First Dog socks now in stock at the Crikey Emporium!
A cautionary tale…
Greens talk common sense on climate bill
|
This morning the Greens launched a raft of amendments to improve the Government’s CPRS bill. They involve higher targets — 25-40% greenhouse gas emissions reduction by 2020; an industry compensation mechanism based on that proposed in the Garnaut Review, which involves compensating trade-exposed industries for the difference between their competitiveness under the scheme versus business-as-usual; a mechanism for tallying voluntary action and reducing emissions targets accordingly, and a far more rigorous process for imported carbon credits. The voluntary action mechanism apart, they’re sensible and mean the Greens are currently the most economically-rational party on emissions trading. If the Greens had two more senators, it would make for some fascinating negotiations with a Government tempted by the prospect of passage of a landmark bill, but incapable of resisting the rentseeking and whingeing of industry. Indeed, if there were two independent senators like Nick Xenophon, a deal might be possible involving the non-Coalition parties. Xenophon differs from the Greens on crucial points but some sort of mutually-acceptable position might be possible. That is, after all, what Xenophon does. Steve Fielding’s climate scepticism and unreliability however, cruel that hope. He’s more likely to come into Parliament dressed as a smokestack than vote for the CPRS. To counteract that, the Greens talk of a moderate Liberal like Judith Troeth crossing the floor to help pass the bill. Whatever the possibility of that, it is more likely with the Government’s polluter-friendly version than with the Greens economically-sensible version. The line looks a bit like the Greens trying to stay relevant to the debate. Nice try, guys. They might be better off hoping a double dissolution election will deliver them the balance of power in the Senate, which indeed it might, although that will be too late to deliver a role on the CPRS, which would sail into law, and hopeless ineffectuality, in a joint sitting. Still, as a number of commentators on all sides have observed, the idea that the CPRS will be set in stone right from the get-go beggars belief. There will be opportunities to amend it, and the accompanying regulations. Non-Parliamentary sections of the environmental movement, however, are not waiting for legislation. They’re resorting increasingly to direct action. The actions to halt production at coal mines in the Illawarra, part of the Climate Camp based at nearby Helensburgh on the weekend, certainly won’t be the last. There are plenty in the movement who think politics has failed them and that now is the time for direct action to halt emissions. The view is widely shared among young campaigners, who feel they have far more stake in the climate change debate than your average politician, who is unlikely to live to see the worst consequences of their inaction. Don’t underestimate the sense of disillusionment and even anger among some young Australians, who don’t see this as an environmental issue but one of survival. The protests will become less peaceful, the actions more extreme and more disruptive, the longer politicians treat climate change as a playground for intra- and inter-party political games. |
|
|
102 Comments
Spot on Bernard. Thanks.
The risk of “locking in failure” if a poor package is passed, is a worry. But at the end of the day, as you point out, they can always amend it later. Esp if the Greens come out of a dd with the balance of power in their own right. They will be a lot easier to work with (on most things) than the coalition. And hopefully the climate change deniers will be voted out.
And the answer is? More greens please, and quickly.
I’m looking forward to what the lunatic right have to say about this article…
I think that amending it later is virtually the only likely choice for a stronger system. The make up of the Senate essentially guarantees that it will need to be weakened to pass; or the Libs dig their heels in and we got to a DD when it sails through a joint sitting. With some luck the Greens will clear out some of the old deadwood and circumvent the obstructionists in the Senate entirely. The Libs may stay the second major party, but with the balance of power the Greens could sideline them entirely. What fun! I guess we wait and see.
So the Greens policy is “common sense” when they talk of higher targets in a situation where our options to fuel base-load energy is hugely limited, as nuke isn’t part of the suite of options and clean coal technology remains a pipe-dream.
(Edit: lets just keep to the issues pls)
IF the Greens get the balance of power it doesn’t matter what the legislation passed by a joint sitting is. They will simply withhold support from every government bill until a deal more to their liking gets done.
Where’s Most Peculiar Mama? I am sure he would have a few points to make on this article.
I keep expected MPM to reappear as another alter ego.
Tee, your comment that our “options to fuel base-load energy is hugely limited, as nuke isn’t part of the suite ” is incorrect.
recent studies by an eminint Australian engineer, now based in the US, show conclusively that a combination of solar and wind generation can in fact provide base load power requirements
This completely discredits the arguments for subsidizing the coal industry. It is time to move on to new ways. The Greens policy provides a blueprint for the future unlike the dithering of both the “major” parties.
You’re right. The current decision-makers think that 2050 is too far away because they will all be gone by then. However 2100 is in the lifetime of children whose parents are alive today. Not to trust the wrinklies, the young had better find their own political voice and demand answers to questions such as:
Will “reduction” achieve eliminationof emissions by 2100?
What exactly is meant by “renewables”?
What is planned by way of 24-hour to 6-month energy storage?
What will power our vehicles in the cities?
What will replace diesel in the bush?
Solutions to the questions around nuclear?
Solutions to the smelting of steel?
These questions are not being answered now because our ageing decision-makers will not have to face the consequences, physically. For that matter, are we ourselves asking those questions? We will eventually be judged on the consequences we bequeath to our descendants. The placards of young demonstrators may give us a foretaste.
Recent studies by an eminint Australian engineer, now based in the US, show conclusively that a combination of solar and wind generation can in fact provide base load power requirements
He’s not eminent if he’s peddling that crap. He’s peddling snake oil.
This completely discredits the arguments for subsidizing the coal industry. It is time to move on to new ways. The Greens policy provides a blueprint for the future unlike the dithering of both the “major” parties.
No it doesn’t. It merely shows how the innumerate and least able members of the citizenry are unable to grasp even the most facts which is that industrialized civilization cannot function with massive power production. Stick a propeller at the end of the stick or a couple of magnifying glasses on a panel is not going to give you masses of power.
If it were possible these things wouldn’t need massive government subsidies.
Unfortunately we have the Greens prying on the least intellectually able members of society in promoting crank ideas. It’s pretty sad actually.
The day might come when the myths finally destroyed. No storage for solar, wind doesn’t blow all the time, solar costs more than energy to make it and so on. If we get the policy and legislation right the energy generation mix will transform from the fossil present to a mixture of large solar thermal, large PV (and for my money a marriage of the two), wind, wave and more. And the other thing will will do is get a SMART GRID, not the antiquated thing we have now. There’s more - we could use a full 35% less if we got smart about demand management. Put that lot together and have the makings of a new way. Yes we need MORE Greens in power.
Your last para goes to the heart of the matter Bernard.
If the govt can’t demonstrate real leadership and come up with a half way credible response to CC, then chaos looms.
It’s more than a little unfortunate, that once the evidence of global warming becomes undeniable, it will be too late to stop it.
Well, if the Liberals really wanted to make mischief they’d support the Greens’ amendments and force the ALP to vote them down. It would be worth it just to see Martin Ferguson blowing his top and the EITE’s frantic lobbying.
Tee - you have NOT convinced me.
When you summarise wind and solar power to “a propeller at the end of a stick or a couple of magnifying glasses on a panel” it simply tells me that you have nothing to say.
When you simply say “No they are wrong! They talk crap. They sell snake oil” and offer nothing more than mockery, I can understand why you don’t use your real name.
I suspect you also have some kind of tie to that which is, and you are therefore hostile to that which could be. But hey, that could be wrong…. you don’t use your real name after all… how would I know who you are or what your vested interests may or may not be? You could be a manager of a coal mine, or an investor in uranium for all we know. Or just someone convinced by writers like Mr Bolt….
I would love a discussion some day about the need to really identify who we are as we share our thoughts with each other.
You’re right, gen y are the largest demographic pushing for tough, decisive action. In the recent Youth Decide poll, 91.5% voted for a reduction of 40% or more. The fact is, there is no point in having a CPRS if the targets it sets are insufficient. Climate change is a real issue, it won’t be satisfied by lip service.
For those who are interested in the facts rather than (edit - unnecessary description) Tee, can I recommend that they read the Wikipedia entry on Dr David Mills, one of Austrlia’s most succesful scientists. In addition you might be interested in an article by Paddy Manning in Saturdays SMH http://www.smh.com.au/business/with-green-power-comes-great-responsibility-20091009-gqvt.html
Yea Jim, I have vested interests all right. I’m a big coal polluter. Stop being silly.
Like you, I presume, I would like to get to zero based emissions by 2050 or even sooner. However unlike you and the other innumerates here including the thread writer I am also “keanly’ aware (no pun) that we can’t do it without nuke or a technological break through in clean coal which hasn’t happened yet and which the ETS is based on incidently.
So I’ll repeat it again…. the idea that we can satisfy our enormous energy requirements with propellers on sticks and magnifying glasses on a panel causes me to roll on the floor.
That’s what the Greens are suggesting and anyone supporting this line of thinking isn’t intellectually capable of thinking this thing through and therefore ought to stay right out of the discussion. That of course would means the entire Green party shouldn’t be discussing these issues as they simply aren’t equipped.
We continue to have Christine Milne talk about how Australia is missing out on devising all this technology and that it’s going overseas. Well here’s a question…. Why doesn’t she show us how it’s done? Why doesn’t Christine go out and develop all this new fangled technology, sell it into the market, keep the rights here and produce zero emissions by 2050 or sooner. Instead of asking why it’s not being done, let’s see this enormously intelligent and gifted woman show how it’s done.
(Josh I haven’t proof read it. Could you please fix the commas)
You could be a manager of a coal mine,
Ummm no.
or an investor in uranium for all we know.
yes, I am. With or without us the rest of the world will go nuke in a big way and BHP has the Saudi like reserves of uranium.
Or just someone convinced by writers like Mr Bolt….
You lefties are obsessed with Bolt. Do you guys dream of him or something?
No I respectfully disagree with Bolt, as I think AGW could end up be a big freaking problem far down the road. However I have far more respect for his intellectual consistency than I would for any leftie over AGW any day. To argue that the science is settled and then to argue against Nuke power is about as intellectually dimwitted as I can imagine.
(josh the commas please).
“If it were possible these things wouldn’t need massive government subsidies.” (tee@3:14)
That’s the clincher for me. The main thing government should be doing is setting up the mechanism ensuring an appropriately high price on emissions. After ensuring absolutely minimal regulatory obstacles for alternatives to coal (including and especially nuclear), the only thing remaining to do is get the hell out of the way and let the market sort it out (noting that I’m highly dubious about the ‘coal is subsidised by $n billion dollars a year’ propaganda). We’ll soon see then which energy solutions are up to it. Certainly at this point I don’t want to be betting the future of our civilisation on solar + wind + efficiency being up to the whole job on their own.
Good point Mark:
noting that I’m highly dubious about the ‘coal is subsidised by $n billion dollars a year’ propaganda
Do any of you Green party supporters have any evidence whatsoever of these enormous coal subsidies the Einstein like (and possibly smartest senator in the history of Federation or the universe) Christine Milne keeps referring to.
Links please with the evidence and no filibustering nonsense like… ‘I’ll get it for you next week’.
(Josh commas please).
Tee, Try this one:
Diesendorf, M., 2006, ‘Can geosequestration save the coal industry?’, in J. Byrne, Leigh Glover and Noah Toly
(eds), Transforming Power: Energy as a Social Project, Vol. 9, Energy and Environmental Policy Series,
pp.223-248.
Diesendorf cites:
De Moor, A. 2001. “Towards a grand deal on subsidies and climate change.” Natural Resources Forum
Volume25, Number 2: 167-76.
Bill:
And I can show you a few other experiments too in the US and here. However at this stage there isn’t any technology that is available that can be fitted on to a coal station that is scientifically proven to be reliable… and I don’t mean short term reliable either.
The real dangers of CO2 sequestration is that the gas escapes quickly and/or dangerously.
Again, my point is that the ETS is based on the hope of clean coal technology while zero emissions technology like nuke power is left off the shelf because of denialist behavior by the scientific denialists. In other words it’s pure crap. Renewables are also crap technology too at this stage and the economically illiterate and innumerate party peddling that crap ought to be thrown out of parliament and Brown sent back to the forest in his perch.
TEE - There’s an interview on the 7.30 Report website re the Australian who was forced overseas re his exciting work re solar power for base load power use. His ideas have been taken up by a very large company in California. The Aussie’s name is David Mills. The time of his interview with Kerry O’Brien was October 2007 - I think. You can easily find out what’s going on. Go to http://www.abc.net.au/7.30 and clink on Archives - you’re a smart person, you do the work! (Prof. or Dr - not sure)David Mills believes, that his discovery will be ready to ‘use’ in about 5 years - so there’s only 3 or so to go, all things going to plan. He also maintained, that it would be cheaper(and obviously cleaner etc than nuclear) and hopefully cheaper than coal.
I’ve been interested and against nuclear power(in fact the whole filthy industry - from mining to reactors/weapons/waste/’terrorist’ getting hands on it, etc, for over 30 years. We don’t need it in Australia, we don’t want it, and it’s just not worth the grief! How any intelligent person in this country would advocate its use is beyond my comprehension.
Australia derives enough energy from the sun in one day, to provide the world’s energy needs for one year! Prop. Ian Lowe - Pres. Australian Conservation Foundation - he said this during an interview also with Kerry O’Brien. In fact, to add emphasis, he said it twice. Join the dots - it makes perfect sense to our needs first, and then we could help the rest of the world. Wouldn’t that be something? Jobs, jobs, jobs one would think???
There is nowhere in the world, where the long term storage of high level waste has been found. The US uses some of its waste via depleted uranium in bombs - just another example of what countries are capable of doing. We’re yet to see the ramifications of that via our troops in Iraq etc.
Good onThe Greens. I just hope common sense prevails, and the Rudd govt just gets on with the job. My grandkids can’t wait for all this politicising and rubbish, nor can yours or his or hers! Let’s just do it! Let’s just tell the coal companies to pull their bloody heads in. They’ve had almost 12 yrs, as has the Coalition - they did very little to nothing. The time has come for action now. They’ve had amazing profits etc for yonks - the party’s over!
Liz:
Solar is incredibly expensive at this point in time and if one includes battery power (storage) when there’s no sun it would require the carbon based equivalent price at around $US200 a ton to make it “economical”. We could do that, but our economy would resemble that of a dusty South American village when you see a car going down the road and all these chickens flying around. In other words we would be dead poor.
Base load is one issue. There other issue is the enormous demand for energy an industrialized civilization such as ours requires. It is enormous.
Depleted uranium has no effect on humans. Anyone that is saying that is simply lying or is deranged.
Nuke power is one of the safest cleanest methods of delivering large power needs economically. Just don’t trust anything those dishonest, economically illiterate and innumerate greens have to say.
To suggest that Australia receives all the energy the world uses is actually a meaningless statement as you have to be able to covert that into energy we can use such a s electricity and the energy is is so diffuse.
Liz,
Dr David Mills is the Australian engineer I mentioned earlier today and whose work was dismissed by Tee as “snake oil”. So I doubt if you have much chance of persuading “Tee” … chuckle. However f you scroll back a bit through the earlier postings here you will find a link that I posted to an article about Dr Mills’ work in the US. This article also refers to the recent Deakin lecture that Mills delivered back here in Australia. It is such a shame that his pioneering work on solar power generation is now creating jobs in the US rather than here in Australia.
Having just heard Ross Garnaut’s opinion on the ETS on the 7.30 report, I’ve decided to just shoot myself.
Mike:
How about his then… I’ll believe solar is viable when I see it and that means it can exist in the market place without huge subsidies.
How does that work for you?
And please spare me the sentimental nationalist crap that people like that other intellectual giant of the senate, Christine Milne, goes on with as it dumbs things down.
If you think it’s such a good idea go ahead and put your own money in it, market it to investment bankers here and see how far you get. If it’s viable you’ll get the cash to develop it.
Tee:
“I’ll believe solar is viable when I see it and that means it can exist in the market place without huge subsidies”
Do you apply the same rules to nuclear power? read the Switkowski report and apply some intellectual rigour to your positions.
Myself (and others, Mark D in particular) don’t want one technology or another, nor more Government intervention. Just a proper price on carbon that takes (and other pollutants, SF6 for example, nuclear waste is another) into account the damage that making this money does to the environment. Then we have a level playing field and these technologies can play them selves out for the lowest cost abatement.
Oh, and no harm in depleted uranium? Leaving aside the fact that there are no reactors in operation that only produce depleted uranium, maybe you should have a read of this report by the World Health Organisation which includes detailed information on the health effects of depleted uranium.
Interesting isn’t it that Tee feels that his assertions about crap technology of propellers on sticks and magnifying glasses on a panel should be enough to convince us, yet we have to jump to to provide links with evidence immediately - which when presented are dismissed equally condescendingly. Says something to me about an unwillingness to even be open about the potential of emerging technologies than a rational assessment of their worth. New Scientist over the last month has showcased ideas and developing technologies that give me hope and optimism about the future- we just need the political will to embrace them - which is where The Greens come in.
The Switkowski report did apply similar “intellectual rigour” to both…
“Nuclear power is likely to be between 20
and 50 per cent more costly to produce than
power from a new coal-fired plant at current
fossil fuel prices in Australia. This gap may
close in the decades ahead, but nuclear
power, and renewable energy sources,
are only likely to become competitive in
Australia in a system where the costs of
greenhouse gas emissions are explicitly
recognised. “
In the event of a carbon tax to level the playing field, the technologies can compete as a market place.
Evan:
Do you apply the same rules to nuclear power? read the Switkowski report and apply some intellectual rigour to your positions.
Ummm Yep. France and Sweden are around 75% nuclear and the US 25% would be 75% also by now too if not for the intervention of the anti-science, luddite environmental movement there that stopped it dead in its tracks. Nuclear has an excellent comparative record in all sorts of ways.
Anyways, enough of the scary stories Evan as the kids won’t sleep tonight.
— — — — — —
Janet:
Interesting isn’t it that Tee feels that his assertions about crap technology of propellers on sticks and magnifying glasses on a panel should be enough to convince us, yet we have to jump to to provide links with evidence immediately - which when presented are dismissed equally condescendingly.
It’s crap technology otherwise it wouldn’t require all the subsidies, Janet. Cut and dice anyway you want but them facts are facts. Listen to the intellectual giant of the senate, Christine Milne if you want, but without those subsidies those magnifying glasses sitting on a panel wouldn’t see the light of day (pun intended). It’s crap technology at the present moment because it is economically inefficient.
Says something to me about an unwillingness to even be open about the potential of emerging technologies than a rational assessment of their worth.
We’ve heard about emerging solar technology since the 70’s . It’s been perpetually emerging and I’m sure if we continue with the subsidies it will be emerging for the next 50 years too. However what borders on a felony conviction is marrying up the possibility of emerging technologies with an ETS, which will price carbon as though some of those technologies are here, yet disallow nuclear. You people are nuts that support that sort lethal combination of thoughtless crap.
New Scientist over the last month has showcased ideas and developing technologies that give me hope and optimism about the future- we just need the political will to embrace them - which is where The Greens come in.
I’m also hopeful of future technologies, possibly even more hopeful than you will ever be. I think cold fusion will be around in say 30 years times. But until then and until those technologies are put into commercial use requiring time we will have to rely on propellers on sticks and magnifying glasses on panels. Good luck having a job.
And where do the Greens come in? Are you honestly suggesting that any of those luddites and freaks have any idea of anything? Are you seriously suggesting that the intellectual lion of the Senate, Christine Milne has anything to offer other than platitudinous, clichéd, drooling drivel. Unless we can master mass brain transplantation you’re kind of stuck with those luddite trogs masquerading as pro-technology geeks. The mere thought is laughable.
If only there was an intelligence test or at least a bare minimum level to get elected into parliament (or indeed post on a forum).
Senator Fielding is an bumbling embarrassment to this country. I have yet to see him bring a decent well thought out argument to any discussion - but it gets worse when something technical comes out.
And Family First? How is he helping anyone’s family by putting his grubby fingers in his ears and chanting “there’s no such since as climate change. Pumping increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere every single day isn’t increasing the carbon dioxide levels in the air. Everything’s going to be ok”.
Once again the Greens have the most immature, sensible and realistic ideas and proposals. I am so frustrated to the core when I see their good ideas being dismissed as hippie fairyland dreams. This country is stuffed. No wonder we don’t have any world leading technology nor multinational companies (apart from a few who dig up rocks and sell them). The majority of Australian politicians are lazy, anti-innovation slobs - who are selfish, greedy and shortsighted. Once again the old adage of you always get the politicians that you deserve rings true.
But also Bernard is correct. The younger generation is starting to become very frustrated with the ineptitude and inaction of those who are supposed to be elected to look after our best interests. There will soon come a time when frustration boils over - and things will not be confined to petitions and letter writing.
Tee,
I’m glad you can quote statistics of other country’s energy mixes, but I fail to see the relevance between this and the cost of starting a nuclear power industry in Australia. Besides which, you’re assembling a straw man here. I have not mentioned (well, not in this discussion anyway) any opposition to nuclear. Just reporting that the Switkowski report determined that nuclear would require massive government intervention and subsidies to establish a nuclear industry here. The rest is you fighting battles that don’t exist. If nuclear stacks up against coal and renewables with a proper cost-of-pollution scheme in place, then I would be on my way to supporting it. Further, if nuclear could be installed and operating within the time frame required to abate climate change, well, I’d be one big step closer still.
But, this is all fairy tale stuff, like discussing a stronger ETS. The politics will not allow it. Which party is going to take a nuclear reactor policy to the next election?
Now, onto the mistakes in your renewables assertions. There are no subsidies on renewables. Name one.
Nuclear power is not disallowed by the CPRS. It is disallowed by Australian law.
And what on Earth does this sentence mean:
“an ETS, which will price carbon as though some of those technologies are here”. The technology exists and has been demonstrated at scale for over 20 years. Again, do some reading, particularly into the US and Spanish solar installations. You could start with Wikipedia. You will find it quite accessible.
Cold fusion? Now who’s barking mad? Hot fusion, yes, might be useful for power generation within 30 years. Maybe. The ITER mob are gathering funds to build a demo reactor now, which they hope is running by about 2030. This will be at 50MW or so. They are hopeful that it will generate more power than it consumes.
Cold fusion has not been demonstrated at any scale, anywhere.
Lay off the pointlessly insulting language and start including some actual facts and research in your posts. I want to be convinced by your argument, but so far all you’ve done is insulted people and made unsupported and factually incorrect statements.
EngineeredReality
this country is stuffed. No wonder we don’t have any world leading technology nor multinational companies (apart from a few who dig up rocks and sell them).
No it’s not, (edit). It has one of the highest living standards in the world and will continue to have unless fools ruin our potential GDP growth.
You’re making the same mistake as those gooses in the Green party thinking that we need to do everything here. We don’t which is why there are such things as specialization and why focusing on comparative advantage is a good thing to continue raising out living standards. If someone offers an inventor a higher price overseas then he ought to sell it.
If you think we’re not good enough then go right ahead and show us how it’s done instead of whining like a broken down 2 stroke engine. Go ahead and show us.
Mining is a capital intensive industry, perhaps the most intensive in he world. A huge amount of scientific and technological innovation goes into mining. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Capital intensity is usually a good measure of how innovative and technologically proficient an industry is.
There are no subsidies on renewables. Name one.
Oh please . it was only until recently that the government would match the cost of a solar panel. There are numerous grants and accelerated deprecation allowances for returnables.
(Edit)
(Edit - Why are people so unkind?)
I am an electrical engineer. I am telling you that powering our society with 100% renewable energy is achievable right now. With technology from the 1800s steam age it is possible. But the critical thing is our technology now is so much more advanced than the 1800s. Saying that you can’t generate power from the sun and the wind is just plain wrong. Incorrect. False. Stupid.
Its quite insulting to be an engineer and to be constantly told by people without any technical knowledge that something is impossible.
You are like a garbage collector telling a doctor that a heart transplant isn’t possible. You are the hobo on the park bench screaming that the speed of sound can’t be broken. You are like a the village drunk screaming from the pier to the first viking voyage that they will fall off the edge of the world rather than discover a new continent. Only generating power from the sun and wind isn’t as challenging as a heart transplant or flying faster than sound or journeying into the unknown - its pretty damn simple. The sun is hot - its energy hits the earth - we harness it to make electricity. Wow!!!!
Its worth remembering that almost all forms of energy we currently use on earth originate from the sun. Apart from geothermal and nuclear fission everything else comes from the sun. Coal, oil, gas, wind, wave, sunlight, solar radiation.
We humans are pretty smart. We started harnessing the renewable energy first. We dried things in the warmth of the sun, we burnt small amounts of wood and used windmills. It was only later that we learnt about digging up black rocks and burning them. Problem is we got so good at digging it up we are now polluting our world and we are running out of the black rocks.
Sounds like a children’s story doesn’t it. Well thats because its pretty simple to understand. The smartest amongst us have realised we can’t keep burning black rocks from the ground. We have to instead use our technology to harness the free, constantly available and massive amounts of energy that hit our planet every single minute of the day from our closest star - the sun.
“No it’s not, you fool. It has one of the highest living standards in the world and will continue to have unless fools ruin our potential GDP growth.”
Checked out our balance of payment’s recently? We have a good standard of living because we are racking up our country’s credit card. We owe half a trillion dollars to the rest of the world. Each year we are billions in debt to the rest of the world because all we export are rocks that we dig up or things that we grow.
http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/AlphaListing/alpha_listing_d.html
Name an Australia car, or electronic brand. No? What about a phone? Do we make computer chips? No I can’t think of one either.
We are the indentured serfs of the world - digging up our mineral riches and selling them for a pittance to the smarter countries of the world. They smelt our iron ore and use our coking coal and build manufactured goods - like cars and computers and dvd players. Then we buy these cars and goods and other shiny trinkets with more money than we receive.
The capital intensity of our mining sector is more a function of the vast distances involved in getting the minerals to the customer - not a measure of sophistication of the industry. Railways, temporary towns and processing plants is what mostly soaks up the capital.
EngineeredReality. I’m not a muppet, you are, you nonsenscial whiner.
I never said we couldn’t do it with renewables but it would be about as economically efficient as having you a on peddle bike to provide our energy needs.
Frankly I don’t believe you are an engineer, as no one would say the stupid things you’ve said here.
Saying that you can’t generate power from the sun and the wind is just plain wrong. Incorrect. False. Stupid.
I never said that, you whiner. Read carefully what I said again and explain exactly where I made those representations. I said that it would be impossible to run our civilization with renewables in an economically efficient way that would not only sustain our living standards but continue them at the same trajectory. We don’t have a chance with your proposition where technology stands today, you dunce.
Its quite insulting to be an engineer and to be constantly told by people without any technical knowledge that something is impossible.
You should give back your degree, as you don’t seem able to comprehend even basic English.
You are like a garbage collector telling a doctor that a heart transplant isn’t possible. You are the hobo on the park bench screaming that the speed of sound can’t be broken. You are like a the village drunk screaming from the pier to the first viking voyage that they will fall off the edge of the world rather than discover a new continent.
And you’re like the village idiot leading the kids over the cliff in the river.
Only generating power from the sun and wind isn’t as challenging as a heart transplant or flying faster than sound or journeying into the unknown - its pretty damn simple. The sun is hot - its energy hits the earth - we harness it to make electricity. Wow!!!!
It’s really challenging to present the technology in an economically efficient way, you rat bag. That’s the problem as we don’t have the capability.
Its worth remembering that almost all forms of energy we currently use on earth originate from the sun. Apart from geothermal and nuclear fission everything else comes from the sun. Coal, oil, gas, wind, wave, sunlight, solar radiation.
And I’m surprised that as an engineer you don’t understand what the word diffuse means.
We humans are pretty smart. We started harnessing the renewable energy first. We dried things in the warmth of the sun, we burnt small amounts of wood and used windmills. It was only later that we learnt about digging up black rocks and burning them.
And you’re point is what exactly other than worthless drivel? If you think you can develop a magnifying glassed solar panel that’s economically efficient then go ahead, be my guest and do so, as after all we’ve been waiting for 40 years.
Problem is we got so good at digging it up we are now polluting our world and we are running out of the black rocks.
Are we, so you’re a consulting geologist now are you?
Sounds like a children’s story doesn’t it.
Sure does. It’s the sort of crap I frankly wouldn’t be expecting from someone who says they’re an engineer. Let me guess you graduated from one of the techs? Am I right?
The smartest amongst us have realised we can’t keep burning black rocks from the ground.
Sure we can, but we don’t want to, as it screws up our atmosphere. Please don’t start the peak oil etc crap now.
We have to instead use our technology to harness the free, constantly available and massive amounts of energy that hit our planet every single minute of the day from our closest star - the sun.
And I take it you own a solar panel, right? You bought it without a subsidy? Evidence please.
Checked out our balance of payment’s recently?
Oh here we way go. I bet I’m going to hear a mercantilism sop story from someone claiming he is an engineer no less, as though that hasn’t been around for 200 years in economic debate. Lol
We have a good standard of living because we are racking up our country’s credit card. We owe half a trillion dollars to the rest of the world. Each year we are billions in debt to the rest of the world because all we export are rocks that we dig up or things that we grow.
Yep I guessed right, it’s mercantilism. Look Mr. Engineer a deficit on the current account mirrors a surplus on the capital account. If people want to lend Australians money or invest here they do so and it creates a surplus in our capital account. It also means they expect the marginal rate of return to be higher than they would expect at home or elsewhere. If they no longer wish to invest here our exchange will fall until it becomes attractive. Then again we could be like North Korea, which tries to produce everything on its own. Is that what you want, Christine Milne wannabe? You think we should copy or parody NK?
Name an Australia car, or electronic brand. No? What about a phone? Do we make computer chips? No I can’t think of one either.
So what? I can also name the best iron ore deposits in the world, the best food in the world, terrific service talents that we export to the rest of the world like education.
We are the indentured serfs of the world - digging up our mineral riches and selling them for a pittance to the smarter countries of the world.
Oh bullshit. We’re selling stuff at the market rates, which happens to be pretty high at the moment.
They smelt our iron ore and use our coking coal and build manufactured goods - like cars and computers and dvd players.
and that’s bad? LOL
Then we buy these cars and goods and other shiny trinkets with more money than we receive.
Which is what is supposed to happen in globalized economies, you economic dunce. You specialize and you focus on your comparative advantage.
The capital intensity of our mining sector is more a function of the vast distances involved in getting the minerals to the customer - not a measure of sophistication of the industry. Railways, temporary towns and processing plants is what mostly soaks up the capital.
Oh Bullshit. Our mining industry is the most mechanized most tecnologically advanced in the world, which is why Australian firms export their talents around the world.
You’re just as bad as Christine Milne if not worse.
You may be interested in this factual information
The Maunder minimum is the name given to a period of extreme solar inactivity (virtually no sunspot activity) that occurred between 1645 and 1710. Of particular interest is that this period of inactivity corresponds closely to one of the coldest periods of the so-called “Little Ice Age” in Europe, a time of long, cold winters that caused severe hardships in the pre-industrial revolution world. This has led scientists to extensively study the possible influences of solar activity on terrestrial climate, as well as examine other stars for evidence of activity cycle behavior similar to the Sun’s.
The next interesting fact is that astronomers report that there has been very little sunspot activity for the past two years.
Do we now wait for the next ice age?
The scientists are still researching all this.
We may need all the CO2 we can find!!
STOP! THERE MAY BE NO NEED FOR VENISE TO EMPTY THE MEDICINE CABINET!!!!!!!!!!!
Ross McKitrick, a climate scientist and Stephen McIntyre, a mathematician and statistician proved the infamous hockey graph used by the 1st IPCC and Al Gore (with showman step ladder) in An Inconvenient Truth was a falsehood.
Recent good article by McKitrick in a Canadian mag that I thought worth disseminating as you won’t hear it from the ABC, The Age, BB or BK :
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/01/ross-mckitrick-defects-in-key-climate-data-are-uncovered.aspx
KL:
The Little Ice Age may have affected only Europe or only the Northern Hemisphere. It appears from parallel records that it did not happen in the Southern Hemisphere.
Also, whether this event was due to the sunspot activity or the lack of prayer, an unusually high tide or some other explanation has not been demonstrated.
Of curse, scientists have studied the impact of sunspot activity on the earth’s temperature and the LIA. There have also been studies seeking links with other observable phenomena. None have demonstrated anything except that there has been a coincidence; a lucky happenstance.
Back on the real planet Earth, things are somewhat different. Solar thermal electricity generation appears to have gone un-noticed, despite Dr David Mills’ substantial technological developments in this area and early commercialisation of his developments.
Perhaps I should not say that I am an engineer and that I have had the pleasure of working on two generations of this very credible engineer’s trial projects in NSW and hope to be involved in the next commercial version of the same stuff. This technology produces megawatts of power and is close to commercial competitiveness as either a partial replacement for coal in existing coal fired power stations or as a single stand-alone technology for future power stations, where the only energy input will be sunlight and the output will be 24/7 thermal solar power.
This is not the stuff of dreams. It is alive and well. The costs are not yet lower than conventional power generation, however a few more years’ development may well see it overtaking black coal as a source of thermal energy for steam driven power stations.
Yes, there is a need for many acres of land - but less than is required for a single coal mine. Yes, there are technical hurdles to cross, but this technology is only a few years old, in comparison with more than 100 years for black coal power stations.
I have hopes that Australian ingenuity and American venture capital will be able to produce all of this earth’s electrical power, from the sun’s rays, for centuries to come and with no more than a series of mirrors, thermal storage (underground?) and conventional stean generating plant. This is not fantasy. It is achievable in the short term and commercially competitive in the mid term.
And the personal abuse, vague waffle and unproductive crap from “Tee” is not conducive to either productive consideration of the facts nor the analysis of the contents of the original article.
I move that Tee be excluded form this thread.
Well I move that you be excluded from the thread too, Bennetts.
If people are rude to me I’ll be doubly rude back, so don’t take it too far yourself, you self-aggrandizing ninny.
Solar thermal electricity generation appears to have gone un-noticed, despite Dr David Mills’ substantial technological developments in this area and early commercialisation of his developments.
Solar thermal or rather thermal energy is the cheapest form of power we could develop, Bennets. People aren’t stupid and some of us know these things. However the issue with thermal is that not every demand point is nicely localized near a bunch of hot rocks, which obviously causes serious costing issues with the grid.
The other thing you may also want to point out is that it’s also a form of radiation-derived energy as hot rocks are radioactive. Adding to a grid from great distances isn’t cheap and so we’re back to economic issues again… Funny that.
Perhaps I should not say that I am an engineer and that I have had the pleasure of working on two generations of this very credible engineer’s trial projects in NSW and hope to be involved in the next commercial version of the same stuff.
Okay, go ahead and commercialize it. Would you mind me asking how much money the government is laying into the project?
This technology produces megawatts of power and is close to commercial competitiveness as either a partial replacement for coal in existing coal fired power stations or as a single stand-alone technology for future power stations, where the only energy input will be sunlight and the output will be 24/7 thermal solar power.
Yes I know Bennets, but you can’t choose where the rocks are and you need to cost out the grid.
This is not the stuff of dreams. It is alive and well. The costs are not yet lower than conventional power generation, however a few more years’ development may well see it overtaking black coal as a source of thermal energy for steam driven power stations.
Yep. True, but what’s the cost of the grid add on please?
Yes, there is a need for many acres of land - but less than is required for a single coal mine. Yes, there are technical hurdles to cross, but this technology is only a few years old, in comparison with more than 100 years for black coal power stations.
Yes, I’m sure you’re all fired up, But I have already patiently explained the problems associated with hot rocks although it’s a cheap source. What’s the cost of the grid add on and how does it compare with being able to localize a 3rd generation reactor wherever you want? Keep in mind that thermal is also a radioactive source of energy too, so the radiation bedwetters should also be against this form of energy.
I have hopes that Australian ingenuity and American venture capital will be able to produce all of this earth’s electrical power, from the sun’s rays, for centuries to come and with no more than a series of mirrors, thermal storage (underground?) and conventional stean generating plant. This is not fantasy.
It is a fantasy, Bennets, because there aren’t enough hot rocks where we need them in the world. It will be commercially viable but its limitations are pretty big from that perspective.
It is achievable in the short term and commercially competitive in the mid term.
Yes but you’re not telling us about the cost of the grid add on.
And the personal abuse, vague waffle and unproductive crap from “Tee” is not conducive to either productive consideration of the facts nor the analysis of the contents of the original article.
I move that Tee be excluded form this thread.
Don’t try that crap with me or anyone else. If it’s civility you want then practice it- not do the opposite and demand it, otherwise you get what you richly deserve back.
Look Bennets, this stuff isn’t new to me as I’m more than well aware of the stuff going on in the Cooper basin with the hot rock deposit there.
The Cooper Basin is and has been a graveyard of dreams whether it’s mining or this caper you’re involved in. That’s why I never went into an investment proposition as there are far too many graves in the Cooper basin for my liking.
Come back and tell us when it’s a goer and fully competitive with other technology and including the cost of having to lengthen the grid from very remote parts and that you’re not doing it by hitting the government coffers.
Dear Crikey moderator, I beg for relief from this fool, “Tee”.
I won’t go to the trouble of analysing and disecting Tee’s latest contribution, only to note that there is a considerable difference between hot rocks and solar thermal.
Goose that you are, Tee, there is a difference. Hot rocks and the Cooper Basin are not what I was discussing, however there is hope for future developments in this exciting branch of power generation.
Solar Thermal energy is derived from the sun, by focussing of the sun’s rays onto steam tubes filled with water. Nothing more or less. Not a rock in sight. The heat energy from the steam thus generated can be used immediately in a steam turbine or stored in a number of ways, eg by heating dry ground.
Mr Tee, who hides behind a pseudonym, either grow up or shut up - your continued abuse, belittling of other contributors and repeated demonstrations of your own emotionally driven small and uneducated mind are both negative and a sign of mental instability. You need professional help. Piss off.
Moderator I beg you to please refrain this self aggrandizing nincompoop from asking others to be moderated out and remove him from this thread.
Bennetts.
Not everyone is an engineer and if I made a mistake I accept it, unlike you I would expect.
Okay so solar thermal isn’t hot rocks development although I ‘ve seen that term used when people have been discussing the combination of thermal (hot rocks) and solar.
As I said about solar, I’ll believe it when I see it like other people with sceptical eye on the promise of future breakthroughs. Unfortunately with solar, you’re going to be pushing the proverbial shit uphill as investors, though not all are increasingly sceptical that solar will ever be able to make the grade in a generation despite the heaps of propaganda, err promises we continue seeing.
So far you haven’t mentioned how much the government has given towards this technology as you also need to capitalize that too seeing the money comes from somewhere and doesn’t exactly grow on trees. How high does the price of carbon have to be before your promise of future unlimited energy come into being.
Here’s my bet, your plan will never ever see the light of day.
Piss off yourself you dickhead.
Mr Tee
The following authority does not agree with your regarding the safety of depleted uranium -Department of Protection of the Human Environment, World Health Organization, Depleted Uranium; Sources, Exposure and Health Effects (Geneva, Switzerland, April 2001).
“Very low levels” are not safe levels - if DU is inhaled or ingested, it is carconogenic, among other health effects.
Abuse is not argument.
People:
Before you listen to Bennetts and his propaganda about solar read this:
http://depletedcranium.com/people-are-starting-to-get-it/
and this :
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/11/tcase3/
there is no way any of this renewable junk is going to provide present day living standards let alone ones based on the current growth trajectory in the future.
These people pushing solar and other assorted junk just don’t tell you the high cost associated and how far they really are from making the technology commercially viable and economically efficient.
I say this with all sincerity as I don’t want to see this country or the rest of the world taking in by these snake oilers posing as our saviors. They aren’t.
Bennetts and his ilk continually peddle this technology in order to get more government subsidies. Just continually ask them to come back when its viable and stop asking for government hand outs.
There is only one commercially viable technology that we have which can provide the power we need and that’s nuclear power which is safe and 100% emission free. 4th generation reactors offer great promise and the waste is insignificant. Most people are frightened of nuclear energy as a result of two accidents and lots and lots of misinformation. Please understand that the industry like in France etc. has made great strides over the past 20 years.
Do not be taken by people like Bennetts whose only interest is picking our pockets for more subsidies on a technology that will not even come close to offering what we need.
Read those websites. Please.
“Very low levels” are not safe levels - if DU is inhaled or ingested, it is carconogenic, among other health effects.
So we’re moving away from nuclear energy to depleted uranium. Are we going ingest it with our breakfast cereal each day?
Lots of things are carcinogenic, so what exactly is your point?
People:
Before you listen to Bennetts and his propaganda about solar read this:
http://depletedcranium.com/people-are-starting-to-get-it/
So then Tee, can you correct me if I’m wrong, but your point can be summarised thus:
Australia can’t afford to reduce our carbon emissions by using renewables because to do so would damage our way of life? But, it’s okay if we use nuclear to reduce our emissions.
Have I got it right?
This polling suggests to me introducing nuclear power would be very difficult indeed:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/10/13/an-updated-history-of-nuclear-polling/
Someone wondered why MPM has gone then the verbose TEE overwhelms the thread. As to the ”young” wanting ‘action’ (wotever that might be) it would help if thye trimmed their consumption now, whilst relatively responsibility free, before they become hostages to Fortune with children of their own, mortgages and career trajectories.
I’ve watched too many principled people become quiescent & manipulable around their first quarter century.
Interesting spin, Evan@8:01 am. I just (20 minutes ago) heard ABC Radio’s Tim Cox ask Kevin Rudd about this latest (Nielsen) poll, and his take was essentially that support for nuclear power in Australia was surprisingly high, and increasing. I’m actually surprised that it’s as high as 49%, without either major party ever having campaigned for it wholeheartedly (the Liberals have never been more than lukewarm about it).
Yeah, agreed Mark, my post looks, ‘spun’. What I meant was it’s pertty close to 50-50, so there’s not much in it for the political parties. If the issue ever got really forced in the media, I think the nonsense that would come out, from either side, could make it a bit of a hot potato. Like drug reform I guess; there is strong support in the community (stronger than nuclear I thought ~60%), but the potential for emotive and maybe even misleading debate on the issue make it a political quagmire.
Tee, is “Depleted Cranium, The Bad Science Blog” really a useful source of information as you suggested? It was mildly entertaining watching you make a fool of yourself for a while, but enough is enough. You can go away now.
In response to Evan Beaver’s at 7:05 am: “Have I got it right?”
The answer is “close but no cigar”……. Clintonian premoistened or otherwise.
Australia can’t afford to reduce its carbon emissions by using renewables.
If we are serious about reducing our CO2 emissions then we will have to use nuclear.
mike C
(Edit - Play nice)
Evan.
No. JamesK has a pretty good view I would agree with.
Tee, two questions -
1. Who is Josh, and why is he fixing your commas?
2. Why do you have so much time to write long posts here?
TEE- You are incorrect about Depleted Uranium. Watch, “The Doctor, Depleted Uranium and the dying children of Iraq” - It’s on the net, as are articles by Donald Rokke, a US military person who was given the task of cleaning up the machinery(trucks etc) used during the first Gulf War. He found the horrific affects first hand, went public, and from a man who’d received awards and much praise for his career and first work in this field, he’s now defiled and treated like a leper. For his pains, he has several life threatening illnesses, caused by the material he was working with - depleted uranium.
There’s a documentary that he made called, “Blowin’ in the wind” and it gives many incidences of British and american military personnel who after that war produced children with genetic illnesses. There is no doubt now, that in all the countries that the US in particular bombed, birth defects, cancers(particularly childhood cancers) have increased. I’d hate to see the situation in this country, where our servicemen and women will have to fight for their illnesses to be recognised as being relevant to their service, like the Vietnam vets had with Agent Orange, or others who served in Hiroshima after that disaster, or cleaning out the fuel tanks of aircraft etc. It will happen, as Iraq if full of the stuff! It’s important to note, that in keeping with US past history, they still refuse to admit liability, and refuse to do anything about the horrific ill affects that the Vietnamese people are still suffering. It’s also important to note, that the only country (so far) to use nuclear weapons is the US - they also were the ones to sell horrific materials (like anthrax etc) to others, while they were ‘mates’ or ‘useful’ or ‘convenient’ like Saddam Hussein. It was the US that also offered nuclear capabilities to the Shah of Iran - Iran could have had nuclear weapons in the 1970’s or before?
The ‘mates’ we sell our uranium to now, maybe quite different in the future. We continue to not learn from history, in this case, other countries huge mistakes re weapons and giving or selling the means to destroy us!
It’s a nonsense for you to glibly denigrate those who are opposed to the total nuclear industry. How do you know that miners won’t be affected? You don’t? If you do, put forward the evidence. How frequently are they examined by qualified medical people? The reactors in the US are well past their used by date. There’s not been any?built in recent times. The reason why there’s no permanent storage of high level waste, is because each time it’s raised, the people stand up and say “NO” with good reason. The US has a history of accidents and incidents re their nuclear industry, and those who have a vested interest in each situation - the manufacturers, the government, those who run it, in particular those who receive the highest incomes, don’t tell the people about them. In fact, quite the opposite. They’ve gone to extreme lengths in the past to deny, play them down, or just act like bastards - blatant lies will do, they believe!
A few years ago, not long after the new reactor was opened at Lucas Heights, it shut down. I recall Labor politicians having to ‘drag’ Julie Bishop to the despatch box, where she ultimately admitted to a shut down due to minor ‘hiccups’ or some such rubbish. I live within an hour or so drive of that place! My point is, that politicians don’t/won’t/refuse/diffuse/blatantly lie/mumble/ etc when they’re asked questions now about issues not as dangerous as nuclear reactors, do you trust them to keep you ‘in the loop’ re nuclear power? I’m bloody sure I don’t! I also resent the secrecy of transporting the waste, in the dead of night, under heavy police guard etc. If it’s so damned safe mate, why not do it in broad daylight through those same suburbs where peoples’ kids are sleeping? You think you can just state, without any proof or information, that this stuff is safely managed, stored etc, and anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. If you’d read what I had(which you obviously have not)you’d have a different viewpoint, unless you don’t give a s**t about your own life or anyone elses.
I believe, that if there was a ‘real debate’ in this country about nuclear power, and the people had access to all the facts, not selective positive bits and pieces, they’d have a different view - the overwhelming majority would be against. I can just imagine a nuclear reactor near Port Kembla; close to large populations, near access to water - huge lots of it via Lake Illawarra and the Pacific Ocean, and also close to Blue Scope Steel(BHP) what a charming picture that conjures up if ‘something goes wrong’, read a leak or a core meltdown; there’s water that goes back to the source, and it lifts the temperatures, then the fish don’t spawn, no prawns etc only the garbage fish survive, which are only good for putting on the garden as fish emulsion? Thought about this aspect? What happens to the fishing/prawning industry in the Illawarra, not to mention the now recognised importance of fish as a necessary source to include in a healthy diet. I won’t buy fish from Vietnam for instance? Why? for the reasons I mentioned above!
The costs of building, transport, security, mining, enrichment, storage of waste, decommission is not included in the running costs of a nuclear reactor for provision of electricitiy, as far as I know. If so, it’s a recent introduction, because it hasn’t always been. The costs of building reactors also increases as does the cost of dismantling - budgets blow out in the millions or more. I’m not prepared for my taxes to go towards nuclear power, or the many dangers it poses to peoples’ health and safety, not to mention the ‘tricky’ question of permanent storage of HIGH LEVEL WASTE for hundreds of thousands of years, just to get to the half life of the radiation - only to need another set of hundreds of thousands of years for the next half life etc. What if waste was stolen? Makes the nonsense of the ‘war on terror’ become a reality I feel.
The issue with solar as base load power is the ability to store the energy gained during the day so it can be utilized at night. I believe that has been solved. Germany has progressed quite a long way - many farmers have solar panels on their properties and sell the energy back to the grid; there’s solar panels along highways; some supermarkets operate on solar energy only, and there are ‘things’ happening all the time.
I agree with those on this site who criticize you for glibly ridiculing solar, but don’t produce any proof of the reality or your assertions. How many reactors in Britain and the US are past their used by date? How many new reactors have been built in both these countries? Where do you believe the water will come from if reactors were built here? Don’t you think it’s pretty stupid, that the need for huge amounts of water for nuclear reactors would be an intelligent path to take, considering that the country has been in drought for a decade or more? Doesn’t make sense to me? So much water is required, and too much is wasted via steam(reactors, about 1/3 of energy is wasted) or in cooling ponds or the reactor core. It’s just plain dumb and stupid!
and here’s me thinking this debate had slowed down since 3am…
You can have all the time in the world when you’re paid to post mis-information and doubt.
I think Pete WN is most unkind about Liz45.
Kathryn McCallum
1. Who is Josh, and why is he fixing your commas?
He’s decided to become my personal spell &gram check. It’s nice having someone do things like that. I really appreciate it.
2. Why do you have so much time to write long posts here?
Nature of my job. Sometimes I have a lot of time to devote to bashing the hateful, dumb nihilistic Greens. It’s a labor of love and wouldn’t change it for the world. Josh loves spellchecking, I like greens bashing
Liz:
What exactly is the point about depleted uranium and how does it relate to a discussion on nuke reactors?
I also enjoy spending some of my annual leave clumsily composing replies to threads such as these. One must envy Tee’s ability to supply fluent ripostes off-the-cuff. However, I do know from experience that I can make errors when I shoot from the hip. Even so, I think some of you guys are hurting from the times when he has got it right and you have got it wrong.
I challenge anyone to look through Liz45’s last post and assert that she has got everything right!
I make it a personal rule not to read the long posts. Anything that requires that much contrivance is rarely worth wading through.
Good job Mr. Beaver thought it “worth wading through” Tee’s posts in order to summarise them at 7:05 am and ask questions.
Dutifully answered by the way Evan.
I m going to ‘out’ myself by saying, and I’ve been thinking it for ten years. At the rate of our population is exploding, at the rate which Europe and England are dying, at the rate we have buggered up our land, at the rate we’ve mined the guts out of it-all to sell overseas, of course-we have but one future.
WE MUST GO NUCLEAR
Here’s a suggestion Tee: delete your account, and begin a new one with your real name. Then argue with a bit of common courtesy that using your real name just might force you to do. Hiding behind a pen-name so you can be such a cynical mocker, is just plain weak.
Please everyone STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS!!!
Just ignore them and get on with the real discussion.
The real issue here is that due to the ALP’s preference deals in Victoria, we’ve got a “tool” of similar kind to Tee in the Senate for Family First.
Also the historical voting record shows quite clearly that the two major parties simply vote together over 90% of the time, especially when it comes to contentious issues to keep the powerful and the corporations happy.
Meanwhile, we need real action real research and real investment into solutions.
For Christ’s sake WTF is wrong with everyone. Nuclear-and this wouldn’t have had to become an option if the government had done anything to halt the population growth-is just another tool. To deny it’s future on the sins of the past is analogous to denying plane travel because some people waltzed off cliff-tops in an attempt to prove that flight was feasible.
If only all this passion could be turned on our miserable parliamentarians we wouldn’t be in all this shit in the first place.
Carlos:
Nice avatar.
(Edit - More on the issues, less on fellow posters please)
Jim says:
Then argue with a bit of common courtesy that using your real name just might force you to do.
Here’s my suggestion, Jim. Mind your own freaking business. I will decide, not you or anyone else.
Lastly, if people are courteous I’ll return the courtesy. If they’re not I will double up.
(josh the gram check please)
JamesK: In the face of this fury I’ve decided to live! Wow, and I thought I got heated. It’s worth the price of subscription just to read the comments.
Why,
you don’t find Fidel’s the avatar offensive?
The Greens have a philosophy which is a bloody-sight more than the Coalition or a good many Labor parliamentarians have.
TEE: I said nothing about Fidel’s/Carlos Medina’s avatar. However, since you asked, I find it to be ‘old hat’. Just like the government of Cuba.
