Luciferase & David,
Perhaps I was not clear in my question.
I expected an explanation of how all the anti AGW programs etc
could survive in a zero growth world as CO2 emissions would continue.

To explain further, alternative energy systems require a significant
level of energy and manufacturing cpability.
This basically is a business as usual status, which we may not have.

It took a long time to get thru to you.

Stick to finger painting or whatever you do.

SM, what are you getting at?

The Braemar Gas Power stations are all stand-alone power generators, 200MW each turbine. They are all setup with the infrastructure for heat recovery boilers to be installed at a later date. They are all quick start-up turbines, from memory it takes about 20min to become steady @ 200MW.

The same for the mortlake power station, although I'm not sure what the output is from that plant.

These stand alone gas turbines have an exhaust temperature of >500'C. You're the engineer, what temperatures does one need to run a boiler?

This is not information I have from google, it's what I remember from being onsite.

While this precise argument is of minuscule importance in this discussion, I find it frustrating that you chose deliberate obfuscation to try and discredit someone presenting an opposing view to yours. Once again, Liberal through and through.

Bazz,
Are you saying a zero-growth economy must remain mono-dimensional, i.e. one industry can only grow if another declines? I can't answer the question if that is a condition. It's a tail wagging a dog.

Luciferase, If there is a fixed amount of energy available, or worse
a declining amount of energy then industry has to find ways to produce
using more manual labour or animal power or hopefully solar & wind.
The food industry would be a classical example of this.
However I imagine that food production would get a priority for energy.
That however means another industry must do with less.
So I guess your question;
i.e. one industry can only grow if another declines?
is correct.
Perhaps it should be considered as a rearrangement of priorities.

All this of course is dependant on there being no breakthrough in
alternative energy available for transport such as a major improvement
in power density of batteries and a major breakthrough in electrical
energy sources such as cold fusion or hot rocks.

Money is not a factor as it is only a convenient way to exchange
materials or energy and can be adjusted at will.

You said:It's a tail wagging a dog.

Energy is not the tail, everything else is !
Countries like Aus will with our good supplies of coal be able to keep
electricity on line and have the benefit of that energy a lot longer
than other countries. However we produce less than 50% of the oil we
use so we will need a major shift to electrical transport.
Some countries like China, Korea and India will be hit by this problem
sooner and harder than we will be and it might force them into
military adventures to overcome their shortages.

I'm not getting it, Bazz. Energy consumption is not limited by economic growth, it is simply commensurate with it, no growth = no increase in consumption, declining growth = declining consumption. The mix of energy sources seems irrelevant to this. What am I missing?