Albanese - how long?

[Kwality]

Albo, beware the LEANrs within:
the Labor Environment Action Network was founded by Labor’s home affairs spokeswoman Kristina Keneally and opposition cabinet secretary Jenny McAllister to push the party into stronger climate change action.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

1) who gives a sh*t whether denmark is a net exporter or a net importer.

I do, which is why I asked you. Do you not understand that people aren't going to be convinced by your argument if you get basic facts wrong?

Do you not understand the issue at hand after 30 years? Geez it is hard to hold a sensible debate when the counter party is mistakenly focused on import and export of energy rather than CO2.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think Denmark's domestic energy is produced by?

The issue at hand is reducing CO2 and you can see dirty denmark has failed the planet. Meanwhile world leaders in CO2 are France, NZ, iceland, ontario, Norway, Sweden, parts of South America, Tasmania. What is the common factor with all of the successful nations? Hydro and nuclear.

Do you think adopting silly Trump-style nicknames makes you more convincing? Let me assure you it doesn't. Hydro cannot be used by those without the natural resources for it. Nuclear brings its own set of problems. While I acknowledge that modern reactors have a far lower risk of accidents than previous technology, nuclear has long since peaked in global energy percentage share, because the capital investment cost is incredibly high. Renewables are both cheaper and more environmentally friendly.

2) your decision tree decision making is poor. As you're considering the import of power from the hydro and nuclear from northern neighbours before identifying denmark as having a successful renewables strategy or otherwise.

Ironic that you're calling anyone else's decision making poor when you make up statements that fall apart the minute anyone questions them.

That is despite having hydro and nuclear support from its northern neighbours (as I type 36% of energy in Denmark is coming from Sweden (6%) and Norway (29%)).

I'll ask you again, your source is? The entire idea of interconnected grids is that energy is produced where it is cheapest at any one time. Identifying a split second in time and taking it as representative of long term trends is incredibly bad logic.

Please get it through your head that we must look at renewables from the perspective of; are they effective. To work that out, look at renewables from the perspective of producing power to meet demand rather than producing power when it works. Otherwise your calculations on CO2 will be always be in error.

Please get it through your head that the energy share of renewables is growing and growing while all others are shrinking. Any engineering challenges with storage will be solved over time. Nuclear isn't the answer, and fossil fuels certainly aren't either.

 

[Caesar]

Any engineering challenges with storage will be solved over time.

Glibly handwaving a huge problem doesn’t make it disappear.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Glibly handwaving a huge problem doesn’t make it disappear.

You can call it glibly handwaving if you want, but the amount of money being pumped into renewable energy development well outstrips the equivalent figures for nuclear or "clean coal". There is only one way towards a low carbon future (unless fusion somehow finally becomes practical) and there is enough investment there to make it happen.

 

[Caesar]

You can call it glibly handwaving if you want, but the amount of money being pumped into renewable energy development well outstrips the equivalent figures for nuclear or "clean coal".

“Throw enough money at it and hopefully it will sort itself out” has never been a great strategy for solving anything.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

“Throw enough money at it and hopefully it will sort itself out” has never been a great strategy for solving anything.

Pretending technology is just going to stay static has never been a great strategy either, especially when dealing with potentially catastrophic threats.

 

[Caesar]

Pretending technology is just going to stay static

I don’t see anyone doing that.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I don’t see anyone doing that.

I see you implying the problem won't be sorted out.

 

[Caesar]

I see you implying the problem won't be sorted out.

I’m saying that maybe you shouldn’t assume it will be sorted out.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I’m saying that maybe you shouldn’t assume it will be sorted out.

If it isn't, how else will climate change be limited?

 

[Caesar]

If it isn't, how else will climate change be limited?

That remains to be seen. It may very well not be.

Nonetheless energy policy shouldn’t be entirely predicated on the blithe assumption that we will solve a problem that to date has proven mostly intractable.

 

[Kwality]

Pretending technology is just going to stay static has never been a great strategy either, especially when dealing with potentially catastrophic threats.

how is carbon capture travelling?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

That remains to be seen. It may very well not be.

Nonetheless energy policy shouldn’t be entirely predicated on the blithe assumption that we will solve a problem that to date has proven mostly intractable.

And what do you suggest it be predicated on instead? Coal? Nuclear? We already tried putting a price on emissions to get the market to find the most efficient solution, and the people revolted. What's the alternative?

 

[Kwality]

And what do you suggest it be predicated on instead? Coal? Nuclear? We already tried putting a price on emissions to get the market to find the most efficient solution, and the people revolted. What's the alternative?

Lets try a fair dinkum conversation, both sides of politics cant achieve that internally. To me it will be a balance, take anything off the table ....

 

[Caesar]

And what do you suggest it be predicated on instead? Coal? Nuclear? We already tried putting a price on emissions to get the market to find the most efficient solution, and the people revolted. What's the alternative?

