Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Both parties promise obsolete renewable energy policies
I guess everybody picked up on the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released over the weekend. The United Nations Secretary, Ban Ki-moon, challenged governments to act on the latest findings.
The IPCC report says more heat waves are very likely in the future, that climate change is "unequivocal" and may bring "abrupt and irreversible" impacts, and that real and affordable ways to deal with the problem existed.
One would think that in our current election turmoil, how the parties intended to address climate change would be a major policy issue, requiring a major policy statement.
Life teaches us that the earlier issues are addressed the more manageable they are, and that stopping and reversing anything consumes a great many times the effort. This is so whether it is weeds in the garden, righting a tipping wheelbarrow, a cancer or a bush fire.
On October 26 John Howard (Backing a long shot, Oct. 26) pledged $75 million to the Solar Systems project who plan to locate a solar plant near Mildura in northwestern Victoria. If expectations are met the first power will come on stream in 2008, be fully operational by 2013 and if things go to plan it hopes to get its costs down to about $50 a megawatt hour by 2025, or so.
Note that this is a ‘pilot’, essentially an experimental project.
On 30 May 2007 Federal Labor announced $50 million to establish The Australian Solar Institute to deliver a global solar energy hub. Over four years the institute will aim to build a large scale Solargas plant; develop and demonstrate solar thermal technologies: develop and demonstrate solar thermal technologies; develop and demonstrate advanced solar technologies.
Labor also announced a $500 million Renewable Energy Fund to develop and deploy renewable energy in Australia.
On October 2 the ABC ran with Solar takes off with US power supply deal. Two of America's biggest power utilities have unveiled plans for a multi-billion-dollar expansion of solar power supply, backing the argument that solar energy can indeed become a viable alternative to coal-fired electricity.
Ausra, the company at the heart of the development was started by Australian solar expert David Mills, who left this country for California earlier this year to pursue the further development of his ground-breaking work.
What makes the announcement more significant is that the utilities are confidently predicting that their solar power will soon be providing baseload electricity - that is, day and night - at prices competitive with coal and the low cost of Ausra's new design is now attracting the big money:
"What's very exciting is major utilities in the US are now starting to believe our story after doing their own independent due diligence. They actually believe that this is competitive power generation. More importantly it's reliable power generation. We can ship them power when the sun isn't shining, which is what most utilities need."
Note that this company has contracted to supply electricity. It is not a pilot programme.
Simply put both major political parties are years behind where the technology already is. Their ‘policies’ are already obsolete.
If the plant being built in California was duplicated here it would move the debate on renewable energy sources forward by ten years and it would set the benchmark by which all future electricity generation projects would be measured, and render the argument over nuclear power plants irrelevant.
All we need is a government prepared to move immediately on the project, or perhaps a company, a consortium of fund managers, or just somebody with the profile to launch a drive for shareholders prepared to support such a concept.
I think that this is an area where things are going to move rapidly. The Ausra type plants will be built apace while the nay-sayers continue to declare that solar cannot produce a reliable supply nor provide ‘baseload’. The situation is akin to the development of the light globe.
Competition to build the first successful globe was intense and in 1879 when Thomas Edison impregnated cotton with carbon and erected a string bulbs around the block in which he lived, and hundreds of people were coming every night to stare, the scientific publications of the time were running learned papers explaining to the world how in fact this approach could not possibly work.
Once there are a few Ausra type solar generation stations running confidence in alternate energy generation will increase and other methods of generation will proliferate.
On another tack, watch for a rapid move to hydrogen fuelled vehicles. At present all focus is upon hydrogen to fuel cells driving electric motors. Very nice technology but it offers no chance of a rapid take up. However to have conventional engines run on hydrogen would cost no more than it costs to do a gas conversion. There have been some interesting developments in hydrogen generation recently that could make this a practical reality in a very short time.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Bill Gates Thought Bill Gates Built Bill Gates Won
That comment really gets to the heart of the problem. Growth to you means bad things. Wealth equates with waste. And yes it probably in some instances does - in many instances as I have shown it does not. And I certainly do not advocate business as usual. I advocate progressive sensible market change. I advocate enterprising entrepreneurship. If there is no need for four motor vehicles provide the alternative that betters this option.
The belief here centers on the wrong assumption that immediate forced change will magically work - it just has too. Make something illegal and hoping the problem will be solved will fail. It will fail miserably and have unintended consequences. The same way neoliberalism failed in Eastern Europe. Eco-socialists are making the exact same mistakes.
There is no reason why we cannot have economic growth and wealth without owning a gas guzzling vehicle. It only makes sense to have one at the moment due to lack of a competitive alternative. Free market capitalism, and individual choice, holds the key to finding that alternative.
