Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread (Read 87610 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #705 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
I thought our Teslas in Aus are made in China?, batteries are also now made by BYD because they do them cheaper......


Factories owned and operated by Tesla with cheap chinese labour.

Ultimately, they are ensuring that they don't go Chinese and thats approach.  Even the factories in China are American Owned.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #706 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
I thought our Teslas in Aus are made in China?, batteries are also now made by BYD because they do them cheaper......
Tesla subcontract a lot of the manufacture, their setup is very similar to Apple, but you won't hear any speak out about it because the legal penalties are horrendous and they have reputation of stomping on suppliers.

In some cases the subcontractors are owned and licensed by the country the factory is built in, whether it be making bodies, batteries or other components. Quite similar to the situation we had here with GM and the Fed funding.

As I understand it, when you say a company in China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, etc., etc., is foreign owned, what that tends to mean it is a minority foreign ownership. To get a slot / license you have to have a majority shareholder who is indigenous. Just like Foxconn with Apple.

A lot of people have been calling for similar regulations here in Oz, so at least some of the profit stays where it was made!

Media sometimes confuse Owners / Board Member / Director with being an Executive Director, in Oz you need a locally based Director, but that Director is not necessarily a shareholder, they are just a well paid Executive with all the mandatory liabilities attached.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #707 –
My heart goes out to those in the flood affected areas, some have only just returned or are still yet to get back to homes affected by 2022 and they are getting whacked again.

I was chatting to a resident of one of the country towns expected to be hit again and he's furious, he told me the same group of people that protest against CO2 emissions and warn them about the effects of climate change also rolled up to actively protest against the building of a flood levy for their town after the 2011 floods, on environmental grounds, and many of the protestors now don't even live there but return to local debates from the city!

All the metro left greeny types achieve is to push marginal / regional groups towards the hard right, and it's not going to end well! If the people in regional cities abandon the land and it's supporting industries good luck to the greenies getting their vegan low carbon locally sourced mung beans, instead they'll be flown in via a United Airlines 767, from a bean farm in Sth America formerly known as the Amazon, and relabelled a Aussie Made because they are repackaged here by a China owned conglomerate that pay suburban dwellers insufficient wages to rent a house! In the interim the metro greenies go back to Prahran and sip an ethically sourced coffee, not a single sandbagging shovel to be found between the lot of them!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #708 –
A couple of points about levees.

First of all, levees don't prevent flooding.  They constrain river flows and cause more severe flooding where there aren't levees.  The recent Maribyrnong River floods and the Flemington race track levee is a classic example of that.  The water has to go somewhere.

Secondly, the Mitchell Shire Mayor was on the wireless this morning and was asked why the Shire decided not to proceed with the construction of more levees.  She explained that the Shire's cost-benefit analysis showed that the cost of constructing more levees far outweighed any benefits they may provide in the foreseeable future.  That is, the decision was made on purely financial grounds and not because of the bleating of the "metro left greeny types".   I reckon that the Mitchell Shire ratepayers who don't live on a floodplain would be pretty happy with the Shire's decision.

The bottom line is that infrastructure on flood plains will be subject to inundation regardless of how many dams and levees are constructed.  If stuff has to be built on floodplains, it should be flood-resilient at worst.  Retrofitting buildings to make them flood-resilient makes a lot more sense than building more and more levees.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #709 –
There seems to be a growing global anti-dam movement at the moment, I can't help but remain sceptical because it seems to be in direct response to vastly improving options for hydroelectric power generation, and of course some of the opposing groups are linked to renewable alternatives. Human social / political behaviours nearly always exposes vested interests.

Just as there is a lot of gibberish spoken about nuclear, gas and geothermal, a lot of gibberish is being spoken about dams. Especially regarding methane generation and release. The dumbed down claims are that dams increase methane production as they age, but it's a bogus claim built on a number of assumptions about anaerobic build up of bacteria in dams. To meet the numbers in the report the dams have to be located in very specific regions and have stable stagnant water levels for decades, typically tropical and full. The two main studies cited refer to dams (Actually in the study case old open cut mines from the 80s) in Malaysia and Brazil, the water in one wasn't even considered drinkable.

Almost three decades ago there was a major study in dam emissions, in particular looking into mitigation of anaerobic build up. The study found the solution was so simple, control the depth of water withdrawal giving the outflow some natural variability across the dam depth and greater than 90% of emissions cease because there will never be an anaerobic build up in the first place!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #710 –
Im yet to be convinced that gas doesnt have the best footprint of them all carbon wise.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #711 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Im yet to be convinced that gas doesnt have the best footprint of them all carbon wise.
Taking excavation and transportation into account??

