

That is about as simply as I can put it. The process.

Their is HOPE .... and we humans are ingenious, but also at times cruel, greedy and stupid in the extreme.

Whilst quoting some idiot politician who cant even spell Potato, AL gore, whilst well meaning, the money behind the denial of this issue is large. One point I make as an Australian, one national treasure is GONE ... and GONE no matter what. The Great Barrier reef around for the last 2 million years is now 25% of the size it was in 1985. It is unlikely to be 10% of the size in 2050. It is very unlikely its there at all by 2100. The current state of the reef is NOT a debate, its sadly factual. Coral is being hit by extreme temperatures which cooks it and kills it, bleaching and takes 15 years to even have any hope of surviving.

One does not have to look very far to see evidence. Denial, delusional denial when extreme heat is being seen 10 times more than extreme cold, which again is a climate change effect when polar arctic airflow's normally trapped very far North or SOUTH ... due to hotter than normal conditions break away and the cold air goes further South as it did in the USA in 2018.

Again, and despite satellites for 40 years measuring both the SUN and its output, and the temperature in 500,000 locations clinically and with extreme accuracy, some idiots seem to think its all some non event. It was amusing, Trump, funded by coal and oil barons, his choice to debunk climate issues, a very vocal Nobel prize winner with NO qualifications in ANY climate science, who worked for and with oil and gas, was caught on tape this week accepting bribes to write papers that said CO2 is good for you on behalf of the Coal industry.

Sadly, again a chemical reaction, and not until say 2125 depending on what people do, with 1200 PPM clouds, that reflect back a lot of the Suns heat stop forming. STOP .... and this lovely feedback loop is worth about 5 degrees C all by itself. By then sadly, the ocean itself which absorbs 75% of the heat a lot of the CO2 and produces 60% of the oxygen in the atmosphere will be having a cow itself due to one if not two other feedback loops. the first is assured and acidity went up 50% in the ocean in the past 50 years via CO2 being absorbed, by 2150 well, calcium formed by shellfish will be hard to do, and the things that produce most of the oxygen now, algae and sea grass will be undergoing a sea change on steroids which in the past took 200,000 plus years to occur so giving it a chance to migrate to new areas, this time ? Even I cannot bear to think on this.

Other ocean feedbacks, well the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is trapped in inversion layers, layers of much cooler water and I do wonder how it will cope. Again, impossible to be constructive on this. Last but not least, fresh water added to salt water as the Arctic melts first but the Antarctic and its massive sheets of ice post 2100 being added to ocean currents which like a toilet circulate and warm water is taken North and to around the UK, if this stopped ?

Again, unlikely to be stopped. Unless we, act.

Again, there is hope.

Some hope and not for much cost, if we act soon. But denial and trolls and money rule the debate.

If you listen to the previous Utube, its sadly a mere spec of the denial and money behind things out of the USA and other oil nations and interests.

The future ... is the past... the outcome will be as it has been already 5 times and 76% to 99% of all life ends. In two of the cases, the air was NOT breathable. Oceans were acid baths and at the equator 40 degrees C. So longer than an hour and your cooked. COOKED ...

What a rapid event does is open to speculation. Not the end result of past events.

 

[Ann]

True, look up Koch brothers.

The vast majority of their fortune is invested in a family-owned business called Koch Industries. The company was started as an oil refinery more than 75 years ago by Fred Koch, and today is a diversified conglomerate that is worth approximately $100 billion. ref.

So these guys are oilers. They might make more money by supporting the CC lobby in order to get rid of the small oilers. But I am thinking these guys are actually part of the small oilers. They are going to struggle to get support from the major funds as the green team have done a job on the funds to not support small oilers with funding or support from their funds.

The next big industry which has struggled for a number of years are the Uranium interests, mining and power plants.
These are in line to make huge money if they can convince us that they are the only 'true green' energy alternative.
Now you need to ask, who is likely to be making more money from a successful lobby?

 

[explod]

Meanwhile back to real alternatives that are working:-

Yes2Renewables
ICYMI: After many months of delay by the federal energy minister, the exploration license for Star of the South has finally been approved.

This could be the start of a whole new offshore wind sector here in Australia, and provide another pathway for transitioning workers out of fossil fuels and into clean renewable energy.

We're very glad we pushed hard on this one.

About this website

ABC.NET.AU

Ocean off Victoria's Gippsland could be home to first offshore wind project

 

[HelloU]

Hi Hello u.

nail upon the head. It is the RATE which is one concern. Its likely what took 200,000 years, an asteroid hitting the planet will take around 300 years to reach 2000 PPM CO2. Maybe 350 years so 2200 and this is IPCC ... the UN climate change numbers along with both Oxford and Cambridge and 5 other very good universities with the top climate change departments. NOT plucked out of some mad magazine.

Even here, at 400 PPM, temperatures will rise 5-6 degrees C but will take if the past is anything to go by around 600 years. Sadly, and without any doubt, not among 97% of the climate change community and that's 10,000 or so scientists, they agree on this issue. Consensus on one or more of the feedback loops occurring which will rapidly take us up from today's 411 PPM CO2 to 1,200 by about 2125 is actually 100%.

100%. And that's just One feedback, the melting of the Arctic and permafrost releasing 1.8 trillion tons of CO2 in frozen dead plants and animal matter. There sadly are likely 3 if not four post 2100. We can possibly avoid some of them. Others, impossible to stop even if we tried.

What ended each of these mass extinction events was capture of CO2 over a very long time, 800,000 to 3 million years and either continents hitting each other and burying forests, which turned into coal and seas of plankton which became oil, and we, now in our wisdom BURN it and expect what occurred already 5 times not to occur.

The previous Utube is a good one on the denial side of it and as one person shared, its akin to denial smoking caused cancer. In this case, where did coal come from ? Or Oil ? if we use it, burn it, release the energy and CO2 back out, a simple few chemical and exothermic reactions, what occurs ?

That is about as simply as I can put it. The process.

Their is HOPE .... and we humans are ingenious, but also at times cruel, greedy and stupid in the extreme.

Whilst quoting some idiot politician who cant even spell Potato, AL gore, whilst well meaning, the money behind the denial of this issue is large. One point I make as an Australian, one national treasure is GONE ... and GONE no matter what. The Great Barrier reef around for the last 2 million years is now 25% of the size it was in 1985. It is unlikely to be 10% of the size in 2050. It is very unlikely its there at all by 2100. The current state of the reef is NOT a debate, its sadly factual. Coral is being hit by extreme temperatures which cooks it and kills it, bleaching and takes 15 years to even have any hope of surviving.

One does not have to look very far to see evidence. Denial, delusional denial when extreme heat is being seen 10 times more than extreme cold, which again is a climate change effect when polar arctic airflow's normally trapped very far North or SOUTH ... due to hotter than normal conditions break away and the cold air goes further South as it did in the USA in 2018.

Again, and despite satellites for 40 years measuring both the SUN and its output, and the temperature in 500,000 locations clinically and with extreme accuracy, some idiots seem to think its all some non event. It was amusing, Trump, funded by coal and oil barons, his choice to debunk climate issues, a very vocal Nobel prize winner with NO qualifications in ANY climate science, who worked for and with oil and gas, was caught on tape this week accepting bribes to write papers that said CO2 is good for you on behalf of the Coal industry.

Sadly, again a chemical reaction, and not until say 2125 depending on what people do, with 1200 PPM clouds, that reflect back a lot of the Suns heat stop forming. STOP .... and this lovely feedback loop is worth about 5 degrees C all by itself. By then sadly, the ocean itself which absorbs 75% of the heat a lot of the CO2 and produces 60% of the oxygen in the atmosphere will be having a cow itself due to one if not two other feedback loops. the first is assured and acidity went up 50% in the ocean in the past 50 years via CO2 being absorbed, by 2150 well, calcium formed by shellfish will be hard to do, and the things that produce most of the oxygen now, algae and sea grass will be undergoing a sea change on steroids which in the past took 200,000 plus years to occur so giving it a chance to migrate to new areas, this time ? Even I cannot bear to think on this.

Other ocean feedbacks, well the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is trapped in inversion layers, layers of much cooler water and I do wonder how it will cope. Again, impossible to be constructive on this. Last but not least, fresh water added to salt water as the Arctic melts first but the Antarctic and its massive sheets of ice post 2100 being added to ocean currents which like a toilet circulate and warm water is taken North and to around the UK, if this stopped ?

Again, unlikely to be stopped. Unless we, act.

Again, there is hope.

Some hope and not for much cost, if we act soon. But denial and trolls and money rule the debate.

If you listen to the previous Utube, its sadly a mere spec of the denial and money behind things out of the USA and other oil nations and interests.

The future ... is the past... the outcome will be as it has been already 5 times and 76% to 99% of all life ends. In two of the cases, the air was NOT breathable. Oceans were acid baths and at the equator 40 degrees C. So longer than an hour and your cooked. COOKED ...

What a rapid event does is open to speculation. Not the end result of past events.

firstly thanks (i read less b4 i take a pilot position but have made the effort here)
coal and oil has given us lifestyle access to so much energy that i cannot see those consumption levels easily reducing ..... i reckon peeps do not really understand how much energy is now consumed compared to decades ago.
Had a quick look at point in time electricity earlier ...

would love to think that is an easy fix to change it all but Carnegie and Port Augusta show it is not.

question: how does gas compare in all this?

 

[HelloU]

and see that for similar energy outputs burning gas produces a little over half the co2 of burning coal ............

 

[rederob]

To all the world's really hard questions you only need to follow one thing, the money trail.

Bullshiit!
This is about the science - something you refuse to understand.
The money happens to be on the "other" side, so you got it completely assabout.

 

[ghotib]

The vast majority of their fortune is invested in a family-owned business called Koch Industries. The company was started as an oil refinery more than 75 years ago by Fred Koch, and today is a diversified conglomerate that is worth approximately $100 billion. ref.

So these guys are oilers. They might make more money by supporting the CC lobby in order to get rid of the small oilers. But I am thinking these guys are actually part of the small oilers. They are going to struggle to get support from the major funds as the green team have done a job on the funds to not support small oilers with funding or support from their funds.

Ann,

What or who are you talking about? What's a "small oiler"? What support are the Koch Bros going to "struggle to get", and what "major funds" are they going to struggle with?

Did you read the whole of the Investopedia article you linked? The Koch bros own 84% of Koch Industries and are worth about USD60Billion each. They have given billions of dollars to support (euphemistically speaking) selected right wing politicians and policies. They are widely known, though apparently not to you, as ruthless and effective opponents of action against global warming.

If you really want to follow the money trail on climate you might try the book "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer. The trail you're on at the moment is leading you backwards over a cliff.

 

[kahuna1]

Sorry ... this is on topic ... and NOT being mean ...

Trolling or illness I think this is relevant and why Darc Knight and so many others on so many other threads throw their hands up in despair. Ignore button DOES work and no amount of reasoning is the issue will work.

Gas-lighting ? Dementia ? 26 years with Chronic fatigue or just lazy ? An excuse ... pathetic but sadly true.

The Science of Internet Trolls


they WANT you to feed of their sadistic desires. It gives them pleasure and the attention they need and crave. Say something stupid and reel them in. Pretend to be stupid, whilst laughing at the ants as they run from the magnifying glass using the sun, as they burn.

 

[HelloU]

and see that for similar energy outputs burning gas produces a little over half the co2 of burning coal ............

looking for quick info from someone knowledgable about QLD electricity - looking for technical/finance understanding here (not political answers, not interested in getting into that)
QLD pollies are spruiking a new coal generator ...... is there a quick and easy answer to why they are not spruiking a pumped hydro/solar or gas generator instead (at half co2) ....... or does gas not reduce co2 by half in the real world compared to "clean coal"? Or why pumped hydro etc was not an option ........... is there a technical answer (or is it central qld political reasons only)

 

[rederob]

looking for quick info from someone knowledgable about QLD electricity - looking for technical/finance understanding here (not political answers, not interested in getting into that)
QLD pollies are spruiking a new coal generator ...... is there a quick and easy answer to why they are not spruiking a pumped hydro/solar or gas generator instead (at half co2) ....... or does gas not reduce co2 by half in the real world compared to "clean coal"? Or why pumped hydro etc was not an option ........... is there a technical answer (or is it central qld political reasons only)

I live in Queensland and that's not true.
I am not aware there is any need for the additional energy it would offer, and commercially I have never heard that any operator has it under consideration.
There is no way a coal plant in Queensland, despite lots of coal being available, would be cheaper that CCGT, while renewables are cheaper still.
Pumped hydro only makes sense if you have a lot of unused spinning to pump water back to "top up" the battery, as it were,

 

[kahuna1]

Hydro not in QLD ... coal is.

