- 12 June 2004
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government has released the latest environmental policies in the White Paper. Unfortunately the White Paper is not quite as green as it should to excite the environmentalists. In it, the Government has effectively admitted that the non-renewable fossil fuel sources such as diesel are here to stay and will be used for the coming years because the existing renewable energy sources are not substantial enough and sufficiently reliable to power the business economy. As Mr Howard put it:
'For the foreseeable future, coal, oil and gas will meet the bulk of Australia's energy needs.' (1)
Therefore the only viable solution to the greenhouse gas problem is to focus heavily on a thing called geo-sequestration — the capturing, liquefying and hiding underground for thousands of years of carbon dioxide gases emitted by coal-fired power stations. An idea affectionately known among environmentalists as the sweeping of an environmental problem under the carpet. To reduce the blow this admission would have on the public, the Government has made a big deal about the incentives to be provided to existing polluting industries to acquire more environmentally-friendly technologies into their operations in return for lower costs for diesel and other non-renewable energy sources. Well, at least the Government has chosen to reward people to do the right thing instead of punishing them. The only problem with this approach is that once new technologies are introduced (if businesses choose to do so) is that there would be no upper limit to how much more non-renewable energy sources can be used. Once the businesses have the new technologies, they will simply expand their operations knowing the cost of, say, diesel is lower and this will eventually counteract any reduction in greenhouse gases through the new technologies. It is either that or the Government will have to spend more money hiding the greenhouse gas problem underground. At the end of the day, the environmental policies released by the Federal Government is more about maintaining or increasing the production output of current polluting industries in return for a healthy Australian economy (so the Government can maintain power at the next election if enough people are happy in having a job with local industries) rather than a concerted effort to force industries to change their practices and train people to do different things of a more environmentally-friendly nature.
On the positive side, the Government has been extremely careful not to ignore the more sustainable and renewable energy sources such as solar (-thermal) energy and wind power generators. The Low-Emission Technology Fund (LETF) of around A$500 million over 15 years will be provided to companies wanting to research ways of reducing carbon emissions and perhaps introduce more renewable energy sources (much of this money would go towards clean coal technology). Basically peanuts every year compared to the generous money being spent in Defence to fight the war on terrorism and act as a deterrent against the enemy. And oil companies spend billions to find new underground deposits. However forcing industries to reach a Mandatory Renewable Energy Target of around 5 per cent has been shelved by the Government in favour of maintaining existing levels of 1 to 2 per cent.
To add to the insult on renewable energy solutions, there is evidence the Prime Minister wants to see the end of all renewable energy sources in favour of non-renewable types so he can help his friends make more money in the non-renewable gas company at Manildra, Australia. As Ms Kirsten Sharman of Ainslie in Canberra couldn't help noticing:
'Pardon the cynicism regarding the PM's energy statement. But is this the same John Howard who had the Energy Research and Development Corporation (ERDC) on a "hit-list" when he came to government, axing it within days of assuming office I seem to recall?
'ERDC had a large portfolio of research into virtually all of the renewable energy and energy efficient options the PM has just "discovered".
'Unfortunately, that research (and the underlying capacity) withered on the vine or went offshore to nations with more enlightened or farseeing governments.
'A shame about the eight years of valuable lead time lost in getting ahead of the game in renewable energy technologies.
'And is this the same PM who oversaw the failure of the Solar Energy CRC in its bid a few weeks ago — because its research did not meet the criteria of commercial and national interest? And is this the same PM who has persistently ignored sensible calls to have the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target increased by a measly 2 per cent, to provide impetus to research and capital expenditure on renewable energy?
'And dare I mention the bucket-loads of taxpayers' money the PM shunted to his "mates" at Manildra instead of to an organisation like ERDC who would have made good use of it. Where is the return on that public expenditure?
'And if geo-sequestration of carbon dioxide is a make-or-break issue for coal-based industries, shouldn't they be footing the bill if the same user-pays principle is applied that the PM espouses for others such as university students?
'This cynical, mean and tricky vote-buying attempt will be remembered for what it is in the election the PM is now sweating on.' (2)
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
19 June 2004
Possibly as a sign that the Federal (Howard) Government has not done enough to convince Australians the authorities are doing everything in their powers to help the environment, expensive television advertisements are being shown at taxpayer's expense (imagine how the money could have been spent on protecting the environment, recycling wastes and finding renewable energy sources) suggesting the Government is putting more money into the environment than since the start of Federation in 1900. Maybe this is true. However, world temperatures continue to rise as the Government (and the Labor opposition) intends to build another 15 or so new fossil-fuelled power stations in the next 15 years. As West Australian Treasurer Eric Ripper explained the rationale behind this move:
'Our goal is to guarantee long-term security and reliability of electricity supply with a balance of gas- and coal-fired generation.' (3)
Shouldn't the balance be with renewable sources as well until such time as the renewable sources can replace the non-renewable ones? Apparently not according to the chief executive of the Energy Supply Association of Australia, Brad Page. As Mr Page explained it:
'There is no proven renewable technology available today that would be cost-competitive with fossil-fuel sources and you simply couldn't build enough renewable power sources to meet that sort of demand growth.
'Short of shutting down our economy, we are going to continue to have reliance on fossil-fuel-based generation for electricity, and the growth will be very substantial.' (4)
To put it simply, it is unlikely enough energy companies will research and introduce some form of renewable energy technology. Unless the Government decides to make the cost of non-renewable energy more expensive than renewable types through taxes, it is unlikely businesses will choose to move to renewable sources based on this bottom-line approach.
It is either that, or those other companies putting in so many extra features in electrical and electronic appliances such as laptops resulting in a greater demand for power in return for selling more products to consumers will have to be curtailed somewhat.
Or, perhaps there should be a reduction in human population levels to lower energy demands. Now would this be a better solution to the energy problem? If the government can't or won't solve the population issue, could the government give incentives for companies to introduce a range of more environmentally-friendly low-powered and durable devices capable of being run under the power of their own solar cells or have a built-in renewable energy technology. If the government needs a little inspiration, how about the patented radio wave-(from free-to-air radio and television stations)-to-electricity converter circuit by Sir Raymond Phillips?
- Even if certain renewable energy sources such as wind turbines are employed to meet energy demands, the shear size and number of these sources must be tremendous. The incredible numbers of people and also the power-hungry nature of those feature-full appliances are forcing some businesses and governments to approve and supply very ugly, oversized and sometimes noisy wind turbines or other energy sources (known as visual and auditory pollution to those living near the wind turbines).
NOTE: Because businesses running wind turbines have to make a profit, the basic power station and lines to distribute the electricity from many turbines is often built in a cheap and messy "above-ground" manner and the location is sometimes too close to residential areas.
As rural resident Anne MacKenzie said after regreting to allow a company to install 15 of the 35 turbines on her property at Arafat's Challicum Hills wind farm:
'I got into it for green reasons, but I was naive. Our farm is now an industrial site, with a substantial road running through it, as well as power lines, less trees, workpads pressed into the hills, an ugly substation and a passing parade of workers.
'The business imperatives overrule the environmental ones. If we just put wind towers everywhere so we can use energy with impunity, then we haven't made any progress at all. The problem with the focus on renewable energy is that it has lessened the impetus to conserve and clean up the energy we already do use.' (van Tiggelen, John. An ill wind blowing: The Sydney Morning Herald (Weekender supplement). pp.23-24.)
This is despite the financial incentive of A$5,000 to A$15,000 paid to her every year for each wind turbine built on her property.
Money is not the issue. It is clearly in the amount of energy human beings use which is the issue. There must be ways to reduce the energy requirements.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
30 January 2005
Apart from suggestions made by an American energy expert that perhaps the wind turbines can be built next to major power lines in areas not populated by people, it seems the latest solution from the private wind companies supplying wind turbines is to keep quiet and force people who own the land where turbines are built to sign a confidentiality agreement. As former secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia John Coombs said after hearing plans to build a wind farm in his small bush community not from from Goulburn:
'I've never encountered so much secrecy. There are confidentiality agreements in place, and people are suspicious of one another.
'And there has been nothing to guide us, as councillors, on how we should approach this issue; how we should be making big decisions on such developments...and whether they are good for the community and the environment.' (5)
Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources Mr Craig Knowles says he will intervene on the future of any proposed wind farm in Australia. While supporting the need for more energy, Mr Knowles officially promises he will "seek to site them [wind farms] sensitively in landscapes that are appropriate."
In the meantime the increase in community anger over the placement of commercial wind farms has forced the Australian Wind Energy Association to bring in the Australian Council of National Trusts to conduct a "landscape assessment" and write guidelines on how to better locate the wind turbines. The move has been well received by local communities.
But there is not doubt about one thing: even though private wind companies are trying to do the right thing and learning to be careful what to say about where wind farms should be situated, the pressure is on for the companies to make a profit by building them. To further exacerbate the problem, the International Climate Change Taskforce for G8 countries has called for the rich countries to provide 25 per cent of its energy needs through renewable sources.
With so much concerns about visual and auditory pollution of certain renewable energy sources such as wind turbines, wouldn't it make a whole lot of sense to build circuits to convert radio waves to electricity? For a start, we don't need power generators of any sort. The radio and television stations are already providing the energy in the radio waves. All we need is the incentive from technology companies to build the circuits to plug into any electrical and electronic device to tap onto this radio wave energy.
There is no limit to how many devices can tap onto this energy (how many radio receivers are there today that can pick up energy from a radio station and convert it into audible sounds?). This technology is truly the most efficient and cheapest solution on the planet.
Only one problem: how would electricity companies measure how much electricity a person extracts from radio waves? Until this problem is solved, the technology is expected to be renegaded to the Patent Office hidden under millions of other patents?
