Brexit Take 2

[facthunter]

Bex. It would be a very stressfull matter to try to convince you of some error. None of us are ever completely correct so some divergence of opinion is "normal" I would think, in an interchange of views. I deal with some very knowledgeable and accomplished people in another life off line and it's easy. They become my friends over many years. You seem to have to totally destroy someone's point of view. It's too confrontational for me . I can't be bothered with the angst, as I doubt I will ever get my point considered.. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

Sometimes I feel like that too Nev... but if no one talks up then the opposing view becomes the new normal.

 

We now have the situation (unprecedented in my memory) that people are marching for science because of all the "alternative facts" and opposition to science and fact-based decision making shown by certain political leaders (some of which have red hair).

 

Crowds gather worldwide to March for Science on Earth Day

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

We should be replacing coal with uranium, it is by far the cleanest base-load power source.We could become the Nigeria of uranium supply...

Bruce have you researched the actual cost of the whole nuclear fuel cycle? You might find that Australia is best placed to capitalise on solar power. Safer, cleaner, available everywhere and we don't have to go deeper into debt buying foreign technology.

 

 

[Bruce]

It's the storage which kills solar. There is as yet nothing which matches pumped water for efficiency. and that is a real expensive thing to do. If you want an invention to make solar work, it would be a real cheap storage battery. Alas there is no such thing...darn.

 

Imagine a breakthrough which enabled water to be broken into hydrogen and oxygen cheaply and efficiently. That would change the world, but alas the cost is high and the efficiency is low.

 

This is from a guy who has solar panels on his roof.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

The nuclear fuel cycle is an expensive one, but one that need not be as much as it is. The regulatory burden for upgrading Enterprise Asset Management systems, for example, is massive; total cost can be north of £20m - and that's just an upgrade and most of that will be regulatory burden. Also, there are the issues around the new technology (Euro Pressure Reactors) being dogmatically pursued when a simpler technology - small module reactors - can be deployed that scale up nicely now and can reduce the refueling costs by literally £30m or more per refuel.

 

However, the decommissioning costs to add up and that can be an economic killer...

 

 

[facthunter]

Storage can be costly where the supply is endless and cheap. You could us superlarge flywheels, etc. Batteries are getting cheaper. The "system" wants centralised control and distribution, which is like a toll road, If you must use it you pay our price for it, without having much say in what costs are incurred in the structure, the quality of it and how much profit goes where. Baseload is thrown around but what is really needed is the ability to balance load with available power. Ie FLEXIBLIITY. Hydro, some gas selective load shedding work. Supercritical COAL doesn't. It only runs efficiently at close to a rated power and is very slow to fire up and close down. Just what you don't need to fix our current problems. (Pun intended). The desert environment could be the NEW prosperity location energy rich at no damage to the world environment. No monopoly available so not popular for the "usual" energy investors. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Didn't little Johnny make a great show of getting a free trade agreement with the USA, which was going to be so good for us?

 

So how come the exports to USA are way down.

 

We are not going to ever be any better off unless we have a radical change in government.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Didn't little Johnny make a great show of getting a free trade agreement with the USA, which was going to be so good for us?So how come the exports to USA are way down.

 

We are not going to ever be any better off unless we have a radical change in government.

...and send in some negotiators who won't sell us out for peanuts.

 

 

[facthunter]

To get a plum job after politics as payback for services rendered. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Bex. It would be a very stressfull matter to try to convince you of some error.

That's twice ...

 

That you posted fantasy and had facts thrown back at you is your fault, not mine.

 

I'll do you a favour Nev, I'll put you on ignore to save you the "angst" of my posts.

 

Bye bye.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

So what's your solution, Bex? Dig up even more coal?

Not sure where that came from. Why would my answer be to "dig more out" immediately after I just proved it's a diminishing market.

 

But anyway, You celebrated a coal free day, I then merely and factually (with evidence, take note Nev) replied of what it will lead to for Australia eventually. I'm not celebrating, I'm deeply concerned where it will end.

