The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Electricity: no end to the damage regulations are doing > Comments

Electricity: no end to the damage regulations are doing : Comments

By Alan Moran, published 17/2/2017

There is no let up in the lies, ignorance and dissembling that passes for debate on Australian energy policy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Professor Anderson has a very fascinating history having worked on oil rigs as an engineer, later studied climate science, and has studied economics. He is very contemptuous of economists who venture outside of their field of expertise and down play climate change.

At the time of the Paris deliberations Professor Anderson was stating that the aspirational goal of keeping temperature rise around 1.5 was a nonsense on the basis that the goal will be broken.

Moran, writes about lies; does he mean "clean coal" when writing about lies. Clean coal technology is horrendously expensive and efficiency is lost. The the majority of emissions from clean coal power plants still void CO2 and other nasties into the atmosphere.

A kilogram of coal when burnt in a power station will produce 2 to 2.5 kilowatt hours of electricity, less if treated as "clean coal". Whereas, 1 kilogram of silicon can produce around two square metres of solar panels. After 2 days with 5 hours of full sun the solar panels will have produced as much energy as the kilogram of coal. Solar panels can continue to produce energy for decades.

Last year, Dr Romm a Physicist, wrote about how the cost of renewable energy in overseas countries has been rapidly reducing. Tony Seba has discussed how the horse and buggy was very quickly replaced by the T Model Ford. Seba states how old technologies are overwhelming an acceptance of technology; for example, mobil phones being replaced by android phones,cassete disks replaced by CDs, Tony Seba's comments relate energy.

Overseas coal is being pushed aside, battery technology is improving and coming down in price.

http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/fec4332de4c32ece44eedde7dd76b6c7.pdf

Material from economists generally pay little attention to climate change:
.huge costs incurred through disasters
.costs in relation to infra structure lost
. fresh water shortages; happening and looming, especially where glaciers are relied upon for water resources.
.breakdown of the cryosphere which moderate climate generally.

The Arctic Ocean has lost 75% of its volume since 1979, scientists are predicting that the Arctic will be ice free in Summer by 2030.

A further matter as Oceans warm:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/15/its-official-the-oceans-are-losing-oxygen-posing-growing-threats-to-marine-life/?utm_term=.c916338d4d10&wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1
Posted by ant, Sunday, 19 February 2017 9:22:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems that we have an official bipartisan policy generated at the highest level to exclude nuclear power forever!? That one that can never ever exclude coal?

We are the biggest exporter of coal in the world! And all those tax avoiding, profit repatriating foreign coal mining firms, would be considerably harmed financially along with the countries that buy "OUR" coal to effectively use it against us, to in a word, kill our manufacturing sector!?

And as kick the ball Sammy Kekovich would say, you know it's got to make sense!

Let's be rational, it's only a question of time before we remain just a handful of nation that use coal? And as for anyone building a new coal fired power station here? If a government won't do it? Then it has buckleys.

Moreover there's an official BIPARTISAN boycoutt at the highest levels on nuclear power?

Then even in a completely benign form, resistance remains completely and irrationally illogically implacable!

Simply put, the only possible conclusion I can reach is, we govern ourselves with permission?

Otherwise we'd have long since built several nuclear power stations,as molten salt thorium to then use the cheapest, cleanest, safest power in the world to generate export incomes far greater than anything "WE" earn from the sale of "OUR" coal!

Prices seem to have made a temporary recovery and we're counting on clean coal (a goal or aspiration) to become a viable certainty to eventually get out from under an exponentially expanding deficit!

And on the face of it, our only allowed and official locked in, plan for baseload energy? With the irrevocable case against it ignored along with the fact, that not only is there not one working example of zero emission clean coal but that the much vaunted geosequestration is prohibitively expensive!

Without question, the only way to change our official policy, is to change those implacably welded to it! And at the very next poll that counts, put the incumbent and preferencing partners, last and next last on the ballot paper! Anything less, or squibbing, then more of the same!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 19 February 2017 10:06:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant if you think renewables will save us here's a couple of recent articles
http://www.eco-business.com/opinion/how-renewable-energy-advocates-are-hurting-the-climate-cause/
and
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-02-14/questioning-our-renewable-future/
Romm must ask whether he is holding back progress either in emissions or helping the poor.
Posted by Taswegian, Sunday, 19 February 2017 10:51:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The most energy dense material in the world is thorium. Just 8 grams of unenriched thorium, enough to power my home and car for the next 100 years.

This is proven old technology rejected because, there were no weapons spin off! Why you can't even make bomb making material with it, but as a slow breeder reactor you can very safely burn most nuclear waste and plutonium.

Because molten salt thorium reactors operate at normal atmospheric pressure, they don't need costly time consuming shut downs/restarts,
just to inject the (free energy) waste or harvest the miracle cure nuclear isotopes from it!

Meaning doubled or trebled supply and from a single reactor! Think what four or five could do for medicine and our economy?

Very safe operating temperatures can be as high as 1200C, with around 750C being a sweet spot for gas powered turbines, using helium, nitrogen or even Co2.

Meaning, they can be located almost anywhere or in anything that can hold a shipping container sized reactor and companion turbine.

A molten salt thorium reactor has been very thoroughly road tested in Oak Ridge Tennessee, between the fifties and the seventies, and shut down and starved of funding by Presidential decree.

By allegedly criminally corrupt Nixon of watergate infamy. Who then apparently diverted that funding to his home state of California and seriously deficient liquid metal FBR reactors. Two+ meltdowns/enforced shutdowns and only able to arrive at a 6% efficiency apparently?

The time for equivocating asinine prevarication is so over!

The chinese and the Indians are beavering away feverishly at thorium technology. U tube even has a guided tour of the Indian facility, to the accompaniment of a silent geiger counter. And or various highly credential expert scientific commentary, which includes a detailed blow by blow description of the assembly of the walk away safe, Oak Ridge molten salt reactor.

He who controls the world's energy supplies, controls the world!

We who Own so much of it, should never allow ourselves to be quite deliberately, placed in such an invidious position!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 19 February 2017 11:22:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taswegian

Renewables are only part of the answer. Coal mining needs to be phased out very quickly; huge forests need to be planted with appropriate plants selected for particular areas. Where possible we need to grow our own food; or buy locally grown food. Vehicles and airlines using fossil fuels need to be phased out. Walk where possible, or use public transport. etc

Had we started in the 80s to take action when warned we would be in better circumstances now.
Those denying anphropogenic climate change have done much damage over the last couple of decades.

With current trends that have been happening over decades the Arctic will be ice free around 2030, a very scary prospect. The cryosphere has a strong influence on moderating climate.

Also in relation to Oceans:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/16/scientists-study-ocean-absorption-of-human-carbon-pollution

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/15/its-official-the-oceans-are-losing-oxygen-posing-growing-threats-to-marine-life/?utm_term=.d70488d5aeb3&wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1
Posted by ant, Sunday, 19 February 2017 1:48:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B.,
ITYF the most energy dense material in the world is hydrogen.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Taswegian,
If you merely look at a snapshot of the statistics rather than how rapidly they're changing, you're likely to be unduly pessimistic about renewables. Likewise If you assume a lack of technological improvement, of course the cost of renewables is likely to be sky high. But technology is advancing rapidly and there's no reason to believe it would stop. And even just changing the financing arrangements can make renewables a lot cheaper than they are now.
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 19 February 2017 2:08:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy