- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
The Ross Garnaut article I posted the other day gives you a fairly succinct response to the affirmative.
Australia's policy on climate change is completely inconsequential
- Thread starter Frank Bunn
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
How can you seriously expect sceptics to engage in this thread then? They don’t believe it, so therefore are a step behind the argument due to their denying it.
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Why Australia's influence over climate policy matters - InDaily
Australia has the power to influence the climate by influencing high-polluting nations, and to seize the advantages of a future low-emissions global economy, argues Peter Martin.
I really don’t see this as an overly difficult political decision. The biggest inhibiter in all of this is people. It’s priorities and popularity. It’s a monetised issue when it shouldn’t be. The issue is that Garnaut and Finkel have unrivalled knowledge in this space but are held back by the influence the FF lobbyists have and the recalcitrant media that filter denialism down to impressionable conspiracy theorists.
We have the wrong government in place for this, it’s about manipulation essentially, and negotiation. Morrison isn’t going to do to much to rattle through cages of China or the US on this, whereas Turnbull would’ve actually made headway but he was assassinated internally whereas Morrison held up a bit of coal in parliament and told us it was ok.
The answers are all there. If Labor had not stuffed up internally with their knife in the back behaviour and inability to market appropriately, we’d never have gone backwards under Abbott and Morrison. We’d be well on the way to achieving targets and would be developing strong industries and phasing out coal.
Last edited:
Bullshit.
I could easily respond to a discussion on whether hover boards would cause more traffic accidents.
No it doesn't .
It says we can contribute our fair share to the global effort.
Our fair share is of no consequence.
And as an economist , Garnaut is relying on price trends and inventions, extrapolating current trends.
I've worked for an R&D company, where some of the smarter researchers were bitching about management wanting "scheduled breakthroughs". It doesn't always happen that way.
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Why Australia's influence over climate policy matters - InDaily
Australia has the power to influence the climate by influencing high-polluting nations, and to seize the advantages of a future low-emissions global economy, argues Peter Martin.
Last edited:
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Bullshit? So you think sceptics actually care about climate policy? Why would they if they don’t believe it? Clearly all they can do is derail the conversation.
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Well from what I’ve seen of your postings in a previous thread it looks like you don’t believe in climate change. Or am I wrong? Yet here you are again sniping at people who have a contrary opinion that Australia’s policies have no bearing worldwide. In fact you’re not even expressing anything of value. You’ve got form on that. You just hide behind people that share your views and let them jibba jabba on whilst you point and go ‘yeah, see, see!’
So what do you actually care? If you don’t believe it you’ll believe that any policy is redundant because CC doesn’t exist, so therefore it’s all a waste of time.
So, seriously, add something of somewhat debatable nature or ship off and talk about something within your abilities. Collingwood board would probably suit?
Last edited:
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
A sceptic is an individual who doubts accepted opinion. In this case, that CC isn’t happening.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,831
- 56,198
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #486
This is what I was thinking in the first place.
Increase incentives to have renewables and storage for a household on premises, and localise generation as much as we're able. Work out trends in consumption requirements and how often demand exceeds household storage and generation, and slowly move towards an onsite generation model with government backups.
Would've been an easier idea to implement it before the government had done away with the technology that Tesla bought and based their own batteries on, but some solution is better than no solution.
You're wrong on all counts, and your first post has given me enough insight to see that you are a complete flog that is not worthy of engaging with.
Goodbye.
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Suits me, and go and google sceptic and see what comes up
Seeing as how the premise of the thread is jobs and economies. Perfect time for...
www.ox.ac.uk
"today's research from some of the world’s leading economists shows that climate-friendly policies could deliver a better result both for economies and the environment."
Building back better: Green COVID-19 recovery packages will boost economic growth and stop climate change | University of Oxford
International economic recovery from COVID-19 must be environmentally-conscious – for the sake of the economy, suggests new research published today.
"today's research from some of the world’s leading economists shows that climate-friendly policies could deliver a better result both for economies and the environment."
- May 1, 2016
- 28,831
- 56,198
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #491
I'd argue that it's comparable. Sure, it's more expensive short to medium term, and it would require a significant amount of buy-in within the community at large, but it would result in less infrastructure required to transfer electricity across Australia, (which is a significant cost all its own) much less infrastructure required for power generation, and a much more stable power grid at large.
I rather think this is a nobrainer if what someone is looking for over time is a non-governmental solution via minimal market intervention. You're essentially transforming electricity from being a governmental responsibility to a private enterprise/individual's responsibility to their household. And while it doesn't solve all our power generation needs - industry uses the majority of power in this country, IIRC - it certainly goes some of the way towards addressing how we generate our power, and places us in a position to take advantage of improvements in renewable technologies in future.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #492
I agree that it would be the way to go, but I think fusion power is the light at the end of the tunnel so I don't think changing the way we currently operate on generation to demand into a more distributed fashion and then having to change back when fusion power plants are built will be efficient.
There might be long term benefits to building a system that can handle distributed power generation with a localised fusion generator, but I don't know what they are.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,831
- 56,198
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #493
I don't like the idea of nuclear power, but I acknowledge I don't have much by way of a basis beyond an extremely basic understanding of the dangers involved. But, as I understand it, it takes roughly 10 years minimum to set it up, and it requires a truly significant expenditure to get it going. To put that into perspective, that's a minimum of 2 and a half prime ministerial terms.
