Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Australia needs to ‘move faster’ on renewables" video.

They are also leading the world in wind power construction. 22% of their energy is from wind.
2
@the_forbinproject2777 Don't get me wrong, personally I think SMR however nucs come with all manner of political problems and regulations. In my country the vast majority of people live on the coast and then the majority of those on the eastern seaboard. Studies have shown with minimal infrastructure we can supply all the electricity we want from off shore wind. Currently two of our states Tasmania with Hydro and SA with Wind and solar, with gas backup and occasionally coal from Victoria as well are often 100% renewable. We have a ways to go but are getting there. As you know your country used to be 100% coal and somedays now you don't burn any of it. Neither the U.K. or Australia has fallen apart.
2
Wind generated power in South Australia is now cheaper than coal generated power.
1
@typearce1823 Yes George got abusive immediately, but since I told him to examine his rectucm he has remained respectful so I will continue to engage with him. All your points a valid, I will mention though there a companies here in Australia that virtually completely recycle solar panels, as well wind turbines are recyclable as well. There is a company in the US that turns them into cement for construction. SA is working fine on wind, solar, and gas, with coal coming in from Victoria, it's not collapsing into a dystopian zombie apocalypse. There is a bright future ahead.
1
@George Mann It is a myth solar and wind is unreliable, studies show off shore wind alone has the capacity to provide 4 times the projected demand of Australia in 2050. No requirement for coal or gas. In your moronic rants you continue with the strawman fallacies, I did not say nuclear is no good, what it is, is a hot potato politically because I live in the real world. The cost of renewables has come down so rapidly that nobody in Australia will invest in coal or gas generation. It is laughable that anyone would invest money in a nuclear plant in Australia, and you didn't the mention the regulation or security implications. I don't rule out nuclear energy and SMR may one day get the go ahead in Australia, in the mean time in the real world all the data I have read says we need to reduce carbon emissions urgently and burning gas and coal has to stop as fast as we can get it to. The only solution you have is to nationalise the electricity generation and force nuclear on people (the chance of that happening is zero), because you only have to look at the real world in Australia to know your argument is losing to the point of being lost. Bet you the next capacity added to the AMEO will be solar, wind, or hydro.
1
Yes SA has the highest price for electricity but blaming renewables is simplistic at best. Increased gas prices and closures of coal plants in Victoria along with increased network costs have all contributed to SA high cost of electricity
1
@George Mann Classic fallacious argumentation. Caught strawmaning twice, you have gone for the Gish gallop this time. First used as a means of arguing the denial of evolution. I'll almost bet my first born you are following a script and have no intention of engaging in an honest conversation.
1
@monkeysezbegood Jimboken is using an technique of argumentation called solipsism in that he accuses you of not knowing but only believing the data, it's a good trick but that's all it is. You do know the data and you are correct 243 seperate scientists collectively volunteered there time (they are not paid, they do this on their own time) to read and collate the data from over 14000 scientific papers published ove the last 5 years, and the results of that have been summarised down into the IPCC report it is not a political document. Jimboken then manipulated you into agreeing the only solution is Nuclear power which the IPCC report most definitely does not say. Fossil fuels the world over are subsidised by governments hence your taxs, Nuclear in the US , coal in Australia, gas in Canada. Vast quantities of economists have argued the benefits of a carbon emissions scheme, don't let him get away with the appeal to emotion argument that is just another logical fallacy used in argumentation. He also used a form of ad hominem attack in implying that unless you agree with him/her you're an ideological nutter again another logical fallacy. In short his replys and comments are completely loaded with logical fallacious argument one after the other. Anthropogenic climate change is real, it requires a varied and significant response, not Jimbokens simplistic one solution will fix all.
1
@monkeysezbegood Sorry i wasn't trying to talk down to you and I agree Nuclear energy will be component of of power generation into the future, but it comes with political, regulatory, security, and weaponisation issues, that can be solved, but it isn't the great panacea zealots would like us to believe.
1
@edwardhowe4471 Energy efficiency is constantly improving along with reliability. Compared to fossil fuels the CO2 emissions for wind and solar are significantly less coal at 1000g per kilowatt hour where as solar is 44g and wind 11g. Any mechanical object needs maintenance are you implying coal plants, gas generators, and nuclear reactors don't need maintenance?
1
@edwardhowe4471 I certainly will. The figures I quoted are from a study that I read where all the hidden costs from both fossil and solar wind etc were taken into account. Are you suggesting that solar and wind technology have reached their maximum development and there is nothing a human can imagine of, or do to increase their efficiency. Where I live the government payed for all the rail construction for the coal to be transported and charged the taxpayers, that is a direct cost to me and a indirect subsidy to the cost of coal powered energy. I'm not saying renewables haven't received subsidies to as they have, but most people where I live don't understand the level of government subsidies fossil fuel receives. Current studies also show that offshore wind could provide 4 times the energy needed where I live by 2050. As well this isn't just about reliability it is also for me about as clean as you can get energy.
1
@purebloodbabyfuhrer785 No reasonable person believes the earth is flat or that when you let go of a hammer in your hand it drops to the ground. What's your point? Who's they?
1
@purebloodbabyfuhrer785 Sorry. Yes China is a problem. China signed the Kyoto protocol in May 98, and the Paris agreement in Apr 16. Will they hold to those agreements, good question. I have only ever been to Hong Kong and the air was putrid, it is worse in some of their other cities from what I have seen, so I think they realise it is their own best interests.
1
@George Mann No both our numbers were incorrect my number was for total renewable energy production the real wind production number is approx 12%. My data is from Wikipedia You quoted two different figures what is your source? Your right energy production is increasing and China has an issue with installed capacity v generating capacity with regards infrastructure, but these can be sorted out. China also halted coal powered energy infrastructure construction for three years from 2016. I never suggested they are perfect, but they are trying. China also has enormous of shore wind capacity. They lead the world in installed wind capacity. The US leads in wind generation. We can thank President Trump for that as wind generation increased under his term more than at any time in history.
1
@George Mann "The only absolute in reality is declaring something absolute is almost always proved wrong" I just made that up. I think I'll include it in my memoir.
1
@George Mann The data in Wikipedia contains 50 seperate independent sources used to collate the data on wind generated power in China. Your 6.1% figure comes from old data from 2019, the rapid growth of wind power has increased that to 10.4% by 2020 and currently at 11%. Our World data is a good site and I will use it in the future.
1
@George Mann And you have interpreted incorrectly. I have checked numerous other sources and as of 2021 some have wind generation in China as low as 9% in 2021 and due to China's rapid uptake of wind by the time you reply to this comment it will have changed again.
1
There is currently enough off shore wind generation capability for four times Australias energy needs.
1
That simply isn't the reality.
1
@the_forbinproject2777 I don't think we will ever remove fossil fuels from the energy mix just reduce them as much as possible. As you mentioned there are all types of different battery technology being developed and in Australia there is a huge project to use solar to make Hydrogen then somehow convert it into ammonia and send it all to Singapore where it will power the whole country. I don't understand the chemistry and as I understand it is expensive but they are working on getting it competitive. So many people I discuss this with you can sense the absolute fear in their words as they are terrified of change.
1
@the_forbinproject2777 I apologise for the language used to describe George Mann, he is one of those people I talked about. He went straight to personal abuse when he didn't like something I wrote. His data is incorrect, currently renewable energies account for around 26% of energy production world wide and at current growth rates 45% by around 2050. He is completely fixated on Nuc power which as I said certainly has its contribution to make.
1
@the_forbinproject2777 Totally agree, and if people could get over their fear Nuclear is really very safe if properly regulated. SMR are incredibly safe, however and I know this sounds a little paranoid but having every other country in the world access to nuclear technology significantly increases the threat of weaponisation
1
@George Mann My original reply has been censored which is fair enough as it was reasonably graphic as to wear certain body parts or yours should be inserted into other parts. Your moronic clown like zealotry of nuclear power is child like in its naivety.
1
@typearce1823 In your own garbled way, you actually make some reasonable points, but you are just factually incorrect, whole parts of my country regularly run on solar and wind only, and yes they are backed up by gas as required and sometimes coal. Recently released studies show that coal at 1000g per kilowatt hour emits far more carbon than wind at 11g and Australia has a vast offshore wind capacity. This study has included all the hidden emissions of both as well. I don't dismiss nuclear power, it most definitely has its place, however there are political, regulation, security, and weaponisation issues that are not easily overcome. I quite enjoy these discussions and I have been respectful so I really don't see the requirement for you to immediately resort to personal abuse. In a public forum it just makes you sound petty and juvenile.
1
@George Mann I used to engage politely and ignore personal insults when moronic clowns who realised they had nothing to contribute, and I wouldn't retaliate I would just continue to discuss respectfully, but now when I realise I have started a discussion with an idiotic fanatical turd burglar I tell them so. So in that frame is that all you have you low life turd burglar?
1
@typearce1823 Like I said I have no problem with Nuclear power, just the issues surrounding it. Yep your right but I would go down the path of educating people on how safe Nuc power is not try and trick them.
1
Renewables are currently powering South Australia cheaper than coal can.
1
EROI is not the be all end all that it is made out to be. It formulas under calculate fossil fuel production costs which have been increasing and when modified with current data reduces coal oil and gas for down to x6. It is also strictly a economic calculator it does not take into account social or political real world considerations.
1
Wind and solar are currently powering South Australia cheaper than coal and gas.
1
What about blighting the country with radioactive waste dumps.
1
@purebloodbabyfuhrer785 There is 1.4 billion of them with a rapidly growing economy what do you expect. It is going to take some time for them to transition as it is for the rest of the world. Per capita though their emissions aren't as bad as a lot of Western countries particularly the EU.
1