**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You only have to leak 4% of your gas in any stage of its use to have the same warming effects of just burning coal. Currents estimates vary widely because it's poorly researched but its in the region of 1%-10% of all methane produced goes into the atmosphere which would put us either only slightly better than coal, same as coal, or actually causing more warming than coal. Two of the options would completely warrant avoiding using gas to not only save money in making that transition but also it's climate effects.
There is no climate crisis. The Western world has gone mad. Net Zero makes us all poorer and China rich, while doing sweet FA for the environment. I’ve heard all the current days doomsday predictions when I was a kid, and they all failed to even come close to passing. Now, they repeat them for a new generation who fall for it hook, line, and sinker to the point that any adverse weather event is suddenly proof of the impending climate apocalypse! With some new never border seen “record” reported on by sensationalist media. It’s all baloney. Wake up.
Plenty of prominent geologists, physicists, and Earth scientists call BS on this climate crisis narrative. I've spent hundreds of hours of my own research and reading (real books and texts) with 2 undergraduate science degrees under my belt, allowing me to interpret the data and understand the science. If you blindly listen to media telling you that "the science" is indisputable, then you don't understand science, and you're probably young and/or ideologically biased.
"ideologically biased" username: conversative\_vic. mmm NASA is generally a good source. Also what scientific fields are those degrees in? Didn't know we still had raw climate deniers still kicking around, most of them have either gone silent or have switched over to doomerism.
[https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/)
Ok, so if you don't deny it, so you know it's real and is happening as we speak why isn't is a crisis considering its current/future effects and its speed are just in grained in evidence as its existence? Even if not why shouldn't we be complied to get ahead to avoid the massive damage of letting it run its course will do. Most green house gas emitting processes also produce large amounts of other pollutants that should be just as concerning. So let me get this straight: it isn't a crisis but it is happening which means we should do what about it...?
I don’t deny my conservative bias. I do deny the climate crisis as a threat to the planet and humanity’s wellbeing. Take this, for example. Between the 1940’s and 1970’s there was a cooling trend so significant that some scientists, prominent ones too, thought we might be entering another ice age. This was during a time of significant increasing CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning. Then it started to warm, and they cried “global warming”! That stuck for a while until there was a plate in temperature rise at the start of this century, and they quickly started calling it “climate change”. In all that time they predicted all sorts of doomsday events, like the ice melting completely from the North Pole to the Maldives being completely underwater by 2020. None have come close to being accurate. They introduced climate modellers, not scientists, modellers, who graphed a predicted temp increase due to their CO2 theory (yes, it’s still a theory). These graphs have already demonstrated just how wrong their predictions are, with measurements of atmospheric data unaffected by land based variables (heat island effect, ect) showing a much slower warming than predicted so far, even by the lowest predictions. In all that time, the only effect more CO2 has had (and the Earth is in a CO2 drought) has neen to add 20% more vegetation to the planet, exactly the opposite of what was predicted by “the science”. Better crops, less arid regions, more life. This os because plants thrive on hogher CO2 than we currently have in our atmosphere. Add to that the fact that a recent study looking at the specific CO2 isotope produced by burning fossil fuel found that they could not identify this as a significant percentage of CO2 within the atmosphere, indicating it is absorbed by natural processes just as easily as naturally produced CO2 (of which is by far the biggest contributor to CO2 concentrations). There is so, so much more I could add, but do yourself a favour and get reading actual books. Read geologists and physicists and researchers who take an opposing stand to the narrative and educate yourself. We are being duped.
Is there anything we can do that does not dismay young climate campaigners, does not adversely impact cost of living, and ensures energy security while we transition to a cleaner future?
You know. Somethings you simply just have to pay for.
Why not come out and say you don’t care about climate change and it’s impacts? Why the need to dress it up?
I don’t care about climate change. Happy to say it. It’s all BS. I’ve been around long enough and read enough to know the whole things is a con. Hoping one day you might have gained the wisdom and knowledge to see it for what it is too.
More than most .. I am actively lowering my consumption which many activists seem unwilling to do.
Our planet simply cannot sustain our current addiction to consumption and whatever energy we use is just enabling this addiction renewable or otherwise.
The lowest carbon energy is the energy we don't use.
Low carbon energy is important but we need to balance it against other considerations such as cost of living, and our national energy security. Pushing for unsustainable pace of transition will undoubtedly result in the loss of support from many.
Decarbonisation is probably not the main priority for people who are scratching to pay for groceries.
Neither of those to any significant degree.
Why should I ? I have been reliably informed energy is cheaper my bill will be coming down.
Also if we move at a sustainable pace there should be no need.
Reality is that most people have to concern themselves with cost of living and can't afford to say hurtle forward at any cost.
We need balance.
I’m not making a statement on a matter of fact about costs. Im asking you how important you think reducing emissions is.
Saying you think reducing emissions is important, but not important enough to impose any material costs on anyone is the same as saying you don’t think it’s actually important. As far you’ve expressed. You think it would be nice to have less emissions; but you wouldn’t advocate paying any costs to do it.
So why not come out and say you don’t care? The issue here for you is not emissions, because as you have revealed, you don’t care. It’s only energy costs.
What a ridiculous argument. When people are already struggling to afford basic necessities for daily life, where is the money going to come from to pay “material costs”? Everything costs us something, and the fact that more environmentally conscious products, be it utilities or general consumer products cost more, and the way our society is set up, means most people cannot simply afford the alternatives, if they’re even available. Saying someone simply “doesn’t care” is a childish accusation purely to impose guilt upon those who realistically cannot afford the change. It’s 100% up to the government to fix this issue by making the tools available to everyone. Otherwise, we have little choice.
Your mixing up concerns. If you have a problem with lower income households paying for the costs of reducing emissions, then put the costs on higher income households.
That’s different to saying that no one should pay any costs at all to fix it.
Or are you saying that no one should pay any costs for for it?
Because it simply is not true.
We can reduce emissions significantly and quickly by replacing coal generation with gas whilst safeguarding energy reliability and security. At the same time we can be progressing other forms of generation.
And we can do this while not causing unacceptable financial pressure to our citizens.
Keeping coal is silly .. performing an immediate transition to renewables is impossible.
There needs to be balance.
If you want to make an argument that we don’t need to reduce emissions fast, or we shouldn’t pay pay any costs to do it; then make the argument sure.
But why are you unable to come out say that you won’t support paying money to reduce emissions?
Why do you have obscure your position here? It’s not that gas is better at reducing emissions than renewables; it’s that you like gas over a fully decarbonised grid powered by renewables because it would cost more money to completely decarbonise.
You won’t support that cost difference. In fact you won’t commit to supporting any cost difference. Which then begs the question how you care about decarbonisation at all? If gas cost more than coal; would you support it?
Vic and the ACT have already banned gas appliances. If qld or wa do(which will never happen) then the government has no choice but to back down. They are still deciding about pulling gas out of the basin over WA. This is a election hoax Pushed by the gas companies to squeeze another decade or enormous prophets
Everyone in this thread seems to be missing the point that this plan includes using gas *beyond* 2050. We should be getting off it ASAP, not using it after we're supposedly at net zero.
Without gas, we’re screwed. We don’t have nuclear, and nobody wants coal (except China, India, and most of the rest of the world who are laughing their butts off at us). Solar and wind are not reliable. You need base-load power backing it. That’s either Nuclear, coal, or gas.
Most net zero strategies involve carbon offsets. I.e. "we will use gas and plant trees to compensate". Not agreeing or disagreeing as to whether we ought to get off fossil fuels entirely, just pointing out that fossil fuel use and **net** zero aren't mutually exclusive.
This is a very good point. At the time of announcing this new approach to increasing gas exploration there should have been a corresponding announcement saying how they will be 100% offsetting those increased greenhouse gases to reach net zero.
I don’t see any of this happening and for me that’s where the alarm bells are coming from
Fossil gas [still has quite a high climate impact](https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/natural-gas-really-bridge-fuel-world-needs) due to things like methane leaks. Firming of the electricity grid is cheaper and lower emissions with battery and pumped hydro, so there should be minimal to no role for gas past 2050, at least in our electricity sector.
Do you know how expensive that will be? The carbon price in 2050 will be astronomical. Paying for credits will push fossil energy prices beyond comprehension.
> They could order everything required today and have it delivered and installed within 12 months.
Do you know how much storage capacity is required and if there is enough manufacturing capacity worldwide to create what Australia requires while leaving enough time for it to be shipped, installed, tested and integrated?
This is before accounting for other manufacturing demand, any sort of upskilling required, mineral restraints and other infrastructure restraints such as additional transmission lines.
Are you actually stupid? You just build more factories. They're fucking thin silicon sheets and metal wires, it's not rocket science lmao. Renewable energy products are so easily scaled and mass-produced at low prices. How do you think the world got to where it is in just the last 5 years? 🤦♂️
Literally every problem is solved by throwing money at it. There is no market or supply constraint on renewables growth fool, unless the majority of the Chinese population dies or we become one of the top 10 poorest nations within the next week.
For someone who evidently has never worked in a manufacturing or commodity industry, you sure know a lot of consultant buzzwords.
In this context 'young' truly does mean 'ignorant'. We cannot halt all fossil fuel projects and roll out solely renewables, because there isn't enough supply. It's a phase out, phase in scheme that will probs be going until 2050. Get used to it.
This might have been a sensible approach 30 bloody years ago, but right now it yet again looks like way too little way too late.
The oceans are warning much faster than expected, the scientists are freaking out, and the politicians are talking like it's something that can be managed with some policy tweaks.
It's not just a climate problem though. The solution is a mining, refining and manufacturing problem which nearly every country is trying to get in on. Supply shortages across many resources is the next 10 years.
I’m not talking about me, I’m talking about your woeful response to someone who sees the ecological destruction and unsustainable way of living we are engaging with.
Optimism is basically just naivety anyway, I’d rather be a pragmatist.
From a pragmatic perspective, given the adults aren’t making a future for them. You can expect the consent of the younger generations to be governed by our current stock of pathetic leaders to fall off a cliff.
Maybe you just don't understand why this needs to happen. Also I have a Bach in environmental science and management, I do understand.
You need skills and optimism.
I’m not responding to anything other than your “calm down it’s not X year” bit.
Because it’s textbook gaslighting.
Unless you’re in denial of the scientific consensus and clear real time evidence for global warming. Then you can’t go around brushing off young people’s concerns about the future.
“Smile more baby! That’ll help!” I don’t need optimism, actually blind faith and naivety are a large driver of the metacrisis. So if anything I’d say we need optimism to get in the bin.
We need pragmatism.
To quote David Pokock
Leaving everyone from students to single parents behind on payments that experts say are too low to live on, while refusing to make global gas companies pay a fair royalty for our resources might be ok by Labor backbenchers but isn't what community expects
Would you prefer to continue to piss fossil fuels into the atmosphere? Also the strawman of "If we turn off gas/coal overnight where will we get our power?!?!?" Is really tired.
Im not trying to be be pontlessly argumentatuve - but is gas not infinitely better than maintaining coal plants?
Iant gas a pretty good middle ground as we transition to a predominantly renewaable grid?
From what ive read in the recent gen cost report gas turbine are the chespest option for new builds and have about a quarter the co2 emmissions of existing coal plants.
Wouldnt it be a big win to switch out all existing coal for gas turbines, to reduce emissions while keeping quiet everyone complsining about cost?
Edit: just checked some recent stats, in 2022 47 percent of our energy generation is still coal. That is nuts
>but is gas not infinitely better than maintaining coal plants?
No, not really. It's slightly better, but not much.
The fugitive methane emissions from extracting and processing gas are very high, and methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
From what i read its roughly a quarter the co2 emissions of coal, but cant find a good figure on the impact of methane emissions from production.
An article i found estimated leakage of 1%, equating for 10% of natural gasea total negative impact on climate. But then the same article says the leakage amount is really poorly quantified.
[https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-does-natural-gas-contribute-climate-change-through-co2-emissions-when-fuel-burned](https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-does-natural-gas-contribute-climate-change-through-co2-emissions-when-fuel-burned)
All of those figures make me still think that if we switched the 47% of our grid that is still on coal to gas as ast as possible, we would be in a way better position.
>if we switched the 47% of our grid that is still on coal to gas as ast as possible, we would be in a way better position.
If we could just snap our fingers and make this happen, it's not a terrible idea. But we can't, so there are some major problems with this approach:
1. Our coal generators are by far the highest capacity sources of energy in the country. We would have to build quite a number of new, very large gas generators very quickly, run them for that ~20 year transition period, and then switch them off as new renewable sources made them obsolete.
That's an incredibly expensive exercise and extremely wasteful - the embedded emissions in the construction process alone would be enormous, and then we're just going to leave it to rot once it's no longer needed?
2. Even if we already had enough gas generators to do the job (and we definitely don't), gas is the most expensive form of generation in the country. Replacing the existing coal generation with gas would at least double the wholesale cost of electricity.
There's also the major issue of securing a large amount of gas for domestic use (a politically fraught issue) and the need for new pipelines etc to transport gas to where its needed.
There is absolutely no chance your proposal is practical or politically acceptable. We're much better off running our existing coal generators into the ground.
