What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

OT: Current Affairs and Politics

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
74,313
That reason is primarily because we werent allowed to go nuclear many decades ago like the British were. Had we done that then, you'd find that we wouldn't be stuck with coal now.
We’re not stuck with coal actually. Everyone can move away from coal and find their own mix. New Zealand are sweet with their mix.

https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/security-supply/generation-mix

For some reason power generation has been a political football for decades. Howard introducted an ETS way back in 2007. 12 years on and they are still bitching and filibustering. The NEG earlier this year was a good start, but no, they wanted the Gov to fund a new coal power station....:upside_down:
 
Messages
14,265
Remember when Tony was campaigning and said your powerbill would go down $300 a year, then it doubled. Then Turnbull said they would bring down your powerbill by $300 if elected and their power policy got through, and yet their own party wouldn't vote for it.

The problem with power generation is that it has been sold off from the public sector to the private sector.

Watch a film called "Enron : The Smartest Guys in the Room" part of it shows how after deregulation of power companies, power prices went sky high because in a capitalist market people will be charged what the market can bare and sometime even more.

I am further left then the greens, but my first act as PM on energy would be to out and out nationalise the power companies, cut the profiteering out and then as a national resource work to move to better energy options.
 

Avenger

Immortal
Messages
32,525
Remember when Tony was campaigning and said your powerbill would go down $300 a year, then it doubled. Then Turnbull said they would bring down your powerbill by $300 if elected and their power policy got through, and yet their own party wouldn't vote for it.

The problem with power generation is that it has been sold off from the public sector to the private sector.

Watch a film called "Enron : The Smartest Guys in the Room" part of it shows how after deregulation of power companies, power prices went sky high because in a capitalist market people will be charged what the market can bare and sometime even more.

I am further left then the greens, but my first act as PM on energy would be to out and out nationalise the power companies, cut the profiteering out and then as a national resource work to move to better energy options.
Nicely said MITS. The man in my signature wanted free energy (and not from coal) for everyone but General Electric f**ked him in the arse.
 

Gary Gutful

Post Whore
Messages
52,051
Delboy's checklist of terms:

Hand wringing :white_check_mark:
SJW :white_check_mark:
Bed wetters :white_check_mark:
Virtue signalling :white_check_mark:

I tend to lean right in my view of the world but if we are going to have someone take up the 'fight' against @Gronk can we at least get someone competent?

Or better still, we could stop waving our wangs around and treat every issue on its merits rather than a chance to mock the other 'side'...
 

Avenger

Immortal
Messages
32,525
I can't believe that Shorten will be our next PM. What Turnbull should have done is stood aside and retired from politics and given the job to his deputy, Julie Bishop. She would have beaten Shorten. But his ego would never have allowed that.
 
Last edited:

Gary Gutful

Post Whore
Messages
52,051
We’re not stuck with coal actually. Everyone can move away from coal and find their own mix. New Zealand are sweet with their mix.

https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/security-supply/generation-mix

For some reason power generation has been a political football for decades. Howard introducted an ETS way back in 2007. 12 years on and they are still bitching and filibustering. The NEG earlier this year was a good start, but no, they wanted the Gov to fund a new coal power station....:upside_down:
Coal is about a lot more than energy. Thermal coal is only a part of the equation.

How do we manufacture steel without metallurgical coal?

I assume you understand the difference?
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
74,313
I can't believe that Shorten will be our next PM. What Turnbull should have done is stood aside and retired from politics and given the job to his deputy, Julie Bishop. She would have beaten Shorten. But his ego would never allow that.
They had their chance to vote her in. But she got tossed out in the second round. I agree with you however, she would have been very sensible.

I like Penny Wong too.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
74,313
Coal is about a lot more than energy. Thermal coal is only a part of the equation.

How do we manufacture steel without metallurgical coal?

I assume you understand the difference?

The CSIRO are all over that.

