Climate Change
bonza wrote:There's genuinely recognising the inequality of current and historic emissions from rich nations vs poor and the impact thereof and supporting climate negotiations to compensate the later regarding it. Pretty much the position of most technical experts since day 1, and I would argue, supported by most people engaged who just want to do the right thing.
Then there's wilfully manipulating arguments and influencing opinion through misinformation so as to cause confusion, fatigue and apathy when it comes to taking action.
Some of the opinions above resemble the later which has been classic news corp shitfuckery over the last 20 years when it comes to climate change.
Criticise China = racist hypocrite
Don’t criticise China = woke hypocriteSimple playbook.
Jelly Flater wrote:…as the polar ice caps melt …snow worries ;)
- our privileged hobbies and interests must also adapt,
renewable …sustainable …working together with nature.
…penguin surfing, the future is now ;)
Best thing you have ever posted Sassy or big Lez never disappoint.
One thing that stands out to me is that more than a few aspects of the energy transition "plans" being promoted don't add up.
One Example:
Green Kerosene by advocates:
"“Green e-kerosene is the clean jet fuel of the future and must be the go-to option for airlines and policy makers alike. The opportunity for Europe is unprecedented in terms of climate impact reduction, job creation and fuel strategic autonomy. Now, it’s time for national and European legislators to drive the uptake and mandate the use of e-kerosene in aviation.”
then we have this:
"Germany’s biggest airline would consume half of the country’s entire electricity production to switch its fleet to green fuels like e-kerosene, according to Deutsche Lufthansa AG, underscoring the challenge in reducing emissions from air transport."
Another, challenge with more general applicability to the whole energy transition is the massive scale of raw materials needed for electrification. Firstly, for the developed countries and then , secondly, the scale of raw materials needed becomes truly mindblowing if the billions of people in poorer developing countries are to shift into higher living standards with concurrent greater energy use.
The gap between the announcements of the targets and the realities of achieving them on a global scale is a yawning chasm.
We have to start somewhere but sweeping big issues under the carpet is not helpful for good policy, planning and implementation. There will be shock and awe down the track. Inflation. Unprofitable projects. Taxpayer bag holders for the losses. Unintended / unexpected scales of environmental and land use impacts from sourcing, recycling and disposal.
They will be confronted soon enough. Maybe they could be avoided if discussed more openly now.
My hope is that mankind's incredible inventiveness with find markedly better solutions to generation, transmission and storage. Lots on the go. Amazing research being done. But there are no guarrantees. It could go pear shaped.
gsco wrote:Pretty standard socialist left response there bonza: carefully cherry picking a non-representative few sentences and then slandering and trying to discredit the author…
I get the feeling you work in academia and thus know what the publishing culture is like. It’s why I left for the private sector and just do some sessional lecturing nowadays.
Comrade please.
We have had this discussion before. Perfect-enemy-good. Scientific research and teaching is facing challenges both from the rigour of review (e.g. p hacking, replication failures, publication bias for significance etc) and the intrusion of cancel culture on social concepts. The later more so on the social sciences but not exclusively. What’s heartening is the same movement that is bringing this stuff to light - the ones asking questions and demanding reform on this, are the scientists and academics themselves. It is the scientific method principles that they aim to protect. The very same you have spent pages on dismissing.
Anyway to the point. As usual you are exaggerating.
Dive into Brown's explainer, consider his observations & concerns of academic publishing and its pretty clear his case is weak based on feelings.
It’s far from end of days.
It seems to me that Brown couldn't or chose not to quantify the behavioural confounding factors - land management (fuel load) and arson. He admits that it’s not possible within the confines of the modelling. He states that in his explainer. Furthermore the paper itself qualifies that with:
“A more comprehensive assessment of future risk would also account for changes in fuel characteristics (from intentional fuel management as well as in response to climate change), changes in fire suppression efforts and changes in ignition patterns”.
And
“Our findings, however, must be interpreted narrowly as idealized calculations because temperature is only one of the dozens of important variables that influences wildfire behaviour”.
There’s probably a really good paper in those factors more suitable for a different journal perhaps?
As usual its best to not get all emotive on the latest media headline about the next scientific paper and its findings released and take the ‘media’ message with a good dose of salt. There are some pretty crappy science communicators out there as it is, let alone ones (Wesley J Smith) that peddle the existence of god as if its science.
I don’t work in academia. I just try hard to apply critical thinking.
frog wrote:One thing that stands out to me is that more than a few aspects of the energy transition "plans" being promoted don't add up.
One Example:
Green Kerosene by advocates:
"“Green e-kerosene is the clean jet fuel of the future and must be the go-to option for airlines and policy makers alike. The opportunity for Europe is unprecedented in terms of climate impact reduction, job creation and fuel strategic autonomy. Now, it’s time for national and European legislators to drive the uptake and mandate the use of e-kerosene in aviation.”then we have this:
"Germany’s biggest airline would consume half of the country’s entire electricity production to switch its fleet to green fuels like e-kerosene, according to Deutsche Lufthansa AG, underscoring the challenge in reducing emissions from air transport."Another, challenge with more general applicability to the whole energy transition is the massive scale of raw materials needed for electrification. Firstly, for the developed countries and then , secondly, the scale of raw materials needed becomes truly mindblowing if the billions of people in poorer developing countries are to shift into higher living standards with concurrent greater energy use.
The gap between the announcements of the targets and the realities of achieving them on a global scale is a yawning chasm.
We have to start somewhere but sweeping big issues under the carpet is not helpful for good policy, planning and implementation. There will be shock and awe down the track. Inflation. Unprofitable projects. Taxpayer bag holders for the losses. Unintended / unexpected scales of environmental and land use impacts from sourcing, recycling and disposal.
They will be confronted soon enough. Maybe they could be avoided if discussed more openly now.
My hope is that mankind's incredible inventiveness with find markedly better solutions to generation, transmission and storage. Lots on the go. Amazing research being done. But there are no guarrantees. It could go pear shaped.
Hmmm ive tried to learn a lot around this subject but dont recall every hearing about " Green Kerosene" Interesting the future of jet fuel.
Its going to be interesting to see how all this goes, you see a similar thing in the way media or people even governments talk about the transition to renewables thats just doesn't add up.
Most people have a view that we will just switch to solar and wind with batteries and pumped hydro to fill the gaps and then completely do away with fossil fuels.
This just doesn't seem realistic for a country like Australia that doesn't have the luxury of large amounts of hydro energy or even Nuclear to support things.
Ive always thought that while coal will get the arse as soon as we can, gas peaking plants will have to be used to not only fill gaps like batteries, but also a real energy safety net (batteries and pumped hydro alone would be risky as need recharging)
But ironically the only place ive ever heard this confirmed is the ABC podcast Australia are you listening (one on renewables) in one of the last episodes (second last from memory) towards the end they actually said they talked to a number of experts that all said its likely we will need to use gas peaking plants until about 2050 and that we already have over 50 of these gas peaking plants operating in Aus.
You could perhaps assume in time Green Hydrogen would eventually replace the gas as fuel for these peaking plants (i know they can be converted to run on Green hydrogen)
Question for the scientists: is this a real thing? Real chance to happen?
Link that follows is one of the most remarkable company presentations I've ever read:
https://cdn.fortescue.com/docs/default-source/announcements-and-reports/...
Yep that's real, incredible eh!
Regarding the humidity forecasts etc, not sure on that. Just commenting re the preso.
Anyone like sanguine like to comment? Never heard of body overheating, heart pumping 4x the blood, organs melting due to humidity. We are in one of the dry heat places of Oz, it gets way more humid up north and people seem to survive?
The modern world sits in a goldilocks temperture regime for its large population. We can't just move our huts and migrate. Ice age would create absolute havoc. Heat is more a killer than cold. The super high humidity heat scenario described by FMG sounds worse than I imagined.
Heat is just pne thing. Water shortages, damning rivers starving downstream countores like Iraq and Eqypt, crop failures, forced mass migration all could cause chaos.
I dont think electrification of everything is the path. Too much in the way of metals to be mined to generate, store and transmit. Some are nasty like Lithium. But also huge requirenets for metals like copper will force shifts into high cost mining of mlow grades. That will be very inflationary.
We need a huge supplies of a transportable energy dense energy source like a new oil to best fit our society and economy. So green hydrogen is an option along these lines.
But you can find plenty of stuff saying why hydrogen is not the answer.
Every time I get a glimmer of real hope for a neat solution it seems to have its own set of problems ......
According to a 2021 study published in The Lancet Planetary Health, cold is far more deadly. For every death linked to heat, nine are connected to cold. Excessive cold can exacerbate pre-existing medical conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/07/19/excessive-summer-hea...
The Fortescue presentation is mainly a marketing exercise. Buy our products and feel good because we’re no longer adding to the problem.
Not to downplay the seriousness of climate change, but there has to be an opportunity for Australia to transform the dry inland regions if humidity does increase in future.
Looking at the Australian annual average humidity map as at 3:00pm, there are huge areas with very low humidity at the hottest time of the day.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/maps/averages/relative-humidity/?maptype=1...
With the right equipment and approach, using solar power, the moisture content in the soil could be increased and the landscape could be transformed back to what it once was as well as for increased food production to help feed the rampaging hordes predicted in Twiggy’s presentation.
Coaster wrote:The Fortescue presentation is mainly a marketing exercise. Buy our products and feel good because we’re no longer adding to the problem.
Not to downplay the seriousness of climate change, but there has to be an opportunity for Australia to transform the dry inland regions if humidity does increase in future.
I'd say you're half-right, it's a marketing exercise but intended to fast-track (read: scare us to act) the move to green hydrogen, which Twiggy has enormous investment in.
Half noble, half cynical.
I think the division is 'Fortescue Future Industries', yet to be separated from the parent company. Personally I think this is the way to go, if people still want things like steel in their lives.
velocityjohnno wrote:I think the division is 'Fortescue Future Industries', yet to be separated from the parent company. Personally I think this is the way to go, if people still want things like steel in their lives.
I agree. Which I guess is why I'm keenly watching things develop down here in the Illawarra vis-a-vis wind farms. Fortescue have bought land around Port Kembla, as has Bluescope, as has the Uni of Wollongong, all in the aim of the region becoming a Renewable Energy Zone.
However, that's all contingent upon the wind farm getting the go ahead but it's currently met a very vocal, and soon to be mobilised, opposition. I figured there'd be some pushback, but underestimated just how much. Also, they're calling themselves the environmentalists and the wind farm proponents the evil enviro-wreckers. Feels a bit like Salem 1690.
If they have their way, there's a good chance the Illawarra region will prove too difficult and be passed over. Not sure what will happen to green hydrogen in Australia then. Nor what will happen to the steelworks.
Yes in that case it might be better if the wind farm goes ahead. I've mentioned being inspired driving around Port Augusta and seeing all the green tech infrastructure at work - feels like the future. Let us know if any witches are burned. And no interviews with the MSM.
Would I be right in thinking the farm, by providing renewable green energy (and despite it's EROEI cost) would power downstream industries, much like BP Kwinana would send product that they had processed as part of refining downstream, powering ag chemicals, plastics (I think) and many other value added businesses?
I have very little knowledge here, but could you obtain nitrates then power electrolysis, isolate the hydrogen and add to the N to get NH4 and have ammonia export as feedstock for fertilisers, or as a safer way to transport the hydrogen to energy end-consumers in Asia?
Ha ha...I'm keeping my head down on this one. I've got my reservations but now ain't the time for nuance. It's getting heated - only metaphorically at this point.
EDIT: Twin pronged motivations. With around 30%-40% of the state's coal power being decommissioned by 2025, they simply want to keep the lights on. Solar's doing great, though intermittent and hence terrible for base load, also supply chains relying on questionable extractive practices, and also no recycling system in place to capture the lithium and cobalt and whatever. Other main motivation is export to make up coming (next two to three decades) shortfall in coal export receipts. Current top four coal exports are Japan, Taiwan, Sth Korea, India, and all four have signed up to Net Zero. Green Hydro can/will be a good exchange, using our geographical advantage to sell to manufacturing countries.
