Stephen Gloor

HVDC Across Australia

After studying the excellent information available at NEMMCO I started thinking about how good it would be to have a electricity link right across Australia linking the SWIS to the Eastern States.  Then I found out about HVDC and the new high temperature superconducting storage that is becoming available and it all fell into place.

In NSW, Qld, SA and now Tasmania because of BassLink there exists an electricity trading system where supply is matched to demand on a half hourly basis and electricity is treated as a commodity.  There are strict rules to prevent and ENRON style manipulation of electricity prices with mandatory reserves that must be in place of 800MW.  Western Australia operates it own network call the South West Integrated System (SWIS) and is isolated from the Eastern States despite the advantages of being 2 hours out of phase with the East.

One advantage just of being connected with nothing else done is that the time of peak over here (I live in Western Australia) is of course 2 hours different from the East because of Australia's enormous size that encompasses two time zones.

If you look at the diagram on the right, which is a realtime graph of demand in NSW,  you can see 2 peaks one at about 8:00am in the morning and a larger one at 6:00pm at night.  Now assuming that Western Australia has much the same peaks and troughs only 2 hours later WA could be using some of it's off peak capacity to supply the Eastern States peak and vice versa.  However it is when renewable power is added into the equation that the benefits become more apparent.  At 6:00pm in the East there is less solar power available even with daylight saving but as it is 4:00pm in Western Australia, solar thermal plants would be still producing near their peak values and capable of supplying the peak Eastern States time with renewable power.

The problem of course is the distance between Western Australia and Eastern Australia.  Expanding the map and using a calculator gives a distance of 2700 km from Perth to Adelaide which is the nearest point where the Eastern States grid is available.

This is a huge distance!!!.  If this was done with a AC distributer then there would be all sorts of losses.  For more detailed information read this.  From this reference "High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC)Transmission Systems" from the World Bank, the largest HVDC power system is the Itaipu HVDC Transmission Project in Brazil with the following characteristics:

Technical Data:
Commissioning year: 1984-1987
Power rating: 3150+3150 MW
DC voltage: ±600 kV
Length of overhead DC line: 785 km + 805 km
Main reasons for choosing HVDC system: Long distance, 50/60 Hz conversion

It has a total length of 800km is less than a third of what Australia requires so our link would be a technical challenge.  The cost can be estimated from the same reference - assuming a bipolar OH line with a price per km of 250 kUSD/km, converter stations are estimated to 250 MUSD gives a price for our link of:

2 converter stations              $500 000 000 USD
2700 km of cable                  $675 000 000 USD
Total                                $1 175 000 000 USD

Which is a lot however considering that a nuclear reactor will cost 4 billion and just supply base load this supply line across Australia will do far more that this.  For example if Forced Commutator power controls are used then:

Forced Commutated Converters. This type of converters introduces a spectrum of advantages,
e.g. feed of passive networks (without generation), independent control of active and reactive
power, power quality. The valves of these converters are built up with semiconductors with
the ability not only to turn-on but also to turn-off. They are known as VSC (Voltage Source
Converters). Two types of semiconductors are normally used in the voltage source converters:
the GTO (Gate Turn-Off Thyristor) or the IGBT (Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor). Both of
them have been in frequent use in industrial applications since early eighties. The VSC
commutates with high frequency (not with the net frequency). The operation of the converter
is achieved by Pulse Width Modulation (PWM). With PWM it is possible to create any phase
3 angle and/or amplitude (up to a certain limit) by changing the PWM pattern, which can be
done almost instantaneously. Thus, PWM offers the possibility to control both active and
reactive power independently. This makes the PWM Voltage Source Converter a close to
ideal component in the transmission network. From a transmission network viewpoint, it acts
as a motor or generator without mass that can control active and reactive power almost
instantaneously.

The link can control phase and frequency of the whole Australian grid. This is only the start.

Look on the map and have a look where the link would pass thorough.  The desert areas have an average of between 8 and 9 sun hours per day - every day of the year.  If Concentrating Solar Power plants where set

up along the route of the HVDC link then thousands of megawatts of renewable solar power could be generated and used in both Eastern Australia and Western Australia.  Also as explained before the power is 2 hours out of phase.  Eastern Australia's solar power plants could supply Western Australia's 8:00 am peak and Western Australia could supply Eastern Australia's 6:00pm peak.

Have another look at the map where the link could travel through.  Apart from going across the Great Australian Bight which is a prime wind site where thousands of wind turbines could be situated it also neatly solves the transmission problems for the Hot Dry Rock resource of South Australia.  With construction of such a large HVDC link the extra link to the Cooper Basin would be easy to do and then we have a huge baseload of clean geothermal power to draw on.

Finally there exists one more technology that has the potential to change renewable power in Australia linked to the HVDC link and that is Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage or SMES.  This is basically coils of High Temperature Superconductor that are wound in a large coil and can store vast amounts of energy with almost no losses.  Read this from American Superconductor for working examples.  As we are using DC there does not need to be any conversion from AC to DC for storage and DC to DC conversion can be extremely efficient.  The wikipedia entry says this for large scale storage:

Size - To achieve commercially useful levels of storage, around 1 GW·h (3.6 TJ), a SMES installation would need a loop of around 100 miles (160 km). This is traditionally pictured as a circle, though in practice it could be more like a rounded rectangle. In either case it would require access to a significant amount of land to house the installation, and to contain the health effects noted below.

Now out on the Nullabor or even near Kalgoorlie you could lose a 160km loop without even trying.  Given say 2 of these, one near Perth and one near South Australia we could store 2 or 3 GWh of electricity indefinitely with only small losses and replace the operational reserve that is supplied with fossil fuels with clean storage.  This would also allow much greater clean reserves and allow much more renewable power to be connected that would not need as much storage so it would be cheaper.  Consider also that at both ends of the link would be advanced power converters, now with access to say 2 GW of storage and unlimited amounts of solar and geothermal generation.  These converters can act now as the heart of Australia's generating capacity leading to the possibility of Australia being completely renewable and needing no further coal plants or nuclear power plants for the distant foreseeable future.

The problems of such a link are mainly technical however what a magnificent engineering task it would be - another Snowy Mountains scheme.  The enormous advantages of easy large scale storage, connection of vast amounts of solar power in prime sun areas, wind in prime unpopulated wind areas and baseload geothermal power gives the possibility of reaching a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050.   For the people without vision there is the nuclear option of 19th century thinking with the attendant problems of cooling water, proliferation, and unsolved nuclear waste disposal or even more of the same old coal with the problem of how do you pump 140 million TONS of CO2 into the ground every year.  In comparison the probably huge technical problems of a 2700km electricity distributor seem trivial.  At least there are no unsolved problems.  We may be also able to attract David Mills back to Australia to build the 1 GW CSP thermal plants along the route.

Everything You Wanted to Know About Australia's Electricity Supply

I found this web site today.  It is the National (well Eastern States anyway) Electricity Market Management Company or NEMMCO.  Apparently Australia's power generation system is now more in line with other modern countries that meet demand in 10 minute intervals and suppliers bid to supply electricity at whatever price is set at the moment.

It is extremely valuable as a source of real data.  When talking about renewable power I always need good data to make sure what I am saying is possible so here is the holy grail of information.

Why not start with this extremely interesting document An Introduction to Australia's National Electricity Market. 6th ed. and follow it up with this article on Semi-Despatchable Generation ie renewables.  Worth a read to understand the market and how it works.

What Does 60% Reduction of Greenhouse Gases Mean?

Labor is committed to a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by 60% by 2050.  This seems simple but what does it actually mean.  After getting pretty badly burnt on Bolty's blog after a stupid maths mistake that I had the misfortune to post before thinking about it I have been thinking about what it actually means to reduce greenhouse emissions by 60%.  BTW Just when you want Bolty to censor a post he doesn't.

First of all I read the policy wrong.  When I first heard of it and before I read it properly I thought that Labor had committed to reduce greenhouse emissions TO 60% of 2000 levels by 2050.  Note the word TO.  This to me means the following:

Assume 2000 levels are 20 units of GHG

Target would be 20 X 0.6 = 12 Units

Therefore Labor is committing Australia to a target of ensuring that emissions in 2050 are 12 Units of GHG.

So far so good however that is not the policy as was pointed out to me in Bolty's blog.  The policy states in the document "National carbon capture mapping and infrastructure plan":

Cutting Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent on 2000 levels by 2050

Note the work BY which is the critical difference from what I thought was a sensible thing.  To illustrate:

Assume 2000 levels are 20 Units of GHG

Target would be 20 - (20*.6) = 8 Units - a much smaller target

So Labor is committing Australia to ensure that GHG emissions in 2050 are 8 Units which is a pretty big ask.  Now the final wrinkle in this is that the wording of Labor's statements is not consistent - here is another document "New Directions for Australia's Coal Industry" that contains :

To mitigate the consequences of climate change, Federal Labor is committed to reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, and leading international efforts to reduce global emissions.

Notice the difference here.  No mention of 2000 levels at all so what does this mean?

Lets assume that that present emissions (2007) are 30 units and growing at about 1.5% per year.  In 2050 which is 43 years away these emissions should have doubled to 60 units.  Now does this policy, without the 2000 level caveat, mean now that the target is cutting emissions by 60% of the projected emissions of 2050 which would be:

Target is 60 - (60 *.6) = 24 Units

Or do we assume that the previous policy statement is partly correct so the target is:

60 (2050 emissions) - 12 (60% of 2000 emissions) = 48 Units

This would be reducing the emissions in 2050 by 60% of the 2000 emissions which were 20 units (60% of 20 is 12).

Now 48 Units of GHG is a lot higher and more easily achievable target and could be claimed to be what the Labor Party was talking about all along.  Although my maths was a bit challenged in the blog exchange the Labor policy is, I think, deliberately vauge so they can weasel out of it later.  I would like to see them set a policy in stone and stick to it.  I am also really worried that in their desire to be elected they are emphasising Clean Coal too much.  It is going to be a noose around their necks after the election.

Why I Don't Like Biofuels

I posted this at the Oil Drum as a comment.

I think the strategy for the keepers of the status-quo is biofuels plus remaining oil for 20 years. This has the advantage of keeping the present profitable and predictable infrastructure in place while still delivering the driving lifestyle we are used to. The idea then is to transition to hydrogen over 20 years or so when the bugs are worked out of hydrogen fuel cell cars. Hydrogen like petrol/ethanol can be branded and sold at oil company outlets like today.

So the vision of the future for corporations is until 2027 or so the vast majority of us will fill up our IC cars with petrol or biofuel while hydrogen cars are developed. After practical fuel cell cars are on the road we will transition to these cars over 20 years or so all the while remaining faithful to the major car and oil corporations.

To those of us that envision a very different world where public transport is encouraged, cities are changed to be walkable and electric cars, some with IC engines, are interacting with a smart grid to enable 70% or 80% renewable power this static vision of the future is a anathema.

One of my biggest objections to biofuels apart from the environmental destruction they are causing and the false hope that they provide is that they are a method of continuing on our merry path without the changes that have to be made. To me they are the familiar and dangerous world of nuclear power, fossil fuels and large corporations that some people are trying to preserve at all costs.

Our own Prime Minister (Australia's John Howard) is desperately trying to force Australia down this path. This is a country with abundant solar and wind resources and some of the original innovators in renewables that his government has managed to send off shore through lack of investment. Instead of renewables and smart grids it is clean coal and subsides to Liberal voting farmers for biofuels from sugar cane.

To stop the threat of widespread nuclear power we need a method of allowing more renewable power to be added to the grid. V2G cars can be a part of this however biofuel cars, unless they are plug in hybrids, cannot. Conventional cars modified to biofuels definately cannot and if this is the vision of the future then V2G will never get off the ground leaving renewables stuck below 25% penetration and allowing the nuke people a free reign.

My objections to biofuels are many but most of all I fear them to be a part of the continuation of the status-quo.

Howard's Vision for 1920 - sorry 2020

Howard has a great vision for 2020 for Australia.  More coal and nuclear and forget renewables - what could they possibly bring you?

The study, commissioned by the German Environment Ministry, polled officials at 1,500 German renewable energy and environment technology firms. It won't be published until June at a European Union environment summit, but Roland Berger spokesman Stefan Schuessler provided United Press International with an excerpt Friday.

