SAY NO TO A NUCLEAR AUSTRALIA

Alas, I fear that one of my idols has sold out.

6:16 PM, Fri 29 Aug 2008 .. Posted in Anti Nuclear Sentiments .. 0 comments .. Link

To Mr Peter Garrett, Environment Minister.

On stage in the 80's you won my heart by singing about things that were really important in a time of affluence and ignorance. In the news and the media you reaffirmed those sentiments by speaking out loudly and strongly. My heart swelled with pride and respect as I heard you speak out for those around you... those who were being mistreated... those who couldn't speak so loudly for themselves.

In the time since, I have drawn courage and strength from the wisdom and environmental concern I heard both in your lyrics and your own private words. When you spoke out against those who benefit whilst others are suffering, I felt that I was standing next to you. When you protested war and the use of uranium I felt like I was storming the lines with you. When you drew attention to the stupidity of using coal or trying to harness nuclear power when there are so many other viable avenues to follow, I was cheering from the sidelines. Without even knowing me, you have helped to forge the person that I have ultimately become. You passed on that same wisdom... the quest for fairness... the urge to question... the desire to speak loudly... a love for our environment... and a deep loathing for anything nuclear.

When I heard that you were becoming a politician, I rejoiced. I even remember saying something along the lines of 'This is a man that I will be happy to vote into the office of PM'. When I heard that you had joined the labour party I was a little confused. On considering our political history, and the fact that we Aussies can't seem to get it through our heads that ours is not just a two horse race, I decided that you had simply chosen the lesser evil. I chose to believe that you had not sold out as so many others around me were suggesting you had. When your government was voted in (on the back of the anti-nuclear vote, I might point out) and you were confirmed as Environment Minister I breathed a sigh of relief, believing that our part of the Earth was in good hands.

In the meantime I have quietly watched and waited, hoping to hear that your values were finally going to resurface and become something that Australia could be proud of. When time went by and I heard very little of your thoughts, my smile slipped a little. With more time, the doubts crept slowly into my mind.

Today you broke my heart.

I can't believe that you are allowing an expansion of the Beverley Uranium mine in South Australia. I cannot believe that I would ever hear these words come from your mouth...
"Advice is clear to me that in terms of storing this material, whether you store it above ground, whether you store it in drums, or whether you do re-inject it into a saline aquifer, the last option of re-injecting it into the saline aquifer is considered by all the scientific advice that came to me to be the best, most effective, most environmentally safe way of dealing with the waste,"

Bullshit, Peter! And the worst thing is that as an anti-nuclear protester since the late 70's, you know it. There is NO environmentally safe way to deal with the waste, and suggesting that it is 'more environmentally safe' way is, in essence, political bullshit... ie, lying. You must have excelled in your political mumbo-jumbo classes.

~~Yours sincerely~~
Regards,
Tina Cee.

This is a link to the ABC story for the 29th of August 2008, where we first read the news. Gryphonn made several comments and replies but I was too slow to have my own say... but then, I publish a blog for that very thing. Unfortunately, his last reply was pretty lengthy and didn't make it into the discussion. However, he has made some excellent points and I wanted to give you his view as well. Please feel free to trawl through the 86 comments on the ABC page as it contains some good indicators (both pro and con) of what Australians think on the subject. But for those who don't feel like reading that much I've copied and pasted Gryph's participation in the debate, as well as the replies to his comments below in red. The final blue paragraph is the comment that didn't make it onto the page.

Gryphonn: 29 Aug 2008 12:26:22pm

"You rode the backs of the environmentalists to get a seat in parliament, then you stabbed the same people in the back and jumped on the coat-tails of big business.

Shame on you Peter Garrett. Personally, if I had compromised my beliefs the way you have yours, I wouldn't be able to live with myself. I think I'll recycle all my Midnight Oil albums now.

You really make me sick Peter. Words cannot describe the shame I feel for supporting you."

MO: 29 Aug 2008 12:59:51pm

"I respect Peter Garrett. Here is a man who decided that to really make a difference he needed to be inside, not outside throwing rocks like most bloggers.

Obviously it is not easy when the narrow agenda gets broadened and decisions need to be taken when all the facts and agendas are taken into account.

Tough Gig Peter, but at least you are having a go at creating the changes you want, even if I don't necessarily agree with the narrow agenda. Maybe your time will come as the environment and the parties adjust.

This is the reality. Narrow agendas cannot be followed as the good of all must be considered."

Gryphonn: 29 Aug 2008 1:10:41pm

'The good of all'.
"Does that mean that long term environmental damage caused by storage of waste from uranium mining is for 'the good of all'?

So many people are claiming that uranium mining is a safe practice, when we know that it is a dangerous practice and the end product (nuclear waste from reactors) cannot be stored safely for future generations.

Why do people look at today instead of the future of this planet? I'm yet to hear anything from the environment minister promoting wind/solar/hotrock/solarthermal, or other energy sources.
'The good of all' should encompass present and future don't you think?"

MO: 29 Aug 2008 1:35:11pm

"G, I suppose you also oppose the radio active waste storage facility mooted for NT or SA. ?

Much better to have it stored in our warehouses and basements in the cities!

Garret is practicing pragmatism - look it up."

Gryphonn: 29 Aug 2008 2:17:50pm

"Well MO, I oppose uranium mining and enrichment. Strange that. But I guess I'm just another damned greenie. One of those damned greenies that was spouting some rot about 'global warming' and 'greenhouse effects' in the eighties.

I would have thought that it would be obvious to everyone that we cannot afford to continue promoting uranium mining and uranium based energy production as economically viable practices. In the long term, we will all pay the environmental price.

I guess you consider it OK to dump radioactive waste so long as it isn't anywhere near where you live MO?
It was OK to bury chemical waste in the bush 50 odd years ago. Then cities expanded and houses were built on long forgotten dumps, and suddenly toxic waste began to surface, forcing the abandonment of entire suburbs.

Will it be OK in a hundred years when radioactive waste leaches into the Great Artesian Basin?

Have you thought that if Rudd, Garrett et al started spending money on serious research projects for renewable energy resources instead of putting money in large corporate pockets with uranium interests, we wouldn't have to have this discussion?"

ravensclaw: 29 Aug 2008 1:19:43pm

"It continues to amaze me that some people still cannot apply some critical thinking to be able to tell the difference between -

Nuclear weapons, nuclear medicine, nuclear power and other uses of radioactive materials eg aviation.

We have a nuclear power station, we use radioactive material for cancer treatments and the aviation industry every day. We even transport radioactive materials around the country every day.

Do we have a Nuclear Bomb? No

Are there any 2 headed babies born near our Nuclear Power Station? NO!

Has any radioactive waste escaped from storage, transformed into a Godzilla and radiated the nation? No.

Has there ever been a sensible argument against the responsible use of uranium for energy and medicinal use? NO, and there probably will never be! Nix to Chernobyl - If the reactor had a containment facility the event never would have happened. That was a fault of socialism, not responsible use of uranium."

Gryphonn's response (had the discussion not been closed):

"The discussion here is about a Uranium mine. Last I checked, Uranium has no use in modern medicine. That's the job of other radioactive isotopes. Well, actually, the discussion is more about Peter Garrett compromising his beliefs for party politics and a healthy salary, but I'll digress again.

Uranium (-235) in itself is not much of a problem. After all, most rocks contain between 2 and 4 parts per million of uranium. The problems start when it is mined and concentrated, making it harmful to humans and difficult to store safely.

Yes, you are correct. We do not have (as far as we've been informed) a 'nuclear bomb'. However, our troops and our allies are using depleted uranium in ammunition, and our allies have nuclear bombs. Is it morally or ethically Ok for us to mine and sell uranium to our allies so they can produce nuclear weapons?

We do not have a nuclear power station, we have a nuclear reactor used to produce neutrons and products such as doped silicon for creating computer chips. Big difference, far less risk than the nuclear energy a nuclear power station produces.
Our reactor is more in line with being a mini reactor...for want of a better explanation.
We can supply that reactor quite easily without having to expand a mine that uses very risky extraction processes.

I am unaware of any radioactive waste leaks, other than what occurred on the seabed south west of England in 2002. But I guess that waste was dumped between 1960 something and 1980, and no Godzilla 'radiated' England, so I guess that doesn't count.

I really feel you should do some study to find out what caused the Chernobyl melt-down and subsequent explosion. Containment facility? Please explain how a containment facility could prevent the top blowing off a nuclear power generator and cause a radioactive cloud to spread across half of Europe. Socialism caused Chernobyl? Socialism didn't cause Chernobyl. Human error caused Chernobyl. Also remember that it's been 22 years or so since that disaster and it is still unsafe to go near the place. There are also hundreds of thousands of hectares of once viable cropland that cannot be used due to contamination. Not to mention thousands of people physically affected by radiation poisoning.

If I have a catastrophic failure of my solar panel or wind turbine, I can replace it on the same patch of land. I don't have to abandon the farm for a thousand years."

Hear, hear.

Transportation Has Come a Long Way.

8:15 AM, Sat 17 May 2008 .. Posted in Technology of Today .. 0 comments .. Link

I recently found a story on hybrid sports cars and immediately thought 'Eh?? But aren't hybrids supposed to be somewhat lacking in power? How can this claim of a hybrid sports car be taken seriously?' So I went and had a bit of a look around to see what I could find. And it didn't take long for me to find some very interesting stories on the state of the hybrid industry at the moment. I concentrated on the models that showcase the sports performance side of the vehicle, and surprisingly, I found quite a bit on these flashy cars.

Now, I like cars. I like watching motor sports, I like the fact that we've got something that will take us to distant places safely and quickly... and I just like driving a good, responsive vehicle. This is one area of conservation about which I sometimes feel torn. Do you have to compromise on the fun of driving in order to save a few greenhouse gas emissions? Well not any more, it seems.

From what I've seen, there have been some great breakthroughs when it comes to power, fuel economy is at an unbelievable level, and new NiZn batteries promise 30% more power while being cheaper to produce and safer to store. It seems that we don't have a whole heap of excuses left for not considering this option when buying your next car. So let's have a look at a few.

Ok, to start with, the one that took my eye originally, The Fisker Karma.

Ok, so this one is flashy! I could actually see myself driving in this... except it's probably a little expensive for my budget. $80 000 USD will get you one of these luxurious monsters. This one combines a small gasoline engine with lithium battery packs. Apparently, if it's charged properly, it would use only 1 tank of fuel per year. As for the performance, 0-60 mph within 6 seconds and a top speed of 125 mph... I might have expected a little better from a sports car, but hey, that's not too bad. Most of us wouldn't use all of that allowance anyway. But still... this is a car-lover talking...

Then I stumbled across this little beauty, the Tesla Electric Roadster.

Now, this one might be the one for me, I think. Jay Leno even has one! The lines of this vehicle are part Corvette, part Ferrari, part Porsche, and it looks great in black. An electric car that gives you 0 - 60mph in 4 seconds... that's more like it. It can travel up to 250 miles per charge and will set you back a mere $92 000 USD. No worries, I'll have two please, one for daytime use and one for night.

If you're looking for a larger vehicle, something like the Citroen C-Metisse might be the car for you.

This looks like something that should be in the next batman movie, it's 4.74 m long, 2 m wide, and only 1.24 m high. It's front wheels are powered by a diesel engine for highway driving, while the particulate trap reduces the resulting emissions. The rear wheels are powered by electric motors to give the car a zero emission mode for around town. It can do 0-62 mph in 6.2 seconds, has a top speed of 155 mph and its makers claim it will average 42 mpg. The point to remember though is that this is at present only a concept vehicle.

How about something a little more affordable? The ZAP Alias is set to be released at a cost of roughly $30 000.

An all-electric three-wheeler vehicle, this one will be able to travel about 150 miles on one charge and go from 0-60 mph in about 7 seconds. For a small vehicle around town, that's not a bad deal... and it wins in the style department too. As yet, it's just another concept car, but with a 2009 release date you can place your order for one now.

Or, just for a bit of fun or if you only need to travel the few k's to work and back, how about this little beauty?

I'd have to call this guy Barney if I owned one... just me. This is the Venturi Eclectic, a solar, wind, and electric-powered three seater vehicle. Now, with a range of 50 km and a top speed of 50 km/h this little guy was never made for long trips into the country. But if you live in a city, have a lack of space, a negligible need for a vehicle, or if you simply need something to whip out to the east wing in, pip pip... something like this might be useful. A bit dorky, I'll give you... but being the first to run on a mixture of renewable energy gathered from its' inbuilt solar panels, wind turbine and an electricity powered backup, this truly is a zero emission vehicle, which is kind of cool. Check out the specs.

Shell Withdraws from the London Array Wind Farm.

1:36 PM, Sat 3 May 2008 .. Posted in Conspiracy Theories .. 1 comments .. Link

While researching an article on wind power today, I was appalled to read of the decision by Shell to sell off their one third interest in the London Array wind farm project. So I had to add this one in here too. A bit of background...

On the 18th of December 2006, British government approved the plans to build the world's largest offshore wind farm off the south-east coast of England. This wind farm, London Array, a partnership project between Shell, E.On and Dong Energy, was to incorporate 341 turbines, would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of £1.5 - 2 billion, and would generate 1000 mW of power, or enough to feed 1% of the UK's energy needs... that's enough to power a quarter of London.

But today's news reports that Shell has decided to sell it's share of the project, leaving E.On and Dong to ponder the future of the project. Shell has defended its' action, saying that ity has decided to sell its stake as part of its "ongoing review of projects and investment choices," and noting that the company has 11 other wind projects across Europe and the U.S.

The Chronicle Herald, on the 2nd of May 2006 reported...

"Friends of the Earth spokesman Nic Rau said Shell’s decision was especially hard to take since it came just two days after Shell posted a 25 per cent rise in first-quarter profit to a record $9.1 billion on the back of soaring crude oil prices.
"We’re very disappointed that Shell, which touts itself as a progressive green company, is . . . leaving a key clean energy project high and dry," said Rau."

An extract from an article in The Star dated the 3rd of May 2006 states...

"It came just before the consortium signed a contract with a turbine manufacturer - the point at which the companies had to put their money on the table. Shell's move is an economic one, with funds redirected towards potentially more profitable wind schemes in the US.

But the company came under fire from green groups who accused them of leaving the clean energy project "high and dry" while investing in fossil fuel extraction which was wrecking the climate. And on Thursday night the row widened, with opposition parties claiming the UK was in danger of missing green energy targets because of the Government's failure to encourage investment in renewables.

Shadow business secretary Alan Duncan said: "This really is a disaster and it potentially blows a huge hole in Government's already shambolic attempts to hit targets for renewable energy."

I'm sorry, but the numbers just aren't stacking up. Shell recorded a profit of $27.5 billion (£13.9 billion) in 2007. That makes their share of the £2 billion that the London Array would have cost seem like a piddling little trifle, doesn't it? So why have they justified pulling out of this project over a concern about money when they made such a whopping amount last year?

Probably because it's more profitable to sell their oil to the poor ignorant slobs at home. Shell is now making a $75 million (£38 million) per day profit... that's PER DAY... on the price of oil. That means that they could pay for their share of the project after a single day's trading. Uh???

But once the wind farm has been accounted for, how much could they reasonably ask the British public to pay for a resource that's obtained almost free of charge? Not as much as for oil, obviously.

Wind Power is Big Business

9:13 PM, Thu 1 May 2008 .. Posted in Wind .. 0 comments .. Link

Think about it... how many times have you walked down the street, particularly in large cities, lamenting the wind tunnel effect created by the buildings lining the street? It's a pain in the behind, isn't it? Especially if you've just spent good money having your hair styled, or if you have to physically hold down the skirt of your favourite dress out of modesty. Trust me fellas, your wife or girlfriend will know exactly what I'm talking about.

But what if we could use that wind tunnel effect in our favour? What if each building could be fitted with wind turbines to catch all of that annoying wind? How much energy would some of our cities be able to produce then? Well, in a little while we'll be able to ask the owners of Bahrain's new World Trade Centre.

This new highrise is an extension to the existing Sheraton Hotel complex and comprises two 50-storey sail-shaped commercial office towers, which taper to a height of 240m and support three 29m diameter horizontal-axis wind turbines. The towers are integrated on top of a three-storey podium which accommodates a new boutique shopping centre, fine dining, business centre and car parking.

The three wind turbines are expected to provide around 10-15% of the power for both towers, representing about 3.5% of the total cost of the project. The blades, each 29 metres in diameter, the first to be integrated into a commercial structure were turned on and tested last month.

An MSNBC report dated the 9th of April 2008, states...

"We truly have pushed the boundaries of environmental architecture with this project," Ole Sangill, a partner in turbine specialists Norwin, said of the project. "It is a testament to Bahrain that private developers are investing in sustainability and pioneering design, which is certainly the future of architecture as it shapes the planet in years to come."

Could this be the start of a new trend towards big businesses using wind power to sustain their own energy needs for the future? Why not? This is a viable way to achieve that goal, an opinion that Trammell Crow seems to share with me. This Houston based developer plans to build a newly proposed highrise, Discovery Tower. The 871 000 sq foot project is expected to open in 2010, will cost around $300 million and will sport 10 wind turbines on the roof.

And what about recycling off-shore oil rigs for wind turbines? Wind Energy Systems Technologies are presently engaging in wind monitoring activities on recycled oil platforms off the coast of Texas with an aim to using them to support wind turbines. What a brilliant idea.

It seems that wind energy could become a boon to businesses in the future. Many countries use wind as a significant (and reliable) portion of their electricity power. (Denmark 20%, Germany 7%, Spain/Portugal 20%). In addition, over 4.5 million U.S. homes get their power from wind energy. Texas alone generated 4,446 megawatts of energy in 2007 — enough to power nearly 1.2 million homes. Add Colorado, which generated roughly half of that again, and that's a significant amount of alternative power.

And what about Australia? What are we doing in regards to producing alternative power? Well currently, we're only producing about 1% of our total power usage by means of wind. When you think that the average output of each wind turbine is enough to power around 1000 homes, and then think of all the available vacant land that we have, I think we could do a hell of a lot better, don't you? Have a look at the Australian Greenhouse Office's list of renewable energy generators all over the country. You can click on the map to zoom in and see what's in your area.

So, what about our homes? Could we start by looking up onto our own roofs? But wind generators are huge and ugly structures that we don't really want to look at every morning... aren't they? Well, Engadget had an article about home-sized wind generators, dated 3rd July 2007. It states...

"Generally speaking, wind generators have been reserved for more macro-scale operations, but a West Australian inventor "believes he has developed a way to generate electricity for homes using wind power." This residential approach utilizes a modular turbine that is minuscule enough to perch atop nearly any roof without causing too much unsightliness, and can create power for the house to consume as the wind pushes its blades."

Well, that makes one think, doesn't it?

Solar Thermal Energy

11:25 AM, Sun 20 Apr 2008 .. Posted in Solar .. 0 comments .. Link

Solar Thermal towers collect the heat from the sun in a completely different way than by using photovoltaics (solar panels). A solar panel converts the sun directly into electricity, whereas this method concentrates the sun's rays onto an area that collects the heat. That heat boils a liquid (such as water) and produces steam, which is then converted into electricity. This may seem like an added step in the process, but in actuality it is more efficient in large-scale production. Heat can be stored more easily than the electricity produced by panels, hence solar thermal towers can provide a more even energy source for a longer time.

Higher operating temperatures allow for different technologies to be used. One proposed method utilizes liquid fluoride salts, using multi-stage turbine systems that allows the plant to use higher-temperature dry heat exchangers for its thermal exhaust. This reduces the plant's water use, which comes in handy if it's situated in the desert... where large solar plants are the most practical. With the use of a back-up system for the rare emergencies, this method of obtaining power becomes very attainable.

This is a very promising way to produce power to the masses, in my view. Have a look at Wikipedia's list of Solar Thermal Power Stations from around the world.

Now, there are several different designs when it comes to solar thermal power stations. Most people have, at one stage or another, seen or heard about the solar farms that use masses of mirrors surrounding a central tower structure. These Power Tower designs use mirrors (called heliostats) to focus the sun's rays on a collector at the top of the tower. But to do this each mirror needs to be fitted with a motor to track the path of the sun, maximising the heat collected. This increases the cost, and decreases the attraction of this type of solar tower.

Parabolic trough power plants use a system of curved troughs, which reflect the sun's rays onto a receiver positioned above the trough. As the position of the sun changes, the whole trough tilts so that the focus remains on the receiver. However, if the troughs are positioned parallel to the sun, it does not require adjustment of the mirrors, as the light is simply concentrated on another part of the receiver. So in this way, the trough design takes out the added cost of a tracking system.

Another design uses a large, reflective, parabolic dish (similar in shape to a satellite dish). It focuses all the sunlight up onto to a single point above the dish, where a receiver captures the heat. Typically the dish is coupled with a Stirling engine in a Dish-Stirling System. These engines require no fuel, creating a rotational kinetic energy that can be converted to electricity using an electric generator. Of all these technologies the solar dish/stirling engine has the highest energy efficiency. A single solar dish installed at Sandia National Laboratories National Solar Thermal Test Facility produces as much as 25 kW of electricity, with a conversion efficiency of 30%, compared to around the 20% of the parabolic systems.

A linear Fresnel reflector power plant uses a series of long, narrow mirrors to focus light onto one or more linear receivers above the mirrors, much like the parabolic system. The receiver is stationary and so fluid couplings are not required (as in troughs and dishes). The mirrors also do not need to support the receiver, so they are much simpler structurally. When suitable aiming strategies are used this can allow a denser packing of mirrors, thus producing more and/or saving valuable land space when needed. Another advantage of this design is that lenses are cheaper than mirrors. Furthermore, if a material is chosen that has some flexibility, a less rigid frame is required to deal with wind instability. It does bear mentioning however, that no full-scale thermal systems using Fresnel lenses are known to be in operation, although products incorporating Fresnel lenses in conjunction with photovoltaic cells are already available.

Below are a few more interesting links for you to peruse on this subject...

CSIRO - Solar Thermal Energy Research.

Triple Pundit article - Solar Thermal Electricity: Catching the Eye of Utility Companies.

Clean Technica article - Solar Thermal Electricity: Can it Replace Coal, Gas and Oil?

Can We Rely on Renewable Energy?

12:49 PM, Tue 15 Apr 2008 .. Posted in Technology of Today .. 1 comments .. Link

"But can we really rely on renewable energy? What happens when the sun stops shining or the wind stops blowing?"

This is a question that was asked of me some time ago. I had all intentions of answering at the time, but couldn't because of our absence from the net. So, expanding on the groundwork I initially put in, here is my response.

Well, there are many different renewable energy sources. Some, like wind power and rooftop solar panels, are intermittent at a local level. But when they are spread over a sufficiently large area, with different climatic conditions, they are barely more intermittent than coal. It is unlikely that there will be no sun or wind anywhere across the electricity network of Australia. By deploying wind and solar across the landscape we can reduce any intermittency of wind and solar generators. And using these technologies in the home has the added advantage of producing electricity where it is used, so less energy is lost in transmission. On the subject of lost energy, did you know that about 11 per cent of the electricity produced at a big coal-fired power station is lost while being transported to the end user? So it seems that the problem of transporting power is something that all deliverers of power have to combat.

So yes, both wind and solar power are subject to the weather. However, weather forecasting is very reliable and, in most cases, any lack of sun or wind can be predicted and compensated for (for instance, by cranking up hydro and biomass generation). But in contrast, coal-fired generation suffers unpredictable outages and breakdowns that can and do plunge the electricity grid into crisis.

Solar power is particularly useful for delivering power at times of peak demand. Hot, sunny days when people are using their air conditioner, will generally be days when there is plenty of solar energy generated. And consider this... Solar water heating is hugely underused in sunburnt Australia. Less than five per cent of houses have a solar water heater. Some other countries, Israel, Spain and Ireland, are making solar water heating mandatory, while China has over 60 per cent of the world's installed solar water heating capacity.

Now, some technologies, like hydro power are highly predictable and controllable. They can be deployed when it is most useful, providing either baseload or peak power. Eraring Energy has a number of hydro-electric plants and the Stanwell corporation is also using power derived by means of hydro generation. As for Tasmania... well, we've all heard about the successful use of hydro power in the Derwent River catchment.

Bioenergy is another source of power that is being currently utilised in Australia. Woodlawn, near Sydney is Australia's largest bioreactor landfill. Veolia Environmental Services produces power generated by the methane that our waste produces. They also have plans in the works to incorporate a large scale windfarm on the Woodlawn site.

Emerging technologies, like geothermal could theoretically provide large quantities of baseload power in Australia long before a single nuclear reactor can be built (they take 10-15 years) or a commercially feasible carbon capture and storage coal-fired power station could be developed. Geodynamics is a Brisbane-based company currently researching hot-rock technologies in the Cooper Basin.

Solar thermal is another promising technology being researched by the Stanwell Corporation, one which I want to expand on soon. You can download a PDF file by the Environmental Protection Agency outlining the Stanwell Solar Concentrator here.

So why is it that people still think that renewable energy sources are not viable when all these technologies are available? It seems to be hard for many to accept, but solar and wind are not the only alternative sources available to us. With a combination of several or all of these methods we are completely able to supply power in a safe and renewable way. We just have to get over the idea that it has to be either one technology or another.

