|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 30, 2024 13:32:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 30, 2024 14:45:57 GMT
Australia did drag its heels over climate change. Australia is now among the low performers. The country gets a low in the GHG Emissions, Renewable Energy, and Climate Policy categories, and a very low for Energy Use. Australia's 2030 climate goal is to reduce GHG emissions by 43% vs. 2005 levels. ccpi.org/country/aus/#:~:text=Australia%20is%20now%20among%20the,2005%20levels. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jun 30, 2024 14:56:54 GMT
Yep, there's a lot of good things to say about Australia but its attitude to reducing carbon emissions is almost on a par with Saudi and oil with their pretence that their coal exports don't matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by vinny on Jun 30, 2024 18:20:24 GMT
With enough synthetic fuel, their coal exports won't be important at all. Besides once the global steel industry converts to hydrogen, and once there's sufficient non fossil fuel sourced electricity, big industrial need for coal ends.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 30, 2024 18:40:06 GMT
With enough synthetic fuel, their coal exports won't be important at all. Besides once the global steel industry converts to hydrogen, and once there's sufficient non fossil fuel sourced electricity, big industrial need for coal ends. Or switches to using dirt cheap wind power at night. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jun 30, 2024 20:04:42 GMT
With enough synthetic fuel, their coal exports won't be important at all. Besides once the global steel industry converts to hydrogen, and once there's sufficient non fossil fuel sourced electricity, big industrial need for coal ends. It's ~£65B of exports a year for them. They won't give that up easily |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 30, 2024 20:06:47 GMT
With enough synthetic fuel, their coal exports won't be important at all. Besides once the global steel industry converts to hydrogen, and once there's sufficient non fossil fuel sourced electricity, big industrial need for coal ends. It's ~£65B of exports a year for them. They won't give that up easily There will be a need for fuel of some sort for quite a while yet |
|
|
|
Post by vinny on Jun 30, 2024 22:47:58 GMT
With enough synthetic fuel, their coal exports won't be important at all. Besides once the global steel industry converts to hydrogen, and once there's sufficient non fossil fuel sourced electricity, big industrial need for coal ends. It's ~£65B of exports a year for them. They won't give that up easily When they can make more from synthetic fuels, they'll start thinking. We are living in an era of technological revolution and environmental necessity. One way or another it must happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 1, 2024 6:12:20 GMT
It's ~£65B of exports a year for them. They won't give that up easily When they can make more from synthetic fuels, they'll start thinking. We are living in an era of technological revolution and environmental necessity. One way or another it must happen. Overall I think the future is electric, but synthetic fuels might help the transition. If they provide a bit more time for us to reach carbon neutral and ease the pain of change then that's also good. |
|
|
|
Post by vinny on Jul 2, 2024 14:25:46 GMT
With enough synthetic fuel, their coal exports won't be important at all. Besides once the global steel industry converts to hydrogen, and once there's sufficient non fossil fuel sourced electricity, big industrial need for coal ends. Or switches to using dirt cheap wind power at night. So long as it is powering electrolysis producing hydrogen, capturing carbon etc, yeah. But also, think about tidal power. It's more consistent than wind power. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 2, 2024 14:50:44 GMT
Tidal power is very difficult to economically harvest, has huge local impacts and can at best deliver only a minor fraction of our energy needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by vinny on Jul 2, 2024 15:04:19 GMT
I wasn't thinking about our tidal power, I was thinking about Australia's.
They have 37,118 miles of coastline.
So, with offshore and onshore wind, tidal power, inshore solar, they've got a huge amount of natural resources they could throw at powering fuel synthesis.
We are not in such an attractive position.
Now, add to the output of the Aussies, all the other sunkissed Commonwealth nations, and there's real potential for capturing a lot of CO2 and making a lot of fuel.
It would revolutionise their economies and help us achieve "net zero".
And we still have sufficient industry that we could make the equipment they'll need, and sell it to them.
We'd also be able to sell them more services if they have more cash themselves.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 2, 2024 16:39:59 GMT
I wasn't thinking about our tidal power, I was thinking about Australia's. They have 37,118 miles of coastline. So, with offshore and onshore wind, tidal power, inshore solar, they've got a huge amount of natural resources they could throw at powering fuel synthesis. We are not in such an attractive position. Now, add to the output of the Aussies, all the other sunkissed Commonwealth nations, and there's real potential for capturing a lot of CO2 and making a lot of fuel. It would revolutionise their economies and help us achieve "net zero". And we still have sufficient industry that we could make the equipment they'll need, and sell it to them. We'd also be able to sell them more services if they have more cash themselves. Strewth Bruce are you clutching at straws or what? |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 2, 2024 18:24:45 GMT
I wasn't thinking about our tidal power, I was thinking about Australia's. They have 37,118 miles of coastline. So, with offshore and onshore wind, tidal power, inshore solar, they've got a huge amount of natural resources they could throw at powering fuel synthesis. We are not in such an attractive position. Now, add to the output of the Aussies, all the other sunkissed Commonwealth nations, and there's real potential for capturing a lot of CO2 and making a lot of fuel. It would revolutionise their economies and help us achieve "net zero". And we still have sufficient industry that we could make the equipment they'll need, and sell it to them. We'd also be able to sell them more services if they have more cash themselves. I can see the sense in this idea Vinny. If the UK produces electricity from wind solar we can sell it to our neighbours only 30 miles away. Australia does not have any immediate neighbours so any excess energy they produce is wasted unless they use it as you say. Incidentally I would say Solar was the best source for Australia. Its cheap and they have miles of unused land. |
|
|
|
Post by vinny on Jul 2, 2024 18:38:06 GMT
The only problem with fuel synthesis is it's a very inefficient process, but if you are using solar power and you have enough panels, that makes up for it.
Australia is not the only suitable country for this tech, but it is a stable democracy with the right climate. Libya, Saudi Arabia etc, shit human rights, too much risk of civil war in the long term.
So we need hot countries that are stable, and pre Trump I would have said the same of the USA. The USA has the ideal weather, huge landmass, but is a political basketcase.
We need to engage with Commonwealth countries for fuel synthesis. And to keep them out of Russia's influence.
|
|
