Where do carbon credits come from?

[xelasnave]

I have just read Mikes encouragement to be positive and so I appologise for this thread ... not saying I dont believe in everything I have said but I can see there will be folk who having taken the opposite side may think I am having a go at them personally... I beleive of myself I do not attack personalities but no doubt it may not always appear that way.
I can not think of anyone I dont like really... no one has ever offended me and everyone here has always been suportive... I have more faults than anyone here can list so I am never put out.

alex

[Ian Robinson]

Originally Posted by astronut

"Where do carbon credits come from?"

All the melted down greenies!!

I'll admit to being a greeny , but I am not the tree hugging loony kind.

I insulated my ceiling and walls years before it was trendy to do so because I understand thermal insulation, did the sums and it was a good proposition , I was recladding anyway.
I added a roof turbine years before they were advocated as great for keeping the house cooler in summer.
The pay back for solar hot water is not good enough to do it in my view. If there was reticulated gas in my street - I'd convert.
I am still driving a big 4x4 and have no intention of getting rid of it.

[Ian Robinson]

It's actually very easy and cheap for industries to reduce their CO2 emissions.

I proved that when I was working at Newcastle Steelworks, we were able to reduce fuel consumption by near 10% overall , and up to 30% on specific products by simply being smarter in how the process was run , no capex involved.
Gained another 15% by improving control , refractories and burner and combustion systems (every 100oC increase in combustion air temp reduced fuel consumption by 5%).

Power stations (coal) can easily achieve 20% reductions in CO2 emissions by preprocessing coal to remove shale and clay , it's called ULTRA CLEAN COAL , the processed UCC can then be combusted and is as low emission as natural gas.
Trigeneration can also make power generation more efficient too.
Using pure O2 rather than air would also result in significant reductions in C02 emissions, if using air , you must heat the inert N2 in the air too ,and some of that N2 becomes NOx (another problem) , using pure O2 means better thermal efficiency.

[TrevorW]

I ask a question:

If we have so many different varieties of renewable energy tidal, wind, solar, geothermal why are we not promoting these instead of NP

In the USA no one has placed an order for a nuclear plant since 1973, a new 1,400-megawatt nuclear power plant is going to cost about $2.6 billion, why build it will take 6 1/2 yearsand while you are building, you have to issue equity, you have to service that equity. You have to issue bonds; you have to service the bonds with interest. You don't have any money coming in. You have an average of $1.3 billion out for 6 1/2 years that is not earning anything.

Wheres the logic with that investment you could build massive renewable safe energy prodcution facilities in half the time

[Ian Robinson]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

I ask a question:

If we have so many different varieties of renewable energy tidal, wind, solar, geothermal why are we not promoting these instead of NP

In the USA no one has placed an order for a nuclear plant since 1973, a new 1,400-megawatt nuclear power plant is going to cost about $2.6 billion," he said. "It is going to take 6 1/2 years to build. While you are building, you have to issue equity, you have to service that equity. You have to issue bonds; you have to service the bonds with interest. You don't have any money coming in. You have an average of $1.3 billion out for 6 1/2 years that is not earning anything.

I am opposed to NP , until such time as nuclear fusion becomes viable and sustainable. My objections are based on the engineering aspects and the close coupling of nuclear (uranium based) power with nuclear weapons proliferation.

We have stacks of high quality coal in Australia , use it.
We have stacks of natural gas in Australia , use it.
Nuclear power generation is not safe, not environmentally friendly, and not near as cheap (I know people who live in the USA in states that have nuclear power plants and their electricity bills are EXPENSIVE !!!).
Renewables should also be part of the mix , but , they are never going to be a realistic replacement for coal and gas and hydro generated electricity,

[xelasnave]

Well in my humble opinion each vendor of energy will say the others are not viable but given the adds one hears , such as I refered to about the barrier reef to be saved when NP is implemented it would appear perhaps they may be behind the promotion of the carbon thingy...for if for no other reason NP wil become viable because Governments can tax the consumer so it is the only economic fuel... no matter how economically inefficient any thing is tax consessions will make it work... so we wont see PN downed for reasons of economy...lets face it carbon tax on coal and carbon tax on NP and then there is the tax benefits any decent lobby group will see implemented... ask who pays for the barrier reef adds ??? I dont know but I bet track it back to the "foundation" and maybe I may be correct for once.

But I really dont know it is just if you track the money or work out who stands to gain when you hear stuff certain conspiracies can be speculated upon... and I am not into conspiracies only money trails... but I would love to know who paid for that add.

alex

[AndrewJ]

Carbon Credits are just the next No Doc Loans
( No Gas Loans ??? )

Until the world finds a way to control population and work within a
"non expanding" economy, it will get worse no matter what anyone does.

Andrew

[Ian Robinson]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Well in my humble opinion each vendor of energy will say the others are not viable but given the adds one hears , such as I refered to about the barrier reef to be saved when NP is implemented it would appear perhaps they may be behind the promotion of the carbon thingy...for if for no other reason NP wil become viable because Governments can tax the consumer so it is the only economic fuel... no matter how economically inefficient any thing is tax consessions will make it work... so we wont see PN downed for reasons of economy...lets face it carbon tax on coal and carbon tax on NP and then there is the tax benefits any decent lobby group will see implemented... ask who pays for the barrier reef adds ??? I dont know but I bet track it back to the "foundation" and maybe I may be correct for once.

But I really dont know it is just if you track the money or work out who stands to gain when you hear stuff certain conspiracies can be speculated upon... and I am not into conspiracies only money trails... but I would love to know who paid for that add.

alex

The coral reef dying is not quite right , the correct temperature for coral to grow will simply move south , and the coral will slowly colonise shallow coastal water further south. So will the correct sea chemistry (CO2 is more soluble in warmer water than colder water).

Coal currently consumed to produce electricity has an ash content up to 40%, that ash is heated in the combustion process ---> wasted energy and extra CO2 produced , UCC removes the ash prior to combustion ---> less CO2 produced / MW
Powerstations used preheated air to combust the coal , air is 78% N2 which as far as combustion is concerned is inert , but has to to heated to combust the coal anyway , this consumes energy (coal) ---> more coal required ---> more C02 produced / MW , use pure O2 ---> less coal needed / MW and less C02 produced / MW
Trigeneration can produce thermal efficiencies in excess of 90% ---> less coal / MW and less CO2 produced / MW , current Cogen coal fired poeer stations are lucky if they achieve 40% thermal efficiency. Gas fired is not much different.http://www.aie.org.au/melb/material/...ce/pwr-eff.htm

Why the power generators don't impliment UCC , O2 enriched combustion and trigeneration (as retrofits and upgrades to existing powerstations) is beyond silly. Maybe CCs will give some incentive to do this.

[Ian Robinson]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Carbon Credits are just the next No Doc Loans
( No Gas Loans ??? )

Until the world finds a way to control population and work within a
"non expanding" economy, it will get worse no matter what anyone does.

Andrew

I regularly recieve invites to take up new credit cards, with low doc or no doc requirements and very low honeymoon period interest rates .... something I am not interested in taking up .... but many people do and they will be in big trouble in many cases when the interest rates increase.
No one learns anything , and the mistakes are repeated with different products ----

CCs are not the next low doc loans , they are an opportunity to encourage industry to clean up their act and an incentive to do so.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Ian Robinson

The coral reef dying is not quite right , the correct temperature for coral to grow will simply move south , and the coral will slowly colonise shallow coastal water further south. So will the correct sea chemistry (CO2 is more soluble in warmer water than colder water).

Coal currently consumed to produce electricity has an ash content up to 40%, that ash is heated in the combustion process ---> wasted energy and extra CO2 produced , UCC removes the ash prior to combustion ---> less CO2 produced / MW
Powerstations used preheated air to combust the coal , air is 78% N2 which as far as combustion is concerned is inert , but has to to heated to combust the coal anyway , this consumes energy (coal) ---> more coal required ---> more C02 produced / MW , use pure O2 ---> less coal needed / MW and less C02 produced / MW
Trigeneration can produce thermal efficiencies in excess of 90% ---> less coal / MW and less CO2 produced / MW , current Cogen coal fired poeer stations are lucky if they achieve 40% thermal efficiency. Gas fired is not much different.http://www.aie.org.au/melb/material/...ce/pwr-eff.htm

Why the power generators don't impliment UCC , O2 enriched combustion and trigeneration (as retrofits and upgrades to existing powerstations) is beyond silly. Maybe CCs will give some incentive to do this.

Well that is so very interesting thanks for posting. Maybe the Coal folk have something up their sleeve ...

The really good thing about all this is the public information , the developments of many alternatives some how gives one confidence what ever we run out of we will have something to replace it... I think we should save Uranium strangely for future generations to power the battle stars...
WE can use solar and wind down here but up there we we regret wasting NP on Earthly things... you cant use petrol in space or coal... so save it I say.

We are very lucky really.

alex

[Ian Robinson]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Well that is so very interesting thanks for posting. Maybe the Coal folk have something up their sleeve ...

The really good thing about all this is the public information , the developments of many alternatives some how gives one confidence what ever we run out of we will have something to replace it... I think we should save Uranium strangely for future generations to power the battle stars...
WE can use solar and wind down here but up there we we regret wasting NP on Earthly things... you cant use petrol in space or coal... so save it I say.

We are very lucky really.

alex

Leave the uranium in the ground , unless you get gold and copper and uranium is there anyway.

Australia if we must go the nuclear fission route would be better off using our even bigger reserves of thorium - by the way - fewer and less radiactive byproducts that have to be safely isolated and stored for hundreds or thousands of years from the thorium cycle.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publica...E_1450_web.pdf

Was rejected in the 1940s because the UK and USA wanted the bomb. This is the main reason why the USA, France, UK, Russia went so hugely down the uranium cycle path , not because it gave efficient power (which it doesn't) and I suspect this was the hidden agenda behind the last government's determination to put nuclear power in Australia back on the table (delusions of becoming a regional power and keeping the asian hordes at bay) and is the true main reason behind the lobbying for it, not to mention BHPB and RT will benefit greatly from it as will nuclear power plant vendors (based in the USA , France and Germany).

[Hagar (Doug)]

If nothing else comes out of the climate change and greenhouse effect debate other than a little public interest and a little change in industry then at least it achieved something. The fact that the earth will be hugely overpopulated, missmanaged and publicly raped for it's resources means even the slightest improvement has to be considered a benifit and a priority for everyone who wants our children and their children to live a similar quality of live to us.
Debate is always healthy, change is always needed.

[xelasnave]

Ian you are the man... can we get some Thorium leases ... I can save the planet if we dont go thorium we will loose the barrier reef... let me get my suit and we will get started.

That is so interesting lots of other stuff to follow up.

You know how I rattle on about gravity thru that approach it suggests to me that if one were to even get a large block of iron and placed it in a graphite jacket the inside of the iro should get hot (in my universe) I dont know if you have ever come across such... I just cant work out how large the iro should be or how thick the graphite should be... anyways there are other things that work at least.
alex

[xelasnave]

Doug I somewhat agree but see the activity finally as very possitive..without the scare alternate energies would have a tuffer time... and their elevation will put more pressure to be better from the conventional suppliers...so it is all good.

Many industries will grow, managers engineers, workers on the slab, the list is exciting ...and things may get less poluted efficienies may creep in...and we will be less harse on the planet.... everything is very positive and if I was capable would if a young fella be getting into the business...building wind generators would be cool...researching them cooler still..

So we are lucky our system as seemingly distorted as it can present that we get such happy outcomes..we are blessed I reckon.


alex