Energy Resources

Submitted: Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 12:42

ThreadID: 36349 Views:2906 Replies:13 FollowUps:30

This Thread has been Archived

Jodi

Ok, I know there has recently been a debate on this forum about renewable energy, I also know that there has been a lot of media attention paid to our energy resources. I have been thinking a lot about energy resources lately and wondering about alternatives. Now I am not well versed in all the science behind the various options we have, however following a trip on the weekend (to Wonthaggi golf course to be precise) I saw first hand some of the wind turbines that I have been seeing on tv and it got me thingking about the arguments I have heard against various renewable energy resources are (in laymans terms) as follows:
- Visual Pollution
- Kills wildlife
- Not cost efficient
- Dangerous
- Will take too long to get set up and running
- Just plain yucky

Frankly all of these arguments do not make sense to me.
I do not see how people can site visual pollution as an argument after seeing a dirty great big hole in the ground (coal mine) or giant smoke stacks (I would far prefer to look at a giant wind turbine).
If alternatives kill wildlife then I am willing to bet that it will kill far less wildlife than the current path we are on.
Not cost efficient - well what are the options??? Keep paying oil prices? No matter when we start, it will initially be expensive, may as well get in early rather than later and reap the benefits of preventing further environmental damage instead of waiting until it is too late.
And what about dangerous? I do not know a lot about Nuclear energy, and frankly this seems to be my least favoured option. However I do not know if my opinion is based on scare tactic reports in the media or if there genuinely is a better alternative to nuclear.

On the whole, I wish everybody would stop making excuses, pick something and just bl*ody accept it. We cannot keep going like we are now and excuses and arguments do not change the fact that we have to do something yesterday. What's the problem? Every argument I have heard against alternative fuels can also be applied to our current fuel manufacturing methods (and consumption). Our current method will ruin life as we know it (possibly life full stop), alternative fuels will prevent this. It's a no brainer. Why are we taking so long to get moving. It wont just go away.

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator Share

Reply By: Snowy 3.0iTD - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 13:15

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 13:15

Jodi

As an engineer who has taken an interest on this subject I will try and keep this reply to unbiased facts rather than just shouting my opinion to whoever will listen.

Wind: Is certainly part of the solution, but is a long way from being the whole solution. The main problem is that if there is no wind, there is no electricity, if the wind is too strong, they have to shut them down and there is no electricity, in short they can not supply a steady stream of power, 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year.

Solar: If we could make Solar cells that are close to 100% efficient we would have a mainstream viable alternative, but at there current efficiency I am not sure if Queenslanders would appreciate it if we covered a good portion of their state in solar cells, and the rest of the state in giant batteries to cover Australia's energy requirements. So until they can manufactrue high-efficiency solar cells relatively cheaply then it is only a miniscule part of the solution.

Nuclear: Safely disposing of the waste for the next few thousand years is a problem, cost per MW would most likely be more expensive than currently with coal and gas fired power-plants, and they take 5-10 years to build properly depending on their size. The above drawbacks aside though, nuclear is probably the best altenative we have for providing reliable base-load power, but looking at it in the centuries to come (assuming we last that long) uranium is still a finite resource, but then depending on how far ahead you want to look, so is the sun.

Any other factual non-opinionated information to add to this would be appreciated.

Kind Regards

Snowy

AnswerID: 186494

Follow Up By: Jodi - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 13:34

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 13:34

I am aware that I have just shouted my opion, however reasons like visual pollution etc just do not sit with me. I am very frustrated at being constantly told about the situation we are fast heading for and also about the alternatives that may be available, however not been given access to them due to what appears to be bickering between government parties and corporations trying to make money. I would jump at the opportunity to do something that drastically reduces my consumption of non-renewable fuels in day to day living. I do not have the experience/qualifications to be able to base my opinion on anything other than what has been reported in the media etc.
Thank you for your facts. I can see that while wind, solar etc are not a complete solution, surely they can take a large portion of the load off so to speak and dramatically reduce our current usage of non renewable fuels.

FollowupID: 443559

Follow Up By: Snowy 3.0iTD - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 13:43

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 13:43

Jodi

Sorry, I did not mean to insinuate that your opinion was not welcome, or that you were just shouting to whoever would listen, I saw it more as asking the question. I have however seen how topics like this here and on other forums can just quickly become a case of lots of people are simply waiting for their turn to speak, rather than actually listening to what others have to say. There is no such thing as a silly question, and good on you for wanting to make a difference, if there are eventually enough of us passionate about making that change then governments will eventually be forced to listen, lets just hope it is not too late when they do.

Regards

Jay

FollowupID: 443561

Follow Up By: mfewster - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 13:56

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 13:56

Snowy, as an engineer, would you also like to comment on hot rocks? This approach is already being used in some communities, claims that existing known sites would provide all of Australias electricity needs for several hundred years and seems to be be cost effective already. Biggest problem seems to be tat the remote locations of current resources will require a big investment in power lines. Still looks cheaper than nuclear.
Solar? Are you up to date on developments in this technology? There are now new kinds of gas concersion batteries that allow solar energy to be stored and transported. The latest solar collectors are far more efficient. CSIRO estimate that an area 50 sq km could provide the projected electricity needs for all Australia.
Solar and hot rocks also have virtually no water cooling/suypply issues which is a major plus in this country.

FollowupID: 443565

Follow Up By: Snowy 3.0iTD - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 14:11

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 14:11

mfewster

I must admit I have been slack in not keeping up on the latest developments in solar, it would be interesting to know if they are using exotic materials or processes which impact upon the price and whether it can be brought down. I shall have to look in to when my slave-master/boss gives me some spare time.

As for hot rocks you have hit the nail right on the head. When I was at uni a number of years back I did a research project on hot-rock technology when it was in its infancy here in Australia. Most of the major problems such as being able to drill a relatively straight hole over 5km down at temps in excess of 300 C, cooling issues have been over come, there are already a couple of pilot/trial plants running I believe, but the next big hurdle is their isolation. Building new high voltage power lines many hundreds of kilometers to connect in to existing grids and then getting people, tools and resources out to these locations when you don't have the deep pockets like resource companies do, has to be overcome.

The biggest problem is that most of these alternatives provide electricity at a higher cost that what we currently generate with coal and gas, and electricity is a bit like oil, in that a price rise has far reaching flow-on effects to the price of all sorts of things. We need to have people on mass saying we want to make a positive change, and we are prepared to pay the extra to do so.

And I apologise in advance for my lack of social skills as an engineer, I don't mean to offend anyone, honest!

Snowy

FollowupID: 443567

Follow Up By: mfewster - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 14:36

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 14:36

Hi Snowy

I'm not an engineer, but I do try to keep as informed as I can on this issue. The following websites are good (well, they look good to my laymans way of thinking) on the topics of the latest on hot rocks and solar. I have heard that there has been a big breakthrough in solar technology in South Africa with the cost of cells being reduced by a factor of 5, which would make them viable at the present time. The Australian approach outlined here is very different technology. I can't confirm the SA info, but I am trying to chase it up.

www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/

Site Link

FollowupID: 443571

Follow Up By: ellmcg - Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 01:01

Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 01:01

I don't know that the issues with drilling geothermal wells have been dealt with yet. The temps they're working with out near Moomba are above 400 degrees celcius. As much as there is equipment designed to do this kind of work, they're still having a lot of practical problems, plus the process gets very expensive. So it may not end up being economic YET.

FollowupID: 443696

Follow Up By: Member - JohnR (Vic)&Moses - Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 13:35

Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 13:35

Snowy, I agree with the thrust of your argument. Wind turbines get a great subsidy from energy users, and that will tax Victorian homes billions in the years to come. They are now assessed from South Australian data at much lower than the 11% I quoted last week, to be 8% efficient reliability wise.

I see ellmcg comment about the hot rocks technology problems, but I would hope that there is a good economic value in continuing to learn more about that Geodynamics project in the Cooper Basin. The drilling techniques have done similar in other parts of the world. I nearly invested three years ago and guess the limited funds we would have applied would have not gone astray. I am confident in this way for the future.

Nuclear has to be worked through as a percentage of base power. It will undoubtedliy cost more per mw but if we have limited life under the warming world, scenario, it is important to use it. France after all uses nuclear to power 75% of it's output, and then some, as it sells power to it's neighbours.

I am always doubtful when I hear figures expressed by journalists of reductions in costs or whatever. They have no knowledge of what they are expressing in times of 5 times less or whatever. They never evaluate their message and the knowledge ends up as just 'noise' as it is worthless. You quite often hear them talk about 50 times less of something, or whatever, which is absolute nonsense.

There are decisions to be made to change direction and push ahead with a policy for energy. Discussion is the value here, not to cramp the debate. I hope that the interests aren't ruled out, but some look more valuable than others.

FollowupID: 443777

Follow Up By: Member - JohnR (Vic)&Moses - Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 17:17

Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 17:17

Jodi, there was an interesting opinion piece in The Melbourne Age a few weeks back on the way in which the wind energy subsidy will weigh heavy against Victorian householders in the future. Unfortunately I don't have the reference or the article any more. As I say elsewhere the subsidy is to pay for the 8% efficiency that has to be overcome.

I cite this particular article because I saw it unusual for him to go that way.

FollowupID: 443815

Reply By: Leroy - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 13:29

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 13:29

They are not the complete renewable energy solution. Just a note on a couple of points. I don't know the figures but the wind farm we have worked out to be more profitable than expected. The lead time in getting a wind farm up and running is short compared to other methods of power generation. That's what also makes them attractive to build. Dangerous? I supose they would be if one fell on your head! But sticking your finger in a power point is also dangerous too.

Leroy

AnswerID: 186498

Follow Up By: Jodi - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 13:36

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 13:36

I agree. And as I mentioned earlier, surely a wind farm can help to greatly reduce our current consumption until something better is worked out. If I had the land I would be more than happy to plant some there. I am sure cows in the middle of the country are not bothered by them whizzing above their head...

FollowupID: 443560

Follow Up By: Member - MrBitchi (QLD) - Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 07:57

Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 07:57

Not meaning to knock your enthusiasm but have you ever stood near a working wind turbine? The low frequency hum they generate was enogh to vibrate the fillings in my teeth, a very unpleasant experience. Couldn't wait to get out of there... (Windy Hill, near Ravenshoe in QLD)

This factor alone makes them unsuitable to install near populated areas, so you still need to build transmission lines to transport the juice.

FollowupID: 443705

Reply By: Member - Alastair D (NSW) - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 14:11

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 14:11

Jodi & others,
This touched a nerve for me as like you I am increasingly getting fed up with the level of debate and general attitude in Aus. We have many emerging serious issues facing our country, water and energy are 2 key ones.

I have a scientific background and am quite able, like many in the community, to assess sensible argument and information. Why do the talking heads and politicians usually present things that suggests we must have a total, one size fits all solution? Often it seems to me that they represent vested interests.

The important thing is to lift the % of renewable energy. Wind, solar, hydro, hydro-thermal, tidal etc all can play a part. They don't have to be a total solution but the best one in the region. A lot of energy is wasted by having huge power lines from a small number of major power stations. They also cost a lot to build. We need them but can limit them by generating more power locally by the most appropriate means.

Currently we export a huge amount of energy at low prices and the politicians celebrate it. We will rue the day when it is all gone.

We are in no danger of getting innovative leadership from the current federal government. Australia used to be a leader in many of the key solar and wind technologies. We are losing them to overseas and will have to eventually buy them back. Why won't the government lift the MRET = Mandatory Renewable Energy Target? www.greenhouse.gov.au/markets/mret/
This would stimulate real innovation and development. Clearly the huge and very influential fossil fuel industry has them tied up.

Could go on and on about what is happening elsewhere around the world. Ordinary Australians and community groups will have to take the lead on these issues as few of our elected leaders seem interested or capable.

I will now take a few of the pink ones and lie down.

alastair

AnswerID: 186505

Follow Up By: Snowy 3.0iTD - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 14:16

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 14:16

Alastair

I whole-heartedly agree with you on exporting energy, in particular the massive gas deal that has just been signed with China. I can sort of understand the governments happiness about the deal when it comes to our balance of trade figures. But from a long term energy perspective for Australia I agree it is ludicrous.

Regards

Snowy

FollowupID: 443568

Follow Up By: Jodi - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 15:14

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 15:14

I agree too. My main sentiment here is just plain frustration. I am able and willing to do something about my own consumption, in fact we already do a fair bit more than the average. However if every person that complained about the cost of new technologies agreed to switch over, then I'm tipping the higher level of acceptance will assist with the cost etc. As mentioned earlier, we need a large groundswell of people willing to get the message out there that we have discussed. Any suggestions? I'll do my bit for sure. And with a Marketing background may be able to provide a fair bit of assistance.

FollowupID: 443576

Follow Up By: Snowy 3.0iTD - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 15:28

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 15:28

"Against every great and noble endeavour, stand a million mediocre minds" Albert Einstein.

I would love to stay and chat, it's a rare occurence to have so many intelligent people in the same place at the same time, but have to go. But don't lose hope, I am sure many people in East Germany never thought the wall would come down, or that man would fly, let alone to the moon.

Cheers

Snowy

FollowupID: 443577

Reply By: fisho64 - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 16:09

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 16:09

If "vast amounts of energy" are being exported at dirt cheap prices, then why is Woodside kicking up a stink about possibly being forced to provide up to 20% of their production at domestic prices? I suspect their is a bit of misinformation around?

AnswerID: 186517

Reply By: Landie - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 16:15

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 16:15

Do people want to potentially double their household energy costs at a time when we have rising mortgage costs and fuel bills?

I think one of the main problems with alternative sources of energy is the cost to produce it. Whilst I understand there are non-monetary benefits associated with alternative sources is there a willingness to pay for it?

I’m not being blinkered here, but simply posing the question as this is probably the biggest issue to overcome. We talk about politicians not being willing, but at the end of the day they are probably only reflecting the views of the broader electorate in this instance.

For many it will be difficult to see the long term benefits that might accrue from alternative sources, versus the short-term cost impost especially if getting the household budget to balance is already an issue.

AnswerID: 186518

Follow Up By: fisho64 - Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 02:10

Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 02:10

Too true Landie
as I understand it people can already signal their willingness to use "greenpower" by nominating with most energy utilities (at a higher cost of course). Most peoples "moral high ground" doesnt extend that far though.

FollowupID: 443699

Reply By: zook - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 16:21

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 16:21

This is just food for thought,

my fokes live on a property and run from solar (and generator back up - which is used rarely). They did this for 2 reasons.

Firstly, it was cheaper then connecting to the grid (the govt. had big subsidies which I have heard they have reduced or are reducing????)

Secondly, it is sufficient for their use.

Now if they can do it I don't see why someone else (and not just people away from major grids can't do it)

but hey,

thats my two cents worth, I'm enjoying the discussion.

zook

AnswerID: 186519

Follow Up By: Landie - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 16:39

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 16:39

Hi Zook

It appears the decision was largely based on cost; it was cheaper than connecting to the grid. Would they have gone the solar route had it been less expensive to connect to a more reliable grid producing electricity via more traditional methods?

The cost of energy is central to the debate; cheapest usually wins.

FollowupID: 443590

Follow Up By: Member No 1- Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 17:44

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 17:44

yep..i cant argue for against those who have solar and its sufficient for their use!..

reversing the situation, no one is going to tell me thats what I should be doing ....it will not run my reverse cycle airconditioner...not much else can except those that can run 24/7

FollowupID: 443603

Reply By: Footloose - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 18:28

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 18:28

I once had a friend (yes, really) who owned a small farm. He ran solar and batteries which suited him.
On one stay with him I noticed that his wood burning stove was almost always lit. Now it occurs to me that a thermocouple attached to the stove might be able to charge the batteries.
Old hat , flaw in thought or just won't work ?

AnswerID: 186549

Reply By: Sand Man (SA) - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 19:28

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 19:28

Jodi,

I support your comments 100%. Wind turbines are a viable source of clean power any way you look at it. They may not be a total solution but nonetheless provide a valuable feed into the National Electricity Grid. (Otherwise the owners would not be investing in the infrastructure in the first place.

I have observed a Wind Farm just south of Edithburgh at the bottom of York Peninsula.

Visual Polution?.......Bah!
Danger to Wildlife.....Didn't see any bird strikes. I reckon I have killed more with my front windscreen.
Noise. None that I heard.

Some "greenies" will complain just because it's different.

We went fishing out on the water and while waiting for the King George whiting to strike, we had a serene view of the "propellers" as they slowly turned in the wind.

Bill

I'm diagonally parked in a parallel Universe!

Member
My Profile My Blog My Position Send Message

AnswerID: 186560

Follow Up By: Leroy - Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 07:27

Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 07:27

that's the windfarm that I was refering to in my post above - Wattle Point.

Leroy

FollowupID: 443702

Reply By: Robin - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 22:20

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 22:20

Hi Jodi

Picking up your last point first , why don't we do something ?

Things that really happen , as opposed to things we might like to happen, by and large occur for reasons effectively beyond our concious control.

We are moving down a path towards thermonuclear energy and nothing we can do will prevent it. We might protest it, we might delay it , the odd country may even go down another path for a century or so but the end outcome is inevitable.

As a professional engineer I am quite aware of other technical solutions but ultimately it is not a technical problem but an ever increasing population in which each individual effectively, demands an ever increasing energy take.
A trend on a trend.

We have the theoretical ability to stop the issue today by reducing our wasteful ways. We can't because we effectively choose not to, even dictatorial countries like china could not stop population increase which is 1 of the driving forces.

Given that we can't do that , we could still stop the resource grab by producing
more effectively.

The literature shows that the production of protein in the form of meat has an efficentcy of about 10% compared to growing crops of equivalent content, whilst at the same time being directly responsible for about 70% of de-forrestation as trees are cut down to grow vegetarians (cows), which are then killed for protein after the inefficent conversion of the grass they chew.

In an American reference (Your Heart Your Planet) - every bigmac eaten - causes the permanent loss of 1 sq metre of rain forrest.

(Always liked that analogy)

Hence we can all take a first step today - If we choose to.

But hey, many of us can't give up something with personnal consequences such as smoking let alone give consideration to long term issues

Robin Miller

AnswerID: 186622

Reply By: zook - Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 22:35

Tuesday, Aug 01, 2006 at 22:35

ok, just to clarify,

yes the decision was made on the basis of cost (primarily). But what I was trying to get at was that if the government doesn't support the industry by way of subsidies to make it cheaper for people to install and run then there is no incentive for manufacturers to increase technology as there will be a VERY small number of sales (due to the price).

Secondly, while the current technology (to my knowledge) is not sufficient to run a reverse cycle air con unit, it certainly can contribute to the power (and reduce the amount you have to use from the grid) - you can also sell excess power back to the grid owners (i don't know how profitable this is).

So while the tech. is not developed enough yet, some investment or support for the industry should be given else it'll shift offshore like most other high tech industries.

zook

AnswerID: 186628

Follow Up By: Landie - Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 09:24

Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 09:24

The problem with subsidies is that it hasn't reduced the cost, but simply transferred it somehwere else. For example a levy on your energy bill. Cost drives it no matter how we cut it. Whilst the pursuit of more sustainable fuels has merit, it will only happen when the cost of the alternative is cheaper.

FollowupID: 443723

Reply By: Member - MrBitchi (QLD) - Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:04

Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:04

Maybe some of the engineer types on here could have a look at this.....

Lutec

AnswerID: 186661

Follow Up By: mfewster - Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 15:44

Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 15:44

The problem with the opposition to renewable fuels on the grounds of cost is that it is very clear that the price differential isn't going to stay that way. It takes something like 10 years to set up new major infrastructures. At this point of time we should be doing just what several postings have stated- government encouragement of a whole swag of alternatives. By the time we really need them, the most viable will have emerged. The WA govt should be supported for insisting that a proportion of gas is reserved for domestic use. That's political leadership. Compare it to the reponse of the Fed Min for energy who attacked the WA policy and said we should sell as much as we can as fast as we can.
While writing this I remembered the sacking of the Whitlam govt. Nobody seems to remember what led to the $scandal before they were sacked. They were trying to build a national energy grid (the brainchild of R. Connor.) They were blocked in the upper house from raising the $, then tried some underhand deals to get the $ outside the usual channels (which was naughty) and this triggered the sacking refusal ofthe upper house to pass money bills and the sacking. That national grid would be looking like an awfully good and cheap investment today.

FollowupID: 443795

Follow Up By: Member - JohnR (Vic)&Moses - Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 17:04

Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 17:04

mfewster, there is already a lot linked, even across Bass Straight for electricity. Victoria to South Australia too, gas and electricity. State governments have had money running out of their ears from the GST revenue on top of stamp duty, but it has been wasted in a lot of cases.

FollowupID: 443811

Follow Up By: mfewster - Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 17:16

Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 17:16

Connors was particularly looking at a gas grid as I recall and this was years before anyone else seemed to be thinking about the issue. This sort of infra structure needs to be a federal issue. Water and energy cross too many boundaries to be considered state responsibilities any longer.

FollowupID: 443814

Follow Up By: Member - JohnR (Vic)&Moses - Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 17:29

Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 17:29

If Connors had got his way I wonder if there would have been the exploration that has since found the Bass Straight fields, the North West Shelf, the multiples off the Victorian western coast.

Funny you say about the federal issues as it has been state driven for the electricity, going back a few years, just the route and methodology of delivery taking time. Above ground /below ground being the conumdrum. Victoria and NSW have been connected by the Snowy since the 50s for electricity. Seems to have been a state driven impass though for a NSW/Qld connection

FollowupID: 443816

Follow Up By: Landie - Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 17:47

Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 17:47

mfewtser

I understand where you are coming from, however the problem is that most people will not think past what it will cost them today.

Personally, I have no problem with the concept of exploring alternative fuels because eventually we will need to. But the majority say no, and let's face it Mr and Mrs Suburbia with mortgage payments just had another cost added to the household budget via today's interest rate rise. Fuel bills are cutting into discretionary spending, good luck getting them to pay more for energy today, for some future benefit that might accrue to them.

FollowupID: 443820

Follow Up By: Robin - Thursday, Aug 03, 2006 at 08:06

Thursday, Aug 03, 2006 at 08:06

Classic snake oil

Robin Miller

FollowupID: 443910

Follow Up By: mfewster - Saturday, Aug 05, 2006 at 17:12

Saturday, Aug 05, 2006 at 17:12

Robin
Therevarevso many points in this thread it is a bit tricky trying to decide just what you re referring to. Could you expand?

FollowupID: 444539

Follow Up By: Robin - Sunday, Aug 06, 2006 at 09:31

Sunday, Aug 06, 2006 at 09:31

hi mfewster

Yes it would be easy to get the wrong impression - snake oil is the Lutec link, I put it in the basket with cold fusion and other miracle solutions, unlike something like the national grid you mention which seems so obvious today.

Robin Miller

FollowupID: 444669

Reply By: Barnesy - Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 18:56

Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006 at 18:56

Everybody seems to agree on one thing, fossil fuels won't last and we need alternatives. Many different methods should be explored. The CSIRO state they already have the solar technology to power ALL of Australia within a couple of decades. It only needs to come down in price and surely increasing the MRET would help to do that.

Some quote about France's nuclear program, majority of European countries have gotten rid of their reactors and are going wind. Denmark's electricity is about 60% from wind. Many other countries have about 40% from wind. Not only is nuclear environmentally and economically dangerous but also politically risky.

Maybe if power stations hadn't been privatised then it might be easier to change to different sources. These companies have guaruntees from governments about how long they will run the stations for.

Personally i would be willing to spend extra for renewables because i know it's the only way to go. People have taken out major debts just to get into their own house or because they were encouraged to spend to 'get the economy moving'. On a whole Australia now has record levels of personal debt. This does complicate things.

Surely a major goal should be to improve public transport within cities. This would be good for traffic, pollution, use of dwindling supplies of fossils and cheaper for the everyday person. If enough people saved money by using public transport they may be able to absorb a little extra for electricity?

AnswerID: 186783

Reply By: Tim HJ61 (WA) - Thursday, Aug 03, 2006 at 00:44

Thursday, Aug 03, 2006 at 00:44

Ah my favourite subject!

Given the government most people in Australia elected refuses to take these issues seriously, or nowhere as seriously as overseas where I understand fuel excises are increased not decreased - much like cigarettes received increasing taxes to get people to change habits; and they have targets in Sweden of ??20% renewables, and they have vege oil and BioD available at bowsers and and and ......

Given this situation, I really support those of us who want to something to be done, to just get on and DO it ourselves. Whether it be sourcing vege oil or BioD for your own vehicle consumption, or installing solar cells to supplement your 240V supply, or especially in small communities, start doing some innovative things around power demand and creation of power.

It is my firm belief that at current demand, renewables cannot remove the need for base capacity power stations, and the reality is in Australia that this is likely to be coal in the East and Gas/Coal in the West for a long time to come. However, we MUST increase renewables to cut the peak use which creates the demand for more and more base power stations (just to cover the peak demands a few days a year). So we'd have a whole bunch of renewables feeding into the national grid - or the eastern grid more correctly - (didn't see any cables crossing the Nullabor on my last trip), not replacing it.

Way back up the top of the first posting, Jodi asks 'Why are we taking so long to get going?' Because over 50% of the population have several times elected a government that clearly believes in the free market - a hands off approach that supports big businesses and globalisation. This is what happens when we elect people who believe in such things. If you want something different to happen, do something local people - your self or your community. This government isn't going to make it happen for you.

Tim

AnswerID: 186845

Follow Up By: Barnesy - Thursday, Aug 03, 2006 at 03:35

Thursday, Aug 03, 2006 at 03:35

Good point Tim. The Liberal style of governing is one where they believe the free market will sort it's own problems out. They forget though that the CEOs of these big multinationals have the interests of their bank balances and shareholders at heart, not the good of OUR country. They have too many bigger countries to deal with to worry about Australia.

Some pro-active forward thinking policies are needed if we are going to make timely gains in these areas. And timely gains are what's needed. If we allow the market to sort it out i can see in 20 years we will probably still be having the same discussion.

A quote from Tony Blair after the London train derailment a several years ago:
"It's difficult to fix something when you don't own it anymore".

FollowupID: 443894

Follow Up By: Landie - Thursday, Aug 03, 2006 at 09:38

Thursday, Aug 03, 2006 at 09:38

But hang-on.......if over 50% of the people elected the government that is democracy at work. If more than 50% of the people say they don't want renewable energy, at any cost, at this point of time then the people have spoken, not the government.

FollowupID: 443942

Follow Up By: Barnesy - Thursday, Aug 03, 2006 at 18:33

Thursday, Aug 03, 2006 at 18:33

Landie, I'm cynical with governments. They did encourage every day people to spend up big and take loans. They probably wanted people to become heavily reliant on interest rates. This would help to secure their elections as that is one area where they have the edge over their opposition. As you stated above most people are only interested with their daily lives and vote accordingly. This energy situation is something different and requires different thinking. People vote for John Howard, not energy policies, industrial relations laws etc.

FollowupID: 444102

Follow Up By: mfewster - Saturday, Aug 05, 2006 at 17:25

Saturday, Aug 05, 2006 at 17:25

Landie, we elect a government for all sorts of reasons. Once in,they can make policy on anything. I don't believe fuel poilicies played any sortof role in the last election, so while the go. has the power to make policy, the people haven't spoken. The point of democracy is to use forums such as this to raise consciousness of the issue to the point where parties know that they have to make significant policy and the electorate will scrutinize and debate the policies offered before voting. Democracies have a funny way of suddenly having a security crisis just before an election which spooks voters away from considering issues like these when they vote.
Did we all see this mornings paper? Kim B seems to have suddenly discovered this issue and is now talking about the need to develop as many power/fuel sources as possible. Keep talking and writing everyone.

FollowupID: 444542

Back Moderator