Solar vs Nuclear ? « Alternative Technology Assn Forums

Alternative Technology Assn Forums » Energy

Solar vs Nuclear ?

(73 posts) (13 voices)

Started 11 years ago by Greenozi
Latest reply from Anonymous

Tags:

12 3 Next »

Greenozi
Member

"Dismantling the plant and decontaminating the site may take 30 years and cost Tokyo Electric more than 1 trillion yen ($12 billion), engineers and analysts said."

That is just to cover the damage. Some electricity output lost forever. Some land damage indefinitely, life lost.
Now imagine what a beautiful manufacturing plant ingenious Japanese could have build for that 12 billion dollars and how many solar panel produce every year !

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-30/record-high-levels-of-radiation-found-in-sea-near-crippled-nuclear-reactor.html

I am afraid that this is just a beginning and we will see much more similar stories from all around the world in incoming years.

Posted Thursday 31 Mar 2011 @ 11:31:46 am from IP #
Russell Moore
Member

Nuclear power is great, only it needs to be about 150,000,000kms away, say about where the sun is..

Posted Thursday 31 Mar 2011 @ 7:00:37 pm from IP #
swanning_it
Member

Posted Thursday 31 Mar 2011 @ 8:52:10 pm from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

GO
Your hindsight is visionary! If someone gave me $12b for R&D only, then I'm sure I'd come up with something better than off the shelf PV. Actually make that $12m and 5 years of R&D with access to universities, that should do. What about the billions they spent making the nuclear power station in first place? Plus the billions of dollars another RE technology could have profit from electricity sales over 40 years, and the embodied energy and emission savings? So much to nuclear being a solution.

I think your prediction that we will see more of these things happening worldwide is true. Many NPP's are coming to the end of their expected lives now, and with it the danger of another catastrophe. Hopefully they will follow Germany's lead and only invest into RE from here on in.

BTW this article is interesting. An american company is assisting by being able to remote control convert bobcats and the like in 15minutes:
http://www.gizmag.com/page/2/

Posted Friday 1 Apr 2011 @ 3:14:58 am from IP #
Andy Chee
Member

Given Japan's current reliance on nuclear, has anyone done a back of the envelope calculation on whether Japan's current economy can be powered by solar? On first impression it seems that Japan doesn't have sufficient rooftop/land area for solar collectors (PV or solar thermal) given it's current energy requirements.

From Wiki:
Total energy from all sources 1.075 TWh
Coal 26.8%
Gas 26.3%
Oil 12.9%
Nuclear 24%
Hydro 7.7%
Other 2.2%

If the 90% (967.5GWh) were replaced with solar panels that can generate 4kWh/m2/day, that equates to a land/surface area requirement of 242km2. Multiply that by maybe 10 times, for sufficient surplus generation capacity for energy storage when there's low/no sun and you get an area requirement of 2,420km2.

Japan has a land area of 374,744km2, 73% of which is mountainous and assuming that's unsuitable, leaves us 93,686km2.

Anyone want to correct or add any assumptions?

I would've thought given its location on the "Ring of Fire", that like Iceland, geothermal would be able to supply a significant proportion of their energy needs.

Re: remote control bobcats
I think they had to do the same to bulldozers at Chernobyl!

Posted Friday 1 Apr 2011 @ 5:21:17 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Andy
Could be a quarter of the size using solar thermal.
South facing slopes could be used effectively for more concentrated installations, because of their natural tilt towards the sun.
Solar chimney type installations could run up their slopes.

The same generation equipment could also be shared between solar/geothermal heat sources, with solar providing additional boost during the day-light peak consumption hours.
The 7% hydro capacity could be used as a buffer to store solar power in a pumped-hydro system. I think they already do some of this, maybe a turbine capacity upgrade would be necessary to allow long time bridging +1month.

This is of course assuming there are not any consumption reduction possibilities. I believe winter heating is a major consumer of fuel also, local geothermal or solar could assist there also with "waste" heat from generators through a distributed system etc. All up I think they have more than enough nuclear alternatives. Just don't ask me to go over there for any prolonged amount of time atm, even though it is one of the last places I actually haven't been, and wouldn't (normally) mind going!!

Posted Friday 1 Apr 2011 @ 6:05:48 am from IP #
sun2steam
Member

Andy, a safety factor of 10 is a bit much and by far too expensive. It is much cheaper to have just a bit more than the full capacity plus a backup with gas power stations. And don't forget the wind! Japan is a chain of islands and should have plenty of wind most of the time. Wind power in good locations can already be cheaper than coal.

Posted Friday 1 Apr 2011 @ 6:13:09 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Good point S2S I missed that. Why multiply their GWh output at all? The only losses from PV would be energy storage for consumption outside of production times. Same for any other RE apart from biomass. I don't think it should exceed 1.4x.

Gas power stations can also be run from RE biogas for peaking plants. Some biogas fired boilers on the Solar/geothermal plant would allow for continuous rated output, regardless of solar output, and wouldn't require extra generation capacity to be installed either. I suppose it would be a geothermal baseload, solar bulk day load, and biogas peak load plant.
Or GSBP plant. Throw in some wind (ahem from the weather that is!) and "off" you go.

Posted Friday 1 Apr 2011 @ 6:55:02 am from IP #
Greenozi
Member

Assuming that solar panel retail at $2/w for $12,000,000,000 order I will have some discount. I guess $0.5/w is realistic for today at this scale.
So for twelve billions you could buy or build/manufacture 48,000,000,000 W solar panels that will produce "free" energy for next 20 years

48 GW x 5 hours a day = 240 GWh x 365 days = 87,600 GWh per year

how its compare to total Japan requirements?

1,075 TWh / 87.6 = 1.2%
of total Japan e.energy consumption -not bad result as for one small NPP blow up.

Posted Friday 1 Apr 2011 @ 6:58:25 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

GO
You only used the decommissioning and cleanup costs...what about the cost to install and replace the same size NPP and ongoing costs to manage the site? It's probably around the same again.

Provided you you could install PV at $0.50/W then this would equate to about a 10GW NPP plant. So twice the size of Fukushima. I would say that you wouldn't get PV under $1/W, don't forget you need inverters, network etc. You might stand a better chance with solar thermal though. They're already competitive despite being less developed than PV. CPV also looks promising, the PV for those are already commercially running at 39% eff. plus heat output.

Posted Friday 1 Apr 2011 @ 7:47:48 am from IP #
Greenozi
Member

I agree concentrated thermal is looking promising, but Solar PV have some advantages too. Is simple, could be installed everywhere, could eventually be a structural element of the building so no needs to duplicate - supporting structure- roof (corrugated iron) -next supporting structure - solar panel structure + few grams of silicon, roads and path ways could be covered with panels too
As for inverters there is time to switch to DC on national scale. Then all devices producing electricity could be easy add on without needs for synchronizing, converting , wind solar, everything, ev. Then domestic devices could be designed later to utilize DC straight off the DC grid (by in build converters or inverters).
But once build solar don't need much care or costly fuel.
Going back to costs - industrial solar pv could be manufactured and design completely different to retail product. don't need aluminum frames, carton boxes, plastic fillers etc. I imagine a basic OEM PV as composite two sheets of glass pane with active silicon sealed inside and 2 gold +/- connectors at one point. Like your complete window is much more costly than glass pane itself and if you build skyscraper off the glass there is separate structure and then glass cover. If one day plastic sheet PV will be cheaper then even better. You are right. If you spend 12 bln only on R&D effect and savings will be measured in trillions.

Posted Friday 1 Apr 2011 @ 8:20:14 am from IP #
Greenozi
Member

One more question : " How and where to evacuate 21 mln people?"

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/31/nuclear.evacuation.plans/index.html?hpt=T2

As Japanese foresee tsunami and build the wall , just not high enough, Americans foresees kamikaze pilot and build a NPP to withstand direct hit by plane. Unfortunately the Cesna not the Boeining

So question remains not "if" but "when" (to evacuate 21 mln peoples)

Posted Friday 1 Apr 2011 @ 8:30:22 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

If the spending of a $12b R&D budget was diversified over various RE technologies, what would be the likelihood of the budget being "wasted"? 10%? 20% waste?
Lets say 20%, so $10b of R&D expenditure for $1trillion savings, so 100:1...still pretty good. Anybody got a piggy bank with $12b? I'm available for R&D. If you would spend $200k a year per R&D employee, that would be 6000 scientists, engineers etc for 10 years....should get something going I'm sure!!

Posted Friday 1 Apr 2011 @ 8:35:38 am from IP #
Sojin_Muneshi
Member

An interesting article on page 11 of the Weekend Australian (not my usual paper so I'm not sure of the authors political leanings)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/pm-boxed-in-by-rudd-on-the-rebound/story-e6frgd0x-1226036230657

*****Edited*****
Gillard's core political problem is that Labor's base is already disillusioned. Witness the August 2010 election, the recent NSW election and the polls showing Labor's primary vote in the 32-36 per cent range.

First, the starting price for carbon will be modest (though it must rise far higher to be effective). Second, Labor's credentials on carbon pricing are damaged big time.

For too long Labor, state and federal, has pushed ineffective green schemes at high cost as part of pro-green gesture politics. They are now being documented and scaled back.

Witness Gillard's ditching the Cleaner Car Rebate Scheme (known as cash for clunkers), winding up the Car Green Innovation Fund and Greg Combet bringing an end to Labor's rooftop solar panels credit scheme.

This week's report from the think tank, the Grattan Institute, showed a litany of failed schemes from Labor and the Coalition. Grant tendering programs worth $7bn and rebate programs totalling $5bn were judged as wasteful and producing little abatement.

The cost of some solar programs was a direct fiscal fraud with estimates of the net cost of emission reductions up to $300 per tonne.

The bipartisan Renewable Energy Target, actually backed by the Grattan report, had its subsidy cost estimated at a high $30-$70 per tonne. The previous week Minister Ferguson broke ranks to warn the RET came "at a high cost to the community".

Meanwhile another Gillard cabinet minister (not Ferguson) told me: "Large sections of Australia's rich are engaged in a conspiracy to screw the poor in the name of saving the planet."

He was talking about feed-in tariffs, a classic rort. They are applied to a better or worse (usually worse) extent in most states and function as a regressive tax. Under this policy high income earners are subsidised to supply renewable energy to the grid from their installed solar panels. Where is the rort worse?

Exactly where you would expect: in the Australian Capital Territory, home of income re-distribution towards the better-off in the name of clean energy. Indeed, it is calculated that wealthy Canberrans will receive a 900 per cent subsidy for every kilowatt hour of electricity they supply to the grid. Yes, this is the socially progressive Labor Party in action.

The point is that Labor, for too long, betrayed its base with green programs that were regressive and ineffective. This is recognised and being corrected by the Gillard government. Yet much of Labor is still in denial. It needs to get its house in order in preparation for its coming attack on Abbott's direct action scheme.
In the daunting task ahead Gillard must ensure her carbon policy is cognisant of the financial interest of Labor's base and is devoid of the usual "insider" cultural superiority of climate change politics.

********end quote****

Of course ACT now remains the only state/territory with a Gross PFIT, and I wonder how that is going towards its cap?

Gross PFIT is effectively dead in Australia following the NSW Fiasco, having had both parties proposing an ETS in the Nov 2007 election the August 2011 election had none, and infact a promise not to price carbon and the so called "public opinion" in favour of renewables is right now swinging against a Carbon Tax with protests in the streets? - how bizzare!

Japan has a nuclear accident arising from a natural disaster, 10,000+ killed by earthquakes and Tsunami, none yet dead from radiation, yet opponents are claiming a victory.

The reality is Nuclear remains the only viable solution "world wide" to transfer off carbon emitting base load power stations other than returning to sustenance living in mud huts and grass skirts.

China and India are continuing to deploy and develop, Germany and Europe still achieve their current low carbon footprints through existing Nuclear not RE, and Germany is having a "review" not a removal of Nuclear from its mix of generation.

Thorium nuclear plants already in operation provide an example of the future.

regards

Sojin Muneshi

Posted Sunday 10 Apr 2011 @ 12:46:28 am from IP #
swanning_it
Member

SM, you haven't yet seen me in a grass skirt, now that would be scary.

Can I ask though, why do you say nuclear is the ONLY viable option? There are many programmes going world wide that refutes that claim and our own ZCA proposal has recieved many respectable accolaides and virtually no qualified rebuttal, so where is your information source that suggests nuclear as the only viable alternative coming from?

Just on a side track here, that article states "Greg Combet bringing an end to Labor's rooftop solar panels credit scheme."
Does anyone know if this is factual, or is the author confusing the scheduled winding back over 4 years of the 5 x REC allowance (federal solar bonus scheme)?

Also, the vast majority of my friends who have put solar on their roof tops, are far from being "Australias rich" out to rort the poor. They are (without exception that I can think of), much like me, lower middle to middle class workers wanting to achieve at least a minor hedge against rising power bills, with a nice sideline being the benefit to the environment. I would have thought that most of the "rich" wouldn't be bothered with solar panels detracting from the look of their flash rooves!

Posted Sunday 10 Apr 2011 @ 1:38:47 am from IP #
sun2steam
Member

Sojin_Muneshi, I don't know why you picked this commentary,which is at least partially very opinionated and also wrong and than turned direction to ask for nuclear energy. You even posted the same thing 2 in ATA threads. so I will take the freedom to do the same.

First to the commentary, just one example: " ... feed-in tariffs, a classic rort. They are applied to a better or worse (usually worse) extent in most states and function as a regressive tax ..." How is the feed-in tariff a tax? Seems when somebody want to make a point in Australia he is using the t-word.

Your comments to nuclear energy are just wrong:
"The reality is Nuclear remains the only viable solution "world wide" to transfer off carbon emitting base load power stations other than returning to sustenance living in mud huts and grass skirts." Give me a break. You must not have heard yet about wind power, geothermal energy or the various kinds of solar energy. There are also fully costed versions on the transitions to renewable electricity generation http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020

"... Germany is having a "review" not a removal of Nuclear from its mix of generation. ..." wrong, Germany has decided not to build any new nuclear power stations. The discussion in the conservative government is about when the existing ones are being phased out. And for that very reason actual polls for the Greens in Germany are at 23%.

"Thorium nuclear plants already in operation provide an example of the future." Can you show to a single thorium power plant producing power? There are a few lab set-ups showing parts of the whole system. Full systems exist on paper only.
Why side track another pile of money (which is never mentioned by nuclear proponents) into another nuclear adventure when alternatives like solar and wind are cheaper and can be deployed much faster.

Posted Sunday 10 Apr 2011 @ 2:09:25 am from IP #
Sojin_Muneshi
Member

"I don't know why you picked this commentary,which is at least partially very opinionated and also wrong"

I'm not usually a buyer of Murdochs pulp fiction and so I dont hold his material up as authoritive sources, but the article is quoting current government politicians and reviews that have confirmed most of our existing heavily subsidised programs are simply window dressing and costly ways to achieve abatement. - on that basis I consider it is very CORRECT.

Of course one mans "freedom fighter" is another mans "terrorist" and so if you dont like his views you dont value his opinion, but thats actually not a very wise way to debate or argue.

"First to the commentary, just one example: " ... feed-in tariffs, a classic rort. They are applied to a better or worse (usually worse) extent in most states and function as a regressive tax ..." How is the feed-in tariff a tax? Seems when somebody want to make a point in Australia he is using the t-word."

The Premium Feed in Tariffs are a Rort, especially the recently closed NSW 60c Gross Feed in Tariff - it will become an environmental, economics and political science case study in Australian universities for years to come.

It is a regressive tax or more correctly a fixed levy on all other customers, its certainly not a progressive tax (income tax is progressive because the more you earn the more tax you pay, same with GST.

In NSW IPART will soon identify that all residential customers are subsidising PFIT payments to the tune of @$30 per annum for the life of the payments.

"You must not have heard yet about wind power, geothermal energy or the various kinds of solar energy. There are also fully costed versions on the transitions to renewable electricity generation http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020"

Yes I am in the industry, I have heard a "little bit", I was actively involved in geothermal energy arising from South Australia back in 1996, (its still not delivered) and yes I have read this theoretical work, I have had direct involvement in large scale wind farms in Victoria and wind is not the answer and never will be, and geothermal is not yet delivering and mass solar offers much promise but is yet to deliver in Australia so none of what this report proposes is off the shelf ready to go, its headline costs are likely to encourage a far bigger scaremonger from Abbott than the Carbon Tax and NBN ever will.

So other than throwing google search links at me, whats your source of expertise?

"Thorium nuclear plants already in operation provide an example of the future." Can you show to a single thorium power plant producing power? There are a few lab set-ups showing parts of the whole system. Full systems exist on paper only.
Why side track another pile of money (which is never mentioned by nuclear proponents) into another nuclear adventure when alternatives like solar and wind are cheaper and can be deployed much faster."

???? Where do you get your information from - the back of a CornFlakes pack?

There have been 300MW Thorium reactors running in each of Germany, USA and India, hardly a "few lab" setups???

"Power reactors

Much experience has been gained in thorium-based fuel in power reactors around the world, some using high-enriched uranium (HEU) as the main fuel:

The 300 MWe THTR (Thorium High Temperature Reactor) reactor in Germany was developed from the AVR and operated between 1983 and 1989 with 674,000 pebbles, over half containing Th/HEU fuel (the rest graphite moderator and some neutron absorbers). These were continuously recycled on load and on average the fuel passed six times through the core.
The Fort St Vrain reactor was the only commercial thorium-fuelled nuclear plant in the USA, also developed from the AVR in Germany, and operated 1976-1989. It was a high-temperature (700°C), graphite-moderated, helium-cooled reactor with a Th/HEU fuel designed to operate at 842 MWth (330 MWe). The fuel was in microspheres of thorium carbide and Th/U-235 carbide coated with silicon oxide and pyrolytic carbon to retain fission products. It was arranged in hexagonal columns ('prisms') rather than as pebbles. Almost 25 tonnes of thorium was used in fuel for the reactor, and this achieved 170,000 MWd/t burn-up.
Thorium-based fuel for PWRs was investigated at the Shippingport reactor in the USA (discussed in the section below on the Light Water Breeder Reactor).
In India, thorium has been used for power flattening in the initial cores of the two Kakrapar pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs).
The 60 MWe Lingen Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) in Germany utilised Th/Pu-based fuel test elements. "

The Thorium plants were pushed aside due to the abundance of Uranium technology and fuel sources, and for most of the world including Australia, "the ability to continue to dig up dirt and burn it", not because they dont work, India, who has a large portion of the worlds holdings of Thorium are continuing to develop their designs, here is some introductory reading for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348

The above are "lite reading", here is something more authorative

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

regards

Sojin Muneshi

Posted Sunday 10 Apr 2011 @ 4:33:56 am from IP #
swanning_it
Member

How can FiTs be any kind of tax, regressive or otherwise? The FiT schemes are simply gov't expenditure, same as health spending, roads spending, parks and gardens upkeep etc, so if a FiT is a regressive tax, then so to is ALL gov't expenditure. I can see many accountants pulling their hair out when they see people unable to distinguish between revenue and expenditure.

Are you sure you don't mean the federal solar bonus is a regressive tax? I could understand the sentiments behind that comment, being that it's paid by industry (who'll by nature, pass it on to consumers), but it deserves a far greater discussion than just a headline grabbing, off the cuff, comment.

Also, I disagree with your comment about the ZCA proposals not being "off the shelf". Most of the technology is proven (with the exception being geo), workable and sport considerable shorter build times than nuclear. So in that context, they are available "off the shelf". However, if we were to accept your ascertion that renewables are largely not off the shelf, where does that leave your beloved nuclear? Do you imagine you can just nip into Woolies and pick up a NPP from isle 10? No new power plant is "off the shelf" in it's truest meaning, but nuclear would have to be worst of all. Not only would it have to comply with the same RIS/EIS conditions imposed on the others (including coal), it is also faced with successive gov'ts that continue to rule it out entirely. So if any of the proposed power plants are "not off the shelf", nuclear is the one still at the bottom of the packing pallet (thank heavens).

As for the renewables "headline" cost, you made a comment then backed away from any supporting evidence with another simple off the cuff comment about Abbotts scaremongering. What gives there? I've never yet heard Abbott partake in scaremongering about the ZCA headline cost of $8/week/household......but I wouldn't be surprised if he did (all poiticians know we need to continue to mine fossils). Anal Blight in Qld has done so already but a skilled debater could easily shoot down her "scaremongering" because it's simply false to suggest that $8/week/household is unachievable or worthy of bit of scaremongering. Lets face it, the headline cost of renewables under the ZCA plan is about 1/3 the headline cost of the carbon tax, but that ain't stopping the gov't from giving it a whirl!

Posted Sunday 10 Apr 2011 @ 8:59:53 pm from IP #
Sojin_Muneshi
Member

How can FiTs be any kind of tax, regressive or otherwise? The FiT schemes are simply gov't expenditure, same as health spending, roads spending, parks and gardens upkeep etc, so if a FiT is a regressive tax, then so to is ALL gov't expenditure. I can see many accountants pulling their hair out when they see people unable to distinguish between revenue and expenditure

Please at least read my reply's if you are going to debate me?

******
"It is a regressive tax or more correctly a fixed levy on all other customers, its certainly not a progressive tax (income tax is progressive because the more you earn the more tax you pay, same with GST.

In NSW IPART will soon identify that all residential customers are subsidising PFIT payments to the tune of @$30 per annum for the life of the payments."
******

Government "Expenditure" is never a tax,, but its "Income" or "funding" nearly always IS.

The comment applied to the Gross PFIT is referring to its collection method, not its payment method, ie how it is funded!

There is ONLY one FIT in Australia with direct government money funding it, that is WA ie via its own progressive tax system, ALL others have a levy placed on electricity customers, mandated by government so still effectively a tax.

AT least in NSW and Victoria (because I havent access to the details of the others) that levy is "regressive" rather than "progressive" in its application to those customers or neighbours (this is a specific economic term to describe its function and collection method - look it up in google).

The Victorian levy is now quite transparent as a fixed fee per customer of @$5 per customer per annum, regardless of usage, ( ie regressive rather than progressive), IPART will soon make the NSW levy just as transparent, and I suspect in the order of @$30 per customer per annum, regardless of usage.

Progressive taxes collect more the more you earn (income tax) or spend (GST).

That fixed levy is then effectively a government mandated "regressive tax", ring any economist.

regards

Sojin Muneshi

Posted Sunday 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:21:41 pm from IP #
Sojin_Muneshi
Member

Not only would it have to comply with the same RIS/EIS conditions imposed on the others (including coal), it is also faced with successive gov'ts that continue to rule it out entirely. So if any of the proposed power plants are "not off the shelf", nuclear is the one still at the bottom of the packing pallet (thank heavens).
******

Er, thats "political" limitations, not "technology" limitations that you are referring to, of course no base load station is delivered on the back of a truck and turned on the next day, I am referring to "proven" generation systems that are commercially available in standard design, and contracted for delivery as being "off the shelf" and yes wind is of that nature, but show me a single "500MW" plant with 90% dispatchable "reliability" as a base load plant, (and focus on the "90% dispatchable reliability", not finding a geographic corner of the world with "500MW" of individual "fans" in place)

Of course immunisation, flourodisation and blood transfusions suffer "religious" or other "theological"/"philosphical" opposition, but are accepted by most populations as acceptable based on proven "scientific evidence", even if there is still proven risks or health failures or even deaths involved to some.

So as for Nuclear, the successive governments "ruling them out totally" do so under "poll driven" pressure, and our current cheap access to "digging up dirt and burning it", that doesnt evidence or change their true scientific and overall performance.

Such "poll driven" policy management just results in noisy and confusing debate within the population dependant on which side is the noisiest and can yell the loudest, (or has the media politically with them) - we are now seeing that with Abbotts approach to "anything"

regards

Sojin Muneshi

Posted Sunday 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:41:02 pm from IP #
Sojin_Muneshi
Member

As for the renewables "headline" cost, you made a comment then backed away from any supporting evidence with another simple off the cuff comment about Abbotts scaremongering. What gives there? I've never yet heard Abbott partake in scaremongering about the ZCA headline cost of $8/week/household......but I wouldn't be surprised if he did (all poiticians know we need to continue to mine fossils). Anal Blight in Qld has done so already but a skilled debater could easily shoot down her "scaremongering" because it's simply false to suggest that $8/week/household is unachievable or worthy of bit of scaremongering. Lets face it, the headline cost of renewables under the ZCA plan is about 1/3 the headline cost of the carbon tax, but that ain't stopping the gov't from giving it a whirl!
****

The ZCA report does have some merit, but is based on unproven uncommercialised solar plant (not off the shelf) and its a dramatic change from the status quo, and requires a massive commitment of funds, not unlike the NBN.

I dont see Labor (and certainly not the Coalition) embracing it and cutting other government services to divert billions of existing taxes to it, or the Carbon Tax income into it, and a further levy of $8/week per household or @$400 per electricity bill would be political suicide to propose, let alone try and impliment.

Having seen many of these initial type of "papers", I am very confident its headline costs are very underdone, but thats fine, to progress with it would require each element to be costed and funded in its own right and so the costs would be transparent and need to stand on their individual merit.

But we are yet to get one base load Mass-Solar generator up, despite those being costed and proposed individually, and thats after all these years of supposed efforts to reduce our emissions to '92 levels, and strong community/political support.

I suspect the ZCA report's "specific solution" provided as the case study will never be implemented as intended or proposed, (and certainly not by 2020 and a full replacement of our current coal and gas stations! - thats 9 years away!) but base load RE will continue to develop and some elements may eventually be funded, but over a very long time, and I am not sure we can wait that long, hence my support for Nuclear, which if started today could be retiring those fossil fuel stations by 2020.

I havent seen Abbott mention the ZCA report, but see what he does if Labor proposes to implement it! or even champions it in an election campaign!

The evidence of that is a 2007 federal election with the two main parties proposing an ETS, and the 2010 federal election having two main parties both effectively "opposing" an ETS rather than "proposing" one, and even promising not to "price" carbon - and you think the ZCA report will get up some time soon, or by 2020?

Unfortunately we are all going to sit around under the tree - with the economic rationalists, naysayers, deniers, anti-nuclear protesters and basketweavers making so much "noise" rather than "rational debate", that the public wont know who is talking sense, and the polls and focus groups will cause the policy makers, spin doctors and election campaigners to be too nervous to do anything, and we will keep doing that (ie nothing) while "Rome burns".

regards

Sojin Muneshi

Posted Sunday 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:53:38 pm from IP #
swanning_it
Member

Wow....so because something poses a potential PR problem, you ignore it? You suggest the very same treatment of renewables, that you are annoyed is currently being directed at nuclear.

You have failed to answer the questions posed, but instead typed drivel with such classic statements as;

"Government "Expenditure" is never a tax,, but its "Income" or "funding" nearly always IS." .............Well done. Did that take long to establish?

"Er, thats "political" limitations, not "technology" limitations"...... Very astute, but please tell, when did the "off the shelf" debate suddenly change to technical limitiations? I for one, have never suggested nuclear technology doesn't work but that doesn't for one minute suggest it isn't still on the bottom of the "off the shelf" barrel (in Australia at least).

"hence my support for Nuclear, which if started today could be retiring those fossil fuel stations by 2020." ..........and conversely, if we started a renewable programme today we could be doing the same.......but that's not the issue. The issue is something has to be started and it may as well be renewable! You say the ZCA plan has merit but you generalise with your condemnations. I repeat, I've seen no qualified rebuttal of the ZCA proposal. Perhaps you may wish to point us all to some of those?

"So as for Nuclear, the successive governments "ruling them out totally" do so under "poll driven" pressure" ..........That "poll driven pressure" has another name .......democracy! The alternatives to democracy have been rejected many times in Australia.

BTW, I just got off the phone to the Qld Solar bonus hotline and the guy there explained to me that funding for the Qld solar bonus scheme (FiT) is through the budget from consolidated revenues. He claimed there is no tax on electricity entities, generators, distributors or consumers specifically to offset that expenditure. So in effect, the Qld FiT (at least) is expenditure like all other expenditure, not taxation.

So for the upshot of this discussion, I can see you have not added any info about how the ZCA is unachievable, you have supplied mis-information about funding of FiTs, you've made assumptions about the general publics ignorance as to what they want and you've scoffed at Australian democracy. My curiosity as to where you're coming from, has at least been answered, for me anyway. Thanks.

Posted Sunday 10 Apr 2011 @ 11:58:57 pm from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Swanning/Sojin

Without wanting to take sides here I would like to present my position on the matter:

1) Currently developed RE sources, especially wind and PV solar, do not have the capacity to provide reliable base load without extensive and far reaching networking. Solar thermal does have this capacity if it uses a thermal store, which also aids in night time power production. There is also the option of using batteries from EV's to supplement/buffer/smooth loads for both peak and baseload, and at the same time increasing the wind etc penetration of a network. Once again a combined or hybrid solution seems to have merit here.

2) On nuclear being the only "clean" technology currently available to replace fossil generation, I don't think that nuclear is that "clean" and is comparable to natural gas with district heating, apart from in nuclear being far more costly. See my post on the "Is nuclear a viable option for our energy needs".

3) I am not sure if the definition of tax should apply to a FIT, in fact I would prefer that they would adopt the German FIT model and pass on FIT tariff increases across all consumers nationwide. The State based systems are fraught with hidden agendas, complications and just sheer incompetence. They way I see a FIT is as a state legislated forced sale of product. All people are being directly "benefited" environmentally at least, by a FIT simply because they promote an emissions reduction in the whole grid. The PV installers "benefit" can be greater however than those without, depending on the scheme ie metro WA vs rural WA.

Financially the benefits of a FIT are disputable depending on the scheme, the money would be much better spent if commercial scale RE plants were supported instead, by increasing the RE electricity value, and by providing low interest "investor" type loans to the growing RE industry. The reduction in $/gCO2 saved would be much higher there. Alternatively some RE "tax free" scheme would further assist RE development and signal investors. It is ironic that fossils and mining get substantial incentives as a industry, with profits mostly flowing overseas, yet the seemingly most crucial one RE does not, even if it would benefit the countries people.

4) On the ZCA plan: I admire there achievement so far, but have to agree with Sojin that it is unlikely that the current government will ever implement it, mostly due to the government still being in the miners pocket atm. This becomes clear from the analysis of the revenue distribution from the proposed carbon tax, which is much more beneficial to the miners, as outlined in various posts in the "Carbon Price?" thread. (Sojin should you care to read them)

Posted Monday 11 Apr 2011 @ 3:58:55 am from IP #
Greenozi
Member

And the winner is ? ;...nuclear !
Either fission or fission due to portability and energy density. For short time we possibly manage to do partial switch to RE, but long term N technology will be continuously improved and developed.
New pattern emerge to solidify those nations progress that smartly invest in future technologies. With N there is potential to increase output by factor of 10 or 100x if needed, which is unlikely for RE o F(ossil).
As wealth of Australia is base now on minerals, Arabs on Oil , Russia on gas, China on manufacturing, NZ on food some future development could create condition for prosperity based on cheap, abundant energy.
Nation that will be able to build safe N plants, hidden deep into mountain could live from pure energy export. I could imagine Switzerland supplying unlimited electricity to whole Europe from hidden under Alps N plants.
We just assume that we know what our future energy consumption will be based on existing appliances and technologies , but such assumption could be dramatically altered with new technologies emerging from sci-fi to real life. We are possibly safe with RE till the century ends. After all renewable cycles on Earth are based on constant energy supply, and soon after all mineral resources are exhausted we need to dig back to our rubbish dumps and recycle absolutely everything. All we need then is pure energy..