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #713 –
I just sat through a panel discussion on the future of batteries as a limiting factor for the uptake of SolarPV, Wind and other "green energy" solutions. The panel was convened after one group correctly identified the growing threat to funding of renewables due to stalled progress on the battery front, primarily with increased interest in nuclear as a low / no carbon alternative, the writing must be on the wall surrounding some renewable and battery credentials if these groups are starting to talk about "the issues".

I was hoping to hear some discussions of innovations, instead I was shocked at the solution offered, it wasn't some new silicon or iron based battery, no far from it, they ignored many new technologies and went straight to the tried and true, pumped hydro!

The irony that these people would suddenly identify pumped hydro as a green energy solution, they even rephrased it as a "Water Battery!"

For years the very same SolarPV and Wind power groups have been telling us how evil hydro is, methane emission, environmental vandalism, loss of habitat, flooding, etc., etc., and yet the moment they feel renewable funding is being threatened by growing interest in base load alternatives they offer pumped hydro as "the battery solution" for renewables.

These people can't possible lay straight in bed, they must sleep all forked up, the whole event just exposes their true focus which is dollars not the environment!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #714 –
Here is one of the stories that really highlights the folly of some of the renewables being pushed.

The Port of Dover in the UK has set 2030 as the cut-off date to go completely electric, that means the Port, Ships and Ferries being serviced must be 100% electric by 2030. Seems reasonable, they already have two of the nine vessels as hybrids.

But wait, the devil is in the details.

The hybrids can only sail on electric for 40 minutes, and every minute of sailing is a minute of recharge time. The ships carry and consume 1.4MW of battery power to sail for 40 minutes. The rest of the journey generators on board kick in to supply electricity and recharge the batteries. Seems reasonable, at least the Ports are pollution free.

The vast bulk of the power consumed is for the ships, how much power is that, well just for the single Port of Dover each day they'll need about 180MW of ship energy, the Port itself can be regarded as negligible. And Dover is one of only three ports in the circuit servicing the UK and France (Dover, Calais and Dunkirk), each port needs the same 180MW per day, 560MW in total.

Per port that is about 1/3 of a medium to large scale coal fired power station, 50% of a 1GW power station in total, about a 1/4 of Victoria's Loy Yang A six(6) power unit solution just for those ports!

For reference, we closed the Alcoa smelters in Portland as being uneconomical, they consumed about 300MW and supplied a portion of their own power requirement.

180MW also happens to be about 3 to 4 times the total capacity of the supply lines coming into the Port of Dover in total! :o

Who justifies these numbers, what reality do they live in, are they thinking Wind and SolarPV for Zero Carbon? I ran the numbers and to power those Ports by SolarPV would require the SolarPV farm to cover an area of about 50km² (For comparison Melbourne CBD is 6.5km² ), so nearly eight Melbourne CBDs!

If you think that's a tough ask, now imagine the size of the recharging plug, and you think I'm joking! :o

Finally, think about a Port like Singapore, or even our lowly Port of Melbourne, many tens or even hundreds of times larger than the Dover terminal and powering much much bigger ships on much much longer journeys!

Before long we will be spitting out nuclear facilities like a Pez dispenser, it's inevitable.

PS: Coincidentally, I just found out 560MW powers about 330,000 homes, roughly the size of the current Victorian blackout!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"
 

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #715 –
So I put down a deposit on a car yesterday.

I've gone conventional ICE. 

will likely be the last one we buy, but I read the room.  My 16 year old mondeo replaced for a vw arteon.  Was one of about 3 cars I could find in that size, shape with that sort of liftback that I actually liked.

I'm told it's the last one that dealer will sell.

The alternatives were all SUV or a lot smaller or much more expensive or similar priced and EV.  no solar at home made the choice easier as it meant charging on the grid or adding 20 grand to the cost of the car.

The mrs car is an SUV and we didn't want another. we'll probably know a lot more about cars and EVs vs hydrogen when it's time to replace her 2017 xtrail.

Hopefully that's minimum 7 years away and they can make newer cars better.  At least we'll know if EV is the way to go by then (or we'll have minimal choice).

In this discussion I had a thought the other day.  First ev I could think of was a prius.  You would think Toyota would have been at the forefront of EV given that factor.  Why did they elect to dump it?  Only answer I can come up with is the numbers dont work.

