If, as I think is now possible, the Copenhagen summit leads to an agreement to reduce CO2 emissions substantially in the next decade and to very low levels by 2050, we will need to replace, or do without, a lot of energy currently derived from carbon-based fuels. It’s probably a good time to take a look at the main contenders for achieving this. Here’s my form guide. (I’m not going to give lots of links – Wikipedia is, as usual, a good place to start).
Efficiency: Often ignored or left until last, but improvements in energy efficiency will probably be the most important single response to the imposition of a price on carbon. Across a wide range of activities there are 50 per cent gains to be had at low cost, as can be seen by comparing the average energy-intensity of most activities (cars, lightbulbs, industrial processes) with the most energy-efficient commercial option. For example, the average fuel efficiency of the existing Australian car fleet is estimated here at 11litres/100km, but there are a wide range of vehicles that use half that, and plenty of options that use even less. Given some mixture of price incentives and regulation it should not be hard to achieve similar savings in most activities. In the transition to low or zero emissions, we can also make some big efficiency gains in the way in which we use carbon-based fuels, most obviously by shifting from the worst such sources (brown coal, oil from tar sands) to the best (gas and other hydrocarbons)
Substitution: Even less commonly mentioned, but again a favorite if we get a serious carbon price. For most energy-using activities there are easily available low-energy substitutes: warm clothes for home heating, cold beer (or iced coffee) for air conditioning, public transport for cars, communications for transport in general. People don’t like talking much about this because the debate is dominated by two polar opposite viewpoints: that we should consume less of everything, or that we must never reduce consumption of anything. In fact, though, over the last century we’ve consumed more of most things, but not of everything. To give just one example, although we consume more of most kinds of health services, house calls by doctors have disappeared and lengthy stays in hospital have become so expensive that they aren’t offered except to those who absolutely need them. As relative prices change, we consume more of things that are cheaper and less of things that are dearer.
Offsets: There are a bunch of these, but reforestation is the big one, probably big enough to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 50-60 ppm over a century or so.
Zero carbon energy sources: These are usually discussed first, but I’ve left them until (second) last to make the point that we shouldn’t think about replacing all existing energy use with new sources. There are a lot of options and a fair bit of uncertainty about all of them, but it seems reasonable to expect that, if we give a general price incentive and put a bit of money into each of them, at least some will pay off. Here’s my list.
Hydro: Well established but not much capacity for growth
Geothermal: Exists on a small scale already and this could be expanded with modest technical progress. But the contribution will still be relatively modest. The big obstacle is the need for transmission lines from locations to markets: we need technical innovations to reduce costs and changes in market institutions that tend to discourage investment
Carbon capture and sequestration: The horse Australia would most like to see win, since a cheap and effective CCS technology would mean that we could declare the problem solved and go back to mining and burning all the coal we have. The capture part seems feasible, but there’s not much to suggest that the difficulties of underground sequestration are going to be resolved any time soon. If CCS is going to be an option, my guess is that its going to have rely on something like using the captured CO2 to grow algae. This is probably also the most promising route to biofuels. I haven’t seen much on the economics of this – any good sources
Biofuels: Technically feasible, but since most biofuels either use food crops as inputs or compete with food crops for land, they can be economically and ethically justified on a large scale only if we can achieve increases in productivity big enough to feed a growing population and have a surplus output large enough to use for fuel. I’m less optimistic about this than I once was, but it’s important not to over-react to the brief upsurge in food and fuel prices a year or so ago. Commodity markets are highly volatile and short-run movements are not a good guide to the long term.
Nuclear: In the Australian context, talk of nuclear power (for and against) is mainly political pointscoring. Even with a big government push behind it, it would take decades for Australia to build up the kind of regulatory, technical and educational infrastructure we would need for a substantial nuclear industry. And realistically speaking, we aren’t going to move until some other developed country shows that it’s possible to start a nuclear program from scratch or at least, restart a stalled program. The leading candidate is the US, which has been pushing a ‘nuclear renaissance’ since the Energy Act of 1992 and particularly since the Bush II administration came in nearly a decade ago. So far, all they have to show for it is a dozen or so proposals, mostly at existing sites. From what I’ve seen it’s unlikely that more than a handful will be in operation by 2020, which puts a large scale resurgence of nuclear power off until 2030 or later. Of course, as has long been true, nuclear plants will continue to be built in countries with a military or national pride motive, but that kind of thing is a dead end as far as any real contribution to global energy needs is concerned.
Wind: already commercially viable or nearly so in lots of places, and bound to become even more significant once carbon prices start rising to $50/t or higher. The big issue raised by critics is variability of supply. That hasn’t proved to be a problem in jurisdictions with up to 20 per cent wind. Given smart metering (and automatic processes capable of responding to higher prices by lowering energy use) this proportion could probably be raised to 40 or 50 per cent, and with storage, even further.
Solar (photovoltaics and thermal): I used to think this technology was a long way off being a serious contender, but recent progress has been striking. As long predicted, the shift from small-scale specialty production to large scale industrial processes has produced big cost reductions with no obvious end in sight. In particular, the industry has ended its reliance on the semiconductor industry as a source of cheap offcuts for silicon, and has been forced to develop low-cost processes specifically designed for solar cells. Assuming a good outcome from Copenhagen (and no breakthroughs on CCS), I predict that by 2020 most new electricity generating capacity will be either solar or wind, while more coal plants will be closing than opening.
Last of all, there are a variety of geoengineering solutions to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. As I said recently, these are a long way off, but could be important after 2050.
John Quiggin 
What about Waxman Markey? If that fails the race will not start in the first place.
We have millions of sunny roofs in this country – there is no reason why solar shouldnt work. If the damn govt in the 1950s could build the Snowy scheme why cant they invest in getting the solar panels into production. They would if they had any sense of planning ahead for this country at all…instead of planning for the next election and tit for tatting amongst themselves.
About a year and a half ago, out of curiosity, I attended a CSIRO “workshop” at UQ on the challenge posed by climate change and resource depletion and the alternative energy sources that were available. About an hour into the proceedings it had become clear that the entire event was just a PR exhibition for CCS technology and all the miracles that we could expect out of its thirty-year research program. The other ‘alternatives’ were hardly mentioned. I know it’s just a little anecdote, but it really impressed upon me how concentrated Australia’s research dollars are going into this one technology at the expense of all others.
Some technologies on this list aren’t showing signs of forging ahead, nonvolcanic geothermal and flue gas algae for example and I think we should give them just five years to achieve prime time. With carbon sinks like forestry there is the moral hazard of letting ourselves exaggerate the amounts, timing and reliability. The economics of solar, both PV and thermal, have been discussed at length on the BraveNewClimate website. Wind penetration >20% seems to be hitting diminishing returns in several countries and I haven’t heard that smart metering will help. The problem is maintaining 230v, 50 Hz to most users.
With nuclear a couple of options are to start tomorrow or wait til build times reduce. We might have to get the Chinese to build them for us. I think as oil goes back to $150 a barrel that Australians will prefer natural gas cars to plug in Prii. After a few years that could mean reining in LNG exports.
McCain-Lieberman got 43 votes in a much more Republican Senate. If the Dems are willing to make this a majority-vote budget reconciliation bill, they should have no trouble getting to 51. It’s pretty clear they will need to do this on health care, which will probably come up first.
@Hermit
I’ve only had a quick look at the posts by Peter Lang but they seem to be an economics-free zone, driven by engineering assumptions derived from the coal industry, and therefore favorable to nuclear (in essence, the assumption that the ideal power supply system is one with constant output). If there is any role for the price mechanism, I didn’t see it.
Here are some good internet resources:-
– Robert Raper’s R-Squared Energy Blog;
– the Thorium Energy Blog; and
– the Nuclear Green Blog.
On “Even with a big government push behind it, it would take decades for Australia to build up the kind of regulatory, technical and educational infrastructure we would need for a substantial nuclear industry” – er, no. It would probably only take on the order of a decade. Unless that was a point that folded in issues of political will? That’s open ended and can’t practically be quantified at all.
There are genuine synergies to be had, e.g. start with coal and/or gas to liquid (the Fischer-Tropsch process, as used by Sasol), then switch to using nuclear for its energy inputs and biomass for its feedstock as those become convenient. The first (non-Green) phase is justifiable for Australia on other grounds anyway, in my view.
As for “Carbon capture and sequestration: The horse Australia would most like to see win, since a cheap and effective CCS technology would mean that we could declare the problem solved and go back to mining and burning all the coal we have”, this is a solved problem because you don’t need to sequester CO2 as such, you only need to take CO2 out of the atmosphere/stop it entering the atmosphere. It’s just that most Greenies won’t like the answer and it conflicts with “Biofuels: Technically feasible, but since most biofuels either use food crops as inputs or compete with food crops for land, they can be economically and ethically justified on a large scale only if we can achieve increases in productivity big enough to feed a growing population and have a surplus output large enough to use for fuel”.
This solution is, continually grow lots of fuel crops (ideally nitrogen fixing woody plants), make charcoal out of it as efficiently as is cost effective, and then stockpile it, bury it (you can get a “twofer” if you have a use for Terra Preta and make that) or sink it in watercourses or at sea so that it escapes weathering by moisture in the presence of sunlight (the only natural process that recycles the carbon short of the geological cycle). Any power equipment or processes should be modified to run off gasifiers fuelled by part of the crop, or to use the crop itself more directly if possible, so as not to lose on the fossil fuel roundabout what the sequestration swings gain (there would be no logistical problems with this particular biofuel use). Even repeated burn offs would do something towards this. I have actually seen a statement by one relatively level-headed Greeny that suggested that this approach was the only practical way to sequester enough carbon fast enough, starting from here (assuming that the CO2/global warming situation really is as represented), which shows someone independently coming to the same conclusion as I did on the matter.
To get Waxman-Markey through the Senate, they may need 60 out of 100 votes in order to bring about “cloture” and avoid a filibuster. To ratify a Copenhagen treaty, they will need 67 Senate votes.
JQ I’ve seen the key conclusion replicated on several websites that nuclear works out half the capital cost for the same reliability. That is wind and solar need to be overbuilt several times and connected with expensive new transmission since all future energy storage options will be expensive. In defence of ignoring demand elasticity I wonder if it has limited effect for households at least. If you want toast at 7 a.m. on Tuesday you don’t leave it til Friday when the spot price of electricity is expected to drop. When it’s 40C you want the air conditioner on. Time-of-use pricing beyond water heating may not repay the equipment costs.
@Peter Wood
JQ mentioned using reconciliation but I don’t know if that will work well with respect to Senate procedure. It depends a lot on the Senate Parliamentarian and his personal discretion on procedure. If he refuses to allow Waxman Markey/health care bill be reconciled the procedure reverts to a 60 vote supermajority (same as for cloture).
You can fire the parliamentarian and replace him (or her) with 50 votes + Biden but there are a lot of liberal Democrats who are sticklers for ethics and procedure who would not support this (since many would associate it with Bush era Republican dirty tactics, which this essentially is).
The parliamentarian also has the ability to poke holes (essentially line by line) in bills for reconciliation, which doesn’t help.
Is the Australian energy sector even over it’s entrenched denialism? Will it turn out to be just as reluctant to embrace nuclear as embrace renewables simply because they refuse to acknowledge the need to change how they do business? Without that sector really on board, without it’s genuine committment we’ll get CCS in maybe 3 to 4 decades and more coal plants in the meantime – or nuclear in maybe 2 or 3 decades and more coal and maybe some gas plants in the meantime.
Efficiency is the big sleeper issue. A root and branch efficiency drive through every part of our society can deliver surprising results since the energy chanin is usually efficiency * efficiency * efficiency * efficiency.
Also major drives to reduce other greenhouse gases could produce more benefit than we might think. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gase but is relatively short lived. Again, a root and branch cleanout of Methane sources throughout society might deliver surprising results.
However, the key perhaps is the policy framework to deliver root & branch changes in anything, a ‘go through it like a dose of salts’ approach. Unfortunately the more likely policy approach is will probably be ‘we will have a policy on X, then we will provide Y Dollars in funding’ and we will do a bit.
Governments are mired in the mindest that they have a policy (lots of words, whoopee), legislate (more words and a lawyers feast), fund, then step back.
Perhaps part of the answer to what we need to do is the legacy of the NeoCon revolution needs to be sidelined. In times of peace, the private sector does, and governments get out of the way. In times of war, the private sector is pushed to the margins, and governments Do.
With the threat that climate change poses, is this a time of peace or war?
@Hermit “’ve seen the key conclusion replicated on several websites that nuclear works out half the capital cost for the same reliability.”
Most errors are replicated on multiple websites nowadays. The facts on the ground (or, in the case of nuclear, the absence of facts on the ground) don’t support these claims.
We have more than a million roofs here bouncing the sun away every day. If solar cant be done in Australia it cant be done anywhere….we need to be the change to lead the rest of the world. Why on earth do we need nuclear here when we could have the best solar in the world……investment is needed here….if we could build the snowy mountains scheme we can ivest in solar. Its couldnt be that hard (or is it the pressure from coal fired electricity oligarchs doing us out of a simplem obvious solution …or is everone thinking astill about how the mighty few can be enticed to fund the investment..?? To hell with the mighty few – we can all invest in it.
We really are not getting to the essence of the change needed. Its not about the price needed to attract private investment in alternative enery sources…..thats crap. We can do it with all our taxes and we can have the power we want…
The rest of the argument re pricing is secondary to the dangers we all face.
Barry Brook and Peter Lang figure that solar is about 20-40 times more expensive than solar if you are looking for a complete energy replacement solution. This costing assumes that solar needs a storage option and extra transmission.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/10/solar-realities-and-transmission-costs-addendum/
What we do doesn’t matter much. However both India and China seem to be embracing nuclear. China recently ordered four Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors. These are 1GW generation III+ reactors.
Australia ought to start reforming it’s nuclear regulatory environment now to make it clear that we will accept nuclear plants if the terms are right.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
As I’ve said, I don’t buy the assumptions underlying this analysis, which seem to an amplified version of the baseload demand myth.
On your other point, China is doing lots of everything, including solar on a scale larger than the nuclear orders you mention.
TerjeP (say tay-a), if methane accounts for around 14% of all global GHG missions, and methane emissions from coal mining account for around 9% of global anthropogenic methane emissions wouldn’t it be more sensible harnessing methane than going nuclear?
MoSH – you could do both. However I suspect the reason we don’t already capture and use methan relates to cost.
TerjeP (say tay-a), if methane is 21 times more effective at trapping than the sun’s heat then how can it be more expensive?
@Glenn Tamblyn
Efficiency is fantastic, in fact I would say that that the vast majority of Australian energy intensive industry is already at worlds best practice w.r.t efficiency.
@jquiggin
An economist talking about economics is all well and good, an economist talking about grid engineering which miraculously supports his political argument w.r.t energy policy… not so much :).
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Don’t forget the massive expansion of coal fired power.
@Rationalist
“in fact I would say that that the vast majority of Australian energy intensive industry is already at worlds best practice w.r.t efficiency.”
And this opinion, contradicted by the experts I speak to and by basic economics (since energy is cheap here, one would expect it to be used more intensively) is based on how many years of intensive study?
“An economist talking about economics is all well and good, an economist talking about grid engineering… not so much ”
which is why I talked about the mistaken economic assumptions being made by engineers writing about grid economics. My only contribution on grid engineering
If you want to use a name like “rationalist”, you should read and think a little more carefully before you write.
Not that I don’t want more trees planted but a talk I had recently with a researcher in carbon sequestration left me with an impression that we need an awful lot of trees to make a measurable difference to global CO2 and the need (besides lots of trees) is to start planting them yesterday. I was wondering if anyone is aware of any data that indicates the quantity of trees we might need to obtain the a reduction of 50-60ppm?
Its good to see the pro-nuclear lobby alive and as reasonable as ever.
I don’t have a number, but the rough answer is “enough to reverse all the deforestation of the past century”, or, more simply, a lot.
@jquiggin
Doubtless, John, the need to run coal plants more or less continuously to make them cost effective and do on-demand power does skew the patterns of energy usage, but I wonder if you are overstating the amount of demand shifting that would in practise, be politically acceptable.
Can renewables shoulder even the part of the burden that is not amenable to load shaving and would be left over after efficiency had been substantially improved at acceptable cost? At this stage, one would have to doubt that, even in a country such as Australia.
There is also, John, something of a distinction between what in theory might be viable if everyone were reasonable in their expectations of the electricity supply system and what politicians would rather avoid people talking about. It is most doubtful that any politician will, on the altar of renewables, allow an opponenet to claim that we are exposed to the risk of blackouts or even brownouts. That plays very badly indeed. Now personally, I’d be willing to accept the occasional brownout/blackout during the hours after dusk if it was caused by excessive reliance on intermittent power — provided it’s not too long, my perishables will be OK, resetting the clock on the microwave is no biggy and missing the last half of Burn Notice isn’t going to kill me. I can imagine that if it did, I’d get some batteries for the roof to tide me over. But I’m not most people. Most people rate the government on how well the basic services — water, power, hospitals, education, the police are provided. If the power goes off then the government is to blame.
In this context, and bearing in mind trhe comparatively high cost of effectively dispatchable renewable power there can be absolutely no doubt that old coal plants will be replaced with newer coal plants (or in the case of Victoria, old coal plants will be extended). No government will say that they are replacing a plant like Hazelwood with 4GW of installed wind (about $6.4 billion) or 1.5GW of wind plus 1.5GW*10 days of storage because the cost would be even greater.
And of course gas plants are more expensive to operate, which means everyone’s power bill rises can be blamed on the government — and they still ouptut something like 50% of the GHGs of coal.
It would make a lot of sense to remove all the direct and indirect subsidies to coal and to impose upon them the full community cost of burning because then aluminium smelting would either go some place else (like Iceland which does this 100% renewable), pay up and allow us to compensate with mitigation measures or clean up its act. Much of the rationale for Hazelwood is the subsidy it provides to aluminium. Hazelwood accounts for 5% of Australia’s GHGs, yet only about 5000 people are employed in smelting in Australia. Last I heard the subsidy amounted to about $250,000 per job. Obviously, the scope for a generous redundancy and retraining package is considerable.
It seems to me that even allowing for the outrageous mark up on building nuclear plants associated with each being a project-based design, it’s probably still cheaper in life cycle terms per unit of power delivered than any renewable. Certainly the marginal costs per KwH of running the plants are lower than coal, so how good they are at load following probably isn’t that important. A modest augmentation in storage and the replacement of our oldest coal fired capacity nuclear would be a huge step forward for this country.
Hydrogen fuel cell technology seems out of favour? As are the fabled GM bugs/bacteria that are supposed to off-gas hydrogen for us cheaply.
Co- and tri-generation (probably just a creative step above what is listed) is also promising.
ESCOs will also proliferate in a carbon constrained economy.
“It seems to me that even allowing for the outrageous mark up on building nuclear plants associated with each being a project-based design, it’s probably still cheaper in life cycle terms per unit of power delivered than any renewable.”
Investors don’t seem to be making that calculation, even with big US subsidies for nuclear.
Algal CCS is a potential winner on many levels. Apart from the advantages over pumping CO2 into underground storage chambers (which is a rediculous proposition) piping the output of coal-fired power stations through large growth ponds, regulating the temperature of the water to optimal growth temperature, and providing lots of sunlight are not difficult options (the iggest issue in Oz would be securing a good water supply). The ethanol production option outlined in John’s link is a good one, but much easier and potentially better for Australia is to simply use the algae as biomass to improve soil organic content (ie fertiliser) which can replace crude oil derived fertiliser and has the added advantage of improving the water retention of the soil. Win, win, win for australia. Since we are never going to get our act together and manufacture or value add (to) anything in Oz then supporting the coal mining and agriculture industries would seem like research dollars better spent than on PV IP which can be ripped off by our northerly trading partners.
@Rationalist
The killer is all the smaller inefficiencies in the total energy chain. And Energy Intensive induistries are only a small part of that. Its line losses, poor plant maintenance, pipe friction losses, motor inefficiency, patterns of usage that are driven by factors other than efficiency. Planned obsolescence practices that leads to needlessly inmefficient products because there is no cost justification for better efficiency, our throw-away society that wastes all the embodied energy of all the wasted products. I can’t comment on how close to Worlds Best Practice Australia is, but Worlds Best Practice is light byears away from Best Possible Practice – read some of Amory Lovin’s opinions on this.
But even so, the key issue is adequate political engagement from the political classes. The embracing of the idea that the role of Government is actually to govern the place, not just have policies. We elect governments to act for us, we don’t elect the private sector.
@Glenn Tamblyn
A lot of what you say is sound however the last line caught my eye.
I would say we do in fact elect the private sector, we do so with our money and investment.
JQ – where do you stand on electricity price regulation?
Regarding transport, certainly we can get more efficient cars – hybrids are a good place to start. These can later help transition to electrics. Plug in hybrids can also be a clever way to store renewable power too.
However ultimately we must reduce energy sued in freight (35%) and air (5%) transport which together make up about 40% of transport energy consumption. For those the task is more difficult, especially diesel trucks. We are going to need to revert to greater use of long distance rail freight (could eb electric) and coastal shipping. Remote farming areas reliant on truck transport are in real trouble. It isn’t just food miles. It takes more CO2 to get a tonne of fruit from the Ord River to Melbourne by truck than cheese from Holland by ship.
We could do a lot ot make rail more competitive by regulatory reform. We don’t even have common standards for trains and carriages.
And while we all debate a la Ratio whether we have gained efficiencies…try living in Goulburn where the Pejar dam is so low the sewarage pipes failed and they have been on the highest water restrictions for five years…and they (the residents of Goulburn) ask what comes next…they cant put a fork in their garden beds the soil is so dry and compacted…and they ask what comes after level five? is that when the water trucks have to roll into town or they are forced, with a twist of emon to drink their own….
Then look at every town west of the great dividing range that is in the same situation…talking about recycling sewerage…
And then ask WHY??? WHY??? are we still subsidising the filthy greedy mining industry that is going to bankrupt all of us..???
I dont give a damn about mining. I really couldnt care less. There are millions across Australia who need investment in some sort of water access and instead we subsidise the coal miners..
Only one word appropriate…totally PUTRID governments.
@Alice
Mining on balance is good for you, good for me and good for everyone. Jobs, wealth, exports, what is not to love? I admit there are some minor environmental concerns but they pawl in comparison with the greater economic good.
Wow, all of this “greater good” stuff is making me talk like a social democrat!
Iain
regarding hydrogen fuel cells, they are nowhere near commercial use in cars. One trial in London with a delivery company was quietly abandoned. Unreliable, unserviceable and potentially unsafe. Plug in Hybrids and electrics are by far the most feasible option now for the majority of urban transport. Electric batteries are heavy so there is no good option for long distance freight, hence my comment on rail vs road.
Just for comparative information on transport efficiency, here are some relative stats on fuel usage (Ml/tonne-kilometre) for different freight modes:
Air 165
delivery truck 100
semi trailer 22
B double 16
Container train 1.5
Ship 0.2 to 0.3
So why don’t we only use rail and ship? Because the cost of handling is still a large factor in transport. Also transport cost is often only 10% to 20% of production. Hence price signals alone won’t stop some “bad” behaviours.
Rationailst 22
If you believe all our sectors now are worlds best practice then I can safely assume you are not an engineer. We are not even close.
My take on JQ’s points.
1. Efficiency. Yes, this is a big ticket item. Fifty percent savings with minimal reductions in living standards and general amenity are eminently possible.
2. Substitution also promises big savings. In terms of amenity, positives might outweigh neagatives. For example, using one’s feet or the bicycle instead of the car for short trips would have siginficant health benefits.
3. Offsets are “dodgy brothers” territory. Too much room for rorting and too many complaince and moral hazard issues. Reafforestation is much needed but better treated as separate ecological issue with no claims being made re carbon offsets.
4. Zero carbom renewable energy sources are another big ticket item. If Australia cannot provide 50% of its electricty generation from solar, wind and tidal in say 15 years then we just aren’t trying.
5. Carbon Capture and Sequestration is total lie by the coal lobby. It will never work It is economically unfeasible due to the high energy overheads in CC&S. The safety of reservoirs is open to question. Remember prevention is better than cure. It’s better (safe and cheaper) not to generate the CO2 in the first place rather than to try CC&S.
6 Hydro, good but I agree there is little room for growth.
7. Geothermal may have some good potential in Australia but perhaps not globally.
8. Biofuels are an energy sink not an energy source unless someone can develop algae to make biofuels from waste. Certainly we can’t use food for biofuels as one it will decrease food security and two that process is an energy sink in any case.
Land areas required for any biofuel production are prohibitive in any case.
9. Nuclear might be viable but very expensive and probably too dangerous. Nuclear fuels in any case are exhaustible just like oil. But fine, put a true cost on CO2 emissions and on insurance for nuclear accidents and withdraw all subsisdies for fossil and nuclear and see what happens. The rapid phasing out of both I would wager.