Pricing carbon dioxide emissions is the way forward. It only failed the first time because the ALP and Greens ****ed up politically.

Beyond that, in the absence of a single clear way forward the government needs to spread risk with a diverse energy strategy. Thermal coal is a sunset industry, but moronic deadlines for ending exports and coal fired power help nobody.

Black coal will be an integral part of our energy strategy for many years to come. Managed correctly, it can provide cheap and reliable base load power with minimal investment and underpin the development of emerging technology.

 

[Power Raid]

I do, which is why I asked you. Do you not understand that people aren't going to be convinced by your argument if you get basic facts wrong?

you are getting yourself confused with a 101 type issue.

Let's look at the statement....No country on the planet that has a renewables energy strategy, has low CO2 per kwh (14-70g), that doesn't rely upon nuclear or hydro.


Now let's assess that statement:
1) Is denmark in the 14-70g range? Answer No



If however Denmark does move into the 14-70g range, does it rely upon hydro and nuclear? Yes, Denmark relies upon hydro and nuclear for reliable supply from its northern neighbours (rather gas).

33.24% of energy available in Denmark comes from Norway as I type.

What your not understanding is.....when it comes to CO2 per kwh ...............it doesn't matter how much energy you produce when wind and solar works, it is how you produce energy when it doesn't! if a jurisdiction uses gas or coal, it blows all its good and delivers a dirty outcome. If it uses hydro or nuclear as a back up, it retains a clean status.

But if you have clean hydro or nuclear, then you don't need renewables! How ridiculous is having renewables as a clean strategy if your back up plan achieves what your primary plan can not?

Just out of curiosity, what do you think Denmark's domestic energy is produced by?

As I type based on consumption - 56% comes from wind, 5% coal, 2% biomass, 2% gas and 33% Norway

In the satellite areas of Denmark - Bornholm - 61% is from Sweden and in east denmark - 20% from Sweden

Do you think adopting silly Trump-style nicknames makes you more convincing? Let me assure you it doesn't.

Would you prefer the misleading and deceptive "clean" denmark? https://denmark.dk/innovation-and-design/clean-energy

How disgraceful are we as a society if we accept misleading and deceptive conduct rather than accurate descriptions?

Hydro cannot be used by those without the natural resources for it. Nuclear brings its own set of problems. While I acknowledge that modern reactors have a far lower risk of accidents than previous technology, nuclear has long since peaked in global energy percentage share, because the capital investment cost is incredibly high. Renewables are both cheaper and more environmentally friendly.

Renewables are not effective, as highlighted. So given that's the case you either have to go with price or an effective solution.

Let's assume CO2 does matter thus we limit our options to effective solutions. So 1) look at hydro. 2) if no hydro is available then look at Gen 3.5 reactors 3) if you are a nation not in a rush (ie Australia) do not look at Gen 3.5 and look at MMRs (as we are already at Woomera - looking at 1 but a decade away IMO; the state department of Idaho - tender for 4 reactors and Ontario State Power - permitting as we speak) or SMR technology (Rolls Royce, Terra Power etc).

The game changer for renewables though will be hydrogen, especially for cars.

Ironic that you're calling anyone else's decision making poor when you make up statements that fall apart the minute anyone questions them.

I'm still waiting, unless you are believing the misleading and deceptive marketing over the reality.

Please feel free to come up with a single jurisdiction on the planet.......No country on the planet that has a renewables energy strategy, has low CO2 per kwh (14-70g), that doesn't rely upon nuclear or hydro.

Until you can answer that correctly, I feel this substantiates my position.

I'll ask you again, your source is? The entire idea of interconnected grids is that energy is produced where it is cheapest at any one time. Identifying a split second in time and taking it as representative of long term trends is incredibly bad logic.

Please get it through your head that the energy share of renewables is growing and growing while all others are shrinking. Any engineering challenges with storage will be solved over time. Nuclear isn't the answer, and fossil fuels certainly aren't either.

Renewables have grown immensely in the last 30 years and perhaps one day we can say "they are effective"

until then - No country on the planet that has a renewables energy strategy, has low CO2 per kwh (14-70g), that doesn't rely upon nuclear or hydro.

but one day we may actually be able to answer that question accurately and honestly. Until then, it is just a dream costing the environment every day we live a lie.

 

[Power Raid]

Pricing carbon dioxide emissions is the way forward. It only failed the first time because the ALP and Greens f’ed up politically.

Beyond that, in the absence of a single clear way forward the government needs to spread risk with a diverse energy strategy. Thermal coal is a sunset industry, but moronic deadlines for ending exports and coal fired power help nobody.

Black coal will be an integral part of our energy strategy for many years to come. Managed correctly, it can provide cheap and reliable base load power with minimal investment and underpin the development of emerging technology.

