Originally posted by Fishinnick
Their study
SUGGESTS that the seas have absorbed 60% more than previously thought. Suggests is not proof and scientists use words like this because they know they are not sure yet, also pre 2007 data gathering was far to sparse but has increased since to get any accurate picture of whats going on. Then one has to worry that the CC scientists have been 60% out on their own numbers, this basically highlights the fact that the scientists don't understand CC properly yet and with numbers being 60% out from todays numbers the computer models the CC scientists use will be way out and it proves that CC scientists from both sides, those that believe man-made emissions will flood the planet and also those scientists that think man-made CC is BS are really only giving us their best guess and unfortunately governments and its citizens are spending billions of $ on CC when the scientists don't understand it properly yet.
In Australia we produce about 70GW of energy in total, currently China is building 280GW of coal power, so it doesn't matter how much money Australia throws at CC it just won't make any difference to the climate and those that think Australias faster move to renewables and massive spend will make the slightest change to CC are obviously dreaming, living in Lala land. All our governments CC policies, renewable push and massive spend will do is make citizens poorer, companies less competitive and increase household electric bills.
Sentimentally and emotionally action on CC from Australians is good-hearted by the population (not so sure about Pollies and windfarm investors), but thinking we can make any difference to future CC is just plain silly, if we all didn't use any electric ever again we would still make no difference to CC, so how our government validates all this spending on CC i cannot understand and don't think is sensible.
This information comes from a recent Bloomberg article: Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates a "global LCOE for onshore wind [of] $55 per megawatt-hour, down 18% from the first six months of [2017], while the equivalent for solar PV without tracking systems is $70 per MWh, also down 18%." Bloomberg does not provide its global public LCOEs for fossil fuels, but it notes in India they are significantly more expensive: "BNEF is now showing benchmark LCOEs for onshore wind of just $39 per MWh, down 46% on a year ago, and for solar PV at $41, down 45%. By comparison, coal comes in at $68 per MWh, and combined-cycle gas at $93."
So CC aside, if we want reduced costs of electricity, we have to move to more efficient generation, the facts are indisputable.
Additionally, large scale construction leads to large scale employment. A major shift in our generation base could be the single biggest source of new construction jobs in this country. Particularly if it occurs on the back of the NBN construction winding down. It would be a brilliant way of transitioning that workforce into continuity of employment.
