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 > Adopting an energy lean lifestyle > Comments

Adopting an energy lean lifestyle : Comments

By John Busby, published 18/11/2005

John Busby argues that reserves of natural gas, coal and uranium will not give Australia secure buffers against the impending energy crisis

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
We seem to be reluctant to make short term sacrifices to avoid a terminal calamity. Here's what I would do. Firstly increase the mandatory renewable energy quota to 15% then 20% and give whatever judicious help was needed to wind farms and biofuels. Second introduce an EU type cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases, maybe with a lenient start cap. This will help the geosequestration lobby though I doubt the 30-40% power penalty will ever be overcome. Third, announce the construction of nuclear reactor at some godforsaken place like Woomera. Nukes could give us 50 years to get squeaky clean technology right. This framework would create many new opportunities at a time when rising fuel prices will make transport and commuting even harder. If there has to be long term pain I'd say start taking it now in easy instalments.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 18 November 2005 12:27:51 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
John, Thank you for a very interesting article, Australia has an abundance of sunshine, which we could and should make more use of to supplement our power needs. Solar power is free of polutants costs nothing, and along with wind farms could go a long way towards extending the life of our natural gas. The sore point is that the oil companies, seem to dictate our energy policy, as they bring pressure to bear on Governments. The main obsticule to solar is the initial cost of the equipment, which is expensive, and is only an option for the well heeled. If more subsidies were given by our Federal Government, we could use solar to cut our greenhouse emissions, along with wind farms, however we don't have a green minded Federal Government. Sadly this old planet won't last forever, and as the previous poster indicated, the time to start the process is now {IF NOT BEFORE NOW} the environment is high in the list of priorities for some of us, but so many people are apathatic and/or ignorant that I fear it will take quite a few decades before the big push comes, and when it does it will have been allowed to become a crisis.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 18 November 2005 5:59:58 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
There are several decisive points that need to be considered here.

1. The only way we know how to run a economy is with constant growth. The alternative, an economy without growth, is more commonly called a depression, and would not be a happy time for any.

2. Australia has 40% of the world's uranium, and our current production of only 9000 tons per annum is due to the three mines policy. When the price of uranium explodes we could abandon the policy and increase our production considerably.

3. Nuclear fission power will only ever be a temporary measure, as the world's uranium supplies could be exhausted in only 50 years. The long term solution to the world's energy problems lies with nuclear fusion. As the raw material for a fusion power station is sea water, we can expect the supply to last a reasonable time. An international consortium is now beginning to build the world's first commercial fusion power station in France, and this could be producing power in ten years. The main use for fission power is as a bridge to cover the energy gap until fusion comes on stream.
Posted by plerdsus, Saturday, 19 November 2005 5:50:52 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
Fusion energy will be of no use in 10 years. Even if they get it to work, it will take another 30 years to establish generating systems that will provide less than 10% of world requirements. The belief that solar and wind have high input costs is wrong, opponents rely on statistics that are 20 years out of date.

A household could set themselves up with a wind generator, inverter and solar cells allowing them to survive for less than $10000 without subsidies. This can be recouped over 5-10 years, giving you 15-20 years of free power before you system needs replacing. Next year, the cost will drop with the introduction of solar balls. Biodiesel, ethanol, bio gas can provide our mobile fuels. Add solar towers for commercial production, Australia shouldn't have any problems.

On a personal level, a commitment to change our ways so that we become self sufficient in energy. The more people that start changing now, by buying a solar cell or two and a couple of gel deep cycle storage batteries, then converting their lighting to 12-24v led will save themselves a fortune, as well as never having to change a light bulb. The next step would be wind generator and more cells until you have a system that works for you.

The technology is all there to be used and is constantly being updated and improved. Just look at this site, http://www.hydrogen.asn.au/SolarBall-Solar-Energy.htm to see where things are going. Even people with suburban backyards can subsidise their own mobile energy requirements. Growing plants that produce seed or fruit oil will be a help. There are already businesses that will take you oil seeds and convert them to either oil or bio diesel. It may not sound much, but you can get many litres from a small plot. Mustard, canola, flax are high producers of oil. Bracken is also being trialled and seems to have good potential.