 

I totally agree that Australia is rapidly approaching a balance of trade crisis. We have become dangerously dependent on digging stuff out of the ground.

Yes, that's what I said, and you agree, yet you asked me about digging more out, I am one confused puppy.

 

We blame our leaders, but the average Australian wants it all, and votes out any government that threatens our short-term comfort. We elect politicians without even medium-term vision.

Completely agree, well said.

 

But there is a quandary, you and others no doubt "want it all", I certainly do, but if you dump coal and oil then you will also have to dump some of "want it all".

 

Even if you don't realise it, the hypocrisy of literally anyone who says it, outside of those living in Nimbin, rates from medium to extreme.

 

But there I go again, telling people the truth about themselves, not the fastest way to make friends, apparently ;)

 

They desperately support dirty old technology while ignoring smart, home-grown sunrise industries.

Who's paying for all this awesome tech? Even the Greens laughed Labor's "50% alternate energy by 2030" policy down, they haven't mentioned it since.

 

We can not afford it, period. Talk is cheap.

 

And I'll mention another issue right there, not so many years ago people were rather dependent or tribal, community based etc. They helped themselves, and they helped each other to build things and solve problems. 50 years ago small towns would have built their own alternate energy sources had this same situation/knowledge been known.

 

Now almost everyone screams about the problem and screams at the Government to do something, because they're not going to do a thing other than feel good that they bit-ched about it on social media.

 

To maintain our standard of living we are saddling our children with enormous debt.

Hold the front door, you push for unaffordable alternative energy, then you post that.

 

Or how about we just stop using copious amounts of electricity and buying useless rubbish to keep up with the Jones? Why are people driving new 300hp Falcodores to do 100kmh? You don't actually need grass when plants and concrete look just great - and a hell of a lot less water.

 

The list goes on and on, stupid greedy Westerners.

 

 

[Marty_d]

...Even the Greens laughed Labor's "50% alternate energy by 2030" policy down, they haven't mentioned it since.

Laughed it down? I don't think so... the Green's own policy is 90% renewable energy by 2030 (http://greens.org.au/clean-energy-roadmap). So I don't see them laughing at Labor for having a crack.

 

And looking at Labor's website, it appears their policy is still 50% Renewable Energy By 2030

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Going renewable may be an expensive investment, but that is because it is still a relatively new industry in terms of economies of scale (although wind should be cheaper than it was a few years ago and with the take up of PV solar cell manufacture in China - prices should be dropping, there too). However, what is the cost if we pursue with cheaper established energy forms - its cost will be a lot higher in the end. So, like many high capital starts, it requires some fiscal stimulus by government - thing original utilities companies, railways and even the more or less modern version of our national carriers QANTAS/TAA) to foster the industries.

 

I have also read that as fossil fuels diminish, it becomes harder to extract what remains, and therefore, its price goes up because the unit prive to get it to the user is higher. Of course, Shale has prolonged oil at cheap prices - it will eventually become so expensive to get out, that, if we haven't polluted ourselves to death, we will be paying a lot more for it.. and every other depletable resource.

 

As I understand, modern environmental science believes the earth has a total energy budget; even wind turbines take energy out of the atmosphere... Apparently, the sun has the highest budget allocation though.

 

@bexrbetter - You're pretty well on the nail though - we all want our shiny things. Do we need an aeroplane when we could go gliding (winch launch) and have as much fun (of course, longer distance or business trips, etc are different)? Do I need the 4x4 when it is used to cart two kids to school, do some shopping and occasionally pick up some cargo of some sort? Do I even need a smart-phone, GPS device, etc. etc. How many houses do I go to that have more TVs and instances of other devices than physical people in the house.. Cars, too...

 

But, we are taught we have to pursue relentless economic growth or we are not optimising our return on our assets...

 

So, I am not sure what the answer is, but it sounds like a balance of many things from our energy mix to our socio-cultural-economic values.

