Britain doesn't really have much of a choice.Britain's new PM seems to be a supporter of nuclear energy -
Britain has had nuclear power stations since 1956 and Starmer is not treading softly on nuclear. His policy states: “Labour will end a decade of dithering that has seen the Conservatives duck decisions on nuclear power. We will ensure the long-term security of the sector, extending the lifetime of existing plants.” He goes on to say new nuclear power stations and small modular reactors will play an important role in helping the country achieve energy security and clean power, while securing thousands of good, skilled jobs.
Britain doesn't really have much of a choice.
What else are they going to use? Coal mines shut down, North Sea gas running out, sunshine minimal, a few wind farms are going, but keeping people heated in winter is going to need a lot of grunt and they have very few alternatives.
Victoria's the most difficult one technically due to climate and resources but it's not impossible, I can prove mathematically that it can be done so long as there's a willingness to make use of available resources.NSW will eventually have Snowy 2.0, Queensland could possibly build something similar, I’m not so sure about Victoria.
What do you think they (Victoria) should do?Victoria's the most difficult one technically due to climate and resources but it's not impossible, I can prove mathematically that it can be done so long as there's a willingness to make use of available resources.
Whether society wants to do it is another matter. I suspect the answer there is no.
In short, take a professional approach.What do you think they (Victoria) should do?
That won't happen until there is a disaster, then the big red button will be pressed, because the politicians will then have to face the hard reality.In short, take a professional approach.
Identify all the options, financial costs and other impacts (eg environment) that come with them.
Based on that, do proper engineering work to come up with workable options, combinations of multiple components, with the financial and other (eg environment) costs identified.
That produces a list of options. Eg Option A involves building these things and is cheapest but comes with this impact on the environment. Option B is second cheapest and involves building these other things but comes with this other impact. Etc. Identify all the realistic options.
It's then the proper role of government to make the choice as to what it accepts but that's where it ends. Government needs to be choosing from workable systems with professionally identified impacts and costs. What we don't sensibly want is politicians trying to do the environmental science and engineering themselves. Rather, it's pick option A, B, C, D or E.
Only real complexity is the need to get multiple jurisdictions involved. Eg some of the more obvious options for Victoria involve building things in NSW or Tasmania. There's a role for the federal government to bring the states to a common focus there.
Then get out of the way and let others get on and build it.
I can see the time coming when someone has to swallow their pride and build more coal stations.That won't happen until there is a disaster, then the big red button will be pressed, because the politicians will then have to face the hard reality.
And there is a perfect spot down in the Latrobe valley, with a whole bunch of existing infrastructure, as well as an abundance of coal.I can see the time coming when someone has to swallow their pride and build more coal stations.
We still have a lot of coal(I think), and there are ways to reduce the CO2 output from coal stations.
Brown coal unfortunately.And there is a perfect spot down in the Latrobe valley, with a whole bunch of existing infrastructure, as well as an abundance of coal.
Mick
But it is cheap to mine, easily accessible, and is not intermittent.Brown coal unfortunately.
The Latrobe Valley is where the Japanese are setting up their demonstration coal to Hydrogen plant.But it is cheap to mine, easily accessible, and is not intermittent.
Mick
Well sooner or later the issue will have to be addressed, deep firming can be done by gas, coal, nuclear or hydro, there may be other technology developed like tidal, geothermal etc but at the moment the choices are limited.I can see the time coming when someone has to swallow their pride and build more coal stations.
We still have a lot of coal(I think), and there are ways to reduce the CO2 output from coal stations.
The fossil fuels we export don't emit anything until the customers burn it. I don't see why we should be blamed for other country's usageWell sooner or later the issue will have to be addressed, deep firming can be done by gas, coal, nuclear or hydro, there may be other technology developed like tidal, geothermal etc but at the moment the choices are limited.
As I posted in the climate change thread and again below, electricity generation is probably one of the smallest emission issues, Australia to get serious about abating emissions and be taken seriously have some soul searching to do.
Eventually the penny will drop and we will either take it seriously and include all practical solutions, or we will just throw up our hands and say it is too hard, the time the decision is made will be when it actually starts really affecting people's lives.
While the issue it isn't affecting people's lives and people can feel good about themselves preaching to everyone, there isn't a problem.
The rhetoric will change, when they have to actually put their money where their mouth is and actually make serious personal decisions on usage and lifestyle , until then it is just a pantomime and political football.
From the article:Australia exposed as one of world's worst climate wreckers in key UN-backed report | RenewEconomy
Australia again ranks amongst the world's worst countries for climate action, ahead of onlyQatar, Brunei and the United Arab Emirates.reneweconomy.com.au
Australia received one of the lowest scores for ‘climate action’ – ranking fourth-last out of the 168 countries that were scored in the report. Australia was only ahead of Qatar, Brunei and the United Arab Emirates for climate action.
Notably, the Sustainable Development Report doesn’t score countries on their future ambitions. The report scores each country against their current impact on each of the sustainable development metrics.
The SDSN scores progress towards ‘climate action’ by countries against four core metrics, which reflect each country’s present impact on the climate.
Those metrics are:
As you can see, these metrics are not influenced by what countries may or may not have promised to do in the future – such as a 2030 or 2050 emissions reduction target. They are a straightforward assessment of the impact that each country is having on the climate right now.
- CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production (tCO2/capita)
- GHG emissions embodied in imports (tCO₂/capita)
- CO₂ emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports (kg/capita)
- Carbon Pricing Score, with EUR60/tCO₂ used as a reference point (%, worst 0-100 best)
According to the report, Australia has a per capita carbon footprint of more than 15 tonnes per person, which is more than three times the global average.
