Greenhouse effect and Kyoto

[medusala]

Whilst scientists agree that the climate is warming there is a dispute over its cause and importance. A scientific team has just drilled in to the sea bed under the artic and have discovered that the climate there was once the same as that in the mediterranean now. Sceptics claim that we are achieving the highest temperatures on record because the world experienced a minor freezing of climate up to the early 20th century.

Regardless of this dispute, if we assume this is a major problem then the issue is how do we cut emissions. As much as some may wish it solar, wind and wave power are not capable of producing anywhere near the required level of power now or in the future. Even wild optimists recognise that these sources wont be able to produce more than 20% of power for industrialised countries by 2020 even with massive govt subsidies. Given fuel cell and hydrogen technology is a long way off then they dont look like being a viable option either. Coal power stations can have filters fitted to them to reduce emissions (but they would still be high) and gas power is better than coal but still produces alot of carbon. However the two sources of power that produce zero emissions are hydro and nuclear. Why then is Bob Brown and the greens so vehemently opposed to the two sources of power that will have the most significant effect on carbon emissions?? Why were the greens so anti ethanol production when ethanol in fuel reduces emissions?

From their website you can see they have completely no idea.

The Australian Greens will:
for energy demand
13.3.1 reverse Australia’s growing total demand for energy through increased efficiency of supply, transmission, and end use

how can the ecomony grow when total energy demand falls?

14.1 Specific GoalsThe Australian Greens seek:
14.1.3 the global elimination of nuclear reactors

Nuclear power accounts for a large % of total power production in a number of big countries ie Russia, US, France, UK. If these reactors were eliminated fossil fuels would have to be used instead. Carbon emissions would dramatically increase.

This begs the question, a number of posters have said they would vote for them. Why?

 

[jim boy]

Can't really see any great advantages in going with Hydro. They aren't carbon-neutral and there is a high environmental cost in establishing new stations. ON top of that, you wouldn't think that there are too many sites where a hydro station would be viable.

I'm less inclined to be concerned with nuclear power. But on top of the environmental factors concerned (open cut mines, sludge ponds, waste dispolsal), there is generally a big consideration as to the economic viability. It costs a huge amount to establish stations, as well as maintaining them and their eventual decommission. All up though, I'd prefer nuclear to the brown-coal stations we currently have which are the worst greenhouse contributing energy producers around.

 

[Tim56]

I'm still waiting to see compelling arguments against nuclear power.

 

[DaveW]

I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes to nuclear energy myself. But I thought the cons were pretty darn obvious:

a) lots and lots of waste produced
b) the possibility, however remote, of something going horribly wrong

An extension of b) in this "post 9/11" era is that any nuclear station is a potential target for terrorists.

 

[medusala]

Can't really see any great advantages in going with Hydro. They aren't carbon-neutral .

Not carbon neutral?? Hyrdo is about as clean as it gets.

 

[medusala]

I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes to nuclear energy myself. But I thought the cons were pretty darn obvious:

a) lots and lots of waste produced
b) the possibility, however remote, of something going horribly wrong

An extension of b) in this "post 9/11" era is that any nuclear station is a potential target for terrorists.

Yes but the greenhouse effect and global warming spells the end of the planet and we have to do something drastic about it. Bob Brown said so.

 

[Tim56]

I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes to nuclear energy myself. But I thought the cons were pretty darn obvious:

a) lots and lots of waste produced
b) the possibility, however remote, of something going horribly wrong

An extension of b) in this "post 9/11" era is that any nuclear station is a potential target for terrorists.

Fair call, but I think 1 can be dealt with, and 2 is, as you said, very very remote. When natural resources like coal run out people will go back to Nuclear, and I'll be sitting back here saying 'told you so'.

 

[demon_dave]

I'm still waiting to see compelling arguments against nuclear power.

Chernobl ring any bells, current generation plus generations to come have been affected by this nuclear disaster

 

[jim boy]

Not carbon neutral?? Hyrdo is about as clean as it gets.

IIRC it loses neutrality due to the often large swathes of forest removed to provide land for reservoirs, as well as increased methane emissions. It's certainly nothing like a converntial power plant in that regard, but nonetheless it's not entirely neutral either.

Biomass systems are an example of systems that are carbon-neutral.

 

[demon_dave]

Whilst scientists agree that the climate is warming there is a dispute over its cause and importance. A scientific team has just drilled in to the sea bed under the artic and have discovered that the climate there was once the same as that in the mediterranean now. Sceptics claim that we are achieving the highest temperatures on record because the world experienced a minor freezing of climate up to the early 20th century.

Regardless of this dispute, if we assume this is a major problem then the issue is how do we cut emissions. As much as some may wish it solar, wind and wave power are not capable of producing anywhere near the required level of power now or in the future. Even wild optimists recognise that these sources wont be able to produce more than 20% of power for industrialised countries by 2020 even with massive govt subsidies. Given fuel cell and hydrogen technology is a long way off then they dont look like being a viable option either. Coal power stations can have filters fitted to them to reduce emissions (but they would still be high) and gas power is better than coal but still produces alot of carbon. However the two sources of power that produce zero emissions are hydro and nuclear. Why then is Bob Brown and the greens so vehemently opposed to the two sources of power that will have the most significant effect on carbon emissions?? Why were the greens so anti ethanol production when ethanol in fuel reduces emissions?

From their website you can see they have completely no idea.

The Australian Greens will:
for energy demand
13.3.1 reverse Australia’s growing total demand for energy through increased efficiency of supply, transmission, and end use

how can the ecomony grow when total energy demand falls?

14.1 Specific GoalsThe Australian Greens seek:
14.1.3 the global elimination of nuclear reactors

Nuclear power accounts for a large % of total power production in a number of big countries ie Russia, US, France, UK. If these reactors were eliminated fossil fuels would have to be used instead. Carbon emissions would dramatically increase.

This begs the question, a number of posters have said they would vote for them. Why?

its as plain as the eye in the middle of your forehead that its emissions from industry causing the warming

 

[jim boy]

Yes but the greenhouse effect and global warming spells the end of the planet and we have to do something drastic about it. Bob Brown said so.

As did also a pentagon report commissioned by the Bush whitehouse.

 

[medusala]

Chernobl ring any bells, current generation plus generations to come have been affected by this nuclear disaster

a) their technology was far poorer than that used in other nuclear countries
b) if its necessary to cut carbon emissions then realistically what other options are their other than increased use of gas and nuclear power?

 

[funkyfreo]

Medders,

In 1988 I first got my teeth into this sort of thing, believe it or not in year 10 social studies. Before you mock that level of education I also did my honours on Sustainable Development of Energy on a Global scale and in WA. I was amazed how the conclusions, although a bit more detailed, were essentially THE SAME!!!

What you have is base load power, and then peak load power. Your base load churns out non stop 24/7, and your peak load is variable. Generally peak load is more expensive on a unit energy cost, but you save money because you don't need massive plant on all the time churning out excess.

As a rule Coal fired and Nuclear are the best base load power.

Gas is an excellent peak load supplier. Here in WA we use it for base load, but then we have a lot of gas - so of course there are regional issues like that all over the world.

Your renewables like solar and wind are good peak suppliers. Supply is variable, but the variability is reduced with technology (ie it really does not matter if it is not a sunny day).

The problems with Nuclear is that to make them safe costs a truckload of money. I remember a stat (sorry 10 years ago so no source) that the concret that went into a nuclear power station, and all the other construction energy costs, meant that over the lifetime of a plant it was only just a positive energy contributor. The massive concrete corequirements of Hydro also mean there is a massive start up energy cost, and also that suitable locations are nowadays in environmental reserves, and you have conflicting demands of clean power, and species preservation. Ord river Hydro could be good in WA but it is so far away the loss of energy in the transmission stages need to be addressed.


You may think the greens policy is loopy, but it is certainly as good as the Liberals and Labors. 10% renewables would develop a new industry, and be cost effective - so why not at least do that??

Also you have to realise that here in Australia we have a MASSIVE coal industry, so you will find that far from the Greens and population's (naive as you may think) opposition to nuclear being a key driver, it is actually the strong coal lobby group whi want minse to be open, which is a HUGE local electorate issue in Australia.

A second problem for Nuclear is that generally speaking Australian Grids are not big enough to take Nuclear in an efficient manner - essentially driving up the cost per unit electricity making it cost-uncompetitive. Things may have changed on the east coast with the nationalisaion of the grid, but certainly here in WA unless I've missed some technological advance we are considered an innappropriate grid size for nuclear. That combined with our Coal industry lobbyists.

YOu see how much opposition there is to phasing out old-growth logging even though almost everyone agrees it is good for the environment to stop. Well you try convicing people to convert to the percieved demon of NUCLEAR POWER (evil music)!! political nightmare it is just not going to happen.

