The war against renewable energy

Remove this Banner Ad


hopefully this ends the moronic culture wars here and makes it crystal clear EV is the way of the future

Let's get to fighting about the best way to embrace it now.
 

Nationals basically saying the quiet bit out loud

The coalition does not want to present a united front. As messed up as possible suits them and their paymasters
 

Log in to remove this ad.

We need lots…
Here’s a picture representation of what’s coming.

View attachment 2191004

Do you know what this graph means in minutes?

This is why I believe other technologies are required. This is a stop gap solution unless the technology improves faster than alternatives on the horizon.
 
The graph is showing exponential growth.

I appreciate that but context is important. As it highlights the scale required would not make sense for Australia and certainly not globally as the technology currently stands.

The PFAS issue is a major concern along with the PFAS by products (even worse than PFAS).

Hydrogen from “electrolysis” have the same but worse issue. Good luck dumbasses in SA and Gladstone with their environmental PFAS disaster. I hope they top it off with ammonia and destroy their oyster and tuna industry along with the Great Barrier Reef.

LOL the state and federal government environmental departments were not aware of the PFAS when supporting the projects. The same chemicals we have set up steering committees to ban.



Batteries will improve though and they do have a role.
 
I appreciate that but context is important. As it highlights the scale required would not make sense for Australia and certainly not globally as the technology currently stands.

The PFAS issue is a major concern along with the PFAS by products (even worse than PFAS).

Hydrogen from “electrolysis” have the same but worse issue. Good luck dumbasses in SA and Gladstone with their environmental PFAS disaster. I hope they top it off with ammonia and destroy their oyster and tuna industry along with the Great Barrier Reef.

LOL the state and federal government environmental departments were not aware of the PFAS when supporting the projects. The same chemicals we have set up steering committees to ban.



Batteries will improve though and they do have a role.
Take your concerns about PFAS and apply them to fossil fuels, otherwise you're just pretending.
 
Take your concerns about PFAS and apply them to fossil fuels, otherwise you're just pretending.

I’m pro anti PFAS across all industries

Where we have a real issue is in hydrogen. The govt has committed $8b across all levels of government for electrolysis AND at the same time set up a committee to follow the US and EU to ban PFAS.

The problem though is how to ban something when you’ve just committed $8b. Same said with batteries.

We need to find a way forward quickly to move away from forever chemicals related to cancer, diabetes and foetal mortality rather than saying “look over there”.

Just ban them!
 
Semi Solid state batteries in 2025



That guy annoys me with a lot of the things he says.
-----------------
"when Toyota say...... you don't tend to believe them, but when management of MG, one of the biggest car manufacturers in the world...."
-------------------

OK , MG are a brand owned by SAIC.
Toyota produce double the amount of cars SAIC do, 3 times as many as BYD.

MG sold around 100 000 cars in China last year, which to me is nowhere near as impressiv as Holden selling 180000 cars in 2002.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

That guy annoys me with a lot of the things he says.
-----------------
"when Toyota say...... you don't tend to believe them, but when management of MG, one of the biggest car manufacturers in the world...."
-------------------

OK , MG are a brand owned by SAIC.
Toyota produce double the amount of cars SAIC do, 3 times as many as BYD.

MG sold around 100 000 cars in China last year, which to me is nowhere near as impressiv as Holden selling 180000 cars in 2002.

Yer he can be annoying but I normally fact check most of the things he says and I don’t think I’ve found anything wrong.
 
We will have commercial Aircraft within ten years using batteries… it’s going to be an amazing period to witness.

Massive call on your behalf, not sure if you have the expertise to make it.

There are some under development.
If it all goes as planned this one is aimed for 2033.


it would be a far more amazing period to witness if we had a fast train melbourne to sydney. ( further range and faster ).
Something other countries have had for 60 years. Such a train would be faster than a propellor driven aircraft.

--------------------------
Decarbonizing flights with fewer than 500 miles, however, would likely only address about 1% of all emissions originating from air travel, Mukhopadhaya said. The airline industry accounts for just about 3% of total annual global emissions.
-------------------------

As far as existing aircraft that work .
This one flys for 50 minutes, barely faster than a car (180km/h ) , one passenger, 50 minutes flight.
They may be used for flight schools, so technically "commercial aircraft".

This one "appears" to be nearly ready, 9 seater , 500km ish range ( after lots of promises earlier that they backed away from ). Bare in mind though, it can take 5-9 years to get all the approvals needed for commercial operation.

 
we are giving away gas for free and we are in this position how?
Hopefully I’m completely disconnected from gas by the end of next year.


Sucks massively.
And of course you get to add the CO2 impact of the energy used to liquify the gas and transport it.
 
Massive call on your behalf, not sure if you have the expertise to make it.

There are some under development.
If it all goes as planned this one is aimed for 2033.


it would be a far more amazing period to witness if we had a fast train melbourne to sydney. ( further range and faster ).
Something other countries have had for 60 years. Such a train would be faster than a propellor driven aircraft.

--------------------------
Decarbonizing flights with fewer than 500 miles, however, would likely only address about 1% of all emissions originating from air travel, Mukhopadhaya said. The airline industry accounts for just about 3% of total annual global emissions.
-------------------------

As far as existing aircraft that work .
This one flys for 50 minutes, barely faster than a car (180km/h ) , one passenger, 50 minutes flight.
They may be used for flight schools, so technically "commercial aircraft".

This one "appears" to be nearly ready, 9 seater , 500km ish range ( after lots of promises earlier that they backed away from ). Bare in mind though, it can take 5-9 years to get all the approvals needed for commercial operation.


Airbus is doing some interesting thinking about redesigning passenger aircraft for new forms of propulsion:

 

Remove this Banner Ad

The war against renewable energy

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top