But that was shadowed by the impact of Australia’s fossil fuel exports, with Australia ranking fourth in the world for exported emissions per capita, which contributed to Australia’s poor score.
In 2023, Australia exported more than 43 tonnes of CO₂ emissions for each and every Australian via our significant coal and gas exports.
To put that into perspective, for every tonne of emissions produced at home, Australia is exporting the equivalent of 3 tonnes of greenhouse emissions in the form of coal and gas.
View attachment 180287
The Northern Territory is the heaviest emitter of CO2 per capita in the world and the Beetaloo Basin LNG project will only make it worse
The Australian Government would like the other states to help offset the Northern Territory emissions. That's a big ask given the NT is already the heaviest emitter of CO2 per capita in the worldaustraliainstitute.org.au
View attachment 180288
The problem is, we have to sell something to the rest of the world to pay for the solar panels and wind turbines that make up wind and solar farms that we need to import.Well sooner or later the issue will have to be addressed, deep firming can be done by gas, coal, nuclear or hydro, there may be other technology developed like tidal, geothermal etc but at the moment the choices are limited.
As I posted in the climate change thread and again below, electricity generation is probably one of the smallest emission issues, Australia to get serious about abating emissions and be taken seriously have some soul searching to do.
Eventually the penny will drop and we will either take it seriously and include all practical solutions, or we will just throw up our hands and say it is too hard, the time the decision is made will be when it actually starts really affecting people's lives.
While the issue it isn't affecting people's lives and people can feel good about themselves preaching to everyone, there isn't a problem.
The rhetoric will change, when they have to actually put their money where their mouth is and actually make serious personal decisions on usage and lifestyle , until then it is just a pantomime and political football.
From the article:Australia exposed as one of world's worst climate wreckers in key UN-backed report | RenewEconomy
Australia again ranks amongst the world's worst countries for climate action, ahead of onlyQatar, Brunei and the United Arab Emirates.reneweconomy.com.au
Australia received one of the lowest scores for ‘climate action’ – ranking fourth-last out of the 168 countries that were scored in the report. Australia was only ahead of Qatar, Brunei and the United Arab Emirates for climate action.
Notably, the Sustainable Development Report doesn’t score countries on their future ambitions. The report scores each country against their current impact on each of the sustainable development metrics.
The SDSN scores progress towards ‘climate action’ by countries against four core metrics, which reflect each country’s present impact on the climate.
Those metrics are:
As you can see, these metrics are not influenced by what countries may or may not have promised to do in the future – such as a 2030 or 2050 emissions reduction target. They are a straightforward assessment of the impact that each country is having on the climate right now.
- CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production (tCO2/capita)
- GHG emissions embodied in imports (tCO₂/capita)
- CO₂ emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports (kg/capita)
- Carbon Pricing Score, with EUR60/tCO₂ used as a reference point (%, worst 0-100 best)
According to the report, Australia has a per capita carbon footprint of more than 15 tonnes per person, which is more than three times the global average.
But that was shadowed by the impact of Australia’s fossil fuel exports, with Australia ranking fourth in the world for exported emissions per capita, which contributed to Australia’s poor score.
In 2023, Australia exported more than 43 tonnes of CO₂ emissions for each and every Australian via our significant coal and gas exports.
To put that into perspective, for every tonne of emissions produced at home, Australia is exporting the equivalent of 3 tonnes of greenhouse emissions in the form of coal and gas.
View attachment 180287
Nothing will change until it really starts affecting the lifestyle of those who have the ear of the media, at the moment the only sectors of the economy hurting are the middle class and those of welfare, they don't have any access to the media to voice their discontent.The problem is, we have to sell something to the rest of the world to pay for the solar panels and wind turbines that make up wind and solar farms that we need to import.
Not to mention all the batteries for storage, the EV's that we plan to drive around in, the charging stations that we plan to use to charge up all the EV's.
If we don't sell coal and gas, what have we got to offer except Iron Ore, some gold, copper and other mining products.
All of which are an anathema to the environmental lobby?
We will not be exporting any live cattle or sheep from now on.
And we have now started to import huge amounts of butter into the country ( see Butter Mountain ), despite the fact that butter is at an all time high while the gate price for milk has gone in the opposite direction.
We as a country put every barrier possible in the way of those industries that provide us with hard currency.
Mick
Since when has logics been a part of this debate?The fossil fuels we export don't emit anything until the customers burn it. I don't see why we should be blamed for other country's usage
Only problem is, the product will all go offshore and we get nix as usual.The Latrobe Valley is where the Japanese are setting up their demonstration coal to Hydrogen plant.
The CO2 produced can be sequested so no CO2 is produced but that is not good enough for these numbnuts.
Its a better solution than nuclear as it is cheaper, can be done quicker and produce Ammonia as a by product that can be used by industry. Win Win.
'It has no place in Victoria': Protesters seek end of coal-to-hydrogen project
Environmentalists say a proposal to produce hydrogen from Victorian coal in the Latrobe Valley should be abandoned, but those backing the project are seeking to commercialise it.www.abc.net.au
HESC grotesque say Victorian locals as Japanese giants push Western Port coal-to-hydrogen - Michael West
The jury is out on hydrogen. Yet the massive new HESC coal-to-hydrogen project planned for Victoria's Western Port Bay is moving aheadmichaelwest.com.au
We can buy it also. Just no contract yet.Only problem is, the product will all go offshore and we get nix as usual.
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?