That is why the focus in Australia is on theings like Natural Gas and "Clean Coal".

Good on Coal for getting cleaner - but the reason we invest in clean coal is because Australia has a coal industry, and investing in Renewables generally meants importing technology. That is the reason we don;t support renewables - because it is not a home grown industry. That is why people try and convince companies like Vestas to have wind turbine factories here - local jobs.

If Labor or Liberals had a policy to increase renewables to say 10% AND heavily invest in Clean Coal - well I think they would get 100% support from the Greens on that policy. But the fact is that Howard refuses to raise the mandated renewables levels - so the Greens want to know why only invest in clean coal, and not clean renewables. Oh yeah and that great white elephant "CO2 injection" - now that is a real emporers new clothes "innovation".

As for science - the main body of science is certainly on the side of the Greens. You may find the odd sceptic out there but certainly in massive minority amongst the scientific community. Essentially, there is no doubt that it is happening, and that it is because of humans. No argument.

If you do not understand that you can do more with less, then there is not much hope I'm afraid.

I have replaced all my normal lightbulbs with Compact Fluoros - so I get the same light for 15% of the energy, and they save me money. That is what the Greens mean. Try and make it affordable for factories to upgrade to BETTER equipment that uses LESS energy. Look at fridges - cheap fridges use lots more energy than expensive ones. But at about $50-$100 a year difference in energy use, you are actually better off spending a few hundred more dollars.

Look at water - mulch your garden and plant low water species and you get a great garden for less water use. YOur more economy = more energy is a real old-skool argument that does not work.

Have a look at the FEDERAL LIBERAL government's Australian Greenhouse Office website for more information.

Another example is Cities. In say Paris, the average person uses about 40% of the transport fuel than say someone in Perth. Not because they are greenies, but because they live in an efficient city, use the metro and trams and have smaller cars. MOre for less - not so hard to comprehend.

If you want some really interesting examples go to http://www.naturalcapital.org/intro.html this is the absolute cutting edge.

For a summary go to:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s231834.htm - an excellent Background Briefing report on NAtural Capital and a guru called Amory Lovins. THIS IS THE FUTURE!!!

More interesting background briefing stories.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s1083409.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s881845.htm

So for a summary answer:

1) Yes you can be more efficient in many things - our economy depends on it so why not our energy policy.
2) Nuclear power may well be an alternative - but it is both opposed by Greens because of the issues of waste - which there is still no safe method of storage and/or treatment - this is what makes Nuclear economically unpallatable, and is also opposed by both major parties - because of MASSIVE lobby power of our entrenched coal industry. You can not pin no nuclear power in Oz on the Greens.
3) oops almost forgot this one: Energy efficiency is a massive key - more for less - that would be a pretty fundamental ideology of 99% of mainstreead businesses in the country don;t you think?

 

[medusala]

FF

a) Nuclear may not be suitable in Oz but it is more so in Europe, the greens want all nuclear reactors shut down across the globe.
b) wind and solar power can only operate with huge subsidies.
c) you can bring in all the efficiency you like but its not realistic to have a falling total demand for energy going forward
d) science is certainly not on the greens side. In fact their policies and logic are pretty much mutually exclusive.
e) just finished reading "the end of oil" by Paul Roberts who looks at the question of how will we be able to reduce carbon emissions. He is a bit of a leftie and looks at all power sources in detail. He thinks it can be done (and definitely needs to be) and alot of it will be due to natural gas. Interestingly enough he is not in favour of signing up to Kyoto as he thinks this would be a backward step.

 

[funkyfreo]

a) roll on nuclear fusion I say.
b) Not true - especially in remote power areas, solar water heating, even single home PV cells. I guess you don't worry about the MASSIVE subsidies that coal gets in Australia. For example - in the Western Power Grid the wind power on the south coast at the extremes of the grid are highly cost effective compared to transmission from long distances. We are not saying change it all, but at leat give it a chance.
c) I disagree strongly
d) Rhetoric unsubstantiated.
e) Natural Gas is certainly a key transition fuel - but there is not nearly enough to displace coal in anything more than the mid term (say 60 years).

FACT: OIL IS RUNNING OUT AND GETTING MORE EXPENSIVE AS ALL GIANT FIELDS ARE FOUND ALREADY AND WE ONLY FIND SMALL SITES.
FACT: WE NEED NEW FUELS

In a way then the earth has inbuilt mechanisms for carbon emissions - there is not enough carbon to totally mess things up - but it is up to us to decide if we want an earth that is pleasant to live in or unpleasant. The earth as an ecosystem will be fine, just depends if we want it to support us. We may be gone in 2000 years, but evolution, plants, life etc will be going strong.

I'll not bother finding a conservative who supports Kyoto - but there are plenty of them I'm sure.

If australia thinks Kyoto is flawed, then we should suggest a better solution and don't just sit here whinging and knocking good ideas.

 

[medusala]

FF,

the book I mentioned argues that oil is running out far quicker than is commonly accepted. Coal is far cheaper than renewables but even "clean coal" is still a heavy carbon polluter. Fusion, fuel cells and hydrogen are all great ideas but realistically none will be available in any meanningful way in the next 20 years. If you want Australia to decrease emissions and Kyoto allows us to increase them then whats the point of signing up?

 

[funkyfreo]

FF,

the book I mentioned argues that oil is running out far quicker than is commonly accepted. Coal is far cheaper than renewables but even "clean coal" is still a heavy carbon polluter. Fusion, fuel cells and hydrogen are all great ideas but realistically none will be available in any meanningful way in the next 20 years. If you want Australia to decrease emissions and Kyoto allows us to increase them then whats the point of signing up?

It could be a valid point that Kyoto is now obsolete, but if that is the case then lets get with the program and look for solutions, not sit smugly and side with the USA.

We whinged for a slight increase because we basically whinged. And the rest of the world saw the big picture as more important than to let Australia stuff it up, so we got a bigger allowance. The point was to spend 8 or so years really establishing the future patterns, and then reviewing and really cutting emmissions. Instead we are just stagnating and Australia and the USA are the key stallers. Instead we have pretended that false science is true to suggest that globa, warming may not be happening.

Urban design and smart thinking are the keys!! Have a look at that Amory Lovins stuff - he really is a genius!

 

[jim boy]

a) Nuclear may not be suitable in Oz but it is more so in Europe, the greens want all nuclear reactors shut down across the globe.

Do the greens mention 'Europe'? They've said 'Global'. Do you think Indonesia can safely manage a wopping great nuclear power plant on Bali?

This green policy is probably more in line with conservative thinking than you believe

b) wind and solar power can only operate with huge subsidies.

Economic reality is that all new technologies will start off in an inefficient manner. Over time as the technologies improve, the subsidies go. It is undoubted that there will be more and more reliance on these technologies including tidal, biomass etc. Subsidise now and we could be a world leader in this field, especially considering the current US administration is in the palm of the old fuels conglomorates

c) you can bring in all the efficiency you like but its not realistic to have a falling total demand for energy going forward

Which is why alternatives need to be vigorously explored

d) science is certainly not on the greens side. In fact their policies and logic are pretty much mutually exclusive.

Well I guess that's your opinion, but it doesn't seem you've looked into the subject much. In fact I suspect your taking potshots because it's easy to troll but hard to stand up for something.

The greens policies aren't perfect, far from it, but it is definitely the direction in which we should be headed.

 

[medusala]

Do the greens mention 'Europe'? They've said 'Global'. .

Global doesnt include Europe and the US?

Economic reality is that all new technologies will start off in an inefficient manner. Over time as the technologies improve, the subsidies go. It is undoubted that there will be more and more reliance on these technologies including tidal, biomass etc. Subsidise now and we could be a world leader in this field, especially considering the current US administration is in the palm of the old fuels conglomorates
Which is why alternatives need to be vigorously explored
Well I guess that's your opinion, but it doesn't seem you've looked into the subject much. In fact I suspect your taking potshots because it's easy to troll but hard to stand up for something.

The greens policies aren't perfect, far from it, but it is definitely the direction in which we should be headed.

Renewables will only get by without subsideies with huge economies of scale and high prices for other commodities. Solar for example is about 4 times as expensive as nuclear. They will have to hook into existing grids given the problems of storing energy. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that by the end of the century renewables (including hydro) will account for less than 12% of the total energy mix even assuming large efforts to counter carbon emissions ie the Greens are kidding themselves. It would be hard to be a world leader as the Danes, Germans and Japanese in particular are well advanced.

The Greens are morons. How do they propose to replace the 20% of power in many Euro countries provided by nuclear reactors? Simply not possible to do it with renewables. If was it done with coal or gas then carbon emissions would increase dramatically. Hydro is an answer but thats not acceptable as it may kill a few trees. The greens want total energy demand to go down. How will that ever happen in the developed let alone developing world? Never will. They have no answers. Their environment policies are unworkable just as their economic policies are a joke.

 

[funkyfreo]

In the 80s wind power cost more than 30c/kWh

It now costs about 3.5c kW/h

http://earthsci.org/teacher/basicgeol/alt_energy/alt_energy.html#Solar Energy

Solar about 12c. But as pointed out is excellent for use in extremes, or non grid power, where diesel generators and the like are innefficient. So it certainly has its cost effective places, and who is to say where technology will take it.

You seriously, however, underestimate energy efficiency, as a solution. But you don't appear at this stage of the debate to be open to new thoughts. and will most likely respond with more loopy greenies waffle.

You attack Greens, as though Labor and Libs both are commited to a nuclear future - NO WAY. BOth Lab and Libs are also committed to reducing greenhouse gases in "accordace" with Kyoto. So why are you not lampooning their policies too?

 

[funkyfreo]

Have a read and learn:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1308300,00.html

Oh no not the Guardian I hear you ask!!

 

[jim boy]

Global doesnt include Europe and the US?

What so you reckon the greens policy should say that white countries should have nuclear power and everyone else shouldn't?

Ist that how it works?

Renewables will only get by without subsideies with huge economies of scale and high prices for other commodities.

That argument can be applied to any energy source. Even now, renewable energies are more efficient on a very small scale than something like coal (and never mind nuclear)

Solar for example is about 4 times as expensive as nuclear. They will have to hook into existing grids given the problems of storing energy. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that by the end of the century renewables (including hydro) will account for less than 12% of the total energy mix even assuming large efforts to counter carbon emissions ie the Greens are kidding themselves. It would be hard to be a world leader as the Danes, Germans and Japanese in particular are well advanced.

So your saying that we shouldn't bother trying? In Australia we have conditions which are far different from those countries, that gives us some ability to develop things differently

The Greens are morons. How do they propose to replace the 20% of power in many Euro countries provided by nuclear reactors? Simply not possible to do it with renewables. If was it done with coal or gas then carbon emissions would increase dramatically. Hydro is an answer but thats not acceptable as it may kill a few trees. The greens want total energy demand to go down. How will that ever happen in the developed let alone developing world? Never will. They have no answers. Their environment policies are unworkable just as their economic policies are a joke.

All you've done is say it's simply not possible without a shread of argument to back that up.

Get a sense of perspective will you. The Greens policies aren't particularly radical. All they are trying to do is try and catch up with the Europe. It's the EEC's objective to have 22.5% of electricity generated by renewable sources by 2010. But I suppose they are bunch of morons as well, the evidence being that France is part of the EU.

The greens are not trying to turn us into a nation where the car is banned and lentils the national dish.

 

[funkyfreo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by medusala
Global doesnt include Europe and the US?

Then Jimboy:
What so you reckon the greens policy should say that white countries should have nuclear power and everyone else shouldn't?

Ist that how it works?

Now me:

Jim, I think Medders was actually questioning your 1st post where you seemed to differentiate between Europe and Global. Medders thinks Global DOES include those people, I think that is the emphasis change with the quetsion mark.

Other than that great work Thos loonie Europeans! Fools

 

[jim boy]

If we're going to nitpick, then I should take issue with this quote from you

Another example is Cities. In say Paris, the average person uses about 40% of the transport fuel than say someone in Perth. Not because they are greenies, but because they live in an efficient city, use the metro and trams and have smaller cars. MOre for less - not so hard to comprehend.

Not really a good analogy, I'll leave aside the fact that they don't have trams (although they do in the Banlieu's) and simply say that they don't use as much energy because it's so damned expensive to run a car, not just in petrol (which is around twice as much as Australia) but because it is so expensive to maintain and park the damned things, which is the main reason why they have small cars. In other words, alot of their efficiency comes from using using expense as a stick, as well as providing an alternative is a reliable effective public transport system.

 

[funkyfreo]

Jim I wasn't nitpicking, I just think you and Medders have misinterpreted eachother's posts regarding Globally including Europe, that is all. You are both arguing that Globally should include everything, thinking that the other has excluded it.

Other than that I was agreeing with you I thought.

Anyway, as for the City density question, comprehensive studies by Newman and Kenworthy at Murdoch University (http://wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au/) demonstrate that urban density is the strongest factor in determining transport fuel use, in a study of some 95 cities in the world.

Petrol cost is not a major factor, but sure would have some impact. Late edit: Similar studies demonstrate the same relationship within cities, such as if you live in the inner city or outer suburbs. If density is low, fuel use is high.