Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Climate change or not, I love the fact that people are paying attention to pollution in the air.
Since I was a kid 400 years ago, exhaust pipes seemed like pollution to me. I always thought to myself, "If I had that black soot all over my hands, my mom would tell me to wash it off. Why is it OK on trees and in the air?"
It would certainly be a new chapter for the world if we could move energy production out of the fossil fuel era, and into the fusion era.
-- The real danger is not inaction. The real danger is when politicians and CEOs are making it look like action is happening when in fact nothing is being done. - Greta Thunburg
Will they be using kangaroos for transportation? And how will they eliminate the didgeridoo emissions?
Will they be using kangaroos for transportation? And how will they eliminate the didgeridoo emissions?
Will they be using kangaroos for transportation? And how will they eliminate the didgeridoo emissions?
Using Nuclular mini reactors that whistle: Gonk! Gonk! Didgeridoo!! as they hop around the outback on robotic kangaroo legs. Kind of obvious you Drongo!
Australia has some excellent renewable energy resources that it has so far failed to capitalize. Obviously there is plenty of room for solar farms, and plenty of sun. There are also strong winds off Australia's shores.
There was talk a while back of a very long high voltage DC line from Australia to East Asia. Rather than exporting coal to those countries, Australia could export electricity.
Australia has some excellent renewable energy resources that it has so far failed to capitalize. Obviously there is plenty of room for solar farms, and plenty of sun. There are also strong winds off Australia's shores. There was talk a while back of a very long high voltage DC line from Australia to East Asia. Rather than exporting coal to those countries, Australia could export electricity.
Australia has some excellent renewable energy resources that it has so far failed to capitalize. Obviously there is plenty of room for solar farms, and plenty of sun. There are also strong winds off Australia's shores.
There was talk a while back of a very long high voltage DC line from Australia to East Asia. Rather than exporting coal to those countries, Australia could export electricity.
The previous Labor government tried to get green energy off the ground. That was in 2010. They were voted out in 2012 due in large part to Murdoch running a huge smear campaign against Julia Gillard. Labor had set up the Green Energy Finance Corporation to create and manage investments in green energy. This was making a profit in 2012 when the Conservatives were elected and shut it down "because Labor" and tried to start opening up more coal mines. The Conservatives spent the next 9 years saying "but Labor" to every one of their multitude of failures until people finally got sick of Murdochs bullshit and elected Labor. Now Australia is seeing some sensible policies.
Labor had set up the Green Energy Finance Corporation to create and manage investments in green energy. This was making a profit in 2012 when the Conservatives were elected and shut it down "because Labor" and tried to start opening up more coal mines.
Labor had set up the Green Energy Finance Corporation to create and manage investments in green energy. This was making a profit in 2012 when the Conservatives were elected and shut it down "because Labor" and tried to start opening up more coal mines.
Nothing's more precious than a hole in the ground.
Now Australia is seeing some sensible policies.
Now Australia is seeing some sensible policies.
Does that mean they have plans to limit or prohibit future open pit mines? Those have been a bit of a thing in Oz. Most of the world's lithium production comes from one there.
Indeed, and now we are facing a cost of energy crisis that could have been somewhat mitigated if they had continued Labour's scheme for insulating homes.
No they won't. One key difference right now is that both major parties got fucked royally in the 2022 election with a clear message: environment matters. The greens party quadrupled in size. The crossbench is full of independents that won over the major parties because they had all the same policies + gave a shit about the environment, the so called Teal Independents (teal being the colour you get when you mix the coalition's blue + a some green).
Neither party is going to kick the hornets nest now, not after the 2022 election result. The days of a coal lobby telling the party to simply knife it's own PM are over, at least for the foreseeable future.
Remember, neither Labor nor the Coalition ran on a green ticket, yet this is one of the first significant pieces of legislation the barely winning Labor party has passed. Let that sink in for a moment.
We are not getting rid of the internal combustion engine any time soon. We may be rid of petroleum fuels, but not necessarily hydrocarbon fuels. There's just too many good things about hydrocarbons as fuel that we will likely synthesize them to avoid disrupting the transportation market too much. Maybe we could switch to gaseous fuels, like methane and propane. Perhaps ammonia, a fuel that has no carbon.
There will be a problem producing the batteries we need to get every vehicle to be electric. It would be far simpler to synthesize fuels, fuels that are compatible with the infrastructures we have built up already.
Fusion energy isn't going to be a thing any time soon. Fusion is still "nukular" and so will upset all the same people that don't like anything "nukular". We get laws changed on nuclear materials that makes fusion easier to get licensed then that means we have new rules to make fission easier. We've had working fission power for 70 years. Energy from fusion is still claimed to be 20 or 30 years away. After seeing some of the numbers I'm fairly convinced that fusion power is physically possible, but the reactor would have to be far too large for anyone to be willing to construct any time soon. Give it a few years for someone to show a fusion reactor that can run for several minutes, that will prove many of the physics required for a fusion reactor that produced energy.
If people want to see fusion get to the market faster then the international cooperation must end. International efforts like ITER is just a bunch of spies sent to see what the other nations know about fusion, not about producing anything that could prove economically viable. If people want economically viable then get the politics out of it and every nation needs to do their own thing. Then they need to move from a torus confinement to a spherical confinement.
Fusion isn't happening as an energy source until we get a better handle on fission. We barely started on getting the most we could from fission so there's no reason to go running off to try fusion yet.
Climate change or not Australia will be building nuclear fission power plants. Part of this will be in support of their nuclear navy submarines. Part will be to produce much needed energy, energy that is low in CO2 and pollution. Part will be to gain economic, political, and military independence. Without their own reactors Australia will remain dependent on other nations for the construction of warships capable to go up against top tier nations. Australia wants to be an ally of UK, France, and USA, not a colony. That means gaining some level of independence on their manufacturing, training, energy, food, and water.
Fusion reactors may work in space to make rockets. On Earth fusion reactors are likely to remain teaching tools and producers of isotopes, not anything we use for energy.
Methane has to be handled as a cryogenic liquid for long haul trucking, then it's not a huge leap to use hydrogen instead.
Your country is 95% desert with a big rock in the middle, has no significant heavy industry or manufacturing industry, importing most of the polluting goods from China, Africa and the US. Put up some Tesla solarpanels and batteries and you somewhat achieved that goal next year.
That's a bloody outage it is! You should take that to your member of parliament.
youtube.com/watch?v=WdAun0NpF5A
as if any of the politicians that passed this will be around in 2050. but it sounds good now right? right?!
as if any of the politicians that passed this will be around in 2050. but it sounds good now right? right?!
as if any of the politicians that passed this will be around in 2050. but it sounds good now right? right?!
Everybody with a modicum of technological understanding knows fossil fuels are an obsolete technology. However, since you are one of those rare Luddites who want's to keep them around, explain to us why we should hold onto an obsolete technology.
I don’t know if this is true or not but you used modicum in a sentence and that’s good enough for me.
While true, I'm fairly sure that none of the decision makers involved in this think that they'll still have to pull through with that promise. We're talking about something happening 28 years down the road. 28 years ago, Bush senior was prez in the US. I'm pretty sure even he would have signed this into law, thinking "By that time, even my son won't have to deal with this shit anymore".
While true, I'm fairly sure that none of the decision makers involved in this think that they'll still have to pull through with that promise. We're talking about something happening 28 years down the road. 28 years ago, Bush senior was prez in the US. I'm pretty sure even he would have signed this into law, thinking "By that time, even my son won't have to deal with this shit anymore".
While true, I'm fairly sure that none of the decision makers involved in this think that they'll still have to pull through with that promise. We're talking about something happening 28 years down the road. 28 years ago, Bush senior was prez in the US. I'm pretty sure even he would have signed this into law, thinking "By that time, even my son won't have to deal with this shit anymore".
Legislating the target was one way to make it much more likely to be hit - for a government to come in after 2025 (the next election year) and rescind that legislation - frankly doesn't seem likely. So it's much more than just virtue signalling - however you seem to suggest that the politicians involved don't actually believe the science and are just trying to placate the electorate. Don't know a whole lot about Australian politics, huh?.
Plus, in addition to the net zero in 2050, there's a target for 2030
Your triggered a snowflake. Autspergies don't get sarcasm.
as if any of the politicians that passed this will be around in 2050. but it sounds good now right? right?!
as if any of the politicians that passed this will be around in 2050. but it sounds good now right? right?!
Not only ignorant about Australian politicians, but too lazy to check their ages on Wikipedia as well. The current PM is 59. In 28 years he'll be 87. Not an unreachable age. There are many - most, in fact - in his party, in the cross-bench independents, and even in the opposition, who are much younger than he, and I would say are odds-on to be around in 28years. Will any of them still be in Parliament? Probably not, but that wasn't the point made.
Australia has federal elections every three years. That's about 8 or 9 chances to walk this back. Most likely, at some point during some sort of downturn, they will elect a shortsighted idiot party/prime-minister who will roll this back.
The latest election was a massacre for the LNP, mainly due to independents running on a climate action policy. No new government will be elected here doing otherwise. We have a minority of far fight deniers, who are ineffectual and powerless. For some reason, we Aussies dont fall for corrupt populist far right bullshit like other countries do, despite the best efforts of Murdochs News corpse. The right has no chance of getting in as long as Dutton is opposition leader, the guy looks like a living Voldemort, an
For some reason, we Aussies dont fall for corrupt populist far right bullshit like other countries do, despite the best efforts of Murdochs News corpse.
For some reason, we Aussies dont fall for corrupt populist far right bullshit like other countries do, despite the best efforts of Murdochs News corpse.
The downfall of Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull, giving us a decade of Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison says otherwise. Pauline Hanson also made a political comeback during that time. Time will tell whether this is a blip. The fact that the Liberal Party has been infiltrated by pentecostal nutjobs gives cause for concern. All it takes is for Labor to make one mistake, no matter how small and inconsequential, and we'll be fucked.
Abbott didnt last long before being kick out Scomo had no other loyalty than to his own interests. Turnbull was the best Liberal PM in my lifetime, pity the loonie right couldnt stand him. It was nice to have an actual smart liberal PM after the many years of dross like Howard and Abbott. I reckon we will see a continuing centreist independant presence in the future.
Which is a problem because Labor seem almost addicted to fucking up. As they say , it's a party with a remarkable ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The problem is the faction system. People get into labor and realise factions are their ticket to power and it becomes demented with people placing their factions struggle for power within labor over the parties ability to gain and hold power. Hence the multiple historical rolling of PMs. The laws Rudd brought in to make it harder to roll party l
Liberals have the same issues with factions, particularly in NSW. The Liberals have a far worse history of rolling leaders, Nelson, Turnbull, Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison all in a few years.
Which is a problem because Labor seem almost addicted to fucking up. As they say , it's a party with a remarkable ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The problem is the faction system. People get into labor and realise factions are their ticket to power and it becomes demented with people placing their factions struggle for power within labor over the parties ability to gain and hold power. Hence the multiple historical rolling of PMs. The laws Rudd brought in to make it harder to roll party leaders ought stop at least that fiasco from recurring but it also kept Bill Shorten in leadership far far after it was abundantly clear he was incapable of winning elections
Which is a problem because Labor seem almost addicted to fucking up. As they say , it's a party with a remarkable ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The problem is the faction system. People get into labor and realise factions are their ticket to power and it becomes demented with people placing their factions struggle for power within labor over the parties ability to gain and hold power. Hence the multiple historical rolling of PMs. The laws Rudd brought in to make it harder to roll party leaders ought stop at least that fiasco from recurring but it also kept Bill Shorten in leadership far far after it was abundantly clear he was incapable of winning elections
"As they say" - who says? Morrison's "miracle" victory in 2019 was with the benefit of 9 years of Murdoch press character assassination, a compliant press, and - last but most definitely not least, Clive Palmer's $A80M spend on a vote-siphoning operation designed solely to keep the ALP out of power. And yes, it worked - but even with that tailwind, Morrison only ended up with a 2 seat majority. I defy anybody to win an election against those odds - Bill Shorten could well have been the best PM we never
Australia has federal elections every three years. That's about 8 or 9 chances to walk this back. Most likely, at some point during some sort of downturn, they will elect a shortsighted idiot party/prime-minister who will roll this back.
Australia has federal elections every three years. That's about 8 or 9 chances to walk this back. Most likely, at some point during some sort of downturn, they will elect a shortsighted idiot party/prime-minister who will roll this back.
Australia has a two party system where neither party cares about the environment. The 2022 election saw both parties get dominated by greens and independents who ran almost exclusively on a green ticket. I don't think any government would risk in an upcoming election trying to walk back these policies. At this point that would be political suicide.
You do realize it was a conservative government that handled COVID, right?
Didn't seem to me like he was favoring any side. You know "totalitarian" isn't a party, right?
Didn't seem to me like he was favoring any side. You know "totalitarian" isn't a party, right?
No, it is a cross party phenomenon which makes it worse than any individual party.
Let's see. "unnecessary vaccine", wildly hyperbolic statements about lawmakers, complaining about climate policy—I thought it was a pretty safe bet they were a conservative.
Though, if you say this is typical of both sides, I'll believe it. There's a reason we're giving American-style political rhetoric the middle finger.
The COVID response was supported by the vast majority of Australians, and was appropriate for the circumstances. Only the fringe loonie far right/Libertarian nutjobs complained, and state govts popularity grew in most cases.
This willingness to accept authoritarianism may be briefly appropriate in the midst of a crisis, but the problem is that once a person has been granted great authority, there is a tendency to misuse it and a great reluctance to return it once the crisis has ended. And because it was granted during a crisis, the people may be slow to demand it back.
actually doing what it takes to achieve net zero is something else. Having said that passing the law is a good thing and gives us hope at reducing the ravages that climate change will cause.
actually doing what it takes to achieve net zero is something else.
actually doing what it takes to achieve net zero is something else.
Don't worry, by 2030, they will pass another law to postpone the target to 2060, precisely because passing laws is easy.
In any case, by 2050, anyone who was involved with this law would be already gone anyway, so no one would be responsible for anything.
In any case, by 2050, anyone who was involved with this law would be already gone anyway, so no one would be responsible for anything.
In any case, by 2050, anyone who was involved with this law would be already gone anyway, so no one would be responsible for anything.
So you're saying is that governments should not pass any law with long-term goal, politics should only look at the short term. That does not sound like a good plan. Also you seem to assume people involved are old, but you forget that young graduates or students in politics hold jobs as assistants to current elected officials. These assistants will be spending their entire careers around the implementation of this law. People in the middle ages were able to plan cathedrals a century ahead, but in 2022 we sho
Nuclear can be built to be both perfectly safe and reliable.
Nuclear can be built to be both perfectly safe and reliable.
Maybe, but only by being so expensive that you could get vastly more production out of renewables. Also, not perfectly. Nothing is perfect.
Did I hurt your nuclear fee-fees with facts? That makes sense, nuclear only works with lies.
Yes, they always do a cost benefit analysis, and the cost savings to construct it in what are deemed to be only modestly less safe styles are invariably determined to outweigh the risks, which are admittedly statistically extremely low.
But that perception only actually lasts until a meltdown actually happens and dangerous levels of radiation gets into the open environment, at which point all notion of how much money they may have saved by building cheaper is completely moot.
We don't just need put press
Also keep in mind that the real world works on economics, so don't achieve 0 emissions by starving the population. Hungry people don't care about carbon emissions.
Also keep in mind that the real world works on economics, so don't achieve 0 emissions by starving the population. Hungry people don't care about carbon emissions.
Are you sure? A starving population tends to emit less carbon and to shrink in size instead of keeping growing thus, even less emissions.
PV does not spontaneously combust in hot weather. Between thin film PV and low cost wide bandgap semiconductor electronics, dealing with heat cheaply is not a problem for PV.
Yet both sides of the government want to significantly increase immigration.
I can see why big government and big business considers it a win (pushing down wages). But it's an overall loss for the Australian people.
If they were serious about resource consumption they would heavily restrict immigration and let our population naturally decline slowly, as it would have already been doing if not for the big uptakes of foreigners.
Population growth in Australia is only a fraction of what it was between the 50s and 80s. You'll be fine. It's not like you can solve climate change by simply not letting someone into the country.
If anything we should be actively supporting people from shithole countries being represented by governments who actually do have green policies. It's not like saying no to immigration will make a person magically disappear.
... fucking scam, and it frankly pisses me off.
Rather than actually *reduce* emissions, the companies simply seek to offset their actual emissions by investing in technologies that allegedly somehow make up for the emissions that they produce, at least as often as not in projects that were going to be done anyways.
In other words, "Net zero emissions" is basically just a buzzword for "pay to pollute". A company can actually pollute *more* and still claim net zero emissions because they have invested enough dollars in supposedly saving some forest somewhere that as often as not was already part of some actual preserve, not one that would have otherwise been clearcut if not for their investment.
Fuck so-called "net zero emissions", what I want to see are substantiated claims of is actual emission reduction. Anything else is just people pretending they are making a difference in our planet's future when all they are doing is spending money.
Of course I'm not saying that spending money to help save the planet is bad, but the world is only just so big, and there's only so much land area that can accommodate forest which could potentially offset our emissions. And, here's the kicker, there just isn't enough of it.
Companies want to spend money to help save the planet? Here's a thought... spend it on building a wind farm that wouldn't have otherwise existed. Spend it on building safe and reliable nuclear power facilities that would otherwise never see the light of day.
Countries can't buy carbon offsets or buy the couple percent of reliable renewable power. Net zero at country scale works can't really greenwash.
