Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
Elon is building tunnels under cities for this reason.

Great, he's only a few decades behind us.

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..
What ScoMo says at COP 26 pretty much doesn't matter anyway, (except, perhaps, for the reputation it gives us). Development of renewable generation in Australia continues at break neck speed and it's only going to accelerate even more as the death knell for coal generation rings loud to due to simple economics. Most of the change in Australian electricity generation is driven by state policy anyway, such as the VRET, etc., with some states enacting their own laws to circumvent the RIT-T process prescribed in the National Electricity Rules, allowing them to augment their HV networks in a more timely fashion to enable the ocean of renewable generation connection applications they have received.

www.energy.vic.gov.au/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-zones
www.energy.nsw.gov.au/renewables/renewable-energy-zones

The banana benders are dragging the chain a little since they have the youngest fleet of coal generators and a coal industry tugging on their labor government's pigtails.

I agree, with ScoMo at this point that COP like shows doesn't matter.
Business case is enough to make renewable happen.
World switch to solar and wind because is simply cheaper. The rest doesn't matter, Greta make no difference, where billions of dollars goes now.
But transmission lines are not quite business only matter.
We don't want another Forest or Gina to own all transmission lines in whole Australia and dictate us price.

Transmission lines should remain public or public company owner by super or so.

ScoMo ( or his successor) really need to come to you Harrow ( and alike) with serious money.
This deal will be made here only. You could not sell this to French, US or UK. Money must be spend here.
Unlike nuclear technology, Australia could afford and be able to do all this by themselves

to be fair on the list of our priorities:
-roads
-railways-
-telecommunication
-energy storage
-waterways
.....
I will put transmission lines priority ! The single most important thing to decide Australia future.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Ian K said..

Yes it's interesting all right. Lucky you're not a climate scientist Paradox. You wouldn't last long trying to take that line of investigation.

I have spent a lot of time during COVID reading journals and papers and opinions of actual scientists. I can't find many that actually disagree with that line of reasoning. It's not the scientists running the narritive, its the politicians, activists and media. And the academic institutions that come down hard on anyone verbalising opinions not in alignment with the narrative.

I am not surprised at all.
Imagine reputable scientist having discussion on public forum.
FN like will eat him in not time at all...

So reputable scientist is not going to change the mind of the mob, crowd. Crowd know the best.
On another hand the same crowds will trust everything is written in tabloid first page.

Greta is smart girl.
She says: Listen to scientists! ( knowing already well that nobody will be bothered to read serious publication or listen to stuccering geek scientist)
So there it comes! The greatest of all : THE PRIEST, SHAMAN that
will convey the message from heaven directly to blokes on the ground.
Jurnalist !
actually the journalist also don't need to listen to scientist , because is simply hired and paid to write 1000 words in grammatically correct order. Narrative is provided by employer.

Scientist is there to show in the case something goes wrong. Yep, Hurricane hit, city drown, scientist at faults not to warn everybody.Codiv hit? Hang Fauci!

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..
Australia continues at break neck speed and it's only going to accelerate even more as the death knell for coal generation rings loud to due to simple economics.

Sounds like a political statement to me, rather than a technical one. I have no issue with renewables in general, It's the intermittant part that is the clincher, They just don't work when there is no sun or wind and there is no effective way of storing power at the scale needed. The EU has just found out what happens during a month of low wind and dispatchable sources have been wound down to below what is needed. Just like Texas did earlier in the year when demand exceeded available capacity.

Energy security is paramount and Australia now has too much solar input during the day. I have no attachment to coal, but something needs to keep the lights on at night and it isn't going to be more solar,

Renewables are now competative with subisides and guaranteed feed in's, but only as a spot generator at the wholesale level, which makes up 30% of the retail. The cost of network improvments to cater for renewables, including stabilising batteries or sycnhronous generators all add to the cost. There is a reason every network that has high input of renewables has a definate increase in retail price over less takeup of renewables.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..
Sounds like a political statement to me, rather than a technical one. I have no issue with renewables in general, It's the intermittant part that is the clincher, They just don't work when there is no sun or wind and there is no effective way of storing power at the scale needed. The EU has just found out what happens during a month of low wind and dispatchable sources have been wound down to below what is needed. Just like Texas did earlier in the year when demand exceeded available capacity.