The world market for environmentally friendly products has a volume of roughly $1.3 billion, and that will double by 2020, the study said. The main drivers of this growth will be renewable energy generation and energy-efficiency technologies, thus handing Germany great chances for additional economic development.

Already, the country's renewable energy sector is among the most innovative and successful worldwide. Nordex, Repower, Enercon (all wind energy), SolarWorld and Conenergy (solar energy) -- renewable companies based in Germany -- dominate the world market. Every third solar panel and every second wind rotor is made in Germany, and German turbines and generators used in hydro energy generation are among the most popular worldwide.

Most companies in German told Roland Berger they want to hire more staff because they expect even more growth.

Nearly 800,000 people work in the German environment technology sector; an estimated 214,000 people work with renewables in Germany, up from 157,000 in 2004, an increase of 36 percent.

"Last year alone, the number of people employed in the German renewable energy sector grew by 24,000," German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said last month in Berlin. "This is a real success story."

I bet this study was done by Greenies wanting to push renewables and they made it up.  The only baseload power is coal or nuclear and cutting emissions costs jobs - keep repeating that mantra and then try to sell it to Germany Mr Howard.  They have plenty of coal.

For the true vision for 2020 look not further than this report.

Climate change threatens the human, economic, and environmental future of Australia. Temperatures are set to rise by up to 6°C by 2100 unless we act now. Even a 1°C rise would see drought increase by up to 70 per cent in NSW, and regular bleaching of over half of the Great Barrier Reef. The actions we take, or fail to take, in the next fi ve years will decide whether we cross the threshold of dangerous climate change.

Any plan for deep cuts in greenhouse emissions entails a major roll-out of renewable energy technologies. Countries around the world have introduced ambitious renewable energy targets to reduce emissions and ensure that they get a slice of the rapidly growing renewable energy market. Australia is missing this opportunity.

A 25 per cent by 2020 legislated renewable energy target would see Australia join the global clean energy revolution. Combined with medium energy effi ciency measures, the target would conservatively deliver:

1. 16,600 new jobs,
2. $33 billion in new investment,
3. 15,000 MW new renewable capacity,
4. 69 million tonnes reduction in electricity sector greenhouse emissions (almost as much as the total emissions from road transport), and
5. enough renewable electricity to power every home in Australia.

More than 17,000 Australians are already employed in renewable energy or energy efficiency, despite the lack of government support for these industries. A 25 per cent target would increase the number of clean energy jobs to over 33,000.

Australia has plentiful renewable energy resources, and a quarter of our electricity could easily be supplied by a mixture of hydropower, bioenergy, wind, and solar. This would prepare us for a further transition to clean energy after 2020.

With a 25 per cent renewable energy target, our electricity prices would still remain among the cheapest in the world. A 25 per cent target, coupled with medium energy effi ciency measures, would add around $64 to the average household annual electricity bill, or $1.25 per week. In contrast, current projections for business as usual electricity use could see average household electricity bills increase by $234 per year.

In order to make sure that we realise these benefits, Australia needs:
1 A national legislated target for 25 per cent of electricity to come from renewable energy by 2020.
2 A national target for zero electricity growth by 2010, followed by annual average reductions reaching at least 1.5 per cent by 2020, and supporting measures to achieve it.
3 Urgent amendment of National Electricity Market regulation so network expansion costs can only be passed on to consumers if companies demonstrate that demand management or energy efficiency are not alternatives.
4 A fixed price for solar PV electricity going into the electricity grid (called a ‘feed-in tariff’), sufficient to ensure householder investment.

In addition to the renewable energy and energy effi ciency targets, other actions will be required to reduce electricity sector emissions to 30% below 1990 levels. Introducing a price on carbon, improving the efficiency of fossil fuel power stations, signifi cantly increasing co-generation, and fuel switching will all be necessary.

I am sure that Howard will ignore it.  We can only hope the Rodent is thrown out next election.

A Hundred Years is Forever

Many times I have seen the phrase "There is enough of xvz resource to last a hundred years" which then seems to mean this will last forever.  People who say it tend to think that if it can last for a hundred years then this is OK and we can stop worrying about it just because it will last a hundred years.

