The future of Australian coal

[Elroo]

You’re confusing caretaker mode at the political level with care taker mode of the departments

No im not PF!

Caretaker begins as election is called

By David Donaldson • 11/04/2019

The federal parliament has been dissolved following the election announcement, so the Australian Public Service is now in caretaker mode.

 

[Elroo]

Yes you’re right departments don’t change the laws. That’s why departments have dialogue with politicians be it government or opposition to test their support.

Shorten provided his which in my opinion was the right position

Yes you’re right departments don’t change the laws.

Hooray You finally learnt something, next Iíi have you drawing with crayons rather than eating them!

Shorten provided his which in my opinion was the right position

And this would be about the 5th or 6th time Ive asked you to provide evidence of this claim about Shorten, any chance you could provide an ounce of evidence, or is this another one of your multiple lies PF?

Remember the 90/10 rule with your posts PF?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

oh and with the EV, the governments will be crying poor that the fuel excise no longer collected what it did.

So the debate about a tax, that will soon pass it's used by is kinda silly.

I agree. And I am somewhat sympathetic to the "they don't use our roads" argument when fuel excise has been stated to be collected specifically for road construction and maintenance. That's why I'd bin off fuel excise altogether and impose a carbon tax instead, this time applicable to fuel too, with no business exemptions for fuel. They may not use our roads, but they are quite happy to pollute our air and contribute to climate change, as is every other car owner, so let them pay for it.

There was never any reason why fuel excise absolutely had to be linked to road maintenance anyway, other than the say-so of some assuredly long-deceased old windbag.

 

[Power Raid]

I agree. And I am somewhat sympathetic to the "they don't use our roads" argument when fuel excise has been stated to be collected specifically for road construction and maintenance. That's why I'd bin off fuel excise altogether and impose a carbon tax instead, this time applicable to fuel too, with no business exemptions for fuel. They may not use our roads, but they are quite happy to pollute our air and contribute to climate change, as is every other car owner, so let them pay for it.

There was never any reason why fuel excise absolutely had to be linked to road maintenance anyway, other than the say-so of some assuredly long-deceased old windbag.

The only issue to that is governments subsidies clean energy for cities. Would you advocate the same for regional areas that by their nature require a larger CO2 footprint?

Who would build the required EV charging stations, the necessary grid to support that and clean power options.



The reality is mining and farming would shift off shore, increasing global CO2 in production and transport.

It would also set us in a pathway to compete with Indians and Chinese trading time for money.



Reducing CO2 can only be achieved through strategic direction rather than a carbon tax as Germany has found out painfully

 

[Power Raid]

No im not PF!

You claim not to be confused but then proceed to post a link confirming you are confusing government care taker mode and department care taker mode.

Further look at Qlds state government departments going into care taker mode for an election that didn’t concern them.

 

[Elroo]

You claim not to be confused but then proceed to post a link confirming you are confusing government care taker mode and department care taker mode.

Further look at Qlds state government departments going into care taker mode for an election that didn’t concern them.

I know you and truth are like oil and water, ive corrected your constant lies since you crawled onto this site.

- You lied about the the caretaker period in Western Australia, you claimed it started 12 months prior to the last election when it wasn't.
- You lied about the Caretaker mode occuring 3-6 months prior to the last Commonwealth election, it didn't.
- You lied and claimed that Bill Shorten had approved small scale 5kw reactors, then when challenged you claimed it was 5-40MW Shorten had approved.
- You lied and claimed a government department during the caretaker mode had given Shorten approval for the claimed small scale reactors for the ADF, yet the change from our no nuclear policy requires an ACT of parliament, not department approval.
- you lied & claimed "the ADF has requested the acquisition of small modular reactors similar to the ones referred here"; yoet when you were challenged to provide evidene to support this lie, you changed your story and suddenly it was "The ADF did not make a request to purchase"!
- when asked not once, not twice, but at least 7-8 times for evidence of your claims that Bill Shorten has requested approve to acquire small scale reactors, you turn to water and cannot provide a single bit of evidence!
- You lied and claimed the ADF was intending to replace their ICE fleet with EV units when this is an outright lie! The ADF is not intending to replace their ICE fleet with EV's, we are currently in the procurement stage for new fleets of vehicles/assets that have ICE, and will be in use for 40+ years.