The argument than of course enters the realm of if we do not do anything (working or not) right now, right at this minute, we are all doomed - fear is of course a successful selling tool. Personally I never trust a person that attempts to rush me into buying anything. If the alternative is a better product it will naturally win out - I will I assure you find it. If it is not a better product I want to know why and how that affects me. As an adult I demand the truth of both the upside and downside!
Probably More In Common Than You Think
Alga Kavanagh
What you see as junk others may see as treasure, and who are we to decide? People are indeed individuals and they have individual wants and desires. All I have ever advocated is giving them that choice. We all share the planet and it is neither your planet nor mine to own. If people choose to act in a certain way I say so be it. I merely contend that it is not my right to dictate what a person will find junk or treasure.
Growth is a hospital adding an extra wing. Growth is a school adding an extra department. Growth is even a solution to greenhouse problems. Growth is the desire of individuals being met. Growth is decided by the entire collective of individuals that share this planet. It has always and will always bring with it good and bad things (depending on an individuals point of view). Every action will invariably cause a reaction. Not knowing what that reaction will be is human. You take something like economic growth and frame into what you want to believe it means. I contend putting an artificial halt to growth will cause a reaction. My contention based on evidence of the past; the reaction will be more negative than positive.
Economics is study of interaction and transaction. Economics does not necessarily mean money. Indeed there are large periods of history where money (as we know it) was never used. Since the time man crawled from the slime a form of co-operation due to mutual needs and wants has been in play.
The John Pratt theory of halting growth yet conversely still growing the nice bits is not possible. Without eyes one cannot see. Without ears one cannot hear. It is not possible to both hear and see with one and not the other - economic growth unfortunately operates in the same way. So yes your theory on the Earth's population may be callous it is though at least honest. Politics is the marketing of a product, and of course only the good parts are marketed whilst the bad bits are papered over - the reason I too detest political organizations.
David R: not convinced we need the Business-as-usual scenario's growth to 4 times as many motor vehicles, though - don't know many cities that could cope with that ...
Continuous growth in a confined space is suicide
Good and Bad Growth
I don't see what is so hard about distinguishing between good and bad growth.
I don't see what is so hard about envisaging economic growth in a sustainable society. After all money is only what people say it is (economics is a subset of a particularly prevalent fiction. This doesn't mean it is ineffective - that collection of words "Hamlet" has effected more people than I ever will).
There is no intrinsic economic reason why people wouldn't pay millions to watch the Dalai Lama meditate. They will pay this for watching grown adults chase an inflated bladder. There is no reason I can see why economic growth can't be compatible with a sustainable culture.
The big problem as I see it is short sighted vested interests. These are the blocks to the transformation - and let's be clear they care nothing for the children that will die (that probably already are) and care nothing for what the old age of a good number of people already on the planet already will be like.
One hopeful direction is buying services rather than products. Eg a company renting recyclable carpet tiles instead of selling carpet.
The difference between good and bad growth seems simple to me.
Don't like dark Green.
“Economic oblivion will not save the world from any of its climate problems. Do you think there is an irony in you sharing your dark green enviromental and anti-growth views over the internet?”
There's no need to obliterate the economy, but there's a desperate need to obliterate economic growth to slow the climate problems and turn them around. Economic growth is a major cause, not technological progress or economic sustainability which will help us cope and hopefully fix it down the track. We need an economy to create the requirements for change and technological progress, how else can you control material evolution and make it worthwhile. Now we have the Great Southern ocean's absorption of CO2 dropping and warming faster than other oceans(ABC 7pm news tonight), as the engine room of our weather, who knows what effect it will have? Your worries, Paul, may be about the cure, but to cure something you must first remove the cause, otherwise it will only reoccur much worse. We see with this with the medical approach of treating the symptoms and not the cause in lots of human illness.
Irony, in wanting to save the planet, continue to evolve and progress the human race? As a semi retired hotelier, I can assure you I have no reason to hope this society will collapse as I have to many things I wish to do and money helps me do them comfortably. I live my life as responsibly as I can, utilising as much technology as I can afford and have no intentions of changing. I don't waste my money on junk and this election is the first time in my life I'm voting green. Some of their policies I'm totally against, but they are the only party who is actually prepared to face the facts regarding climate change and do something. I'm not happy about it, but there is no other logical thing to do, considering the approach of lib/lab and their infantile primitive behaviour. So the Greens get my vote this time and lib/lab goes last, as climate change is the most important thing confronting our future survival. Economic growth can wait, but climate change won't. Keep lib/lab in power and we are stuffed.
Good Luck With Your Dreams
Ian McPherson
I support neither so do not use projection on me.
