Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
I am surprised that a young person has this ability to perceive things these hardcore people can not.
Exactly what does greta perceive and what do you mean by "hard core"?
I agree there are high paid scientists, taking numbers, recording things but their conclusions are completely wrong.
Which conclusions do you believe are completely wrong and please show how you have reached that conclusion? Are you a "climate scientist"?
The recent White Island explosion is the best example of your well-paid scientist's expertise. Your well-paid experts did foresee nothing,
You are getting right off the track here Macro. Did you notice the video they made was done ecactly a year ago? What they have shown is how false the conclusions reached by the climate activists are by their use of "cherry picking" data, reversing data and even denying recorded data.
The main reason for my annoyance is the fact they do claim complete antithesis to what I believe.
Pssst, Macro. A little known fact of life is that there will always people that do not agree with you and will be able to prove you are wrong no matter how passionate your belief is. Get over it mate.
They do claim that Earth is so big that whatever you do, doesn't make any difference or effect.
No they do not. What they do say is that it is not as simple as some make out and that with computer modelling you put Garbage in, you will get Garbage out not Gospel out.
You drop plastic bottles to the ocean and the ocean is so big that nobody never sees your bottle again. But that is not true.
That is quite obvious and I did not hear any of them say that or even mention plastic pullution. As I said in a previous post, the world is choking on plastic. I believe that is the number one priority and way up the scale from alleged man made climate change.
I do claim that geoengineering is possible. But my vision is about positive geoengineering, not the harmful ones.I believe that we could change the climate of Australia, irrigate and moisture.
Your experts will say that whatever you do Australia remains dry as pepper.
I did not hear any of them say or allude to that.
If humans can effect Erth in the wrong way, why not to try a change in a positive outcome?
Sure. Nothing wrong with that concept. However a positive outcome is not what the climate change fanatics are striving for. They want totalitarian rule of the world by the far left/greens. They want to tear down civilisation and economic activity, impoverish billions of people and reduce the population of the world to 500 million. They want to have the super rich and the super poor and nobody in between.
Elon Musk is talking seriously about converting the whole planet ( Mars) to Earth-like, restoring atmosphere etc.
He can be your god. He will never be mine.
Now people will attack small kid that is unable to defend herself.
Spare us that argument please Macro. That is precisely why her handlers have put her up there as their face page. Her alleged defencelessness is her defence.
Give me one fact from those hours of wasted time antipropaganda that matter.
Fact:- The climate change fanatics have manipulated data and are politicising science.
This whole show is like magician smartly turning your attention, while poking Christmas bunny from the hat.
Yes. That is exactly what the climate change fanatics are doing.
A point macro made was that:
"burning fossil fuels doesn't make sense if you could substitute now with solar and wind"
I would disagree.
Solar and wind can not replace fossil fuel generated power.
One day it may, and when it can everyone will support that transition. At the moment, it is all pain and no gain.
People worry about 'big oil', they have their fingers in the renewable game too. Money is driving this extreme rush to renewables.
Turdball and son stood to make $160 mill if labor won the election and forced their renewable plan on us. That is why Turdball did not support any liberal candidate and his Turdball son went all in in supporting labor and get-up candidates.
Plenty of other politicians have shares in the renewable industry. Trust the renewable industry as much as you trust 'big oil'.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
People worry about 'big oil', they have their fingers in the renewable game too. Money is driving this extreme rush to renewables.
BP has been investing in renewables for decades. www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/oil-companies-investing-in-renewables-2019/
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..TonyAbbott said..
People worry about 'big oil', they have their fingers in the renewable game too. Money is driving this extreme rush to renewables.
BP has been investing in renewables for decades. www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/oil-companies-investing-in-renewables-2019/
Yes
Big oil is often also big renewable
They will make heaps of money no matter what.
Should we really be calling oil 'fossil fuel' since it is not made from fossils. And renewables ' 'renewables' since it is made from non-renewables.
Some clever marketing going on there.
WTF are you talking about?
Oil is fossilised algae. It was formed by algae dying in and sinking to the bottom of seas which had no circulation, hence no oxygen to allow for decomposition. Sure, it isn't a "fossil" in the sense of skeletal remains entombed in rock, but it is the remnants of once living plants. For a better explanation study geology, or read Lewis Dartnell's book "Origins :- How the Earth made us"
Renewables aren't, strictly speaking, infinitely renewable. But since they get energy from the sun or the gravitational interactions between Earth and Moon, they are good for millions of years. That should be enough time to see out our species
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
WTF are you talking about?
Oil is fossilised algae. It was formed by algae dying in and sinking to the bottom of seas which had no circulation, hence no oxygen to allow for decomposition. Sure, it isn't a "fossil" in the sense of skeletal remains entombed in rock, but it is the remnants of once living plants. For a better explanation study geology, or read Lewis Dartnell's book "Origins :- How the Earth made us"
Renewables aren't, strictly speaking, infinitely renewable. But since they get energy from the sun or the gravitational interactions between Earth and Moon, they are good for millions of years. That should be enough time to see out our species
So we mostly agree
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..So we mostly agreeMr Milk said..
WTF are you talking about?
Oil is fossilised algae. It was formed by algae dying in and sinking to the bottom of seas which had no circulation, hence no oxygen to allow for decomposition. Sure, it isn't a "fossil" in the sense of skeletal remains entombed in rock, but it is the remnants of once living plants. For a better explanation study geology, or read Lewis Dartnell's book "Origins :- How the Earth made us"
Renewables aren't, strictly speaking, infinitely renewable. But since they get energy from the sun or the gravitational interactions between Earth and Moon, they are good for millions of years. That should be enough time to see out our species
I don't think so. Mr Milk makes a salient point - that the only energy source that's completely sustainable for centuries and millennia to come is direct energy from the sun, gravity and the earth's core heat.
Fossil fuels and nuclear power will never be truly sustainable in a total planetary sense. Never.
Nuclear is great for medicine, military and space and that's where it will succeed in the long term.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
WTF are you talking about?
Oil is fossilised algae. It was formed by algae dying in and sinking to the bottom of seas which had no circulation, hence no oxygen to allow for decomposition. Sure, it isn't a "fossil" in the sense of skeletal remains entombed in rock, but it is the remnants of once living plants. For a better explanation study geology, or read Lewis Dartnell's book "Origins :- How the Earth made us"
Renewables aren't, strictly speaking, infinitely renewable. But since they get energy from the sun or the gravitational interactions between Earth and Moon, they are good for millions of years. That should be enough time to see out our species
Do solar panels have a limited life span?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..TonyAbbott said..So we mostly agreeMr Milk said..
WTF are you talking about?
Oil is fossilised algae. It was formed by algae dying in and sinking to the bottom of seas which had no circulation, hence no oxygen to allow for decomposition. Sure, it isn't a "fossil" in the sense of skeletal remains entombed in rock, but it is the remnants of once living plants. For a better explanation study geology, or read Lewis Dartnell's book "Origins :- How the Earth made us"
Renewables aren't, strictly speaking, infinitely renewable. But since they get energy from the sun or the gravitational interactions between Earth and Moon, they are good for millions of years. That should be enough time to see out our species
I don't think so. Mr Milk makes a salient point - that the only energy source that's completely sustainable for centuries and millennia to come is direct energy from the sun, gravity and the earth's core heat.
Fossil fuels and nuclear power will never be truly sustainable in a total planetary sense. Never.
Nuclear is great for medicine, military and space and that's where it will succeed in the long term.
Twaddle.
www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-fuel/fuel-consumption-of-conventional-reactor/
And - the sun is nuclear.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Mr Milk said..
WTF are you talking about?
Oil is fossilised algae. It was formed by algae dying in and sinking to the bottom of seas which had no circulation, hence no oxygen to allow for decomposition. Sure, it isn't a "fossil" in the sense of skeletal remains entombed in rock, but it is the remnants of once living plants. For a better explanation study geology, or read Lewis Dartnell's book "Origins :- How the Earth made us"
Renewables aren't, strictly speaking, infinitely renewable. But since they get energy from the sun or the gravitational interactions between Earth and Moon, they are good for millions of years. That should be enough time to see out our species
Do solar panels have a limited life span?
I suppose they do. The question is how much energy goes into their manufacturing and recycling. As long as they convert more solar energy into electricity than is used making them, they're energetically economic.
Do nuclear reactor vessels have a limited life span?
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Twaddle. www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-fuel/fuel-consumption-of-conventional-reactor/ And - the sun is nuclear.
No sheet the sun is nuclear energy - free, almost unlimited and safe 100%. I like my thermonuclear reactions 8 light minutes away thanks.
Bringing you back down to earth, nuclear produces large amounts of waste with a half life to concern our great great grand children and is expensive. That's not sustainable for centuries. Perhaps you don't understand what sustainable means.
