Alternative Complacency

I have many aspirations for this world of ours. Some would say that mostly what I have is pipe dreams and I guess that in some repects they’d probably be right. It’s not because we’re not capable though, but because we’re to busy making money. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind making money, but I think the time has come when some of it needs to be spent.

I’ve been involved in discussions over at Tinacee’s and Snowy’s concerning alternate energy sources for the production of electricity. I’ve also spoken here about the growing problem we in Australia have with a shortage of water. In both of these discussions we collectively, have discussed some of the ideas that are currently being developed and their usefulness in meeting both our energy requirements and our growing thirst.

One of the questions that keeps coming up however, is “what are we going to do now?” This is because the one thing we all agree on is that now seems to be when we need to be doing something about it. Although we seem to be taking some begrudgingly tentative steps toward remedying our water issues with the use of recycled water, alternative ways to produce energy seem to be caught in a quagmire of speculation, heated debate and government and industry complacency.

The thing that irks me is that we have the technology to deal with both of these things, together and/or separately. Trouble is that these technologies are still very much in their infancy. But it seems to me that as soon as someone comes up with a viable idea that needs a little work, the funding dries up and they take it offshore to somewhere that will fund the research. Why aren’t we, and by “we” I mean our governments, doing something to keep the development of these ideas, technologies and the benefits they bring here?

The thing about now is that we have already proven the technology for solar collection and we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it can work. We can turn sunlight into energy using solar cells and we can turn water into steam using mirrors and make electricity as well as produce fresh water. We’re also pretty sure that we can produce hydrogen cheaply enough to be viable, hydrogen which can be burned to provide the heat source if the sun isn’t shining, but this technology also needs more research. They need more research because at the moment, they don’t produce quite the energy we require, although they get better all the time, but the real problem is that they are prohibitively expensive. That doesn’t change the fact that these technologies are available for use now, they are just not viable yet.

As many have said, it was only 150 years or so ago that we had no electricity at all. In less than 100 years of flight we went from crashing gliders to landing a man on the moon. This is stark evidence that we can get things done pretty damn quickly if we really want to. That makes me wonder just how quickly we could make just these two options viable if we really wanted to. 3 to 5 years in my humble opinion, would probably be quite long enough, if we can allocate enough resources to get the research completed. Once again it looks to be a simple matter of some serious logistics, but it’s not likely to happen unless we push very hard.

I think it’s interesting to note that over the last few years, funding to the CSIRO for both hydrogen production and solar energy has been reduced, while funding for research into “clean coal” and CO₂ sequestration has been increased. In three to five years it is my prediction we will have a “solution” where coal is heavily involved and I think there are a number of reasons for this, reasons that any government will wholeheartedly embrace.

1. We have a bucket load of good quality black and brown coal.
2. We make a bucket load of money out of mining, exporting and burning said coal (about $25billion)
3. An entire coal mining industry that would need to be seriously rationalised if we only needed half as much or none at all.

Number one provides employment for tens of thousands of people. Number two provides a constant revenue for the economy. Number three would cause massive unemployment in the mining sector and reduce the GDP, especially if we exported low cost solar energy to replace coal fired energy. These are all very good reasons for a government to keep the coal industry alive and very, very active.

Mining uranium to fuel nuclear power stations has similar attractions of course. We’d need to take more out of the ground which would require miners and would mean we’d have more available to sell. These two technologies, although detrimental to the environment, will definitely help keep the economy chugging along. The problem with the other two is that we just don’t know how much money they can spin and you know the saying, “better the devil you do….”

So like Tina, I’m not sure what good me having my say here in blogger-land and inviting you to make your own comments and observations will do. But it seems to me that if we want cleaner alternatives, then we have to push for them now. That means being vocal and forcing our governing bodies at all levels to realise that we’re really not as stupid as they like to think we are, that we know it can be done and that we want the research and the projects it inspires to remain in this country where their benefit will be truly appreciated.

11:06 AM - 11/2/2007 - post comment

Research

I think it's too important to be left up to governments. I think venture capitalists will be very keen to invest in the pot of gold waiting at the end of the renewable energy rainbow. If there is a pot of gold to be found, that is, which is by no means certain.

And just because a renewable energy inventor has picked up his bat and ball and gone overseas, doesn't necessarily mean that his bat and ball is superior. It may just mean that the bat has a hole in it, and the ball is square, and that is why no-one locally wants it. But yes, in some cases the product is viable, but not all.

Richard Branson and Al Gore have just announced 32 million reasons why research by private individuals could be a very profitable pursuit. If there is a solution to be found, I think it will be private enterprise that finds it, not governments.

And why shouldn't we have our say on our blogs. Beats mowing the lawn...or riding bikes...



Edited by snowy on 10/2/2007 at 8:37 PM

snowy - 1:46 PM - 11/2/2007

Alternative power

I tell you what, Ted, the way that the federal government is pushing ahead with nuclear power, we'll have a nuclear reactor by the end of the year.

Seriously, this country needs to develop solar power. We're in a position to do it. We have loads of sun.

And whatever happened to thermonuclear fusion - did someone decide it was going to be too expensive, did they?

dikkii - 2:19 PM - 11/2/2007

Governments

I'm not so sure I have the same faith in business as you do Snowy, but the least a government can do is offer incentive. It seems to me that unless your research involves CO2 sequestration or Nuclear, then you stand to lose out. Mind you, Branson is a legend...:)

I have to agree that not all the ideas we see are good ones, but a number of decent ones have gone and as far as solar cell technology is concerned, we're already buying our own technology back, mostly from China.

plonka - 11:22 PM - 11/2/2007

Nuclear

That's what worries me Dikkii. I'd think I'd prefer to think, at least at this stage, that they'll go down the CO2 sequestration path rather than nuclear if that's the choice we've got, but nuclear is being shoved down our throats rather hard.

Unfortunately and as Snowy takes pains to try and point out, the sun doesn't always shine. Although the right solar plant can produce enough energy to power the average home, what does that home do on long winter nights? Personally I don't think solar becomes viable until storage becomes viable. At the moment, the right kind of batteries are way, way, way to expensive and need to be changed about every 2 years, which leads to the problem of disposing dead batteries full of toxic chemicals. Not good...

Fusion eh? Now there's one I haven't heard much about for a while. The trouble with that one is that it takes way to much energy to begin the reaction and the mass disappears real quick and you don't tend to get back what you put in to start with. It's still being studied though but yes, it is extremely expensive...

plonka - 11:37 PM - 11/2/2007

environment and energy

The conservatives are keen on nuclear power because we have so much uranium. Their focus, as always, is on what is economically advantageous. I am not convinced that energy use and the environment can be looked at from a fiscal point of view primarily.

I am quite convinced that given their way, they will also be renting out the middle of australia as a dumping ground for nuclear waste. That will be nice, won't it.. We can be the nuclear waste dump for the world. We can sell them the uranium, and then let them pay us to store the toxic waste on our continent.
Howard and Beazley Questioned over Nuclear Waste Dump Contacts
http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/outback/19981208_mr/

beepbeepitsme - 1:41 AM - 13/2/2007

I wonder...

Thanks for the link Beep.

I remember the debate and was screaming "NOOooooo..." while it seemed that everyone else was trying to convince me that it would be a boon to our economy. "Oh joy..." was my reply for the most part. I so hope you're wrong about the middle off this beautiful land of ours being turned into a dump, despite any fiscal gain it might bring us.

And I have to agree that we need to stop thinking fiscally long enough to at least make the alternatives a viable option.

plonka - 8:11 AM - 13/2/2007

The environment is the big one.

Whatever energy source reduces emissions to an acceptable level, while still providing for our energy needs, has to be the main consideration. Yes, economics is a big consideration, and I don't think a lot of people have thought this through. If the cost of energy goes through the roof, then the cost of everything that uses energy in the production process also increases, thereby reducing our competitveness against countries who are doing nothing about reducing emissions.

Renewable energy has unacceptable security of energy supply. Coal has unacceptable emission levels. Nuclear has unacceptable safety concerns.

