A question about Australia's contribution

For scientific papers on AGW, record happenings in the Arctic and the Greenland, Himalayan and Antarctic icesheets. Also weatherstorms and higher than average rainfalls and other extreme weather events.

A question about Australia's contribution

Postby BigOl64 » 25 Oct 2017, 09:23

I don't understand our obsession with only the CO2 produced by our coal fired power stations.

The reality of our contributions are as such, google check if you want.

Australia contributes about 1.24% of the world's CO2 output

Electricity production contributes only 38% of that 1.24%

Old coal fired power station make up 80% of electrical production

New HELE coal fired power stations like the ones being built by the rest of the world will reduce our CO2 output by 40% of that 35% of that 1%

And our base load power will stabilise to where it needs to be


So why the insanity of of intermittent power that seems to crippling industry and consumers with massive costs and power issue we really don't need?

They continue to run coal fired power plants, but use the electricity from solar / wind, the coal is on standby if the other two crap out. If you wanted to know why our power is so fucking expensive.

It's like a bunch of sh1t throwing monkeys got to be in control of our energy policy and everyone is too afraid to lock them back in their cage. :mad




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_Australia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-01/japan-spruiks-coal-fired-power-plants-to-australia/8577464


Also worth a bit of a read too https://industry.gov.au/Office-of-the-Chief-Economist/Publications/Documents/aes/2016-australian-energy-statistics.pdf
User avatar
BigOl64
Jack Russell
 
Posts: 181
Joined: 29 Sep 2017, 11:35
spamone: Animal

Re: A question about Australia's contribution

Postby HBS Guy » 25 Oct 2017, 10:09

We need to do our bit.

The industry needs policy stability to drive investment. This is for both fossil fuel and renewable energy. Lib policy paralysis means coal fired generators and renewable generators do not get the investment they need.

HELE does not reduce carbon pollution all that much.

Renewable energy with storage and an ultrahigh voltage DC grid can provide baseload power.

I would prefer nuclear to coal to be the non–intermittent power source. I think building a reasonable size nuclear generator would revitalise a lot of effort: industry, universities, government. Nuclear, like coal is a fixed load producer, ideal to drive pumped hydro pumps at night. Is expensive and inflexible but any sort of carbon trading will see it be economical.
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 41819
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: A question about Australia's contribution

Postby BigOl64 » 25 Oct 2017, 14:14

But 'our bit' seems exceedingly tiny and not really worth a lot of effort. Certainly no where near the amount of bullsh1t we are currently going through.

We need to spend the absolute minimum to get us through this energy issue and look at what is best for the consumer and not what is best for some politician's ego / delusion.

Do you think 1 nuclear power station will do the trick for the whole country, considering the los of power over long distances.


The solution is most definitely not more fucken solar or wind farms.
User avatar
BigOl64
Jack Russell
 
Posts: 181
Joined: 29 Sep 2017, 11:35
spamone: Animal

Re: A question about Australia's contribution

Postby HBS Guy » 25 Oct 2017, 14:23

We need a settled, bipartisan energy policy to drive investment.

Ultrahigh voltage DC lines have very small losses.

I see a mix of central and dispersed generators as ideal. A good nuclear generator in SA would help power SA and Vic does not have to export power to SA.

I would prefer to see much more renewable energy—rooftop solar and small wind generators for houses and commercial buildings but true utility scale solar and (offshore) windfarms.

Renewables are cheaper than coal.
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 41819
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: A question about Australia's contribution

Postby BigOl64 » 25 Oct 2017, 17:10

HBS Guy wrote:We need a settled, bipartisan energy policy to drive investment.

Ultrahigh voltage DC lines have very small losses.

I see a mix of central and dispersed generators as ideal. A good nuclear generator in SA would help power SA and Vic does not have to export power to SA.

I would prefer to see much more renewable energy—rooftop solar and small wind generators for houses and commercial buildings but true utility scale solar and (offshore) windfarms.

Renewables are cheaper than coal.



Renewable maybe cheaper than coal if you ignore the fact that a coal fired plant needs to be kept running just in case the wind stops or the sun goes down, then that shit become vastly more expensive.
User avatar
BigOl64
Jack Russell
 
Posts: 181
Joined: 29 Sep 2017, 11:35
spamone: Animal

Re: A question about Australia's contribution

Postby HBS Guy » 25 Oct 2017, 17:51

You do keep on ignoring storage.
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 41819
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: A question about Australia's contribution

Postby BigOl64 » 25 Oct 2017, 18:10

HBS Guy wrote:You do keep on ignoring storage.



