Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Ghost Patrol]

We continue with what we have now until the alternative can prove itself to be just as reliable and hopefully be of a cost benefit for the lower classes. Then we flick the switch and life continues on as normal.

Which seems to be exactly what we are doing.

So why are your knickers in a knot?

 

[Carringbush2010]

We continue with what we have now until the alternative can prove itself to be just as reliable and hopefully be of a cost benefit for the lower classes. Then we flick the switch and life continues on as normal.

lol, flick the switch.

We don't know when the tech will be available to scale.

Might be waiting decades, might find something tomorrow.

What we have now is combinations of renewable and fossil, slowly transitioning away from fossil with more renewable tech, that is increasing, if we tip past the point where the grid can't provide it'll be brought back with fossil. Is this the normal you're talking about?

That's the way I see 'the normal' now, is it enough or palatable for the hystericals? No, Do we have a choice? Not yet, When will that choice be? No one knows.

 

[Cap]

lol, flick the switch.

We don't know when the tech will be available to scale.

Might be waiting decades, might find something tomorrow.

What we have now is combinations of renewable and fossil, slowly transitioning away from fossil with more renewable tech, that is increasing, if we tip past the point where the grid can't provide it'll be brought back with fossil. Is this the normal you're talking about?

That's the way I see 'the normal' now, is it enough or palatable for the hystericals? No, Do we have a choice? Not yet, When will that choice be? No one knows.

Yes we do, we've had some states already run on 100% renewalables for days on end.

Enough studies have shown that renewables and batteries could have done the job, if we'd started investing when we should have, which was a decade ago.

Fossil fuels are still in the mix because of this, not because they are essential, I mean they are essential now, but that need not have been the case with an actual federal policy, a decade ago or at least not the level they are.

Technological breakthroughs will just make renewables more efficient and cost effective, like they did for fossil fuels before them.

So the slowly bit is correct, but not because we had to, but because we chose to.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yes we do, we've had some states already run on 100% renewalables for days on end.

Enough studies have shown that renewables and batteries could have done the job, if we'd started investing when we should have, which was a decade ago.

Fossil fuels are still in the mix because of this, not because they are essential, I mean they are essential now, but that need not have been the case with an actual federal policy, a decade ago or at least not the level they are.

Technological breakthroughs will just make renewables more efficient and cost effective, like they did for fossil fuels before them.

So the slowly bit is correct, but not because we had to, but because we chose to.

If we had the tech available to scale now then we wouldn't need fossil fuel.

We want / need renewables to run 100% all the time, we don't have that yet, as you mentioned fossil fuels are essential now.

That's what I mean by the tech required.

 

[Cap]

If we had the tech available to scale now then we wouldn't need fossil fuel.

We want / need renewables to run 100% all the time, we don't have that yet, as you mentioned fossil fuels are essential now.

That's what I mean by the tech required

We do have the technology for scale now or at least way better than we are now.

What we lacked was the investment largely due to the lack of direction/policy from the Federal Govt.

We had the technology, we simply didn't have the leadership to deliver on it.

 

[Carringbush2010]

We do have the technology for scale now.

What we lacked was the investment largely due to the lack of direction/policy from the Federal Govt.

We had the technology, we simply didn't have the leadership to deliver on it.

Interesting,

So if we have the tech to scale now and seeing how renewables is the now go to from a market perspective, why are we still using so much fossil fuels?

I suspect the dirty fuel users can't just switch off overnight as 1000's of jobs, own self interest, export $ etc. etc.

I also suspect we don't enough resources on the planet to replace all of the fossil fuel use, in there lies we need other solutions than battery / wind / solar - we don't have the resources of that tech to replace the worlds reliance on fossil.

So no, I don't agree it's just down to leadership. If indeed your view of leadership is just shut off fossil fuel overnight.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Yes we do, we've had some states already run on 100% renewalables for days on end.

Enough studies have shown that renewables and batteries could have done the job, if we'd started investing when we should have, which was a decade ago.

.....

The report on the AOEM response should dispel "days on end" as completely inadequate. I don't know about a decade ago, solar energy has been around for far longer than that but how about blaming Henry Ford ? But for his mass production of the internal combustion engine in the early 19th Century and the absence of genii like Ghost Patrol and adogsfan5 in the same period, who would have concentrated industry on development and production of electricity and battrey power, we mightn't be where we are today, wherever that might be.

