Base load power

[Peter Ward]

This is going to be hard to keep apolitical. Amid all the politik speak, I see that no new coal fired power plants are likely to be built in oz, and existing plants (like Latrobe ) will be shut down witin a decade.....begging the question with a rising population, where will the people of Oz get their electricity from?? Hot dry rocks? Gen V thorium nuke? ( yes Virginia, clean safe nuclear power, that you can't make bombs from does exist....it's just that they wanted to take the uranium option in the 1950's to, well, make bombs) Thermal solar? Funny I don't recall reading about any of these base load plants being constructed to date.....but would be interested to know if any progress is being made in these or other areas in Oz.

[multiweb]

A couple of Nuclear plants would be the greenest and the best long term solution.

[Peter Ward]

Id agree...thorium based. Oz could be a world leader, but would need to start now. I suspect the greens would scuttle any such plans regardless of the science.

[renormalised]

I agree, thorium powered plants....much, much safer than the ones working now. The reason why they don't use them now is as Peter mentioned. They criminally risked the safety of the public in order to obtain fissile materials for bombs from nuclear plant designs they knew were possibly dangerous if an accident happened. But the pollies and the military didn't care all that much about it and accepted it as a "necessary and acceptable" risk.

[renormalised]

That's a given. Their philosophy would be to go back to using two sticks and a flint for our power needs. It's what happens when you have people with no real social conscience or any understanding of anything that matters. They thrive on sensationalist nonsense, misinformation and double speak.

If you retire the old technology, you need new technology to replace it. If you don't, then what do you do. I doubt any of them would have the answer to that one, except more of what I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

[Peter Ward]

I must admit I when :doh: after I typed that... Apolitical yep. :)

[renormalised]

It's impossible to keep it out Peter, so why do so. Just have to be clever in how we present it...keep it within the context of the post.

[CDKPhil]

Now we have a carbon tax, the government should be able to afford some public owned nuclear plants.

cheers
Phil

[multiweb]

I agree. You need the greens. No greens and polluters would run amock. But people have to realise that nuclear is a clean source of energy. It can be dangerous if mismanaged or not looked after but it is by far the least polluting for the environment.

[multiweb]

I'm afraid it would cost a lot more than that. It's a very long term project but something that pays dividends down the road.

[renormalised]

That money will go nowhere near paying to build any new plants or going into research, despite what they might say. Ultimately, it will go into paying for our debt and to line their pockets. The only way to make them put the money into the research and into building anything is to hit them where it hurts....at the vote. However, the Australian public has been too brainwashed by all the nonsense that went on about nuclear power and such during the 60's to the early 90's to be smart enough to see that we need to change. Too much sensationalist claptrap and scaremongering has made everyone jumpy and nervous and very few actually know anything about the subject. Enough to at least make a reasonably rational decision about it. But "nuclear politics" was never about rationality and logic.

[renormalised]

They run amok anyway, Marc, despite the Greens. All they can do is make some noise and hope people listen.

Most of the time, the average person wont do a thing unless it impinges upon their own home, their security (personal and family) and their bank balance. Outside of that, it might as well be in the next galaxy...out of sight, out of mind. But that's the problem, you can't ignore it.

It's probably the case that nuclear power will never gain a foothold here, simply because the Australian public have been conned into believing it's completely unsafe on all counts. What are you to believe when you've been led down the garden path by people with their own dubious agendas and who rely on being very selective with the facts. Then throw in some misinformation and sensationalism to spice things up. Much like snake oil salesmen or TV shopping marketeers.

[DJDD]

this thread can be apolitical.
simply discuss the science and don't discuss political parties.
for example:

- is there evidence out there (ilot plant, large scale, papers) that give options for base load and what are they (nuclear, coal, gas, renewables)

- research dollars and subsidies, again our major parties have subsidised all types of power generation and research to different degrees then just say whether you think more or less money will help/hinder a technology. don't worry about wther it would happen because of a political party's views.


it really is not that hard to stay apolitical.

in fact, a recent thread did that for most of its life...
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=73194 (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=73194&highlight=solar)

[supernova1965]

Reality check has everyone forgotten what is still happening in Japan:shrug:

[multiweb]

No valid argument here. No nuclear plant of power generation plant from any kind would survive a tsunami of this amplitude.

[supernova1965]

That my friend is exactly my point:D

[AstralTraveller]

There has been plenty of exploratory/preperative work on hot dry rock, at least those in the ne of S.A., and I believe a plant may be technically viable. It seem to me the two biggest obstacles are the distribution grid, we would need 1000s of km of new power lines, and the water supply. Sure there is plenty of water up there now but most of the time it's like a dead dingoes donger. Of course, if they closed Olympic Dam that would free up some artesian supplies ....

Sad to say but I don't know enough about thorium reactors to comment, my fault I know but I'm far from alone there. The trouble is that people have been lied to over nuclear power for a long time and they know they have been lied to. So even if thorium reactors really are the panacea there will need to be one of the most effective publicity/eduaction programs ever to get the idea accepted. Especially so in the light of this research. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/07/11/3265013.htm

My apolitical contribution to this completely apolitical thread.

[renormalised]

Yes, there's plenty of science and research out there. However, unless you stay strictly within the bounds of the science and engineering, the sociopolitical ramifications will always crop up. People have opinions and they will express them, in whatever way, shape or form. The reason why this happens is that even if you list all the research and such that's been done, most people don't have the necessary background to understand much of it, so they fall back on what they know best and/or they will come at it from a political bent. Those that do understand it but also have a political bent themselves, will come from both angles.

[supernova1965]

The experimental station (http://ecogeneration.com.au/news/hot_rocks_-_heating_up_australia/002120/) that is operational is I believe self sufficient in water as it is a closed system the steam created from pumping the water down into the hot rocks is recondensed back to water.

[renormalised]

David (and others)...here you go....

Thorium Fuel Cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle)

[renormalised]

No, it's not closed.....if it was that would make it a perpetual motion machine, which the laws of thermodynamics prohibits. There is loss through leakage within and uptake by the rocks themselves. Not only that, the water in these geothermal systems is not ideal in that it can be highly corrosive. It's full of dissolved mineral salts which causes all sorts of problems with machinery and the plumbing as well as the efficiency of the water/steam flow and such. That's why they're so expensive to build....the pipes have to be made out of metal like stainless and even then the water will eventually corrode the pipes over time, especially at joints and junctions.

[multiweb]

And your point is? Use candles to warm up in winter? That's safe enough? :lol:

[stanlite]

the only problem with Hot rock power is it need geologically sable land mass to be viable (otherwise you have to redrill your wells after every earthquake) which is fine in Australia which is very geologically stable not so good for Japan ect ect.

The only really proven source of base load power not based on fossil fuels is Nuclear. A thorium based nuclear reaction is not self sustaining (therefore no chance of uncontroled meltdown) indeed the gen V reactors (which are still experimental atm as are all thorium based reactors lol) is designed to self distruct in the event the core becomes to hot (essentially the fuel rods melt the conduit supplying the power that causes the nuclear reaction in the first place) since a thorium reaction can only take place with the input of power (in this case a stream of neutrons to cause radioactive decay) if this conduit is cut the reaction stops immediately. I am posting a link that says all this in simple lanuge ... i had a physics friend explain it to me and show me the math but please god don't ask me to find the links lol

http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php

[stanlite]

oh i better add that thorium reactors produce significantly less nuclear waste and can actually burn plutonium waste from existing Uranium based reactors. Plus we have about 1000 years supply of the stuff lol and India and China are already building some.

[supernova1965]

Just not Nuclear Energy

[stanlite]

i would warrant that thorium based nuclear power is safer then candles:P

[multiweb]

No worries. So what alternative do you propose would be as efficient for a growing population with an impact on the environment of zero to none in normal day to day running operations? Let's include the impact on the environment during building the new power site too. That means how much ground surface is it going to take, what resources are needed to build it, what fuel will it use (if any), etc... Interested in hearing about ideas.

[renormalised]

Only one problem, the paraffin and wax they use to make the candles contains C13 and that's radioactive:):)

[supernova1965]

If I knew that I would be a Billionaire, but I suspect it will be a compination of technology to replace it if successive generations had looked to the future we wouldn't be in the spot we are in. I suspect that hot rocks, Solar, Wind are a good bet people say that these except maybe for hot rocks are not capable of providing base load power. But that is not strictly true you can provide base load with renewables like solar and wind because you use these to make Hydrogen and burn this for power generation and for fueling our cars. And the only thing that is released when you burn Hydrogen is water.

[DJDD]

true but since my post no one has mentioned a political party and the topic has just been about the science. :P

of course, we coudl just re-read the thread i posted for anything related to solar. :)

[multiweb]

Hot rocks as Carl mentioned has massive running cost because of the plumbing needing to be replaced all the time. So you need to burn something to make new S/S pipes and joins. I suspect a metallurgic plant running to do this would offset the gains from the hot rocks plant.

Wind doesn't work. The power generated from windmills is not stable and very inefficient, further requiring massive changes to the distribution grids. Ask anyone in Denmark. They actually had to run their coal stations twice as hard to compensate for the wind farms stuff ups. Cost and impact of manufacturing or maintenance needed to just keep the things going was a logistical nightmare. Again it doesn't add up. The impact of the environment is huge. Scraps of rusted propellers and other mechanical parts lying in land fills. That's why they're trying to sell the concept to the rest of the world. It's a white elephant. :lol:

Solar is nice on paper. Just not efficient enough and you need a couple (read s||t loads) of square kilometers to output the same amount that a tiny nuclear plant would produce for a fraction of the ground surface taken and a fraction of the cost.

Just being practical.

[supernova1965]

You completely ignored that you can use the electricity of all these renewables I mentioned to make Hydrogen then you can make Fuel cells that can be used in cars and even have a unit in your home to provide your own electricity.

[AstralTraveller]

Excuse me , Sir!! :poke:

C-13 is most definitely -not- radioactive. If it were I'd be out of a job. The radioactive one is C-14 and that is not an issue. We all contain about 0.1micrograms of C-14 and it does us no harm.

[multiweb]

Warren ... :rolleyes: How can you make an efficient fuel for cars with energy created by an inefficient source in the first place? Grab a calculator mate. :thumbsup: You're clearly not seeing the global picture. Heard about energy conservation? Carl will drop one in there I'm sure :)

[renormalised]

But that's an inefficient use of the power you're generating. Generate power (and lots of it) to crack water, to obtain the hydrogen, to burn as fuel, to create water vapour, which is several times more effective a greenhouse gas than CO2 is. Wonder what the greenies would say once they realised this.

[renormalised]

That's right...C14...my mistake:P

I'm half asleep here:):P

I know that, but it wasn't meant in that fashion. Only to point out that even something as mundane as a candle contains radioactive substances. Every living thing does. You can't escape it.

[casstony]

Having worked in publicly owned and private power stations I'd only support nuclear if it was publicly owned, for safety reasons. We also need to get as much as we can out of solar.

The thorium reactor looks interesting from a safety standpoint.

[Kal]

Do you have a link to this or is this just personal speculation?

In the government's own report from 2010 (http://abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_10/energy_10.html) they show that coal made up 72% of Australian electricity production in 2007-08 and this is projected to fall to 43% in 2029-30.

Also, the answers you seek are pretty much contained in that pdf. Alot of new capacity will come from natural gas fired plants, with renewables doubling in capacity over the next two decades.

[multiweb]

Gas is the next petrol. There's a lot of it world-wide.

[casstony]

I think using gas to fire power stations is wasteful - much better to use it for home heating and cars.

[Barrykgerdes]

With polititions like ours it will be inexhaustable:lol::lol::lol:

Barry

[multiweb]

:lol: Untapped resources indeed. Food for thought.

[Jeffkop]

Only problem is ... its not renewable fellas

[renormalised]

Yes it is, every vote time:):P

[CDKPhil]

I heard of a engineering firm in Adelaide that was working on a natural gas turbine generator for home use. Not sure if it was burning the gas to create steam or if it was burning it direct into a turbine. From what I heard it was very efficient and would be cost effective against solar, it also had the plus of providing base load. A natural gas powered generator for your home. If you put your mind to it it would not be hard to make one for your self.:)

cheers
Phil

[multiweb]

I reckon gas has a big future. Much easier to extract, cleaner to burn. The US have been drilling all over Alaska and Canada in the recent years, getting ready. Drill->Reach->Plug->Next. No more no less. All ready to build a production plant on top when need arises. Do we have much natural gas in Oz?

[renormalised]

Jet engine in your backyard...does it come with afterburner??!!!:):P

[renormalised]

Heaps of the stuff...some of the largest gas fields on the planet.

[CDKPhil]

yeah I think we do in South Australia, in the Moomba gas fields. We export it to china for about 5c a litre, or something like that.

Phil

[BPO]

WhisperGen. (http://www.whispergen.com/main/PRODUCTS/)

The model they are focused upon is the natural gas-powered gen for the European market. The company used to manufacture a DC version for off-grid applications, but I got the feeling they regretted doing so, and in fact are now using the Christchurch earthquake as a pretext for discontinuing that model. Bit of a shame, as I was quite keen to get hold of one or three.

[CDKPhil]

:lol: yeah and a muffler:lol:

[multiweb]

Man... we're idiots :lol:

[CDKPhil]

I would like one too.

[Barrykgerdes]

What do you get when you burn natural gas?
What to you get when you burn coal?
for a given thermal efficiency output. The production of CO2 is not that much different. Not that CO2 is any real problem because it gets recycled into vegetable matter. The hotter and wetter the climate the better it works. It's the other by-products of combustion that are the real problem.

Barry

[Paul Haese]

Nuclear my vote. Here in SA we have probably the biggest wind farms, a progressive solar up take, but this cannot be used as base load. Hot rocks will not be viable for at least 5-10 years according to a report I saw last week.

Two of SA's power stations are being closed down but it was not stated what is replacing them. I agree with Carl on page one where he stated, if you close something down it has to replaced with something immediately. I am not going to be happy with brown outs again, just because some pollie wants to close down a power plant to make a difference instantly to our CO2 output.

Action not words as I have said before.

[tlgerdes]

Bluegen is another one. EnergyAustralia/Ausgrid have one installed in their showcase house in Newington NSW

[marki]

Plenty of LNG in the NW of WA too but if you want it to be renewable well thats not too hard. Just feed me beans and I will give you all the gas you can handle :P;):D.

Mark

[Hagar]

I don't know what the answer is or will be for energy generation into the future. Working in this industry I can't honestly see any major moves by any of the current companies to step into anything new which is yet to be proven elsewhere first.
In the last few years there has been a big swing into wind generation but this has it's problems and somehow the technical workings of these turbines is still quite basic without any huge inovations. It does well while the wind is blowing but suffers when the wind dies.
The infrastructure to get the power from these farms is also very lacking, particularly in SA. The population base in most states is very centralised around our major cities and outside this area the transmission network is very basic.
I hate to think of the ramifications of several very hot days in a row in all 4 Eastern states with the shutdown of any of the coal fired stations which are currently in operation.

The thought of a fission based power station of any kind would be howled down by 90% of Australians even if it was some new or improved process. The education required would be the demise of more than one Government I'm sure and would probably see us governed by the some extremist group of some kind.

I don't know what the answer is but just fail to see what shutting down power stations will do other than insight fear in the population on every hot day during our summer. Energy companies will also suffer during these periods, big time.

[stanlite]

thorium reactors can be used to produce Hydrogen gas which is probably the only long term viable fuel source for cars (particularly since lithium supplies are predicted to only last another 25 years) can someone please get working on cold fusion please lol

[Jeffkop]

I think we can safely say the country has got con-fusion sorted out !!!!

[strongmanmike]

This thread is cool, after finally accepting a price on carbon is now a given and here to stay, we will all start to finally think seriously about what to move on too - hopefully it will be the catalyst we needed for finally making wide scale change and it doesn't get absorbed and forgotten about, time will tell I guess...

Mike

[multiweb]

... read 'force fed' and I sure hope it's not going to stay. Another 2 yrs :)

[strongmanmike]

I know what you mean, and I agree ;)....but even with a change of government it is here to stay for more than 2 years, so real changes will maybe happen in the energy sector now..?

Mike

[multiweb]

Changes are driven by R&D, technology and markets. Not taxes. But as you say the ball's rolling now. Time will tell. Interesting times ahead indeed.

[strongmanmike]

And that's what is being attempted with this approach - a price on carbon to be followed by a trading (market) based sustem, so all is not lost from your perepective Marc :thumbsup:. With a hostile Senate the new government will have a hard time changing the legislation (read impossible) so it needs to be in place early to align with this eventuality.

Mike

[multiweb]

The major flaw in all this is that we're in a global market and a lot of other countries, with a much higher carbon footprint don't adhere to what we're doing. So it won't make a difference. They don't play by the same rules. Do you know where the money is going? The UN?

[Hagar]

With a trading based system the only change will be an ever increasing upward move in the price of carbon. When all is said and done the real cost will be carried by the consumer and not by the companies involved in producing the goods. A trading scheme will only lead to further price manipulation overall.

When the electricity system was privatised the government of the day implemented a hedging system to regulate energy prices until the full implementation of a free trading market. In those days the market price of electricity was capped at $10000 per MWHr and the average price for electricity was around $15 per MWHr. With free trade and price manipulation by all the electricity companies the max price is now capped at $12500 with the average price at around $35. Forward trading on electricity for the summer quarter is running at around $45.
Previous governments implemented a scheme of Renewable energy certificates which is not dissimilar to the Carbon offsets being discussed here. The scheme didn't work, was costly to maintain and oversee and in real terms meant very little to any Electricity provider. Any costs were just passed on to you and me while electricity company profits rose by 40%. Funny that.
The big difference between the REC system and a carbon tax was that the REC's were just held in company and were not administered by Government while a carbon tax will be a Gov based system with taxes and payments going to Government.

Call it what you like it is but another tax we as consumers will have to pay in the end.

You can rest assured China will not pay any more for coal or minerals and any price discrepancy will be absorbed by a local market. They will not slow their growth by imposing a tax such as this and again Australia will be seen as a world leader, market leader in carbon control because we won't be able to afford to produce anything for sale in the world markets.

These third world countries will step over Australia in the rush to be inovative and creative while we ponder the costs of research and development. A small hand out after the tax has been paid by us will never lead to inovation just a trip offshore.

As for a hostile Senate. They come up for election like every other polly in the country and with time for people to understand the costs and lack of benifits of another tax, they probably should enjoy their time in office as it may well be their last. To have minor parties contrlling Government is the biggest mistake we or a sitting Government can have to live up to.

I wish them all luck, they are going to need it. Moderation is the key to good government and a small minority with power is far from moderation.

Enough said. Sorry for rambling on but I have seen it all before. I have a good friend who is an Ex Fed Senator who was as green as they come and he can't believe it either. And yes he was a Labour senator who left the labour party and went independant because the Labour party wasn't green enough for him.

[AdrianF]

Anyone hear about the Solar-Thermal power plant being built in Chinchilla?

Adrian

[Zaps]

Energy consumers are quick to blame energy producers for not sufficiently increasing generating capacity, but energy consumers can be criticized for their steadfast refusal to reduce their energy consumption. IMO.

[renormalised]

That is also a valid point. It's not just the big companies who are at fault, it's also those that use (or more likely abuse) the energy.

[Peter Ward]

Closure of coal fired plants has been widely reported.... one such example

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/plant-owners-open-to-price-talks-on-shutdown-20110710-1h8yx.html?skin=text-only

As for the government's report... I have a healthy distrust of most government sponsored reports and modeling. For example, the NSW RTA cocked-up projected traffic flows along the M5 east by a factor of 17x.
20% may be, even a factor of two you could forgive, but, over an order of magnitude and then some??

If I made a similar error, say in fuel estimates for my job, a LAX-SYD flight would come to an abrupt end just past the LA coast....

[Kal]

This is a good point. What good does it do to impose a carbon tax on Australian industries that consume coal/gas etc but the stuff we export, which is greater than what we consume, has no price associated with it?

Australian coal consumption 2008 - 145 million metric tonnes
Australian coal exports 2008 - 398 million metric tonnes

[midnight]

We've just finished bulding a new 2x230MW coal fired plant here in WA.

One needs to remember :
1. Coal fired - fuel can be stockpiled which increases supply security by at least an order of magnitude. You can't do that with gas.
2. Coal fired generation is electrically very stable and provides the Grid with the stability it needs. Most wind turbines need a synchronous generator on the grid to even work.
4. Coal is proven, safe and stable.
3. Wind and solar are inherently noisy from a wattage point of view. There is no strict grid connection requirement for small machines so there is no voltage/frequency biasing to prevent instabilities.

I think the future (20-50yrs) is in reducing coal fired (and still build new coal fired but using supercritical technology and not subcritical at the moment) and the rest made up of distributed renewables concentrating on solar and wind with the technology CSIRO are doing with short term "battery" storage to smooth out the fluctuations generated by wind. This has big potential in providing grid stable renewable generation and then would allow us to concentrate on a fair dinkum long term alternative (reliable and cost effective) to send coal to the museum exhibits after say 2050.

But personally, I believe deforestation is the single biggest short term impact on our climate - not CO2 which is why I think our politicians are barking up the wrong tree. It has a direct and immediate impact on temperature and altering humidity much more harshly than CO2.

Darrin...

[Trixie]

Leigh Creek is already pretty much a ghost town.... Back when I was working there half the accommodation was empty. Admittedly that was about ten years ago so things might have changed but it used to only supply the Pt Augusta power station which is purpose built to use the coal (low grade) produced at LC mine. In the case of the Pt Augusta power station I believe it is getting pretty old so we are due for a new power station.

I see gas as an important player, at least until a better, greener baseload alternative becomes possible for Australia. This would especially be the case for places like SA where the low populations make things like new gen nuclear not economically viable.

I am not at all keen on nuclear in any form. I think in Australia there are plenty of better alternatives and hope that the decision to phase out coal power will stimulate some new and exciting ideas for power generation. Of course renewable energy will mean I will be out of a job so I hope it will be cheap :)

[AndrewJ]

Gday Mike



Whilst i believe humans are a big part of the overall problem,
i really fear a "trading" system as the means of recovery.
Traders effectively brought down Barings and Lehmans and other banks,
and traders are "probably" behind the current collapse of sovereign countries.
They basically do nothing constructive other than gamble other peoples money and trim fees off as part of the process.
I see a carbon based trading scheme as the next "no docs" loans
system, generated to ensure that when the dust settles
only the traders will be able to afford petrol for their porsches.
Unless population control is brought into the mix
( wonder which party has the guts to do that )
its all irrelevant.

Andrew

All for saving the planet, but not by this method.

[qld]

:lol::rofl:
i hope all the ladies out there who wish to save the planet by getting rid of all that nasty filthy polutting carbon immediately surrender all their diamonds at the Carbon/Diamond exchange center nearest their capitol city or the one im that im setting up in Switzerland ...as John Simonds (Aussie home loans)says " I'll save you "

[Peter Ward]

Looking at the posts thus far, seems there is no viable base load projects being done. "renewables" taking on around half of the national grid sounds like green fairy dust to me.

Thermal solar could be quite attractive, but again work would need to be starting now. It isn't. Begging the question, how will a 24/7 base load renewable power grid operate within a decade when there are so few options based on mature technologies and no major works being started for semi green alternatives? (eg gas )

[multiweb]

I tend to agree with that too. We need to plant a lot more trees and in a clever way. Not too close together because we're prone to fires but making lines of trees in plain open areas would stop the wind from drying everything out and retain some moisture. Everytime I drive to Ilford I can't help thinking that all those open plains up to mudgee should be broken down in smaller units. It looks like a big yellow tundra at the moment.

[Peter Ward]

Seems I am not the only one who is questioning the viability of alternative base load generation. Victoria's Hazelwood plant is being mooted for closure or gas conversion..... With the Melbourne Age reporting:

''If it is a gas-fired power station, there are a number of questions the Gillard government needs to answer, including where will the gas come from, how much it will it cost, what additional infrastructure will need to be built and who will pay for that.''

NSW has just upped the peak kw hour tarrif to around $0.43 .... I suspect we haven't seen anything yet...as that is cheap compared to current renewables.

[Terry B]

Hydrogen has lots of problems as well. It is explosive at any concentration between 10% and 90% in air and burns essentially without a visible flame. As you know it is a tiny molecule and is very difficult to maintain good seals in pipes etc thus leading to the explosion problem mentioned above. The Kj per kg is not as high as other fuels used in cars so more needs to be carried. All these problems can be resolved but are expensive.

[Kal]

I really don't understand what you are trying to say here? It's almost as if you think that we should build something like the three gorges dam which will provide all of our country with enough power in a big project. Reality isn't like that, we have dozens of smaller power generating facilities operating in this country covering almost every sector except nuclear.

There are also many major works being started, with more than 20 projects commited at the moment and over 100 planned, and anyone who does 2 minutes of research will know this.

[multiweb]

The projections for combined Gas/Electricity bills for a 4 person household were $1.5k per year last financial year. I'm not a big power user but my yearly bill is more like $3k now and I'm not using more. I've actually cut down a lot if anything. Talking to a few mates in similar situation their bill is in the same ball park. So I really don't believe any of the numbers they're going to throw at us. Realistically it's going to double up if not more.

[Peter Ward]

I must be missing your point as well, the vast bulk of the above generation is non-renewable...or non base load (eg wind..no wind=no power )

Viable non-CO2 emitting power technologies are simply not there.

[Peter Ward]

Agreed! We have low energy everything in our home, yet even with a 2.2Kw PV solar system easing the cost, I still pay $4k a year ( ok we have ducted air ).... Yet increases of 40% or more are being predicted

[Bassnut]

Yes, despite a nation wide wind power grid in the UK (to hopefully average a good output) a few days before xmas one year, 2008 or 9 I think, output dropped to less than 1% of capacity. A joke. It buryed predicated wind patterns over large areas in one foul swoop.

[Peter Ward]

Interesting! Sadly Oz politicians sniffed at thermal solar some years back, and predictably lost the technology to China. A UNSW team did the ground work and for about $ 9 billion could have built a base load system that would have covered the entire eastern seaboards electricity load.....

[renormalised]

That's par for the course in this country, and not just for anything to do with energy production. The pollies are as nearsighted as you can get. There's also quite a few in industry that are exactly the same. Look at the Sarich Orbital Engine. He had to go to the US to produce it because no one out here would back his ideas up. Most of the solar technology the world uses was originally developed here, but ended up out of our hands because no one would lift a finger (or hardly a finger) to get it into production and fund further research. Then you have the Helicon Double Layer Thruster....conceived of and developed at ANU. A revolutionary new type of ion propulsion system for spacecraft. They had to goto the ESA to get funding to even get it off the ground!!!!. Most of the politicians and such out here couldn't even spell the first word in the name, let alone understand what it was about. Most probably have never heard of it.

Nope, all we are is a huge open cut pit so far as the pollies are concerned. Mining, agriculture and tourism. A hole, a few sheep and a couple of waiters is what we've been reduced to. What's left are process workers.

[blindman]

Yeah, for those who wants it, we have soulution - mini nuclear plant at your home :-)

[blindman]

At the end ALL is political, and that's what majority cannot understand (pushing their heads into sand), and at the end we will have to escape from "new age colonialism".
Clear skies Neven

[midnight]

This is why solar and wind and often defined by some grid connection codes as "unpredictable" and therefore difficult to model into grid stability calculations. It therefore can be ruled out as a base load.

As the thread title describes, base load at this point in time with our current pricing and regulations can really only be met by coal. I think there is still a generation yet until an alternative (other than nuclear) is viable in all facets.

Varanus Island in 2008 resulted in 30% loss in WA's gas and what happened, we were told to accelerate our coal fired project to meet demand. 1 accident and businesses and the WA economy suffered due to lack of gas - as I said you can't stockpile it and it is inherently more hazardous as a fuel. Therefore, I rule out gas as a base load for this reason.

I have yet to see one credible long term technically viable solution that is cost effective and safer than coal fired. The carbon tax money should be spend on possible sequestration or liquification technologies (eg oxy injection to recirc exhaust gas to concentrate CO2 - then easy to extract/store/whatever). Move to supercritical technologies to gain more efficiency.

Darrin...

[TrevorW]

Except of course if an accident happens :P;):D

[TrevorW]

But didn't someone say that the coal industry wouldn't be affected by the CT

or am I misinterpreting this as

"yeah we will still mine coal and ship it elsewhere so other countries can continue to pollute but we will still be doing our bit for the environment by not having coal fired powered stations"

[Kal]

While this may be the case, there are also 4 projects currently underway that involve gas powered electricity as opposed to "no major works being started for semi green alternatives? (eg gas) " which you state.

My point is that you make it sound like we are stagnant with our development, yet this is far from the truth. The truth is we simply don't have nuclear and some people seem to think that this in itself is a major problem, when the reality is, it isn't.

[Kal]

It's funny that while alot of the forum members here seem to think that we should get rid of coal and go nuclear, the opposite is happening in Germany where they have decided to close all 17 of their nuclear power plants by 2017, and replace them with......coal and gas powered plants.

[TrevorW]

Here is a paper written 9 years ago re why brown coal should stay in the ground

http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/tarlo2002whybrowncoal.pdf

The La Trobe Valley mines of Yallourn (http://www.truenergy.com.au/), Hazelwood (http://www.ipplc.com.au/) and Loy Yang (http://www.loyyangpower.com.au/) extract brown coal from large open-cut mines utilising giant bucket-wheel excavators, or dredgers, which may weigh several thousand tonnes. The coal is loaded onto conveyor belts for delivery to power stations. However, in a recent development the dredgers at Yallourn have been replaced by four large dozers. At Anglesea, Alcoa of Australia Ltd (http://www.alcoa.com.au/) operates an open-cut mine to provide brown coal for its power station. This power station provides most of the electricity for the company's aluminium smelter at Point Henry. The small Maddingley mine near Bacchus Marsh produces a horticultural product. Annual brown coal production is about 68 million tonnes, all from Victoria and with over 98% from the La Trobe Valley. Australia produces about 7% of the world's brown coal and is ranked fifth largest after Germany (21%), Russia (10%), Turkey (9%) and USA (8%).

http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/build/icons/uparrow_ms.gif (http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/education/fact_sheets/coal.jsp#top) Uses

In Victoria, almost all of the brown coal extracted is burnt to heat steam-generating boilers in electrical power stations located near the coal mines.

[KenGee]

Oh dear come on people do a bit of research. Maybe it's something about you coast huggers :-) . So called hot rocks have been used to power towns in outback SA for over 25 years. Overseas they have been doing for even longer on a even bigger scale. Thermal solar plants have been built overseas including by Aussie who couldn't get funding here. We had a trial plant being build in Whyalla it's run into funding problems. The problem we have is that our business can't do anthing without a government handout including building coal and gas power stations, and our goernments are useless.

This greenie would say to all of you the best thing we could do is start building houses that suit our climate rather then the Mcboxes you guy's stack on top of each other in your feed lots..I mean city's. I'll ignore some of the simply Tony /Mockington comments.

[Peter Ward]

Problem is Ken, the current Hot dry rock generators don't produce anything like what is required (about 30 megawatts, with "proposed" projects, still in the drilling phase, of, maybe, providing another 500 Mw.

Hazelwood (brown coal) provides about 2000Mw...so we are two orders of magnitude short on supply right now, but according to today's Australian Financial Review it is being shut down within 8 years!!

I think I read a figure of $94 billion to re-configure the Oz energy industry....but no detail on just what will replace it...

Closure of two Yallorn plants would wipe out 50% of Victoria's energy production in one fell swoop.

Perhaps, we'll be cooking by candle light and log fires :)

[Archy]

Coal fired power stations can be converted to gas powered with a considerable reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
Carbon dioxide emissions might also be sequestered thus enabling coal fired power stations to continue operating.
Thermal solar cannot be base load because the sun's intensity varies throughout the day and year and is zero at night.
Hydro power is available only in a few places and not in times of drought.
Wind power is variable and cannot supply base power.
So it looks like gas powered generation (GPG) but it will be dearer than Coal powered generation.

[Archy]

and if the Greens have their way, scooping horse manure off the streets as we travel. And shivering at home

[Peter Ward]

I was under the impession that thermal solar could infact be baseload and run 24/7, well, at least the thermal-technology that went to China....:rolleyes:..... as it worked by super-heating large quantities of saline which had enough thermal inertia to make turbine-steam until the next heating cycle.

[renormalised]

That only goes to show you how ill considered and knee jerking their decisions are regarding this. It's also a peculiarity of German politics as well, with the Greens having a very large say in what goes on in the Bundesrat.

[Archy]

and if the Greens have their way, scooping horse manure off the streets as we travel. And shivering at home

[midnight]

That's right. A high concentration saline medium was used as the energy storage with its high melting point and capability to extract heat at anytime day or night. Extend periods of lack of solar energy were supplimented by a heater and trace heating to ensure the medium remain "liquid" throughout the process.

I thought this had the most promise to bringing solar closer to "base load" than any other type of "off the shelf" technology.

Darrin...

[renormalised]

Some of the more extreme and fundamentalist greenies would also like to see a massive reduction in the global population too. But of course, they would be the survivors and elitist members of that reduction:):P

At least, that's how they'd like to think it will go.

[renormalised]

They have several plants of this type in Spain, generating quite a bit of power.

[renormalised]

The only way to safely and responsibly convert from our present energy generating technologies to the new ones we have (and others that will be developed), is to gradually phase the new in and replace the old over a number of years, even decades. If this isn't done with a bit of common sense and an understanding of the social implications of just doing things willy nilly (which is what will happen and is happening), then the consequences will be just a grave as if we did nothing at all. What the pollies and the greenies have to remember is we've been addicted to coal/oil/gas for over a century and we've built a society based on shortsightedness and greed (capitalism and "market" economics). It will most likely take just as long to wean ourselves off it and replace the present system with something else. But, we have to be willing to do so.

[TrevorW]

I've read that the EU is working on fossil fuel zero emmission power plants using cabon capture techniques

[Eternal]

Whilst I understand what you are saying you are forgetting that nothing comes close to the cheapness and the ease with which energy is released from fossil fuels. You simply have to dig it out of the ground and bingo, instant high energy source (ok, a bit of refinement if you want petrol etc).

The fact of the matter is that so long as fossil fuels remain cheaper and easier to use than the alternatives we will continue to use them. It's only when fossil fuels become scarce and its price becomes too high will the alternatives begin to make inroads and by that time it will be too late to reduce our CO2 emmisions.

Finally, when it comes to this persistant idea that any alternative energy source must be able to match the existing baseloads of existing power plants smacks of not being able to think outside the box. The future of energy supply will most likely be a decentralised model not centralised.

[Peter Ward]

I have no doubt that when a (green) energy source..whatever it may be... becomes cheaper than burning fossil fuels, it will be adopted.

Taxing individuals to reduce their carbon foot-print makes no sense to me.

People and Companies don't like their power bills and want to make them as small as possible....hence developing renewables that are cheap will guarantee success.

I'd suggest high density housing trends would make centralised power distrubtion a necessary evil for some time to come, as hampsters on treadmills are unlikely to help much in the interim :) ....I digress :)

Would I be happy being taxed an extra $2000 a year to fund cheap renewables?

Probably not, but it does make more sense to me than taking money (tax) from the top income earners so the lower income earners can afford to keep burning fossil fuels.

On bugger! Apolitical :doh:

[Eternal]

It's about levelling the playing field and making the cost of renewables comparable to fossil fuels to increase their uptake. The alternative is waiting 30 to 50 years when the price of fossil fuels will be too much but that will mean an extra 30 to 50 years of excessive CO2 emissions.

[Billyt]

If its not coal, it has to be gas. It will be the only possible replacement to base load electricity in this country short of breakthroughs in fusion power.

Nuclear only not viable due to the startup cost, as the cost of all the red tape to get it over the line in this country would be greater than actually building & running the things.

Remember the nuclear accident in Japan was from secondary cooling failures, the reactors themselves survived the earthquake and tsunami intact.

Back to natural gas, problem at the moment is the supply of gas is still tight in this country. We have large resources in ground but they need to be untapped. The focus for gas reserves is about to shift though from where I sit, from the offshore NW shelf to unconventionial gas onshore, such as shale gas.

There have just been some test wells drilled in the Cooper Basin that look very promising & may unlock reserves of gas & security of supply for the SA & East Coast for decades maybe centuries. Watch this space. Similar plans for shale gas in Perth and Canning Basin WA as well.

Call me alarmist, (I really think we have more to worry from an Ice Age cycle setting in, rather than Warming...) If there is some cataclysmic event such as massive volcanic eruption or large collision event which ment reduced sunlight for months or years, those solar panels and wind generators are going to be pretty useless. We might all be screwed anyway, but its a thought.

[Peter Ward]

I would not advocate Uranium based nuclear.

Thorium based, has minimal hot waste (equivalent to the volume of a panadol tablet per anum), with a short half-life. The reaction also requires an external energy source to be sustained (like cars needing spark plugs) so even tsunami's are not a problem.

Conservatively Australia has enough Thorium ( if fact the worlds biggest reserves) to supply over 1000 years of base load power.

Talk about a gift-horse staring you in the face....

[Eternal]

Well for my 2 cents worth I believe the future will be based around biological hydrogen fuel cells. We already have a variety of bacteria, microbes and algae that produce hydrogen gas. It's only a matter of time before these organisms will be successfully genetically modified to produce a higher throughput of hydrogen. Once that is achieved it will resolve the transport and storage problem that currently plagues hydrogen fuel cells.

Imagine if you could a power supply that works similar to a plant; only requiring water, CO2 & infrequent sunlight to produce on demand electrical power through hydrigen fuel cells and that is small enough to fit not only inside a house but small enough to fit inside a car.

[stanlite]

i am sure i am going to be shouted down but i am going into bat again for thorium nuke power. Just to point out the difference from the present nuke reactors thorium doesn't

1. produce material that can be used in nuke weapons
2. produces significantly less nuke waste and can be used to "burn" said waste.
3. CAN'T meltdown like present uranium reactors.
4. will cost significantly less (estimated cost for a 1GW reactor is 200million or something its in the article i posted earlier not the 1.2billion for present reactors)
5. its here now (other tech can take over in the future... well should take over)

i only raise this tech because it presents the most economically long term sound energy investment plan for the world (australia's fear of nuke power aside)

[gregbradley]

I wonder how many solutions there are already locked up in Oil Companies safes??

The Thorium solution sounds good. If nothing else the carbon debate has put attention on possible alternatives.

Greg.

[Peter Ward]

To add to the mix is fusion....

http://www.iter.org/

Sadly, while the French are looking to get first Plasma in about 7 years, this technology is not even on the radar in Oz....

[TrevorW]

No because the Govt does'nt have the balls to be proactive

you tell me why a country with 60% more daylight than Norway/Sweden has 60% less solar power

and I'll tell you because we've got 60% more coal than they have

the power come what may Co2 problem will only be resolved by a combination of all means of energy production

solar,wind,geo thermal,wave, ZEP coal, gas and even nuclear in one form or another

The United States Energy Information Administration (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/wiki/Energy_Information_Administration) regularly publishes a report on world consumption for most types of primary energy resources. According to IEA (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/wiki/IEA) total world energy supply was 102,569 TWh (1990); 117,687 TWh (2000); 133,602 TWh (2005) and 143,851 TWh (2008). World power generation was 11,821 TWh (1990); 15,395 TWh (2000); 18,258 TWh (2005) and 20,181 TWh (2008). Compared to power supply 20,181 TWh the power end use was only 16,819 TWh in 2008 including EU27: 2 857 TWh, China 2 883 TWh and USA 4 533 TWh. In 2008 energy use per person was in the USA 4.1 fold, EU (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/wiki/European_Union) 1.9 fold and Middle East 1.6 fold the world average and in China 87% and India 30% of the world average.[/URL]

(http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/#cite_note-16)
In 2008 energy supply by power source was oil 33.5%, coal 26.8%, gas 20.8% (fossil 81%), renewable (hydro, solar, wind, geothermal power and biofuels) 12.9%, nuclear 5.8% and other 4%. Oil was the most popular energy fuel.



Oil and coal combined represented over 60% of the world energy supply in 2008

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

[supernova1965]

Well I am not surprised if they don't show more of them after what is being dealt out to our government for the little they are doing in my book they need to go further while I see that it must be a gradual change over it must be started now (It should have been started a Decade or more ago) the government is being a little proactive and are being condemned for it.

Just on the news last night I saw some brave men from the conservitive side of politics pushing and shoving a green supporter and then chasing her down the street until she had to call the police and was in tears and frightened is that the way to have a debate that just says to me that they have no valid arguement if they have to resort to violence sure have a debate but lets not turn into a mob please that would be very UNAUSTRALIAN.


This is where fear politics leads and I for one am very sad the ones spreading the fear don't just talk to people in reasoned debate and avoid just trying to scare people for their own benifit and this happens on both sides of the fence both major parties when in opposition do it and it is just wrong.

[multiweb]

There's a bit of controversy and mixed feelings in the general public and media back home about ITER. I think the cost to date has been pretty huge and although the science always worked on paper they are now starting to think it may not be viable and as practical as what they first thought financially. Japan is a major player in it also so I don't know how the tsunami is going to affect this as well. I'm sure they have other priorities in mind right now.

[multiweb]

Wouldn't bother me at all. I grew up within a couple of kilometers from a large one. It's hard to miss them in France. There's probably one every 30km. :P ... and I'm still waiting for that third eye to grow... :)

[multiweb]

I think this might be another clayton plan to keep people happy. Couple of years ago the greenies kicked a stink in France because of the planning of a super phoenix plant in Britanny I think. The EDF (power company) spent billions building them a wind farm next door, that they knew wouldn't work btw, but it looked really pretty on the glossy brochure. That kept them quiet, they built the plant and offset the wind farm cost by selling electricity in only a couple of years. So now they have a lot of white propellers that do f'all. But hey it looks good. :lol:

[Jeffkop]

Not exactly on topic but never the less its certainly part of the discussion. Treat this as apolitical

I am amazed why no-one is asking the question.
Why the insatiable desire to bring this tax in right now ???
Why make things more expensive in these financially troubled times ???

I think if you can find the answers to these questions then I think you will be a lot closer to un earthing the real objectives here.

I mean even if your pro the carbon tax, surely its introduction should be delayed until the country is in a far better place financially to accept its burdens, especially in light of the fact that presently our contibution to the carbon problem is so small. (Thats assuming that carbon is even the problem.)

I dont think your going to see any changes to how the base load power is generated simply because the place needs the utility and there isnt any other way of delivering it in the required quantities. We are all just going to be paying more for the priveledge with little to no change in what ever is going into the atmosphere.

[Peter Ward]

Humm that's very interesting, as I recall they were hoping for first plasma in 2012....so clearly cost over-runs and technical problems are hurting support and progress there. (I seem to recall Sydney built an Opera-house that had similar issues... :) )

That said, the project is very ambitious and assuming they get it to run...clean power using the same process that drives our Sun... all I can say is: Vive la France!

[multiweb]

Oh I have no doubt they will go the whole nine yard. There has been already far too much financial backing into this project from many countries including the US and Germany as well. There is only one way to go and it's forward. I worked on the site on and off from 90 to 94 as I was living in Pertuis not far from Cadarache when they started and it's quite an impressive place. It's like a Disney World. Completely autonome. A mini-city in the middle of nowhere. Supermarkets, Schools, Hospitals, shopping centres, a whole infrastructure for all the scientists and their families. There are 100s of top scientists living there. I wonder if they do integrals and derivation in class for the kids starting in kindy down there ;)

PS: You can see the hole planned infrastructure here (http://aciers.free.fr/index.php/2009/10/28/iter-debut-des-travaux-au-printemps-2010/). It's going to be the scale of a small town. They started doing ground surveys and dilatometers tests in the early 90s. I was working for a building/mining company at the time and they were kept very busy. This project created a lot of jobs in SE of France, which is one of the worst areas affected by unemployment. So it is a major drive for the region of Marseilles.

[Peter Ward]

Well even Ross Garnaut admits any changes made by Australia will have little to no impact on global emissions....

I guess we'd need to start exporting coal to Mars (Venus has more than enough CO2 :) )

The CO2 tax to me is rather like fining someone for cigarette smoke while igoring the fact a bushfire is fast approaching...and then giving your cigarette to someone who can't afford to smoke!

[Paul Haese]

Marc, if fusion does get off the ground it will revolutionize everything. Space travel will be possible within the solar system. Cars could even run smaller systems. The trouble as I understand it at present is containment. The actions of fusion degrade the vessel walls really rapidly and this leads to high maintenance issues. Another minor issue though at present is the longest reaction sustained is a fraction of a second, although I thought I had read or heard they got it to 3 seconds.

With such an abundant supply of hydrogen on our planet, that could keep us going for a very long time. Hopefully this site will get it all going. Will the technology transfer be equatable though?

[multiweb]

When they started the project in the early 90s thay said they would find it within 50 years. That's their goal. The technology will be made available to everybody of course. There are so many countries involved and supporting the project financially. It is a large team effort. It does work in theory but they need to apply the science to the engineering and pratical part I guess. All this stuff is way over my head but as you said this will be a milestone in human history. A game changer.

[TrevorW]

Nothing proactive about imposing a tax ,they were being proactive by introducing solar system subsidy but didn't carry it far enough or subsidise really viable systems.

Proactive to me is funding viable alternative energy producing systems, reducing logging (OGF), looking at improved filtering on towers, reducing power wastage like street lights, demanding more energy efficient construction, reducing urban sprall, things that may be slightly unpopular but nevertheless productive.

[strongmanmike]

Many of you will have already read the report I am sure, so sorry all you anti carbon tax guys but the vast majority of economists think the currenly proposed Carbon Pricing system is sound economics and in fact good policy ...even more say the opositions direct action system is inferior and will not work ...so, if we change governments we would have a much worse system :screwy:...yet it is clear people would vote for them now because of the fears and inacuracies being pushed on them by those with little clue or who are missing the point. I think the whole confussion is a good example of how missguided adversarial politically biased opinions can make such a mess of what should be a very simple transition to good policy, that nobody will really notice as it is introduced but will be the start of a fantastic, over due, change in approach.

Bring on the Carbon Price :cool::rockband:

Was that too obvious? :D

[supernova1965]

But it is not just a tax dig a little deeper instead of getting stuck on the Tax there is a lot more to what they are doing than the tax that is only one part of the whole package. They are providing a 10billion (http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/renewable-energy/) dollar fund for funding renewable energy projects as one example.

[multiweb]

:rofl:

[renormalised]

Let's just see what comes out of all of this. I've seen plenty of big projects the government has touted in the past, and various agencies setup to run them...and what's happened. Nothing. What money was given was ultimately channeled via various sources straight back into government coffers with little or nothing to show for it. Let's just see where this tax money is going to go in reality. All the glitzy looking sites and bluster is just for show, to con you into thinking everything is going to be hunky dory and that they're really going to do something. Come back in 10-20 years and lets see what's come of things.

[strongmanmike]

I know... it is a little laughable...I just don't get some of you guys :question:..I still love you all :love:.... buuut just don't get how you decide on some things at times :shrug: (I am sure the feeling is mutual :lol:)

All good though :thumbsup:

Mike

[TrevorW]

Heads up

In the last few days, the airwaves have been drenched in spin about the proposed price on carbon pollution. Are you looking to get the real story straight from the source? Do you have questions you'd like to ask the government?

Then join us tonight online for a special live forum with the Prime Minister, along with leading climate climate scientists and clean energy experts.

The forum runs tonight,Thursday July 14th: 5:45 - 7:15 PM AEST. And it's all happening live online at:

http://www.getup.org.au/climateforum (http://www.getup.org.au/climateforum?t=dXNlcmlkPTQzMjkxOCxl bWFpbGlkPTIxMQ==)

If you're short on time, or only interested in viewing part of the program, see the below line-up so you can tune-in at the right time:

5:40pm-6:00pm - Professor Wil Steffen, leading climate scientist
6:00pm-6:30pm - Prime Minister Julia Gillard and GetUp National Director, Simon Sheikh
6:35pm-6:50pm - Ben McNeil, renewable energy expert

Throughout the forum, we'll be taking questions for the PM and the other panelists live from Twitter. Tweet with the hashtag #climateforum11 to ask your question and join the conversation.

http://www.getup.org.au/climateforum (http://www.getup.org.au/climateforum?t=dXNlcmlkPTQzMjkxOCxl bWFpbGlkPTIxMQ==)

If you can join us tonight, you'll hear directly from the Prime Minister, leading climate scientist Will Steffen and renewable energy expert Ben McNeil about what the carbon polution price will really mean for us. You'll also hear from some amazing young Australians about the most important issue of their generation.

[Paul Haese]

Hmmm indeed Mike.

Let's just look at this for a moment or two.

If the tax is to be effective, I would have thought and remembering from economics 1A, that the funds should be channeled into a scheme that would effectively reduce carbon output. Something like putting solar panels on every house in the next 5-10 years. Where people no longer pay an electricity bill (or at least heavily reduced) and the carbon output of the large polluting sources is significantly reduced. It is not base load but a huge output so much so that overall impact is great. Nope, what is proposed it to set up 6 different agencies, employ more people who use more power, paper and create a beaucratic sponge where all the money is sucked up and only 10% of the tax goes into renewable sources. Where the middle class will again pay the penalty for having a fair income. I seriously doubt that carbon emissions can be affected when nothing concrete is done to reduce them by the government who institutes the tax. I am yet to hear anything coherent come out of the Prime Ministers mouth about how things are going to be better for the environoment. No examples of how the tax will be paying for green energy, just condescending platitudes that assumes we all know nothing at all. The end user pays for the tax and the polluters pass on the cost to them to us. Paper shuffling, power wastage more talk and no action.

It's not the idea I object to; it is their usual implementation of policy that bothers me.

We loves you too Mike, we just don't think we all should vote labor;).

[Peter Ward]

OMG.

I clicked on the "2 minute video" and got more spin that full right rudder just wouldn't fix... :)

To explain...the video stated a "new climate change authority (full of experts) " will make decisions...

"Just like the Reserve Bank makes decisions in the national interest, rather than political insterest...."

As an importer, I can assure you the Reserve Bank's key role (http://www.rba.gov.au/about-rba/our-role.html) is to ensure a stable $A, at which they are woefully inept.

Our Peso has been allowed to vary around 10% in less than one week, and at present is allowed to yo-yo about 2% a day!

These so-called "experts" suck at keeping our currency stable.

To be blunt, I'd have zero faith in more rooms full of bureaucrats advising on climate change policy. :shrug:

[TrevorW]

Not my words Peter, just an email I got from GetUp

I for one will state categorily even having voted Labour in the past (but not the RH) as I don't trust her moreso than most pollies

that I'm against the Carbon Tax (really bad thing the Govt did saying this is a tax)

and I personally believe it will do little towards solving the problem but just piss a lot of people off

I'm a single income married man and all I've had from both Govt's over the last decade is cost increases year after year at a higher % rate than my salary can compensate for them

[strongmanmike]

Man, you make me laugh (a good kind of laugh) as I said all's good :thumbsup:

Mike

[Peter Ward]

No worries Trev :)

[multiweb]

Likewise. :P From my point of view you're living in another dimension.

[Kal]

I didn't know you were an expert in German politics!

A 30 year reacton is stretching the definition of knee-jerk though, especially for a country that was effected by chernobyl in 1986 and has a considerable history with anti-nuclear protests :rolleyes:

[strongmanmike]

Ah yes but my dimension is moving forward ;)

[Eternal]

The problem with direct action plans is that it requires government to choose the winner. The carbon tax, at least as I understand it, simply taxes excess CO2 emissions making it more costly. The market then decides which alternative energy sources to adopt.

[Paul Haese]

And; market forces have lead to where power, gas and water are at their all time lowest due to idea of free markets make for cheaper commodities. :P If you speak to any person in SA about things being cheaper since privatisation (and this is going to be like it once carbon trading comes into force) you might end up with something attached to you that was not there before. Markets deciding things is an inherently flawed assumption of capitalism. Many years in the future people will look up this idea I am sure as purely stupid (that being market forces controlling the price and that more players make for cheaper commodities). Sorry still not convinced. Put money into things for the people, not trading with gas.

[KenGee]

oh dear, can I sell anybody a bridge and a small music hall. A tax on carbon is the only way we can get our Multi-Nationals to do something. We didn't get smoking rates down by saying it ws bad for you...Taxation pushing the price had a far greater effect.

If you think that when faced with the option of a fuel source that was cheap but had health effects on it's users and one the was dearer but was safe then history has shown that Market forces will choose option a every time.
Market forces do not select the best path it chooses the most profitable one. That is why no Government in the world not even the Yanks want a unregulated market system.

[multiweb]

:lol: Yep, getting a big head I see. Which pollie said: "we were on the edge of the cliff but since then we made a huge leap forward." Same logic as the clowns in power now. :P

[Peter Ward]

Agreed. So we need some form of regulation.

How is: taxing people on over $80k and giving it to those on lower incomes, or shipping cheap coal/LNG to China, while we pay through the nose for it, going to reduce global CO2 emissions?

I'd prefer to see some realistic base-load technologies identified (eg Hot Dry Rocks, Thermal Solar ) then supported directly (I'd have no problem with an across-the-board tax) , as once the infrastructure is in, sunshine and geothermal heat is pretty cheap!

[TrevorW]

One must also ask will the corporations that are taxed actually do something to reduce emissions or simply pass the tax on to consumers via price rises and will the Govt regulate so this doesn't happen

[multiweb]

:lol: Of course that is exactly what is going to happen. The power companies and all the others will pass it on. The consumers will always fork out the bill in the end. And I have a sneaking suspicion all the CT money will end up in the govt pockets to resurface again in two years just on time to splash the voters for another BS run before for the election or even better, narrowing down the deficit they made to look good. You wait and see. :)

[GTB_an_Owl]

over 30 years ago now (i think), my brother bought a block of land at Tabulam (xelasnave country)

he was the first to buy in the street

to get the electricity on was going to cost an arm and a leg

so he decided to compromise and be a bit self sufficient

he has a wood stove (which heats his water - and mostly runs 24 hrs a day)
all his wood is scavenged from fallen trees that need to be moved from where they fell
he has 12 volt lighting and a 12 volt car radio (no tv) that runs off battery charged from solar panels.

to cut up his wood he has a bloody big petrol driven saw and splitter
he has a petrol generator to run his power tools when needed and his washing machine

he refuses to cut down any more trees on his 200 acres than is needed to protect his house from bushfire

GEE i wish there were a few more people like my big brother

geoff

[Eternal]

I'm not suggesting market forces are the be all and end all and nor do I believe that the choice between private and public is always clear cut. However in the case of alternative energy we're talking about new technologies and it's my belief that the carbon tax will go some way towards providing alternative energy startups with a level playing field to compete with the fossil fuel industry whereas before there was none.

The fact remains that fossil fuels will always be cheaper than alternative energy sources, at least for the forseeable future. The present system of subsidising the alternative energy industries simply does not work and the only way to resolve this is trying to make the fossil fuel industry begin to pay in the same way that other industries are required to pay for putting pollutants into the environment.

[Eternal]

I've no doubt that the power companies will pass it on. As such business and households will try to find ways of reducing their power bills. Whereas before the idea of adopting alternative energy sources such as solar, wind or hydrogen fuel cells had no business case, now it suddenly does.

Many years ago companies had rooms full of clerical assistants. Computers came along and replaced those clerical assistants. Now we have rooms full of IT people.

[strongmanmike]

...the Barnaby and Abbott circus :nerd:

OK, ok, enough's enough, hit me back and then we'll call it quits :lol:

[TrevorW]

[QUOTE=Eternal;743676]I've no doubt that the power companies will pass it on. As such business and households will try to find ways of reducing their power bills. Whereas before the idea of adopting alternative energy sources such as solar, wind or hydrogen fuel cells had no business case, now it suddenly does.

This is the 21st century people shouldn't be forced to revert to putting on piles of clothes to keep warm or being uncomfortable when it's hot just to save power

[supernova1965]

But I know people and I am sure you do too that have their aircon on 24/7 365 days of the year surely this is not needed. Either cooling or heating:screwy:

[Trixie]

So do I. One of my work mates used to have his aircon running most of the time. His family was generally only at home between 7pm and 7am but they didn't like coming home and waiting for the house to warm or cool so they left it running all of the time. Not just in the rooms they used either, in every room of their two story mcmansion. They also ran the pool heater all year round even though they never used it unless it was more than 30 degrees outside. When asked why he was so wasteful his answer "because I can".

[Hagar]

[QUOTE=supernova1965;743721]

I think you are making a lot of assumptions here Warren. I have a 93 year old mother who would fall into the category you are talking about. At 93 her body is not capable of controlling it's core temprature as well as yours and after working for 50 years why shouldn't she be comfortable, after all near every big office building in the country runs it's climate control system 24/7 even when empty.

I think the overall thought of improving the world we live in is a great idea but to impose a new tax on a very limitted few is a very unrealistic approach to fixing whatever aills us.
Education and inovation is the key to improvements in our world not the imposition of a new tax.
Companies all over Australia are running round like headless chooks trying to work out how they can get hold of this money. They are starting new departments to just fathom out how when and where.

To say that this will lead to new inovation within our power industry is rubbish. Most of the money will be absorbed in management and operational costs.
I work for an energy company which has been one of the leaders in renewable energy development for many years and new sections and departments have already been established to absorb this windfall for them. The big question is how much will actually hit the table and go into inovation or will we just see more of the same.

A tax on the working rich sounds good but the sit at home bludgers of the world will still just sit back and have a ball with no incentive to do anything. There are much bigger problems to overcome than Australias tiny involvement in climate change.

We treat our pensioners worse than we treat terrorists. At least a terrorist in jail gets 3 square meals a day.

Time Australia looked seriously at the way we are governed or should I say overgoverned. Local shires, State governments, Fedral Government. Lots of government but not a whole lot to show for it. Most of our minerals go offshore, gas goes offshore, wood goes offshore, seems like we are being raped of our natural resources and government just sit back and allow it to happen and when they need another dollars for another luncheon with an Indian or Chinese diplomat the slug our workers with another tax.

I, for one am sick of paying for some shinny arses lunch each day. Over my entire working life have NEVER received a cent from Government towards any of my expences. I have always earned too much to get any hand outs but can honestly say I have paid plenty towards others hand outs.

I have worked long hours, educated my children to benifit this country, have paid significant tax throughout the years and am sick of being part of the Governments bank balance and lunch money.

If this is political TOUGH.

[Peter Ward]

[QUOTE=TrevorW;743710]

Agreed, artificially making the cost of power higher through a tax is a very odd way to make it cheaper.

I have yet to see a case as to why should Australians pay more for their coal fired energy than users of the same caol, eg. China.

Australian R&D has been chronically underfunded by successive governments...who shold hang their heads in shame on this front.

Seems we are happy to pay footballers 6 digit salaries, while young Ph.d students and even post Don's...people who have the potential to really change the nation's energy production methods, get paid peanuts by comparasion.

[Jeffkop]

I hears ya Dougie ... I hears ya.

Isnt it interesting tho, how you can have such polarized view points in these types of debates. One side sees the absolute solution ineffective but money grabbing slant and the other sees the exact opposite all totally committed in their opinions.

[renormalised]

I like to keep my eye on different countries parliaments and what's happening. Especially in places where I have rellies. But, I'm no "expert". I just have a fairly keen interest in what's going on. So please, no more throwaway lines.

And do you know why the anti-nuclear movement in Germany was/is so strong?? The present reaction is hardly a 30 year movement of opinion about nuke reactors. Despite their nervousness about nukes, actually in the last 40 or more years, they still built nuclear plants. However, since the Green Party in Germany has had some influence in the politics of the country, the push towards no nukes has gathered pace. They already had a schedule with the decommissioning of older nuclear plants and the eventual replacement of all of them. Now, since Fukushima, that's been rapidly pushed along because of the reaction to the way the plants handled the disaster. Fair enough, but a little hasty if you ask me.

So, what are they going to replace them with....coal and gas fired plants. How "smart" or "green" is that!!!!. Rip out the nukes, only to replace them with the technology that's causing all the trouble and the angst so far as everything else is concerned. Really stupid.

[Hagar]

Interesting debate or at least discussion. For me though I have a distinct distrust for our political parties. Both sides of politics seem to be only interested in the power and prestige that goes ith their positions.

It would be interesting to actually get a political party which actually had a mandate to correct what was wrong and did it without continually needing money from us all. We are in my opinion, over taxed, over governed and over burdened with political speak to a point where a minor party as in the Greens can dictate to the Government of the day on matters which are detrimental to our way of life.

We should be self sufficient and a very wealthy country with resources and the like but are now being considered as fools by the likes of India and China who continue to rape and pillage as they see fit.

Our pensioners already eat rice as a staple and the way we are heading the rest of us won't be far behind. China will have our steak and we will have their Rice. I'm glad I'm getting old but God help our kids.

[marki]

Things will only change when we stop voting for bloody lawyers. Only then will political decisions start to make sense for the rest of us. :P;):D


Mark

[Peter Ward]

If you have 15 minutes, this is a very cool video on the merits of Thorium based energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk

Australia has the worlds biggest reserves of the stuff. One wonders when the Arts-law-media types will finally get this on their radar....

[renormalised]

Probably never.....I doubt they've even heard of Thorium. If they have, they probably think it's some type of medicine:):P

Or something to do with the movie, Thor:):P

[Peter Ward]

If you think Australia could benefit from thorium power, well, tell people. Discuss it at the table, in the pub, email the media and your local MP.

Make up a web site. Facebook and twitter it. Get it out there.

BTW.... Has anyone noticed to help people on low incomes with the carbon tax, middle income tax rates are going up?

[marki]

Yes it is called a double whammy, everyone can now be poor except the few elite.

Mark

[renormalised]

It's always the way....help out their rich mates and shaft everyone else, including those they want you to think they're helping out.

[Hagar]

I have just had a look at the climate change website. Looks like I am one of the fortunate few. I get to work 0n average 55 hours per week, I get to pay during the 2011-2012 tax year a tax to rebuild QLD of about $750 then in the next year I also get to pay an estimated $745 for carbon and the government kindly privide me with a $3 tax subsidy for the year. (directly from their estimator) https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/household-assistance-estimator/
Also included is the fact that the website provides assistance for energy saving products and services but we are sorry the $300,000,000 alocated for this is only for low income households and you don't qualify. Seems like I am just very fortunate and get to support lots of nuf nufs who don't want to work. Maybe I better up my hours to 60/week to keep another family warm. I won't need heating because I'll be at work.

If all this crap is fair and just I'll go he.

I don't particularly like any of the political parties but have in the past always voted Labour. That regime just ended. Liberal party here I come. And as for the Greens. Make Australia better, plant a greeny preferably 6 foot under and cap with concrete.

[AstralTraveller]

Ho hum. :zzz2: That one gets recycled every time Labor wins an election. I certainly heard it when Hawke was elected but perhaps it was also around for Gough. So much for originallity.

As for electing lawyers perhaps a country is like a high-technology company? You know the life cycle. A company is started by talented engineer(s) who have come up with a great product. The company grows and soon administering it is too much for the engineers and the job is taken over by accountants. The accountants think that reducing costs is the path to success, since success in their eyes is measured in $ and not quality (I've seen this - see below). So they cut corners, use cheaper parts, have less QA etc. So the customers become unhappy, some have issues that lead to litigation and the rest just go elsewhere. The legal costs and reduced cash-flow means creditors aren't paid and they start litigation. So the company winds up being run by lawyers who spend their time fighting legal fires. Eventually it is wound up or bought out by a conglomerate who absorb the good bits and make staff redundant.

So if a country is being run by lawyers what does it say about the state of the country?? :question:

___________________________________

We recently bought a nice shiny mass spectrometer worth about $500,000. While it was being installed it came up on a mailing list that some people had been having problems with a certain part. The installation technician explained to me that this part used to be made of stainless steel and never wore out but it is now being made of aluminium. The cost saving is a few $100s but the time and effort in finding the problem and replacing the worn out parts with the stainless steel version costs the owner $1000s and tarnishes the reputation of the instrument. The technician was quite (how shall I put it ...) unhappy about this because technicians care about good solid reliable instruments. Clearly they are not the ones making these decisions. [When dealing with instrument companies the technicians are my friend - the salesmen are the enemy!]

[TrevorW]

We can be called the Robin Hood Country

get my drift

although I don't think the red head would qualify as Maid Marion

but the other lot could be men in tights

[marki]

I did not lay claim to writing it if you read my post properly but yet it is still totally relevent.......wonder if that tells you something??? Oh and sobbing in public when the going gets tough thats another goody instituted by Sob Squawk, just wait till they try and pull that one........oops that was last night :P. Just to make it clear I do not support any political party they are all as corruptable as each other. No doubt if Abbot and Co was in power the same anouncement would be made only from a set of budgie smugglers competing in a triathlon at the beach. These thorium based reactors sound good though don't they.



Mark

[Paul Haese]

Yes my tax is going up, after it went down with the libs. Everything is around the wrong way.

Just heard on ABC news that forests currently absorb 2/3rd of our emissions a year. This is more than was previously thought. I don't have a source I just saw the announcer on ABC tell me. Aunty is hardly ever wrong.

[Hagar]

Not a right wing nutter yet but it's coming fast. Just practicing at the moment. Still a few tax hits before the next election.

Maybe the greens will legislate a few seats for themselves.

[Peter Ward]

Who are you calling a right wing nutters?

I simply don't want pay a tax that will, as far as I can tell, have zero effect on the environment and create rooms full of bureaucrats.

I think climate change is real. I also believe there are zippo "real" base-load alternatives being floated in Oz at present to help reduce our impact on the environment. (PV solar and flatulence...sorry..wind)

If someone is going to take a fair percentage of my wages, via tax, I'd at least like to know they will spend it wisely....eg develop a better power generation technology, rather than give it to someone on a lower income as compensation for an artificially orchestrated price-rise.

[supernova1965]

come on guys lets keep it civil remember what we all come here for Astronomy:D:love2::love:

[Hagar]

I couldn't agree more Peter. Working in the power industry I can tell you there is a huge scurry for the industry to get it's hands on the money. All electricity companies are planning and have been planning the spending spree for some time. That is if there is any money left after the cost of managing the tax by the bureaucrats and their shinny bumbed mates.

[TrevorW]

Marc I'm surprised this one stayed open so long are the mod's on holiday

Peter nice link on Thorium didn't know about this one but doesn't surprise me one bit that it has never been taken up as a viable energy source

maybe we should all go back to wood fires for cooking and warmth, candles or oil lamps for light, Coolgardie coolers for keeping our food cold, listen to the radio (pedal driven or course) or stand around a piano singing songs at night or a good game of scrabble, the kids can play outside after school until it gets dark, no TV, no video games, no computers, no dishwashers, no washing machines, no electric cooking ranges, no air con, cold showers and if they are hot in summer tell them to go under the sprinkler (water bans considering) or cold in winter to put on a jumper like we did as kids.

technology has only created all these marketable devices that make our life easier yet they all are powered by electricity

so we stop buying these items becasue we can't afford to run them

[multiweb]

Hey Trev, there's been a lot of valuable info and feedback in this thread. Heaps of links to good resources too. I really enjoyed it so far. Sure there's been a bit of pollie bashing there and there but it's all in good fun. But there seems to always be one trouble maker with absolutely nothing positive to say lashing out personal attacks and trying to stuff it up for the rest of us. So I'd hate to see this one closed. It's ticking along nicely still.

[iceman]

I've deleted the trouble-making posts and re-opened the thread.

I'm as surprised as everyone that this has stayed as civil as it has :lol:

Pleasantly surprised!

If anyone comes in with an agenda of personal attacks and rubbish in an attempt to simply get the thread locked, will find themselves locked out.

First and last warning Richardda1st.

[multiweb]

You legend! :thumbsup:

[Hagar]

Trev we can't go back that far we would have to kill a whale for lamp oil.

Naughty, naughty.

[marki]

Thanks Mike the rest of us were having an amiable discussion and learning lots along the way. :thumbsup:


Mark

[AstralTraveller]

I didn't say you tried to claim you wrote it, nor that you recycled it, just that it is recycled ad nausium. Frankly I can't see the relevance, it simply repeats the myth that one of the majors is a better manager than the other. I don't recall that at all. Apart from that, both of them bring in new taxes and both lie through their teeth in election campaigns.

[richardda1st]

Well Mike, please remove me from Iceinspace. I’m sure that CRAP such as this (below) is not going to stop. This and plenty more do not comply with your TOS

FROM THE FIRST BOOK OF GOVERNMENT

Julia is the shepherd I did not want.

She leadeth me beside the still factories.
She restoreth my faith in the Liberal party.
She guideth me in the path of unemployment for her party's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the bread line,
I shall fear no hunger for her bailouts are with me.
She has anointed my income with taxes,
My expenses runneth over.
Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life.
And I will live in a rented home forever.
I am glad I am Australian.
I am glad that I am free.
But I wish I was a dog
And Julia a tree!

Cheers
Richard


PS I can give you my word that I will not return under a different name.
Maybe when it’s too cloudy I may visit as a guest.

[marki]

Right now Labour is making bad decisions so I am dissing them more than the other mob, to me it is entirely relevent. When the winds change I will find something to have a crack at the other mob. As I said I have no great love of either party. Now how about those thorium reactors hey, could be the solution to a nagging problem :thumbsup:


Mark

[mithrandir]

Same here. Tax up. Health care rebate down. Not old enough to retire tax free.



I think they said 1/3rd on AM.

[marki]

There you go I removed it from the original post for you. It was posted tongue in cheek and i did not expect anyone to take it seriously.

Mark

[Peter Ward]

Mike ! Bravo ! :)

[Peter Ward]

Base load power has been a point of discussion around my dinner table tonight....and I should add my son works for a major media company....and is a cynic (don't know where he gets that from :) ) ...anyway he had a very interesting insight...

"Dad, if the Thorioum cycle is as good as you (or they) say it is, alot of groups lose relevance...the Greens can't say "no nukes" , it's cheaper than coal ($2.00 per kw vs $2.20 ) which will really annoy them, and a veiled taxation case is hard to justify..." Vested interest will lose!

From the mouths of babes....

[renormalised]

I wouldn't have bothered, Mark.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Peter



I've started reading a bit on this and would ask another question.
If its so good, why isnt it being "actively" implemented/promoted
around the world, where the nuclear debate isnt as hot as here?
After all, the people who stand to make lots of money from it
wont care about the losers. ( Ain't capitalism great )

Also, when people talk nuclear energy "costs" in these debates
i can't tell whether or not the "true" decomissoning costs
are built into the supply charges.
Irrespective of "safety whilst running", what is the real lifecycle cost
of these units. Ie Imagine a private company running a reactor
then when its life is up, going broke and leaving the cleanup to others.
That sort of business plan never happens :D, does it?

Andrew

[gregbradley]

I have a degree in Business Studies. Believe me when I say economists know very very little. The proof is obvious. If economics were in fact a developed true subject then of course we would have abundance and we would all be flourishing in a prosperous society and money would not really be too much of an issue. Is that the case?

I remember a lecturer one day in Economics 11 doing this complicated graph on the blackboard with lots of lines on it and he snaps the chalk on one spot where some lines intersected and he says "and THERE is optimum growth".

The newspapers at the time were complaining all about how bad the economy was.

I decided then these guys actually know very little about the true subject at all and they are in the category of pretenders.

Very often subjects are taught as if it were fact and true and are in fact quite incorrect and based on false assumptions and incorrect basics.

Remember Keatings famous "J curve" and the "recession we had to have" - that's how bad it gets when people pretend knowledge on a subject which is not based on the true basics. He was the world's best Economist by his own admission!

We had a 5 year severe recession many times worse than the worlds average back in the early 90's when many people lost their businesses and homes due to an incorrect subject. There was no "J" curve (a dip followed by a bounce up), only a down.

Taxes are always inhibiting, they never enhance. I reject any argument that a tax is economically sound - that ignores basics where taxes only ever inhibit. Economics to be sound requires production and requires activity and exchange of products and money and that requires inniative and incentive. Taxes only ever inhibit that. Talk to anyone about why they don't work 2 jobs, because the tax system says no don't do that. Taxation is perhaps a necessary evil in Western worlds where people want hot and cold running governments to take responsibility for their own lives. A certain amount of Government is clearly needed - defence for one, but I am of the opinion that the smallest governement possible is the best scenario. Others may think otherwise but you only have to see some Govt programs to realise just how inefficient any government is in getting a job done. Private enterprise has always been more efficient in getting a job done for far less cost. But not everything can be run for money only, there has to be a social conscience. Whether taxation is based on income (production inhibiting) or sales (consumption inhibiting but not production inhibiting) is another issue.

You know in the very early 1900's there was no income tax.When it was introduced it was 1%. There's a measure of how much we "need" a large government and how it has grown over the years.

On a less controversial note, I have a question about the Carbon Tax. There hasn't been (at least that I have seen) talk about how much money it is expected to raise and the accounting for where that money goes. I know a substantial slice is used for compensation of low income earners but what about the other $25 billion or so? Also what is the cost of administering this? I imagine it will take possibly 10,000 government workers to administer and cost business millions in extra accounting costs. That will take a large bite out of its effectiveness - yes? Will it create a black carbon economy also for the cheaters?

One argument for the carbon tax is at least somebody is doing something about the environmental issue. Whether or not it is the best is the point of controversy as most Aussies are very environmentally in tune. Especially given the Aboriginal heritage of this nation who are by far and away the best environmentalists of all time.

Greg.

[Barrykgerdes]

Well said. Particularly as the governments chief "climate scientist" is an economist and probably of the same standard as mentioned in the quote.

Barry:thumbsup:

[Peter Ward]

The "traditional" nuclear industry (read: capitalist) has nothing to gain from using a Thorium cycle. They would lose significant revenue in charging for reactor cost, fuel supply and decomissioning costs.

There is a great web page here: http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/

As for it being actively promoted...well surprise surprise, China is implementing thorium based power as we fiddle about in Oz.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html

[Jeffkop]

Thanks for the continuation of this thread Mike ... I was really dissapointed when it was closed, especially with IceInSpace for some reason. I couldnt believe that someone would be THAT childishly selfish and then the rest of the people have to suffer. This topic IS HOT. Its what the entire country is talking about in some form or other and whilst to put it in Richard the Thirds voice, Im a right wing nutter, I am also not a closed book and was enjoying the reponses and opinions put forward by my lefty friends here as well. Maybe this is saying more about me then anything else, but until I read about Thorium in this thread I didnt know anything about it ... how valuable that information may or may not be is in the hands of time, but for now this instant, it enhances the knowledge I have.

Its very obvious we have people from either political persuasion here and this topic is difficult to have perhaps without ones bias coming to the front. So I commend the mods for allowing the thread to continue in light of this and also for restarting it. Most posters bring an intellegence and information,(something that the mods obviously noticed) Greg Bradleys last post about economists being a fine example of what Im talking about IMO.

[supernova1965]

The only thing I truely wish is for everyone to be truely openminded I have seen evidence of stubborn unwillingness to consider any idea but what people believe if people are not willing to consider new idea's they may as well stay out of the debate because they are wasting their and anyone else's time. Some people can't or won't look past the surface. I understand that it is easier to be a cynic about what is being done but that just stunts debate and does not foward understanding of the complexities of the debate:thumbsup:

[Peter Ward]

More of China's energy plans here

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/china-thorium-power/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/quirks-quarks-blog/2011/02/china-thinks-green-nuclear-with-thorium-plan.html

and India (!)

http://www.physorg.com/news205141972.html

[FlashDrive]

Good one Richard .... :rofl: Love it .... well done :thumbsup:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[strongmanmike]

Interesting assessment Greg, I like your thoughfull apraisals on things not just this one but camera's, filters, everything, you are a good bloke :thumbsup:

I'm not going to argue with what you have said but just comment two things.



Here in lies the proplem.. when one group comes out in support there is another group who claim the first group knows nothing simply becasue it contradicts their line. I mean regardless of what The Abbott says about this telling revelation, the Liberal Party utilise many economists, both amongs their ranks and to help design their policy, so economists are clearly not a useless tool...when the vast majority of them think the current carbon pricing scheme is a good idea and good policy and significantly better than the Liberal alternative - well, it does mean something.



And that's what the inention is here, to inibit the production of CO2 :thumbsup:

That's all :)

..great 6188 by the way :thumbsup:

Mike

[AndrewJ]

Gday Peter



Understood, ( but i still doubt if they have built in decomissioning costs ).
My point is that with "new" venture capitalists out to make a dollar,
setting up new gen reactors and "crowing" about how good they are
to get a return on investment is all thats needed,
so why aren't they doing it.



Not a fair comparison. They appear to be building every type of power generation facility they can at the fastest rate they can go.
Perhaps they realised the geeks were no good making dams,
so got them onto thorium reactors to see what happens :-)

Andrew

PS Thks for the links.

[multiweb]

Yep. The Nuclear Industry is like a massive car manufacturing business. They make money on spare parts (and fuel). They'll even sell at loss to set-up knowing they'll recoup costs in supplies amd maintenance down the road. It's a bit like buy that big plasma screen now and don't pay until 2012. No interest either. :)

That's the only thing in the way of Thorium but I think in the long run they'll go to it. When it's financially sound to do the switch. After they've burnt every litre of gas that is, whihc is the next big thing IMHO. So not anytime soon. :P

[Eternal]

Is it already up and running yet? No didn't think so. We already have the solution to coal fired power stations. Solar power, wind power & hydro have been proven to work and are already in use around the world (and please don't feed me that crap about base load - IT"S A MYTH!!!).

I simply cannot understand this constant desire amongst some people that the only way to get energy is to dig stuff out of the ground. If you try hard enough you really can give up this addiction.

[multiweb]

All these work but working doesn't mean it covers the demand. Wind doesn't work. Solar, mehh so so, hydro waves and tides, right... not. Only dams to the job. When they need instant power the coal plants kick back in so it maybe a nice exercise but definitely not practical.

[supernova1965]

Here is another option that seldom gets mentioned and I believe it is well within the current level of our technology it just requires the will to implement it. And it would provide Base load power
SPACE BASED SOLAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power)

[multiweb]

That would be super cool! :thumbsup: Remember that Japanese project to have a system in geo-synchronous orbit with a big ombilical running down to the surface? Where's a good Romulan ship when we need one? :P

[Bassnut]

What the hell does that mean !!!!!!!?

[renormalised]

Prove your point....where are the economic and technical studies pointing to your assertion that solar, wind and hydro can supply not only enough power but be able to supply power at base load for both domestic and commercial purposes.

If you weren't so quick to just blithely dismiss what everyone has written here in order to push the misguided beliefs you've been indoctrinated with, and you actually took the time to research about thorium reactors and the history of the nuclear industry, you might know why thorium reactors are not being used at present. The reasons why have been mentioned in this thread before. I suggest you take the time again to read what was said.

[avandonk]

The simple problem is that fossil fuel electric generation is far cheaper than any wind solar or geothermal. So the apparent cheap option is the one that is built.

Fossil fuels are only 'cheap' because no value is placed on their replacement or pollution cost.

Just explore how expensive biodiesel or ethanol as a petrol substitute is. Jet fuel is even more expensive if at all practical. When the oil runs out what are you going to use for lubricants and plastic stockfeeds?

I am sure an economist could work out the cost of the pollution of burning fossil fuels. An average coal fired power station releases more radioactive and poisonous heavy metal elements than any nuclear reactor. We won't even mention the carcinogenic and poisonous micro particles. The real cost of the water for cooling towers is another cost not realistically charged to the generation companies. We have not got to the CO2 yet but that is another pollutant that is not charged for.

We can reduce our base load needs by simply using less. This can be done by a number of ways. One glaring example is all the light energy sent up into the sky uselessly in just Australia, needs an average sized power station to effect this act of futility not to mention how it upsets us astronomers!
I won't enumerate all the other methods.

Hope this helps a bit.


Bert

[Terry B]

Why doesn't wind work?
On a personal note I live in a windy place with 3 small wind turbines within 1 km of my place. I will eventually join them with my own. It is windy more often than it is sunny.

[Barrykgerdes]

That's a pretty old idea. There was an article in Radio & Hobbies about 60 years ago about putting a solar electric power generator in synchrous orbit (they didn't even have the means to get it there then). Convert it into microwave energy and beam it to detectors on the ground to convert back to electricity. I must see if I can find the article.

Barry

[Hagar]

Your comments here are definitely an uneducated endeavour to dismiss new solutions.
I work in the power industry as a senior shift manager involved in the generation side of the industry. If you would like to take a look at http://www.aemo.com.au you may well gleem some knowledge about the industry as it stands at the moment.
I will point out a few small points which you have overlooked with this blanket statement.
Hydro: Provides about 2% of the countries electricity supplies. During the past 10 years of drought that fell to less than 1%. The only new hydro built in the last 10 years was Bogong Power Station 140MW. This was built in the middle of an existing hydro scheme and it is very likely to be the last unless the greenies allow new dams to be built. Attempts to raise a few dam walls have been squashed as well. Hydro is largely used as peak load generation for obvious reasons. Once it's used it's gone.

Gas: Used almost exclusively as peak load generation due to the cost of gas, it's use for heating etc and lack of ability to store huge amounts of gas for generation. You can only pack so much in any of the pipe systems. Some base load stations exist but no new high capacity stations will be built unles they are gas turbine stations due to the building costs.

Oil/diesel: Very very expensive as a fuel source and generated output is not really very good.

Wind: is base load as long as the wind is blowing but it changes so readily that compensation with Gas or hydro must be used to maintain a stable system.

Solar: Base load during the day but nothing at night. Hardly true base load.

Coal: cheap to extract, cheap to use, very stable load characteristics, is available 24/7. Cost to build and maintain is quite expensive but high capacity generators and huge rotating mass makes the system very stable.

I guess your original statement is somewhat true but i'm sure you will be happy sitting in the dark and cold after 4:00pm during the winter months and will be very happy to have a system which is so insecure you will spend more time without power than you do with it connected.

To you it may be just a matter of turning on a switch and the lights come on but I can assure you the management and security of our electricity grid is a huge task managed by a group of extremely well educated and experienced managers and engineers.
If you can come up with a means of makeing wind and solar as stable as coal you will make a fortune with it. Electricity companies will be knocking at your door.

From where I sit our only alternative is Thorium reactors or one of the other reactor based systems. They will work 24/7 which is true base loading.

[Hagar]

The only way wind is really effective in a domestic situation is if you are prepared to use a battery storage system which uses the wind generator as a battery charger but the cost is very high indeed. In some respects a similar intallation to solar will work but again you need some alternative when the wind isn't blowing. The other problem with wind generation is the wind turbine usually only works in a relatively small band of wind speed.

To explain this fact: If you look at a large wind generator and imagine the speed of the turbine it looks to be spinning relatively slowly but in reality the tips of the turbine blades are running at just under the speed of sound. Should they inrease above the sound barrier you can imagine the noise created and the blades just self distruct with the pressure wave created.

Hope this helps.

[TrevorW]

And that's what the inention is here, to inibit the production of CO2 :thumbsup:

That's all :)

..
Mike[/QUOTE]


Mike but that's just my point , will it :shrug::question:. I know that business in general will often pass increases in operating expenditure onto the consumer as a price rise instead of looking for more efficient ways of operating, taking the path of least resistence

if a tax is 10% and to negate that tax it's going to cost them 15%, they'll just pass the 10% on as a price rise

[KenGee]

If coal powered generators are the only viable way to provide "base load", someone should let Tassie, WA know.. As for the rest of the world...
Hydro 20% of total power.
Tidal is being used more and more.
Geothermal is widely used and proven tech.

These power sources simply need investment, may be a 1/10th of the government support that coal gets.

Our national grid means that it is always windy somewhere so the base load can be provided. We just have to do things differently, the only thing stopping us is self interest and greed. That goes for nukes as well, something tells me that those who are pushing wouldn't riase the kids in the shadow of it.

[KenGee]

Boy this thread is going fast just catching up with some of the posts. If you want to reduce your power bills then do a energy audit. It's not good enough to just put in low energy lights. It might come as a shock whats costing you money.

My house a farm have a total power bill of less then $1k a year and power is more costly in SA.
Peter conversion to cleaner fuel will not happen over night, but it can happen. Pricing the cost of carbon on the environment is a great step.

In the end the carbon "debate" is systematic about were australia is these days. We have become a country of knockers and can't doer's. China and India will take advantage of the new economies, any good ideas we do come up with will be driven offshore, the only diference will be instead of going to the US it goes to China. Sad really.

[Hagar]

Pretty easy to throw figures around and come up with false judgements

Lets start with Tassie, Since the connection of Basslink cable to Tassie the flow of power has almost always been towards Tassie.
Tassie is a very wet state barring of course Hobart (Second driest Capitol City) High montain range and a supportive government to build dams and water storages. Unlike the mainland and it's green tree huggers. Try building a new dam on the mainland...

Wind everywhere, No company will spend the money to build wind turbines everywhere for a minimal return for when the wind just happens to blow when it's not blowing somewhere else.
I can assure you the returns are just returns on windfarms in high wind areas. I manage wind farms in a couple of high wind areas in South Australia. They run on quite tight margins and are often all shutdown at the same time due to a lack of wind.
Take your average 40+ degree week in SA, what happens to the wind? It dies. Gas, hydro and coal takes up the slack on these days.
The next big part of scattering wind farms all over the country is providing the infrastructure to carry the load to the load base. In most outback areas it just doesn't exist.
Sounds good just build it. The most costly part of electricity production is the transmission costs and the losses in transporting it over large distances.
One example where wind has trouble with infrastructure is in SA. Hallet wind farm sits atop the hills above Hallet gas turbine station. When the wind farm is at full load the Gas turbines on the MOOMBAh gas pipeline can't run due to overloading the line. This area is one of the few high wind areas in Australia but suffers from huge electrical storms as well. When such a storm moves over the area the wind turbines have to be load constrained because a 132KV line tripwill overload the only remaining line and risk the overall system security of the SA grid.

The average price for electricity generation at the moment is around $30 per MW hour. The cost of transmission is $40 / MW hour.
Privatisation has lifted these costs to more than double what they were when Government owned.

When Australia has high tempratures accross QLD, NSW, Vic and SA the price regularly bounces to $12500 per MW hour sounds good doesn't it. The trouble is there is usually not enough to go round thus the price increase but a distibution company still only charges you the same as they get when supply and generation costs are $30/MWHr.

You don't need to be an ecconomist to work out the figures don't add up to good practice but it is what we have to live with until something better comes along.
Cummins Diesel are manufacturing peak load stations to fill the rare gaps in load and generation but at 250L of diesel / MWhr it is an expensive game to play let alone the cost of having a huge supply of diesel sitting on site in case of.

There is a nice little diesel station at Angaston in the Barrossa Valley in SA, it runs in anger a few times a year but you still only pay your 25C per kilowatt hour even though the price or cost to generate is 10 times the average price.

There will be no change in what we use to generate until it becomes cost effective at least now that the energy sector is privately owned.
Its a hard one to understand but it is all true. Transmission and losses over big distances is costly and I doubt you would like to pay $100 / KW hour and neither would our industrial sector. It would almost have us back in the dark ages cutting down trees for everything which would exaserpate our CO2 emissions.

If a tax was used to invest in infrastructure and development it may well work or go somewhere towards working but I doubt much will be left after mamgement costs of lots of shinny arsed pollies and their staff.
As I stated earlier all the electricity companies are already working on carbon trading and the staffing required because they can see a profit in the deal.

[Barrykgerdes]

Why do so many people complain about the emission of carbon dioxide and to a lesser extent methane?

Animal life exists because it can combine oxygen with carbon based substances (carbohydrates etc). The by-products of this process carbon dioxide, urine and faeces are completely recycleable. Vegetation and the energy from the Sun complete the cycle and turn these waste products back into oxygen and carbohydrates. This process has been going on happily for millions of years. In my days of learning it was refered to as the carbon cycle!


If plant life had to rely on animals to provide Carbon dioxide for its growth it would not flourish very well but luckily carbon dioxide can also be produced by burning carbon based material. This provides much needed carbon dioxide for plant growth. Even so it sucks all the carbon dioxide out of the air that it can, keeping the amount of carbon dioxide to an extremely low level in the atmosphere.

Of course we as humans have discovered that burning plant matter can produce heat that can be used as energy and to create energy in other forms. We also have discovered that concentrated carboniferous material (coal etc) has a much higher heat yield when burnt than other common plant based material.

This gets back to the original thread now. Coal has a finite amount and cannot be easily created. Once it is all used we will need another source of heat. Thus we must not waste it unnecessarily till we can discover a new recycleable method of generating the energy we need. Forget about nuclear energy. It has more problems than other means of generating heat. The obvious source is the Sun. We need to use its energy directly without it being converted into combustable materials. I am sure that this will eventually happen.

Barry

[gregbradley]

Thanks Mike.

I do understand the view that to make a change you have to hit the hip pocket nerve. There definitely is some truth to that.

Even this Thorium reactor YouTube acknowledges the fact the Uranium Industry wouldn't want it as it threatens their market. Much like the Oil Industry no doubt has blocked many green inventions over the years and other industries act to protect their profits and block good things as a result.

Greg.

[Omaroo]

Given our propensity to aim missiles at each other over these issues in the past, I've avoided becoming part of this debate to date. Well... I can't any longer :)

I'm going to clarify my position a little. I'm what I'd call a "political sceptic", not a "scientific sceptic". If I could be completely and utterly sure that the scientists entering into these debates with the loudest voices were not being unduly swayed by politics at the hand of any government with an unrelated agenda, then I'd be completely happy to listen... but I find that I can't be.

Thorium over uranium, wind or solar over coal-fired - at the end of the day we're running out of resources that have contributed to our current position - and we need to find answers quickly. Things have to change - and soon. Whether thorium is entertained as a base load power source, or some other newer reactor technology such as PBR (pebble bed reactors) is employed, maybe our government will channel some of this carbon tax into properly-audited research to point us in the right direction - if they're still functional enough to do so, which is debatable. Nuclear energy (fission) has more than its fair share of associated dangers and problems, relating to environmental concerns over contamination due to natural disaster, and then storage of spent material. Bring on fusion some say - surely it would have been written off by now if it were theoretically and practically unattainable. Research goes on, and I hope that it bears fruit because it seems like a panacea.

What I think the scientists and politicians have missed is... marketing. If you go with the flow you're called a "green fool" by some, if you oppose it you're a "denier" by the others. Come on guys - surely it can't be that hard to prove the central & salient point one way or another for the masses: is the balance of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere as truly critical as some scientists and pro-carbon politicians promise it is? Government advice maintains that the so-called anthropogenically derived swing is critically dangerous to our atmospheric balance. To drill the point home properly, they should ask the scientists to perhaps demonstrate this in some appropriately-designed lab experiment if they can. So WHY is it so critical? This has never, as far as I'm concerned, been adequately explained to the man in the street. "It just is - we're scientists, so believe us" doesn't cut it in this debate. I have the UTMOST respect for mainstream science, but marketing these derivations ain't their strong point. I can understand the notion of a "point of criticality", but I don't think that most do, could or would.

Surely it can't be too hard to explain, if it's the undeniable truth, that a swing of only several parts per million will change the nature of our atmosphere in the way it transmits or blocks/traps infra red energy. Is there some narrow-band effect whereby the transmission qualities of the atmosphere change incredibly rapidly at, or around, some demonstrable point? If so, then tell the world this and demonstrate it. Even if it's not a true parallel, the point would be made easier to understand and relate to. As it is, it's easier to assume that this mightn't be the case, and that a few percentile points either way is not going to do the damage proposed. The reasoning and resultant scepticism behind a super-urgent introduction of a carbon tax is what it seems - a grab for cash otherwise.

I'm asking scientists here on IIS - can the actual science be demonstrated rather than ear-bashed into us? If so, then it might not result in so much fervent opposition, but until then it's all heresay to the common man. Show it to the general population on television, show it to them in the newspapers and magazines in glorius colour- don't just refer them to a bunch of scientific white papers and ask them to interpret them because they quite simply can't. People are generally visual - so give them vision! Where's Julius Sumner-Miller when you need him, eh? If the basic thermodynamics could be simply and convincingly demonstrated then I believe that the question on whether the carbon tax is relevant could be finally resolved for most, and then the next question be entertained - what to do with it.

[Octane]

Chris,

Epic post is epic. :)

H

[supernova1965]

Thanks for your insightful and entirely fair post if all in the debate had your grasp on the situation it would be great. I believe that the visual evidence was produced in a documentry it was called an inconvinient truth. But unfortunately a lot of people reacted with the same steadfast line we have seen in evidence elsewhere.

Infact I was talking to a denier when I was driving to a job in Moranbah on friday who claimed to know all the science but hadn't seen the movie and didn't know the science presented in it he admitted to me (it was a long drive) he had got all his "evidence" from listening to the scare campaigns as apposed to science.

I believe that there is no balance in the print media in Australia and this is my long held opinion not something that I have got from recent events.

[Trixie]

Yes if people are prepared to listen... My main problem is getting people to listen to my explanations! If you try to simplify things there is always someone ready to pounce on you for simplifying the facts - funny it doesnt seem to be a problem for the sceptics arguements.

Sadly i have found people dont want to know, its easier to listen to the shock jocks etc than to actually read up on the issue.

My in-laws are a good example. The only info they have is from people like Andrew Bolt. I am forever having to explain the flaws in what he says, or the latest email to go around claiming to have the real answer. They accept my explanation (or perhaps they are just saying they do to shut me up :)) and then before long are waving around another chain email or Andrew Bolt newspaper again sayig 'see your wrong and I have the evidence here"

[multiweb]

I think the OP asked for feedback and a debate around alternate power sources and technologies to supply demand in Australia and adequate base load in the short term future for a growing population. It's not about climate change. Just where the CT money's going to go or where it should go ideally. No point steering this whole thread into another climate change thread arguing about CO2 output or who's a sceptic, denier, Andrew Bolt Supporter, Greenie or other. Besides the point IMHO.

[Omaroo]

I'd say that the level of soon-to-be collected funds will determine what we can afford to replace coal-fired base load power generation - irrespective of what technology is better than any other. I'm reasonably sure that they will depend entirely on whether the population supports a carbon or any other emissions-related tax or scheme in the first place. Ultimately I see no solution in the near future that can compete with NP of some flavour. We haven't deviated from the the original post too much I don't think.

[Hagar]

Your reasoning is correct Chris but I do fear that the collected funds will go no where. As you know I work in the generation industry and find the companies overall are really not interested in being inovative if it is going to cost them money or public outcry. They are only interested in the final dollar return to share holder. Most if not all will play it very safe, build wind farms, build the odd gas fired turbines and continue to do it at our expence. New forms of generation will require legislative direction before any one of them will step up and take the plunge. All the forms of generation we see in Australia are world proven before we step up and buy it.
$23 per ton is not a realistic price to force companies to make a break from the traditional generation. These costs will just be passed on to us all with no real incentive for companies to improve.

There has been a lot of talk of shutting down Hazelwood Power Station in the Latrobe Valley. This is privately owned and for government to pay a private company to shut down such a large generator will probably absorb the entire first few years worth of carbon tax in compensation let alone the need to replace it with something...... What will that be.....God only knows....... Gas is of course a possibility but it produces CO2 as well and is still eating up a natural resource but at least it is near the source of some gas in Victoria.

I fear a lot of this is just lip service to appease the greens and little be done in the end.

[TrevorW]

Alternative energy

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion

The oceans cover a little more than 70 percent of the Earth's surface. This makes them the world's largest solar energy collector and energy storage system. On an average day, 60 million square kilometers (23 million square miles) of tropical seas absorb an amount of solar radiation equal in heat content to about 250 billion barrels of oil. If less than one-tenth of one percent of this stored solar energy could be converted into electric power, it would supply more than 20 times the total amount of electricity consumed in the United States on any given day.
OTEC, or ocean thermal energy conversion, is an energy technology that converts solar radiation to electric power. OTEC systems use the ocean's natural thermal gradient - the fact that the ocean's layers of water have different temperatures - to drive a power-producing cycle. As long as the temperature between the warm surface water and the cold deep water differs by about 20°C (36°F), an OTEC system can produce a significant amount of power. The oceans are thus a vast renewable resource, with the potential to help us produce billions of watts of electric power. This potential is estimated to be about 10 tothe13 watts of baseload power generation, according to some experts. The cold, deep seawater used in the OTEC process is also rich in nutrients, and it can be used to culture both marine organisms and plant life near the shore or on land.
Because the oceans are continually heated by the sun and cover nearly 70% of the Earth's surface, this temperature difference contains a vast amount of solar energy which could potentially be tapped for human use. If this extraction could be done profitably on a large scale, it could be a solution to some of the human population's energy problems. The total energy available is one or two orders of magnitude higher than other ocean energy options such as wave power, but the small size of the temperature difference makes energy extraction difficult and expensive. Hence, existing OTEC systems have an overall efficiency of only 1 to 3%.
The concept of a heat engine is very common in engineering, and nearly all energy utilized by humans uses it in some form. A heat engine involves a device placed between a high temperature reservoir (such as a container) and a low temperature reservoir. As heat flows from one to the other, the engine extracts some of the heat in the form of work. This same general principle is used in steam turbines and internal combustion engines, while refrigerators reverse the natural flow of heat by "spending" energy. Rather than using heat energy from the burning of fuel, OTEC power draws on temperature differences caused by the sun's warming of the ocean surface.
The economics of energy production today have delayed the financing of a permanent, continuously operating OTEC plant. However, OTEC is very promising as an alternative energy resource for tropical island communities that rely heavily on imported fuel. OTEC plants in these markets could provide islanders with much-needed power, as well as desalinated water and a variety of mariculture products.
It is possible to measure the value of an OTEC plant and continued OTEC development by both its economic and non-economic benefits. OTEC's economic benefits include these:


Helps produce fuels such as hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol
Produces baseload electrical energy
Produces desalinated water for industrial, agricultural, and residential uses
Is a resource for on-shore and near-shore mariculture operations
Provides air-conditioning for buildings
Provides moderate-temperature refrigeration
Has significant potential to provide clean, cost-effective electricity for the future.

