Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Early closure of the Eraring coal-fired power station 'doesn't mean anything good'" video.

@AximandTheCursed Where in the world or in history has a nuclear power plant been built and operational in 4 years?
1
@AximandTheCursed I just did some quick research and the median time frame for all construction from 1981 to 2020 was 84 months. There was a brief period from 2000 to 2005 when it got down to 57 months, so yes it the very best possible case if every duck is lined up in a row just under 5 years is possible, but you have put the most generous spin on it that I bet you wouldn’t for a renewable source. I grant though it is possible.
1
@AximandTheCursed Again you are unbalanced in your opinion, are you suggesting that nuclear, coal, and gas do not consistently consume resources and pollute. Even a two minutes of reading reveals solar panels are being recycled and used wind turbines being turned into cement for construction.
1
@AximandTheCursed You're not up on the latest technology. GE in America is currently recycling 90% of wind turbine blades into the components for cement in a plant in Missouri. 100% of the metal 95% of the glass and 85% of the silicon wafers of solar cells are being recycled. Again you just deal in absolutes from something you read 10 years ago. The recycling market is continuing to mature with advances in technology and sensible legislation. Finally an argument from ignorance. Just because you can't account for or understand how something is constructed or how recycling works is a fallacious argument
1
@AximandTheCursed The CO2 emissions from the construction of and running a wind turbine are approx 11 grams per kilowatt, for coal 1000 grams. Your argument they both pollute doesn't stack up to the available data.
1
@AximandTheCursed Yes I understand resources are required to construct any sort of infrastructure. Are you suggesting steel and concrete and not used in the constructing of coal, gas and nuclear plants and the mining of such. According to the IPCC and the Oxford dictionary CO2 in a pollutant. So I’ll take their word over yours.
1
@AximandTheCursed IPCC modelling has proven to be accurate and observable in reality. You confuse fossil fuel media spin with what the science actually says. The effects of CO2 are observable and real. Your opinion about what pollution is irrelevant only what the science says has any weight. Basically your argument is this is my opinion and I'm right despite the observable factual reality. All LCOE studies prove beyond all reasonable doubt wind and solar is cleaner and cheaper than coal and gas.
1
@AximandTheCursed Which particular IPCC climate model are you questioning as there are several. Even models going back to the 70s have proven to be accurate. Is it just science you doubt?
1
@AximandTheCursed EROI and ESOEI are merely one of a set of tools and is still not considered exact and is compromised by competing interests, but it suits your narrative so obviously it is your sole measure. I understand you are wealthy so cost of energy production is not your concern, fair enough. LCOE has nothing to do with emitted gas in its formula. LCOE does have its limitations though. Apart from Jan 2022 being the sixth warmest month on record a 22cm rise in ocean levels an expected 30 cm increase by 2050 and declaring the earth's temperature has risen 0.08 degrees per decade since 1880 and twice that rate since 1981 what else do agree the NOAA has stated? And seeing there is virtually universal agreement from climate scientists that increases in CO2 levels were caused by the burning of fossil fuels. I'll go with actual reality.
1
@AximandTheCursed The observed data from numerous gauges all around the planet and using satellites confirms beyond all reasonable doubt the sea level has risen 23cm since 1900. Numerous studies and surveys confirms beyond all reasonable doubt that over 90% of climate scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change. Yes you are absolutely correct LCOE measures the cost of energy production and that's a good thing.
1
@AximandTheCursed Laser technology used in satellites to measure sea levels is minutely accurate. Tide gauges show an observed rise in sea levels. This has been confirmed by precise measurements using lasers in satellites to be 23 cm since 1900. Numerous independent studies confirm scientific concenus on climate change and its causes. Who said anything about the normal level of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 has varied widely over the last million years, so what. Water vapour is indeed a greenhouse gas however it is not persistent (notice how clouds come and go), CO2 and methane persist and take much longer (over 300 years). Are you seriously arguing that because you notice the night is warmer after a sunny day when there is cloud cover as opposed to a clear sky. Your whole argument is coming done to anecdotal evidence and that is fallacious by nature.
1
@AximandTheCursed In regard to the consensus on climate change, following are independent studies written by.; Naomi Oreskes Peter Doran William Anderegg Bart Verheggen Ed Maibach Stuart Carlton John Cook You can read all these, it is all plain and clear to understand.
1
@AximandTheCursed We are at an impasse I suppose. We have fully understood how Greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere since 1859 and John Tyndalls published studies. I accept you know better and and the only evidence you will accept is personal experience.
1
@AximandTheCursed I have repeatedly provided independent factual scientifically peer reviewed data to support the position for renewable energy and anthropogenic climate change. All you have done is reject factual observable data with your own personal opinion. Your opinion is anecdotal and fallacious by nature rendering most of your comments nonsensical.
1
@AximandTheCursed Just an argument from ignorance, because you don’t understand it, it can’t be true
1
@AximandTheCursed There are no absolutes in science and can you quote a scientific paper peer reviewed that refutes the greenhouse effect.
1
@AximandTheCursed I haven’t provided anything this is all publicly available scientifically peer reviewed observable fact. Your inability to understand anything that you personally don’t understand is again an anecdotal fallacy. Your own personal meanderings carry no weight and are nonsensical. Any observation of the real world can see renewable energies is where investment is growing and the world has reached consensus on anthropogenic climate change. You are in a tiny losing community of deniers
1
@AximandTheCursed Seriously as the US moves to 30% electricity from renewables by 2026 you think you have won the argument.
1
@AximandTheCursed Yeah nothing compelling. Those 197 countries that have signed the Paris agreement, they didn’t seem to accept your argument at all.
1
@AximandTheCursed The US is already over 20% renewable energy production. In the EU it is up to 37.5% and the best argument you have is it will turn around in the next 12 months. The EU hasn’t legislated or recategorised gas and nuclear (you’re just making stuff up now as your argument fails otherwise provide the reference in the EU Renewable Energy Directive) as renewable, what they have legislated is the expanded use of biomass, biofuels, hydrogen, offshore wind, and ocean energy. Where does the anything over 15% can’t economically survive figure come from (your imagination). Sweden is over 50%, Denmark 36% so I’ll be expecting some significant reporting on the dystopian living conditions in Sweden at the moment, oh wait no they seem have the 12th highest GDP per capita in the world. France has a net export of electricity of less than 10% (powering the EU is a misleading statement). Every point you make flys in the face of the observable economic reality.
1
@AximandTheCursed Yes yes and yes, as capacity grows so will consumption, perfectly logical point and emphasised by the consumption data you provided. Thanks. The EU by your own data is already over the 15% renewable consumption target that by you is not surviable, and yet the EU continues building renewable capacity. Your argument lost. In the US wind power capacity continues to grow as does the consumption as in 2020 42% of new capacity came from wind. Again the point of your argument has been lost. Denmark imports 3-4% of electricity from Nuclear generation, and the EU trades electricity all over the place, your point being EU countries import and export electricity generation acknowledges a market exists, yes I agree. In Sweden again wind power continues to grow with 58 wind projects planned in the next 5 years. Not a single coal, gas, or nuclear plant is in planning. Again your argument is lost. In short yes we are still using fossil fuels and yes in the transition to renewables it will be messy sometimes.
1
@AximandTheCursed Yes the EC has proposed gas and nuclear be considered, as sustainable but many EU countries are dead set against it. Personally I have no problem with nuclear power. It is safe and reliable, but expensive and its proliferation risks weapons proliferation. Burning gas is little better than coal.
1
France is a net exporter of approximately 10% of electricity produced. Germany exports its energy, the UK does as well. The EU electricity market is most definitely complicated as it transitions away from fossil fuels and there is ongoing discussion about how it is in need of review. Energy floor pricing is a model being looked at. There are multiple solutions none of which involve increasing coal use. GDP in the EU was up 2.2% with a corresponding increase of .9% in employment, and economic forecasts are expected around 4% for the next couple of years. Your argument for economic collapse falls short of the observable data. This Swedish economy continues to grow 5 % last year and forecast 3.8% this year. None of your opinions even remotely reflects economic reality. I have failed in nothing, you can't accept economic reality.
1
@AximandTheCursed This is all complicated currently due to the massive increase in gas prices that have nothing to do with renewable energy in the market, consumption, or capacity, but the threat of war in Europe.
1
@AximandTheCursed No technically correct on all counts, and it wasn't an increase in demand that lead to initial price increases it was lack of supply of gas from Russia and higher demand in Asia and globally in general. Yes it has been a bad year for wind production. The answer is more renewables not more fossil fuels. The Russians are manipulating their gas supply to further their political agenda and have for years to think otherwise is naive.
1
@AximandTheCursed Not even an issue in the medium to long term, it is just a blip in the short term as we transition to renewable energy. Your point has been lost, your argument isn’t being listened to by the world, expect for Chris Kenny and Andy Bolt.
1
@AximandTheCursed Now you are just clutching at straws. Everyone understands the unique situation India and Japan are in with expanding economies and both countries are heavily investing in renewables as well. Your argument is just the nutjob fallacy reworked. Your point in invalid.
1
@AximandTheCursed And there it is. I didn’t call you a nutjob I called your argument a version of the nutjob fallacy. I have remained respectful, I have only called out aspects of your argument. You now have gone off into wild conspiracy theories, personal abuse, and anti science statements. Is there actually anything of value you wish add to an argument by all measure of commonsense you have lost years ago.
1
@AximandTheCursed You have gone full blown conspiracy theory now. By the way how does Japan announcing it will close 100 coal power plants by 2050 fit into your narrative. You don’t understand the science you only think you do. You have been sold the PR by the fossil fuel industry which to be fair is pretty clever. Tell you what sight for me a dozen or so published peer reviewed scientific papers that support you position. I’ll read them and if they check out I’ll get back to you.
1
@AximandTheCursed Thanks there is some reading there. Japan's target for 2050 is not primarily nuclear 50- 60% is renewable 30-40% Nuclear and 10% hydrogen/ammonia. I did stipulate that these papers be peer reviewed which they aren't, but I'll read them anyway.
1
@AximandTheCursed Your opinion on who reaches what targets is worthless. I haven't read them yet, only researched some of the authors and you are factually wrong they are not all peer reviewed. Do you just make this stuff in your head?
1
@AximandTheCursed And seriously one of the authors has direct links to the Koch family, infamous climate deniers who made their money in fossil fuels. That doesn't mean you dismiss his work but you have to be a little bit sceptical.
1
@AximandTheCursed What can I possibly lie about, I research the author and read thier work. There is alot to read and take in. Just because an article has been published doesn't mean it has been peer reviewed. Like I said it is going to take time to read all these papers. There will be a quite a few wind turbines built in that time. I of course could be as childish as you were and just reject them outright because the data doesn't fit your narrative, however I remain respectful and as I said read and research them. As for quanity of research do I need to tell you to read the over 12000 scientific papers published in the last few years that show anthropogenic climate change is a real thing.
1