Also, don’t think some of us don’t know who you really are, MPM. Hard right-wing and opinionated soul that you are.
@Venise
“The real reason for not committing suicide is because you always know how swell life gets again after the hell is over” said Hemingway ………….
but then he did.
So then, what advantage does nuclear represent? Given that the report into adopting nuclear, comissioned by the Howard Government found that introducing nuclear would be more expensive and slower to introduce than renewables, even with massive government intervention, how is that a better alternative? Further, the same report found that building 10 plants would limit growth in emissions by 18% by 2050. Awesome. Talk about a silver bullet.
Frankly, anyone who thinks that reneables just CAN NOT delivery carbon savings clearly doesn’t know anything about the state of renewables in the world right now. As I said earlier, read about the installations solar installations in Spain and the US; read about the wind installations in the UK and Denmark. We don’t need 100%; at most 40%. The grid can handle this, as many reports have shown.
Anyone that mentions that renewables can not delivery ‘baseload’ gets and immediate fail.
Re: Evan…
Agreed re the nuclear option. I have not seen repeated recently, but remember reading that nuclear power has one large cost for governments everywhere in the world. It seems that the end-of-life site restoration and decontamination risks have to be underwritten by and/or fully accepted by the government, because otherwise insurance of the business is impossible.
Such a hurdle is significant and unable to be costed.
Wrt renewables being able to deliver baseload, there are two valid views.
1. If cost is not a consideration, then double-handling solutions such as pumped storage hydro, thermal mass and chemical storage systems are feasible. The answer is Yes.
2. If cost is a consideration, then baseload options will be prohibitive for the forseeable future. The answer becomes either No or Partly, especially within a timeframe of, say, 15 or 20 years.
Regarding Denmark’s experience with wind power, I note recent reports that not all is well, that expectations re maintenance and costs have not been met and that the promised nacelle manufacturing facility in WA has been cancelled. I would appreciate someone pointing to a relatively article which could bring us all up to date re Denmark’s experiences with wind.
Correction:
…a relatively recent article…
That is your opinion Evan.
It is not the fact.
Therefore please desist from condescendingly suggesting that those who disagree with you “gets and immediate fail’(sic)
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8559&page=0
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25817955-5005200,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24707449-7583,00.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2749522920080228?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Thankyou John for some civilised comment.
Just so that everyone knows, there is, and always has been energy storage on the grid. Bendeela and Kangaroo Valley are 2 such examples.
I wish I could remember where I saw it, but suspect that it was the UK report into wind penetration commissioned by Greenpeace. The study found that the variation in supply of renewables at 40% penetration is equal in magnitude to the change in demand currently on the grid. Translating, this means that the energy storage and flexibility already in the grid can cope with the variable nature of renewables. Hence, storage is not an immediate concern, not for the next 15-20 years; renewable penetration will not be high enough to create a problem.
With the onsite storage, there are a number of very promising and cost effective (with CO2 at $25-30 a tonne) solar thermal projects that avoid the ‘double-handling’ problem by capturing heat directly and realise it as electricity on demand. Check out Lloyd Energy’s carbon block storage and Wizard power’s Big Dish tech. Both Aussie inventions and both suited perfectly to the awesome insolation available in Australia.
Ah, what’s not the fact James?
TEE - Liz:
“What exactly is the point about depleted uranium and how does it relate to a discussion on nuke reactors?”
http://www.resurrectingliberty.com/Depleted%20Uranium.html
“Depleted uranium is a derivative of the uranium enrichment process required to produce fuel for commercial reactors. This process is then followed by gaseous diffusion in two streams — one is enriched and the other depleted.”
If uranium wasn’t enriched to be used in the fuel rods, there’d be no depleted uranium. The whole nuclear fuel cycle is dangerous, expensive and produces more dangerous toxins than exist in its natural state. Plutonium is not a natural substance, it’s the byproduct of the use of uranium. The more uranium that is enriched for reactors, the more DU there is! “It’s a cheap way of disposing of waste”?
In Britain, a legal case re a military person contracting colon cancer ruled, that it was caused by breathing in DU during the first Gulf War.
“In a landmark ruling a jury at an inquest has ruled that exposure to depleted uranium in the 1991 Gulf War was the likely cause of the colon cancer that killed British veteran Stuart Dyson, in June 2008.
Another article on this site says in part…http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Bollyn-Uranium-Iraq-Vets.html
“Lost in the media circus about the Iraq war, supposedly being fought to prevent a tyrant from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, is the salient fact that the United States and Britain are actively waging chemical and nuclear warfare in Iraq - using depleted uranium munitions.”
“DU is used in many forms of ammunition as an armor penetrator because of its extreme weight and density. The uranium used in these missiles and bombs is a by-product of the nuclear enrichment process. Experts say the Department of Energy has 100 million tons of DU and using it in weapons saves the government money on the cost of its disposal.
Rather than disposing of the radioactive waste, it is shaped into penetrator rods used in the billions of rounds being fired in Iraq and Afghanistan .”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5146778547681767408&hl=de#
“The Doctor, Depleted Uranium and the Dying children of Iraq”
You can watch it on this site!
John Bennetts: “Evan… Agreed re the nuclear option”
=
Mr. Beaver’s approval for “civilised comment”
=
Leave the mutual agreably stimulating buddies alone
Well James, you and Tee do play the man a bit. Try and keep your eye on the ball and I might compliment you as well.
I preferred your backhanded version Evan.
It says so much more about you are about.
Liz45, if the military want depleted uranium, they’re going to get it. The only question is whether you want to extract vast amounts of energy in the course of its production, or not.
Okay, that might be a slight exaggeration - even military resources are not infinite, so there might be some price sensitivity there. But to say we shouldn’t have nuclear energy because of the evils of DU is like saying we shouldn’t have beer because some people leave the bottles lying around our streets.
Evan Beaver (Oct13,10:12pm) quoted a report saying that storage is not needed if renewables supply less than 40% of input into a grid - presumably dominated by gas turbines. Yes, the first “reductions” are easy. However we need to have displaced 100% of carbon fuels by 2100, not 40%. For that, we need to start now, by asking how to do it.
Renewables, and to a lesser extent nuclear, benefit by diverting off-peak power into some sort of storage. Three mechanisms come to mind:
1. Methanol for transport.
2. Ammonia for fuel cells and
3. Desalinated or reprocessed water.
All of which can be stored on scales of hours to weeks.
It is interesting that this forum echoes with claims that nuclear plants take too long to install at 5-10 years apiece, yet says we don’t have to worry about making renewables efficient for another 15 to 20 years.
MARK DUFFET - Liz - “But to say we shouldn’t have nuclear energy because of the evils of DU” No, if you really read and took it in, I gave the incidence of DU weapons, deaths, birth defects, cancers, dangers of terrorism etc as ANOTHER REASON WHY WE SHOULDN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE WHOLE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY!!
Pay attention Mark! Did you watch the videos? Do you care that our uranium possibly killed people in Iraq/Afghanistan and other places, and will keep on killing long after we’ve left? And what about the military personnel in our country who’ll bring those horrors home with them! No sane and rational person looks at the nuclear industry ONLY as a form of energy? If they do, they’re just as bad as those who peddle the misery in my view! It would be like a doctor refusing to follow a form of investigation because it might make them realize the horrors of cigarette smoking? Not very ethical? But of course, we shouldn’t think of ethics when it comes to making heaps of money via exports, or helping Westinghouse or GE(if they’re still involved in nuclear power) in their quest for building more reactors?
Another aspect. I remember after the Whitlam Labor Government was sacked in 1975, there was a legal case involving Westinghouse not supplying its promised uranium. The legal person for that company said (to the effect) “If we get rid of the Labor Govt in 6 weeks time, we’ll have all the uranium we need”? Gave me a chill down my spine I can tell you. It’s a corrupt and corruptible industry, that only bothers with money and profits, and govts lie to cover it up. Why will 1 in every 2 people be diagnosed with cancer in their life? Think about that! There are alternatives to nuclear, and Australia is a logical place for solar! We have ‘more sunshine’ than any other country in the world! The energy can be stored and used at night etc. Hardly any snow, moderate climate etc etc. Nobody has given me one good reason to embrace nuclear power - on ANY level!
Evan Beaver Posted Tuesday, 13 October 2009 at 10:12 pm.
Greenpeace is hardly an authority for Australia’s ability or otherwise to obtain reliability from renewables. My point remains, that pumped storage is limited in Australia to several locations, two of which you listed. This involves multiple transmission costs, substantial energy losses and so forth. They are far from sufficient to support baseload type power after dark for the whole of south-eastern Australia. Also, there are few or no suitable sites to add to the existing list. Eraring Power Station may be developed soon to produce about 660 MW additional with a limit of about 8 hours… hardly enough to carry a 20GW load through a trough, but at least a start. Put simply, the existing pumped storage is not able to be significantly increased at reasonable cost, and is already pretty well flat out covering the peaks and troughs and diurnal range of the existing system.
