The future of energy generation and storage

[SirRumpole]

Getting back to energy, are we painting ourselves into a corner? One hopes not.

Decision on major gas project in WA's north-west delayed again

Woodside says a decision to further delay approval for its major gas project in WA's north west until after the federal election is "extremely disappointing".

www.abc.net.au

The federal government has again delayed a decision to extend the life of a major liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in WA's north west.

Oil and gas giant Woodside Energy is looking to continue LNG production in Karratha, 1,500 kilometres north of Perth, until 2070.

It would be a major step in the company's plans to develop the Browse LNG project off WA's north coast.

After an initial delay until the end of March, federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has delayed the decision for a second time until May 31, which will be after the federal election.

The extension is strongly opposed by climate and environment groups who say it will emit billions of tonnes of climate pollution across its lifetime and jeopardise global efforts to reach net zero.

The area is also home to a 50,000-year-old natural rock art gallery of more than 1 million petroglyphs spread across 37,000 hectares at Murujuga, also known as the Burrup Peninsula.

The project has drawn ire from environmentalists, with 770 appeals subsequently lodged with the state Environmental Protection Authority.

The WA government gave the project the green light in December by then-state environment minister Reece Whitby, after a six-year approval process.

Gavin McFadzean, who runs the Climate and Energy program at the Australian Conservation Foundation, said he believed Ms Plibersek had more information to consider and called out the WA government's approval as "deeply flawed".

"We would argue the federal government should not make a decision before the election and needs more time to consider the environmental impact of this project before it goes ahead," Mr McFadzean said.

"The federal government has, quite rightly, several more questions to ask of the West Australian government in order to consider further information."

Time to reign Tanya in I think.

It shouldn't be up to her to give a go or no go on major projects.

Sure, she can have a say but to let essential projects drag on in Land and Environment courts forever is a big reason why private investment is leaving the country in droves.

 

[qldfrog]

Getting back to energy, are we painting ourselves into a corner? One hopes not.

Decision on major gas project in WA's north-west delayed again

Woodside says a decision to further delay approval for its major gas project in WA's north west until after the federal election is "extremely disappointing".

www.abc.net.au

The federal government has again delayed a decision to extend the life of a major liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in WA's north west.

Oil and gas giant Woodside Energy is looking to continue LNG production in Karratha, 1,500 kilometres north of Perth, until 2070.

It would be a major step in the company's plans to develop the Browse LNG project off WA's north coast.

After an initial delay until the end of March, federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has delayed the decision for a second time until May 31, which will be after the federal election.

The extension is strongly opposed by climate and environment groups who say it will emit billions of tonnes of climate pollution across its lifetime and jeopardise global efforts to reach net zero.

The area is also home to a 50,000-year-old natural rock art gallery of more than 1 million petroglyphs spread across 37,000 hectares at Murujuga, also known as the Burrup Peninsula.

The project has drawn ire from environmentalists, with 770 appeals subsequently lodged with the state Environmental Protection Authority.

The WA government gave the project the green light in December by then-state environment minister Reece Whitby, after a six-year approval process.

Gavin McFadzean, who runs the Climate and Energy program at the Australian Conservation Foundation, said he believed Ms Plibersek had more information to consider and called out the WA government's approval as "deeply flawed".

"We would argue the federal government should not make a decision before the election and needs more time to consider the environmental impact of this project before it goes ahead," Mr McFadzean said.

"The federal government has, quite rightly, several more questions to ask of the West Australian government in order to consider further information."

Cry baby cry for this country

 

[Smurf1976]

Are you willing to say what public commentators are reliable?

I'll avoid that - too much risk they could say anything.

What I will say though is with anyone, no matter who they are, the big red flag is if they're not being specific in terms of what and where.

What - are they they talking about gas supply to households? Are they talking about peak power? Are they talking about baseload electricity? Etc. If they're just saying "energy" then that's a bit like saying "entertainment" or "infrastructure", it covers an awful lot of things.

Where - because circumstances in Queensland for example are very different to those in Victoria. So if there's no location specified then it's a red flag for misinformation unless it's clear that it's a global issue eg crude oil supply or the development of a new technology.

 

[Smurf1976]

Getting back to energy, are we painting ourselves into a corner? One hopes not.

Back when I lived in Tasmania, quite a few wished that anti-development lobbyists would target WA.

Not due to anything against WA to be clear, but because we figured that'd bring some sense to the whole thing. Tasmania has basically no influence federally but WA has enough that it probably can force some sense.

Back to Tas and off topic but referring to the issue of the fish farms and endangered species that's causing quite a fuss down there. Suffice to say it's an issue where in my view the Greens have a point, anything that risks extinction is a serious matter, but politically it's a case of the capital having been used up. With hydro development brought to a screeching halt a generation ago, with the fine paper industry completely gone, with a rather long list of other industries gone, the federal government now can't afford the political consequence of acting on the fish farms issue. End result is fair chance a species ends up extinct because all the effort and political capital was directed at far less important causes.

Noting that I'm not opposed to fish farms per se, but I do see a problem if the impact of them leads to a species extinction. Same reason I disagree with two hydro schemes that were built - one did wipe out a species, the other it's sheer luck that it didn't. If it were up to me well suffice to say there were better alternatives either other hydro schemes or other means of electricity generation. Wiping out a species is, in my view, an unacceptable consequence.

Now apply that same principle nationally. All the political capital, and rather a lot of financial capital as well, has been burned up over relatively trivial matters on the energy, resources and environmental front meaning there's nothing left for the actually important bits. All up, an epic own goal there.

 

[mullokintyre]

Back when I lived in Tasmania, quite a few wished that anti-development lobbyists would target WA.

Not due to anything against WA to be clear, but because we figured that'd bring some sense to the whole thing. Tasmania has basically no influence federally but WA has enough that it probably can force some sense.

Back to Tas and off topic but referring to the issue of the fish farms and endangered species that's causing quite a fuss down there. Suffice to say it's an issue where in my view the Greens have a point, anything that risks extinction is a serious matter, but politically it's a case of the capital having been used up. With hydro development brought to a screeching halt a generation ago, with the fine paper industry completely gone, with a rather long list of other industries gone, the federal government now can't afford the political consequence of acting on the fish farms issue. End result is fair chance a species ends up extinct because all the effort and political capital was directed at far less important causes.

Noting that I'm not opposed to fish farms per se, but I do see a problem if the impact of them leads to a species extinction. Same reason I disagree with two hydro schemes that were built - one did wipe out a species, the other it's sheer luck that it didn't. If it were up to me well suffice to say there were better alternatives either other hydro schemes or other means of electricity generation. Wiping out a species is, in my view, an unacceptable consequence.

Now apply that same principle nationally. All the political capital, and rather a lot of financial capital as well, has been burned up over relatively trivial matters on the energy, resources and environmental front meaning there's nothing left for the actually important bits. All up, an epic own goal there.

I find the whole don't wipe out the species argument somewhat problematical.
I doubt there would be too many people who would up in arms if the entire species of female Anopheles mosquitos that transmit malaria, Dengue,Yellow fever to name a fe, were to be wiped out.
Similarly if they found away to eliminate the common black rat, responsible for the spreading of Black death in the 1300's, who would mourn their passing?
We have tried to eliminate Rabbits in Australia, Foxes, wild pigs, wild buffalo, fire ants, and numerous other species referred to as pests.
Will anyone come to their defence if success appeared to be imminent?
Species have been created and died out since life first appeared as simple cells.
Despite and because of our efforts, they will continue to do so.
Taking a moral position on what species should be saved versus another less cute and cuddly species is fraught with danger.
Mick

 

[sptrawler]

I find the whole don't wipe out the species argument somewhat problematical.
I doubt there would be too many people who would up in arms if the entire species of female Anopheles mosquitos that transmit malaria, Dengue,Yellow fever to name a fe, were to be wiped out.
Similarly if they found away to eliminate the common black rat, responsible for the spreading of Black death in the 1300's, who would mourn their passing?
We have tried to eliminate Rabbits in Australia, Foxes, wild pigs, wild buffalo, fire ants, and numerous other species referred to as pests.
Will anyone come to their defence if success appeared to be imminent?
Species have been created and died out since life first appeared as simple cells.
Despite and because of our efforts, they will continue to do so.
Taking a moral position on what species should be saved versus another less cute and cuddly species is fraught with danger.
Mick

Yes the only,problem is, we are the ones that are really denuding the World of everything and the only ones who can cull us, are us.