If we can commercialise hydrogen production from renewables we'll have carbon neutral or positive energy, mass storage and transportation for ever. An elegant, totally sustainable, scalable and mobile energy loop.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
No sheet the sun is nuclear energy - free, almost unlimited and safe 100%. I like my thermonuclear reactions 8 light minutes away thanks.
Bringing you back down to earth, nuclear produces large amounts of waste with a half life to concern our great great grand children and is expensive. That's not sustainable for centuries. Perhaps you don't understand what sustainable means.
If we can commercialise hydrogen production from renewables we'll have carbon neutral or positive energy, mass storage and transportation for ever. An elegant, totally sustainable, scalable and mobile energy loop.
More twaddle:
But you're happy to bath in it's radiation.
Waste isn't as much of an issue as certain groups make out. And pray, just how much is "large amounts"?
Hydrogen? are up kidding? You're worried about spent fuel rods but have no problem with hydrogen? Go on with you.
You need to do some more reading.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..Kamikuza said..Mr Milk said..
WTF are you talking about?
Oil is fossilised algae. It was formed by algae dying in and sinking to the bottom of seas which had no circulation, hence no oxygen to allow for decomposition. Sure, it isn't a "fossil" in the sense of skeletal remains entombed in rock, but it is the remnants of once living plants. For a better explanation study geology, or read Lewis Dartnell's book "Origins :- How the Earth made us"
Renewables aren't, strictly speaking, infinitely renewable. But since they get energy from the sun or the gravitational interactions between Earth and Moon, they are good for millions of years. That should be enough time to see out our species
Do solar panels have a limited life span?
I suppose they do. The question is how much energy goes into their manufacturing and recycling. As long as they convert more solar energy into electricity than is used making them, they're energetically economic.
Do nuclear reactor vessels have a limited life span?
Sure they do. But look at the scale of supply versus life span .,. and let's not forget the life cycle carbon footprint.
You can recycle concrete and steel, I don't think PV can be at all yet.
So far there aren't enough old panels coming off rooves to support a large recycling program. But it is possible
www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2017/10/the-opportunities-of-solar-panel-recycling
Here's somebody in Sydney trying to get started before somebody else gets into the game
www.ecoactiv.com.au/solar-panel-recycling/
I imagine that a fair few of the houses that have been burnt in the current bushfires will have had panels on top. I wonder if they will be recoverable or too twisted by the heat for it to be economic
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..holy guacamole said..
No sheet the sun is nuclear energy - free, almost unlimited and safe 100%. I like my thermonuclear reactions 8 light minutes away thanks.
Bringing you back down to earth, nuclear produces large amounts of waste with a half life to concern our great great grand children and is expensive. That's not sustainable for centuries. Perhaps you don't understand what sustainable means.
If we can commercialise hydrogen production from renewables we'll have carbon neutral or positive energy, mass storage and transportation for ever. An elegant, totally sustainable, scalable and mobile energy loop.
More twaddle:
But you're happy to bath in it's radiation.
Waste isn't as much of an issue as certain groups make out. And pray, just how much is "large amounts"?
Hydrogen? are up kidding? You're worried about spent fuel rods but have no problem with hydrogen? Go on with you.
You need to do some more reading.
Why would anyone have a problem with hydrogen? We transport highly explosive, flammable or downright toxic petrochemicals around daily.
Burn it an you get water vapour. Deadly stuff that water vapour.
tell you what, let's see where we're at in 2040. Will Kamikuza's nuclear gamble come to fruition or will Australia have embraced the sustainable future? We'll see.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Why would anyone have a problem with hydrogen? We transport highly explosive, flammable or downright toxic petrochemicals around daily.
Burn it an you get water vapour. Deadly stuff that water vapour.
tell you what, let's see where we're at in 2040. Will Kamikuza's nuclear gamble come to fruition or will Australia have embraced the sustainable future? We'll see.
Because it's an odorless colorless gas that burns rapidly with very low ignition point conditions. While I might trust industry professionals to handle it I really wouldn't want your average joe getting their hands on tank fulls of it.
So you're cool with the toxic petrochemicals you come across daily but not nuclear waste you'll never encounter? Weird.
Australia as the global gold standard. I'm sure the other 99.67% of the world are waiting on tenterhooks to see where you go with energy production 
I've previously in this thread qualified my opinion on nuclear by saying "where appropriate". It's not in, say, NZ because they already get 82% of their energy needs from renewable sources. Or anywhere north enough that their daylight hours are restricted.
Maybe Australia should be taking tips from NZ...?
