Moving Australia to 100% Renewable Energy would actually SAVE us money.

So have you sold your soul to a petrochemical company yet?

  • No, but I'm hoping they'll give me a call any day now!

  • Nah but I know a guy who knows a guy who has his snout in the trough. its a juicy racket!

  • Nope I stick to intelligent design & anti-vac, denying climate change is too loopy even for me

  • Yes and I would do it again! Money will buy me happiness so I crave MORE MORE MORE

  • Yes, but everyone else is doing it and the world's stuffed anyway and.... God I hate myself.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Remove this Banner Ad

A Cut Above

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 in my lifetime 😁
Aug 27, 2015
26,500
83,011
🅱️🅰️🥇1️⃣3️⃣
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
🇦🇺
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...0-renewable-energy-would-save-australia-money

Unfortunately there's a catch - moving to renewables won't earn trillions for multinational fossil fuel companies or line the pockets of the Australian politicians in their possession.

So its business as usual, back to pretending climate change isn't real because there's too much money to be made polluting the atmosphere at the expense of our childrens' future.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Scotland

TheBrownDog
May 5, 2006
58,683
63,617
AFL Club
West Coast
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...0-renewable-energy-would-save-australia-money

Unfortunately there's a catch - moving to renewables won't earn trillions for multinational fossil fuel companies or line the pockets of the Australian politicians in their possession.

So its business as usual, back to pretending climate change isn't real because there's too much money to be made polluting the atmosphere at the expense of our childrens' future.
It's interesting, but only part of the picture.

http://www.afr.com/business/mining/...-southeast-asia-demand-surges-20151013-gk7sms

We already export a lot more coal than we actually consume, and our export volumes are rising. Said volumes are around 4 or 5 to 1 relative to domestic consumption, IIRC.

So we stop burning coal and that's great, but we're not going to stop mining coal (which in itself is a very fossil fuel intensive activity regardless of what happens to the final product), and if we have a spare tonne for every 5 that are already exported, we'll just end up exporting 6.

And that's just coal, the most 'industrial revolution' of the fossil fuels. We export natural gas and petroleum products too.

Climate change is very real, but our 'solutions' are not. If we are serious about putting an end to coal fired power generation then we need to stop mining and exporting coal. Anyone want to model that? It's just ridiculous that we set domestic emissions reduction targets (as unambitious as they are) then bank on increasing coal exports...
 

Scotland

TheBrownDog
May 5, 2006
58,683
63,617
AFL Club
West Coast
Ummm well hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe..... We have a shitload of water that we could split as well
By that logic we have a shitload of seawater so no one on the planet should ever go thirsty.

Producing Hydrogen is energy intensive. Steam reformation requires fossil fuel containing Hydrogen and, obviously, steam - which typically comes from burning fossil fuels to heat water.

We're never going to save the planet consuming Methane to produce Hydrogen and Carbon Dioxide/Monoxide.
 

rippersnipper

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 22, 2014
10,280
8,046
AFL Club
North Melbourne
By that logic we have a shitload of seawater so no one on the planet should ever go thirsty.

Producing Hydrogen is energy intensive. Steam reformation requires fossil fuel containing Hydrogen and, obviously, steam - which typically comes from burning fossil fuels to heat water.

We're never going to save the planet consuming Methane to produce Hydrogen and Carbon Dioxide/Monoxide.
Everything requires energy, look up electrolysis
 

Lester Burnham

Cancelled
Jul 9, 2013
4,492
4,405
AFL Club
Geelong
Ummm well hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe..... We have a shitload of water that we could split as well
There is not much pure hydrogen on earth. It tends to drift off out of the atmosphere. Most of the hydrogen we produce comes from natural gas - a process that generates carbon dioxide. Why not just use much more efficient carbon based energy?

Splitting water to create hydrogen requires energy rather than creating it.
 

Scotland

TheBrownDog
May 5, 2006
58,683
63,617
AFL Club
West Coast
There are other methods for producing Hydrogen beyond steam reformation and electrolysis of water but they aren't viable at this point in time.

The future for Australia is probably nuclear.

I really like the potential in solar but people need to look at it from a life cycle perspective and not just 'hey look the sun's out, I'm getting free power out of nothing'. Panels, batteries etc. have to come from somewhere.

