The latest fortnightly rolling average of federal voting intention for Essential Research returns Labor’s two-party lead to 53-47, after walking a point at a time from 53-47 four weeks ago to 51-49 a fortnight ago and now back again. Both major parties are now at 37% on the primary vote, with the Coalition down one and Labor up one, while One Nation comes off a point from last week’s high to 7%, with the Greens and Nick Xenophon Team steady at 9% and 3%. The poll also features its monthly leadership ratings, which have Malcolm Turnbull down two on approval to 34% and up two on disapproval to 46%, while Bill Shorten is respectively up one to 35% and, oddly, down five to 38%. Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister is now at 39-28, down from 40-28, leaving for a remarkably high “don’t know” remainder. The most interesting of the survey’s remaining findings is the overwhelming support recorded for an increase in the minimum wage, with 80% approving and 11% disapproving. Another question canvases whether respondents would be “likely” to vote for a new conservative party formed around the likes of Tony Abbott, for which 23% answered in the affirmative, although polling exercises of this kind have shown themselves to be of very little value in the past.
player one @ #1393 #1393 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:06 pm
IF and I mean IF CCS is their only pathway to reduction of CO2, then IPCC is still talking out of their arses.
IF and I mean IF IPCC say that renewables are not going to help reduce CO2 the IPCC are continuing to talk out of their arses.
CCS, carbon capture and storage, is an unproven technology which is hugely expensive in energy. It costs vast amounts of energy to capture and store CO2 forever, if it can ever be made to work. And if the CO2 is stored safely forever.
– and the energy used to capture the CO2 will increase CO2 production in any case, since (according to you) they say that renewables are a waste of time.
P1:
That’s not what I asked for. What I asked for is a linkage to the original IPCC source and what I’d also like to see is your own analysis. What you’ve actually linked to is a 3rd party discussion of “representative concentration paths”. No doubt informed by IPCC documents, but I don’t see in that document any discussion of how nuclear power is in any way “necessary”. What I do see are mixes of energy sources chosen for the purpose of creating sources of carbon emissions for the purpose of modelling. What it does not do is discuss why nuclear should be any part of the energy mix in future. Again, this word “necessary”. Your word, not mine.
The way I see it is simply this. Renewable technology is now mature. It outclasses nuclear on cost and that score alone I don’t see it becoming a part of the solution. You’re also making a fool of yourself if you still believe in “carbon capture and storage”. Sure, there are lots of documents out that there (again for the purposes of modelling) include some CCS. But that just illustrates how quickly these sorts of documents go out of date.
We are now on a trajectory towards PV+wind+storage making up the bulk of our electrical energy supply. And please don’t red-herring this with talk about other sources of carbon emissions. Yes, I’m aware of that, but what is really sad is an otherwise well informed person (you) is arguing from what is essentially an obsolete set of facts.
Technology has moved on. Various posters have tried to point this out to you. You really do need to go and have a good hard look at your assumptions – including the implicit ones.
If you do, you’ll find there is no future for nuclear, that CCS is a sick joke and that much of this debate is now beside the point. We need to move beyond the senseless bickering over solar (the issue is resolved) and move on to the actually interesting bits. Stuff like carbon neutral jet fuel and the like.
don @ #1390 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:00 pm
You are right. I was using figures for the “city of perth”, not “greater perth”. 20% of solar panels on 600,000 odd households at 5kwh per house is indeed about one coal fired power station. Apologies.
Still doesn’t mean much, though Even if every house in WA had rooftop solar, and they were all perfectly functional all day (and could also work at night) it would still not equal 1/10 the total output of the fossil fuel generators in that state.
Precisely.
Besides P1 didn’t cite a link to an IPCC source. Merely a 3rd party discussion that presumably is based upon an IPCC source. I suspect though that if you did drill down far enough, you’d find obsolete data or speculation about CCS.
Yes of course. Utility scale renewables are a myth.
United states of denial: forces behind Trump have run Australia’s climate policy for years – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/dec/16/united-states-of-denial-forces-behind-trump-have-run-australias-climate-policy-for-years
Another quote from the article: “{Trump} recently said he had an “open mind” on {Climate Change} – a position that’s about as intellectually redundant as having an open mind on heliocentrism. Sometimes minds are so open that the brain is in danger of falling out.” Exactly.
JimmyDoyle
This is a strawman. I never said renewables cannot play some role – all the scenarios modelled show they play some role. But in most scenarios it is minor. They certainly cannot provide “most or all” of our future energy supplies.
And isn’t the following pretty much what I’ve been saying all day … ?
In other words, renewable energy alone cannot fix the problem. Nuclear energy and CCS play a bigger role in many of the IPCC scenarios.
A person who commits such a basic failure of logic has no business attempting to explain climate science.
cud chewer @ #1404 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:24 pm
No – as JimmyDoyle has just posted (and I requoted above) CCS is still required even in those scenarios that give renewables a significant a role to play.
To achieve the outcome of limiting global warming to 2 degrees (forget about 1.5!) requires both CCS and nuclear.
P1
Look at the chart on page 19; what percentage of the energy mix has been modeled as renewables. The basic assumption seems to be it doesn’t happen; the assumption is, along comes CCS; slow walking CCS; slow talking CCS and away we go; making stuff up.
An alternate view; supportable with developments that have occurred since; the cost of renewable falls; they do end up being a high portion of the mix.
The report failed to predict the future as most of these things do.
In 2013 (when the report was written) CCS was flavor of the month ( within the political class; engineers with an interest were thinking do the basic maths you morons); and the rapid reduction in solar was only getting started.
There will be a 6th report; it will be a different report.
cud chewer @ #1405 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:26 pm
Utility scale renewables are more expensive than household grid-connected renewables. Because they must include storage.
P1
The report you pasted does not say CCS is needed; it is assumed it exists.
This is a very good piece re lazy journos who compare Hanson’s limited electoral success with the Trump and Brexit outcomes:
https://henrysherrell.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/post-2016-trump-brexit-and-hanson-do-not-belong-together/
Newspoll tonight?
Not even a “Fake News” Poll to send Super Mal into the Christmas break looking somewhat less than a complete loser?
Player One
Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:21 pm
Still doesn’t mean much, though Even if every house in WA had rooftop solar, and they were all perfectly functional all day (and could also work at night) it would still not equal 1/10 the total output of the fossil fuel generators in that state.
Doesn’t mean much? Well…it does mean that large scale substitution of carbon dense electricity with distributed RE is possible in a networked urban economy, offering reductions in GHG emissions as well as lower household energy costs and, therefore, improved real household incomes.
PO, you are talking through your hat…as usual.
Player One
Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:46 pm
…
Utility scale renewables are more expensive than household grid-connected renewables. Because they must include storage.
Just as a coal fired station do. The difference is when; a coal fired station generates at night; can’t turn the dam things off.
Pump storage and hot water warmed at night at a cheap rate was the answer in Victoria.
Be under no illusion P1; commercial solar systems are being installed; you distaste for the solution is irrelevant. I suppose we will be heating our water during the day; oh that is tough.
frednk @ #1410 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:45 pm
Yes, I accept that. But CCS and nuclear both still figure large in the most recent reports, because without them we simply cannot meet the targets we have set ourselves, even assuming increased uptake of renewables.
There is no one solution to this problem – the mix of energy sources may continue to change, but the likelihood of stabilizing at 2 degrees will continue to go down, because we are still not meeting the targets for C02 emission that were set at Paris – and even if we could meet those, we would overshoot 2 degrees warming.
jimmydoyle @ #1396 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:09 pm
So as I have long thought, P1 is simply a troll and people waste a lot of time on him/her/it/.
P1
Your basic argument seems to be; it will cost too much.
frednk @ #1416 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:53 pm
I do not find the solution distasteful – I have adopted it myself, and promote it actively. If I could find a way to convince more people to leave the grid I would do so.
I just understand that this is not the whole answer. Especially for countries like China and India.
bemused @ #1418 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:55 pm
Just like his broken record approach in the Great Census Wars. He has an agenda – it’s just that it’s got nothing to do with finding out the truth.
