|
Post by Barry Brook on May 11, 2012 18:23:05 GMT 9.5
A new guest post by Martin Nicholson has been published on BraveNewClimate. Link here: bravenewclimate.com/power-makers-challenge-p1It introduces his new book, and includes an overview of low-carbon energy options for future energy supply. Part 1 covers The Carbon Challenge, Renewable Energy, Energy Storage, Clean Coal, and Baseload Alternatives. (Part 2 will cover Nuclear Fission). This BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post.
|
|
|
Post by unclepete on May 13, 2012 6:23:36 GMT 9.5
Yes Martin, your points are well taken and I suppose well known by the BNC crowd. The challenge remains to convince the general public and subsequently our politicians of the urgency to act. But maybe I am jumping the gun and that will be adressed in part 2 ? Thanks for the good work so far though.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan Wilson on May 14, 2012 6:45:05 GMT 9.5
The question of energy storage is absolutely crucial to being able to use any variable renewables in non-fossil based electrical system. The issue is important to me because I live in the US heartland, where wind power is plentiful, but opportunities for pumped-hydro storage are non-existent. To often, publish descriptions are off target.
Studies of energy storage for solar thermal power plants invariably conclude that thermal energy storage with "solar salt" is by far the cheapest option (e.g. at 500C, a system with storage is cheaper than a system without, since the cost of storage is offset by reduced size of the turbine/generator that is sized for the 24h avg power, not the daytime peak power level). The implication to me is that solar salt would also be the preferred storage option if 400-600C heat were available from a nuclear power plant (e.g. IFR, LFTR, or FHR).
For the non-nuclear alternative, CAES seems like the only hope. Usually, the McIntosh plant in Alabama is touted as a CAES success story. However, it uses inter-cooling and natural gas reheat, which, using the energy the gas would produce in a combined cycle plant, yields terrible results (according to my calculations): 70% of the output power comes from the natural gas, 30% from storage, and the round-trip efficiency is only 40%.
To be sustainable and efficient, CAES must include thermal energy storage. Solar salt is a bad fit, since the storage temp range should include room temperature. Systems using oil (300C limit) or concrete (which has a cycle life problem) have been studied, and a round trip efficiency of 70% has been cited as feasible, but to my knowledge, none has been built.
The lack of serious demonstration plants for either of these very promising technologies (CAES w/ thermal storage or nuclear power with thermal storage) suggest that the renewable energy movement is simply not on a path that leads away from fossil fuels.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 14, 2012 9:30:02 GMT 9.5
The implication to me is that solar salt would also be the preferred storage option if 400-600C heat were available from a nuclear power plant (e.g. IFR, LFTR, or FHR). There's another thread where that was discussed and it seems that it may be more economical to just load follow nuclear plants. See Thermal store on nuclear power plants.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on May 14, 2012 19:05:22 GMT 9.5
Can't we do better for transportable storage than liquid hydrocarbons? It seems so... "nineteen hundreds". Sure, liquid hydrocarbons have the highest energy density of any currently proven storage. But if we are talking revolutionary technology here, surely the target storage should itself be revolutionary? Heck, the energy density of liquid hydrocarbons consists of the deployment of those outer electrons. In a capacitor, for example, the dielectricmaterial soaks up energy in the deployment of the positive and negative parts of its molecules. It seems to be the same ballpark. Perhaps there are other examples with similarly incomplete R&D, perhaps because liquid hydrocarbons seemed forever cheap. ... and with no dalliance with carbon.
|
|
|
Post by Fran Barlow on May 15, 2012 8:46:20 GMT 9.5
Interesting post Martin. I am especially interested in your costing for pumped storage. Whatever suite of energy sources Australia chooses, it seems to me that running them all at optimal efficiency makes sense (and therefore using pumped storage as a buffer to make that possible makes sense. We don't need to justify resort to such measures merely so as to integrate intermittent and/or dilute sources of energy. Even a purely fossil-HC system could use this with great advantage, and certainly a nuclear power centred system could. Even at your upper cost estimate of $15 per MWh, 700 MWh* would cost a mere $10.5bn -- a bagatelle really for long term infrastructure -- a mere 3 submarines if we think about defence procurement. Given the water shortages we now have and our long coastline, it seems that shoreline pumped hydro would make a lot of sense, both in terms of cost and availability of medium. Of course, once we build these units intermittent renewables such as wind, wave, tidal and solar will become a lot more viable. Despite being a Green, I am as most who've seen my posts in the past at BNC will know, sympathetic to inclusion of nuclear power in the mix, but post-Fukushima the political climate for discussing these questions has soured quite a bit, and it seems unlikely that it will become any less hostile this side of 2020. One the best timelines imaginable, we are unlikely to see a single nuclear power plant in this country this side of 2030, and that's borderline too late for us to act. If we could get pumped storage and sell it as a generic low-carbon technology that at worst would lower the CO2 intensity of fossil HC and make renewables more viable then that would be a big step forward, IMO. Certainly, it would make our already existing and future wind/solar resources more valuable, make it possible to better integrate biomass and solar PV, and allow us to make best use of Brayton Cycle gas plants to keep down overall emissions intensity. * not sure if this includes Tasmania, but perhaps it shouldn't as they have largely hydro PS: A bit sad that this is a place where I can "find singles". It does rather dminish the seriousness of this place.MODERATOR Hi Fran - welcome on board
Unfortunately, advertisements (including matchmaker/singles sites), are the price you have to pay to use the forum for no cost. Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by Nathan Wilson on May 15, 2012 14:20:47 GMT 9.5
Ok, I replied on that thread. But the short answer is that I believe there are cases when storage beats curtailment (for load following), specifically high renewable penetration.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 15, 2012 17:50:31 GMT 9.5
Can't we do better for transportable storage than liquid hydrocarbons? It seems so... "nineteen hundreds". Sure, liquid hydrocarbons have the highest energy density of any currently proven storage. But if we are talking revolutionary technology here, surely the target storage should itself be revolutionary? Heck, the energy density of liquid hydrocarbons consists of the deployment of those outer electrons. In a capacitor, for example, the dielectricmaterial soaks up energy in the deployment of the positive and negative parts of its molecules. It seems to be the same ballpark. Perhaps there are other examples with similarly incomplete R&D, perhaps because liquid hydrocarbons seemed forever cheap. ... and with no dalliance with carbon. Doubtful, maybe nuclear isomers could provide it but suitable isomers are likely to be very expensive (and there's also quite a bit of doubt over many of the claims made in that field). Finding alternative chemicals to hydrocarbons doesn't look promising to me (every such thing I know of has its own problems and you really can't do much better with chemicals anyway). Despite being a Green, I am as most who've seen my posts in the past at BNC will know, sympathetic to inclusion of nuclear power in the mix, but post-Fukushima the political climate for discussing these questions has soured quite a bit, and it seems unlikely that it will become any less hostile this side of 2020. Sounds to me more like things haven't really changed (in the long term nuclear accidents don't really seem to change many minds). One the best timelines imaginable, we are unlikely to see a single nuclear power plant in this country this side of 2030, and that's borderline too late for us to act. If we could get pumped storage and sell it as a generic low-carbon technology that at worst would lower the CO2 intensity of fossil HC and make renewables more viable then that would be a big step forward, IMO. The biggest problem with a partial solution like more hydro is that it'll be playing right into the hands of the people who don't want us to solve the whole problem. Plus, didn't the Greens start out opposing hydro?
