Comments by "John Woodrow" (@johnwoodrow8769) on "'Going broke by being woke': Not embracing coal 'undermines our economic superiority'" video.

@chriswatson7965 Subsidies paid to renewables is a MAJOR factor in the steep increase in electricity prices in recent years. Most people who get solar panels fitted to their roof have no idea on average a $3,600 subsidy is paid to the installer. 60% of the revenue of renewables operators comes not from selling electricity to the grid, but from subsidies. What they forget to tell people when they say the biggest driver of electricity price hikes in recent years is the 'network upgrade' is that much of this is connecting solar and wind farms in the middle of nowhere to the grid.
3
@chriswatson7965 It's not the distance from major centers that is the high cost of renewables. It's the distance they are being built from existing major networks i.e. those already running to coal generators. There are vast numbers of wind farms being built in the most remote places, hundreds of kilometers to the nearest existing major power lines. Take the back road from Bombala to Jindabyne if you live anywhere near that part of the world, nice drive. Remote, wind swept, not a sole to be seen for hundreds of kilometers .... till you come to the bloody ugly windfarms built all over the hills. The nearest major power lines connection would have been somewhere near the hydro dams, a vast distance away.
3
As soon as you see the name Michael Mann associated with any article related to climate change you know the scammers have arrived. The most plausible explanation for this years uncharacteristic early flowering is two typhoons in late Autumn, which stripped the trees of all their leaves, fooling them into the timing of the seasons. But just like M. Mann, never let scientific facts get in the way of a good BS story. P.S. If people wonder who M. Mann is, he is was in Australia around the time of the bad bushfires, on the ABC telling the world it was all due to climate change. A totally discredited 'scientist', lackey of Al Gore, and the key person in what was known as 'climategate'.
2
@chriswatson7965 Now your just being silly. We never built dozens of relatively small coal fired power stations all over the country side in the middle of nowhere.
2
@chriswatson7965 It is such a problem in NSW that the government is quietly pushing the idea of renewable 'hubs' (meaning all located together) without explaining why. Clearly the outrageous cost of connecting remote locations far from existing major transmission lines is the reason. They can't be forthright on anything. There are wind farms of various sizes scattered all through the Southern Highlands, and Snowy Mountain regions. The only historical major power lines to my knowledge would have been those running from the hydro scheme, which is mostly located in the middle of the Kosciuszko National Park. That is no where near where the wind farms that have been built (on long ago cleared sheep country around the Snowy River, about 100? kilometres away.) I'll bet none of this massive connectivity cost is built into the true cost of renewables. Nor is the mandatory backup power cost necessary for viable renewables ever added onto the cost of renewables. To take just the 'incremental' cost of renewables is like saying I'll supply you with cheap water, so long as its raining. It's so deceptive it borders on fraudulent. When costed correctly renewables are by far the most EXPENSIVE form of power generation. Nuclear is way more environmentally friendly, and cheaper. One nuclear plant, built next to an existing coal fired plant in the Hunter could supply virtually all of NSW.
2
@chriswatson7965 Inland Australia goes without sunshine for 12 hours every day of the week, 52 weeks a year. I expect that trend to continue into the foreseeable future. The largest battery currently in production in the world, can power the Tomago aluminium smelter for 7 minutes. That is not competing with other businesses or domestic consumption. Just the draw of the smelter itself. Snowy 2.0 'pumped hydro' is an outrageously expensive environmental disaster and a complete 'white-elephant'. You simply cannot have a viable manufacturing sector without dispatchable base load power. And renewables can't supply that. That is the simple engineering facts, and anyone telling you otherwise is talking total crap. If you want Australia to be a third world backwater, which any country is without a viable strong manufacturing base, then have 100% renewables.
2
@chriswatson7965 Your fundamental mistake is that you "can't see the forest for all the trees", to quote a well know saying. You're getting caught up in a 'solution' when you haven't actually clarified what it is you trying to achieve. 'Renewables' are your solution, but to what problem, and what are you hoping to achieve? Lets say you make Australia 100% renewables. What will you achieve? You'll make the standard of living considerably worse. Not equally, the poor and unskilled will carry virtually all the burden. What else will you achieve? The water level won't change. The number of bush-fires/floods won't change. The temperature of the globe won't change. In the physical world, the effect will be ZERO. So what have you actually achieved. To make yourself feel good, that's all it will be a 'feeling', your prepared to send a significant percentage of the future generation of Australians into a much poorer existence that their counterparts of the past. That is the stated objective of the architects of 'climate change' e.g the UN Marxist power-broker Maurice Strong. A transfer of wealth from the developed countries to third world countries, namely China.
2
@chriswatson7965 I think I'm wasting my time. You not reading what I'm saying, or at least understanding it. I did not say the Snowy Hydro scheme was a 'white elephant'. I said Snowy 2.0 (the pumped hydro component) is a white elephant, and a MASSIVE environmental disaster to one of our great National Parks. It would take me too long to explain why, but trust me it is. But the main thing is connecting 2 completely independent water systems, each now with it own unique echo system. Snowy 2.0 will merge them and destroy the unique biodiversity of each. Name me a country with a high standard of living that doesn't have either a major manufacturing base, or a rich resources base e.g. North Sea oil/gas for Norway. There isn't any. You need to stop reading those left-wing web sites. It'll make you brain go soft. To the question of what is going to power the world in 1000 year time? The answer is it hasn't been invented/discovered yet, but it sure isn't going to be windmills or made in China solar panels.
2
I agree. A country can't possible have nuclear weapons, a space program, and aircraft carriers and be a 'developing country'.
2
@serviusm9523 Justification for what???? Flowering seasons should be getting earlier, as the earth warms after the end of the 300 year long Little Ice Age, credited as having finishing around 1880. If the world wasn't warming slightly it would be a real worry as it may indicate we are about to return to another couple hundred year cold period. It's indisputable the globe has osculated back and forth between warm and cold periods for the past 2000 years. The only debate is how big those past osculations were, and the pace of change. There is certainly no scientific consensus on that matter, the exact opposite, a hotly debated subject in scientific circles.
1
As you live in Newcastle you probably understand just how stupid and naive the people are who talk about stopping coal and retraining all the affected workers into 'solar panel installers'. Just about the whole Hunter region's economy is underpinned directly or indirectly by coal and its associated industries and services. You just need to drive past the coal loader wharf on the way to the airport to be reminded of that. There would be enough solar panel installers to fill global demand, with still some 'reserves'.
1
@chriswatson7965 Seems we are in agreement on one thing .....you are not trying to solve a problem. You are simply pushing a philosophy/religion that has no scientific basis of benefit to either Australia or the globe, yet will do significant harm to those who can least afford it. Me, I actually care about the well being of my fellow Australians, and the environment. I want some of the BILLIONS of dollars being flushed down the toilet in the name of 'climate change' actually spend on project that will actually make a real environmental difference. Such as putting additional water flow into the island river system. The irrigators aren't going anywhere so putting more water in to increase environmental flows is the only viable option. That's how you improve the planet and create wealth at the same time.
1
@DineshTwanabasu What utter crap, Australia consumes the same amount of coal as China????? China currently consumes 52% of total global production of coal. And that percentage will only increase. Australia consumes 1.5% of global coal production.
1
@DineshTwanabasu No your said exactly ..... "What do you expect from china with 1400 million people, that it consume the same amount of coal as Australia with 25 million people". That is just plain ridiculous. China is the largest emitted of CO2 in the world, by far. The planet (IF you believe a tiny rise in temperature is a problem) doesn't care about emissions per person. It is ONLY the total volume of emissions that are a problem. A hand full of people on a small island nation clearing it by burning everything could theoretically have the highest per capita emissions in the world. Is that a problem for the globe ..... NO! Per capita emissions from a global environmental perspective mean NOTHING.
1