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 > You can’t have your yellow cake and eat it too > Comments

You can’t have your yellow cake and eat it too : Comments

By Chris Dey and Manfred Lenzen, published 12/12/2006

Climate change is a global concern, therefore responsibility for abatement has to be measured per capita, not per country.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
The suggestion that "It does not appear that by 2050 renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, will be able to supply sufficiently large amounts of energy, at any time of demand, to an ever-burgeoning population." is wildly off target.

Australia has monumental quantities of energy falling as sunlight on its deserts and 'concentrating solar power' (CSP) is a proven technology for tapping into it. The basic idea is extremely simple: use mirrors to concentrate sunlight to create heat, and then use the heat to raise steam to drive a turbine and generator, exactly like a conventional power plant. CSP plants of this type have been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and, currently, half a million residents of California get their electricity from this source.

It is possible to store solar heat in melted salt or other substance so that *electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days*.

The cost of collecting solar heat equivalent to 1 barrel of oil is currently about US$50 (already less than the world price of oil) and is likely to fall to US$20 with economies of scale.

Hardly a month goes by without announcements of new CSP projects around the world.

More information may be found on http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/index.htm .
Posted by Gerry Wolff, Tuesday, 12 December 2006 10:39:24 AM
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
This key statement, "Since climate change is a global concern, it is our considered opinion that this issue addresses all of us equally as people, as personal affluence is the main determinant for the level of emissions", has left out the most crucial word, NET emissions.

It is not good enough to consistently base arguments and promote principles on the basis of national or per capita emissions when there is such variation in sources and sinks. The only sound basis for comparison is on net emissions and as many of the processes that absorb carbon are of a national character, then these must be allocated on a per capita basis.

And this is why the Kyoto Protocol cannot deliver equitable outcomes for anyone and certainly not ordinary Australians. The IPCC accounting rules do not record the carbon that is absorbed by territorial oceans. They have, of their own volition, and without appropriate debate at any proper international forum, taken it upon themselves to overturn the vast body of international law that assigns sovereignty over parts of the oceans to specific nations.

So we have the curious situation where Australia lays claim to a vast whale sanctuary in the southern ocean on the basis of it being sovereign territory but appears to accept a framework for carbon accounting that treats all ocean waters as international "commons", owned by no-one.

When territorial oceans and our vast area of thickenning woodlands is taken into account it is clear that Australians have some of the lowest net per capita emissions in the world.

When the same accounting standards are applied to the Europeans it becomes painfully clear that too much carbon emitting industry and consumption is taking place in a continental ecosystem that is not capable of dealing with it.

Those are the simple facts of life and it is no small irony that it is the Europeans who are now stridently trying to create a level playing field in carbon after decades of the very opposite in trade.
Posted by Seditious, Tuesday, 12 December 2006 10:55:59 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
Colonialism is not dead just of new form.So for a time, maybe until some other resource becomes a constraint, if GHG sceptics are right, we can have our yellow cake and eat it.

International sharing or even self restraint by electors, energy efficiency, is ruled out by our system as it stands. The need for democratically elected politicians to depend on an expanding economy which is mostly easily achieved in Australia by selling our Uranium, bugger any consequences world wide, treaties will quieten the offended and can then be ignored as we are ignoring our U.N obligations, and using coal of which we have much as source of energy and export.
The latest energy group guidelines indicate this.
So why not equate GHG pollution on a country basis it makes Australia a small player and suit’s the above scenario.
This is good business and politics, not hypocricy as the left would doubtless claim.
Yes the alternatives plus avoidance/reduction of need for energy use by better design seems to me a possibility, houses that are energy neuatral including heating cooling and white goods is possible as Germany demonstrates. How much this and simailar would cost I do not know but suggestless than the cost of Nuclear and without many downsides although some entrpreuners will not become as rich and Austrlalia will need to learn to manage its current account.
Posted by untutored mind, Tuesday, 12 December 2006 11:59:44 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
Why should Australia be penalised for having a low population that has kept the total volume of emissions, which is the real critical factor in global warming, to a reasonable level? At least China has seen the error of trying to increase its population while it is not sustainable. India hasn't. India adds more than the Australian population every year. Do all those people want to be rich or poor? Do they want to use resources or barely survive?

Why should Australia be penalised for being prosperous? China's and India's goal is to have the same standard of living as Australia's. They won't be reducing their greenhouse emissions per capita any time soon and their populations will increase. This will have a far greater impact on global warming than Australia's impact.

Why is "an ever burgeoning population" so important? Why is it a given that requires that we make all sorts of horrible Sophies choices. The easiest method for control of greenhouse emissions is population stabilisation. Stop the baby bonus and have net zero immigration. Then start working on renewables, carbon taxes, carbon trading, etc. Nobody has come up with a cheap reliable method of nuclear waste disposal or decommissioning a nuclear power plant all around the world. If it is so simple as the Ziggy Switkowski committee says, why not give us the details.
Posted by ericc, Tuesday, 12 December 2006 12:10:22 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
These learned gentlemen, along with many others, fail to allude to the whole fuel cycle of nuclear energy.

The Roxby expansion in SA would over time become the world's largest radioactive tailings dump. They have applied for nearly 20 square kilometres of radioactive tailings piles and ponds.

Roxby are already the biggest electricity users in SA. Their expansion is set to blow the State's greenhouse gas emissions by up to 25%.

In addition, they are the biggest users of ground water in the southern hemisphere and take millions of litres of water daily (free of charge) from the Great Artesian Basin.

I suggest that the learned gentlemen peruse the "National Pollutant Inventory" emissions reports for uranium mining, before writing papers promoting nuclear energy.

Another documented piece of evidence reveals that the USA have 103 nuke reactors, more than any other nation on earth, with France in second place - 59. And yet the USA are the biggest polluters on the planet and still left to deal with the diabolical volumes of radioactive waste.

Given the appalling history of the Departments of Environment and radiation regulators in Australia, could anyone seriously think that RA waste would be properly managed?

And the latest twist, PM Howard has included on his "stacked" task force for carbon trading, some of the biggest polluters in Australia - not one environmentalist or expert on atmospheric pollutants!

Mitigation of CO2 would occur immediately if regulators enforced scrubbers on all pollutant industries but of course their paranoia with all things fiscal, simply exacerbates the emissions of carbon based chemicals. Environmental ethics do not enter the equations! Just one company dumped 8 tonnes of mercury over my small community last year!

Please gentlemen, cease exploiting public gullibility, move out from your dusty corridors of academia and put your scientific skills to good use by researching and supporting sustainable energy alternatives. Are you not yet aware that our governments share the same bed as polluters and that human, ecological and environmental casualties are simply regarded as "collateral" damage?
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 12 December 2006 1:36:15 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
The notion that alternative sources of energy can't supply a significant amount of of our energy needs is absolute twaddle, for instance the Solar Ball system can supply 50% of the average household needs for about 1/2 the price of the average family car, and thats not affordable, come on,(50 nuclear reators will supply only 18% of our usage) all rooves in the world should be solar collectors. There are other solar systems that collect and store energy, this is without mentioning hydro, wind, geothermal and tidal.
We have huge areas of land where the sun shines in excess of 300 days of the year, we could build giant solar power stations and lead the world in alternative energy production. As has been demonstrated in computers, sound delivery systems and television, technology has the inherant ability to innovate and improve at an an unstoppable and incredible pace, with support and resources what we have now in 20 years time would probably look like a valve radio.
The main thing that is lacking is the political will and the main obstacle is the established mining and energy corporations, also political parties who are blind to anything beyond the next election.
If you can convince peple that going to war, to waste lives and waste squillions of dollars is a good thing, then convincing them that saving the planet is a good idea should be a soda. As the old saying goes theres always enough money for a war.
I am afraid the authors of this article and their fellow travllers are captives of the past, its time for new ideas and solutions and time to throw the baby out with the bath water.
We really don't have much choice we either go for sustainable energy and maintain a lifestyle roughly equal to that to which we are accustomed or we stick with thermal or nuclear and go down the gurgler.
Alan Hunter
Posted by alanpoi, Tuesday, 12 December 2006 1:41:56 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
Why are the THEORIES of 'global warming' and the 'greenhouse effect' being posited as PROVEN FACT?