Energy security is paramount and Australia now has too much solar input during the day. I have no attachment to coal, but something needs to keep the lights on at night and it isn't going to be more solar,

Renewables are now competative with subisides and guaranteed feed in's, but only as a spot generator at the wholesale level, which makes up 30% of the retail. The cost of network improvements to cater for renewables, including stabilising batteries or sycnhronous generators all add to the cost. There is a reason every network that has high input of renewables has a definate increase in retail price over less takeup of renewables.

No, it's just what I see happening, I'm not sure what visibility you have to the queue of renewable grid connection applications and enquiries, but it's simply huge and each proposal is larger than the one before it.

Of course you're absolutely right about the issue of keeping power flowing when the renewables aren't available, but that doesn't stop them displacing coal generation with their zero fuel cost during the day. This does create a conundrum... if the renewables displace coal enough during the day to the point that it is no longer financially viable, then what does keep the lights on at night? This is exactly the problem in Victoria where the government has had to make a secret deal with Yallourn power station to keep it open.

reneweconomy.com.au/victoria-slammed-for-refusing-to-release-details-of-secret-yallourn-closure-deal/

The phenomena that will start to be discussed more and more is that the supply-demand relationship is going to be turned partially on it's head. In the past, generation followed demand, simply because the wick can easily be turned up and down when you want in a coal or gas generator. But what is starting to happen, and it's only the tip of the iceberg at the moment, is that demand is starting to follow generation. Whether it's simply moving your pool pump or electric water heater (yeah, suddenly domestic electric hot water storage is sexy again) to run at midday, charging a home battery, or doing something a bit more sophisticated with your electric car's battery, this is going to increasingly favour renewables in the future. The impact of this, along with cost of renewable generation and storage continuing to fall, is why I see the coal generation retirements happening earlier than currently forecast.

What about Snowy 2.0?

Looks like it can output 2.0 GW ( of course )



But if the wind stops we need about 50 GW

What is the most contradictory in Australia?
Land prices.
We have the most overvalued housing market - due to restriction in release land for new building,.
We have the largest solar installation on Earth - because land is worthless.

You could put solar panel everywhere on Earth, and they will work , better or worse,.
But you still need to pay for the land beneath,.
Here is Australia land for installations is for free,
I doubt that greatest solar farms pay the same for land as home owners per m2.

Mr Forest could build and sell H2 because cost of the land is essentially cancelled or not taken into account.
Singapore Solar Sun business - the same.

www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/11/15/is-this-the-worlds-most-ambitious-renewable-energy-project/

You could read this article 3x over, reconcile all investment cost , and find nothing about value of the land.Nope,
Jobs, cable, panel not a word how much land cost...


Things may change in the future. Be warn. Air and water to polluter were also free, times ago.

and now....
lets talk about subsidies to fossil fuels....
in comparison to renew scam- drop in the ocean!

Now pendulum tilted the other way and we are falsifying real costs of renewables.
Practice is common in science -where involved researchers collect and assemble data to fit their thesis.
Now the cost of 2MWh is 20$ because panel costs x and job install Y. Land is free. Lease too.

Try to build a home it cost you $1000/ per m2 or more.

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..

No, it's just what I see happening, I'm not sure what visibility you have to the queue of renewable grid connection applications and enquiries, but it's simply huge and each proposal is larger than the one before it.

Of course you're absolutely right about the issue of keeping power flowing when the renewables aren't available, but that doesn't stop them displacing coal generation with their zero fuel cost during the day. This does create a conundrum... if the renewables displace coal enough during the day to the point that it is no longer financially viable, then what does keep the lights on at night? This is exactly the problem in Victoria where the government has had to make a secret deal with Yallourn power station to keep it open.

Oh there are plenty of applications for more solar. Big companies declaring net zero, have paid them huge bucks to greenwash thier grid draw by dumping power into the daytime space nobody wants and the State Govs ensure they all get guaranteed returns. We all pay for it through taxes or higher goods and services prices, but we are paying for it, it is far from free. Daytime solar is close to saturation. The duck curve is a massive problem from a network perspective and adding more energy into it is just wasted. At some point common sense has to come into play and we need to recognise that without effective and affordable storage renewables are only a part of a power solution.

In the last month all the big northern hemisphere economies have started to talk up nuclear again. UK, France, Japan, China, India, Poland, Germany (just by the fact they draw so much from France)... The energy crisis has at least driven some common sense in to them. Australia is the only major economy that somehow thinks it can transition to net zero without nuclear. Until we think otherwise coal isn't going anywhere simply because we can't generate enough electricity without it. I hear you on activity shift, but it only goes so far, it will never be a large enough percentage to make much of a difference. Our power needs are constantly increasing.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
What is the most contradictory in Australia?
Land prices.
We have the most overvalued housing market - due to restriction in release land for new building,.
We have the largest solar installation on Earth - because land is worthless.

You could put solar panel everywhere on Earth, and they will work , better or worse,.
But you still need to pay for the land beneath,.
Here is Australia land for installations is for free,
I doubt that greatest solar farms pay the same for land as home owners per m2.

Mr Forest could build and sell H2 because cost of the land is essentially cancelled or not taken into account.
Singapore Solar Sun business - the same.

www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/11/15/is-this-the-worlds-most-ambitious-renewable-energy-project/

You could read this article 3x over, reconcile all investment cost , and find nothing about value of the land.Nope,
Jobs, cable, panel not a word how much land cost...


Things may change in the future. Be warn. Air and water to polluter were also free, times ago.

Northern Territory: "Hey look, it's cloudy."
Singapore: :"What happened to the power?"

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..

Macroscien said..
What is the most contradictory in Australia?
Land prices.
We have the most overvalued housing market - due to restriction in release land for new building,.
We have the largest solar installation on Earth - because land is worthless.

You could put solar panel everywhere on Earth, and they will work , better or worse,.
But you still need to pay for the land beneath,.
Here is Australia land for installations is for free,
I doubt that greatest solar farms pay the same for land as home owners per m2.

Mr Forest could build and sell H2 because cost of the land is essentially cancelled or not taken into account.
Singapore Solar Sun business - the same.

www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/11/15/is-this-the-worlds-most-ambitious-renewable-energy-project/

You could read this article 3x over, reconcile all investment cost , and find nothing about value of the land.Nope,
Jobs, cable, panel not a word how much land cost...


Things may change in the future. Be warn. Air and water to polluter were also free, times ago.

Northern Territory: "Hey look, it's cloudy."
Singapore: :"What happened to the power?"

lets switch relay to Gobi,
ok better now
Did you check how much there are going to pay for 4000 km link?? by any chance?? the same about as we for mere 250 km Snowy...(and that including pocket money to Indonesian leader to pass trough)

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Our power needs are constantly increasing.

Needs or wants? We had a great time back in the 60s when per capita consumption was half what it is now. And it's going up.

Just across Sth street they've knocked down the medium sized IGA and are putting up a super sized coles/woolies or something with 3 times the parking spaces. That's just going to get more cars on the roads. Across the road a new house is being built - first thing in is a swimming pool. The man hours and heavy machinery involved in building a pool. Amazing! You can ride a bike to the beach in 10 minutes. And 10% of domestic power goes into pool pumps. A new servo being built down the road as well. RAM Australia is bringing in a bigger and better double cab, 6.7 litre turbo V8 .

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..
Oh there are plenty of applications for more solar. Big companies declaring net zero, have paid them huge bucks to greenwash thier grid draw by dumping power into the daytime space nobody wants and the State Govs ensure they all get guaranteed returns. We all pay for it through taxes or higher goods and services prices, but we are paying for it, it is far from free. Daytime solar is close to saturation. The duck curve is a massive problem from a network perspective and adding more energy into it is just wasted. At some point common sense has to come into play and we need to recognise that without effective and affordable storage renewables are only a part of a power solution.

In the last month all the big northern hemisphere economies have started to talk up nuclear again. UK, France, Japan, China, India, Poland, Germany (just by the fact they draw so much from France)... The energy crisis has at least driven some common sense in to them. Australia is the only major economy that somehow thinks it can transition to net zero without nuclear. Until we think otherwise coal isn't going anywhere simply because we can't generate enough electricity without it. I hear you on activity shift, but it only goes so far, it will never be a large enough percentage to make much of a difference. Our power needs are constantly increasing.

It's definitely fascinating to watch and who knows just where all the pieces will land?

I just joined Amber, so I'm paying pool price for my power. Can't wait for the next negative price period when I'll run around the house to turn on the heater, air conditioner, oven, and pool pump, and get paid for doing so!

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Paradox said..

Our power needs are constantly increasing.

Needs or wants? We had a great time back in the 60s when per capita consumption was half what it is now. And it's going up.

