I thought a couple of massive ice bergs showing up 40 kms of the coast of Dunedin in NZ would have got some peopl re thinking the global warming hype. Its not hype really… the pollies are just 20 years behind the game.
Please get inolved and informed.. A quick way could be to go see Al Gores movie ” An Inconveneint Truth”
Chistopher Columbus had a similar issue when he dared to suggest that the world was not flat…That caused a bit of hype.[upsidedown]Originally posted by Spanky:Well said Bryce,
I have done a bit of my own research on the viability of wind as an alternate source of energy, however, I feel that hydro-power generated by turbines installed across narrow coastal channels could provide a much more regular supply – the tide will flow as long as the Earth spins and the moon remains in orbit around us.
A broad spread of alternatives from the renewable sector, coupled with further developments in technology will help to cement their commercial viability.
I too have my own opinions on nuclear power, which I will leave until I have done my own further research into the subject.
Spanky.
Age doesn’t negate effort – you can never be too young or too old.
Tidal power also works well offshore on much of our coastline.
What long term effects might these installations have on the ocean and coastline though?
Simon Macks
Residential and Commercial Finance Broker
[email protected]
0425 228 985Comments may not be relevant to individual circumstances. If you intend making any investment, financial or taxation decision you should consult a professional adviser.
Simon,
You’ve raised a pretty good point about the impact such installations would have on our coastline.If they are offshore, I feel their impact could be no greater on the environment than the many oil rigs currently installed around our continent (North-West Shelf etc.)
As for onshore installations, I am sure the impact will be nowhere near as drastic as the possibility of rising sea levels that have been predicted over the next 50, 100 years etc…
Age doesn’t negate effort – you can never be too young or too old.
I agree with you Mpayne that modern coal fired power plants can be 45% efficient, Combined Cycle are even better: up to 65% efficiency and on natural gas. The point is: the old dirty brown coal generators will still be here for years.
Australian average industrial site is extremely inefficient and improving this side of the problem will generate significant GHG eduction, so we might not need to build next 45% efficient coal fired plant. Energy is too cheap in this country and the more you consume the less you pay for it, this is why there is no sense of urgency in the industry. We need finacial drivers and I believe the carbon trading on the international scale will fix the current price distortion.
I also agree that power plants don’t produce oxygen (I don’t know Mpayne where you got it from??), they actually do quite opposide, they consume oxygen, which then reacts with carbon, which we dig from the ground in order to generate heat,… the rest is simple. The point I am making: by locking CO2 under ground we are also locking oxygen, which are taken from the air. OK it is 20% compared to only 380 ppm, but as we already know, even small disturbance in the earth atmosphere can generate inrreversable changes. With less and less forests oxygen depletion can be significant. (Gaia, remember?)
Maybe we should simulate trees and build solar powered oxygen producing plants, then we stock pile carbon and store it under ground or burn it again, hence making no more contribution to GHG. Or maybe just plant more trees so they can suck more and more CO2, but probably there is not much free land left.
The bottom line is: if we only concentrate on the generation end ignoring consumption, we will never solve the problem.
I am not against nuclear, but why such a headache in Australia? Japanese or French would probably never built nuclear if they had plenty of other resources. But on the world scale, particularly for China and India I don’t see much alternative. Australia can sell yellow cake and make heaps of money.
Regards
Gamay
Hi Folks!
Bryce makes a good point on the need for a level playing field. I think industry are waiting for some certainty regarding future GH/energy policy, in particular the introduction of a carbon price. Once there is that certainty, and there will be (there has to be), I think we will see a surge of GH mitigation projects coming on-line in Australia.
Just to clarify your point on sequestration Bryce, there are currently 3 commercial projects and a host of pilot geosequestration projects around the world. The 3 commercial projects are Sleipner, Norway; In Salah, Algeria and the Weyburn project in Canada. There isn’t however a commercial, or pilot I believe, capture project in a coal fired power station. There are some planned though (check out the recent government announcements on the Low Emission Technology Demonstration Fund).
And on your point on the possibility of rising sea levels Spanky (love the name by the way). Sea levels are rising now and have been for quite some time. A recent figure I saw quoted a 20cm rise in sea levels since the beginning of the industrial age. This is due to thermal expansion.
You’re right Gomay, increasing efforts on the energy efficiency side of things is extremely important, and will certainly reduce the requirement for new generation. In fact, we can reduce somewhere around 30% of our emissions through energy efficiency measures. We also need a higher renewable energy target; we need fuel switching (ie coal to gas), we need more efficient transport (the list goes on..). Bryce is right, there are no silver bullets, but a range of measures are required to meet the massive amount of savings required.
As to the oxygen issue, I don’t know, there is a mega amount of oxygen out there! Around 20% of the total gas on the planet. I don’t think power plants would make all that much of a dint. But that’s just me..
Can we talk about nuclear now? [lmao]
MarkP
Hi all,[biggrin]
Please get inolved and informed.. A quick way could be to go see Al Gores movie ” An Inconveneint Truth”
Hi Cazmeister ; I hope my writing has encouraged others to see this movie, it presents global warming in lay terms and a DVD has now been released and I suppose it will be available for hire shortly. Another great source of information for those who prefer to read is “The Weather Makers – The history and future impact of climate change†by Tim Flannery.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/18/pid/5172.htm
Australia’s greenhouse emissions were 28.2 tonnes per capita in 2004 and is the highest per capita in the world To see how you can contribute to lowering the usage go to
http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/www/html/1517-home-page.asp
[As for onshore installations, I am sure the impact will be nowhere near as drastic as the possibility of rising sea levels that have been predicted over the next 50, 100 years etc.
Hi Spankey , I will leave the scarier bits till later.
Just to clarify your point on sequestration Bryce, there are currently 3 commercial projects and a host of pilot geosequestration projects around the world.
There isn’t however a commercial, or pilot I believe, capture project in a coal fired power station.Hi Markp ; I stand corrected, we even have one being talked about for Warnambool (VIC). My main point is that our federal government is deferring its options to the future, based on immature technologies ,I also can’t see coal companies volunteering to raise the cost of their product causing a consequent reduction in their use.
Spanky (love the name by the way)
Come to think of it does it involve bondage?[jerry]
Can we talk about nuclear now?
OkLoy Yang A is a 2000 MW brown coal power station located outside Traralgon in the Latrobe Valley of Victoria.. It is the largest single brown coal-powered station in the state producing 2,000 Mega watts(MW). The total production of the Latrobe valley is in the order of 8000 MW.
It is difficult to produce these amounts of power with alternate technologies; additionally there are problems with variability.
Denmark has embraced wind power more than any other country; however wind is only able to supply 20 % of their needs.
The UK leads the world in adapting to the challenge of greenhouse with some councils reporting a 70% reduction in greenhouse emissions.
France uses nuclear power to supply 80% of its needs and a mixture of other technologies for the remainder
The only ones that don’t recognize the seriousness of global warming are Australian federal politicians and George Bush (it doesn’t exist and we wish it would go away).James Lovelock is regarded as the pioneer of the environmental movement with the publication of his book “The Ages of Gaia†in the 60’s, his Gaia hypothesis is an ecological theory that proposes that the living matter of planet Earth functions like a single organism.
In his latest book “The Revenge of Gaia†he shocked greeenies by proposing that a massive epansion of nuclear energy programs is the only viable option to stop climate changes due the extent of the problem.Another prominent ecologest Bruno Comby, also suports nuclear and you can see his reasons here
http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm
Most Austrailians veiw nuclear as undesirable and express concerns about saftey,disposal of waste and bombs.The Chernobyl disaster and the Three Mile Island incident are brought to mind and fears of a terrorist attack also must be considered in the debate over nuclear.
However it may not be important what we think because, due to the latest IR laws, if the Federal Government wants to adopt a nuclear policy , then it can overide the wishes of State Goverments and construct them anyway.
Regards
BryceReplies on this site are intended as general information only, as any specific investment solutions/advice must only be given in accordance with the requirements set out in the Financial Services Reform Act 2001 and the ASIC guidelines as set out in PS146.An appropriate professional should be consulted for specific advice
Bryce, it sounds like you’re a tentative proponent of nuclear then?
I think when it comes to considering the nuclear power option in Australia (in the absence of any other existing alternative baseload power options), we should weigh up the costs for and against. There is no doubt that we need to significantly reduce our GH emissions quickly, and nuclear is certainly a way of making significant emission reductions (assuming we’re replacing existing coal-fired plant), if not all that quickly.
I believe the main weaknesses of nuclear to be (not counting the environmental cost of mining, as we’ll be doing that to meet world demand anyway!):
– Ethical/intergenerational equity/environmental/cost concerns surrounding waste management and plant decommissioning. Storage has always been, and will continue to be a major issue!
– Requires a finite fuel (I read somewhere recently that if the world was powered by uranium fission, our uranium reserves would only last ~10 years).
– Further investment in centralised supply infrastructure, to the detriment of investments required for distributed generation (ie renewables).
– High public and private cost. Where will funding come from, if not from government? Ie may encounter difficulties in raising investment funds, with little public confidence and higher risks and hence discount/interest rates..
It is these, and the many more issues, that we should weigh against the costs of not introducing nuclear power (as one mitigation technology among many), namely higher CO2 concentrations and the resulting warming.
I think that a lot more can be done in the area of energy efficiency, renewables and fuel switching (to gas) to reduce our emissions before we seriously consider nuclear. I believe by the time nuclear comes online in Australia on a large scale (ie in 20-30 years), we’ll have proven renewable technologies that can provide baseload power. But hey, it’s not about addressing climate change is it? It’s all about resource exploitation!
I say we leave nuclear power generation to the countries who already have it..
PS Bryce, you’re right, there is a pilot geosequestration/storage project occurring just out of Warrnambool (injecting ~100,000 tonnes over a 2 year period). The focus for this project is on researching a broad suite of monitoring technologies. There is also a commercial project planned off the WA coast (Gorgon) which was announced a couple of weeks ago. This will be the largest geo project in the world (ie ~3 million tonnes pa).
MarkP
As the saying goes,
"we don't inherit the earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children"
and about dimishing oil reserves,
"the stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones, it was because they found somthing better"
Everyone needs to take resposibility for their part in climate change, Make an effort to change your habits it doesn't take much.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
