tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post4272074224818780493..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Experts react to the Finkel Review on the future for Australia's electricity generationSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34667111850052806842017-06-13T20:29:27.176+10:002017-06-13T20:29:27.176+10:00BojanglesJune 13, 2017 at 6:19 PM
"Joris is a...BojanglesJune 13, 2017 at 6:19 PM<br />"Joris is absolutely right. The mentioned IMF report is one of the most surreal examples of assigning costs in a ludicrous manner."<br /><br />When its climate science, the climate scientists must be producing fraudulent information or else Bojangles and Co. are a bunch of empty headed jerks parroting fossil fuel industry propaganda.<br /><br />When its renewable energy, the economists must be producing fraudulent information or else Bojangles and Co. are a bunch of empty headed jerks parroting fossil fuel industry propaganda.<br /><br />There's a bloke called William of Occam who tells us who Bojangles and Co. are. I imagine William of Occam is therefore another guy whose reputation is to be trashed in the fossil fuel industry's interest.<br /><br />Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19373323501672209542017-06-13T20:12:24.180+10:002017-06-13T20:12:24.180+10:00I wonder does bojangles mistakenly think that beca...I wonder does bojangles mistakenly think that because coal and oil transformed societies it is somehow sustainable in the medium and even long term. <br /><br />It's not. <br /><br />We are in a very precarious situation, with a population explosion of the human species, the serious depletion (and extinction) of plants and animals essential to us, enormous damage to ecosystems we are part of, and the world heating up way too quickly for us to cope with.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86589726835008695372017-06-13T20:03:10.906+10:002017-06-13T20:03:10.906+10:00Mr. bojangles appears to be of the school that sta...Mr. bojangles appears to be of the school that states until one can do everything, one must do nothing at all. There is, in his mind apparently, no benefit to burning, say, 25% less fossil fuel on the way to reorganizing the energy sector over a period of decades.<br /><br />It took most of a century to go from wood to coal around the 19th century. Using his "logic" nothing should have been done until everything was ready for the shift. <br /><br />There is precisely zero economic sense in proposing this line of argument. Change on a society wide scale takes decades of investment, labor, and adjustments of many sorts. It cannot be done as a step change.jgnfldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79300568281549552402017-06-13T18:52:12.579+10:002017-06-13T18:52:12.579+10:00BTW, I don't think anyone doubts that the scie...BTW, I don't think anyone doubts that the scientific, medical and industrial revolution, fueled by fossil fuels, has resulted in the world we have today, with a bigger proportion of the population than ever living well.<br /><br />I also doubt that anyone here is under the illusion that all use of coal and oil will cease tomorrow.<br /><br />There would also be few people who advocate such a thing, because of the disruption it would cause. <br /><br />What most people want is to fast track the restructuring of the energy sector to avoid the worst that could happen with global warming. What most people object to is the strong and vocal opposition to moving to a cleaner, safer world, which is coming from corrupt individuals and their ignorant fans. <br /><br />I for one don't want to see civilisation, plants and animals destroyed by our own actions. It may indeed be inevitable (I hope not), and if so, it doesn't mean I have to like it or stop doing what I can to prevent it from happening.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86615237420497317812017-06-13T18:24:58.957+10:002017-06-13T18:24:58.957+10:00bojangles, we get that you're upset. However y...bojangles, we get that you're upset. However you're mistaken if you think that repeating yourself over and over and over again will achieve anything except clog up the comments section. <br /><br />In addition, you putting words into the mouths of other people reduces your already low credibility further.<br /><br />Read up about confirmation bias (if you're not a knowing disinformer).Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17327989209247922182017-06-13T18:19:12.129+10:002017-06-13T18:19:12.129+10:00Joris is absolutely right. The mentioned IMF repor...Joris is absolutely right. The mentioned IMF report is one of the most surreal examples of assigning costs in a ludicrous manner. This has got nothing to do with reality.