Australia is not a nation developing the solutions for reducing CO2. So what are we seeking to achieve by penalising ourselves?

One could argue it encourages the adoption of clean technology, but as highlighted many times.....No country on the planet that has a renewables energy strategy, has low CO2 per kwh (14-70g), that doesn't rely upon nuclear or hydro. So all we are encouraging is market distortion, price dumping and poor investment.


Once a technology has been developed that we wish to adopt, then yes adopt a price on carbon.

 

[Caesar]

Australia is not a nation developing the solutions for reducing CO2.

We should be, and a scheme that provides support for the development of those solutions should be seen as advantageous.

Full renewables is a ridiculous goal at present, but there is still plenty of scope for diversifying our energy infrastructure and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Given the way the world is going and our exposure to export markets, that is something we should be embracing.

 

[Power Raid]

We should be.

We don't have a tax system that supports R&D and the damage done leading up to the last election ensures we won't have. FTR the existing tax laws penalise oversees investment in long term assets based on third party shareholder activity rather than the underlying business.

The proposed tax changes would have further impacted this and promoted gambling and day trading over long term investment.

Then compounding this, we no longer have the industrial capabilities, skill sets or the support industries.

Also ask yourself why solar panels are manufactured in china? try dumping carcinogenic chemicals in Oz.

 

[Caesar]

We don't have a tax system that supports R&D

That is an argument for changing the tax system, not against developing local industry.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Pricing carbon dioxide emissions is the way forward. It only failed the first time because the ALP and Greens f’ed up politically.

Was that the reason, or was it because people simply don't like paying more? Gillard said before the election she would put in a market-based pricing mechanism for emissions. She may have uttered the infamous carbon tax line, but she was pretty clear about wanting to price carbon. The "carbon tax" was always a transitional phase to an ETS with a floating price, and legally wasn't a tax. It's fair to say that there would have been little difference at the consumer's end, but the same is true of the ETS, it would have meant higher prices.

Fat chance anyone does it again. Australian politicians don't like to take risks. The last three to do so federally, Rudd, Gillard and Shorten, all got destroyed by the media and/or the electorate for doing so. The lesson everyone is going to draw from that debacle is to not bother imposing a carbon price, because the people are susceptible to moronic scare campaigns like "great big new tax".

Thermal coal is a sunset industry, but moronic deadlines for ending exports and coal fired power help nobody.

Of course they do. Not only does not having an end date to plan for hurt the certainty around future energy investments, the planet simply can't cope with the emissions of regular coal power for decades into the future without it being offset. If "clean coal" actually worked, I'd back it. Since I haven't seen any evidence suggesting it does, at least at a cost-competitive level, I favour gas over coal, being the lesser of two evils.

Black coal will be an integral part of our energy strategy for many years to come. Managed correctly, it can provide cheap and reliable base load power with minimal investment and underpin the development of emerging technology.

I am curious as to how coal will "underpin the development of emerging technology".

 

[Johnny Bananas]

If however Denmark does move into the 14-70g range, does it rely upon hydro and nuclear? Yes, Denmark relies upon hydro and nuclear for reliable supply from its northern neighbours (rather gas).

Still no sources, I wish I was surprised.

33.24% of energy available in Denmark comes from Norway as I type.

Still no sources.

What your not understanding is.....when it comes to CO2 per kwh ...............it doesn't matter how much energy you produce when wind and solar works, it is how you produce energy when it doesn't! if a jurisdiction uses gas or coal, it blows all its good and delivers a dirty outcome. If it uses hydro or nuclear as a back up, it retains a clean status.

What you're not understanding is, this is vastly preferable to entirely fossil fuel based resources, and nuclear is never going to increase its energy share from here on the basis of cost. And energy storage development grows stronger by the day.

But if you have clean hydro or nuclear, then you don't need renewables! How ridiculous is having renewables as a clean strategy if your back up plan achieves what your primary plan can not?

If you're foolish enough to believe hydro can supply the world's energy needs, or that nuclear can compete on price with renewables, then perhaps. Unfortunately, we live in a capitalist system where the private sector avoids nuclear energy like the plague, due to capital costs and the liability associated with a nuclear disaster.

As I type based on consumption - 56% comes from wind, 5% coal, 2% biomass, 2% gas and 33% Norway

In the satellite areas of Denmark - Bornholm - 61% is from Sweden and in east denmark - 20% from Sweden

Still no sources.

Would you prefer the misleading and deceptive "clean" denmark? https://denmark.dk/innovation-and-design/clean-energy

Biomass is a perfectly good method of energy production. Again, you miss the point that transitioning to a low carbon economy does not mean zero emissions, it means reducing emissions where we can and picking technologies with a lower impact on the environment. That's why I support natural gas power over coal.

The game changer for renewables though will be hydrogen, especially for cars.

Despite fully electric vehicles absolutely blasting hydrogen vehicles out of the water in sales and development? Okay.

Please feel free to come up with a single jurisdiction on the planet.......No country on the planet that has a renewables energy strategy, has low CO2 per kwh (14-70g), that doesn't rely upon nuclear or hydro.

Until you can answer that correctly, I feel this substantiates my position.

As I've said before, your position is out of touch with reality because hydro resources are limited and nuclear energy cannot compete on cost, and has horrible PR. Renewables are cheaper than nuclear, and do not produce nuclear waste.

 

[Power Raid]

Still no sources, I wish I was surprised.


Still no sources.


What you're not understanding is, this is vastly preferable to entirely fossil fuel based resources, and nuclear is never going to increase its energy share from here on the basis of cost. And energy storage development grows stronger by the day.


If you're foolish enough to believe hydro can supply the world's energy needs, or that nuclear can compete on price with renewables, then perhaps. Unfortunately, we live in a capitalist system where the private sector avoids nuclear energy like the plague, due to capital costs and the liability associated with a nuclear disaster.


Still no sources.


Biomass is a perfectly good method of energy production. Again, you miss the point that transitioning to a low carbon economy does not mean zero emissions, it means reducing emissions where we can and picking technologies with a lower impact on the environment. That's why I support natural gas power over coal.


Despite fully electric vehicles absolutely blasting hydrogen vehicles out of the water in sales and development? Okay.


As I've said before, your position is out of touch with reality because hydro resources are limited and nuclear energy cannot compete on cost, and has horrible PR. Renewables are cheaper than nuclear, and do not produce nuclear waste.

ENTSO-E Transparency Platform

transparency.entsoe.eu

I'm surprised you have such a strong opinion on Denmark but no idea where to source data. I'm also surprised you don't know Denmarks CO2 emissions, yet prepared to go so hard from a position of ignorance.

Are you like this on all issues?

 

[Caesar]

Was that the reason, or was it because people simply don't like paying more? Gillard said before the election she would put in a market-based pricing mechanism for emissions. She may have uttered the infamous carbon tax line, but she was pretty clear about wanting to price carbon. The "carbon tax" was always a transitional phase to an ETS with a floating price, and legally wasn't a tax. It's fair to say that there would have been little difference at the consumer's end, but the same is true of the ETS, it would have meant higher prices.

Gillard was hoist by her own petard. If she hadn’t made such a big deal about the difference between a carbon tax and a carbon price prior to the 2010 election, then it wouldn’t have been such a big deal when she changed position.

The Greens could have passed an ETS any time they liked, but instead they threw the toys out of the pram and we ended up with nothing.

Fat chance anyone does it again. Australian politicians don't like to take risks. The last three to do so federally, Rudd, Gillard and Shorten, all got destroyed by the media and/or the electorate for doing so. The lesson everyone is going to draw from that debacle is to not bother imposing a carbon price, because the people are susceptible to moronic scare campaigns like "great big new tax".

Much the same was said about the GST after Keating destroyed Hewson.

In reality Australia will eventually have an ETS, because at the end of the day it’s sensible policy. Since Howard first proposed an ETS in 2007, some form of scheme has been explicitly or implicitly supported by every PM and opposition leader bar Tony Abbott. We are already halfway there with Morrison's Safeguard Mechanism Credits.

Of course they do. Not only does not having an end date to plan for hurt the certainty around future energy investments, the planet simply can't cope with the emissions of regular coal power for decades into the future without it being offset. If "clean coal" actually worked, I'd back it. Since I haven't seen any evidence suggesting it does, at least at a cost-competitive level, I favour gas over coal, being the lesser of two evils.

Phasing out coal fired power in Australia should be based on what makes sense from an economic and infrastructure renewal sense for our state-based electricity markets. Phasing out thermal coal exports should be based on export market demand forecasts.

In both cases viability is currently expected to extend past 2030, which was (as is common with Greens policy) only ever an arbitrary date to begin with.

I am curious as to how coal will "underpin the development of emerging technology".

Maintenance of existing coal-fired power assets is an effective way of reducing the firming costs of renewables.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

ENTSO-E Transparency Platform

transparency.entsoe.eu

I'm surprised you have such a strong opinion on Denmark but no idea where to source data. I'm also surprised you don't know Denmarks CO2 emissions, yet prepared to go so hard from a position of ignorance.

Are you like this on all issues?

What opinion on Denmark? I provided facts, like them being a net exporter of energy to Norway last year. You seem to be saying I'm making a value judgement about countries, but that was all you, indulging in Trump-style insults because that's your intellectual capacity.

You're the one making claims, it's your responsibility to source it. I don't exist to do your homework for you.