peter67 wrote:

---

For clarity lets frame the argument/discussion this way re closing power stations early while we currently struggle to maintain electricity supply.

If your life, and all other peoples lives, depended on being hooked up to a small home ventilator 24/7 so you could breath and live, how would you feel if the gummint suddenly announced that CSIRO has discovered a toxic asbestos like part in the ventilator is very harmful so they are going to ban/withdraw them within 12 mths. But don't worry they'll muddle along and fix it. Trust us!
ps, AWL for a dinosaur you are a very practical thinker :)

---

 If such an imaginary scenario existed one would have to choose the better of two evils. 

Kill everyone now, or leave them alone to die lingering awful deaths.  Not a choice anyone would wish for. 

As a comparison to our situation which is not imaginary, we hope there is a significant difference. That the threat to lives is not so immediate. So as far as the essential factors of your scenario & the scenario we are actually in, they are virtually the reverse of each other thankfully, & thus we still have a bit of wriggle room to try new things. 

Whether we like it or not we only have two choices. Act or don't act. Acting gives us a chance, not acting doesn't. 

It seems to me that somewhere in this issue is the issue of autonomy, not taking kindly to being told what to do.  I'll try to put another imaginary scenario to you.

The government of the time says that the only way we can survive is to all hold each other's hands for 12 hours a day, every day, into the forseeable future. Scientific studies right around the world overwhelmingly support this.  However it will only work if we all do it, so they mandate this behaviour. Of course there are those who don't like being dictated to who talk of their wish & their rights not to do it. Who scream 'unfair'.  But who is behaving unfairly in that scenario - the hand holders who advocate all should comply, or the 'free handers' who's behaviour threatens the majority?  

I am a strong believer in autonomy & self reliance, but I do not place my right to look after myself above my responsibility to be prepared to act for the greater good. 

PeterInSa wrote:

---

I think SA residents driving older vehicles will need a major government financial help/incentive to move to EV.

---

Not just SA. And I have no doubt the future incentives will have more stick than carrot. I can see that being steep increases in fuel prices as the biggest stick. Then the high cost of going electric will seem less painful.

At least there are not many people saying how EV will be cheaper anymore ..."all that free energy from the sun". Yeah right.

I would just like to follow up on Cuppa's hypothetical about being told to hold hands for 12 hours a day. So if everyone does it, everyone benefits. But the handholding isn't without cost. While we are handholding some people have to give up their jobs, and the economy suffers. Each day our nation's savings deplete just a little and the economy takes another kick. But there is a huge country 50 times our size nearby that has no such rule. The majority there are choosing not to hold hands. They continue to grow richer while everyone in our country grows poorer. Soon, you need to sell your prized collection of teacups to make ends meet. The large neighbouring family picks it up for a song. The government sells off large parcels of land and infrastructure. The other country picks them up for a song.

At this point you are thinking what a pointless excercise it is. You grow poorer while the those in the huge neighbouring country across the sea get richer. But worse, you can achieve nothing anyway. What IS the point if you can't make a difference and they are certain to take advantage.

Are We Lost wrote:

---

What IS the point if you can't make a difference and they are certain to take advantage.

---

Because it enables a lot of well off middle class people who won't be materially affected by such changes to feel smug and self-satisfied.

Are We Lost wrote:

---

I would just like to follow up on Cuppa's hypothetical about being told to hold hands for 12 hours a day. So if everyone does it, everyone benefits. But the handholding isn't without cost. While we are handholding some people have to give up their jobs, and the economy suffers. Each day our nation's savings deplete just a little and the economy takes another kick. But there is a huge country 50 times our size nearby that has no such rule. The majority there are choosing not to hold hands. They continue to grow richer while everyone in our country grows poorer. Soon, you need to sell your prized collection of teacups to make ends meet. The large neighbouring family picks it up for a song. The government sells off large parcels of land and infrastructure. The other country picks them up for a song.

At this point you are thinking what a pointless excercise it is. You grow poorer while the those in the huge neighbouring country across the sea get richer. But worse, you can achieve nothing anyway. What IS the point if you can't make a difference and they are certain to take advantage.

 

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Friday 24th of February 2023 12:46:02 AM

---

 A couple of points. 1. It's was an imaginary scenario to illustrate the impact of placing the desire to not allow others to tell you what to do above conforming for the greater good . 2. Instead of holding hands it could have been anything.Eg. touching your nose 3 times a day. 3. In your scenario there would be consequences for the non-conforming country. ie They would not survive & their growing richer would be of little benefit. 4. Your addition of 'What is the point if you cant make a difference' expands the scenario. 

I do take your point however.

It appears that to me you were likening the scenario to our current situation of combatting the impact of climate change, rather than specifically to the point about being 'told what to do' that I attempted to illustrate. 

My reading of your scenario, translated into our current circumstances is that perhaps you do not think we can make a difference to climate change, & thus any attempt to try carries the risk of it not only not working, but also economic ruin because that situation would be exploited by our economic competitors. 

Is that correct?

I assume that it is your view from your comment "What IS the point if you can't make a difference" and the added part to that "and they are certain to take advantage", which suggests that being around to take advantage would be possible (ie. that the threat of climate change isn't real).

If so, it takes us around in a circle. The same circle essentially which has sought, & still seeks to deny the existence of fossil fuel driven climate change, &  stymies efforts to reduce the impact of what has been predicted for over 100 years, & which current consensus of scientific expertise (ie. the best knowledge available to us) tells us is upon us. (Let alone all the unscientific evidence of impacts we see increasingly on our news services).

 If that is the position you are arguing from then it is pointless having the discussion, as it is a position which risks the future of the planet on the basis of 99%* faith and/or wishful thinking, & 1%* scientific opinion which suits that, but is rejected by the world's scientific consensus. It is the view of an increasing majority swayed by the overwhelming evidence that we can no longer afford to waste time arguing about that nonsense. That is not to say that all those who continue to promote that denialist view do not believe what they believe (& have the right to believe it), but rather that it is is no longer worth wasting time on, and allowing those views to prevent getting on with the job. Thus the need for mandating. 

There is of course uncertainty as to whether 'getting on with the job' can be successful or whether we have left it too late already, but we have nothing to lose by trying, & everything to lose by not doing so. 

* estimated

Mike Harding wrote:

---

Are We Lost wrote:

---

What IS the point if you can't make a difference and they are certain to take advantage.

---

Because it enables a lot of well off middle class people who won't be materially affected by such changes to feel smug and self-satisfied.

---

Won't be materially affected? Surely you jest?  Wealth could only 'prolong the agony' in the short term. You can't eat or drink money.  

Cuppa wrote:

---

........ deny the existence of fossil fuel driven climate change .........

 ...... If that is the position you are arguing .....

---

No it isn't. It's closer to knowing that a flood is coming down the river. If everyone chips in their efforts we may be able to lay enough sandbags to reduce the impact a little. But not everyone is chipping in. So to try will be a wasted effort. Better to put efforts into dealing with its arrival. You may be able to save your home, but if you spend the time laying sandbags, you may lose the home.

But as this is digressing into another debate about climate change I won't continue on that. Sorry if I misinterpeted your holding hands hypothetical.

Edit: Before closing on this, I just saw your response to Mike ... "You can't eat or drink money". No, but if food becomes scarce, and therefore expensive, the rich can continue to eat well while the poor scrape by on rice and beans .... metaphorically.

Cuppa wrote:

---

 Surely you jest?

---

No.

I never jest when you are likely to respond as you do not appear to have a sense of either humour or irony.

Mike Harding wrote:

---

Cuppa wrote:

---

 Surely you jest?

---

No.

I never jest when you are likely to respond as you do not appear to have a sense of either humour or irony.

---

 Still with the polemics, Mike?

Chill.

Are We Lost wrote:

---

Cuppa wrote:

---

........ deny the existence of fossil fuel driven climate change .........

 ...... If that is the position you are arguing .....

---

No it isn't. It's closer to knowing that a flood is coming down the river. If everyone chips in their efforts we may be able to lay enough sandbags to reduce the impact a little. But not everyone is chipping in. So to try will be a wasted effort. Better to put efforts into dealing with its arrival. You may be able to save your home, but if you spend the time laying sandbags, you may lose the home.

But as this is digressing into another debate about climate change I won't continue on that. Sorry if I misinterpeted your holding hands hypothetical.

Edit: Before closing on this, I just saw your response to Mike ... "You can't eat or drink money". No, but if food becomes scarce, and therefore expensive, the rich can continue to eat well while the poor scrape by on rice and beans .... metaphorically.

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Friday 24th of February 2023 12:38:42 PM

---

 You missed the 'prolonging the agony' bit. It referred to when food runs out, (when there are no rice & beans), or when those who have as much right to the food but no money, just take it. When push comes to shove & life & death survival instincts take hold I very much doubt that the modern day 'niceties' of being able to have something because you can pay for it will hold much sway. 

I also don't make any assumption that it will be possible to 'deal with it's arrival' & consider that the catastrophic events may be such that they could be unsurviveable.

Nevertheless the real point is that I think we should do all we can. Not just sandbagging or preparing for it's arrival, but also everything we can do to prevent it happening in the first place. 

It was always a debate about climate change. 

Mike Harding wrote:

---

Cuppa wrote:

---

 Surely you jest?

---

No.

I never jest when you are likely to respond as you do not appear to have a sense of either humour or irony.