<br /><br />@ Millicent, numerobis, Marco<br />Looking at your answers to Joris, it shows that you are all living in a fantasy world. You still don´t understand what brought you all the privileges of modern society (electricity, medicine, hygiene, computers, (public) transport, safe drinking water and food etc..). Furthermore, the over all effect on human health, resulting from scientific developments facilitated by the use of fossil fuels, is immensely positive (despite relatively minor effects of air pollution that are diminishing rapidly worldwide). <br />Furthermore, you still don´t want to accept that current renewables (solar and wind) will never be able to replace fossil fuels. It is just not going to happen (use your calculator!). So in the coming decades, we will burn a lot of fossil fuels, because there is no other option, unless nuclear would be invoked (but funny enough, that is not what you want, despite the fact that you are sooooo concerned about the “irreversable damage” that CO2 does to the climate and threatens the future of the planet).<br /><br />@ Li D<br />Your comment is interesting, as it shows the train of thought of many of the respondents on this site. You say that conservation may be imposed on the western world, because a lot of products produced nowadays are not suitable (to you). So, because Li D does not like a certain lifestile of other people or the products they consume, he believes that he has the moral right to impose restrictive measures in terms of energy use to the rest of the world.. He makes a distinction in cases for which energy should be available or not.<br />Li D, let me make this clear: it is not up to you to decide where the energy is used for or not (nor is it for me). <br />So the only thing we can strive for is energy conservation in general terms, which is a good thing. At the same time, energy conservation will not solve the problem of worldwide energy need. As the world develops further, whether you like it or not, the amount of energy needed will increase dramatically in the coming decades (and thus the unavoidable burning of fossil fuels).<br />Bojanglesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27094122274160717342017-06-13T17:55:14.995+10:002017-06-13T17:55:14.995+10:00Is a straight up grant a subsidy? I'd say so.
...Is a straight up grant a subsidy? I'd say so.<br /><br />Trump recently took credit for a coal mine that opened recently. It was announced a year ago, well before Trump took office. It's going to employ a hundred people.<br /><br />It looks as if that Pennsylvania coal mine needed a $3m handout from the government to get it going - a government grant, not even a cheap loan, according to this article.<br /><br />http://www.mining.com/new-met-coal-mine-opens-pennsylvania/Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70879522420976684882017-06-13T17:37:10.771+10:002017-06-13T17:37:10.771+10:00There is no universally agreed definition of what ...<a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-challenge-of-defining-fossil-fuel-subsidies" rel="nofollow">There is no universally agreed definition of what constitutes a fossil fuel subsidy. </a><br /><br />Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57398662948724607402017-06-13T00:59:27.012+10:002017-06-13T00:59:27.012+10:00"The report itself concocts all sorts of spur..."The report itself concocts all sorts of spurious fossil fuel "subsidies", including the cost of road accidents and traffic congestion."<br /><br />Joris should do the calculations without those, and enjoy getting a somewhat smaller number.<br /><br />That it will still be an e-nor-mous number, who cares?Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56559577934018988612017-06-12T22:39:32.733+10:002017-06-12T22:39:32.733+10:00Everything I've read, health effects of air po...Everything I've read, health effects of air pollution and CO2 emissions are about equal. Those are directly related to fossil fuels -- electric cars don't do this.<br /><br />Road construction seems a stretch, but I'd have to read the article to get their justification.<br /><br />The other subsidies are subsidies that incentivize the use of fossil fuels. They may be intended for other things, but intent doesn't matter.numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9693103115630489792017-06-12T22:14:16.835+10:002017-06-12T22:14:16.835+10:00"The report itself concocts all sorts of spur..."The report itself concocts all sorts of spurious fossil fuel "subsidies", including the cost of road accidents and traffic congestion."<br /><br />Ohh "concocts". Why justify what you write when you can use words like that instead. So people being maimed and killed are just "spurious costs" now are they? Just because you don't care how much harm burning fossil fuels does does not make it "spurious". And that most obvious point shows us what all the rest of your post is worth.<br /><br />"...are subsidies for personal mobility"<br /><br />This is just mind boggling. I walk into town. The guy over the road from me drives into town and pumps toxic crap into the air when he does so. And you think I should subsidise the guy who can't be bothered to get off his arse.