Regarding wind, I recently saw an interesting graph which demonstrated that when the wind is low in SA, it tends to be calm also in NSW and VIC, hence the geographic spread of wind turbines does not remove the statistical probability that wind cannot be relied for base load power within the NEMMCO regions. There remains a need for power storage, which is simply not available using current technology.
Regarding solar thermal, with which I have some professional experience, there is a possibility that, given the right combination of soils and geology at site, thermal storage could be practical. This entails double handling of the steam again, but at least does not place large loads on existing transmission lines, with attendant system limitations and energy losses. No such plant has reached demonstration stage yet; or is likely to do so while conventional steam cycle units are available. The most efficient way to use solar thermal is at present to use the steam generated to reduce the need for coal or gas or nuclear heat to provide steam direct to the boiler and thus reduce the need for these less desirable fuels. This is likely to remain the case for a longish time.
Sorry to be such a wet blanket, but that is the way it is.
To cover the peaks, renewable energy options will have to rely on more conventional generating plant for many years to come.
I will leave for another day the opportunity and scope for demand management, via pricing, time-of-use metering, redesign of off-peak billing systems and so forth. Others are far more capable than I of explaining this.
PS. The case against Westinghouse took place in the US - not here! “If we get rid of the Labor Government (in Australia) …”? Scary! Never forgot that! It provided another example of the whole rotten business!
John, I knew this criticism of the Greenpeace report would come up; note that they commissioned it, but did not write it.
Also RE solar thermal, I am totally unsure why you mention soils and geology. Ausra were playing with thermal storage in holes in the ground at Liddell, but haven’t made it work yet.
However, there are other ways of storing thermal energy. As I mentioned earlier, LLoyd Energy are at pilot plant stage storing solar thermal energy in blocks of carbon. Solar energy, 24 hours a day, cost effective at CO2 costs of about $25-30 a tonne.
Further, Wizard Power are turning sods on a pilot plant based around their awesome Big Dish technology which will store thermal energy in disocciated ammonia. Again, 24 hour solar power. And better than coal, this is on demand, not driven by the economics of keeping a plant thumping along in a narrow efficiency band.
A little further off, but something I like a LOT, is CSIRO’s Syngas project, which has been running for a few years at Newcastle Uni. This stores solar energy by ‘enriching’ nat gas into hydrogen and ethylene which can then be burnt through a standard gas turbine. Again, solar on demand.
I too, like John, have some professional and educational experience on renewables and their interaction with the grid. Even wrote a thesis on it. I am much less pessimistic about their limitations.
EvanBeaver has stated: “Ausra were playing with thermal storage in holes in the ground at Liddell, but haven’t made it work yet.”
Not so!!
His further protestations and claims must be viewed in light of his epic fail re Ausra. On this site, as with any similar site, claims and claimants are assumed to be honest until proven otherwise. Unfortunately, as with all friends and associates, not all measure up to expectations, so I will set the record straight.
Ausra and its predecessor company have installed a trial set of mirrors at Liddell, to demonstrate the steam-generating performance of linear collectors built to their design. This installation has served its purpose, has been mothballed, and may well be removed to storage soon.
A second, larger, installation has successfully operated for a couple of years as a production unit, supplying steam in tandem to a conventional power plant.
Further developments are on the drawing board, pending funding etc.
At no stage has Ausra attempted to “play with” holes in the ground at Liddell for thermal storage. This would be a welcome development, but it simply has not happened in any shape or form, nor is it worthwhile when the steam generated can be (and is) fed immediately into the adjacent existing power generation plant for immediate benefit.
May I suggest that we cease the credential-swapping and fairy stories and just stick to the facts?
I’m sure no one read my comments, but, did I say, or did I not say how the Premier of Victoria, John Brumby, is completely at the beck and call of the big polluters? Did I not say the coal industry’s attitude towards the voters was “Fuck you, fuck the country called Oz. Because we are going to keep mining (brown) coal until we can buy fifty-one percent of the company which owns the next-cheapest source of power”?
Today’s announcement just proved my point.
Evan, could you provide us with links please to those two chemical processes? My searches proved fruitless.
I was intrigued with the idea of a reversible heat store using the dissociation of ammonia, which seemed to be too entropic to recover its energy, unless the resulting compression was reused somehow.
Similarly, the idea that the immensely stable molecule, methane, could be made to reassociate as ethylene and hydrogen with only solar heat, would also be very interesting.
The reference to syngas is puzzling, too. As far as I know, the CSIRO Syngas project attempts nothing more than to turn biomass into syngas, that is, hydrogen and carbon monoxide.
Sure thing. Was admittedly lazy in my original.
LLoyd energy is not chemical, carbon block storage:
http://www.lloydenergy.com/
Wizard Power home:
http://www.wizardpower.com.au/
The chemistry associated with this from ANU
http://solar-thermal.anu.edu.au/high_temp/thermochem/index.php
Syngas/Solar Systems project:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-279125611.html
I too am having trouble finding any more info on this project. I thought more of it was available publicly. Buggered if I know where though.
Thanks for those links Evan.
The proposed CPRS comes from the Carbon Tax Dodger Parties, as the Labor , Liberal and National parties should henceforth be forever known. Its style and methodology is designed to evade a real carbon tax.
The Australian government was willing and able to setup a goods and services tax on nearly every “value added” transaction in the Australian economy. But they appear unwilling to tax the proceeds of coal , oil and gas which comes nearly “free” + profits to the exploiting mining corporations, nor is there a monetary tax for the inescapable ecological costs of burning it here, or shipping it internationally to be burned. Their is no sales tax on the emissions producing products of agriculture.
Any significant reduction in Carbon Emissions will have to produce radical changes in our definitions of economic growth sustainability, jobs and lifestyle If it does not bring about pains of change, it will not be effective. I expect my government to attack the hard problems directly, and provide the help and support for surviving the consequences. The current CPRS has it backwards. It provides all the support to the corporations in the vain believe there can be no political and lifestyle consequences. Lets face the music, and not be a party to Carbon Tax Dodgers.
We have all read the learned and excellent comments from Evan Beaver, and other people on the various reasons why XYD, CMK, etc will not work and personally I think it is less than wise to dismiss nuclear energy because it has been used as a weapon. When it comes right down to it it might be debatable as to which is the more noxious, coal or nuclear. As I said, this is just an opinion of mine.
However, could those who know quite a bit about the subject, please tell us which method, or form of energy would be, after coal the cheapest and best and the most transportable form of energy?
Tee, on 13th October, provided a couple of on-line references to support his position. For this I am thankful.
I have taken the time to follow them up and now am able to say categorically that this contributor is full of gas - the sites mentioned are somewhat biased in favout of enthusiasm and against analysis.
In particular (and I will cite only one example), his reference to http://depletedcranium.com/people-are-starting-to-get-it/ leads to a discussion about an irrelevant technology. Ausra and others base their process on linear arrays of mirrors, which are far more efficient than the discrete mirror array discussed on the referenced site.
It is difficult responding repeatedly to arguments put forward by folk who either do not know or who choose to ignore the substance of the previous posts.
Ausra (with whom I have no connection) use parallel linear arrays of curved mirrors to focus sunlight onto steam tubes which send their output to (in the cases I have experience with) existing steam fired boiler(s). This achieves very reasonable thermal efficiencies, accompanied by low operating and maintenance costs when compared with some other forms of solar power generation. It is not revolutionary but is a rational advance, based on research done over the past 30 or so years.
I find it difficult to remain focussed and positive when other contributors, such as the unfortunately arrogant and aggressive yet ill-educated Mr Tee make statements such as “Here’s my suggestion, Jim. Mind your own freaking business. I will decide, not you or anyone else.”
Anybody needing more re solar thermal would do well to start with an enquiry to Ausra, or by researching through CSIRO or other reputable sources. Personal contact with me via Crikey may be possible, however in order to keep my in-box manageable I choose not to disclose my current email address publicly.
I now give up on this topic and thread.
Bit of a long thread, but i just by-pass the trolls and read the good ones. Nuclear = Tax payers money and will have to INSURE the non- renewable power plants against accidents, cause no insurance companies will. A nuclear power plant that ran in Britain for 45 years , will now take about the same 45 years to decommission it and make it safe. Iam all for green renewables, but dirty coal has $$$$$$ to spread mis information and lies. No one has mentioned NANO- solar ?? in usa and how in europe. Worth a look, can be painted on all surfaces and the faster you run thin metal sheet through the rollers the better. They are now building factories to supply their product. The $16 BILLION that the govt. will GIVE to the dirty coal industry and oil/gas industries to keep polluting at the same pace and more, would be better spent on renewables to clean up this lazy known for 20 years industry that kills . No free permits to these mostly international owned companies.