Rev asked a great question.
The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, leaving aside the political issues, if investment in renewables is so high (which is apparently true), and if “green energy” is supplying a substantial part of our electricity, how come our GHG emissions are still going up?

I thought it was worth a thread.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/09/australias-emissions-reach-the-highest-on-record-driven-by-electricity-sector

Looking at those cross tabs, comparing the most recent results with the results when the Coalition was first elected, the emissions from the electricity sector have not risen, which (considering there are more GWh/annum produced now than there were in 2013) is kind of a good sign. The headline of this article seems to be drug related.

Consider the breakdown using the information in that article, of Mt of CO2e by sector. (These figures do not include “land use change”.)

Sep 2013
Electricity 45
Stationary Energy 24
Transport 24
Fugitive emissions 10 Industrial Processes and Product Use 8
Agriculture 18
Waste 3

Sep 2018
Electricity 45
Stationary Energy 26
Transport 26
Fugitive emissions 15 Industrial Processes and Product Use 9
Agriculture 18
Waste 3

The major increases are in Transport and Fugitive emissions.

I blame Howard

dv said:

Rev asked a great question.
The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, leaving aside the political issues, if investment in renewables is so high (which is apparently true), and if “green energy” is supplying a substantial part of our electricity, how come our GHG emissions are still going up?

I thought it was worth a thread.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/09/australias-emissions-reach-the-highest-on-record-driven-by-electricity-sector

Looking at those cross tabs, comparing the most recent results with the results when the Coalition was first elected, the emissions from the electricity sector have not risen, which (considering there are more GWh/annum produced now than there were in 2013) is kind of a good sign. The headline of this article seems to be drug related.

Consider the breakdown using the information in that article, of Mt of CO2e by sector. (These figures do not include “land use change”.)

Sep 2013
Electricity 45
Stationary Energy 24
Transport 24
Fugitive emissions 10 Industrial Processes and Product Use 8
Agriculture 18
Waste 3

Sep 2018
Electricity 45
Stationary Energy 26
Transport 26
Fugitive emissions 15 Industrial Processes and Product Use 9
Agriculture 18
Waste 3

The major increases are in Transport and Fugitive emissions.

What are fugitive emissions?

Ian said:

I blame Howard

fair. You did forget Abbott though.

roughbarked said:

Ian said:

I blame Howard

fair. You did forget Abbott though.

Howard begat Abbott who begat Morriscum.

It’s always Howard.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Rev asked a great question.
The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, leaving aside the political issues, if investment in renewables is so high (which is apparently true), and if “green energy” is supplying a substantial part of our electricity, how come our GHG emissions are still going up?

I thought it was worth a thread.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/09/australias-emissions-reach-the-highest-on-record-driven-by-electricity-sector

Looking at those cross tabs, comparing the most recent results with the results when the Coalition was first elected, the emissions from the electricity sector have not risen, which (considering there are more GWh/annum produced now than there were in 2013) is kind of a good sign. The headline of this article seems to be drug related.

Consider the breakdown using the information in that article, of Mt of CO2e by sector. (These figures do not include “land use change”.)

Sep 2013
Electricity 45
Stationary Energy 24
Transport 24
Fugitive emissions 10 Industrial Processes and Product Use 8
Agriculture 18
Waste 3

Sep 2018
Electricity 45
Stationary Energy 26
Transport 26
Fugitive emissions 15 Industrial Processes and Product Use 9
Agriculture 18
Waste 3

The major increases are in Transport and Fugitive emissions.

What are fugitive emissions?

Gas leaks, eg from wells.

dv said:

Rev asked a great question.
The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, leaving aside the political issues, if investment in renewables is so high (which is apparently true), and if “green energy” is supplying a substantial part of our electricity, how come our GHG emissions are still going up?

I thought it was worth a thread.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/09/australias-emissions-reach-the-highest-on-record-driven-by-electricity-sector

Looking at those cross tabs, comparing the most recent results with the results when the Coalition was first elected, the emissions from the electricity sector have not risen, which (considering there are more GWh/annum produced now than there were in 2013) is kind of a good sign. The headline of this article seems to be drug related.

Consider the breakdown using the information in that article, of Mt of CO2e by sector. (These figures do not include “land use change”.)