Not quite correct, because countries can export their pollution or ghg emissions to other countries. For example, Australia can just shut down all industries that use hydrocarbons, and buy that stuff from China. China will make it using the coal they import from Australia. Everybody wins.
If there's one thing guaranteed to fuck up your currency, it's Government committing to an impossible goal, then following through and trying to make it happen through "Stimulus"
Lets see Unable to deliver basic power and electricity. check. Unable to supply gas, check. Lowest amount or elaborately transformed goods in whole of OECD, check. Imports Chinese cement, check. Massive landfill, because recycling centres cant afford electricity or water taxes. check. No fuel reserves, fails OECD test, check. Unable to make cars, imports oil, check. Steel industry almost dead, check.
Lets see Unable to deliver basic power and electricity. check. Unable to supply gas, check. Lowest amount or elaborately transformed goods in whole of OECD, check. Imports Chinese cement, check. Massive landfill, because recycling centres cant afford electricity or water taxes. check. No fuel reserves, fails OECD test, check. Unable to make cars, imports oil, check. Steel industry almost dead, check.
And yet so many people want to come live here. Curious, huh? Must be for the beaches. Or the Great Whites at the beaches. And the funnel-web spiders in Sydney; and the Inland Taipan (#1 deadliest terrestrial snake), Eastern Brown (#2 deadliest terrestrial snake), Coastal Taipan (#3 deadliest terrestrial snake) plus another 3 or 4 in the top 30; and of course, the drop bears. Living here is not for everyone - you don't sound like you'd like it. Good - stay away while the new government fixes the mis
Any nation that wants a reliable energy grid needs a large supply of "firm" power. This can be considered identical to "base" power, or a variation on the theme. Base power implies something reliable but slow. Firm power is something that is reliable but not necessarily slow to act. A large steam power plant like a third generation nuclear power plant may be a good place to start but since Australia is able to learn from past mistakes they can take on generation III and III+ designs with little extra ef
I've heard claims that a nuclear navy in Australia does not necessarily mean civil nuclear power is coming to Australia. I say that if they don't use this opportunity to build civilian nuclear power plant then they've lost their minds. They will need fuel processing facilities. They will need nuclear engineers. .
I've heard claims that a nuclear navy in Australia does not necessarily mean civil nuclear power is coming to Australia. I say that if they don't use this opportunity to build civilian nuclear power plant then they've lost their minds. They will need fuel processing facilities. They will need nuclear engineers. .
A lot of people don't want nuclear power here, and of all the countries in the world, we're one of the best placed (geographically and technically) to make the most of renewable power sources. And you're also wrong about the need for all of the infrastructure you cite to support nuclear-powered submarines - AUKUS only came about because the powerplants that would be used would be fueled for life before installation - we're not going to build a whole nuclear industry to support submarines.
A lot of people don't want nuclear power here,
A lot of people don't want nuclear power here,
I realize that. Not wanting nuclear power doesn't change the fact that without nuclear power Australia will face either rising energy costs or rising CO2 emissions.
and of all the countries in the world, we're one of the best placed (geographically and technically) to make the most of renewable power sources.
and of all the countries in the world, we're one of the best placed (geographically and technically) to make the most of renewable power sources.
Renewable energy requires more land, labor, and materials than nuclear fission. I'm quite certain Australia will develop plenty of renewable energy capacity. If Australia does not also develop some nuclear fission energy production then they will fail in their goals to get to zero carbon emissions by 2050.
And you're also wrong about the need for all of the infrastructure you cite to support nuclear-powered submarines - AUKUS only came about because the powerplants that would be used would be fueled for life before installation - we're not going to build a whole nuclear industry to support submarines.
And you're also wrong about the need for all of the infrastructure you cite to support nuclear-powered submarines - AUKUS only came about because the powerplants that would be used would be fueled for life before installation - we're not going to build a whole nuclear industry to support submarines.
Australia will need something to train
Do you know what a battery is?
but how much until the next election? That's what I care about.
Couple of points: * Reducing by 43% by 2030 means reducing by ca. 5% in 2023. What does the bill have to say about that? * Australia likely facilitates way more emissions than its own by exporting fossil fuels. What about reduction of those exports by 43%, or 5% in 2023? * Estimates until when Australia can fully run on PV? Seems like that should be Real Soon Now with the cheapest form of energy ever [carbonbrief.org] and fossil prices going crazy on the continent of Sunshine Coast and the enormous arid outback.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
World's Largest Cruise Ship To Be Scrapped Before First Voyage
About the time we think we can make ends meet, somebody moves the ends. -- Herbert Hoover