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
So far there aren't enough old panels coming off rooves to support a large recycling program. But it is possible
www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2017/10/the-opportunities-of-solar-panel-recycling
Here's somebody in Sydney trying to get started before somebody else gets into the game
www.ecoactiv.com.au/solar-panel-recycling/
I imagine that a fair few of the houses that have been burnt in the current bushfires will have had panels on top. I wonder if they will be recoverable or too twisted by the heat for it to be economic
Lets hope burning PV panels doesn't release toxic chemicals, like were used to make them
Fingers crossed eh.
www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#1c547d8b121c
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..So you're cool with the toxic petrochemicals you come across daily......
No, that's misinterpretation on your part. You appeared to indicate that hydrogen was somehow more dangerous than anything we do now and that's a reason to not use it.
We have a thing called engineering. It makes things mostly safe. I accept that petrochemicals are largely safe to transport however from time to time, things go very wrong. This, you appear to have confused with the issues with burning. We refine and burn fossil fuels and it pollutes the environment.
Hydrogen has none of the refining and polluting issues and it's completely renewable.
We also can't power cars and trucks with nuclear power.
I mean the garden variety idiots you mention could also stick a knife into a power point and die but we don't ban electricity do we?
Nuclear is the only viable option to meet our current and future energy needs. Nuclear creates electricity which can drive our machinery. Then supplement with more renewable and better technology in this area as time goes on.
Select to expand quoteeppo said..
Nuclear is the only viable option to meet our current and future energy needs. Nuclear creates electricity which can drive our machinery. Then supplement with more renewable and better technology in this area as time goes on.
What you mean like what most of the rest of the world are already doing?
Stop it your making too much sense.
Select to expand quoteBara said..eppo said..
Nuclear is the only viable option to meet our current and future energy needs. Nuclear creates electricity which can drive our machinery. Then supplement with more renewable and better technology in this area as time goes on.
What you mean like what most of the rest of the world are already doing?
Stop it your making too much sense.
After Perth Council contractors put asbestos in the Children's hospital ceiling, leaky plumbing, a sewage system that woudnt flow and a forshore kids fountain feature that didnt work..
I'll have to say no - purely fear driven of course :)
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Kamikuza said..So you're cool with the toxic petrochemicals you come across daily......
No, that's misinterpretation on your part. You appeared to indicate that hydrogen was somehow more dangerous than anything we do now and that's a reason to not use it.
We have a thing called engineering. It makes things mostly safe. I accept that petrochemicals are largely safe to transport however from time to time, things go very wrong. This, you appear to have confused with the issues with burning. We refine and burn fossil fuels and it pollutes the environment.
Hydrogen has none of the refining and polluting issues and it's completely renewable.
We also can't power cars and trucks with nuclear power.
I mean the garden variety idiots you mention could also stick a knife into a power point and die but we don't ban electricity do we?
Just wondering ... where do you think theelectricity for electric vehicles to recharge their batteries comes from?
Few things better engineered than a nuclear power station. And it doesn't have to be rolled through your neighborhood to give you access to it's output.
Putting a fork in socket isn't going to make your house explode.
Where do you imagine hydrogen comes from? You don't just pluck it off a tree...
afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_production.html
Hydrogen is a fantasy, for the time being and well beyond 2040.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..holy guacamole said..Kamikuza said..So you're cool with the toxic petrochemicals you come across daily......
No, that's misinterpretation on your part. You appeared to indicate that hydrogen was somehow more dangerous than anything we do now and that's a reason to not use it.
We have a thing called engineering. It makes things mostly safe. I accept that petrochemicals are largely safe to transport however from time to time, things go very wrong. This, you appear to have confused with the issues with burning. We refine and burn fossil fuels and it pollutes the environment.
Hydrogen has none of the refining and polluting issues and it's completely renewable.
We also can't power cars and trucks with nuclear power.
I mean the garden variety idiots you mention could also stick a knife into a power point and die but we don't ban electricity do we?
Just wondering ... where do you think theelectricity for electric vehicles to recharge their batteries comes from?
Few things better engineered than a nuclear power station. And it doesn't have to be rolled through your neighborhood to give you access to it's output.
Putting a fork in socket isn't going to make your house explode.
Where do you imagine hydrogen comes from? You don't just pluck it off a tree...
afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_production.html
Hydrogen is a fantasy, for the time being and well beyond 2040.
Nuclear power, currently four times cost of any other conventual power supply.