Just got to get the target demographic and mortality rate right, on that virus, give it time, practice makes perfect.

 

[qldfrog]

Yes the only,problem is, we are the ones that are really denuding the World of everything and the only ones who can cull us, are us.

Just got to get the target demographic and mortality rate right, on that virus, give it time, practice makes perfect.

I do not mind sensible approach there but it is mostly use as a way to oppose projects.
A pretext, less easy then native secret sites or similar BS, but in the same bag.
Australian species are at risk from our population growth, pest competition, the reduction of our farming communities into mega farms and ironically vegetation management legislation which prevent clearing, forbid fire management already harder to implement due to rules and manpower issues,and ultimately leads to intensified gigantic bushfires
But let's blame it on climate change caused by the Australian man generating co2

 

[Knobby22]

Japan onsells 1/3 of the gas they buy from Australia on long term contracts as they no longer need it (nuclear power back on line).
It looks like we will need them to sell it back to us. refer the Age business today for more details.
This could be an opportunity for the Coalition in today's budget if they have the wit to use it.

 

[sptrawler]

Japan onsells 1/3 of the gas they buy from Australia on long term contracts as they no longer need it (nuclear power back on line).
It looks like we will need them to sell it back to us. refer the Age business today for more details.
This could be an opportunity for the Coalition in today's budget if they have the wit to use it.

I have also been wondering if Germany will restart some of its nuclear generation, now that the U.S has pressured them to restart a lot of their manufacturing capacity.
Interesting times, at least Japans carbon footprint will be reducing.

 

[sptrawler]

This could be an opportunity for the Coalition in today's budget if they have the wit to use it.

I think that is a leap too far, expecting the coalition to show wit, they are about 1/2 way there IMO.

labor aren't much better, but at least their presentation is credible, if not completely factual.

 

[Knobby22]

I think that is a leap too far, expecting the coalition to show wit, they are about 1/2 way there IMO.

I think they are starting to wake up.

 

[SirRumpole]

I think they are starting to wake up.

It's all feral politics here, just like the US. Both sides hate each other and so they rarely co-operate.

Survival of a. the fittest, or b. the best BS'ers.

 

[Smurf1976]

Taking a moral position on what species should be saved versus another less cute and cuddly species is fraught with danger.

I personally wouldn't suggest doing so.

As with any structure, if you're going to take pieces out of it, and you don't understand the impact of that, you're playing with fire in terms of consequences. That being so, to the extent I've any "green" bias it's toward not doing things that are irreversible.

500 years from now it'll be a long forgotten piece of history that wind farms or even hydro ever existed unless they're still relevant and in active use at that point. Finding remnants of them will be much like finding ancient relics today - not totally impossible if you look hard enough, but invisible to most. Pull the turbines or dams down and nature comes back.

Case in point, the UK had a major coal mining industry still running just one generation ago. Now try and find evidence of it today - some tell tale signs remain but only for those who know where to look, the overwhelming majority of above ground physical evidence of it ever having existed is gone just ~30 years after it fell into disuse.

Versus a species extinction or using up oil and gas reserves being permanent and irreversible. Once done it's done, there's no going back.

Hence I see species loss or hydrocarbon depletion as far more serious consequences of energy resource development and use than anything visual. Nobody a few centuries from now is going to curse that we built a solar farm which at that point exists only as something seen in old photos or marked on a map but they may well be cursing that we used up all the gas or wiped out however many species. The latter may well have lasting consequences, indeed it most certainly will unless someone comes up with a replacement for oil and gas in critical uses, whereas visual blight is temporary.

Hence I'd rather not do irreversible things unless there's a good reason. Species, oil and gas all come to mind there as potentially problematic impacts of present day energy development decisions. That doesn't mean I've suddenly become a staunch environmentalist, but I do think there's a responsibility to avoid creating future problems, especially irreversible ones, to the extent that's possible.

In case anyone's lost as to the purpose of this post, it's really just disclosing my bias in response to another post about people commenting publicly on the subject. I'm disclosing that my bias is to avoid creating problems that future generations will wish we hadn't left them with.

 

[qldfrog]

I personally wouldn't suggest doing so.

As with any structure, if you're going to take pieces out of it, and you don't understand the impact of that, you're playing with fire in terms of consequences. That being so, to the extent I've any "green" bias it's toward not doing things that are irreversible.

500 years from now it'll be a long forgotten piece of history that wind farms or even hydro ever existed unless they're still relevant and in active use at that point. Finding remnants of them will be much like finding ancient relics today - not totally impossible if you look hard enough, but invisible to most. Pull the turbines or dams down and nature comes back.

Case in point, the UK had a major coal mining industry still running just one generation ago. Now try and find evidence of it today - some tell tale signs remain but only for those who know where to look, the overwhelming majority of above ground physical evidence of it ever having existed is gone just ~30 years after it fell into disuse.

Versus a species extinction or using up oil and gas reserves being permanent and irreversible. Once done it's done, there's no going back.

Hence I see species loss or hydrocarbon depletion as far more serious consequences of energy resource development and use than anything visual. Nobody a few centuries from now is going to curse that we built a solar farm which at that point exists only as something seen in old photos or marked on a map but they may well be cursing that we used up all the gas or wiped out however many species. The latter may well have lasting consequences, indeed it most certainly will unless someone comes up with a replacement for oil and gas in critical uses, whereas visual blight is temporary.

Hence I'd rather not do irreversible things unless there's a good reason. Species, oil and gas all come to mind there as potentially problematic impacts of present day energy development decisions. That doesn't mean I've suddenly become a staunch environmentalist, but I do think there's a responsibility to avoid creating future problems, especially irreversible ones, to the extent that's possible.

In case anyone's lost as to the purpose of this post, it's really just disclosing my bias in response to another post about people commenting publicly on the subject. I'm disclosing that my bias is to avoid creating problems that future generations will wish we hadn't left them with.

That last point summarises my ambivalence to nuclear aka uranium fission reactors.
Noone will care in 200y if we produced an extra 2 percent co2 and increase the green belt in the sahara, but we will still have to cool swimming pools of radioactive magma all over the world, that could be another story.
ERPs might help but my nuclear science teacher at the engineering school said he would never accept to live near one of these ERP reactors and he knew more about that than most
Which bring us back to the grid dilemma here in Australia....

 

[SirRumpole]

That last point summarises my ambivalence to nuclear aka uranium fission reactors.
Noone will care in 200y if we produced an extra 2 percent co2 and increase the green belt in the sahara, but we will still have to cool swimming pools of radioactive magma all over the world, that could be another story.
ERPs might help but my nuclear science teacher at the engineering school said he would never accept to live near one of these ERP reactors and he knew more about that than most
Which bring us back to the grid dilemma here in Australia....

EPR ? Europen Pressure Reactor. Currently not going ahead in leaps and bounds.

EPR (nuclear reactor) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[qldfrog]

EPR ? Europen Pressure Reactor. Currently not going ahead in leaps and bounds.

EPR (nuclear reactor) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The one fed nuclear waste..i have to fjnd the english acronym.. ERP maybe in english

 

[qldfrog]

EPR ? Europen Pressure Reactor. Currently not going ahead in leaps and bounds.

EPR (nuclear reactor) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Yes EPR indeed.
Inherently unstable is my understanding..so rare are the engineers ready to sign on the certifications

 

[sptrawler]

That last point summarises my ambivalence to nuclear aka uranium fission reactors.
Noone will care in 200y if we produced an extra 2 percent co2 and increase the green belt in the sahara, but we will still have to cool swimming pools of radioactive magma all over the world, that could be another story.
ERPs might help but my nuclear science teacher at the engineering school said he would never accept to live near one of these ERP reactors and he knew more about that than most
Which bring us back to the grid dilemma here in Australia....

That is the very reason that we have to be open minded about all energy sources, if we had a closed minded attitude, we would still be living in caves.
I'm not suggesting that would have been a bad thing, but I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't want to do it.

 

[SirRumpole]

That is the very reason that we have to be open minded about all energy sources, if we had a closed minded attitude, we would still be living in caves.
I'm not suggesting that would have been a bad thing, but I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't want to do it.

I want a man cave.

 

[qldfrog]

I want a man cave.

Share mine mr SirRumpole, just bring some nice brew of yours: being fully off grid, wine fridge is always on