Hacker News Reader

Comment by Gatsky | Hacker News Reader

There are many people in the current government that believe in climate change. The real problem is that the government has surmised (correctly, it would seem) that climate change isn’t an issue that will win an election. That and the fact that pricing carbon was the opposition party’s policy...

View on HN

Australia would be a net power exporting nation if they harnessed their solar and especially wind resources. The fact that they still burn coal is ridiculous and shameful.

To where and how? Electricity is not something you can export when your main grid is 5000km from your nearest neighbour

Typically power is exported by smelting aluminum from bauxite. A big advantage of doing it this way is you can run the smelters only when there is an overproduction of power to help even out demand on the grid.

I wonder if a concentrated solar power tower heating a crucible of ore would be more efficient than inefficiencies from PV, transmission, conversion, storage etc.

Not for aluminium smelting, which is done with electricity rather than heat.

This is why aluiminium has only recently become a cheap resource, or indeed a resource at all, despite being incredibly common and having a low melting point.

I think we're getting close to the point where mirrors cost more than solar panels.

New Zealand has the problem where the smelter has such huge power usage that they get to wag the dog. That is a situation that is probably hard to avoid. https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/116851413/ri...

I thought you could only shut down an aluminium smelter for a couple of hours. It’s essential they keep the pots (?) hot constantly or they get ruined and the plant is then offline hundreds of millions to repair. If this is correct then solar would be a terrible power source for smelting.

Good power sources: hydro, geothermal. Which is why we see smelters in places with hydro and geothermal.

Australia should go nuclear. Plenty of places to put plants. A dozen plants would generate all the electricity they need and they can stop burning coal.

You can design the plant to handle intermittent power. It's a bit more expensive, but you're getting the savings from using cheaper power.

https://www.metalbulletin.com/events/download.ashx/document/...

Lately people are "exporting" cheap electricity by mining cryptocurrency. I don't think that's a good idea from a public policy standpoint, but it is happening and growing fast.

"Australian billionaire to fund Singapore subsea cable project"

https://www.power-technology.com/news/australia-singapore-po...

The Australia-Singapore Power Link (ASPL) project has been developed by Singapore-based company Sun Cable project is being developed by Singapore based company Sun Cable at an estimated cost of $14bn (A$20bn). With a storage facility based in Tennant Creek in Australia’s Northern Territory, the project will include a 10GW solar farm and a 20-30GWh storage facility which will transport 3GW of power to Singapore.

ASPL was given major project status by the Northern Territory Government in July 2019 and will begin producing power in 2027.

It sounds just this side of science fiction to me, but it will be exciting if the project actually goes forward as planned.

From one state to another would be a good start. South Australians are paying more per kilowatt hour than anyone else on the planet, including people living in active warzones.

They're pressured to improve KPIs of economy and life quality (including employment rates) and that's the complete opposite of what fixing the climate requires.

Are you saying that fixing climate change requires poor life quality for people in Western countries?

Is poor life quality in the West going to stop worldwide deforestation somehow?

No, why? Not poor, but maybe involving using cars/tech items for longer times or spend more on locally grown food leaving less for vacation flights etc.

>No, why?

What does "opposite" mean in your comment then, exactly?

> That and the fact that pricing carbon was the opposition party’s policy...

It is somewhat complicated by the fact the the Labor party was tarred by introducing a climate tax after promising not to.

They had a minority government due to some political shenanigans and had to form a loose coalition with the Greens for an electoral cycle. The Greens managed to negotiate in a carbon tax that was not well received. Labor is associated with the policy but their support for it was always tepid.

Granted from a political and economic standpoint imposing consumer carbon taxes is stupid and inane.

There are very few government policies in the Western world that would have any noticeable impact on climate change.

I believe that Climate Change is mostly caused by deforestation, but how would any government stop 7B people from cutting down trees?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com