It's like poly water tanks. They are great, but when you look at how much water goes in to producing a single poly water tank vs how much water it will save over its lifetime then it is food for thought.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
May 3, 2009
20,418
16,409
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
Unfortunately there's a catch - moving to renewables won't earn trillions for multinational fossil fuel companies or line the pockets of the Australian politicians in their possession.
Whatever the source, energy will generate trillions in revenue. A transition to renewables will just mean a different set of greedy multi-nationals lining the pockets of politicians.
 

Sydney Bloods

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,941
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
By that logic we have a shitload of seawater so no one on the planet should ever go thirsty.

Producing Hydrogen is energy intensive. Steam reformation requires fossil fuel containing Hydrogen and, obviously, steam - which typically comes from burning fossil fuels to heat water.

We're never going to save the planet consuming Methane to produce Hydrogen and Carbon Dioxide/Monoxide.
not if you use the nuclear option, you only need water (and a nuclear power station) it makes the most sense.
nuclear energy for most of our electricity needs. with hydrogen replacing gasoline products as the main fuel source for things like trucks and generators.

i'm hesitant to back nuclear power but the more you look into it, it's the only way we can combat man made emissions in a reasonable time frame.
 

Scotland

TheBrownDog
May 5, 2006
58,683
63,617
AFL Club
West Coast
not if you use the nuclear option, you only need water (and a nuclear power station) it makes the most sense.
nuclear energy for most of our electricity needs. with hydrogen replacing gasoline products as the main fuel source for things like trucks and generators.

i'm hesitant to back nuclear power but the more you look into it, it's the only way we can combat man made emissions in a reasonable time frame.
No I get that the power plant provides the steam so you're not burning fossil fuels to produce superheated steam but you still need a feed stock to source the Hydrogen atoms.

CH4 + H20 -> CO + 3H2
CO + H2O -> CO2 + H2

Like all alternative energy options it has its pros and cons.
 

Nuggs Bunny

Premium Platinum
Oct 12, 2015
6,067
9,419
de_dust2
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys
We could save lots of money by moving to renewable energy.

I could also save lots of money on fuel bills by selling my SS and buying a Tesla Model S.

The problem is that I cannot afford a Tesla Model S....

The transition away from fossil fuels will always be slow and will never meet the expectations of the more environmentally minded.

It has nothing to do with fossil fuel companies or government corruption (in most cases). Around a decade ago was when politicians realized that the problem was not going to go away regardless of what the biggest corporations in the world felt about it, look to China as proof. What it does have to do with is asset management; those coal fired plants which have not reached the end of their useful life are still worth billions of dollars to Australia in their current state. We won't be replacing them until we absolutely need to.

Australia has an affinity of keeping a budget balanced as possible, with everybody from nurses and firefighters to train drivers and customs officers lining up for bigger pay cheques. Not replacing things before they absolutely need to is a handy way of minimizing depreciation costs and saving money to throw around in other areas.

Australia's priorities are not with renewable energy right now. Stop a person on the street and they'll agree that more needs to be spend to fight climate change. They'll also say that public servants deserve more pay. And they'll also say that the government should minimize debt. Right now our politicians are trying to meet every one of those demands with minimal effect.
 

little graham

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 18, 2013
17,752
11,802
AFL Club
Adelaide
The problem was never how we generated our energy. It is now, but that's not what got us in this sh*t. The problem is capatlism. Capitalism answer is more of the same on a more dangerous level, just upping the stakes to avoid accountability. A couple of those capitalists pigs have already trolled this thread.

I look forward to laughing at all the retorts from those who don't know the reality of capitalism.
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
33,247
32,255
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
The problem was never how we generated our energy. It is now, but that's not what got us in this sh*t. The problem is capatlism. Capitalism answer is more of the same on a more dangerous level, just upping the stakes to avoid accountability. A couple of those capitalists pigs have already trolled this thread.

I look forward to laughing at all the retorts from those who don't know the reality of capitalism.
Yes, there are loads of political/economic systems with great environmental records....like...umm...and....ummm...
 

theyellowsash

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 9, 2009
12,279
15,668
Footscray
AFL Club
Richmond
but but....what about what about those ads telling us about how amazing coal is.....



"isnt it amazing what a little black rock can do"...





theres a very good reason china is REDUCING its use of coal. we would be ******* idiots not to follow suit. Then again, we are a conservative (for the developed world) hole that likes to use public money to prop up the profits of the rich few who own the various mining industries.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad