Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

[FenceFurniture]

This...

or so we swoop in and take the plunge

...is trying to characterise this..

C) proceed apace with developing technologies to reduce our emissions as quickly as we can?

...as turning off everything instantly, and I won't have that characterisation put on it. I said developing technologies, not changing everything overnight.

a) I believe we will still be burning and using fossil fuels until they run out. Why? The World, as a whole will not embrace alternatives be it due to cost, ignorance or plain stubbornness. Coal will always be mined if we want steel and other metals.

You can't really make such a broad statement when we have no idea of what technologies will be available around the second half of this century. I strongly suspect that oil will be virtually unused a fair while before it runs out - I think the demand will drop dramatically from about 2030 onwards and that will make the production hugely expensive for any vehicles that still require it (like my bulldozer example from earlier). You can be quite sure that it will be commerce that dictates the technology that is used, and ignorance & stubbornness won't play in the equation (although maybe at first).

New technologies take time and money and you can’t bankrupt a country for the sake of a quick change Nobody (in this thread) is suggesting such an emotive strategy

Some, not all, use permanent magnet motors and these require rare earth elements which produce many toxic substances during the extraction process. Then you have the production then disposal of lithium batteries may move to Poly unit’s but they have problems of their own.

Yes, there is no doubt that there are other problems to be overcome. The biggest existential crisis we have now though is that we MUST reduce CO2 emissions and existence.

So we need a new battery that is less energy hungry to produce and less polluting at the end if it’s life and given our vast country, more storage capacity.

There are a great many battery technologies under development - have a search for them. Some of them sound absolutely fantastic for some applications.

So, do we rush ahead and mandate by law only electric vehicles

Who is suggesting that?

Your replies sometimes have a lot of extreme language in them: "rush ahead", "overnight", "bankrupt", "swoop in", "plunge".

What about nuclear. Look at UK, France, USA, South Korea, Germany, China, Canada.

What about it? Show some examples of nuclear being taken up rather than phased out in favour of renewables, in those seven countries. Do you want to see the waste stored here?

[FenceFurniture]

On the world stage we are a nobody

On the contrary - EVERYBODY is watching us at the moment, and will probably continue to do so. We could harness that.

[Beardy]

On the contrary - EVERYBODY is watching us at the moment, and will probably continue to do so. We could harness that.

Do you think so? I think they have probably already moved on to the next latest news worthy story and we are yesterdays news

[FenceFurniture]

With regards to Brett's suggestion of reducing fossil fired power station down to 10% I am not sure that is practical

I don't mean now...when it is possible to do so. "perhaps 10%" is just a figure as an example.

[Bushmiller]

Solar drops out of the equation at night time and that is where the battery storage and the hydro come into play.

Still some way to go in reducing the use of coal compared to countries like Germany, but remarkable progress given the policy vacuum in which would-be investors have been making decisions. How much further we could have gone with better political leadership here.

Our coal fired power stations in Australia are going to progressively reach their used by date, albeit now at too slow a rate. Once decommissioned they will not be replaced, at least with private investment. There has only ever been one privately funded coal powered station built in Australia, and that went bust about the time it was commissioned. Despite the talk coming from the rural right, it is very unlikely that a government of any persuasion will fund (or even partially fund) another coal fired powered station here. Although, after recent revelations, it seems that pork barrelling is fair play and the deep north may yet need a bit more of that to be rewarded for their vote!

It's not a case of whether renewables will replace fossil fuels but how rapidly. Understandably, the coal interest (unions, management and investors) are fighting a rearguard action to slow the inevitable down. An enlightened government (of either persuasion) would expedite the exit while supporting those who will be most affected (the workers and their communities). But, the investors will be on their own, and increasingly so, with stranded assets. The smart money left long ago. At this stage the industry is lobbying hard, with some success ("here, take this lump of coal into parliament and show how harmless it is"), but the last one out will get to turn off the lights in the coal mine, not the country.

Closing down our emissions from coal can't come soon enough if we are to request other countries to step up their efforts, which we must do if we are to collectively beat this globally.

It's farcical (can't think of a better word, I'm sure there is) that countries like the UK, Germany and those in Scandinavia are doing the heavy lifting while we here in Australia, where we will disproportionately suffer the most from CC, are doing so little over and above (if that is what we are actually doing) our pathetic target.

Neil

Taking your paragraphs as quoted above in turn:

Not too much battery storage. The existing battery storage is minimal and really only emergency back up (The Tesla is the most famous example, although not the only installation), but it can only deliver 100MW for a single hour and then it is history. It's main function for the moment is for frequency control, at which it is actually exceptional. Hydro is OK if you have the water. (Ask the Tasmanians.)

Agreed. If I was a private investor, having regard to the government attitudes, I wouldn't touch Australia with a barge pole.

I agree coal fired stations (and Gas fired too for that matter) will be phased out according to how economic they are. I am not sure which private station went bust after commissioning or that it was the only one ever. I work at a privately owned and built station, Millmerran, QLD, as opposed to a government station that was sold off to private enterprise and Millmerran is going strong having been first commissioned in 2002. It is true that we did not make any significant money until about 2009 when another station that ran out of cooling water caused a greater market demand. That was our first year of profit and demonstrates just how fickle the market is (not overly encouraging for potential investors). The station was conceived in the late 90s and it was deemed the economic entry point (price wise) was $35/MWhr. The station came on line and price promptly fell to $25/MWhr. Since that time we have been much more successful and are the second most energy efficient station in the country and will arguably be one of the last if not the last to be closed down: Not that I will be there.

I am surprised at the permission to open new coal mines and it is to my mind both stupid and very possibly insidious. Take the Adani mine that has just been fined in the courts ($3 million I think) for infringing their mining conditions. They had undertaken the infringement even before full approval of the mine had been given. It doesn't bode well for their future behaviour.

Regards
Paul

[NeilS]

From a practical point of view, Australia is a minor contributor in the scheme of things so even if we reduce our emissions to 0, unless the majority of the world players did their bit the outcome will be the same.

On the world stage we are a nobody

The point I am making is we also need to be mindful that we don’t sabotage our economy for little more than a placebo effect outcome.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on all three of those points, Beardy.

1. Our share of CO2 missions may only be a relatively minor contribution to global emissions, but as a country we stand to lose disproportionately from CC. It's not in our interest to do nothing. Unless we do our fair share of the heavy lifting we cannot call on other countries to lift their fair share of the weight to benefit us.
2. On the world stage we are more than a nobody. After the 2000 Olympics I was travelling overseas and even people in remote areas of the US knew who we were. Ask the residence of the little town of Villers Bretonneux about Australians. Ask Wi-Fi and cocklear implant users how useful those technologies are. Yes, we have a relatively small population for our landmass, but our population is about the same size as Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland combined. And, we are wealthy, very wealthy. Our GDP in 2019 was (est until 4th Qtr figures in) was A$1.89 trillion, according to the World Bank 13th behind the economic powerhouse of South Korea and according to the United Nations 13th in the world behind Russia. But, because of our small population, our median wealth per adult is only second to Switzerland's. Poor bugger me, no way! We are large enough, clever enough and wealthy enough to more than pull our weight on this one.
3. I disagree with you most on your last point. Not only will a shift to a green economy not sabotage our economic well-being, it will, if done properly, rescue us from our current economic torpor and set us up as a strong economy for the remainder of the 21stC. Yes, our old fossil fuel economy will be "wrecked", but that is going to happen anyway if we do nothing. The compelling economic arguments for the shift has been put very well by Prof. Ross Garnaut in his book, Superpower: Australia’s Low-Carbon Opportunity, La Trobe University Press, 2019. A brief review of the book can be read here on that hotbed of lefty thinking (not), the Lowy Institute. The reviewer summed up with the words, "Only the most recalcitrant, blinkered, and self-interested could argue with much of the blueprint outlined here. That doesn’t mean they won’t, of course. ... And yet, if we can’t address these problems in a country like Australia with all of its compelling reasons for immediate action – many of which are also surprisingly positive and in our collective interest – why would we expect any other country to do so?"

Let me be clear, I'm not arguing the science here, just for Australia's capacity to take unilateral action on our emissions if we are convinced that we should do so; how this would then allow us in all conscience to lean on other countries to come along with us; and the economic benefits that would flow from doing so compared to doing nothing or dragging the chain.