 

[Cap]

Interesting,

So if we have the tech to scale now and seeing how renewables is the now go to from a market perspective, why are we still using so much fossil fuels?

I suspect the dirty fuel users can't just switch off overnight as 1000's of jobs, own self interest, export $ etc. etc.

I also suspect we don't enough resources on the planet to replace all of the fossil fuel use, in there lies we need other solutions than battery / wind / solar - we don't have the resources of that tech to replace the worlds reliance on fossil.

So no, I don't agree it's just down to leadership. If indeed your view of leadership is just shut off fossil fuel overnight.

Because you simply can't build power generation over night, like you say you can't flick the switch.

The lack of policy direction means 10 years wasted not planning and creating policies to deliver a a smooth transition instead we are here, stuck with aging costly fossil fuel power stations and not enough renewables coming on to the system.

I'm more than happy for you to provide any evidence to back up your obviously wrong assumption that there isn't enough resources to deliver a 100% renewables.

And no, my view on leadership is not just to turn it off overnight, I've made that reasonably clear in each of these posts.

I'm not sure how a reasonable person doesn't see a decade of failing to deliver a coherent strategy or policy for a Nation's electricity needs as a complete lack of leadership. But I guess that assumes people are reasonable.

 

[Cap]

The report on the AOEM response should dispel "days on end" as completely inadequate. I don't know about a decade ago, solar energy has been around for far longer than that but how about blaming Henry Ford ? But for his mass production of the internal combustion engine in the early 19th Century and the absence of genii like Ghost Patrol and adogsfan5 in the same period, who would have concentrated industry on development and production of electricity and battrey power, we mightn't be where we are today, wherever that might be.

No one said it was adequate. Merely that it was possible.

We could establish stupid arguments to divert attention away from the problem at hand, but wasn't 10 years of LNP doing exactly that enough?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

The report on the AOEM response should dispel "days on end" as completely inadequate. I don't know about a decade ago, solar energy has been around for far longer than that but how about blaming Henry Ford ? But for his mass production of the internal combustion engine in the early 19th Century and the absence of genii like Ghost Patrol and adogsfan5 in the same period, who would have concentrated industry on development and production of electricity and battrey power, we mightn't be where we are today, wherever that might be.

What is this dribble? It makes no sense.

You have jumped the shark again.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Because you simply can't build power generation over night, like you say you can't flick the switch.

The lack of policy direction means 10 years wasted not planning and creating policies to deliver a a smooth transition instead we are here, stuck with aging costly fossil fuel power stations and not enough renewables coming on to the system.

I'm more than happy for you to provide any evidence to back up your obviously wrong assumption that there isn't enough resources to deliver a 100% renewables.

And no, my view on leadership is not just to turn it off overnight, I've made that reasonably clear in each of these posts.

I'm not sure how a reasonable person doesn't see a decade of failing to deliver a coherent strategy or policy for a Nation's electricity needs as a complete lack of leadership. But I guess that assumes people are reasonable.

I don't disagree with your obviously correct assumption of the previous governments inaction. Well that'd work well if you had a time machine, but we don't.

As for available resources for current renewable tech, even if we did have it >for the whole planet not just here at home<, otherwise the conversation is moot, it would be very emission intensive to replace all and sundry fossil fuel energy production.

I suspect we don't otherwise mining companies would be going gangbusters digging the surface to oblivion right now.

We (the whole planet) need to find tech that is to scale to eradicate the use of fossil fuel, the current renewable tech ISN'T to scale right now.

 

[O Grobbecker]

What is this dribble? It makes no sense.

dribble ? don't you mean drivel ? “Dribble” and “drivel” mean different things. When you mean to criticize someone else's speech as stupid or pointless, the word you want is “drivel.” It’s a common mistake found among the ignorami, often also identified by their use of “of had” instead of “have had” when using, unconsciously, the pluperfect tense, and even more common among pinko, lefto, commo Greenies. You may not value the King but, for the sake of your readers, at least value his English

 

[Cap]

I don't disagree with your obviously correct assumption of the previous governments inaction. Well that'd work well if you had a time machine, but we don't.

