OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[I'm a loser baby...]

Send it over the internet.

 

[Twizzle]

need a lot of gravity to do that

 

[Gronk]

I heard on the radio that a town in WA called Shark Bay are about to push the button on a solar plant that produces hydrogen. The hydrogen will then power the town.

<googles>


WA tourist town to be transformed into a zero-emission community powered by hydrogen

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...st-wa-town-to-be-powered-by-hydrogen/11870472

 

[Gronk]

Why the coal sector is so excited about Australia's move to 'clean' hydrogen

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-31/hydrogen-strategy-fossil-fuels-versus-renewables/11653336

^^^ Japan has a boner for hydrogen and if we are smart, we could become a major supplier of H.

 

[strider]

It will if he works for me and Ram.
#toilet boy

Im looking forward to being CCO

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Oh pick me, pick me !

The inflationary effect on the coal price would push the market to seek alternatives to coal powered energy generation?

Which would lower the price of coal.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Well that would seem to make sense, unless you lived in some kinda funky 4th dimension where supply, demand, and price were completely decoupled from each other.

Demand and supply are relatively independent. Price is the key variable. It changes a lot faster than the existence of goods and services, or how much people think they need them.

 

[Gronk]

 

[Chipmunk]

If Australia suddenly withdrew it's supply of coal from world markets, what do you think would happen to the price of coal?

And what do you think may be the consequences of that in terms of demand?

Oh pick me, pick me !

The inflationary effect on the coal price would push the market to seek alternatives to coal powered energy generation?

Well that would seem to make sense, unless you lived in some kinda funky 4th dimension where supply, demand, and price were completely decoupled from each other.

This is a complete fallacy. It's wishful thinking at best.

Sure there would be a short term increase in the price of coal, but that increase wouldn't be ridiculous and it wouldn't probably exceed the price that the world has previously paid for coal throughout history (even in the last 15-20 years). In fact the price of coal has recently come down, so an increase in the price would just return it to previous levels. This short term increase would only occur if Australia stopped production immediately. if it made the decision to stop in 10 years, it would make little to no difference to the price.

Australia's coal exports account for only 5% of the total coal production World wide.

If only the other Top 15 coal producing countries increased production by only 5% it would cover the removal of all Australian coal from the market. Given that Australia increased it's own coal production by more than 5% in one year in 2010, then this level of increase is easily achievable in the short-medium term. None of the other Top 15 coal producing countries in the World have made any decisions to stop the production of coal.

If only the Top 3 coal producing countries in the World (China, India, USA) increased production by 9% it would more than exceed Australia's total coal exports. If China alone increased production by 12% it would cover Australia's export amount.

The total coal reserves in the USA, China, Russia and India combined is 8 times the level of coal reserves in Australia. The USA alone has significant reserves to cover Australia's current level of coal exports for over 600 years.

This doesn't take into account those countries with significant reserves who don't produce and/or export to anywhere near their capacity at present. If any thing, Australia's removal from the market would encourage new countries to enter the market.

Would a lot of this coal be as clean as that exported by Australia? Probably not, but that would be the price paid for Australia's exit from the market.

The World will continue to mine, produce, use and export significant levels of coal whether Australia is involved or not.

 

[Chipmunk]

Aand we are back to the but, but China argument.

I want us to be part of a global coalition leaning on those emerging countries to influence change. You on the other hand want to join the fuss only when everyone else is on board, if ever. Sorry, but you say you accept the science however you don’t seem to be too fussed on the timing. Methinks you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

If China, India, Japan, USA and Russia are ALL not part of your global coalition it will achieve nothing but tokenistic dribble.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I heard on the radio that a town in WA called Shark Bay are about to push the button on a solar plant that produces hydrogen. The hydrogen will then power the town.

<googles>


WA tourist town to be transformed into a zero-emission community powered by hydrogen

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...st-wa-town-to-be-powered-by-hydrogen/11870472

*estrogen

 

[Gary Gutful]

google VRB (vanadium radox battery), sadly it may never be commercialized, stores large amounts of power and will never go flat

Oi!

 

[Gary Gutful]

Why the coal sector is so excited about Australia's move to 'clean' hydrogen

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-31/hydrogen-strategy-fossil-fuels-versus-renewables/11653336

^^^ Japan has a boner for hydrogen and if we are smart, we could become a major supplier of H.

Agreed. We should have H coming out of our A's.

 

[Chipmunk]

Aand we are back to the but, but China argument.

I want us to be part of a global coalition leaning on those emerging countries to influence change. You on the other hand want to join the fuss only when everyone else is on board, if ever. Sorry, but you say you accept the science however you don’t seem to be too fussed on the timing. Methinks you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Just because I accept the science and probably think that we should do something about it, doesn't actually mean that I believe that it will happen. All my arguments about what I think is happening in reality. I accept the reality of the situation, not what I necessarily believe should happen.

I think Australia should probably work with those large polluters to get commitments from them also about reducing global warming. If they're not going to make the commitments, then in reality what is it that we will achieve?