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
June 2004
The Arts are increasingly funding research into sustainable energy with claims the visual artist John Reid has established The National Environment Bank in 2002 to finance sustainable energy solutions. This is no accident. The Arts has a particularly long history of coming to the forefront of people's minds in times when people are not struggling to survive, working long hours for L-brain bosses, or fighting wars for L-brain people. When people have what they need and can relax, the creativity side of people start to come out to create artworks and to show an interest in other people's artworks. For this to happen once more, some artists are starting to see the benefit of true recycling in the area of sustainable energy.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
29 April 2006
As some governments contemplate approving large-scale over-sized wind generators in places slightly away from the residential areas of cities and towns, the technology is quickly becoming obsolete. The problem problem is clearly the eye-sore this technology represents. As governments think big means better, some countries such as Finland are using much smaller, noiseless, attractive-looking and less innocuous wind turbines for generating electricity. The design of these new turbines are so cleverly incorporated into, say, a street light pole or the roof of a house that hardly anyone notices they exist or, if they do, many people may not realise they are generating electricity.
In Australia, governments may be considering introducing large-scale versions of wind turbines much to the disgust of country folks living nearby. In Europe (outside the UK), governments are actually phasing out traditional large-scale wind farms in favour of versions that can be incorporated inconspicuously and directly to the item requiring the power at a much smaller scale. And now in Finland, a company is successfully making small wind turbines to "work in harmony with nature".
As the Finnish company Windside said on its official web site:
'Due to the Windside unique spiral vane shape and the fact that the rotation does not exceed wind speed, they are totally soundless.
'There is no low resolution hum. Even when rotating, they appear as solid objects, so birds do not fly into them. The device is safe to people, animals and nature.' (Beeby, Rosslyn. Future of wind farms lies in smart technology: The Canberra Times. 29 April 2006, p.B3.)
It is good to that as other nations start to consider wind energy as a solution to the global greenhouse problems, Finland has actually finished the job of what every should have done years ago by introducing smaller turbines.
It is time to take notice of Finland's excellent technological solution.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
27 May 2006
Supporters of wind power are having a go at the detracters claiming the people who don't want large wind turbines even in rural areas are those with the "not-in-my-back-yard" mentality. If so, one should ask the supporters whether they would be happy to have one in their own back yard. They must sleep like a log.
Also supporters have not explained the true running and maintenance costs of a large-scale wind turbine. Admittedly it might be less than coal-fired power stations, but wouldn't it be better to have small-scale wind turbines to power the items requiring the electricity (eg. light poles, domestic homes etc)?
- The human population continues to increase and demand more energy. Consumer choices for products such as energy-hungry plasma televisions, multiple desktop computers, fridges and power tools demand more energy than ever before. For the countries that use oil for energy, this means an increasing consumption for oil. As Chevron, the parent of Caltex, said on its web site in September 2005:
'Energy demand is soaring and driving economic growth. And improved standards of living are requiring increasing amounts of energy. Some say that in 20 years the world will consume 40 per cent more oil than it does today.' (Connolly, John. Cane-enabled Brazil driven to drink as petrol price races towards $4 a litre: The Australian (Business Section). 24-25 September 2005, p.41.)
Humans are using 84 million barrels of oil a day and is expected to rise to 118 million barrels a day by 2020.
On the other side of the coin, world oil production is in decline. Of the total 48 countries in the world producing oil, 33 of them are facing a decline in oil production. Politicians and business professionals are taking greater risks and expense to extract oil deeper and further away than ever before.
Demand for oil in China and India has already doubled in 2005.
As world governments claim there is nothing they can do to reduce oil prices (but continue to maintain their portion of the tax earned from the sale of oil) and yet still pretend to the consumers there is an abundance of oil to maintain the economies of the world, a respected senior trader from the New York Mercantile Exchange who wanted to remain anonymous said:
'We have been squandering oil for too long. Most of us believe that over the next 15 years oil will only head one way. We are in a once-in-a-century boom. The last time the economy looked like this was before World War I when the US was the world's economic driver like China is now.
'There's no way supply will meet demand and there won't be an alternative available in time.' (Connolly, John. Cane-enabled Brazil driven to drink as petrol price races towards $4 a litre: The Australian (Business Section). 24-25 September 2005, p.41.)
The trader said in no uncertain terms the price of oil will reach US$200 a barrel in the not too distant future. Possibly in the next two years.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
27 August 2006
The oil companies are claiming the reason for the increasing oil prices is because consumers were getting it too good and now the companies need the money to search for more oil, believing another oil field the size of Saudi Arabia is waiting in wings in some unexplored region of the world. And even if there isn't, humans are highly adaptible enough to find alternative technology to maintain our economy.
Other observers don't entirely agree claiming all the regions of the world have been searched and oil companies are relying on much smaller oil fields previously thought to be uneconomical for drilling a few years ago until the recent price hike. But the most concerning thing of all is that society is not prepared for the age when oil will be so expensive that people must find alternative ways of surviving.
The worse case scenario is that people could suddenly find themselves living in a new depression greater than 1929 unless we get on with the job of finding alternative technologies and changing our way of living.
Have we reached peak oil throughout the world? If we haven't reached it by now, observers believe we will definitely reach it by 2015. Yet the oil executives publicly claim that there will always be oil. Yes, there will always be oil, but how much will it cost the consumers to have it extracted and sold?
It is a bit like convincing politicians there is such a thing as global warming. Perhaps eventually enough people will come to realise the same reality when oil starts to run out.
