Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Power Raid]

untested unproven very expensive technologies that are projected to cost more than over clean alternatives.

untested? and expensive?


My preference is hydro over all clean technologies but where that's not available, only nuclear has delivered.

CO2 - solar and wind are not effective in reducing CO2 where hydro and nuclear have delivered for decades
Price - solar and wind can not deliver cheap power, evidenced by the cost of power where they have been rolled out. Where hydro and nuclear do deliver cheap power.

The misunderstanding is the deceitful renewables lobby tell half truths and the believers simply want to believe. Renewables can price dump when they work but to deliver reliable power around these unreliable renewables, you get price gouging and the recouping of the tripling and quadrupling of infrastructure. That's why renewables are incredibly expensive to the market.

Again compare the price of power in france, ontario and US vs germany and SA. The reality is nuclear outperforms renewables in price, with the best nuclear price, Ontario, being 4-6 times cheaper than germany............and 20 times cleaner. France 2 times cheaper and 15 times cleaner (was 20 until France introduced dirty renewables).

Safety - renewables is only slightly better than nuclear and better than hydro.

Untested/ unproven - nuclear has been around almost 70 years and the Gen 3 is now 25 years old, with proven safety, price and CO2 effectiveness. Gen 3 has zero deaths...............something renewables can not claim.



If you're referring to Gen 4 reactors, they are "unproven" but not for long. Bill Gate's US company, UK Russia, Japan, Argentina, Korea and China are all vying to be leaders in the sector.

Russia was first with the Gen 4 the technology with construction of the BN-800 starting in 1983. Due to the collapse of the USSR and Chenobyl it wasn't commercialised until 2014. This was the third BN, with the first being built in 1964 but was a plutonium generator and desal plant. So the technology is actually 55 years old, so the unproven/ untested comment is not really accurate.

The commercialisation of this technology is new though being only in the last decade. My gut feel, is the large scale Gen 4 reactors, like the Russian BNs will be superseded by smaller modular reactors (SMR).

Rolls Royce - expects to power 10% of the UK's needs with Gen 4 SMR - https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/nuclear/small-modular-reactors.aspx

Bill Gates - https://terrapower.com/

The number of SMR types is numerous - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor



So we have a solution that is clean, safe, reliable and cost effective.

How long should we give renewables to deliver a CO2 outcome of 40g/ kwhr? Nuclear and Hydro have delivered it for circa 40 years, do we wait aanother 100 years for proven and tested failing renewables to work?

 

[pugsville]

untested? and expensive?


My preference is hydro over all clean technologies but where that's not available, only nuclear has delivered.

CO2 - solar and wind are not effective in reducing CO2 where hydro and nuclear have delivered for decades
Price - solar and wind can not deliver cheap power, evidenced by the cost of power where they have been rolled out. Where hydro and nuclear do deliver cheap power.

The misunderstanding is the deceitful renewables lobby tell half truths and the believers simply want to believe. Renewables can price dump when they work but to deliver reliable power around these unreliable renewables, you get price gouging and the recouping of the tripling and quadrupling of infrastructure. That's why renewables are incredibly expensive to the market.

Again compare the price of power in france, ontario and US vs germany and SA. The reality is nuclear outperforms renewables in price, with the best nuclear price, Ontario, being 4-6 times cheaper than germany............and 20 times cleaner. France 2 times cheaper and 15 times cleaner (was 20 until France introduced dirty renewables).

Safety - renewables is only slightly better than nuclear and better than hydro.

Untested/ unproven - nuclear has been around almost 70 years and the Gen 3 is now 25 years old, with proven safety, price and CO2 effectiveness. Gen 3 has zero deaths...............something renewables can not claim.



If you're referring to Gen 4 reactors, they are "unproven" but not for long. Bill Gate's US company, UK Russia, Japan, Argentina, Korea and China are all vying to be leaders in the sector.

Russia was first with the Gen 4 the technology with construction of the BN-800 starting in 1983. Due to the collapse of the USSR and Chenobyl it wasn't commercialised until 2014. This was the third BN, with the first being built in 1964 but was a plutonium generator and desal plant. So the technology is actually 55 years old, so the unproven/ untested comment is not really accurate.

The commercialisation of this technology is new though being only in the last decade. My gut feel, is the large scale Gen 4 reactors, like the Russian BNs will be superseded by smaller modular reactors (SMR).

Rolls Royce - expects to power 10% of the UK's needs with Gen 4 SMR - https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/nuclear/small-modular-reactors.aspx

Bill Gates - https://terrapower.com/

The number of SMR types is numerous - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor



So we have a solution that is clean, safe, reliable and cost effective.

How long should we give renewables to deliver a CO2 outcome of 40g/ kwhr? Nuclear and Hydro have delivered it for circa 40 years, do we wait aanother 100 years for proven and tested failing renewables to work?

You are not advocated 3rd Gen power plants but vaporware 4th gen pnats.

You are advocating unproven theoretical power plants as if they are real. Decades of investment and buidling before they will be on line. It;s incredibly bnad bsuness,

You are advocated something which does not exists and never been tested as "Proven and tested".

this is essentially dishonest.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Scientists: Earth Endangered By New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans
Admin April 21, 2019 0


Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them.

“These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and process information. And yet, somehow, they have developed defenses that, for all intents and purposes, have rendered those faculties totally inactive. As facts have multiplied, their defenses against those facts have only grown more powerful.” Davis Logsdon, one of the scientists who contributed to the study, said.

While scientists have no clear understanding of the mechanisms that prevent the fact-resistant humans from absorbing data, they theorize that the strain may have developed the ability to intercept and discard information enroute from the auditory nerve to the brain.“The normal functions of human consciousness have been completely nullified,” Logsdon said. While reaffirming the gloomy assessments of the study, Logsdon held out hope that the threat of fact-resistant humans could be mitigated in the future.

“Our research is very preliminary, but it’s possible that they will become more receptive to facts once they are in an environment without food, water, or oxygen,” he said.

Scientists: Earth Endangered By New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans

Physics, Astronomy, Space news,Nasa news ,Quantum Physics and Technology,

www.physics-astronomy.org

 

[Power Raid]

You are not advocated 3rd Gen power plants but vaporware 4th gen pnats.

You are advocating unproven theoretical power plants as if they are real. Decades of investment and buidling before they will be on line. It;s incredibly bnad bsuness,

You are advocated something which does not exists and never been tested as "Proven and tested".

this is essentially dishonest.

In places like China and India, they are and should be building Gen 3.5 reactors. They have large energy needs and simply won't be able to reduce CO2 with renewables. Given their pollution impact is massive, they should act now.

For Australia, I would advocate Gen 4 reactors, except in the Pilbara and South Australia. The Pilbara's energy needs are as large as the rest of WA, not to mention the waste heat could be a valuable resource for refineries. SA's need is powering Olympic Dam, Desal and again refineries for value add.

The less needy places for Gen 3.5 would be near Geraldton (the future of iron ore is magnetite and that takes energy. Another is the murray basin where a rare earth and mineral sands boom is likely to occur. Without cheap energy we will did this up and send to China, with nuclear we could build a value add refinery leading to a technical sector.

Note, renewables don't deliver the valuable resource of waste heat required for refining. Note you can't have a renewables sector without rare earths, steel, aluminium, silica and mineral sands.



For the rest of Australia, I'd recommend small modular reactors and Gen 4.

 

[pugsville]

For the rest of Australia, I'd recommend small modular reactors and Gen 4.

Which are unproven and untested technologies in development and should be honest enough to say so, And which the CSIRO report projects will be more expensive than others ways of generating power.

 

[Power Raid]

Which are unproven and untested technologies in development and should be honest enough to say so, And which the CSIRO report projects will be more expensive than others ways of generating power.

If we want to reduce CO2, we have to chose a technology that has delivered................and only hydro or nuclear have.