Also an expectation that the REZ will stimulate innovation in a Silicon Valley way, hence bit of a real estate rush to be around the port.
Not sure about your other questions RE ammonia and shipping. There are lots of papers around at the moment though it can be hard to discern what's likely to happen and what's a moon shot.
Anyway, all could come to nought if the environmentalists have their way.
September has been unprecedented regarding global temperatures..
There's a mix of causes to the big spike. That being the banning on sulfur emissions from ships (which were buffering some of the warming we were seeing), the current El Niño and the injection of water vapor from the Tongan eruption.
This on top of the general warming trend thanks to the burning of fossil fuels since the start of the industrial revolution.
How do recent extreme global temperatures compare to climate models? Lets first look at the last generation of models (CMIP5), which have generally performed well at reproducing observations. Here we see observations well above the 95th percentile of models in September. pic.twitter.com/yTso8pUdma
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) October 5, 2023
Unreal wave of the day, Craig. That you knew it, got it, took it. Absolutely beautiful.
(are you regular footed? I think I remember you are. [asking as a goof])
Thanks basesix, yep lanky natural footer with a blonde top.
For two days in a row, #Carnarvon in WA has broken a 65 year old October Heat Record ->43.9C today is almost 18 degrees above the average. Insane.
— Alison Osborne (@Alison_Osborne_) October 16, 2023
That is insane . Who would have thought anyone would have lived in Carnarvon before air conditioners .
Kidding!
An excavator digging into Theodul glacier to prepare for early season ski races - shocking images in Zermatt. Is this the future of alpine skiing in the face of melting glaciers? The absolute wrong path, we need to see more climate action from this industry. pic.twitter.com/qxDwqaSSNv
— Protect Our Winters Switzerland (@POWSwitzerland) October 17, 2023
I wonder if this is normal or another silly idea .
I bet , with an El Niño Winter , that Zermatt has a record snow fall if it's a silly idea lol .
Like Vic building a desal plant after a run of El Nino's .
If we have a run of El Nino's , the plant will , finally , come in handy .
Mother Nature loves showing how silly we humans can be , trying to time things .
Pop Down wrote:I wonder if this is normal or another silly idea .
I bet , with an El Niño Winter , that Zermatt has a record snow fall if it's a silly idea lol .
Like Vic building a desal plant after a run of El Nino's .
If we have a run of El Nino's , the plant will , finally , come in handy .
Mother Nature loves showing how silly we humans can be , trying to time things .
Pop,
The Desal plant was built when Melbourne's water supply had dwindled to under 30% of capacity, and half of that was in the Thompson Dam.
Just one large bushfire in that area and the water held in the Thompson would have become unpotable, that is, not fit for drinking or any other use in fact. Now you're down to 15%., and in real strife.
The thing is no one can accurately predict the near term future, therefore the plant was built. Insurance if you like.
Or would you have preferred drastic water rationing?
All the armchair experts called it a white elephant but they would have been the first to start screaming if a 50 litre a day limit was imposed.
I totally agree , Salty .
My problem was when ( and maybe where ) they built it .
I remember , at the time , wondering if it would ever rain .
So our wonderful Politicans Water Management Experts waited for our ONE big dam to be almost empty and then thought it a good idea .
If they built it when the Thompson was full ( another dam somewhere under construction possibly ) and in Port Phillip Bay ( Portsea Front Beach , perhaps south of the pub haha . ) it would have been a third of the cost and made me much happier .
I don't think we have had to use it yet ( I know its been used ) . Now would be a good time to build another one or a dam .
Melbourne is growing incredibly . With current immigration into OZ off 4-500k p/a , lots more are coming .
Pop Down wrote:I totally agree , Salty .
My problem was when ( and maybe where ) they built it .
I remember , at the time , wondering if it would ever rain .
So our wonderful Politicans Water Management Experts waited for our ONE big dam to be almost empty and then thought it a good idea .
If they built it when the Thompson was full ( another dam somewhere under construction possibly ) and in Port Phillip Bay ( Portsea Front Beach , perhaps south of the pub haha . ) it would have been a third of the cost and made me much happier .
I don't think we have had to use it yet ( I know its been used ) . Now would be a good time to build another one or a dam .
Melbourne is growing incredibly . With current immigration into OZ off 4-500k p/a , lots more are coming .
Hi Pop,
The Desal plant and all water supply options was the subject of an extensive report compiled by Consulting Engineers.
Bear in mind Victoria, particularly the Melbourne region, displays a sad lack of raging rivers. In fact all bar one, the Mitchell, had been dammed. Also the Nationals at the time were against a dam on the Mitchell. It would also take up to 12 years and maybe 8 billion in todays money to build a dam. The Thompson project started in 1969 and was commissioned in 1983, then took many years to fill
The Desal plant was the best option.
Bear in mind also that it was called a BOOT Scheme. That is Build, Own, Operate and Transfer.
A Consortium was paid to Build Own and Operate the plant and after 30 years I think, the plant, in perfect working order, is returned to State ownership, at no cost.
Cheers.
Welcome back Hutchy,
There are plenty of f-orff huge dams being built in the MDB - they just happen to be private owned by corporate-ag business usually subsidised if not paid outright by taxpayers.
Both private owned and or public ideals are a real shit use of taxpayers money for the return when you take account of the impact on stream natural flows, agricultural productivity, landscape value and ecological health & function.
Re population growth - hell yeah - we are gunna need some desal of next level proportion. No fking way can our country carry that capacity re water supply.
We need nuclear energy for the desal.
It seems that no one takes Water seriously .
Only two things Melbourne can't do without on a DAILY basis .
Water and Energy ( electricity , gas , oil ) !
As we are in La Niña , I hope the desal plant is kept turned on , filling up the Thompson , at least .
Amazing that huge Private Dams can be built and no one talks about a Public Dam !
@craig , have you been following this ? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-18/possible-cyclone-forming-off-quee...
bonza wrote:Welcome back Hutchy,
There are plenty of f-orff huge dams being built in the MDB - they just happen to be private owned by corporate-ag business usually subsidised if not paid outright by taxpayers.
Both private owned and or public ideals are a real shit use of taxpayers money for the return when you take account of the impact on stream natural flows, agricultural productivity, landscape value and ecological health & function.Re population growth - hell yeah - we are gunna need some desal of next level proportion. No fking way can our country carry that capacity re water supply.
We need nuclear energy for the desal.
Hi Bonza
A wind farm was constructed to power the desal plant.
If you're ever down Kilcunda way, you'll see it.
Pop Down wrote:It seems that no one takes Water seriously .
Only two things Melbourne can't do without on a DAILY basis .
Water and Energy ( electricity , gas , oil ) !
As we are in La Niña , I hope the desal plant is kept turned on , filling up the Thompson , at least .
Amazing that huge Private Dams can be built and no one talks about a Public Dam !
Pops,
As bonza pointed out those private dams are in the Murray Darling Basin. The problem was that the NSW govt (primarily) over the years sold off the rights to more water than the river system could supply. The ALP under Penny Wong tried to fix the system 12 years ago but it's still a giant shit fight. The problems occur downstream when there is not enough water to sustain the river or for irrigation. The fish kills in the Menindee lakes are an example.
While the water rights system was meant to help farmers irrigate crops with a reasonable degree of certainty, trading water rights became a more profitable business for some.
Angus Taylor and Barnaby Joyce might be able to give you more information.
Read this:
https://michaelwest.com.au/barnaby-joyce-80m-valuation-discrepancy/
Thank you Salty and Bonza
I would make all the Private new dams BOOT's .
I know Melbourne's Water , unfortunately , is a political issue .
The Murray runs through different States resulting in a political DOG'S BREAKFAST .
Politicians helped start the problem .
I don't expect any to fix it .
High chance of early cyclone brewing in Coral Sea off Queensland coast, weather bureau sayshttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-20/high-chance-of-early-cyclone-brew...
That is super news , Supa .
I think ?
Going to Superbank Nov 10.... for a 50 year reunion with 3 old School buddies .
They are locals and predicted northerlies . I was more hopeful ( desperate ) .
3 of the 4 are hoping to make injury free comebacks , again ( no. 9 for me ) .
Hawaii and the Goldy ( possibly ) seem to be waking up early this year
.
I hope Hewy agrees :)
Not sure if anyone's been aware of Hurrican Otis, but it was the fastest deepening Hurricane since 1966.
Models didn't pick it either, all had it being a weak tropical storm but it went Category 5 very rapidly (black dotted line)..
Just to emphasize how poorly hurricane & global models performed for Hurricane Otis... here's the intensity forecasts initialized 24 hours ago, with the dotted black line showing verification: pic.twitter.com/DN5pf7lcOS
— Tomer Burg (@burgwx) October 25, 2023
Also the JWTC bulletins are always dry but this one started with "A nightmare scenario"..
Not sure the situation on the ground at Acapulco, but it's since passed over and weakened.
"Here’s how quickly the storm escalated on Tuesday." (CNN)
4 a.m. – 65 mph tropical storm: The NHC first forecasts a hurricane and says there is “about 1 in 4 chance of rapid strengthening during the next 24 hours.”
10 a.m. – 70 mph tropical storm: The NHC ups its intensity forecast slightly and notes some forecast models show “a greater than normal probability” of rapid intensification and “further upward adjustments to the intensity forecast are possible later today.”
1 p.m. – 80 mph Category 1 hurricane: The hurricane tracks into very warm water off the Mexico coast and begins rapidly intensifying, aided by moist air and favorable high level winds, two ingredients that allow cyclones to grow stronger. “Further strengthening [is] likely until landfall,” the hurricane center warns.
2 to 3 p.m. – Hurricane Hunters fly through the eye of Otis, discovering it was much stronger than satellites had estimated.
4 p.m. – 125 mph Category 3 hurricane: The NHC dramatically alters its intensity forecast and calls for an “extremely dangerous” Category 4 hurricane with sustained winds of 140 mph shortly before landfall.
7 p.m. – 145 mph Category 4 hurricane: The NHC warns “…there are no signs of this explosive intensification stopping,” and forecasts Otis to reach Category 5 for the first time.
10 p.m. – 160 mph Category 5 hurricane: The hurricane center warns “a nightmare scenario is unfolding for southern Mexico this evening with rapidly intensifying Otis approaching the coastline.”
1:25 a.m. CDT Wednesday - Otis makes landfall as a 165 mph, Category 5 hurricane.
Ariel footage shows the trail of devastating destruction
Tropical storm/hurrican forming off Guatemala/Honduras and the northerly winds streaming down GOM across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec into the Pacific Ocean
1985..
Happy Carl Sagan Day!
— David Ho (@_david_ho_) November 10, 2023
Back in 1985, Carl Sagan told Congress that continuing to burn fossil fuels will increase global temperature, cause climate change, melt glaciers and ice sheets, and cause sea level rise.pic.twitter.com/ojfWSbtrsT
So this one's 3 months ago, but one would think the trend would have continued. Craig & Ben - any update on Antarctic ice situation, and could it be influenced by volcano blowing all that water up into SHemi atmosphere? And, could the dramatic ice loss over winter be responsible for any of our weird weather in this latest rain event (S NSW, here's a link for anyone reading in the future)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-29/major-weather-hits-queensland-nsw...
The Antarctic ice was the one bit that seemed to hold up (and indeed build, like in 2014-16) while warmer temperatures and more variable weather have occurred elsewhere. Not any more, it seems.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-05/global-carbon-project-finds-world...
"Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have increased over the past year despite most of the world committing to net zero targets, according to new research.
The Global Carbon Project releases its carbon budget each year, with this year's figures showing a 1.1 per cent increase in emissions across the world.
The report found there was no sign of the rapid and deep decrease in total emissions needed to prevent dangerous climate change."
Those new coal fired plants I've gone on & on about get a mention here.
velocityjohnno wrote:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-05/global-carbon-project-finds-world...
"Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have increased over the past year despite most of the world committing to net zero targets, according to new research.
The Global Carbon Project releases its carbon budget each year, with this year's figures showing a 1.1 per cent increase in emissions across the world.