Base load power plants with minimal size build, is way too large for current usage across Australia. Our city's are too far apart to even logically think one of the plants can support the current needs, city by city.
Bill Gates' travelling wave reactor sounds interesting in terms of safety, but economically might make more sense in a country with a history of conventional nuclear and stockpiles of depleted fuel. Still, that depleted fuel is probably easy enough to ship. I'd take nuclear over releasing carbon (dioxide) as a short term solution. Just like I'd take an electric vehicle that has the same cost as a petrol vehicle with a 10 year battery replacement if it doesn't emit any carbon.
Select to expand quotemineral1 said..
Nuclear power, currently four times cost of any other conventual power supply.
Base load power plants with minimal size build, is way too large for current usage across Australia. Our city's are too far apart to even logically think one of the plants can support the current needs, city by city.
You got a source for that ridiculous figure? Google says otherwise over and over.
As I've already said, it may depend on application. I have no idea how good it would be, but maybe these guys do: www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/nuclear-power-some-facts/
The only reason to go nuclear is to build a bomb other wise pointless, given the rise of China could be a good idea.
Australia has no means of enrichment to achieve that pick a number in years to achieve that.
Then pick another number to build the over all cost would be huge thats before you get to waste and whos back yard you build it in.......never ever going to happen but great ramp idea for those fck-witt politicians that have no idea.
Select to expand quoteIFocus said..
The only reason to go nuclear is to build a bomb other wise pointless, given the rise of China could be a good idea.
Australia has no means of enrichment to achieve that pick a number in years to achieve that.
Then pick another number to build the over all cost would be huge thats before you get to waste and whos back yard you build it in.......never ever going to happen but great ramp idea for those fck-witt politicians that have no idea.
Absolutely right conclusion. But I am afraid that Australia's future is not really decided now and here but there.
So many may think that Australia could serve perfectly as a nuclear waste dumpsite. Since Australia already provides free of charge services like tax and royalty-free supply of gas, coal, and mineral why not extend this service to free nuclear dump?
In order to do so, you need to build a small dummy nuclear plant then design dumpsite under Uluru or similar and then Europe and US could breathe relief. Now there is a place where the whole world could dump their nuclear waste free of charge. Obviously there is not a single reason for Australia to engage into nuclear reactors beside that one above.US have history of light-hearted discarding the most beautiful places in the world into no go zones - nuclear dump sites for thousand years = look at some atolls now discarded from Google Maps tourist destination = at least for next 10,000 years to come.
Bikini may seem ideal for some to dump the waste, but for others, it seems to be too small to accommodate millions of tones of nuclear waster. Bigger Island like Australia is needed, almost uninhibited seems to be next, the ideal goal
Select to expand quoteIFocus said..
The only reason to go nuclear is to build a bomb other wise pointless, given the rise of China could be a good idea.
Australia has no means of enrichment to achieve that pick a number in years to achieve that.
Then pick another number to build the over all cost would be huge thats before you get to waste and whos back yard you build it in.......never ever going to happen but great ramp idea for those fck-witt politicians that have no idea.
Why would we have to enrich the stuff? We have the biggest endowment of the stuff on the planet, so instead of enriching it we could just put more into the bomb.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..IFocus said..
The only reason to go nuclear is to build a bomb other wise pointless, given the rise of China could be a good idea.
Australia has no means of enrichment to achieve that pick a number in years to achieve that.
Then pick another number to build the over all cost would be huge thats before you get to waste and whos back yard you build it in.......never ever going to happen but great ramp idea for those fck-witt politicians that have no idea.
Why would we have to enrich the stuff? We have the biggest endowment of the stuff on the planet, so instead of enriching it we could just put more into the bomb.
Are you just joking around? I thought/think enrichment is a different thing where it really has to be a certain purity of whatever in order to be good enough for a bomb, and not a quantity thing...?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Mr Milk said..IFocus said..
The only reason to go nuclear is to build a bomb other wise pointless, given the rise of China could be a good idea.
Australia has no means of enrichment to achieve that pick a number in years to achieve that.
Then pick another number to build the over all cost would be huge thats before you get to waste and whos back yard you build it in.......never ever going to happen but great ramp idea for those fck-witt politicians that have no idea.
Why would we have to enrich the stuff? We have the biggest endowment of the stuff on the planet, so instead of enriching it we could just put more into the bomb.
Are you just joking around? I thought/think enrichment is a different thing where it really has to be a certain purity of whatever in order to be good enough for a bomb, and not a quantity thing...?
www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-enrichment.html
