The climate change debate continues.

[Bruce]

I've been told that there is a simple test for computer models, and that is when you reverse time so the model is doing its thing but actually running backwards. If the model is good, it will "predict" the past accurately.

 

I have further been told that the current models fail this test dismally.. does anybody know more about this story?

 

 

[Litespeed]

Clean coal? No emissions?

 

What planet is that on?

 

There are no clean coal power plants at all, some pump a small amount in the ground, and at great cost.

 

Australia's coal plants are some of the most polluting in the world. Burning coal pours out bulk chemical pollution like sulphur dioxide.

 

Coal is not pure carbon. It is chemically impossible for it to be a clean energy source. No matter what process involved the pollution goes somewhere. And that is after the mass pollution involved in mining and transporting it.

 

A simple understanding of science is all that's needed to see we are in deep shit.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Oh and for those saying we only make a tiny bit of world emissions....

 

Absolute bull dust, we in fact export most of our emissions via coal sales.

 

7 % of emissions come from coal mined in Australia. And saying the world will just buy elsewhere is a false argument, we are actively trying to ensure the world sticks to coal.

 

 

[facthunter]

You also have heavy metals leeching out of ash deposits from coal burning Power stations.. Vales Point, though closed down long ago is putting heavy metals into Lake Macquarie. Same thing happens in Lake Wellington in Victoria downstream of Latrobe Valley.. Crude oil has up to 7 % SULPHUR which when burned is extremely toxic. and strongly acid. Coal also has locked up impurities released at the time of burning. This sort of thing is NOT OK.. MacArthur river is another disaster in the NT and Fly River in PNG. Everywhere you look actually. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

China provides $1 billion in 'green' finance to coal projects in first half of the year - Reuters

[Bruce]

If it costs too much to take the CO2 out of a coal-burning power station smokestack, there is not much hope for coal. Without this carbon removal,the choice we have is to persist with coal until civilization fails or give it up first.

 

My preferred solution would be to pay farmers lots of money to produce charcoal. Every kilo of charcoal represents a kilo of carbon removed from the air. This is the opposite of coal mining and burning.

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes, they CHINA, even want to build a coal fired plant in Nigeria which would have to import coal. (against the opposition of most of the country) They obviously have an agenda but what's that mean as relates to how we behave? You have no moral basis of argument if you are doing the right thing by the planet, yourself. BHP have made definative statements about AGM Accepting it..They do a bit of mining I believe . Sat. Photos of receding and vanishing glaciers provide the truth and reality of the extent and speed of the changes that should wake up all of us. The Morrisson government are too divided to have taking any REAL action. likely. Even their own members of each house say that. The rest of the world know the Paris Target won't be met by Australia and the IPA and some LNP people and others Like A Jones recommend WE PULL OUT of the Paris agreement. The Pacific Islanders Know this and know they have been disregarded and ignored and a few dollars won't do anything at all to help their predicament which other members of the current (returned) government, Dutton, and others, made jokes about in the past sprung by a live "mike". The Pacific MEETING has been a total disaster, as could be reasonably anticipated given our attitude to all these matters. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Those melting glaciers could be affected by other than CO2 emissions. We have heard only recently that the snow in the Arctic is heavily polluted with plastic micro waste. Anything polluting the snow and ice that is less reflective than snow is going to absorb heat and cause the snow and ice to melt. A similar thing is happening in the Barrier Reef, where coal dust among other things is absorbing heat and heating the water.

 

I don't know where our government is going, but it certainly has no intention to get away from coal,

 

As far as sequestering carbon, it is not yet a viable option and even if it was where would we store the carbon dioxide and be sure it could not escape in the future,

 

One of the best ways to reduce our effect on the climate, would be to reduce our consumption of electricity. Our houses are not designed with that in mind, due mainly to architects, who want such things as air conditioning and black roofs.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"it is not yet a viable option and even if it was where would we store the carbon dioxide and be sure it could not escape in the future, "

 

PUT it in the same place as the spent Uranium.

 

That every-one say's we Can't dispose of safely.

 

Buried under multiple tons of Coal tailings, with the topsoil on-top of it, with trees to make it look good.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...The Pacific MEETING has been a total disaster...

Just when it looked like our government couldn't get any worse, they totally bugger up our relationship with Pacific nations- after even Blind Freddy could see we needed to pull out all stops to head off Chinese moves into our region. Looks like Scomo, his embarrassing deputy and quite a few of his government have been eating the same loco weed as Trump.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Out into the Cold Cold night to put cloths around my Pineapple.

 

[ATTACH]50239._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

But the Navel oranges seem to like the cold & get sweeter if there's a frost.

 

spacesailor

 

[ATTACH]50237._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]50238._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[willedoo]

On the subject of nuclear power, Russia's world first floating nuclear power plant, the 'Academic Lomonosov', has left Murmansk to make the trip to Pevek on the far east Arctic coast.

 

Earth’s final frontier: Russia's floating nuclear power plant leaves for new Arctic home

 

[ATTACH]50248._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[pmccarthy]

On the subject of nuclear power, Russia's world first floating nuclear power plant, the 'Academic Lomonosov', has left Murmansk to make the trip to Pevek on the far east Arctic coast.

Earth’s final frontier: Russia's floating nuclear power plant leaves for new Arctic home

 

[ATTACH=full]4282[/ATTACH]

Australia should order a few.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Three.

 

The Three main centres of population.

 

AND

 

They all have Ports.

 

We'll leave Canberra in the Dark.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Marty_d]

Great, so all the safety issues of a nuclear powerplant, multiplied by the safety issues of a ship...

 

Funny, if we stick to solar, wind, hydro and battery, we have very few safety risks at all. Unless you're the occasional lost eagle.

 

 

[Bruce]

Yes a reactor on a ship is further compromised by the need to keep it light and compact.

 

Melbourne had 2 nuclear reactors in the port when an American aircraft carrier visited. I was expecting a protest from Labor and the Greens, but alas there was only stuff about how the prostitutes and bartenders made millions... well those 2 occupations were not specifically mentioned, but everybody knows what happens.

 

Getting back to Labor and the Greens.. Why did they allow this and still ban a nuclear power plant out Broken Hill way?

 

 

[willedoo]

Great, so all the safety issues of a nuclear powerplant, multiplied by the safety issues of a ship...

Funny, if we stick to solar, wind, hydro and battery, we have very few safety risks at all. Unless you're the occasional lost eagle.

Apart from potential safety issues, it seems to be a huge amount of money to spend in proportion to the location of it. The population is about 5,000 and shrinking; quite a few ghost towns in the region, and only a couple of small mining plants still working. I'd hazard a guess that they have future plans in the region; most likely an extensive military base to discourage the U.S. and others from poking their head round the corner.

 

I don't know how windy that region is for wind power generation, but solar would only be an option in summer (a good one at that). The arctic winter with a couple of hours of weak daylight would be a problem. Coal and fuel has to be shipped into the region, so that's not a good option either.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Bruce there is a massive difference between a nuclear powered war ship coming for a short visit and building one at broken hill.

 

The US has over 60 years of proven success in the field of navy nuclear power, but they are not perfect. The Russians have proved they can not be trusted with the tech and regularly have accidents that they refuse to admit.

 

Putting a nuclear powerplant in Broken Hill would be a massive cost and water waste for the cooling needs. Besides the fact it is not needed there.

 

 

[spacesailor]

How about a Nuclear powered desalination plant.

 

If it makes a bit of electricity on the side that would just be a bonus.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Why Broken Hill? We could have one anywhere near water, as they do in Britain, France and the USA.

 

 

[Litespeed]

How about a Nuclear powered desalination plant.If it makes a bit of electricity on the side that would just be a bonus.

 

spacesailor

 

Spacey,

 

What is it with your obsession with nuclear?

 

We would need one just to power the desal plant to provide the freshwater needed to cool the nuclear plant. Seems pretty self defeating and would make it the most expensive water and power ever created. Why not just mine asteroids to get the water? About as useful.

 

We do not need to desalinate water, we need to stop wasting water on stupid things like cotton when people can't get water to drink or grow food. And the amount used by coal mining is obscene.

 

Even simply recycling water and stopping industry from polluting the rainwater that falls, would solve our water needs. But no that would be sensible to collect the water that comes from the sky.

 

But I get a feeling you like global warming as you might get a banana crop.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"would make it the most expensive water and power ever created "

 

People are paying $6 a litre Now for bottled water.

 

Sydney Is short of water, Just like the Western town,s.

 

We are going to be short of electricity according to some people, therefore using coal, to power a desal plant isn't the best idea.

 

I can't see solar or wind power producing the amount of electricity the desal plant needs, right now, not in the future,

 

Sydney's 5.2 million and melbourne's 4.8 million is most of Australia's population,& running out of water needs to be addressed soon,

 

If not Now. ( Not just the temperatures going up two or three degrees, BUT no rain !)

 

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

I can't see solar or wind power producing the amount of electricity the desal plant needs, right now, not in the future,

 

 

[spacesailor]

In the cities of Melbourne & Sydney,

 

At the moment we ( in Sydney ) can't see the aircraft over-flying us do to OUR bad air pollution. ( mist & smoke MAKE smog )

 

So solar will NOT BE AT PEAK POWER !.

 

SPACESAILOR

 

 

[octave]

In the cities of Melbourne & Sydney,At the moment we ( in Sydney ) can't see the aircraft over-flying us do to OUR bad air pollution. ( mist & smoke MAKE smog )

 

So solar will NOT BE AT PEAK POWER !.

 

SPACESAILOR

Are you saying solar does not work in large cities? I would suggest that various forms of solar are working in the city such as rooftop solar. Having lived in an off-grid solar-powered house for 21 years I can tell you that solar still produces power in less than perfect full sunlight, even a cloudy day will still produce a reasonable amount of power.