Parley Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Australia has always had natural disasters. From the beginning of time, and always will. Part of the beauty and terror of our wide brown land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaclec Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Climate change is just part of a cycle that as VS stated is not yet really understood. We all know there was an ice age not so long ago, so was this caused by aliens driving V8's. Or by industry? Um nope because there was no man made factors then so the only proof we have of anything is that like the yearly cycle of seasons this also happens on a grander scale over a longer period of time but lets not let facts get in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Climate change is just part of a cycle that as VS stated is not yet really understood. We all know there was an ice age not so long ago, so was this caused by aliens driving V8's. Or by industry? Um nope because there was no man made factors then so the only proof we have of anything is that like the yearly cycle of seasons this also happens on a grander scale over a longer period of time but lets not let facts get in the way. Our conceptual models of climate aggregate all the known science around climatic processes. These are then used to create numerical models of climate, which can be tuned to recreate the climate of the last hundred years or so. The ONLY way that these models can accurately recreate the climatic trends of the last century is by including man-mad carbon dioxide emissions. Hence there is not some magical natural cycle at play here. The rate of atmospheric CO2 increase can only have been caused by fossil fuel emissions (and concrete production), and we can find no other way to explain the climate of the last century without using the CO2 effect on temperature. No volcano eruptions, no solar cycles, no ocean circulation changes, no methane release, no thawing of permafrost, nothing that would be readily observable has happened in the last century that can explain the warming we've seen and the change in atmospheric CO2. Some or all of these things could have caused prior ice ages or 'thermal maxima' but we weren't around or didn't have the technology to measure things that we do now. It's happening, there is a widespread scientific consensus that it is cause by man, and just because we pay scientists to investigate it doesn't mean it isn't. DISCLAIMER: I am a biogeochemical scientist who has previously worked with climate modellers on the impacts of climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flybyknight Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Climate change is just part of a cycle that as VS stated is not yet really understood. We all know there was an ice age not so long ago, so was this caused by aliens driving V8's. Or by industry? Um nope because there was no man made factors then so the only proof we have of anything is that like the yearly cycle of seasons this also happens on a grander scale over a longer period of time but lets not let facts get in the way. hey if we're wrong whats the worst that can happen? a slightly nicer planet to live on. if you're wrong in a few short years we'll slip past the point of no return, we wont have a planet capable of sustaining life. Even without definitive evidence, the smart move is to do all we can to mitigate this, we wont get a second chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marisawright Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 hey if we're wrong whats the worst that can happen? a slightly nicer planet to live on. if you're wrong in a few short years we'll slip past the point of no return, we wont have a planet capable of sustaining life. Even without definitive evidence, the smart move is to do all we can to mitigate this, we wont get a second chance. That's my view too. Do you have a baby seat in your car? Do you have airbags? ABS brakes? Why? What are the odds of a child being killed in a car crash? I've found various statistics but it would seem the odds are less than 1%. Yet you take all those precautions to protect your family (and quite rightly too). You don't say "I'll wait and see if a crash seems likely, then I'll take precautions". So, what would you say are the chances of all these scientists being right? Is it a 20% chance? A 10% chance? I'd say the odds would have to be more than 1% - so why on earth wouldn't you take some action to protect your family's future? Especially as, if the scientists are right, it will be too late to do anything by the time we're sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 But surely if you need more power, then it just gets up-scaled? Build ten billion wind turbines and China might get enough power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 That's my view too. Do you have a baby seat in your car? Do you have airbags? ABS brakes? Why? What are the odds of a child being killed in a car crash? I've found various statistics but it would seem the odds are less than 1%. Yet you take all those precautions to protect your family (and quite rightly too). You don't say "I'll wait and see if a crash seems likely, then I'll take precautions". So, what would you say are the chances of all these scientists being right? Is it a 20% chance? A 10% chance? I'd say the odds would have to be more than 1% - so why on earth wouldn't you take some action to protect your family's future? Especially as, if the scientists are right, it will be too late to do anything by the time we're sure. So in Australia, we use our "World's largest reserves of uranium' to make Australia 100 per cent nuclear powered, All the coal mines are closed down, and we no longer sell the nasty stuff to China (destroying a large part of our economy in the process) and as long as we dont' have a nuclear disaster we can hold our heads up at the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amibovered Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 hey if we're wrong whats the worst that can happen? a slightly nicer planet to live on. if you're wrong in a few short years we'll slip past the point of no return, we wont have a planet capable of sustaining life. Even without definitive evidence, the smart move is to do all we can to mitigate this, we wont get a second chance. What serious scientific body has predicted that the planet won't be capable of sustaining life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flybyknight Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 What serious scientific body has predicted that the planet won't be capable of sustaining life? most of the details focus on 4 degrees (we are currently tracking for over 4) being the point that the oceans will stop being a carbon sink and start to release their stores, at this point the carbonisation of the atmosphere will snowball. this will sadly put action beyond our control. 6 degrees is said to be the point where most land is desert and the oceans (our lifeblood in essence) are wastelands. Respectfully, my problem with your question is not so much finding proof of this claim, as finding proof that will satisfy you. Is there a particular group of scientists or a certain publication or nationality you trust? I can try to find a link if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiralx Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 So in Australia, we use our "World's largest reserves of uranium' to make Australia 100 per cent nuclear powered, All the coal mines are closed down, and we no longer sell the nasty stuff to China (destroying a large part of our economy in the process) and as long as we dont' have a nuclear disaster we can hold our heads up at the UN. Actually I would tend to agree, the case for nuclear power here should be seriously investigated - I believe there is a Royal Commission to look into it. The LNP have made noises in favour, the fear would be that they are too closely welded to the coal mining industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 14, 2015 Author Share Posted July 14, 2015 The left and the greens despise nuclear power. They do not care if there are new discoveries in ways of using nuclear power either yet they scream that we must accept scientific facts about climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flybyknight Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 The left and the greens despise nuclear power. They do not care if there are new discoveries in ways of using nuclear power either yet they scream that we must accept scientific facts about climate change. two big problems with nuclear, firstly the standard one it still produces waste, it replaces one pollution with another, it also requires fuel which involves mining. It will fix the immediate problem, but if one seeks clean energy there are better much cheaper more sustainable ways to create it. secondly safety, a modern nuclear reactor is very safe, but the highest majority of reactors are old with known design flaws. were these reactors first commissioned with these flaws? of course not, we didn't know, this is the problem... retrofitting old design reactors is basically impossible, due to the nature of the reactor vessel which is inaccessible for milennia, then the cost. no reactor ever has a major redesign, too costly too dangerous, so we just adapt as best we can, with the odd chernobyl, three mile and fukishima. this post should have some balance, ill try to find the last time a wind turbine caught fire and caused the evacuation of a city for generations, or a solar panel explosion that needed billions of dollars to clean up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiralx Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 The waste issue is a problem, though in a country of this size with huge isolated areas away from human habitation, that and the safety issue should not be overestimated. Though I'm sure there are technical reasons why the power from a reactor in the middle of nowhere would be dissipated by travelling thousands of kilometres. It must be better environmentally than burning huge quantities of coal. I understood that one objection was that nuclear power was too slow a solution to global warming, which I don't quite understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 There may be a mini ice age in northern hemisphere in about 15 years. The Thames may even freeze solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flybyknight Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 From my understanding the carbon footprint to build a turbine is way off the scale and defeats the object of green energy not to mention the damage it causes wildlife.As it stated in the article it was a one off it produced that much energy. I would like to see more development with tidal and hydro opptions. this article is the most complete and focused i've seen so far, they even take into consideration the dirt under the concrete pad that can no longer absorb co2 as it has a bloody great windmill on top of it. ive heard people saying a wind turbine can pay back in 5-8 months, this more complete analysis puts it at 3.5 years. this machine with a life expectancy of 25 years goes carbon neutral in 3.5, that's pretty awesome. compared to a fossil fuel plant that still uses far more raw materials to build, and then slips further and further from neutral all the time its in operation, it's a no brainer. http://www.windaction.org/posts/7149-a-guide-to-calculating-the-carbon-dioxide-debt-and-payback-time-for-wind-farms#.VaUnX_mqpBe there is a huge amount of misinformation out there, the established industries have very deep pockets and have some of the best spin and bullshit artists at their disposal, however unlike during the unraveling of the cigarette industry we now have the internet, so research like mad and check lots of sources. the truth will out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 14, 2015 Author Share Posted July 14, 2015 two big problems with nuclear, firstly the standard one it still produces waste, it replaces one pollution with another, it also requires fuel which involves mining. It will fix the immediate problem, but if one seeks clean energy there are better much cheaper more sustainable ways to create it. secondly safety, a modern nuclear reactor is very safe, but the highest majority of reactors are old with known design flaws. were these reactors first commissioned with these flaws? of course not, we didn't know, this is the problem... retrofitting old design reactors is basically impossible, due to the nature of the reactor vessel which is inaccessible for milennia, then the cost. no reactor ever has a major redesign, too costly too dangerous, so we just adapt as best we can, with the odd chernobyl, three mile and fukishima. this post should have some balance, ill try to find the last time a wind turbine caught fire and caused the evacuation of a city for generations, or a solar panel explosion that needed billions of dollars to clean up. I don't understand why "mining" (for uranium) is in itself bad? And if climate change is THE number one danger to humanity, then the dangers from nuclear power are the lesser evil. I still don't see how a modern industrialised nation is going to supply all its energy needs from wind mills and solar panels? If it was feasible then one of the big nations would already be doing it. Capitalists are not just trying to protect existing industries. If that was the case, we would never have changed from canals to railways, horses to motor vehicles, sail to steam, etc. There may be a mini ice age in northern hemisphere in about 15 years. The Thames may even freeze solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 14, 2015 Author Share Posted July 14, 2015 two big problems with nuclear, firstly the standard one it still produces waste, it replaces one pollution with another, it also requires fuel which involves mining. It will fix the immediate problem, but if one seeks clean energy there are better much cheaper more sustainable ways to create it. secondly safety, a modern nuclear reactor is very safe, but the highest majority of reactors are old with known design flaws. were these reactors first commissioned with these flaws? of course not, we didn't know, this is the problem... retrofitting old design reactors is basically impossible, due to the nature of the reactor vessel which is inaccessible for milennia, then the cost. no reactor ever has a major redesign, too costly too dangerous, so we just adapt as best we can, with the odd chernobyl, three mile and fukishima. this post should have some balance, ill try to find the last time a wind turbine caught fire and caused the evacuation of a city for generations, or a solar panel explosion that needed billions of dollars to clean up. I don't understand your comparison between the relative dangers of wind mills and solar panels to nuclear power? Does that mean we should all be using bicycles instead of motor vehicles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flybyknight Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I don't understand why "mining" (for uranium) is in itself bad? And if climate change is THE number one danger to humanity, then the dangers from nuclear power are the lesser evil. I still don't see how a modern industrialised nation is going to supply all its energy needs from wind mills and solar panels? If it was feasible then one of the big nations would already be doing it. Capitalists are not just trying to protect existing industries. If that was the case, we would never have changed from canals to railways, horses to motor vehicles, sail to steam, etc. there is likely to be a demand for uranium for the foreseeable future, however mining is in itself is not an ideal use of our planet. It's important to ask do we HAVE to? The UAE known for their huge reserves of some of the highest quality oil on this planet are heavily investing in renewables, they have the climate and it means they can sell more oil! We should have the same plan for uranium, why smoke our own stock? there was kickback in all these industrial transitions, this one however isn't burning spinning jennies or insisting on a man carrying a flag in-front of the car, these people are motivated funded and ingrained in the fabric of society, governments and media do as their told, and as we're a trusting bunch, most of us are conditioned to believe the man in the suit or the media. it seems our current government for all their apparent hate of renewables may be about to sort out the nuclear issue for good. they are in the process of forcing the CEFC to only invest in fledgling technologies, in an attempt to shackle them so in time they can be branded uneconomical and nonviable, however they appear to have dropped a bollock. two forms of generation hold immense potential but thus far have not come into the mainstream, tidal and wave based generation. these forms of generation never stop and can generate oodles of clean energy, if you want your baseload here it is combined with wind, household (and the odd large scale) solar and effective storage the problem will be solved. its important to note, this time period (the next few years) is likely to be the lowest the demand for electricity will ever be, we have closing heavy industry, efficient household goods but very little electric transport, as EV's become more mainstream and industry returns, I comfortably predict power demand to almost double. As most houses are ill equipped to generate enough for themselves let alone for an EV, the grid is vital. Power companies forcing self generators off grid (poor financial incentives) is crazy long-term. As you say, the market will correct..... soon we hope! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 15, 2015 Author Share Posted July 15, 2015 If mining is bad, then presumably you are opposed to Australia's iron ore industries, (and all the other forms of mining) without which we would be a poor country, and of course without which, China would be struggling to build its own economy? Heavy industry is ugly but without it most First World countries would still be, well, in the Third World. Do you know of any major industrialised nations that have successfully powered their economies using solely renewables? Even if Australia closes its heavy industries, other countries like China will continue to expand theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 16, 2015 Author Share Posted July 16, 2015 By 2018 Australia will surpass Qatar as the world's largest exporter of gas and LNG will pass coal to become our second biggest export behind iron ore.. The down side Is locating the companies HQs in Bermuda to reduce tax paid to ATO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolman Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 By 2018 Australia will surpass Qatar as the world's largest exporter of gas and LNG will pass coal to become our second biggest export behind iron ore.. The down side Is locating the companies HQs in Bermuda to reduce tax paid to ATO. That's the problem, it will all be done by foreign owned companies minimising their tax. They will create jobs but the real benefit will be winging it's way across the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BacktoDemocracy Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Build ten billion wind turbines and China might get enough power. How many would that be per sq klm, 1 or just 0.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BacktoDemocracy Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 What serious scientific body has predicted that the planet won't be capable of sustaining life? I think just about all except. those dependent on the oil industry for support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 17, 2015 Author Share Posted July 17, 2015 That's the problem, it will all be done by foreign owned companies minimising their tax. They will create jobs but the real benefit will be winging it's way across the world. Tax evasion will always be a problem. I don't know how you can stamp it out when there are countries where companies can legally "hide?" It is the same with shipping companies registering themselves in? Monrovia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 17, 2015 Author Share Posted July 17, 2015 How many would that be per sq klm, 1 or just 0.5 I think China will continue to open one conventional power station a week hence their huge consumption of coal. I'd better check my figures! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.