Whilst overall I aggree with Mr. Hooker's assessment concerning Australia's need to insure against changing energy patterns and any possible negative effect in relation to lifestyles, including health and employment, I do wish knowledgable people would drop this silly notion that hydrogen will play a substantial role in saving us. It's been demonstrated on many occasions on OLO and on many reputable scientific sites that hydrogen, whilst a lovely warm dream of energy security for many, is simply too impracticle to implement either now or in the near future. I won't re-bore you with reasons as to why hydrogen won't make any difference to our waning energy needs. I noted with interest yesterday that John Howard was on TV saying that he believes the nuclear energy debate is slowly swinging around to that of acceptance, but I very much doubt it's the Australian people who are shifting their opinion, more like big business is once again at the head of the push for nuclear energy and bully boy Howard will do their bidding whilst big business will win and the Australian public will lose. Mr. Hooker is right in saying that a shift from coal to nuclear will cost jobs. It's one of the reasons Howard once mentioned against an electric car industry....nothing to wear out, no need of people to repair things = higher unemployment and yet he's attempting to do the same with nuclear. Imagine how many production steps are missing in a nuclear energy system? Still, it will give Howard extreme pleasure in strolling through the great unwashed masses, whipping their bare backs whilst stripping them of unemployment benifits and all the while telling them to "get a job!"

I was surprised that Mr Hooker was lauding hydrogen. It has been
generally accepted for some time now that the costs of setting up to
distribute hydrogen plus the poor EROEI rules it out for widespread
transport fuel.
Until an efficient method of storing enormous amounts of energy can be
be engineered we are stuck with coal and nuclear as the base load options.
My understanding is that under Kyoto the country that digs up the coal
gets the CO2 debit and the country that burns it gets off scot free.
That really is weird, no wonder Howard didn't want a bar of it.
The government should set up a commission of power engineers with some
scientific backing to study the problem and come up in a years time with a
proposed path to energy sustainability.
Do we burn more coal in our power stations than we export ?

For transport fuels, there is not much choice for other than electric
cars. I went to the electric car ralley put on by an electric vehicle
club in Sydney. While the number of cars was small it has become
practical financially to have an electric car as the second car and
when fuel gets expensive have only the electric car for local
transport and use public transport for long distance travel.
The vast majority of commuter car travel should be on public transport
although probably well over half could use the electric car for the
daily commute to work. At about $1 a day charging cost who would
want to buy petrol ?

Wildcat,
You of course are completely correct, we have the technology, which is safe and proven, solar, wind turbines etc. Denmark harnesses 20% of their power from wind turbines, however with nuclear we can continue to mine, make the big players big bucks. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Shonga;
To paraphrase; Please explain;
How do you produce the required power on a calm, overcast day, to say
nothing of a still night ?
Answer that question in the affirmative and the world will beat a path
to your doorstep !

Including the original author, it seems to me that Bazz is the only one still in the tree. We certainly need to spend a lot more money on developing clean coal technology, but we need to start now to build nuclear power stations which we know will work, as well as spending much more developing biofuels such as diesel and alcohol. All the above are much cheaper than the various solar and wind schemes which unfortunately cannot supply the base load requirements when there is neither wind or sun. Another area which probably has potential to supply base load power, is geothermal power. It gets mighty hot down there, so it should be possible to transfer the heat back up to the surface via pipes of molten sodium or something similar to produce electricity on demand in almost any location. Finally, we should also increase the amount of hydro-electricity that we generate. Even if we were to do nothing else with the water, the relatively small impact that even a relatively large dam would have on the river environment would be a small price to pay for the cheap power.

“a public national capacity to systematically evaluate potential technologies, including their wider societal impacts, together with the level of Australia’s technological capacity appropriate to each, and propose share-able national projects.”

That is an interesting turn of phrase.

It is a long way of suggesting “An academic talk fest”

I was talking to a colleague who was invited to Canberra for some academic soiree.
Of the 20 “renowned pillars of academia” only three said anything, most were there for the free feed and day out. My colleague, being a dynamic individual said his bit but was disheartened by what he saw, a bunch of bludgers sucking on the public teat, adding nothing except paper credentials to their burgeoning and illustrious academic status.

We could, alternatively, use the stock exchange to float proposal which investors could get behind, as in “putting money where mouth is” and those same entrepreneurial soles be blessed, or otherwise, with the fruits of their risk..

These proposals having being subjected to the usual “environmental impact tests” to appease those who think you can do anything with “wilderness”.

Australia has billions of dollars being tied up in superfunds. These funds are desperate for suitable investments in which to invest for future security.

We have the resources, we have the mechanisms to organize. We simply need the innovators. Universities were supposed to develop the thinking minds of the brightest. It seems to me they are crawling into the same foggy category of institution as a sheltered workshop if the best they can propose is another talkfest.

Some things are too important to be left to governments and academics.

Oh and the best thing is, if we leave the investing to the professionals, we as, tax payers do not get shafted with another bucket of dross as we have been served in the past.
I recall, of course, the Caine/Kirner / Victorian Government dabble into marginal lending with TriContinental = 3 billion dollars down the tubes and of course the "fire sale" of the State Bank of Victoria to try to cover some of the cash deficit

Cliff Hooker is right to mention concentrating solar power and energy storage: the potential in Australia is absolutely vast and people will look back in amazement that Australia neglected it for so long.

Concentrating solar power (CSP) means using mirrors to concentrate sunlight to create heat and then, in the 'power tower' and 'parabolic trough' technologies, using the heat to raise steam and drive a turbine and generator in the conventional way.

CSP has been producing electricity successfully in California since 1985 and, with rising prices of fossil fuels and concerns about CO2 emissions, new CSP projects are now being announced quite frequently around the world.

CSP has several nice features:

* It is possible to store solar heat in melted salt or other substance so that electricity generation may continue through the night and on cloudy days.

* Waste heat from CSP plants can be used for the desalination of sea water - a great boon in arid regions where CSP comes into its own.

* The shaded areas under the mirrors of CSP power plants are relatively cool and protected from the harshness of direct tropical sunlight. They can be used for many purposes including horticulture using desalinated sea water.

Furthermore, CSP electricity can be transmitted very efficiently over very long distances using modern 'HVDC' transmission lines.

A new report that has been commissioned by the German government, with the short name 'TRANS-CSP', goes into these matters in great detail.

Further information may be found at http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/index.htm .

The UK has got itself in a terrible mess over its energy policy. Until two years ago we exported a surplus of oil and gas production from the North Sea so that now we are a net importer of both. We import around half of our coal. Is the answer is to replace our aging nuclear power plants which rely on imports of uranium? When only 60% of the world's demand comes from primary mining and the secondary sources of inventories and ex-weapons highly enriched uranium are running down, this does not seem likely to provide a security of energy supply.

The government's 2006 Energy Review concludes that nuclear power is only viable if its carbon "credits" earned by its alleged low carbon nature are sold to its carbon burning equivalents. It therefore depends for its viability on the very same polluters (and their continued ability to import carboniferous fuels) it is supposed to replace. As the operational lifetime of the new reactors is supposed to endure for 40 to 60 years, by which time fossil fuels will have practically gone, the potential new builders are asking for their carbon "credits" to be guaranteed for 100 years, thus admitting that without long-term subsidy they will not proceed.

Australia is a net importer of crude oil, currently exports its surplus gas production to China and soon will be a net importer of both. Russia consumes 68% of its gas domestically, so will soon not be able to supply Europe as its economy develops, nor any others. Should Australia import expensive crude oil to provide the diesel to shift vast quantities of rock to mine uranium to fuel a non-viable nuclear renaissance elsewhere? Or liquefy its coal reserves to extract uranium for an indigenous nuclear sector? Or go for solar powered desalination and clean coal?

Cliff Hooker is right to call for a sensible energy policy and to query the logic of carbon trading, when the carbon is fast depleting.

Hooker is right to surmise that Australia’s energy sources are vulnerable. Hydrogen will never serve as a panacea to replace environmentally destructive energy sources to environmentally benign energy. Hydrogen requires a massive amount of electricity to produce it. In its energy hungry production it is similar to nuclear energy which also requires more energy to produce than the energy gains it offers. Nuclear energy is simply not an option because uranium resources had peaked in the 1980’s and some estimates give quality uranium less than 20 years of commercial supply, far less than oil. Already materials used in weapons are being recycled as fuel source. It makes sense for Australia to encourage other nations to consume our uranium while we can because soon uranium will be worthless as resources decline in quality. It is more a reflection on Howard that he entertains the notion nuclear energy as clearly the industry is at the end of its relevance.
I personally find the criticism of solar and wind interesting. Already here in Australia’s rural areas we see many homesteads independent of the power grid relying on solar and domestic wind generated electricity. I assume power companies would lobby heavily to prevent urban Australia ns becoming energy independent. I don’t know why the Federal Government refuses to support solar and wind considering it generates innovation but also would lower Australia’s borrowings. Again it reflects on Howard’s poor leadership when it comes to Australia’s interests.
Hooker should emphasise that Australia’s energy adaptability will rely on energy pluralism, there are many sites adequate for thermal and tide power generation as well as solar and wind. There is also the option of changing culture as we have done with water restrictions. There are also the options of walking and cycling. Maybe horse, camel and cart need to be reviewed too.

West had this to say;

I personally find the criticism of solar and wind interesting.
Already here in Australia’s rural areas we see many homesteads
independent of the power grid relying on solar and domestic wind generated electricity.
end quote

It is true that a lot of homesteads are power independant.
However to think that *everyone* will be able to do this is la la land stuff.
What West is suggesting is what is known as the distributed grid.
Everyone generates their own power and stores it and it all gets summed
on the interconnected grid, so that if someone has an unusual demand
that night others in the community supply to them.
He may also be suggesting that everyone be completely self supplying.

There is the usual catch 22 involved in this.
First is there enough material available build the batteries required ?
Are there enough materials available to make the solar cells ?
Is there enough material available to make the wind generators ?
Are the manufacturing facilities able to produce this massive amount
of equipment and will the CO2 emmissions involved in manufacturing
the equipment be greater than building nuclear plants or continuing
to burn coal ?

It gets worse; Where are the technical people required install and
maintain the enormous amount of equipment ?

Perhaps you now understand why we have central generating stations
and electrical distribution systems. It is just so much more efficient.
Too many people just keep saying solar and wind without thinking past
the fact that it does work but do not think of the implications of
actually doing it for every house, block of units, shop, factory,
hospital, school etc etc etc.

I did not get answer to my challenge of How do we store such enormous
amounts of energy. West I think, suggested salt. What are the
conversion losses ? Batteries are bad enough but my limited understanding
is that chemical energy conversions are very lossey.

The safest thing Australia and the world can do economically, environmentally and strategically is to shift from a carbon economy to a solar economy. The Stern Report calls for low carbon emission technology but a rapid shift to solar with a vastly reduced time scale of carbon trading will address the Stern Report 10 year time slot the quickest way. Uncertainties as to how fast climate change could happen as there is evidence that some time in the past greatly significant climate change happened within a 30-year period should be borne in mind. Solar is the answer and not nuclear power. We do not live in a world that will support safe nuclear power. It will be a case of spending a few billions now to save trillions later. Solar thermal power is able to provide all power including the production of hydrogen for motor vehicles and the energy input is free and safe and nonpolluting everywhere and has not and will not inherit a polluted fuel input and despite the intrinsic safety of modern nuclear reactors, nuclear produced power has inherited dangers of rogue state and terrorist targeted nuclear fuel and facilities and has an inextricable link with nuclear weapons. Those who argue this would not be a concern and that this will all be controlled only need to look at history, the psychology of the human species and the present world state. For the first time in history we are now able to extract reliable power from the sun 24/7 by means of solar thermal technology alone. And solar chimney and solar pond are also part of the solar thermal spectrum though not directly involved in hydrogen production. Ten times cheaper slither technology produced solar cells which must be a mandatory requirement to be placed on every roof will greatly contribute to the production of power in the grid. The technologies are mature to do this, economies of scale, the true cost of pollution and further technological advancement will come into play making power from these safe sources competitive with any.

Molten salt energy storage for concentrating solar power plants is a way of storing heat for the heat engine, enabling it to work at midnight. It was demonstrated in the 10-peak-MWe Solar Two prototype, since converted to a cosmic ray detector. Its thermal reservoir was 1360 tonnes of nitrate salt, 60 weight percent (wt%) NaNO3 and 40 wt% KNO3, that melts at 200 to 220 Celsius and is thermally stable to ~600 Celsius.

Where applicable, it is highly efficient: most of the heat it gets from concentrated sunlight, it holds onto until the plant operator wants midsummer night heat. For solar plants not near the equator, it is not a complete answer. Guessing its heat capacity at 1 MJ per tonne-kelvin ... but I don't have to guess, data implying
1.38 MJ/(tonne K) are supplied by http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/events/doc/maccari_enea.pdf ... for a 1-GWe plant to fill 1 gigawatt-month of peak winter demand by pulling 3 thermal gigawatt-months out of its molten salt tank, reducing the salt temperature by 250 K, implies the tank holds 23 million tonnes or more.

Bazz asks "what do we do on calm overcast days?"

The chances of there being no wind or sun, across the entire continent of Australia are about the same as that of a nuclear power plant blowing up.

We can easily supply base load using wind generators along the Bight and Great Divide and solar plants in the North West, West, Centre and up the western slopes of the Divide. The setup cost is comparable to nuclear power, they come online more quickly, maintenance cost is miniscule by comparison, and there are no decommissioning costs as they do not create poisons that last for millions of years. people keep quoting 250,000 years but that is only the half life of plutonium!

Hmmm, just read the referenced molten salt system.
It does seem a distinct possibility.
The claimed 17% efficiency is probably high enough seeing that the
initial energy input is "free".
Someone needs to work out what are the losses of tranmission of power from
the best solar sites to the point where the load is used.
Additionally the suggestion that the southern coast be fitted with wind
farms may not be practical due to transmission losses unless very high voltage DC lines are used.
Will the enviromentalists object to covering
the coastline with wind farms ?
Whatever capacity is needed must be multiplied by four to get the size
of wind farms. ie for each megawatt of demand four megawatt of windfarm
must be installed. The EROEI suffers considerabley when that is considered.