Jay's Gun Shop Australia

UN Report Urges Global End To Fossil Fuel Exploration by 2030 – Slashdot

Beretta Px4 Storm

Home

Products

GLOCK 30SF

Beretta 21 Bobcat

Glock 19x

Sig Sauer P938 Micro-Compact Legion 9mm

Beretta Px4 Storm

GLOCK 17

Ruger GP100 357 magnum

Uzi Pro Pistol Semi-Auto

GLOCK 22

Glock 43 9mm 2-10rd Mags

SIG SAUER – P226 LEGION – .357 SIG

Browning Hi-Power 9mm Pistol Pistol

Browning Hi-Power 9mm Pistol Pistol

GLOCK 26 GEN 5 9MM

SIG Sauer P365 NITRON MICRO-COMPACT

Winchester SXP Marine Defender 12 GA 18″ Stainless Barrel NIB

H&K MP7A1

Glock 27 Gen 4 40S&W

Century Zastava PAP M92PV Yugo Pistol 7.62×39 AK47 Unfired

Beretta 92FS Compact

CZ 75 D PCR compact

Silver Eagle XT3 Tactical .410ga 18.5″ 2-5rd Mags NIB

MM Industries M10X Zhukov NIB!

Armalite AR10 Tac-16 7.62 NATO / .308 Win 16″ NIB

PALMENTTO ,AR-6.5 CREEDMORE,BI-POD

Springfield Armory

IWI Tavor SAR Bullpup 5.56 nato in FDE 16.5″ barrel NR

Anderson AM15 in 5.56mm With 16″ Barrel NIB!

Chinese Makarov Pistol 9x18mm

CZ SCORPION EVO 3 S1 9MM FOLDER NIB

Daniel Defense DDM4 V7 16″ Rifle 32rd Mags

Mossberg 590 Shockwave FDE 12ga

Mossberg 500 Combo 20ga Wood Deer/Field NIB



Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system




The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
just simply stop you fools
That’s perfectly fine to use it for fertilizer. We need to quit burning the stuff for energy.
And what will that achieve, rulling of the evil sino-russo empire?
Apparently God will reverse thermodynamics or something. You’re dealing with a delusional idiot, so it probably isn’t even that coherent.

Apparently God will reverse thermodynamics or something. You’re dealing with a delusional idiot, so it probably isn’t even that coherent.

Apparently God will reverse thermodynamics or something. You’re dealing with a delusional idiot, so it probably isn’t even that coherent.
You just explained in 1 sentence the entire level of comprehension and creativity to be found at the UN.
+1 if I had mod points
NATO has given the Western world a semblance of stability during its brief tenure. The UN has done the same for the planet. If the UN didn’t exist now, we’d still have to create it. What’s your beef exactly?

NATO has given the Western world a semblance of stability during its brief tenure. The UN has done the same for the planet.

NATO has given the Western world a semblance of stability during its brief tenure. The UN has done the same for the planet.
Really? Because UN was able to stop several ethnic cleansing events during its tenure? Because UN is able to stop Israeli atrocities against Palestinians? Because UN stopped US from invading all these countries? [wikipedia.org]

My biggest beef with the UN is the 5 countries that have veto power. Get rid of the veto power and a lot of things will straighten out.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN) and is charged with ensuring international peace and security, recommending the admission of new UN members to the General Assembly, and approving any changes to the UN Charter.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN) and is charged with ensuring international peace and security, recommending the admission of new UN members to the General Assembly, and approving any changes to the UN Charter.
Everything I mentioned was about war and peace, which would all fall under the purview of UNSC. But even more falls under them, because any change to the UN Charter would have to pass UNSC and thus could be vetoed by any of the five. The result is that the power still lies with these 5 and not UN as a whole. According to the main Wikipedia page on UN:

The veto power is controversial. Supporters regard it as a promoter of international stability, a check against military interventions, and a critical safeguard against United States domination. Critics say that the veto is the most undemocratic element of the UN, as well as the main cause of inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity, as it effectively prevents UN action against the permanent members and their allies.

The veto power is controversial. Supporters regard it as a promoter of international stability, a check against military interventions, and a critical safeguard against United States domination. Critics say that the veto is the most undemocratic element of the UN, as well as the main cause of inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity, as it effectively prevents UN action against the permanent members and their allies.
The critics’ beef is legitimate, as has been seen ove
After all UN delegate travel is renewable powered, and all UN arms are manufactured using only renewable power, and all UN vehicles are 100% electric, then we’ll think about it.
The ban on exploration is a dumb idea. It is “environmental theater” rather than something that will actually help.
In 2030, the world will still be using plenty of fossil fuels, and many of those fuels are from very dirty sources. Canadian tarsands are one example: Extracting the oil is a filthy energy-intensive process. German and Australian lignite are other filthy fuels.
So we should continue to look for clean sources to replace dirty sources: Light “sweet” oil to replace high-sulfur heavy crude. More gas to replace coal.
Obviously, we should continue to roll out renewables, EVs, and heat pumps, but those will be far from dominant in seven years.
We need to fight AGW on all fronts using reality-based solutions, not silly fantasies.
I pretty much agree with you. Society needs to function in order to build out renewables, buy expensive but more energy efficient cars, appliances, etc. But I surely would like to see much more done in PV department. I want to see all shopping centers, any large building, covered in PV panels, and most houses where practical. I do not advocate cutting trees to allow sunlight onto PV panels on roofs.
I want to see domestic PV production. (all countries)
I’ve personally installed a couple dozen PV systems about

I want to see all shopping centers, any large building, covered in PV panels

I want to see all shopping centers, any large building, covered in PV panels
I see that as more environmental theater. Grid-scale large arrays cost half as much per kwh generated as bespoke rooftop installations.
Perhaps rooftops can be made more cost-effective, but the government should not be “picking winners” by subsidizing panels on roofs but not big arrays in the desert.

the market died quickly, partly because govt. grant / subsidy programs ended

the market died quickly, partly because govt. grant / subsidy programs ended
The money spent on subsidies could have been much more wisely spent on R&D to develop panels that don’t need subsidies.

HOAs that forbid PV panels on the front-facing roofs. Stupid. Need a law barring any impediment to PV systems.

HOAs that forbid PV panels on the front-facing roofs. Stupid. Need a law barring any impediment to PV systems.
We have that in California. HOAs are prohibited by law from restricting solar installatio

R&D to develop panels that don’t need subsidies

R&D to develop panels that don’t need subsidies
Good luck with that, the progression of PV efficiency flat-lined about 15 years ago. Perhaps we should stop allowing people to put PV in places that aren’t sunny because the EROEI of solar is only 4 so most places where they are deployed need to be very sunny or at very high elevation. Germany is not such a place and all their PVs actually make CO2 emissions per watt worse than just burning gas.

Germany is not such a place and all their PVs actually make CO2 emissions per watt worse than just burning gas.

Germany is not such a place and all their PVs actually make CO2 emissions per watt worse than just burning gas.
I’m curious about your statement. I don’t know the research or numbers. Are you talking about all the CO2 produced in the mining, manufacturing, installation, and transportation involved in PVs is more than they will displace if they’re not well lit?
I’m asking generally, but also- I have some nice trees, so shade, but I’m thinking about buying some used and/or broken PVs that I’d buy cheap and fix and use.
I’d be getting some use out of ones that otherwise might go to landfill or scrap.

Society needs to function in order to build out renewables

Society needs to function in order to build out renewables
Not only that, society needs to somehow start mining asteroids to do that. We have about 2 years worth of what is necessary here on Earth. Or we could just use nuclear power, your choice. Which do you think will be cheaper and more efficient? Mining Copper, Cobalt and a dozen other metals at 10-100x our current rate or nuclear plants?
I’ve always been strongly in favor of nuclear. It’s sad, almost tragic, that new nuclear power generation pretty much stopped 40 years ago. I’m encouraged by seeing continuing R&D in potentially better reactor / generation system designs, including much smaller systems.

The ban on exploration is a dumb idea. It is “environmental theater” rather than something that will actually help.

The ban on exploration is a dumb idea. It is “environmental theater” rather than something that will actually help.
It’s beyond dumb – it’s ridiculously unenforceable.
“Canadian tarsands are one example: Extracting the oil is a filthy energy-intensive process.”
It’s an easy target, isn’t it? Except that when you consider quantity of export and the relative emission rate, if Canada just stopped being… there… it wouldn’t save you. If all production from the oilsands stopped entirely, it wouldn’t move the needle. You want to make a big difference, you go after the largest net producers – and consumers – of carbon. And Canada ain’t it.
“But Canada are among the highest per

There are fewer people in Canada than live in Tokyo

There are fewer people in Canada than live in Tokyo
Population of Canada now, 40,406,348, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n… [statcan.gc.ca]
Population of Tokyo, 9.73 million, Tokyo prefecture, 14.09 million, Metro area, 37.468 million, as of 2018 and dropping, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… [wikipedia.org].
That bitumen is mostly exported and is a source of lots of carbon and we’re all sharing the same planet
Of course it is. But I’m saying that if you’re looking for some place to direct your ire, doing it against the oilsands makes you feel good, but it wouldn’t do anything to solve the problem even if you got 100% of your way and it vanished. It’s an emotional target, not a rational one. It’s politically useful.
So your saying that the 4th (3rd by some estimates) largest reserve of oil (166.3 billion barrels) in the world doesn’t matter? What does matter in your estimation? And can we influence Venezuela, Saudi Arabia or Russia as easily as the bitumen reserves, which by the way produce more CO2 per barrel then other sources due to having to burn a barrel of oil to produce a barrel or in other words, for every two barrels dug up, one makes it to the refinery.
There you go with the non-sequiturs. You sidestep the contribution to the problem by divorcing data points from their context. It would take Canada 83 years at the current extraction rate to use those proven reserves. So what percent of those reserves matter? Whatever percent is used before demand changes make it unreasonable to bother. No more than that.
Your post does not change the fact that bitching about Canada is not useful when solving the problem, but it is emotionally fulfilling.
I can influence what Canada does, unlike Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or Russia. And they’re Bitumen sands, not oil sands.
Oil sands is the current colloquial term (except for angry people). Bitumen sands is fine, too, in my opinion. But yes, you can influence what Canada does. And it’ll do you no good whatsoever. That’s pretty much my point. It’s misdirected effort.
Canada provides about 6% of the world supply. If Canada stopped doing that, there’s no reason to think that the new source (and there’s no evidence it wouldn’t be replaced) would be much cleaner. After all, the US buys nearly all of it, and they have the largest sha
And how to influence what America does, besides setting an example.
You think the US pays attention to examples? 🙂
Thanks for the civil discussion. Appreciated.

You think the US pays attention to examples? 🙂

You think the US pays attention to examples? 🙂
No, it’s the only thing I could think of 🙂

Thanks for the civil discussion. Appreciated.

Thanks for the civil discussion. Appreciated.
Likewise
They’re not asking countries to stop producing oil by 2030 , they’re asking countries to stop looking for it. The likely idea behind this is that over time this will result in higher oil prices that will encourage adoption of more renewables.
Of course this is unlikely to happen until it happens on its own due to oil prices going down which wont happen until more renewables are adopted. There’s just too much money in oil production for poor nations to sign on to anything like this

they’re asking countries to stop looking for it.

they’re asking countries to stop looking for it.
No, they are asking countries to not install new extraction infrastructure (oil derricks and pipelines) starting in 2030. We have done this before, in 2014-2015 the ESG people (read money managers for public sector unions, known on wall street as dumb money) stopped investing in new FF projects. The result was more money for existing extraction and when Russian gas started coming offline that effect spiked. Europe ended up paying several times more for their energy than normal. They lucked out last wint

Has that alternative been found and proved to be capable of sustaining world civilization?

Has that alternative been found and proved to be capable of sustaining world civilization?
The alternative has existed for decades, but Fossil Fuel propaganda pretty much killed it in many countries. So I will give another shout-out to France, where they were sane with using nuclear energy.
Do you think thermodynamics can be suspended because we’re not ready yet? You know how you get ready; you do it and you make the damaging energy technology so expensive that everyone moves on over. Anything else is just an excuse to do fuck all.
The right wing will never allow large nuclear deployment, too expensive and the oil industry will spend a lot of money to get that point across, just like they did to discourage the left wing previously. Capitalism in action, using the capital to make money and the return on propaganda is high.

Only half of crude oil goes for fuel. The rest is for plastics, engineering materials, chemical raw materials etc.

Only half of crude oil goes for fuel. The rest is for plastics, engineering materials, chemical raw materials etc.
The de-sulfurization process used in petroleum refining (both oil & natural gas) generates tons upon tons of sulfur that would otherwise be mined by the cheapest of labor in the poorest of countries in the most dangerous of working conditions.
That recovered sulfur goes into many useful products like sulfuric acid (a useful chemical in the refining of other minerals), fertilizers, fungicides, pesticides, medical drugs, and even batteries (in recent research).
Have you got a link? While it is true that making nitrogen fertilizer needs heat and hydrogen (and atmospheric nitrogen), that heat and hydrogen mostly comes from natural gas. It is hard to find the percentage of fossil fuels used to make ammonia but according to this (and others) fertilizer production is responsible for about 2-3% of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, https://phys.org/news/2023-01-… [phys.org] seems 2-3% is something we can live with.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinene… [eia.gov] says in America, only 7% of fossi
It’s like they want to crash the world economy as quickly and painfully as possible.
shipping and agriculture for starters.. but hey, at least you traded in your car for a hybrid/electric — right?
greenwashed idiots.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinene… [eia.gov] 93% of fossil fuels in America are burnt.
Nuclear would be great but we don’t have the uranium, there’s no political will to study alternatives and there is no political will to invest money in nuclear when the campaign contributions come from the fossil fuel industry. The same ones that have convinced you that 50% is not burnt

of dollars that we’ve shifted to the top in the last 40 years so that we can afford to do that without disrupting people’s lives? Because if not it ain’t gonna happen. Voters in democracies will block it and people in dictatorships don’t get a say.

of dollars that we’ve shifted to the top in the last 40 years so that we can afford to do that without disrupting people’s lives? Because if not it ain’t gonna happen. Voters in democracies will block it and people in dictatorships don’t get a say.
Can you not write a complete sentence? “of dollars” is meaningless. You used to have interesting things to say but lately it is all incomplete sentences. Perhaps time to get checked for Alzheimer’s.
It’s noon. Past quitting time in Moscow and Tehran and lunch break in Beijing. Give it a few hours.
Here on a south capital of brazil the only time I saw a electric car was… never. I know they exist on the city, peaple talk about it.. but this could be only rumors…
But hey, 2030 is WAY off, I’m sure this will change! /s

Here on a south capital of brazil the only time I saw a electric car was… never.

Here on a south capital of brazil the only time I saw a electric car was… never.
What is the electricity cost like there? In $ per kWh, Brazil is cheaper than the USA. But if there are demand charges, that could come back to bite you.
Good theory UN. Mandates don’t work. Actual plans that address the myriad issues with this work. We’ve seen mandates like this for decades and they always move or get missed because there’s no plan behind it. Get a plan, then the world might take it seriously.

There’s no EV version of airplanes.

There’s no EV version of airplanes.
Yes, I doubt there will be anytime soon

There’s not nearly enough energy density in any form of energy storage that makes commercial shipping viable on all electric.

There’s not nearly enough energy density in any form of energy storage that makes commercial shipping viable on all electric.
There is sail for non-perishables paired with electric for very large ships.

but long haul trucking is kind of out.

but long haul trucking is kind of out.
I do not know, I think it is possible with investments. With fed regulations limiting drive time, the truckers could charge up over night in rest areas. The rest areas where I am are full with large trucks.

Rail can be electrified in theory, but that’s only happening at a very moderate pace globally.

Rail can be electrified in theory, but that’s only happening at a very moderate pace globally.
Yes, the best place for fossil fuel reduction. But the dumb large city I by me is replacing their electric trolleys with gas buses right now. The are saying, oh, we will go to electric in
Don’t worry, they are working on making sure you cannot fly at all
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/… [letsrun.com]
They should replace it with synthetic hydrocarbon fuels made from CO2, water and energy from non-carbon sources, including nuclear as well as renewables.
The underlying technology for synthesising hydrocarbons as been around for 100 years and is well understood. Oil companies have huge numbers of chemical engineers and are perfectly capably of deploying it at industrial scale, if they have an incentive. Banning exploration would be an incentive to start. Banning new wells would be the next step, followed, ev
It’s not all or nothing. We work on the low hanging fruit first, then the middle fruit, and then the high fruit.
> We’ve seen mandates like this for decades and they always move or get missed because there’s no plan behind it.
Example?
We got interstate highways built because we needed efficient material transfer for the war effort. Where there’s a will there’s a way.

Are they crappy at selling a good idea?

Are they crappy at selling a good idea?
Unfortunately this takes a fair bit of nuance to understand, but basically the major problem with politics in the US is their funding model. It takes an incredible amount of money to fund an election campaign along with keeping that public relations machine moving after being elected, so politicians on both sides of the aisle are largely funded with campaign contributions. While this is supposed to come from local constituents, all to often the money comes from large multi-national corporations through do
“Renewables are actually a way to escape much of the see-saw price problem, “
False
https://www.sciencedirect.com/… [sciencedirect.com]
“This paper shows that intermittent renewable generation transmits volatility to the electricity price. The question is how to integrate electricity from variable sources more smoothly in the electricity market to reduce effects on the price.
On the one hand, improved interconnection of electricity markets within Europe will reduce market effects of variable renewable electricity on market prices. Better grid connection can not only be fostered by new cables but also by using existing capacity more efficiently in an improved market coupling regime (Hulle, 2009, Monopolkommission, 2011, Schaber et al., 2012).
On the other hand, a generation system with flexible conventional capacity as well as electricity storage helps balancing fluctuations of renewable energy and therefore reducing effects on the electricity price. Flexible generation operates at high variable but low fixed costs and can therefore be switched on and off to equalise low renewable power feed-in. The main difficulty of both options, storage and flexible generation capacity, is their investment cost. Providing responsive generation capacity needs to be profitable. With more renewables in the power system, conventional plants will mainly balance renewable fluctuation and therefore operate fewer full-load hours. Recovering the investment costs for flexible conventional units during these load hours will become more difficult (Klessmann et al., 2008, Klinge Jacobsen and Zvingilaite, 2010, Steggals et al., 2011, Traber and Kemfert, 2011). Periods with peak prices, which allow plant operators to generate revenues, become less certain and predictable due to the high variability of renewable electricity generation. The increased refinancing risk questions the viability of investments in flexible conventional capacity, and the market price might fail to give sufficiently strong investment signals.”
Utility co’s can pool the cost of renewable variability, so that customers get a relatively flat bill. We can’t do that with oil because prices are controlled mostly by OPEC, outside the US.
In my opinion there should be “peak pricing” of about a 30% markup to encourage people to say not do their laundry at the worst times of day. But that isn’t a necessity, just a suggestion.
Renewables are actually a way to escape much of the see-saw price problem, but Democrats are crappy at selling that idea.
Remember, a GOOD idea sells itself.
If we had, just for instance, EV’s readily available at affordable prices and the supporting recharging infrastructure already in full or even nearly full force and the grid to support it, to where it competed with ICE ownership and convenience of use….people would be flocking to it.
The trouble is..with people trying to SELL the new way, before it is actually ready and for some reason, trying to cut the legs out of the energy and transportation that supports modern society today, before it can be switched over without collapsing economies and societies.
> Remember, a GOOD idea sells itself.
I have to disagree, giving it an “it depends”.
> trying to cut the legs out of the energy and transportation that supports modern society today,
Most don’t need a big SUV or pickup truck. It’s a PhallusMobile.
> EV’s…available at affordable prices
They get cheaper when manufacturing volume and related R&D goes up. Nobody can wave a wand to just make that happen. Thus, there is a bit of catch-22 to getting it to happen.
But EV’s are available at affordable prices. The recharging infrastructure is adequate for the existing fleet and considerable investment is being made to expand it. All the car companies are moving to EV as fast as they are able, and peak oil demand is predicted in ~2028.
What could really tank economies and societies is the sunk cost of oil infrastructure suddenly becoming almost worthless.

Remember, a GOOD idea sells itself.

Remember, a GOOD idea sells itself.
Sure, but the problem is there is about enough Li on Earth to build 1 year worth of all cars sold currently if they were all EVs. That’s not based on the amount of Li we have found, that’s based on a calculation about how much Li is in Earth’s crust total. So it might be a good idea, but it doesn’t scale and it wastes a finite resource. Consider this, 1 Tesla with a 80KwH battery removes 1 person’s CO2 emissions from driving. Now split that battery into 4 and make 4 Volts, so now you save about 3.6 pers
for all energy need. Accept no substitution.
1970 through Peake Oil: We are running out of oil, we need government control!
                    No, we aren’t. [juliansimon.com]
Today: We need to pretend to run out of oil!
Fair enough, but pardon me if I fear your motives are more concerned with getting in the way for bribery than environment.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
4chan Uses Bing To Flood the Internet With Racist Images
Sony’s High-Bitrate Movie Service is Now Available on PS5 and PS4
This place just isn’t big enough for all of us. We’ve got to find a way off this planet.

source
https://jaysarms.com.au/product/22lr-ammo-1000-rnds-cci-federal-winchester/

Sig Sauer MPX K Pistol 9mm 35RDS

CCI Blazer .45acp 230gr Full Metal Jacket ( 300RDs )

Walther Arms PPK/S 380 ACP 3.3″ Barrel

FN FNX-45 Tactical .45 ACP Pistol 5.3

Products


https://jaysarms.com.au/product-category/shotgun/
https://jaysarms.com.au/product-category/firearms-accessories/
https://jaysarms.com.au/product-category/pistol/
https://jaysarms.com.au/product-category/rifle/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top