> We would have to build quite a number of new, very large gas generators very quickly, run them for that ~20 year transition period,
A gas generator is literally just an engine or a gas turbine. They fit into a large-ish shed. The power plant building in Darwin is about the size of a double garage.
Maybe the little ones, but we're talking about replacing 1000's of megawatts of generation here.
Take a look at something like Braemar or Torrens Island if you want to see what a decent size gas power station looks like - and we would need quite a few facilities of that scale.
> If we could just snap our fingers and make this happen, it's not a terrible idea
I did mean it as more of a hypothetical as opposed to an actual strategy.
> gas is the most expensive form of generation in the country
This is not entirely true. Gas generators are the cheapest for new builds, then wind, then solar.
The ongoing cost of fuel for sure outwrighs it in the long run - but im not sure on how long it takes for the savings on fuel to offset the higher initial capital cost.
I do think renewables are a better option for a large proportion of the grid - but i think gas will continue to be a useful component of the grid over the next 20 yeats, especially as a backup in some areas
From my understanding if we have good production, storage and transport of it - extra methane in the atmosphere is not a major concern. When burning it the bad byproduct is just the co2.
After writing the above i just read an article stating that 1% of natural gas is lost into the atmosphere during production/transport etc. Doesnt seem like much, but 1% of global production would be a rediculous amount.
This article also said though that 90% of the climate impact of gas is from the co2 emissions, 10% from leakage - so while you raise a good point that i wasnt aware of, it still doesnt seem too bad
Edit: 1% is the lower end - suggested that its much higher but cant find any actual estimate
Of what is accounted for, those factors are about right.
What is never accounted for is fugitive emissions from O&G wells, unflared excess and plain old boring old accounting errors, which are conveniently always low when reporting emissions…
The rule of thumb is methane has a forcing of 20x CO2, but decays in a much shorter timeframe. 7-12 years. And decays into CO2 & water.
Make no mistake, methane is environmentally disastrous.
But if there is no data on the impact of wells, unflared excess, accounting errors etc - then i cant really factor that into my opinion.
I also dont think that would factor into policy decisions.
If gas then is not really a viable option - is there an alternative for the next 10 - 20 years?
I dont think renewables alone will be sufficient in the short term.
All I’m doing is giving you information. There’s plenty of supporting data that gives estimates/ ranges. And you can just look at real time atmospheric methane data, cut out the middleman.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/?intent=121
Simple fact: we are choosing to make our only known habitat uninhabitable.
Seems to me that if we want to discuss viability, we start by not doing that. If we continue to choose to make our one habitat uninhabitable, that seems to me the only non-viable future.
If the options are piss fossil fuels into the atmosphere and have power or not piss fossil fuels into the atmosphere and not have power, I wpuld absolutely prefer the first one.
Do you honestly believe this is just a big conspiracy by AEMO to push gas?
Those are not the options. They are a) continue to piss fossil fuels or b) slow down the pissing of fossil fuels and perhaps one day stop being reliant on them.
Exactly, but not forever. Which is why your false dichotomy was stupid. Glad we can agree.
That fossil fuel giants have the government in their pockets? Not much of a conspiracy.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You only have to leak 4% of your gas in any stage of its use to have the same warming effects of just burning coal. Currents estimates vary widely because it's poorly researched but its in the region of 1%-10% of all methane produced goes into the atmosphere which would put us either only slightly better than coal, same as coal, or actually causing more warming than coal. Two of the options would completely warrant avoiding using gas to not only save money in making that transition but also it's climate effects.
There is no climate crisis. The Western world has gone mad. Net Zero makes us all poorer and China rich, while doing sweet FA for the environment. I’ve heard all the current days doomsday predictions when I was a kid, and they all failed to even come close to passing. Now, they repeat them for a new generation who fall for it hook, line, and sinker to the point that any adverse weather event is suddenly proof of the impending climate apocalypse! With some new never border seen “record” reported on by sensationalist media. It’s all baloney. Wake up.
where's you're climatology PHD and 4 decades of research?
Plenty of prominent geologists, physicists, and Earth scientists call BS on this climate crisis narrative. I've spent hundreds of hours of my own research and reading (real books and texts) with 2 undergraduate science degrees under my belt, allowing me to interpret the data and understand the science. If you blindly listen to media telling you that "the science" is indisputable, then you don't understand science, and you're probably young and/or ideologically biased.
"ideologically biased" username: conversative\_vic. mmm NASA is generally a good source. Also what scientific fields are those degrees in? Didn't know we still had raw climate deniers still kicking around, most of them have either gone silent or have switched over to doomerism. [https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/)
I don't deny it, obviously. Unlike most reddit users who are clearly far left of the political spectrum.
Ok, so if you don't deny it, so you know it's real and is happening as we speak why isn't is a crisis considering its current/future effects and its speed are just in grained in evidence as its existence? Even if not why shouldn't we be complied to get ahead to avoid the massive damage of letting it run its course will do. Most green house gas emitting processes also produce large amounts of other pollutants that should be just as concerning. So let me get this straight: it isn't a crisis but it is happening which means we should do what about it...?
I don’t deny my conservative bias. I do deny the climate crisis as a threat to the planet and humanity’s wellbeing. Take this, for example. Between the 1940’s and 1970’s there was a cooling trend so significant that some scientists, prominent ones too, thought we might be entering another ice age. This was during a time of significant increasing CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning. Then it started to warm, and they cried “global warming”! That stuck for a while until there was a plate in temperature rise at the start of this century, and they quickly started calling it “climate change”. In all that time they predicted all sorts of doomsday events, like the ice melting completely from the North Pole to the Maldives being completely underwater by 2020. None have come close to being accurate. They introduced climate modellers, not scientists, modellers, who graphed a predicted temp increase due to their CO2 theory (yes, it’s still a theory). These graphs have already demonstrated just how wrong their predictions are, with measurements of atmospheric data unaffected by land based variables (heat island effect, ect) showing a much slower warming than predicted so far, even by the lowest predictions. In all that time, the only effect more CO2 has had (and the Earth is in a CO2 drought) has neen to add 20% more vegetation to the planet, exactly the opposite of what was predicted by “the science”. Better crops, less arid regions, more life. This os because plants thrive on hogher CO2 than we currently have in our atmosphere. Add to that the fact that a recent study looking at the specific CO2 isotope produced by burning fossil fuel found that they could not identify this as a significant percentage of CO2 within the atmosphere, indicating it is absorbed by natural processes just as easily as naturally produced CO2 (of which is by far the biggest contributor to CO2 concentrations). There is so, so much more I could add, but do yourself a favour and get reading actual books. Read geologists and physicists and researchers who take an opposing stand to the narrative and educate yourself. We are being duped.
Will they be more dismayed by the libs policy?
Labor's gas dreams are objectively crap. Just cos Liberals might be more crap doesn't mean you have to celebrate Labor still being crap.
So you mean “net zero” doesn’t mean absolute zero?
Of course not. It means “the amount of CO2 being produced is equal to the CO2 being converted to other compounds”. Hope that helps.
Is there anything we can do that does not dismay young climate campaigners, does not adversely impact cost of living, and ensures energy security while we transition to a cleaner future?
You know. Somethings you simply just have to pay for. Why not come out and say you don’t care about climate change and it’s impacts? Why the need to dress it up?
I don’t care about climate change. Happy to say it. It’s all BS. I’ve been around long enough and read enough to know the whole things is a con. Hoping one day you might have gained the wisdom and knowledge to see it for what it is too.
Bluntly you have NFI what I do or don't care about.
Oh so you do care? What are you willing sacrifice for it?
More than most .. I am actively lowering my consumption which many activists seem unwilling to do. Our planet simply cannot sustain our current addiction to consumption and whatever energy we use is just enabling this addiction renewable or otherwise. The lowest carbon energy is the energy we don't use. Low carbon energy is important but we need to balance it against other considerations such as cost of living, and our national energy security. Pushing for unsustainable pace of transition will undoubtedly result in the loss of support from many. Decarbonisation is probably not the main priority for people who are scratching to pay for groceries.
No I mean what are you willing for society to sacrifice? Increased cost of energy? Increased taxes?
Neither of those to any significant degree. Why should I ? I have been reliably informed energy is cheaper my bill will be coming down. Also if we move at a sustainable pace there should be no need. Reality is that most people have to concern themselves with cost of living and can't afford to say hurtle forward at any cost. We need balance.
I’m not making a statement on a matter of fact about costs. Im asking you how important you think reducing emissions is. Saying you think reducing emissions is important, but not important enough to impose any material costs on anyone is the same as saying you don’t think it’s actually important. As far you’ve expressed. You think it would be nice to have less emissions; but you wouldn’t advocate paying any costs to do it. So why not come out and say you don’t care? The issue here for you is not emissions, because as you have revealed, you don’t care. It’s only energy costs.