Why are you against globalization? Seriously, what is your problem with the world behaving in tandem?
Price management is not by the way the same as a subsidy (which is a tax cut and I do support). Price management means price control. It means a select group of people (often not even in the market) decide on what the price will be irrespective of market forces. This has always ended in utter disaster. With something such as commodities it would be worse than a disaster.
Sure, and how do you plan on doing this? Trade protections? Which of course will dramatically increase the price of these items. Do you really think people will accept after so many years of low prices that extra impost? Of course you can always raise their work conditions and wages. Understand the inflation spiral, do you?
I certainly have not got a problem with such national schemes. As long as the goods are sold in a purely competetive market giving people real choice such schemes are often noble. For a wealthy nation with extremely low unemployment and an incredible high standard of living you guys do some complaining!
Who The Denier Round These Parts?
Alga Kavanagh: "You're in the right track for people like me, Eliot. I fully support your and others' denial and confusion as it's a positive step towards this living planet's survival."
The funniest thing is that nobody on here has ever denied climate change. People have expressed doubts about certain aspects; however, flat out denial? Not that I can recall. I actually believe climate change is underway, and I actually believe there are areas of world society that must eventually change. My doubts are about the cure not the disease. Economic oblivion will not save the world from any of its climate problems. Do you think there is an irony in you sharing your dark green enviromental and anti-growth views over the internet?
Denial is a river in Egypt
There is an irony here, and it is you, Paul. You, like Howard and Bush, represent the vested interests that we must be overcome to change our society. You, who argue that globalisation (and anarchy) will save us, when that is patently untrue, are the enemy.
Like Alga, I believe that we will gain much by bringing our manufacturing industries back here to Australia, so that we can be sure that we are able, at least, to supply our own clothes and shoes! Hopefully we can do much more than that, if we adopt a "Buy Australia" program.
Eliot's on the right track.
Eliot, I agree, alternatives don't work, they haven't worked for me during the last 30 years. I still wonder why I have them, it would be much better to be reliant on a corporation. I really miss fuel and power bills, blackouts and rising fuel costs. Everyone will be safe in a city, history shows us they never suffer calamities like the rural areas do, or those who have seen the signs and fled or prepared themselves. No need for change, vote for rotten Johnny or Kevin from heaven, they have god on their side so nothing will happen whilst Yahweh is around and has his followers in control.
A lateral appraisal of the situation would applaud all this opposition to alternative approaches to the future, letting people remain sceptical, turn their backs on the reality and do nothing. That way, the less chance they'll have of surviving the effects of climate change, peak oil economic collapse and subsequent chaos. A quick removal of humans in cities and living on coastal strips caused by rising seas, storms, drought and wild fires should slow the worst long term effects down pretty fast. You're in the right track for people like me, Eliot. I fully support your and others' denial and confusion as it's a positive step towards this living planet's survival.
demand management
Ian, as you point out, the Australian Greens want:
14. the reversal of Australia’s growing demand for energy through demand management and increased efficiency of supply and end-use.
15. future energy needs to be met using sustainable, renewable energy sources.
What forms of "demand management" are we talking about, here?
They mean artificially pricing fossil fuels out of consumers' reach, don't they? Why don't they just come out and say it? They mean "non-market" demand management, don't they? They mean rationing and price controls.
Like in Cuba, perhaps? As this Green website suggests? You know? How Cuba Survived Peak Oil? Doubtless with politically appropriate exceptions for those on important Party business.
What "sustainable, renewable energy sources" do they mean? And what of those that are not "sustainable" or "renewable"? They mean "leave them in the ground"? Why go on pretending otherwise?
If that's what has to be done, why not just say it?
RE: Demand Management
Let's forget the "sanctimony" post. I think it was an aberration...
Eliot, I think you go too far, although I cannot obviously speak for the Greens. But let's discuss your point on their merits.
Firstly, subsidies to the fossil fuel industries far overwhelm the piddling subsidies awarded to renewable energy, as a study by the Institute for Sustainable Futures in 2007 found:
Therefore, the market is already supporting "artificial" prices at this time, which largely promote the use and consumption of fossil fuels. To balance this we must either remove the subsidies on fossil fuels, to allow a level playing field, or increase the subsidies to renewables.
You're getting carried away, and I can't imagine why. We have to move this way anyway. The US will have to go this way too. It's only a matter of time. We have to stop using fossil fuels, or we will produce irrevocable long-term damage. The time may come, sooner rather than later, when the world will not want our coal. What will we do then?
Why resist this? Let's get into it, get really good at it – which we can do – and sell our talent and skills it to the world!
The sanctimony we had to have
"The principal reason the public should take the opportunity to kill off the Howard Government has less to do with broken promises on interest rates or even its draconian Work Choices industrial laws, and everything to do with restoring a moral basis to our public life."
- Paul Keating
One of the reasons Labor governments are so entertaining is the insufferably high opinion they have of themselves.
It doesn't matter how corrupt, incompetent or plain stupid they get, there is always an underlying assumption of transcending moral superiority oozing through their unctuous public posturing.
Paul Keating, perhaps the most affected auto-didact to have ever failed as Prime Minister, was the Peter Costello of his day.
His acts of public disloyalty to his own Prime Minister weren't mitigated in the least just because Bob Hawke was a bibulous popinjay and laughing stock.
And here we have the 'greatest treasurer in the world' smugly alluding to Howard's 'broken promises on interest rates'.
Remember Keating's interest rate regime?
Eliot, are you in the right thread?
Hi Eliot. Have you posted into the right thread?
This doesn't look like where we were headed here...
We need warm and fuzzy alternatives
"From now on, the quality of crude oil will diminish and become more sour and heavier, and oil discoveries will be made primarily in smaller fields, further and further away from the necessary infrastructure, many in expensive, deep water fields."
And this will make it more expensive, and make alternatives more economically viable. And to that extent, oil will be used less.
But that's not what the Greens are saying, is it?
They're saying 'leave oil and coal and uranium in the ground'.
And meanwhile, we are to 'invent' other unspecified means of energy technology sufficient to maintaining our living standards.
And raise global living standards at the same time.
You know? With windfarms and bio-fuels and tidal energy and solar cells?
That's what they are saying.
They just don't seem able to say how that's going to work.
The Greens' Energy Policy
Eliot, I think you'd better read the Greens Policy Statement yourself. They're not saying to leave oil and coal in the ground at all, only uranium, but they are interested in stopping the building of new coal-fired power plants, which I consider sane.
Read it. I copied it from here. If you wonder how we might do what they outline, which I believe is more than possible, post your thoughts here. I will give you some ideas that can work.
Okay Fine Answer Some Questions
The Greens' Population Policy
I have no idea. I've merely commented on the policy outline posted here. I'm not voting for the Greens in the Senate because of their population policy. I'm more interested in seeing them hold the balance of power. If you're seriously interested, contact them here and ask them. Believe me, you're more likely to get a reply from the Greens than from the Liberals or the ALP.
BTW Paul, nice use of red. I haven't seen that here before... :)
Nothing Is Mutually Exclusive
A Day Out At The Circus
Ian McPherson
The point being, fella: Nothing is mutually exclusive when it comes to economics and politics (including whole nations). The pipe dreams linked by Eliot Ramsay (the ones you seem so defensive about) will not eventuate because they are impossible to apply in tandem with one another in good-times or bad.
You claim to be a scientist yet you seem totally illogical. And you still have not explained (ever) any of your plans for a better future. This excludes motherhood statements, bold assertions that lead nowhere (oil will run out one day; WTF?), and vague policies you go off your bean about when parts of them are rightfully questioned. Apparently I am supposed to accept everything you tell me at face value, because you know?
Actually, globalization will be the thing that saves the world economy from a depression. I said there will probably be a world wide recession. I did not say it would be a deep destroying one - seeing that it does not become this way will be the challenging thing in the next year or so. Certainly policies that exacerbate problems will not be helpful in that regard.
Back into the circus ring...
Fella? Like in white fella? Your first sentence makes little sense so I'll ignore that. As to the Greens' population policy, you (and a number of others) seem to imagine they don't mean it, and would not attempt to apply it if they had the chance. I wouldn't bet on that if I were you. At least they have a population policy. Try finding one from the Liberals or the ALP?
I have never claimed to be a scientist. Provide a link, or provide a retraction immediately. As to being illogical, generally most of my posts can be comprehended, unlike a number of yours.
You mislead again when you assert that I have never (ever) explained any plans I have for the future. I have done so on many occasions. And I am anything but vague; that's more your line.
Your last sentence again applies more to you than me. I am more than willing to debate an issue. You're the one who drags debates off-topic, posts incomprehensible statements and presents yourself as an economic guru sans compère...
Crazy Dreams
Eliot Ramsey
This will truly be miraculous. Given by this time every Australian would have attended the Pacific Harvard and be armed with a laptop and ultra high speed connection. Just where are you going to find the workers amongst the international commerce set (known as selling shit on EBay)? Amazing also is the fact that so much of Australia's so-called good policies are framed around American institutions.
A sheer force of will. I really dig that statement.
I take it these people are the Australian professional class? It just never ceases to amaze me how so many of these so-called educated people believe they really operate independently from all economic activities. Like, the entire factory is bankrupt but I' am an accountant I will survive and thrive. I work for the government although they no longer collect tax (there is no longer any industry) I will survive.......
My guess is though, on discovery of some very basic and logical economic facts these people will play sensible ball. As a matter of fact I would be willing to bet that every single one of these people would stand on one leg singing the Star Spangled Banner whilst drinking a glass of water if it meant it coming between them and personal economic oblivion.
The policies of your links offer few positives for any person.
Best Laid Plans Often Go Awry
Ian McPherson, when you explain how the policies I have shown do not cancel each other out you will have earned the right to make derogatory statements toward me. Until that time mind your manners; lest I get annoyed.
The US economy will (and is probably technically already there) end in a recession. The depth of that recession is the challenging thing at this point in time. Recessions are never nice; however, at times they are a necessary re-adjustment. Certainly; not any person, with any brains, would be out there in any nation, celebrating this development. I can indeed assure you that whoever does end up leading Australia is going to be in for some very choppy waters ahead.
Speaking in Urdu
Lest, you say? Old English mixed with Urdu, I reckon. Look Paul, as usual I have no idea what you are talking about. And if you get annoyed, what should I expect? Harsh words, spears or swords?
Sure. So? What's your point? It might be more helpful to note for the readers that many of the US's trading partners, such as ourselves, are likely to go into recession too! Ah, the benefits of globalisation...
Hydrogen production
Ian, the existing systems that I know are working come in at least two variations. The basics require electrical current, stainless steel and water. They are running on vehicles with carburetors.
The new method of producing hydrogen that I referred to is totally different but uses only water. In neither instance is there any chemicals used.
Of course the process uses water, but if we run out of water then transport will be the least of our worries — if we are around to have any!
The vast ‘literature’ available on generating hydrogen in relation to using it to run motors is all but useless. Eighty-five to ninety percent of it is nonsense, and of the rest unless you have some experience in the process it is difficult to assess. Then there is the problem that many of the ‘authors’ have no knowledge of the workings and characteristics of an internal combustion engine.
That said the three operating vehicles that I know off were not set up by people with any great mechanical knowledge.
There is a parallel here with climate change. A massive proportion of the people who have heard about it, disbelieve that it is possible, or do not want it to be true. The difference here is that the people who can prove it are, to put it bluntly, afraid, maybe even terrified that the government and/or the oil companies might find out.
If the move to hydrogen is left to the major car manufacturers, hydrogen will be used only in new technology cars, with high pressure storage and needing a major distribution infrastructure, then we are 20 years from it having any significant effect. However should a reliable hydrogen generating system becomes available and the installation become a grass roots project the uptake could be explosive. It may even lead to major manufacturers adopting the process in their high tech vehicles.
Assume for a moment that the specifications for one of these units hit the web tomorrow in a widely diversified distribution, and that all the evening TV news carried demonstrations proving that the project was practical that evening. Now start calculating the consequences!
As an aside. Apart from solar power generation, which in my view is already proven in several widely differing forms, and wind power the use of which is so widely distributed that it must be considered viable, there is the option of using sea power in some or perhaps all of its varying forms.
That it can be a practical and viable source of energy I have no doubt. That there are more efficient methods of utilising the seas energy than those so far in use is, in my view a certainty.
(I’d better be right, I have money riding on it!)
That said there is a plant in Western Australia that as a by product of its operation produces fresh water. Now that is a neat trick!
If I thought I could get access to the plant I would take one of these cheap flights across to have a look, but I doubt that they are holding open house!
Did These Guys Write The Road Warrior?
Eliot Ramsey
Wow (Paul's eyes popping)! If Australia can find a leader to achieve such monumental feats in tandem; I shall prepare to repent and ascent. The true messiah will have been found, and the second coming upon us!
Being the skeptic that I am I would think by step four the villagers by then would have lit their wooden torches, gathered together their remaining ragged clobber, and headed toward the town square for a public lynching. Yes, I know, call me a party pooper.
Seriously, does Australia actually have a press? Do they (the journalists) do press type things such as ask basic questions? How could any educated person fall for that tripe?
Seal pup furnace driven technology
"So, what's your solution Eliot? Wait until the oil runs out and then do something about it, like the Howard government seems to be planning to do?"
I thought the oil is about to run out?
Isn't that what the Peak Oil people keep saying? I mean, oil hit $99US a barrel today.
True, part of that is merely an artifact of the US dollar itself sliding against the cross rates, and therefore anything measured in US dollars yet selling in an international market would get more nominally expensive when measured in US dollar terms.
(Iran and Venezuela recently tried to convince OPEC member states to drop the US dollar index on the assumption that calculating the cross-rates is too hard for revolutionary marxists and Islamists, but the other OPEC members just laughed at them)
Regardless, real oil costs would start going up exponentially when oil does start to run out.
That in itself would make alternative energy sources more economically viable very quickly.
I mean, real alternative energy sources, not windmills and ferrets on treadmills.
The Green aren't saying that we should wait till the oil runs out, though.
Or even wait till the coal runs out. Let alone the uranium.
They're saying we should have wind and biofuel powered cars (of all things) by 2050 even if there's oil and coal all over the place.
The Green's aren't too clear on how that would happen, mind you.
But however it happens, it will be a massive undertaking.
For a start, they are going to have to convince the rest of the world to go along with them.
Maybe they think Australian manufactured bio-fuel and solar-powered cars will be an export earner?
Australia is going to be a Green Detroit supplying eco- automobiles to the world at competitive prices.
Either because the oil - and coal oil derivatives - has run out and wind-energy and bio-fuel powered vehicles will by then become economically competitive.
Or perhaps because everyone else will have by then seen the error of their ways and will voluntarily give up fossil fuels.
In China and India and Brazil and Indonesia and, well, everywhere.
Because we've signed Kyoto.
My guess is the Greens don't think that is how it will work, though.
They have a different idea, I think.
My guess is the Greens think the 'massive undertaking' will happen because Kerry Nettle says it would be nice if it did.
Because being nice is what it's all about, really.
Here's a thought experiment for you.
Next time you meet a Green tell him or her that you are starting a pledge programme, like that one they have in the States where teenagers pledge to not have sex before marriage.
Tell him or her that you are asking Greens to pledge never to go on overseas holidays until someone has replaced jet fuel or marine diesel with some practical, bio-fuel of solar electric generated alternative.
And to sell their Volvo.
See what happens.
My bet is you average Green voter wouldn't give up international travel if Boeing Dreamliners and Airbus A380s were powered by throwing live seal pups into a furnace.
And they'd put their grandmothers in the green waste bin before giving up the Volvo or their architect designed house in Balmain.
But they'd be perfectly happy to see everyone else riding around on wooden bicycles and eating recycled plastic bags in the meantime.
Who let the dogs out?
Eliot, the oil started running out the day we pumped the first barrel. We are now at around the half way point, where the "cheap" high-flow, light-sweet oil is running out. From now on, the quality of crude oil will diminish and become more sour and heavier, and oil discoveries will be made primarily in smaller fields, further and further away from the necessary infrastructure, many in expensive, deep water fields.
We've been pumping and consuming more oil than we've been discovering since the mid-1980s. Some geologists predict that we may have 1990-level production levels as early as 2030, because field depletion is so high.
A weak US dollar will not help the US avoid recession, as this article by economist Ron Cooke attempts to explain:
The rest of your post was a meaningless, Green-bashing rant. Who are you barking for, Mr Attack Dog? Howard and the climate skeptics would be my guess.
Malcolm, obviously your Attack Dog article on the 2007 Climate Report will be a satire of some type. You hydrogen airship idea is, of course, idiotic. Maybe if we're really luck, it will be lightly amusing...
Paul Morrella, as usual you drag the thread off-topic and contribute little to either illuminate or educate. You're like a malfunctioning scud missile that won't fully self-terminate, re-launching itself off into another thread, only to dump some more irrelevant fertiliser and launch off again.
Then again, maybe you should prepare to "repent and ascend", as you suggest? Like an Anarchist Attack Dog with Wings, I guess, lofting off lazily to Corporate Heaven. At least you'd be out of here...
Cost it
Before you dismiss it, Ian McPherson, think about a total costing. It is technically feasible; all you need to do is cost it right out. How much do trucks from Port Botany really cost the economy?
We actually need some lateral solutions old chap - not derisive abuse.
Hydrogen airships and other dreams
Gimme
Give me your costings and I'll do the numbers. This is meant to be a rational debate about how we do it. The way that works is: first one has an idea, secondly one decides if it is feasible. The more input the merrier, Ian McPherson. Kevin Rudd's just been saying on the 7:30 report that he's prepared to take advice - so is any rational person but befor relying on it, it needs to be rationally evaluated. Always open to ideas, always thinking them up.
Wait for the Defence policy (providing Claude doesn't eat it or sit on it).
"Oh, Miss. The cat ate my defence policy."
Gimme what?
OK Malcolm, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you can accurately cost a hydrogen-transport dirigible, with onload and offload valves and efficient storage facilities at both ends of the journey, I'll be very surprised. Where they'll be made is another burning question. Would you offshore it to China?
