-
Sorry to dredge this one up again but I've recently become friends with an actual climate scientist which has proven surprisingly fascinating. We've only had a couple discussions over beers (well mostly me on the beers). He's from China which is fascinating on its own. Having now started giving a tiny bit more credence to the possibility that climate change may not be manmade or more likely that programs like the Paris accord might just be a gargantuan waste of money that could be put to better environmental solutions, I naturally had to ask him his thoughts. Obviously since 97% of scientists apparently agree I expected to be rightfully put in my place...except I wasn't.
I will get more specifics later on but the gist of the chats we have had is that 'yes' climate is warming. But according to all analysis he cannot say with any confidence that this is caused by man. He says with the one set of results he can proove both the manmade climate change theory as well as disprove it depending on how they want to present it. The complexities are so vast you cannot get close to getting a truthful answer and if anything the more they have discovered the more they have found they can't explain. He also says trying to monetise CO2 emmisions is just stupid. This guy is on a whole level of intelligence above mine so I need a lot of dumbing down to try and follow him properly and no beer does not aid that process.
-
@Rembrandt said in Climate Change Thread #3:
Sorry to dredge this one up again but I've recently become friends with an actual climate scientist which has proven surprisingly fascinating. We've only had a couple discussions over beers (well mostly me on the beers). He's from China which is fascinating on its own. Having now started giving a tiny bit more credence to the possibility that climate change may not be manmade or more likely that programs like the Paris accord might just be a gargantuan waste of money that could be put to better environmental solutions, I naturally had to ask him his thoughts. Obviously since 97% of scientists apparently agree I expected to be rightfully put in my place...except I wasn't.
I will get more specifics later on but the gist of the chats we have had is that 'yes' climate is warming. But according to all analysis he cannot say with any confidence that this is caused by man. He says with the one set of results he can proove both the manmade climate change theory as well as disprove it depending on how they want to present it. The complexities are so vast you cannot get close to getting a truthful answer and if anything the more they have discovered the more they have found they can't explain. He also says trying to monetise CO2 emmisions is just stupid. This guy is on a whole level of intelligence above mine so I need a lot of dumbing down to try and follow him properly and no beer does not aid that process.
That has been my experience talking to scientists about it. One simply said "we just don't fucking know".
This is why it's infuriating when people try to equate global warming skepticism with being an antivaccer. It's complete bullshit. As is the disgusting use of the word "denier" to link skeptics to holocaust deniers.
-
Thought that rather than start a new topic I'd modify this one. This post is kind of related anyway but I'm sure we're all tree hugging greenies deep down and need a place to discuss ways to save our planet ...
Saw this column in stuff which expressed some of my gut feelings about how banning of plastic shopping bags is counter productive. But the dude provides some additional numbers to back it up.
-
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Thought that rather than start a new topic I'd modify this one. This post is kind of related anyway but I'm sure we're all tree hugging greenies deep down and need a place to discuss ways to save our planet ...
Saw this column in stuff which expressed some of my gut feelings about how banning of plastic shopping bags is counter productive. But the dude provides some additional numbers to back it up.
Great post.
I particularly liked the sarcastic line about how it's not important to make a difference, just appear to be making a difference.
That could be said to be the motto of the entire political and activist class.
-
@booboo Not often you read something you agree with 100%, but that is it for me.
What people don't understand is plastic bags are (almost) free because the feedstock they're made from is what's left over after we make transport fuels. One barrel of oil is split up into the things with the highest demand: petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, and the sludge left over is made into plastic bags, or put on roads. The greenie argument that we're turning oil into plastic bags then throwing them away isn't the environmental disaster its made out to be.
-
@tewaio yeah, I discovered this a few years back too - although the colossal piles of plastic floating around the ocean is certainly a byproducts of it.
Same argument goes for shipping and the heavy fuel oil they burn. I've never touched it, but apparently it's almost like tar.
-
it's just those irresponsible cnuts who litter...those bags have so many uses3
-
@majorrage Yep, that's why shipping stuff is cheap, plastic bags are cheap, candles are cheap, and (per sq metre) road surfacing is cheap. It's all making use of the abundant byproducts of refining.
I saw an ad on Facebook the other day that asked "why don't we use recycled plastic rather than digging up oil to surface our roads?". It's quite amazing to get that many wrong statements in one sentence.
-
@taniwharugby said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
it's just those irresponsible cnuts who litter...those bags have so many uses3
They do and I originally missed them when Canberra banned them, but you don't see as many lying around as litter. @MajorRage 's point is also valid; the sea is littered with plastic because people are lazy.
-
I got sent this article by a greenie family member recently. It's pretty doom and gloom so no doubt plenty of points worth debating in there, but the thing that stood out to me was him saying there is absolutely no way renewable energy can replicate what the fossil fuels do, despite so many left wing leaders claiming it to be the solution to our woes if we just invested more.
Interested to get other more knowledgeable Ferners thoughts on this.
-
@No-Quarter Quarter said:
I got sent this article by a greenie family member recently. It's pretty doom and gloom so no doubt plenty of points worth debating in there, but the thing that stood out to me was him saying there is absolutely no way renewable energy can replicate what the fossil fuels do, despite so many left wing leaders claiming it to be the solution to our woes if we just invested more.
Interested to get other more knowledgeable Ferners thoughts on this.
This has been known for ages. Just ask anyone who actually works in energy. It's a ridiculously expensive joke.
-
@No-Quarter first thing to point out that its a very old article (2014) in the scheme of the energy markets, so it stops at certain assumptions made at the end of 2013 - particularly with regard to the rate at which energy consumption is increasing.
All the assumptions are also very Yank-centric, which is not a bad metric to use as they're the big economy. However, it fails to understand the scale of China's efforts to address efficiency in energy generation - particularly as it relates to public health.
China spent more on energy efficiency than everyone in the world spent on renewables in 2015, which makes economic sense over everything else. Don't use it, you save money all the way up the chain.
While wind and solar are the big targets, the mention of biofuels shows the article's age more than anything. It is barely a blip on the radar of vehicle manufacturers who are now looking to battery technologies and electrification of fleet to help with emissions standards.
Biofuels were always a pipe dream - consume too much productive land in terms of bang for buck, diverting valuable food production areas into a pointless exercise IMHO.
The article doesn't even reference the big player in renewables - hydro. This is a massive oversight as it is far and away the biggest piece in the puzzle, delivering as it does the storage component for excess wind and solar, as well as high-availability demand response when the other resources on the grid are low.
Add in the emergence of grid-scale battery storage - also barely conceivable in 2014 - and the change in grid demand patterns, and you're looking at a very different grid in 2025 than you did in 2013-2014.
And that is the key point: renewables won't replicate what fossil fuels do, because what fossil fuels provide is increasingly irrelevant. The role of "baseload" is diminishing.
Yes there will always be a need for a certain level of power to flow around any grid, and that can be filled by fairly static sources like Coal and Oil do today (still well over 30% of world energy usage each).
But the way in which we consume power is changing, and the cost of relying on older technologies - and the environmental issues they're creating - is rising.
Financial institutions are starting to consider other impacts of fossil fuels when money needs to go down, because profits are slim to start with. Add in the possibility that your local coal fired power company might have to foot the bill for reparations across a range of health sectors, and you make risk assessors very nervous about handing out 50-year loans.
Nuclear is even more expensive than that (double or more), and more heavily subsidised than coal in some nations.
Meanwhile renewables are getting so cheap that their subsidies are having limited time frames put on them. The challenge is to build a grid that will integrate new tech as coal stations start to die, because not a lot of them are going to be built in future.
Anyone who works in energy will tell you that.
EDIT: I should add that we're going to have coal for a while yet, and that time would best be used to figure out the integration piece for newer technologies.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of small-scale nuclear is eventually considered even considering the cost, because if you distribute it right then it provides genuine benefit.
-
NTA said:
@No-Quarter first thing to point out that its a very old article (2014) in the scheme of the energy markets, so it stops at certain assumptions made at the end of 2013 - particularly with regard to the rate at which energy consumption is increasing.
All the assumptions are also very Yank-centric, which is not a bad metric to use as they're the big economy. However, it fails to understand the scale of China's efforts to address efficiency in energy generation - particularly as it relates to public health.
China spent more on energy efficiency than everyone in the world spent on renewables in 2015, which makes economic sense over everything else. Don't use it, you save money all the way up the chain.
While wind and solar are the big targets, the mention of biofuels shows the article's age more than anything. It is barely a blip on the radar of vehicle manufacturers who are now looking to battery technologies and electrification of fleet to help with emissions standards.
Biofuels were always a pipe dream - consume too much productive land in terms of bang for buck, diverting valuable food production areas into a pointless exercise IMHO.
The article doesn't even reference the big player in renewables - hydro. This is a massive oversight as it is far and away the biggest piece in the puzzle, delivering as it does the storage component for excess wind and solar, as well as high-availability demand response when the other resources on the grid are low.
Add in the emergence of grid-scale battery storage - also barely conceivable in 2014 - and the change in grid demand patterns, and you're looking at a very different grid in 2025 than you did in 2013-2014.