 

As George Doorbell-yah said (rather less eloquently, I may say), people won't forgoe their standard of living - technology is the only way out of this pickle.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I have also read that as fossil fuels diminish,

It's amazing how many people don't know what's happened in Venezuela in the last 10 years.

 

In short they went from having some oil, to being number one in the world with an over 250 year supply capability, and they are still finding more.

 

Oil reserves in Venezuela - Wikipedia

 

Then there's Russia ...

 

Meet The Oil Shale Eighty Times Bigger Than The Bakken

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Know about Venezuela - which is why my comment included polluting ourselves to death prior to depleting resources. Also, when the bulk of the worlds supply is concentrated in a few geographic regions with questionable regimes in charge (not saying a certain regime is beyond reproach), the potential for price volatility up the curve is higher than down. No doubt, there are other untapped sources out there somewhere, including under sea-bed, etc.

 

The fact remains, regardless of the supply of oil (and gas and coal, for that matter), the ultimate cost of continuing with "cheap" fossil energy sources is going to be much bigger than the up front investment to move to less polluting sources - we may not pay for it in our lifetime - but someone will.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

technology is the only way out of this pickle.

The same tech that will have 30% of all current jobs by 2030?

 

Might reduce the pollution simply because those people won't be able to afford energy.

 

The fact remains, regardless of the supply of oil (and gas and coal, for that matter), the ultimate cost of continuing with "cheap" fossil energy sources is .. .

 

... not going to change because people refuse to change.

 

I keep saying it over and over and continually get attacked for it, it's the truth, at least I can admit it. No one here or anyone I know of otherwise is going to give up a single luxury they currently are used to.

 

Hypocrites is the proper word for many who say otherwise, and no, putting rubbish in the recycle bins or using a hemp bad rather than plastic bags to carry your shopping doesn't give one the right to pretend otherwise when they then go pour shampoo, soap, dishwashing detergent, washing powder, toilet paper, oils and food waste down the drains into our waters. then there's the very serious issue of microfibers in our oceans from washing your clothes, Google that.

 

It's a long list.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I absolutely agree. Well, with the exception that the cost I am referring to is not monetary - or at least directly monetary - that may or may not change (eventually it will have to when the markets realise they can't treat remaining supplies as infinite - but that could be some time off). Environmental cost can be huge. For example, continual man-accelerated (if not induced) climate change/global warming will have loing term impacts on weather and the ability to sustain food production - leading to increase insurance/building/infrastructure costs, greater loss of life and (assuming a constant population), increased food prices. As the oceans warm, the gulfstream weakens, weakening the ocean currents and it's very source of nutrients, etc. Things will stand still, toxins develop and well, all sorts of things happen. Meanwhile, we will fill our tanks, make "microscopic" plastic beads in soaps and toothpaste and continue choking our sea-life; more land is subject to drought or flood, etc etc.

 

But you're right - we will still out our relatively cheap fuel in our cars, buy relatively cheap gadgets that contain more heavy metals and require ecologically expensive processes to make; etc. Eventually though, the debt collectors will come knocking and by then, it will be too late...

 

 

[octave]

The same tech that will have 30% of all current jobs by 2030?

Might reduce the pollution simply because those people won't be able to afford energy.

Technology has always made some jobs obsolete but has also created new jobs. I don't believe that we can or should halt progress, do you? Personally I am intrigued , excited and generally optimistic about the future. The don't really think the good old days were that good.

 

... not going to change because people refuse to change.

I keep saying it over and over and continually get attacked for it, it's the truth, at least I can admit it. No one here or anyone I know of otherwise is going to give up a single luxury they currently are used to.

 

Hypocrites is the proper word for many who say otherwise, and no, putting rubbish in the recycle bins or using a hemp bad rather than plastic bags to carry your shopping doesn't give one the right to pretend otherwise when they then go pour shampoo, soap, dishwashing detergent, washing powder, toilet paper, oils and food waste down the drains into our waters. then there's the very serious issue of microfibers in our oceans from washing your clothes, Google that.