Just across Sth street they've knocked down the medium sized IGA and are putting up a super sized coles/woolies or something with 3 times the parking spaces. That's just going to get more cars on the roads. Across the road a new house is being built - first thing in is a swimming pool. The man hours and heavy machinery involved in building a pool. Amazing! You can ride a bike to the beach in 10 minutes. And 10% of domestic power goes into pool pumps. A new servo being built down the road as well. RAM Australia is bringing in a bigger and better double cab, 6.7 litre turbo V8 .

At least some places where they have pools they also have solar panels to offset the energy used by the pump. In the last house I rented there was a pool and with the solar panels it worked out pretty well and I don't think the power bills were particularly high. Better to use the energy locally than pump it into a grid with a tonne of solar energy already.

Maybe there should be some effort by the government into forcing pool owners to have pumps that only run during peak generation times and/or when there is excess capacity. They talk about doing this with aircons, but pool pumps would make more sense.

Also, I sort of find this amusing, but they stopped electric hot water heaters years ago because they were inefficient, but clearly now they could be a good use of excess energy in the system. It would take some effort to make them only switch on when there are times of excess energy, and also a tariff that makes it worthwhile to the consumer.

Maybe we can all turn our excess electricity into hydrogen and blow ourselves up?

You mention the beach instead of a pool. I think a lot of the people that live directly on the water also install a pool. For a lot of them the beach is for views not swimming at.

There is a place in Perth, maybe a couple of places, that sell retired solar cell panels as the current rebate system encourages people to junk existing systems and get new ones. Seems kind of wrong to me, but that's what is happening. Good for people wanting cheap solar panels for off-grid or camping, but a big waste in the overall scheme of things.

Cheating on price of renewables is going to hunt us, taxpayers in the future.
Scenario1.
Mr Forest will sign a contract to deliver H2 to UK and Japan over next 20 years.
Based on current costs.
Build a plant and port.
Wait,
Did not build,. Just planned to build....
Then somebody realized that land the size Mr Forest was given , the size of small county , is not completely free.
Apply some taxes. New calculation of the business venture fails.
Businessman claim damages, say 50 bln from WA state.
Rings a bell anybody??
Courts sits for a week case closed,
Our businessman walk out 50 bln richer., Taxpayer have nothing in return for their 50 bln.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

You mention the beach instead of a pool. I think a lot of the people that live directly on the water also install a pool. For a lot of them the beach is for views not swimming at.

For a lot of them the beach isn't even for views. Well at least not for spending any time looking at. Quite a few ghost house investments on the Sydney side of the Illawarra. They've carefully done the sums. It doesn't pay to put in tenants. But occupied or not, you try planting a coast T tree, coast Bankisia or coast Wattle. I know I was a council worker for a bit, we tried.

We're a crazy lot. We know what we're doing to the planet but can't help ourselves.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
"India has maintained that the current climate crisis has been precipitated by unsustainable lifestyles and wasteful consumption patterns mainly in the developed countries. The world needs to awaken to this reality," Mr Yadav wrote in a blog.

Not to mention the thousands upon thousands of backyard coal fired brick kilns and gazzillion two stroke motors. The thing about India, you see the pollution, you smell the pollution, but what really hits you is that it's so thick in the air that you also TASTE the pollution.

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..

Not to mention the thousands upon thousands of backyard coal fired brick kilns and gazzillion two stroke motors. The thing about India, you see the pollution, you smell the pollution, but what really hits you is that it's so thick in the air that you also TASTE the pollution.

yes but the smelly VOC component of two stroke emissions have half lives in the atmosphere of only a few days. So it's India's problem. CO2 has a half life of over 100 years. The stuff that came out our exhaust pipe as road-tripping 20 yo s is still up there.


public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/changing-volatile-organic-compound-emissions-urban-environments-many-paths

Per Capita Indians have been small contributors to the global CO2 levels. Are you better from the environment taking a 50cc step thru to the shops for a litre of milk or a V8 Landcruiser?

Everyone that has had a whinge, take a leaf out of Boyan's book!
Don't hijack it, just do something!

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

yes but the smelly VOC component of two stroke emissions have half lives in the atmosphere of only a few days. So it's India's problem. CO2 has a half life of over 100 years. The stuff that came out our exhaust pipe as road-tripping 20 yo s is still up there.


public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/changing-volatile-organic-compound-emissions-urban-environments-many-paths

Per Capita Indians have been small contributors to the global CO2 levels. Are you better from the environment taking a 50cc step thru to the shops for a litre of milk or a V8 Landcruiser?