Choosing solar and wind is the worst of both worlds. It results in expensive power and isn't effective in reducing pollution, evidenced by no one, including yourself, being able to point to a jurisdiction on earth with low CO2 without relying upon hydro or nuclear.

Gen 4 is likely to be in the $0.12 per kwhr but eliminate the need to increase the size of Australia's grid by a factor of 3 (as renewables will require). By the time you consider all the costs of renewables (subsidies, tripling of the grid and quadrupling of power generation infrastructure (tripling of infrastructure for wind plus quadruppling of infrastructure for solar plus the need for gas).



I guess you have to ask yourself:
1) do we act now and build gen 3.5
2) invest in solar or wind............knowing solar and wind increases prices but doesn't reduce pollution
3) bank the capital investment otherwise wasted on solar and wind, to invest in gen 4


Please feel free to highlight a jurisdiction on the planet which has a renewables strategy that doesn't rely upon hydro or nuclear that has low CO2 emissions


Meanwhile Tasmania, New Zealand, Iceland, France, Ontario, Norway, Sweden, Yukon, Washington have all made the right decisions decades ago. Meanwhile dirty germany and its dirty renewables are celebrated for putting the environment at risk. How much longer should we give renewables before we hold them to account?

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

If we want to reduce CO2, we have to chose a technology that has delivered................and only hydro or nuclear have.

Choosing solar and wind is the worst of both worlds. It results in expensive power and isn't effective in reducing pollution, evidenced by no one, including yourself, being able to point to a jurisdiction on earth with low CO2 without relying upon hydro or nuclear.

Gen 4 is likely to be in the $0.12 per kwhr but eliminate the need to increase the size of Australia's grid by a factor of 3 (as renewables will require). By the time you consider all the costs of renewables (subsidies, tripling of the grid and quadrupling of power generation infrastructure (tripling of infrastructure for wind plus quadruppling of infrastructure for solar plus the need for gas).



I guess you have to ask yourself:
1) do we act now and build gen 3.5
2) invest in solar or wind............knowing solar and wind increases prices but doesn't reduce pollution
3) bank the capital investment otherwise wasted on solar and wind, to invest in gen 4


Please feel free to highlight a jurisdiction on the planet which has a renewables strategy that doesn't rely upon hydro or nuclear that has low CO2 emissions


Meanwhile Tasmania, New Zealand, Iceland, France, Ontario, Norway, Sweden, Yukon, Washington have all made the right decisions decades ago. Meanwhile dirty germany and its dirty renewables are celebrated for putting the environment at risk. How much longer should we give renewables before we hold them to account?

Tell us why france are getting out of nukes to reduce c02

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Scientists: Earth Endangered By New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans
Admin April 21, 2019 0


Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them.

“These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and process information. And yet, somehow, they have developed defenses that, for all intents and purposes, have rendered those faculties totally inactive. As facts have multiplied, their defenses against those facts have only grown more powerful.” Davis Logsdon, one of the scientists who contributed to the study, said.

While scientists have no clear understanding of the mechanisms that prevent the fact-resistant humans from absorbing data, they theorize that the strain may have developed the ability to intercept and discard information enroute from the auditory nerve to the brain.“The normal functions of human consciousness have been completely nullified,” Logsdon said. While reaffirming the gloomy assessments of the study, Logsdon held out hope that the threat of fact-resistant humans could be mitigated in the future.

“Our research is very preliminary, but it’s possible that they will become more receptive to facts once they are in an environment without food, water, or oxygen,” he said.

Scientists: Earth Endangered By New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans

Physics, Astronomy, Space news,Nasa news ,Quantum Physics and Technology,

www.physics-astronomy.org

This study even better, says Australian science is no more than a very bad religion.

'Bad science': Australian studies found to be unreliable, compromised

Hundreds of scientific research papers published by Australian scientists have been found to be unreliable or compromised, fuelling calls for a national science watchdog.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Snake_Baker]

This study even better, says Australian science is no more than a very bad religion.