Cloncurry to get a Solar Thermal Tower

8:51 AM, Wed 2 Apr 2008 .. Posted in Solar .. 0 comments .. Link

The western Queensland town of Cloncurry is expected to run entirely on solar thermal power by the year 2010. The Queensland government is set to spend $7 million dollars on the project, a solar thermal tower which will store heat by using 8000 mirrors to concentrate the sun's rays onto graphite blocks. Water is then pumped through these blocks, generating steam which turns turbines and generates electricity. As graphite is such a good conductor of heat, the tower will be able to successfully generate electricity well into the night. The station is set to deliver about 30 million kilowatt hours of electricity a year, enough to power the entire town continuously 24 hours a day.

Premier Anna Bligh states, "We're going to build a 10-megawatt solar thermal power station. It's a real breakthrough for electricity generation. The technology we’re going to use in Cloncurry, will ensure the power station keeps generating electricity even when the sun is not shining. The town of Cloncurry has long claimed the title of having recorded Australia's hottest day -- 53 degrees (Celsius) in the shade in 1889, so I reckon we're on a winner. "

Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation, Andrew McNamara said of the project, "While the introduction of alternate energy sources and the reduction of emissions comes at a price, the refusal to do so comes at a potentially much higher cost."

Mines and Energy Minister Geoff Wilson agrees, adding, “This project’s a winner on several fronts. It will cut greenhouse gas emissions with clean energy powered by the sun and it will save money in the long term with less money being spent on upgrades to the local network.”

Find the full Ministerial Media Statement here.

$7 million dollars to power a whole town with a population of over 3000 people? Considering that Australia is still one of the worst greenhouse gas emitters in the world, it's a drop in the ocean, I would say... and a step in the right direction. Now we need to start leaping.

Coal Seam Methane Extraction

9:52 AM, Sun 16 Mar 2008 .. Posted in Natural Gas .. 0 comments .. Link

For many years now, miners have known that coal seams produce methane gas. It used to be that this gas was merely a hazard to be released before the miners could even think about taking any of the 'valuable' coal from the ground. Now though, we have realised that the release of that gas is a massive waste of what is another valuable resource.

Methane is a flammable gas that when released into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. It is also a very good energy producer when burnt, producing less carbon dioxide than other hydrocarbon fuels. Methane gas (often called bio gas or natural gas) has many current uses, including being used for heating, cooking and as a vehicle fuel.

Methane production comes in many forms. It can be extracted from the rotting of organic matter including livestock manure, wastewater sludge, human refuse in landfills, or any other biodegradable feedstock (vegetation). Even the ocean and wetlands produce methane.

But the major source of methane is to extract it from the ground, where it is produced in large volumes by the coal under our feet. This method is known as Coal Seam (or Coal Bed) Extraction. The methane which is in the coal is released when the coal seam is depressurised. To do this, the water within the seam is pumped from the ground, causing a drop in pressure. This forces the methane to desorb from the coal, and this is when it is captured, compressed and piped to market.

There are a number of Australian coal mines that have been using this method for some time now, including Santos, which has been utilising methane gas extracted from several mines in the Bowen Basin in Qld. Moura Mine, located in the Bowen Basin in Queensland, established a commercial coal mine methane business next to its coal mining operations in 1996. And in New South Wales, the Appin and Tower Collieries, operated by BHP Billiton, produce electric power by using drained coal mine methane. The Australian Coal Association has some more information here.

The Australian government has had projects in the pipeline since early 2003, and continues to fund projects today.

Links to Current Research

3:17 PM, Fri 7 Mar 2008 .. Posted in Technology of Today .. 0 comments .. Link

This will be a very quick entry to provide some useful links. don't really have the time to check into all of this research, but I'd love to hear your opinions on the things that you find here. Anything of interest that might give me some ideas for future posts would be appreciated. What do you want to see on these pages?

CSIRO

Department of Primary Industries

Alternative Technology Association

Australian National University

Trinity College

University of Sydney

Murdoch University

University of Newcastle

Controversy as FutureGen Plans are Cancelled.

6:33 AM, Thu 28 Feb 2008 .. Posted in Conspiracy Theories .. 0 comments .. Link

Plans for FutureGen, a near zero emission coal fired power plant planned for Mattoon Township, Coles County, Illinois was cancelled by the Department of Energy (U.S.A) on Janurary 29 2008, among much controversy. The DOE announced that it would pull its funding for the project, after concerns of costs rising to higher than expected levels. However, some Illinois local and state officials have experessed frustration over the time and resources wasted by the state in competing for the FutureGen contract, and have questioned why the decision was made after the Illionois site was chosen over one in Texas.