Fact they are not. The hole in the ozone, that might be a fact.

Global warming due to human activity is not.

Yes, we cant wait around to see if its true the consequences of getting it wrong are too onerous. Clearly illogical, an emotional appeal predicated on fear... fear of regret. Cant prove its not happening therefore it is. An assertion does not stand in the absence of proof to the contrary.

The burden of proof rests with the claimant and the claim of global warming DUE to human activity is unporoven.

Chasing something because of what might be is a goose chase,a fools mission. On too many levels to innunciate under duress of word count.

"The sky is falling."
"Prove it."
"We dont have time to wait for proof the consequences of a fallen sky are too onerous for the future. We must stop what we are doing and build vast columns into the sky."

If reducing pollution is the goal, just say so, after all it obviously makes sense. There's no need to shroud it in tenuous science as a way of formenting fear. Can see thru that. Such tactics inadvertantly undermine credibility, thus inflict disservice upon the highly laudable aim of reducing pollution. Or is the whole thing a smoke screen for the personal ambition of the worlds political agitants?
Posted by trade215, Tuesday, 12 December 2006 7:19:38 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
I just want to express my support for trade215's position that that theory of AGW is far from being proven. And to draw attention to an anomaly in the way that Australia's energy footprint is calculated; all of the coal exports and the Co2 that will be released are counted as part of our Co2 footprint even though the coal is burnt by other nations. So take our energy exports out of the equation and all of a sudden we Aussies are some what less proliferate than the greens would have us painted.
Posted by IAIN HALL, Wednesday, 13 December 2006 4:56:28 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
It doesn't matter 2 hoots who is producing Co2, the main point is that it is a global problem, and as a small nation we are in a good position to lead by example, and if we forgo the easy options i.e. coal and nuclear and go sustainable in a big way we can prove to the rest of the world it can be done.This finger pointing is crap.
Just remember nearly all advances made by mankind were made by ratbags, or so they were thought of at the time, if we stuck with conservatives we would still be in the cave. A lot of advances are made by small nations i.e. democracy, womens votes, social services etc.
We need to review the houses we live in ( if you setout to design a house totally unsuited to the climate we live in you would finish up with what we have now), the cars we drive, our lifestyles , our society is geared to waste we must change that.
Alan Hunter
Posted by alanpoi, Wednesday, 13 December 2006 5:37:27 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
Iain Hall you are wrong about coal exports being counted as part of our greenhouse load. The 28 tonnes per person is the real number we produce. The coal exports are separate, just like the petroleum that we use counts toward the 28 tonnes even though it comes from Saudi Arabia. Where did you hear this?
Posted by ericc, Wednesday, 13 December 2006 5:45:50 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
I heard that in relation to our LNG exports that this is the case and it is a reasonable assumption to make that if it applies to LNG then it will likewise apply to coal exports. I would be happy to be proved wrong. In any case the Per capita argument is utterly silly because the total contribution by Australia to the CO2 caused by humanity is well and truly dwarfed by just the NEW coal fired PowerStation’s that have come on line in China over the last month alone.
And to the person claiming that renewable sources can replace coal you are very wrong indeed there is no renewable source of energy possible on the mainland of Australia that can provide a reliable base load. And as wind is rather inconsistent and solar does not work at night there is no alternative in the foreseeable future, to the use of coal.
Posted by IAIN HALL, Wednesday, 13 December 2006 6:07:35 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
I suggest you are sadly mistaken read previous post re CSP
Alan Hunter
Posted by alanpoi, Wednesday, 13 December 2006 9:42:31 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
The simple facts are that solar power must have a base load back up generating sustem. And it follows that if a solar system is to work to its maximum potential then the back up system will be working at a great deal less than its own potential.

The economics of any sort of major infrastructure is primarily determined by maximising the number of productive hours it is used each year. That has always been the competetive advantage of machines over human labour and it remains the advantage of coal power over solar and wind.

Humans are generally only good for 1800 hours a year while machines operated in shifts by humans are capable of up to 8,000 hours. But it is the reduced hours of major demand for power that define the basic cost structures of power generating plant.

There is a morning peak of 3 hours, a day time base load and an evening peak of 5 hours. So a coal or gas power station is already only operating at near full capacity for about 2800 hours each year. And as there is usually a number of stations in a grid, most shut down during the day and later evening leaving one, in a rotation, to operate at full capacity.

And this is where wind and solar power actually destroy the efficiencies of base load power stations. Most sea breezes come up in the afternoon and are strongest in the early evening. And when combined with the daytime solar power, it reduces the operating time of the expensive base load generators to a point where the limited use does not cover the overheads.

Solar generators only have about 5 hours of peak output and that is only for a bit more than half the year. At about 1000 hours of useful work each year they can never compete on efficiency grounds.
Posted by Seditious, Thursday, 14 December 2006 11:11:33 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 is wrong to say "solar power must have a base load back up generating sustem" if that means backup by complete 'fossil' generating plants.

With 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), mirrors concentrate sunlight to create heat and the heat may be used to raise steam and drive turbines and generators in the conventional way. Apart from the collection of solar heat, the power plant is exactly like a conventional power plant.

A nice feature of this system is that it is possible to store solar heat in melted salt or other substance so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This largely eliminates the need for backup from fossil fuels.

However, because most of a CSP plant is the same as conventional power plant, it is very easy to provide something like gas as a source of heat for the relatively infrequent occasions when there is a long succession of cloudy days. Only the gas burner is needed: the rest of the generating system is already in place.

Although wind power at any one spot is variable, it is very much less variable across a wide area like Australia. By connecting wind farms via a highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission grid, problems arising from variability largely disappear. A Europe-wide system of this kind has been proposed by Airtricity. Australia should look at it too.
Posted by Gerry Wolff, Thursday, 14 December 2006 7:44:05 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
5 hrs where you live? Heard Island
Posted by alanpoi, Friday, 15 December 2006 9:20:41 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
Gerry, the spreading of a network of wind farms does not improve the efficiency of the generating system. It only improves the reliability of supply. A dispersed system actually factors in the down time of some of the turbines into the cost structure of the whole system. And the storage of energy in salt water etc adds another cost to the system that is generally higher than the marginal cost of operating a back up system.

Increased use of solar and wind power will only impair the efficiency of our existing investments in generating capacity. And when the costs of those inefficiencies are added to the costs of solar and wind technology they simply do not stack up.

I seem to recall that one of the key principles of sustainability is the "proper pricing of natural resources" and that principle cannot simply be abused to only apply to the full costing of coal etc while leaving out the full costing of so-called alternatives.
Posted by Seditious, Friday, 15 December 2006 10:44:01 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
Seditious -

How are coal and uranium sustainable? I think you are right that wind turbines and solar power will be more expensive than coal (nuclear on the other hand has costs that are difficult to estimate because nobody has ever safely disposed of nuclear waste for 10,000 years, etc). I think you are also right that there are challenges to improving efficiency with wind and/or solar as a significant part of the grid, but you seem to be making the point that since solar and wind are more expensive, they are NOT sustainable and because coal is cheap, it is sustainable.

If your idea is that the present generations simply use up the non-renewables and let future generations fend for themselves, then fair enough. That is certainly the current government's and probably the majority of Australian voter's view, but don't call it sustainable.

Secondly, where does the cost of global warming impacts come in? If there is 20% less rainfall in Australian farming areas, how many farms are no longer viable? How much less food gets produced? Who pays that cost? If the population increases and rainfall decreases, we will pay more for water. Will the coal burning, power industry chip in to pay for the extra costs of water for urban and rural users? Unlikely. If insurance premium's continue to increase due to climate change, will cheaper power offset the cost?