The challenge
Traditional steelmaking is energy-intensive

The Australian iron and steel industry produces about six million tonnes of steel and 14 million tonnes of greenhouse gases (mostly carbon dioxide) a year. This is about 2.5 per cent of Australia’s total annual emissions.

We're cutting the carbon emissions produced during the steelmaking process.

Most of the iron and steel industry’s emissions occur during production of iron in the blast furnace, where coal and coke are used as fuel and as a reducing agent.

The steelmaking process also creates large volumes of bag, a stony waste material. A plant producing one million tonnes of steel a year also produces 300,000 tonnes of bag and globally this amounts to hundreds of millions of tonnes of bag each year.

The Australian steel industry is seeking ways to work smarter and sustainably by lowering its energy and water use, carbon dioxide emissions and waste.

Our response
Integrating two new technologies

Working with industry partners BlueScope Steel and Arrium, we have developed a low-emission integrated steelmaking process based on two technologies.

Using charcoal to replace a portion of the coal and coke used in steelmaking is the first way to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions without substantially modifying the steelworks. An innovative technique to produce charcoal has been developed and produces ‘designer biochar’ which can be made to meet the demands of eight potential applications involved in steelmaking.

Secondly, we have developed a new ‘dry’ method for granulating bag. It allows waste heat to be captured and used onsite for drying, preheating or steam and electricity generation. Dry granulation saves a significant amount of water when compared to ‘wet’ granulation methods.

The results
Halving emissions and slashing water use

Together, the technologies would save about 24 petajoules of energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 100 million tonnes, and save up to 25 gigalitres of water for the world’s steel industry each year, with just 10 per cent of global market penetration.

The processes produce valuable by-products and enable the industry to make ‘carbon lite’ steel, differentiating it from other producers including low-cost importers.

Assuming 10 per cent market penetration by 2030, these technologies have a potential risk-adjusted net present value of $22 billion.


https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/MR...nsible-resource-development/Green-steelmaking
 

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,515
The CSIRO are all over that.

The challenge
Traditional steelmaking is energy-intensive

The Australian iron and steel industry produces about six million tonnes of steel and 14 million tonnes of greenhouse gases (mostly carbon dioxide) a year. This is about 2.5 per cent of Australia’s total annual emissions.

We're cutting the carbon emissions produced during the steelmaking process.

Most of the iron and steel industry’s emissions occur during production of iron in the blast furnace, where coal and coke are used as fuel and as a reducing agent.

The steelmaking process also creates large volumes of bag, a stony waste material. A plant producing one million tonnes of steel a year also produces 300,000 tonnes of bag and globally this amounts to hundreds of millions of tonnes of bag each year.

The Australian steel industry is seeking ways to work smarter and sustainably by lowering its energy and water use, carbon dioxide emissions and waste.

Our response
Integrating two new technologies

Working with industry partners BlueScope Steel and Arrium, we have developed a low-emission integrated steelmaking process based on two technologies.

Using charcoal to replace a portion of the coal and coke used in steelmaking is the first way to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions without substantially modifying the steelworks. An innovative technique to produce charcoal has been developed and produces ‘designer biochar’ which can be made to meet the demands of eight potential applications involved in steelmaking.

Secondly, we have developed a new ‘dry’ method for granulating bag. It allows waste heat to be captured and used onsite for drying, preheating or steam and electricity generation. Dry granulation saves a significant amount of water when compared to ‘wet’ granulation methods.

The results
Halving emissions and slashing water use

Together, the technologies would save about 24 petajoules of energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 100 million tonnes, and save up to 25 gigalitres of water for the world’s steel industry each year, with just 10 per cent of global market penetration.

The processes produce valuable by-products and enable the industry to make ‘carbon lite’ steel, differentiating it from other producers including low-cost importers.