And heres your very own thread PF!

Ratts and Power Raid, post your feud stuff here!

Hi guys I notice you are having a lot of trouble not being tools in threads mostly populated by people who aren't there to watch the two of you act like tools. Here is a thread for your toolish crap. Enjoy! Jiska get your popcorn :)

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The only issue to that is governments subsidies clean energy for cities. Would you advocate the same for regional areas that by their nature require a larger CO2 footprint?

Of course. If the countryside has a higher cost of living and a greater impact on their lives, they should get a greater subsidy per person. To individuals, mind you. I'm not in favour of corporate welfare in most cases.

Who would build the required EV charging stations, the necessary grid to support that and clean power options.

Government. I don't trust any private company in the realms of transmission or distribution, and not many of them in generation either.

The reality is mining and farming would shift off shore, increasing global CO2 in production and transport.

If you say so. I'd also look into applying a distance tax on imported goods, and I'd be willing to renegotiate every free trade agreement we have to make it happen. Some would call me crazy for that perhaps, but I think it could be done.

Reducing CO2 can only be achieved through strategic direction rather than a carbon tax as Germany has found out painfully

The evidence suggests otherwise. Did you not see that emissions fell under Labor and their carbon price and increased under the Coalition?

 

[Power Raid]

Of course. If the countryside has a higher cost of living and a greater impact on their lives, they should get a greater subsidy per person. To individuals, mind you. I'm not in favour of corporate welfare in most cases.



Government. I don't trust any private company in the realms of transmission or distribution, and not many of them in generation either.



If you say so. I'd also look into applying a distance tax on imported goods, and I'd be willing to renegotiate every free trade agreement we have to make it happen. Some would call me crazy for that perhaps, but I think it could be done.



The evidence suggests otherwise. Did you not see that emissions fell under Labor and their carbon price and increased under the Coalition?

Would you also tax unreliable power systems that result in the delay of reliable clean solutions?

After all, shouldn’t we punish half baked solutions that delay the introduction of effective solutions, putting the world and environment at risk?

Or are we OK with trying, even though we have evidence that wind and solar have failed?

 

[Power Raid]

Of course. If the countryside has a higher cost of living and a greater impact on their lives, they should get a greater subsidy per person. To individuals, mind you. I'm not in favour of corporate welfare in most cases.



Government. I don't trust any private company in the realms of transmission or distribution, and not many of them in generation either.



If you say so. I'd also look into applying a distance tax on imported goods, and I'd be willing to renegotiate every free trade agreement we have to make it happen. Some would call me crazy for that perhaps, but I think it could be done.



The evidence suggests otherwise. Did you not see that emissions fell under Labor and their carbon price and increased under the Coalition?

You’ll find CO2 emissions fell due to a slow down in heavy industry activity tied to the economy.

Please refer Germany’s 45 year failed plan vs New Zealand, Tasmania, Norway, France, Sweden, Ontario, South America, etc etc

Germany is 10-15 times worse than strategic action . Is that failed model really acceptable?

 

[CM86]

Please refer Germany’s 45 year failed plan vs New Zealand, Tasmania, Norway, France, Sweden, Ontario, South America, etc etc

Please link to Germany's 45 year failed plan.

Please note, I'm not asking for your opinion, a rebuttal, or a return question.

I'm only asking you for a direct link to this 45 year old plan, which you have told us to refer to.
It needs to have a name, a start date and an end date.

Only once it's been shown to exist can we start talking about if it's actually failed or not, and then comparisons to other countries.


So please, no bullshit. Just the link to the 45 year old plan, with its name, start date and end date.

Thank you.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

You’ll find CO2 emissions fell due to a slow down in heavy industry activity tied to the economy.

And your source for this information is?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Would you also tax unreliable power systems that result in the delay of reliable clean solutions?