The report found there was no sign of the rapid and deep decrease in total emissions needed to prevent dangerous climate change."
Those new coal fired plants I've gone on & on about get a mention here.
The problem is exactly in this statement from the article:
"We need more renewable energy, we need it faster, we need it bigger, we need it everywhere, we need everything," Dr Canadell said.
No one ever achieved anything with statements like this. It's an ambiguous wish list. We need everything everywhere means nothing.
Yep we had this debate about 8 years back on one of these threads, one side suggested you do what you can where you can in your own life to reduce the impact.
VJ - I hope the other side said prepare for whatever , as CO2 will be hard to get down with only one side working .
The Russians , OPEC etc won't stop increasing .
It , apparently , will take a 100 years plus to get the temperature down , EVEN if the World gets to Zero2050 .
Energy makes the Human world go round .
Humans need more energy to grow , especially in Africa ( not it's population as growth rates will slow ) .
Humans will invent a really cool , NEW , energy source soon imho .
Otherwise we will deal with the affects .
No other choice and humans are smart , usually .
Nuclear is not the way forward imho .
Agree to much of that, here's Elon to help:
VJ - I did see that nice inducement a while ago .
The World should chuck in another Billion imho .
That will get a few more working on it .
edit - Shit , THEY spend a billion on a fn plane , lets make it $US10 billion .
Moving this here..
batfinkWEDNESDAY, 13 DEC 2023 at 9:20AM
"Frog, I would be sceptical about those figures. Extremely so, same for the figures from sea slug of 30,000 electricians required.
It’s not that they are complete bullshit, more that they are manufactured, usually produced by consulting companies that are calling the tune of the payer, who has an agenda.
Nuclear isn’t going to be ready in time for Australia. Just locating one anywhere will take 20 years. Nuclear is also a poor fit for working with intermittent energy sources of wind and solar, and finally the carbon emissions in the concrete required takes most of the life of the plant to pay back.
There are easier solutions. Basically anything is easier."
------------------------------------
Nuclear is not the silver bullet - but can and should be part of the solution. Can we get to 100% renewables - no doubt. but when? Will it be quick enough in a climate emergency? A "easier", smarter way is to include Nuclear in our RE energy transition.
20 years comes around real quick and a good chance it would take less than that for SMR if the ban was lifted and incentives provided. I have seen estimates of less than 10 years so reckon that 20 year figure is exaggerated. think i have posted that link previously.
What happens when the next pandemic comes, or a war with a RE mineral rich country? Covid showed just how fragile our supplies chains are disrupted. All of a sudden the economics have shifted.. Big time.
There was a plan to hit 82% RE by 2030. It's highly likely we won't get there. How long will it take?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-06/australia-likely-to-fall-short-of...
And…. It's gunna be hard with the increasingly number of NIMBY's and now greenies (hello off shore wind farms) and massive challenges to our fragile and declining biodiversity. Maybe they are right?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2023-12-13/renewable-transition-impa...
Reckon you are wrong on the emissions v energy source. It's not as clear cut as you say. See the IPCC reference as a start Page 1335 - note the variances min/med/max emisssions per sector.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf
Other interesting links vs materials overall.
Concrete and materials:
https://environmentalprogress.org/why-clean-energy-is-in-crisis
Refer to the Table: Materials requirements (excluding fuels) for electricity generation technologies: tonnes per TWh:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment...
https://theconversation.com/is-nuclear-power-zero-emission-no-but-it-isn...
The materials used to construct power plants
https://www.freeingenergy.com/facts/compare-power-plant-construction-ste...
"Solar, hydro and wind systems require 10-15 times more concrete and steel than building a nuclear reactor " so says Bill Gates. :
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2022/03/20/natural-gas-versus-nuc...
Thanks Bonza, my mistake posts should have been on this thread
Breaking: Malaga airport has just reached 29.4°C, smashing its December heat record by an unprecedented margin.
— Mika Rantanen (@mikarantane) December 12, 2023
The previous record of 24.6°C (from 1998) was beaten by almost 5 degrees. pic.twitter.com/gpnl6iA621
.