Somewhere along the line we are going to have to compromise. I don't know the answer. I'm hanging my hat on clean coal, but with not a great deal of confidence. I fear it's going to be nuclear. And I mean "fear".

snowy - 8:27 AM - 13/2/2007

Environment

Couldn't agree more Snowy. Nuclear is definitely something to fear but it does seem to be being shoved down our throats.

But economically, it's probably the best option. Current sequestration technologies require energy and seem to be a bit inefficient and would double the cost of energy, but if we can make it viable, then it's a good option. Either way though, alternatives need to be developed.

plonka - 8:53 AM - 13/2/2007

Cupla points

Firstly, I'm not sure why slagging off inventors who go overseas gets a mention. The idea that you could fund a dud product in another country seems highly unlikely. Better to try it here in Oz where the Government seems pretty clueless.
With a good idea the correct course of action is to get to the EU, or, when the US wakes up, get yourself Stateside. The problem is massive and the responsibility is Global. Better to work for the World than die wondering in Oz.
On the Nuclear preference I think the main game is getting weapons grade material into the marketplace. Why else would Howard be trying to undermine the non-proliferation treaty? Supporting India can only be viewed in that light.

I think all 3 processes will be required in the end. The problem is massive and crawling along waiting for someone else to get serious is the main game at the moment. I think all our non-prefered options will end up seeing some usage.

According to the Science Show, sequestration is at least 25 years off. That looks like a realistic time frame for our first Nuclear power plant once all the legal options are met. Clean coal is nowhere near ready as well so who knows the time frame it faces.

What are we left with? 25 years before we react and current levels of Carbon are already causing Climate problems. How much Carbon will be floating around by then?

A popular Howard argument is that India won't be playing the emmisions control game. In his dreams. India is just as susceptable to wholesale flooding as anywhere else. Same goes for China.

Remember how there were always problems with Bagladesh a decade or two ago? India and China sure will remember it coz they had to help deal with it. Providing housing for hundreds of thousands of homeless neighbours will help with the focus.

It probably needs the first big disaster to get things moving but plenty of political heads will role when the carbon hits the fan. Complacency rules at the moment but the clock is ticking.

Now I must go and seal the door frames........ splash.....

petermcc - 6:30 PM - 13/2/2007

Military

Excellent comment Pete. I was trying to avoid the whole military application thing, but it does provide the reason although Lucas Heights is capable of that, but only in very small quabtities.

You know I like a good conspiracy Pete. Personally I think sequestration could be much closer than we're told. We've been doing it since the 60's, for cryin' out loud, and still do every time we put a person in space. All their air is recycled with the CO2 "scrubbed" out. Seen Apollo 13? They talk about the scrubbers in that, and it's not because they've been to Sunshine...:)

plonka - 6:56 PM - 13/2/2007

Military matters

We don't know if there is a hidden military agenda for nuclear power, or not. That said, the arguments for nuclear as a greenhouse gas reducer are undeniable, if one wants to ignore the health and disposal risks as Howard does.

I've been thinking about the question of whether other countries will do what is necessary to reduce greenhouse emissions. I look at the likes of Dubya, and I am not confident at all. Developing countries will also be reluctant to take any action that will impact on their fragile economies. That is not a reason for us to sit on our hands and do nothing, but it is just possible that we wreck our economy and still make little impact on global emissions.

I look at mankind's inability to get along throughout history, and become rather despondent about achieving the necessary goodwill to overcome global warming. That is why signing the Kyoto protocols was so important. It was a first step forward in achieving that necessary co-operation and goodwill. Predictably, Dubya and Howard put their own selfish interests first, and blew it.

But don't start me...

snowy - 7:22 PM - 13/2/2007

More military

Looks like we already did Snowy...:)

Unfortunately I think we can assume a hidden agenda. Johnny seems to be fond of that sort of thing and it will make us more money. As you point out, he can use the fact that it's a serious CO2 reducer as a kicker and seems to be doing just that while playing down the waste...

plonka - 8:49 PM - 13/2/2007