Ta daaaaa
One single peer reviewed study in the past 5 years, that states the Barrier Reef is not in dramatic decline and I will apologise.
While on the subject of applogies, let me stray off topic but answering noo if that is OK.
The thing I discovered was cliques on this site that stuck like glue together. The erstwhile FES society sometimes worked like a team, if one of them was challenged the others fell in line, often in the teeth of the true facts. On other issues, they kept quiet despite one of their members digging a deep hole on a subject matter. The exception was DM who cordially greeted me one day at Dean's and made it understood that some post were not to be treated seriously. Well done Jon.
The most positive thing was the mods finally putting their foot down and curbing some of the excesses. A few test the limits, but in general I see the tightening on abuse to making the forum a better site.
Future energy sources?
Re: Future energy sources?
About 4 years ago you called my wife a racist, because of your lack of comprehension and knowledge of Thai village life.Whistler wrote: ↑April 8, 2024, 8:44 pmNot one bit. When I first started posting 5 years ago, whatever I posted was greeted with absolute aggression. My attitude? I give back in spades and no apology for taking that stance.
My other viewpoint, if I see a post that is an opinion that is not back by facts, I have no problem digging out verifiable facts to support a consensus view as opposed to a simplistic opinion.. Your posts on a healthy Barrier Reef are a case in point.
Now that does not go down well with some including yourself, but post rubbish in the face of the facts, don't be surprised to get shot down in flames.
I don't remember you ever apologizing.
Re: Future energy sources?
Can you show the post? The only time I remember something close to this was during covid where locals were only checking up on farangs visiting the village and not all local visitors, that was racist, only farangs not visiting Thais, not lao people etc. I would be interested in seeing the thread and context, I don't throw around the term racist unless there is a basis for it. As this is way off topic, you are welcome to send me a PM.
I note you did not respond to your supplying any proof around you comment that the Barrier Reef was not under threat.
I note you did not respond to your supplying any proof around you comment that the Barrier Reef was not under threat.
-
Barney
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 4429
- Joined: November 1, 2012, 5:51 am
- Location: Outback of Nong Samrong Udon Thani
Re: Future energy sources?
Can you imagine sitting with someone you just met in a pub just casually talking current affairs when to your surprise every opinion you had was required to have a source or fear of being fact checked. I'm sure most would not have further dialogue with that, SME on all known thing's punter, leaving him alone to mumble into his beer.
Anyway, back on track,
Since getting and staying on track is difficult on the forum, I'll throw out a couple of opinions, I know I'm living on the edge again.
But it is Songkran and life is good for most of us.
Nuclear will be a reality in Australia's future. We could have one built by the early 2030's.
Green Hydrogen
What is forgotten in the green Hydrogen debate is that it is a new and almost unproven technology, the reason small pilot plants are being built and then this raises questions on its long-term viability. Where does the huge power supply come from, where does the scarce water supply come from?
Well, the new proposed CQ-H2 plant in Gladstone Qld which is on the drawing boards will use solar power from a nearby solar farm facility, which has to be expanded causing further degradation of the delicate and dry region of central Qld. So, this Hydrogen plant plans to draw huge amounts of power and these solar farms are solely for that purpose.
Water is also required in vast amounts which Australia does not have, well we do but a majority has been sold off by successive govts and it is owned by overseas interests, so they may pipe it in.
9 liters (L) of water are required to produce 1 kilogram (kg) of hydrogen via electrolysis.
This water is lost forever and not recycled as in some standard power plants or nuclear.
How much power is required.
50 to 55 kilowatt-hours to produce 1 Kg of hydrogen
Mighty big solar farm to get that requirement.
Just for 1 plant. Admittedly it is a normal duration 30yr life cycle plant.
Not many companies are going to risk the sort of massive outlay just yet without substantial govt guarantees of good profit returns.
Specific large capacity ships have to be built to transport the hydrogen or the Ammonia around the world to countries which have not built their own infrastructure yet.
This particular CQ-H2 plant has only just gone into FEED after a 2-year feasibility study. IF, not when, it goes ahead it will not be until during 2030 that hydrogen will be produced. Makes building a nuclear plant not so bad in the time frame.
At this stage the main source of finance for the development is from our Govt, sorry, taxpayers pockets.
Stanwell Power who wants this proposal on their land is State govt owned, they rely on the state govt for funding, the state govt will throw in their share, ARENA will throw money in the ring, they are govt financed and controlled, Albo will allow the plant to access the taxpayer funded 2-billion-dollar renewable nest egg he developed for his short-term political gain to appease the climate zealots.
There are 2 threats to the Australian taxpayer getting their money back, 1. It fails, and money is lost. 2. It goes gang busters and then sold off to private interests. Both cases a loss loss situation for the average Bruce and Shiela.
Anyway, back on track,
Since getting and staying on track is difficult on the forum, I'll throw out a couple of opinions, I know I'm living on the edge again.
But it is Songkran and life is good for most of us.
Nuclear will be a reality in Australia's future. We could have one built by the early 2030's.
Green Hydrogen
What is forgotten in the green Hydrogen debate is that it is a new and almost unproven technology, the reason small pilot plants are being built and then this raises questions on its long-term viability. Where does the huge power supply come from, where does the scarce water supply come from?
Well, the new proposed CQ-H2 plant in Gladstone Qld which is on the drawing boards will use solar power from a nearby solar farm facility, which has to be expanded causing further degradation of the delicate and dry region of central Qld. So, this Hydrogen plant plans to draw huge amounts of power and these solar farms are solely for that purpose.
Water is also required in vast amounts which Australia does not have, well we do but a majority has been sold off by successive govts and it is owned by overseas interests, so they may pipe it in.
9 liters (L) of water are required to produce 1 kilogram (kg) of hydrogen via electrolysis.
This water is lost forever and not recycled as in some standard power plants or nuclear.
How much power is required.
50 to 55 kilowatt-hours to produce 1 Kg of hydrogen
Mighty big solar farm to get that requirement.
Just for 1 plant. Admittedly it is a normal duration 30yr life cycle plant.
Not many companies are going to risk the sort of massive outlay just yet without substantial govt guarantees of good profit returns.
Specific large capacity ships have to be built to transport the hydrogen or the Ammonia around the world to countries which have not built their own infrastructure yet.
This particular CQ-H2 plant has only just gone into FEED after a 2-year feasibility study. IF, not when, it goes ahead it will not be until during 2030 that hydrogen will be produced. Makes building a nuclear plant not so bad in the time frame.
At this stage the main source of finance for the development is from our Govt, sorry, taxpayers pockets.
Stanwell Power who wants this proposal on their land is State govt owned, they rely on the state govt for funding, the state govt will throw in their share, ARENA will throw money in the ring, they are govt financed and controlled, Albo will allow the plant to access the taxpayer funded 2-billion-dollar renewable nest egg he developed for his short-term political gain to appease the climate zealots.
There are 2 threats to the Australian taxpayer getting their money back, 1. It fails, and money is lost. 2. It goes gang busters and then sold off to private interests. Both cases a loss loss situation for the average Bruce and Shiela.
Re: Future energy sources?
"Can you imagine sitting with someone you just met in a pub just casually talking current affairs when to your surprise every opinion you had was required to have a source or fear of being fact checked. I'm sure most would not have further dialogue with that, SME on all known thing's punter, leaving him alone to mumble into his beer."
Problem is that we arent in a pub, and we have the tools at hand to provide a source for opinions we express.
Problem is that we arent in a pub, and we have the tools at hand to provide a source for opinions we express.
Re: Future energy sources?
"9 liters (L) of water are required to produce 1 kilogram (kg) of hydrogen via electrolysis.
This water is lost forever and not recycled as in some standard power plants or nuclear.
How much power is required.
50 to 55 kilowatt-hours to produce 1 Kg of hydrogen"
9 litres of water is nothing, less than half a household bucket, there are plenty of locations where there is adequate water. One in North Adelaide is at the wastewater treatment plant, plenty there.
The amount of electrical power to produce 1KG of Hydrogen varies according to the efficiency of the process and can be as little 37KWh, as the energy stored in 1 KG of Hydrogen is around 33KWh, that is a quite efficient process. No internal combustion car engine for example, is more than 40% efficent. As all of the energy used on these green hydrogen plants is renewable, it is 100% greenhouse gas free, as is the use of Hydrogen engines and is portable while being highly efficient.
Bulk hydrogen tankers are now available and more being built, the first shipment of liquid hydrogen happened last year.
https://www.google.com/search?q=are+the ... e&ie=UTF-8
As for not many companies willing to invest, they are all ready doing so, dozens of plants have already been built. In South Australia alone, more than 1 Billion dollars of investments have been attracted from commercial sources. The amount that commercial investors that has been allocated for nucleur power, not totally sure, but I would not be surprised if it is zero.
Nuclear power is not inevitable in Australia, last week every single state government rejected nuclear power as an option, and there is next to zero support from scientific bodies and power regulatory bodies. If smaller plants that are in prototype phase around the world (apparently you can pilot N power, but not green power according to some on here) it may be of value in very remote locations such as the red centre and Northern Canada where delivery of fossil fuel is expensive. So far, Australia has not adopted that as a possibility.
This water is lost forever and not recycled as in some standard power plants or nuclear.
How much power is required.
50 to 55 kilowatt-hours to produce 1 Kg of hydrogen"
9 litres of water is nothing, less than half a household bucket, there are plenty of locations where there is adequate water. One in North Adelaide is at the wastewater treatment plant, plenty there.
The amount of electrical power to produce 1KG of Hydrogen varies according to the efficiency of the process and can be as little 37KWh, as the energy stored in 1 KG of Hydrogen is around 33KWh, that is a quite efficient process. No internal combustion car engine for example, is more than 40% efficent. As all of the energy used on these green hydrogen plants is renewable, it is 100% greenhouse gas free, as is the use of Hydrogen engines and is portable while being highly efficient.
Bulk hydrogen tankers are now available and more being built, the first shipment of liquid hydrogen happened last year.
https://www.google.com/search?q=are+the ... e&ie=UTF-8
As for not many companies willing to invest, they are all ready doing so, dozens of plants have already been built. In South Australia alone, more than 1 Billion dollars of investments have been attracted from commercial sources. The amount that commercial investors that has been allocated for nucleur power, not totally sure, but I would not be surprised if it is zero.
Nuclear power is not inevitable in Australia, last week every single state government rejected nuclear power as an option, and there is next to zero support from scientific bodies and power regulatory bodies. If smaller plants that are in prototype phase around the world (apparently you can pilot N power, but not green power according to some on here) it may be of value in very remote locations such as the red centre and Northern Canada where delivery of fossil fuel is expensive. So far, Australia has not adopted that as a possibility.
Re: Future energy sources?
Like I said lack of comprehension the wife asked me what to ask a farang as she wanted to know how to do it politely. I don't even know if they ever even stopped a farang.Whistler wrote: ↑April 9, 2024, 12:02 pmCan you show the post? The only time I remember something close to this was during covid where locals were only checking up on farangs visiting the village and not all local visitors, that was racist, only farangs not visiting Thais, not lao people etc. I would be interested in seeing the thread and context, I don't throw around the term racist unless there is a basis for it. As this is way off topic, you are welcome to send me a PM.
I note you did not respond to your supplying any proof around you comment that the Barrier Reef was not under threat.
Re: Future energy sources?
Now I am totally confused. Off topic, unless there is something specific we should stop boring other people kn the forum, they are probably already bored $hitless anyway. I doubt If I ever called your wife a racist, not my style
Further sake of completeness, noo sent me the quote. This is what I wrote when told village police were only questioning farangs and little ghosts. As those with reasonable memories will know that Covid initially got into Isan primarily because of a bus load of public servants attending a mau thai tournament in BKK. Another example was a Thai policeman returned by bus while already sick and infected many in his village. Auntin, the minister for health had already made a controversial statement about problems with 'dirty farangs'
I wrote
'If I was pulled up and asked the questions, I would ask why single out farangs and politely refuse, farangs are not the cause of Covit 19 getting into Thailand. Lets not let the dysfunctional Minister for Health blur the facts and allow racism to get a bolster as part of this awful pandemic'
That is a long way short of calling noos' wife a racist.
Further sake of completeness, noo sent me the quote. This is what I wrote when told village police were only questioning farangs and little ghosts. As those with reasonable memories will know that Covid initially got into Isan primarily because of a bus load of public servants attending a mau thai tournament in BKK. Another example was a Thai policeman returned by bus while already sick and infected many in his village. Auntin, the minister for health had already made a controversial statement about problems with 'dirty farangs'
I wrote
'If I was pulled up and asked the questions, I would ask why single out farangs and politely refuse, farangs are not the cause of Covit 19 getting into Thailand. Lets not let the dysfunctional Minister for Health blur the facts and allow racism to get a bolster as part of this awful pandemic'
That is a long way short of calling noos' wife a racist.
Re: Future energy sources?
For those who think pumped hydro is a myth? No government subsidies, so far I cannot see, no offers of tax breaks, but a commercial decision to invest $4B in the same renewable technology that supplies 40% of all renewable energy in the USA.
Https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ds-by-2031
Https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ds-by-2031
Re: Future energy sources?
People can forecast the demised of fossil fuels, but the reality is, at present and for the immediate if not medium distant future, the demand for fossil fuels by the World, continues to increase from year to year (if one looks at the demand measure by Million of Barrels per day and World consumption). This isn't being negative, it is just stating a fact. 
Sure, the increase in demand may slow down but from what I have read, as of today, the Worldwide demand for fossil fuels has not yet reached it Peak.
The IEA's scenario, assumes that all governments meet their energy and climate pledges in full and on time, envisaged that global oil demand will peak at 93 million barrels a day in 2030, with an eventual decline to 55 million barrels per day in 2050 ?
The IEA envisages a Peak demand 93 Million Barrels per day in 2030
The IEA's latest Annual Report states the average World consumption of Oil in 2023 was close to 102 million Barrels per day for this past year.
I just can't see the numbers stacking up, with the World reducing its consumption by 5% over the six years, when the World continues to produce and consume more oil (for one reason or another) every year and has done so near continuously for the past 14 years, with the noted exemption during the Covid period.
2023 Oil Production was around 101.6 million barrels a day and the forecast for Oil Production in 2024 is 102.8 million barrels a day, representing a further increase of 1.18% CAGR of Production.
The reality is that the World demand is not slowing down but rather it is ramping up and most probably will do so for some time to come. The next question when that demand does peak, how rapidly will it decline or will the curve simply flatten at the peak for a number of years. Winters are still cold (for many) and people still need electricity in the homes, every day.
Just an observation, for those who think the end is near.
I on the other hand, am more than happy to be an avid supporter of fossil fuels.
pipoz4444
Sure, the increase in demand may slow down but from what I have read, as of today, the Worldwide demand for fossil fuels has not yet reached it Peak.
The IEA's scenario, assumes that all governments meet their energy and climate pledges in full and on time, envisaged that global oil demand will peak at 93 million barrels a day in 2030, with an eventual decline to 55 million barrels per day in 2050 ?
The IEA envisages a Peak demand 93 Million Barrels per day in 2030
The IEA's latest Annual Report states the average World consumption of Oil in 2023 was close to 102 million Barrels per day for this past year.
I just can't see the numbers stacking up, with the World reducing its consumption by 5% over the six years, when the World continues to produce and consume more oil (for one reason or another) every year and has done so near continuously for the past 14 years, with the noted exemption during the Covid period.
2023 Oil Production was around 101.6 million barrels a day and the forecast for Oil Production in 2024 is 102.8 million barrels a day, representing a further increase of 1.18% CAGR of Production.
The reality is that the World demand is not slowing down but rather it is ramping up and most probably will do so for some time to come. The next question when that demand does peak, how rapidly will it decline or will the curve simply flatten at the peak for a number of years. Winters are still cold (for many) and people still need electricity in the homes, every day.
Just an observation, for those who think the end is near.
I on the other hand, am more than happy to be an avid supporter of fossil fuels.
pipoz4444
That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.
Re: Future energy sources?
Pip has some good points, the transition away from fossil fuels will take time.
However to claim to be a fan of fossil fuels and the resulting pollution, is akin to those who were fans of cigarettes in the 1960s claiming smoking was good for you.
However to claim to be a fan of fossil fuels and the resulting pollution, is akin to those who were fans of cigarettes in the 1960s claiming smoking was good for you.
Re: Future energy sources?
"Australia's first gas import terminal to come online amid looming shortfalls"
Importing, after huge production facilities developed at Barrow Island and Darwin??
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-12/ ... dium=email
Importing, after huge production facilities developed at Barrow Island and Darwin??
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-12/ ... dium=email
Re: Future energy sources?
Hmmm have to think about that
Ok just did, it took 30 seconds, maybe less
Pipoz4444
Last edited by pipoz4444 on April 12, 2024, 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.
Re: Future energy sources?
Your use of a metaphor but hardly an analogy.
It all depends on your outlook in life and what you are on this planet for. One might use the term "Your Cause in Life". I dare say that your Cause in Life is vastly different to mine.
Mine is simple and in the present and near future tenses. Not so much in the distant future. Mine is premised on caring and providing for those that I love and some who are less fortunate than me.
Working on the back of what some might say is revenue generated from fossil fuel, has allowed me to give those persons opportunities that they may never of had, along with, a good standard of education, quality of life, health benefits, and financial security whilst also providing for their wellbeing well into the future, long after I am gone.
This is the present day, which is what most people live in and which most have to struggle with and I dare say, very few Thai's give a rat arse about rising sea levels down the track when they struggle to feed and educate their families, today.
So yes I am over the moon with having earnt my living from revenues generated from the fossil fuel industry and dont give Fl.
..ing F...k about futuristic Caues of others
I am not being rude to you W, it's just how I feel about this whole "Stop Oil" bullsh...t and the antics of many involved in it or supporting it, those who have grown up depending on fossils fuels for their lifestyles and now act as though it was always and is now, a bad industry to be in or a curse on the World.
I sleep very well at night, well above sea level in a comfortable bed as does my Thai family.
Cheers
That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.
Re: Future energy sources?
pip, your view of which you entitled to, just as much as I have. I just happend to disagree, and disagree to a great extent as I think such views are selfish.
I have never proscribed to the 'I'm all right jack' philosophy. Take care of me and mine, of course, but also be part of a broader community.
I have never proscribed to the 'I'm all right jack' philosophy. Take care of me and mine, of course, but also be part of a broader community.
Re: Future energy sources?
Whistler wrote: ↑April 12, 2024, 9:39 pmpip, your view of which you entitled to, just as much as I have. I just happend to disagree, and disagree to a great extent as I think such views are selfish.
I have never proscribed to the 'I'm all right jack' philosophy. Take care of me and mine, of course, but also be part of a broader community.
Thanks W, but I am not part of the Broader Community nor do I ever wish to be. Sounds a bit like something Karl Marx might advocate, out with the individuals and in with the classless society.
The first principle of the Constitutions of most Countries is to its own People not to peoples of other Countries and I didn't write them. The same applies to a Person, whereby his family comes first and before the ideologies of, others international bureaucrats and intergovernmental organizations.
An yes we are doing dam fine, thanks to Mr. Oil, Mr. Gas and Mr. Coal
If and I say If, they ever manage to phase out the Fossil Fuel industry, just watch (if you are around) the fallout in terms of unemployment and lost opportunities to those who follow in your foot steps. Try estimating the number of persons who are both directly employed and or indirectly employed and or benefit in some financial from the fossil fuel industry as a Whole. You might be amazed at how many persons might be affected.
That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.
Re: Future energy sources?
Pip, appreciate your honesty
Re: Future energy sources?
Personally W, and I won't be around for it, but I would be more concerned about the future impact of A I on the human society than I would be about the longer term potential impact of fossil fuel, but that is just me. A I and its impact, good or bad, will here long before fossil fuels disappear
pipoz4444
Last edited by pipoz4444 on April 14, 2024, 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.
Re: Future energy sources?
My work in IT invovles AI quite a bit. Zero problems with AI, a paper tiger that sensationalists don't really understand