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 > Adopting an energy lean lifestyle > Comments

Adopting an energy lean lifestyle : Comments

By John Busby, published 18/11/2005

John Busby argues that reserves of natural gas, coal and uranium will not give Australia secure buffers against the impending energy crisis

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
We seem to be reluctant to make short term sacrifices to avoid a terminal calamity. Here's what I would do. Firstly increase the mandatory renewable energy quota to 15% then 20% and give whatever judicious help was needed to wind farms and biofuels. Second introduce an EU type cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases, maybe with a lenient start cap. This will help the geosequestration lobby though I doubt the 30-40% power penalty will ever be overcome. Third, announce the construction of nuclear reactor at some godforsaken place like Woomera. Nukes could give us 50 years to get squeaky clean technology right. This framework would create many new opportunities at a time when rising fuel prices will make transport and commuting even harder. If there has to be long term pain I'd say start taking it now in easy instalments.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 18 November 2005 12:27:51 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
John, Thank you for a very interesting article, Australia has an abundance of sunshine, which we could and should make more use of to supplement our power needs. Solar power is free of polutants costs nothing, and along with wind farms could go a long way towards extending the life of our natural gas. The sore point is that the oil companies, seem to dictate our energy policy, as they bring pressure to bear on Governments. The main obsticule to solar is the initial cost of the equipment, which is expensive, and is only an option for the well heeled. If more subsidies were given by our Federal Government, we could use solar to cut our greenhouse emissions, along with wind farms, however we don't have a green minded Federal Government. Sadly this old planet won't last forever, and as the previous poster indicated, the time to start the process is now {IF NOT BEFORE NOW} the environment is high in the list of priorities for some of us, but so many people are apathatic and/or ignorant that I fear it will take quite a few decades before the big push comes, and when it does it will have been allowed to become a crisis.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 18 November 2005 5:59:58 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
There are several decisive points that need to be considered here.

1. The only way we know how to run a economy is with constant growth. The alternative, an economy without growth, is more commonly called a depression, and would not be a happy time for any.

2. Australia has 40% of the world's uranium, and our current production of only 9000 tons per annum is due to the three mines policy. When the price of uranium explodes we could abandon the policy and increase our production considerably.

3. Nuclear fission power will only ever be a temporary measure, as the world's uranium supplies could be exhausted in only 50 years. The long term solution to the world's energy problems lies with nuclear fusion. As the raw material for a fusion power station is sea water, we can expect the supply to last a reasonable time. An international consortium is now beginning to build the world's first commercial fusion power station in France, and this could be producing power in ten years. The main use for fission power is as a bridge to cover the energy gap until fusion comes on stream.
Posted by plerdsus, Saturday, 19 November 2005 5:50:52 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
Fusion energy will be of no use in 10 years. Even if they get it to work, it will take another 30 years to establish generating systems that will provide less than 10% of world requirements. The belief that solar and wind have high input costs is wrong, opponents rely on statistics that are 20 years out of date.

A household could set themselves up with a wind generator, inverter and solar cells allowing them to survive for less than $10000 without subsidies. This can be recouped over 5-10 years, giving you 15-20 years of free power before you system needs replacing. Next year, the cost will drop with the introduction of solar balls. Biodiesel, ethanol, bio gas can provide our mobile fuels. Add solar towers for commercial production, Australia shouldn't have any problems.

On a personal level, a commitment to change our ways so that we become self sufficient in energy. The more people that start changing now, by buying a solar cell or two and a couple of gel deep cycle storage batteries, then converting their lighting to 12-24v led will save themselves a fortune, as well as never having to change a light bulb. The next step would be wind generator and more cells until you have a system that works for you.

The technology is all there to be used and is constantly being updated and improved. Just look at this site, http://www.hydrogen.asn.au/SolarBall-Solar-Energy.htm to see where things are going. Even people with suburban backyards can subsidise their own mobile energy requirements. Growing plants that produce seed or fruit oil will be a help. There are already businesses that will take you oil seeds and convert them to either oil or bio diesel. It may not sound much, but you can get many litres from a small plot. Mustard, canola, flax are high producers of oil. Bracken is also being trialled and seems to have good potential.

It is only the vested interests, the PC's and enslaved beaurucrats and politicians that are the obstacles, not the technology or the results.
Posted by The alchemist, Sunday, 20 November 2005 12:29:56 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
John Busby’s article, fails to mention that low cost proven reserves of uranium are sufficient to last 50 years at the world’s current consumption rate.
He talks only about current production levels, which is a fallacy because production of uranium can be increased. Thorium, which he does not mention at all, as it is inconvenient for his argument, is even more abundant than uranium, by an order of at least three times, and India, which possesses large reserves of thorium, is going to use it in the fleet of nuclear reactors they are building.
The cost of the fuel in the cost of electricity from a nuclear reactor is exceedingly small, so small that exploration for further uranium reserves has not been economic, when known reserves are more than adequate for the foreseeable future.
In addition, techniques such as re-processing, to increase the utilisation of uranium by up to 30%, increased enrichment, and the latest higher efficiency reactor designs, can all be used to increase the effective duration of uranium supplies.
None of these techniques are strictly necessary at the moment, when supplies of uranium are so abundant.
Again, he does not mention the possibility of using fast breeder reactors, which increase the effective availability of nuclear fuel 100-fold.
The assertion that we are likely to run out of resources is a re-run of the "Limits to Growth" argument fashionable in the early 1970s, which was substantially disowned by its originators, the Club of Rome, and thoroughly discredited with the passing of time. It also echoes similar concerns raised by economists in the 1930s, and by Malthus at the end of the 18th Century.
Posted by Froggie, Sunday, 20 November 2005 3:50:58 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
Froggie - care to provide any evidence for your statement "The assertion that we are likely to run out of resources is a re-run of the "Limits to Growth" argument fashionable in the early 1970s, which was substantially disowned by its originators, the Club of Rome, and thoroughly discredited with the passing of time" ?

As far as I can tell, neither is true - the Club of Rome hasn't disowned its work and the Limits to Growth book has been revised every 10 years, with the authors becoming increasingly pessimistic about our chances of avoiding a nasty crunch as their original modelling looks more and more accurate as time passes.

http://www.energybulletin.net/1512.html
http://www.energybulletin.net/1516.html
Posted by biggav, Sunday, 20 November 2005 5:38:22 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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