The "French disease" spreads into Belgium.

Discussion of current events
neverfail
Posts: 3203
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The "French disease" spreads into Belgium.

Post by neverfail » Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:13 pm

Doc wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:46 am
You do know that it would take a 1,000 years to melt the Greenland ice sheet, right? Plus I would think beech front property in Greenland during a long heat wave would be much preferable in a hotter world.
Not if the rate of melting were to pick up further, doc.

Greenland is a dwarf when compared to Antarctica:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... t-melting/
The immediate concern is still West Antarctica, where glacier retreat is well underway; melt from those glaciers, some scientists predict, could raise sea levels globally by more than three feet by the end of the century.
Goodbye Florida, 2,100?

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2748
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The "French disease" spreads into Belgium.

Post by cassowary » Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:36 pm

neverfail wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:40 pm


24 inches? With a spring tide added that would likely be enough for our harbour waters to flood the basement of The Sydney Opera House. We can't have that now, can we?
Then do what the Dutch have being for decades - build dams to keep the water out. It is better than a gasoline tax like what Macron tried to do. Or to ban the mining of coal. Will Australia ever do that?

Spend the money on practical measures to combat the effects of global warming rather than trying to curb carbon dioxide by making fossil fuels more expensive. That will never fly as the rioters in Paris have shown. The people don't want to pay more for their energy.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 2494
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The "French disease" spreads into Belgium.

Post by Doc » Sat Dec 15, 2018 2:06 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:13 pm
Doc wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:46 am
You do know that it would take a 1,000 years to melt the Greenland ice sheet, right? Plus I would think beech front property in Greenland during a long heat wave would be much preferable in a hotter world.
Not if the rate of melting were to pick up further, doc.
1,000 years is the soonest it could happen. The ice is literally miles thick.

Greenland is a dwarf when compared to Antarctica:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... t-melting/
The immediate concern is still West Antarctica, where glacier retreat is well underway; melt from those glaciers, some scientists predict, could raise sea levels globally by more than three feet by the end of the century.
Goodbye Florida, 2,100?
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 3203
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The "French disease" spreads into Belgium.

Post by neverfail » Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:58 pm

(post deleted)
Last edited by neverfail on Sat Dec 15, 2018 2:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

neverfail
Posts: 3203
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The "French disease" spreads into Belgium.

Post by neverfail » Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:59 pm

cassowary wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:36 pm

Spend the money on practical measures to combat the effects of global warming....
Like what?

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2748
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The "French disease" spreads into Belgium.

Post by cassowary » Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:13 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:59 pm
cassowary wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:36 pm

Spend the money on practical measures to combat the effects of global warming....
Like what?
Like what I suggested. Build dams to keep the water out. That’s what the Dutch have been doing for decades. It’s cheaper than banning coal mining or making it unfeasiable with regulations. Think of the lost jobs.

neverfail
Posts: 3203
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The "French disease" spreads into Belgium.

Post by neverfail » Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:03 am

cassowary wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:13 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:59 pm
cassowary wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:36 pm

Spend the money on practical measures to combat the effects of global warming....
Like what?
Like what I suggested. Build dams to keep the water out. That’s what the Dutch have been doing for decades. It’s cheaper than banning coal mining or making it unfeasiable with regulations. Think of the lost jobs.
They are called dikes, not dams cass. The Dutch have stopped building them because the cost now exceeds any benefit the country might gain from recovering additional land from the shallow seas off their coast. In addition, with the system of dykes and drainage they already have their country is safe from immersion by flooding sea water.

No one out here is seriously proposing to ban coal mining. Most of our coal is exported and is thus a valuable source of foreign exchange helping to balance our current account. The last time someone seriously proposed closing our coal mining down was when environment advocate and founder of our Greens party demanded that from the Labor government led by Kevin Rudd as the price for his party's co-operation in the Senate to legislate a carbon emissions tax into law. Of course neither Rudd nor his party could or would wear it given the inevitable consequences both for the nation and for his government's re-election prospects (Labor gets the blame while Bob Brown gets the credit - no thanks!). So this country still does not have a carbon emissions tax (or an energy policy that has dose anything other than make the cost of electric power exorbitant).

As for lost jobs, I am thinking of all the new jobs that renewables are likely to gain to replace the jobs lost in a soon to be declining coal industry.:

https://reneweconomy.com.au/guptas-stun ... try-54849/

The biggest thing to hit South Australia in decades.

Private enterprise cost-belefit is likely to make coal sub-economic in ways that government taxes and regulations never will. With the cost of solar panels dropping in price phenominally (thanks to technological and manufacturing process breakthroughs made in the People's Republic of China - now the World's main supplier of solar cell panels) making it more cost-effective to generate electric power using solar cells than by burning coal.

Jobs will be lost in coal mining but job losses always happen with technological change - compensated by new jobs created in the new industries elsewhere.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 2334
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The "French disease" spreads into Belgium.

Post by Sertorio » Sun Dec 16, 2018 4:09 am

cassowary wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:36 pm

Spend the money on practical measures to combat the effects of global warming rather than trying to curb carbon dioxide by making fossil fuels more expensive.
That's the same as saying, stop trying to end drug smuggling, just build more hospitals to take care of drug addicts... :twisted:

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 2494
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The "French disease" spreads into Belgium.

Post by Doc » Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:24 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 4:09 am
cassowary wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:36 pm

Spend the money on practical measures to combat the effects of global warming rather than trying to curb carbon dioxide by making fossil fuels more expensive.
That's the same as saying, stop trying to end drug smuggling, just build more hospitals to take care of drug addicts... :twisted:
The most likely outcome to all of this is technology advancing to the point that the question of man made global warming will become moot.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 3203
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: solar versus coal

Post by neverfail » Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:49 pm

A last word on Sanjeev Gupta's plan to supply cheap solar electricity to South Australia:

The state seems to be ready made for such an initiative. Electric power prices there are the highest in Australia. So it stands to reason that the potential returns to any entrepreneur savvy enough to supply electric power cheaper than from existing sources are potentially greater also.

The state is devoid of coal resources and while there are natural gas reserves in the state's north, these are both insufficient and too highly priced to make thermal electric power by burning gas a serious option. By contrast with 95% of the states area covered by desert (which means unlimited daylight hours of sunshine) the state (ironically) has them right "natural resource) for solar power.

Meantime, even in our 3 coal rich eastern mainland states all of the recent new investment initiatives by the electric power supply companies have been in renewables - not in coal-thermal power stations. If that is not a clear "market signal" then what is?
........................................................................................................

What is coal anyway? Originally, all of the worlds coal reserves were peat deposits made up of mosses and rotting plants in swampy locations in the Earth's remote geological past. In order to grow, then as now the plants would have utilised solar heat and sunlight to "power" the process of transforming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into plant tissue. So coal is really stored up solar heat.

Generating electric power from present-day sunlight instead of unlocking stored up ancient solar heat by burning coal is tantamount to "returning to the source" or "cutting out the middleman".

Post Reply