10. Wind and Solar covered above in renewables but more please, much more. I might be accused of a monomania here but I want to see Giant Solar Convection Towers up to 1000 m high producing power for our cities and industries.
There are a few things that should be added to the list. Algal CCS has already been mentioned, but deserves another plug. Another form of CCS that deserves investigation is soil carbon. Wikipedia has a mediocre page on carbon sinks, and mentions soil carbon capture through grassland management, but the entry lacks any reference. The leading advocates of this appear to be Holistic Grasslands Management of the USA. They claim that properly managed grasslands can potentially sink many more times carbon than rainforests. An Australian professor has also claimed that properly managed grasslands can also sink substantial amounts of methane. Then there is the use of biochar as a carbon sink. Also zeolites.
The other biggie that no one dares mention is zero population growth, but we have to face it sooner or later. The best way to achieve this is to give women control over their own bodies, and to give women social security so that they will not require to have a large number of children to work the family business.
@Rationalist
Stuff mining jobs Rationalist – if we had half a brain we tell the mining companies like BHP and RIO to pay what they pollute or move their operations elsewhere…. then damn well invest in the infrastructure we need to get the hell out of this climate mess….that would create jobs too…new clean jobs.
I dont give a damn about dirty jobs…smelting here employes a measly 5000 people across Australia as Nanks or someone mentioned before.
Let them pay their own damn way…if we can afford to subsidise big coal we need to get our heads around subsidising useful clean industries that wont cost us an arm and a leg and many lives to fix up their problems later. Id rather see every BHP worker on the dole and BHP gone, to be perfectly honest, rather than see them on the teat of our taxes, to look after a few at the cost of many…. They can go to Finland or hell…
Does anyone have a plausible estimate of the PR budget Australian coal miners have set aside to make sure that coal sales continues to grow over the next decades?
@Alice
Haha, these companies are a massive positive contributor to taxation revenue and despite whining and complaining from socialists, both political parties with any power think these companies are fantastic.
Think about aluminium smelting, would you prefer if we did it here with worlds best practice efficiency or would you prefer it done overseas with poor emissions standards, bad safety practice (a socialist in the comments mentioned “exploitation”, if anything can be described as that it may well be this).
One way or another, despite objections from some on the far left, all governments are going full steam ahead with mining and mineral operations. Gorgon gas, doubling coal exports, iron ore, uranium. Should this be analysed for environmental impact? Yes, is this occurring? Absolutely.
@Alan
No idea, I think the coal PR is a laugh. But then again, they don’t really need PR to sell bucketloads of coal.
@Rationalist
Simple Rationalist – when we get more employment out of McDonalds or Pizza delivery drivers or electricians or plumbers …than aluminum smeltering across Australia…Frankly Id rather have a big Mac fully plugged in and plumbed (and thats saying something given what I think of the nutrition value..)
Yiou just dont get it do you? Its NOT all about mining and is pathetic we have governments who think thats all we can do……
Poor desperate fools.
@Alice
😛
I like having government on my side :).
@Rationalist
Thats the trouble Ratio – it aint on your side…
@Alice
“smiley” – thats the best I can manage technologically speaking…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/13/2684396.htm
“Victorian police have arrested 22 climate change protesters at a Latrobe Valley power station today.
Hundreds of activists have marched through police roadblocks at the Hazelwood power station, demanding it be shut down.”
Police doing their job nicely.
@Alice
oops – I meant that smiley for you Ratio – I really hate to be the one to shatter your dreams of a government being on your side…by siding with BIG miners (and bloody well using our taxes to subsidise the filthy bullies…)
Ikonoclast at 38: I agree completely with your point 9. What the nuclear fan club always neglect to mention is why it is necessary to continue the US Government imposed cap on total insurance payout in the event of a disaster at a nuclear power station.
A report prepared for Greenpeace International by Helmut Hirsch, Oda Becker, Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt in April 2005 called “Nuclear Reactor Hazards. Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century” provides a thorough and well-referenced guide to the problems for nuclear power stations, including the much-vaunted Generation 1V reactor designs and the danger of terrorist attacks.
Before the nuclear proponents scoff at a report prepared for Greenpeace, they should check the credentials of the authors, which are detailed on page 4 of the report.
The report has some interesting (and scary) things to say about nuclear power station safety as they age, as well as details of actual problems at nuclear power stations from extreme climate events.