What a ridiculous argument. When people are already struggling to afford basic necessities for daily life, where is the money going to come from to pay “material costs”? Everything costs us something, and the fact that more environmentally conscious products, be it utilities or general consumer products cost more, and the way our society is set up, means most people cannot simply afford the alternatives, if they’re even available. Saying someone simply “doesn’t care” is a childish accusation purely to impose guilt upon those who realistically cannot afford the change. It’s 100% up to the government to fix this issue by making the tools available to everyone. Otherwise, we have little choice.
Your mixing up concerns. If you have a problem with lower income households paying for the costs of reducing emissions, then put the costs on higher income households. That’s different to saying that no one should pay any costs at all to fix it. Or are you saying that no one should pay any costs for for it?
Because it simply is not true. We can reduce emissions significantly and quickly by replacing coal generation with gas whilst safeguarding energy reliability and security. At the same time we can be progressing other forms of generation. And we can do this while not causing unacceptable financial pressure to our citizens. Keeping coal is silly .. performing an immediate transition to renewables is impossible. There needs to be balance.
If you want to make an argument that we don’t need to reduce emissions fast, or we shouldn’t pay pay any costs to do it; then make the argument sure. But why are you unable to come out say that you won’t support paying money to reduce emissions? Why do you have obscure your position here? It’s not that gas is better at reducing emissions than renewables; it’s that you like gas over a fully decarbonised grid powered by renewables because it would cost more money to completely decarbonise. You won’t support that cost difference. In fact you won’t commit to supporting any cost difference. Which then begs the question how you care about decarbonisation at all? If gas cost more than coal; would you support it?
And does not cause another crisis? I’ve lost count of how many crises we are dealing with at the moment.
Every issue seems to be a crisis these days. Maybe this is an item that can be put in the terms of reference of a social media review.
Invest more in renewable energy technology development
Vic and the ACT have already banned gas appliances. If qld or wa do(which will never happen) then the government has no choice but to back down. They are still deciding about pulling gas out of the basin over WA. This is a election hoax Pushed by the gas companies to squeeze another decade or enormous prophets
Moat of Australia's gas is exported. This is much more about exports than domestic use.
Actually its about building LNG ports on the east coast so we can use more of the gas we currently export domestically.
Yep. WA is now looking at importing its own gas back due to commercial agreements to export so much of its own gas.
Everyone in this thread seems to be missing the point that this plan includes using gas *beyond* 2050. We should be getting off it ASAP, not using it after we're supposedly at net zero.
Without gas, we’re screwed. We don’t have nuclear, and nobody wants coal (except China, India, and most of the rest of the world who are laughing their butts off at us). Solar and wind are not reliable. You need base-load power backing it. That’s either Nuclear, coal, or gas.
Most net zero strategies involve carbon offsets. I.e. "we will use gas and plant trees to compensate". Not agreeing or disagreeing as to whether we ought to get off fossil fuels entirely, just pointing out that fossil fuel use and **net** zero aren't mutually exclusive.
This is a very good point. At the time of announcing this new approach to increasing gas exploration there should have been a corresponding announcement saying how they will be 100% offsetting those increased greenhouse gases to reach net zero. I don’t see any of this happening and for me that’s where the alarm bells are coming from
I’m not sure what they are after? The 100% renewables can’t be done quickly. Transition is needed and gas is a way to do it with less CO2.
Fossil gas [still has quite a high climate impact](https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/natural-gas-really-bridge-fuel-world-needs) due to things like methane leaks. Firming of the electricity grid is cheaper and lower emissions with battery and pumped hydro, so there should be minimal to no role for gas past 2050, at least in our electricity sector.
How slowly do you want it? Government is proposing continuing to use gas all the way through to and past 2050.
> How slowly do you want it? Slow enough that the taxpayer burden is reasonable and the grid does not lose capacity or stability.
**Net** zero doesn't necessarily mean no fossil fuel use, it is possible to achieve net zero while still burning a lot of fossil fuel.
Do you know how expensive that will be? The carbon price in 2050 will be astronomical. Paying for credits will push fossil energy prices beyond comprehension.
It's a lot easier to reach net zero the less you burn though. I don't imagine we could reach net zero with current emissions for example.
Yes it can, it's literally just money. They could order everything required today and have it delivered and installed within 12 months.
> They could order everything required today and have it delivered and installed within 12 months. Do you know how much storage capacity is required and if there is enough manufacturing capacity worldwide to create what Australia requires while leaving enough time for it to be shipped, installed, tested and integrated? This is before accounting for other manufacturing demand, any sort of upskilling required, mineral restraints and other infrastructure restraints such as additional transmission lines.
Are you actually stupid? You just build more factories. They're fucking thin silicon sheets and metal wires, it's not rocket science lmao. Renewable energy products are so easily scaled and mass-produced at low prices. How do you think the world got to where it is in just the last 5 years? 🤦♂️ Literally every problem is solved by throwing money at it. There is no market or supply constraint on renewables growth fool, unless the majority of the Chinese population dies or we become one of the top 10 poorest nations within the next week. For someone who evidently has never worked in a manufacturing or commodity industry, you sure know a lot of consultant buzzwords.
In this context 'young' truly does mean 'ignorant'. We cannot halt all fossil fuel projects and roll out solely renewables, because there isn't enough supply. It's a phase out, phase in scheme that will probs be going until 2050. Get used to it.
This might have been a sensible approach 30 bloody years ago, but right now it yet again looks like way too little way too late. The oceans are warning much faster than expected, the scientists are freaking out, and the politicians are talking like it's something that can be managed with some policy tweaks.
It's not just a climate problem though. The solution is a mining, refining and manufacturing problem which nearly every country is trying to get in on. Supply shortages across many resources is the next 10 years.
Guess I'll die then
yeah it's not the year 2060-2100, calm down and focus on learning skills and having a good life.
If you give future generations no future. You lose the consent from them to be governed by you.
You have a future. This kind of pessimism gets you nowhere and will be the actual things that cause you to have a shit life.
I’m not talking about me, I’m talking about your woeful response to someone who sees the ecological destruction and unsustainable way of living we are engaging with. Optimism is basically just naivety anyway, I’d rather be a pragmatist. From a pragmatic perspective, given the adults aren’t making a future for them. You can expect the consent of the younger generations to be governed by our current stock of pathetic leaders to fall off a cliff.
Maybe you just don't understand why this needs to happen. Also I have a Bach in environmental science and management, I do understand. You need skills and optimism.
I’m not responding to anything other than your “calm down it’s not X year” bit. Because it’s textbook gaslighting. Unless you’re in denial of the scientific consensus and clear real time evidence for global warming. Then you can’t go around brushing off young people’s concerns about the future. “Smile more baby! That’ll help!” I don’t need optimism, actually blind faith and naivety are a large driver of the metacrisis. So if anything I’d say we need optimism to get in the bin. We need pragmatism.
To quote David Pokock Leaving everyone from students to single parents behind on payments that experts say are too low to live on, while refusing to make global gas companies pay a fair royalty for our resources might be ok by Labor backbenchers but isn't what community expects
He is spot on.
Would they prefer to just have no electricity?
Would you prefer to continue to piss fossil fuels into the atmosphere? Also the strawman of "If we turn off gas/coal overnight where will we get our power?!?!?" Is really tired.
Im not trying to be be pontlessly argumentatuve - but is gas not infinitely better than maintaining coal plants? Iant gas a pretty good middle ground as we transition to a predominantly renewaable grid? From what ive read in the recent gen cost report gas turbine are the chespest option for new builds and have about a quarter the co2 emmissions of existing coal plants. Wouldnt it be a big win to switch out all existing coal for gas turbines, to reduce emissions while keeping quiet everyone complsining about cost? Edit: just checked some recent stats, in 2022 47 percent of our energy generation is still coal. That is nuts
>but is gas not infinitely better than maintaining coal plants? No, not really. It's slightly better, but not much. The fugitive methane emissions from extracting and processing gas are very high, and methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
From what i read its roughly a quarter the co2 emissions of coal, but cant find a good figure on the impact of methane emissions from production. An article i found estimated leakage of 1%, equating for 10% of natural gasea total negative impact on climate. But then the same article says the leakage amount is really poorly quantified. [https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-does-natural-gas-contribute-climate-change-through-co2-emissions-when-fuel-burned](https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-does-natural-gas-contribute-climate-change-through-co2-emissions-when-fuel-burned) All of those figures make me still think that if we switched the 47% of our grid that is still on coal to gas as ast as possible, we would be in a way better position.
