I know they're not investing in coal fired plants Vic. They're selling the shit overseas and propping up a bit of ageing infrastructure.
No I don't support it Vic but I'm not entirely against exporting it either.
You guys are totally missing the point, wind and solar are great and cheaper if you compare them to other energy sources WHEN there is sun (day time) or when wind, yes coal & gas could never compete.
But ONLY when you have another energy source to support them when its night or no wind without another energy source be it Hydro, Nuclear, Coal, Gas etc they aren't even viable alone because of the storage issues.
Zen, I have a very good mate who is a CEO of a coal company. About 5 years ago he got out of thermal coal because "it has no future". In the last 2 years the price of thermal coal has halved, and it's getting more and more expensive to dig it out of deeper holes.
Exports by volume out of Australia are starting to decline too. This is world wide trend. Thermal coal is going to be a standard asset in a decade or so. There's a reason why Adani can't get finance for their mine. I just object to our federal government pissing away our tax dollars propping up a polluting industry that's dying.
Edit. And I'm mightily pissed off scumbags like Canavan are telling blue collar workers their jobs have a future.
"The head of NextEra Energy, the biggest and most successful utility in the United States says the energy industry is in the grip of massive change, with the cost of renewables and battery storage – without subsidies – beating gas, as well as existing coal and nuclear on costs."
"5 years ago coal and gas were the cheapest sources of energy in a majority of countries. Now wind and solar are.
“But but but, gas and solar are intermittent. YOU NEED BASELOAD!!!” cry the fossil fuel defenders.
Sure. Today battery + solar is more expensive than baseload coal. The problem is you don’t have to look too far forward to see that it won’t be soon. Coal, gas, oil, all have economics based on a scarcity curve: the more we use, the deeper we need to dig and more expensive to extract. Solar and battery power is on a technology curve, the more the world produces, the cheaper it becomes:"
Well there you go Vic, like I said, I'm conflicted.
Btw, mate of mine works for Adani (logistics) he's on about $250k. So I guess there's a little life left in the model.
Dunno how the fucker sleeps at night.
The prime marketer’s gas announcement is all about Santos’ fracking folly out on the Narrabri plains. There are numerous economic studies concluding the project and the extracted gas is unviable now and into the future.
The fact that Santos and the prime marketer are pursuing it beggars belief and more questions need to be asked/answered.
Referencing Adani, it is also unviable and there is lots of evidence to suggest the parent company is so debt laden it is basically insolvent without the balance sheet (as opposed to actual) value of the Abbott Point terminal and port facilities .... and hence Adani is playing the game in buying time.
Neither Narrabri or Adani will ever become operation.
Lies, mismanagement and corruption, how good is minerals and mining in Australia?
The announcement of the $1.9 billion renewables fund on the face of it sounds good and hopefully beneficial research will come out of it. Drill down into it though and you get a fund that is designed to give more tax payer money to gas companies.
Chevron was “given $60 million from the Western Australian Government to assist with the technology.”
Carbon capture was wheeled out by John Howard to be the solution that was “clean coal” so at least it is an adaptable policy and plenty of mileage left in it yet
What do you all think about hydrogen as a fuel source?
Simon Bevilacqua: Green hydrogen means jobs, exports and a future for our kids
These hubs could produce sustainable hydrogen at a low-cost to replace diesel and natural gas in powering trucks, trains, buses, businesses and households worldwide — while reining in carbon pollution, writes Simon Bevilacqua
September 18, 2020 8:03pm
TASMANIA could be at the vanguard of a raft of 21st century industries, with jobs galore, while tackling global warming and loosening the grip of political paralysis that’s choked this nation’s climate policy for two decades.
Bell Bay and Burnie — with deepwater ports that are able to be expanded, rail and road infrastructure, freshwater supplies, and high connectivity to the power grid — are ideally positioned to become hubs for exporting hydrogen produced by the state’s clean, green renewable hydro-electricity.
These hubs could produce sustainable hydrogen at a low-cost to replace diesel and natural gas in powering trucks, trains, buses, businesses and households worldwide — while reining in carbon pollution.
More importantly, but less often discussed, these export hubs could attract downstream processing that comes with the use of green hydrogen, rather than coal, to produce products such as steel, ammonia, aluminium and cement.
The Gutwein government has commendably recognised the opportunity for the state and vowed to make Tasmania an exporter of hydrogen by 2030. Good news. It has taken its first small steps in this direction with the Hydrogen Renewable Funding Program; a $50 million support package to provide $20 million for projects, up to $20 million in concessional loans and up to $10 million in support services. More than 20 proposals have been submitted for funding, and an assessment panel is now considering applications.
“The global market potential for hydrogen export is massive,” a Hydro Tasmania white paper states.
Info graphic explaining the use of Hydrogen power by Hydro Tasmania. Green Hydrogen / H2O / Electricity / sustainable
Energy consultants ACIL Allen have predicted export potential for Australia at about 1.3 million tonnes by 2040.
“To put this in context, a 1000MW production facility in Tasmania would represent just 10 per cent of this volume — and yet it would more than double Tasmania’s current major industrial electricity demand,” the Hydro states.
The Hydro says of Bell Bay there are “few locations in the world that have the unique attributes of Tasmania for the production of green hydrogen at scale” and that Tassie has a “sustainable-production cost advantage” over other regions.
The analysis says green hydrogen can be produced in Tasmania for up to 15 per cent cheaper than other Australian power grids that need to offset emissions and up to 30 per cent less than from “dedicated off-grid renewables”.
“Tasmania’s clean, green, brand would also provide value to this proposition,” the paper states.
Tasmania is not alone in chasing federal funds for a hydrogen export hub. Darwin in the Northern Territory, the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, the Hunter Valley in New South Wales, the Spencer Gulf in South Australia, Gladstone in Queensland, and Western Australia’s north west are also in the hunt.
On the international front, Germany, Japan and South Korea are leading the creation of a new hydrogen industry. Australia has signed a variety of agreements with all three nations, in the hope of buying into an industry estimated to be worth between $11 billion and $26 billion a year by 2050.
New Zealand’s government just announced $20 million investment in a green hydrogen facility in South Taranaki. A joint venture between Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited and Hiringa Energy Limited, will produce green hydrogen to power Ballance Agri-Nutrients’ Kapuni plant, which makes things such as ammonia. It is one of four new hydrogen projects in Taranaki with $40 million government funding.
New Zealand is adopting downstream processing as an integral part of its hydrogen model, which has the advantage of creating local jobs and reducing the impact of one of the stumbling blocks of the hydrogen industry, the relatively large cost of export.
Are there opportunities for downstream processing using Tasmanian green hydrogen in production of steel, cement, ammonia or aluminium at Bell Bay or Burnie? Are there premium niche markets to be explored where manufacturers are willing to pay more for the materials of their product so as to market themselves as clean and green?
If so, let’s get cracking because Swedish steel maker SSAB is targeting 2026 for commercial-scale green steel production. The race is on.
Public policy think tank, The Grattan Institute, recently released a paper proposing green steel as an answer to Australia’s political paralysis on climate change, suggesting the new industry could create enough jobs in Queensland and NSW to offset losses in the inevitable demise of coal, and in the process unpick the voting bloc that was so formative at the last federal election and has helped stall the nation’s climate policy.
“Green steel uses hydrogen, produced from renewable energy, to replace metallurgical coal to reduce iron ore to iron metal,” the institute’s paper states.
“Australia’s extensive wind and solar energy resources mean we can make hydrogen, and therefore green steel, more cheaply than countries such as Japan, Korea, and Indonesia. To do this at a global scale will require big industrial workforces, such as those found in coalmining regions of central Queensland and the Hunter Valley in NSW.
“Many more jobs are likely to come from Australia using its energy cost advantage to produce low-emissions, energy-intensive commodities for export.”
The institute identifies smaller opportunities in using hydrogen in the production of green steel in Port Kembla in NSW, Portland in Victoria, Whyalla in SA and Collie in WA, but does not explicitly mention Tasmania.
Iron ore is Tasmania’s fourth largest export and demand for it from China, India and developing nations in South-East Asia is expected to surge for decades to come. Since this ore is already destined to be transported through what could eventually be Tasmanian green hydrogen hubs in Burnie and Bell Bay, is there the potential to grow a smaller, jobs-rich green steel industry here while helping to address climate change?
It is shameful that Australia produces 38 per cent of the world’s iron ore and 18 per cent of its metallurgical coal, but only 0.3 per cent of the world’s steel. We Aussies not only create more greenhouse pollution per capita than anyone else on the planet, but we profit more than most from the export of the planet-scale problem. Perhaps we also have the solution in our back yard.
It's a good article Pat and it all sounds groovy imo but one telling part (and Vic my economics lecturer will probably back me up on this) is this bit- "Are there premium niche markets to be explored where manufacturers are willing to pay more for the materials of their product so as to market themselves as clean and green?"
My guess is unlikely. Companies want to pay the absolute minimum for raw materials to maximise their return. Also, in Oz there are huge barriers to entry let alone the cost of compliance that other countries are not faced with.
Maybe I'm reading the article wrong but I don't really think there is such a thing as "niche" steelmaking. I do believe there is scope for exporting green hydrogen, Japan is investing heavily in hydrogen but Japan is still a manufacturing nation. Australia has moved beyond that and is primarily a service based economy and exporter of raw materials.
Wishful thinking but I don't think there will be a huge market for Aussie grass-fed free range steel.
“Are there premium niche markets to be explored where manufacturers are willing to pay more for the materials of their product so as to market themselves as clean and green?"
Unlikely but related to your question is the world wide move by investment fund managers to divest out of fossil fuels and other industries deemed by the fund managers and investors as unethical e.g. tobacco, weapons manufacturing.
Fund managers are doing this given their clear legal responsibilities to look after the best financial interests of their members/investors.
It is also why projects like Adani can’t get banks and insurance companies to back it - stranded asset with too much investor risk given the world is moving away from coal.
This movement is particularly in focus in AU given our superannuation system and its clear fiduciary responsibilities to aways look after the members best interests. It is also one of many reasons why the LNP are continually chipping away at it, they really do not like Industry Superannuation and the power it gives average workers ...
You are still missing the point, even your article spells it out.
"Still, Robo doesn’t like targets that set absolutes like 100 per cent renewables, arguing that at 70 per cent renewables the emissions would be hugely reduced, and
“One of the reasons why you can’t get to 100% is you can’t — the battery you would have to build is so enormous, right, and it would have to be able to — you have to have a period where the wind wasn’t blowing at night for a very long period of time and this is where getting to the 100% is very expensive."
And this is where gas fits in.
And you don't actually need 100% renewables you need more like 150 to 200% renewables for those rare days in summer when you get huge spikes in energy demands.(I've read it can be double normal highs)
You also need storage security for a decent amount of time, days to a week or more?
Reality is you will probably always need another energy source as a back up and safety net to wind and solar.
It would be crazy not too, it would be like living in the middle of nowhere and having solar and battery's and not having an emergency back up generator.
"What do you all think about hydrogen as a fuel source?"
The interesting thing about new gas power plants is they are actually very easy to convert to run on hydrogen.
Some have this idea building a gas power plant is like building a steam train that it will soon become useless, which is completely untrue.
Im sure they would be happy if we just told them we are building a hydrogen power plant to support wind and solar.
Maybe Scomo isn't really that good at marketing.
"Dr Peter Ridd is very much on the front foot promoting that the current peer review process has short comings that creates too many uncertainties about some scientific papers being used as a basis of political party policy and government legislation. Much needed is the establishment of an Office of Science Quality Assurance for much more vigorous assessment.
The Senate #reefregs inquiry is a gift that continues giving. At the Canberra hearing ALP Senator Kim Carr asked the 3 scientists in the panel before him about peer review and received an answer that he may not have expected. Present were Dr Piers Larcombe, Dr Walter Starck and Dr Geoff Stocker.
“Senator KIM CARR: Wouldn't those issues be picked up in any normal peer review process? Do you support the peer review process in regard to the scientific studies that have been brought forward?
Dr Larcombe : The peer review process, as we know, is a process that largely leads to a judgement made on whether an argument, and the evidence and logic presented in a paper, is reasonable or not. It doesn't say whether it's correct or not. My view would certainly be that, if you're about to spend many hundreds of millions of dollars on research, plans, regulations and everything that goes with it, you should have a far higher degree of understanding and confidence in your plan. I think that is something that the peer review process does not provide to the government.
Senator KIM CARR: Sorry, did you say 'corrupt'?
Dr Larcombe : Good gracious, no.
Senator KIM CARR: Sorry, can you repeat that? This audio process is most unsatisfactory. You said the peer review process was inadequate, because it didn't provide sufficient—what? Can you clarify that precisely.
Dr Larcombe : I will try and speak slowly, I'm sorry; the technical details aren't great. The peer review process provides confidence to a journal and readers of that journal that there are reasonable arguments being made in that paper. I do not believe it provides sufficient confidence for people to take that paper up and use it, apply it, for spending public money.”
Then later a question by Greens Senator Larissa Waters
“Senator WATERS: Does anybody else want to add to that?
Dr Stocker : Yes, I'd like to. Science is not based on authority; it's based on evidence. It makes no difference when the word 'consensus' is used. 'Consensus' is not a scientific term. Science is based on reason and evidence, and that's it. That's why we need to find out, if someone is claiming that there is an impact on the reef from the nutrients, what is the evidence for that. Let's assess the evidence.
Senator WATERS: Isn't that what the peer review process is designed to do?
Dr Stocker : No, actually, the peer review process is simply the opinion of one or more other people who are specialists in a particular field, and it was used mainly in publications and in applications for grants because the people making the decision—the editor of the journal or the committee that approves the grants—often don't have expertise in every field that they have to deal with, so they call upon someone else who is a specialist in that field for an informal opinion. This has been completely distorted now to the idea that it's some kind of assurance of quality. The real peer review in anything comes after the information is published, when the rest of the scientific community can either agree or disagree.”
The Acting Chair for the Canberra hearing was National Senator Susan McDonald.
“ACTING CHAIR: Dr Starck, in your submission you note your criticism of, amongst other things, the 'corruption of science by eco-salvation ideology'. A number of witnesses raised the idea that this corruption has impacted these regulations. Could you expand on your thoughts regarding this?
Dr Starck : There is a whole sector of society today that is not engaged in any productive activity and I think they're looking for some kind of meaning to life, and some of them seem to find it in saving the natural environment. Not that there's anything wrong with that, if you're actually saving something. But often in the process of this desire to save the environment they focus on finding a scapegoat for the problem, because if it's a natural deterioration there's not much you can do about it, but if you can find somebody to blame then you can regulate them. This has happened with farming, where farming is being blamed for various problems that in fact may or may not exist at all.“
Hearing transcript available here:
Shock horror! A peer reviewed paper is not the end of research into the issue. Who would have thought? Well anyone except a professional scientist, or someone with a vague interest in, or nodding acquaintance with science beytond its appearance in mass media.
"Dr Starck : There is a whole sector of society today that is not engaged in any productive activity and I think they're looking for some kind of meaning to life, and some of them seem to find it in saving the natural environment."
....but not as many unproductive units as clog the corridors of politics and business with their inflated egos, huge incomes and an arrogance more often than not based on profound ignorance flavoured strongly by the ideological kool aid that pours out of the orifices of their media mates.
Of course you never hold an enquiry unless you know the outcome so inviting climate deniers along was clearly part of the plan.
Dog preserve us from the rampant infectious ignorance and mind boggling lack of ability to think clearly that is speading more rapidly than covid.
" — the battery you would have to build is so enormous, right..."
Well no, wrong! Completely wrong. So wrong in fact that if it was any more wrong it would have to exist in another universe where up was down and down was up. So I will try to keep it simple
Lots of little batteries are much better than one big one which is why Elon Musk built the biggest facvtory in this universe to build them. Ask around Indo, you might find some of your mates already have them. If not they soon will. Now why would anyone attempt to mislead us by suggesting that only a battery so BIG it wouldn't work could do the job? Oh yeh, they are spruikers for the fossil fuel industry. Always know the results of your enquiry before it starts eh Indo?
Im sure when he said enormous he wasn't being literal but meant capacity.
Heaps of problems Blowfly with batteries.
1.Cost ridiculously expensive, yeah sure prices are coming down but they need to come down a lot lot lot lot more to become viable on a commercial scale to met the storage we need.
2. Where is the Incentive for energy providers to invest in storage? , solar and wind without storage is relatively cheap to set up with good returns, adding batteries is super super expensive with little to no improvement in returns.
It would be much wiser for a solar or wind company to instead spend that money on more panels or turbines and make more money from producing more electricity than spending it on storage
I guess in time when the market gets saturated wth green energy this might change, and we will see a flip from cheaper energy pries at night to more expensive energy prices at night, which might help.
3. Timing, if you are going to spend big money on a tech product you want to get your moneys worth and buy when the tech is near a celling.
What you want to avoid is spending all your money on batteries that in 5 to 10 years time are outdated and half as good as the new batteries, especially when the money you had spent will by then will most likely get you so much more capacity.