I don't know about you, but I do not think we can accomplish long term planning of this kind given our partisan political climate, especially not when we consider the antipathy the majority have towards nuclear energy. I'd be open to a public debate of this kind happening here - if anyone has space where no-one lives in the middle of ******* nowhere to prevent people bitching about having a reactor next door, it's us - but I don't see us getting there, not without something radically changing worldwide between now and then.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #494
I agree, I don't think any sort of nation building is realistic if the plan extends over a couple of elections.
It's just when I compare the $750 billion cost of the batteries for just Victoria to the $25 billion for a nuclear power plant (I think it's actually more like 5 billion but let's be really hard on it) - that's thirty power plants. There are currently 24 coal power plants in Australia.
So if they did cost $25 billion, we could spend $180 billion less on something that only costs slightly more than zero to fuel.
Obviously these are just back of the napkin numbers but $180 billion buys a lot.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,831
- 56,198
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #495
I suppose the question could become a question of subsidizing the industry to bring jobs in production/manufacture of the cells here, up to and including subsidizing purchase of a powerwall and solar panels as part of construction. Try to spread the cost over the same time period - 15 ish years - and see if the increased levels of funding into RND and improved industry prospects result in improved technologies, and bring the price down.
While throwing money at a problem is clearly not an ideal solution, I really do like the idea of decreasing governmental responsibility for the generation of power and placing it on individual households, hoping over time to decrease costs for storage and generation.
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
The advantages of nuclear power really are positive. It is very reliable (most reliable energy source on the grid in the US), clean (if we can safely dispose of waste), and clearly creates jobs. The challenges are the cost. Clearly it’s just not popular due to the initial infrastructure costs and then the ongoing maintenance costs, plus wages etc for specialised staff. Obviously safety is paramount, and any negligence re operation or waste could have serious OHS ramifications.
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
But you’re overlooking the ongoing maintenance costs of the equipment, plus the cost of disposal. In the long run these costs continue to pile up, but, considering there’s about 80 years of uranium to access (I think that’s right) we could potentially shift to something else within a century.
There would have to be significant investment in additional renewables and long term reliability, but it would mean less carbon output albeit at a high cost, PLUS, investment in renewables to be efficient in 80 years.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #498
When I set the cost of the nuclear plant at $25 billion it was 25 to 400% higher than the figures I'd found on the cost of building one. That will factor in the maintenance cost - but I don't think they would be that different to the maintenance of a distributed group of battery banks anyway.
I didn't account for the reduction in efficiency from repeated cycling of the batteries which would mean we need to add in an extra 30 to 40% capacity to account for the 30% drop in capacity of the batteries after their rated cycles - let's say ten years. Obviously we choose to keep them running and not replace them, more up front cost but less ongoing cost.
That puts the cost now at $975 billion for the batteries allowing reliable and stable power for Victoria. Australia as a whole was using 261.4 terawatt hours by the Department of Environment and Energy, that's 5.8x the 45 terawatt figure I was using for Victoria alone.
So now the figure for all of Australia is $5.655 trillion dollars. Australia's GDP is a touch under $2 trillion.
I maintain that replacing our existing system would be inefficient because when fusion power is developed we will be returning to centralised generation again - so we may as well replace our 24 coal power plants with nuclear plants, even if they cost $50 billion each ($1.2 trillion - which would make them 2.5 to 10x more expensive than anywhere else), it's still going to be far far cheaper and just as effective.
We have the fuel here already, we have the opportunity for a new industry that the rest of the world won't be able to take from us like manufacturing renewables - those will move to a factory in China or the next developing nation with $1 a day workers as soon as the contract allows it. Burying nuclear material here isn't able to be outsourced.
The figures I've seen on nuclear waste for power generation are that we can expect the volume of a can of coke per person every ten years.
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
I’ve just been doing some reading (in between a home workout). The link below shows and gives some interesting information re cost.
Cost of nuclear for dummies, and future generations
Everyone “knows” that nuclear is expensive. We also know that existing reactors produce clean electricity very cheaply. So which is it, expensive or cheap? It depends how one calculates the value. Levelized Cost of Electricity, or LCOE, is a figure used to compare energy costs on a supposedly...
www.energy-reporters.com
I am not sure, perhaps you looked here also? Initially it looks as though the capital costs are high, really high. Billions and billions, so nothing original. The interesting factor is the discount rate on the net present value. The discount rate is set, say in this case 7%, and cash flows are discounted accordingly against the initial investment. The video below gives a quick introduction to NPV. It’s been a long time since I did corporate finance 101!
NPV Formula
A guide to the NPV formula in Excel when performing financial analysis. It's important to understand exactly how the NPV formula works in Excel and the math behind it. NPV = F / [ (1 + r)^n ] where, PV = Present Value, F = Future payment (cash flow), r = Discount rate, n = the number of periods...
So essentially I think it’s not just the initial capital investment, and the adjusted charge per unit, but also over a sustained period of time we may face significant costs that just wouldn’t prove financially viable. Now that is the economic perspective.
As the author says, the ethical perspective says that why should we bother if the government is fully subsidising this after 30 years? It comes down to market regulation, who controls and distributes the power, how much of a clip they want to take off the top etc.
If it’s government managed then we end paying the lot anyway; taxes cover the costs yet we get the discounted rate. In a way it’s almost like the sum part of all citizens taxes pay for the greater good and for well priced power. This would be socialism in its purest form. I feel however that the government just wouldn’t see it this way, and there’s no way they’d do it without making money.
I think based off this and the initial outlay our government wouldn’t go for it, only unless prices to the consumer could be adjusted but end up being cheaper than coal or gas.
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Now obviously in other countries they’re doing it and making it work, and I am not entirely sure on how they are crunching the numbers, whether they’re making money etc.
