Worth a look.

I just happened to be watching TV when this episode of The National Press Club Address was aired. The keynote speaker was Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forest.
https://iview.abc.net.au/video/NC2412C003S00

Mr. Forest made some very compelling arguments for the development and uptake of renewable energy sources. His arguments were based not just on the effects on climate change, but also on the economic benefits.

Equally, he made some very compelling arguments against the continued use of fossil fuels and the switch to SNR’s (at least in my mind).

It was interesting that he did not seem to refer to any notes while giving his address.

Another, shorter version of his address can be seen in this question and answer program here:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-26/andrew-forrest-slams-fossil-fuel-industry-nuclear-distraction/103512770

Going Renewable power for EVs has the same problems today as those that existed when the first electric care hit the road:

For Australia

Not enough range per charge.

Not enough recharging stations.

Batteries are ridiculously expensive.

Endless cues at recharging points and hopelessly slow recharge time.

Not enough power to power our semitrailer interstate fleet. business would loose profits while the trucks are recharging, resulting in a massive cost of living increase:

Battery life is short due to subjecting them to excessive fast recharges:

Lithium ion batteries are, no matter how you try to hide the fact, prone to self igniting:

Even a fairly gentle rear ender prang can damage the cells and set them on a path to self ignition that may not manifest itself for days after the prang.

Many of the range figures stating how far the battery may push a particular EV do not take into account how much the distance is shortened when running at night with the lights on, air con on.
As for towing a van , well good luck keeping any cash in yer pocket.

Australia is not like Europe, China, Japan etc where people do not drive far, the EVs are ok in those places where the batteries rarely run flat.
Evs are fine for inner city travel.

Australians travel long distances in rain, hail and snow in temperatures ranging from  -10 deg C to 45 deg C and occasionally higher than that in the Out Back and having to add days to a trip just because the bloody battery goes flat every few hundred K is going to be a downer for the traveler and the tourism industry.

Just imagine having to fork out several thousand dollar for a new battery half way between Katherine and Darwin or Lightning Ridge and  Bourke.

Ok OK so if you were driving petrol power and yer battery caved in on yer you would still have the hassle of getting another battery but it will only set you back a couple of hundred dollars, not several thousand.

I am sure I could list a thousand reasons why  battery powered EV's are nothing but money burners.

Not to mention the exorbitant cost of insurance on EV's Adrian & few are the mechanics qualified & or prepared to work on them.
The way it currently stands now with EV's, they're neither worth their working weight, nor the exorbitant cost of maintenance to the consumer.
I have no doubt, that the more money & resources they invest towards the evolution of EV's, will only get better over time.


Kon

Hi Kon61

I see where you mentioned the high maintenance cost of EV"s.
For sure the service centres will find some way of upping the service charges. Either that or go broke when petrol is fazed out
But the simple fact is that these EV motors have maybe 6 moving parts that last for ever, no oil no gearbox no radiator no spark plugs no computer controlled fuel system, no bloody nothing and the service takes about 10 minutes...well almost

Remember those times when you have put your car in for a service and the mech rings you up and says your battery needs replacing and will cost around 200 bucks....Well now when they phone you and tell you that your EV batt is buggered it will cost you 5 or 6 grand.

A fav lurk of one service centre I know was for them to tell you that they found a nail in on of you tires and had to replace the tire. That happened to me three times before I cottoned on to the scam.
Have not had a nail in a tire since I spoke to them about it. ( yeah nothing to do with EV"s, just thought I"d mention it fer fun.

Adrian, Koni

The address by Andrew Forest had so much more to say about renewable energy than just its applicability to EV’s.

No doubt at this stage of EV development, much of what you say probably has some relevance. You could also add to that list the potential recycle/disposal problems with the mountains of EV batteries that will likely accumulate.

However, the fact is that the major economies of the world eg China, USA, India, the European Union and others are trending towards electric vehicles (EVs) as part of their efforts to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change

Car manufacturers such as Volvo, GM, Ford, have stated their intentions to phase out and stop completely the production of fossil fueled vehicles as these companies aim to reduce emissions and meet sustainability goals.

So, like it or not, Australia will be part of the EV revolution.

And so they should pebbles, for China, USA, India, Europe, even Russia, are the major culprits to the burning of fossil fuels & high level CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, one could say 100 fold times that of Australia.
I for one am not against change, for change must come or we stop evolving. Its just that with every change by governments in conjunction with multi billion dollar corporations, somehow end up at the costly demise & expense, of the average everyday tax paying consumer.
Pebbles, billionaires are here to make more billions & not for the benefit of the average every day working taxpayer?  Even their philanthropic charitable contributions are claimed through taxes.
But you are right in saying Australia will eventually be part of the EV revolution, for how can we not, when the climate itself necessitates the need for change?

Kon

EV, Solar Power, Wind electricity Generator manufacturers are interested in one thing only and that is to make money and to gain control over the world economy.
    They are not even remotely interested in climate change, they are only interested in  using the current climate change panic as a means to sell more  and more non fossil fuel commodities.
The world can change to total renewable energy generators but this will not reduce the world total atmospheric climate change pollution content by even one microscopic iota.
    It will reduce local pollution levels from ground level up to around 7 miles alt which should result in cleaner air in the worlds large currently polluted ground level regions.
Renewable Energy production is already driving food prices and the price near on all other commodities through the roof and this renewable energy production has only just started.
     If we continue down the renewable energy road we are on right now, imagine what the future will bring......We will likely be taxed for the air we breathe, if we can afford to breathe

Renewables and climate change is the biggest con since the millennium bug. And that cost the world seven trillion dollars to fix something that wasn't broke.
We can allow Bowen to destroy our economy by attempting to lower our emissions by eighty percent of one percent or we can continue using fossil fuels until we can come up with something better. Bowen reckons he's smarter than the entire governments of 32 countries already using nuclear but give nuclear another ten years and we'll see most countries going nuclear. Not because it's cleaner but because it is reliable and cheaper once up and running. Cheaper because a current nuclear power plant can have a life of a hundred years plus while renewables have to be replaced four times in a hundred years. And cheaper as nuclear doesn't need twenty thousand km of new power grid.
As for EVs, running around in suburbia they are ideal if you can charge them overnight at home but give me an ICE car for longer runs. And let's face it, urban driving is where most driving is done.

"Renewables and climate change is the biggest con since the millennium bug" said one dinosaur to the other.

So you don't think the millennium bug was a con?
A friend who was a bit of a computer Guru showed me how it was a con.
And if you can come up with one example of the climate change predictions that came to pass I might agree.

granite2 wrote:So you don't think the millennium bug was a con?
And if you can come up with one example of the climate change predictions that came to pass I might agree.

Climate change and models predict that the upper atmosphere should cool and the lower atmosphere warm. That,s exactly what satellite data shows!

granite2 wrote:
--------cheaper once up and running.

 
The csiro finds that nuclear  generated electricity is up to 4 times more expensive that solar/wind.

I wonder what those people at the CSIRO are smoking these days.

The governments of 32 different nuclear countries must be stupid.

granite2 wrote:I wonder what those people at the CSIRO are smoking these days.

The governments of 32 different nuclear countries must be stupid.

Most don't have the abundant wind and solar resources that Australia does.
So tell us where the csiro got it wrong about nuclear generated electricity being the most expensive power source.

Most European countries have more wind and solar than us. And if you stopped listening to that idiot Bowen you might learn something.

planetcare wrote:

granite2 wrote:So you don't think the millennium bug was a con?
And if you can come up with one example of the climate change predictions that came to pass I might agree.

Climate change and models predict that the upper atmosphere should cool and the lower atmosphere warm. That,s exactly what satellite data shows!

Easy to predict something that's been happening forever

granite2 wrote:

planetcare wrote:

granite2 wrote:So you don't think the millennium bug was a con?
And if you can come up with one example of the climate change predictions that came to pass I might agree.

Climate change and models predict that the upper atmosphere should cool and the lower atmosphere warm. That,s exactly what satellite data shows!

Easy to predict something that's been happening forever

The world is warming faster than anytime than in the last 800,000 years!

granite2 wrote:Most European countries have more wind and solar than us. And if you stopped listening to that idiot Bowen you might learn something.

Which European countries? What is you source for this claim?

[quote="granite2"]So you don't think the millennium bug was a con?

My comment was more directed at your statement that that climate change was a con.  However, I will also address your response concerning the millennium bug (Y2K0) being a con.

The Y2K issue was a real concern at the time. While some people may have exaggerated the potential impact of Y2K for personal gain, the issue itself was a legitimate concern that required significant effort to address and mitigate its potential effects.

I did read somewhere that the global cost of preparing for potential Y2K consequences was put at 100 to 300 billion dollars (hardly 7 trillion)!

One example of a climate change prediction is the projection of rising global temperatures.  This prediction is supported by observations of rising temperatures of both land and sea over the past century.  It is happening now!

Sadly, it seems that more and more often, newspapers and TV are drawing attention to this fact.

If Australia's  greenhouse gas emissions were stopped then that would represent a 0.1 percent drop in global emissions which would represent zero change in Global temps, rain, ice, snow, wind etc, etc.
    If all global greenhouse gas emissions stopped it would literally take thousands of years for the cooling effects to lower temps  to the pre Industrial era.
Man is not going to survive for the next 5000 years so I suggest that we "Make hay while the sun shines". No matter what we do to change/lower global emissions the climate is going to continue to change.
    Temperatures and  sea levels are going to continue rising and just about everything else that we do not like is going to get a lot worse.  

adrian ss wrote:If Australia's  greenhouse gas emissions were stopped then that would represent a 0.1 percent drop in global emissions which would represent zero change in Global temps, rain, ice, snow, wind etc, etc.
    If all global greenhouse gas emissions stopped it would literally take thousands of years for the cooling effects to lower temps  to the pre Industrial era.
Man is not going to survive for the next 5000 years so I suggest that we "Make hay while the sun shines". No matter what we do to change/lower global emissions the climate is going to continue to change.
    Temperatures and  sea levels are going to continue rising and just about everything else that we do not like is going to get a lot worse.  

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bipolar-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20355955 ?

What are you gents worried about? If the past 3, 4 years of continuous, devastating earth quakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, fires & cyclones around the globe (due to climate change) aren't enough to get peoples attention, then I don't know what will.  
To think the changes in climate around the globe are not enough to contend with, we now have man made wars around the world, all of which  over time, can only lead to bankrupt economies, recession or even that of another great depression.
Because of mans ignorance/arrogance, placing profits above all else, will only lead to pestilence, hunger, disease & starvation. All of which are currently unfolding as we speak.
As for my thoughts on politicians views/acts, I'll leave you with the words of ex pm Scot Morison during the middle of the covid-19 crisis, "Australians have nothing to worry about, for  Australia has enough food to feed the Australian population 3 times over"?  Is this why we're now paying a whole lot more for food items, whilst serving a whole lot less on the table? Then again, maybe Scotty were referring to himself only & not the rest of Australia's population.    
I can't trust a politician as far as I can see them, not alone expect them to do right by the people & come good on their word. "All for one & none for all" is, their motto. Promise them everything & once voted in, give them nothing.    

Kon  

planetcare wrote:

granite2 wrote:So you don't think the millennium bug was a con?
And if you can come up with one example of the climate change predictions that came to pass I might agree.

Climate change and models predict that the upper atmosphere should cool and the lower atmosphere warm. That,s exactly what satellite data shows!

Is that before or after climate change?

planetcare wrote:

adrian ss wrote:If Australia's  greenhouse gas emissions were stopped then that would represent a 0.1 percent drop in global emissions which would represent zero change in Global temps, rain, ice, snow, wind etc, etc.
    If all global greenhouse gas emissions stopped it would literally take thousands of years for the cooling effects to lower temps  to the pre Industrial era.
Man is not going to survive for the next 5000 years so I suggest that we "Make hay while the sun shines". No matter what we do to change/lower global emissions the climate is going to continue to change.
    Temperatures and  sea levels are going to continue rising and just about everything else that we do not like is going to get a lot worse.  

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bipolar-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20355955 ?

Maybe that is why I point North & South when I am floating in the pool.....I have a North & south Pole.

adrian ss wrote:

planetcare wrote:

granite2 wrote:So you don't think the millennium bug was a con?
And if you can come up with one example of the climate change predictions that came to pass I might agree.

Climate change and models predict that the upper atmosphere should cool and the lower atmosphere warm. That,s exactly what satellite data shows!

Is that before or after climate change?

Its happening now!Its the perfect confirmation of the greenhouse effect.

A few observations: I don't believe in man made climate change and I don't believe we can do anything about the natural change of climate.
The world is not a static blob in space. Earth is constantly changing. During the last ice age the sea levels fell about 160 meters. This can be proven by looking at the depth of coralline limestone along the limestone coast, 160m deep and still some few meters above the local sea level. There are many other places around our coast that also show this, the Nullarbor Plain for one.

And our great Barrier Reef. The current reef is between 10 and 15000 years old with evidence of at least three reefs below it. During the ice age the reef was a high and dry ridge which Aboriginals walked, fished and and hunted. And for those who think the reef lacks resilience tell me this, how does the reef survive even on the hottest day up to 6 hours at a time up to a metre above water. I can answer my own question. It produces its own sun screen. After the rising tide washes it off you can see this sun screen as a dirty looking brown scum covering huge areas of ocean, best seen from the air.

And if the world is really in such dire danger of Boiling why isn't anyone doing anything about it? Apart from the huge money making schemes such as the renewable energy and RV cons no country in the world is actually attempting to do anything about it. China continues to build coal fired power stations as it also does for many African countries. Many other countries are doing the same but here we are "saving the world" by shutting our few coal plants down. And if nuclear is too expensive, takes to long to build and only produces very expensive power why are 32 countries building more?

I could go on but you can see the beginnings of my way of thinking. No one is asking the hard questions or if they are they aren't getting any answers. It also saddens me to see those who are stuck in the same old groove of denial when it comes to some lateral thinking.

One last observation: if nuclear won't work for Australia why not lift the ban and see what eventuates and also get Albanese and Bowen to debate it with Peter Dutton and that young 17 year old bloke.

granite2 wrote:A few observations: I don't believe in man made climate change and I don't believe we can do anything about the natural change of climate.
The world is not a static blob in space. Earth is constantly changing. During the last ice age the sea levels fell about 160 meters. This can be proven by looking at the depth of coralline limestone along the limestone coast, 160m deep and still some few meters above the local sea level. There are many other places around our coast that also show this, the Nullarbor Plain for one.

And our great Barrier Reef. The current reef is between 10 and 15000 years old with evidence of at least three reefs below it. During the ice age the reef was a high and dry ridge which Aboriginals walked, fished and and hunted. And for those who think the reef lacks resilience tell me this, how does the reef survive even on the hottest day up to 6 hours at a time up to a metre above water. I can answer my own question. It produces its own sun screen. After the rising tide washes it off you can see this sun screen as a dirty looking brown scum covering huge areas of ocean, best seen from the air.

We understand very well what has caused climatic change in the past eg milokovich effects and massive volcanic eruptions. One absolutely critical climate control knob is carbon dioxide. At 180 ppm we have an ice age and at 280 ppm a warm temperate climate. ie 100 ppm of carbon dioxide is difference between an ice age and a warm temperate climate. Since the industrial revolution man has added an additional 140 ppm and as a result the earth is warming nearly 10 times faster than when it last emerged from an ice age!
As for the great barrier reef we are seeing coral bleaching due to rising ocean temperatures and the bleaching events are becoming closer together which makes it harder for corals to recover. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that for the first time in the earths history mans activities are the now the main climate driver!

99 % of Green House emissions are created in the Northern hemisphere, these emissions cause reduction in Ozone levels, this reduction creates a hole in the Ozone layer that for whatever reason manifests itself above the South Pole and extends well over Australia. This allows UV A & B to reach plants on the earth surface. UV A & B is very helpful for plant life and activates Photosynthesis. So why moan about the Ozone?? hole
What is better for the planet? UV may burn your skin if you are dopey enough to stay out in it but no Ozone and plenty of UV ( up to a point) will cause plants to flourish.

Studies show that exposure to UV-A light improves photosynthesis in plants by 12%. So, if you want higher yields from your plant ensure you have both UV-A and B

adrian ss wrote:99 % of Green House emissions are created in the Northern hemisphere, these emissions cause reduction in Ozone levels,

The opposite is true! Global warming is leading to higher ozone levels!!!!!

Chlorine & Bromine in the upper atmosphere created by the green house emissions in the Northern hemisphere
cause chlorine and bromine activation that  leads to rapid ozone loss when sunlight returns to Antarctica in September and October of each year, This results in an Ozone hole that allows UV A & B to reach ground level. In other words; Green House emissions in the Norther Hem is causing the ozone hole over Antarctica.