I know the prevailing view is that increasing Co2 is a problem. I have done a lot of research on the topic and I will have to admit, I am not finding much hard evidence to say that the negatives outwiegh the benefits. It's actually really hard to find any sort of clear and present danger.Not trying to start arguments just stating the status of what I have found. Most of the alarm is based on very shaky foundations.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Ian K said..

yes but the smelly VOC component of two stroke emissions have half lives in the atmosphere of only a few days. So it's India's problem. CO2 has a half life of over 100 years. The stuff that came out our exhaust pipe as road-tripping 20 yo s is still up there.


public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/changing-volatile-organic-compound-emissions-urban-environments-many-paths

Per Capita Indians have been small contributors to the global CO2 levels. Are you better from the environment taking a 50cc step thru to the shops for a litre of milk or a V8 Landcruiser?

I know the prevailing view is that increasing Co2 is a problem. I have done a lot of research on the topic and I will have to admit, I am not finding much hard evidence to say that the negatives outwiegh the benefits. It's actually really hard to find any sort of clear and present danger.Not trying to start arguments just stating the status of what I have found. Most of the alarm is based on very shaky foundations.

I agree. CO2 might not be a problem. It's just interesting how we are proceeding given that the overwhelming consensus is that it will become a problem. It's amusing that the last time co2 was this high was during what was called the "pliocene climatic optimum". It was a couple of degrees warmer than today, things were thriving and trees were growing on the tundra. It was probably named prior to climate change becoming such a big thing.

glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Pliocene_climatic_optimum

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Paradox said..

Ian K said..

yes but the smelly VOC component of two stroke emissions have half lives in the atmosphere of only a few days. So it's India's problem. CO2 has a half life of over 100 years. The stuff that came out our exhaust pipe as road-tripping 20 yo s is still up there.


public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/changing-volatile-organic-compound-emissions-urban-environments-many-paths

Per Capita Indians have been small contributors to the global CO2 levels. Are you better from the environment taking a 50cc step thru to the shops for a litre of milk or a V8 Landcruiser?

I know the prevailing view is that increasing Co2 is a problem. I have done a lot of research on the topic and I will have to admit, I am not finding much hard evidence to say that the negatives outwiegh the benefits. It's actually really hard to find any sort of clear and present danger.Not trying to start arguments just stating the status of what I have found. Most of the alarm is based on very shaky foundations.

I agree. CO2 might not be a problem. It's just interesting how we are proceeding given that the overwhelming consensus is that it will become a problem. It's amusing that the last time co2 was this high was during what was called the "pliocene climatic optimum". It was a couple of degrees warmer than today, things were thriving and trees were growing on the tundra. It was probably named prior to climate change becoming such a big thing.

glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Pliocene_climatic_optimum

Yep,
Temperature was warmer 5-10 c then today
and guess
who was at fault
back then!! ?

Isn't that a guy that just learned to start fire?
bushfires?
bonfire?
cooking meals?
churning ferns into diesel? falling trees to make coal today?
The same story again and again, The same culprit

Who can deny now that Climate Change was always humans made?

Modern nuclear power generation. Cases closed. Move on.

Select to expand quote

eppo said..
Modern nuclear power generation. Cases closed. Move on.

Yep,
by 2050 we should have our subs ready.
We could scavenge reactors ,use to generate electricity and set each one at major city . Sell the shell to Chinese for scrap metal.
One for Sydney,. Perth , Melbourne, Brisbane etc
problem solved, case closed.
targets met.

A modern nuclear reactor has no resemblance to the archaic reactors built in the 70s that are the source of fear for this energy source and has nothing to do with nuclear subs. They also can be fed with old stockpiles of nuclear waste from these old power plants. That along with maybe hydrogen is the only feasible solution, supplemented by solar, wind and other renewable energy sources.
its Not just coal versus renewable energy.