Of course, before all those trivial distribution issues, comes the truly critical question; where are you going to get the hydrogen from? I'll be very interested in your answer to that question.
One thing though. I think we should consolidate in either this thread or your latest Climate Change attack thread. I don't care which. But jumping back and forward between the threads will split the exchange and compromise any outcome, I reckon.
On Austra & hybrids
Bernard: on my reading Ausra has signed contracts to supply, so it logically follows that utilities have signed the other side of those contracts and are basing their long term planning upon the expectation that the power will be delivered.
Unlike political promises, this means that various successful businesses have backed their assessments with cold hard cash. This suggests to me that the evidence upon which they are basing these decisions is substantial.
I have no idea what the time frame is, but building and commissioning a plant ought not take ‘years’. The fact that the actual generating equipment is conventional, or existing, suggests that the only area in which there can be any surprises is in the solar collection segment, and pilot plants have been built in the past.
As to the cost, whatever the variation is, it is surely confined to the difference between the coal handling infrastructure including the furnace, and the solar collection infrastructure.
Then there is the expected life of each plant, including maintenance, less the cost of fuel for the coal powered plant, and staffing.
( I am assuming that the cost on the downstream side, in distributing into the grid is the same.)
I would be really interested in seeing a breakdown of the actual figures, but on the face of it, coal cannot compete.
A further point that needs to be made. Coal, obviously has to be transported. So there is — must be — an environmental benefit over and above the operation of the actual plant. And if the coal is being delivered by truck, there is the reduction of traffic benefit.
Evan: to my certain knowledge there have been three conventional vehicles pottering around a small rural NSW town fuelled by ‘generated in the vehicle hydrogen’ for more than ten years. The one draw back is that the idling is a bit rough.
( I don’t see this as a problem. There are a couple of ways of addressing it.)
This bypasses both the problem of storage and the fears that this engenders.
Recently a Dr in the US, while attempting to generate something or other in a medical treatment unit he was designing generated hydrogen.
Interestingly enough he didn’t even know what it was that he was generating.
(I am in the process of trying to make contact.)
The significance is that with a reliable hydrogen generator that operates off a low current, a very small low pressure compressor coupled to a very small reserve tank makes conversion of conventional petrol fuelled vehicles a snip.
The other component is injectors. There is an Australian firm who have succeeded in designing injectors which replace a vehicles original equipment injectors when doing gas conversions, that work in conjunction with the vehicles original computer.
Assuming that they could be enticed to design similar injectors for handling hydrogen, the conversion becomes a low-cost operation that in all likelihood would increase the vehicle’s performance.
Assume Labor wins the election. Suppose that they had announced as part of their environmental policy that within six months of gaining office all ministerial cars would be replaced with hybrids, and further, that within two years all commonwealth cars would be replaced with hybrid.
Suppose too, that they asked all state governments and councils to follow suit, and as a bit of encouragement said that after the two years was up all benefits in vehicle buying, fuel rebates and such would no longer apply to any vehicle not a hybrid.
Suppose further that they then restricted all benefits attached to company cars to hybrid vehicles.
They would have been seen to be doing ‘something practical’ and within five years a ‘merely symbolic gesture’ would have transformed the car market.
So little vision and yet people refer to them as ‘leaders’!
Massive
Ian McPherson says:
"But a hydrogen distribution system of any scale in Australia would be a massive undertaking, either for government or business."
And replacing 90% of Australia's demand for petrol with renewable energy powered electric vehicles and second generation biofuels isn't a massive undertaking?
Not to mention everything else powered by fossil fuels?
Massively dumb...
So, what's your solution Eliot? Wait until the oil runs out and then do something about it, like the Howard government seems to be planning to do? How about something more productive than your usual cynicysm, eh? An idea or two might be good, if you can overcome your need to bash the Greens and denigrate the people looking for a viable solution!
The Greens. Lite - but filling. And now for some pie...
John Pratt says:
"If the major parties won't get serious on climate change, maybe it's time to take a look at the Greens."
Okay. Let's have a look. Here's their alternative fuels policy:
"By 2050, replace 90% of Australia's demand for petrol with renewable energy powered electric vehicles and second generation biofuels."
There. Simple.
You could power it by windfarms and use crops instead of fossil fuels.
No problem.
Now, what's next? How about population policy?
Here we go:
"Australia’s population policy should be determined by its commitment to:
Nope. Can't see any conflicts there.
Shallow response – more Greens' bashing?
Eliot, transport could certainly be powered by renewables, and not just wind, but by solar (small and large scale), geothermal, and many other forms of renewable energy. Batteries can also be charged locally, from renewable sources and not just drawn off the grid. But mandating a high level of renewable energy generation is a good start, and the Greens would do that.