After all, shouldn’t we punish half baked solutions that delay the introduction of effective solutions, putting the world and environment at risk?

Or are we OK with trying, even though we have evidence that wind and solar have failed?

Reliable is a weasel word. Be specific and clear about what you mean. Who are you to say what is effective? I'll trust the AEMO on that score.

What evidence are you referring to? You have linked no such evidence.

 

[Power Raid]

Reliable is a weasel word. Be specific and clear about what you mean. Who are you to say what is effective? I'll trust the AEMO on that score.

What evidence are you referring to? You have linked no such evidence.

I trust the equivalent of AEMO around the world reporting here https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false

click on the various juridictions at different times of the day and different days of the year. Take special care to note the CO2g/kwhr to work out what is reliable and what is effective.

you'll very quickly see those which have achieved world's best standard of 40-70g/kwhr (Ontario, parts of South America, Tasmania, Sweden, Norway, France, New Zealand, Yukon) and those who have rolled out ineffective and unreliable solutions.

Please feel free to identify a single place on the planet that has gone down the failed wind and solar route that has delivered an outcome even close to world's best practice reliably.

 

[Power Raid]

Please link to Germany's 45 year failed plan.

Please note, I'm not asking for your opinion, a rebuttal, or a return question.

I'm only asking you for a direct link to this 45 year old plan, which you have told us to refer to.
It needs to have a name, a start date and an end date.

Only once it's been shown to exist can we start talking about if it's actually failed or not, and then comparisons to other countries.


So please, no ********. Just the link to the 45 year old plan, with its name, start date and end date.

Thank you.

Germany's benchmark start date is 1990

they have a range of key dates between 2030 (targets) and 2038 (closing all coal). The reason why I chose 2035 was the x date of expenditure to be 1.5 trillion.

Another reason why 2035 is looking interesting is announced closure of nuclear is 2022 is likely to be pushed out due to legal issues and the failings of renewables. Whether it's 2022 or 2035 is irrelevant other than to the impact of the CO2 levels. The closure of those plants removes a clean 40g/kwhr reliable generation facility and replaced by the weighted average of their energy mix (unless they import more from their clean neighbors).

Further the introduction of the EV in Germany will double CO2 emmissions given their dirty energy mix releases twice as much CO2 to diesel and petrol. That's how bad the renewables failure has been.

Meanwhile in the 70s and 80s, leading nations delivered solutions that are 10-15 times more effective than Germany's failed model. not 10-15%......but 10-15 times. Do we wait half a century for Germany to stop playing games or do we demand action? How long can the environment wait?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I trust the equivalent of AEMO around the world reporting here blah blah blah

I asked you a simple question and you couldn't give a straight answer, instead trying to change the subject to some nonsense that only bears on generation in a particular moment. Never heard of large scale battery storage?

Please feel free to identify a single place on the planet that has gone down the failed wind and solar route that has delivered an outcome even close to world's best practice reliably.

Denmark.

Germany's benchmark start date is 1990 blah blah blah

Yet again, you were asked for a very specific thing and you couldn't give a straight answer. CM86 wanted a link, not some unsourced diatribe.

 

[Power Raid]

I asked you a simple question and you couldn't give a straight answer, instead trying to change the subject to some nonsense that only bears on generation in a particular moment. Never heard of large scale battery storage?



Denmark.



Yet again, you were asked for a very specific thing and you couldn't give a straight answer. CM86 wanted a link, not some unsourced diatribe.

Please be reasonable in your response

Tell me about this large scale storage? Like the on in SA with the ability to supply Adelaide for 7 minutes? With prices above 40c rather than competitive 4-13c


And Denmark......the one relying on 50% supply from its neighbours (hydro and nuclear) as we speak......so essentially forming support to my claim that no country on the planet choosing wind and solar has worked without nuclear or hydro

 

[CM86]

I'm only asking you for a direct link to this 45 year old plan, which you have told us to refer to.

So please, no ********. Just the link to the 45 year old plan, with its name, start date and end date.

Thank you.

Do we wait half a century for Germany to stop playing games or do we demand action? How long can the environment wait?

Please link this 45 year old plan that you told us to refer to.

I'm not sure why you're talking about 2035... That's in the future. You're talking past tense.

 

[Power Raid]

Yet again, you were asked for a very specific thing and you couldn't give a straight answer. CM86 wanted a link, not some unsourced diatribe.

happy to post the links to the different sections. Which one's would you like?

Also happy to simply link the figures today highlighting Germany is 10-15 worse than the leaders in terms of CO2 per kwhr, in the case you find multiple links too much effort.

Can you believe it............the EV will double Germany's CO2 emissions per vehicle as diesel is cleaner than their failed wind and solar strategy. For the 800 billion Euro (and certainly the 1.5 trillion euro), Germany could have followed France and be in the 40-70g range rather than ~500g.

Worse when they close their reactors, they will be back in the 550g range..........effective where Australia is, who have done effectively nothing.

Do you think that's appropriate given the grave danger the environment is in?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Please be reasonable in your response

Why? You're not being reasonable.

Tell me about this large scale storage? Like the on in SA with the ability to supply Adelaide for 7 minutes?

Exactly like that. And it will only get bigger, better and cheaper with increased research and development, and the economies of scale associated with mass production.

And Denmark......the one relying on 50% supply from its neighbours (hydro and nuclear) as we speak......

Wrong again, 1.78% imported. You're just inventing figures out of thin air instead of taking 5 minutes to do even the most basic research.

 

[Power Raid]

Why? You're not being reasonable.


Exactly like that. And it will only get bigger, better and cheaper with increased research and development, and the economies of scale associated with mass production.


Wrong again, 1.78% imported. You're just inventing figures out of thin air instead of taking 5 minutes to do even the most basic research.

Please be reasonable

Batteries will get cheaper no doubt but the inherent cost is the metal.

Further the EU is about to place bans on child labour metal.......lets see what that does to cobalt.

My fund is backed by European governments and our advisory committee covers three car manufacturers, so we get a good look at what’s happening and what the hurdles are.



Lastly do you know what “as we speAk means”? Right now Denmark relies on 39% imports from its neighbours......with nuclear and hydro.

Reliability!

 

[Power Raid]

Please link this 45 year old plan that you told us to refer to.

I'm not sure why you're talking about 2035... That's in the future. You're talking past tense.

As I highlighted ABOVE, Germany has many key dates in the 2030s being coal free, the budget figure and a carbon goal. 2035 was taken as many budgets are linked to this figure.

Firstly, if your uncomfortable with piecing the relative dates together, you're welcome to witness the failure of a 30 year plan live by going here on a periodic basis guring the day across a year https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false

Secondly, a really good article here (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct....aspx?id=439&usg=AOvVaw08jfzNeWfckq5WqsCQ4r6Y) outlines the "on face value" cost of Germany's plan being 20 million euro per annum at the time of writing which is 25 billion euro per annum now and soon to be 30-40 billion euro per annum. The hidden costs of the plan include the direct subsidies to renewables outside of the scheme, the damages costs to shutting down existing capacity (~300 illion euros for nuclear plus plus plus for coal), plus the gas pipelines from russia for energy security, plus the transmission lines not added to renewables, plus the devastation to the forests, PLUS the reality is renewables doubled the cost of power in Germany........this last one alone means the real subsidy is 60+ billion euro per annum. Being a 70 year program (60 plus at least 10 years behind schedule......(70-20 years)x60 billion (less the first 20 years due to staged subsidies) is 3.0 trillion (plus damages).

Thirdly Germany's 60 year plan is woefully embarrassing being 70+ years behind France, Tasmania, New Zealand, Sweden, Ontario etc etc

Fourth, don't blame me that one has to pull things together from various sources......blame Germany. Even their own ministry doesn't know how much it will cost and when they do make assertions, the green groups attack them for suggesting it will be in the trillions.



Additional Sources:


CO2 target - 2030 reference including how far they are behind the 2020 target

Germany and Its Failed Climate Goals

When even a leader on environmental issues comes up short, that doesn’t bode well for everyone else.

www.bloomberg.com

references to 2017, 2030 and 2050 (being 70-80 years behind france) - https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-climate-action-plan-2050

budget
2030 reference of 1,4+ trillion http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Eye_watering_cost_of_renewable_revolution_2301121.html
2033 reference 1.34 trillion https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...trillion-euros-minister-idUSBRE91J0AV20130220


coal free
2038 - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-in-move-away-from-fossil-fuels-idUSKCN1PK04L

Nuclear free
2022 - https://www.politico.eu/article/germanys-green-dreams-run-into-climate-change-reality-nuclear/
this will likely be pushed back

 

[Power Raid]

I know you and truth are like oil and water, ive corrected your constant lies since you crawled onto this site.

Oh Elroo, you remind me of one of those union type blokes. The heart is in the right place but you get too emotional and resort to distractions like this and silliness like Power fail.

Step away from emotion and use a little common sense...........Let's go through your post!

- You lied about the the caretaker period in Western Australia, you claimed it started 12 months prior to the last election when it wasn't.
- You lied about the Caretaker mode occuring 3-6 months prior to the last Commonwealth election, it didn't.

like I said, you're confusing government care taker mode vs department care take mode

1) you posted a link confirming your confusion
2) a good union man is all about "I want job security"......top level department heads want to preserve their job and thus read the tea leaves a long way out from elections. Further even if they did wanted to implement a change strategy, that takes months if not years to achieve, so it simply isn't feasible even if there was the desire. Lastly, if a department or in this case departments (ADF, ANSTO, CSIRO) want to pursue a nuclear power strategy, this is a decade plus process and thus need support from both sides of politics given the election cycles.

- You lied and claimed that Bill Shorten had approved small scale 5kw reactors, then when challenged you claimed it was 5-40MW Shorten had approved.

I can confirm the size is 5-40MW

- You lied and claimed a government department during the caretaker mode had given Shorten approval for the claimed small scale reactors for the ADF, yet the change from our no nuclear policy requires an ACT of parliament, not department approval.

I found out during the care taker mode. I can't confirm when the discussion was held. My gut feel is this is already 3-5 years old given the activities by ANSTO and the CSIRO for the reprocessing and storage facility earmarked for SA, using the CSIRO waste a Woomera for the excuse. Not the waste is low level but a medium level (which is the same as high level) will be built.

- you lied & claimed "the ADF has requested the acquisition of small modular reactors similar to the ones referred here"; yoet when you were challenged to provide evidene to support this lie, you changed your story and suddenly it was "The ADF did not make a request to purchase"!

You don't just buy a reactor and change the capabilities of a defence force without consultation and planning. Firstly we don't have the EVs yet, second we need legislative change, third we need infrastructure, fouth training, fifth a budget etc etc

That's why this is a decade plus strategy. Perhaps due to emotional reasons, you don't appreciate there is a process and planning before action.

The ADF has requested the acquisition of small modular reactors similar to the ones referred here

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...er-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

The reason for the need is the ADF wants to follow the USs plan do do away with combustion engines to mitigate the issue of diesel supply lines. Not to mention the added advantage of quieter transportation system, less moving parts etc. Not to mention the other systems currently requiring diesel such as generators for camps, air bases etc.

This acquisition would initially only be for overseas deployments but what to do with them post campaign? This would have changed the legislation regarding bringing nuclear waste back to Australia and even the prohibitions on nuclear power. Further the need for "training" would mean they would have ended up being utilised on Australian soil.

When it comes to being inevitable, the cost of wind plus the reliability of a battery would put energy costs at ~$0.50kwhr. So it isn't hard to image small modulars being operated in remote towns, mine sites, other boutique applications and eventually cities.

Australia will never lead the way in the energy industry, so until it happens elsewhere, add 5-15 years for us (with the exception of the ADF which will be in parrallel with the US).

U.S. Military Eyes Mini Nuclear Reactors To Reduce Convoy Casualties

Liquid fuel and water comprise most of the mass transported to military forces. Resupply of fuel and drinking water for troops in-theater costs lives, half of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. To reduce these, our military wants small nuclear reactors whose resupply is once every several years.

www.forbes.com

- when asked not once, not twice, but at least 7-8 times for evidence of your claims that Bill Shorten has requested approve to acquire small scale reactors, you turn to water and cannot provide a single bit of evidence!

Actually I had provided the source before you banged on 7-8.........and I even disclosed the source to you again and you still requested the source. Perhaps you should try and be less emotional. Please refer below

multiple sources

- labor (not from Shorten but the representation was Shorten had provided support for the project)
- the submarine defence team assessing the possibility of nuclear propulsion. They were also in charge of paying a settlement to Japan and Germany for Australia's breach in the tender process. We tendered for a conventional sub but awarded the contract to a bidder putting forward a design that probably can not be conventional based on existing technology.
- the engineering team that successfully tendered for the low level radioactive waste facility until the scope changed to facilitate high level waste
- CSIRO
- ANSTO

I've been awaiting a public announcement or even a speculative news article but nothing as yet

- You lied and claimed the ADF was intending to replace their ICE fleet with EV units when this is an outright lie! The ADF is not intending to replace their ICE fleet with EV's, we are currently in the procurement stage for new fleets of vehicles/assets that have ICE, and will be in use for 40+ years.

I made no comment re the ICE fleet. Perhaps you were to emotionally wedded to your trucks and stuff or something.

Resupply of fuel and drinking water for troops in-theater costs lives, about 4 lives for every 100 convoys...........is a life worth hanging onto the past. Do you not think militaries around the world aren't constantly trying to improve their capabilities and reduce the loss of life?

And heres your very own thread PF!

Ratts and Power Raid, post your feud stuff here!

Hi guys I notice you are having a lot of trouble not being tools in threads mostly populated by people who aren't there to watch the two of you act like tools. Here is a thread for your toolish crap. Enjoy! Jiska get your popcorn :)

www.bigfooty.com

It's a shame you were so emotional through this discussion. Was it the reference to EVs, nuclear, shorten or the non reference to ICE that set you off? I apologise for what ever set you off as I didn't mean to get you emotional.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

And this sadly, is why Australia will never have a nuclear reactor. Or should never have one.

I don't trust the country to run what should be a relatively safe form of power generation. Even worse if it ends up in private hands.

Two workers exposed to unsafe radiation dose at Lucas Heights nuclear facility

Two workers exposed to unsafe radiation dose at Lucas Heights nuclear facility

Exclusive: production at Australia’s only nuclear medicine facility halted after ‘safety incident’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Power Raid]

And this sadly, is why Australia will never have a nuclear reactor. Or should never have one.

I don't trust the country to run what should be a relatively safe form of power generation. Even worse if it ends up in private hands.

Two workers exposed to unsafe radiation dose at Lucas Heights nuclear facility

Two workers exposed to unsafe radiation dose at Lucas Heights nuclear facility

Exclusive: production at Australia’s only nuclear medicine facility halted after ‘safety incident’

www.theguardian.com

The most prevalent radiation incidents occur in dental clinics. Should we get rid of them?

Nuclear power is one of the safest power generation methods on par with renewables. If nuclear is dangerous, should we get rid of equally dangerous power generation methods?

 

[Craven Morehead]

And this sadly, is why Australia will never have a nuclear reactor. Or should never have one.

I don't trust the country to run what should be a relatively safe form of power generation. Even worse if it ends up in private hands.

Two workers exposed to unsafe radiation dose at Lucas Heights nuclear facility

Two workers exposed to unsafe radiation dose at Lucas Heights nuclear facility

Exclusive: production at Australia’s only nuclear medicine facility halted after ‘safety incident’

www.theguardian.com

Fair dinkum.

They copped the...

" equivalent to that of a conventional radiation therapy treatment."

But hey, continue to make a mountain out of a molehill.
LOL.