And that is the key point: renewables won't replicate what fossil fuels do, because what fossil fuels provide is increasingly irrelevant. The role of "baseload" is diminishing.
Yes there will always be a need for a certain level of power to flow around any grid, and that can be filled by fairly static sources like Coal and Oil do today (still well over 30% of world energy usage each).
But the way in which we consume power is changing, and the cost of relying on older technologies - and the environmental issues they're creating - is rising.
Financial institutions are starting to consider other impacts of fossil fuels when money needs to go down, because profits are slim to start with. Add in the possibility that your local coal fired power company might have to foot the bill for reparations across a range of health sectors, and you make risk assessors very nervous about handing out 50-year loans.
Nuclear is even more expensive than that (double or more), and more heavily subsidised than coal in some nations.
Meanwhile renewables are getting so cheap that their subsidies are having limited time frames put on them. The challenge is to build a grid that will integrate new tech as coal stations start to die, because not a lot of them are going to be built in future.
Anyone who works in energy will tell you that.
EDIT: I should add that we're going to have coal for a while yet, and that time would best be used to figure out the integration piece for newer technologies.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of small-scale nuclear is eventually considered even considering the cost, because if you distribute it right then it provides genuine benefit.
So much pie in the sky there. And where is hydro or nuclear going to be built? Certainly not in western countries. So that basically leaves solar and wind. Good luck with that.
Coal is only "dying" in countries where they are committed to ridiculous renewable targets, thus no longer making it viable to invest in coal plants.
You also write "baseload" as if it is some kind of myth. It isn't.And of course the price of power explodes, as usual impacting the most on those who can least afford. But of course that can't have anything to do with renewable policies can it?
It's great to have renewables as part of the energy mix (like China has done) but there is no way we can have cheap and reliable energy from solar and wind. So before ditching the existing tech it might be good to actually have something viable to replace it with. Vague claims are not good enough.
Btw biofuels is a classic example of this mad green rush to use renewables. It was dodgy as fuck from the getgo, but any dissenting voices were screamed down because it was great for "da urnvironment".
-
Rancid Schnitzel said:
there is no way we can have cheap and reliable energy from solar and wind.
Quote your sources, and I'll happily reply to those assumptions.
I might be reading between the lines, but one major assumption you're making appears to be that nothing needs to be done about emissions. I'm not sure why you'd think that, given the multiple, overwhelming research into climate change and the link to fossil fuel emissions.
Are all those nations wrong about the Paris Agreement?
Multiple analysts have renewables at cost parity (LCOE) by 2021 in most countries, 2020 in Australia. India has already reached cost parity because new build centralised projects are hideously expensive there compared to distributed renewables. The energy requirement profile is also significantly lower there.
If coal had to pay for its emissions - which it should do given the absolute certainty of effect on the environment - it would be playing second fiddle on value. To say nothing of employment and sustainability.
Notable quotes from this article using Deloitte as the source:
The Deloitte report also addresses some of the commonly pedalled myths around the impact of renewables on energy bills. In Germany, it notes, the price of electricity on the wholesale market has halved, benefiting business.
In Denmark, once taxes are stripped out (the government uses electricity as a revenue raiser), electricity in the country with the biggest penetration of renewables is in fact cheaper than most other places in Europe.
China is seeking to remove subsidies on solar/wind asap - particularly in areas where ongoing goverment support is a drain on the central coffers. Instead they'd allow local governments to incentivize tariffs for generators - which is only fair as the wholesale market sells power. That's the idea.
BNEF predicts renewables at 50% of world supply by 2050, while coal shrinks to 11%
Lastly, here is our current PM in his former role smacking down new coal:
Morrison used a public appearance on Wednesday to rebuff fresh positioning by conservatives on coal, declaring it “false to think that a new coal-fired power station will generate electricity at the same price as old coal-fired power stations”.
The bigger picture there is that existing coal- and gas-fired power stations in Australia are the least reliable part of the network, and the cost of remediation is way beyond what any of the owners want to pay.
Since mid-December, gas or coal have broken down over 100 times:
Which you could understand for old plants like Loy Yang, but Kogan Creek (QLD) was commissioned in 2007, is on the smaller side at 750MW, and still suffers regular issues - tripped completely or had to shed capacity 5 times this calendar year, and again last December.
14% of the coal and gas fleet on the NEM fell over in the February heat wave, which drove prices up across the network as other generators rushed to fill the gap. That was market forces, not renewables.
Of course, "reliability" is the issue that coal supporters bring up as a flaw with wind and solar. What they mean of course is "intermittency", but they don't really understand the difference.
