Already suggested by, guess who, your mate Larissa Waters

Surprised she got something right. Its a common sense call though. The whole exploit and go bankrupt and leave the clean up to someone else nonsense is a disgrace and i'm supportive of mining (within reason).

She probably still believes Abbott Point will involve dredging in the reef when its 1) 50k away and 2) they already dredge the conservation park for tourism :lol:

:lol: fear mongering leftards at it again.

Zambian mining regulations =/= Australian mining regulations :lol:

Right wing greed. It's why the planet is a toilet bowl.
So sad.

This has nothing to do with political persuasion you fucking tool.

1) Whoever signed off the dam construction should be charged accordingly. Dams are designed for a known volume and known input vs. evaporation rate. Failure to adhere to the design limitations of a dam is ridiculous.

2) I saw a thing about waves being generated inside the dam which likely would have contributed to it's collapse.

The take home message, operate dams to their design capacity, not above it.

It has everything to do with the outcomes of right wing ideology.

That's not peer reviewed :lol:

I have to agree with BETHFC. Those last few comments sound anecdotal. Do you have a peer reviewed study to back up thse claims?

I just did a quick read on the political history of Zambia (since Murdoch Rags wants to turn this into a discussion about why the Left are good guys and Right wingers are Darth Vader in the Death Star or some shit) and the place has been run by Socialist Left-wing nutters since independence.

Sounds like Murdoch's mates are doing a bang up job.

:lol: gold

It will happen, no worries about that. :d

I love how people think renewables are just going to pop up and take over.

we don't have any infrastructure for renewables yet. It will take us 50 years to remove our coal burden.

I work as an engineer in renewables so I have a vested interest in what I'm saying.

What infrastructure are you referring to when you say...we don't have any? Just out of curiosity.

Ah interesting, I've been working with a massive wind farm project in Glen Innes in northern NSW. Not the actual design just drilling foundations for them.

The major issue they have logistically is getting power from the turbines to a transmission network. By infrastructure, I mean we have no collector systems in place for these turbines. So building these turbines on mountains ages from anything (so that Tony Abbott isn't offended by them :lol: ) has the logistical issue of getting the energy from a converter to a collector system to a transmission network. It is a lot of $$$ to do it. I've also done a few jobs looking at putting wind turbines in Moreton bay off Brisbane. Same logistical issues in addition to huge maintenance costs associated with it being on open water.

It's the same with wave power. The only viable wave power is thousands of km's from cities (namely Adelaide and Melbourne) so is of little use.

I get that people just seem to think this stuff will start taking over because we're all so much more environmentally aware but the costs are just enormous. The good thing about coal is that the infrastructure is already there so Governments don't get major shocks funding it. With renewables, we have to create the collector systems to get it to the grid which people won't want to pay for in this doom and gloom economy.

I envisage a slow build up of renewables. Hence why I think coal has another 50 years.

i'm sorry to say for Australia, Coal dead ,,,

we all going to have windows in house, buildings that also act as solar panels ...technology change will happen so fast now, computer speed (power) will just make renewables so cheap

Have you been listening to the Greens?

Next thing you'll tell me natural gas is dead?

oil is dead, gas will live longer

i'm 100% not green, i couldn't give a fuck about it

change take way longer then people think, but then change hit the right balance and it happen way faster then people think

Yeh I see what you're saying.

The minor conspiracy theorist in me says that although peak oil his 22 years ago that the oil industry is too big just to fade away.

I don't want to get into a nitty-gritty argument but the above is fundamentally flawed and you had me at "the good thing about coal is...".

I'm not an environmentalist, so my issue doesn't come from a Greens perspective.

Your assumption is that coal is "base load" or that we require a base-load power generated at the plant. Which as I said, is fundamentally flawed and a myth of coal advocacy groups.

Edited by socceroo_06: 4/3/2016 12:54:11 PM

name of the game of oil today is : don't leave any oil in the ground , because oil that still in the ground in 10 years time, will stay there for ever

candle industry declined rapidly upon the introduction of superior methods of lighting, including kerosene and lamps and the 1879 invention of the incandescent light bulb.

Edited by adrtho: 4/3/2016 12:56:20 PM

Just to clarify, how have you come to the conclusion that peak oil was 22 years ago? And how do you define what peak oil means?

Just asking because oil production is currently as high as it has ever been - hence why the price is now so low...

Some time between 1970-1984 is the magic period before 'tight' oil, sand tars and what not technology allowed further extraction. Pure crude production started going downhill in 72 (Texas Crude).

I don't see peak oil as completely production related. You nearly endlessly ramp up production for decades. From my uni days, peak exploration, investment and production was somewhere in the late 70's early 80's. These days production may be higher than ever but investment and exploration is much lower, especially given well documented disasters (Deep Water Horizon) and poor public perception.

...and also the fact that we have a glut of cheap oil, as well as the development of natural gas. Investment and exploration will ramp up if/when it is economic to do so.

I slightly disagree with your definition of peak oil, as I think it is somewhat arbitrary and can change if the economic situation changes (eg nothing to stop increased investment and exploration if the economics dictates).

If you had a supply shock occur again like occurred in the 1970s, that would trigger investment and exploration.

It's an interesting question though. I tend to think we won't ever reach a "peak oil" scenario in terms of decreasing supply, ballooning production costs etc.

I think the technology of renewables will become economic long before an oil supply crunch occurs.

this is no peak oil

I guess that's where 'Peak Oil' theory gains traction. Accessing tight oil is on the enviro-warrior radar with the mis-understood techniques used to fracture the sandstone formations to access the oil.

Public perception is important. Look at the slog the Coal industry is having. 10 years ago the Adani mine wouldn't have come under any form of public pressure. It would be up and running by now.



Even Hubbert (Spelling?) the bloke who predicted Peak Oil in 1970 agrees now that the definition is not concrete. He made his predictions years before new super oil fields were found.

I don't think we'll ever have the same level of confidence in the oil industry given that Climate Change is such a hot topic and will remain so for some time.

Perhaps I'm wrong in linking public perception in coal to public perception in oil and basing it on Australian perception only.



Going back to my conspiracy theory, I think that they could manufacture a 'supply shock' simply to raise demand and increase profits. Their margins must be scarily low with the price of crude well under $100.



That's an ideal situation. It would be nice if our government started slowly building towards a renewable grid. Lets say an arbitrary number of $2 billion a year for 20 years instead of reaching an emergency and having to spend $40bn in 1 year.

Screw the pooch and then walk away.
One example of why neoliberalism is an ugly ideology. And simplistic to boot.

Your conclusion is bizarre. There are a lot of companies against the wall at present with low demand for coal.

Would be good if companies had to have a slush fund to rehabilitate their operations in the event that the company goes into administration.

I can only come to the conclusion you wilfully ignore the profit incentive of mining companies that, unconscionably, look to screw as much profit as they can out of the ground and put aside little, if any, for reparations. Then, surprise surprise, they go bankrupt and the environment (& workers) are left fucked.
The outcome of unrestrained & unchecked capitalism.

A bit like those wind farms that produce fuck all energy