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11087411879558213022017-06-12T18:32:18.631+10:002017-06-12T18:32:18.631+10:00"Meanwhile back in the real world: Fossil fue..."Meanwhile back in the real world: Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF"<br /><br />The IMF does not say that. (It specifically states the report authors conclusions are their own).<br /><br />The report itself concocts all sorts of spurious fossil fuel "subsidies", including the cost of road accidents and traffic congestion.<br /><br />At the end of the day, the single biggest unpriced externality of fossil fuel burning is the co2 emission. All other "subsidies" and "externalities" listed in the "IMF" report (air pollution, road repairs, consumption subsidies, etc.) are subsidies for personal mobility, political stability (OPEC countries), poor smokestack scrubbing (non-OECD countries), etc.Joris van Dorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716028854724168266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70483439312901150232017-06-12T13:57:22.759+10:002017-06-12T13:57:22.759+10:00Bojangles, im wondering how much energy is used by...Bojangles, im wondering how much energy is used by factories making kitchen knick knacks, hanggliders, jet skis,<br />christmas lights, gourmet salad dressing, slippers that<br />look like animals, and a million other bits of crap?<br />Perhaps some conservation is in order, seeing as things are<br />turning to crap really fast.Li Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47653713601023737602017-06-12T13:47:46.295+10:002017-06-12T13:47:46.295+10:00Thanks, Li D - saved it.
There are a lot of issu...Thanks, Li D - saved it. <br /><br />There are a lot of issues associated with food supply, from both agriculture and fisheries. Some affect climate change directly (e.g. not just fossil fuel use, and cow burps - nitrogen is a big one). I was thinking of focusing on agriculture first (which I'm more familiar with), but the crisis in fisheries deserves attention too. <br /><br />Land clearing and forestry issues are also huge, though I was thinking of focusing more on food production as such.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31370635192297851922017-06-12T13:43:01.730+10:002017-06-12T13:43:01.730+10:00Found it.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti...Found it.<br /><br />https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/#Li Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33057358525083624842017-06-12T13:38:35.620+10:002017-06-12T13:38:35.620+10:00Sou, im not sure where i read it, but climate issu...Sou, im not sure where i read it, but climate issues aside, theres a coming crisis with soil viability appearently.<br />Sixty years left from memory.<br />You may want to look this up if you are doing a series.<br />Perhaps land clearing and aquaculture could be examined as well.Li Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19254549619739612952017-06-12T06:29:40.151+10:002017-06-12T06:29:40.151+10:00@Nick
Yup, that works.@Nick<br /><br />Yup, that works.Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44024832880502658152017-06-12T01:30:44.450+10:002017-06-12T01:30:44.450+10:00'a tirade of opinionated assertions'='...'a tirade of opinionated assertions'='bojangling'?Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09537772941984056434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17612371219288951862017-06-12T00:17:09.265+10:002017-06-12T00:17:09.265+10:00Yes, I'm thinking of doing a series on the foo...Yes, I'm thinking of doing a series on the food supply problems we're going to be facing - maybe later this year. <br /><br />For now, a lot of people probably already find meat too expensive. It seems as if it's doubled in price in the last 2 or 3 years here in Australia, anyway.<br /><br />In coming decades our diet will probably be very different to what it was (at least in western countries) in the twentieth century.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70693524616274748892017-06-12T00:11:42.530+10:002017-06-12T00:11:42.530+10:00"Well, that is to say Millicent, of course th..."Well, that is to say Millicent, of course there has been civilization..."<br /><br />There are plenty of non dark age civilised societies too. Classical Greece was not a dark age society. I'm sorry, but if you have a limited vocabulary then don't blame me. The term you are looking for is "industrialised society".<br /><br />As for the rest: repeating your fossil fuel industry gobshite doesn't make it any truer.<br /><br />"The only way to make them appear to be competitive is to introduce all kind of dubious externalities to put an extra financial burder on fossil fuels."<br /><br />Meanwhile back in the real world: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf" rel="nofollow">Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF</a>Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8915563263835547732017-06-12T00:06:15.001+10:002017-06-12T00:06:15.001+10:00Utilities disagree with bojangles, e.g.:
http://w...Utilities disagree with bojangles, e.g.:<br /><br />http://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/may/26/sempra-vp-surprises-says-100-percent-renewable-gri/<br /><br />“I am speaking with confidence now. We have a solution now to adjust the intermittency of solar and wind energy that is no longer a technology challenge. Now it is an economic decision," said Patrick Lee, Sempra Energy vice president for major project controls. “So installing a base load power plant is no longer your only option. You can now look at solar, wind and storage as alternatives, and still be able to manage the reliability of the grid. So that is the takeaway I would like you to have.”numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53497946186965956992017-06-11T23:52:37.380+10:002017-06-11T23:52:37.380+10:00@ Millicent
You said: ¨According to Bojangle there...@ Millicent<br />You said: <i>¨According to Bojangle there can have been no civilisation before the fossil fuel industry.¨ </i><br />Well, that is to say Millicent, of course there has been civilization, but of a totally different kind than the one you know today. So if you want to go back to the dark ages, be my guest. But please be aware that almost anything we can now enjoy in our modern society (electricity, medicine, hygiene, computers, (public) transport, safe drinking water and food, long and healthy life etc..) is the direct result of the immense success of fossil fuels. This does not mean that it should not change in the future, but denying that our beautiful modern society owes everything to oil is plain stupid. For now and the near future (30 to 40 years), fossil fuels are the only source of energy that can sustain our standard of living (or nuclear should be invoked). People who tell us that we can replace fossil fuels with the current renewables are plain stupid (no knowledge of mathematics and physics) or are showing bad faith, or both.<br /><br />You also say : <i>¨But human scientific ingenuity still offers us hope because renewable energy is becoming so cheap it will replace fossil fuels if it is left to market forces.¨ </i><br />This is simply untrue. The energy density and power density of solar and wind are way too low to compete with fossil fuels on an economic level. The only way to make them appear to be competitive is to introduce all kind of dubious externalities to put an extra financial burder on fossil fuels.<br />Bojanglesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20073293309826269602017-06-11T21:27:27.995+10:002017-06-11T21:27:27.995+10:00I applaud all efforts to transition away from use ...I applaud all efforts to transition away from use of fusil fuels. However, the elephant in the room is agriculture and especially the live stock industry. Going vegetarian or, better still, vegan is the most cost effective way for individuals to combat global warming. Not only is it better for the environment, is better for your own health and its also cheaper. However it means throwing off the brainwashing that you're exposed to every day via the media, cinema and television that makes you believe that you need to eat plenty of animal products.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07784872872859319666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1128043107287292172017-06-11T18:03:41.877+10:002017-06-11T18:03:41.877+10:00I would like to write some brilliant comment, howe...I would like to write some brilliant comment, however i find that all i can say is that humanity will keep bumbling along in its pathetic way and when the reality comes to pass those then will as "Why" and as usual " No body told me".<br />This is how we have life the idiots are in control and put up with it.johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25119217688268801742017-06-11T16:13:09.296+10:002017-06-11T16:13:09.296+10:00"The most important thing that matters in a c..."The most important thing that matters in a civilized society is reliable and affordable energy at any time."<br /><br />According to Bojangle there can have been no civilisation before the fossil fuel industry. So now climate change deniers have to rewrite the history books to keep their nonsense going.<br /><br />What's happening here is the politicians have failed us. Even the Paris agreement was, in reality, utterly inadequate. But human scientific ingenuity still offers us hope because renewable energy is becoming so cheap it will replace fossil fuels if it is left to market forces.<br /><br />So now the same people who denied climate change for the fossil fuel industry are obstructing the development of renewable energy on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.Millicentnoreply@blogger.com