Altrav: There seems to be new sodium batteries that just don't degrade the way the lithium ion does. Moreover there new capacitors that you can completely recharge in thirty seconds and hold promise of doubled maximum range, about a thousand clicks? That'll make the Bathurst one thousand the property of fully electric vehicles?

The chinese are ramping up their totally electric car production and promise more than a million units this year? And there are moves afoot for electric highway that tavase the entire east coast and from Perth to Albany? With the Indian pacific and car carrying rolling stock filling in that gap? As it does now!

Without question, it's going to be seriously cheaper to to recharge the jalopy overnight with off peak energy than fill up at the petrol bowser.

The government can replace fuel tax/road funding by placing an additional, cents per erg, charging tax they collect from the electric highways.

Once you've driven an electric vehicle, you'll never want to drive conventionally powered again? I kid you not!
Alan B.

Alan B, I see you mentioned a long time favorite of mine. 'Conductors' or more to the point 'superconductors'. I stopped pushing and talking about them as I got a lot of flack from the 'experts' on 'The Forum'. I have believed in super conductors for many years. The technology is still not at the point I would be satisfied with it. I live in hope. It has all the features we would need in a electrified world. Safety being the principal benefit. Unlike Lithium which is very unpredictable and I feel we are trying to force too much power, too quickly, into one of these batteries and in doing so are 'teasing' the battery till one day, for no reason at all, it decides to go off like a flare with no easy way to put it out. I will keep watching for any progress or updates on superconductors, and one day we just might see the future of safe, cheap power storage in superconductors.

ALTRAV,
Most vegetated areas are net absorbers of CO2, but there is a lot of seasonal variation.

The predictions of 20m+ sea level rises were based partly on thermal expansion of water, but mainly on the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica melting. When scientists realised that was a possibility, there was a lot of media coverage. But when they examined it further and found that we would not get such big sea level rises in the foreseeable future, that wasn't considered newsworthy.

But don't get too comfortable - the cost of a 1m sea level rise is much higher than most people could imagine.

>The truth is that renewables have to be too large a scale compared tothe amount of power they generate.
The truth is Australia is a big country with a small population. Finding sufficient space for renewables is not a problem, and it can usually coexist with other land uses.

>My background is engineering
...As is mine. So as one engineer to another, I ask: why are you so daunted by big solutions?

I did not allege you didn't want cheaper and more reliable energy. But I don't think you've given sufficient thought to how it can be achieved with renewables. Because they're so capital intensive, their financial viability is very sensitive to interest rates. But at the moment they're not being given access to cheap finance - instead the banks are making a huge profit at their expense. And because of this, large subsidies are required - and these are generally cross subsidies, making electricity more expensive. IMO government action is needed to ensure renewable energy has access to cheap finance, enabling it to pass the savings on to customers.

The whole argument that is going on here is irrelevant.
The arguments ignore the falling Energy Return on Energy invested.
Both coal & oil have fallen to low levels.
It is the reason the oil industry is planning its wind down as Shell
has announced.
One joke I read was that tight oil fracking is the oil industries retirement party.

As far as using capacitors to recharge in minutes or seconds;
Just shows how weak some commentators are in their electrical knowledge.
You would need a crane to lift the plug to put it into the socket on your car.

Other countries, parts of US and China are closing coal mines because
of falling ERoEI. We are a long way from that but we will need our
coal because it will take many years to get policy changed on nuclear.
We should hang on to it as we will need it.

The best thing to happen to get a change of policy is more blackouts.

Alan B.,
It may surprise you to learn that points of substance aren't the ones that fit your prejudices!

Why do you keep referring to "bismuth 2/13" as if it were tomorrow's date in American format? Don't you understand what the 213 means?

Regarding the relative danger of alpha, beta and gamma emitters, the situation is far more complicated than you think. Alpha radiation is less dangerous on the outside (because the alpha particles generally just bounce off your outer layer of skin) but if you get it inside you it's far more destructive. Nuclear medicine can put that destruction to good use, but there is significant collateral damage.

BTW bismuth 213 is a beta emitter as well as an alpha emitter.

I'm an engineer, not a medic.

You continue to post libellous false assumptions about me even after I've called you out on it. You're asking for trouble, yet still whinging about my personality when I post some fairly tame responses!

And why would I want to read those books on thorium power? I'm already aware of the case for it; indeed I'm a supporter. But unlike you I don't assume it to be commercially viable already, let alone able to produce electricity 2c/kWh yet! And subconsciously you must know that's the case, as you've mentioned all those countries that are researching it rather than building commercial reactors!

__________________________________________________________________________________

Galen,
Even if I could give you an optimum global mean temperature, it would not be universally accepted, as this planet's systems are extremely complicated and a lot of value judgements would have to be made. The real problem is no the temperature itself, but the rate of temperature change (unprecedented except in mass extinction events). We've adapted to existing conditions, and change is going to be very expensive to deal with. But it's likely to be far worse for nature because it has to adapt by natural selection which tends to take much longer.

And I'm puzzled as to why you think temperature increase is great for coral formation. Aren't you aware of coral bleaching?

My only disagreement is your statement that greater market share for renewables “is of course a good thing.” The Australian reports today that governments have paid $50m to buy back electricity from industrial users to reduce blackouts for other consumers. South Australia refused to pay $25-50m to keep a major coal-fired power station producing for several years, but has spent perhaps $600m plus on Mickey-Mouse schemes to slightly lessen the prospects of blackouts, now it and Victoria have paid that amount for short-term relief. Madness.

The worst example of virtue-signalling was that within hours of Trump being elected and declaring that the US would ignore the Paris Agreement, Turnbull signed up to it. It was surely an opportunity to stop the further descent into madness by saying, “Hang on, without the US, what’s the point, why should Australia damage itself to no purpose?” and try to get the debate onto a more rational level.