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #716 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
So I put down a deposit on a car yesterday.

I've gone conventional ICE. 

will likely be the last one we buy, but I read the room.  My 16 year old mondeo replaced for a vw arteon.  Was one of about 3 cars I could find in that size, shape with that sort of liftback that I actually liked.

I'm told it's the last one that dealer will sell.

The alternatives were all SUV or a lot smaller or much more expensive or similar priced and EV.  no solar at home made the choice easier as it meant charging on the grid or adding 20 grand to the cost of the car.

The mrs car is an SUV and we didn't want another. we'll probably know a lot more about cars and EVs vs hydrogen when it's time to replace her 2017 xtrail.

Hopefully that's minimum 7 years away and they can make newer cars better.  At least we'll know if EV is the way to go by then (or we'll have minimal choice).

In this discussion I had a thought the other day.  First ev I could think of was a prius.  You would think Toyota would have been at the forefront of EV given that factor.  Why did they elect to dump it?  Only answer I can come up with is the numbers dont work.



Punters are sticking on the fence and buying hybrids...SUVs are just jacked up cars usually on the same platforms. They have the same engines, use more fuel and are 25-30% dearer than a normal car but are seen as safer being higher on the road and have been a marketing dream for car
companies who are cashing in.
Toyota have moved away from EVs because they can't compete with the Chinese who dominate in that area, hence the love for Hydrogen..got nothing to do with the environment, saving the planet etc but all to do with money and having market share.Had a ride in my relations Haval Jolion recently and was pleasantly surprised, I'm no fan of Chinese manufactured items but the car was comfortable, ran well and the dual clutch auto meshed well with hybrid setup.
Can see why people are buying them and why you see dealerships everywhere.
They will dominate the Aus motor scene and it will be interesting to see how Toyota responds with both pricing, supply and quality of new vehicles.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #717 –
Saw a Chinese Tank 4wd in a local carpark the other day. On just a cursory look over it I was too pleasantly surprised and formed a reasonably positive first impression.  Not sure how they drive etc.
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #718 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
Toyota have moved away from EVs because they can't compete with the Chinese who dominate in that area, hence the love for Hydrogen..got nothing to do with the environment, saving the planet etc but all to do with money and having market share.
The main reason why companies like Toyota and Mercedes and BMW are looking towards EV alternatives is that the resource numbers do not stack up.

The Green economy pushes more and more EVs, Wind and Solar, but to achieve the equivalent of the current energy / transport system we have to increase the mining of copper, lithium and other rare earth elements more than tenfold. It's the elephant in the room nobody is talking about, and ultimately it will be why countries go nuclear to take advantage of existing infrastructure without requiring more copper resource.

A traditional ICE car uses at least 23kg of copper, an EV uses at least 80kg of copper. EVs are currently less than 10% of global vehicles yet they already consume as much as 30% of the available transport copper resource. So to get to anywhere near 100% of global vehicles requires a 300% increase in copper resources just for transport.

Renewables energy sectors are still a minority of global energy, but already the single biggest consumer of copper, already using about 3x more copper than the transport sector. That is just the renewable part, not including infrastructure like the grid.

I read estimates that for renewable SolarPV, Wind and EV to replace existing solutions will require between 500% and 1200% more copper mining globally. That assumes they can find that much resource, at the moment it doesn't exist.

Ultimately, the thing that might force societies hand, could well be kilograms of copper per kilowatt hour.

The USA just uncovered the world's biggest lithium resource, unfortunately it sits in deep salt brines under California's already limited water supply. But even as the world's single biggest resource it only covers about 45% of what the US predicts it will need, so the search goes on. Who and how they will mine that is whole other question, environmental groups are already protesting and it hasn't even started! Yet the same protesting groups demand we close coal and convert to SolarPV, they are obviously deliberately ambivalent to the reality of the limited resource situation, what they demand is a fantasy.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #719 –
Quote from: cookie2 – on
Saw a Chinese Tank 4wd in a local carpark the other day. On just a cursory look over it I was too pleasantly surprised and formed a reasonably positive first impression.  Not sure how they drive etc.
The Tank is a bit of an exploration from GWM into the realm of Landcruiser territory but from what I read has ABS/front suspension issues which causes the vehicle to dip down at the front under heavy braking and the rear wheels lift up off the ground...wouldnt want to be towing anything when that happens 😲