The Forum > Article Comments > What is environmentally sustainable is up for debate > Comments
What is environmentally sustainable is up for debate : Comments
By Peter McCloy, published 8/9/2015If the Greens are going to achieve their target of 100% renewable energy there are a few obstacles to overcome, as our mutual experience indicates. Certainly it can never be achieved by relying on solar and/or wind power.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
One thing that is usually lacking in discussions of this sort is conservation of energy - limiting consumption. The author expresses concern only for providing adequate energy to continue what may be a wasteful life style. Discussions of an economy would be incomplete if they only discussed supply and ignored demand. Energy policy must consider supply, usage and population. The average Australian has a carbon footprint 50 times that of the average Bangladeshi. Can we lessen that disparity? How many people can this country comfortably hold? We don't have a population policy.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 8:09:20 AM
| |
I visited an offgrid family near me. The tracking PV was playing up as was the diesel generator and the batteries were near the end of their life. The chap said 'I'm getting too old for this sh**. Why can't we just have everybody connected to nuclear power?' Urban greenies think they know what's best without the trials and tribulations of real world experience. I suspect de Natale may even have a soft spot for nuclear which will put him at odds with hardliners.
Australia uses 249 Twh/365 = 682 Gwh of electricity per day. Five days storage would be 3,410 Gwh. Powerwall batteries hold 0.000007 Gwh so we'd need 487 million of them. The preferred form of gas turbine backup is high CO2 and getting more expensive as we export gas instead. Remember also wind and solar use silicon, rare earths, steel and cement that may have to be replaced every 30 years or so. I've yet to hear of a wind or solar powered silicon factory. It's time for urban greens to get real. Posted by Taswegian, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 8:27:40 AM
| |
Non hydro renewables are not sustainable. http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/ This is a physical constraint. They cannot produce sufficient energy through life to support modern society as well as reproduce themselves. Therefore, they are entirely dependent on fossil fuels for their existence and replacement, and/or nuclear power in the future.
This is the case now. They will be even less sustainable as world energy demand per capita continues toi increase over decades and centuries ahead Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 9:09:10 AM
| |
Peter,
Your genny starter battery problem is solved if you have a small solar panel constantly trickle charging its battery. Posted by ateday, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 9:13:12 AM
| |
Renewable energy will continue to evolve, with batteries now coming household will become eliminated from the grid.
The grid needs to shut down something now because of excess solar. When industrial rooftop space becomes a rentable commodity solar will begin supplying big business. Smaller generators will need to relocate, to areas where power supply is needed. Coal has had its day, and solar has a life of its own. It will not reverse, as people see what is cost effective. Neuk power is a no-brainer. Posted by doog, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 9:39:36 AM
| |
The technologies needing advance in order to complement existing wind and solar were recently discussed at a RACI meeting in Melbourne. The two most promising technologies were lithium ion batteries for small scale use and nuclear power plants that burn nuclear waste for standby grid. These and the chances of Australia achieving the ALP aim of of 50% reduction from stationary sources are discussed at
http://www.independentaustralian.com.au Posted by Outrider, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 9:45:25 AM
|