So, now we are told that by 2050 no more petrol driven cars will be produced. So by, say 2060, all our trucks will be electric powered.
My question is "Where do our beloved leaders think all that extra required power to drive our vehicles will come from?"
Wind farms are pathetic.
Solar power much too expensive and as bad as wind.
Coal is banned
There is only ONE realistic power supply we can use.........NUCLEAR
France's main source of power is nuclear. UK, USA and many others have perfectly good nuclear power plants.
Australia? playing high and mighty and pretending not to worry. The only nuke power we have in Australia is in X ray machines!
Wake up Australia and get with it
I am totally confident that first diesel vehicles, and then petrol ones, will
in fact become redundant even sooner than you expect. Both electric and
fuel cell technology are going full steam[pun unintended] ahead, battery
life for vehicles is improving in leaps and bounds. The same goes for alternative power sources. I am not anti nuclear, but Australia has always
been one of the most conservative and head in the sand western
countries, and will most probably continue that way to the bitter end.
Wind farms are not pathetic, although they do have their downside, that being the rainshadow downwind of them, and the noise. There are a number of windfarms around the world that put out power comparable to our largest coal stations. I wouldn't call that pathetic.
New designs of solar power systems are being developed also. Because so many homes have solar panels some states now have surplus generating
capacity.raymo
It seems to me that the holy grail right now is efficient energy storage, i.e storing large amounts of electrical energy into small volumes of matter, to rival the energy density of fossil fuels. If we can figure this out (without quickly depleting some other limited resource in the process) we'll have virtually free energy forever.
I'm very excited about the improving viability of home electricity storage using batteries. We still need a technological breakthrough or three, then every home will be able to generate its own electricity, and enough for the family cars as well.
I'm very excited about the improving viability of home electricity storage using batteries. We still need a technological breakthrough or three, then every home will be able to generate its own electricity, and enough for the family cars as well.
We can all see this coming, and it would be an ideal result. However, the journey to this will be difficult. Which investors (including Governments) will want to build major power stations to last 30 to 50 years, when home- based technologies could make such power stations redundant within 10 years?
So, now we are told that by 2050 no more petrol driven cars will be produced. So by, say 2060, all our trucks will be electric powered.
My question is "Where do our beloved leaders think all that extra required power to drive our vehicles will come from?"
Wind farms are pathetic.
Solar power much too expensive and as bad as wind.
Coal is banned
There is only ONE realistic power supply we can use.........NUCLEAR
France's main source of power is nuclear. UK, USA and many others have perfectly good nuclear power plants.
Australia? playing high and mighty and pretending not to worry. The only nuke power we have in Australia is in X ray machines!
Wake up Australia and get with it
The simple answer to this argument is:
We have been burning fossil fuels for a long time and the waste product is destroying our planet.
If we switch to nuclear, we largely eliminate the carbon emissions and replace them with nuclear waste.
Carbon can be sucked from the atmosphere over the short term, high level nuclear waste will be around for millenia
The long term solution for power is three fold.
1/ Stop bloody wasting it by treating it as a something you can piss away without consequence
2/ Only develop power sources that have no waste product
3/ Get innovative. The national grid system is obsolete. Most power can, and should, come from local, small scale, grids based on renewable mix with storage. The options for renewable energy are constantly growing, as are the storage choices. Base load can be supplied by renewable sources; one just has to look at the huge thermal systems being built NOW that melt sodium as examples.
IMHO opinion, nuclear may have a role if processes can be developed that do not generate wastes with half lives of millennia but, until then, we'ed just be contributing to the stockpile of hell that already exists around the world.
If you are not trolling and really genuinely do want to know why
nuclear power is not looking like a good option at this point in time,
I would be happy to share what I know.
Your question is also unfortunately loaded with a couple of false
premises regarding solar being "much too expensive" and wind generation
being "pathetic", which again if you are not trolling and really are
genuinely interested, I can provide you with some recent power industry
figures which may come as a pleasant surprise.
In the last couple of days, I posted here on IceInSpace on the state of
the nuclear power industry, but I will reproduce it here to save having
to click on the link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary
2018 has been a sobering lesson in how expensive the construction of state-of-the-art nuclear power stations can be.
So much so that Westinghouse Electric* filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in March, because of US$9 billion losses from nuclear power plant construction projects.