It is only the vested interests, the PC's and enslaved beaurucrats and politicians that are the obstacles, not the technology or the results.
Posted by The alchemist, Sunday, 20 November 2005 12:29:56 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
John Busby’s article, fails to mention that low cost proven reserves of uranium are sufficient to last 50 years at the world’s current consumption rate.
He talks only about current production levels, which is a fallacy because production of uranium can be increased. Thorium, which he does not mention at all, as it is inconvenient for his argument, is even more abundant than uranium, by an order of at least three times, and India, which possesses large reserves of thorium, is going to use it in the fleet of nuclear reactors they are building.
The cost of the fuel in the cost of electricity from a nuclear reactor is exceedingly small, so small that exploration for further uranium reserves has not been economic, when known reserves are more than adequate for the foreseeable future.
In addition, techniques such as re-processing, to increase the utilisation of uranium by up to 30%, increased enrichment, and the latest higher efficiency reactor designs, can all be used to increase the effective duration of uranium supplies.
None of these techniques are strictly necessary at the moment, when supplies of uranium are so abundant.
Again, he does not mention the possibility of using fast breeder reactors, which increase the effective availability of nuclear fuel 100-fold.
The assertion that we are likely to run out of resources is a re-run of the "Limits to Growth" argument fashionable in the early 1970s, which was substantially disowned by its originators, the Club of Rome, and thoroughly discredited with the passing of time. It also echoes similar concerns raised by economists in the 1930s, and by Malthus at the end of the 18th Century.
Posted by Froggie, Sunday, 20 November 2005 3:50:58 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
Froggie - care to provide any evidence for your statement "The assertion that we are likely to run out of resources is a re-run of the "Limits to Growth" argument fashionable in the early 1970s, which was substantially disowned by its originators, the Club of Rome, and thoroughly discredited with the passing of time" ?

As far as I can tell, neither is true - the Club of Rome hasn't disowned its work and the Limits to Growth book has been revised every 10 years, with the authors becoming increasingly pessimistic about our chances of avoiding a nasty crunch as their original modelling looks more and more accurate as time passes.

http://www.energybulletin.net/1512.html
http://www.energybulletin.net/1516.html
Posted by biggav, Sunday, 20 November 2005 5:38:22 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
Biggav, I apologise. You are right actually. It appears that the Club of Rome hasn’t disowned its work and is continuing to upgrade it.

“Limits to Growth” was based on a computer model developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and published in 1972.

When it was published, I believe it was taken by most commentators to be a prediction. However, it appears the authors said in 1991 that it was not a prediction, just a warning of what might happen if no action was taken.

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC32/Meadows.htm

In any event, the authors said, “in twenty years some options for sustainability have narrowed, but others have opened up. Given some of the technologies and institutions invented over those twenty years, there are real possibilities for reducing the streams of resources consumed and pollutants generated by the human economy while increasing the quality of human life.”

In fact, that is what I believe has been happening in the thirty-odd years since ”Limits to Growth” was published.

In any case, computer models are only as good as the information that is fed in to them.

I stand firmly behind the rest of my posting.
Posted by Froggie, Sunday, 20 November 2005 8:43:58 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
Froggie - thanks for the response.

There was an update to the Limits of Growth (they've been refining the models for the past 30 years) published this year called "Limits to Growth - the Thirty Year Update".

Its important to note that they have a number of scenarios (10 in fact) modelled although they are all based on one simple observation - exponential increases in resource consumption on a world of finite size cannot continue indefinitely.

The different scenarios were modelled over a 100 year timeframe (which makes claims that the conclusions drawn in the book were wrong pretty annoying, given that there is still 70 years to go). By and large the models have tracked pretty well against reality over the intervening years, and they have continued to tune the models (which will never be perfect) as new data and insights have presented themselves.

The purpose of the work was to say that large changes are required to avoid some of the problems predicted by the models. We haven't made these changes (though the 1970's and 1980's oil price shocks did help to get the process started for a while).

Oil depletion and global warming are 2 obvious symptoms of hitting the limits to growth.

The preface to the latest edition of the book says: "We are much more pessimistic about the global future than we were in 1972. It is a sad fact that humanity has largely squandered the past 30 years in futile debates and well-intentioned, but halfhearted, responses to the global ecological challenge. We do not have another 30 years to dither. Much will have to change if the ongoing overshoot is not to be followed by collapse during the twenty-first century".