Some energy experts believe that if it could become cost-competitive with conventional power technologies, OTEC could produce gigawatts of electrical power. Bringing costs into line is still a huge challenge, however. All OTEC plants require an expensive, large diameter intake pipe, which is submerged a mile or more into the ocean's depths, to bring very cold water to the surface

[KenGee]

Hi all the public forum can be tough, vigerous to and frowing can be taken the wrong way at times. I'm use to having to have strong arguements with people and having a beer afterwards.

Hagar funny you use those examples, I can see the Hallet wind farms from my farm. The farm is off the grid but I do use wind and solar to power everything.

I work in Whyalla. Onesteel makes use of those high power prices by stopping their operations and selling their excess power.

No one is saying it will be easy or that it will happen overnight but I am saying that there are ways to make baseload power other then coal.

Other coutries are using other options and more and more we will to.

Further more a large whack of the power we make is wasted, transmission losses and general wastefulness. The goal in the next 40 years is to reduce our CO2 output by 80% on our 1990 levels. That means the coal we do have will last alot longer.
If we move to more solar, we can use small local coal and gas fired stations. We would have make better use of our power, hence why the tax is good. Most people don't conserve things that are cheap, plentiful or where the damage is down river.

[supernova1965]

I believe there are alot of lights that burn all night in cities buildings that don't need to be on all night turn them off at say 8pm some will say it is a security issue but you can have motion sensors turn lights back on if anything is moving. And this would be great for us Astronomers :thumbsup:

[strongmanmike]

This is your answer Chris, unfortunate but true...

There has been so much information about why and how the climate is changing and the strong links to an anthropogenic cause and yes beyond An Inconvenient Truth, the IPCC has confirmed it is unequivocal. The problem is that pseudo science and creationist like selective evidence picking plus the anti Labor rubbish these undeserved self promoting shock jocks have been dishing out has escalated in more recent times and done lots of damage. Throwing doubt on an issue with crap science no matter how loosely that doubt relates resonates with average people with no scientific clue. If more people are doubting now that climate change is even real let alone that man is a serious contributer, how do you seriously think a government can sell putting a price on carbon..?

We can ill afford another election on it, the government has a mandate and a responsibility to act regardless of the damage it will do to them in the polls - Kudos to the Australian Labor party, they will most likely leave government in two years or so but they will leave us with another significant and long over due reform and I congratulate them.

The sky will not fall, the economy will survive and hopefully it will be the start of a change of direction and approach to how we do things, hopefully the World will continue along a similar path and over time we will see real change all over the place, that's all I hope :thumbsup:

Forget Prof Miller...but we will just have to waatch waatch :einstein:

Mike

[CometGuy]

Well said Chris :thumbsup: . The argument "your not smart enough to decide" doesn't hang well with me either.

T

[Jeffkop]

The trouble is Mike that in the eyes of the average person .. AKA me, I see quite credible information from what appears to me equally as credible sources, that refute the pro claims. I dont know if this falls into your "pseudo science and creationist like selective evidence picking" category or not. Im an open book on this subject by the way. So what Chris is saying is exactly the problem here ... why is it so difficult to produce tangible demonstratable and repeatable proof. I know you think we have already seen proof, but I havent and would really like to one way or the other.

The fact that this delemour exists makes it all a grey area to me.
I am quite willing to side with the facts ... just show them to me.

If we have to go down the avenue of prudence then so be it ... my objection to that is not that in itself, only the timing of it.

I have to clearly object to the assertion that the government has a mandate ... Not even in some abstract way, nor mixing up letters and taking a few away is there any chance that the statement "there will be no carbon tax under my government" was not made in one sentence and in english ... and as an average person, I dont know how else to understand that but of course thats only my take on it.

Fortunately, that is not the main focus in this, there are much more difficult decisions and problems to address and I l hope that if Carbon is the problem we find solutions and move on. Either way though Im in favour of being pro active in the search for renewable energy sources as I think are most.

The thorium idea being discussed seems to be something that definately has merit.

[supernova1965]

The info is available and very easy to find people just don't want to believe it for some reason

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD)

[astroron]

Quote

I'm asking scientists here on IIS - can the actual science be demonstrated rather than ear-bashed into us? If so, then it might not result in so much fervent opposition.


Please tell me how would demonstrate something except by modeling which is happening, but people only believe the modeling of the sceptics
There are many papers on this subject and lots of evidence but still until it is too late vested interests will stir the fire in doubters mind.
Have you noticed that the biggest doubters are the miners and petrolium companies:rolleyes:.
Cheers

[renormalised]

The science can be demonstrated easily, with a simple experiment anyone can do (if they get a hold of the supplies).

Make up two small, airtight, "greenhouses" and place them on a table. Get a small canister of CO2 and pump a little bit into one of them and label it. Grab a sunlamp and shine it on both of them for a number of hours, then take a reading of the temp in both.

You'll find the one with the CO2 in it will be hotter than the control with only air.

The same happens with the Earth, only on a vastly larger scale.

[Trixie]

The realclimate website has some great discussion and resources. I have also seen some very good articles in the new scientist and the science section of the Guardian.

Getting informed about it all is my big thing. I just get frustrated by people dismissing the scientists without actually reading anything, just by following what they read in the paper.

The same can be said for those opposing nuclear solutions for base load (eg me). There was some interesing discussion on here after the Japan earthquake and it certainly highlighted my ignorance. I have since been doing a lot of reading on nuclear power generation since then, and although I am yet to be converted, I have a much better grasp of the issue and agree the Thorium idea sounds very interesting.

I know some have complained about this thread going off topic a bit but I think it is that bad. These issues are linked in peoples minds right now. There is not a lot of sensible debate going on about climate change and the move away from coal as a primary energy source. I have already found much food for thought from this thread.

[renormalised]

A lot of people won't do their own research into the matter simply because they don't want to have to handle science. They've been brought up to think of science as some weird thing only geeks and people in lab coats like to do and that no one else can understand it. "It's too hard". So, they go with what they know....the sensationalist, misguided claptrap that the journos put out. Much more believable than the "mundane", "boring", "incomprehensible", factual stuff that scientists talk about.

A lot of people, when you really dig into their motivations and thoughts, don't really care. If it doesn't affect their job, their home and family, or their money/security, then it's usually out of sight, out of mind and too difficult a task to handle, anyway.

That's why the Carbon tax is polarising everything....this will hit those things I mentioned.

[Hagar]

Rubbish, The government definitely has no mandate. They don't even have a mandate to Govern in their own right. Whichever party came into power at the last election had only a mandate to appease the policy of the Greens, a minor party but holding power.



I believe there is significant evidence to indicate that thge earths surface temprature had risen in the past as well.



Carl, nice experiment if you can call it that. We are talking ppm here and not litres / cubic meter. Try the same experiment with an increase in CO2 in small amounts, plant some plants in the container and your results will be entirely different. Use the sun instead of a narrow spectrum heat lamp and both containers will probably die.


My main gripe with the whole thing is the fact that both sides seem to be manipulating data to achieve there own desired result. The tax is exactly what it is another tax wich will probably leave us only with that ....another tax. The fact that the tax is not being equally applied with a majority of the population being compensated and the minority paying for everyone else. The fact that this tax is the tip of the iceberg and will eventually disceminate into a trading scheme wich will no doubt be open to missuse and abuse and do very little to improve carbon output. Major companies will not be penalised for carbon production as they will just pass any costs on to you and I. If there is no cost to them why improve.
The electricity sector has been trading Renewable Energy Certificates for a few years now and the only incentive they have under this scheme is the money they can make out of the sale of REC's. The cost of maintaining REC's has increased your electricity bills already. This is just another scheme of the same except now the Government gets to hold the cash.

[strongmanmike]

Oh, they have a huge ethical mandate Doug, we'll just have to dissagree on that one, go Labor, Julia and Bob we love you for being tough and not listening to rubbish don't waver in the face of missguided discontent, do what is right! ;) .

I do agree with you that the price per ton needs to be higher, at least it's a start.

So...do you want to bury me under concrete now Doug :hi:

Mike

[renormalised]

About time someone said this....kudos, Doug




For most of the history of the planet, especially the last 550Ma, the CO2 content of the atmosphere and the average temp of the planet have been higher than what they are now. We actually live in one of the coldest periods of this planet's history. And also with one of the lowest concentration of CO2 as well (see graph).



A small amount of CO2 will raise the temp in the "greenhouse" or container. Whether it's in ppm or l/m^3. CO2 is a strong absorber of long wave IR, which is what is doing all the heating. Water vapour and methane are even better absorbers of LIR than CO2.

[strongmanmike]

I hear what you are saying Jeff but at this stage waaaay down the track of this needless debate, I am affraid the evidence is unequivocal, goverments have been given the facts and findings, it is all there, the Australian goverment must listen to the IPCC and they have. They have come up with the best system (by far) of the two major parties to takle the issue and it will almost certainly become active legislation, for at least several years, lets hope anyway.

I know that wasn't what you wanted but I am a little tired of this now (no offense at all) I wish you and others who doubt the science best of luck in trying to decide - it isn't hard really.

Cheers

Mike

[renormalised]

Speaking of global warming and CO2, Mike. How come, during the late Ordovician Period....around 450-438Ma, the Earth's CO2 conc was around 4400ppm. Yet, it was one of the coolest periods in Earth's history (there was a major ice age). Can you explain that one:)

[supernova1965]

Global warming causes the ice at the poles to melt and the fresh water stops the ocean conveyor belt circulating warm and cold water which causes the iceage because the warm water is not moved to the northern hemisphere something like that anyway I haven't explained it well but that is the general idea.

[renormalised]

Nope.

That only works for the present. The continents were in different positions then, to what they are now. Many of them were around the south polar region of the planet, but that doesn't explain why the ice age was there. Given the high CO2 conc' and the prevalence of a world spanning ocean at the time, the temps should've been much higher, all things given. Ocean circulation patterns, wind patterns etc, were completely different to now.

Go here (http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm) and have a look at the position of the continents during the Ordovician and Silurian Periods.

[Hagar]

Not much point in arguing a mandate. But as elected (well nearly) representative the only mandate they have is to govern according to there election stance as promised during there election campaign. They have no right to take any stance outside this be it ethical or not.

As for the concrete...Na.... no point your strong enough to rise from the grave and would be just idolised by Julia.:lol:

I have always been a strong Labour supporter but find this current policy a total breach of trust, at least with what I voted for. Very dissappointed indeed and still very sceptical of the reasoning and result.

[strongmanmike]

I hear what you are saying Carl but at this stage waaaay down the track of this needless debate, I am affraid the evidence is unequivocal, goverments have been given the facts and findings, it is all there, the Australian goverment must listen to the IPCC and they have. They have come up with the best system (by far) of the two major parties to takle the issue and it will almost certainly become active legislation, for at least several years, lets hope anyway.

I know that wasn't what you wanted but I am a little tired of this now (no offense at all) I wish you and others who doubt the science best of luck in trying to decide - it isn't hard really.

Cheers

Mike

[supernova1965]

Elected Governements have a mandate to run the country. To do what they believe is best for the country they need to take all circumstances into consideration when developing policy if you say they only have a mandate for what they say in an election campaign then if an unexpected problem came up then any event that was not mentioned in the election campaign would require the government of the day to go back to the electorate for a new mandate this would make for an unworkable system of government.

I am coming to the conclusion that no matter how much evidence is provided it will make no difference to some and therefor is a waste of time to explain the science I find it hard to believe on a scientific forum that taking the scientific facts as truth is so hard. I thought we were a science based community.:question:

[Hagar]

Come on Warren wake up and smell the roses this is far from an unexpected problem in fact this was a major part of their electral verbalising during the campaign. If a Government can lie openly like this perhaps an election is the best answer. If they can't be trusted with such an election promise how can they be trusted on the world front.
The mandate to govern is a mandate to represent their constituents and with the current approval rating they ain't doing to much of that.

[AstralTraveller]

So how do you think you know the temperature and [CO2] during the Ordovician? We don't have direct measurements of either so what proxies are used, and how reliable are they? I notice the site you reference makes reference to climatic geomorphology. With all due respect to Herr Budel all I can say is :rofl:.

BTW I think that the Earth's temperature record will be rewritten in the next couple of decades, this time with real numbers, not inferences.

[AstralTraveller]

I assume you were as keen on an election when the previous government threw the truth overboard?? And don't say they didn't know. If the truth reached me before the election it reached anyone who wanted to know.

[strongmanmike]

Hmmm? perhaps you weren't listening well enough then Doug, or you were not listening to everything ;)...the anti Labor media will try and have you believe anything if it is contoversial and sells air time :lol:

On August 20th, 2010, The Australian, not exactly the current bastion of left-wing politics, wrote the following in an article titled "Julia Gillard's carbon price promise" and subtitled "Julia Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term" -
"In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step."
"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax."
This is the strongest message Ms Gillard has sent about action on carbon pricing.

While any carbon price would not be triggered until after the 2013 election, Ms Gillard would have two potential legislative partners next term - the Coalition or the Greens. She would legislate the carbon price next term if sufficient consensus existed.
Full article here -


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillards-carbon-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillards-carbon-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983)

So... she certainly announced that the election was a mandate to legislate a market based carbon price and as we know the market-based ETS plan that they wanted would come into play in three years.


Apart from a few sematics on the actual words used nobody could say that this was not a direct admission that there would certainly be action on climate change and a price put on carbon ...so all those Juliar bumper sticker sporters, Adrew Bolt desiples and vitriolic crapback radio listeners actually have it a little skewed...for their own purposes of course ;).

Re the concrete, I would make for non typical Greeny reo bar :lol:

Cheers

Mike