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.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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.True, look up Koch brothers.
firstly thanks (i read less b4 i take a pilot position but have made the effort here)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.
Bullshiit!To all the world's really hard questions you only need to follow one thing, the money trail.
Ann,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.
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)and see that for similar energy outputs burning gas produces a little over half the co2 of burning coal ............
I live in Queensland and that's not true.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)
cheers - so thinking prolly the new coal power station thing thing was something of a political thought only.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.
There were some politicians who wanted one built, but there was never a serious proposal to build one.(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)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?