- A French and an Australian research team are testing the final prototype for a compressed air engine. The engine will be light enough to carry in your hand and yet powerful enough to tow a horse float. Refilling the tank with compressed air will cost around $2 and can travel up to 4,500 kilometres on a single tank. Waste product is pure air. Do we have enough time to break old habits and choose a cleaner technology? And we don't mean cleaning up the car to achieve a cleaner technology!
NOTE 1: We may also need to change this macho image of guys wanting to have the biggest and/or fastest cars in the district in favour of smaller cars with a cleaner technology, a more sensible speed (society does want them to reach the destination safely), and greater distance travelled. Perhaps an advertising campaign to show how macho it is to travel no faster than 90km/h in an environmentally-friendly small car that can travel thousands of kilomteres before needing a refill would be required. We can see it now: A big, muscular guy in a deep and low voice emerges from a tiny car after travelling 4,500 kilometres and asks, "Fill 'er up, mate!".
NOTE 2: The bigger you are, the more energy is required to move it. It is likely the future mucho person will be small, thin and probably with a big head to show it can learn and adapt to cleaner technology. Welcome to the future for humanity!
- Brazil is taking charge and building a brighter future for itself and the planet by making ethanol from sugar cane, modifying cars to accept ethanol, and mixing ethanol and gasoline to the right percentage. As a result, the nation's demand for oil imports has dropped from 80 per cent in the 1970s to 10 per cent in 2005.
So what's keeping Australia, US and the UK from doing the same? Is it because there is a risk of losing money for the politicians heavily investing in oil companies?
NOTE: Some Australian politicians are investing in ethanol-producing companies. But in order to keep the economy going with regular purchases of new cars and car repairs (and lower the cost of producing petrol while selling at the same high price to consumers), some politicians and companies are choosing not to tell consumers ethanol has been blended with gasoline at frightfully high concentrations.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
10 June 2006
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government is preparing all it can to receive its fair share of tax revenue from the ethanol industry by making the industry pay some excise. Perhaps all this in preparation for introducing Australia's first pure-ethanol cars? On hearing about the tax, people in the ethanol industry are kicking up a stink claiming the excise tax will kill off the industry. Other people aren't too sure saying that even if the excise is added, it will still be 25.5 cents a litre cheaper than petrol.
As this debate rages on, motoring magazines promote the latest 3-tonne 4WD vehicles while 4WD manufacturers claim on television adverts their big diesel 4WD vehicles can travel over 1,200 kilometeres on a single tank of diesel fuel. What is not revealed in the advertise is exactly how efficient the engines are on the basis of kilometres travelled per litre of the fuel and how big the fuel tanks are. So yes, you could travel 1,200 kilometres on a single tank of fuel, but you probably have to spend A$120 or more to fill it up. Is diesel in a 3-tonne 4WD any better for the environment than say a small Honda car using standard petrol?
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
10 July 2006
Demand for oil is pushing oil prices higher. Soon demand will outstrip supply as China and India import more and more oil for their growing economies. World peak oil is definitely going to be reached by 2010 if not sooner. And the world is not ready to find and implement alternative technologies before the economies of the world grind to a stop because oil will become too expensive for families and small businesses.
Another factor increasing oil price is the cost of the investment to find oil reserves, build oil rigs and drill for the black gold.
The coming of the 1930s recession is almost here because the world is not ready to handle the shortage of oil. Unless the Gulf Arab countries can massively increase oil production and export to last another 20 years (current evidence suggests it is unlikely as many oil fields in the Middle East have past peak oil, including possibly the more secretive Saudi Arabia), then the end of the oil age is close at hand.
Interestingly Saudi Arabia is not permitting international observers to audit their oilfields. Saudi Arabia is claiming the number of barrels of oils remain high and will increase production in the future. But independent observers believe the cost of the oil will increase as a sign that peak oil has reached in this Arab country.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
14 July 2006
One solution to minimising the impact on the economies in a world where oil is too expensive for average consumers and most small businesses:
- Business professionals and governments finalise the technology to allow enough people to work from home. The technology must be secure, fast, reliable and useful in terms of the software tools to allow people to communicate and perform their work in collaboration with others at work, or to work on their own.
NOTE: There are three environmentally-sustainable options available for living:
(i) Are you living in the outer fringes of a sprawling metropolitan city? Does it take too long and/or is expensive to commute to work in the city because the public transport infrastructure is not the best? Youand the environment would be far better off working from home.
(ii) Already you already living in the centre of the city? Then walk or cycle to work and other venues. Leave your car at home or in specially designated areas set aside by city council. Learn to live in densely-populated apartment blocks.
(iii) Your final option is to move out of the city and learn to live more simply and frugally. Possibly get a lower-paid job in a local town. Choose a property with good natural freshwater supply and consider growing your own food. Not enough water? Consider a move to subtropical areas where there is likely to be more water. If necessary, you should consider creating a new system of living where you can have less reliance on the economy. Or else try to work from home.
- People are giving extra time to grow their own food in their front and backyards. Soon people form communities with neighbours. Decisions are made to break down fences, reclaim valuable land from unused or rarely used roads for food production, and start building a large-scale permacultural system of growing vegetables, fruit and livestock.
- Owning homes for the exclusive use of one family may become a thing of the past as people learn to swap homes instead of selling and buying to allow those people who need to travel to work to be much closer while others can enjoy a welcome change in scenery before moving back or going to another house. This would allow other options for travel (eg. walking, cycling etc) for those who have to attend work outside of home.
- Owning cars for the exclusive use of one family may also become a thing of the past as people learn to find alternative forms of transport (eg. walking and cycling). The only cars to be used will be for communal purposes to pick up additional supplies from more distant locations.
- The only traffic allowed on the roads would be trucks to deliver goods (although a railway system would be more efficient and better) and a few cars licensed for communal purposes to obtain essential supplies.
- Each suburb and small town becomes a village with a central hub for families to walk or cycle for additional supplies, for children to attend a school for education (or could learn from home), meet friends from further afield within the village or invite new individuals and families who have moved into the village from elsewhere to participate in the community life and help people become self-sufficient. And in return, people help one another to achieve whatever goals will benefit humanity as a whole.
- As petrol prices increase, consumers are spending less and less on travelling around the country for a holiday and in buying unnecessary products from businesses in favour of running the car for going to work and purchasing food.
- The Australian Federal (Howard) Government agreed 12 months ago to let the Northern Territory government enact new legislation preventing the dumping of nuclear waste anywhere in the state. Then in November 2005, it changed thanks to the Federal Government's decision to overturn the legislation. Why? The Government believes the only common sense solution to the global warming problem is to go down the yellow-cake road by building nuclear reactors. Only two problems: Where to put all the nuclear waste? And how can the reactors made safe from natural and man-made disasters?
Apparently the Northern Territory have the necessary strong anti-terrorist military property strongholds and the most isolated locations for safeguarding the material.
Combined this with a realisation the Government can make potentially considerable amounts of money by accepting nuclear waste from other countries and the economic benefits together with the attractiveness of Northern Territory as a dumping ground have become far too great for the Government to ignore.
Expect nuclear energy as the only viable solution to the energy demands of the current Western system in the eyes of a R-wing government.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
21 May 2005
The greatest guzzler of electricity for consumer electrical appliances appears to be the air conditioner. As more consumers have a love affair with this cold air blowing tool in the face of increasing warm temperatures in Australia, the NSW Government will approve expansion of coal-fired electricity plants and allow more coal power stations to be built. In return for this, new greenhouse targets for 2020 (not likely to meet Kyoto standards) and 2050 (will meet the same targets as proposed by UK Prime Minister Mr Tony Blair) must be met and a tougher regime will be in place to force the power industry to look for cleaner technology such as renewable sources and natural gas.
The upgrading of existing power plants such as the Mt Piper plant in Portland would allow an extra couple of years at most to meet consumer demands for electricity. Afterwards, new power plants are already on the drawing board and are likely to be approved next month.
All this because the human population levels are too high, there are too many businesses supplying power hungry appliances, not enough houses are being built to be solar-passive/natural cooling in design, too many new houses in the newer estates are being built to look like mansions, the power industry is too lazy and profit-motivated to look for alternative energy sources, and the cost of any other form of power generation is considered "emission impossible" according to Environment Reporter Wendy Frew of the Sydney Morning Herald due to the enormous costs (to build in quantity within reasonable time to meet current demands, although work should have began decades ago) or too dangerous (eg. nuclear power stations) and not likely to satisfy immediate consumer demands. Thus the only solution is to continue the way the Australian people are going at the moment.
It is the classic old Australian saying, "She'll be right mate!"
And we can be sure the world appreciates this attitude as the current climate change continues unabated. So as the R-wing authorities continue to argue the climate today is normal and we should accept it without doing anything to fix up the environment, consumers continue to purchase anything to make life comfortable with the money they can earn. Just as the R-wing doctor has ordered.
Talk about total lunacy?!
According to The Sydney Morning Herald, a draft of the white paper from the NSW Government was leaked revealing the new plan to handle consumer demands for electricity. As the paper states:
'Electricity consumption is forecast to grow at 2.2 per cent a year, with peak demand growing by 2.9 per cent a year. By 2014, 20 per cent of generating capacity will be needed for just 1 per cent of the time (less than 100 hours per year).
'Growing electricity demand is being driven by peak load growth, with air-conditioning responsible for more than half of peak load growth.' (Davies, Anne. More coal will burn to feed air-con frenzy: The Sydney Morning Herald. 21-22 May 2005, p.1 (1 & 4).)
Despite the draft status of the report, environmental groups weren't please. In which case, how about supplying consumers with a truck-load of condoms and rewards for putting in insulation into existing homes instead? A lower human population size and less electricity demands would help considerably, don't you think?
And why not give businesses a major incentive for producing the most energy-efficient electrical and electronic appliances in the industrial world? Come to think of it, get all small electrical appliances to be fully self-powered using solar energy or radio wave to electricity converters to help minimise burden on the electricity grid? Annual awards and extra funding from the Government would be a start.
Actually, Vodafone is trying to be sensible by introducing a solar-powered recharger for mobile phones called the Vodafone Soldius1. Approximately one hour of charging gives 30 minutes talk time. A fully recharged phone is achievable in 6 hours. All this in a modest PDA-sized (135mm long x 80mm wide x 10mm deep) device.