I do wonder why CSG power station is NOT an option ... even at a poor CO2 outcome.
Coal is there, it is being dug up, it is easy dirty option.

GAS as in Natural gas ... not really and option and LNG ... is .. or was but the CSG which is NOT same as natural gas but Methane coming from coal and is turned into LNG via the plants ... I am not sure but think its all being sold overseas via long term contracts.

Renewable are good, but one needs reliability and mixtures in electricity generation and of course reliable backup power. COAL DOES NOT ... provide it ... instant or close to it .... Natural gas does ... battery backup to solar or wind, as does hydro. So too pumped hydro. Hydro is not really an option in Qld and our schemes are in Tassie and NSW VIC near the ACT.

Cost wise, and reliability wise without the MIX of reliability renewable are NOT really the option when some from of near instant power is not able to fill gaps in the grid or when the sun doesn't shine. Hydro is able to be turned on and off at will, and DOES NOT get upset being run at night when say solar is NOT providing 15% to the grid. Same issue for wind, WITHOUT batter backup ... then again solar thermal plants are getting cheap even to coal but again, beyond say 24 hour backup and continuous power EVEN when its dark ... the overall reliability of any grid which does not have natural gas or LNG plants ... or nuclear OR hydro ... one either bites the bullet with a very large battery bank and eats the cost for now or one goes either LNG or CSG which both are preferred to coal but that leaves coal.

Is it possible to fill it with some hydro ? in QLD ... I suspect not quickly or easily.

Is it possible to fill it with renewable with battery backup at a COMPARABLE price ... per kw hour WITHOUT subsidies to coal ? I believe the answer is YES ....or very close to YES .... the cost of the commercial batter systems are dropping like stones. Added to this, as always the invention of new products is likely that within 10 years that capacity doubles via Nano spheres and strands and some latest stuff has some batteries likely to last not 20 years, but 300 or 400 years with double the capacity via the latest stuff I follow.

So committing to something which, well ... it is marrying to coal .... because it easy ... and its there ... cost wise I suspect being fair is equal to current solar wind technology with battery backup ... it has come that far. It is likely to go even the other WAY ... into cheaper and significantly so fairly soon. Idiots and trolls claim as does Trump when the wind stops so does the TV. What an imbecile .... the whole generation grid is made up of a mix of alternative ways to generate electricity. If the sun is shining the wind is blowing .... of COURSE the HYDRO tap if you have that is turned off. the COAL station which takes a bit longer to get hot than the LNG gas plant ... neither are burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon,

What however is needed is that baseline reliable power ... and other options make more sense than marrying to something because its easy ... or its there ... if one can for the same or similar cost generate electricity without CO2 its political or stupidity ruling the decision.

Liberal and National party lines are similar if not identical to John Howard's line about it costing more and Donald Trumps rubbish. It is NOT true for even China to generate via renewable and despite being emerging their able to do so even at a fraction of the cost we do here.

Pretending to be green does not count. If 20 EU nations generate 23% of their power this way at a cost cheaper than coal, it IS an option and is so with battery backup as well !! Using a coal fired power station for 3 hours a day is better than 24 hours. A fact that escapes idiot trolls and Trump like imbeciles. Or people called Barnaby. Is there another viable green option at same or similar cost ? YES .. is it likely when its needed which is 5 or so years hence that the cost and efficiency given its risen by 25% in the past 5 years, the battery solar or wind option, is it likely to be even cheaper ? YES ... given the advances seen and not yet commercial but very likely in 10 years in battery storage and LIFE and cost and capacity ... that it would make it STUPID to build a coal fired power station commercially right now ..

Yes.