---

 Always hard to tell whether you are being ironic or sardonic Mike. I have come to expect to the latter. If you thought I may not 'get' your intention perhaps instead of trying to look clever, you could have prioritised 'trying to be understood'.  

You do seem very adept at posting comments which are critical or unpleasant in some manner which when someone takes it that way are then deniable. I think it is probably a game you play.  

I generally take people as I find them & give them the benefit of the doubt, but it seems that just about every interaction I've had with you, pushes me toward the clever dick & grumpy descriptions of you that others have made on many occasions. Even when I have tried to be helpful to you, your response instead of politeness & gratitude for at least making the effort & trying has been dismissive & unnecessarily arrogant. That is when you have deigned to respond at all.  

I suggest that if you are unable to at least try to interact with me in a more respectful manner, that you simply don't interact with me at all.  If your choice is to keep folk at 'arms length' that is your issue not mine. Find those who are ok with that. Good luck. 

Gary and Barb wrote:

---

Mike Harding wrote:

---

Cuppa wrote:

---

 Surely you jest?

---

No.

I never jest when you are likely to respond as you do not appear to have a sense of either humour or irony.

---

 Still with the polemics, Mike?

Chill.

---

 I had to look that word up. 

I read the article of the original poster, so thanks for that Jaahn, it was very informative

I agree with what the European Union is doing, banning the sale of NEW vehicles (from 2035), which produce tailpipe emissions
The article says (as I interpret it), that this will force people to buy electric cars

The article, points out that some companies are trying to produce a synthetic fuel, which produces no tailpipe emissions

The article also says that Porsche, has been at the forefront of synthetic petrol development - where carbon is captured from the atmosphere and recycled into fuel.

My theory, is that electric cars are coming to Australia, as well as world wide, whether we like it or not

I base my theory on three (as I have interpreted them). facts

1. The price of petrol/diesel is going up, while the price of batteries are coming down, and getting better range

2. $100 Million has been spent on synthetic fuel, while about $3 Billion has been earmarked for battery research

3. As we now have a market for better batteries, I expect that battery research will hopefully, design a better battery

As far as charging the farmers electric tractor, in his own field, as well as charging a long distance semi truck type electric vehicle.
Better people than I, would probably design, portable solar power stations, and place them in strategic places

We know that there are two places in the world that are ran by clowns, that's Europe and California.

Even the Tesla Truck is incapable of working efficiently here. I don't doubt that the tesla truck could tow a fully laden road train or B double, except at a guess it would require a battery that would take up the entire first trailer, therefore it looses 30% of its available load and it would still have distance issues.

So basically Asia, Russia, Nth & Sth America, the Sub Continent and Africa would still depend on fuel to power their transport needs.

REALITY CHECK!

China - USA - India - Russia - Japan

There is a community of 190 separately owned residential properties that range in size from single bedroom bungalows to skyscraper height condominium buildings that house several thousand people.

For all 190 properties, the sole source of water is a nearby lake.

For all 190 properties, waste water is discharged into the lake.

Five properties (hereinafter referred to as The Big Five) account for 60% of the total waste water discharged into the lake.

One hundred and eighty five properties account for 40% of the total waste water discharged into the lake.

Tests have revealed that the lake is becoming increasingly contaminated and, unless ongoing contamination is arrested, let alone existing contamination levels reduced, the lake water will be unfit for consumption.

Over the course of numerous residents' meetings, a plan of action has been drawn up.

At significant cost, every residential building is to be fitted with a waster water filtration machine.

However, current technology of waster water machines is such that they cannot cope with the current volumes of waster water discharge.

Therefore, lifestyle changes, and additional expenses, are required.

Every residence will require a dishwasher to be installed which can only be operated when it is full. Some residents will need to buy additional sets of crockery and cutlery so that they don't run out of clean plates, knives and forks while waiting for the dishwasher to become full.

Every residence will require a (water-saving) front loading washing machine to be installed which can only be operated when it is full. Existing top loading washing machines will have to be junked.

Furthermore, on days that the dishwasher and/or the washing machine are operated, residents cannot take a bath nor have a shower in order to limit waster water discharge.

It is believed that the combination of investment in new equipment and changes to lifestyle will address the water contamination problem.

However, The Big Five are resisting. At residents' meetings, The Big Five nod in agreement and make promises to reduce their waste water output but, in reality, 3 of The Big Five have made only marginal reductions and 2 of The Big Five are actually increasing their waste water output, week after week, month after month, year after year.

In fact, due to redevelopment and modernization of the residential buildings of 2 of The Big Five, an ongoing increase in their respective volumes of waster water discharge is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

So, 185 residential buildings in the community, which represents 98% of the community and 40% of waster water discharge, are incurring significant costs and adopting significant lifestyle changes to address the issue of water contamination.