'Bad science': Australian studies found to be unreliable, compromised

Hundreds of scientific research papers published by Australian scientists have been found to be unreliable or compromised, fuelling calls for a national science watchdog.

www.smh.com.au

Spoke recently with an analytical chem Professor, who stated that a lot of rubbish was coming out as PhD papers due to political tampering with the process, and the acceptance of poor quality candidates.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Good read:

Real-time carbon accounting method for the European electricity markets

Electricity accounts for 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing emissions related to electricity consumption requires accurate measurements …

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Spoke recently with an analytical chem Professor, who stated that a lot of rubbish was coming out as PhD papers due to political tampering with the process, and the acceptance of poor quality candidates.

Australian scientists are known to write anything for the highest bidder.

It's sad because we have some really good ones Nd we have a system here that allows them to live good lives and that makes them better scientists.

But the corporate dollars rule

 

[Snake_Baker]

Australian scientists are known to write anything for the highest bidder.

It's sad because we have some really good ones Nd we have a system here that allows them to live good lives and that makes them better scientists.

But the corporate dollars rule

A lot of this stems from the criminal level of government under funding of science in this country.

 

[Power Raid]

Good read:

Real-time carbon accounting method for the European electricity markets

Electricity accounts for 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing emissions related to electricity consumption requires accurate measurements …

www.sciencedirect.com

View attachment 733250

Desk top vs real world

Please identify a jurisdiction with a renewables strategy that has low CO2 that doesn’t rely on hydro or nuclear.


Does the study just look a generation, when it works or fully accounts for CO2 like tripling grids and quadrupling of power generation to account for the unreliable nature of renewables? Half desk top truths can be identified pretty easy in the real world.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Desk top vs real world

Please identify a jurisdiction with a renewables strategy that has low CO2 that doesn’t rely on hydro or nuclear.


Does the study just look a generation, when it works or fully accounts for CO2 like tripling grids and quadrupling of power generation to account for the unreliable nature of renewables? Half desk top truths can be identified pretty easy in the real world.

I'm not making any political statement here, just presenting a good read.

 

[Power Raid]

Tell us why france are getting out of nukes to reduce c02

Are they or are they not? There are so many elements to this.

Firstly we have a leader like Rudd promising anything to secure his job. The moment he’s in, he changes his position to push the policy out well beyond his term, as it was highlighted France would significantly increase CO2.

The 14 reactors being decommissioned equate to 900Mw. That’s not only tiny but logical.


Since Macrons announcement, a banking arm of the EU has represented the EU renewables strategy has been an utter failure and policy change will happen.

My punt is 7-10% of the energy market will be reserved for likes of Rolls Royce, to roll out smrs

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Are they or are they not? There are so many elements to this.

Firstly we have a leader like Rudd promising anything to secure his job. The moment he’s in, he changes his position to push the policy out well beyond his term, as it was highlighted France would significantly increase CO2.

The 14 reactors being decommissioned equate to 900Mw. That’s not only tiny but logical.


Since Macrons announcement, a banking arm of the EU has represented the EU renewables strategy has been an utter failure and policy change will happen.

My punt is 7-10% of the energy market will be reserved for likes of Rolls Royce, to roll out smrs

You didn't answer the question. You made a claim about nukes being the answer to reducing Co2 emissions, yet nuke country's are reducing their reliance on nukes to lower co2 emissions.

I would say you stand to make Money from nukes, if built here. You can't be as stupid as your posts read. Shirley?

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Power Raid]

You didn't answer the question. You made a claim about nukes being the answer to reducing Co2 emissions, yet nuke country's are reducing their reliance on nukes to lower co2 emissions.

I would say you stand to make Money from nukes, if built here. You can't be as stupid as your posts read. Shirley?

It is very rare to see a nation rely upon gen 3 reactors for greater than 25% of their power.

There are logical reasons for this, just as we see a natural cap on wing at around 20-25%.

France was able to go well beyond 25% for a variety of reason including the ability to export to neighbours and hydro store.

