Greenwashing

The whole green movement is an issue, with so many companies particularly superannuation funds investing into green initiatives such as wind and solar power, as it is do much like the internet boom of the late 90’s, which attracted huge investment, was good until the pop.

And also the massive investment of government monies, to make it look like “hey look at what we are doing for green energy investment” many of these schemes have become scams and taxpayers lose out.

In my state, the state government are closing down the last coal fired power station, on about 8 years, and expect wind and solar to provide100 percent if power 24/7.

The tech is not there to do so.

asic.gov.au...


www.unsw.edu.au...

The tech is not there to do so.

There is nuclear. It has come a long way from the Chernobyl days. Some of the ships these days make enough juice to run a small to medium size town, refuel 10-20 years. We have the ore, only some basic scientific research refinement that I know off.

I know this is a political hot potato.

a reply to: kwaka

Agreed nuclear should be a serious consideration in Australia.

The reactor tech these days is superior to Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

We mine uranium in a national park for crying out loud.

a reply to: Cavemannick

The fact of the matter is that nuclear power is the only means of generation electrical power that humanity has yet devised that can hope to meet our future energy demands.

And evidence over the past six decades shows that nuclear power generally a safe means of generating electricity.

Thorium reactors show promise.

Same with fusion but that always just 10-50 years down the line.

They closed the Palasades nuke plant about a year ago now they want billions to reopen it. They protested the entire time it was open now the same people are fighting to reopen it.



Crazy times indeed.

a reply to: Cavemannick

as usual, it's trying to appeal to certain grassroots agencies and lobbyists. It's all bread and circus to some extent. There's plenty of ways to skin an animal, so there's plenty of ways to harvest energy, although some are more pragmatic than others. Many states have tax breaks for people who use solar and there are incentives for installing panels depending on one's location. Food for thought. It can be useful and is much more seamless than a generator, though having both wouldn't be bad, either.

a reply to: Cavemannick

it's literally, putting the cart before the horse. Like mandating that all cars sold from 2030 and beyond will be electric, but not having started the infrastructure, or solved the glaring problems with the current technology. Clown world at it's finest.

a reply to: Cavemannick
I'd like to see more hydro, not even a dam, can even be a facility under water in a river to spin a turbine. But just like everything else, lets figure out a way to get money out of the govt (taxpayer) to make money. Got to give it to them, they are good at coming up with money extraction techniques.

a reply to: Cavemannick

The green movement is also a great way to launder money. Obama give billions out in grants and loans to green companies. Months later those same companies would make large donations to the DNC and other democrat causes. And months after that many of those companies filed for bankruptcy.
So the tax payers fund the democrat party, whether they like it or not.

Recently there was a joint venture between China and the US to create water from desalination in a much lower energy-required capacity. I believe they were successful.

I know it isn’t exactly an energy-producing idea in relation to this thread.

However it is worth noting. Two birds with one stone and all. And it sounded rather green.

Meaning certain soup companies will bury it right about the time the patent is bought.

a reply to: kwaka

As a bonus, nuclear power would solve most of the environmental problems of electric transportation.

a reply to: consultant15

I have worked for my states Dep of Environment, and even the suggestion of such is met with more hostility than a cetain golf club that kills ducks and throws them into the river.,,

Its fkn greenwashing when the golf course can just pay to dump # into the river, kill water birds, and then act all "we are for the environment" #.

If the average person killed even one duck, they would be in jail, but a golf course can just kill ducks and dump whateve # in the river that they want--cos they pay off the government.

I used to work in plastics recycling. Most companies were more interested in being seen to be 'green' than actually are concerned about the environment. It is all a scam when it takes more resources and energy to remove man made materials than make more of them the same way.


An example I found yesturday.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Cavemannick

it's literally, putting the cart before the horse. Like mandating that all cars sold from 2030 and beyond will be electric, but not having started the infrastructure, or solved the glaring problems with the current technology. Clown world at it's finest.

It is not true that we haven't started the infrastructure.

First, it's important to realize that the existing infrastructure that was mostly put in place before the advent of EVs has a fair amount of excess capacity built in. An electrical power grid for any given area is designed to be able to deliver the peak power requirement for that area (plus a margin on top of that to account for unexpected loss of a generator or two). The peak power requirements almost always occur between about 3 PM and 6 or 7 PM. That means that for most of the day, there is excess power generating capacity and the power lines available to carry it. That's why most power grid operators will give a discount on power purchased during the off-peak hours to charge your car and most EV owners take advantage of that. I've owned a battery electric car for 4 years and have been able to charge my car overnight when power is cheap about 99.9% of the time. Right now, about 4% of the US car fleet is EV, so power availability is not a problem. I imagine there is probably the capacity to double or triple that percentage before having to seriously increase generating capacity.

Second, the grid is being modified as we speak. One of the main limits on the growth of the EV fleet is the number of charging points, as opposed to power generating capacity. For homeowners with a 220 V power circuit--such as myself--that's a non-problem 99.9% of the time. Also, I bought a Tesla, which has the best fast charging network out there on the highways, so recharging in the middle of long trips is also really not much of a problem. However, people who live in rental units and in locations off the beaten path have a much more inconvenient time operating a battery EV. The bipartisan infrastructure investment act of 2021 aims to fix that problem by providing funding to install up to 500,000 fast chargers across the nation.

a reply to: BeTheGoddess2

Agreed. I'd have to imagine, there is a safe way to protect the fish, water, water fowl, aesthetics etc. But, if no appetite to figure out a more logical way, big money wins.

a reply to: BeyondKnowledge3

Doesn’t burning fibreglass emit cyanide as it burns?

Pretty healthy program then.

I thought it was used as a filler in concrete products.

Windmills are not really environmentally positive then.

a reply to: consultant15

As a government agency we ate tasked with "culling" and "euthanizing" many species, its part of environmental management, the FKN vegans find us abhorrent because we dont want evasive species and have proceedures to deal with them; do these same "animal rights" simps actua;;y go after the golf courses?.

a reply to: consultant15

As a government agency we ate tasked with "culling" and "euthanizing" many species, its part of environmental management, the FKN vegans find us abhorrent because we dont want evasive species and have proceedures to deal with them; do these same "animal rights" simps actua;;y go after the golf courses?.