Yes those things that sound great in theory, but don't seem to be in much use anywhere, why is that?

Lake Dalrymple on the Burdekin Dam is 220 km2 (fucken huge) and when fitted with hydro power can power 30 000 houses, that is a lot of dams that need to be built to get enough storage for power and considering that both labor and the greens are dead against dams unlikely to happen. How many more solar panel need to be put in to refill all this damn? And what would be the cost of massive damn as well as massive solar farms.

I know the cost of a HELE power plant that can be built in NQ, about $2.2 bil of just over 4 years of the money currently used to subsidise the costs of power loss to the north.

It can be built starting now and finished in a couple of years, at a known cost with current technology and accessible resources, and it will reduce our infinitesimally small CO2 output by even more.

We want fast, easy cheap solutions, a HELE plant is all those things and it is what technically advance countries are using not maybe if we are lucky renewable solution that No-one is using for base load.
User avatar
BigOl64
Jack Russell
 
Posts: 181
Joined: 29 Sep 2017, 11:35
spamone: Animal

Re: A question about Australia's contribution

Postby HBS Guy » 25 Oct 2017, 18:12

It won’t reduce our carbon emissions all that much.
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 41819
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: A question about Australia's contribution

Postby BigOl64 » 26 Oct 2017, 08:00

HBS Guy wrote:It won’t reduce our carbon emissions all that much.



Yes our 38% of just over 1% of the world's CO2 output

So fucken what?


We need cheap reliable base load power and we needed it yesterday, not in 5 years or 20 years, yesterday and the quickest way to do this is a HELE plant, not dams and solar.

We have proven yet again that big projects are not our thing, why the fuck would we chance tens if not hundreds of billions on thousands of dams and hundreds of square kilometres of solar panels?
User avatar
BigOl64
Jack Russell
 
Posts: 181
Joined: 29 Sep 2017, 11:35
spamone: Animal

Re: A question about Australia's contribution

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Oct 2017, 08:09

Why would “we” chance it? To make a big profit of course!
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 41819
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: A question about Australia's contribution

Postby BigOl64 » 26 Oct 2017, 09:31

HBS Guy wrote:Why would “we” chance it? To make a big profit of course!



We don't want to make a big profit, we want and have always wanted CHEAP, reliable power and since no country is even close to base loading solar or wind, it will be neither of those.


Base load coal, gas & hydro, peak load solar and wind (maybe if it works).
User avatar
BigOl64
Jack Russell
 
Posts: 181
Joined: 29 Sep 2017, 11:35
spamone: Animal

Re: A question about Australia's contribution

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Oct 2017, 09:34

With storage any power source can be baseload.
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 41819
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: A question about Australia's contribution

Postby BigOl64 » 26 Oct 2017, 09:51

HBS Guy wrote:With storage any power source can be baseload.


And will billions and billions of dollars we can easily pay for that storage.

Based on the cost of that battery in SA, how much do you reckon it will cost to use that system

Based on the size of the Burdekin dam 220 km2 for 30 000 households, how much land will disappear from use, not every can built a snow scheme as the geography won't allow it.

This is why it is still only theoretical in every country looking at base load the shit is expensive and consumes vast areas of land. Most industrialised countries are building HELE plants not this dams and batteries stuff, for a very good reason. Try to find out why your brilliant plan is being considered by no-one.
User avatar
BigOl64
Jack Russell
 
Posts: 181
Joined: 29 Sep 2017, 11:35
spamone: Animal

Re: A question about Australia's contribution

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Oct 2017, 15:35

That battery is to regulate the frequency of the power on the network. It is not to supply emrgency power to houses.

DFAT have been secretly lobbying overseas lenders to lend to Adani.
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 41819
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: A question about Australia's contribution

Postby HBS Guy » 01 Nov 2017, 09:18

The UN Environment Programme’s Emissions Gap 2017 report says our national pledges to cut carbon emissions fall well short of what’s needed to avoid dangerous climate change, with Australia likely to miss its 2030 commitment by a wide margin.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-to-far-exceed-2030-paris-climate-pledge-as-need-for-action-rises-un-20171030-gzbiwj.html

And the Greenland and West Antarctic icesheets continue sliding into the sea at ever increasing rates.

It is going to take huge floods—they are coming, Hurricane Sandy was just a foretaste—on the east coast of the US for AGW to be taken seriously.
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 41819
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37


Return to Global Warming and Australian Energy Market

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests