The PM has made a thing about the end of climate wars.
Surely he understands that using the "Keep the Details Till Later"
technique only delays the argument and does not prevent it.
The government will try to implement regulations that will force all
companies to reduce their CO2 emissions and to prove it.
A few companies may be able to guess but most will not have a clue.
Take a company that their only emissions are caused by their electricity demand.
How do they determine how much of their electricity they used was
generated by Wind & Solar, (W&S) and how much by gas turbines and Coal ?
Just average of the grid supply you say ?
If your company only operates between sunrise and sunset you will have
a different average to a company running 3 shifts !
So why should you pay a higher average than what you consume.
Then in agriculture do sheep fart more than cows ?
That is just a first thought on the arguments that will arise.

More to the point, how will it affect me a retiree ?
How will I reduce by 6.14% each and every year ?
How do I prove it ?
Will we have to buy credits from the Gnomes of Zurich ?

Hi Bazz,

Well, the government's bill passed the lower house
89 to 55 votes with Liberal MP Bridget Archer
crossing the floor. The bill will go before the
Senate in September. It's set to pass.

We'll have to wait and see I guess whether there
will be any serious climate wars. So far the start
has been a good one - with not serious opposition.
As yet. I guess we'll have to see what the Greens
do next - and whether the Coalition will continue
to not oppose things.

Time will tell. Climate is a very important issue to
the voters. And any politician opposing change will
do so at their own political risk - as the results of the
last election showed.

"More to the point, how will it affect me a retiree ?"

Literally no one cares, old man. This is your mess, we're fixing it

we're fixing it
the voice of reason,
So, why don't you start fixing things without any of the commodities the previous generations have put on the table ?
You wouldn't even be writing here if it weren't for the bad oldies. As a matter of fact your generation would starve to death if it weren't for the previous generations.
You lot haven't invented a thing yet nor have you contributed anything yet.
I for one can't wait to see you make things work without any of the facilities built by the previous generations !

Don't worry, Bazz. None of this BS is going to work, as shown in Europe, where there is a scramble back to fossil fuels.

"So, why don't you start fixing things without any of the commodities the previous generations have put on the table ?
You wouldn't even be writing here if it weren't for the bad oldies. As a matter of fact your generation would starve to death if it weren't for the previous generations.
You lot haven't invented a thing yet nor have you contributed anything yet.
I for one can't wait to see you make things work without any of the facilities built by the previous generations !"

HAHAHAA!! F@ck the right are dumb

We would STARVE to death without what? I grow a lot of my own food. Haven't invented a thing? Mobile phones, web 2.0, the covid vaccine, stop me if you get overwhelmed....

Jesus Christ.

The Socialists' Bill was described today as 'an economic precipice' - with all the lemmings rushing over it, presumably. On what used to be the non-Socialist side, only Matt Canavan and Alex Antic realise that net zero means net poverty for Australia; the rest of the Opposition, including its leader, should cross the floor and stay there, for all the use they are to the country.

The cost of mining will sky rocket at a time when exports of coal and gas (43% of our exports) have risen by 270% over last year. How spectacularly stupid are the Socialists (and a hell of lot of the similar sorts in the Coalition)! The clowns don't seem to know what supports our standard of living.

All this stupidity is supported by the media, of course; but more mind-boggling is the cheering on from major business bodies, like the Business Council, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Energy Council, and The Australian Institute of Company Directors.

Australia has been well and truly rooted by the very people elected and paid to look after it.

"Australia has been well and truly rooted by the very people elected and paid to look after it."

True, but the liberals are gone now. Labor are sadly not socialists, but at least they are adults

Not happy enough increasing the cost of energy with insane and totally unreachable emission targets, the Super Socialists now want to put high maintenance (admitted by Bowen) ugly wind turbines in the sea, off Victoria.

Not only do these short-lived, high-maintenance contraptions provide (weather permitting) power that is more expensive than that from the land-based monstrosities, they do it dearer than fossil fuels.

Without billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies, not even the Silly Socialists would consider them. Renewable energy is really weather-dependent, unreliable energy, and bloody expensive; and the main reason for the UK's 13% inflation, according to economists. There is not much that happens in modern life without energy, electricity, that Stumblebum Albanese wants to make even more costly.

Dear Bazz,

Great you have another horse to flog otherwise you would be doing a weekly post about Muslims doubling their representation in parliament.

You keep doing you old boy.

Bazz,
I presume the emissions from generating electricity would be attributable to the electricity generating companies rather than those who use the electricity.

_________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
I'm curious: what's your definition of "Socialists"? I ask because this government doesn't look socialist to me!

You do seem to be living in the past: you've failed to notice how fast the cost of renewables has fallen. Five years ago I'd've agreed with you about offshore wind, but the cost of that has plummeted faster than anything else.

And do you know the difference between economists and conspiracy bloggers? I know incompetence is rife among economists, but I doubt any of them would make a claim as utterly ridiculous as calling renewable energy "the main reason for the UK's 13% inflation". They've been investing in renewable energy longer than our state, but the inflations's a recent thing. It's generally believe to be a result of the combination of Brexit, the high fossil fuel prices due to the Ukraine war, and to a lesser extent the new Covid variants.

ttbn, yes the whole thing is so typical;
The politicians will with enthusiasm draw up laws with the help of
lawyers to decide what everyone will have to do to show their
compliance. The poor suckers who will have to fill in the statdecs
to show their compliance will have no idea how to measure it all.
Then the politicians will demand the engineering people will have to
design equipment to do the job, make it and then sell it to us.
I can see a big market for a methane and co2 measuring device that
you plug into the rear end of a sheep and a cow and it transmits by
wireless to the farmers computer the daily production.
OH WOW, that is where Albo's 640,000 jobs will come from !
Albo is not stupid after all, he is a genius !

Mobile phones, web 2.0, the covid vaccine, stop me if you get overwhelmed....
voice of reason,
These are not inventions, they're inevitable improvements !

Indy,
>So, why don't you start fixing things without any of the commodities the previous generations have put on the table?

Why would anyone want to handicap their efforts to fix things? There's nothing to gain and everything to lose!

Aidan,
Precisely my point ! From what they're saying we should not expect any mistakes from them considering they have thousands of years of hindsight to draw from !

"
Mobile phones, web 2.0, the covid vaccine, stop me if you get overwhelmed....
voice of reason,
These are not inventions, they're inevitable improvements !"

Every invention is an improvement, except the internet. Nothing like that existed before.

But cry on. boomers destroyed society. That they invented a few things for their benefit is irrelevant

European countries are heading for a colder winter than normal, in the dark, not because of Russia or Ukraine, but because from the beginning of this century they have ignored economic reality by pursuing the theatre of cutting emissions of carbon dioxide.

We are heading down the same path. The Left now regards the use of cheap, reliable electricity as a sin of indulgence. And the pseudo Right is joining in, stupidly ignoring their real role, thinking thinking it will raise them from the dead. It won't.

"European countries are heading for a colder winter than normal, in the dark, not because of Russia or Ukraine, but because from the beginning of this century they have ignored economic reality by pursuing the theatre of cutting emissions of carbon dioxide.

We are heading down the same path. The Left now regards the use of cheap, reliable electricity as a sin of indulgence. And the pseudo Right is joining in, stupidly ignoring their real role, thinking thinking it will raise them from the dead. It won't."

Germany has run mostly on renewables for some time. The Left knows that renewables create the cheapest reliable power today. You're just mad we can read.

Unfortunately the naysayers of renewable energy have got it wrong. Their thinking is rooted in the past where renewable energy production was far more expensive than that of fossil fuels. In 2010 it would cost a world average (without subsidies) $378 megawatt/hr to produce electricity from solar, but only $111 from coal and $96 from nuclear. Today the costs have reversed, in 2019 solar costs had plummeted to $68, whilst coal had remained relatively the same at $109, nuclear had risen to $155.

The naysayers are still basing their arguments around out of date data, or trying to deflect to other arguments concerning reliability. The fact is by 2019, 72& of investment in new capacity world wide was in renewable energy.

"I grow a lot of my own food."
I bet you aren't even very good at that.

And you didn't invent anything.
You didn't invent mobile phones, web 2.0, or the covid vaccine...
- and btw it's Web 3.0 numbnut.

Support socialism?
You mean you contribute nothing, piss and moan about everyone else and have been empowered by all the other retards like you, and demand and expect everything free?

- I know the type.
Your toilets probably caked in urine build-up because you're trying to save on the cost of flushing, but you tell people you're helping the environment.
The socialists will get you plowing those fields properly, don't you worry.

"I grow a lot of my own food."
I bet you aren't even very good at that.

-- Of course you do, boomer. LOL!

And you didn't invent anything.
You didn't invent mobile phones, web 2.0, or the covid vaccine...
- and btw it's Web 3.0 numbnut.

-- Web 1.0 was not fancy. From 2.0, it was something utterly new.

Support socialism?
You mean you contribute nothing, piss and moan about everyone else and have been empowered by all the other retards like you, and demand and expect everything free?

-- No, moron, I mean I support socialism. You're describing the right.

- I know the type.
Your toilets probably caked in urine build-up because you're trying to save on the cost of flushing, but you tell people you're helping the environment.

-- I love when right wing scum cry their fantasies at me.

The socialists will get you plowing those fields properly, don't you worry.

HAHAHAA!! It's funny because you still think socialism is what America told you it was in 1957, the last year you learned something new

Paul,

The killer for erratic energy (aka wind/solar), aside from being erratic, is the capacity factor. So yes, erratic energy may be much cheaper for the energy you generate, but to generate around the clock you need six to eight times as much, plus batteries and all the extra infrastructure to accommodate it. Nobody knows just how much more 24/7 erratic energy would cost as nobody has built a working model. My guess is at least four times the cost of gen3 nuclear.

"The killer for erratic energy (aka wind/solar), aside from being erratic, is the capacity factor. So yes, erratic energy may be much cheaper for the energy you generate, but to generate around the clock you need six to eight times as much, plus batteries and all the extra infrastructure to accommodate it. Nobody knows just how much more 24/7 erratic energy would cost as nobody has built a working model. My guess is at least four times the cost of gen3 nuclear."

Every body that looks into nuclear concludes that it's too expensive. The thing with 'erratic' sources is that you hook into more than one. Solar AND wind AND tidal AND batteries.

"Every body that looks into nuclear concludes that it's too expensive."

Really? French nuclear costs about a third as much as German erratic.

https://energycentral.com/c/ec/germany-solar-and-wind-triple-cost-france%E2%80%99s-nuclear-and-will-last-half-long

And produses a tenth of the CO2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC_BCz0pzMw

"The thing with 'erratic' sources is that you hook into more than one. Solar AND wind AND tidal AND batteries."

Yes, and that means dollars and dollars and dollars, plus infrastructure, plus power regulating hardware and software, plus transmission infrastructure, plus at least half the generating capacity from gas fired power, which sits idle for much of the time. And everything needs to be maintained.

Hey, but you don't have to take my word for it. You can experience the mess from the erratic energy zealots first hand if that is your preference.

"Every body that looks into nuclear concludes that it's too expensive."

Really? French nuclear costs about a third as much as German erratic.

-- the cost of running it may differ, AUSTRALIAN studies on the cost of BUILDING it have decided it's too expensive

https://energycentral.com/c/ec/germany-solar-and-wind-triple-cost-france%E2%80%99s-nuclear-and-will-last-half-long

-- A brief glance makes the bias of that source clear

And produses a tenth of the CO2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC_BCz0pzMw

"The thing with 'erratic' sources is that you hook into more than one. Solar AND wind AND tidal AND batteries."

Yes, and that means dollars and dollars and dollars, plus infrastructure, plus power regulating hardware and software, plus transmission infrastructure, plus at least half the generating capacity from gas fired power, which sits idle for much of the time. And everything needs to be maintained.

-- Everything needs to be maintained. We don't maintain coal power plants? LOL! Solar and wind are the CHEAPEST ways to make power, today

Hey, but you don't have to take my word for it. You can experience the mess from the erratic energy zealots first hand if that is your preference.

-- I've been to Germany. The lights were always on. I've also been to SA. You are an idiot

Christ this website is ridiculous. I can't have two exclamation points. Snowflakes

"You are an idiot"

Maybe, but at least I don't have the conceit to call myself The voice of reason. Would you like to have a go at doing a costing for 24/7 erratic energy? You can start with six to eight times the generating capacity of wind/solar. That alone is five time the cost of coal. Then you add batteries, transmission and control infrastructure, and backup gas fired power generation.

Go on VOR, take some time out from insulting people and have a go at some thinking.

Cheers

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted as it relates to posts above which have also been deleted.]

Recent announcement. The consumer is expected to pay the 13 Billion, yes that is Billion, that it is going to cost for transmission lines to get new wind & solar unreliable power to the grid from their scattered sights.

We know we have to pick up the cost involved in transforming their DC to AC current, & the cost of stand by generators for every drop in wind, but why the hell should we pick up the cost of getting their unreliable power to market.If someone wants to sell something it is up to them to bear the cost of getting it to market.

Incidentally if wind has been supplying most of Germany's power & french nuclear the rest, why the hell were they using 45% gas power generation, along with a couple of nuclear, & a few coal power?

Useful idiots are so obvious around here.

"Recent announcement. The consumer is expected to pay the 13 Billion, yes that is Billion, that it is going to cost for transmission lines to get new wind & solar unreliable power to the grid from their scattered sights."

Why in the christ would we need new transmission lines?

"Why in the christ would we need new transmission lines?"

Maybe you could put that question to the experts you seem to worship as a deities? There are only fools here. My foolish opinion is that if you are going to have six to eight times the generating capacity from erratic energy, and given your erratic energy sources will be all over the place, you will likely need a lot more transmission infrastructure.

"Maybe you could put that question to the experts you seem to worship as a deities? There are only fools here. My foolish opinion is that if you are going to have six to eight times the generating capacity from erratic energy, and given your erratic energy sources will be all over the place, you will likely need a lot more transmission infrastructure."

You don't need 6-8 times the capacity. You are a deluded old man.

You have not given a source. The Spectator? Andrew Bolt?

"You have not given a source. The Spectator? Andrew Bolt?"

There are many examples. Most estimate between six and eight times capacity factor. This example uses hydrogen generation for most of the surplus energy storage:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8

Perhaps you could engage in some argument instead of deifying your experts and abusing anyone who questions them? I try my best to respect people for giving an opinion on any matter. I disagree with Armchair Critic on many issues, but I respect the fellow for his great willingness too support his opinions. Seeing him attack you like he did makes me think you a bit of a troll. The great privilege in places like this is in gaining insights into how people think. You wont get that by abusing people.

in 2019 solar costs had plummeted to $68,
Paul1405,
You sound like multinational, it's the cost to the environment we're on about & solar & wind power manufacturing pollution has gone through the roof !
They make coal look clean !

Indy,

Would you like to provide some reliable evidence to back up your assertion that; "solar & wind power manufacturing pollution has gone through the roof !", or is it just another one of your unsubstantiated claims.

Paul1405,
I offer you an easy way out by asking you to prove it isn't so !

Might I suggest uber cheap energy from some of Alan B's Thorium MSRs to power a round the clock operation to process all the waste, toxic or otherwise, from the erratic energy industry. The near zero cost of the energy might make the operation quite profitable.

The pretence that erratic energy is cheap has gone. Now it's about averting calamity and vilifying fossil fools. Ever the cry for revolution, and with the same outcome I fear.

Nah Indy,

When you claim the Earth is flat the onus is on you to prove it so, not for others to prove you wrong. Go to it boy!

"Why in the christ would we need new transmission lines"?
Posted by The voice of reason.

Thanks VOR you have proven you don't have a clue how power generation & transmission work, or the losses in transmitting power over large distances.

Keep up the good work, so every one knows how much reliance we should put on your ideas & posts.

Even though the Coalition left us with a trillion dollars of debt, with nothing to show for it, the new Labor government is going to have to invest heavily in infrastructure such as 'poles and wires' if we are going to advance economically.

I can't believe the Conservatives were in power for almost 10 years, but never developed a creditable energy policy, they did make 22 attempts, but failed miserably every time.

Go to it boy!
Paul1405,
Those with no retort have to resort to ridicule !

Indy,

Back up your claim with evidence, otherwise you are just making it up.

You claim; "it's the cost to the environment we're on about & solar & wind power manufacturing pollution has gone through the roof !
They make coal look clean !"

Provide evidence, its not for me to disprove your claim.

Oh Dear, I have only got as far as Pauls post.
Paul, asuming your figures are correct they are non the less meaningless.
Your figures for solar are only for about 6 hours a day, the rest
they produce next to nothing. In winter it is even less.
With wind they produce about 35% of nameplate over a year.
There is talk of some designs reaching 50% of nameplate.
So you have to buy 2 or 3 more wind turbines.
However experience is starting to indicate that maybe you need to
buy up to 12 times as many turbines.
This is the problem that the UK & Germany have run into.
Their countries are too small to be able to find enough variation in
the wind somewhere else in their country.
Thank God for France they say.
Australia might just be big enough, if the WA is included.
But a real time model is needed with hundreds of wx stations installed
in the most likely areas.
Whatever the multiplication comes up at I doubt we can afford such
cost as multiplication between 5 and 8 times.
The less number of sites we use the more often we have periods of no wind.
It is a real problem that only $Trillions of dollars worth of
batteries could solve.
Work it out, 60 gwatt x 24 hrs @ $1.35 a watt/hr.
Them duplicate again the wind & solar
to recharge the battery the next windy sunny day.

Provided the next day is not overcast and still.

It would be interesting to find out the cost of the three modular
nuclear generators that Rolls Royce have contracted with the UK government.
I suspect that the cost excuse may now be redundant.

Bazz,

The CSIRO experts say nuclear is too costly as a way of avoiding the truth that Australia has zero commercial nuclear power expertise thanks to a moronic anti-nuclear philosophy practiced by most of our pollies for the past few generations. I hope that SMRs become available in quantity before the erratic energy disaster unfolds much further, but I fear that Australia will be at the end of a long queue. A big shame that the sound advice of many physicists like Sir Mark Oliphant was ignored in favour of the false and alarmist anti-nuclear ranting of greenie nutjobs.

Hey Bazz,

"How will I reduce by 6.14% each and every year ?
How do I prove it ?"

Bottle your farts and send them in to Labor, the Greens or the Teal candidates.
- Request a rebate or carbon credits.

Bottle your farts and send them in to Labor, the Greens or the Teal candidates.
Armchair Critic,
Good idea, wean their supporters off the spray paints & petrol !

You guys can mock what your right wing ideology prevents you from seeing as the reality. The science is conclusive, its a proven fact climate change is real, and its extreme weather effects are with us now, but you wont accept that. Relying on false claims and pseudo science you're content to see out your lives in a state of ignorance, that's fine. If the world fails to adequately address the problem, then the real sufferers will be today's young, and future generations, not us who caused the problem in the first place.

The Australian people called for real action on climate change by their vote at the recent election. The people had got sick and tied of the Coalition and the rest of you naysayers supporters with your denial and inaction for a decade, now its time Australia stood up and be counted with the responsible nations of the world. End of story.

its a proven fact climate change is real,
Paul1405,
I don't think I know anyone who questions that. What is being frowned upon are bandwagon jockeys such as yourself waffling on & causing huge sums of public funding being spent on exactly what & what for ?
Building Green technology is anything but green. If & when you lot come up with a solution no-one will dispute you but until that happens you really need to focus on solutions instead of being a member of the problem crowd !

Indy,

mhaze and several others question it, claiming extreme weather events are not indicative of climate change, but rather a part of the normal cycle of weather events. The fact is, and the hard right for philosophical reasons wont accept it, that the burning of fossil fuels is causing a rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and subsequent temperature extremes, leading to floods, fires, droughts etc. We are all part of the problem, but naysayers with your perverted philosophy are the big problem.

"The people had got sick and tied of the Coalition and the rest of you naysayers supporters with your denial and inaction for a decade, now its time Australia stood up and be counted with the responsible nations of the world. End of story."

I think the problem started in the 70s and 80s with the commie funded anti-nuclear movement. It is because of their efforts over forty years ago that we are pursuing an economically impossible erratic energy solution (Australia would go bankrupt before it was finished) and have no intrinsic capability to develop nuclear power. With nuclear power there would be the possibility of replacing transport fuels with aluminium. If you develop cheap energy with a high capacity factor there would not be a major problem for the bumbling bureaucrats to solve.

Hi Fester,

The "Reds under the beds' nonsense has grown rather tiresome, the anti nuk, anti war, movements were fuel by ordinary people concerned by the destructive acts of war perpetrated by the military/industrial complex that had its genesis in Western Capitalism post WWII. These movements kicked off during the 1950's and were well established at the height of the Cold War of the 1970's. The Vietnam War gave particular impetuous to the peace movement as the horrors of war were transmitted on a daily basis into our lounge rooms through the medium of TV.

The media calls truths they don't like 'Russian Propaganda'.
- That's how the're responding to the Amnesty report on Ukraine.

With that in mind, can't we just call all this climate business for what it is?

I'm willing to go with 'Russian Propaganda'.
It's the in fashion thing to blame Russia...

I went down to woolies this morning and there were no large bags of sugar.
I'm fairly certain Putin did it.

Paul,

I remember the fervent anti-nuclear stance of the left in Australia. It prevails to this day. Forty years ago coal provided the cheapest electricity (and still does), Australia had centuries of reserves, so there was little reason for either side of politics to push hard for nuclear power. You might recall how politically difficult it was to operate and maintain the reactor at Lucas Heights.

Are you suggesting things were different? What the commies want is no secret.

https://www.solidarity.net.au/climate-change/a-history-of-anti-nuclear-resistance-from-mining-to-missiles/

I just read today that the windmills being installed at present are
only 18Mwatt. I was surprised at that, I has thought they were in
the order of 50 to 80 megawatt.
This changes everything; the number that will be required is very
much larger than I had imagined.
Just divide our maximum demand by 18 mwatt.
Unless I s;opped a zero that would need 2770 of these 350 metre tall
windmills provide the wind blew at 25knots forever.

Yes, it is true they really are that stupid !

I thought I had it wrong !
We would need 22,000 wind turbines.
As each only produces 35% of its nameplate output per year we then
have to add another 7,111 turbines but spread over two or more
locations. However if the wind stopped on two sites then we would need
at least another two sites, or maybe more.
If you need 100% reliability then the number increases by the inverse
expotential of the size of the area covered by the connected grid.
Do you see why I think our planners don't have a clue ?
We should have heard public discussion about this problem by now,
not just by someone like me.

Hi Bazz,

That should put the wind up em' AH! Maybe we should spend more time in the Sun AH!

Oh Dear, must get some sleep, I got it wrong again.
It is 22,000 + 2 thirds more ie 14222 = 36222 wind turbines.
That would keep the lights on only if they averaged out in such a
way that the wind never failed at two sites at the same time.
No hope of that, so we must multiply by perhaps 8 or 113776 turbines!
Can't see it happening.

Hi Bazz,

You are not allowing for the "piss and wind" factor, and the application of the cranium sub variable which at the present time stands at 47 1/4 depending on which way the wind 's blowing. Once factoring in all the factors and sub factors, the actual number is 44,987,236,453, give or take a few trillion or billions, it all depends, and that's doesn't allow for cloudy days. AND you think your head hurts, what about me! What is your excuse?

Emission-free power is simply not possible. We could however, reduce emission by simply not using as much energy as we presently do.
Wars & war games, industry, sport, recreation and, to no small extent, frivolous entertainment are the principal guzzlers of energy & pollutants !
With some thinking & encouragement to think, much of these could be curbed massively.
What so many advocates of presently available green energy tend to overlook is that, it is not sufficient to put up solar panels & wind turbines.
The emission from producing these panels & fans would need to be covered by wind & sun to truly make it "Green" & "emission-free"! And, this is not from some idealistic viewpoint, it is from a realistic viewpoint
As long as we have to carry a generator in a wheelbarrow to power an electric lawnmower we don't have "Green" energy and, we're not reducing emission ! On top of all this we don't as yet have an "emission-free" method of disposing of no longer usable equipment let alone not even the faintest chance of refurbishing !
The 2050 "target" for 50% reduction emission will require at least a 200% increase in emission to just produce the facilities that produce the equipment and, God only knows how much more emission from the increased horde of bureaudroids to "manage" this production !

I mentioned a few months back about a possible pole shift reversal.
Sky news has apparently been talking about it recently.
Info here:

‘Vile racism’ against white people is infiltrating society: Rowan Dean
http://youtu.be/_P7rlMcj-aY
(It's mentioned at the start of the discussion)

One Solar "Expert" has predicted that by 2035 some 100,000 tonnes of solar panels will be added to Australia's waste !
Then there are the wind mills & none of these are recyclable !
Yes, "Green energy" isn't all that green after all !

Hey Indyvidual,
I think thats stupid and wasteful, most secondhand panels still produce 90+ percent output.
- They should put them into retirement where they can still produce power until they're completely exhausted.

We have had much discussion about panels and windmills producing electricity, but nothing is mentioned of TREADMILLS. Under my "Seniors National Service" system limitless amounts of power will be produced once my army of Old Timers are in harness (literally). I have a new motto for our old folk;

"A Kilowatt a day keeps the doctor away".....but maybe not the undertaker. Well nothings perfect.

With 2.5 million willing participants in my SNS I estimate they will produce 1 megawatt during daylight hours, and with peak demand at night, and with the necessary "inducement" they will produce 2 megawatts each in the dark! THAT's 7.5 gigawatts being produced at the new 'Pensioner Power House' and not a lump of coal to be burned.

most secondhand panels still produce 90+ percent output.
Armchair Critic,
What's the percentage of hail damaged solar panels left in place to still operate on a reduced output ? What about those panels that are no longer working ?

"A Kilowatt a day keeps the doctor away".
Paul1405,
What a great suggestion. Imagine the many public servants walking a treadmill whilst playing solitaire ? Or all the unemployables fresh out of Uni or in remote communities !

Nah Indy,

My Seniors National Service will be employing even more Public Servants. Who do you think will be providing that "inducement" I spoke of? Public Servants of course. BTW; What do you think will be most effective as a "inducement", whips or cattle prods? In keeping with the electrical theme I favour cattle prods myself, saving the whip for those that may be shirking their duty!

Greta Thunberg goes bust
http://youtu.be/aHZym4QG7UQ

The insanity of 'Beat Up' Bolt.

H Paul1405,
I don't care for the Sky news commentators much, but the headline grabbed me.

Hi AC,

I don't know all that much about Greta Thunberg, but I assume she is well intentioned. Regardless of what side of the fence you are on in these matters of climate and energy, they are serious and whatever focuses attention on them is worthwhile. If the problems are not as bad as some say, and we do too much to overcome them, well we're out of pocket somewhat, so what. However should those problems be as serious or even greater than forecast, and we don't do enough to overcome them, then the result could be truly catastrophic, and that would be diabolical for the human race, we would lose far more that money.

Hi Paul1405,

I don't like this practice of using kids to manipulate the opinions of adults, like we can't think for ourselves.
- That's a pet peeve.

If there's an actual problem, then it must be demonstrated on merit in things we can see and easily understand not people screaming 'The End is near!" and using every trick in the book to manipulate opinion.

I also don't like surrendering our sovereignty to the dictates of foreign bureaucrats to make laws on how we conduct ourselves in our own country.

I'm not opposed to doing things that are better for the environment, but I don't believe we should cut our noses off to spite our faces.
In this regard I support a more of a foolproof plan to adapt to the current situation with good well thought out policies and ideas rather than mere numbers or targets where peoples lives and standards they're accustomed to are left out of the equation.

And finally, I don't know what they plan to do as far as reach the unrealistic expectations they seem to be setting.
What are they just going to kill us all off when they decide 'more radical approaches' to these targets are needed.

They scream 'we need more people for business and the economy'
whilst at the same time say
'We must use less and less even with more people, the world is overpopulated'

- I see them as being contradictory.
What's their plan, fill the country with foreigners, then 10 years down the road enact a 1 child policy;
- that's not in the best long-term interests of Australians.

Generally I'd rather have faith in human beings ability to both adapt, and creative ingenuity to solve problems or find ways of doing things better, because I believe the human race is capable of it, not poor policies, no forward thinking and totalitarianism.

"Generally I'd rather have faith in human beings ability to both adapt, and creative ingenuity to solve problems or find ways of doing things better, because I believe the human race is capable of it, not poor policies, no forward thinking and totalitarianism."

hear, hear AC, I couldn't agree more.

There is a place for government, but too many forget we live in a society and not an economy, the economy serves society, not the other way around. You will hear politicians refer to the economy 100 times to every time they mention society.

You might like this, what a rather philosophical indigenous bloke said to me just the other day; "You know Paul what's wrong with the World...too many 'FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS'...have I got the latest Iphone, car, shoes, whose pissing me off, its all a problem....for me it only where can I get me next feed, that's it!" Seems true, do you agree.

Looks like coaxing us into plant based meat isn't good enough for them.
Now they want us all eating house crickets.
Check the ingredients of what you buy,
'Acheta' means 'House Cricket'

http://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7258

I told you all, they'll just keep shifting the goalposts...
- And I'm told it's in foods at Woolies and Coles, but can't yet verify it.

Meanwhile...

UK Worker Shortage Leaves £60 Million of Food to Rot in Fields
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-15/uk-worker-shortage-leaves-60-million-of-food-to-rot-in-fields#xj4y7vzkg

Edible insects
A roadmap for the strategic growth of an emerging Australian industry

The Vision
To advance an inclusive, viable and sustainable Australian edible insect industry that supports the global market by forging new collaborations, sharing knowledge, delivering innovative processes and offering delicious Australian-branded insect products.
http://research.csiro.au/edibleinsects/wp-content/uploads/sites/347/2021/04/CSIRO-Edible-Insect-Roadmap.pdf

In 2020, Australia imported $35.9M in Water, becoming the 19th largest importer of Water in the world.
In 2020, Australia exported $4.11M in Water, making it the 47th largest exporter of Water in the world.
http://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/water/reporter/aus

Australia’s water footprint study shows agricultural exports cost more than they’re worth
http://www.vu.edu.au/about-vu/news-events/news/australia-s-water-footprint-study-shows-agricultural-exports-cost-more-than-they-re-worth

Australia has a very small population density (rank 103) and a massive coastline.
Why are we as a so-called independent sovereign nation even considering reducing ourselves to eating insects because the rest of the world is overpopulated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/27/whats-the-beef-with-cows-and-the-climate-crisis

FutureFeed
Feeding livestock a seaweed supplement called FutureFeed could simultaneously help to secure global food security and fight climate change by reducing powerful greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.csiro.au/en/research/animals/livestock/futurefeed

Meat and Livestock Australia
Carbon Neutral 2030
The Australian red meat industry has set a target to be carbon neutral by 2030 (CN30). This means that by 2030, Australian beef, lamb and goat production, including lot feeding and meat processing, aim to make no net release of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere.
http://www.mla.com.au/research-and-development/Environment-sustainability/carbon-neutral-2030-rd/

I can see a pattern here, in future the rich will eat T-Bone and Porterhouse, and the poor will eat crickets, grubs and mealworms.
If this is what the future looks like then why are we importing more people when the poorest of our nation will soon be expected to live off insects.
Why should we share if that's what it's all going to come down to, and we apparently don't have enough water for ourselves already?

Hate to do this to you Paul, but your the Greens supporter.
What do you have to say about all this?

Hi AC,

I suppose the only obstacle to the consumption of insects by humans is the "aversion factor". AS for their food value and efficiency of production they would easily out strip large meat animals, pigs, cattle, sheep etc.

I find this interesting; The cockroach is your friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4ZtsTXELBM

I finished reading Ian Plimer's Green Murder and I cannot see how
it leaves much room for anyone to argue that Global Warming as preached
is real. We have a real problem with people's inability to see how
stupid people are if they think they can control the climate.

I guess that the next parliamentary session will have the stupid
people introducing regulations on cow and sheep farts and a multitude
of other ridiculous paramaters.
Will they introduce petrol rationing ? That could really control co2
emissions directly.

Farmers will have to buy indulgences not from the Pope, but from
the Gnomes of Zurich to offset their cow & sheep farts.

Where are you Martin Luther when we need you ?

IT IS THE SUN STUPID !

So who's up for a tasty protein bar made from black soldier flies?
If not right now, then you will be when you're hungry enough.
- That's their plan -

Hi AC,

I'm not talking hunger, I'm talking protein, and insects are a great source of protein. When I go bush with Bear Grylls, we enjoy a delicious dinner of grubs, worms and beetles, a side salad of leaves and tigs, then a nice desert of maggots, all washed down with a vintage bottle of 72 swamp water.

What about the Chinese and the cockroach farm?

Hi Paul1405
Never in my wildest imaginations could I ever thought that it would come to this, even when I knew they were constantly shifting the goalposts...

"This is Australia, 'the lucky country'.
- Now eat your mealworms and house crickets and be happy."

I learned about this insect stuff a few days back, but even now it still completely boggles my mind.
- That this is what they're actually planning.

Under the Great Reset, you will own nothing, and be happy.
You will live in a surveillance state, you won't even own a car as transport will be shared, and you will eat insects.

This is their grand vision?
Tell me what alternate reality are we living in here?
- Like I'm waiting for someone to smack me and wake me up from a horrible nightmare.

The human co2 caused global warming has never been proved.
The temperature rise since 1800 is well understood and is cyclical.
It is just history. There have been previous cycles;
The Minoan, The Egyptian, the Roman and the Medieval.
The last ending in 1800 approx after the Vikings gave up on Greenland in 1400s.

NB J kauppenin et al showed that human generated co2 caused a rise
to date of 0.1 deg C.
The IPCC states that 3% of all emissions of co2 are from humans.
Why is it that only human emissions drive global warming, whereas
the 97% of natural CO2 emissions don't ?
Natural CO2 emissions are mainly from ocean degassing.
There is a chain of volcanoes under Antarctica whose emissions are not
even counted.
Iverson NA et al 2017 First physical evidence of subglacial volcanism
under the West Antartic ice sheet. Scientific Reports article 1157.
Several more references along same lines.

Natural co2 is so much more significant why are we worrying about
a bit of coal & oil ?