This is a case in point.  Apparently a new study shows the the Gippsland oil and gas wells could store CO2 for the brown coal power stations

"Energy Minister Peter Batchelor says the study shows about half the state's CO2 emissions could be stored in the Gippsland Basin each year.

He says the basin could store most of the emissions from the Latrobe Valley power stations for the next 123 years.

"We've got well over 100 years of storage facility there for most of the carbon dioxide that's currently produced by our electricity generators," he said.

"What this is saying is that the future looks [good] for electricity generation and the use of brown coal in the Latrobe Valley.""

So problem solved!!!!  We can store all the CO2 for a hundred years here hooray!!!!!

What happens after 100 years??????????  I guess by then the Galactic Empire will have contacted us and solve all our problems.

Only a few minor problems remain like piping it and compressing it and other trivial problems.  Also I assume that the CO2 sink will accept CO2 for 123 years AT OUR PRESENT RATE OF EMISSIONS!!!!.  As our emissions are increasing exponentially then this storage will shrink at the same rate.

What is it about us that we think a problem is solved if dealing with it can be put off for a hundred years.  Why can't we solve it permenantly by moving to solar energy and living within our means rather than burning the candle at both ends and then getting upset when it does not last forever.

The Question is Why???

The coal mining government is giving $100 million to a coal fired power plant.  The question is why?

The Federal Government is contributing $100 million to help build a new power station in Victoria's Latrobe Valley.

Australian energy company HRL will build the new $750 million, 400-megawatt power station.

The Member for Gippsland, Peter McGauran, says the new power station uses coal-drying technology and will cut the cost of electricity production.

Coal drying technology?  Is the plant going to sequester any carbon?

The Federal Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane, says the new power station will show the way forward for the state's coal-fired power industry.

But he says commercial scale low-emission technology will take another 10 to 15 years to come on line.

"As we move forward with new power stations employing this technology or the black coal low-emission technology we're using in black coal power stations in northern Queensland and New South Wales, we will see a very significant reduction in greenhouse gas," he said.

No it seems not - so the question remains is why is the government, enamored of the free market, subsidising what is in essence a normal coal plant.  Yes it has coal drying however will this result in the 30% saving that the government is trumpeting - I think not.

A bit of research shows that this American technology already fitted to a power station in the US has the following savings:

Drying the coal increases its heating value, and that means that less coal is needed to generate the same amount of energy. Less flue gas is also emitted which reduces the workload on other equipment in the plant, such as fans.  The result is an estimated increase in efficiency at the Coal Creek Station of about 5 percent - a very significant improvement in plant performance and cost savings.

The first dryer has been supplying processed lignite to one of the seven pulverizers for a 546 MW unit at the station for several weeks. Early estimates show that with just one pulverizer using dried coal, the stack flow rate from the unit decreased one percent, boiler efficiency increased 0.3 percentage points, pulverizer power consumption decreased 4.5 percent, sulfur oxide emissions fell 2.0 percent, nitrogen oxide emissions decreased 8.5 percent, and carbon dioxide emissions decreased 0.34 percent.

So they think that this technology is going to increase efficiency 5%!!!!  The drop in emissions is, with one dryer operation is 0.34% so with all the dryers going then we could expect 3% to 4% decrease in CO2 emissions.  This is a pretty long way from 30%.

From the original article:

The Member for Gippsland, Peter McGauran, says the new power station uses coal-drying technology and will cut the cost of electricity production.

"It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 per cent, use half as much water as is currently the case and at the same time reduce power costs to consumers by some 30 per cent, all the time securing the future of brown coal as base-load electricity for the state of Victoria," he said.

"Nothing frustrates extreme greens as much as new technology that shows that coal can still produce baseload electricity whilst meeting community expectations in regard to reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and savings on water."

No Mr McGaurin greenies such as myself get frustrated with the coal mining government continued and possibly corrupt pork barreling support for the coal industry when projects like this get three quarters the money and emit no greenhouse emissions at all.

The government said it would contribute A$75 million towards the cost of the photovoltaic solar power plant in the first of a series of projects aimed at reducing the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.