William Catton's book "Overshoot" is worth reading to understand a bit more about the overshoot and collapse ideas. On a more positive note, I often refer people to WorldChanging's "Post Oil Megacity" idea as a vision of the alternative:

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002081.html
Posted by biggav, Sunday, 20 November 2005 9:49:22 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
Biggav
Thank you for the link to worldchanging.com. This is certainly a welcome antidote to the usual tales of doom and gloom surrounding the issue of sustainability.

In return, you may like to have a look at the paper below, presented by Colin Macdonald to the Annual Symposium of the World Nuclear Association in London September 2003. Colin Macdonald is a geologist (MSc in geological sciences) and currently Vice-President of Exploration at Cameco, responsible for the company’s worldwide uranium exploration activities.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2003/pdf/macdonald.pdf

I believe this is an excellent explanation of resource economics, which should go a long way to setting people’s minds at rest concerning the availability of uranium in the world, and indeed of many other resources.
His comments about oil resources are also interesting.
Posted by Froggie, Monday, 21 November 2005 4:14:15 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 certainly not a technical person, but I would like to pose a question, "if the majority of homes in Australia were fitted with solar panels {they would have to be made much more affordable} could anyone hazard a guess, as to how much greenhouse gas omittions would be cut?" The other plus for solar is of course unlike uranium, it cannot be used to make bombs, to the best of my knowledge, the only "problem" arises when there are no ongoing costs for business to profit from, however this sustainable energy, if it could be made affordable, could sovle much of the world's energy needs, and lift the standard of living in third world countries, perhaps that is the reason, it has not been widely promoted as a real alternative.
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 4:36:48 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
Hello Shonga

I agree that solar hasn't been subsidised and supported as the long term benefits of energy savings do no benefit big business - if they could find a way to charge for the sun's rays they would. Its the same reason we are so slow on developing fuel efficient transport - short-term greed - explains so much that is wrong in this world.

Keep up the good posts, Shonga
Posted by Scout, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 6:40:08 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
Shonga. There is an international agreement about the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is not at all easy to construct a nuclear weapon, it takes a lot of technology and finance.
The trend in the world today is to dismantle nuclear weapons and to use the fissile material to fuel nuclear power stations. This is what has kept the price of uranium so low, thus making further exploration uneconomic.
The fallacy in your argument is that if people want to use uranium to make bombs, then they can, given that they obtain the necessary technology. This has nothing at all to do with using uranium to produce electricity.
Using solar panels (I presume to produce electricity) is presently hopelessly uneconomic. If you want the Government to subsidise it, think where the taxes are going to come from. That's right- the taxpayer.
Maybe solar will come down in price in the future. You will still need a base-load generator, unless you are able to store the electricity produced economically. Solar may become in the future a useful addition to the energy mix, provided it's cost can be reduced.
Posted by Froggie, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 6:48:06 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
It almost annoys me that people still believe that solar power generation is not economically viable. You can set yourself up with solar power that won't require replacing for 20 years and is subsidised by the federal and some state governments. These systems don't require backup generators when you align then with small wind generators. This can be difficult if you live in a city, but next year you will have access to new technology will reduce the costs and greatly improve efficiency you need back up generation, then it can be run on methane derived from the property, or biodiesel that you can grow yourself if need be. You can also have a solar hot water system that works without sun and will reduce you hot water costs by 75%. Our system runs our business and household, never runs out of power and paid for its self in 3-4 years, now we have free energy for the next 20 years, with no blackouts or down time.

Why you persist in trying to live within the past technologies is beyond me. Nuclear is not a realistic or a viable option, it has yet to come to terms with its problems. Combining eco friendly technologies will benefit us all.

Off course we can keep our heads firmly in the sand hoping that more oil or the nuclear problems are solved, but thats what we are doing now whilst the answers are all around us. As Scout points out, there isn't money in giving people control over their energy supplies. There will be no change until, society collapses, or energy control is taken from the elite and given to the consumer.

Froggie, why don't you actually have a look at the technology before you make stupid statements about the economics of it. Spend $10000, get a third rebate, repays itself over say 5-6 years, then you have at least 15 years of free power. Gel batteries have a life of more than 20 years and within two years, new technology batteries will double that and reduce costs.
Posted by The alchemist, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 10:40:31 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
Alchemist
I live in the middle of a large city in an apartment. Obviously if I wanted to install solar energy (PV or hot water), I would have to convince my fellow owners to invest in it with me.
I did investigate it some time ago, and discovered that the cost of an installation to supply the whole building would be prohibitive. A paper issued by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has a table in it showing that the cost of PV at 250.00-400.00 $/MWh is about 6 times more expensive than electricity generated from coal.
Hot water via solar energy is more attractive at only twice the cost of electricity from coal.
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/energy_future/docs/energy_chapter_8.pdf
This is not far off what my investigations calculated it to be, via a Net Present Value calculation comparing the cost of the installation with simply being connected to the grid. No company would ever make such an investment, as it would be strongly negative.
I would also refer you to the following article about the cost of PV solar energy.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/15/1087244917959.html
This is electricity for residential purposes. There are many other users of electricity in Australia, including commerce, industry and government. Industry especially (aluminium production for example) requires large supplies of electricity. These industries need a lot of assured base-load power, and could not be expected to rely on solar or wind energy.
Alchemist, as your name implies, maybe you have discovered a way to reduce the cost of solar energy to a reasonable level.
Maybe solar will become viable in the future, with new technology,(Maybe nanotechnology) but that day is not here yet.
Posted by Froggie, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 12:04:56 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
Froggie, in your situation there would have to be a quantum leap in technology to provide power for close quarters living. However things have changed and we have the development of the Stirling solar generator, http://www.stirlingenergy.com/solar_overview.htm , the quantum solar hot water heater, http:www.quantumenergy.com.au/ , solar towers, http://www.wentworth.nsw.gov.au/solartower/ sunballs http://www.hydrogen.asn.au/SolarBall-Solar-Energy.htm , ultra bright LED lighting, and 3rd generation solar cells that were developed for the mars rovers power supply. Build your house with a solar roof, http://www.solarcentury.co.uk/content.jsp?sectno=2&subno=8

It is all there, but as it can't be monopolised, it will not be promoted or developed properly. If you live in a city and have access to unfetted sun and or wind, then you could drastically reduce your energy costs. Problem is all your gear may get stolen. Note the growth in low voltage lighting in homes and the numerous equipment that requires low voltage power or charging, electronic equipment runs mainly on 12v dc rails.

They make us believe that only monopolised things work in this economic society. What we must remember is that you can have an environment without an economy, but you can't have an economy without an environment and that goes for any environment, social, political, natural, etc.

Making small customers self sufficient, would lower grid loads and in rural area give a boost to local industry, lowering their costs with cheaper power. It would also create more jobs and small industries to maintain and install equipment. As development grew, people would update just as they do now making it a self sustaining industry. We must get away from burning up every resource on the planet, before we burn ourselves out.
Posted by The alchemist, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 7:07:18 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 agree with the Alchemist, regardless of the drawbacks of nuclear power, in the end the number one reason not to bother exploring that particular failed experiment is the cost.

Harnessing solar and wind power combined with increasing the efficiency of our energy usage makes nuclear completely unnecessary (and it has always sucked in more taxpayer subsidies overseas than solar ever has, so don't bother muttering about extra taxes for renewable energy).

Wind power overseas is already cheaper than nuclear (and in some places it is now cheaper than natural gas fired power as natural gas prices soar). Solar will be cheaper than nuclear in the coming years.

At the end of the day we should be working towards a clean, distributed energy future, not trying to choose between the ugly outmoded energy technologies of the past.

I think the example of the Soviet Union proved the drawbacks of both nuclear power and massive centralisation pretty well.
Posted by biggav, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 7:43:49 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
Biggav
The main problem with wind and solar is that they are diffuse and not constant, and their electricity output cannot be stored on any large scale. So they need to be used when available, and other supply brought in when they are not delivering.

This unpredictable and intermittent character becomes a problem when the electricity demand is largely for constant, reliable supply - certainly it is not readily matched to daylight hours or when the wind happens to blow. We need to be able to supply electricity to our hospitals, factories, and transport networks. Without a continuous, reliable electricity supply, essential services will grind to a halt.

Another negative for many people concerning wind is that the towers and turbines are considered to be ugly - not to mention the noise pollution- so much so that there are people demonstrating against having them in their area.

The idea that nuclear is subsidised or more expensive than wind is simply wrong. A UK Royal Academy of Engineering report in 2004 looked at electricity generation costs from new plant in the UK on a more credible basis than hitherto. In particular it aimed to develop "a robust approach to compare directly the costs of intermittent generation with more dependable sources of generation". This meant adding the cost of standby capacity for wind, as well as carbon values up to £30 per tonne CO2 (£110/tC) for coal and gas. Wind power was shown to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power.
Posted by Froggie, Friday, 25 November 2005 7:02:59 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
Froggie, you stated: "Wind power was shown to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power."

AT PRESENT. All new technologies start out as expensive - it would be shortsighted to restrict development of renewable energies, when we are facing an energy crisis.

Besides nothing can solve the basic problem of nuclear waste - it is the only energy source that produces a waste product that is toxic virtually indefinitely. This long-term permanent cost is never sufficiently factored in.

EG - Australia as a storage dump for nuclear waste:

"We occasionally get big earthquakes in Australia (up to about magnitude 7) and the big ones have tended to occur in somewhat unexpected places like Tennant Creek. The occurrences of such earthquakes imply that we still have much to learn about our earthquake activity. From the point of view of long-term waste disposal this is very important, since prior to the 1988 (M 6.8) quake, Tennant Creek might have been viewed as one of the most appropriate parts of the continent for a storage facility.
Australia is not the most stable of continental regions, although the levels of earthquake risk are low by global standards. To the extent that past earthquake activity provides a guide to future tectonic activity, Australia would not appear to provide the most tectonically stable environments for long-term waste facilities. However, earthquake risk is just one of the 'geologic' factors relevant to evaluating long-term integrity of waste storage facilities, and other factors such as the groundwater conditions, need to be evaluated in any comprehensive assessment of risk.
- Mike Sandiford, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne."

Other renewables such as biofuels are also being neglected.

"The biodiesel industry is taking off. But its growth is a textbook case of how the market can stifle innovation, even when there's so much to gain, reports Rebecca Martin."

The rest of her report may be accessed at:

http://www.abc.net.au/catapult/indepth/s1515906.htm

The point is that we must explore every avenue to sustain our current levels of energy consumption.

BTW - really enjoying input from all posters here - very refreshing.
Posted by Scout, Friday, 25 November 2005 9:00:23 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
Froggie, Vanadium batteries are already being used and solves the problem of storage http://www.vfuel.com.au/index.htm Looking at this subject through glasses that look backwards, is always a problem for humans, but looking forward always gives us the solution.

There are also engines that run on compressed air and ones that generate twice as much as they use

http://www.lutec.com.au/

Or check out the sundance generator motor, http://www.befreetech.com/techpage.htm

The options are endless if you are prepared to look, get them now because once the vested interests get hold of them, they will disappear just like the pritchard steam engine, the Cauvanagh electric car, and the Winslow hydrogen converter, which converted water into hydrogen and oxygen in your car for fuel and used the exhaust to recycle the water vapor for re-use. It's our desire to live within the illusionary comfort zone of the past, that causes us so many problems. Whilst if we lived in the future reality, most of a our problems would have solutions that we could see ahead.
Posted by The alchemist, Friday, 25 November 2005 11:07:59 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
Alchemist
While my mind is open to the possibility of alternative methods of power production and storage, it seems to me that the results of such innovations are always "in the future" (a bit like an affordable hydrogen fuel cell) or they have been suppressed by a mysterious "they"...
I don't believe in internet conspiracy theories.
Until a working model is on general sale to the public, like for example a PV solar panel, I remain rather sceptical.
Incidentally I wonder why solar panels have not been suppressed, seeing that they have the potential, if they ever become more cost effective, to undermine the economics of the grid and the markets of the so-called "big business" people, and decentralise the production of electricity- putting it back in the hands of the people, as you say...
Maybe the "big business" people are aware of their inherent weaknesses. I understand that BP (a "big business"?) is the biggest manufacturer of solar panels in Australia. Maybe they are deliberately making them too expensive so as to avoid cannibalising their own market...Oh, but I forgot, BP has no financial interest in the power grid...silly me...
The only reference you provided in your post that I would take seriously is that of the Vanadium batteries, but here again, these appear to be not yet fully ready for commercialisation. The Government of Victoria, which presumably is not in the pocket of those nasty "big business" interests, have even put "up to $1 million" into the project, according to the web site...
"Big business" just about everywhere in the world, is financed mainly by superannuation schemes, insurance companies, commercial and merchant banks, etc., of which most of the shareholders are people like you and me. In fact, if you are a contributor to a superannuation scheme, as most Australians are, you are also probably one of them...
Posted by Froggie, Friday, 25 November 2005 1:28:34 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
Froggie, I'm sorry, but your last reply to me was totally incorrect.