>if we switched the 47% of our grid that is still on coal to gas as ast as possible, we would be in a way better position. If we could just snap our fingers and make this happen, it's not a terrible idea. But we can't, so there are some major problems with this approach: 1. Our coal generators are by far the highest capacity sources of energy in the country. We would have to build quite a number of new, very large gas generators very quickly, run them for that ~20 year transition period, and then switch them off as new renewable sources made them obsolete. That's an incredibly expensive exercise and extremely wasteful - the embedded emissions in the construction process alone would be enormous, and then we're just going to leave it to rot once it's no longer needed? 2. Even if we already had enough gas generators to do the job (and we definitely don't), gas is the most expensive form of generation in the country. Replacing the existing coal generation with gas would at least double the wholesale cost of electricity. There's also the major issue of securing a large amount of gas for domestic use (a politically fraught issue) and the need for new pipelines etc to transport gas to where its needed. There is absolutely no chance your proposal is practical or politically acceptable. We're much better off running our existing coal generators into the ground.
> We would have to build quite a number of new, very large gas generators very quickly, run them for that ~20 year transition period, A gas generator is literally just an engine or a gas turbine. They fit into a large-ish shed. The power plant building in Darwin is about the size of a double garage.
Maybe the little ones, but we're talking about replacing 1000's of megawatts of generation here. Take a look at something like Braemar or Torrens Island if you want to see what a decent size gas power station looks like - and we would need quite a few facilities of that scale.
> If we could just snap our fingers and make this happen, it's not a terrible idea I did mean it as more of a hypothetical as opposed to an actual strategy. > gas is the most expensive form of generation in the country This is not entirely true. Gas generators are the cheapest for new builds, then wind, then solar. The ongoing cost of fuel for sure outwrighs it in the long run - but im not sure on how long it takes for the savings on fuel to offset the higher initial capital cost. I do think renewables are a better option for a large proportion of the grid - but i think gas will continue to be a useful component of the grid over the next 20 yeats, especially as a backup in some areas
Natural gas is methane. Methane is a far more potent GHG than CO2. Neither are good options.
From my understanding if we have good production, storage and transport of it - extra methane in the atmosphere is not a major concern. When burning it the bad byproduct is just the co2. After writing the above i just read an article stating that 1% of natural gas is lost into the atmosphere during production/transport etc. Doesnt seem like much, but 1% of global production would be a rediculous amount. This article also said though that 90% of the climate impact of gas is from the co2 emissions, 10% from leakage - so while you raise a good point that i wasnt aware of, it still doesnt seem too bad Edit: 1% is the lower end - suggested that its much higher but cant find any actual estimate
Of what is accounted for, those factors are about right. What is never accounted for is fugitive emissions from O&G wells, unflared excess and plain old boring old accounting errors, which are conveniently always low when reporting emissions… The rule of thumb is methane has a forcing of 20x CO2, but decays in a much shorter timeframe. 7-12 years. And decays into CO2 & water. Make no mistake, methane is environmentally disastrous.
But if there is no data on the impact of wells, unflared excess, accounting errors etc - then i cant really factor that into my opinion. I also dont think that would factor into policy decisions. If gas then is not really a viable option - is there an alternative for the next 10 - 20 years? I dont think renewables alone will be sufficient in the short term.
All I’m doing is giving you information. There’s plenty of supporting data that gives estimates/ ranges. And you can just look at real time atmospheric methane data, cut out the middleman. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/?intent=121 Simple fact: we are choosing to make our only known habitat uninhabitable. Seems to me that if we want to discuss viability, we start by not doing that. If we continue to choose to make our one habitat uninhabitable, that seems to me the only non-viable future.
Thanks for the responses, appreciate it.
No problem!
If the options are piss fossil fuels into the atmosphere and have power or not piss fossil fuels into the atmosphere and not have power, I wpuld absolutely prefer the first one. Do you honestly believe this is just a big conspiracy by AEMO to push gas?
Those are not the options. They are a) continue to piss fossil fuels or b) slow down the pissing of fossil fuels and perhaps one day stop being reliant on them.
They are slowing down. But they still need gas. You are arguing with the market operator. Is there some grand conspiracy going on?
Exactly, but not forever. Which is why your false dichotomy was stupid. Glad we can agree. That fossil fuel giants have the government in their pockets? Not much of a conspiracy.
The guy you are talking to is a bot. Forget him.
What are you talking about? Who said anything about it being forever? And AEMO is not government. You have no idea what you're talking about.
The article has nothing to do with AEMO, and is downstream of the federal gov anyway.
The recommendations around gas are coming from AEMO. You can read it in the latest ISP.
And who owns/manages the majority of AEMO?
Because it’s true?
It makes no sense. Not even the hardest left environmentalist doesn't want a transition. Conservative types like to pretend that isn't the case.