This is while introducing a completely new type of power plant where this new coal plant is a slight modification of a type that goes back to the 1800s.

Drying brown coal only reduces it unspeakably large carbon output from the massive to the very bad.  Solar, wind and tidal/wave emit no greenhouse emissions and with storage could replace these aging dinosaur baseload plants with flexible local generation.

 

A Rant on Energy and Economics

In the thread "Hair Shirts" on John Quiggin's excellent blog I postulated that energy is different from other resources. JQ said this:

"This is begging the question - that is, assuming what you are supposed to be proving. Of course energy is essential but so are water, air, labour, land, information, mineral resources and so on. All of these are in finite supply, and supply and demand for all them is driven by economic forces. There is nothing special about energy."

And I said I will have a think about.

So is Energy special?

After thinking about I decided yes that energy is special and economics does not create energy in any sense of the word it only exploits existing reserves and needs a particular combination of circumstances to exploit those reserves of which economics is only one small part.

So lets go back to the Romans.  JQ linked to evidence that Romans burned coal and yes they might of however they lacked the key thing - power converters.  Romans did not invent the absolutely critical power converters that convert heat energy from coal into mechanical energy to run things.  They used gravitational energy converters hydro power to mechanical energy schemes, fantastic in their complexity, to run their mills and factories. The Roman empire collapsed from many causes, without exploiting the billions of tons of coal underneath their feet that could have propelled their society to the same heights as our society.  They had a huge economic system and I am sure the price of energy went extremely high however it did not create energy in that economic system.

Lets turn to our society.  We are now reaching the limits of fossil fuels.  Our society has grown so large that it is in danger of exceeding even the fantastic power return of all the fossil fuels that we can turn into energy.  To go to the next level, if that is our destiny, we need a more energy.  Oil is running out and coal will follow in a hundred years or so.  Nuclear power the way we use it at present will last a few hundred years and leave millions of tons of dangerous waste for others to clean up.  Some say the future is fusion energy.  If the price of energy becomes high enough then we will create energy from fusion.  There is one huge problem - what if we can't?  What if no combination of present materials and knowledge can be combined to form a working fusion reactor?  In the middle ages people combined knowledge, economics, available materials and an energy resource to produce energy from coal.  At that time all such elements existed and the result was fossil fuel energy.  So now we are trying to combine economics, knowledge, available materials and a resource again to make fusion energy converters. Two vital things are missing however, knowledge and materials.  We do not know how to build a working fusion reactor despite 50 years of trying and even if we did the materials to build it do not exist yet.

To my mind energy is at the root of the tree.  It is true that there are many factors such as materials that are factors in economics however energy is embodied in each one.  If you want to build a house you have to assemble the labour, the materials however each of these has an energy component that is often overlooked.  How does the labour get to the workplace?  How do the materials get to the workplace?  In ancient times transport was a major factor as land transport was difficult and slow that is until modern times where fossil fuels and innovation made it cheap and easy.  JQ said "Of course energy is essential but so are water, air, labour, land, information, mineral resources and so on"  But neglected to mention that you cannot have any of the others without energy.  Water has to be pumped using energy, labour has to be fed and transported using energy, land has to be cleared using energy, information has to be obtained using energy, mineral resources have to be mined using energy.  Energy is at the root of all those other resources.  Before you say it minerals and the minerals to get us fossil fuels were mined with energy before fossil fuels.  They used solar energy in the form of animals, water power and human labour to get the coal.  It has been a bootstrap affair to get where we are now however energy is at the root of all of it.

Now as to economics creating energy.  Yes the price will drive people to innovate and exploit previously unused resources however that is glorifying the role of economics.  There are many other factors such as innovation, political conditions and that necessary face that the resource exists.  Economics did not create fossil fuel power for the Romans.  That was left to the peculiar combination of easily accessible coal, innovative thinkers in an innovative society, sufficiently advanced materials to make the power converters out of and an incentive to do so.  The incentive was removing water from deeper mineral seams and what was needed was a sufficiently powerful pumps to pump the water out.

Saying that economics creates energy is a gross oversimplification that leads to dangerous conclusions.  When we are confronted by the energy crisis we have now, this thinking leads to the conclusion that we do not have to worry about it as when the price rises high enough another energy source will be created by the magic of the free market. This completely ignoring the multitude of other factors that leads to the exploitation of a new energy source.  Renewable energy, no matter what the price, is not a suitable resource for our society the way it is now.  It is too diffuse and at present is not easily able to be converted into forms that our present society uses.  That is not to say that it is impossible, we can change our society to make renewable energy suitable.  However we would have to make major changes to transport and the way we use energy to enable this. 

Societies in the past and now are very resistant to change.  Most have collapsed rather than change.  We are looking for a new energy resource that will allow us to proceed the way we are now with no changes, and are expecting the magic of economics to deliver it. Our global economy built on fossil fuels, will collapse in its present form, if a new energy source with the same or better energy return is not discovered.  The alternative is to change to a lower energy society based on renewable energy.  This lower energy society is not proposed from people with hair shirts wanting to live in caves.  A lower energy society does not imply less technology, it implies vastly more efficient technology that wastes a lot less.  It also implies transport based on electricity instead of oil.

Quite apart from the energy concerns this present society's profligate energy use is leading to another serious problem - Climate Change.  The greenhouse emissions from all the energy conversion we do is going to change the climate in ways we cannot predict.  There are two pressing reasons to change.  One is that the fossil fuels we use are limited and at present we do not have a suitable substitute.  Secondly the way we use energy may change the climate.  Changing to suit renewable energy solves or mitigates BOTH of these problems.  Renewables are greenhouse free and to all intents and purposes limitless.  However, as before,  I believe that our society will collapse rather than change.

Any One Else See the Hypocrisy Here???

First the good news.  Roughly 6 years after a report in 2001 where thousands of eminent climate scientists warned that human emissions are causing global warming, the lying rodent has finally got it with the release of AR4 this month:

Prime Minister John Howard has used the release of an international report on global warming to argue Australia should use nuclear power to generate electricity.

A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in Paris found global warming would continue for centuries and was very likely man-made.

Mr Howard said on Saturday the report was the latest and strongest confirmation that greenhouse gas emissions were damaging the earth's environment.

"What it tells all governments, including the Australian government, is that we must continue measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Mr Howard told reporters at his Sydney residence Kirribilli House.

That's great - it has only taken him 6 years, pretty quick for a conservative.  But here is the bad news:

"We must do it in a way that does not unfairly hurt or damage the Australian economy and destroy Australian jobs.

"We must be open-minded and courageous enough to look at all of the options, including nuclear power.

"There is no point, in the face of such a comprehensive challenge, of ruling out consideration of something which may over time provide part of the solution to the problem."

So we must look at ALL the possible options says Mr Howard which means we cannot rule out any of them.  Hmmm thats a bit funny considering this statement in the same report:

Mr Howard said Australia could not meet its energy needs by relying on solar and wind power and should therefore look at the nuclear option as coal power became more expensive.

"You can't run power stations on solar and wind," he said.

"Let's be realistic, you can only run power stations in a modern Western economy on fossil fuel, or in time, nuclear power.

"And as time goes by and we make the fossil fuels cleaner, that will make them dearer to operate, and therefore there'll be a greater opportunity and competitive situation for nuclear power."

Really Mr Howard??  Is that what the coal and nuclear industry is whispering in your ear???  So your position is that you cannot rule out ANY options to solve your suddenly discovered concern for global warming BUT you are completely ruling out renewables and energy efficiency.

So what you are saying is that we cannot rule out anything that your industry whores, the ones that you surround yourself with, are pimping to you as the saviors of the world but you can rule out any threat to  these same whores like energy efficiency or renewable power.

Where are the incentives for the renewable industry here?  Small wonder all our really top people are moving overseas.  When the Prime Minister of Australia gets up and says that only fossil fuels or nuclear can power a modern western society despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary is just basically corruption bordering on criminal.

Perhaps you should get one of your people, ones that can read obviously, to read this report from the US:

The various contributions for the year 2030 total between 1,000 and 1,400 MtC/yr (with amid-range value of about 1,200 MtC/yr),which would be on target to achieve carbon
emissions reductions of between 60% and more than 80% from today’s value by 2050. The carbon reductions in 2015 range from 375 to 525 MtC/yr, with a mid-range value of 450 MtC/yr.

