The climate change debate continues.

[pmccarthy]

No one shows the holes in the ground to get the copper, rare earths, nickel, aluminium etc to make the turbines and new distribution lines. Much of that in third world countries with poor environmental controls. For example, this is an Indonesian nickel mine. Lots of other examples if you want them.

[onetrack]

Have you counted the number of open pit mines opened up, just to get gold? A pretty yellow metal that has a small level of industrial use - but which mostly gets uselessly socked away from sight for decades, after being mined! Alluvial gold mining is one of the most destructive methods around.

[facthunter]

Heat /light comes from the Sun and would be coming here anyway. OME.

  Gold also Uses ARSENIC and there's not a lot of gold and a lot of rock which releases other things,  when crushed that are not  nice for the environment.  Bauxite is essentially CLAY to make Aluminium but both that and copper ores are electrolytically refined using Lots of electricity.  . Much more that to just MELT them. Nev

Edited yesterday at 12:34 AM by facthunter

[octave]

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

No one shows the holes in the ground to get the copper, rare earths, nickel, aluminium etc to make the turbines and new distribution lines. Much of that in third world countries with poor environmental controls. For example, this is an Indonesian nickel mine. Lots of other examples if you want them.

 

That picture isn’t actually an argument against wind turbines — it’s an argument for better mining standards, which applies to all forms of energy. Every energy technology, including coal, oil and gas, requires huge amounts of mined materials. Fossil fuels require steel, concrete, copper, and aluminium too — plus they involve continuous extraction of fuel forever.

Wind turbines, by contrast, require one-time mining, then they produce energy for 25–30 years with no fuel burned and no ongoing extraction.

 

1. Wind uses far less total mined material over its lifetime than fossil fuels.
Coal and gas plants need constant mining and drilling for fuel. Wind needs materials once, then no more digging.

2. Minerals for renewables are increasingly coming from countries with strong environmental and labour standards.
Australia, Canada, the US and Scandinavia are ramping up production of nickel, copper and rare earths precisely to avoid reliance on poorly-regulated mines. The solution is improving supply chains, not ditching clean energy.

3. Wind turbines don’t use many “rare earths” anyway.
Only some turbine designs use them, and manufacturers are rapidly shifting to rare-earth-free generators.

4. Fossil fuel extraction also happens in countries with poor environmental controls — and much more of it.
Oil spills, coal sludge, gas flaring, and abandoned wells cause orders-of-magnitude more environmental damage than the mining required for renewables.

5. Modern wind turbine materials are highly recyclable.
Copper, steel and aluminium — which make up most of a turbine — are recycled at very high rates, reducing mining needs over time.

6. Showing a single mine doesn’t prove wind is bad; it just illustrates that mining should be cleaner.
If the standard is “this technology requires mining,” then all energy sources fail. The real comparison is:

• Mining once for decades of clean power (wind)
  vs

• Mining and drilling  continuously and decades of pollution (fossil fuels).

Edited yesterday at 01:13 AM by octave

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

We suffered through a 30hr power outage Wed-Thurs, have to throw out $150 worth of food. This was just after paying my concession elec bill of $437, but which really ended up as $587.

 

Had it been paid outside of the due date, the bill would be $600 + $150 rotten food = $750

 

It's not solar or wind that determines if I get cheaper electricity, it's due dates.

 

Actually, it should be illegal to charge like that. Due dates shouldn't affect concessions.

[Marty_d]

Anything in a freezer should be ok for 30 hours without power, especially if you don't open it. 

Was it all in your fridge?

[facthunter]

A Battery would have helped that. Power companies  supply electricity. Not LOAN people Money. IF you want to Pay LATE, you are being subsidised by those who Pay on time.  Nev

[pmccarthy]

Lithium is one of 34 critical raw materials listed under the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) and a key component of the EU’s ambition to shift away from fossil fuels. However, the EU still relies heavily on lithium imports particularly from Chile, which holds 42% of global reserves and produces 30% of the world’s supply. Chile’s Salar de Atacama is home to one of the world’s largest lithium mining operations. These operations affect water-scarce regions inhabited by Indigenous communities, raising serious concerns about environmental degradation and water depletion.

 

As I said, there are lots and lots of examples. Don't just show a picture of a coal mine and say this is bad.

[octave]

Interesting article about emissions in China. 

 

Here is the short version

 

A new analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), published on Carbon Brief, shows that China’s greenhouse gas emissions have been flat or declining for the past 18 months, starting from March 2024. This puts China on track for a possible full-year emissions drop in 2025, which would be symbolically significant because China has previously left its peak-emissions timeline vague.

Key Findings

• Power sector: Even though electricity demand grew sharply from July–September 2025, power-sector CO₂ emissions stayed flat.

• Renewables boom: China added 240 GW of solar and 61 GW of wind in the first nine months of 2025, setting up another record-breaking renewables year. Solar electricity output grew 46% in Q3; wind grew 11%.

• Transport: Rapid EV adoption reduced oil-related transport emissions by 5%.

• Industry: Emissions fell in cement and metals by 7% and 1% respectively; steel emissions also declined.

• Chemical sector: Emissions rose 10% due to growth in plastics and chemical production, partly offsetting reductions elsewhere.

Context and Challenges

• China is still off track for its 2020–2025 carbon-intensity target (emissions per unit of GDP), meaning deeper cuts are needed.

• Analysts note China has a history of under-promising and over-delivering on climate goals.

• China’s newly submitted 2035 climate plan (NDC) commits to reducing net economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 7–10% from their peak.

Global Perspective

• COP30 officials praised China for driving down renewable energy costs globally.

• A new UN analysis including China’s updated pledge says current global climate commitments put the world on track for a 12% emissions reduction by 2035, up from 10% in the previous assessment.

Here is the longer version:

 

https://www.euronews.com/green/2025/11/11/have-chinas-carbon-emissions-peaked-new-analysis-shows-they-havent-risen-in-18-months

 

[octave]

4 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

As I said, there are lots and lots of examples. Don't just show a picture of a coal mine and say this is bad.

I take your point, but it’s worth recognising the difference between mining coal—which is burned once and contributes directly to emissions—and mining metals like copper, nickel and lithium, which are long-lived, recyclable and essential for clean-energy infrastructure. The environmental footprint per unit of long-term usefulness is simply not comparable.

I’m not anti-mining; in fact, through my ethical super fund, I hold shares in PLS (formerly Pilbara Minerals). Mining is unavoidable if we want electricity, transport, communications, and modern technology of any kind. The real issue is how we mine.

That’s why I think the focus should be on raising environmental standards and supporting responsible producers. Australia is actually well-positioned here: strong regulations, better labour standards, and the potential to supply much of the world’s demand for critical minerals needed in batteries, electrification, and renewable energy. If anything, responsible mining in countries like Australia reduces reliance on operations in places with poorer environmental controls.

[onetrack]

Facthunter - Arsenic is not used in gold mining, perhaps you were thinking of cyanide. Arsenic can be a by-product of gold extraction. Cyanide is safe enough when used correctly, the important thing is to keep alkalinity of the aqueous gold/cyanide solution high, at least a pH of 10 or more, by using lime thoroughly blended with the ore or tailings.

I personally used a lot of cyanide for gold mining in the 1980's, our family mining and mining contracting business carried out a lot of vat leaching for gold recovery - and the interesting part is, we re-treated huge tonnages of tailings, that had all been treated with cyanide, from the 1890's up to the 1980's.

We had no problems with any cyanide residues or handling, and the mining and leaching operations were all subject to environmental regulations.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

2 hours ago, Marty_d said:

Anything in a freezer should be ok for 30 hours without power, especially if you don't open it. 

Was it all in your fridge?

In two freezers. But I read 4hrs is the limit for perishable foods.

[octave]

• Australia recorded one of its biggest annual emissions drops since COVID: 2.2% lower in the year to June, mainly due to electricity, industry and agriculture.

• Preliminary data suggests an even larger 2.8% drop for the September quarter.

• Government says Australia is on track for its 2030 target of a 43% cut from 2005 levels, and for its new 2035 target of 62–70%.

• Emissions are now 28.5% below 2005 levels, with about half of the 2030 carbon budget already used.

• Transport emissions are rising, driven by diesel utes and SUVs:

  • Diesel road emissions up 7.8% in a year.

  • Diesel vehicle numbers up 101% since 2014; petrol vehicles up only 5%.

• Chris Bowen says climate policies—renewables, home batteries, safeguard mechanism—are working.

• Australia missed out on hosting COP31, but Bowen will lead global climate negotiations for the next year.

• Bowen accuses the opposition of being “unpatriotic” for criticising the arrangement.

• The Climate Change Authority will release its own report, with Chair Matt Kean calling for bipartisan, fact-based climate policy.

 

Australia slashes emissions despite diesel ute love affair    from the Financial Review

[facthunter]

Matt Kean is someone to be trusted on this Issue. He's Fair Dinkum. Nev

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

A Battery would have helped that. Power companies  supply electricity. Not LOAN people Money. IF you want to Pay LATE, you are being subsidised by those who Pay on time.  Nev

Power companies supply power when they're not cutting it off. There's been over 300 outages since 2013. I make a note of each one, jotting down date and time. Many of which are 5-6 hrs duration. This last one was 30hrs. It was hot weather as well, so little chance for perishables.

 

I have to start thinking about more than just a battery, I need a generator, I'll have to get serious about it and stop procrastinating, these outages are not going to stop like I thought they would. I'll also do my sums for solar installation + battery.

[facthunter]

There are safety issues when connecting a Generator.  (And Noise. Less with the enclosed type).  Nev 

[onetrack]

Frozen food will keep for 48 hrs in a full freezer with no power, if the freezer isn't opened. It will keep for 24 hrs in a partly-full freezer with no power.

 

Frozen food kept at 5°C for more than 4 hours should be discarded or cooked immediately. The power company should compensate you for food losses due to power outages.

[Siso]

20 hours ago, facthunter said:

A Battery would have helped that. Power companies  supply electricity. Not LOAN people Money. IF you want to Pay LATE, you are being subsidised by those who Pay on time.  Nev

All well and good to say a battery would have helped IF you can afford it. The current governments policy are directly making electricity more expensive for those people that can least afford it. The home battery scheme takes people out of the electricity market. This money is used for the extra transmission and infrastructure meaning the cost of electricity for those that can least afford it or those living in apartments / renters have to foot the bill or as has been happening, come out of general revenue with the money put against our power bills. Always thought the ALP use to support the battlers! The whole system is an expensive joke that is going to make very little difference to the worls CO2 system.

[facthunter]

That's NOT the facts Siso.  People Having batteries HELPS everyone.   Larger Community batteries would pay for themselves. Private ones are  a bit Marginal. It's an essential part of grid stability as well as "Off Grid" set ups. Nev

[octave]

Home batteries reduce peak demand on the grid. Peak demand is the most expensive part of the electricity system because it determines how much generation and transmission needs to be built. Reducing peaks lowers system-wide costs, which benefits everyone — including those who don’t own batteries.

 

16 minutes ago, Siso said:

The home battery scheme takes people out of the electricity market.

They still buy and sell power, just less of it during expensive times. Grid-connected batteries actually support the grid by feeding in power at peak periods and reducing pressure on poles and wires

 

17 minutes ago, Siso said:

The current governments policy are directly making electricity more expensive for those people that can least afford it.

The single biggest reason for rising electricity prices over the last decade is volatile and expensive fossil fuel costs — especially gas and coal outages. Renewables (wind, solar + batteries) are now the cheapest forms of new generation, and every major energy body — AEMO, CSIRO, the ACCC — agrees that replacing old fossil plants with renewables is the lowest-cost path.

 

22 minutes ago, Siso said:

those living in apartments / renters have to foot the bill or as has been happening, come out of general revenue with the money put against our power bills.

Batteries reduce peak demand, which is the most expensive part of the grid. 

 

23 minutes ago, Siso said:

Always thought the ALP use to support the battlers!

 

I bought my system after I retired.  The upfront cost was not great, and some of it was financed with a no-interest loan. l did my sums and, for a very modest upfront cost, ensured low power bills. I am more than happy to contribute through taxes to the poorest folks to ensure that everyone can take advantage of cheap renewables.

28 minutes ago, Siso said:

is going to make very little difference to the worls CO2 system.

As  I posted earlier, China's emissions appear to have plateaued and may actually have slightly reduced. 

 

https://www.euronews.com/green/2025/11/11/have-chinas-carbon-emissions-peaked-new-analysis-shows-they-havent-risen-in-18-months

 

Australia has also reduced emissions.

 

https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/australia-slashes-emissions-despite-diesel-ute-love-affair-20251126-p5nin

 

 

 

[Siso]

Ho Hum, power bills up by 37%. Csiro also gave NP 40 year life, a big lie. Coal unreliablre because of demoniosation. Bad publicity for generators if they support it. Unfortunatley we still need it. Intermittent  energy is cheap, its just all the underutised supporting infrastructure that is not. Will the last person out of Australia please turn off the lights.

[octave]

3 minutes ago, Siso said:

Ho Hum, power bills up by 37%

My account is in credit, and no, I am not wealthy, but I did my sums.  There are schemes with no up-front costs. You can even lease a solar system.  In Europe, they have so-called balcony solar, where the panels are attached to the railings and can be taken with you when you leave. 

 

It is true that at the moment renewables are backed by fossil fuels, but every year the balance is changing.  I recall a time not that long ago when the doubters were saying that renewables could never supply more than 10% now, I believe the average is around 40% and at times, much more.

 

The argument that only coal or gas will do gets less true every year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Only gas  has quick response and not so much if steam is involved, Baseload Power is yesterdays world. We can't keep adding CO2 to the Atmosphere and the Oceans. In the Ocean it results increased Acidity. Trust the science. Not the Propaganda which is mostly from Fossil fuel vested Interests. Greenhouse effect is  not a figment of the Imagination.. Solar and wind tides etc give us freedom from being controlled by the Energy consortium s like OPEC.  and it's CLEAN and available in most parts of the World and very suited for Australia. No one can hold US to ransom. NATURAL gas is NOT Natural and harmless any More than TAR is.   The SUN will be there for Longer than We will. It's Nuclear and 93 Million Miles away.  Nev

[Siso]

Intermittents are killing it in SA at the moment. Lots of wind and sun.  Attached is from June this year. As you can see not so good. We need to build enough storage infrastructure to cover these times. A lot of this extra infrastructure we need will be sitting idle during this time of year. Do you think the owners will just say sht happens and just wear the loss or will they increase the price during the time when they will run. We use to have about 60GW of synchronous generation installed for about 30GW of max demand. When needed the reasonably cheap coal would look after it. Every thing would just load follow and during peak time the more expensive gas would cut in. Simple stable energy. If a PowerStation dropped out the rest had the inertia to ride through and throw a bit more power on the grid. We are already at 30GWs of intermittent generation and only at about a total of 40% intermittents and hydro. It is going to get harder and a lot more expensive as penetration increases. How come if intermittents are so much cheaper than traditional sources has SA got the dearest electricity in the country with the greatest number of intermittents? I realise it always has been dearer because of gas, surely it should have come down to at least be the same price.

 

 

Open nem (1).pdf

 

[octave]

South Australia isn’t expensive because it has lots of renewables — it’s expensive because it still relies on gas for backup, and gas is extremely costly. As storage grows and gas dependence falls, SA’s prices fall too (as they already do during sunny/windy periods). The idea that the old coal-based system was inherently cheap or stable isn’t accurate — it was just oversized and inflexible, and we paid the cost whether we needed the power or not. South Australia's prices are predicted to fall by 15% during the next 10 years, according to AEMC. Wholesale prices are already dropping 27%. Only 38% of your power bill is for power. The rest is for maintenance, poles and wires etc.  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/02/energy-prices-falling-electricity-cheaper-households#:~:text=As households electrify – switching to,bills could halve by 2050.

 

 

Fossil-fuel power is yesterday’s technology. Coal and gas were vital in the past, but they’re now expensive, unreliable, and being outcompeted everywhere. The cost of new wind and solar is lower than even the running cost of old coal, and investors are abandoning fossil projects because they no longer stack up financially.

Our coal fleet is ageing, breaking down more often, and too costly to maintain. Every coal station in Australia has a closure date because the private sector can’t justify keeping them open. Meanwhile, renewables and storage are now the dominant new sources of generation globally because they’re fast to build, low-cost, and flexible.

This isn’t ideology—it’s economics. Fossil fuel power is in long-term decline because it no longer fits a modern electricity system. The future grid will be cheaper, cleaner and more reliable without it.

 

The business world is already voting with its wallet. If coal and gas were truly cheaper and more efficient, investors would be lining up to fund them. Instead, banks, super funds and insurers have walked away because fossil fuels are high-risk, high-cost and increasingly unprofitable.

Meanwhile, almost all new investment is going into renewables and storage. Even the big mining companies — some of the most conservative, profit-driven businesses around — are choosing renewables because they’re cheaper and more reliable on remote sites. BHP, Rio Tinto, Fortescue, South32, and Gold Fields are all building large solar, wind and battery systems because they cut fuel costs and improve energy security.

This isn’t ideology — it’s economics. While people argue online about whether the transition “should” happen, the market has already decided. The shift away from fossil fuels is happening, accelerating, and financially unstoppable.