4. Lifespan all batteries have a life span.
Battery will play some part but they are not the complete answer.
Electric cars have similar issues, I'm a fan i looked into getting one for the missus, but the problem is whatever you buy now is only half as good as next years model and the prices are just way too expensive $30K+ just for the entry model, compared to say $15K for a entry model petrol car, yeah sure you could argue you regain money in time with an electric car, but you still need to come up with $30K and if borrowing it need to take into consideration interest etc
So it's basically just a waiting game for tech to get towards a ceiling and for prices to drop.
Just like we see with lots of tech type stuff, flat screen TV's the best example even mobil phones are good example how much better is the new iPhone than the last few models? (although iPhones don't get cheaper with time).
Most estimates are that within a few years batteries will pay for themselves over their lifetime. No they are not the complete solution but given that this is an actual emergency and we need to get to zero net emissions ASAP, they have a substantial part to play.
The logical thinking process and what is the real problem?
Batteries linked with renewables will always and forever be fiercely resisted by the LNP because it will be one of the great disruptions.
No need for polluting power stations.
No need for poles and wires and distribution networks.
^^^^^(Talking about stranded assets with no value and return to investors)^^^^
And the big ones (1) how do you manage the transition; (2) how do you tax; and (3) how do you legislate /control so big capital continue to milk profits from power generation;?
It's staring the world right in the face. When renewables are linked with battery storage the world will never be the same again. Think the end of the steam engine or the horse.
AU right now has a golden opportunity to embrace the future like countries in Europe are or we can continue to invest taxpayers ca$h into the past.
Disconnect your gas and electricity. Buy some panels and a battery and be an early adopter in the greatest disruption in generations..
I hear ya. My next joint TOTALLY off-grid. Sooner rather than later. Bring it on!
So without poles and wires how do all these commercial solar and wind farms get energy to consumers?
Poles and wires aren't going anywhere.
Im sure many people will try to go off the grid in the future and try to get by without a safety net of being hooked up to mains.
But you know what is going to happen?.....
It's not going to matter if you are hooked up to the grid or use any energy from the grid, because if poles and wires run past your place you will have to pay for that service to be there, just like mains water and just like your water bill the biggest chunk of your bill will be a service charge.
The only areas where it's really going to completely change things is in places like Indonesia areas with small islands, that currently only get a few hours electricity from generators, solar and batteries in the future will be a complete life changer for people in these areas especially having refrigeration.
And in regard to the fuel excise tax that will be lost when electric cars take off, i guess our regos will rise to some crazy price to cover that loss..
You been swilling the indo juice this arvo? You can’t just make shit up like that. I know 3 people who are off grid except for storm water and sewer in metro Melbourne. They pay a lesser fee to water company but that’s it. No power no gas bills no service fees whatsoever ~ dream on info
Mmm, your example using Indo equally applies throughout the developing world, even Adani’s India not that I’m saying it doesn’t apply to the developed world especially so with cogeneration and neighbourhood networks that can easily bypass existing grids. There’s some homework for you ....
Im swilling juice?
You are making ridiculous calls that you obviously havent thought through very well.
You really think any government is going to let people opt out of the system on a mass scale?...When its easily prevented in the way i outline.
It's not just the government that would lose out it's energy companies including green energy and there is lots of places that will still need mains energy, many business, apartment blocks, pretty much all densely built up areas like inner city areas, sky scrapers etc.
If they just allowed people to opt out on a mass scale those that can't opt out would be burdened with much higher bills because somebody needs to pay for maintenance cost.
Bahahaha, you have so eloquently explained why the prime marketer is talking up gas and not renewables.
The more people that leave the machine early the bigger the disruption.
Indo, fuel excise is a federal levy. Vehicle registration is a state levy. You know everything and nothing at the same time, again.
I wouldn't worry too much guys, the whole tax system will evolve in step with the transition you can guarantee that.
Whoever said "death & taxes" was spot on.
Indo. Think microgrids. So much wasted energy transmission loss with existing polls and wires grid
Further proof the prime marketer's gas announcement is all hot air.
From the comments section of todays Age
free photo upload
Like Adani's coal mine jobs.
But hey why worry? Indo says it's all good.
"Indo, fuel excise is a federal levy. Vehicle registration is a state levy. You know everything and nothing at the same time, again."
