On 23 February 2010 21:29, Tony Wright <ton...@tpg.com.au> wrote: > My understanding is that the base load problem has been solved, it’s just > that there’s no political will to accept it. That is, there is too much > vested interest in the alternatives and a lot of money spent by some very > powerful groups to promote the status quo, as that’s where they make their > money. > http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thinktanks-take-oil-money-and-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html > > > > “There are plants in Spain operating with energy storage right now, > providing electricity all night long” > > http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/ > > Are they running industry? Like aluminium smelters? If the rest of the world wants aluminium, Oz get to produce a lot of it. Which will make our per capita figures look bad. Carbon credits loaded onto the cost of the aluminium produced would make it look better, but wouldn't change the overall carbon. Nuclear production of the electricity needed to smelt the aluminium would change it dramatically.
> > > And you don’t need to go nuclear. Nuclear as it currently stands is just a > disgraceful option. The radioactive waste in current nuclear reactors with > current technology takes 10,000 years to break down. > That would be excluding IFR reactors? Why exclude the best technology when you quote figures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor> Even more comprehensive are systems such as the Integral Fast Reactor<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor> (IFR) pyroprocessing system, which uses pools of molten cadmium<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium> and electrorefiners to reprocess metallic fuel directly on-site at the reactor.[ 9] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#cite_note-8> Such systems not only commingle all the minor actinides with both uranium and plutonium, they are compact and self-contained, so that no plutonium-containing material ever needs to be transported away from the site of the breeder reactor. 10,000 years ago, mankind was living in caves. Nuclear is obviously the > politically easy option. And it would take at least a decade to fire up a > nuclear reactor anyway. By that time there would be monumental advances in > cleaner technologies. And as for “managing” nuclear – name me a politician > that you believe can manage that portfolio and I’ll name ten more that I > wouldn’t trust if my life depended on it. Oh wait, it does. > > > Your life depends on slowing down and reversing the greenhouse effect. That's a short to medium term issue. Arguing against nuclear just postpones the start time for firing up a nuclear reactor. If we start building now, we'll have them by 2020, your figure. If we wait, then add the wait time to that. If we build IFRs, then we'll have the lowest waste reactors around. > > > > > *From:* ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto: > ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] *On Behalf Of *David Connors > *Sent:* Tuesday, 23 February 2010 8:28 PM > > *To:* ausDotNet > *Subject:* Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles > needed > > > > On 23 February 2010 17:10, Stephen Liedig <slie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The green initiatives such as wind and solar are the *ultimate goal*, but > unfortunately won't be ready as a replacement fossil based energy sources > for at least another couple of decades at best. Investment sould continue in > these areas but they are not going to fix our problems now or in the short > term. > > > > My (albeit very limited) understanding of power generation is that you need > a consistent base load of power generation to create power for the base > level of demand on the grid. This rules out any transient supply as far as I > know. > > > > Peter Garrett might have to get on the blower to the Blue Sky Mine and > friends because the only way you can currently generate base load without > building hydro dams is Nuclear. If they come up with "New Technology X" > tomorrow - the first plans won't be able to be turned on at scale for > decades. > > > > For all Nuclear's safety concerns - at least you can *manage* the waste. > > > > [ ... ] > > > > The real miracle would be if governments would finally stop coming up > with schemes that only encourage us to coninue with our bad habits and start > investing in technologies that make our "current" energy services more > efficient. Recyclying energy from factories and mining operations (which we > have plenty of) is far more productive that any renewable energy source we > currently have. By doing that we produce more net energy, without actually > using more fossil fuels to generate the same amount of energy, and thereby > reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we generate. > > > > We recently moved from a large five bedroom house with a massive A/C plant > into a more modest place without A/C. When we had our second kid (born in > Dec 08) we ran the A/C all the time to keep him cool - the bill for that > quarter was $1100. In this new house without A/C our last quarter for the > same time was $78 (note I'm not trying to be all haughty/holier than thou in > saying this - we just don't have A/C because the new house didn't come with > it and we're demolishing it ). > > > > In talking to people quarterly power bills for people with A/C of $500++ > are not at all uncommon. > > > > It occurs to me that we could all significantly reduce our power > consumption by a large proportion without too much government intervention > at all! Unfortunately, like all feel-good causes, everyone agrees that there > is a need for a change so long as YOU make the change NOT ME. Al Gore's > family are grown up. The Gates Family could live in a nice 2-3 bedroom > apartment - yet I know I certainly wouldn't be telling my family to man up > and enjoy the heat if it weren't for the transient nature of our house. > > > > Hands up everyone who is worried about AGW and wants to disconnect their > A/C at home and work, sell their car to only catch the bus, move into a > small unit, have no power hungry XBOX/PS3/gaming rig/whatever at home? > > > > *crickets* > > > > Its a huge discussion, but if people like Bill (who made him an expert > in energy matters anyway?) start talking about miracles, then we would be > best served talking about miracles that can help us now, not in 40 years > when alternatives are at a level to replace our dependance on fossil fuels. > Personally, I don't think we can wait that long. > > > > The merits or not of the main AGW arguments and the concomitant worrying > are a whole discussion in itself - especially in light of the debacle that > is IPCC AR4 and the EUA leak/hack. > > > > For now though, people could significantly cut the gross CO2 they emit > through simple lifestyle changes. Instead, people don't. They turn their > lights off for Earth Hour and think that helps - or buy carbon credits if > they're rich so they can belch and fart as much as they want without > worrying about any implications. > > > > The gross figure is the only one that matters - bulldoze Australia into the > Pacific tomorrow and the gross improvement for the planet is stuff all. > > > > -- > David Connors (da...@codify.com) > Software Engineer > Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com > Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 > 189 363 > V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors > Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact > -- Meski "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills
<<image001.gif>>
