An inconvenient truth

[Qsaint]

But that is why wind is a sensible choice at the grids perimeters, as in those areas is is cheaper to build a small wind turbine station to provide local needs, than to send from the main power station miles and miles away with all the transmission losses.

eg in WA - wind in Esperance and Albany, not in Perth (for now)

Wind energy only has a limited use because of base loads and peaking uses, unless you build 10 times as many wind farms as you need and have the luxury of spreading them out enough so the wind is blowing somewhere. Either Hot Rock works or we have to go nuclear for base load, there are no other alternatives

 

[stompie]

There are simple ways of increasing the movement to more efficient and less damaging technologies through economic means, such as the use of carbon-based or polluter-pays tax systems. Unlikely to happen unfortunately due to the fact that governments are beholden to (and financed through political donations by) large oil/mining companies and their lobbies. If these type of taxes replaced goods/service taxes, they would more readily mirror the cost to the planet of each good or service purchased, and naturally drive individuals and corporations to focus on lower impact (and hence lower taxed) products and services.

Economics, eventually, will make the use of carbon fuels (especially crude oil) too expensive relative to other fuel sources (a peak oil debate that doesn't need to happen here), but the choice is between being reactive or proactive. Proactive means making choices now about changing the production of your energy - this is important because as fossil fuel sources decrease and prices increase, the cost of producing your alternate/renewable energy souces as a reaction to these increases (especially if you haven't built up a supply of them already) is a much poorer option.

I agree that we should live within ecosystems rather than protect them as 'museum pieces'. My point was that an ecosystem is a delicately balanced system that can only absorb a limited amount of peturbation before it changes dramatically. Dramatic changes to an ecosystem dramatically effect the organisms living within those ecosystems, which includes humans.

You have probably heard the term 'tipping point', which in ecosystem terms refers to a mathematically measurable point where an ecosystem (a non-linear dynamical system) is peturbed to the point that it changes dramatically into a new type of system. This is all good and well, but as we rely on the delicate balance of ecosystems within which we live to provide us with the nourishment we need (including horses, pigs, goats, cats, dogs, and sheep) as well as crop foods, it is unlikely that a dramatic change to our current ecosystems would allow an increase in productivity, and much more likely a dramatic decrease.

In addition, all ecosystems on earth are, to varying degrees, interlinked. When one ecosystem fails or changes dramatically, it peturbs those to which it is linked, thus increasing their chances of doing the same. Hence, the whole world can be modelled as a single ecosystem comprised of many interlinking parts, most of which include humans at some point. This type of theory is most famously described by James Lovelock in his Gaia hypothesis. You could read his new book if interested in these ideas further.

Taxes are not going to work with the 1.5 billion people that live in China. Laws here exist on paper, but they don’t really exist in reality. For most people, what you pay, what you are fined, and your tax levels all gets down to the relationships that you have with local judges, policeman, and political figures. Businessmen driving old vehicles pollute the most, but they are least able to pay more and the local law enforcement people understand that.

As for the oil lobby, there are no campaign donations here so it doesn’t have the same influence. The further you go up the Communist Party, the more serious the people are about stamping out corruption. This is a bugger for the oil companies as they need to go to the top where the people are the least receptive to the bribes. Yet, even without the influence of the oil companies, such a tax would never be implemented. Plain and simply, nothing that is a burden on industry is going to wash with China and India who both have more pressing concerns such as using any spare cash to alleviate the starvation faced now. These carbon credits, polluter taxes blah blah, all pie in the sky.

 

[volcboy]

Taxes are not going to work with the 1.5 billion people that live in China. Laws here exist on paper, but they don’t really exist in reality. For most people, what you pay, what you are fined, and your tax levels all gets down to the relationships that you have with local judges, policeman, and political figures. Businessmen driving old vehicles pollute the most, but they are least able to pay more and the local law enforcement people understand that.

As for the oil lobby, there are no campaign donations here so it doesn’t have the same influence. The further you go up the Communist Party, the more serious the people are about stamping out corruption. This is a bugger for the oil companies as they need to go to the top where the people are the least receptive to the bribes. Yet, even without the influence of the oil companies, such a tax would never be implemented. Plain and simply, nothing that is a burden on industry is going to wash with China and India who both have more pressing concerns such as using any spare cash to alleviate the starvation faced now. These carbon credits, polluter taxes blah blah, all pie in the sky.

No, taxes will not work in China. But they will have some benefit in the countries that have the highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita, such as Australia (~27 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per person per year) or the US (~21.5 t CO2-e). Although China is a significant contributer to greenhouse gas emissions as a whole (Beijing smog, anyone?), it is not on a per capita basis.

The 'least able to pay' argument does have an equivalent in Australia. Poorer people drive older, more polluting cars. Australia has the oldest average car age in the 'western' world - we love our old cars. Newer, more fuel efficient cars, are out of the financial reach of poorer people. One reason that the government does not introduce more stringent emission standards on old cars (oil lobby aside) is that they would face an electoral backlash.

As the Chinese government realises that simply feeding people is an issue, and that the supply of fossil fuels (both internationally and within their own borders) is limited and/or reaching a peak, perhaps they are being proactive in searching for other ways to produce power. As you mentioned, they are looking into alternative energy sources.

As for endemic corruption in China, of course it is there. It is different in nature to the types of corruption found in other government types such as in Australia and the U.S., certainly. The question is; will China's style of government (corruption and all) be more proactive facing this problem than Australia's? If I was betting on it, I'd say they would be. The more centralised the government, the more influence they can wield in both good and bad ways.

 

[Richo83]

On the otherhand if he wasn't then no one would have seen it?

Like how people are paying attention to Dafur because Clooney said something. It needs star factor to get people moving.

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

Wind energy only has a limited use because of base loads and peaking uses, unless you build 10 times as many wind farms as you need and have the luxury of spreading them out enough so the wind is blowing somewhere. Either Hot Rock works or we have to go nuclear for base load, there are no other alternatives

It was said that there was another energy for 75 years at the current price using geothermal power (Hot rocks) in SA.

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

I was referring to the grid's perimeters. Not stand alone fromthe grid. But remote off-grid locations such as you mention are some of the most economically feasible locations to use renewable energy sources. They have a local mini grid backed up by less efficient diesel or other small fossil fuel generators that kick in in times such as you mention. But generally Solar would be used, not diesel. Yes Wind would more commonly be grid connected.

You seem to know a lot about environmental things.

Do you know what Geosequestration is and how this will help? I think the victorian government or someone was planning these kinds of things.

Would this help reduce the CO2, because I remember reading that planting trees alone, causes more CO2, as the trees expel it as well.

Does more trees=still increasing CO2.

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

I was referring to the grid's perimeters. Not stand alone fromthe grid. But remote off-grid locations such as you mention are some of the most economically feasible locations to use renewable energy sources. They have a local mini grid backed up by less efficient diesel or other small fossil fuel generators that kick in in times such as you mention. But generally Solar would be used, not diesel. Yes Wind would more commonly be grid connected.

any power source used cannot be too far away from the main cities because electricity can drip up to 80% of its load. This is why if any nuclear power plants were built, places like Port Augusta or Portland would be good places to have them.

Solar would only be good again if it was near cities, same with wind. Having a solar plant at Alice Springs, would still lead to loss of load.

They were planning a massive solar tower near Mildura, which would be able to supply Mildura with power, but qute useless for Melbourne or Adelaide.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Natural gas, clean coal and nuclear with r&d on hydrogen etc.

All those are viable options but how do you then justify a country like Iran gaining nuclear technology?

 

[Qsaint]

You seem to know a lot about environmental things.

Do you know what Geosequestration is and how this will help? I think the victorian government or someone was planning these kinds of things.

Would this help reduce the CO2, because I remember reading that planting trees alone, causes more CO2, as the trees expel it as well.

Does more trees=still increasing CO2.

Geosequestration is crap unless you can use it to get coal bed methane possible for places like Queensland Gas

 

[stompie]

No, taxes will not work in China. But they will have some benefit in the countries that have the highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita, such as Australia (~27 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per person per year) or the US (~21.5 t CO2-e). Although China is a significant contributer to greenhouse gas emissions as a whole (Beijing smog, anyone?), it is not on a per capita basis.

The 'least able to pay' argument does have an equivalent in Australia. Poorer people drive older, more polluting cars. Australia has the oldest average car age in the 'western' world - we love our old cars. Newer, more fuel efficient cars, are out of the financial reach of poorer people. One reason that the government does not introduce more stringent emission standards on old cars (oil lobby aside) is that they would face an electoral backlash.

As the Chinese government realises that simply feeding people is an issue, and that the supply of fossil fuels (both internationally and within their own borders) is limited and/or reaching a peak, perhaps they are being proactive in searching for other ways to produce power. As you mentioned, they are looking into alternative energy sources.

As for endemic corruption in China, of course it is there. It is different in nature to the types of corruption found in other government types such as in Australia and the U.S., certainly. The question is; will China's style of government (corruption and all) be more proactive facing this problem than Australia's? If I was betting on it, I'd say they would be. The more centralised the government, the more influence they can wield in both good and bad ways.

You have fallen back into the moral argument when you talk of per capita emissions, and the nature of morality is that you can never get consensus on it. World wide, money is the closest thing there is to a uniting morality. Work out how alternative energies will make the most money for the most number of people money, and perhaps you will succeeed.

Australia has 20 million people. There are almost that many people in Beijing. Reducing emissions in Australia is not going to make any difference other than making a few moralistic Greenies feel more at ease. So again, push that line and you will just have another ideological argument that wont reach consensus.

As for centralised governments, maybe you would have a point if China only had 20 million, but its huge population makes things different. What the government wants, and want it can implement are not the same. It can make massive infrastructure projects, but has little ability to influence the behaviour of average Chinese person. The distance between them and the people in power is just too great, and resources needed to re-educate are just too much. At present, it makes laws, but at the local level they are nothing but words on paper that are ignored.

The government will continue to invest in nuclear power, but if you hope it will make any effort to change people's behaviours you are going to be disappointed.

Incidently, Beijing smog is not too bad. LA is much worse.

 

[Richo83]

Australia has 20 million people. There are almost that many people in Beijing. Reducing emissions in Australia is not going to make any difference other than making a few moralistic Greenies feel more at ease. So again, push that line and you will just have another ideological argument that wont reach consensus.

It will mean that the USA is alone on it's anti-environmental change, and as a result of having no allies, will be much more inclined to change than now.

As for centralised governments, maybe you would have a point if China only had 20 million, but its huge population makes things different. What the government wants, and want it can implement are not the same. It can make massive infrastructure projects, but has little ability to influence the behaviour of average Chinese person. The distance between them and the people in power is just too great, and resources needed to re-educate are just too much. At present, it makes laws, but at the local level they are nothing but words on paper that are ignored.

The main reason why laws are ignored is because of corruption, bt with the right kind of enforcment, things can change.

Incidently, Beijing smog is not too bad. LA is much worse.

No it's not. It's just as bad, even worse, the air is unbreathible, it stinks and it smells of this horrible toxic stench. It is not "too bad" it is deplorable.

 

[funkyfreo]

any power source used cannot be too far away from the main cities because electricity can drip up to 80% of its load. This is why if any nuclear power plants were built, places like Port Augusta or Portland would be good places to have them.

Solar would only be good again if it was near cities, same with wind. Having a solar plant at Alice Springs, would still lead to loss of load.

They were planning a massive solar tower near Mildura, which would be able to supply Mildura with power, but qute useless for Melbourne or Adelaide.

but fossil power turbines are 500MW output ish = closre to cities. Wind and solar can be much smaller (so can fossil but muvch less efficient and thus more expensive) - so your solar is a good base load (with fossil back up) for smaller centres, and wind a good base load (with fossil back up) for smqall towns like esperance etc.

I know there are still issues with base load, but on a good grid it has been the case for 20 years that wind power is economical to 10% of the grid capacity. Your coal lobby is the only thing stopping it. It does not solve global warming, but it at least provides the demand for a vibrant industry and R&D capacity.

as for geosequestration as brought up in other posts - problem is that the rocks that can hold the CO2 are not always near cities - ie the power stations, so how to you get the CO2 to the sink (ie where you put the CO2)... energy and infrastructure.

And as mentioned by Stompie (for once I agree) $$$ is as close to morality you will get to solve CO2 emissions - why the Kyoto was such a good economically rational right wing economic solution. Sadly our right wing economically rational govts have been exposed as being economic interventionists and anti-market subsidy providers beholden to the fossil fuel industry.

Get me a right wing govt that commits to 10-20% grid supply from renewables, and compact energy efficient cities, and public transport investment, and then I'm quite prepared to look at "clean coal" and nuclear options... but until then they are just diversions when the truth is they are looking after their fossil fuel multinational mates.

As for China - still massively lower than us on a per-capita basis. No one is trying to reduce their emissions - just would be good to help them develop on a less carbon intensive direction than we have... again unless you are a fossil fuel multinational of course, who dictate to the governments.

 

[funkyfreo]

All those are viable options but how do you then justify a country like Iran gaining nuclear technology?

I don;t have any problem with countries like Iran gaining nuclear technology. Well no more than I do for any other country. But you can;t push nuclear as the global solution and exclude some countries.

 

[stompie]

It will mean that the USA is alone on it's anti-environmental change, and as a result of having no allies, will be much more inclined to change than now.

Americans rarely listen to others about anything, let alone Australia. In any case, they will have India and China as allies.

The main reason why laws are ignored is because of corruption, bt with the right kind of enforcment, things can change.

No. China is just too big to enforce them, and there is too much of a relationship culture that dominates everything. Culture is something that is extremely difficult to change, especially when 1.3 billion people need to be changed. During the cultural revolution, people were killed, books burnt, others imprisoned all in the name of bringing social equality. However, the social heirachies of the past are simply emerging again more strongly than ever. In any case, the Greenhouse effect is way down on the list of priorities.

No it's not. It's just as bad, even worse, the air is unbreathible, it stinks and it smells of this horrible toxic stench. It is not "too bad" it is deplorable.

When I was in Orange county LA, smog made it difficult to look across the street clearly, although places on the ocean such as Venice were ok. On the other hand, Beijing actually has quite a lot of blue skies. A lot of the air pollution is merely dust blown in from the desert or kicked up from construction sites. I say that as someone who is accustomed to clean air.

 

[funkyfreo]

Bur China does not need to change? If we all had the carbon output per head of the Chinese we wouldn't be worried about global warming.

 

[stompie]

Bur China does not need to change? If we all had the carbon output per head of the Chinese we wouldn't be worried about global warming.

But China is changing. Its economy is growing at around 10 per cent a year, and it is now starting to get a middle-class that is almost the same size as Japan. As you would expect, they want cars, air-conditioners, and heaters. If this growth continues then you would be even more worried about global warming. Furthermore, if you think Australians are materialistic, then you have yet to meet many Asians. For men, no car, no air conditioner, poor job = ugly wife and no mistresses. For women, the simple life = no status and parents concerned about their old age.

On the positive side, Australia is helping China out by selling uranium. With around 30 per cent of the world's uranium reserves, Australia is actually quite well placed to wean India and China off fossil fuels.

 

[section8]

But China is changing. Its economy is growing at around 10 per cent a year, and it is now starting to get a middle-class that is almost the same size as Japan. As you would expect, they want cars, air-conditioners, and heaters. If this growth continues then you would be even more worried about global warming. Furthermore, if you think Australians are materialistic, then you have yet to meet many Asians. For men, no car, no air conditioner, poor job = ugly wife and no mistresses. For women, the simple life = no status and parents concerned about their old age.

On the positive side, Australia is helping China out by selling uranium. With around 30 per cent of the world's uranium reserves, Australia is actually quite well placed to wean India and China off fossil fuels.

Chinese are mostly "buddhists" that have shunned the material world.

One of the greatest misconceptions on the face of the earth. Buddha is nothing more than a good luck charm to most of them.

 

[stompie]

Chinese are mostly "buddhists" that have shunned the material world.

One of the greatest misconceptions on the face of the earth. Buddha is nothing more than a good luck charm to most of them.

Mostly athiests. The Tibetans are Buddhists, and quite a few Muslims in Xinjian.

Anyway, as far as I am aware, there is nothing in Buddhism that says you can’t make money. You just have to be aware of karma, so it is how you make your money, and what you do with the money that matters. I know the Monks in Japan have found the profession to be very lucrative, and wear Rolex watches in addition to their robes.

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

Incidently, Beijing smog is not too bad. LA is much worse.

Have you seen Mexico City.
around 15 million people, and more than 2600m above sea level.
Most days the weather forecast is for smoke or haze

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

It will mean that the USA is alone on it's anti-environmental change, and as a result of having no allies, will be much more inclined to change than now.

Maybe the northern hemisphere will be screwed within 15-25 years
USA don't care about the environment. If they eventually see Cat 5 hurricanes hit cities like New York or Boston, this will make New Orleans seem like a flash flood
Europe doesn't care about Islamic problems on its doorstep and other population problems
Japan has an aging population

 

[funkyfreo]

But China is changing. Its economy is growing at around 10 per cent a year, and it is now starting to get a middle-class that is almost the same size as Japan. As you would expect, they want cars, air-conditioners, and heaters. If this growth continues then you would be even more worried about global warming. Furthermore, if you think Australians are materialistic, then you have yet to meet many Asians. For men, no car, no air conditioner, poor job = ugly wife and no mistresses. For women, the simple life = no status and parents concerned about their old age.

On the positive side, Australia is helping China out by selling uranium. With around 30 per cent of the world's uranium reserves, Australia is actually quite well placed to wean India and China off fossil fuels.

My bet is that China will never have a higher per capita CO2 emission level that Australia. My bet is that they will adopt a relatively low carbon path. We would be much better placed to capitalise on this had we taken Kyoto seriously and positioned our economy and corporations to be geared towards low Carbon power generation, energy efficiency and the like.

Look at their massive investment in, for example, wind power. They are adopting sensible growth strategies, not ones beholden to fossil fuel corporations.

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

But China is changing. Its economy is growing at around 10 per cent a year, and it is now starting to get a middle-class that is almost the same size as Japan. As you would expect, they want cars, air-conditioners, and heaters. If this growth continues then you would be even more worried about global warming. Furthermore, if you think Australians are materialistic, then you have yet to meet many Asians. For men, no car, no air conditioner, poor job = ugly wife and no mistresses. For women, the simple life = no status and parents concerned about their old age.

On the positive side, Australia is helping China out by selling uranium. With around 30 per cent of the world's uranium reserves, Australia is actually quite well placed to wean India and China off fossil fuels.

just look at Hong Kong.

 

[funkyfreo]

just look at Hong Kong.

HOng Kong - significantly lower per capita emmissions than Australia.

 

[stompie]

HOng Kong - significantly lower per capita emmissions than Australia.

It is not as though Hong Kong is a great place for a sunday drive. Australia will always have high-per capita emissions because it has low population density. You could lower the per capita emissions by building sky scrapers and jamming everyone in like sardines. But is the sacrafice worth it just for the status of saying that your per capita emissions are low?

I don't don't about you, but I like having a house with a few trees about. I'm not changing, but feel free to adopt the apartment lifestyle yourself if you haven't already.

Anyway, in regards to your earlier posting, the Chinese aren't going wind. They are going nuclear, and this is going to be very very profitable for Australia. So look on the bright side. Australia is poised to help lower world CO2 emissions and the fear of the Greenhouse effect is going to make a lot of Australians very very rich.

 

[funkyfreo]

Anyway, in regards to your earlier posting, the Chinese aren't going wind. They are going nuclear, and this is going to be very very profitable for Australia. So look on the bright side. Australia is poised to help lower world CO2 emissions and the fear of the Greenhouse effect is going to make a lot of Australians very very rich.

http://enviro.org.au/enews-description.asp?id=630
"HONG KONG - China is set to spend US$200 billion on renewable energy over the next 15 years, and industry players are racing to grab a slice of the action. That kind of money would buy you an oil firm the size of Chevron and leave change to fund the current renewables programmes of all Europe's top oil firms for 25 years."

7% alternative already to 20% renewable by 2020 is official China energy policy. 1 GW wind now to 30GW wind in 2020.

AS I said earlier, when we sign up to those kind of targets, I'll consider nuclear Amazing to think that little old communist china appears to be making the most economocally rational energy decisions in the world!

AS for Oz helping China - if only we had signed to Kyoto we could be making CO2 credits from those nuclear exports!

What are all you right wingers doing knocking wind and solar - get out there there's $$$ in them thar hippy ****e.