Net zero nonsense

[markslawson + 1,042]

Having written a book to be published in Australia DARK AGES: The looming destruction of the Australian power grid I wondered how I might share it with my poster buddies on this site. The American users will not be much interested in the full book, but one chapter may hold their attention - one that points to the obvious fact that the battle against emissions was lost many years ago. Activists who tell us that we must cut emissions now in order to avert disaster are wasting their breath and money spent on efforts to reduce emissions, including throught investment in renewables, is money more or less wasted. Read on... 

What about the Paris treaty, I hear you say? Let's take a closer look at that treaty. Hammered out in 2015 to into effect in 2020 permits each country to nominate its own emission goals, called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). These can vary widely and for many countries, notably top emitters India, China and Russia, the NDCs were set so that those countries did not have to do anything at all. In any case, the goals themselves are not legally binding and cannot be enforced. The only legal obligation is to nominate goals, and to lodge updated, improved goals every five years or so. The improved or tightened goals lodged to date have proved of little more use in limiting emissions than the promises made in Paris.

In 2019, Climate Action Tracker, a group run by three climate organisations, looked at 32 countries which collectively account for 80 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, to find that by the group’s criteria just seven were doing enough to meet the Paris goals. Only one of those countries, India, was in the top ten of CO2 producing countries. However, CAT’s endorsement of India was basically wishful thinking. The group was impressed by the fact that the country had already met a major Paris goal of 40 per cent of its installed electricity base being non-CO2 generating plants, including hydro, biomass and nuclear as well as wind and solar. But the country was already almost at that figure before Paris, and the figure is for “installed” base. For solar and wind that can be very different from actual power generated. Since then the group has produced considerably more sophisticated reports saying much the same thing, including the latest, State Of Climate Action 2022, which has little good to say about efforts to cut emissions.

Despite this evident lack of action at some point activists lifted expectations by talking about net zero emissions, which is a whole world of pain away from the Paris agreement - that is, if the Paris agreement had been of much use in the first place which it isn't. All the talk about net zero prompted the International Energy Agency to release a report Net Zero by 2050 - A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector (updated in 2022) which found that the goal could be achieved, albeit only if all economies followed a “narrow but still achievable” path. But that narrow path, which included an immediate doubling in annual investment in the energy sector with no money at all going into the fossil fuel projects, requires commitment and dedication to the net zero goal which very few countries have shown to date. (The report effectively meant that net zero was never going to be achieved, but the agency was understandably reluctant to make that stark assessment.)

Two sticking points, among many others noted in the original report, are the need to reduce emissions from both the steel and cement industries. The IEA report admits that technologies that might reduce emissions in those industries are still in demonstration phase, at best. Uncritical reporting on various supposed green hydrogen breakthroughs never says anything about the likely costs of these processes, versus the tried and tested ways of producing energy, steel and cement, but it is likely to be high. One estimate put the additional cost of producing green steel at about $US70 a tonne, which could cause a real problem. If Western producers adopt this technology and the Chinese don’t bother (a very likely scenario), then all that happens is that the Chinese produce more steel at prices that undercut those of their western competitors, and emissions remain the same. Freight transport, by truck or ship, and airline travel is rarely mentioned in the net zero debate because there are no effective ways to reduce emissions in those sectors. Better to buy expensive emissions offsets and pass the costs onto the consumers.

Net zero enthusiasts who want further discouragement could always look at a control panel for the National Energy Market (the Eastern Australian grid) compiled by the Australian Energy Market Operator. Note that you have to adjust the time period on the side to 12 months. the moment to moment figures don't mean much. This shows that in the 12 months up to around January of 2023 just short of 70 per cent of electricity came from black and brown coal plants, and just short of 20 per cent from solar and wind. Another 7 per cent came from hydro (which counts as a renewable) and a few per cent from gas. This does not seem very different from the energy mix of preceding years, but the really bad news for activists is the total energy mix figures for Australia compiled by the International Energy Agency. This analysis adds in the use of fuel in domestic and freight transport, gas for cooking and industrial use plus the power required for electrical generation. In 2021, despite all the talk about net zero emissions, wind, solar and biomass collectively amounted to just a few per cent of the total energy task.

The story is the same for the world statistics also compiled by the International Energy Agency, as well as by a non-profit group Our World In Data. These generally attribute about one third of energy consumption to oil, to run cars and trucks, with about half that going to freight transport. Gas and coal together add up to about half. That leaves a little more than 15 per cent coming from low-carbon sources, but a bit more than 10 percentage points of that is from nuclear and hydro power. Wind, solar and biomass (burning wood and sugar cane waste) then account for just 5 per cent or so of the world’s total energy consumption. This is increasing but off a very low base and a glance at the figures for the past decade or so show that those energy sources are not increasing at anything like the rate to achieve net zero in the foreseeable future, if at all.

A conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that the increasing talk about net zero comes from those who simply have no idea what it means or what it entails and ignores a history of many countries making token efforts only to reduce emissions. Declaring support for the concept of net zero, however, has certain conveniences for those who make such declarations. They can bask in the praise of an uncritical media knowing that the usual deadline of 2050, or even 2030, is so far beyond the usual media cycle that they are never going to be held to account for the promise.

All this means there will be no net zero in the foreseeable future, if at all. The best that can be hoped for is a reduction in the rate of growth in emissions but that does not seem likely.                
 

[notsonice + 1,069]

4 hours ago, markslawson said:

Having written a book to be published in Australia DARK AGES: The looming destruction of the Australian power grid I wondered how I might share it with my poster buddies on this site. The American users will not be much interested in the full book, but one chapter may hold their attention - one that points to the obvious fact that the battle against emissions was lost many years ago. Activists who tell us that we must cut emissions now in order to avert disaster are wasting their breath and money spent on efforts to reduce emissions, including throught investment in renewables, is money more or less wasted. Read on... 

What about the Paris treaty, I hear you say? Let's take a closer look at that treaty. Hammered out in 2015 to into effect in 2020 permits each country to nominate its own emission goals, called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). These can vary widely and for many countries, notably top emitters India, China and Russia, the NDCs were set so that those countries did not have to do anything at all. In any case, the goals themselves are not legally binding and cannot be enforced. The only legal obligation is to nominate goals, and to lodge updated, improved goals every five years or so. The improved or tightened goals lodged to date have proved of little more use in limiting emissions than the promises made in Paris.

In 2019, Climate Action Tracker, a group run by three climate organisations, looked at 32 countries which collectively account for 80 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, to find that by the group’s criteria just seven were doing enough to meet the Paris goals. Only one of those countries, India, was in the top ten of CO2 producing countries. However, CAT’s endorsement of India was basically wishful thinking. The group was impressed by the fact that the country had already met a major Paris goal of 40 per cent of its installed electricity base being non-CO2 generating plants, including hydro, biomass and nuclear as well as wind and solar. But the country was already almost at that figure before Paris, and the figure is for “installed” base. For solar and wind that can be very different from actual power generated. Since then the group has produced considerably more sophisticated reports saying much the same thing, including the latest, State Of Climate Action 2022, which has little good to say about efforts to cut emissions.

Despite this evident lack of action at some point activists lifted expectations by talking about net zero emissions, which is a whole world of pain away from the Paris agreement - that is, if the Paris agreement had been of much use in the first place which it isn't. All the talk about net zero prompted the International Energy Agency to release a report Net Zero by 2050 - A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector (updated in 2022) which found that the goal could be achieved, albeit only if all economies followed a “narrow but still achievable” path. But that narrow path, which included an immediate doubling in annual investment in the energy sector with no money at all going into the fossil fuel projects, requires commitment and dedication to the net zero goal which very few countries have shown to date. (The report effectively meant that net zero was never going to be achieved, but the agency was understandably reluctant to make that stark assessment.)

Two sticking points, among many others noted in the original report, are the need to reduce emissions from both the steel and cement industries. The IEA report admits that technologies that might reduce emissions in those industries are still in demonstration phase, at best. Uncritical reporting on various supposed green hydrogen breakthroughs never says anything about the likely costs of these processes, versus the tried and tested ways of producing energy, steel and cement, but it is likely to be high. One estimate put the additional cost of producing green steel at about $US70 a tonne, which could cause a real problem. If Western producers adopt this technology and the Chinese don’t bother (a very likely scenario), then all that happens is that the Chinese produce more steel at prices that undercut those of their western competitors, and emissions remain the same. Freight transport, by truck or ship, and airline travel is rarely mentioned in the net zero debate because there are no effective ways to reduce emissions in those sectors. Better to buy expensive emissions offsets and pass the costs onto the consumers.

Net zero enthusiasts who want further discouragement could always look at a control panel for the National Energy Market (the Eastern Australian grid) compiled by the Australian Energy Market Operator. Note that you have to adjust the time period on the side to 12 months. the moment to moment figures don't mean much. This shows that in the 12 months up to around January of 2023 just short of 70 per cent of electricity came from black and brown coal plants, and just short of 20 per cent from solar and wind. Another 7 per cent came from hydro (which counts as a renewable) and a few per cent from gas. This does not seem very different from the energy mix of preceding years, but the really bad news for activists is the total energy mix figures for Australia compiled by the International Energy Agency. This analysis adds in the use of fuel in domestic and freight transport, gas for cooking and industrial use plus the power required for electrical generation. In 2021, despite all the talk about net zero emissions, wind, solar and biomass collectively amounted to just a few per cent of the total energy task.

The story is the same for the world statistics also compiled by the International Energy Agency, as well as by a non-profit group Our World In Data. These generally attribute about one third of energy consumption to oil, to run cars and trucks, with about half that going to freight transport. Gas and coal together add up to about half. That leaves a little more than 15 per cent coming from low-carbon sources, but a bit more than 10 percentage points of that is from nuclear and hydro power. Wind, solar and biomass (burning wood and sugar cane waste) then account for just 5 per cent or so of the world’s total energy consumption. This is increasing but off a very low base and a glance at the figures for the past decade or so show that those energy sources are not increasing at anything like the rate to achieve net zero in the foreseeable future, if at all.

A conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that the increasing talk about net zero comes from those who simply have no idea what it means or what it entails and ignores a history of many countries making token efforts only to reduce emissions. Declaring support for the concept of net zero, however, has certain conveniences for those who make such declarations. They can bask in the praise of an uncritical media knowing that the usual deadline of 2050, or even 2030, is so far beyond the usual media cycle that they are never going to be held to account for the promise.

All this means there will be no net zero in the foreseeable future, if at all. The best that can be hoped for is a reduction in the rate of growth in emissions but that does not seem likely.                
 

Activists who tell us that we must cut emissions now in order to avert disaster are wasting their breath and money spent ???

 

more like buying your book is wasting good money......

 

[jonathb + 7]

Renewable energy in Australia is going from strength to strength! Every other month we hear of the next coal-fired power generator to close down, replaced by cheaper storage and solar. Australia is now the world's example of how it's done. Most of this is down to one simple simple event: electing an intelligent Prime Minister in 2022 to replace the previous knuckle-dragging illiterate gammon fool. It goes to show what political will can do in this area. So Australia sure isn't entering any "Dark Age", and the electric grid is looking healthier every day. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Any worldwide agreement is just a waste of paper and ink, the major flaw will always be China. China has just about wiped out all its natural resources, hence the Belt and Road program, China today says of its 1.4 Billion people they have 900 thousand workers. This is another lie, China has burnt through a majority of working-age people to get onto the world stage, and conglomerates came running for cheap labor and larger shareholders' returns.

Just like climate change, no accords will ever work because it depends on the largest modern-day economies to cover the ass-backward ones. Every country will only do what is in its best interest in both the short and long term.

The world is at a tipping point and it's not climate change, you have the world's economies owing  at least 2 fold more than their value ( GDP ), and nobody is paying attention!

We are going to have a reset simply because diversions around the world can't stop spending more than income.

We are heading toward a regional nuclear war likely in two different areas of the globe currently.

The banking sector in the United States through a President that everyone knows is not running anything just upended the system by guaranteeing all deposits like with SBV and Signature Bank, this happens because several high net-worth people got a discrete warning to pull their money and with the speed of internet Billions we're pulled within hours creating a self-fulfilled bank run.

How the Biden Administration guarantee everyone's money just like they did id literally not possible, the United States Federal Reserve does not have that much funds at there disposal.

Just like the idea of stopping climate change if or if not a believer won't happen, world economies just can't afford it so it was a failed project the moment it was signed. The world is in need and heading towards a reset, given the history that requires war, region, or world, I simply don't know but everything is pointing in that direction.

[notsonice + 1,069]

39 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

Any worldwide agreement is just a waste of paper and ink, the major flaw will always be China. China has just about wiped out all its natural resources, hence the Belt and Road program, China today says of its 1.4 Billion people they have 900 thousand workers. This is another lie, China has burnt through a majority of working-age people to get onto the world stage, and conglomerates came running for cheap labor and larger shareholders' returns.

Just like climate change, no accords will ever work because it depends on the largest modern-day economies to cover the ass-backward ones. Every country will only do what is in its best interest in both the short and long term.

The world is at a tipping point and it's not climate change, you have the world's economies owing  at least 2 fold more than their value ( GDP ), and nobody is paying attention!

We are going to have a reset simply because diversions around the world can't stop spending more than income.

We are heading toward a regional nuclear war likely in two different areas of the globe currently.

The banking sector in the United States through a President that everyone knows is not running anything just upended the system by guaranteeing all deposits like with SBV and Signature Bank, this happens because several high net-worth people got a discrete warning to pull their money and with the speed of internet Billions we're pulled within hours creating a self-fulfilled bank run.

How the Biden Administration guarantee everyone's money just like they did id literally not possible, the United States Federal Reserve does not have that much funds at there disposal.

Just like the idea of stopping climate change if or if not a believer won't happen, world economies just can't afford it so it was a failed project the moment it was signed. The world is in need and heading towards a reset, given the history that requires war, region, or world, I simply don't know but everything is pointing in that direction.

run run run...the sky is falling

just upended the system by guaranteeing all deposits like with SBV and Signature Bank?????

SBV has already been parted up and sold off....FDIC took a hit to its fund of 15 billion....Fund was at 134 Billion before they took the hit..........

 

Signature already sold off

so in the end the system was not upended....unless you are wearing a tinfoil hat with a hole in it

 

the world is at a tipping point ????? If you are living in Russia you might think that you are about to enter into the dark ages....

Spring time in Ukraine for a Russian .....hmmmm ....dark ages

Edited April 11, 2023 by notsonice

[turbguy + 1,401]

1 hour ago, RichieRich216 said:

How the Biden Administration guarantee everyone's money just like they did id literally not possible, the United States Federal Reserve does not have that much funds at there disposal.

You would be surprised about what the Federal Reserve has already done...

...and at the depth of their "funding".

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by turbguy

[RichieRich216 + 454]

7 hours ago, notsonice said:

run run run...the sky is falling

just upended the system by guaranteeing all deposits like with SBV and Signature Bank?????

SBV has already been parted up and sold off....FDIC took a hit to its fund of 15 billion....Fund was at 134 Billion before they took the hit..........

 

Signature already sold off

so in the end the system was not upended....unless you are wearing a tinfoil hat with a hole in it

 

the world is at a tipping point ????? If you are living in Russia you might think that you are about to enter into the dark ages....

Spring time in Ukraine for a Russian .....hmmmm ....dark ages

Enjoy your short sited views, this is coming!

[RichieRich216 + 454]

7 hours ago, turbguy said:

You would be surprised about what the Federal Reserve has already done...

...and at the depth of their "funding".

 

That funding is nothing but ‘ 0 & 1, the Federal Reserve doesn't have unlimited funds even if you believe in they do. Your narrow view of currently going on is why you say that about the Fed! Make an effort to look at all the information available on all the different hot spots and try if you can to see the global picture!

 

 

 

 

 

[markslawson + 1,042]

18 hours ago, notsonice said:

Activists who tell us that we must cut emissions now in order to avert disaster are wasting their breath and money spent ???

 

more like buying your book is wasting good money......

Well they are, for the reasons I outlined.. You haven't presented any counter arguments - just simply restated a position that's known to be wrong and thrown in an insult. Anyway, leave it with you.  

[markslawson + 1,042]

15 hours ago, jonathb said:

Renewable energy in Australia is going from strength to strength! Every other month we hear of the next coal-fired power generator to close down, replaced by cheaper storage and solar. Australia is now the world's example of how it's done.

johathb - this is mostly wrong. If you buy the book you'll see why. Electricity prices have been increasing in Australia. Wholesale prices declined of a peak between 2018 and 2022 (I think) and since then have been increasing mostly because of the closure of those coal fired power stations you so decry. Sure some wind generators and such have been built but in nothing like the numbers that might replace those conventional generators, if renewables could replace fossil fuel plants. They can't. If you want to work out why then I suggest you search on the term "wind droughts" and start reading. Of late the lack of investment in renewables has become worse. In the quarter to December there was little investment, and it was almost as bad in March. I plan to write another thread pointing to the lack of investment. In the meantime maybe you could start reading. The Eastern Australian power grid is heading for a disaster.. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

9 hours ago, notsonice said:

run run run...the sky is falling

just upended the system by guaranteeing all deposits like with SBV and Signature Bank?????

Although you make a fair point with regards to the US system, RichieRich makes a useful point - the Chinese economy may yet collapse. If it does, then the problem of emissions becomes less acute... no economic activity, no emissions.. 

[turbguy + 1,401]

10 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

That funding is nothing but ‘ 0 & 1, the Federal Reserve doesn't have unlimited funds even if you believe in they do. Your narrow view of currently going on is why you say that about the Fed! Make an effort to look at all the information available on all the different hot spots and try if you can to see the global picture!

Please don't indicate that you have any belief in NESARA/GESARA.

That's what your comments seem to infer. I hope I misunderstand you.

If you believe any of that, you might also want to start looking for ocean front property in Nebraska.

nesara.pdf

Edited April 12, 2023 by turbguy

[specinho + 440]

On 4/11/2023 at 10:55 PM, jonathb said:

Renewable energy in Australia is going from strength to strength! Every other month we hear of the next coal-fired power generator to close down, replaced by cheaper storage and solar. Australia is now the world's example of how it's done. Most of this is down to one simple simple event: electing an intelligent Prime Minister in 2022 to replace the previous knuckle-dragging illiterate gammon fool. It goes to show what political will can do in this area. So Australia sure isn't entering any "Dark Age", and the electric grid is looking healthier every day. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not "dark age" indeed but "stormy age"......

Was in an online course on tourism management in Australia and New Zealand. There was a section called disaster management and handling e.g. wild fire, flood, earthquake, cyclone etc.

Would like to quote roughly a relevant discussion for reference:

" Inner Australia is desert or barren land. Wind blown from the east is usually wet and cold ( particularly during winter in northern hemisphere; summer in southern hemisphere). When this wind meets hot and dry air from the inner land, cyclone formed. Some with rain.

A suggestion was made to change the landscape to reduce the potential difference between coastal hilly area and inner barren land..."

Imagine, solar farm is built in the inner land where sun light is not blocked by vegetation. Imagine large scale of it.

Temperature difference between this area and the coast would increase greatly. This would encourage more frequent and more severe cyclone and flash flood.

Although the intention to provide cleaner air or hasten transition to burningless energy is kind but this decision might bring unintended consequences mentioned. Shall this potential problem is not investigated but ignored, common sense dictates there would be more frequent and costly aftermath within a short time.....no?

Edited April 13, 2023 by specinho

[RichieRich216 + 454]

On 4/12/2023 at 12:02 PM, turbguy said:

Please don't indicate that you have any belief in NESARA/GESARA.

That's what your comments seem to infer. I hope I misunderstand you.

If you believe any of that, you might also want to start looking for ocean front property in Nebraska.

nesara.pdfFetching info...

Take a stroll on the internet and go County by County of each debts and holdings, world economics are beyond able to pay what they owe. Go look at the Gold Act of 1934, you were forced to give up your hholdings for paper money 

I am not into conspiracy theories, I look at history. There has been and ongoing efforts to go digital, today people carry less to no CASH but plastic or your phone to buy and pay for just about everything. Tell me what happens when all the 0&1 that make up the code to gain access to digital money gets compromised and untold amounts of money vanish.

You go to any branch of any bank today any try to withdraw $20,000.00 and you wont be able to, they will have you fill out documents then tell you that they have to order the cash, come back tomorrow.

[RichieRich216 + 454]

For over 40 years I have collected Gold and Silver Dolls bills, Each clearly states you could redeem for that face value in actual Gold and Silver, Government ended that novel idea. I also collected $500 & $1000 dollar bills, these are actually right now and past several years worth up to 4 times the face value, why do you think that is?

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

6 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

For over 40 years I have collected Gold and Silver Dolls bills, Each clearly states you could redeem for that face value in actual Gold and Silver, Government ended that novel idea. I also collected $500 & $1000 dollar bills, these are actually right now and past several years worth up to 4 times the face value, why do you think that is?

Well, hate to break it to you, but silver is a horrific idea(Yes, have quite a bit myself, mostly in welding rod which is worth MORE than silver... ).  I know it is cheap and what people start off with, but the truth is there are literally MOUNTAINS of silver in Peru and other areas of the world.  Gold is actually rare and becoming MORE rare in the ground(until we start mining asteroids anyways)

[turbguy + 1,401]

7 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

Take a stroll on the internet and go County by County of each debts and holdings, world economics are beyond able to pay what they owe. Go look at the Gold Act of 1934, you were forced to give up your hholdings for paper money 

I am not into conspiracy theories, I look at history. There has been and ongoing efforts to go digital, today people carry less to no CASH but plastic or your phone to buy and pay for just about everything. Tell me what happens when all the 0&1 that make up the code to gain access to digital money gets compromised and untold amounts of money vanish.

You go to any branch of any bank today any try to withdraw $20,000.00 and you wont be able to, they will have you fill out documents then tell you that they have to order the cash, come back tomorrow.

Debt levels are high.

Saying that, what do you believe that the real estate value of, say...

Yellowstone National Park

is?

Don't forget that other item on a balance sheet.

The one called, ASSETS.

If there's a delay in withdrawing deposits of $20,000 from a bank, what happened in the SVB debacle?

 

[turbguy + 1,401]

6 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

For over 40 years I have collected Gold and Silver Dolls bills, Each clearly states you could redeem for that face value in actual Gold and Silver, Government ended that novel idea. I also collected $500 & $1000 dollar bills, these are actually right now and past several years worth up to 4 times the face value, why do you think that is?

How much do you get when you deposit those $500 or $1000 notes into a bank account?

Whatever the market demands?

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

How much do you get when you deposit those $500 or $1000 notes into a bank account?

Whatever the market demands?

 

Well, newsflash, until you have enough $$$ you can buy a business, or start a business which will create large profits by itself, the best you can do in an inflationary environment is to buy gold silver or other objects such as rare items which tracks inflation while you work your ass off to get out of being poor or middle income.  Buying stock does not as this actually requires MORE money/time as it is completely a waste of time unless you have ~+++$100,000 to invest as frankly it is useless to do stocks unless you can get dividends as any other stock type is nothing but gambling at best or you have insider information<<cough been there it was wonderful>>.  Otherwise you are following hype waves and crossing your fingers you are on the right hype wave and you get off at the peak.... 

[turbguy + 1,401]

58 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Well, newsflash, until you have enough $$$ you can buy a business, or start a business which will create large profits by itself, the best you can do in an inflationary environment is to buy gold silver or other objects such as rare items which tracks inflation while you work your ass off to get out of being poor or middle income.  Buying stock does not as this actually requires MORE money/time as it is completely a waste of time unless you have ~+++$100,000 to invest as frankly it is useless to do stocks unless you can get dividends as any other stock type is nothing but gambling at best or you have insider information<<cough been there it was wonderful>>.  Otherwise you are following hype waves and crossing your fingers you are on the right hype wave and you get off at the peak.... 

I guess I should have invested in egg futures...

THAT tracked a whole lot closer to inflation than gold or silver.

