-
@winger said in Climate Change:
@snowy said in Climate Change:
but yes the more modern countries have done the damage and want the others to pay for it in some regards
How? China the biggest CO2 outputer (or carbon polluter) is exempt from most of the reductions. And the money will come from the wealthier countries
They aren't exempt, they may ignore both Kyoto and Paris but they did sign up with targets that they will fail to meet (maybe). Per capita they are still down the list and has been mentioned other countries have been polluting for a couple of hundred years, so they have pollute in a much condensed time frame and it has flattened off. I am no fan of China but their development of energy tech does seem to be going down the right track and quite quickly.
How does the money come from other countries? China can fund its own energy projects and does, or are you suggesting that foreign trade is funding it? Which would be true of every industry.
-
@winger said in Climate Change:
@snowy said in Climate Change:
but yes the more modern countries have done the damage and want the others to pay for it in some regards
How? China the biggest CO2 outputer (or carbon polluter) is exempt from most of the reductions. And the money will come from the wealthier countries
" but yes the more modern countries have done the damage and want the others to pay for it in some regards"
The "in some regards" is particularly relevant as they now have a limited time to fuck the planet. We had all the time in the world.
-
@snowy said in Climate Change:
@winger said in Climate Change:
@snowy said in Climate Change:
but yes the more modern countries have done the damage and want the others to pay for it in some regards
How? China the biggest CO2 outputer (or carbon polluter) is exempt from most of the reductions. And the money will come from the wealthier countries
" but yes the more modern countries have done the damage and want the others to pay for it in some regards"
The "in some regards" is particularly relevant as they now have a limited time to fuck the planet. We had all the time in the world
I going to opt out now as the debate is over. Big money won. But I don't beleive the planet is fucked due to climate change. Maybe the experts will finally get it right though but I doubt it. Real pollution (not CO2) has done more harm but the planet will survive and support a huge popualtion regardless.
-
@mariner4life said in Climate Change:
(well hydrogen is probably Toyota actually).
Which nobody in the industry can really understand. I know hydrogen gets talked up for certain use cases but for the vast majority of vehicular transportation, it'll be a drop in the well.
If Toyota didn't stop at the Prius, they could own the fucking world in terms of EV market share by now. It is ironic they'll be dragged kicking and screaming to the table at this point, lest they disappear up their own arse.
-
@nta said in Climate Change:
@mariner4life said in Climate Change:
(well hydrogen is probably Toyota actually).
Which nobody in the industry can really understand. I know hydrogen gets talked up for certain use cases but for the vast majority of vehicular transportation, it'll be a drop in the well.
If Toyota didn't stop at the Prius, they could own the fucking world in terms of EV market share by now. It is ironic they'll be dragged kicking and screaming to the table at this point, lest they disappear up their own arse.
hydrogen gets talked up here because they have the right people in the right places saying the right things (especially distance, which admittedly is an issue). It's a long way from being a viable alternative in Australia though
-
@mariner4life said in Climate Change:
@nta said in Climate Change:
@mariner4life said in Climate Change:
(well hydrogen is probably Toyota actually).
Which nobody in the industry can really understand. I know hydrogen gets talked up for certain use cases but for the vast majority of vehicular transportation, it'll be a drop in the well.
If Toyota didn't stop at the Prius, they could own the fucking world in terms of EV market share by now. It is ironic they'll be dragged kicking and screaming to the table at this point, lest they disappear up their own arse.
hydrogen gets talked up here because they have the right people in the right places saying the right things (especially distance, which admittedly is an issue). It's a long way from being a viable alternative in Australia though
Agreed - charging infrastructure is a bitch. Need more manufacturers to start bringing through 1000km range cars and renewables-fed remote stations to make it work.
Still cheaper than hauling hydrogen to far-flung parts of the country as we do with refined fuels today.
And if EV charging is off a low base right now. think about hydrogen having - literally - 3 in the country.