50% is a remarkable figure for gen 3. You’ll find they’ll sit in the 60-80% mark due to continued efficiency advances in gen 3 and the intro of responsive gen 4.

Not only does it support the future, it supports the present. 40-70g per Kwhr is a reality in France. Where Germany’s dirty renewables, after wasting 45 years and $1.5 trillion will be around the 500 mark.

 

[Power Raid]

You didn't answer the question. You made a claim about nukes being the answer to reducing Co2 emissions, yet nuke country's are reducing their reliance on nukes to lower co2 emissions.

I would say you stand to make Money from nukes, if built here. You can't be as stupid as your posts read. Shirley?

And no I won’t be the beneficiary of any of Australia’s current or future reactors

 

[Frank Bunn]

Are you ready to climate strike? Our handy quiz lets kids test their climate change knowledge Today, children across the world are going to go on strike to show their concern over climate change. But are they ready to take the plunge, or are they just looking for a good excuse to skip school?

Are You Ready to Climate Strike? Take the Quiz!

Gaia's friends at the Global Warming Policy Forum have produced a handy fun quiz for the kids skipping school to 'strike' over climate change today: Are

order-order.com

 

[Craven Morehead]

Are you ready to climate strike? Our handy quiz lets kids test their climate change knowledge Today, children across the world are going to go on strike to show their concern over climate change. But are they ready to take the plunge, or are they just looking for a good excuse to skip school?

Are You Ready to Climate Strike? Take the Quiz!

Gaia's friends at the Global Warming Policy Forum have produced a handy fun quiz for the kids skipping school to 'strike' over climate change today: Are

order-order.com

What a bizarre bloody world we live in today.

I can just imagine the reaction from School Principals, teachers, parents, society in general etc if I wanted to protest against the Vietnam War when I was in school.

This, from my FB feed, somes it up nicely.

Perhaps they should teach irony as core subject at school?

"
To all the school kids going on 'strike' for Climate Change:
You are the first generation who have required air-conditioning in every classroom.
You want TV in every room and your classes are all computerised.
You spend all day and night on electronic devices.
More than ever, you don't walk or ride bikes to school but arrive in caravans of private cars that choke local roads and worsen rush hour traffic.
You are the biggest consumers of manufactured goods ever and update perfectly good expensive luxury items to stay trendy,
Your entertainment comes from electric devices.
Furthermore, the people driving your protests are the same people who insist on artificially inflating the population growth through immigration, which increases the need for energy, manufacturing and transport.
The more people we have, the more forest and bushland we clear and more of the environment is destroyed.
How about this...
Tell your teachers to switch off the air-con.
Walk or ride to school. Switch off your devices and read a book.
Make a sandwich instead of buying manufactured fast food.
No, none of this will happen because you are selfish, badly educated, virtue signalling little 'princesses', inspired by the adults around you who crave a feeling of having a 'noble cause' while they indulge themselves in Western luxury and unprecedented quality of life.
Wake up, grow up and learn to research facts and think for yourself and not blindly accept the words and thoughts of others - I don't think you formulated this action plan all by your self - suspect you may have had some influence and 'guidance' from those you trust ....a word of warning, be cautious of the influence of the 'left' because there may be a time in the future that you will be the ones left out..."

 

[madmug]

What a bizarre bloody world we live in today.

I can just imagine the reaction from School Principals, teachers, parents, society in general etc if I wanted to protest against the Vietnam War when I was in school.

This, from my FB feed, somes it up nicely.

Perhaps they should teach irony as core subject at school?

