Resisting Climate Hysteria

sptrawler said:

Which will happen despite what Australia does, the issue that Australia has to address is do we take a logical intelligent approach, or do we continue down the tribal route, which in all probability will fail whichever way we go.

Click to expand...

Talk to the nut case right who are anything but renewables there are very good reasons to move away from fossil fuels the saving in co2 is just a bonus

IFocus said:

Talk to the nut case right who are anything but renewables there are very good reasons to move away from fossil fuels the saving in co2 is just a bonus

Click to expand...

Or the loonie left, who are so focused on targets, they don't understand that things have to actually be done, to meet them.

And now are adopting Tony Abbotts option, which was to pay the private companies to do it.

Way too much political tribalism happening and not enough pragmatism and common sense.

Germany is showing what can go wrong, when ideology gets ahead of pragmatism.

In another one of those hyperbolic forecasts that came back to bite them , in 2014 there were predictions that the nGreat Lakes on the borders between Canada and the USA would dry up.
From Think Progress

As has occurred so often, the dire predictions have proved to be out by a few orders of magnitude.
The three lakes shown below display a distinctly cyclical look about them.
From NOAA





And if you go right back to when recordss started in 1918, it is quite easy to see these cyclicals being repeated.

It mus be disconcerting for those who keep predicting doom and gloom to see their predictions fail over and over again.
Mick

sptrawler said:

Or the loonie left, who are so focused on targets, they don't understand that things have to actually be done, to meet them.

And now are adopting Tony Abbotts option, which was to pay the private companies to do it.

Way too much political tribalism happening and not enough pragmatism and common sense.

Germany is showing what can go wrong, when ideology gets ahead of pragmatism.

Click to expand...

Adding to the previous post # 11,282

5 minute read

basilio said:

"A logical intelligent approach" ? And that is what SP ?

Click to expand...

Proper planning based on hard science and factual data then getting on with it.

It's as simple as that.

There's a lot of problems with fossil fuels separate to the CO2 issue, there are definite arguments for moving away from them where practical, and in some cases it even saves money but it needs proper planning based on hard sciences and getting on with it.

What won't cut it is the pile of manure that is politics on all sides. Suffice to say I could easily rip any of them to shreds and that's not a boast about me, rather it's a sad reflection on them that they stoop so low and play so many games.

At this point the politics has simply ruined the issue. The whole thing's so burnt out at this point that there's really no chance of a politically-based resolution to it. In that sense it could be compared to a TV series, music genre or fashion trend that's worn out it's welcome and I'm being serious there. You'll hear hair metal back on the radio and you'll see big hair back in fashion long time before you see any renewed political focus on fossil fuels, the issue is comprehensively cooked and going nowhere.

What's done it is career activism. On individual issues activists have raised valid points historically but the public are simply fed up with the endless agenda that sees one thing after another. It's one thing to campaign to save the wilderness or argue for gay marriage, it's quite something else to campaign to save an area dominated by mining and existing hydro development or to try and "cancel" historic movies or music. The public are simply fed up with that nit picking endless agenda and the tipping point has passed.

Yet another example of the difficulty in transitioning, companies still have to make money, if they don't make money they wont spend it trying to install renewable power.


BP will abandon its pledge to increase renewable energy generation by 2030 when it presents its strategy to investors on Wednesday.

CEO Murray Auchincloss will rescind the firm’s aim to boost renewable output 20-fold between 2019 and 2030 to 50 gigawatts, according to Reuters

At an investor day in London on Wednesday, BP will also share plans to divest assets and cut other low-carbon investments to reduce debt and boost returns.

BP profits fell to $8.9bn (€8.5bn) in 2024, from $14bn (€13.3bn) in 2023

This isn’t, however, the first time that BP has walked back sustainability pledges.

In 2020, the firm aimed for a 40% reduction in oil and gas output by 2030.

This was changed to a 25% reduction in 2023 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Europe’s energy crisis.

Now the firm is expected to officially abandon the target on Wednesday.

It’s possible that BP will even increase output, following the example of ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell.

sptrawler said:

Yet another example of the difficulty in transitioning, companies still have to make money, if they don't make money they wont spend it trying to install renewable power.

MSN

BP will abandon its pledge to increase renewable energy generation by 2030 when it presents its strategy to investors on Wednesday.

CEO Murray Auchincloss will rescind the firm’s aim to boost renewable output 20-fold between 2019 and 2030 to 50 gigawatts, according to Reuters

At an investor day in London on Wednesday, BP will also share plans to divest assets and cut other low-carbon investments to reduce debt and boost returns.

BP profits fell to $8.9bn (€8.5bn) in 2024, from $14bn (€13.3bn) in 2023

This isn’t, however, the first time that BP has walked back sustainability pledges.

In 2020, the firm aimed for a 40% reduction in oil and gas output by 2030.

This was changed to a 25% reduction in 2023 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Europe’s energy crisis.

Now the firm is expected to officially abandon the target on Wednesday.

It’s possible that BP will even increase output, following the example of ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell.

Click to expand...

The people that don't know are the ones calling for mass renewable projects, woke businesses and governments got caught up in the stamped. And now reality is starting to hit.

