Climate Change

blowfly's picture
blowfly started the topic in Wednesday, 1 Jul 2020 at 9:40am

.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 1:43pm

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/green-steel-is-hail...

Emissions from steel making are about 7% of the total. Energy emissions currently make up over 70% . The path forward is to make the major emission reductions there. Given that we have until 2050 to achieve net zero and there are massive incentives to improve the green steel process I have no idea why you think it is a major problem.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 1:51pm

You could have just said yes your right Hutchy .

I hope hydrogen can work in the future . Unfortunately it is unproven . If it does end up working it will take a very long time to scale up .

It will be used , I hope , it small scale situations . Then it may evolve into being used by cars . Maybe aeroplanes , maybe even trains .

It will not be used in steel production until ALL these other applications are used . It might be 7% but it is rising . You haven't told be where the 7% will go to get us to net zero . Into thin air ?

The annual amount of hydrogen that will needed will take decades of building to produce and that is just for cars.

2050 is 28 years away . If things are unproven now they might not be ready to make up for lost time .

Australia will have no chance to get to that level and we make little steel . How will China and the developing world be able to do it ?

Lets move on . Most of the metals I mentioned above need refining . These large stations need 24 hour power 7 days a week . What can we use NOW ?

Please don't link The Conversation articles . In my experience they are not worth talking about ( let alone reading ) .

Roker's picture
Roker's picture
Roker Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 1:46pm

Green hydrogen in lieu of coal to power the furnaces that treat the iron ore. 'Practicable and implementable' according to Twiggy. He'll provide the technology to his customers. Staking his company on it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0010v0d/hardtalk-andrew-forrest-c...

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 1:51pm

Well do your own search then. You appear to misunderstand the role of hydrogen in the steel making process. It is used to replace carbon in the chemical reaction that strips oxygen from iron ore. The product of this reaction is water rather than carbon dioxide.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 1:57pm

I don't need to do any research . Hydrogen will hopefully replace Met coal . Its simple . Coal is used to heat up the smelter .

What is your idea for 24/7 power for the smelters and refineries ?

Where is the 7% giong to go so we can get to net zero ?

I already know the answers to the questions I am asking you .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 1:59pm

Mate don't waste my time. If you have data or a point state it clearly.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 2:28pm

BB- you are avoiding simple questions . Why ?

What is your idea for 24/7 power for the smelters and refineries ?

Where is the 7% giong to go so we can get to net zero ?

I will give my answers .

Until we come up with MEGA battery storage ( if it happens it will be 50 years way unfortunately ) or hydrogen at huge scale ( also probably 50 years away ) we need to move to nuclear or still use fissile fuels for smelters , refineries , de sal plants and peak load power .

The 7% will go nowhere but into the atmosphere . It cannot ( as you have agreed ) be absorbed . This will make net zero impossible .

Please don't offer any alternative answers if you agree .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 3:38pm

Tomago Smelter, Australia's largest single consumer of power, has committed to 100% renewables by 2029. Since you don't like my links look it up yourself.

Roker's picture
Roker's picture
Roker Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 4:05pm
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 4:29pm

Thanks BB - I looked it up and saw the article from the Guardian which I am sure has been your only research . I will ignore other views and use your source .

The move to renewables requires progress on grid scale batteries ( not even enough lithium , cobalt , nickel etc to cater for the EV market and grid scale batteries have not even been invented yet . Teslas largest battery MIGHT run Adelaide for a couple of hours ) . Wind and solar ( the refinery needs energy 24/7 ) . A thermal storage system ( what is this ? ) . Exploring using hydro energy from Bell Mountain ( sounds very advanced ha ha ) .

As their CEO said "we need further improvement on the cost equation before renewables are viable " ,

However he is optimistic ! He fucken needs to be !!!!!

But with all these unknowns and things that are not invented he comes up with an exact date 2029 .

Not 2031 , not 2028 .

Interesting your whole view relies on projects like this !

I just saw this from Blowin "The type of gullible, naive stooge who swallows every word you are fed in the Washington Post as gospel."

Perfect summation .

The CEO will be long gone by 2029 .

What motives , other than getting gullible people to write and believe the tale , does he have to make this prediction ?

Maybe RIO think it will help the ESG investment community to look more kindly on them after they blew up the sacred site .

You get an F for this effort .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 4:28pm

Hutchy you should notify them about your concern that the technology will not be ready. I am sure they will be pleased to accept the advice of Mr. Randominternetdude

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 4:38pm

BB - I am not concerned Mr Gullible . I already think it will not be ready but will be happy if it is .

As you believe this type of project IS needed to get to net Zero you are the one that needs to be concerned . Your credibility is at stake ( not much at stake so do nothing ) .

You always get everything arse about faced . You are REALLY good at it Mr Footinmouth .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 4:56pm

Well mate, check back in 2029. I am sure everyone here will welcome you back
Until then your view is only hot air. Mine has the support of the relevant industry.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 5:32pm

BB You are so funny . The article proves they have no idea , if or when , they will be 100% renewable .

I will know a long time before 2029 how they are progressing .

So good to hear that you are supporting them in their obviously made up view of their timing . That lack of certainty is just like your views and comments .

You are supporting an aluminium producer !!!!!!! Producing this metal is the HIGHEST consumer of electricity pound for pound in the world . Read again the % of NSW electricity they consume .
I am sure you already know this ( ha ha only joking ) .

"Aluminum production in the United States generally takes two forms, with very different energy requirements. Primary production involves making aluminum products from raw material or ingots, which is highly energy intensive, especially electricity intensive ."

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=7570

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 5:40pm

Dear Mr Fantasy. Go away. Get a grip on yourself, no not there! And then try, really try, to get a grip on reality.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 5:46pm

BB - I love it when all you have to respond with is abuse . Makes my day .

I will be your boomerang .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 6:11pm

Well actually it was humour, maybe try and have a laugh about some of this stuff.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 6:58pm
gragagan wrote:

Some of the Climate Council's article that Hutchy left out:

"However, to avoid a climate catastrophe, new emissions of greenhouse gas must be as low as possible. In other words, we need to get as close as possible to a real zero and only rely on offsetting when it is absolutely necessary. This means that we need to rapidly phase out fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – and transition to renewable energy."

"At a federal level, Australia lacks credible climate and renewable energy policy to drive us towards that future, and our emission reduction targets are inadequate to meet our Paris climate commitments. What’s more, our exported emissions (in the form of coal and gas) are about 2.5 times higher than our domestic emissions. While these are not counted on Australia’s ledger, it’s still worsening climate change."

Cherry picking?

We are driving to the future without policy which is a much better way to be driven, because its based on economics which ensures success.

As mentioned many times before:

Per captia Australia has the fastest uptake rate of renewables in the world, per captia we lead the world in solar capacity, per captia 4th for wind generated energy.

At times recently we have hit over 50% renewable energy generation, at times the grid is predicted to met 100% demand with renewables by 2025.

As BB mentioned above energy production is the major emitter, policy is more important for other areas where its going to be very hard to reduces emissions like farming and mining etc

Transport will be driven by economic factors EV being cheap to run and maintain, once the ball starts rolling its likely to start moving pretty fast like happened with solar.

As for coal or gas exports, what we provide is the best quality in the world, like it or not many countries like China and India will still need to use coal for quite some time, many have been canceled from being constructed but many new coal power stations are still being built, they will need coal for quite some time, like it or not in most cases burning Aust coal produces less emissions than burning coal from their home countries or from places like Indonesia.

Just as point of interest, Germany is often thought of as the most green country in many regards, but crazy enough last May a new coal power plant was finished and went online. (doubt it will run for that long though)

Imagine if this happened in Aust you guys would lose your shit, our last one went online 12 years ago, yeah there has been talk of new ones, but let's be real they are tripping never going to happen makes no economic sense, gas peaking plants are a different story although gas is costly, they can come online much faster to support renewables at night etc and can easily be converted to run on green hydrogen, its not the only solution but just another piece of the puzzle.

BTW. Even with all the developed countries doing their part the cold reality is much of the developing worlds emissions will continue to rise for some time, China, India, Indonesia etc their population growth is huge and the middle class growing very fast increasing demand for energy and other things like general products and meat etc that all produce emissions.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Friday, 22 Oct 2021 at 7:04pm

I think the best summary of Australia's position is: we don't know where we are going, but we know how to get there.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Saturday, 23 Oct 2021 at 8:10am

Almost BB . We know where we want to go , but we don't know when we will get there .