"
To all the school kids going on 'strike' for Climate Change:
You are the first generation who have required air-conditioning in every classroom.
You want TV in every room and your classes are all computerised.
You spend all day and night on electronic devices.
More than ever, you don't walk or ride bikes to school but arrive in caravans of private cars that choke local roads and worsen rush hour traffic.
You are the biggest consumers of manufactured goods ever and update perfectly good expensive luxury items to stay trendy,
Your entertainment comes from electric devices.
Furthermore, the people driving your protests are the same people who insist on artificially inflating the population growth through immigration, which increases the need for energy, manufacturing and transport.
The more people we have, the more forest and bushland we clear and more of the environment is destroyed.
How about this...
Tell your teachers to switch off the air-con.
Walk or ride to school. Switch off your devices and read a book.
Make a sandwich instead of buying manufactured fast food.
No, none of this will happen because you are selfish, badly educated, virtue signalling little 'princesses', inspired by the adults around you who crave a feeling of having a 'noble cause' while they indulge themselves in Western luxury and unprecedented quality of life.
Wake up, grow up and learn to research facts and think for yourself and not blindly accept the words and thoughts of others - I don't think you formulated this action plan all by your self - suspect you may have had some influence and 'guidance' from those you trust ....a word of warning, be cautious of the influence of the 'left' because there may be a time in the future that you will be the ones left out..."

Yes it is a bizarre world. We use science to grow & develop our society & technology. Then certain people attack that science when it shows the cost of our excessive reliance on our energy choice, carbon. Not only that, they then try & discredit the scientific consensus by a fake association it to a vague political construct 'tha left'.

Same sort of stuff we saw from big tobacco. When you can't discredit the message, attack the messenger. RWNJ 101 stuff.

Some people are too 'politically' invested to see how they have been triggered & used by big petroleum. Dumb.

Just stupid. Sad really.

 

[Crankitup]

Yes it is a bizarre world. We use science to grow & develop our society & technology. Then certain people attack that science when it shows the cost of our excessive reliance on our energy choice, carbon. Not only that, they then try & discredit the scientific consensus by a fake association it to a vague political construct 'tha left'.

Same sort of stuff we saw from big tobacco. When you can't discredit the message, attack the messenger. RWNJ 101 stuff.

Some people are too 'politically' invested to see how they have been triggered & used by big petroleum. Dumb.

Just stupid. Sad really.

The ironic thing is the whole notion itself was originally boosted along by conservative forces when Margaret Thatcher was fighting the coal unions.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Yes it is a bizarre world. We use science to grow & develop our society & technology. Then certain people attack that science when it shows the cost of our excessive reliance on our energy choice, carbon. Not only that, they then try & discredit the scientific consensus by a fake association it to a vague political construct 'tha left'.

Same sort of stuff we saw from big tobacco. When you can't discredit the message, attack the messenger. RWNJ 101 stuff.

Some people are too 'politically' invested to see how they have been triggered & used by big petroleum. Dumb.

Just stupid. Sad really.

Fake association? You mean like anyone who has an alternate view, including high credential scientists, being labeled 'denier' in a blatant attempt to conflate the issue with the holocaust.

The latest fake and quite unhinged association is 'climate predator' that tries to imply non-alarmists are like pedophiles.

The gloves are off: ‘predatory’ climate deniers are a threat to our children

Climate deniers have joyously laboured to create a world potentially uninhabitable for our children. Our activism has failed, and rebellion may be the only answer.

theconversation.com

 

[Craven Morehead]

Yes it is a bizarre world. We use science to grow & develop our society & technology. Then certain people attack that science when it shows the cost of our excessive reliance on our energy choice, carbon. Not only that, they then try & discredit the scientific consensus by a fake association it to a vague political construct 'tha left'.

Same sort of stuff we saw from big tobacco. When you can't discredit the message, attack the messenger. RWNJ 101 stuff.

Some people are too 'politically' invested to see how they have been triggered & used by big petroleum. Dumb.

Just stupid. Sad really.

Children shouldn't be skipping school and missing exams because Mummy, Daddy and some lefty teachers have filled their head with fear and outrage.

Once they reach adulthood and can make a calm, rational and informed opinion they are free to do what they want.

However it is not surprising at all to see left wing politicians, such as my states Premier, actively encouraging children to abandon their studies/exams and protest abouut an issue of which they only have the most basic understanding and where most of their opinions have been created by adults who watch Home and Away.