Sep 2013
Electricity 45
Stationary Energy 24
Transport 24
Fugitive emissions 10 Industrial Processes and Product Use 8
Agriculture 18
Waste 3

Sep 2018
Electricity 45
Stationary Energy 26
Transport 26
Fugitive emissions 15 Industrial Processes and Product Use 9
Agriculture 18
Waste 3

The major increases are in Transport and Fugitive emissions.

Interesting numbers.

So is the huge jump in fugitive emissions due to fracking, or something else?

Ian said:

roughbarked said:

Ian said:

I blame Howard

fair. You did forget Abbott though.

Howard begat Abbott who begat Morriscum.

It’s always Howard.

That is why I said fair. ;)

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Rev asked a great question.

I thought it was worth a thread.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/09/australias-emissions-reach-the-highest-on-record-driven-by-electricity-sector

Looking at those cross tabs, comparing the most recent results with the results when the Coalition was first elected, the emissions from the electricity sector have not risen, which (considering there are more GWh/annum produced now than there were in 2013) is kind of a good sign. The headline of this article seems to be drug related.

Consider the breakdown using the information in that article, of Mt of CO2e by sector. (These figures do not include “land use change”.)

Sep 2013
Electricity 45
Stationary Energy 24
Transport 24
Fugitive emissions 10 Industrial Processes and Product Use 8
Agriculture 18
Waste 3

Sep 2018
Electricity 45
Stationary Energy 26
Transport 26
Fugitive emissions 15 Industrial Processes and Product Use 9
Agriculture 18
Waste 3

The major increases are in Transport and Fugitive emissions.

What are fugitive emissions?

Gas leaks, eg from wells.

Thanks.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Rev asked a great question.
The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, leaving aside the political issues, if investment in renewables is so high (which is apparently true), and if “green energy” is supplying a substantial part of our electricity, how come our GHG emissions are still going up?

I thought it was worth a thread.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/09/australias-emissions-reach-the-highest-on-record-driven-by-electricity-sector

Looking at those cross tabs, comparing the most recent results with the results when the Coalition was first elected, the emissions from the electricity sector have not risen, which (considering there are more GWh/annum produced now than there were in 2013) is kind of a good sign. The headline of this article seems to be drug related.

Consider the breakdown using the information in that article, of Mt of CO2e by sector. (These figures do not include “land use change”.)

Sep 2013
Electricity 45
Stationary Energy 24
Transport 24
Fugitive emissions 10 Industrial Processes and Product Use 8
Agriculture 18
Waste 3

Sep 2018
Electricity 45
Stationary Energy 26
Transport 26
Fugitive emissions 15 Industrial Processes and Product Use 9
Agriculture 18
Waste 3

The major increases are in Transport and Fugitive emissions.

Interesting numbers.

So is the huge jump in fugitive emissions due to fracking, or something else?

Fair chance it is fracking, yes.

From chat:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Because you still need to run fossil fuel power generators as backup, when the wind drops out and the sun goes down they need to be up and running to take 100%+ of the load.

OK, I didn’t realise the existing hydro power and gas power and the new battery backup systems were all totally useless.

Seems like someone needs to do a bit of work on that.

The battery back-up system, or at least the big one in SA that everyone talks about, is not really a back-up system at all. It does frequency control ancillary services quite well but it is not made to support the grid is it is actually failing. If the grid fails it will turn itself off, it is not designed to operate in an islanded mode.

OK, but surely when the grid is not failing (which is most of the time) the batteries allow a reduction in coal fired output. If not, what is the point?

The Rev Dodgson said:

From chat:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, I didn’t realise the existing hydro power and gas power and the new battery backup systems were all totally useless.

Seems like someone needs to do a bit of work on that.

The battery back-up system, or at least the big one in SA that everyone talks about, is not really a back-up system at all. It does frequency control ancillary services quite well but it is not made to support the grid is it is actually failing. If the grid fails it will turn itself off, it is not designed to operate in an islanded mode.

OK, but surely when the grid is not failing (which is most of the time) the batteries allow a reduction in coal fired output. If not, what is the point?

The associated wind farm certainly does but the batteries not so much.

The Rev Dodgson said:

From chat:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, I didn’t realise the existing hydro power and gas power and the new battery backup systems were all totally useless.

Seems like someone needs to do a bit of work on that.

The battery back-up system, or at least the big one in SA that everyone talks about, is not really a back-up system at all. It does frequency control ancillary services quite well but it is not made to support the grid is it is actually failing. If the grid fails it will turn itself off, it is not designed to operate in an islanded mode.

OK, but surely when the grid is not failing (which is most of the time) the batteries allow a reduction in coal fired output. If not, what is the point?

I believe that the Tesla battery in SA is only to save blackouts in some instances.

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, but surely when the grid is not failing (which is most of the time) the batteries allow a reduction in coal fired output. If not, what is the point?

to stabilise the frequency. + or – load on coal fired generators, slow ramp speeds, mean the genny slows or speeds up slightly. speed should be constant to keep the supply frequency constant. The batteries do this.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Rev asked a great question.

I thought it was worth a thread.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/09/australias-emissions-reach-the-highest-on-record-driven-by-electricity-sector

Looking at those cross tabs, comparing the most recent results with the results when the Coalition was first elected, the emissions from the electricity sector have not risen, which (considering there are more GWh/annum produced now than there were in 2013) is kind of a good sign. The headline of this article seems to be drug related.

Consider the breakdown using the information in that article, of Mt of CO2e by sector. (These figures do not include “land use change”.)

Sep 2013
Electricity 45
Stationary Energy 24
Transport 24
Fugitive emissions 10 Industrial Processes and Product Use 8
Agriculture 18
Waste 3

Sep 2018
Electricity 45
Stationary Energy 26
Transport 26
Fugitive emissions 15 Industrial Processes and Product Use 9
Agriculture 18
Waste 3

The major increases are in Transport and Fugitive emissions.

What are fugitive emissions?

Gas leaks, eg from wells.

Also from coal mines, although many are required to drain and collect gas ahead of mining.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

From chat:

sibeen said:

The battery back-up system, or at least the big one in SA that everyone talks about, is not really a back-up system at all. It does frequency control ancillary services quite well but it is not made to support the grid is it is actually failing. If the grid fails it will turn itself off, it is not designed to operate in an islanded mode.

OK, but surely when the grid is not failing (which is most of the time) the batteries allow a reduction in coal fired output. If not, what is the point?

The associated wind farm certainly does but the batteries not so much.

The batteries can store 129 MWh.

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

From chat:

OK, but surely when the grid is not failing (which is most of the time) the batteries allow a reduction in coal fired output. If not, what is the point?

The associated wind farm certainly does but the batteries not so much.

The batteries can store 129 MWh.

that’s a lot of power!

LNG production in Australia has tripled since 2012, doubled in the two years to 2017 and is expected to grow another 18% this year (2018). The related growth in emissions is projected to effectively wipe out carbon pollution avoided through the 23% renewable energy target.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/half-of-australias-emissions-increase-linked-to-was-gorgon-lng-plant

ruby said:

LNG production in Australia has tripled since 2012, doubled in the two years to 2017 and is expected to grow another 18% this year (2018). The related growth in emissions is projected to effectively wipe out carbon pollution avoided through the 23% renewable energy target.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/half-of-australias-emissions-increase-linked-to-was-gorgon-lng-plant

That looks worth a read.

Seems odd that neither side of politics seems to want to talk about it all that much.

ChrispenEvan said:

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

The associated wind farm certainly does but the batteries not so much.

The batteries can store 129 MWh.

that’s a lot of power!

peers over glasses

:)

The Rev Dodgson said:

ruby said:

LNG production in Australia has tripled since 2012, doubled in the two years to 2017 and is expected to grow another 18% this year (2018). The related growth in emissions is projected to effectively wipe out carbon pollution avoided through the 23% renewable energy target.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/half-of-australias-emissions-increase-linked-to-was-gorgon-lng-plant

That looks worth a read.

Seems odd that neither side of politics seems to want to talk about it all that much.

Hold on. So that’s going to count the emissions as coming from Australia? What about the country that actually burns the LNG?

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ruby said:

LNG production in Australia has tripled since 2012, doubled in the two years to 2017 and is expected to grow another 18% this year (2018). The related growth in emissions is projected to effectively wipe out carbon pollution avoided through the 23% renewable energy target.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/half-of-australias-emissions-increase-linked-to-was-gorgon-lng-plant

That looks worth a read.

Seems odd that neither side of politics seems to want to talk about it all that much.

Hold on. So that’s going to count the emissions as coming from Australia? What about the country that actually burns the LNG?

They get the emissions from the burning, and we get the emissions from the extraction?

Isn’t that how it works?

The Rev Dodgson said:

ruby said:

LNG production in Australia has tripled since 2012, doubled in the two years to 2017 and is expected to grow another 18% this year (2018). The related growth in emissions is projected to effectively wipe out carbon pollution avoided through the 23% renewable energy target.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/half-of-australias-emissions-increase-linked-to-was-gorgon-lng-plant

That looks worth a read.

Seems odd that neither side of politics seems to want to talk about it all that much.

The resources minister Matt Canavan has shrugged off Australia’s trend of rising emissions, saying the industry responsible for the growth is gas, and Australian gas exports reduce carbon emissions in other countries.

After a government report to the United Nations showed Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise in 2018, Canavan told Sky News people needed to take a “balanced viewpoint” when assessing the trend.

“A lot of people comment on the fact that carbon emissions have gone up in Australia in the last couple of years, and they have, but that’s almost principally due to the construction or bringing online of LNG export terminals,” Canavan said on Wednesday.

“Yes, from a carbon accounting perspective, that increases Australia’s carbon emissions because we are the country where the gas is liquified, however the gas is then used in other countries and they use the gas to replace, often coal, but sometimes dirtier forms of power, and that helps the world’s carbon emissions,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/29/australias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-increased-for-fourth-year-in-a-row-in-2018

See.. s’ok

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ruby said:

LNG production in Australia has tripled since 2012, doubled in the two years to 2017 and is expected to grow another 18% this year (2018). The related growth in emissions is projected to effectively wipe out carbon pollution avoided through the 23% renewable energy target.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/half-of-australias-emissions-increase-linked-to-was-gorgon-lng-plant

That looks worth a read.

Seems odd that neither side of politics seems to want to talk about it all that much.

Hold on. So that’s going to count the emissions as coming from Australia? What about the country that actually burns the LNG?

So it looks like they are supposed to sequester 80% of emissions, but if they hit technical problems which means they can’t, then no problem, that’s OK.

It also looks like they don’t actually receive any additional income for the sequestration (or at least the article didn’t mention any).

And it seems they have hit technical problems, so they can’t do the sequestration.

What a surprise.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ruby said:

LNG production in Australia has tripled since 2012, doubled in the two years to 2017 and is expected to grow another 18% this year (2018). The related growth in emissions is projected to effectively wipe out carbon pollution avoided through the 23% renewable energy target.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/half-of-australias-emissions-increase-linked-to-was-gorgon-lng-plant

That looks worth a read.

Seems odd that neither side of politics seems to want to talk about it all that much.

Hold on. So that’s going to count the emissions as coming from Australia? What about the country that actually burns the LNG?

Hoping that sibeen may read the article to be enlightened as to why the Gorgon plant is producing emissions right here in Australia

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ruby said:

LNG production in Australia has tripled since 2012, doubled in the two years to 2017 and is expected to grow another 18% this year (2018). The related growth in emissions is projected to effectively wipe out carbon pollution avoided through the 23% renewable energy target.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/half-of-australias-emissions-increase-linked-to-was-gorgon-lng-plant

That looks worth a read.

Seems odd that neither side of politics seems to want to talk about it all that much.

The resources minister Matt Canavan has shrugged off Australia’s trend of rising emissions, saying the industry responsible for the growth is gas, and Australian gas exports reduce carbon emissions in other countries.

After a government report to the United Nations showed Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise in 2018, Canavan told Sky News people needed to take a “balanced viewpoint” when assessing the trend.

“A lot of people comment on the fact that carbon emissions have gone up in Australia in the last couple of years, and they have, but that’s almost principally due to the construction or bringing online of LNG export terminals,” Canavan said on Wednesday.

“Yes, from a carbon accounting perspective, that increases Australia’s carbon emissions because we are the country where the gas is liquified, however the gas is then used in other countries and they use the gas to replace, often coal, but sometimes dirtier forms of power, and that helps the world’s carbon emissions,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/29/australias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-increased-for-fourth-year-in-a-row-in-2018

See.. s’ok

That’s actually a reasonable comment.

Or at least it would be if there was a price on GHG emissions, so the company had an incentive to reduce them as far as is practicable.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ruby said:

LNG production in Australia has tripled since 2012, doubled in the two years to 2017 and is expected to grow another 18% this year (2018). The related growth in emissions is projected to effectively wipe out carbon pollution avoided through the 23% renewable energy target.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/half-of-australias-emissions-increase-linked-to-was-gorgon-lng-plant

That looks worth a read.

Seems odd that neither side of politics seems to want to talk about it all that much.

Hold on. So that’s going to count the emissions as coming from Australia? What about the country that actually burns the LNG?

No. It is just the emissions from LNG production, not the consumption side of it. If we counted that in it would look much worse. If we counted emissions from Australian coal too, we’d be in the top 10 largest emitters in the world.

ruby said:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That looks worth a read.

Seems odd that neither side of politics seems to want to talk about it all that much.

Hold on. So that’s going to count the emissions as coming from Australia? What about the country that actually burns the LNG?

Hoping that sibeen may read the article to be enlightened as to why the Gorgon plant is producing emissions right here in Australia

Yeah, I finally read the article.

I do prefer jumping in boots and all in an uninformed manner but, ways more excitements.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That looks worth a read.

Seems odd that neither side of politics seems to want to talk about it all that much.

The resources minister Matt Canavan has shrugged off Australia’s trend of rising emissions, saying the industry responsible for the growth is gas, and Australian gas exports reduce carbon emissions in other countries.

After a government report to the United Nations showed Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise in 2018, Canavan told Sky News people needed to take a “balanced viewpoint” when assessing the trend.

“A lot of people comment on the fact that carbon emissions have gone up in Australia in the last couple of years, and they have, but that’s almost principally due to the construction or bringing online of LNG export terminals,” Canavan said on Wednesday.

“Yes, from a carbon accounting perspective, that increases Australia’s carbon emissions because we are the country where the gas is liquified, however the gas is then used in other countries and they use the gas to replace, often coal, but sometimes dirtier forms of power, and that helps the world’s carbon emissions,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/29/australias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-increased-for-fourth-year-in-a-row-in-2018

See.. s’ok

That’s actually a reasonable comment.

Or at least it would be if there was a price on GHG emissions, so the company had an incentive to reduce them as far as is practicable.

Even reasonabler comment

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That looks worth a read.

Seems odd that neither side of politics seems to want to talk about it all that much.

Hold on. So that’s going to count the emissions as coming from Australia? What about the country that actually burns the LNG?

No. It is just the emissions from LNG production, not the consumption side of it. If we counted that in it would look much worse. If we counted emissions from Australian coal too, we’d be in the top 10 largest emitters in the world.

We coulda been a contender.

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

Hold on. So that’s going to count the emissions as coming from Australia? What about the country that actually burns the LNG?

No. It is just the emissions from LNG production, not the consumption side of it. If we counted that in it would look much worse. If we counted emissions from Australian coal too, we’d be in the top 10 largest emitters in the world.

We coulda been a contender.

We still can, if we develop a way to ship solar energy in a transportable form. We got a lot of space to build solar collector devices, a whole continent to ourselves.

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ruby said:

LNG production in Australia has tripled since 2012, doubled in the two years to 2017 and is expected to grow another 18% this year (2018). The related growth in emissions is projected to effectively wipe out carbon pollution avoided through the 23% renewable energy target.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/half-of-australias-emissions-increase-linked-to-was-gorgon-lng-plant

That looks worth a read.

Seems odd that neither side of politics seems to want to talk about it all that much.

The resources minister Matt Canavan has shrugged off Australia’s trend of rising emissions, saying the industry responsible for the growth is gas, and Australian gas exports reduce carbon emissions in other countries.

After a government report to the United Nations showed Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise in 2018, Canavan told Sky News people needed to take a “balanced viewpoint” when assessing the trend.

“A lot of people comment on the fact that carbon emissions have gone up in Australia in the last couple of years, and they have, but that’s almost principally due to the construction or bringing online of LNG export terminals,” Canavan said on Wednesday.

“Yes, from a carbon accounting perspective, that increases Australia’s carbon emissions because we are the country where the gas is liquified, however the gas is then used in other countries and they use the gas to replace, often coal, but sometimes dirtier forms of power, and that helps the world’s carbon emissions,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/29/australias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-increased-for-fourth-year-in-a-row-in-2018

See.. s’ok

Phew

(Wipes brow.)

I went looking to see how much Australia gets from ‘the world’s largest natural gas project’, and came across this nice little article, complete with graphs n stuff….looks like emissions from Gorgon and other natural gas projects are going to be rising sharply in coming years (Gorgon is projected to be going for 60 years), Chevron will get a slap with wet lettuce or no slap at all for not capturing emissions like they promised, and Joshy says we’re all good, we’ll meet our targets, promise….
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-21/gorgon-gas-plant-wiping-out-a-year-of-solar-emission-savings/9890386

ruby said:

LNG production in Australia has tripled since 2012, doubled in the two years to 2017 and is expected to grow another 18% this year (2018). The related growth in emissions is projected to effectively wipe out carbon pollution avoided through the 23% renewable energy target.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/half-of-australias-emissions-increase-linked-to-was-gorgon-lng-plant

You might recall I mentioned Chevron had spent a lot of money just prior to this project being approved, proclaiming what a great company it was and how scrupulous it was in obeying the law of the land. There are no morals from anyone when big money is involved. Am still waiting for BHP who have recently also spent a lot of money on self-promotion to declare what major destructive project they want to do, but shall keep watching.

ruby said:

I went looking to see how much Australia gets from ‘the world’s largest natural gas project’, and came across this nice little article, complete with graphs n stuff….looks like emissions from Gorgon and other natural gas projects are going to be rising sharply in coming years (Gorgon is projected to be going for 60 years), Chevron will get a slap with wet lettuce or no slap at all for not capturing emissions like they promised, and Joshy says we’re all good, we’ll meet our targets, promise….
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-21/gorgon-gas-plant-wiping-out-a-year-of-solar-emission-savings/9890386

Australia has a very large metal ring in its nose.

PermeateFree said:

ruby said:

I went looking to see how much Australia gets from ‘the world’s largest natural gas project’, and came across this nice little article, complete with graphs n stuff….looks like emissions from Gorgon and other natural gas projects are going to be rising sharply in coming years (Gorgon is projected to be going for 60 years), Chevron will get a slap with wet lettuce or no slap at all for not capturing emissions like they promised, and Joshy says we’re all good, we’ll meet our targets, promise….
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-21/gorgon-gas-plant-wiping-out-a-year-of-solar-emission-savings/9890386

Australia has a very large metal ring in its nose.

Bull

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

ruby said:

I went looking to see how much Australia gets from ‘the world’s largest natural gas project’, and came across this nice little article, complete with graphs n stuff….looks like emissions from Gorgon and other natural gas projects are going to be rising sharply in coming years (Gorgon is projected to be going for 60 years), Chevron will get a slap with wet lettuce or no slap at all for not capturing emissions like they promised, and Joshy says we’re all good, we’ll meet our targets, promise….
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-21/gorgon-gas-plant-wiping-out-a-year-of-solar-emission-savings/9890386

Australia has a very large metal ring in its nose.

Bull

Bigger than that.

PermeateFree said:

ruby said:

I went looking to see how much Australia gets from ‘the world’s largest natural gas project’, and came across this nice little article, complete with graphs n stuff….looks like emissions from Gorgon and other natural gas projects are going to be rising sharply in coming years (Gorgon is projected to be going for 60 years), Chevron will get a slap with wet lettuce or no slap at all for not capturing emissions like they promised, and Joshy says we’re all good, we’ll meet our targets, promise….
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-21/gorgon-gas-plant-wiping-out-a-year-of-solar-emission-savings/9890386

Australia has a very large metal ring in its nose.

Is it possible to cut off one’s nose in order to save one’s face?

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

ruby said:

I went looking to see how much Australia gets from ‘the world’s largest natural gas project’, and came across this nice little article, complete with graphs n stuff….looks like emissions from Gorgon and other natural gas projects are going to be rising sharply in coming years (Gorgon is projected to be going for 60 years), Chevron will get a slap with wet lettuce or no slap at all for not capturing emissions like they promised, and Joshy says we’re all good, we’ll meet our targets, promise….
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-21/gorgon-gas-plant-wiping-out-a-year-of-solar-emission-savings/9890386

Australia has a very large metal ring in its nose.

Is it possible to cut off one’s nose in order to save one’s face?

yes.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

ruby said:

I went looking to see how much Australia gets from ‘the world’s largest natural gas project’, and came across this nice little article, complete with graphs n stuff….looks like emissions from Gorgon and other natural gas projects are going to be rising sharply in coming years (Gorgon is projected to be going for 60 years), Chevron will get a slap with wet lettuce or no slap at all for not capturing emissions like they promised, and Joshy says we’re all good, we’ll meet our targets, promise….
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-21/gorgon-gas-plant-wiping-out-a-year-of-solar-emission-savings/9890386

Australia has a very large metal ring in its nose.

Is it possible to cut off one’s nose in order to save one’s face?

We do it all the time.

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

Australia has a very large metal ring in its nose.

Is it possible to cut off one’s nose in order to save one’s face?

yes.

Might need to add filters.

dv said:

Rev asked a great question.
The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, leaving aside the political issues, if investment in renewables is so high (which is apparently true), and if “green energy” is supplying a substantial part of our electricity, how come our GHG emissions are still going up?

…

Kneejerk reaction – because we’re breathing and population is increasing.

There’s an excellent website that gives all the major sources of anthropogenic CO2 emissions over many years. I’ll see if I can find it.

Here we go. http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions

On the map, select your country, region (eg. Oceania) or world. Or select counties by OECD, or by top 20 CO2 emitters, etc.

Select Emission type: Gas, Oil, Coal, Cement, Land Use Change, All.

You can look at the effect relative to both GDP and population

Then examine change by year.

Or, perhaps better, download all or part fo the dataset from 1960 to 2017 and look at it in Excel.

Knock yourself out.

——————————

I’ve been thinking along the lines of the mantra “think globally act locally” since the “catastrophic threat” thread.

You can answer this question by personal experiment.

> if investment in renewables is so high (which is apparently true), and if “green energy” is supplying a substantial part of our electricity, how come our GHG emissions are still going up?

Answer it yourself by cutting your personal GHG emissions for one day.

• Breathe slowly and evenly throughout the entire day – don’t speed up breathing by fear or exercise because that can more than quadruple your biological CO2 emissions.
• Use no electricity throughout the entire day, no refrigerator, cooking food, lights, radio, battery operated devices, water pump, air conditioning.
• Use no natural gas throughout the entire day, no hot water, gas stoves, bottled gas.
• Use no petrol throughout the day, not even as candles.

Once you’ve done that for just a single day, you’ll have an acutely good understanding of how come GHC emissions are still going up.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Rev asked a great question.
The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, leaving aside the political issues, if investment in renewables is so high (which is apparently true), and if “green energy” is supplying a substantial part of our electricity, how come our GHG emissions are still going up?

…

Kneejerk reaction – because we’re breathing and population is increasing.

There’s an excellent website that gives all the major sources of anthropogenic CO2 emissions over many years. I’ll see if I can find it.

Here we go. http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions

On the map, select your country, region (eg. Oceania) or world. Or select counties by OECD, or by top 20 CO2 emitters, etc.

Select Emission type: Gas, Oil, Coal, Cement, Land Use Change, All.

You can look at the effect relative to both GDP and population

Then examine change by year.

Or, perhaps better, download all or part fo the dataset from 1960 to 2017 and look at it in Excel.

Knock yourself out.

——————————

I’ve been thinking along the lines of the mantra “think globally act locally” since the “catastrophic threat” thread.

You can answer this question by personal experiment.

> if investment in renewables is so high (which is apparently true), and if “green energy” is supplying a substantial part of our electricity, how come our GHG emissions are still going up?

Answer it yourself by cutting your personal GHG emissions for one day.

• Breathe slowly and evenly throughout the entire day – don’t speed up breathing by fear or exercise because that can more than quadruple your biological CO2 emissions.
• Use no electricity throughout the entire day, no refrigerator, cooking food, lights, radio, battery operated devices, water pump, air conditioning.
• Use no natural gas throughout the entire day, no hot water, gas stoves, bottled gas.
• Use no petrol throughout the day, not even as candles.

Once you’ve done that for just a single day, you’ll have an acutely good understanding of how come GHC emissions are still going up.

I hope you have read the rest of the thread.

Breathing has next to nothing to do with it.

Population increase obviously does have an effect, but has been comparatively small compared with the reduction in emissions we should have had.

Michael V said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That looks worth a read.

Seems odd that neither side of politics seems to want to talk about it all that much.

The resources minister Matt Canavan has shrugged off Australia’s trend of rising emissions, saying the industry responsible for the growth is gas, and Australian gas exports reduce carbon emissions in other countries.

After a government report to the United Nations showed Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise in 2018, Canavan told Sky News people needed to take a “balanced viewpoint” when assessing the trend.

“A lot of people comment on the fact that carbon emissions have gone up in Australia in the last couple of years, and they have, but that’s almost principally due to the construction or bringing online of LNG export terminals,” Canavan said on Wednesday.

