-
@nzzp said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Winger said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
But I do like the look of these mini nukes. And they can use up a lot of reprocessed so called nuclear waste
Nuclear waste is recyclable. Once reactor fuel (uranium or thorium) is used in a reactor, it can be treated and put into another reactor as fuel. In fact, typical reactors only extract a few percent of the energy in their fuel.It's mindboggling how little fuel nuclear uses. The bomb at Hiroshima consumed about 0.7g of matter; less than the weight of a banknote. It's simply amazing.
SMR has been talked about for many years and I hope they get it moving because of the flexibility. Distributed generation is so much more robust than central big bang stuff. Modular build means less problems.
At this rate we probably won't see NuScale in production until around 2030 or so.
-
@chimoaus I also heard a stat a long the lines of there being 50% of world emissions being from countries of similar scale to AUS. So if all (or many) of them act then we can make a decent dent. And if no-one does because their individual footprint is small, then...
-
The thing with SMR's is going to be getting the cost down. It's one thing to get them theoretically efficient in the lab.
But when you could a 10/25/50 MW plant, the diligence costs are identical to a 1GW plant.
You still need legal, environmental, tax, accounting, model audit, insurance etc. All from reputable consultants providing reliance to equity and debt financiers.
Not to mention an understanding of the revenue model (PPA, proxy rev swap, corp PPA, merchant etc)
Unless you have a large experienced entity providing balance sheet (or government) support it's just going to be really hard.
-
@voodoo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@chimoaus I also heard a stat a long the lines of there being 50% of world emissions being from countries of similar scale to AUS. So if all (or many) of them act then we can make a decent dent. And if no-one does because their individual footprint is small, then...
Exactly.
The best parallel I saw on social media: "But we only use 1.3% of the water on our street so why should we take any notice of water restrictions?"
-
@voodoo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@NTA yeah, a given for large scale for sure.
And maybe same, same for small scale also.So who is stepping up to build these?
Government I guess. Will it be in time to help with the problem? Dunno.
A lot of the large scale builds are expensive because each one is effectively bespoke.
-
@chimoaus said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Scomo is quick to say Australia is only responsible for a very small percentage of emissions, yet if you calculated usage of all the fossil fuels Australia exports it quickly climbs towards 5% which is a lot in terms of per capita.
It's an absurd argument that we're responsible for those.
-
This is interesting.
From ArmstrongEconomics
"What is fascinating is the revelation that mainstream media has indeed conspired with the group led by Greenpeace to sell climate change. This includes the top names like CBS, Bloomberg, BuzzFeed, HuffPost, The Daily Beast, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, Slate, Vanity Fair, and even the Weather Channel. However, both the left-leaning Washington Post and New York Times actually declined to participate in a project. They apparently were afraid that the conspiracy to sell climate change was really an activist movement in nature."
-
I am genuinely puzzled what the motivation would be to “sell” climate change. What is to be gained other than trying to get more donations / clicks in the case of media. Not really convincing. Can definitely see why deniers would do it. Fossil fuels are big money.
Is there actually an argument anymore that the climate is changing? The reasons for it are a different argument.
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
I am genuinely puzzled what the motivation would be to “sell” climate change. What is to be gained other than trying to get more donations / clicks in the case of media. Not really convincing. Can definitely see why deniers would do it. Fossil fuels are big money.
Is there actually an argument anymore that the climate is changing? The reasons for it are a different argument.
Are the reasons even that much doubt?
It's if and how we can fix / stop it.
I'm not sure destroying capitalism (the Thunberg Method) is going to work ...
-
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
I am genuinely puzzled what the motivation would be to “sell” climate change. What is to be gained other than trying to get more donations / clicks in the case of media. Not really convincing. Can definitely see why deniers would do it. Fossil fuels are big money.
Is there actually an argument anymore that the climate is changing? The reasons for it are a different argument.
Are the reasons even that much doubt?
It's if and how we can fix / stop it.
I'm not sure destroying capitalism (the Thunberg Method) is going gv to work ...
No, just was a point of contention in the past. Agree with you.
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
I am genuinely puzzled what the motivation would be to “sell” climate change. What is to be gained other than trying to get more donations / clicks in the case of media. Not really convincing. Can definitely see why deniers would do it. Fossil fuels are big money.
Is there actually an argument anymore that the climate is changing? The reasons for it are a different argument.
Of course the climate is changing. It always has. And always will.
The question is. Is it caused by natural factors. Or cows farting and a tiny increase in CO2. My money is on natural factors. Just like my money is on Jesus didn't arise from the dead.
Re motivation. MONEY. And lots of it. Trillions. For example how much does NZ send overseas to this climate fund. And who audits where this money goes to. And how much will Govts collect in extra taxes to save the planet. And carbon trading is also a potential gold mine etc.
-
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
I am genuinely puzzled what the motivation would be to “sell” climate change. What is to be gained other than trying to get more donations / clicks in the case of media. Not really convincing. Can definitely see why deniers would do it. Fossil fuels are big money.
Is there actually an argument anymore that the climate is changing? The reasons for it are a different argument.
Are the reasons even that much doubt?
It's if and how we can fix / stop it.
I'm not sure destroying capitalism (the Thunberg Method) is going to work ...
I think climate change and its causes would be taken more seriously if hordes of far left activists hadn't adopted it as a means of bringing down capitalism
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@chimoaus said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Scomo is quick to say Australia is only responsible for a very small percentage of emissions, yet if you calculated usage of all the fossil fuels Australia exports it quickly climbs towards 5% which is a lot in terms of per capita.
It's an absurd argument that we're responsible for those.
You don't think Australia should take some responsibility for selling fossil fuels that ultimately end up being burnt contributing to emissions? Climate change is a world issue not just the countries that choose to burn it or not. Surely Australia opening up new mines like Adani so the Indians can get cheap coal cannot be good long term for the planet?
Climate Change