-
@nzzp said in Climate Change:
@NTA 5 hours storage is still a heck of a lot right
Agreed. 120GWh is not a small amount of energy to store, but that is the figure they're using as the absolute peak storage required at the absolute peak power demand on the NEM ~24GW = 24,000MW. That usually happens in high summer when the heat waves are on. Typically low wind conditions and solar efficiency goes down above 25C.
To put that in perspective, current network battery output is maximum 260MW with storage of a bit over an hour, but another 18GW is planned - no figure on energy for that power output I might add. https://aemo.com.au/en/learn/energy-explained/energy-101/energy-explained-big-batteries
Now, to need that storage running full whack at 5 hours you would have to need it to be night time without much wind at all over this entire area:
None of the above takes any future hydro into account, or future changes in the NEM like adding the storage capacity of hundreds and thousands of EVs with appropriate integration.
Energy efficiency would be a lot cheaper in the long term as well. If our housing standards were increased, we'd use less. And the cheapest kWh is the one you never buy.
Lot to do on the demand side, even for heavy industry.
-
While we wait for the first ball
-
@MiketheSnow My lord! I just about stood up and clapped him at 12:15. Spot on Piersy!
-
The main topic was climate change so put it here.
-
@NTA said in Climate Change:
Scary shit. But then I'm wary of any body of water you can't step across.
That looked more like undercutting than river rise
Poor defences?
Built too close to the edge?
The Taff in Wales rises regularly half way down at Pontypridd and the walls banking the river stay intact
The water rises above the walls and floods the ground floor of the houses beside the river
Home contents damaged but not homeless
-
@TeWaio said in Climate Change:
Don't get sucked in by the propaganda, we have fewer fires than ever (the person tweeting linking it it climate, not you @NTA )
Pretty good season for fires here as well in terms of a lack of them.
The issue I've got is not the number of fires or the area covered - our last fire season saw areas burn that hadn't burned before in living memory e.g. certain areas of rainforest that should not ordinarily burn.
The data is interesting but also: deforestation directly and via previous fires mean you're always likely to trend downard. Recovery cycles vary, but the area that burned 3 years ago isn't likely to burn again in a hurry.
-
@reprobate said in Climate Change:
you need a bigger graph to show anything significant really. doesn't over 2% seem like quite a bit?
-
I decided to stay away from this topic. But when farm land is turned into carbon sinks and cows are blamed for warming the planet (is this missing ) and the other madness that's being done due to climate change.
So anyway, here's 2 links to an interesting discussion on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
These idiots promoting climate change don't know. Including Transportation Secretary Buttigieg. Unbelievable. He instead rambled on like an idiot. And threw in but what about my children.
At least they had a guess on the Facebook video. 2 were 5%. One was 7%. One 8%
Will the West survive?
Anyway, back to work. (Maybe they are fake video. I hope so but fear they aren't)
-
@Winger Who was the knob asking the questions?
Yes it was a bit embarrassing that the panel didn't know the answer to what is the % of CO2 in the atmosphere but the guy was just a point scoring piston wristed gibbon.
"It's called Autumn". FFS.
The important thing isn't that 0.4% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide. It's that pre the industrial revolution it was less than half that. So Mr 'smartarse in the video' it has doubled. More importantly the consensus amongst an overwhelming majority of climate scientists is that this is a bad thing.
A small amount of something can be bad. 1/4 of a teaspoon of arsenic for example is fatal. Whereas you could drink gallons of water without any effect other than having to pee a lot. So, a small increase in CO2 could be like a small increase in the amount of arsenic you ingest. A tiny bit is OK. A tiny bit times two. Not so much.
Posturing and pointscoring might play well to his audience on social media but the guy comes across like a bona fide dick to me and actually did nothing constructive to debunk the notion of climate change through global warming.
-
@dogmeat said in Climate Change:
The important thing isn't that 0.4% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide. It's that pre the industrial revolution it was less than half that. So Mr 'smartarse in the video' it has doubled. More importantly the consensus amongst an overwhelming majority of climate scientists is that this is a bad thing.
Maybe the past is being changed to suit an agenda.
It was
320 PPM at the lowest point.
5000 PPM at the highest (before life on Earth existed when I guess the earth was like a mini sun due to CO2
1000-2000 PPM at the time of the dinosaurs
250 ppm where life on earth is not possible
Greenhouses increase CO2 level up to 1000 ppm. To improve plant growthUnsure what these climate scientists? are claiming now.
https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html
Climate Change