Mattoon mayor David Cline said "one could question the motivation of the Department of Energy which was ready to move forward with the project until a site other than Texas was chosen." Illinois senator Dick Durban claimed that "when the city of Mattoon, Illinois, was chosen over possible locations in Texas, the secretary of energy set out to kill FutureGen."

Samuel W Bodman, U.S. Energy Secretary however, has countered these claims, explaining that that the restructuring of the FutureGen project will "equip multiple new clean-coal power plants with advanced CCS technology, instead of one demonstration plant. That will provide more electricity from multiple clean-coal plants, sequestering at least twice as much CO2 and providing for wider use and more rapid commercialization."

The move is likely to delay the project as other members seek the additional funds that the DOE was to provide. Despite the cancellation of funding by the DOE, the FutureGen Alliance continues to move forward with the project, opening an office in Mattoon and planning to buy the land for the plant in August 2008, in partnership with a local group.

According to the New York Times in an article dated January 31, 2008...

"The Energy Department on Wednesday canceled its main program for demonstrating how to use coal without adding to global warming, saying the project needed an overhaul to rein in soaring costs. The announcement ends a program started four years ago and described at the time as “one of the boldest steps our nation has taken toward a pollution-free energy future.” The program, called FutureGen, was also intended to provide hydrogen for fuel-cell cars and other uses. But the estimated cost has risen to about $1.8 billion from $1 billion, and officials feared it would increase. The department said it would start over with a new program, but that is unlikely to happen before the Bush administration leaves office."

According to an article on CNet News.com, February 1, 2008...

" The FutureGen Alliance, which includes companies like Foundation Coal and Peabody Energy, says that the DOE initially agreed to contribute $800 million to the project. The DOE's share has only risen to $1.1 billion. Alliance members have also agreed to provide the DOE partial or full repayment for overruns. "The cost is manageable," the organization read. The DOE also claimed that financing such a project was inappropriate. Hardly, said the Alliance. Power plants are always financed. It also disputed the DOE's claim that the plant wouldn't be commercially viable. Not so, says the Alliance. Finally, the DOE claimed that the new projects will sequester as much carbon dioxide at a lower cost than FutureGen. "The Mattoon site as currently configured can sequester approximately 2 million tons per year," the Alliance said. The new projects aim for 1 million tons a year--or half as much. Whoever is right, the dispute seems to add to the Department of Energy's (or at least the Department as it has been configured for the last couple of years) inability to keep its mind on research. In the '90s, it kicked off an ambitious program to build hybrid cars. Japanese manufacturers weren't invited. In response, Toyota and Honda released hybrids. The DOE program was canceled. It then shifted to developing a hydrogen economy. We're still waiting on that one."

A report from the Washington Post, dated February 16, 2008 states...

"President Bush announced in 2004 and then continually promoted a public-private venture he hoped would usher in an era of clean coal and be a cornerstone of U.S. efforts to address global warming. The FutureGen plant would have created electricity by stripping coal of harmful carbon dioxide and pumping the gas underground. The result would be power generation with zero greenhouse gas emissions. In December, Matoon Ill., was selected as the site for the coal plant. And then, on Jan. 30, Energy secretary, Samuel W Bodman pulled the plug."

Personally, I believe that one should wonder about the motives for such a move. Texas is the home state of President Bush, after all. But even if it is all about money, shouldn't the $50 million US that the state of Illinois has already sunk into the project bear some consideration. $40 million of this came from US taxpayers, and is now just wasted funds. Why scrap the project for someone else to take up when such a large amount has already been invested, especially when the government was so much in favour of the project initially? It doesn't really make sense.

Do We Want This?

Here is a place where we
can discuss the current
nuclear power debate
in Australia.
A place to voice our
concerns and discuss
alternative sources.
The content of this blog
will periodically be sent
to our leaders in Canberra.
Please feel free to make
comment on the issues
raised for discussion here.
They need to know
just how we feel.

Interesting Reading

Greenpeace - Aust/Pacific
Greenpeace International - End the Nuclear Age
The Australian Wilderness Society
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
CSIRO Energy Research
TreeHugger
Real Climate
Change.org
Green Options
Matter Network
AGO- Map of Renewable Energy Generators