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 > Unrealistic proposals > Comments

Unrealistic proposals : Comments

By Martin Nicholson, published 27/8/2009

Climate change policy: it seems the stronger the feelings, the higher the targets demanded but the more unrealistic the proposals.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
ShazBaz001,

Meant to say that the left needs to cite evidence based on reality to support its case, much in the same way that this article uses evidence to question sources of renewable energy.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Saturday, 29 August 2009 10:52:04 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
Martin, the glaring absence of consideration of the costs and consequences of failure to limit emissions is at the heart of what's wrong with your arguments; you don't appear to consider consequences to be that damaging or even very likely. That's not what science tells us.
Conversion to clean energy only if clean is cheaper than dirty is policy designed to fail. It's imperative we don't fail. Besides, anyone who thinks of natural gas as a potential solution can't be looking past Stage One of keeping overall warming under 1C or 2C - it would see us stuck with new gas plants when Stage Two emissions targets will be required.
Meanwhile the attempt to blame Greens for the failure of mainstream politics is unwarranted; make no mistake, it's mainstream politics that's given us fluff and greenwash. I think they'll end up vilified by future generations for the willfully ignoring scientific advice on this. Perhaps the Greens will be vilified for their anti nuclear stance but let's see mass takup of new gen nuclear around the world before we say no to renewables.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Sunday, 30 August 2009 11:29:42 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
Martin,

I am of the opinion that neither the federal government nor the state governments are capable of meeting this challenge.

We need electricity, we need a reliable supply at a sensible price. What we do not need is an industry owned in part by overseas corporations that have no interest in Australia other than it is a place to generate a profit.

If say the local city or joint ventures between smaller municipalities owned the electricity supply and distribution systems the answers might come from other vested interests, this time the people.

At least then we would be acting locally. And there is much more to this argument than which technology should supply. We are on the verge of the "smart" and coupled with that we have made so little effort to curtail our waste of energy. Of course not, the corporations do not want us to.
Posted by renew, Monday, 31 August 2009 11:23:18 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
Martin,

You are correct when you say there is no "magical solution". However, like all systems our system of power generation can change over time. It can change to favour non polluting forms of energy. This can be done with no extra cost to the community and in fact with a reduction in energy costs.

This method is to bias the cost of money for the construction of new power generating facilities that do not burn fossil fuels compared to the cost of money to build new fossil burning power plants.

If the cost of money (both in terms of lower interest) and in terms of repayment schedules is lowered energy from nuclear, solar thermal, geothermal, all today become cheaper than energy from existing fossil burning power stations.

This bias will rapidly make it not only profitable to increase power generation from non polluting sources but will make existing power sources less profitable with the likelihood of their rapid closure as the price of oil, gas and coal increases.

Reducing the cost of money for such investments will result in a reduction in pressure on existing asset prices and so the "cost" to the community will come in a reduction in the rate of increase of prices of existing assets - like houses. In other words the new investment will be paid for by a reduction in future asset values of existing investments.
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 7:10:51 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
Martin, Professor David Mackay of Cambridge University, in his book Sustainable Energy – Without Hot Air ( www.withouthotair) estimates total sustainable energy production of theoretical or practical renewable resources in the UK at 18 kWh per day per person against a base demand of 125 kWh per day p.p.

Tide: 3 kWh/d
Offshore: 4 kWh/d
Hydro: 0.3 kWh/d
Biomass: 4 kWh/d
Solar PV: 2 kWh/d
Solar HW: 2 kWh/d
Wind: 3 kWh/d

His analysis is supported by the Institute of Electrical Engineers, the Tyndall Centre, the Interdepartmental Analysts Group, the Performance and Innovation Unit; and the proposals from the Centre for Alternative Technology’s plan.

Granted that this is for the UK but I can’t imagine Australia bettering their potential for sustainable alternative energy contributions, yet we are proposing 20% or even 30% MRET’s. Surely it’s time someone publicly voiced the stupidity of such targets.

Good article, thanks
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 11:34:46 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
Spindoc I think you would find there are those that would disagree with you about your comparison between the UK and Australia about the potential for renewable energy. Particularly for solar power as the whole of the UK is further away from the equator than anywhere in Australia.

Having said that, I am yet to find an engineer who is confident about us achieving 20% renewable energy by 2020 for electricity generation.

I am trying to voice my concerns by writing articles like this one but often the press also believe the magical solutions before reasoned argument.
Posted by Martin N, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 4:25:32 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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