Renewables are fine, if the cost is the same or lower than existing technology. But it isn't the same, new plant and materials are required, new investments are needed. This all costs to start, and those costs have to be passed on to consumers and businesses.

We are seeing a lot of businesses close up shop. Consumers are tightening their purses.

The only businesses making good profits from all this are in China.

sptrawler said:

In 2020, the firm aimed for a 40% reduction in oil and gas output by 2030.

Click to expand...

This is the sort of thing that's cooked the issue politically.

BP produces less oil and gas so that Aramco or Gazprom can produce it instead.

All that achieves is a transfer of wealth and strategic power from the West to the Middle East and Russia with the entirely predictable result that it ends badly for the West.

Impact on the climate = net negative, the increased transport distance combined with generally lax environmental standards in the likes of Russia means emissions go up rather than down. At least if BP are taking oil out of the North Sea under the jurisdiction of the UK well that can be regulated to ensure best available technology is applied. Versus having zero control over what Russia etc does.

Same goes for most of these issues. If the concern is about forests well it's better to cut our own timber for our own use and ensure that we're not taking it from endangered species habitat, that we're properly managing the reforestation and so on. That sure beats having some Third World rednecks running the show. Bonus that it keeps the money here and provides meaningful work for people and in locations where that's otherwise problematic.

Yes @Smurf1976 ,yet another case of reality catching up with ideology, this is going to become more and more common IMO.

Companies have to be competitive or they go broke, the issue is becoming painfully obvious, changing process heat to renewables will be costly and may not even work in some cases.

When the Govt has to give hugely profitable companies like Rio Tinto and Gina Rhinehart, taxpayer handouts in the billions of dollars, it tells me that the companies aren't prepared to risk their capital.


Labor will pledge $2 billion towards converting Australia’s four aluminum smelters to renewable electricity with a 10-year production credit designed to turbocharge the shift to green, low-carbon aluminium.

Under the policy to be announced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at the Tomago aluminium smelter in the Hunter on Monday, producers will receive taxpayer support for every tonne of green aluminium they make in the decade to 2036.

Rio Tinto chief executive, Australia, Kellie Parker praised the commitment of taxpayers funds to her business.

“As traditional energy sources for heavy industry become increasingly uncompetitive, today’s announcement is a critical piece in helping future-proof the industry,” Ms Parker said.

The Albanese government recently increased its commitment to the Gina Rinehart-backed Arafura Rare Earths with a $200 million equity investment that will take taxpayers’ exposure in the company to more than $1 billion.

sptrawler said:

changing process heat to renewables will be costly

Click to expand...

Just off the top of my head I can immediately think of multiple examples.

Without stating anything that would reveal the company names, since some of this isn't intended to be in the public domain, basic details:

Large scale manufacturing of a basic consumer product.
Existing heat source = coal.
Alternatives exampled = electricity, natural gas.
Outcome = staying with coal.

Hot water supply to a large hotel in a capital city CBD.
Existing heat source = mains natural gas.
Alternatives examined = electricity, fuel oil, LPG.
Outcome = new boiler burning #2 fuel oil installed.
Note: #2 oil is comparable to diesel. Not to be confused with #6 fuel oil that's thick black stuff.

Large scale manufacturing of a finished consumer product.
Existing heat source = coal. Historically also used light fuel oil (diesel).
Alternatives examined = electricity, natural gas, oil
Outcome = new natural gas boiler installed. Key reason was reduction of labour requirements since labour to work the coal boiler, which included having to transport coal around the site in small loads due to constrained site layout and lack of rail access, was a more significant cost than the fuel itself. New boiler avoids that problem.

Large scale manufacturing of a finished consumer product.
Existing heat source = Heavy fuel oil (#6 oil)
Alternatives examined = electricity, natural gas
Outcome = simple conversion of existing boiler to gas with no other changes.

Metallic mineral processing.
Existing heat source = coal, gas. Historically also used heavy fuel oil #6
Alternatives exampled = hydrogen, full use of gas, retain existing arrangement
Outcome = going fully to natural gas (no coal). Due to the nature of the process only the highest grade of coal, anthracite, is suitable and that's become extremely expensive to obtain - an all-gas approach is cheaper.

Bulk agricultural commodity processing.
Existing heat source = ordinary black coal for heat, grid electricity for power
Alternatives exampled = many
Outcome = new gas-fired co-generation plant installed producing both electricity and process heat.

Basic manufacturing of a bulk commodity
Existing heat source = coal. Has also historically used heavy fuel oil.
Alternatives examined = many (coal, oil, gas, hydrogen, wood, wastes, electricity etc)
Outcome = mix of coal, wood and flammable waste from an unrelated nearby industry.

So many changes but mostly not to non-fossil sources.

I've been deliberately vague to avoid revealing company names but they're all substantial operations in Australia and many are either well known companies or where most would be familiar with the product. All are located in Australia.

Yes the next 10 years will be really interesting, the thing is, those sectors that can't change to electric are in an awkward position, because the change to emission free will continue regardless.
So long term gas isn't an option, even batteries once they start having to be replaced will attract public scorn, so there will be a lot of changes in Australia and the rest of the Western world.
Hopefully technological change, keeps up with the social and industrial changes and allows us to enjoy the same lifestyle we do currently.