Forrest

Innamincka 'hot rocks' is on the horizon (with hiccups). The 'powers' that be will have to find a 'way' to connect it to a remote grid (not insurmountable). GDY's Hunter tenements are competing with proven coal seam gas reserves. While it may be disconcerting, until a price is put on carbon, gas (in this context) will win out. At least it's not as 'dirty' as Ol' King Coal. Obviously, I won't be around in 2100 to see our (Oz) energy mix, but my guess is that geothermal will be right up there with nuclear and solar thermal. Fossils will be very much on the wane. Wind, tidal and the like, will have limited, but necessary, input - depending on location and situation.

Thank you Forrest for your very generous plug for my book (order from Amazon or your favourite book store - sorry I couldn't resist).

I wrote that book over two years ago and I have continued to extensively study the energy field since then. I must admit that I have become less confident about the contribution that renewable energy can make to our electricity supply - particularly in the timetable needed to replace fossil fuels if the IPCC is correct.

Those who have read my more recent articles published here on Online Opinion will realise I am becoming more convinced that if we are serious about GHG abatement from electricity supply we really only have one cost effective option for the bulk of the supply (baseload) and that, of course, is fission energy.

CSP could certainly technically do the job with enough heat storage but the energy cost is still over 3 times that of nuclear and there isn't much evidence that it's going to change. I would love to believe that engineered geothermal (hot rocks) will actually work one day but we are still waiting for the first pilot power plant and the final cost is very uncertain - even if consultants like EPRI will quote figures to ABARE - the accuracy of which really cannot be substantiated yet. As to the variable sources, we might get a technology breakthrough that can deliver cost-effective and scalable energy storage that would indeed be game changer for wind power.

But this is all uncertain and we don't have decades to wait while we keep burning coal. There is a very good reason why so many countries have got new fission plants underway or on the drawing board. It's the least cost GHG abatement solution for electricity generation.

>> For those intending to observe Hasbeen's exhortation to "..., wake up, do a bit of reading, ..." <<

A good link to Martin's book Forrest.

Martin, good luck with the sales. Could you perhaps link to chapter summaries, or would that defeat the purpose?

Here is something from America's Research Council of the National Academies.

http://tinyurl.com/38mjpfc

The US (contrary to popular belief amongst OLO's "pseudo-sceptics') is committed to doing something about climate change. Of course, their Senate is compromised by 'stick-in-the-muds', much like Australia's.

For those that are serious in wanting to know more about what the US is doing; put the cursor over the separate icons, click and download a PDF, and read a bit. Of course, you could always pay for the full Monty :)

>> For heaven's sake you blokes, wake up, do a bit of reading, & stop talking rubbish, & get with the facts. <<

Somehow, I doubt very much Hasbeen Hasread;

"Merchants of Doubt", Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, Bloomsbury, New York, 2010, 365 pp.

"Why We Disagree About Climate Change", Mike Hulme, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009, 432 pp.

"Storms of My Grandchildren", James Hansen, Bloomsbury, New York, 2009, 320 pp.

"Science as a Contact Sport", Stephen H. Schneider, National Geographic, Washington, DC, 2009, 303 pp.

"The Lomborg Deception", Howard Friel, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2010, 270 pp.

"The Climate Solutions Consensus", David E. Blockstein and Leo Wiegman, National Council for Science and the Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC, 2010, 328 pp.

"Climate Change Science and Policy", Stephen H. Schneider, Armin Rosencranz, Michael D. Mastrandrea, and Kristin Kuntz-Duriseti, Eds.
Island Press, Washington, DC, 2010, 542 pp.

"The Politics of Climate Change", Anthony Giddens, Polity, Cambridge, 2009, 272 pp.

I suspect pseudo-sceptics do most of their reading at well known 'denialist' blog sites, or get their soundbites from well known media shock-jocks.

Sure, anyone can write a book about issues dealing with 'climate change', but that doesn't mean their book will hold 'weight' - unlike scientific papers published in reputable journals.

More often than not, books written by interested writers are really just the opinions of the author.

However, if these books are reviewed and acclaimed by the scientific community, then the claims in the book will obviously hold more 'weight' than if they were not.

For example, Ian Plimer's book "Heaven & Earth" is acclaimed by pseudo-sceptics the world over, but in the scientific community it is derided as an affront to the very claims made by Plimer himself.

Before anyone goes out and buys a book, especially on issues such as climate change, perhaps they should read the reviews first (can't wait to see the reviews of Mark Lawson's book).

Here's an essay reviewing the 8 books listed above - I lifted it from that published online 27 May 2010; 10.1126/science.1189312

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/science.1189312v1.pdf

Thanks, qanda, for what I trust is a more fully-informed confirmation that the Innamincka (Geodynamics Ltd) HDR prospect is now 'on the horizon'. It is only to be expected that there have been, and may continue to be, hiccups as this new approach to grid-distributed electricity generation is developed.

In my first post to this thread (on Tuesday, 25 May 2010, at 11:05:13 AM) I made the observation that:

"Quite rightly, [Mark Lawson's] article deals mainly with contention
as to the real emissions reducing effect of incorporating
wind-generated electricity into the grid supply."



To return to the subject of the article, I feel compelled to acknowledge that Mark may well be correct in contending that wind-generated electricity is in reality twice as expensive as coal-generated electricity.

The question is, is that a relevant comparison, given that the objective of stated public policy, whether soundly based or not, is aimed at at least the partial replacement of coal-burning as a means of electricity generation?



What has made this comparison of questionable relevance more interesting is the post by michael_in_adelaide, of Thursday, 20 May 2010, at 2:17:39 PM, containing this quote from Jerome a Paris (Jerome Guillet, an energy banker):

"The key thing here is that we are beginning to unveil
what I've labeled the dirty secret of wind: utilities
don't like wind not because it's not competitive, but
because it brings prices down for their existing assets,
thus lowering their revenues and their profits. Thus
the permanent propaganda campaign against wind."

Now I don't know whether Jerome is right about any intrinsic competitiveness of wind-generated electricity with, in an Australian context, coal-fired, but I think this quote highlights that the real contention is one as to access to the captive market of electricity consumers. Wind is capable of battening on, and what are essentially either corporatised or privatised utilities don't like sharing their access to profitability. Jerome's clients are investors in the electricity supply 'sure thing' via wind energy.

TBC

Continued

It seems Mark Lawson is arguing that in the Australian context at least, wind-generated electricity is not effectively substituting for coal-fired generated electricity, even though it may be being fed into the national electricity market (NEM) via the grid. Why would it be, when incipient under-capacity characterises the Australian electricity generation industry in general? The German situation with regard to the adequacy of non-renewables generating capacity may well be different, one that may allow, say, coal-fired generation capacity to be temporarily stood down as wind generated electricity becomes available: in such situation the reduction in emissions could be real, rather than imaginary. All that would be required is the German national policy and regulatory environment necessary to effect the shut-downs as opportunity for substitutions arises.

This is where I am disappointed in qanda's observation, in relation to prospective HDR baseload generation that "[Geodynamics Ltd's HDR] Hunter tenements are competing with proven coal seam gas reserves."

With all due respect, 'competition' should not come into the matter. With electricity generation in NSW being a long-existing public utility, if it is public policy to reduce emissions (as is claimed to be the case), then all that is required is a decision by the NSW government to commission an HDR generation facility and use its output. An HDR resource exists right at the door-step, so to speak, of the existing NSW coal-fired generation hub and its existing grid.

Given that the development of HDR technology has been a substantially publicly-funded one, that around 80% of NSW voters are against the privatisation of the existing NSW electricity utility, and that HDR generation is a zero-emissions technology that is fully in line with public (and voter endorsed) policy, why should not the government and voters of NSW expect that Geodynamics Ltd promptly enter into a plan to develop a generating capability in the upper Hunter region to supply competitively-priced electricity to the NSW public utility, or forego its tenements in favour of a State HDR enterprise at that location?

TBC