Leaving the grid is irrational. Networked capacities are far more valuable than those that are not linked. This is as true for electricity as it is for telecommunications and transport. Networks add efficiency and create exchange opportunity. Hopefully, few will mimic PO.
ajm @ #1421 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:01 pm
Yep! You got it in one.
frednk @ #1419 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:57 pm
No, in fact it is the opposite. My argument is that solar PV costs too little … if we just use it to perpetuate the grid – the grid that was designed specifically for, and subsidizes the use of, cheap fossil fuels. Get off the grid by all means – but of you stay on it, you should pay a “true” cost – something of the order of $1 per kwH.
You could say that this should only be the case until the grid is fossil fuel free. I would argue against that for other reasons, but I could accept that as a compromise, since it will not happen in the next 100 years – even under the most optimistic IPCC scenarios.
We need more and better networks with more layers, not fewer and weaker networks. LU could elaborate, I’m sure.
P1, so fucking what..
Its still cheaper than CCS. Its still cheaper than nuclear.
briefly @ #1422 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:02 pm
The grid perpetuates the use of fossil fuels. That’s what it was designed to do.
Player One
Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:06 pm
This is thoroughly irrelevant.
P1
A real solution needs a stronger grid; what changes is the predictability of the source of the energy. Today in Victoria; all Transmission leads to the Latrobe Valley; no longer the future. There is however no technical reason why the eastern grid can’t run on renewables. It’s big and there are good locations for wind and solar.
Saw an article the other day suggesting a DC link to Indonesia.
http://www.nt.gov.au/lant/parliamentary-business/committees/future%20energy/Submissions%202013/Submission_No_14_Attachment_A_Enviornment_Centre_NT_20_October_2014.pdf
It is quite an exciting time in my view.
Player One
Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:07 pm
…
The grid perpetuates the use of fossil fuels. That’s what it was designed to do.
In a word; bullshit; the grid is designed to transfer energy.
cud chewer @ #1426 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:07 pm
Because the IPCC modelling says we need them to meet our targets, even if we use renewables on a massive scale. Go argue with them, not me. All I am doing is pointing it out.
Player One
Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:07 pm
The grid perpetuates the use of fossil fuels. That’s what it was designed to do.
This obviously a mistaken conclusion. The grid allows electricity to be traded regardless of how it is generated. This is an argument that is not worth having.
What a bizarre argument P1. If the aliens stole all our fossil fuels tomorrow. We’d still have a power network and we’d still use it (differently).
Then the modelling is out of date and wrong.
frednk @ #1430 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:10 pm
… generated largely by fossil fuels (or nuclear, for that matter). One of the main purposes of the grid is to keep the location of generation (which is dirty and dangerous) safely away from the location of consumption. This is part of the “privatize the profits and socialize the losses” game the fossil fuel companies play. By the time you realize the true cost, it’s way too late.
Renewables don’t need a grid. If you are in favor of renewables, you should be opposed to the grid.
cud chewer @ #1434 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:15 pm
Yes, this is always the answer when you don’t like the outcome, isn’t it? “All the research is old and/or wrong”.
Ajm
“You can’t handle the truth!” : )
P1, and you’ve thus far avoided considering the possibility that the modelling (of emissions sources) is out of date, and wrong. Instead you’re content to argue from authority. The IPCC documents, like any document are as good as the data that goes into them. And given the scope of the process and the timescale its not surprising their assumptions about nuclear and CCS are out of date and its not surprising their data about the cost of renewables is out of date and wrong.
What is surprising is how an otherwise intelligent person cannot see that this sort of thing can and does happen. Its not a slur on the IPCC authors. They did the best they can given what data was available. After all, the IBM guy that thought that all the planet needed was 6 computers was right, at the time.
That’s the problem with your argument: this isn’t true. If your argument is that no amount of renewable energy adoption will keep us below 400ppm and below 2 degrees warming, you’re probably right – not unless we suddenly perfect CCS and small thorium reactors and actually remove that carbon from the atmosphere.
