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 > Wind energy blowing hot air > Comments

Wind energy blowing hot air : Comments

By Mark S. Lawson, published 20/3/2009

The emerging renewable electricity sector is set to consume a lot of money for comparatively little reduction in emissions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All
The only real long term solution for our energy requirements is nuclear.

I am not against renewables like wind or solar, provided it is realised that they can only ever be marginal.

Using energy storage solutions mentioned in the article can improve the situation, and maybe solar will become more economic over time.

Even George Monbiot is beginning to see the light!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/20/george-monbiot-nuclear-climate
Posted by Froggie, Sunday, 22 March 2009 4:34:55 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
The problem that this article raises is a reflection of the way most seem to be approaching the energy problem. If we are looking for a simple linear solution then renewables of any description are going to present the same sort of problems as described in the article. However, if we view energy supply as a systemic problem then we need to look for a systemic solution this means that instead of just looking at wind you look at a number of renwable options working in sync. In Germany they have created a viable energy generating system that uses wind, solar and methane. Those familiar with the German model will protest that it is very much a small scale example and that is true. But there is really no reason to persist with a national grid. In some ways we are in an analogous position to when the moter car was introduced: early models looked very much like a horseless carriage. We are attempting to do the same with power generation and as a result come up with the sort of very real problems as those described in the original article.
Posted by BAYGON, Monday, 23 March 2009 1:04:35 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
“Protagoras, you missed the point entirely, which was, even the most renewable concious, (sic) biggest emission reduction nation on the planet is considering going nuclear”

Spindoc. You really should get up to date on the nuclear debate and cease providing posts which are slapstick vaudeville - full of hot air and slander.

Sweden is not “considering *going* nuclear” since they went nuclear decades ago and currently have 10 operating nuclear power reactors which provides around 45% of its electricity to a population of 9 million.

Contrary to your misinformation regarding the Swedish proposal (which still needs approval from Parliament) Ola Altera, state secretary for enterprise and energy advised that replacement reactors will be built at the 10 sites in Sweden where reactors are still operating, but they would be replaced gradually as they are taken out of service.

Sweden has used a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions since 1991. The Swedish Ministry of Environment estimated the carbon tax has cut emissions by an additional 20 percent as opposed to solely relying on regulations.
Posted by Protagoras, Monday, 23 March 2009 11:23:10 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’s unclear why Mark Lawson says the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill is “one of the key parts of the Rudd Government’s efforts to reduce emissions”.
The Garnaut review notes, “No useful purpose is served by other policies that have as their rationale the reduction of emissions from sectors covered by the trading scheme. The Mandatory Renewable Energy Target [MRET] should be phased out” (p xxxii).
The CPRS aims to cover around 75% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. This coverage includes all emissions from fossil fuel powered electricity generation. The CPRS is SUFFICIENT to control all the emissions that it covers. It allows total control and constraint of Australia’s covered emissions each year. This makes it very efficient and powerful. The CPRS, if effected, would probably have the broadest coverage of any scheme in the world.
Complementary measures to the CPRS in Australia seem only necessary for emissions which are not covered by the Scheme, around 25% of the total.
So why is the Government trying to ‘pick winners’ in compelling a specific proportion of electricity from renewable sources? Additional specification of methods within the fully controlled and covered emissions limits the degrees of freedom desirable to achieve least cost abatement. Ie, abatement costs are likely increased.
The MRET scheme was instigated by the Howard government. Howard’s lack of a comprehensive Australian policy and scheme to control emissions led to piecemeal policy bandages like MRET. There are numerous ways to reduce emissions. Who knows what is most suitable in every situation? The cap and trade CPRS allows ingenuity to find the most efficient ways.
Mark Lawson correctly notes that “as matters are set now the emerging renewable electricity sector is set to consume a lot of money for comparatively little reduction in emissions."
Reducing carbon emissions by the best means possible will cost the economy a small reduction in growth (refer Treasury modelling, Dec 08). Why is this Government moving to perpetuate Howard’s inappropriate and inadequate measures to add unnecessary costs?

As Garnaut says, the MRET should be phased out.
Posted by Gaia, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 10:12:49 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. Page 4
  6. All

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