Posted Monday 11 Apr 2011 @ 4:00:46 am from IP #
sun2steam
Member

Why would we go back to nuclear energy, once renewable energy has been fully established?
I agree in one thing: we do need nuclear energy. But one nuclear fusion reactor is fully sufficient. Not hidden in a mountain, but far enough away to cause no harm.

Posted Monday 11 Apr 2011 @ 4:17:09 am from IP #
swanning_it
Member

Jeff,
Item 1)...you forgot your favourites, Biogas and biomass.

Item 4) You've misread my posts. I have long stated the biggest impediment to the successful rollout of a ZCA type plan is the gov'ts (all gov'ts) love of the fossil dollar! SM on the other hand, has stated more than that by suggesting the ZCA is flawed as it's based on unproven technology. That's the part I question and have asked him to support with links to credible rebuttals. The ZCA from memory, went to lengths to document the technical examples (with I think geo being the only technology not currently feasible). I've also mentioned that there are many credible supporters, but I can't find evidence of credible detractors. That's a big difference between can it happen and will it happen.

Posted Monday 11 Apr 2011 @ 4:17:22 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Swanning

on 1)....I sometimes have to abstain from pushing my own agenda to give my arguments more merit I have long ago come to the realization that biomass/biogas can provide that essential "missing link" between fossils and RE. I have outlined this further in the "nuclear viablity" thread that I linked to.

on 4) I agree that political willingness and technical possibilities are two completely separate arguments. The difference is that only the political one will bring about social change, it rarely is the technological one that changes public opinion, otherwise everyone would have their very own biogas plant in the backyard!! This is generally the problem, our economical society is not structured to allow new technologies to freely develop, in fact any form of "free energy" source will be regarded as a threat to "national security" (due to capitalist economic inertia) and will be instantly mothballed under the "international nuclear policy regulations". I don't doubt for a minute that we already possess the technology to implement the change to 100% RE, but the process of changing all the other externalities, like the economy and social behavior, are in fact holding us back.

GO buddy
I hope that you know that only 35minutes of solar radiation from the sun on the earths surface is required to power all current human energy consumption for a year? We are already 100% nuclear powered. And essentially 100% RE. It's just that we don't believe fossil carbon (apparently also once biomass, therefore also RE, but over a longer period!) belongs in the atmosphere and is good for the health of the planet, and ours along with it. I think the only sci-fi technology in the future will be sustainable ones, the others we simply won't be able to afford economically, morally and environmentally.

Posted Monday 11 Apr 2011 @ 4:39:10 am from IP #
swanning_it
Member

Changing social behaviour............much has been written on this topic here at ATA (where is Dymonite anyway) and have I mentioned before about legislation?

A few years back, we here in Qld were in the grip of a terrible drought. Here in the south east corner, dams were very low and guess what, new legislation was imposed to stop water wastage. The limits were still generous really and water meters were regularly read and households using over 800l per day had their mains pressure reduced in a bid to stop the wastage identified. Those with tanks were free to use them at will and tank numbers soared.

Perhaps at some point in the future, the same will apply with electricity..........kills two birds with one stone!

Posted Monday 11 Apr 2011 @ 4:50:46 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

It's about to happen with oil. Waste is big time at the moment but post $2/litre you will see a marked change. Actually its already happening with recent retail surveys showing spending, read consumption, is way down.

Posted Monday 11 Apr 2011 @ 5:01:04 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Swanning
Exactly my point. We need small enough systems that people can implement directly without regard for centralized industry and economy. Hence developing solar farming house/land packages would be a good idea. BTW using PV is only the first step, solar thermal stirling also gives consumers the ability to produce and use NG&biogas etc without sunlight. Solar thermal gasification of Biogas NG can also produce carbon black (or sequestration) for carbon nanotubes/fibres etc whilst the combustion of hydrogen can produce energy. Water can be purified as a side effect of this process etc....the idea would be to make this just another household appliance that kills all the birds with just one stone.

BTW D69 Was around on the vacuum glazing thread, but he didn't respond to my greetings at all...maybe he is tired of us?

Posted Monday 11 Apr 2011 @ 5:07:08 am from IP #

RSS feed for this topic

12 3 Next »