Either way, the loss of income needs to be replaced some how (in 2018 it raised $12.4 billion a year)
But like Zen says
"I wouldn't worry too much guys, the whole tax system will evolve in step with the transition you can guarantee that.
Whoever said "death & taxes" was spot on."
"But hey why worry? Indo says it's all good."
Your words not mine but what are you actually worried about?
Umm? What forum are we in Indo? Though I note your climate change denialism seems to have become less vehement lately. Is reality is sinking in at last?
Ive never been a denier, I've only ever been a skeptic and open to the idea that there is things we may not know and might be other explanations.
But i do have to say ive become less sceptical and just accept it all now and try not to question things, and more sceptical on alternative views around climate change even if they seem to come from decent sources, two reasons for a bit of change. (and even if funny im being 100% honest here)
1. Jim Banks, one or two things he shared on FB on the issue id shared here before, great shaper but totally nut job, if you find yourself agreeing with him or following the same sources on something like climate change or Covid or medicine etc then you have to really question what you are following, there's a good chance it's BS.
2. Covid 19 and all the alternative views on that that you see people sharing on social media or even here (often seemingly from decent sources, like doctors etc), again i dont want to look like those people that share or believe these alternative views.
I guess alternative views can be right, but yeah more likely not, i guess its fine to question mainstream narratives, but maybe question alternative narratives more so.
That said i dont live in fear of climate change, that would really suck or it doesn't change my views on how Australia should tackle things, it should always be a balanced approach like we are taking especially seeing our emissions are close to irrelevant.
And if Gretta gets on her high horse again, im going to still bag the shit out of her same with extortion rebellion.
".....it doesn't change my views on how Australia should tackle things, it should always be a balanced approach like we are taking especially seeing our emissions are close to irrelevant."
Balanced? As in match the reality with a pack of lies? Balanced? As in give equal time to a cabal of bullshit artists in the pay of the fossil fuel industry? That's not balance mate....that's balls out, dance around the maypole naked batshit loony-tunes crazy.
And oh yeh our emissions are so fucking special they don't matter, only 1%........like 20 other fucking countries. Jesus cheeses mate mate mate, try opening your mind just a little bit more. That crack of light in the far distance that you have just noticed, well that's the real world, that's where most of live. You're welcome to join us, just wave goodbye to JB and his loop the loop mates and head in our direction.
Thanks for the response I thought would be too futile to write blowfly.
Bah real world?
This part of the discussion is pointless we have discussed this aspect many times before, you guys live in an idealistic fantasy land, the government and most of us live in the real world.
We all get a vote, if you want to vote for fantasy, vote for the Greens.(although they even voted against a price on carbon, as not good enough in their eyes)
Btw. Blowfly obviously you have solar panels and signed up to a green energy provider, but have you gone the next step and bought an electric car?
Or is it all just talk?
Who here has bought an electric car?
Don't really want to get involved reading some of the comments and the egos attached to them, but I will share what I've come across on two points.
That explains why Hydrogen is no solution.
As to Nuclear, whilst it doesn't emit co2 emissions, humanity has proven time and time again that we can't manage the waste, to this day. That's to say nothing of all the nuclear testing in the pacific, which highlights better then most things humanities stupidity, hubris and power. To suggest it's the future is to be ignorant of it's history IMO.
Overall, I though COVID was an excellent pivot point in history and given how we've proceeded, I have little hope for a just-in-time solution regarding the environment. Here's hoping I'm wrong. Love to all.
Indo - we went solar about 5 years ago (and switched electric hot water to gas at same time), the system has reduced our dependency on coal fired power and from a cost perspective the savings paid the solar off in 3 1/2 years and everything since then is savings. Tassie electricity provider is teeeeechnically renewable too iirc. Next step is battery bank (home micro grid) and I've done some research but so far it seems about 8 years to payout based on current electricity bill (which is rising, bringing forward cost effectiveness). When it gets to 4 I will act (renewable infrastructure like solar/batteries is experiencing price deflation with scale and technological advance).
Cars - electric is still expensive! Current cost means that only higher priced electric cars are profitable, think Model S etc. But same reduction in cost of components is occurring and we will see smaller and more mainstream pricing in electric eventually. When the first 20K electric arrives, mass adoption. If your fuel bill was 5K per year, then 20K is that 4 year payoff... (However, prices in cars are rising as we now have no domestic industry to keep them honest, eg hybrid Yaris SX about 31K onroad...)
Before full electric, a reasonable pathway there is hybrid. Toyota doing very well with hybrids that chew 3 to 4L/100km. 25K to 32K seems to be the entry point for these...
All of this reduces the footprint.
Edit: posted again, here is futurist Tony Seba's excellent speech on electric cars/pricing/future of fossil fuel industry/disruptions. From what I can see auto industry is in the grips of the 70% decline now. 2023 when electric begins to become mass affordable?
Excellent points above re: Covid reference and the non political insights futurists can give.
We’re now full solar /electric no gas low power use appliances and lights. Got in early with the panels so feed in tariff is good and we get cheques in the mail/no bills in 6 plus years :). Next car will be electric when prices fall but have got an electric mtb which I also use for local commute/shopping. What Morrison and Taylor are proposing delays the inevitable and puts the environment and future prosperity of the country at greater risk.
Edit: the best carbon capture is the way nature intended it and that is in trees, so we all do that
The Toyota Hybrid Corolla is about $2k more than the petrol one. An average user will save way more than that in petrol in one year. I drove a rental one, and buying a petrol corolla makes very little sense.
how much for a brand newie?
2K premium across the board compared to petrol is very good move by Toyota. Customer can make meaningful reduction in cost/CO2 (Corolla, about 6 or7L/100km compared to about 4L/100km) - and both the company's products and hybrid drivetrain should last a very long time. Most Toyota hybrids currently the older Nickel-metal hydride in Australia currently, though the new Yaris gets lithium.
FR just priced Corolla Ascent hybrid at G town dealer, $31,179 onroad. Prices may vary outside the State of Disaster.
I picked up one at the rental depot with a full tank and it said you needed to fill up in 936km.
Ive seen that hydrogen video before but will watch again, i actually shared it here before in one of these threads with the same mindset after i watched it, I've since seen and read lots of good arguments for hydrogen, it's hard to know what to believe, but i wouldn't write it off I'm sure it will play some part in the future.
Even if it doesnt get used for automobiles it has lots of other uses, for instance using green energy to produce hydrogen seems the most realistic way to get around the when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine issues for commercial energy production.
Also it's a more realistic option for airline travel even shipping or even long distance rail and road freight.
The Japanese seem totally convinced on its future and are going in big on it and we have already been signing agreements with Japan to work with them to provide them with it.
5 East States
2020 = 50% black coal / 25% renewables / 17% Brown Coal / 8% Gas
2025 = 25-30% Coal / 70-5% Renewable > (Grid Capacity) if the Govt chooses to use it!
Oz Gas production is driving Oz Methane to Cat 6 level.
Methane is historically emitted by the World's biggest Central Polluting Populations.
OZ is # 192 Pop density ... PM Scomo (alone) is # 8 Methane poisoner on world stage.
Meaning Oz Gas figures as Top 10 heat emission problem in Northern Hemisphere -World.
World has warned Oz to count it in totals & to cut it out...enough already & to stop this shit!
Warming effect is 25x that of CO2 + worse than Coal.(This is under reported..low end!)
Scomo's gas farts alone shit all over Sweden's total CO2 output. (Yes... That Stinky!)
Oz is a Top Ten Rotten Egg- we can officially egg ourselves at next Climate Change Rally!
The Libs play it down & pretended not to notice...then one day...Whole of OZ goes Kaboom!
Bushfires went off with a bang! Luv the smell of Methane thru my hair & the trees...Yummy!
Oz becomes a huge Gas Cloud....it's leaking out of our Taps & Scomo's mouth & arse.
Scomo offsets his Methane fuelled bushfires by upping Deforestation by 1000%...sorted!
Masterstroke scores Oz Top 8 spot in Covid Cunts Deforestation play offs.
Plenty of NP officers & EPA officers are on the bench.
Scomo's Polls Skyrocket > Everyone's going to the Moon..* *STaRShots **
Love the smell of our PM's farts in the morning! ...have a go - ya might get yer own quango!
Absolute farce eh TBB! I'm over it.
You left out the most important factor
While most greenhouse gases including CO2 stay in the atmosphere for hundreds even thousands of years, methane actually breaks down by chemical reaction within about 9 to 12 years.
BTW. Aust is now the world biggest natural gas exporter, world wide demand has increased because these countries are swapping from more polluting burning fuels to natural gas a cleaner burning fuel, but the cruel irony is while we help them reduce their emissions, our extraction emissions increase making us look bad.