We are doing it faster than most . When we get there we will be with very few others .

gragagan's picture
gragagan's picture
gragagan Saturday, 23 Oct 2021 at 12:04pm

Haha hutchy very funny the complete opposite is true

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Saturday, 23 Oct 2021 at 1:30pm
Hutchy 19 wrote:

We are doing it faster than most . When we get there we will be with very few others .

If you are comparing us to developing countries then yes 100%

If you are comparing us to other developed countries then maybe not true, it won't be renewables that are the issue, we will most likely get to 100% before or around the same time as other developed countries that have low levels of carbon free energy (Hydro & Nuclear)

It will be other areas that will be hard for Australia to reduce emissions in, being a country built on mining and agriculture

Our fugitive emissions are high from mining things like gas just under 10% of emissions.

Agriculture about 15%

Plus almost 5% land use change

Thats 30% of all emissions that will be in many ways hard to reduce and most likely need to be largely offset.

Add to that we have a growing population mostly from immigration that increase's demand all round that adds to emissions in many areas.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Saturday, 23 Oct 2021 at 3:01pm

I admit I exaggerated on us being a leader in the developed world . I got too excited . I think ( hope ) it would be possible that we have improved the most in the last 10 years ( from a low base probably ) .

Due to our size , mining industry and agriculture it will be difficult to match other developing countries .

Developed and undeveloped countries need our minerals and our food . Our current account deficit needs them as well .

Sorry .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Monday, 25 Oct 2021 at 12:26pm

A quote from Greg Mullins, the former commisioner of Fire and Rescue NSW and one of those whose advice about the coming fire season was totally ignored by both state and Federal governments in 2019.

" But you know what, in twenty years or so it's not going to matter (about what kind of fire fighting aircraft are used). It's like the enemy has nukes and we'll just be working with conventional weapons. I have no answers. We're just going to have to harden the infrastructure and do mass evacuations while the fire grabs whatever it wants. "

from Currowan; The Story of a Fire and a Community During Australia's Worst Summer by Bronwyn Adcock.

For those who weren't there it might give some sense of what it was like to live through that time on the NSW south coast and an idea of what the future holds. Those who lived there (and the other areas burnt) know already.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Monday, 25 Oct 2021 at 12:59pm

BB - A quote from Greg Mullins, the former commisioner of Fire and Rescue NSW and one of those whose advice about the coming fire season was totally ignored by both state and Federal governments in 2019.

What was his advice ? Other than controlled back burning and proper clearing of land around homes and council areas what can we do ?

Good plans and effective infrastructure are needed to minimise the the damage and I hope we have learned from past experiences . The danger to professional firefighters and the CFA are unacceptable imo .

gragagan's picture
gragagan's picture
gragagan Monday, 25 Oct 2021 at 1:33pm

This is a really interesting read about 'living' fire breaks

https://www.thecrossingland.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Fire-Retar...

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Monday, 25 Oct 2021 at 1:54pm

Thanks gragagan. I am on my phone now but will have a good read of that later.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Monday, 25 Oct 2021 at 2:17pm

gragagan - I am amazed at your link . It seems like the living fire breaks could protect forests , towns and homes ( although not sure how big they need to be ) .

Why aren't we madly planting these species ???

What is the catch ?

If it is only Australian plants that can do this imagine the Export potential .

GreenJam's picture
GreenJam's picture
GreenJam Monday, 25 Oct 2021 at 3:59pm

Hi gragagan, thanks for the link. Had a quick read, and it seems generally petty good info there if some readers are considering this on their property.

But I really question some of the listed 'fire retardant' species - I would strongly recommend not using any 'dry sclerophyll' type species, so I'm a bit shocked to see various Acacias and Eucs and some others in that list. Absolutely avoid them, they'll burn/erupt, they are designed to. Stick with purely local rainforest species from the range of strata- canopy, mid and understorey/groundcovers. But even in the worst of conditions, they can also burn, but would do a better 'barrier' job than all others.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Monday, 25 Oct 2021 at 6:18pm

After reading about some of the fire storms I doubt any planting would have been effective. They have a role to play but when someone of Greg Mullins status says that there is no way to stop these fires, that should scare the hell out of anyone living in an area with any chance of bushfire.
One of the main things that came out of the book was that the RFS simply does not have the man power or the equipment to cope with the fires that are now occurring.
This is in no way a criticism as their incredible bravery and hard work saved countless lives and hundreds of millions in property. it is a reality check that we now live in a very different fire environment and need to change up.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Monday, 25 Oct 2021 at 6:57pm

BB - any reason why you think the planting would be ineffective other than fires are powerful ?