 

It's a long list.

I agree that individuals are unlikely to all make the required changes. In the 80s I did not voluntarily fit a catalytic converter or use lead free petrol but rather as a society we decided that it was better if we did these things.

 

I did not seek out CFC free aerosols or refrigerants but as a world we decided that the problems caused by CFCs needed to be addressed.

 

A bit of a thread running through your posts on this subject seems to suggest that you believe anyone who accepts the scientific evidence regarding climate change want to get rid of technology and live under a tree. Whilst I suppose there are some people who believe that I would suggest that most of us think the answer is through going forward not going back. I can't see that NASA wants us to go back to living under a tree with no technology, I think actually they would love to build a rocket to carry humans to Mars.

 

Bex I understand that you build cars or engines, perhaps you think that I would criticise you for this? That could not be further from the truth. I drive a car and I fly a plane subject to the restrictions my society has chosen to enforce. I do not think it is hypocritical to live your life within the framework of a modern society whilst questioning whether we could be doing things better.

 

My son is environmentally aware and active but also participates in motor sport, he also has a computer games development company who's product is a game based on engine and car building. I do not see these things as being inconsistent. He loves cars, as well as being interested in the history of cars he is also fascinated by the next innovations. And he does put his money where his mouth is regarding cleaner technologies.

 

The problem with these discussions is that they inevitably become polarised, one side claiming that the other are redneck earth rapers and the other side claiming that the other wants to force everyone to live in a cave and eat lentils, I suspect for the most part neither of these things a true.

 

Happy to discuss in a reasonable calm and respectful way.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...But there is a quandary, you and others no doubt "want it all", I certainly do, but if you dump coal and oil then you will also have to dump some of "want it all".

Even if you don't realise it, the hypocrisy of literally anyone who says it...

 

Hold the front door, you push for unaffordable alternative energy, then you post that...

Bex where do I start? I'm quite happy to cut back my living standard in order to provide a more secure future our kids. Who wouldn't? Many of us learned thrift from our parents who survived the Great Depression. It's not so hard to actually practise what we preach.

 

I haven't advocated ditching coal and other fossil fuels; I have consistently supported phasing them out and not subsidising any new mines, such as that colossal mistake, the Adani mine.

 

"Unaffordable alternative energy"? It's time to dismantle the web of subsidies that have allowed Big Coal and Big Oil to control our economy.

 

We cannot afford not to invest heavily in renewables.

 

 

[facthunter]

Renewables are getting cheaper and the older energy producers get subsidies, are less available and getting more expensive. Cost isn't the problem with renewables. It's more an industry hooked on centralised monopoly distribution. Older industries (the conventional ones) do not pay for the damage they do. They spend a lot on propaganda to preserve the system as it is and deny climate effects. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

A bit of a thread running through your posts on this subject seems to suggest that you believe anyone who accepts the scientific evidence regarding climate change want to get rid of technology and live under a tree.

I'll say it again, and again, I just can't stand the pretentious hypocrisy of many of those people advocating it.

 

That climate debate is boring, ends up the same old same old, lipstick hypocrites attacking with social guilt tactics, then getting off the computer and driving their car 500 meters for bread and milk. The science is in or not, the Earth is going to explode tomorrow or not, most will not change a damn thing about their life habits. I'm annoying because people can't handle the truth about themselves.

 

Maybe we should have some comparisons of daily life to see who around here on a scale who is environmentally friendly, I like my chances of being very high up on the list.

 

rs.

 

Bex I understand that you build cars or engines, perhaps you think that I would criticise you for this?

Go for your life, it will get you no where because all I would do is agree, but I'm not a hypocrite.

 

There is absolutely nothing friendly to the environment regarding what I do, and since it's fun or hobby based, it's an absolute wasteful, damaging rape of the Earth's resources.