As for available resources for current renewable tech, even if we did have it >for the whole planet not just here at home<, otherwise the conversation is moot, it would be very emission intensive to replace all and sundry fossil fuel energy production.

I suspect we don't otherwise mining companies would be going gangbusters digging the surface to oblivion right now.

We (the whole planet) need to find tech that is to scale to eradicate the use of fossil fuel, the current renewable tech ISN'T to scale right now.

Again, we have the tech. The comment around the inaction of the previous Govt is a direct response to your attempt to frame me as some ideologists, you keep framing this discussion as one we didn't see coming...we did. We didn't need a time machine, we knew 10 years ago. The argument isn't we can't flick the switch, it is we shouldn't have to, we should be there already, or at least a lot further than we are.

We lack the willingness to move towards 100% renewable for a variety of political reasons., largely a successful disinformation campaign that has created a polital environment where we have one side actively working against the transition to Renewables on a purely ideological reasons.

Can I speak for poorer countries that can't afford to transition? No really, however again there is nothing stopping wealthy countries delivering renewable infrastructure to these countries if they wanted to.

And please, the whole carbon intensive argument is ridiculous, we already are carbon intensive, at least (if it were true) we would be investing the carbon emissions into something that makes us less carbon intensive in the long run, compared to not doing it. Mining Companies are going gang busters, mining coal , have you not seen the price?

You need to stop confusing a lack of will, with a lack of ability. We could if we wanted to scale this up. We just aren't willing to.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

dribble ? don't you mean drivel ? “Dribble” and “drivel” mean different things. When you mean to criticize someone else's speech as stupid or pointless, the word you want is “drivel.” It’s a common mistake found among the ignorami, often also identified by their use of “of had” instead of “have had” when using, unconsciously, the pluperfect tense, and even more common among pinko, lefto, commo Greenies. You may not value the King but, for the sake of your readers, at least value his English

A dribble is a flash fiction story that uses around 50 words.

Let's just agree that you're on the spectrum between dribble and drabble.

 

[O Grobbecker]

...The lack of policy direction means 10 years wasted not planning and creating policies to deliver a a smooth transition instead we are here, stuck with aging costly fossil fuel power stations and not enough renewables coming on to the system.

I'm more than happy for you to provide any evidence to back up your obviously wrong assumption that there isn't enough resources to deliver a 100%[b/] renewables.

.....

I'm not sure how a reasonable person doesn't see a decade of failing to deliver a coherent strategy or policy for a Nation's electricity needs as a complete lack of leadership. But I guess that assumes people are reasonable.

AOEM was established by the Federal Government in 2007, to oversee administration of energy, in general, in Australia. Your decade coincides with coalition government apart from approaching a year of ALP government. In terms of implementing AOEM recommendations, it has been that the coalition governments complied whist the current government ignores. Facts over ideology. I accept that you position is largely sensible. The Coalition had a strategy, to ensure delivery of power uninterrupted whilst encouraging development of alternatives to coal and gas. Sensible.

 

[O Grobbecker]

AOEM was established by the Federal Government in 2007, to oversee administration of energy, in general, in Australia. Your decade coincides with coalition government apart from approaching a year of ALP government. In terms of implementing AOEM recommendations, it has been that the coalition governments complied whist the current government ignores. Facts over ideology. I accept that you position is largely sensible. The Coalition had a strategy, to ensure delivery of power uninterrupted whilst encouraging development of alternatives to coal and gas. Sensible.

My apologies, Cap, I don't mean to shout at you, just IT deficiency

 

[Cap]

AOEM was established by the Federal Government in 2007, to oversee administration of energy, in general, in Australia. Your decade coincides with coalition government apart from approaching a year of ALP government. In terms of implementing AOEM recommendations, it has been that the coalition governments complied whist the current government ignores. Facts over ideology. I accept that you position is largely sensible. The Coalition had a strategy, to ensure delivery of power uninterrupted whilst encouraging development of alternatives to coal and gas. Sensible.

So they either didn't have a plan, which they didn't. Because doing nothing isn't really a plan.

Or their plan was so bad, we ended up where we are.

I really don't care how you wish to express an obvious failure in policy and leadership, but you can pick which way you want to call their failure out . I'll even let you call it a fact.

 

[adogsfan5]

What is this dribble? It makes no sense.

You have jumped the shark again.

How did we get caught up in the same post?

 

[O Grobbecker]

So they either didn't have a plan, which they didn't. Because doing nothing isn't a plan.

Or their plan was so bad, we ended up where we are.

I really don't care how you wish to express an obvious failure in policy and leadership, but you can pick which way you want to call their failure out . I'll even let you call it a fact.

Why do you call it an "obvious failure in policy and leadership" ? The Federal Government has had energy policies and budgetry allocations throughout it's government. Are you sure you aren't just repeating a slogan ?

 

[Bloods86]

dribble ? don't you mean drivel ? “Dribble” and “drivel” mean different things. When you mean to criticize someone else's speech as stupid or pointless, the word you want is “drivel.” It’s a common mistake found among the ignorami, often also identified by their use of “of had” instead of “have had” when using, unconsciously, the pluperfect tense, and even more common among pinko, lefto, commo Greenies. You may not value the King but, for the sake of your readers, at least value his English

Lectures someone about using the King's English when they want to "criticize" someone.

 

[O Grobbecker]

A dribble is a flash fiction story that uses around 50 words.

Let's just agree that you're on the spectrum between dribble and drabble.

You know very well what you meant by the inappropriate word "dribble2, nothing to do with fiction writing or publications.

 

[Cap]

Why do you call it an "obvious failure in policy and leadership" ? The Federal Government has had energy policies and budgetry allocations throughout it's government. Are you sure you aren't just repeating a slogan ?

Because it is and it was.

Having bad policies and "allocations" are exactly proving anything was done? (Bushfire recovery anyone)

I'll be more than happy to judge the ALP in the exact manner.

You don't need to take it personally, you aren't the LNP, and if you are taking it personally you need to consider how you view politics. It ain't football.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Lectures someone about using the King's English when they want to "criticize" someone.

Ah, Microsoft is almost as disrespectful of the King's English as GP.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Again, we have the tech. The comment around the inaction of the previous Govt is a direct response to your attempt to frame me as some ideologists, you keep framing this discussion as one we didn't see coming...we did. We didn't need a time machine, we knew 10 years ago. The argument isn't we can't flick the switch, it is we shouldn't have to, we should be there already, or at least a lot further than we are.

We have the tech, like to completely replace fossil fuel energy, worldwide? Well that's up for debate.

Framing you as an ideologist? Yeah nah, that's your interpretation.

Yes we should be there already! but not by current tech, going back in time to blame will not achieve anything.

We lack the willingness to move towards 100% renewable for a variety of political reasons.,

Totes agree, we (the planet < pertinent bit) could've invested in research to discover tech that has ability to replace fossil to scale.

Can I speak for poorer countries that can't afford to transition? No really, however again there is nothing stopping wealthy countries delivering renewable infrastructure to these countries if they wanted to.

Agreed also, so what about the poorer countries if they can't improve? Does the planet improve enough?

And please, the whole carbon intensive argument is ridiculous, we already are carbon intensive, at least (if it were true) we would be investing the carbon emissions into something that makes us less carbon intensive in the long run, compared to not doing it. Mining Companies are going gang busters, mining coal , have you not seen the price?

Mining companies are still going gangbusters in coal and all the sh*t we don't want, again, economic and political reasons, as you point out is the problem.

You need to stop confusing a lack of will, with a lack of ability. We could if we wanted to scale this up. We just aren't willing to.

IMO it's not just a lack of will, there's no evidence to suggest that human kind can scale up to total renewable without consequence, even if you remove political and economic reasons. Unless you can provide some.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Because it is and it was.

Having bad policies and "allocations" are exactly proving anything was done? (Bushfire recovery anyone)

I'll be more than happy to judge the ALP in the exact manner.

You don't need to take it personally, you aren't the LNP, and if you are taking it personally you need to consider how you view politics. It ain't football.

I certainly am not the Coalition and I don't take your posts personally. It's wrong to blame the governments between 2013 and 2012 as not having a policy. it's policy was to encourage investment in renewals but not at the expense of the economy or the needs of the electorate. That's being responsible. Ignoring the recommendations of AOEM is irresponsible.