Well he's right...people are not going to "stop driving their cars, flying overseas or heating and cooling their houses". People in developed countries have become quite used to all of these comforts and benefits. Despite all the lip service with regard to global warming they will not give these up.

So we come back to the cold hard truth, as we have in many other articles, that the solution lies in developing technologies which are seen to be more acceptable than fossil fuels. These technologies would have come along eventually anyway due to the decline in fossil fuel production. One positive of the global warming hysteria is the huge upswing in R&D funds for developing alternative energy technologies.

I remember reading once that President Carter put into place a system of R&D laws which provided all kinds of incentives for companies large and small to invest in alternative energy research. An example of forward thinking--visionary leadership even.
One of the first things that President Reagan did was to abolish the system(s) put in place by Carter.

The "free" market rules OK! Welcome to the bottom line.

While it is perfectly correct to say that there are no easy solutions, the article makes a very poor case against the nuclear option.

If you accept that $35 per megawatt hour is a bad bargain because it is based upon coal, why would $52 for nuclear be a problem? We have, after all, seen far more draconian increases at the petrol pump over the past few years, and absorbed them with little discernible discomfort.

Even if it is an interim measure to reduce coal consumption - say, for thirty to fifty years - it would allow time for the R&D investment to bear some fruit more palatable than those noisy, unsightly, inefficient wind farms that seem to be fashionable at the moment.

I think the likelihood is that we will burn coal furiously, even use it to make petrol substitutes as oil depletes, until it too runs out much earlier than people expect. Some are predicting that coal production will peak within decades, not centuries as previously thought. By then the world climate will be dangerously unstable though we will have many new nuclear plants in operation. The nukes will help make alternative liquid fuels, electrify transport and desalinate seawater to grow food. If there is no subsequent way of extending uranium reserves (such as breeder reactors)and population increases then I think it will be a Mad Max rerun. All the time I expect renewable energy to stay on the sidelines. That's the path we're on presently. We've already shrugged off early warning signs in the form of expensive water and fuel.

So we are finally going to talk about adaptation and mitigation - rather than debate the science or whether or not GW is truly happening - about time, I was wondering whether OZ was missing the boat, yet again.

We have to adapt to changing climate and changing conditions - let's talk about how.

We also have to reduce our GHG emissions in a growing world economy - let's also talk about how.

The answers to these two critical questions should be driving the discussion.

We clearly need political leaders with a vision, still up for debate and not off topic methinks.

Business leaders are there and no doubt new opportunities will arrive for others.

The scientists and engineers will keep making improvements to our capacity to understand and innovate, the economists and bean-counters will muddy the waters, not necessarily a bad thing.

Unfortunately, some with vested interests in "business as usual" think they will have too much to lose. So be it, they will end up losing. The smart ones are taking up the challenge, the wary ones are hedging their bets and the dumbnuts are living in the dark ages.

What do people think about geothermal power (the so called hot-rocks technology) as a provider of base load energy supply? It's there in plenty if we want it and if utilised, does not pollute or emit GHG.

Perhaps the solutions might come more easily if you looked for them? No mention of solar thermal power, which could compete with coal on a cost basis within a few years? No mention of renewable fuels? Fast pyrolysis anyone?

The real tragedy is wasting half a billion on clean coal when other solutions are potentially much cheaper and much closer to realisation.

I agree in one sense that sweeping changes to energy infastructure need to be made over the next 50-odd years to mitigate AGW. However, I think the author has gone reaching for the finish line before starting the race.

First and foremost, we must reduce our overall consumption of energy and dramatically increase energy efficiency. It is in this area that the "low hanging fruit" lies. Energy consumption and efficiency can be reduced by low cost, easy measures. An example of this is the reaction to the US after the 1973 oil shock. Between 1980 and 1990, fuel efficiency almost doubled (see the wikipedia cite for a bit of info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy).

Other such technologies that are cheap, and currently availiable include solar hot water, more efficient appliances etc. One of the simplest ways to reduce energy demand is to reduce standby power consumption. This is responsible for about 10% of household energy consumption, and can suck large percentages (as high as 13% of off peak load). And initiative to reudce standby power consumption (such as the One Watt initiative) can save a lot of power at virtually no cost to the economy. Actually, it may save alot of dosh!

As for nuclear power, I reject it based on three things:

1. It is not energy efficient. Nuclear material must be mined, milled, enriched and processed before it can generate electricity. All of this is very energy intensive. As is building a power plant. It can take as much as 30 years for the plant to "pay" the CO2 back. See the study by Storm van Leeuwen and Smith (2003) http://www.stormsmith.nl/

2. The waste. There is still no proven, safe method for dealing with the stuff.

3. Uranium is a finite resource. Based on current estimates, the stuff will last, at current rates of consumption, at least 85 years. New uranium deposites will be found, certainly. But in the nuclear renaissance, consumption will surely increase. It is likely that we would have only 100 years of fuel.

I don't think we can, or should rely on nuclear energy.

Fester, you are absolutely right.

We should be talking about all the options - not just nuke as per article.

My post is really to get the discussion going - thanks for being a part of it.

I would still like to see answers to probing questions though - "clean coal" is also not the only answer.

ChrisC,
I agree with your assessment especially enhancing efficiency of power use; if that is done immmediatly, it buys us some time. Its clear coal is going have to go and whilst I think that current attempts to find a way of using coal and reducing emissions is necessary; it still remains a temporary solution to a long term problem.

Nuclear power is out for the reasons that you have outlined. My pet power source is thermal and you hear very little about it; certainly not from our poltical leaders. It's a energy source dependant upon the gravitational dynamics of the earth and the planets in our vicinity; it is clean and available to all countries and economies, regardless of their development level. Its only by product would be steam and that can be recycled.

My concern with this climate change phenomena is the international ramifications of climate change. Some countries are going to come under incredible pressures as their populations retreat to shrinking land masses of their sovereign state. It will unleash a wave of massive global migration not seen since the days of the Roman Empire.

The economic costs of this change could easily push us into eternal conflict, war, depression, pandemic plagues etc.

If we can provide very cheap power to a place like Bangladesh, we can at least give their government a fighting chance to deal with the problem locally.

Only thermal power is accessible to everyone cheaply, regardless of their geogrphic location.

So difficult to get the solutions to greenhouse. Should we use solar, nuclear, hot rocks, drive less, turn off the lights? All very difficult decisions.

One thing is for sure, though. While we are working through all these ideas we need to make sure that we increase the population as fast as possible. Lets bring in as many immigrants as we can and lets give anybody who wants to have a baby $5000, as a reward for increasing the population. That will help solve our energy and greenhouse problems, there is no doubt about that.

We are humans. Our species is special. We've got to do everything we can to increase our numbers as high as we can. If other species fall by the wayside, or even if our ancestors fall by the wayside, who cares, we are the greatest and we need to try to make sure there are more of us great things on the earth. That is how you really make a great planet. You cram it full of as many of your species as possible.

Maybe we can reduce greenhouse a little and make energy last a little longer so that we can cram some more people on to the planet. That would be good.

Ericc

I am recently new to The Forum. From your comments above, is it your intention to derail the topic? Your point is?

Having a difference of opinion is ok - it doesn't help to be vitriolic.

To quote an earlier post of yours in a different forum;

"The easiest method for control of greenhouse emissions is population stabilisation. Stop the baby bonus and have net zero immigration. Then start working on renewables, carbon taxes, carbon trading, etc. Nobody has come up with a cheap reliable method of nuclear waste disposal or decommissioning a nuclear power plant all around the world. If it is so simple as the Ziggy Switkowski committee says, why not give us the details."

Please, if this is your contribution - say so, rather than making flippant remarks. If you have been there and done that, great - contribute again or stay out of it. But some of us haven't, on this forum anyway.

I appreciate EricC's posts. Invariably they contain material pertinent to the issue at hand. They are helpful to an unusual degree, for this forum, in their provision of good data and quality reasoning.
His latest post is to be commended for highlighting the hypocrisy which lies in debating the problems of energy supply and climate change in isolation from their ultimate drivers - the promotion of growth in consumer spending, and of its mutipier - population growth.

Colinsett

Thanks for the input.
Ericc’s posts may “contain material pertinent to the issue at hand”, but it certainly wasn’t obvious – I had to search previous postings from him – many wouldn’t.

I agree with you, we cannot tackle climate change in isolation. The answers to our problems are going to be found in how we adapt, how we mitigate against GHG emissions – these are the drivers. But, we clearly need political leaders with a vision (see my original post) and the answers must of necessity include debate of government policies, such as that (not clearly) raised by Ericc. Not entirely off topic.

We educated and industrialised nations in the West 150 yrs ago started to drive the AGW problem in a big way. How do we know this? Isotope analysis has proven CO2 from industrialised activity is the driving force behind the current climate change and 80% of CO2 hangs around in the troposphere for ~ 100 yrs. There is a lag effect between CO2 concentration and average global temperature.

It is the greedy and consumerism driven society that we are part of that has caused the problem. Today, most of the things we buy come from China – its “cheap” – we are driving China’s economic growth. Now the repressive policies of communism have been overturned (not necessarily a bad thing), China wants what we have – it’s difficult, but should we deny them the things that we want and expect? Should not we change our own behaviour and attitudes? Yes (this is where I suspect Ericc is coming from – but to target the baby bonus, skip a generation (or three) or encourage humans to stop breathing? While it might fix the problem of AGW – well, you get my point.

So; what about geothermal, solar-thermal, tidal, nuclear, et al?

As per previous post, I believe that thermal power is our best bet. With the exception of nuclear power it is the only one that can provide us a with base power load. Certainly, solar power and wind / tidal power can support the base power source and as time goes on and technology gives us better ability to store power, they may be able to provide base power loads - but not yet. Secondly, we need a power source that can be applied across the globe and is cost effective in all global economies. We must keep in mind that the problem we face is a global problem and although national considerations are important, we are for the fist time dealing with a 'global village issue'.

Finally, I hope this is not off thread but one aspect that we don't hear much about is the issue of transmitting power. We loose a lot of energy in this process and it must be considered, especially where some of these new power sources are optionally located some distance from the main grids.

As per previous post, I believe that thermal power is our best bet. With the exception of nuclear power it is the only one that can provide us a with base power load. Certainly, solar power and wind / tidal power can support the base power source and as time goes on and technology gives us better ability to store power, they may be able to provide base power loads - but not yet. Secondly, we need a power source that can be applied across the globe and is cost effective in all global economies. We must keep in mind that the problem we face is a global problem and although national considerations are important, we are for the fist time dealing with a 'global village issue'.

Finally, I hope this is not off thread but one aspect that we don't hear much about is the issue of transmitting power. We loose a lot of energy in this process and it must be considered, especially where some of these new power sources may be optimally located some distance from the main grids.

I agree, solarthermal & geothermal are probably the most desirable
sources of energy that are likely to be available.
I understand that the Liddel power station solarthermal system is
already producing steam and expects to start augmenting the steam
supply of the station quite soon.

Nuclear has possibilities, it is a proven system but has long install
times.
The solution for energy can only be for electricity generation by whatever system.
There are just too many problems of manufacturing and supply
for solar cells unless someone comes up with a significant breakthrough
in materials.
Forget about ethanol and similar fuels, they require too muh energy
input and anyway I would rather eat than drive.
Just today, someone was warning that our food prices will be adversly
affected not just by the drought but also by the US ethanol producers.

davsab thanks for your comments. Note: sarcastic and vitriolic are not the same. Sarcastic and flippant are closer.

The reason for my sarcasm was to make my point in a different way than I have in past postings, to see if a new way of making the point would attract any interest. As with previous postings it is not of much interest. Population stabilisation is too difficult a subject for most people.

Question: "Why are environmentalists brave enough to chain themselves to trees when bulldozers are bearing down on them, brave enough to stand in front of Japanese whaling harpoons to protect whales and brave enough to break into polluters factories to take photos and collect water samples, but afraid to admit publically that population stabilisation is important in solving environmental problems?"

Thanks for your support Colin.

Ericc

Many people do not really understand what it means to be an environmentalist.

Everyone should be an environmentalist, all else follows.

Environmentalists can come from diametrically opposed backgrounds, see Arnold Swartzenegger and Al Gore – respectively actor turned Republican and Democrat turned actor – both very ardent environmentalists.

Your question on population stabilisation must then become one of “why isn’t everyone doing something about this very important issue?” You’ve answered – “population stabilisation is too difficult a subject for most people”. More, it is a very complex issue (health, education, culture, resources, etc).

The ‘developed’ world has caused a GW problem. The ‘developing’ world is supplying our wants while at the same time wanting for themselves what we have. This is not environmentally sustainable – we need 5 planet Earths to satisfy our current wants – we (humanity) must change our ways – the difficulties will be how.

It is projected that world population (now ~ 7 billion) will stabilise at about ~ 9 billion by 2050, but hey, pick any number – that is still too much for this planet to support by continuing the way we do things. We can’t nuke a couple of billion in China, wipe America off the map or pretend Africa doesn’t exist – we (humanity) have to change the ways we do things.

Ericc, things are happening (with or without our illustrious PM – it would be better if he came on board of course).

The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) is responsible for monitoring the implementation of Agenda 21; an international blueprint that outlines actions that ALL governments, international organisations, industries and communities can take to achieve sustainability. These actions recognise the impacts of human behaviours on the environment and on the sustainability of systems of production.

The objective of Agenda 21 is the alleviation of poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy worldwide while halting the deterioration of ecosystems which sustain life. This is and of itself dealing with population issues.

True environmentalists are not afraid to admit publicly that population stabilisation is important in solving environmental problems.

Cheers

In fact, davsab, stabilising population in Australia does not require a complex consideration of "health, education, culture, resources, etc." It requires only a recognition that higher population makes living sustainably more difficult and that living sustainably is a good idea. Our culture gives education and power to women. Our health system is adequate and our resources (human and natural) have provided one of the highest standards of living in the history of civilisation.

If we recognised that living sustainably was a good idea and that we were chasing our tails trying to live sustainably with an increasing population, we would scrap the baby bonus and have net zero immigration. We don't recognise that and we don't pass that message on to the rest of the world.

In many poor countries, understanding the complex issues of "health, education, culture, resources, etc" is vital to stabilising the population. When the poor countries look to the high standard of living countries (like Australia) for guidance on improving their standard of living, they see us trying to increase our population. In my view that ecourages them to continue to increase their populations.

Can we look Nigerians, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Ethiopians in the eye and say "you need to reduce your population to live more sustainably for the future of the planet. We in Australia, on the other hand, need more people so we can be richer in the short term than we already are."

I personally can't. John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Peter Garrett, Peter Costello and Andrew Bartlett apparently can.

Ericc

I would like to discuss the issues you raise Ericc, you will find that we do not necessarily disagree, on certain points at least. However, you obviously want a debate with me, if not antagonise me – I don’t think this is the time or the place.

I really understand where you are trying to come from, I really do (and I assume now everyone senses your passion about “population stabilisation”, even Colin) but you also now appear to want to hijack the article (remember - talk of nuclear, alternatives, GHG, etc) for your own agenda. It really is not necessary and it debases the context in which the original article was written for or was intended.

There is no moderator to this forum and with a limited number of words, and postings (mine is now taken up by responding to you), what direction do you propose to steer the subject of the article if not population stabilisation?

BTW – it is a complex issue, there are far more eminent people than you or I that are working on it – believe it or not.

Regards

Are Algae the Future of Energy & Biodiesel?

Interesting article on nuclear power and its future sustainability...

Here's an interesting article/editorial on another area of alternative energy - oil & energy from algae. The editorial is essentially questioning why more focus and research dollars are not being spent on deriving oil, biodiesel and ethanol from algae...

It is interesting because the article states that algae appear to be the most biofuels feedstock, and is far more productive in terms of yield than palm or soy - in fact it says algae as feedstock are over 100 times more productive than soy! From the info presented, it appears that algae present the most realistic chance of being able to completely replace petro-fuels with biofuels. It is also interesting to note that the fossil oil we are using today was formed mainly from algae!

An insightful article for all those interested in suatainable alternative and renewable energy.

Read the full article from here @ Oilgae.com - Oil from Algae - http://www.oilgae.com/ref/oth/oilgae_editorial.html