But that is not the only element of your argument. You are trying to claim that solar and renewable energy cannot replace coal and oil to become the primary energy source for the planet, and claiming that the IPCC supports you in this. This is manifestly untrue.
Nope, nope, nope, nope:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/Chapter%2010%20Mitigation%20Potential%20and%20Costs.pdf
(page 794)
[Renewables don’t need a grid. If you are in favor of renewables, you should be opposed to the grid.]
A grid is preferable and less expensive than huge redundancies in renewable energy generation and storage to cope with localised periods of low energy generation or supplement with distant sources such as hydro.
cud chewer @ #1438 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:25 pm
I’m happy for you to provide more up to date documents. I don’t always get things right, and will admit if I am wrong. I had to do that once today already : )
Of course. If you provide better documents, we can discuss those instead.
fulvio sammut @ #1414 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:47 pm
Newspoll hasn’t polled this late in the year since 2004 so I’d be pretty surprised if a fresh one (as opposed to the quarterly aggregate which people then mistake for a fresh one) appeared.
jimmydoyle @ #1439 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:29 pm
Actually, that pretty much is what I’ve been saying all day.
This is not quite what I’ve been saying. However, I agree it is not so clearcut as I have been saying. Try this (page 806):
P1 is arguing that because we don’t heave enough RE we should aspire to have less rather than more and, furthermore, that we should find ways to segregate RE from the grid – to make investment in RE less attractive than it would otherwise be.
This is a distinctly disingenuous line of argument.
Of course it is possible that research into photosynthesis will change everything with electricity generation. Photosynthesis is the point of intersection between botany and physics. When we learn how to manipulate plant cells so they generate an electrical charge using light, we will be able to engineer as much electricity as we want at almost no cost. The day is probably not far off.
PlayerOne – here’s the clincher:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/SRREN_Full_Report.pdf
(Page 805)
The ideal, and in my view most likely, scenario is for renewable energy to replace coal and oil as the planet’s primary energy source, and for CCS and geoengineering to reduce carbon in the atmosphere.
https://twitter.com/primroseriordan/status/810456697898561538
Primrose Riordan @primroseriordan
#BREAKING: WA Senator Rod Culleton has resigned from One Nation #auspol
11:08 PM – 18 Dec 2016
jimmydoyle @ #1446 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 11:08 pm
Actually, it isn’t. I’ve just realized that this document lumps “bioenergy” as part of “renewables”, which I was very careful not to do – I always kept them separate (as the other IPCC documents do) because the original discussion here was specifically about solar, and how the reducing cost of solar was going to save the planet – something that I strongly disagree with.
If you look at page 808, you will see that by 2050, what this document calls “renewables” consists of a mix of 50 to 100 EJ of “bioenergy”, with solar down around 10 to 25 EJ – about the same level as wind energy.
While it is true that solar saves more CO2 than bioenergy, it is still just a small part of the mix of “renewables”, so it is still just a small part of the mix of all energy sources in all the IPCC scenarios – so I believe my original arguments still stand.
open the tweet to see the statement
https://twitter.com/primroseriordan/status/810460447782514688
Primrose Riordan @primroseriordan
Culleton resigns, says Pauline Hanson has backtracked on support for a banking royal commission & accuses her of public attacks
11:23 PM – 18 Dec 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/18/even-though-myefo-figures-might-cost-us-our-aaa-rating-the-coalition-faces-greater-dangers
In the past 12 months, only 87,000 new jobs were added. But while that growth is the worst for two years, the real carnage is on the full-time job front. There are now 51,000 fewer people employed full-time than there was a year ago and November marked the first time since February 2014 that full-time employment for both men and women was lower than it had been a year earlier.
Most of the damage has been inflicted on young people. Full-time employment for 15 to 19-year-olds dropped by 15% in the past year and by 6% for 20 to 24-year-olds. There are now fewer of each age group working full-time than ever before.
Only 39% of people aged 20-24 now work full-time – down from 44% when the LNP won the 2013 election and well down on the 54% employed full-time before the global financial crisis.
Absolutely useless LNP ….