 

I think my next car will be electric though, I mean the next one I design and build. I'm already driving an electric car daily, not because I'm "Green", but because it's damn cheap to run, and fun to drive. If my petrol car was cheaper I would be driving that. That's more important to me than baby seals.

 

 

[octave]

Maybe we should have some comparisons of daily life to see who around here on a scale who is environmentally friendly, I like my chances of being very high up on the list.

Mark I specifically was not criticising how you live your life in fact I was comparing it to mine which is quite similar.

 

It might have been nice if you had completed this quote so as to no change it's meaning

 

"Bex I understand that you build cars or engines, perhaps you think that I would criticise you for this? That could not be further from the truth. I drive a car and I fly a plane subject to the restrictions my society has chosen to enforce".

 

In fact I was careful not to name call, but I suppose we have different views on what constitutes discussion and debate.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Bex where do I start? I'm quite happy to cut back my living standard in order to provide a more secure future our kids. Who wouldn't?

I can't speak for you personally, but many say it, and it's simply not followed up regardless of intent.

 

I live in China, 3rd from the left on this chart, I have lived in Australia, 3rd from the right. Unless you have experience living time in both, it is difficult to imagine the amount of daily change required to reduce your energy consumption across that gap. Most Australians do not have the education from childhood to meet those targets or to even accept a lowering of living standards required.

 

 

I haven't advocated ditching coal and other fossil fuels; I have consistently supported phasing them out and not subsidising any new mines, such as that colossal mistake, the Adani mine.

 

.

Well the phase out is occurring naturally. Doesn't matter if you build new ones if there's no buyers. You saw the charts I posted with Australia's reliance on China, and I know first hand what China is doing to reduce coal consumption. China's Nuclear Power Station Regulatory Congress discussing the new stations to be built is happening as we speak.

 

It's amusing in one way, all the SJWs on Australian social media ripping into China about pollution for years, now China is acting out of embarrassment and sending Australia broke at the same time. The first people to be affected will be all those SJWs on the dole.

 

"Unaffordable alternative energy"? It's time to dismantle the web of subsidies that have allowed Big Coal and Big Oil to control our economy.

 

We cannot afford not to invest heavily in renewables.

Yes it's unaffordable. It's not something i'm making up, the figures are known. the successive short term Governments you mention do not want to take responsibility.

 

One thing though, if it's not done quickly, then it will never be affordable because Australia soon won't have the economy to pay for it at all. Sad to see China with it's economy at it's peak throwing everything it can at infrastructure while it can, while Australia just squabbles over everything and continually misses the boat.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

In fact I was careful not to name call, .

A name call probably would have been less condescending.

 

Based on calling others "hypocrites", I was just establishing my position in regards to my pursuits on the back of your sentence.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...I live in China, 3rd from the left on this chart, I have lived in Australia, 3rd from the right.

 

...

Interesting graph, Bex. I just tallied up our household power bills for the last few years. We average 1387 kWh per year; just a bit more than the average for China.

 

I built our fairly large home in the early 1980s, when solar design and energy saving was just becoming trendy. I used passive solar designs and it works well.

 

After years of trying to spread the word I gave up, disillusioned. The average Australian doesn't want a house that's every slightly innovative. They'll mortgage their working life to buy a boring, inefficient project home (with black roof) plonk it down on the block without regard to the sun, then complain about the cost of aircon.

 

...One thing though, if it's not done quickly, then it will never be affordable because Australia soon won't have the economy to pay for it at all. Sad to see China with it's economy at it's peak throwing everything it can at infrastructure while it can, while Australia just squabbles over everything and continually misses the boat.

You're totally right about that Bex.

 

Canada used to be known as the Can Do country.

 

Australia feels like the Can't Do nation.

 

Our national beehive has fewer worker bees and increasing numbers of drones each year.

 

We've had it so good for so long that few people will be prepared for the next depression. When the crunch comes there might be an unprecedented social upheaval.