[Rob Plant + 2,616]

On 4/11/2023 at 3:55 PM, jonathb said:

Renewable energy in Australia is going from strength to strength! Every other month we hear of the next coal-fired power generator to close down, replaced by cheaper storage and solar. Australia is now the world's example of how it's done. Most of this is down to one simple simple event: electing an intelligent Prime Minister in 2022 to replace the previous knuckle-dragging illiterate gammon fool. It goes to show what political will can do in this area. So Australia sure isn't entering any "Dark Age", and the electric grid is looking healthier every day. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely Jonathb

There are loads of projects and investment in OZ coming too

(NYSE:BP) is a multinational energy company that has been involved in producing and distributing oil and gas for over a century. In recent years, however, the Big Oil icon has been betting big on a new fuel source: hydrogen technology.BP has acquired a 40.5% stake in a 26-gigawatt renewables project in Australia that could produce green hydrogen and is also looking to create its own hydrogen hub at the 133-year-old northwest Indiana refinery.

The goal of these endeavors is to make hydrogen accessible and affordable for consumers by reducing the cost of production and distribution. By using renewable sources like wind or solar power to extract hydrogen from water, BP hopes to reduce emissions associated with traditional methods of producing hydrogen. This would make it easier for businesses and individuals to transition from fossil fuels to cleaner, more sustainable energy sources such as green hydrogen.

 

[RichieRich216 + 454]

18 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Well, hate to break it to you, but silver is a horrific idea(Yes, have quite a bit myself, mostly in welding rod which is worth MORE than silver... ).  I know it is cheap and what people start off with, but the truth is there are literally MOUNTAINS of silver in Peru and other areas of the world.  Gold is actually rare and becoming MORE rare in the ground(until we start mining asteroids anyways)

I didn't say bulk silver, I was referring to when the United States issued Gold and Siler currency notes that stated could be redeemed in the face value of the note.

[RichieRich216 + 454]

18 hours ago, turbguy said:

How much do you get when you deposit those $500 or $1000 notes into a bank account?

Whatever the market demands?

 

You never deposit them, the United States withdrew them from circulation because they made hiding money much easier. At this particular time you can get 2-4 times the face value from collectors. Should you take them to the back the will gladly give you face value and the teller or branch manager will swap for 100’s, $50’s and so on because even though they are supposed to be returned to the fed and be destroyed.

[markslawson + 1,042]

13 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Absolutely Jonathb

There are loads of projects and investment in OZ coming too

Rob Plant - I dealt with Jonathb and it looks like I'll have to deal with you. Investment in renewables is tanking world-wide at the moment. I'll do another thread on it later, but that lack of investment is set to cause serious problems in later years, especially as activists in Aus are doing their best to throw away the back-up fossil fuel network. The renewable capacity they have at the moment is inadequate with too few new projects being started. Even if there was as you know solar and wind generators have a bad habit of going AWOL just when they're needed. Look up the term wind-droughts if you don't believe me, and keep in mind that when the wind dies it does so over a very wide area. As for hydrogen it is not possible to pour enough scorn on the use of this gas in the energy system, particularly for exports. If you want to store energy use a battery (these aren't much good either, but better than H2) or a pumped hydro facility (horribly expensive but the only viable means to date). If you want to send power anywhere use a transmission line. Why the investment in H2 projects? A very good question. It could be like those share market booms where everyone knows the shares are over-valued but are hoping to make their money and sell out before the bubble bursts.      

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

11 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

I didn't say bulk silver, I was referring to when the United States issued Gold and Siler currency notes that stated could be redeemed in the face value of the note.

The problem with this is only people who will take them are collectors who do not have the currency to trade in times of panic so what you are actually doing is a store of value against inflation(due to fiat printing) or complete collapse and hoping you can use them as barter with general public whom you ***hope*** will see their value as you do(they won't as there is not enough around for the average person to have adequate knowledge or a feel for value. 

Want a store of value?  Dried fruit, spices.  EDIT: You eat them anyways so may as well store them.  Their shelf life is effectively infinite in relation to your lifespan anyways.  Get a bee hive. 

Edited April 15, 2023 by footeab@yahoo.com