Future energy sources?

[jackspratt]

So to reduce it to simple terms, pipo - you don't give a schit about the impacts of global warming/climate change on the future of the Earth, and the people who will need to live on it.

[noosard]

Seems lots of people care, but 99.9% do FA
and that .1% make a lot of hot air

[Doodoo]

So rather than worrying on how to produce more energy , how about looking at ways to reduce our needs on say electricity.
A few years back Thailand's one major supplier of gas was Myanmar and they had a plan shutdown of the fields during the summer. The Thai Government requested that all major businesses look at ways of reducing consumption, one was lighting. I remember walking into Makro and half the lights were off, no big deal
I can see many places shutting OFF LIGHTS to help the cause, or your own house

[Whistler]

A sensible start doodoo. I note very few new houses incorporate good passive cooling, simple things like wider eaves, ventilated roofs, insulation is not terribly expensive. These simple thing reduce need for air-conditioning, save electricity and save money

[tamada]

I think a significant problem is the more developed nations that have the money, resources, knowledge and will to be proactive on reducing their carbon footprint, dictating policy of the developing nations. A lot of these fanciful net-zero targets are not only improbable, but they deny the right of the less-developed countries to improve the lives of their people, boost their GDP, create and fund public health care systems, street lighting, etc..

But we are undeniably all riding in the same bus, allegedly heading inexorably towards the cliff edge of oblivion (or extinction if you want to believe that). So, instead of telling a swathe of the planet's population "As we say, not as we have already done", how about a more equable and broadly humanitarian approach where the richer, more developed nations do much more for their under-developed cohabitants than they're doing now? Spread the wealth a bit better?

[Whistler]

An excellent post tam. To a fair extent this is happening with the targets of the developed world be significantly more ambitious than developing countries, but maybe mire can be done

[tamada]

An excellent post tam. To a fair extent this is happening with the targets of the developed world be significantly more ambitious than developing countries, but maybe mire can be done

The problem with overseas aid is lack of oversight. Too many despotic, "fill-your-boots" type of leaders in a lot of under-developed countries will dictate who gets a solar panel and who gets a Maybach. The awful ones with private jets, Swiss bank accounts and property in London W2 spring to mind. All those mid-eastern leaders with their palm islands, burj's and mirror cities are just as bad.

How about more equable immigration pathways for those poor blighters whose islands and coastlines and livelihoods are going to be drowned or decimated due to the carelessness of our forbears?

[Whistler]

Seems lots of people care, but 99.9% do FA
and that .1% make a lot of hot air

Your opinion, but once again, unsupportable by the facts. A salient example, last Oz elections the climate denying coalition government was kicked out. The votes went to those who overwhelmingly supported climate action. Labor, the Teals and The Greens. Legislation and policy has shifted where climate action is a significant change in policy.

Not .1% of hot air, more than 50% voting for change. Climate action is also if significant concern worldwide. Even conservative nations like the USA are making their views known at the ballot box.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... te-change/

[tamada]

Seems lots of people care, but 99.9% do FA
and that .1% make a lot of hot air

Your opinion, but once again, unsupportable by the facts. A salient example, last Oz elections the climate denying coalition government was kicked out. The votes went to those who overwhelmingly supported climate action. Labor, the Teals and The Greens. Legislation and policy has shifted where climate action is a significant change in policy.

Not .1%of hot air, more than 50% voting for change.

Meanwhile, after almost 2-years of being stymied by a barrage of disinformation, fallacious claims and legal action from the green herd, hiding behind and manipulating various indigenous community groups, oil and gas exploration is once again ramping up both offshore and onshore Australia.

[Whistler]

Seems lots of people care, but 99.9% do FA
and that .1% make a lot of hot air

Your opinion, but once again, unsupportable by the facts. A salient example, last Oz elections the climate denying coalition government was kicked out. The votes went to those who overwhelmingly supported climate action. Labor, the Teals and The Greens. Legislation and policy has shifted where climate action is a significant change in policy.

Not .1%of hot air, more than 50% voting for change.

Meanwhile, after almost 2-years of being stymied by a barrage of disinformation, fallacious claims and legal action from the green herd, hiding behind and manipulating various indigenous community groups, oil and gas exploration is once again ramping up both offshore and onshore Australia.

Agree, the far left misguided loonies are a problem, but please don't ignore the far right loonies who are funded by entrenched interests in the fossil fuel industry who protect billions of dollars as part of their agenda

[noosard]

Were the Coalition kicked out because of climate change policies ?
So when the coalition win this next election or the the next is that beacause it was wrong to kick them out for climate change policies or lack of ?

[Whistler]

Were the Coalition kicked out because of climate change policies ?

Yes, they were, climate change was a significant issue at that election. At the 2022 federal election, teal independents running almost entirely on climate change defeated six sitting Liberal MPs; Allegra Spender in Wentworth, Kylea Tink in North Sydney, Zoe Daniel in Goldstein, Monique Ryan in Kooyong, Kate Chaney in Curtin, and Sophie Scamps in Mackellar. The Greens won 3 seats in inner city Brisbane. Labor also won 10 seats off the Liberals.

So when the coalition win this next election or the the next is that beacause it was wrong to kick them out for climate change policies or lack of ?

There has been a significant change in policy re climate change, not the least being the recent policy about green energy, the liberal coalition is floundering in the polls on this very issue

Albanese holds a 14 point lead over Dutton as preferred PM according to News Limited (24 March)
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/newspoll

There is a 4 point lead by Labor in 2 party preferred vote as well
https://au.yougov.com/politics/articles ... erred-vote

The coalition do not look very likely to win the next election

[Whistler]

Has anybody noticed?

Climate deniers seem to have adopted an interesting stance, not just to deny climate science, but to critisise any form of alternative energy as if it respresents as challenge to their beliefs.

- Solar is no good because the sun does not shine at night (true but if you can store the energy then it ain't so bad)
- Wind, particularly evil, ugly in their eyes, and needs to be built out of steel (much less than a coal or gas station BTW)
- EV's, the most evil of the evil, Lithium exageration on mining, cars on fire, pants on fire etc, etc.
- Pumped Hydro, doesn't work (but it does)
- Hydrogen, a 100 % failure rate, even if it is now pretty viable and on a growth cycle
- Chemical storage (just awful)

It seems that any viable green alternative must be vilified, there is no viable alternative apart from nuclear that now only accounts from around 15% of world output a decade ago, and is now around 10%.

Facts no longer matter, science no longer matters. The only thing that matters is a blind belief that defies all logic. I kinda liked Pip's recent contribution, totally honest in stating he doesn't give a rodent's posterior. Then there is tam's recent post that quite simply states, we need time to transition, and while we are all on the same bus, we need to be smart about a whole-of-world transition.

(stands back and awaits abuse)

[pipoz4444]

So rather than worrying on how to produce more energy , how about looking at ways to reduce our needs on say electricity.
A few years back Thailand's one major supplier of gas was Myanmar and they had a plan shutdown of the fields during the summer. The Thai Government requested that all major businesses look at ways of reducing consumption, one was lighting. I remember walking into Makro and half the lights were off, no big deal
I can see many places shutting OFF LIGHTS to help the cause, or your own house

Hi Doodoo

You are right and it is not the lights on at home that is the issue, as most of us could live in the dark if we have to and some of us have been living in it for a long time.

Energy Supply is the biggest culprit/ contributor to Co2 emissions (as 44%) as I understand it, with Transport (20%) and Manufacturing/Construction (16%) a close second and third. Between them they seem to make up for some 82% of emissions. The graph/chart is from 2020, but I suspect its contribution percentages are still pretty close to the mark.

Unfortunately, peoples desire to live in comfort (with AC, Hot Water & Fridges etc.) helps drive the significant need for Energy Supply, as does our other daily need for Transport, Manufacturing and Construction. I don't see the general desires and needs of the populous changing anytime soon and if anything it will get worst, as the world population increases and so to does the middle classes of China and India, which is rapidly expanding, as their respective populations become more affluent.

If one was to look at the average household consumption as a contributor, factor to demand for Energy, you would find that on average, Air conditioning uses the most energy in a home (16.2 %), closely followed by space heating (15.9 %) and water heating (11.4 %), refrigerators and freezers (6.9 %), with lighting a long way down the track at (4.4 %), televisions (3.5 %) and computers (2.3 %). Turning your lights of will do little to help reduce emissions and no every little bit does not help when you don't make a dent in the main contributing factors. The culprits are clearly the Comfort Appliances and 99% of people will not live without AC, or without Heating, or without a Fridge/Freezer, in this day and age.

But lets be honest with ourselves for one minute, who on this forum lives in a house in Thailand, without AC or without Heating (if in CM), then takes a cold shower and does not have a fridge / freezer for his booze. Please put your hand up . So despite all the concern about household emissions, I dare say all that I know in Thailand are complicit in their dependency / demand for power/electricity, just to keep themselves and families comfortable. Haven't seen too many cave dwellers in Udon lately.

So tap dancing around the fringe's of the major contributing sector (Energy Supply) and use of Residential / Commercial comfort appliances, may give some people peace of mind, but it wont have any significant impact on the world CO2 emission numbers.

If the World was really serious about it, they would give up on all the carbon credit BS and tackle the major culprit (Energy Supply) by mandating that all Countries go Nuclear for their Electricity /Power supply as a first step, over the next 10 Years. In 10 years time, that 44% could be halved and at the same time compensate for the every increasing demand from the burgeoning middle class. Then one could leave their lights on all night and not loose any sleep over it.

Just my 2 cents worth.

pipoz4444

[Doodoo]

I dont like make excuses of why we cant do anything. I would sooner see us find things to do to solve problems rather than accept them. If its turn out lighting so be it. So using Thailand as an example, if every one turned out a light, just one that would be 69,000,000 less. Thats a load of electricity

[pipoz4444]

It all comes down to what you are prepared to sacrifice in your lifestyle.

pipoz4444

[noosard]

It all comes down to what you are prepared to sacrifice in your lifestyle.

pipoz4444

Like I said
"Seems lots of people care, but 99.9% do FA
and that .1% make a lot of hot air"

In my case I have put solar on the roof
but I am sure most would still not want to pay my power bill

[tamada]

I dont like make excuses of why we cant do anything. I would sooner see us find things to do to solve problems rather than accept them. If its turn out lighting so be it. So using Thailand as an example, if every one turned out a light, just one that would be 69,000,000 less. Thats a load of electricity

Loads of infants and kids can't reach the light switch but.

[Doodoo]

"Loads of infants and kids can't reach the light switch but."

Simple solution, its called Parent

[tamada]

"Loads of infants and kids can't reach the light switch but."

Simple solution, its called Parent

So Thailand has 69 million parents?

Ta
tam