Australia uses Climate Change funding to upgrade coal-fired plants Watch

TheNamesBond.
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...l-fired-plants

You’ve got to be having a laugh.

Here we are, actually using the funding to combat climate change and these lot are sticking their hand in the figurative choc chip cookie jar to feed their dogs, if you can see my point, well done.
Last edited by TheNamesBond.; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
Well, if ''upgrade'' means ''make less polluting'', then this might make some amount of sense. But I'm pretty sure it's just bulshytt.
0
reply
TheNamesBond.
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
Well, if ''upgrade'' means ''make less polluting'', then this might make some amount of sense. But I'm pretty sure it's just bulshytt.
Yeh mate.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
Zero ****s given by the aussies there.
1
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
They are stocked up naturally with coal so will try to benefit from that as much as possible
0
reply
TheNamesBond.
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Andrew97)
Zero ****s given by the aussies there.
Yeh, screw the end of civilisation, I’ve got a barbecue on Friday.
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
How many coal powered plants have China coming on line in the next few years?
0
reply
Obolinda
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
What a great use.
0
reply
Decahedron
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
Aussies have always been a bit of a backwards bunch.
0
reply
TheNamesBond.
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Decahedron)
Aussies have always been a bit of a backwards bunch.
Yeh mate
0
reply
Dandaman1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
I imagine it was more cost-effective to use those funds to upgrade existing plants, increase their efficiency and reduce pollution than it was to build completely new infrastructure to replace them.

We can’t shut off our hydrocarbon industry over night. It still needs to exist as we transition into renewables, and we need to keep it as efficient and clean as we can while it exists. That costs money.
3
reply
HighOnGoofballs
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
Weird bunch the Aussies. Get shafted the hardest by climate change but lag behind their developed counterparts in making any attempts to combat it.
0
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
not surprising when they account for 32% of global coal exports - short sighted, but dont blame them for exploiting their resources
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
This isn't as paradoxical as you think.
0
reply
TheMcSame
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
I mean... Upgrade, at least to me, implies that they're making them more efficient and thus less polluting. You aren't exactly going to get these things shut and replaced overnight. Are there better ways to spend these funds? Maybe. But why tear down an operational plant before less polluting options are in place?

You can either fund those options directly or you can fund upgrades to make current plants less polluting while also getting alternatives ready.

Is it questionable? To a certain extent, maybe. But it's not entirely illogical. They could use nuclear power to replace them, but everyone gets up in arms about nuclear power because of a few high profile events, despite nuclear being one of the safest forms of power.

Nuclear power has had relatively few accidents and to top it off, death tolls are usually very low. Chernobyl being the highest recorded at 45 deaths. Although the Kyshtym disaster in 1957 has estimates that range from 50 to more than 8000. Still, this is a relatively low number compared to other forms. Not to mention that they don't tend to completely destroy environments. Wildlife is thriving in Chernobyl for example. That's not to say there isn't something happening on a genetic level to the wildlife mind you, but it is thriving nonetheless.

I believe the only other safest forms of power generation are steam and LNG. I can't see us going back to steam any time soon. LNG might be an alternative for some things. We do already use gases like propane, butane and isobutane (The three gases used for LPG) to power things, I'm sure we could come up with a means to use LNG in those same scenarios as well. Whether it'd be worth it is another matter mind you.
Last edited by TheMcSame; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by TheMcSame)
I mean... Upgrade, at least to me, implies that they're making them more efficient and thus less polluting. You aren't exactly going to get these things shut and replaced overnight. Are there better ways to spend these funds? Maybe. But why tear down an operational plant before less polluting options are in place?

You can either fund those options directly or you can fund upgrades to make current plants less polluting while also getting alternatives ready.

Is it questionable? To a certain extent, maybe. But it's not entirely illogical. They could use nuclear power to replace them, but everyone gets up in arms about nuclear power because of a few high profile events, despite nuclear being one of the safest forms of power.

Nuclear power has had relatively few accidents and to top it off, death tolls are usually very low. Chernobyl being the highest recorded at 45 deaths. Although the Kyshtym disaster in 1957 has estimates that range from 50 to more than 8000. Still, this is a relatively low number compared to other forms. Not to mention that they don't tend to completely destroy environments. Wildlife is thriving in Chernobyl for example. That's not to say there isn't something happening on a genetic level to the wildlife mind you, but it is thriving nonetheless.

I believe the only other safest forms of power generation are steam and LNG. I can't see us going back to steam any time soon. LNG might be an alternative for some things. We do already use gases like propane, butane and isobutane (The three gases used for LPG) to power things, I'm sure we could come up with a means to use LNG in those same scenarios as well. Whether it'd be worth it is another matter mind you.
What do you mean by steam power? Coal, gas and nuclear are all 'steam power'.
0
reply
TheMcSame
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
What do you mean by steam power? Coal, gas and nuclear are all 'steam power'.
Steam engines. A lot of them did burn coal and oil, but they could also be run using wood and bagasse. You could also have electrically heated boilers, but I suspect they'd be less efficient than fully electric trains.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (130)
18.06%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (73)
10.14%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (124)
17.22%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (104)
14.44%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (70)
9.72%
How can I be the best version of myself? (219)
30.42%

Watched Threads

View All