|
|
|
Post by Fran Barlow on May 15, 2012 18:53:46 GMT 9.5
The biggest problem with a partial solution like more hydro is that it'll be playing right into the hands of the people who don't want us to solve the whole problem I don't think so. They aren't going to back this either and what it will do is give us a way of both cutting emissions now and weakening arguments against low carbon sources. It also makes even nuclear power more "load following" assuming that ever becomes acceptable here. Plus, didn't the Greens start out opposing hydro?
My predecessors were never against pumped hydro -- they were/are against flooding lakes and building dams in pristine areas. I was proposing pumped storage at the ocean -- so no dams or destroyed biomes.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 15, 2012 19:59:23 GMT 9.5
I don't think so. They aren't going to back this either and what it will do is give us a way of both cutting emissions now and weakening arguments against low carbon sources. The problem is that it'll probably be taken a sign that we can do without nuclear, that is what will ultimately make things worse. It also makes even nuclear power more "load following" assuming that ever becomes acceptable here. Nuclear can already load follow better than coal (and hydro doesn't really make anything load follow better, it just removes the need for the other sources to do the load following). My predecessors were never against pumped hydro -- they were/are against flooding lakes and building dams in pristine areas. I was proposing pumped storage at the ocean -- so no dams or destroyed biomes. Where you do plan to find the lake at high altitude near the ocean? In terms of environmental impact pumped hydro isn't really any different than the Franklin dam (actually it'd probably be a bit worse since you need to create two lakes at different heights instead of just one).
|
|
|
Post by Fran Barlow on May 15, 2012 20:20:36 GMT 9.5
<blockquote>The problem is that it'll probably be taken a sign that we can do without nuclear, that is what will ultimately make things worse.</blockquote>
I'm outcomes focused rather than technology-focused. At the moment, people already think we should do without nuclear, even at the risk of aggravating climate change. The Greens mostly do so relying on the view (unwise in my view) that renewables can do it. The non-Greens out of cognitive dissonance over climate change and the belief that coal = wealth.
We need something that helps keep us in the game as far as renewables plus what else we have can take us that allows us to keep arguing over how to get emissions down. We also don't want more coal and gas, if we can avoid it because that locks us into high emissions.
<blockquote>Nuclear can already load follow better than coal (and hydro doesn't really make anything load follow better, it just removes the need for the other sources to do the load following).</blockquote>
As we are not going to be getting nuclear until at least 2030, that's moot. We need to make better use of the technologies that are in place now, precisely so that the dirtiest won't be duplicated in a hurry and the cleanest can be more germane.
<blockquote>Where you do plan to find the lake at high altitude near the ocean?</blockquote>
It would be artificial -- placed on a headland or granite cliff -- and raised to the necessary elevation with the ocean as the sink. I see us having a whole network of small capacity units dotted around the most populated parts of the coast line or perhaps on those uninhabited near-shore islands.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 15, 2012 22:43:27 GMT 9.5
I'm outcomes focused rather than technology-focused. Yes, the problem is that the technology you use determines what outcomes you can get. At the moment, people already think we should do without nuclear, even at the risk of aggravating climate change. I suspect that you'd find more people thinking nuclear power is less worse than global warming (while there also tends to be less denial of global warming when nuclear is proposed as the solution). The Greens mostly do so relying on the view (unwise in my view) that renewables can do it. The non-Greens out of cognitive dissonance over climate change and the belief that coal = wealth. More likely it is because they think renewables can do the job, if you don't believe renewables can do the job then only nuclear is left (or clean coal, but we all know that's just PR crap). Really what we need to focus on is the fact that renewable energy can't do what we'll need it to, once that happens and the public decides that global warming is unacceptable nuclear will win by default. We need something that helps keep us in the game as far as renewables plus what else we have can take us that allows us to keep arguing over how to get emissions down. We also don't want more coal and gas, if we can avoid it because that locks us into high emissions. It may sound strange but I'd personally rather we keep using coal and gas and admit we're not doing anything to taking taken measures which don't do much but allow those who don't want to do what needs to be done to get their way (there is something to being honest). I also fail to see why we should even want to be involved in renewables given that they just aren't all that good. As we are not going to be getting nuclear until at least 2030, that's moot. We need to make better use of the technologies that are in place now, precisely so that the dirtiest won't be duplicated in a hurry and the cleanest can be more germane. The technologies in place which aren't nuclear also aren't up to what we need them to do, many of them probably don't even help. Still, Australia mines a pretty decent amount of Uranium and we've also got lots of Thorium so we can help other countries with less entrenched fossil fuels industries reduce their CO 2 emissions. It would be artificial -- placed on a headland or granite cliff -- So would require flooding quite a bit of land? and raised to the necessary elevation with the ocean as the sink. You'd need a tall plateau near the ocean and I'm not sure such a thing exists in Australia, though using the ocean as the lower 'lake' could work if the geology were suitable (the pumps would need to be designed to handle seawater but that shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of competent engineers).
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on May 15, 2012 23:38:12 GMT 9.5
Power production and storage is, and will continue to be diverse. Bulk base power will be coal, gas and nuclear power as the new carbon free option. It is also unlikely to peak anytime soon if uranium-Pu239 or thorium-U233 breeding is used. While coal or gas are best stored as fuels, the nuclear energy is best stored as molten salts. There are, and will always be isolated locations where local resources like wind or solar power will be helpful. Wind energy is best stored with an underground and over tank. Pumping should be best mechanical avoiding costly technology. Simple time tested small water turbines and generators can be used for conversion to electricity. Compressed air could be useful in some applications. Solar energy is best concentrated and stored as molten salts.
|
|
|
Post by Fran Barlow on May 16, 2012 15:09:49 GMT 9.5
I don't agree with that. That's just cutting off your nose to spite your face -- and in this case, also subverting action and harming everyone. I prefer doing something that while not adequate can provide a basis for ramping up what we do. Spending up on seaboard pumped storage will make all of our energy sources (but especially renewables) more viable. That's the way to stick it to the stick in the muds. Also, it's hard for Australia to argue for action elsewhere if we aren't taking action here. That hurts us even more.
While in the long run, I don't think renewables can get us there, in part because they are (mostly) too dilute, and too expensive, (though this might change) in the short to medium term they can get us politically engaged and create the context for us to do more -- including revisiting nuclear power.
I've no problem with doing that -- and indeed, I think we should,
Indeed, though there are places where you could take advantage of the terrain. If Nicholson's figure is right, we could have one day's reticulated supply for at worst about $10bn which really isn't that much. That's a lot cheaper than keeping lots of fossil HC doing spinning reserve and having thermal plants running at less than optimal efficiency, or giving up energy from wind or solar that was surplus at the time of harvest. If the plants were built handy to places where you could feasibly run wast biomass plants, or gas from landfill that one day's supply could be very solid and very clean.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 16, 2012 17:23:35 GMT 9.5
Fran, you should register an account. It will only take 1 min, and then you'll be able to track your posts, and you won't need to enter a bot-check every time, etc.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 16, 2012 21:00:34 GMT 9.5
I don't agree with that. That's just cutting off your nose to spite your face -- and in this case, also subverting action and harming everyone. Most of what we're doing isn't even helping though (and whether wee end up with 450 ppm or 449 ppm in 50 years time isn't really going to make much difference, we need far bigger changes than that). I wouldn't be surprised if all renewable energy has gotten us has been more global warming denial. I prefer doing something that while not adequate can provide a basis for ramping up what we do. But wind turbines and solar panels as well as being inadequate (to the point at which we can't even definitively say they help) also can't provide any basis for ramping up (realistically they'll be pulled out and sold for scrap as soon as the subsidy goes away). Spending up on seaboard pumped storage will make all of our energy sources (but especially renewables) more viable. Yes, though making renewables more viable doesn't really seem like it's worth doing given that they probably still won't be competitive. While in the long run, I don't think renewables can get us there, in part because they are (mostly) too dilute, and too expensive, (though this might change) in the short to medium term they can get us politically engaged and create the context for us to do more -- including revisiting nuclear power. All they seem to be doing politically is making more global warming deniers. Indeed, though there are places where you could take advantage of the terrain. Question is how many such places?
|
|
|
Post by franbarlow on May 17, 2012 0:23:16 GMT 9.5
@anon said:
450 in 50 years time sounds optimistic, though I agree we really need to try staying under 400 by 2030. For mine the question is not so much technological as political. I agree that nuclear power is a core technology and based on what is knowable now, almost certainly the simplest and cheapest way for most actual or future industrial economies to decarbonise/avoid carbonising.
The problem we have hear and now even in much larger economies like Japan that had been nuclear is that at this crucial moment, nuclear is on the nose. We simply can't wish that away. or argue reasonably with people who are desperately fearful. Their fears from Chernobyl have been greatly reinforced. Those fears aren't well-founded, but they exist and aren't going away when we need them to i.e right now. While they exist, we aren't getting a hearing and the anti-nuclear people are declaring victory as the last of Japan's capacity is shut down.
So what we need to say to people -- here's what we need to do to make renewables work adequately well i.e to replace coal and gas -- and give them a plan. Expensive you say? That's the price of keeping nukes out of the system.
The truth of the matter though is that the price of renewables is declining, and the subsidies are now (wisely) being pared back. Yet people are still buying systems. My brother-in-law -- who is no kind of Greeny and is only being offered a measly $0.08per KWh FiT from AGL in the Hunter region is still going to buy a 5KW system (plus 2 inverters), because the price on the panels has crashed. If plug in vehicles ever happen he's planning to get batteries to store the power during the day.
The capital cost of renewables is falling, and if we can deal with the storage issue in a way that is not peculiar to renewables, then we may just have a medium term game changer. We might be able to put off the question of nuclear power for a decade and get away with it -- especially if we have begun assisting others -- like Indonesia for example -- to go nuclear.
I would. Denial is about two basic things -- firstly, angst over the end of the fossil fuel lifestyle, driven at the big end by those protecting their HC assets. There was barely a squeak over CFCs once DuPont figured out how to comply and almost nothing over SO2.
Secondly it's about tribal politics -- a bit like anti-nukes really. The deniers are everywhere linked up with the tribal right, much as the anti-nukes are linked up with the tribal centre-left. Fear and angst always work well and there are enough ignorant people about to make it count.
Renewables as a concept however remain popular, even with many on the right -- since it plays to their parochial vision, and their desire to insulate themselves from the outside world. Their main reservation remains -- will they work?
Years ago when I was especially interested, there were many spots along both the NSW coast and in SA. SA had the advantage of being near good wind and wave resources and geothermal and also places where energy was needed for industrial purposes. The figures I was working with suggested it wouldn't be viable but at Nicholson's upper end quote, it looks exciting.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 17, 2012 5:30:36 GMT 9.5
450 in 50 years time sounds optimistic, True, but a 1 ppm difference isn't big enough to matter. though I agree we really need to try staying under 400 by 2030. We're almost at 400 ppm right now so I just don't see that as being realistic unless we managed to switch to nuclear in less than a decade, solved transportation and agriculture and then build equipment to remove the CO 2 from the atmosphere (and even then I'd be surprised if we actually accomplished it). For mine the question is not so much technological as political. I agree that nuclear power is a core technology and based on what is knowable now, almost certainly the simplest and cheapest way for most actual or future industrial economies to decarbonise/avoid carbonising. Actually it's more than that, it is the only method we have at the present time which can do what we need done. Hydro and geothermal (the two useful renewables) can't scale to the levels we need and the others are too intermittent to work without energy storage which we can't scale to the levels needed. Maybe some technological breakthrough in energy storage or space launch costs will come along and make renewable energy a viable solution to global warming but we need to be basing on plans on what we have now, not what we may have in a couple of decades time if everything works out well. The problem we have hear and now even in much larger economies like Japan that had been nuclear is that at this crucial moment, nuclear is on the nose. We simply can't wish that away. or argue reasonably with people who are desperately fearful. Their fears from Chernobyl have been greatly reinforced. Those fears aren't well-founded, but they exist and aren't going away when we need them to i.e right now. They're more likely to go away than renewable energy is to become viable (at the very least people did get over TMI and Chernobyl and they'll get over Fukushima, though it could be argued that the nuclear industries safety perception problem actually comes from being the safest way to generate electricity). So what we need to say to people -- here's what we need to do to make renewables work adequately well i.e to replace coal and gas -- and give them a plan. Expensive you say? That's the price of keeping nukes out of the system.But we can't even do that, renewable energy simply can not replace coal and gas, at least not without a massive standard of living reduction the public will not accept. The truth of the matter though is that the price of renewables is declining, Even if they were completely free it wouldn't matter without energy storage (and you still need more materials to build them than nuclear). and the subsidies are now (wisely) being pared back. I'd get rid of them entirely, a carbon tax is a better way to do things (and all carbon taxes should replace renewable energy subsidies (including bans on nuclear energy, which is itself a pretty big subsidy) except for FOAK systems, and get rid of all feed in tariffs too). The capital cost of renewables is falling, and if we can deal with the storage issue in a way that is not peculiar to renewables, then we may just have a medium term game changer. That assumes we'll get a major breakthrough in energy storage technology and right now I don't see one on the horizon. We might be able to put off the question of nuclear power for a decade and get away with it -- especially if we have begun assisting others -- like Indonesia for example -- to go nuclear. Australia can get away with it because we don't release all that much CO 2 compared to the US and China. I would. Denial is about two basic things -- firstly, angst over the end of the fossil fuel lifestyle, driven at the big end by those protecting their HC assets. There was barely a squeak over CFCs once DuPont figured out how to comply and almost nothing over SO2. Of course it should be noted that to power a country entirely on renewable energy would in most cases require reduction in the standard of living. See www.culturalcognition.net/projects/second-national-risk-culture-study.html for some of the evidence (namely that proposed solutions to global warming determine how likely many people are to accept it or deny it). Here's the quote from their principal findings: Individuals' expectations about the policy solution to global warming strongly influences their willingness to credit information about climate change. When told the solution to global warming is increased antipollution measures, persons of individualistic and hierarchic worldviews become less willing to credit information suggesting that global warming exists, is caused by humans, and poses significant societal dangers. Persons with such outlooks are more willing to credit the same information when told the solution to global warming is increased reliance on nuclear power generation. I should also note that solving the ozone problem and sulphur oxide emissions doesn't involve wiping out entire industries (the chemical industry could just switch to making other chemicals to replace CFCs and those who emitted sulphur oxides just added scrubbers) whereas solving global warming will require wiping out most of the fossil fuel industries. Renewables as a concept however remain popular, even with many on the right -- since it plays to their parochial vision, and their desire to insulate themselves from the outside world. I would actually argue that the Greens (as well as the anti-nuclear movement and the anti-biotech movement) are really just as right wing as the liberal party. Their main reservation remains -- will they work? There's also a lot of hatred developing over wind turbines among rural people (noise, strobe light effect, drop in property value, can you blame them?).
|
|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on May 17, 2012 12:57:12 GMT 9.5
Interesting comment re the link about the willingness to credit information. Alan Moran of the IPA is a good example of someone who is a long-term climate skeptic, but doesn't seem to be as opposed if the "solution" were to include nuclear, although he'd argue against government support. His strongest criticism of greens is the hypocrisy of opposing outright the only serious large scale low-emission technology. www.ipa.org.au/library/amemretsub.pdf
|
|
|
Post by franbarlow on May 17, 2012 15:35:02 GMT 9.5
@anon said:
That's true, but that is really the scale of the challenge. It's an aspirational goal. If we went over but then managed (perhaps through some scaling up sort of CO2 draw down technology (algae?) ) by 2030 that might be plausible.
I'm not sure that's right. It's conceivable that if cost were not a political constraint that we could use both the existing nuclear and scaled up renewables along with some energy efficiency and energy usage avoidance to get there. Plainly though, it would matter a lot more what other regimes did than Australia, except in the sense that we have to put our own skin in the game. Speaking purely for myself, I'd be OK paying 3 or even ten times what I now pay for power. In my opinion, you should pay what clean power costs because it's essential and we can't eat the future. Most people aren't like me though. There's your political constraint.
I agree, but the fact of the matter is that we don't need now to solve the scaling up question. Our interim targets and more can be had with renewables. Since lead times to build renewables are fairly short, if there's a game-changing breakthrough, we can gear up quickly. In the meantime we can pursue a dialog about the way forward post-2020 in which we look at the comparative benefit of nuclear power -- here and elsewhere. It's worth noting that while we can't build nuclear power stations here, we could build components here as part of developing world technology transfer programs. That in itself would be the best argument for doing it here.
As I said though, in terms of here, if we built 700GWh of seaboard pumped storage at $10bn -- Nicholson suggests it might be a lot less than $1bn -- then all the renewables we already have become entirely dispatchable, and thus more valuable. There's no way that the whole move towards scaling up renewables is going to slow down -- it makes sense to make best use of it.
I tend to agree, though the term "subsidy" is loaded with neoliberal baggage. A FiT for example, might or might not amount to a subsidy. Requiring energy companies to purchase from those offering up renewable energy at the going rate (less perhaps a modest connection and maintenance cost) is not a subsidy. If someone's solar panels or wind turbines are an income producing asset, then allowing them the usual tax deductions for income producing assets is not a subsidy.
And when you're talking subsidies it's worth noting that aluminium smelter plants are subsidised. Cancelling the subsidy to Victorian aluminium would save a lot. So too would cancelling the diesel fuel rebate. In fact, you could simply make all "dirty" energy non tax deductible, or make it only deductible to the extent that it is cleaner than the relevant standard. So a business using energy sources with a CO2e intensity of say, 450kg/MWh might be allowed to deduct 50% of their energy cost. One using vehicles that had half the emissions of the bog standard vehicle in that class could likewise deduct half the fule cost.
That would make nuclear power (at around 5% of standard) a lot more attractive. It would also make pumped storage plants really attractive because energy companies could supply a lot more lightly taxed energy to business, and buy everything on offer during the off peak at the cost of only the roung trip inefficiency.
So yes, let's lose subsidies for actual power operation.
That's a furphy. We are an exemplar. We're the pretext for others not acting. So in practice, while what we can save is modest, we punch above our weight.
I'm not so sure. In theory, if we spend more on energy, then, ceteris paribus, we get to spend less on other stuff, but you have to assume that "other stuff" is actually part of our "standard of living". If we respond by living in smaller dwellings in denser urban areas, with more common facilities, and lose the extra car because it's redundant since we are now living closer to work and have access to public transport, and consume less energy per person etc ... then in practice, while we have trimmed some of our lifestyle, what we have trimmed may well be of no value to us anyway. Europeans use a lot less energy per person than we do, and they aren't worse off than us.
Which is why we have denialism. It's driven by the need of wealthy people to protect income producing assets.
That just debauches the meaning of "rightwing". What makes the Liberals (and to some extent the ALP) rightwing is their defence of business-as-usual, or more precisely, privilege as usual. It's not an intellectual position as all. It's a defence of the right of the wealthy to embezzle the commons.
The Greens, and anti-nukes and anti-biotech crowd are misguided in fixating on some technologies as ipso facto beyond the pale, but the wellsprings of that error lie in a desire to protect the marginalised and disempowered, which is a left of centre and humanist concern. If one can show that nuclear power and GM aren't inevitably anti-social, one can look forward to a change of view amongst most such people. Unlike the Liberals (and to some extent the ALP) most Greens set decisive store by reason rather than tribalism or attachment to privilege.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 17, 2012 16:37:04 GMT 9.5
[On nuclear being the only solution to global warming]I'm not sure that's right. It's conceivable that if cost were not a political constraint that we could use both the existing nuclear and scaled up renewables along with some energy efficiency and energy usage avoidance to get there. There just isn't enough gain to be had form energy efficiency to take renewables from tokenism to viable (and it still wouldn't solve the intermitancy problem which is the one Australia would face (unlike some places we actually do get enough sunlight to be able to in theory meet all our energy demands from solar, but we just don't have the energy storage technology we'd need to do it in reality)). You can max out hydro capacity (including pumped storage), build transmission lines all over the country (and also under Bass Strait to get the power generated by the Franklin dam to the mainland) and cover the desert with solar collectors and wind turbines and you'll still need probably at least an 80% fossil fuel backup which in practice would mean you're grid ends up majority natural gas. All non-hydro renewables seem good for these days is propping up fossil fuels. Plainly though, it would matter a lot more what other regimes did than Australia, except in the sense that we have to put our own skin in the game. Speaking purely for myself, I'd be OK paying 3 or even ten times what I now pay for power. In my opinion, you should pay what clean power costs because it's essential and we can't eat the future. Most people aren't like me though. There's your political constraint. Ten times higher power bill isn't something the public would like, though the dash for gas is going to increase power bills anyway. Then there's the question of how that will affect the poor? I agree, but the fact of the matter is that we don't need now to solve the scaling up question. If we want to solve global warming we need to get the electricity grid converted away from fossil fuels yesterday so I very would say that if you want to avoid nuclear and also avoid global warming you must have solved the scaling up problem right now. Our interim targets and more can be had with renewables. I think we all know that those interim targets are insufficient. Since lead times to build renewables are fairly short, if there's a game-changing breakthrough, we can gear up quickly. How short are we talking? Hydro dams (the only type of renewable proven to be able to take serious market share from fossil fuels) aren't exactly a weekend construction job. Besides, what if that breakthrough never comes or ends up obsoleting existing renewables (space solar would do that pretty effectively)? In the meantime we can pursue a dialog about the way forward post-2020 in which we look at the comparative benefit of nuclear power -- here and elsewhere. Building the ground work to get nuclear plants built once it finally becomes clear that renewable energy can't deliver what it's proponents say it can is valuable and the post-2020 time frame is probably when it'll happen but that's no reason to not try for something better (besides, there is the Overton window). It's worth noting that while we can't build nuclear power stations here, we could build components here as part of developing world technology transfer programs. That in itself would be the best argument for doing it here. I don't see much argument for building components of nuclear power plants if you aren't building any reactors, especially when they need to be made to higher quality standards than other such parts and often need different materials (because the normal ones don't do well in high radiation environments or tend to become radioactive (that's why Cobalt steel is avoided in nuclear power plants)). There's no way that the whole move towards scaling up renewables is going to slow down -- it makes sense to make best use of it. It'll slow down when the bubble bursts (I happen to view renewable energy as being very similar to Tulips and due for an inevitable collision with reality). I tend to agree, though the term "subsidy" is loaded with neoliberal baggage. A FiT for example, might or might not amount to a subsidy. A feed in tariff is a subsidy if a company would act differently without it (if the company would do the exact same whether or not the requirement existed then it wouldn't be doing anything). Requiring energy companies to purchase from those offering up renewable energy at the going rate (less perhaps a modest connection and maintenance cost) is not a subsidy. If someone's solar panels or wind turbines are an income producing asset, then allowing them the usual tax deductions for income producing assets is not a subsidy. The problem is that the power companies are required to buy power whether they have a use for it or not (or even whether it actively causes them problems by requiring them to run other generators in a much less efficient manner). And when you're talking subsidies it's worth noting that aluminium smelter plants are subsidised. Cancelling the subsidy to Victorian aluminium would save a lot. Of course then you get the fact that other countries are subsiding their industries. I'm not so sure. In theory, if we spend more on energy, then, ceteris paribus, we get to spend less on other stuff, but you have to assume that "other stuff" is actually part of our "standard of living". If we respond by living in smaller dwellings in denser urban areas, with more common facilities, and lose the extra car because it's redundant since we are now living closer to work and have access to public transport, and consume less energy per person etc ... then in practice, while we have trimmed some of our lifestyle, what we have trimmed may well be of no value to us anyway. Europeans use a lot less energy per person than we do, and they aren't worse off than us. Some people believe or not actually would consider that a downgrade (there is less privacy in an apartment and living closer to work doesn't tend to work too well if you have to change jobs to one on the other side of the city or if the husband and wife (or husband and husband or wife and wife) have jobs 30 km away from each other). Which is why we have denialism. It's driven by the need of wealthy people to protect income producing assets. Certainly that's where much of the funding is coming from but a lot of deniers actually aren't coal and oil company shills, at least not knowingly (just as most of the anti-nuclear movement aren't knowingly coal and oil company shills). That just debauches the meaning of "rightwing". What makes the Liberals (and to some extent the ALP) rightwing is their defence of business-as-usual, or more precisely, privilege as usual. It's not an intellectual position as all. It's a defence of the right of the wealthy to embezzle the commons. Yet the Greens are basically proposing that we go back in time to a day before what the liberals (and a faction of the ALP) are trying to keep the same. The green movement to me looks more reactionary than progressive. At the very least the ideal green society looks more like an idealised view of our past than what we should be trying to create. The Greens, and anti-nukes and anti-biotech crowd are misguided in fixating on some technologies as ipso facto beyond the pale, but the wellsprings of that error lie in a desire to protect the marginalised and disempowered, which is a left of centre and humanist concern. Ask those right wing Christians why they're opposing gay marriage and they'll probably say something about protecting the children who are marginalised and disempowered (pretty much by definition). If one can show that nuclear power and GM aren't inevitably anti-social, one can look forward to a change of view amongst most such people. Maybe some of the moderates could be convinced but I doubt you'll get the real ideologues. For you see, for many of the deepest Greens it isn't about saving the planet, but about the virtues of a simple life. Unlike the Liberals (and to some extent the ALP) most Greens set decisive store by reason rather than tribalism or attachment to privilege. I'm afraid that's probably not true (the average Greens voter is upper-middle class after all). Besides, if Greens did make their decisions by reason their policies would be very different (for one thing they'd be support for nuclear power and genetically modified foods).
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on May 17, 2012 19:41:01 GMT 9.5
Reading about hydro-electricity always takes me to use of ocean currents as the source of hydro-power. If the ocean current can be funneled to a turbine anchored to sea bed to maintain its direction, it could run a generator. Japan, currently shy of nuclear power, could look towards ocean currents as a renewable alternate source. Only a small fraction of the power of currents can be used in this way but it could be equivalent to hydro power in many areas. Using it on continental shelves alone by the countries in their economic zones might be a substantial factor in diversifying the sources of power.
|
|
|
Post by franbarlow on May 17, 2012 20:53:44 GMT 9.5
@anon said:
In the short to medium term (up to 2020), there is. There is a lot of "low hanging fruit".
Hence the pumped storage.
We only do 35 GW or so peak. So no, I don't agree. We've lots of cheap highly insolated land and lots of windy coastline.
They wouldn't -- which is why I mentioned "political constraints", but at a purely technical level, yes it is doable.
Well it would obviously hurt, though we could compensate them by supplying energy efficient housing and transport, solar hotwater and so forth.
I'm not going to disagree with that. But that's a comment about the world as a whole. Here in Australia, we can do our 20% cut by 2020 and argue the toss then. If we are helping others cut, we are doing more.
2-3 years for a wind farm or maybe a wave generator or CSP. I suspect you could get a biomass plant up on a sewage farm inside that time.
You basically build the plants (including the reactors) in non-assembled form here and ship them to those buying them. Then we assemble the rest over there (or they do). One you modularise and standardise the components, you are going to cut the cost.
Monopolies like to take advantage of monopoly rents. Forcing a company to buy power at roughly the price it is charging at the time is reasonable. I'd be OK with them simply declining to buy it, if that were there preference.
As I said, let them decline to purchase if it doesn't suit them. Of course, again. that's where pumped storage comes in -- so they can run their generators at optimum.
Is that relevant, if you are "against subsidies"? Don't you have to be consistent?
There will be the occasional person who is worse off, but many people spend 15 hours per week (times two) commuting now.
Shills or dupes ... the Fossil Fuel driver is their sine qua non.
That's just a disingenuous throwaway. Christians are inter alia irrational homophobes -- the voices in their heads tell them that all things gay are gross and to be struck out. The stuff about children is strictly for the wet behind the ears. For christians, this life is merely the boring wait for heaven. Empowermnet doesn't enter into it. God empowers you when you get to heaven, or something.
Hardly any think that. We want to preserve ecosystem services for the benefit of humans.
That's circular argument, or simply re-assertion. Reasonable people aren't always in agreement on the relevant facts and the relevant calculus. The arguments against nuclear power are quite complex and there is no knock out refutation. On balance, I regard nuclear power as being an excellent choice for replacing fossil HC energy. Yet that is a calculus -- and here, and even in some places that have nuclear power, there is a lot of opposition and that is a not inconsiderable fact when we are talking timelines. If you want a solution in a democracy, you have to go with those that are polticially plausible and that don't foreclose better options.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 18, 2012 10:00:00 GMT 9.5
Reading about hydro-electricity always takes me to use of ocean currents as the source of hydro-power. If the ocean current can be funneled to a turbine anchored to sea bed to maintain its direction, it could run a generator. Japan, currently shy of nuclear power, could look towards ocean currents as a renewable alternate source. Only a small fraction of the power of currents can be used in this way but it could be equivalent to hydro power in many areas. Using it on continental shelves alone by the countries in their economic zones might be a substantial factor in diversifying the sources of power. Sounds to me like you're describing a form of tidal power. Japan doesn't have enough of it though Australia might be able to (whether that'd make sense is another matter). In the short to medium term (up to 2020), there is. There is a lot of "low hanging fruit". It would be nice if that were the case, but that doesn't mean it is. Hence the pumped storage. We only do 35 GW or so peak. So no, I don't agree. We've lots of cheap highly insolated land and lots of windy coastline. Yeah, but do we have enough high plateau for that pumped storage? I very much doubt it. They wouldn't -- which is why I mentioned "political constraints", but at a purely technical level, yes it is doable. I'm actually going to have to disagree for I do not think it is technically possible to get our power from renewables with current technology or indeed any technology I can foresee us having soon with a high degree of probability. Well it would obviously hurt, though we could compensate them by supplying energy efficient housing and transport, solar hotwater and so forth. I doubt it'd help enough to offset such a massive increase in energy costs. 2-3 years for a wind farm or maybe a wave generator or CSP. I suspect you could get a biomass plant up on a sewage farm inside that time. Not particularly short, nuclear plants have been built in 3 years. You basically build the plants (including the reactors) in non-assembled form here and ship them to those buying them. Then we assemble the rest over there (or they do). One you modularise and standardise the components, you are going to cut the cost. Yes, factory built reactors probably are the future of energy production but I'm still having trouble seeing why we'd want to build them for other people if we aren't using them ourselves? Monopolies like to take advantage of monopoly rents. All companies try to find and keep rents, not just Microsoft. Forcing a company to buy power at roughly the price it is charging at the time is reasonable. I'd be OK with them simply declining to buy it, if that were there preference. If they could just decline to buy it then you wouldn't be forcing them. Is that relevant, if you are "against subsidies"? Don't you have to be consistent? I'm not ideologically opposed to subsidies (or socialism for that matter) though I do think that subsidies tend to be harmful and should be used more carefully than they typically are (developing new industries is something I'd say is a legitimate use of subsidies, but renewable energy is well past the point at which it needs to stand on its own). There will be the occasional person who is worse off, but many people spend 15 hours per week (times two) commuting now. Under your system you'll probably have many people spending that exact same amount of time commuting, only on foot or by train instead of by car (though a lot of people in Australia do already commute that amount of time by train, more CBD workers probably use public transport than drive all the way). People actually tend to end up commuting about the same time pretty much regardless of distance, faster transportation tends to allow people to take jobs further from where they live. That's just a disingenuous throwaway. I happen to think that a lot of Greens actually are like that (I also tend to think of the Green movement is being quasi-religious because I can certainly see parallels with religious ways of thinking in it). Christians are inter alia irrational homophobes -- the voices in their heads tell them that all things gay are gross and to be struck out. Greens are inter alia irrational chemophobes -- the voices is their head tell them that all things chemical are gross and to be struck out. The stuff about children is strictly for the wet behind the ears. Many of them are genuinely concerned about their children, baseless, but still… Hardly any think that. We want to preserve ecosystem services for the benefit of humans. The average greens voter probably, but not necessarily the people really into the movement. That's circular argument, or simply re-assertion. Reasonable people aren't always in agreement on the relevant facts and the relevant calculus. If you follow that logic you'll have to admit that maybe the global warming deniers are reasonable. The arguments against nuclear power are quite complex and there is no knock out refutation. Yes there is, that they are based on lies. If you want a solution in a democracy, you have to go with those that are polticially plausible and that don't foreclose better options. I would consider it more important to get one which actually has a chance of technically working, then making it politically possible, laws of parliament are a lot easier to change than laws of nature.
|
|
|
Post by BNC Moderator on May 18, 2012 10:59:42 GMT 9.5
MODERATOR The dialogue on this thread is straying into partisan political realms and also the attribution of other's motives, denigration of other's beliefs etc. At the moment moderation is being applied lightly but BNCFD Comments Policy prohibits these types of exchange. Please check the policy before commenting again and in future, abide by the policy. Thankyou.
|
|
|
Post by franbarlow on May 18, 2012 16:02:56 GMT 9.5
@anon We do and in any event, we can augment the landforms to elevate further if that's seen as worthwhile. It would also be possible to use existing artificial reservoirs (those big tanks) in concert with a deep pit and cycle the water between the two places whenever you wanted to store surplus power. Sewage and water treatment works are another obvious place we could do this. Is that actually based on anything? Putting aside hydro and geothermal, and waste biomass, do you really think it impossible to generate 35GW from renewables based on some combination of wind, tidal, solar and wave power (perhaps backed by waste biomass, geothermal and hydro)? If you break down the energy costs much of it is in heating and cooling homes. If you cut the space to be cooled and heated, make effective use of heat pumps and waste heat you cut out most of that cost -- and in this coutnry cooling is probably the bigger problem. Get them onto public transport for free or at highly subsidised cost and the cost of the energy input is trivial. If so, there's no rush then. We dig up a lot of coal and iron ore, and bauxite and silver we don't use ourselves. We export some cars we don't use ourselves. We might like to do some engineering, even if for political reasons, we aren't going to build them here. If they could just decline to buy {power from householders} it then you wouldn't be forcing them. I'd be requiring them to purchase only at the rate (less allowable deductions) that they were selling at the time. I might require them to reduce the Co2-intensity of their output over time and let them figure out how they were going to do that. Then again, it might be just as simple to allow them the cost of their fuel inputs as a deduction scaled tyo their Co2 intensity and let them figure that one out. I regard R & D as a reasonable thing for the state to underwrite, whether it's for renewables or nuclear power. Providing the IP is held by the state, I'm OK with that. I'm not in favour of underwriting power pricing, though for capital-intensive projects that have low operating costs and meet reasonable emissions and scale criteria I can see a case for soft loans. That could apply to nuclear or CSP/geothermal for example. The state can borrow at a discount to the private market. That's a wave of the hand. We need a policy in which we sharply increase population densities, create more self-contained suburbs and attenuate sharply past the 25km point. That, and a policy of supporting the indrastructure for telecommuting seem s important. We want to cut vehicle miles driven each year, and especially vehicle miles with single occupants. A road pricing policy could help us with that. So could a more rational set of policies around housing and development. In Sydney we have about 30ppHa when we should have something more like 80ppHa, or even 100ppHa. That would radically cut the cost of almost all services. I'm mindful of what the moderator has said here, so I'm letting that pass through to the keeper. Stipulated: I don't accept that. While I cast no aspersions at you personally, that is simply a copy and past Bolt claim. Again, minding the moderator ... you cannot compare fear of gays with fear of chemicals or actinides. Most understand people. Not everyone gets chemistry or physics or epidemiology. Moreover, the calculus attached to balancing catastrophic risk with low incidence is somewhat subjective. You don't need to be religious to have a range of opinions on that. Minding the moderator ... I'll let this pass. franbarlow wrote: Hardly any think that. We want to preserve ecosystem services for the benefit of humans. @anon followed with: As one of the people in the movement, I can assure you, that we do. I am yet to meet a "deep ecology" type in the Greens and I've been to several SDCs. If they exist within our party, they are keeping very quiet. To our left, the Socialist Alliance share this view, because they are socialists. So too do BZE and almost everyone. I think there are some small groups of people around Rising Tide who are into deep ecology but they are not the people who need to be won over. franbarlow wrote:That's circular argument, or simply re-assertion. Reasonable people aren't always in agreement on the relevant facts and the relevant calculus. @anon followed with: Hardly. The deniers have no interest in relevant facts or calculus. That's clear from their public statements. They can and will say whatever is convenient -- even flagrantly contradicting themselves. It's pure tribalism, when it's not self-serving special pleading. franbarlow wrote: If you want a solution in a democracy, you have to go with those that are politicially plausible and that don't foreclose better options. @anon followed with: You have to try for both. I'm satisfied that renewables could be made to serve a reasonable interim (2020) target at a politically plausible cost and that at that point, enough of the angst over Fukushima would have dissipated for us to again press forward and make the "we are at a crossroads over emissions" argument. The current political climate will not last forever.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 18, 2012 17:19:28 GMT 9.5
We do and in any event, we can augment the landforms to elevate further if that's seen as worthwhile. You're talking some pretty major earthworks here, at least when we consider the volume of water any pumped hydro system would need. It would also be possible to use existing artificial reservoirs (those big tanks) in concert with a deep pit and cycle the water between the two places whenever you wanted to store surplus power. I'd be very surprised if many were high enough or had enough volume to be useful for that purpose. Sewage and water treatment works are another obvious place we could do this. Werribee is at pretty low altitude so probably wouldn't be useful for that kind of thing. Is that actually based on anything? That we don't have storage technology sufficient for running the country on intermittent sources or enough hydro or geothermal resources available. Putting aside hydro and geothermal, and waste biomass, do you really think it impossible to generate 35GW from renewables based on some combination of wind, tidal, solar and wave power (perhaps backed by waste biomass, geothermal and hydro)? It isn't generating the power that's the show stopper, it's having the power available at the times when we actually need it (at least in Australia, some places can't run on renewables no matter what because their population density is simply too high, e.g. Europe). If you break down the energy costs much of it is in heating and cooling homes. True, but industry uses a lot more energy than houses (and industry also tends to care more about efficiency, there are a lot less incandescent heaters in office buildings than homes). In the suburbs ground source heat pumps are probably the best technology for heating and cooling though they tend to require relatively low population