How much renewable electricity does this represent relative to what is needed? The current U.S. annual electric output is 4,038 terawatt-hours (TWh), and the EIA business as-usual (BAU) projection is a value of 5,341 TWh by 2030 of which 4,900 TWh is from fossil fuels. The energy efficiency paper estimates an annual savings of 980 TWh in 2025, which we conservatively extrapolate at an economic growth rate of 1.2% per year (the EIA BAU growth rate) to 1,038 TWh in 2030. This leaves a total electric energy generation in 2030 of 5,341 TWh – 1,038 TWh = 4,303 TWh. The following table lists the annual electricity generation in TWh for the various renewable energy technologies:

Technology                          Annual Renewable Electricity        Percent of Grid
                                          in 2030 (TWh)                               Energy in 2030
Concentrating Solar Power     300                                                  7.0
Photovoltaics                        300                                                  7.0
Wind                                    860                                                20.0
Biomass                               355                                                 8.3
Geothermal                           395                                                 9.2
Total                                  2,208                                               51.5

Summing the renewable electricity contributions results in about 50% total grid penetration (after accounting for efficiency improvements) in 2030. This is significantly higher than a commonly stated goal of “30% by 2030,” but this may not account for a reduction in electric energy production from aggressive efficiency measures. The total renewable electricity contribution above would represent about 40% of the EIA electricity projection without accounting for our efficiency improvements. This may seem
high, but it is consistent with what is needed to mitigate climate change with renewables. If all these renewables were deployed together, because they would compete against each other, the total potential would be somewhat less than shown here. On the other hand, the various renewables occur in different regions and apply to different sectors. The map in Figure 28 shows how energy efficiency and the various renewables covered in the study could be distributed throughout the United States. Concentrating solar power uses direct solar radiation in desert regions to supply electricity at the busbar and peaks in the early
evening due to 6 hours of storage. It can also be augmented with natural gas to improve dispatchability. PV on buildings uses total solar radiation in populated areas to provide electricity on the demand side and, with no storage, peaks earlier in the day. Wind often
provides greater energy at night than during the day and was competed against CSP in the market penetration model. Biomass and geothermal provide base load power. Biofuels,of course, compete against gasoline. Even if a rigorous integrated market penetration model was currently available, it might not necessarily give the correct mix of technologies. There will be some interest in maintaining a diverse portfolio of renewable options aside from purely economic considerations, and we are already seeing this with many state renewable portfolio standards. The electric production technologies each had limited grid penetrations, with wind being the highest at 20%. However, at some times of the year, the combined renewable electric output could be enough to impact base load
power production, which often cannot be rapidly turned down, so further analysis of an integrated renewable energy mix is needed. These studies did not consider ocean power or thermal energy from renewables. Solar industrial process heat and solar
heating/cooling could potentially provide additional carbon reductions. Although the studies included six-hour thermal storage for concentrating solar power (thermal storage is relatively inexpensive), they did not include electrical storage (e.g., batteries for PV or
adiabatic compressed air energy storage for wind). Also, the studies did not consider superconducting transmission lines, which would allow wind power to be distributed
over larger distances and could allow concentrating solar electricity to be exported outside the Southwest. Finally, we did not consider the various forms of ocean energy because there is currently very little work on these technologies in the U.S. All of these could
increase the carbon reduction potentials in 2030 above those estimated in this report.

What is says is that given a chance energy efficiency could stabilise energy demand by 2030  which then means that renewables could supply up to 50% of the electricity demand of the US. 

Is it just me or does anyone else see the rankest form of hypocrisy when Howard can in one sentence say that we cannot rule out any options, to let in nuclear, yet a few sentences later, without any apparent thought, completely rule out renewables as unable to power a western society.

Smart Move - Could be Done Here

This is a very easy method of reducing electricity consumption by about 10%.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.

"Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of the energy they receive into light."

Levine is expected to introduce the legislation this week, his office said.

Of course it is happening in California however this in perhaps something for Mr Garrett to introduce a bill.  It may not get up but at least it would put the coal mining government into start relief.