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 > Kevin 747 flops in the Big Apple > Comments

Kevin 747 flops in the Big Apple : Comments

By James Norman, published 3/10/2008

Rudd was in New York attempting to sell the magic fix of clean coal to the world. His timing was dreadful.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Clean coal ie with carbon capture and storage, cannot work on the required scale because of the extra energy demands and lack of safe but gargantuan storage spaces. Add to that the coal price doubling every 18 months or so. Therefore Kev has been seduced by the Dark Side. In a way it was good that nobody important turned up to his UN speech so it was saved closer scrutiny.

What is now clear is that it will be extra-ordinarily difficult to phase out coal. Not only for domestic electricity but as a trade deficit equaliser. Let's hope we're not heading for another Ice Age since cheap coal is running out and China (currently a minor customer) will soon take more than we can supply. Have a cheaply funded Clean Coal Institute by all means but go ahead with Garnaut's stronger recommendations. Also cap or tax coal exports so others cut back as well.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 3 October 2008 9:42:23 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
sorry but...coal for electricity...is a 'human development error' made long ago...when knowledge limited, infrastructure lacking while need for energy escalating...so we went for it as thought it a workable solution...

and now look...electricity has become an essential tool for life and activity...take out electricity at work and home and youll see what I mean...and the desperation for electricity is driving so many unsound and enviromentally destructive activities...coal used for 70% of our electricity...

its like being on the titanic soon after the iceberg...everybody still had food and bed, did not know full extent of situation, but feel not right...if you know what I mean...before all the screaming and running starts...

so when one steps back and looks at it...one realizes we need something else to replace 'electricity'...electricity has no natural source...so only obtained secondarily...and with it 'thermodynamic in-efficiency'...some 30% of coal becomes electricity...the obvious solution is light...yeah...sunlight...our natural world runs on the stuff...but "when-knowledge-limited, infrastructure-lacking-while-need for-energy-escalating" now applies to light...

imagine for a moment...everything at work/home looks the same but running on light...eg light conducting nanotubes exist(electrical wires), light sensitive lightdiodes exist(binary computer)...early_light storage devices http://www.iqis.org/quantech/storage.html

so c'mon coal association... http://www.australiancoal.com.au/methods.htm ...take the initiative...get coal producers to set aside substantial profit to exploring light technology...eventually moving away from coal...think about it...whats needed...ie light is also whats used...ie equipment...no need for conversion so should be almost 100% efficient...just make sure you have rock solid protection of the patents and never sell them...food from the coal industry workers will move to the 'parasitic-powerful among us' pockets...

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Friday, 3 October 2008 10:53:30 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've seen several articles now use the line of Australia "becoming a world leader in clean renewable technologies" really, so what are these technologies? I'm sure all the Universities and other research areas are all beavering away at that problem, since you can obviously attract a lot of money, with or without results.

Are we going to end up with an industry of researching technologies endlessly, and that in itself becomes the end result, not actually producing any solutions? What do we do if someone else invents a killer technology, buy in to it? What! Stop our own research .. not likely, not with careers at stake, whole funding programs and an industry developing.

Everyone is trying to pick a winner, and I'm sure every other country which has activists in the AGW area is being sold the same pitch - you too can become a world leader in clean renewable technologies. So who are we going to export these technologies to, especially if they all behave like we do - it's becoming lame to be honest to keep this pitch going.

It's more and more obvious that nothing is going to change. We might fiddle around the edges, but unless China, Russia, USA, all of South America, Africa and India (who had their own "Garnault report" - said there was no problem) get on board, there is no way to implement all these grand reduction plans. We need to adapt to the climate, and not invest in trying to stop the climate from changing.
Posted by rpg, Friday, 3 October 2008 10:56:23 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
What we could be doing:

"Companies that specialize in harvesting renewable energy tend to focus in one area, whether it's solar, waves or wind power. Moncada Energy Group, s.r.l., an Italian maker of wind farm technology, is breaking with that model and plans to by the end of next year erect solar panels in the same fields as the company's wind turbines. The company is hoping the move will allow it to draw energy day and nightóboth when the sun shines and the night wind howls."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=wind-and-solar-in-sicily&sc=CAT_TECH_20081001

Why the focus on the oxymoronic clean coal when Australia has an abundance for the basics of renewable energy when there is so much we could do without waiting for anyone? And we could even cash in on it - if we got started now.
Posted by Fractelle, Friday, 3 October 2008 2:49:03 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
Nice article James!

The contrast between Gore and Rudd says it all.

In 1988 clean coal would have been some visionary, in 1998 it would have been chutzpah, in 2008 its pathetic.

As a friend emailed me today : "I heard the MD of Rio Tinto saying today it is going to be too difficult to address global emissions, and that itís not worth addressing unless there is global agreement. F___ing ____hole.
Posted by GreenFunk, Friday, 3 October 2008 3:21:33 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
Fractelle highlights both the problem and the solution in outline, in just two sentences. I hate her for it. She says:

"Why the focus on the oxymoronic clean coal when Australia has an abundance for the basics of renewable energy when there is so much we could do without waiting for anyone? And we could even cash in on it - if we got started now."

The very abundance of the possibilities with regard to renewable energy is a major part of the problem. Any one line of attack upon the utilization of renewable energy is perceived to be in short order capable of being out-competed by some other approach. Existing monopolies, or quasi-monopolies, in fossil energy supply do not wish to relinquish their position of advantage, and are almost certainly engaged already in spoiling tactics having nothing to do with providing a substitute energy supply, and everything to do with preserving or extending their monopoly.

That situation is not one that provides a good climate for investment, as investment is conventionally undertaken. There is seen to be a lot of risk involved unless there is a market able to be locked in. Even the absolutely capital wind farm of my dreams in the 'NSW Power without pride' discussion (a quarter back) is only viable because of the lock-in of Sydney Water as the purchaser of the electricity it supplies. The key is not that I own even a single wind turbine, but that I possess the contract for supply.

I take Fractelle's "we" to mean the Australian public. The Constitution from the very outset has effectively identified the service of grid provision of electricity as being within the public domain with respect to the Commonwealth having the power to make laws in regard thereto. With one government having recently imploded after having run into massive public disapproval of the sell-off of a market they already own, it appears the time may well be ripe for wholesale political change in Australia.

A democratic coup. Restoration of the role of Parliament, as opposed to that of Party.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Saturday, 4 October 2008 8:57:02 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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