Thanks Vodafone, you've got our nomination for a renewable and independent energy-reliant product that doesn't burden the environment!
- For the sake of maintaining the current economic system, allowing the human population to increase, and finding a quick and practical solution to the energy crisis, governments have to consider nuclear energy as the only environmentally-friendly way to generating huge amounts of power.
For example, the NSW government has just realised extra coal-power generators will add enormously to the greenhouse problem making Australia one of the dirtiest and most polluting nations on Earth (coming at a time when in 2005 the NSW Premier Bob Carr is considering a desalination plant for Sydney in the near future to help solve the fresh water problem, yet another crisis to deal with). Hence the reason for considering nuclear power stations as a cleaner alternative.
The same is true of a select number of trusted nations able to support bilateral safeguard agreements with Australia in the use of uranium for peaceful purposes with news that Australian uranium prices are predicted to increase by 43 per cent over the next 12 months starting June 2005 because of the higher international demands for the product.
According to a submission from the Melbourne-based Uranium Information Centre:
'The significance and true value of uranium as a strategic and clean resource is only just beginning to be realised globally. The potential for Australia — with one-third of the world's uranium — is therefore enormous, particularly considering that the world is already reliant on nuclear power to supply 16 per cent of its electricity [from 440 fully-operational reactors as of June 2005], and the world's energy needs will likely double in the next 30 years.' (Streak, Diana. Exploding the uranium debate myths: The Canberra Times. 18 June 2005, p.B7.)
Naturally this statement assumes the current economic and social developments continue on their present course of continuous and never-ending growth.
Among the claims supporting nuclear energy include:
(i) Virtually no greenhouse gas emissions by way of carbon dioxide.
(ii) Australia can meet carbon reduction targets as set by the Kyoto Protocol if it decided to ratify it and not just sign it in principle.
(iii) Massive economic gains for Australia because of the international demand for uranium with business professionals talking in terms of 50 new nuclear power stations to be built by China, India and Japan alone.
(iv) The money earned from the sale of uranium will balance Mr Costello's budget books for Australia.
(v) Employing more people in the uranium industry, keeping the unemployment levels low.
In summary, nuclear energy is great for business and the government if it means making more money and to stay in political power while at the same time calm the fears of the public about global warming.
The case against nuclear energy include:
(i) Despite Professor George Dracoulis, head of the Department of Nuclear Physics at the ANU, stating:
'The normal operation of nuclear power station does not make material useful for bombs.' (Stephens, Andree. Our most power-ful debate yet: The Canberra Times. 27 May 2006, p.B2.)
it doesn't take much know-how or extra technology to figure out how to convert the low-level radioactive waste of nuclear energy in power stations into an enriched form for use in nuclear weapons. Thus the risk of nations deciding to develop nuclear weapons in secret or otherwise from the radioactive materials of a nuclear power station is great. In fact, selling uranium does not guarantee nations will not produce nuclear weapons and neither will it reduce the security concerns for humanity because of it.
(ii) After more than 60 years of research, no one has been able to find a solution to the nuclear waste problem. How do we neutralise the radioactive by-products? Or, if this is not possible, how do we store the waste safely (ie. away from fresh water supplies, beyond the reach of individuals or groups wanting to get their hands on it for negative purposes, and deep enough underground where in the event of a rare and big earthquake will not allow the material to escape into the air)?
(iii) The risk of terrorism, of poor or aging technology in nuclear power stations, or human error could see another Chernobyl disaster in the making with potentially hundreds of thousands of more people affected by the radioactive fallout for generations to come and not just a few dozen workers who might get killed, costing society more by way of health care and cancer research.
(iv) A greater burden on indigenous aboriginal Australians owning the uranium-rich land and the greater destruction of the environment to extract the uranium.
(v) Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is unlikely because humans still have to explore and mine for uranium and transport it to a nuclear power station. Then what happens when an old nuclear power station is decommissioned? What energy will be used to dismantle the station (or build it for that matter)? In most circumstances, it will have to involve greenhouse gases at some point in the process.
In summary, all the safeguards in the world can neither guarantee nuclear power will be used for peaceful purposes nor will it be one-hundred per cent safe in the event of an accident or a natural disaster. Nuclear power is an immediate government solution to a growing environmental problem of global warming. However it fails to address the long-term solution for the environment and terrorist problem and does not show a serious and concerted effort to research renewable energy sources or to search for a better socio-economic system that does not require continuous human and economic growth.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
27 May 2006
Leslie Kemeny, Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy, claims some generation-four nuclear power station prototypes already in development are much safer and smaller than traditional nuclear power stations. Kemeny said:
'They [latest generation nuclear power stations] have great safety advantages. They cannot melt down, they cannot do a Chernobyl under any condition and they are built in a terrorist-proof fashion.' (Stephens, Andree. Our most power-ful debate yet: The Canberra Times. 27 May 2006, p.B2.)
Because of these features, Kemeny will argue the case for nuclear power with a group of national miners in Canberra at the end of May 2006.
However, we should realise these fourth-generation nuclear power stations have yet to be built. And with all technological systems, everything has an "Achilles heal" so to speak. Can we be sure these new nuclear power stations will stop, say, a terrorist from destroying them? Or can we be sure an earthquake, tidal wave or meteorite will not cause a radioactive leak or fallout of the size seen at Chernobyl in 1986?
Kemeny claims the new reactor is perfect. Now really? Somehow we feel Kemeny is living in fairyland.
More questions need to be asked about these latest generation of nuclear power stations. Especially in the light of a confidential report by the Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development claiming in mid-May 2006 solar-thermal power stations would be cost-competitive with coal by 2013 and only 1.5 per cent of the world's desert area for collecting solar energy for this type of technology would be needed to satisfy the world's electricity demands. As the report stated:
'[Solar thermal technology was] poised to play a significant role in baseload generation for Australia.
'Solar radiation is the largest renewable resource on earth and, if harnessed by existing technology, approximately 1.5 per cent of the world's desert area could generate the world's entire electricity demand.' (Stephens, Andree. Our most power-ful debate yet: The Canberra Times. 27 May 2006, p.B2.)
Compared to the questions raised by nuclear technology, the report effectively answers all questions critics have made about the cost, inefficiencies and what happens when the sun doesn't shine. All is required is a government to show the intestinal fortitude to fund the development of a powerful, low-cost and environmentally-friendly solar-thermal industry to replace nuclear, coal, natural gas and wind.
NOTE: Solar-thermal technology will not solve the problem of what happens if the technology is put out of action by a natural disaster (eg. the supervolcano at Yosemite National Park, USA, explodes). We still need an alternative renewable technology such as industry-level wind power and geothermal energy sources, and radio wave-to-direct current converters for consumer-level appliances.
As Greg Quinn of Evatt in Canberra said:
'The Prime Minister [John Howard] has suddenly realised, or at last admitted, that burning too much coal might be a bit of a problem. At the same time, state and federal governments are intent on selling the great national project of the 20th century, the Snowy Mountains Scheme.
'Whatever the merits of this sale, why don't we use the proceeds to kickstart a great national project for the 21st century? Australia is famously a sunburnt country.
'We have the expertise, technology and open spaces to exploit this natural advantage. I have a vision of inland Australia dotted with arrays of solar cells (perhaps the "sliver cells" invented at the ANU) and solar thermal installations (like the one at CSIRO Newcastle). And I don't mean small arrays — I mean big ones, up to 1km square. Put one of these near each of 50 country towns, feed the electricity into the national grid, or convert it into hydrogen.
'Yes, it will be expensive. It will cost tens of billions of dollars, a couple of years' worth of budget surpluses.
'But in 10 or 15 years we could be clean energy self-sufficient, the envy [of] the world. And it would all have happened before our first nuclear power plant is ready to be fired up.
'The economy of rural Australia will get a boost with the thousands of jobs in the construction and maintenance of solar farms.
'And, evoking the spirit of the Man from Snowy River, let's give it a catchy name — The Sunlit Plains Scheme?' (The Canberra Times: Snowy profit should fund solar power generation (Letters to the Editor). 27 May 2006, p.B6.)
So why is Mr Howard pursuing the nuclear power debate at the end of May 2006 if scientists have already known the advantages and disadvantages of the technology for over 20 years? Simple. Mr Howard is protecting his Government from embarressing situations in Defence (eg. bad treatment of personnel and closing ranks when outsiders ask questions, leaving behind at an airport lounge a CD-R containing a confidential military report etc), rising petrol prices and interest rates, new IR laws hitting employees hard, the AWB wheat scandal in Iraq and much more by introducing the divisive debate to keep the public talking and thinking and to split the opposition ALP party on the subject.
The people of Australia has to remember one thing. One can debate and talk about all sorts of things. But at the end of the day, there is no debate or division when we realise the only solution to the global warming issue and safety of humanity is to focus on renewable energy. As John Newton of Glebe, NSW, said:
'There's a very simple answer to the Prime Minister's devious and divisive call for a debate on nuclear energy. At every turn we must tell him: it's not about nuclear energy, Mr Howard, it's about renewable energy.' (The Sydney Morning Herald: No surprise in diversionary tactics (Opinion & Letters). 27-28 May 2006, p.36.)
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
3 June 2006
An effort to avoid showing the potentially higher risk of death from cancer for workers at the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, NSW, seems evident from a study sponsored by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) responsible for overseeing the reactor and providing the data for the study.
The study was conducted by Rima Habib and Samer Abdallah from the American University of Beirut under the supervision of epidemiologist John Kaldor of the University of NSW. It claims nuclear workers at Lucas Heights had a one-third less risk of dying from cancer compared to other NSW residents.
However a prominent occupational health specialist named Dr Bruce Hocking is confident the results are flawed. Hocking claims the study tried to ignore cases of leukemia as if implying they are not caused by radiation, and it had averaged the radiation exposure across the entire 7,000 workers instead of grouping workers under low and high radiation exposures. And the study did not take a long enough time frame to give a detailed picture of how those cancers that took longer to develop such as brain tumours and mesothelioma have appeared in workers who worked at the reactor between 1972 and 1996.
In a letter to the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, which published the study last year, Dr Hocking wrote:
'[The results] should not be taken as reassurance regarding risks of cancer in nuclear workers at Lucas Heights or elsewhere.' (Robotham, Julie. Safety of nuclear jobs called into question: The Sydney Morning Herald. 3-4 June 2006, p.10.)