-
Thinking through this a bit further: the choice between Battery EV and Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars could create a bigger gap than already exists between urban and remote people.
Right now, almost everyone has an ICEV, so while fuel costs in remote areas go up with carriage costs, that is just par for the course, and people generally accept it.
In future, if you are urban you're likely to get a BEV car and pay for charging it at a fairly decent rate off the grid or home power.
If you're remote, and are forced to get a hydrogen vehicle or keep your carbon burner, the supply chain cost of your fuel could be very large by comparison.
-
@mariner4life said in Climate Change:
Actually, follow up question. Where is private enterprise in all of this?
Rent seeking.
It's clear to me now as we look at record temperatures in Western Canada, Siberia burning etc. that preventing this "limiting to 1.5 degrees) has been an utter waste of time despite the exhortations of our best
scientistsactors and singers, it's now time to hand over to scientists and engineers to live with it, i.e.At least slowly people are coming around to realising the unarguable benefit of energy density. Too little too late of course, and for that the blame lies solely with activists and hippies. The irony.
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change:
At least slowly people are coming around to realising the unarguable benefit of energy density. Too little too late of course, and for that the blame lies solely with activists and hippies. The irony.
Are you talking about nuclear?
-
@nta said in Climate Change:
@antipodean said in Climate Change:
At least slowly people are coming around to realising the unarguable benefit of energy density. Too little too late of course, and for that the blame lies solely with activists and hippies. The irony.
Are you talking about nuclear?
Yes, apart from hydro it's the one proven to decarbonise energy grids. Safest, cheapest, most dependable form of energy generation per TWh we've developed.
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change:
@nta said in Climate Change:
@antipodean said in Climate Change:
At least slowly people are coming around to realising the unarguable benefit of energy density. Too little too late of course, and for that the blame lies solely with activists and hippies. The irony.
Are you talking about nuclear?
Yes, apart from hydro it's the one proven to decarbonise energy grids. Safest, cheapest, most dependable form of energy generation per TWh we've developed.
Well it has had 60 years to make it's case, so it SHOULD be the leader.
-
Actual question - why aren't Aus all over nuclear? Just hippie, anti, types protesting?
You have the GAFA to put it in and in the unlikely event that things went wrong it really wouldn't matter. There's nobody there, bury it and leave it for 10,000 years nobody would even know.
-
@snowy said in Climate Change:
Actual question - why aren't Aus all over nuclear? Just hippie, anti, types protesting?
Effectively. We had local government areas declaring themselves to be nuclear free zones in the late 80s /early 90s. And polling based policy meant neither major party was willing to entertain the idea, especially while we had cheap coal
You have the GAFA to put it in and in the unlikely event that things went wrong it really wouldn't matter. There's nobody there, bury it and leave it for 10,000 years nobody would even know.
We've had a nuclear reactor in Sydney for decades. We have uranium mines. We can bury waste in synroc (invented here btw) deep underground in the middle of nowhere on the most stable continent. It comes down to a lack of leadership.
-
@snowy said in Climate Change:
Seems like a no brainer for you guys, but most of your politicians have been no brainers in a different sense...
Don't worry - the minerals council and their politician mates are pivoting to uranium, in order to have something else to dig up besides coal.
I mean there is a shitload of other precious metals we can dig up as well.
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change:
Yes, apart from hydro it's the one proven to decarbonise energy grids. Safest, cheapest, most dependable form of energy generation per TWh we've developed.
... but one that has lost the PR war.
Seriously, because of the fear associated with it, the safety regulations blow the cost and ability to build out of the water. Being in the right technically doesn't damn well help you if people feel scared or uncertain. Look at the anti-vax brigade -- you cannot convince someone of something with science and information. It doesn't happen. So, any nuclear winds up being triple gold plated, and then costs so much it's hardly worth doing.
I think it's more likely we'll see scaled batteries with local solar - it'll drive a really virtuous circle with hydro/wind renewables. Would love me some nuclear baseload, but it ain't ever going to happen politically or financially
Climate Change