As to your question about hydro: there are (literally) hundreds to thousands of pumped hydro sites available. Convert a small percentage with appropriate wind/solar tech, and bam: renewables grid.
I wouldn't countenance for a moment ditching existing coal stations until we've got a plan for replacing them - and I've said that before. Why waste the capital cost of their construction?
The issue is a lack of policy direction and surety for investors on the way forward.
EDIT: but some aren't waiting, and large scale solar and wind are moving even in Australia.
The latest international development is a 10MW offshore wind turbine. Fark!
-
NTA said:
The article doesn't even reference the big player in renewables - hydro. This is a massive oversight as it is far and away the biggest piece in the puzzle, delivering as it does the storage component for excess wind and solar, as well as high-availability demand response when the other resources on the grid are low.
Storage is underplayed by ideologues as an increase in total energy requirements equates to a requirement to store ever increasing amounts as backup. Try getting Greens to agree to more dams, the Greens movement kicked off in Australia over a fight to stop damming the Franklin.
And that is the key point: renewables won't replicate what fossil fuels do, because what fossil fuels provide is increasingly irrelevant. The role of "baseload" is diminishing.
That's an argument that relies on a misrepresentation of what baseload is; it's the minimum requirement, not a level that is continuously available as a result of spinning metal.
China, despite the astonishing amount of investment in solar, wind and hydro, is still the leader of coal generation. In 2017 it added 42% of all new coal generation in the world.
The sad part is if Germany had just invested in nuclear generation, it would be at or near zero emissions generation. Instead it's worse than its neighbour. The decreasing cost of producing a MW for renewables means sources that aren't intermittent can't compete with such a low cost. But they're eminently economic as soon as the wind isn't blowing, sun isn't shining and your storage has depleted.
I blame the imbeciles that equated Chernobyl and bombs with power generation. Had these scientifically illiterate peaceniks been forced to pay attention at school, we'd be living in a wonderland now.
-
antipodean said:
The decreasing cost of producing a MW for renewables means sources that aren't intermittent can't compete with such a low cost. But they're eminently economic as soon as the wind isn't blowing, sun isn't shining and your storage has depleted.
Similarly, when your coal station trips, the value of that "tiny" battery in South Australia skyrockets on the FCAS market.
The source of generation isn't really the problem: its the way the market is constructed. Renewables bid into the NEM here at whatever rate they can get because they need to use it when they've got it. Gas peakers hold off until the price is right to help justify the fact their operating costs are higher.
I blame the imbeciles that equated Chernobyl and bombs with power generation. Had these scientifically illiterate peaceniks been forced to pay attention at school, we'd be living in a wonderland now.
Agreed. Some well-distributed, appropriately sized nuclear - in a country with a metric fuckton of yellowcake - could rock on and rock off generation input all day to meet demand.
But that ship has sailed, so we need to deal with the reality.
Size of project is also key: new coal/gas needs to be of a certain capacity to reach anything like profit. By the time you stood up another 1000MW coal station you could build 10,000MW of wind - distributed across the network - and reduce your intermittency risk.
-
I think the nuclear ship will come back into harbour and dock to fanfare once the true cost of relying on intermittent power generation is apparent. Probably after a State goes dark for a few days.
Standing up sufficient intermittent power generation and upgrading the network makes it uneconomic. Eight years ago Lomborg pointed out Germany had spent $75 billion on its solar industry, the net effect of which was to delay climate change by the end of this century a whole seven hours. The total cost of Germany's Energiewende is estimated to be €500 billion by 2025. Meanwhile it's burning coal and importing green energy from France.
Australia wants to replicate this failed experiment on a continental scale when we should be the world leader in cheap energy.
-
@antipodean IMHO nuclear is also a requirement for ongoing space exploration. SMR-equipped craft would make much more sense than the other options.
-
The issue is a lack of policy direction and surety for investors on the way forward.
Which is exactly why coal is "dying" in Aus, not because it's been superseded by windmills.
Your assumption is wrong. I'm quite happy to cut emissions (although I'm highly sceptical of many of the doomsday claims made) but this should be done in a logical and sober manner. This headlong rush into spending idiotic amounts on renewables and driving up power prices is not logical or sober. This is particularly the case when it will make sweet fa difference in saving the planet. Germany and Spain are prime examples of that. South Australia is another. California as well. I'm more than happy to have solar, wind, wave whatever in the energy mix, but you've got rocks in your head if you think that will provide cheap and reliable energy in the same way as coal.
Get the tech in place then make the transition, not assume that it will happen because you really really really really believe it will. It's utter madness.
Climate Change