Since the 1900 the temperature might have gone up 2 degrees . Fires are terrible if its 40 or 46 .Wind , as the recent IPCC report showed has not changed in this time . We could double the amount of people power and equipment but they would not be able to contain any major fire . Black Friday in 1939 would still be Black Friday even with today's technology .

What does have a major effect is the fuel to feed the fires . Back burning ( our First Nations got it right ) is a disaster as everyone knows . They burned nearly the whole of Wilsons Prom . Same with effective clearing .

Why was this not a major topic in the report ?

gragagan's picture
gragagan's picture
gragagan Monday, 25 Oct 2021 at 7:55pm

A quick google search: Are eucalyptus trees fire hazards?
When the oils in the tree heat up, the plant releases flammable gas, which ignites into a fireball. This accelerates the eucalyptus fire hazards in a region and discourages firefighting efforts. ... The plants are considered dangerous in fire prone areas because of their habit of shooting sparks if they catch fire.

gragagan's picture
gragagan's picture
gragagan Monday, 25 Oct 2021 at 8:09pm

It might sound a bit drastic but clearing strips of eucalypt 50 or 100 metres wide, and replanting with fire resistant plants to act as firebreaks may have to be tried in the future. As a barrier between houses / residential areas and bushland. A few strategically placed fire barriers can help redirect fires, instead of full-steam ahead blasting through. May not stop a raging crown-fire but shouldn't let anything through at ground level

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Monday, 25 Oct 2021 at 8:33pm

I agree gragagan but would add that they wouldn't have much chance against pyrocumulonimbus events......and there were 20 of them in two weeks during the fires. My view after living through the fires and reading the book is that there needs to be a huge investment in fire fighting aircraft and other equipment. And a large increase in the available man power. Local communities might be able to supply some of this but it probably needs the military to take a larger role as well.
More controversially, the priority of the RFS and other authorities is life and property in that order. What this means is that their capacity to limit the spread of fires is restricted as they are rushing to protect houses. The end result being the fire continues to spread threatening.more properties, which they then have to defend. This is not an effective way to deal with major fires.

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Monday, 25 Oct 2021 at 8:37pm

Hey BB, who should foot the bill for firefighting aircraft etc? States or Federal? Should there be a national civil defence reserve perhaps?
And what exactly do you propose is the military role in this situation? If it is any different to what it currently does.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Monday, 25 Oct 2021 at 8:51pm

BB - as I said if we had double the amount of people and equipment they wouldn't have much( any ) chance against pyrocumulonimbus events.

We can't immediately reduce the temperature but we can immediately reduce the fuel of the fire .

By doing regular burning , clearing and planting trees that don't explode . Surely this can be mostly done with our existing resources .

Our native forests have evolved since our first humans arrived to need regular burning . Before humans arrived eucalypts were only 5% of our tree species . If we ignore consistent burning we turn our fires into uncontrollable infernos . We then put at risk our native flora , fauna , firefighters and our population .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Monday, 25 Oct 2021 at 9:23pm
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Tuesday, 26 Oct 2021 at 8:37am

BB - I would like to know , if you are willing to tell me , if you believe that regular Controlled burning is needed to reduce fuel in native forests , each year , to reduce the incidence of Mega bush fires ?

gragagan's picture
gragagan's picture
gragagan Tuesday, 26 Oct 2021 at 10:57am

If I may interrupt, I was going to mention this last night.
A few problems with controlled hazard reduction burns. The first being the number of suitable days to carry out the burns. They can't be done if it's too hot, too windy, too dry, too wet and so on. Apparantly the suitable days are becoming less and less as the climate changes.
Also hearing a RFS volunteers account from Nth NSW, where he reckoned that some hazard reduction burns in his area removed too much vegetation. This resulted in the ground being exposed, the soil moisture content dropping, which affected the larger trees, causing them to lose leaves, allowing more sun through to the ground and so-on. Basically what was left dried out and died in the sun. Then the fires ripped through.
So hazard reduction burns are needed, but they can also cause greater problems.
*Hazard reduction burns AKA traditional fire management techniques

gragagan's picture
gragagan's picture
gragagan Tuesday, 26 Oct 2021 at 11:02am

Also next time you're on google maps, go to an area of bush that you're familiar with, and check it for scale against how much bush there actually is around say Melbourne. Then imagine how long it would take x amount of people to conduct hazard reduction burns where they should be done. It would be impossible to get them all done, there is so much bush out there

