Greetings Fellow Passengers and Crew!
Our Spaceship's Universal Tour Continues
"With or Without Sustainable Life"
"The Choice is Ours"
(Or as Earlier Roman Slaves Might Have Said...)
Ad Introibimus ad Altare Deorum Universi!
Ad Deum, cuius terribilis creatura: laetifica omnibus diebus vitae nostrae.
Sustainable Spaceship Earth
With a Flexible layout STRAINED by Burning Fossil Fuels
Transition The GND
Climate Change
The Existential Threat Defined.
Renewables? The Green New Deal
The Transitioning Process.
The Latest News Update (June 2020)
His call came on Saturday during a virtual climate summit to mark the fifth anniversary of the 2015 Paris Climate Accord.
"The Picture is The Link"
"June 2020 Update on 2015 Paris Agreement"
The Threat to “Existence” of All Earth Species”
THAT is The Problem!..
They may also be viewed on the Classic Google Site that I built That Google Has now decided to deprecate, along with all other Classic Google Websites!...
https://sites.google.com/a/pgcgull.com/sustainableworld/thorium---lftr
The Graphics I Chose can be viewed by scrolling down The Page to see What has been Happening “In The Meantime”
The Source for The Graphics is Here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/graphics/
The “Problem” is how do we “Transition” from Where we are Now to Where we Want to Be in 2050!
Then, after that; Assembling them into The Machine Required, Transporting it to Site, Erecting it, or them, Commissioning them and then Operating, Naintaining them and Eventually Dismantling them and hopefully Re-cycling Them!... and Replacing Them!... Not So “Free” after All!
In Fact A Graphic has been Developed which shows the Costs for Many of The Energy Supply Types in Terms of the Materials Required to obtain a “Terra Wat of Energy”.
Materials Required to obtain a “Terra Wat of Energy”
As can be seen, as far as the Quantity of Materials Required for the Machinery Type for Each Power Source to Supply a “Terra Wat of Power” (1 X 10^12 Wats or 1E+12)…
The Least Materially Expensive is Nuclear :
By a Long Shot!
But let us take a brief Look at Wind Generators.
Just to Familiarise Ourselves with some Numbers;
here is a Picture of a Calculation I did to show how many hours, Days, Months or Years it takes for various sized Power Generators To Produce 1 TWh (TerraWatthour) of Electric Energy.
Time Required for Power Gens to obtain a “Terra Wat of Energy”
Check of The "Offshore Energy"
Danish Company's
"Star of The South"
Estimate Figures
"Cneck of The Offshore Energy Estimate"
SG 14 - 222 DD offshore wind turbine, boasting a nameplate capacity of 14MW and which can reach 15MW with the company’s patented Power Boost function.
Joshua S Hill - 20 May 2020
That should do The Trick Nicely! Even if it is Nearly Double The Capacity Mentioned in The Proposal of "at least 2,000MW"; I Wonder if it would be Double The Cost!!! ???
"If That's A Threat?"
Transitional - GND and "Transitional Fracking"
It has become a Well Known Fact that The More We try to Impossibly Replace "The Big COG" (The Coal Oil and Gas Indusry) with Difuse Power Sources like Wind Mills and Solar PV; whether on Roof Top or with Industrial Scale Wind Farms on Land or Sea, or Solar PV or Reflector Projects Occupying Thousands of Hectares: It behoves us to Understand that Because Those "Difuse" Power Sources are "Unreliable", The Sun only Shines on a Particular area of The Planet for 6 Months in The Year, and The Wind is only available at Sufficient Strength to Provide The Stated Power Output of The Wind Turbine for a Statistically Assessed 25% to 30% of the Year; and The Demand for Power at most Times is higher than can be met by Those "Difuse" Sources; The Requirement to Use Gas Fired Power Generation actually "Increases"!!
So More and More Gas is Required to meet the "Unceasing" Power Demands of Industry and Domestic Use.
What is actually Required is a Stable, Non-Polluting, Safe, Reliable, Non Green House Gas Producing, BASE-LOAD POWER SUPPLY GENERATOR!
OK!... But What about "Fracking"?
"Some Pros & Cons"
The Picture Below is a Link - Right Click to open in NewBrowser Tab
"Fracking - Top 3 Pros & Cons"
"Fracking is Contraversial"
Here's The Prime Reason!
"The Reality of Honesty & Best Practice"!
This Australian Politician
Really Set Main Stream Media on Fire
To Imply that it Was NOT Conected to "Methane"
Nor to "Fracking"
Did "BIG COG" & Our Federal Government
Spin it Up with The CSIRO?