It still eventually wears out and has to be disposed of. The UK is spending £130B on dismantling its fleet of first generation reactors.
A back of the envelope calculation got me to a figure of about 15c/kwh that should have been charged for the electricity they produced on top of building and running costs to cover that end of life bill

Select to expand quote

eppo said..
A modern nuclear reactor has no resemblance to the archaic reactors built in the 70s that are the source of fear for this energy source and has nothing to do with nuclear subs. They also can be fed with old stockpiles of nuclear waste from these old power plants. That along with maybe hydrogen is the only feasible solution, supplemented by solar, wind and other renewable energy sources.
its Not just coal versus renewable energy.

Yep,
because modern molten salt nuclear reactors are breeders
they make material for bombs.
Yep.
That pretty much summarize, the rest of equitation doesn't really matter.
Yep,
We are going to have nuclear subs , and we need nukes for them.
Easy. End of story.
Subs without nukes are like Pitbull without teethes.
What do you do with them?
Who needs Pitbull without the teeth?

Thorium reactors don't have teeth's. You could not make bombs from them.

world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx

What is most funny of all that with nuclear reactors everywhere on your land, enemy don't need to send rocket with a nuke to kill you,
All they need in puncture shells of your own reactor. It is like using your own dog to bite you ! That is why we should build one reactor near every bigger city, just to make sure that contamination , wipe the city sterile and clean.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
It still eventually wears out and has to be disposed of. The UK is spending £130B on dismantling its fleet of first generation reactors.
A back of the envelope calculation got me to a figure of about 15c/kwh that should have been charged for the electricity they produced on top of building and running costs to cover that end of life bill

That is about old stock reactors.
With newer one, planned to build , nobody even knows ,
how to make them to last because every known material to human kind
actually do not work as walls. Molten salt +fast neutrons = dissolve everything !!
But there are news the Superman and Batman may offer now solution- NEUTRONIUM or something will fix the problem.
So we should not be worried at all.

Our new generation nuclear reactors design remind me WIND TURBINES with blades that actually dissolve on the rain.
Or solar panel that don't like rain either.

If they only could produce nukes, nobody will care.




Superman has solution for us, How to build nuclear reactors. Subscribe to ScFi channel to learn more about.

PS. Back of envelope calculation is like
selling now and promoting asbestos for new homes, and taxing 15% to treat cancer in dwellers in next 20-30 years.

But Bill Gates invested actually billions in new molten salt reactors. Why not to trust him ? Not me?


www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/03/bill-gates-warren-buffett-new-nuclear-reactor-wyoming-natrium





www.reuters.com/business/energy/bill-gates-4-bln-high-tech-nuclear-reactor-set-wyoming-coal-site-2021-11-17/

old generation of SBreezers still may remember Blue Screen of Death thanks to Bill,. Now it will have completely new meaning. Just look trough your window if the nuclear plant near by is still standing or start moving already.

re SumperMan Secrets are out:

I am not sure if or anyhow it may be related to our topic?


So that is how Viagra made! from superman extract!
the advice for everybody will be to catch SuperMan, split into pieces, freeze a lot, and use one by one
every night....

not so sure about this racist remarks why it must be made from black AA (?) if white superman isn't so good in bed? ,
and gender discriminations , why can not do Viagra from Female Supermen?

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

I agree. CO2 might not be a problem. It's just interesting how we are proceeding given that the overwhelming consensus is that it will become a problem. It's amusing that the last time co2 was this high was during what was called the "pliocene climatic optimum". It was a couple of degrees warmer than today, things were thriving and trees were growing on the tundra. It was probably named prior to climate change becoming such a big thing.

glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Pliocene_climatic_optimum

Actually I don't see any concensus of it being a problem at all, not by the scientists anyway, maybe a different story by those with agendas. Very few will go so far as to say anything much apart from the fact it does increase radiative forcing a little. What that means in the climate system seems to be in the highly unknown basket.

The concepts of exactly what a global mean temperature represents and what an optimum might be is also an interested topic raised by many scientists. Again, given the fact that despite a generally agreed measured increase over the last 40 years of about 0.5deg, and possibly over 1deg in the century (spurious), global climate seems stable within its natural cycles and even perhaps less problematic than it was.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
It still eventually wears out and has to be disposed of. The UK is spending £130B on dismantling its fleet of first generation reactors.
A back of the envelope calculation got me to a figure of about 15c/kwh that should have been charged for the electricity they produced on top of building and running costs to cover that end of life bill

True enough, but that was 50 year old infrastructure. Hindsight is a wonderfull thing, but most importantly all the current fleet are required to maintain funds to cover decommissioning. I might note that solar and wind generally do not have that requirement.