[Lappa]

“You can't really make such a broad statement when we have no idea of what technologies will be available around the second half of this century. I strongly suspect that oil will be virtually unused a fair while before it runs out - I think the demand will drop dramatically from about 2030 onwards and that will make the production hugely expensive for any vehicles that still require it (like my bulldozer example from earlier).”

Is is that a change in tune or an example of forgetting what you previously posted?

Post #. 329 In answer to a post from Beardy that says “ by immediate future I am suggesting perhaps 5 to 10 years who knows”

You responded “I deeply suspect that will be too late”

Now your saying 2030 to the second half of this century.

Which one is it?.

I used words like swoop, rush ahead, overnight and bankrupt in response to your Option c) and your apparent belief from post 329 that the end was nigh.

[FenceFurniture]

On the world stage we are a nobody

We are a member of the G20 - the top 20 economies in the world.

[FenceFurniture]

You are just trying to twist my words Lappa, for reasons best known to you. You are conflating two separate things.

Everyone talks about our dirty fuel source but the reality is we don’t have a viable alternative so we are stuck with it for the immediate future

And Beardy responded with "5-10 years". I then responded that "I deeply suspect that will be too late" (with reference to getting going properly with transitioning). That has nothing to do with when I think oil will go into decline - they are two separate things.

In other words, and hopefully to satisfy even the most pedantic amongst us: the is a body of CC scientists who think we may already be past the tipping point of terrible warming, and not being able to rectify it properly, regardless of what we do. That is a totally different thing to when I (as a non-expert) might postulate that oil will be in decline.

Now your saying 2030 to the second half of this century. Which one is it?.

No, that is a mischaracterisation. I actually said:

I think the demand (for oil) will drop dramatically from about 2030 onwards

That doesn't mean that it still won't be too late - it just means that is when I think the demand for oil will drop (and I really can't see it being earlier than then). I think that there will be dramatic developments in the next decade for Solar power & storage, electric vehicles, and the Poles & Wires grid. I think that one of the major reasons for that is the result of this summer - even SmoKo is shifting his attitude.

They are two separate things. One suspects that you just want to argue with anything I say - trying to pick the tiniest little holes, again for reasons best known to you. If you want to quote me, do get it right, and don't conflate separate issues.

[Beardy]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on all three of those points, Beardy.

1. Our share of CO2 missions may only be a relatively minor contribution to global emissions, but as a country we stand to lose disproportionately from CC. It's not in our interest to do nothing. Unless we do our fair share of the heavy lifting we cannot call on other countries to lift their fair share of the weight to benefit us.
2. On the world stage we are more than a nobody. After the 2000 Olympics I was travelling overseas and even people in remote areas of the US knew who we were. Ask the residence of the little town of Villers Bretonneux about Australians. Ask Wi-Fi and cocklear implant users how useful those technologies are. Yes, we have a relatively small population for our landmass, but our population is about the same size as Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland combined. And, we are wealthy, very wealthy. Our GDP in 2019 was (est until 4th Qtr figures in) was A$1.89 trillion, according to the World Bank 13th behind the economic powerhouse of South Korea and according to the United Nations 13th in the world behind Russia. But, because of our small population, our median wealth per adult is only second to Switzerland's. Poor bugger me, no way! We are large enough, clever enough and wealthy enough to more than pull our weight on this one.
3. I disagree with you most on your last point. Not only will a shift to a green economy not sabotage our economic well-being, it will, if done properly, rescue us from our current economic torpor and set us up as a strong economy for the remainder of the 21stC. Yes, our old fossil fuel economy will be "wrecked", but that is going to happen anyway if we do nothing. The compelling economic arguments for the shift has been put very well by Prof. Ross Garnaut in his book, Superpower: Australia’s Low-Carbon Opportunity, La Trobe University Press, 2019. A brief review of the book can be read here on that hotbed of lefty thinking (not), the Lowy Institute. The reviewer summed up with the words, "Only the most recalcitrant, blinkered, and self-interested could argue with much of the blueprint outlined here. That doesn’t mean they won’t, of course. ... And yet, if we can’t address these problems in a country like Australia with all of its compelling reasons for immediate action – many of which are also surprisingly positive and in our collective interest – why would we expect any other country to do so?"

Let me be clear, I'm not arguing the science here, just for Australia's capacity to take unilateral action on our emissions if we are convinced that we should do so; how this would then allow us in all conscience to lean on other countries to come along with us; and the economic benefits that would flow from doing so compared to doing nothing or dragging the chain.

Yes but a substantial part of our wealth comes from the mining sector, what I am saying is we need to be mindful of not killing that off without having something to fill the void all to further reduce our 1% input to the issue.

i am not saying don’t do it but let’s maintain a sensible approach. Everyone is talking about transitioning but we still don’t know what we are transitioning to

[FenceFurniture]

Well the footage in the clip you posted was already edited to only show the parts that fit the agenda before we look any further. Even then Molan was never permitted to finish a single statement without interjection by the stacked audience. From the sentence fragments from that interchange between Hamish and Molan can you conclusively answer "evidence of what" is Molan not relying?

The whole 1.25 minutes of it is "cherry picked" and totally without any definite context.

A little slow getting to this, but I have now had an opportunity to watch the Q&A episode, and all I can say is to draw those conclusions, you couldn't possibly have watched the episode. I watched the episode, then the news clip, then that part of the episode again.

Then I ran them in parallel in two separate browsers to compare exactly what was cut out.

The news clip was 1:25 (85 seconds) long.
The whole paragraph live was 2:50 (170 seconds) including the Moderator calming/shooshing the audience on 2-3 occasions. There was nothing edited out that changed the context or meaning of what Molan said. Nothing whatsoever. The first part was basically him saying we are getting hotter and drier, but that he's not sure that humans have had any impact, but "he's got an open mind and would love to be convinced one way or another".

What was deleted was 21 seconds from 45:30, and 64 seconds from 46:09 (where the moderator was trying to get Molan to answer the question he was asked about "what was this info that crosses his desk every day". That makes up the 1:25 that was edited out of the news clip, and didn't change the thrust of it whatsoever.

The news clip was 100% representative of what Molan said, and in particular the second part (which is really what all the contention and jeering was about) from the words "I'm not relying on evidence". In the live broadcast from the time he started saying that (47:15) to the end of the paragraph (47:50) is 35 seconds, and in the news clip it is 36 seconds, so is taken verbatim. Verbatim - exactly as it was said. Nothing added, nothing deleted.

Very obviously that means it was not cherry picked, and is absolutely in context. In fact all that was edited out (first part only) was Molan not answering the question he was asked.

As for Molan "not finishing a single statement without interjection...well he finished all of his statements except for perhaps one, and there were IIRC two audience interjections. Nothing particularly new there when someone is making contentious, or outrageous statements. Let's face it - when was the last time any politician didn't have to be drawn back to the point after waffling on with other stuff. Molan may have been a Major General in the Army, and he may have been a very good one - he probably was - but now he is just another politician with a party line to push.

The Liberal party famously even gave him an unwinnable spot on the Senate ticket, so they couldn't have valued his services or political skills too highly.

[FenceFurniture]

i am not saying don’t do it but let’s maintain a sensible approach.

Of course we should Beardy, just with more conviction and urgency, and a whole lot less doubters and nay-sayers holding things up.

Obviously everybody is mindful of our economy (which is too reliant on mining and resources). We need to develop it so that our very reliance on such things doesn't leave us stranded with bugger all income. As Attenborough said "If China jumps then so will everyone else".

[FenceFurniture]

Managed to take in Media Watch too, which is devoted to the reporting of the fires. (it may be on the ABC but it is not an ABC production)

[Lappa]

My reply wasn’t about the oil situation. If you bothered to read your post that I quoted it was clear that the issue was that you said we have no idea of what technologies will be available into the second half of the century but your response to Beardy (5 to 10 years) was that you were afraid we didn’t Have that long.
So, if the Earth is doomed and Climate Change caused by CO2 emissions is irreversible in 5, 10, 20 or even 30 years, what will be the use of these new technologies developed after the event?
The quoted year of 2030 was just a 10 year period from this year.

[FenceFurniture]

Whatever , I am just going to agree that you want to disagree.