1. Nuclear power requires vast subsidies to be economically competitive. Also, look at the laws that need to be put in place in the US before companies will consider building new plants - they want immunity from lawsuits and no responsibility for clean up costs. They know accidents happen and decomissioning and remediation is incredibly costly - and they don't want to pay for these things when they occur.

I don't pay taxes to make large companies with political connections richer, and I imagine American taxpayers don't want to either.

2. Wind power is, right now, cheaper than nuclear, even ignoring the likely steadily increasing cost of uranium and nuclear plant decommisioning in future years, and the decrease in wind power costs as economies of scale for turbine manufacturing are attained. Check out this for some examples:

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003748.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/05/wind_map_tells.php

3. Wind plants aren't ugly - they look great. Ask anyone what they would rather have on their horizon - a wind plant or a nuclear plant - or solar panels on every roof for that matter...

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/windfarms_beaut_1.php

4. Intermittency is not a meaningful drawback, especially if you consider the existing base load capacity and combine demand based pricing with efficiency and conservation incentives. For example, hot summer days are sunny and these days cause maximum demand spikes in Australia due to airconditioning and modern housing design. Solar panels on all houses would very nicely dovetail peak generation with peak demand with no new baseload capacity required. Ditto for wind in many parts of the country - Western Australia being a classic example (hot days are the windiest).

The key to the future of energy generation and distribution is battery technology so renewable energy can be stored and harnessed when required - do some reading about "smart grids" and the way the system will work in the coming decades.

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005/10/richard-smalley-and-smart-grids.html

5. Don't forget ocean power - particularly when we live on an island with most of the population living near the coast.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002428.html
Posted by biggav, Friday, 25 November 2005 8:28:52 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
Biggav, the Alchemist, Scout et al.
We could go on for ever with this kind of "it is, it isn't" sort of discussion, each coming up with numerous references to back our case.
I think that this forum has shown enough examples of innovation and human ingenuity to definitely disprove the main thrust of the article by Busby that reserves of natural gas, coal and uranium will not give Australia secure buffers against the impending energy crisis.
These immense reserves in Australia, complemented perhaps by "renewables" where these are appropriate, ensure a secure energy future for Australia.
Technologies that need development are for example "Plug-in electric hybrid vehicles". If we could get average fuel consumption down to the 2 litres per 100 kms range, think of the difference that would make to oil consumption. Of course the change to totally electric vehicles would be even better, but we need some development in the technology before that can compete with PHEV on an equal basis.
You have provided some interesting references to other new technologies that may be helpful in the future.
My view is that economics will ultimately decide which elements of the energy mix will predominate. You may have a different point of view, as I detect a definite bias against "business" in general, and "big business" in particular, forgetting that the main shareholders in Australia are ordinary people like us. Sure, there is plenty wrong with corporate governance as it is at the moment, and I think the answer for this is to democratise the process and give real power back to the shareholders. Perhaps some changes should be proposed to Company law.
In order to marshall the necessary financial and other resources, it is inevitable that some businesses should be "big". This in itself doesn't make them evil.
I have had discussions with the more extreme "Peak Oilers" who for reasons of their own, discount any possibility of mankind surviving the transition.
So I am happy to note that you are not among them.
Thanks for an interesting discussion.
Posted by Froggie, Saturday, 26 November 2005 8:04:53 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. 4
  6. All

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