-
There's something that just doesn't sit quite right with me from a logical perspective in regards to climate change - less so "the science" and moreso they way about it's been fixed.
If it was so horribly dire as it's been made out to be as literally it's a crisis and were all going to die then we'd be building nuclear power plants all over the place as realistically this is our only low carbon option that offers a reliable baseload and delivers the amount of energy required to replace fossil fuel. Yet we are not.
It's kinda like me going to the doctor and them saying - well your going to die in 10 years time, here's a solution you can have right now that has these side effects or you can sit there slowly dying and wait for better technology to come along.
How many of us would take the dying slowly option while hoping something better comes along? I sure as hell wouldn't.
Yet this is apparently what we've decided to do.
Baffling.
-
@Windows97 I would suggest that psychology is a logical counter to why things are being done as they are. Humans are remarkably good at denying the existence of "inconvenient truths".
People are also generally change resistant (or those with the ability to effect change make a lot of money out of the status quo).
Those things don't change core facts or events, but they do mean that responses don't always happen in a "logical" manner.
-
Watched the first few minutes of the video and the very poor graphics of wind farms being "buried".
First thing: https://www.desmog.com/net-zero-watch/
Net Zero Watch (NZW) is a campaign group launched and managed by the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) that claims to “scrutinise” the UK government’s net zero emissions plans and provide a “clear view of the reality of climate and energy policies”.1
The GWPF is the UK’s most prominent climate science denial group,
...
The group is currently based at 55 Tufton Street in Westminster, an address it shares with the GWPF and several right-wing, libertarian thinktanks.So I'd take what they say with a grain of salt. Maybe a bucket.
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change:
@Windows97 I would suggest that psychology is a logical counter to why things are being done as they are. Humans are remarkably good at denying the existence of "inconvenient truths".
As a species, we're often very good at action when in a real crisis, but not putting in the work to prevent that crisis from happening.
There are still people who deny Y2K was ever a thing.
-
@Windows97 said in Climate Change:
we'd be building nuclear power plants all over the place as realistically this is our only low carbon option that offers a reliable baseload and delivers the amount of energy required to replace fossil fuel. Yet we are not.
Because, based on the experience in Europe and the USA, they cost too much, never meet timelines, and are being rapidly overtaken by other technologies. Money shouldn't matter when the cost of inaction is in the trillions, but think about the shareholders.
The promised SMRs don't look like delivering, either:
-
@NTA said in Climate Change:
There are still people who deny Y2K was ever a thing.
fuck yes it was a thing! I watched it heaps!
-
@NTA said in Climate Change:
As a species, we're often very good at action when in a real crisis, but not putting in the work to prevent that crisis from happening.
Yeah, reasonably important that is the correct action to a crisis as well not knee-jerk nuclear reactions to it (as your next post illustrates).
US navy pilots (I think) response to an emergency was to "wind the clock" i.e don't do anything until you have thought about it because you may well make things worse. A fire requires fast action, but you really do have to consider a few things before you end up putting fuel on it...
Balance between action, inaction, and time. Has our response to climate change been immediate enough? Is it now?
I hope we are past the "do we need to do anything" stage.
-
@Windows97 said in Climate Change:
There's something that just doesn't sit quite right with me from a logical perspective in regards to climate change - less so "the science" and moreso they way about it's been fixed.
If it was so horribly dire as it's been made out to be as literally it's a crisis and were all going to die then we'd be building nuclear power plants all over the place as realistically this is our only low carbon option that offers a reliable baseload and delivers the amount of energy required to replace fossil fuel. Yet we are not.
Some countries are. Those are the ones where the public debate hasn't been completely hijacked and there's sufficient residual competence at high school mathematics.
One only has to look at the economics of renewables when it comes to the NEM. Adherents to the faith like to point out how cheap energy is when you've got the sun shining and wind blowing. The problem is twofold:
- Given enough capacity the wholesale price goes negative during the day, so who the fuck is going to add additional renewable capacity for that sort of return?
- The cost of provisioning dependable power is horrifically prohibitive once you go down this route. One only has to look at all the additional network and storage. Case in point; look at Snowy 2.0 if you want a case study in cost and schedule blowouts.
We'd have been better off accepting the iron law of human development thus far; energy density and looked to engineering amelioration. Because no matter what we do, there's three billion people wanting our quality of life and only one path for them to adopt it; cheap, dependable energy.
-
@antipodean Agree with everything you're saying but those issues are for massive infrastructure again - networks and storage. We really shouldn't really be continuing to discuss it because as you correctly point out (and @NTA re nuclear above) those projects are hugely expensive and tend to have other issues.
The fact that it keeps coming up is the biggest part of the problem, there has to be a quantum (quite literally) shift in how we address it. Generation and storage at source and some personal responsibility for power generation. As you mention developing nations want what we have but they also have the opportunity to do it differently and more efficiently. We have to change the whole way we even think about it.
That probably reflects my political views away from big government and Nanny states but is also a pragmatic approach to the issues that are repeatedly bought up about the problems with renewables. Some things like law and order, health and social welfare are essential services that we provide a safety net for people, but we can approach other needs like power slightly differently. Even water supply could be dealt with without such enormous infrastructure. Three waters debate is a case in point of how providing a basic human need on large scales can be very problematic. The stuff falls out of the sky in ever increasing quantities around NZ and yet we feel to need to transport it around the country in pipes FFS. Yes, we need drought management systems etc, but home storage from rainfall is so simple. I love the fact that I am in charge of providing my own clean, untreated water and I will soon be self-sufficient for energy as well, including our cars. Yes, I can afford it, but funding needs to be redirected so that more people can do it. Even income tax or rates deductions for self supply to increase uptake would be a step forward.
Just because climate change is a macro problem doesn't mean we can't have micro solutions. The sum of the parts, etc.
Rant over. When I'm in charge....
-
@Snowy What's baffling here is that it's the same people who say we're all going to die are the same one's promoting the die slowly approach.
There's been a constant focus on renewables - wind, solar, tide, wave all of who's over adoption have lead to the power grid collapsing. And this hasn't really improved in over 20 years, sure the output of each of those technologies has but it certainly hasn't managed to "fix" the problem.
Germany for example has run down it's nuclear power plants and now has to turn it's coal boilers back on (and build new ones).
There's an enormous drive to change, with no pragmatic or practical solution provided to do so, aside it would appear from raising taxes on everything.
Then you look at the number of coal plants China and India are building and it all comes out like a bit of a cruel joke.
-
@Windows97 said in Climate Change:
@Snowy What's baffling here is that it's the same people who say we're all going to die are the same one's promoting the die slowly approach.
I get what you're saying but I think that there has to be an element of caution that we don't make things worse with a quick fix. Building nuclear plants that are massively expensive, and we can't dispose of waste easily, probably isn't a good option. Fast, (relatively), sure, but likely not best. Renewables are not really a die slowly approach either, it's act faster with those solutions that won't (hopefully) cause another issue later on.
The example of Germany that you mention is exactly why there isn't a knee jerk reaction everywhere, it's easy to make things worse.
We're still talking macro here too, which as I have said is unlikely to be the best solution. Unfortunately, governments, power companies and infrastructure all derive income, provide jobs, etc so whilst micro is most efficient, and solves a lot of problems, it's really difficult to do in a hurry (especially when you have self interested parties hindering it and not really acting in the greater good of saving the planet). That always sounds so dramatic, the planet will go on, and have life on it, we just might not be amongst the life forms, depending on how, and when, we change how we live.
Supply isn't the only factor of course, reducing demand could play a major part too. A trival example, but we grow grapes by the tonne in NZ (for wine) but I have been looking for a plain old table grape in the supermarket for over a year. Not One bunch from NZ. Grapes are available all year, sure, but all flown in from Aus or the US. That's a shitload of Jet A1. half of them probably don't even get eaten.
I'm not a great Elon fanboi but I have a reliable quick internet connection thanks to him doing things a bit differently. He moves data around the globe the same way we should be getting our power and water. Effectively from the sky - they are both right there in most places waiting to be stored on site and used.
As I said we have to make changes in the way we live. Not major ones, but as I said previously, just moving shit around with planes, pipes or wires, whether it be grapes, or water, or power, really isn't very smart.
-
@Windows97 said in Climate Change:
There's been a constant focus on renewables - wind, solar, tide, wave all of who's over adoption have lead to the power grid collapsing.
Interesting claim. What's your source?
-
In terms of "fix" the problem, I prefer to think in terms of progress.
Branding something a success or failure in isolation is also fraught with peril.
If you google "Energiewende success or failure" you'll generally get articles full of confirmation bias that fall on one side or the other. There are several factors driving how successful the German experience should be applied to future initiatives around clean energy, mostly timing - in 2002, the tech for grid scale renewables was still wet behind the ears.
The goal in 2002 was to reduce emissions by 40% compared to 1990 - they got to 36% by the stated date.
In 2003 you could install a 2kW solar system on your house for a tick under $20K. Now you can get 10kW for about half that.
Wind turbine output has grown by 5-6 times in terms of rating. Offshore wind turbines are now the size of a small fossil fuel station in terms of output.There are more challenges ahead, no doubt. Consumer changes are one of them. Transmission upgrades another.
The big one in most markets? Privatisation.
All those nuclear power plants in Canada, Germany, and France were built when governments took all the risk. Not sure that is happening again because people love capitalism.
However, I'm not about to make perfect the enemy of good. Perhaps we're not building renewables fast enough, but it beats not building nuclear at all.
-
@NTA said in Climate Change:
clean energy,
I hope you don't mean solar or wind. Both seem to be anything but.
My view is the future will include as a big contributor
Clean coal
Gas
Mini nukes (not the big expensive monsters). That can use up so-called nuclear waste. And use 99%+ of Uranium's potential as opposed to under 1%And hopefully dreadful wind and solar will be kicked into touch.
-
@Winger said in Climate Change:
@NTA said in Climate Change:
clean energy,
I hope you don't mean solar or wind. Both seem to be anything but.
My view is the future will include as a big contributor
Clean coal
Gas
Mini nukes (not the big expensive monsters). That can use up so-called nuclear waste. And use 99%+ of Uranium's potential as opposed to under 1%And hopefully dreadful wind and solar will be kicked into touch.
Clean coal
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change:
I get what you're saying but I think that there has to be an element of caution that we don't make things worse with a quick fix. Building nuclear plants that are massively expensive, and we can't dispose of waste easily, probably isn't a good option. Fast, (relatively), sure, but likely not best. Renewables are not really a die slowly approach either, it's act faster with those solutions that won't (hopefully) cause another issue later on.
I'm very pro nuclear, but I'm also part of the NIMBY crowd. I personally think a combination of nuclear with renewables is 100% the way forwards. Musk has said a patch of 100 miles by 100 miles is enough solar to power the USA. Given how much desert there is on this planet which has huge sun draw (is that a thing or have I invented a word) this really seems quite straight forwards to me.
I also strongly believe in the power of tidal, less so wind. Wind farms are massive, incredibly ugly and don't work half the time. Doesn't seem like the best way to me.
The example of Germany that you mention is exactly why there isn't a knee jerk reaction everywhere, it's easy to make things worse.
We're still talking macro here too, which as I have said is unlikely to be the best solution. Unfortunately, governments, power companies and infrastructure all derive income, provide jobs, etc so whilst micro is most efficient, and solves a lot of problems, it's really difficult to do in a hurry (especially when you have self interested parties hindering it and not really acting in the greater good of saving the planet). That always sounds so dramatic, the planet will go on, and have life on it, we just might not be amongst the life forms, depending on how, and when, we change how we live.
Completely agree. The solar technology is only getting better, and with thin film technology, it shouldn't require too much effort to plaster the stuff everywhere - over every roof. And for storage, we aren't that far way from a large percentage of houses having a massive batter on their driveway which could be used for energy storage.
Supply isn't the only factor of course, reducing demand could play a major part too. A trival example, but we grow grapes by the tonne in NZ (for wine) but I have been looking for a plain old table grape in the supermarket for over a year. Not One bunch from NZ. Grapes are available all year, sure, but all flown in from Aus or the US. That's a shitload of Jet A1. half of them probably don't even get eaten.
Absolutely agree with this. Half of the energy we seem to use is probably not required. You are always going to need a certain amount of shifting of goods given population density spread, but the supermarkets here are full of the same stuff, year round, shipped in from every single corner of the planet. It's just wasteful.
I'm not a great Elon fanboi but I have a reliable quick internet connection thanks to him doing things a bit differently. He moves data around the globe the same way we should be getting our power and water. Effectively from the sky - they are both right there in most places waiting to be stored on site and used.
As I said we have to make changes in the way we live. Not major ones, but as I said previously, just moving shit around with planes, pipes or wires, whether it be grapes, or water, or power, really isn't very smart.
Agree entirely, but to be a contrarian ... what the fuck is the point unless China & India get on board the train? Fraser Nelson was publishing some incredible emissions stats yesterday with just how much UK has dropped. Taking into account consumption, its' down 32% 2010-2020. Yet, China/India are just increasing. What is the point of the UK over the last 30 years going from 400mm tonnes to 200mm tonnes when China has gone from 2.5bln to around 11bln?
Totally pointless and may as well just go for the cheapest option.
-
@voodoo said in Climate Change:
@Winger said in Climate Change:
@NTA said in Climate Change:
clean energy,
I hope you don't mean solar or wind. Both seem to be anything but.
My view is the future will include as a big contributor
Clean coal
Gas
Mini nukes (not the big expensive monsters). That can use up so-called nuclear waste. And use 99%+ of Uranium's potential as opposed to under 1%And hopefully dreadful wind and solar will be kicked into touch.
Clean coal
There's a reason the block function exists.
Climate Change