Certainly let's add up all the costs of producing power, but not just today's costs, also the costs in the future. Let's see if there are better ways to do things that will be truly sustainable.
Posted by ericc, Friday, 15 December 2006 12:21:14 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
Seditious is quite wrong to say "the spreading of a network of wind farms does not improve the efficiency of the generating system. It only improves the reliability of supply". Without a large-scale transmission grid, electricity sources of all kinds are much less efficient than otherwise. Why? For the simple reason that, if there is a surplus of electricity in one area it can be transmitted to places where there is a shortage. Without a grid, surplus electricity in any one place is simply wasted.

The "proper pricing of natural resources" is indeed a principle of sustainability and that includes the costs arising from releasing fossil carbon into the atmosphere. It is now abundantly clear that this cannot be allowed to continue. If coal-fired electricity generation can be achieved in a way that prevents the resulting CO2 from *ever* being released into the atmosphere and if it can be done at a cost that is competitive with concentrating solar power, then it may be used.

But before making a judgement about that, listed to a talk by the legendary venture capitalist Vinod Khosla (go to http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/resources.htm and scroll down to the bottom of the page)
Posted by Gerry Wolff, Friday, 15 December 2006 6:23:37 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
The CO2 Flux Clan should take a look at this information on the work of a Nobel Loreat before insisting on sending the world economy on a Mogadon Holiday. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=172559

It seems that the CO2 induced warming from reduced albedo can be fixed by a Sulphur induced cooling from increased albedo. So much for this so-called consensus on global warming.
Posted by Perseus, Saturday, 16 December 2006 9:36:36 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
Perseus

Why do you purport that there is concensus on global warming. If there was, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Releasing sulphur into the atmosphere to cool the planet is old hat. It's been well established decades ago that to install scrubbers to mitigate sulphur increases the amounts of greenhouse gases.

However, sulphate forms sulphuric acid and NOx form nitric acid. This acidification destroys much of the ecosystem. Acid rain has posed serious problems for Nth America, Europe, China and to a lesser extent Brazil, Sth Africa, Venezuela and Australia.

In the past, acid rain has been blamed on sulphur dioxide, however, the input of the nitrogen oxides released during nuclear atmospheric testing and from nuclear reprocessing plants has never been officially estimated.

One very larger polluter is the military - particularly the US. Very little is mentioned on the damage done to the ionosphere through space programmes particularly the plutonium driven rockets. You may recall the aborted US's rocket, SNAP-9A space accident where 17,000 curies of plutonium was dispersed over a large area of the globe. The plutonium is still detectable in soil and the bones of humans and animals.

The military and its subsequent pollution of planet earth through the use of chemical, biological, nuclear and missile use is permitted to continue along with the inherent "cover-ups". Experimentation on electromagnetic waves for weather modification to disadvantage potential enemies, requires serious investigation, otherwise our efforts to halt global warming and its environmental impacts will be seriously compromised.

Science fiction? Not at all. There is much documented evidence on how scientists who don't know any better, continue to tamper with the environment under the guise of "Research for Humanitarian Benefit". Whilst some experiments have had beneficial effects, these have been seriously negated by the damage perpetrated on Mother Earth by countries with a zest for recognition, power and profits.

So while sulphur coating may prove to have some short-term merit, I suggest you and your Nobel laureate, proceed with caution!
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 17 December 2006 12:09:18 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
Time to change your bong water, Dickie.
Posted by Perseus, Monday, 18 December 2006 10:55:53 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
Perseus in his quest to suppress dissent, where it does not suit his agenda or his stunted intellect advises: "Time to change your bong water, Dickie."

His inane response and his failure to address scientifically documented facts begs the question:

Perseus, if at first you don't succeed, why go on and make a fool of yourself?
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 11:39:21 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
I love it. Environmentalism is mainstream :D We knew we were right and it was only a matter of time before the idiots who opposed and mocked it were forced to adapt to rationalism and take responsibility for their actions with respect to the environment xD And now they are crying at equally stubborn developing nations...isn't there a word for that?
Posted by Steel, Thursday, 21 December 2006 11:03:16 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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