“Yes, from a carbon accounting perspective, that increases Australia’s carbon emissions because we are the country where the gas is liquified, however the gas is then used in other countries and they use the gas to replace, often coal, but sometimes dirtier forms of power, and that helps the world’s carbon emissions,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/29/australias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-increased-for-fourth-year-in-a-row-in-2018

See.. s’ok

Phew

(Wipes brow.)

it’s hot in here

SCIENCE said:

Michael V said:

Ian said:

The resources minister Matt Canavan has shrugged off Australia’s trend of rising emissions, saying the industry responsible for the growth is gas, and Australian gas exports reduce carbon emissions in other countries.

After a government report to the United Nations showed Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise in 2018, Canavan told Sky News people needed to take a “balanced viewpoint” when assessing the trend.

“A lot of people comment on the fact that carbon emissions have gone up in Australia in the last couple of years, and they have, but that’s almost principally due to the construction or bringing online of LNG export terminals,” Canavan said on Wednesday.

“Yes, from a carbon accounting perspective, that increases Australia’s carbon emissions because we are the country where the gas is liquified, however the gas is then used in other countries and they use the gas to replace, often coal, but sometimes dirtier forms of power, and that helps the world’s carbon emissions,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/29/australias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-increased-for-fourth-year-in-a-row-in-2018

See.. s’ok

Phew

(Wipes brow.)

it’s hot in here

That’ll be that climate change the Nasties don’t agree with despite overwhelming scientific evidence.

> I hope you have read the rest of the thread.

The rest of the thread occurred while I was in the process of writing that reply. So of course I didn’t read it.

> Breathing has next to nothing to do with it.

I agree, but prove it! I’ve never seen it calculated, have you? What are the numbers?

It does when you also include greenhouse gases produced by stock, cattle, chickens etc. Greenhouse gases produced by human breathing is of the order of 10% of the greenhouse gases produced by human food. See weblink I posted under the title of “land use changes”.

> Fugitive emissions,

Included in the website link I posted, under the heading “gas flaring”

> Answer it yourself by cutting your personal GHG emissions for one day.

• Breathe slowly and evenly throughout the entire day – don’t speed up breathing by fear or exercise because that can more than quadruple your biological CO2 emissions.
• Use no electricity throughout the entire day, no refrigerator, cooking food, lights, radio, battery operated devices, water pump, air conditioning.
• Use no natural gas throughout the entire day, no hot water, gas stoves, bottled gas.
• Use no petrol throughout the day, not even as candles.

> Once you’ve done that for just a single day, you’ll have an acutely good understanding of how come GHC emissions are still going up.

Did you try that? I did. Bleeding difficult isn’t it?

Everybody has their own way of wasting power, pushing the GHG emissions up. And that waste is increasing per person with time.

mollwollfumble said:

> I hope you have read the rest of the thread.

The rest of the thread occurred while I was in the process of writing that reply. So of course I didn’t read it.

> Breathing has next to nothing to do with it.

I agree, but prove it! I’ve never seen it calculated, have you? What are the numbers?

It does when you also include greenhouse gases produced by stock, cattle, chickens etc. Greenhouse gases produced by human breathing is of the order of 10% of the greenhouse gases produced by human food. See weblink I posted under the title of “land use changes”.

> Fugitive emissions,

Included in the website link I posted, under the heading “gas flaring”

> Answer it yourself by cutting your personal GHG emissions for one day.

• Breathe slowly and evenly throughout the entire day – don’t speed up breathing by fear or exercise because that can more than quadruple your biological CO2 emissions.
• Use no electricity throughout the entire day, no refrigerator, cooking food, lights, radio, battery operated devices, water pump, air conditioning.
• Use no natural gas throughout the entire day, no hot water, gas stoves, bottled gas.
• Use no petrol throughout the day, not even as candles.

> Once you’ve done that for just a single day, you’ll have an acutely good understanding of how come GHC emissions are still going up.

Did you try that? I did. Bleeding difficult isn’t it?

Everybody has their own way of wasting power, pushing the GHG emissions up. And that waste is increasing per person with time.

That just doesn’t make any sense at all.

Emissions per head associated with individual consumption are decreasing, and decreasing faster than the increase in population.

Emissions are going up because there is no price on emissions, and hence no incentive for companies to reduce avoidable emissions.

mollwollfumble said:

> I hope you have read the rest of the thread.

The rest of the thread occurred while I was in the process of writing that reply. So of course I didn’t read it.

Sorry, I didn’t realise you were such a slow typist.

But you have read the rest now I presume.