As to your point on biofuels, it's just facetious for the sake of it. Second generation biofuels are not food crops, but waste or specialist crops on marginal land, and should not compete with food crops, driving up food prices.
I won't even be drawn on your population dig. It's too cynical even to comprehend...
The Hydrogen Highway?
Hi Peter. It's true that both major parties are brain-dead on renewables, but to be fair, you have to follow current developments with some vigour to stay in touch. Sadly, only the Greens seem to care to do so. Solar chimneys also have the potential for baseload power, as does geothermal and of course tidal and wave power. With our wide brown land and our population mostly on the coast, you'd think we might wake to the idea that coal-powered electricity generation is not only old-fashioned, but dangerous.
I'm not so sure about your prediction that there is likely to be a rapid uptake in hydrogen-powered ICE vehicles. The ICE technology is not a problem; as you say it is a reasonably simple conversion process, but the production and transport of the hydrogen is an enormous infrastructure problem.
Here are a few of the issues:
I don't mean to rain on your parade. Hydrogen is a terrific idea, which would help us greatly in reducing fossil fuel use in the transport sector. But a hydrogen distribution system of any scale in Australia would be a massive undertaking, either for government or business. And without massive carbon taxes, and/or disincentives to drive regular ICE vehicles, how will this ever get off the ground?
I don't know what hydrogen production system you allude to, but if it involves electroysis, we're also going to have a problem with water. Perhaps desalination is a solution, but the energy losses and inefficiencies involved in desalination, production, liquefaction, transport and distribution of the hydrogen are enormous – insurmountable I would think, in the near future (20 years or so).
The next step
Margo has not posted my attack on the Climate Change 2007 report and may not do so so you won't have seen the policy suggestions (all costed interestingly enough). But the next step from pipelines is to distribute the Hydrogen using airships (as we could do for freight containers in cities). You just need a concommitant, reliable supply of Helium.
Margo: Crikey Malcolm, give me a break. Been super busy today - Fiona will publish when she gets on. I'm not a bloody censor, mate, even though I HATE your piece!
The forgotten half?
Ian: Thanks! And I mean that sincerely!
You make the case for the other half of the hydrogen equation, that I never touched, much more convincingly than I ever could have!
Please take a look at my reply to Evan in Ausra & hybrids, below.
Then if you have further observations, I am very interested in reading them.
Hydrogen On-Board Production
Hi Peter. Most of the on-board Hydrogen production stuff I've read about has been produced from fossil fuels; natural gas or methanol, for instance.
I know that people are testing some pretty strange chemical reagents for promise, but they all use water as the base element. And we're going to have big water problems in the future.
More from Popular Mechanics...
Community groups call for urgent action on climate change.
If the major parties won't get serious on climate change, maybe it's time to take a look at the Greens. The Liberal or Labor party will not change unless we give them a jolt. Vote 1 Green and then the party of your choice this will give them a hurry up.
I hope you're right Peter
I hope you're right that we see rapid change.
My hope is that it will be fuelled by business worried about the price of oil and the costs of insurance. Like Alga, I can't see the politicians doing anything.
It's too late with lib/lab
The commitment to climate change and alternative energy should have been $50 billion, not a measly $600+ million. The lib/lab coalition give coal, gas and oil producers billions yearly in grants, subsidies and tax breaks to continue their planet-destroying practices.
We have all the technological requirements to make solar energy free within a few short years and change our ways from constant profit growth to economic and environmental sustainability. This will not happen as the enslaved ideologists and useless sheep of the populace will do nothing, as they are too gutless to stand up and take responsibility for their lives and our planet's future.
I laugh at these fools who put down the results of climate change and blindly support the lib/lab imbeciles who are the cause of this country's climate, social and coming economic dilemma. It just shows how really stupid the vast majority if the human race is, but as many believe in an illusional god, you can understand their approach to planetary collapse, being delusional.
Neither party has policies on climate change, in fact they have no reasonable policies for anything but themselves and for those who think they will benefit economically or materially. The problem is dumb and dumber (Howard, Rudd) just follow the same ideological delusional track, economic growth and control, with no thought for the real future. You can be sure if the scientists are right about the chaotic and catastrophic changes about to befall us, then the election of either lib or lab will ensure our ultimate and rapid demise. Remember Rudd's wife is a full blown elitist materialist no different to the Howard clan or for that mater anyone in the lib/lab coalition.
In Rudd's interview this morning and the Mormon (read morbid) brothers, Howard and Costello last night, none of them said anything about the reality of climate change and the growing environmental collapse we are beginning to see now.