Sun 24 Apr 2016 16.40 AEST
Calla Wahlquist
The CSIRO began studying methane seeps in 2012 in the Condamine river, which is near Chinchilla, about 300km west of Brisbane, after locals reported seeing bubbles.
The gas is most evident at an area called Pumphole where the video was filmed.
It is just over 5km from the gas field but there is a gas well within 900m, according to Buckingham.
The CSIRO has defended its independence after a Greens MP, whose footage of burning methane on a Queensland river went viral, accused the government-funded research body of “making excuses” for the coal seam gas industry.
Jeremy Buckingham, a member of the New South Wales parliament’s upper house, posted the video, which showed him lighting the surface of the Condamine river with a barbecue lighter and sending flames licking around the boat, on his Facebook page on Friday.
By Sunday it had been shared 13,000 times and had 2.2m views.
The CSIRO began studying methane seeps in 2012 in the Condamine river... after locals reported seeing bubbles.
The gas is most evident at an area called Pumphole where the video was filmed. It is just over 5km from the gas field but there is a gas well within 900m,
Speaking to Guardian Australia, Buckingham said it was “implausible” that the gas flow was not linked to the coal seam gas industry, which expanded in the area in 2011.
But Professor Damian Barrett, Research Director of the CSIRO’s 'Oonshore Gas Programme', insisted it was “unlikely” that the gas seep was linked to fracking in the region.
Barrett said there were naturally occurring fissures in the rock in that part of the Darling Downs where, owing to the coal beds being less than 100m from the surface....
My Comment:
The Question that should then have been asked of Professor Barrett is: Why, If that is the case, was permission to "FRACK" in that Location Granted in The First Place?
Was it not picked up in The Environmental Impact Statement required before permission was Granted? & If not, Why Not? If Best Practice Procedures were being followed!
There is supposed to be an Impermeable, Non Fracturable Geological Strata Above The Shale Layer Being "Fracked"; in order to prevent Leaks to Aquifers above it, or to The Surface and Atmosphere.
Or in This Case The Condamine River Above the Coal Seams!
Methane is more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.
Over the last two centuries, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have more than doubled, largely due to human-related activities. Ref:EPA
Endof My Comment
At least four of those fissures are in a 3km stretch of the Condamine river, including Pumphole.
“The presence of the industry there has not caused that crack to occur or that fault to occur, it’s been there for aeons,” Barrett told Guardian Australia.
“The gas has probably been coming to the surface there for as long as people have been there.”
My comment: Speculation Professor?... Probably?... Why Not: Probably caused by The Injection of The Fracking Fluids under High Pressure and 'The Sand' that was Part of That High Pressure Fluid, was doing its Job and Keeping The Fractures Opened Up by That High Pressure Fluid; OPEN, as It was Designed to Do!!
Far more Probable!!
End of My Comment.
Barrett said the amount of gas seeping in that area had markedly increased in the past 12 months, a trend he said could be caused by a shift in sediment from the river bed, which would mean the gas was less dispersed, or could be the result of water that rushed into the alluvial aquifer during the 2011 Queensland floods slowly depleting, which would release the pressure and allow more methane to come to the surface.
My Comment:
Why not The Obvious Connection to The Gas Industry "Fracking" Professor?
It looks to me That Your Sponsor and Your Funders, who have been cutting back your Annual Budget; Have been Applying Pressure on Your Organisation!
That, to me, and Most other "Thinking Australians", is a Better explanation of your Assessment!!
But....
End of My Comment!
However, MP Buckingham said the flame on the Condamine river has previously winked out quickly but this time remained alight for more than an hour.
He said farmers in the region had only reported seeing bubbles in the river since 2012, which did not fit with the explanation of a naturally occurring methane seep.
“The CSIRO might not have the causation yet but it is a remarkable correlation that within 12 months that the marked expansion of that gas field [in 2011] the river closest to that gas field starts bubbling,” he said.
“That particular arm of the CSIRO is funded by the industry and I believe that they are making excuses for the industry that they have let off the leash.”
"Australian Politician Sets Media On Fire"
Nuclear?...
The Present "Fuel Materials Required" to Meet The World’s Electrical Energy Requirements…
And
The "Fuel Material Required" if using "only"
The Thorium – LFTR.
"The Energy Past Vs. The Future With Thorium"
Soooo... 6,600 tonnes of Thorium
Provides as Much energy as:-
5.3 Billion tonnes of Coal
+
31.1 Billion Barrels of Oil
+
2.92 Trillion Cubic Meters of Natural Gas
(A Frackers Delight!)
+
65,000 tonnes of Uranium...
Which Environmental Footprint
Would You Prefer?
293,071,000,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh)
293.07 terawatt-hours (TWh)
Ref: Quad (unit) - Wikipedia