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 > Climate security, energy security > Comments

Climate security, energy security : Comments

By Jonathan J. Ariel, published 28/7/2008

Imagine focusing on energy security and reaping the harvest of climate security as a by product in the process.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
Mr Right, so if someone says it can't be done that's it we should all stop trying, this is a typical tory attitude, I would go so far as to say un-Australian.
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 28 July 2008 3:11:56 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
Ariel

I'm sorry but your implication that nuclear power is an intelligent approach is merely based on fact, logic and international experience.

The fact that we are well placed to use our uranium to make a proven difference should not get in the way of small solution technologies.

Oh how to power an office building on a dark winter's day goes to cold solar panels and noisy propellers of course - when the wind is blowing.

Banning new fangled airconditioners and 4WD's in the cities would make a rapid big difference but thats a none-issue.

Consultants, lawyers, accountants and stockbrokers already see themselves as potential traders in carbon credits. As with the tax system the smart money can minimise payments and find loopholes using these gentlemen. The Rudd Government will be praised by them and normal wage earners and home owners will be hit hardest. Good on ya Kev and Penny. Good equitable outcome mateys.

Meanwhile the French will wonder why we are not using the uranium Australia is selling to almost everyone except India.

So let's watch the Indians and Chinese burn coal and cancel out our carbon trade market policies. Even G8 can't stop those countries massively expanding but Australia's example will shame them. Australia is of course a significant example in its own eyes.

Lets ruin the Australian economy from 2010 or 2012 while watching the Chinese build at least 500 coal fired power plants through to 2018.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 12:03:09 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
David Howell and Carole Nakhle and this article have hit the nail on the head. Worrying about cutting energy consumption and reducing emissions as the primary goal is not the right strategy. To put our hopes on trying to limit the use of energy by increasing its costs and then hoping that alternative energy sources will happen is not going to work.

The only hope is to increase energy generation capacity but make sure that all the increase in capacity comes from solar thermal, geothermal, solar voltaics, wind, etc. The cost of all major engineering works in the past have followed a capacity cost learning curve. Typically we have found that a doubling of capacity causes about 15% reduction in construction costs.

We have an enormous capacity in our existing fossil fuel plants so these plants are not going to reduce much in cost. We have a very low base of renewable plant so they are going to drop a lot in capital cost as we build more. A rough assumption is that the capital cost to produce a kwh of geothermal and solar thermal is about twice the cost of a new fossil fuel plant - but once we have them built they are about half the cost to run them.

Assuming we have 100 times as much installed fossil fuel burning capacity as solar and geothermal combined it will take 5 doublings of capacity for these to have the same capital cost to build per kwh as fossil fuel and another 2 and half doublings to generate the same amount of capacity as our fossil burning plants. It is entirely feasible to work on a doubling renewables capacity each year and so within seven and a half years we will have reduced emissions to a net zero or eight years if we account for natural growth
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Saturday, 2 August 2008 6:23:40 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
“Worrying about cutting energy consumption and reducing emissions as the primary goal is not the right strategy.”

Absolutely right Fickle.

In fact it is a dangerous diversion from the issues that really matter.

There are two vitally important bottom-line goals:

The immediate imperative to make sure that our reliance on oil doesn’t result in a major fracturing of our society, in the face of rapidly escalating prices and…

The slightly longer term imperative to live in an entirely sustainable manner.

You might say that the first imperative is pretty closely related to GHG emission goals. Well, yes it is, except for one vital point; the motivation for doing so.

The motivation for us in Australia to address climate change is rather ethereal, distant and uncertain in its consequences for most people…and pretty meaningless to many who do believe in its urgency due to the overwhelming expansion in emissions in China and India.

But the motivation for addressing peak oil / the energy crunch / the economic crunch due to rising fuel prices…or how ever you might label it, is much more immediate and very very much more personal in its impact. So addressing this issue should most definitely be Rudd’s primary focus.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 2 August 2008 12:39:26 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

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