Mark commented on wenny's question: “And it hardly augurs well for a question that is supposed to be about the future starting by harking back to 1952.”
Mark commented on Aditi's question: “They are doing a great job raising and sustaining awareness of the climate problem, but that's where their influence should end, as they are pretty clueless about solutions. Going for 100% renewable energy is a recipe for failure (in the form of blackouts or increased backup fossil gas consumption) that will cost trillions.”
Mark asked the question: “Atomic energy has immense capacity for sustenance of global civilisation far into the future (millennia), yet the International Energy Agency has recently identified public acceptance as the main obstacle to its uptake. How can this barrier to concentrated sustainable low-carbon energy best be overcome?”
Mark commented on Mark's question: “Bronwyn, suffice to say that the BZE ZCA2020 report does NOT constitute sufficient proof that renewable energy technologies are capable of supporting a low-carbon energy future for Australia. There are significant critiques identifying serious flaws in that report (see http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/), and those critiques have never been substantially addressed. The standard of proof has to be considerably higher, involving actual major construction and sustained (i.e. year-round) significant contribution to grid electricity...”
Mark asked the question: “My question is to the Minister for Energy. The recent Draft Energy White Paper contained the following statement: "The best case supporting future consideration of nuclear power would be the failure to commercialise new low‐emissions baseload energy or energy storage technologies within the timeframe that economic analysis suggests is necessary to meet long‐term global and national emissions reduction objectives (from 2025 onwards)". My question to the Minister, then, is: What is that timeframe? How long do renewable energy...”
Mark asked the question: “From extra time to full replays, drawn finals cause considerable and increasing angst. Why not simply designate the team that finished higher on the ladder as the effective 'winner' if scores are tied at full time in a final?”
Mark commented on Geoff's question: “Highly qualified renewables advocate, Charles Sturt Uni's Barney Foran, also agrees that going 100% renewable will cost over a trillion dollars ($1.2 trillion in fact, http://theconversation.edu.au/australias-low-carbon-economy-do-the-heavy-lifting-here-2190). He also thinks that that's justified, but that's another story.”
Mark commented on Geoff's question: “Ron Horgan one week ago: "Your link (ZCA2020 critiques) was too much for me to follow" Ron Horgan 15 hours ago (still clearly having not read it/them): "Do you understand how inadequate it has been?" Just amazing.”
Mark commented on Geoff's question: “As for Germany as renewables poster child. Geoff Pain, which part of "the Germans have admitted they're going to have to build a dozen NEW FOSSIL FUEL power stations" (as a result of crashing out of nuclear) did you not understand? But never mind, they'll still prosper through export of their renewables technology? Ah, no. Chinese manufacturers are in the process of sending them broke:http://www.climatespectator.com.au/news/european-solar-sector-feels-heat-china”
Mark commented on Geoff's question: “Sorry about the loss of formatting, but hopefully it's clear that my '100% renewables will cost a trillion dollars' line is probably being generous to Beyond Zero Emissions. The 'destruction of a functional modern economy' part comes from both this capital cost and the clear indication that ZCA2020 will supply nothing like the quantity and reliability of electricity required.”
Mark commented on Geoff's question: “Ron Horgan, it's a bit rich for you to say that I risk being seen as "insubstantial" in not responding instantly to your request to have the BZE critiques spelled out, when your issue appears to be that the links I posted are TOO substantial for you. How about I list the dot point conclusions: The ZCA2020 Stationary Energy Plan has significantly underestimated the cost and timescale required to implement such a plan. Our revised cost estimate is nearly five times higher than the estimate in the Plan: $1,709 billion compared to...”
Mark commented on Geoff's question: “Jane, I for one have read the BZE report, but clearly you haven't read the critiques of it that I posted further down. What have we got to lose by going 100% renewable? Oh, only a trillion dollars and a functional modern economy.”
Mark commented on Russell's question: “As I was saying in a comment that has mysteriously vanished (and as subsequently indicated by Russell Hamstead), the data for the study of thorium absorption by workers was from a Chinese mine. The Australian mining industry faced and solved this issue decades ago. Moreover, in a nice irony, it was a Chinese rare earths mine, and rare earths are a critical component of...wind turbines. And it's a strange mindset that sees the opening of a new mine as a harbinger of imminent resource depletion. We have both the technology and enough...”
Mark commented on Geoff's question: “Just one small problem with Germany and Japan phasing out (actually this is too gentle a phrase, 'crashing out of' would be more accurate) nuclear power. In spite of any amount of investment in renewables, they've admitted they're going to have build several dozen gigawatts of NEW FOSSIL FUEL power stations to stop the lights from going out. The only silver lining to this is that it will be a compelling demonstration of why nuclear is needed and 100% renewables is a hopeless joke, for the whole world to see.”
Mark commented on Geoff's question: “Re deaths from thorium, like the Chinese mining industry is world's best practice? I think not. The Australian mining industry faced this issue and solved it decades ago. But here's a nice irony. The Chinese study was of thorium exposure at a rare earths mine. And rare earths are a critical component of...wind turbines.”