Oh and as to background ... I have qualifications in these areas and wrote a series of papers on similar things in 1998, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2006 and so on and on. Nuclear for example and I shared that one for free, the economics of a new nuclear plant ignoring public concerns when I examined the NEW cost in 2007, of a new plant ... outside ultra low cost India or China Labor wise the costs were prohibitive. NUCLEAR is needed to some extent to provide nuclear medicines and cancer treatments but a small test type plant such as we have at Lucas Heights in NSW can do this. Anyone who even mentions nuclear a being an option has NO idea of the commercial side of power generation in 2019, let alone 2007.

I note some have tried to mention nuclear and it being some option, it is however and will remain unlikely not just for public safety issues which are not so valid with modern reactors .... but on a cast basis its DOUBLE the cost per KW hour for any western nation and a nightmare of public outcry.

So that leaves coal, gas ... whether CSG or LNG, hydro ... solar pv or thermal ... the latter is better but higher cost, but not really an option that will solves the issue ... wind ... and possibly some other forms may jump the barrier of being commercial such as wave and pumped wave stuff ... but unlikely in the next 10-15 years.

 

[HelloU]

Hydro not in QLD ... coal is.

I do wonder why CSG power station is NOT an option ... even at a poor CO2 outcome.
Coal is there, it is being dug up, it is easy dirty option.

GAS as in Natural gas ... not really and option and LNG ... is .. or was but the CSG which is NOT same as natural gas but Methane coming from coal and is turned into LNG via the plants ... I am not sure but think its all being sold overseas via long term contracts.

Renewable are good, but one needs reliability and mixtures in electricity generation and of course reliable backup power. COAL DOES NOT ... provide it ... instant or close to it .... Natural gas does ... battery backup to solar or wind, as does hydro. So too pumped hydro. Hydro is not really an option in Qld and our schemes are in Tassie and NSW VIC near the ACT.

Cost wise, and reliability wise without the MIX of reliability renewable are NOT really the option when some from of near instant power is not able to fill gaps in the grid or when the sun doesn't shine. Hydro is able to be turned on and off at will, and DOES NOT get upset being run at night when say solar is NOT providing 15% to the grid. Same issue for wind, WITHOUT batter backup ... then again solar thermal plants are getting cheap even to coal but again, beyond say 24 hour backup and continuous power EVEN when its dark ... the overall reliability of any grid which does not have natural gas or LNG plants ... or nuclear OR hydro ... one either bites the bullet with a very large battery bank and eats the cost for now or one goes either LNG or CSG which both are preferred to coal but that leaves coal.

Is it possible to fill it with some hydro ? in QLD ... I suspect not quickly or easily.

Is it possible to fill it with renewable with battery backup at a COMPARABLE price ... per kw hour WITHOUT subsidies to coal ? I believe the answer is YES ....or very close to YES .... the cost of the commercial batter systems are dropping like stones. Added to this, as always the invention of new products is likely that within 10 years that capacity doubles via Nano spheres and strands and some latest stuff has some batteries likely to last not 20 years, but 300 or 400 years with double the capacity via the latest stuff I follow.

So committing to something which, well ... it is marrying to coal .... because it easy ... and its there ... cost wise I suspect being fair is equal to current solar wind technology with battery backup ... it has come that far. It is likely to go even the other WAY ... into cheaper and significantly so fairly soon. Idiots and trolls claim as does Trump when the wind stops so does the TV. What an imbecile .... the whole generation grid is made up of a mix of alternative ways to generate electricity. If the sun is shining the wind is blowing .... of COURSE the HYDRO tap if you have that is turned off. the COAL station which takes a bit longer to get hot than the LNG gas plant ... neither are burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon,

What however is needed is that baseline reliable power ... and other options make more sense than marrying to something because its easy ... or its there ... if one can for the same or similar cost generate electricity without CO2 its political or stupidity ruling the decision.

Liberal and National party lines are similar if not identical to John Howard's line about it costing more and Donald Trumps rubbish. It is NOT true for even China to generate via renewable and despite being emerging their able to do so even at a fraction of the cost we do here.

Pretending to be green does not count. If 20 EU nations generate 23% of their power this way at a cost cheaper than coal, it IS an option and is so with battery backup as well !! Using a coal fired power station for 3 hours a day is better than 24 hours. A fact that escapes idiot trolls and Trump like imbeciles. Or people called Barnaby. Is there another viable green option at same or similar cost ? YES .. is it likely when its needed which is 5 or so years hence that the cost and efficiency given its risen by 25% in the past 5 years, the battery solar or wind option, is it likely to be even cheaper ? YES ... given the advances seen and not yet commercial but very likely in 10 years in battery storage and LIFE and cost and capacity ... that it would make it STUPID to build a coal fired power station commercially right now ..

Yes.

Oh and as to background ... I have qualifications in these areas and wrote a series of papers on similar things in 1998, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2006 and so on and on. Nuclear for example and I shared that one for free, the economics of a new nuclear plant ignoring public concerns when I examined the NEW cost in 2007, of a new plant ... outside ultra low cost India or China Labor wise the costs were prohibitive. NUCLEAR is needed to some extent to provide nuclear medicines and cancer treatments but a small test type plant such as we have at Lucas Heights in NSW can do this. Anyone who even mentions nuclear a being an option has NO idea of the commercial side of power generation in 2019, let alone 2007.

I note some have tried to mention nuclear and it being some option, it is however and will remain unlikely not just for public safety issues which are not so valid with modern reactors .... but on a cast basis its DOUBLE the cost per KW hour for any western nation and a nightmare of public outcry.

So that leaves coal, gas ... whether CSG or LNG, hydro ... solar pv or thermal ... the latter is better but higher cost, but not really an option that will solves the issue ... wind ... and possibly some other forms may jump the barrier of being commercial such as wave and pumped wave stuff ... but unlikely in the next 10-15 years.

cheers - so thinking prolly the new coal power station thing thing was something of a political thought only.

It just made me think that qld has gas, it has sun, and it has water (they do not call it a rainforest because it is dry) which all, to this layman, seem "better environmentally" than coal - but they did not get the headlines. The coal power station got the headlines.


(to redorob, a proposal to build a new coal station in qld was thrown around by the pollies this year - it was a real thing - it may not have legs, but it made the headlines)

 

[rederob]

(to redorob, a proposal to build a new coal station in qld was thrown around by the pollies this year - it was a real thing - it may not have legs, but it made the headlines)

There were some politicians who wanted one built, but there was never a serious proposal to build one.
Apart from some idiot politicians, this idea had as much chance of getting traction as will Anning at the next election.

 

[kahuna1]

Hi,

I do hear you on the Hydro thing, but as you know distances are VAST in Qld. So it may rain in the very far North and there MAY be some option to go Hydro, when the power grid has to transport selectivity over vast distances, the cost is vast along with some lost via transmission issues so a power station say in far North Qld will Not work as well as Snowy Hydro which is 500 km away v say Cairns to Brisbane which is 1400 KM.

It becomes a factor, the distance and the Snowy system and its vast capacity in KWH itself brings down the transmission costs as well. Lots and lots of things go into the mix.

Not being political, just economics based, coal fired verses say a PV solar or thermal solar with battery backup projected say 5 -10 years from now, COAL fired makes no economic sense even NOW. One generates more jobs ,,,, the green stuff .... so again it makes no sense. It is however cheap nasty and stupid to burn coal, and appears a good thing since the coal is there, But why would you do it if it didn't even make economic sense NOW let alone what is likely a cost reduction of 15% in 5 years and likely 25% in 10-15 years per KW h ?

I do not understand the Liberal party views sprouted by Griener and John Howard other than their being owned by the oil and coal interests or being senile. Griener of course the NSW premier convicted of corruption by ICAC is much like Trump in being teflon coated. Barnaby is just a dummy. Not being political but economic in these views. HARD NOSED based upon economics. And before some troll comes out I point to Whyalla and the only steel plant in the world likely 100% run on renewables is a bloody good example of the economics INSIDE AUSTRALIA of renewables. Let alone half of Europe and one nation if not two now 100% renewable. Iceland is Geothermal and one of the other totally WIND .... yep it relies upon backup via Hydro and nuclear from outside when it doesn't blow, but the NET number is 100% wind and 125% power when the wind blows.

 

[MARKETWINNER]