The Big Five, which represents 2% of the community and 60% of waste water discharge, are adopting small, insignificant and ineffective changes to address the issue of water contamination and, moreover, 2 of The Big Five are actually increasing their waste water discharge and are likely to do so for the foreseeable future.

The owners and occupiers of the 185 residential properties have 0% control over the actions and undertakings of The Big Five.

What does the future hold for this community?

Mein wrote:

The owners and occupiers of the 185 residential properties have 0% control over the actions and undertakings of The Big Five.

What does the future hold for this community?

---

 the obvious thing would be to stop selling them pollutants.

BasilB wrote:

---

 the obvious thing would be to stop selling them pollutants.

---

If all waste water goes into the lake, what are you going stop. Dishwasher and washer use restricted. Reduce sewerage?

An interesting analogy Mein.

As in real life, the approach of "we must try" is pointless. Better to put efforts into dealing with it rather than trying to stop the inevitable. But as that digresses into subjects that some can't see logic, I will leave it there.

Are We Lost wrote:

---

BasilB wrote:

---

 the obvious thing would be to stop selling them pollutants.

---

If all waste water goes into the lake, what are you going stop. Dishwasher and washer use restricted. Reduce sewerage?

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Monday 27th of February 2023 10:35:58 PM

---

 discharging fresh water is not a problem.

BasilB wrote:

---

 discharging fresh water is not a problem.

---

 I will save some of the water from my shower and sink drain for your drinking water. Anyway, it's getting a bit pedantic and off topic. No more from me on the analogy.

Are We Lost wrote:

---

BasilB wrote:

---

 discharging fresh water is not a problem.

---

 Anyway, it's getting a bit pedantic and off topic.

 

---

 horse water drink

"No matter how thin you slice it, there will always be two sides"

Baruch Spinoza.

The real problem that has caused this problem and whole change in thinking is really just People...The world population explosion has created the need for more mining, more oil, more of the things that are finite.
It is a very debatable subject this. Personally, I have grave doubts that electricity alone is the absolute answer, one only needs to see the the dangers in the new battery components, it seems that Lithium itself can be self combusting when over charged and over heated, that really  poses a major problem?

One of our great new Electricity producing infrastructures 'Snowy 2' is now virtually decommissioned with the massive machinery stuck and at present, in an un- recoverable position and the whole operation is shutdown.

The electronic age may,

and will eventually hit us, but 2035...I think is a pipedream!. Time alone will tell, but imho, we will need Nuclear and Hydrogen power to bring the dream to reality in anywhere near the forecast years!

Wizardofoz wrote:

---

....... one only needs to see the the dangers in the new battery components, it seems that Lithium itself can be self combusting when over charged and over heated, llll

O

-- Edited by Wizardofoz on Saturday 4th of March 2023 02:22:57 PM

---

 With the updated battery technology this cannot happen. These latest versions have built in safeguards that pretty much work like

a fire extinguisher. Those that do catch fire have been built in a 'backyard' and do not conform. Caveat Emptor.

Watched a great documentary hosted by Guy Martin. He is Irish and a well respected and talented person. He organised

for a graphic comparison between older style battery vs the newer. Chalk and cheese. In the first instance, the vehicle burned

completely and the fire was self propagating for days until all the chemicals were used up. With the newer versions, barely got

smoke. The name of the program is: The fastest electric vehicle.

Deverell...I am not arguing that Electric is the way for the future, just the timeframe and the ability of electricity to be fully stand alone across the vastness of Australia.
We are basically a dry arid Country where our population gravitates to the coastlines (we simply love the water and the conveniences), the sheer size of Australia and our minimal rural population makes it an extremely difficult and expensive exercise to cover the Continent completely and effectively without backup support.
I see EV vehicles being very dominant in City areas, I also believe that it will be very hard for them to cut the mustard in Rural Australia (imho), at least in the medium term and under present conditions.
A big concern for me, even for city dwellers is...huge major apartment buildings of over say 100 units. I cannot visualise having 100 plus vehicles in one stand alone building being all charged simultaneously...to me that poses both one massive power drain that will be very hard to cover, and the number of power charging outlets required will be huge!!!???

ps...I have both an electric bicycle and a moped/bike...but not an electric car, and none planned either, at 80 years of age, I reckon my time will expire before I venture down that path.

-- Edited by Wizardofoz on Sunday 5th of March 2023 05:52:32 AM

Sure, they can build them, but Australia's problem is charging them not supply of the vehicles...we are miles short of the necessary supply right now, and it is long from being serviceable Country wide.
Not only that, for the average Joe, battery replacements range from $20,000 to around $50,000 (Tesla), and that may occur from 10 years of purchase...a killer for most and a certain killer for the next buyer.