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Tuesday, 26 Oct 2021 at 11:25am

Another issue with traditional land management techniques is that after a couple of centuries of mismanagement, many forested areas are now very different. Locally we have huge tracts of regrowth with dense populations of young trees. My understanding is that most of these areas would have once been woodland with widely spaced trees. Regular low intensity burns would have kept the fuel load low. Now even if a burn successfully reduces the dead fuel load on the ground, the living fuel load is still very high.

gragagan's picture
gragagan's picture
gragagan Tuesday, 26 Oct 2021 at 12:05pm

Yep that's true.
Reading about the wildfires overseas in recent years in California and Portugal, groves of introduced eucalyptus trees that have grown out of control have been a major contributing factor.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Tuesday, 26 Oct 2021 at 2:29pm

Eucalyptus trees dominate our forests due to humans .

We have to develop sensible regular controlled burning practices to reduce the annual build up of ground fuel .

If not we will continue to experience fires that are so severe an army couldn't control them .

Our fauna and flora need us to look after them .

This is the only thing ( also plant new species ) we can NOW do . Most of our resources need to be devoted to doing this NOW .

GreenJam's picture
GreenJam's picture
GreenJam Tuesday, 26 Oct 2021 at 3:00pm

good points Blindboy and gragagan - the key being most of our forests (eucs especially) are now very different. Put simply, they are just far too dense (see the Bill Gamage book - 'Greatest Estate on Earth') and so many areas are just waiting for that 'firestorm' weather event and they will erupt. I'm referring specifically to SEQ, where historically we didnt get that type of weather event (was largely a southern Aus phenomenon). But as we have now seen over recent seasons, we are now getting those events here and I fear that will continue and we've seen nothing yet in terms of tracts of dense Euc forests - often adjacent to urban areas, or now part of the urbanizing rural landscape - erupting, and taking much property and infrastructure, and maybe lives, with it.

I see broadscale forest thinning as a major part of the solution, alongside extensive carefully organised cultural burning regimes. Re the thinning, it will always be a tricky concept to get through politically - in Aus, politicians and hardcore greenies and just many everyday people who care about the 'bush' and nature need to understand that such thinning can be an ecosystem restoration strategy. That is broadly accepted in the US - they are implementing massive 'forest restoration' programs in response to the mega fires they are increasingly encountering, and these programs are essentially just thinning operations, returning the forests to the densities that reflect their original character, and making full use of the thinned materials, as you've got to get a lot of that woody material out of there or else it is just excessive fuel. But any 'native forestry' in Australia is now largely a dirty word/concept - in fact, most states are just locking up more native forests and ending sustainable selective harvesting. In my view, the are sealing these forests' fate of being wiped out by mega fires, and all that usable timber going up with them, massive C emissions..... Much of the small thinned materials (and residues of other larger higher value logs like sawlogs, poles etc.) that are available in these forests can be directed to the emerging bioenergy and biochemicals industries. We are way behind other nations on these areas...

gragagan's picture
gragagan's picture
gragagan Tuesday, 26 Oct 2021 at 3:08pm

Agreed.

gragagan's picture
gragagan's picture
gragagan Tuesday, 26 Oct 2021 at 3:36pm

The biggest problem would have to be funding it all. Not sure if the gov would be up to it. It might take a philanthropist like Twiggy or that other young Australian fella whose pledging 1.5 billion dollars towards green investment

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Tuesday, 26 Oct 2021 at 3:55pm

Greenjam "I see broadscale forest thinning as a major part of the solution, alongside extensive carefully organised cultural burning regimes. "

I agree with the thinning . Am interested in BB response as I think it will cause more thinning of his hair . What is cultural burning ? Sounds woke to me .

Maybe we can call it cultural thinning for all the greenies .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Tuesday, 26 Oct 2021 at 4:36pm

Meanwhile, in Canberra....the plan that isn't a plan. Guesswork, imagination, delusion, Scotty's little fantasy? Who would know? What we do know is that it tells us NOTHING about achieving net zero....but then that was never the aim was it? Wink to the Nats, "Don't worry, we're not actually going to DO anything!" Load of crap to the public 'cos 80% (or so they think) are asleep or don't care.

Screen-Shot-2021-10-26-at-4-30-17-pm