Their AP1000 reactor which was designed to passively cool itself after an accidental shutdown was seen as the solution in a post-Fukushima nuclear reactor market.
But three decades of highly skilled engineering, regulatory reviews and construction later, the AP1000 is yet to generate a watt of power.
A pair of AP1000's being built in South Carolina were abandoned after costs spiralled from US$10 billion to an eye-watering US$25 billion.
Meanwhile, a pair of AP1000's being built in China have suffered several engineering shortfalls.
The blades on the circulation pumps that are crtical to the reactors safety would stop spinning too quickly after the power was shut off, before the signature passive cooling could kick in.
There were leaks in the steam pipes exiting one of the reactor vessels.
Meantime a glut in power in China may not make either reactor ever economically viable in the market and so economies of scale for the reactors may never come about.
The missed deadlines and cost overruns have lead to the conclusion by many in the industry that the rapid growth of nuclear power has peaked and is now a thing of the past.
As at today, the costs of renewables has plumetted making them the current choice for the lowest $/kW in Australia.
Elsewhere in the world, such as Europe, the United States and China, renewables have become ubiquitous.
For example, in 2015 there was a solar eclipse over parts of Europe that resulted in a 18GW dip and 25GW rise in the amount of power in the grid just from solar alone.
25GW is equivalent to the output of about 18 nuclear power plants fully ramped up.
Currently there is about 84GW of solar deployed in Europe, equivalent to the output of about 60 nuclear reactors.
The current cost to just build that many AP1000-class nuclear reactors would run at around AUD 1 trillion.
Everyone wants cheap power in Australia. But the rest of the world is facing the same experience. And it will get cheaper.
But if by "cheap" you mean the types of prices we paid per kW/hr decades ago, it is not going to happen at this point in time.
The reason is that the existing coal power plants have come to the end of their lives. Like an old car, they have reached the end of the road.
So even if there wasn't the requirement to urgently decrease CO2 outputs, they would need replacing anyway.
So either way we go, there are a lot of capital replacement costs at the moment but they will be amortized over time.
But unless you have very deep pockets and are willing to throw a lot of money at improving reactor designs for the benefit of the rest of the world,
nuclear power in Australia would be the most expensive option.
Westinghouse Electric would appreciate it though. They are looking for a willing buyer to take them out of bankruptcy.
As a further footnote to the above original post, as at this year
the French state-owned Électricité de France (EDF), which is the biggest
operator of nuclear power plants in Europe, is also in debt.
Meantime Areva, which is a French nuclear reactor design company,
has been making multi-billion Euro losses just about every year since 2011.
EDF are in the process of bailing them out by buying their reactor business.
And in Japan, Toshiba, which also has a giant nuclear engineering division
and who is also the parent company of Westinghouse Electric, is also
in financial trouble and there are concerns that it may not be able to
continue as a going concern.
As at March, Toshiba were looking at posting losses of around 1 Trillion
Yen owing to the losses in its nuclear power business and sadly were
going to have to sell their profitable core semiconductor business in order
to erase the debt and to help its financial standing.
On a personal note, I would be very sad to see Toshiba ever go under.
With regards wind and solar prices, you might be interested in reading
this post I also made in the last couple of days where I am quoting
Dr Alex Wonhas, Managing Director, Energy, Resources and Manufacturing
at Aureco here in Australia :-
Or if you prefer, you might like to read the original article from which
I took the quotes which appeared in last month's edition of "Energy
Source & Distribution" magazine :- http://en.calameo.com/read/000373495bf3aeb336dc6/12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Energy Source & Distribution, Dr. Wonhas
Based on current costs, Dr Wonhas says ‘clean coal’ is a more expensive option on a pure energy basis than renewables.
“What see clean coal, or ultra supercritical coal, sit at around $80/MWh with 700-800kg of CO2 emissions per MWh,” he explains.
“A combined cycle gas turbine might produce power at about $100MWh – obviously its cost depend on the gas price so this is for about $10 per gigajoule, which is where the market is at the moment. Its emissions are around half that of coal, at about 400-500kg of CO2 per MWh.
“Solar has become quite competitive with maybe $75 per MWh, followed by wind with around $60 per MWh. So renewables are lower-cost than some of the conventional generation technologies on an energy only basis.”
Of course when discussing the cost of different technologies, Dr Wonhas says it is important to not leave out storage.
“What we are seeing in the market at the moment is maybe $750 per kWh for a battery system optimised for long-term storage on a full EPC basis, and maybe $1500 per kWh or more for a battery system that is more optimised towards providing short-term outputs and lower storage intervals,” Dr Wonhas explains.
“It’s quite instructive to compare that to pumped hydro, since the Prime Minister’s announcement of Snowy Hydro 2.0 has been a lot in the press. When you take some of the publically available data, and say well, it is $2 billion for 2GW of capacity, then you probably have to add another $2 billion for the necessary transmission system upgrades – that gives you maybe $250 per kWh for an 8 hour storage capacity.
“This is about a third of what you would pay for a battery system today. However the costs of battery systems are continually coming down so it will be interesting to see by how much battery costs will have reduced over the 4 years plus it will take to build Snowy Hydro 2.0.”
Aurecon has been delivering specialist and technical engineering advice for some of the country’s biggest and most exciting storage projects – including the South Australian government’s 100MW lithium-ion battery, and Territory Generation’s 5MW Batttery Energy Storage System (BESS) in Alice Springs
So in summary - this year has not been a good one for the nuclear power
industry to the point that many of those within it are themselves speculating
whether the industry has reached a turning point.
The good news however is that the cost of renewables has plummeted
globally make them some of the cheapest electricity sources available.
In your original post, you were citing the years 2050 and 2060.
That is still 32 and 42 years in the future which is a lot or time in terms
of the likely technological advancements that may take place between
now and then.
To remind ourselves how long 42 years is, in 1933 you have
King Kong holding onto Fay Wray and fighting off biplanes.
42 years later the jumbo jet has already been operational
for six years and the last men to walk on the Moon had lifted off from
it two years earlier.
So despite the urgency of reducing CO2 emissions now, a lot of
technological development can take place in that period of time
that we can only speculate about today.
By way of example, if you had a crystal ball and told me that in
the coming decades, intercontinental HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current)
submarine cables were connecting power grids across the world,
I wouldn't be surprised.
When you hear HVDC, think half a million or perhaps 1 million volts.
HVDC is already being deployed in places such as China and
Europe and provides the potential for grid stability and energy trading on
a global scale. Though the development of HVDC is nearly 50 years old,
advances in building large semiconductors make it possible
to transit power over very large distances with very little resistive
losses.
Using technology such as HVDC, if you look at the burgeoning market
for electricity in South East Asia and the sub-continent alone, there might
be an opportunity for Australia to become a net electricity
exporter. Perhaps wind turbines generating power in Bass Strait may
be earning income for the state of Tasmania by providing electricity
directly to Singapore, Bangkok and Taipei.
HVDC links also allow current flow in either direction, so if the
wind isn't blowing in some part of the country, then over continental
and intercontinental distances, chances are it will be blowing there
or a utility some vast distance away will have power to trade.
* Footnote. Westinghouse Electric built the first hydro-electric power plant in 1895 in Niagara Falls
* Footnote. One of the reasons solar cell power generation
has become so efficient and affordable is in part owing to major
contributions to the technology made starting in the early 1970's to
the present by an Australian who has been dubbed ""the father of photovoltaics".
Best Regards
Gary Kopff
Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 39 years
At this time, saying that you want to run a Grid, you know, an industrial Grid.... off renewables is similar to saying you want to run an industrial Grid off Fission Power renewables cannot of this time economically run an industrial sized power Grid without conventional power holding up the system. Renewables are dependent upon conventional power generation, conventional power generation isn't dependant upon alternative power generation. Without access to the National, Grid Adelaide would plunge into immediate darkness and lives would be lost. At some time in the future, this will change, at some time in the future renewables won't be dependant on Gov subsidies or handouts that cost the wider community dearly, renewables may even be able to power an industrial Grid without the support of more conventional power sources. Possibly, the key to sustainable Fission power generation will be developed, that, of course, will be the dawning of a new age, but that time is not with us yet.
Neither Fission (a long, long way off) nor renewables are economically viable. Renewables are viable only in isolated communities where less expensive alternatives are prohibitively expensive or Gov subsidies enable renewables.
If the Green's hadn't destroyed the Nuclear industry in the 70's & 80's our Carbon drenched world would be far cleaner. The only advances we have enjoyed in Fusion Power has been in Warships the new Ford Class of Aircraft Carrier develops enough power to light & power Canberra, yes even when the suns not shining (roughly 50% of time) and the winds not blowing completely reliable, transportable power for an entire City!
The energy "debate" continues to be distorted and there is a distinct whiff of "Trump is Hitler" about the "debate". My gripe is that energy is the province of science, energy shouldn't be the province of ideology or distortions occur, nor should energy be a "safe space". A wonderfully clear example of the deleterious effect of ideological distortion... the cheapest, most efficient power storage battery per unit of energy stored? A lead acid bank technology from the 1800's
Truth has been the first victim in the energy debate. Nuclear is in part an answer, a very good answer. If the Green's hadn't destroyed the development of Civilian Fusion Power generation then today would have been a better cleaner and much cooler world. Given that everyone who is an Icer' is interested in science, or even a citizen scientist it's beholden upon us to adhere to higher standards and dare I say, employ the scientific method when discussing power generation rather than attempting to do a preference deal.
If the Green's hadn't destroyed the Nuclear industry in the 70's & 80's our Carbon drenched world would be far cleaner.
Gee... I thought 3 mile island, chernobyl and fukyoushima; a large number of leaks, lack of economic viability, subsidised fossil fuels and the mountain of toxic waste had something to do with it....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Visionary
The only advances we have enjoyed in Fusion Power has been in Warships the new Ford Class of Aircraft Carrier ....
I'll have one of those
Quote:
Originally Posted by Visionary
The energy "debate" continues to be distorted and there is a distinct whiff of "Trump is Hitler" about the "debate".
...He's probably chanelling that psycho... at the very least!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Visionary
My gripe is that energy is the province of science, energy shouldn't be the province of ideology or distortions occur, nor should energy be a "safe space".
... and yet our ideologically driven government has done everything in its power to support fossil fuels whilst destroying the renewables industry in this country...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Visionary
Truth has been the first victim in the energy debate. Nuclear is in part an answer, a very good answer.
Gotta agree with you there. Ever heard of "Clean coal" Oxymoron if I ever heard of one
Quote:
Originally Posted by Visionary
If the Green's hadn't destroyed the development of Civilian Fusion Power generation then today would have been a better cleaner and much cooler world.
Refer to previous
Quote:
Originally Posted by Visionary
Given that everyone who is an Icer' is interested in science, or even a citizen scientist it's beholden upon us to adhere to higher standards and dare I say, employ the scientific method when discussing power generation rather than attempting to do a preference deal.
There's no need to figure out all the answers before embarking on the path to sustainable power. Simply bring renewables/storage on line as quickly as possible and progressively retire coal fired generators after the new tech is in place and working.
There's no need to figure out all the answers before embarking on the path to sustainable power. Simply bring renewables/storage on line as quickly as possible and progressively retire coal fired generators after the new tech is in place and working.
Regarding Gary's references to possible international transmission of power,
the U.K. and mainland Europe have their peak demand periods at different times, so Europe exports power to the U.k. to help cover their peak, and
later in the evening it is reversed to help cover Europe's peak.
If solar became huge around the world, places where it is daytime could
export to night time countries, thus avoiding the main drawback to solar.
raymo
There's no need to figure out all the answers before embarking on the path to sustainable power. Simply bring renewables/storage on line as quickly as possible and progressively retire coal fired generators after the new tech is in place and working.
__________________
Tony
Waiting only works if the thermal generators will hang together long enough Tony - but many are already nearly stuffed. In fact one of the power crises in SA (widely blamed on renewables of course) was due to a major failure in our major (50 year old) gas fired plant.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-0...ffline/8323354. AGL has indicated that the Torrens Island system in SA is in danger of "crapping out". http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-0...tation/8596016
Our old power generators are going to go out of business well before renewable technology is fully matured.
As Gary points out, nuclear doesn't make sense for a whole lot of reasons (just the lead time rules it out for the current Australian crisis). New coal generators are not favoured by power companies or banks, because they will become stranded assets in the fairly near future. A rapid ramping up of investment in renewables plus quick reaction gas looks to me to be the only solution that makes any long term sense at all, despite the current shortcomings of some renewables.
Regarding Gary's references to possible international transmission of power,
the U.K. and mainland Europe have their peak demand periods at different times, so Europe exports power to the U.k. to help cover their peak, and
later in the evening it is reversed to help cover Europe's peak.
If solar became huge around the world, places where it is daytime could
export to night time countries, thus avoiding the main drawback to solar.
raymo
Hi Raymo,
Thanks for the post.
It is a concept that is being actively studied by engineering professionals
at the moment.
For example, as I recently reported elsewhere in IceInSpace, the U.S.
Department of Energy have been leading an international team in
performing simulations of HVDC links interconnecting North America
and Europe.
We already move power over continents. So just as we went from the
era of the first telegraph line under the Atlantic Ocean to the Internet today,
some of the big power distribution design companies and individual
electrical engineers are proposing a global power grid.
Particularly when you look at interconnecting sites with vastly different
time zones, you could circumvent the day-night cycle for solar.
China and Europe are both moving rapidly with HVDC deployment.
I would like to think most of us engineers are cup half full type of people.
Where many of the lay public view the current crossroads the world
is at with regards power generation with anxiety, engineers tend
to be more stoic and look at it as a potential opportunity.
Whereas it has been self-evident to all that Australia is lucky in that it
is a continent with a vast area lending itself to making solar and wind
generation easier than in some other countries, I don't think most of the
lay public have become aware yet of the potential export opportunities
there could be if you were to combine vast renewable generation with HVDC.
We understand how countries like Saudi Arabia became wealthy exporting
oil out of a place that is essentially just a big desert, yet you could
pull off a similar trick by just pushing electrons through submarine
cables to other parts of the world.
And HVDC might prove to be a win-win technology in that it helps
improve power grid stability when you have a large mix of renewables,
plus it helps contribute to reducing CO2 emissions plus it could
provide an export revenue stream for net producers of power.
HVDC is still a relatively expensive technology but the costs are coming down
and as I noted above with the types of research going on, the learning
curve is going up.
As noted in this Jan 14th 2017 article in "The Economist", entitled
"China’s embrace of a new electricity-transmission technology holds
lessons for others", we could do worse than learn from their experience
as they deploy vast amounts of HVDC/UHVDC.
If the financials add up, as a cup half full kind of guy, I'd rather see
Australian solar and wind powering, say, Singapore, rather than China
turning out smarter and beating us to the punch.
I would like to think most of us engineers are cup half full type of people.
Agreed, but engineers normally get kicked aside once its designed and running, ( ie once the risk is removed ).
Just imagine the "political" bunfight over who will run it and when.
It will make Brussels and the EU look like kindergarten.
You only have to look at the internet now.
It was designed to be an "open" means of communication, but now its up and running, if a pollie cracks the sads, they block it according to their designs, or someone like farcebook corners one section and then imposes their will ( like a gated community )
Its true that engineers just want to make it run, and probably will, but lots of grubs in politics and business will then decide that it needs to be "controlled for national security" and start their own little fiefdoms again.
Human history repeatedly shows this will happen, because as a species, we dont seem to learn.
Good grief, so much of this thread is pie in the sky, wishes were fishes. Powering a city is something that has to be done today, we can't wait until tomorrow to power our cities, in cities people die if there is insufficient power.
I find it interesting that amongst all the talk of lossless transmission of Gigawatts of power yet there was zero discussion on the fact that the cheapest way we have to store electrical power are lead-acid batteries, tech from the 1800's
I could quite as easily talk the virtues of Fusion, but, the technology does not exist. One day Fusion Power may become commonplace but not today. We use power today, we do not power our devices today using tomorrows power. The Power Pixies may believe they can rewrite the laws of thermodynamics & relativity, however, it won't make power flow through the wall socket. It's pointless talking about how good it would be to use lossless or near lossless power transmission if you cant do it!
To merely make the utterance Solar, renewable does not make you a harbinger of the future, it does not position anyone the leading edge of tech, its mere words. Words do not make an energy efficient light bulb glow, electrons flowing down a wire illuminate an energy efficient light bulb.
The overwhelming majority of renewables pundits convey the impression that talking about something aka renewables is somehow virtuous and leading edge, its just talk. We have cities to power, less advantaged to assist, educations to fund etc: washing this all down the drain so that latte-sipping neophytes can feel good about the Middle-Class welfare of Solar Subsidies is enough to make a reasonable person gag.
Agreed, but engineers normally get kicked aside once its designed and running, ( ie once the risk is removed ).
Just imagine the "political" bunfight over who will run it and when.
It will make Brussels and the EU look like kindergarten.
You only have to look at the internet now.
It was designed to be an "open" means of communication, but now its up and running, if a pollie cracks the sads, they block it according to their designs, or someone like farcebook corners one section and then imposes their will ( like a gated community )
Its true that engineers just want to make it run, and probably will, but lots of grubs in politics and business will then decide that it needs to be "controlled for national security" and start their own little fiefdoms again.
Human history repeatedly shows this will happen, because as a species, we dont seem to learn.
Andrew
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the post.
I know exactly what you mean.
There are a couple of aspects to it.
The first is that engineering, like any profession, likes to try and obey the discipline of remaining professional.
Having said that, it is a bit of a sweeping statement and not always true.
But I think we can agree that in order for any profession to advance
itself, there are general unwritten rules of conduct.
By way of anecdote, there was a international IEEE conference
here in Sydney a few years back.
A politician was invited to give the opening address. Many of those
attending reported that the politician described to them one of the engineers
attending the conference, an individual who was a Professor at a major
Australian University and who had published widely in the area and who
had extensive industry experience - as "innumerate".
There was much tongue biting.
Many within the profession have been calling for some time for engineers
to step up to the plate more in helping to educate the public.
The second aspect is with respect the power grid itself.
When engineers designed power grids initially, their primary goal
was reliability.
Then someone figured you could make money out of grids by trading
power. This was sometimes at odds with the initial design goals
and it probably reached a head with the Enron scandal in the US
where Enron orchestrated an energy shortage in California by market
manipulation. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califo...tricity_crisis
Gee... I thought 3 mile island, chernobyl and fukyoushima; a large number of leaks, lack of economic viability, subsidised fossil fuels and the mountain of toxic waste had something to do with it....
I'll have one of those
...He's probably chanelling that psycho... at the very least!!
... and yet our ideologically driven government has done everything in its power to support fossil fuels whilst destroying the renewables industry in this country...
Gotta agree with you there. Ever heard of "Clean coal" Oxymoron if I ever heard of one
Refer to previous
Couldn't agree with you more. Try it...
I don't have to comment on your post, simply reposting it makes my point
I am totally confident that first diesel vehicles, and then petrol ones, will
in fact become redundant even sooner than you expect. Both electric and
fuel cell technology are going full steam[pun unintended] ahead, battery
life for vehicles is improving in leaps and bounds. The same goes for alternative power sources. I am not anti nuclear, but Australia has always
been one of the most conservative and head in the sand western
countries, and will most probably continue that way to the bitter end.
Wind farms are not pathetic, although they do have their downside, that being the rainshadow downwind of them, and the noise. There are a number of windfarms around the world that put out power comparable to our largest coal stations. I wouldn't call that pathetic.
New designs of solar power systems are being developed also. Because so many homes have solar panels some states now have surplus generating
capacity.raymo
A couple of observations here... (std disclaimer, I'm a Petroleum engineer, but with a “Green-ish” twist)...
1) Petrol will probably be phased out before diesel. The main paradigm for diesel is that most heavy transports rely on a more concentrated energy source (i.e. more “instantaneous” horsepower) and while electric is certainly a viable option; the problem is that the horsepower to torque relationship is not ideal for either the transport industry or for the resource industry. It may argued that a transport vehicle is better served by an electric motor as the torque requirements are not important, but this is only the case where the geography is relatively flat.
I would imagine that in a greener world, heavy prime movers would be powered via LNG, as this is pure methane. Combustion would release only H2O and CO2, with no SoX or NoX. In the US, LNG is starting to take off as a viable alternative to diesel. The greatest advantage of LNG is that is not combustible in its liquid form and if spilled will only ignite as a ground fire.
Petroleum on the other hand has a direct competitor in the new paradigm, electric cars (thank you Elon)… Momentum that is gathering here seems to me to be unstoppable. The only flaw in the design is distance. The Tesla Model S can travel 335 miles on a single charge. GREAT!, but it takes 9 hours to charge it for the next 335 miles. I drive a mid-size pickup, BIG-V8, 22 gallon tank, 440 mile range, tops up in 2 minutes… while I understand that the younger generation would LOVE to have time to cruise the web on their phone, I think even they would start to get annoyed at a 9 hour waiting time versus my two minutes…
2) The demise of petrol… I’ve been in the Petroleum Industry for 37 years and I can tell you that I welcome the transition into an alternative fuel source that is more environmentally friendly. Petroleum has transformed the world, no question, but even though the energy concentrated per mole of hydrocarbon is greater than can be achieve by either batteries or fuel cells, I can envision a day where technology can better utilize mid to heavy hydrocarbons in a better way via reforming or synthesizing materials that can symbiotically be used in everyday life rather than using it to “push” us around the globe. Exotic polymers come to mind...
3) Battery life… this is the main problem. From a safety point of view, ANY hydrocarbon is probably safer than the current generation of fuel cells or batteries. Energy concentration is the name of the game and hydrocarbons have the upper hand. Hydrocarbon powered vehicles rarely explode(as a whole, not talking about the ICE) and while there has been no major incident of a catastrophic failure of a fuel cell or battery, when it happens it will set the industry back.
4) Nuclear… I’m pro-nuclear, fusion that is. I think fission has a good place in an ever evolving world and the French seem to have “mastered” it for the time being… my hope and desires are that fusion is figured out and that petroleum is relegated to the production of plastic, polymers and the like.
5) Alternative energy sources… I’m not a fan of using wind-farms as a viable long-term solution to the energy problems of the world. It is very niche in my opinion (read: peaking shaving if the conditions are right). Combined with batteries (ala Musk and South Australia) I think it’s “almost” viable in the long-term. I am a fan of sea power however and believe that the Moon has given us a gift by her presence. Tides I believe can be a reliable source of energy and we should concentrate our efforts on creating exotic metals that are anticorrosive to build power stations under the ocean.
6) Coal – what a topic… in my opinion, the only future for coal is gasification or synthesis… period. I know that there a lot of climate change deniers out there and I respect your point of view. My view is that the science is over and the only thing left is the debate over how much of the change is anthropogenic. We can disagree forever, so I feel that in the end it is pointless to argue any more… it would better to agree that if we can take coal and make it better by making it more environmentally friendly and creating more value (i.e. profit) for the owners then fine… let’s do it.
7) Solar panels.. My firm belief is that if you are fortunate enough to be in the greatest solar country in the world (Australia) and you don’t have solar installed, then you deserve to be gouged by the electric companies…
With respect to timing of all this… the US is already transitioning diesel to LNG. T. Boone Pickens has started the trend here in the US, but the change has been hard fought because of the shale revolution… I paid $2.25/gal today for gas (petrol), US$0.62/L or A$0.80/L… eliminating such a cheap source of energy is going to be difficult at best. It’s the revolution that is driving this. Natural gas prices are US $3/GJ (AUD $3.90/GJ), shale gas/oil in action (thanks to hydraulic fracturing). It costs me very little to keep my lights on and the house warm. In contrast, my home in Adelaide cost quite a bit (as in several times more). Electricity is AUD $.10/kwh in Wyoming, thanks again to 1) cheap coal and 2) cheap natural gas. If Australia goes the same way, then it’s be a while before hydrocarbons are supplanted, save the green’s push for control.
In Australia, the revolution is nearing. The only difference is that frac’ing (not fracking ffs…) is being challenged much more than it is here in America. If the ability to stimulate wells progresses unhindered, then Australia will see new industries spring up in the NT, where most of the potentially prolific shales exist. This will allow Australia to meet local demand at a much lower unit cost.
The shale oil revolution in America has “fueled” the ability to distill kerosene, jet fuel and diesel rather than import it. Australia imports 25 gigaliters of these products per year… at $1 wholesale, you do the math… if you can’t, it’s $2,500,000,000,000 per year… if Australia follows global trends (the US started it, but others are following) when there will be a significant delay in the uptake of alternative energy source for transportation.
Comments are always welcome; I’d love to hear other points of view. In some ways I hope I’m wrong. Humanity and history have indicated to me that the majority is selfish and evolution is more likely rather than revolution. Media concentrates on the latter, but the former is the “status quo”…
