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 > An unsustainable future > Comments

An unsustainable future : Comments

By Tom Quirk, published 19/2/2009

The proposal for renewable power is unachievable: no wonder large tax concessions have been proposed for coal burning power stations.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Congratulations to Tom on raising this important issue and explaining in easy to understand terms. I agree completely, renewables are very limited because they are intermittent and very expensive, and also because we simply cannot build the capacity fast enough. This issue is now urgent. As a community, we need to understand this issue now, so that we can plan, or soon we will be faced with rolling blackouts.

Yet despite Tom’s remarkable effort at explanation, Phil Matimein has apparently metaphorically slapped his hands over his ears, and continued to chant the green mantra of renewable energy nirvana. He is so typical of the environmental movement here in Australia. He is utterly convinced that renewables are the answer.

In fact, solar thermal power like wind is also intermittent. Even when used with molten salt storage (horrendously expensive and inefficient) it only takes one day of cloudy weather and the plant will shut down. Where will the power come from then? As Tom advises it must come from stand-by electric generation based on gas turbines. This idle stand-by power adds a further cost to the infrastructure. And then there is the issue of $2M per km for new transmission lines. And this is why California and Spain have only installed 300MW of capacity, which of course is trivial, and if installed in Australia represents about 0.25% of our energy production.

Perhaps the problem is that Tom's argument is still too complex. To understand the subject, it requires the ability to quantify, a reasonable level of knowledge of engineering and economics. Maybe this issue is beyond the intellectual capability of your average Phil?

Whilst energy conservation and ZPG will help, it won't resolve the problem. Energy requirements will certainly increase dramatically as the electric vehicle inevitably gains popularity. A viable answer lies in piped gas from the NW Shelf and nuclear power. But we need to start planning now, and resolving the political barriers. We need more articles by people like Tom, and a big effort by the community to educate our peers, to get this urgent message across.
Posted by Greig, Thursday, 19 February 2009 4:51:46 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 am amazed at the pessimism in this article, and the ridiculous claims that many thousands of wind generators would be required to generate the required amount of electricity.

It seems to me that one wind generator, strategically placed on top of Parliament House, would do the job easily, as there appear to be no limits on the ability of our politicians to produce regular, consistent, unlimited amounts of hot air.
Posted by plerdsus, Thursday, 19 February 2009 5:22:33 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
"What is lacking by the government is investment in this sort of technology for long-term reductions in CO2 emissions."

I cannot understand this line of reasoning. Surely the only reason why government 'investment' is supposed to be indicated is because it is not forthcoming from private capitalists? And the difference between the private capitalists and the government 'investors' is that the private capitalists are, by definition, personally exposed to the risk of loss? And the reason they aren't risking it, is because the investment will not cover costs. Otherwise, they'd do it, wouldn't they?

Therefore the only differences government can add to the equation is (a) to get the money under compulsion and (b) to spend it without being personally exposed to loss. How can this be any recommendation for a more economical use of natural resources?

Therefore it's not an 'investment', it's a loss-making expenditure, commonly known as a waste.

How can this conclusion be rationally avoided?

The only reason it seems to be cheaper is because of a double standard.

With private provision, you pay the cost in the price. But with government funding, you pay some of the cost in the price, and the rest is hidden in the tax bill. The consumer personally never gets an account for it. How can this conclusion be rationally avoided?

By rationally I mean, obviously if we ignore the costs, anything will seem to be better. I don't see how people can make these proposals that it's good for the environment if we use more resources, so long as we be economically incoherent about it by hiding the cost in the general tax bill. It does not seem to me to make sense but I would be interested in any explanation showing how it does.
Posted by Wing Ah Ling, Thursday, 19 February 2009 8:28:12 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
Two reports issued last year estimated that the subsidies paid to the fossil fuel industry amounted to approximately 9-10 billion dollars per year. The notion that coal power demands a return on investment in some kind of free market is absurd. Not only is the industry heavily subsidised, we don't pay the externalities associated with coal energy - As Garnaut said, climate change is the biggest market failure ever. If we were required to pay even a small portion of the real costs of coal, there would be no arguments abour renewables at all.
Posted by next, Thursday, 19 February 2009 9:01:49 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
"If we were required to pay even a small portion of the real costs of coal, there would be no arguments abour renewables at all."

Nonsense. As Tom's article points out, it doesn't matter how much the "externalities" (climate change) might cost. Renewables simply can't provide the energy we require. If we are to reduce emissions, we need nuclear power and CCGT from piped gas, and we need to start building now.
Posted by Greig, Thursday, 19 February 2009 9:42:55 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
It is all bad news from here on; - You can forget about renewable energy, unless individual people start to do things under their own initiatives; - Government is not about funding Civilization or recourses or providing Info structure through Taxation, it is about funding Hacks- apparatchiks- Union Bosses and mates who end up as Bureaucrats or advisors to a Bureaucrat- all of a sudden, there is nothing left to buy a shovel.

The cold hard fact is , You are on your own , and when the Government is finished with finding new macro taxation and paradigms to make you feel good about being stupid , you are left stone broke and destitute -using candles ,living in caves .
You need to be a total idiot to think government is the answer to any problem- Government; it is the Problem. A very expensive and a very dangerous problem.
Posted by All-, Friday, 20 February 2009 1:25:08 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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