Assuming 10 per cent market penetration by 2030, these technologies have a potential risk-adjusted net present value of $22 billion.


https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/MR...nsible-resource-development/Green-steelmaking

What's the difference in price between steel produced this way and the more traditional materials/methods?
 

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,515
The CSIRO are all over that.

The challenge
Traditional steelmaking is energy-intensive

The Australian iron and steel industry produces about six million tonnes of steel and 14 million tonnes of greenhouse gases (mostly carbon dioxide) a year. This is about 2.5 per cent of Australia’s total annual emissions.

We're cutting the carbon emissions produced during the steelmaking process.

Most of the iron and steel industry’s emissions occur during production of iron in the blast furnace, where coal and coke are used as fuel and as a reducing agent.

The steelmaking process also creates large volumes of bag, a stony waste material. A plant producing one million tonnes of steel a year also produces 300,000 tonnes of bag and globally this amounts to hundreds of millions of tonnes of bag each year.

The Australian steel industry is seeking ways to work smarter and sustainably by lowering its energy and water use, carbon dioxide emissions and waste.

Our response
Integrating two new technologies

Working with industry partners BlueScope Steel and Arrium, we have developed a low-emission integrated steelmaking process based on two technologies.

Using charcoal to replace a portion of the coal and coke used in steelmaking is the first way to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions without substantially modifying the steelworks. An innovative technique to produce charcoal has been developed and produces ‘designer biochar’ which can be made to meet the demands of eight potential applications involved in steelmaking.

Secondly, we have developed a new ‘dry’ method for granulating bag. It allows waste heat to be captured and used onsite for drying, preheating or steam and electricity generation. Dry granulation saves a significant amount of water when compared to ‘wet’ granulation methods.

The results
Halving emissions and slashing water use

Together, the technologies would save about 24 petajoules of energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 100 million tonnes, and save up to 25 gigalitres of water for the world’s steel industry each year, with just 10 per cent of global market penetration.

The processes produce valuable by-products and enable the industry to make ‘carbon lite’ steel, differentiating it from other producers including low-cost importers.

Assuming 10 per cent market penetration by 2030, these technologies have a potential risk-adjusted net present value of $22 billion.


https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/MR...nsible-resource-development/Green-steelmaking

The biggest issue with these lovely little studies is that they fail to take into the realities of the real world.

If Australia produces 6 millions tonnes of steel per year and global steel production is around 1600 million tonnes per year (so Australia produces under 0.4% of the world production of steel), in what real world situation does a more expensive Australian produced steel suddenly get 10% of global steel production within 12 years? Particularly when China produces half the worlds steel presently and it buys most of that cheaper material from us already.

So in reality the actual NPV is actually only $750 million at under 0.4%

The biggest number here is if Australia moves to produce the more expensive steel this way and China continued to make steel the same way it does now, then how much would this reduce total global emissions???
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,677
Here is what I don’t understand. In the UK, the started eliminating coal baseload decades ago. Now the vast majority of power is generated by renewables. Prices have not gone up and in fact are dropping as technology improves. The conservatives in the UK are embracing renewables and has taken a sensible bipartisan approach to climate change etc. It makes your coal loving party a bit antiquated doesn’t it ?

View attachment 25449

Seriously? I put it, from your own graph, at 15%.
 

Gary Gutful

Post Whore
Messages
52,051
The CSIRO are all over that.

The challenge
Traditional steelmaking is energy-intensive

The Australian iron and steel industry produces about six million tonnes of steel and 14 million tonnes of greenhouse gases (mostly carbon dioxide) a year. This is about 2.5 per cent of Australia’s total annual emissions.

We're cutting the carbon emissions produced during the steelmaking process.

Most of the iron and steel industry’s emissions occur during production of iron in the blast furnace, where coal and coke are used as fuel and as a reducing agent.

The steelmaking process also creates large volumes of bag, a stony waste material. A plant producing one million tonnes of steel a year also produces 300,000 tonnes of bag and globally this amounts to hundreds of millions of tonnes of bag each year.

The Australian steel industry is seeking ways to work smarter and sustainably by lowering its energy and water use, carbon dioxide emissions and waste.

Our response
Integrating two new technologies

Working with industry partners BlueScope Steel and Arrium, we have developed a low-emission integrated steelmaking process based on two technologies.

Using charcoal to replace a portion of the coal and coke used in steelmaking is the first way to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions without substantially modifying the steelworks. An innovative technique to produce charcoal has been developed and produces ‘designer biochar’ which can be made to meet the demands of eight potential applications involved in steelmaking.

Secondly, we have developed a new ‘dry’ method for granulating bag. It allows waste heat to be captured and used onsite for drying, preheating or steam and electricity generation. Dry granulation saves a significant amount of water when compared to ‘wet’ granulation methods.

The results
Halving emissions and slashing water use

Together, the technologies would save about 24 petajoules of energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 100 million tonnes, and save up to 25 gigalitres of water for the world’s steel industry each year, with just 10 per cent of global market penetration.

The processes produce valuable by-products and enable the industry to make ‘carbon lite’ steel, differentiating it from other producers including low-cost importers.

Assuming 10 per cent market penetration by 2030, these technologies have a potential risk-adjusted net present value of $22 billion.


https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/MR...nsible-resource-development/Green-steelmaking
Small scale.

Expensive.

Maybe scalable and affordable in decades to come.

But here's the kicker - IT STILL REQUIRES COAL!
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
74,313
Small scale.

Expensive.

Maybe scalable and affordable in decades to come.

But here's the kicker - IT STILL REQUIRES COAL!

Do you really think that a low emissions world exists without some industrial pollution? I don’t.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
74,313
Seriously? I put it, from your own graph, at 15%.
My reference to the “vast majority” was wrong and flippant. My original point stands however, British conservatives are bipartisan towards the transition away from coal, a contrast to our right side of politics.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
74,313
The biggest issue with these lovely little studies is that they fail to take into the realities of the real world.

If Australia produces 6 millions tonnes of steel per year and global steel production is around 1600 million tonnes per year (so Australia produces under 0.4% of the world production of steel), in what real world situation does a more expensive Australian produced steel suddenly get 10% of global steel production within 12 years? Particularly when China produces half the worlds steel presently and it buys most of that cheaper material from us already.

So in reality the actual NPV is actually only $750 million at under 0.4%

The biggest number here is if Australia moves to produce the more expensive steel this way and China continued to make steel the same way it does now, then how much would this reduce total global emissions???

It’s a starting point to the low emissions production of steel. I suspect that this happens when emerging technologies are adopted. Following generations of production are revised, become more efficient and less expensive ?
 

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,515
It’s a starting point to the low emissions production of steel. I suspect that this happens when emerging technologies are adopted. Following generations of production are revised, become more efficient and less expensive ?

Well you never know, but you'd have to convince the Chinese for it to have any benefits on global emissions.

China is also far more heavily invested in coal power than we are and will continue to be in the future.
 

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
42,261
Small scale.

Expensive.

Maybe scalable and affordable in decades to come.

But here's the kicker - IT STILL REQUIRES COAL!

That steel making requires the use of coking coal is not an argument against the reduction of coal usage in our energy generation mix, it is only an argument that with current technologies that there still is a certain need for coal in our energy mix.

.
 

Gary Gutful

Post Whore
Messages
52,051
That steel making requires the use of coking coal is not an argument against the reduction of coal usage in our energy generation mix, it is only an argument that with current technologies that there still is a certain need for coal in our energy mix.

.
Correct. That’s the argument I am making.

Except I am not confusing steel making with energy production. Two very different things.
 

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,515
Do you really think that a low emissions world exists without some industrial pollution? I don’t.

Is your argument for the purpose for low emissions to reverse/stall the effects of global warming or some other reason?
 
Top