density to work (it'll work fine for ordinary suburban blocks but not high-rise apartment buildings). If you cut the space to be cooled and heated, Which would be viewed as a reduction in standard of living by many people. Get them onto public transport for free or at highly subsidised cost and the cost of the energy input is trivial. Public transport is already highly subsided (whether it is more or less subsidised than cars is another matter). Of course the problem with public transport is that it often doesn't go where you want to go (or does so very inconveniently). We dig up a lot of coal and iron ore, and bauxite and silver we don't use ourselves. We export some cars we don't use ourselves. Except for the fact that we actually do use all of them here, even if we may export most of our production. We might like to do some engineering, even if for political reasons, we aren't going to build them here. I just can't see us actually doing that, or at least can't see government being too supportive (though hopefully if someone tried the government wouldn't block them). That's a wave of the hand. We need a policy in which we sharply increase population densities, create more self-contained suburbs and attenuate sharply past the 25km point. People who live past the 25 km point may not want to move (and they vote). Even inside that point there are plenty of Save Our Suburbs groups fighting increased density (when property values get high enough for developers to justify coming in and building self-contained single-storey units there tend to be objections). You'll probably also find that most suburbs are pretty close to self-contained anyway with enough in them for a person not to need to leave it very often (OK, you might have to allow for them to go into the next suburb over, but that's probably close enough) except for work (if they work in a different suburb). That, and a policy of supporting the indrastructure for telecommuting seem s important. The NBN would be useful for a lot of other things. We want to cut vehicle miles driven each year, and especially vehicle miles with single occupants. A road pricing policy could help us with that. Driving in Australia is probably too cheap (increasing the fuel excise tax would also help to stabilise fuel prices and so reduce the panic selling of gas guzzlers whenever there's an oil price shock but much of local car manufacturing is large cars (though Holden are making a small car here) so that probably won't happen). So could a more rational set of policies around housing and development. In Sydney we have about 30ppHa when we should have something more like 80ppHa, or even 100ppHa. Sydney has pretty much run out of room and so can only grow up, the other cities can grow out (and if that's what the public wants, that's exactly what they'll do). That would radically cut the cost of almost all services. For the most part yes, though density does have its disadvantages (otherwise almost everyone would live in high-rise apartment blocks in the inner city by choice, at the moment the only cities where that actually is true are those where land is so expensive that's the only place most people can afford). You have to try for both. I'm satisfied that renewables could be made to serve a reasonable interim (2020) target at a politically plausible cost and that at that point, enough of the angst over Fukushima would have dissipated for us to again press forward and make the "we are at a crossroads over emissions" argument. The current political climate will not last forever. The problem with renewables as even an interim target is that they just aren't likely to even help much. The angst over Fukushima will probably go away sooner than that though (but it's the fossil fuel industry which is behind the anti-nuclear movement).
|
|
|
Post by franbarlow on May 19, 2012 17:13:31 GMT 9.5
I wrote: We do and in any event, we can augment the landforms to elevate further if that's seen as worthwhile. Not really. We build large buildings all the time -- blocks of apartments, car parks, office blocks. Lets say we are storing 2Ml of water at a head pressure of 100m. That's 544MWh in the bank. For that you'd need a cylinder with a radius of just under 80metres and a height of 100m. Admittedly, it would have to be raised 100m above sea level, but if your headland is about 40metres above that's only an extra 60metres. I wrote: It would also be possible to use existing artificial reservoirs (those big tanks) in concert with a deep pit and cycle the water between the two places whenever you wanted to store surplus power.
Just down the road from where I live, there are two massive water tanks. From their dimensions, I'd say between them they'd hold about 20kl at least. They sit at the top of a major elevation that runs steeply down into West Ryde where the old pumping station used to be, about a km as the crow flies. That's quite a bit of stored energy potential there. Using the 100m HP we're talking 5.44MW. You could have those dotted about all over the place.
I wrote: Is that actually based on anything?
[/i][/quote] With a bit of help from public policy, they will, and thgis will save significant energy. I wrote: That would radically cut the cost of almost all services. [/quote] [/i][/quote] At the moment it's too expensive for even middle class people to live in an innier city apartment. You really have to be on $150k with dual incomes to think about that. I wrote: You have to try for both. I'm satisfied that renewables could be made to serve a reasonable interim (2020) target at a politically plausible cost and that at that point, enough of the angst over Fukushima would have dissipated for us to again press forward and make the "we are at a crossroads over emissions" argument. The current political climate will not last forever. Whoosh ... that was well wide and short and went through to the keeper without being played at. A total waste of a delivery.
|
|
|
Post by franbarlow on May 19, 2012 17:17:13 GMT 9.5
I'm sorry Barry ... this site's formatting is just too clunky to get my head around. The old format at BNC was a hell og a lot easier and didn't force you to work around all manner of silly Jscript. I wrote the post above entirely in notepad to avoid the scrolling back and forth and the tag line links, but I can't see myself doing that on a regular basis. Best of luck and all that, but my personal hope is that you find some other way of doing this. MODERATOR Fran - please see my comment below.Hope this helps
|
|
|
Post by BNC Moderator on May 19, 2012 17:41:50 GMT 9.5
MODERATOR Fran - are you commenting from the quick comment box after the last comment? If so, this does not allow you to use the formatting buttons which make this so much easier than BNC. It took me a while to get used to this new format too. You need to click on the "reply" button(others are "share" and print) which is on the right side of the blue bar above the quick comment box and also on the right hand side of the blue bar at the head of the topic. This will open a new box to type into, which is headed with Tags for bold, italic, insert hyperlinklink, insert quote, etc - just hover on them to ascertain what each button is for. There is also a group of smileys which you may use if you wish. Under the box in which you have typed you will see options for spellcheck, preview, modify post etc which give you more opportunities to amend or correct what you have written. Hope this helps
|
|