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 > Why choosing coal is like choosing Betamax > Comments

Why choosing coal is like choosing Betamax : Comments

By Ben Pearson, published 28/12/2007

We must consciously, deliberately and ambitiously help developing countries produce and consume energy in a sustainable way.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
A few points about the VHS vs. Betamax analogy.

From a technical point of view they were about the same. In the early days Betamax had better pictures but VHS had better recording times, consumers preferred longer record time as most couldn't pick the quality difference (they were both terrible by todays standards). At any rate the differences quickly faded, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war for more details.

Betamax was never used by professionals, that is a myth probably caused by the similar name of the professional Betacam format which is incompatible with the consumer Betamax format.

Regarding, HD-DVD vs. Blue-ray. It is entirely possible that dual-format players will prevail (they exist already). The barrier to cheap dual-format players is the licensing expense not the hardware expense.

What does all this have to do with climate change? Not a lot, that's the point, VHS vs. Betamax is a tempting but ultimately flawed analogy.
Posted by pale_ale, Sunday, 30 December 2007 2:34:42 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
Let's extend the analogy, we are in the late 70s and the two working choices, VHS and Betamax, are battling for market share. Joe Bloggs bursts on to the scene and says:

"You guys are wasting your time. DVDs will be much cheaper and better still. Sure they don't work now, but in 20 years both VHS and Beta will be obsolete so don't bother and just hold tight and don't waste your money on either technology."

The results would be predictable. One of the technologies would be adopted to fill the gap until the new technology was proven and available.

The same argument applies between coal and nuclear. The greens are saying that renewable energy is the future and that the technologies are just over the horizon. However, they are not here now and probably won't be for the next decade or two.

The choices we have here and now are (like beta and VHS) between coal and nuclear as the large scale base load supply. People need power today and are not prepared to put their lives on hold for 20 years waiting for the magic bullet that may or may not arrive.

The choice here and now is whether whilst developing renewable technologies we continue to dump millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere or build the politically unpalettable nuclear stations.

Will the climate wait for us?
Posted by Democritus, Monday, 31 December 2007 4:55:39 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
Well I wouldn't have any problem if a private operator with minimal government assistance decided they could economically build and run a nuclear power station in Australia, even in my own suburb. But personally, from what I've read regarding the rate at which renewable technologies are improving, and given the inevitable cost reductions that come from economies of scale, I would be surprised if nuclear could be economically competitive with renewables in Australia in the long run. A nuclear power plant lasts for 60-70 years, and is expected to be profitable for that entire period. So you wouldn't commit to such a project unless you were overwhelming confident that all the current developments in renewable energy (especially solar thermal) aren't going to lead to a situation where you can't sell your electricity because somebody else is doing it more cheaply.

We already have two perfectly good proven "stop-gap" technologies: efficiency, and natural gas. Between the two of them there's no reason we can't bring our CO2 emissions down substantially in the next 15-20 years. And the average household electricity bill will probably even go down, at least as a percentage of disposable income.
Posted by wizofaus, Monday, 31 December 2007 7:25:43 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
Simply put, coal produces about 25 per cent more carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced than petroleum, in turn 50 per cent more than gas (ie. coal produces some 70 per cent more CO2 per unit of energy compared with gas. One can attempt to sequester the CO2 etc, but it is inherent dirty technology as one cant get away from the fact that the carbon hydrogen ratio is the highest of the fossil fuels. It is DIRTY.
Posted by Remco, Monday, 31 December 2007 4:49:33 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
Wiz,

Hate to break it to you, but with demand growing for electricity at about 4% p.a. Efficiency and natural gas might slow the growth in the short term until the gas limitations are reached, but are extremely unlikely to reduce emissions. Even throwing in the renewable sources, I wouldn't bank on getting a negative growth for several decades.

The stop gap might well be required for 50-70 years. As I have said in other posts, climate change is going to be a hard enough battle to win without putting aside your most effective and proven weapon. 20 years from now is too late to wake up.
Posted by Democritus, Monday, 31 December 2007 10:39:12 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'm well aware that demand for new electricity is still growing, and faster than the rate of population growth. But there really is no need for it. For a start, most Australian houses could be retro-fitted to require virtually no air-conditioning or electric hot water systems, which would drastically reduce electricity demand. There are also big savings to be made on lighting - not just fitting more efficient bulbs, but not having them on when not needed, and designing/retro-fitting buildings to make better use of natural light.
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 1 January 2008 12:07:21 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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