The Climate Change debate has obviously significantly divided the country. I don't think there has been another issue that has divided the country like it this century, which to be honest I find strange. I noticed a poll the other day came out that said that around 2/3rds of the country believed Australia should take action on Climate Change, which means that 1/3rd of the country doesn't believe or is unsure that Australia should take any action, which is the far more significant number. Looking at that 2/3rd number, if the same poll asked a follow up question like "Do you think Australia should take action on Climate Change if it will mean that you individually will be significantly financially worse off", or "Do you think Australia should take action on Climate Change if it will have no impact on the affects of global warming" then that number would be far less than 2/3rds.

 

[Gary Gutful]

This is a complete fallacy. It's wishful thinking at best.

Sure there would be a short term increase in the price of coal, but that increase wouldn't be ridiculous and it wouldn't probably exceed the price that the world has previously paid for coal throughout history (even in the last 15-20 years). In fact the price of coal has recently come down, so an increase in the price would just return it to previous levels. This short term increase would only occur if Australia stopped production immediately. if it made the decision to stop in 10 years, it would make little to no difference to the price.

Australia's coal exports account for only 5% of the total coal production World wide.

If only the other Top 15 coal producing countries increased production by only 5% it would cover the removal of all Australian coal from the market. Given that Australia increased it's own coal production by more than 5% in one year in 2010, then this level of increase is easily achievable in the short-medium term. None of the other Top 15 coal producing countries in the World have made any decisions to stop the production of coal.

If only the Top 3 coal producing countries in the World (China, India, USA) increased production by 9% it would more than exceed Australia's total coal exports. If China alone increased production by 12% it would cover Australia's export amount.

The total coal reserves in the USA, China, Russia and India combined is 8 times the level of coal reserves in Australia. The USA alone has significant reserves to cover Australia's current level of coal exports for over 600 years.

This doesn't take into account those countries with significant reserves who don't produce and/or export to anywhere near their capacity at present. If any thing, Australia's removal from the market would encourage new countries to enter the market.

Would a lot of this coal be as clean as that exported by Australia? Probably not, but that would be the price paid for Australia's exit from the market.

The World will continue to mine, produce, use and export significant levels of coal whether Australia is involved or not.

Why do you keep making the same point over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over again?

It wont happen. The world needs our higher quality coal and we will continue providing it. Some of us are just suggesting that coal is in a state of transition over the long term and that we should do some other things in parallel to soften any impacts to us.

Its the "all the eggs in one basket" argument.

 

[Gary Gutful]

If the same poll asked a follow up question like "Do you think Australia should take action on Climate Change if it will mean that you individually will be significantly financially worse off", or "Do you think Australia should take action on Climate Change if it will have no impact on the affects of global warming"

Those are both leading questions with highly contestable assertions. No-one seriously interested in other people's views would frame it that way...unless of course, it is a story for A Current Affair.

 

[Chipmunk]

Why do you keep making the same point over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over again?

It wont happen. The world needs our higher quality coal and we will continue providing it. Some of us are just suggesting that coal is in a state of transition over the long term and that we should do some other things in parallel to soften any impacts to us.

Its the "all the eggs in one basket" argument.

Well I was responding to a specific comment that proposed a hypothetical question on what would happen if Australia stopped selling coal and then had followed up comments with hypothetical answers. So I provided a comment on what I thought of the hypothetical situation.

Why did you even need to comment on something that wasn't even responding to you or involve you?

In any case, who said I didn't think transition options wasn't going to happen in parallel.

 

[Chipmunk]

Those are both leading questions with highly contestable assertions. No-one seriously interested in other people's views would frame it that way...unless of course, it is a story for A Current Affair.

True, but asking a question on should Australia take action on Climate Change isn't going to give you an accurate reflection of the situation and what people really think when it matters. It's just a throwaway tokenistic response that means nothing when no one has any skin in the game,

 

[Chipmunk]

Anyway, enough dialogue and thoughts on climate change from me...

I'll let you all carry on.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Well I was responding to a specific comment that proposed a hypothetical question on what would happen if Australia stopped selling coal and then had followed up comments with hypothetical answers. So I provided a comment on what I thought

Your hypothetical question? Its not even remotely grounded in reality so why is it even important?

Why didn't you even need to comment on something that wasn't even responding to you or involve you?

Sorry. Just interested in the conversation.

In any case, who said I didn't think transitions options wasn't going to happen in parallel.

Hard to tell when you keep making the same "we wont make a difference" argument and suggesting nothing else. Happy to give you the benefit of the doubt though.

True, but asking a question on should Australia take action on Climate Change isn't going to give you an accurate reflection of the situation and what people really think when it matters. It's just a throwaway tokenistic response that means nothing when no one has any skin in the game,

Thats true as well. That said, I think there are enough signs that it is globally in our interests to be seen to be doing something...even if it is a token effort. Better than sitting back and being completely shitbagged. At this stage, real effort on climate change is arguably less important than our global reputation.