Dr Hockings acknowledged Lucas Heights was not a dangerous place to work. Radiation exposure is currently well below the maximum allowable limit set by the International Atomic Energy Agency. His main concern, however, is the way the study claimed the results were demonstrating how safe it is to work at a nuclear reactor when clearly the data has not been analysed properly to ensure this was the case.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
5 June 2006
Ian Smith, chief executive of ANSTO, believes it is economically feasible to have a nuclear industry in Australia (if heavily subsidised by taxpayers) and is recommending up to 5 nuclear reactors along the Eastern Australian seaboard. Exactly as Mr Howard wants to hear. The nuclear reactors, to be built by Westinghouse, are said to be safer than any nuclear reactor in existence today. Not everyone is welcoming the idea. Mr Howard is determined to have his nuclear debate by slowly presenting to the public favourable information indirectly through ANSTO and university academics.
Why? Because Mr Howard thinks it is the solution to the greenhouse gas problem. However, a US lawyer has humourously described the move from coal-fired power stations to nuclear stations as like going from smoking cigarettes to smoking crack. He believes the cost to produce electricity from a nuclear reactor in his town is more expensive than any other traditional form of electricity production.
Australia would be far better off getting every industry, household and business to reduce energy use by between 0.5 and 1.5 per cent as this would be equivalent to operating 5 nuclear power stations.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
7 June 2006
Mr Howard gets his debate by setting up a 6-month enquiry into nuclear energy. He has assigned a nuclear physicist and former Telstra chief to head the Nuclear Taskforce Inquiry named Dr Ziggy Switkowski. Clearly not an expert in solar power and other renewable energy. But neither is he an indelible sign of independence when heading an inquiry into nuclear power. Dr Switkowski argues his nuclear knowledge will help him to understand complex scientific terms during the inquiry. Maybe so. But during an interview on ABC television this week, he did try to suggest nuclear power is a natural thing to have since the stars in the Universe are powered by nuclear energy and our bodies are made from this stuff.
Dr Ziggy Switkowski
Somehow we get the impression the conclusion is already written in the stars, exactly as Mr Howard wants.
Mr Howard and his sidekick Dr Switkowski haven't realised why stars are powered by nuclear energy and not on the surface of the Earth: not only can stars generate tremendous energy, but also (i) the distances in the Universe are great; and (ii) the gravitational field of stars are strong enough to contain more than 99.99 per cent of the radioactive elements. If those nuclear reactors, even on a small scale, are placed on Earth, we can't enjoy the tyranny of distance and a strong gravitational field to control them in the event of an accident. You only need to look at Chernobyl in Russia for a clear example of what we mean by this.
And even if a fourth-generation nuclear reactor could contain an accident, who is going to clean it up? And at what cost? And how will it solve the nuclear waste problem and stop nations stockpiling nuclear weapons from the nuclear by-products?
Furthermore, nuclear energy is not an unlimited and inexhaustible supply in the sense that the uranium yellow cake component can be supplied forever. Nuclear experts claim humanity has not more than a few decades of high-grade yellow cake for use throughout the world. After that, it will take more energy and carbon emissions to refine the low-grade uranium to a useable form in nuclear reactors.
It is starting to look like the inquiry is not really a debate. It is really a bunch of old male farts deciding how to introduce nuclear power by convincing consumers to pay for it in their electricity bills above all other alternative and safer energy solutions. And if it turns out some businesses may have to contribute as well for nuclear power to become a reality, perhaps a carbon trading scheme could be the answer.
As for renewable energy technology, the answer is evidently clear to Mr Howard and his supporters. It is too expensive. They give as an example wind power technology. The large wind turbines in operation on wind farms costs around A$75 per megawatt hour. And current solar photovoltaic cells can be as much as double this figure. Compared to coal-fired power stations at A$35, this is expensive.
When compared to coal, so is nuclear power at an estimated cost of A$60 per megawatt hour! But what we don't know is what happens when we use solar energy to heat air or a liquid to turn turbines? How much does this cost?
Apparently solar thermal power generation, when in operation costs virtually nothing, is much safer, there is no waste product (well, certainly not the dangerous kind), and lifespan is much longer than a nuclear power station. So why does Mr Howard think it might be economically-feasible to build nuclear power plants when solar thermal power generators cost nothing to run, lasts longer and is unquestionably safer compared to nuclear reactors? What is this preponderance towards nuclear power?
Or does Mr Howard have to accept anything that Mr Bush says when he talks of his so-called wisdom about nuclear power? Just recently we hear Mr Bush supporting nuclear power as a viable means of solving global warming. Or can Mr Howard show leadership skills by looking at all energy sources in an impartial manner?
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
9 June 2006
After being accused of a conflict of interest, Dr Switkowski resigned from the board of ANSTO. Sounds like a much wiser man than Mr Bush.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
22 February 2007
What could amount to a considerable improvement in the design of nuclear reactors thanks to the ingenuity of Chinese scientists, a new nuclear test facility is being built outside Beijing, China. Known as the pebble bed reactor, it would be the first of its kind in the world. Short of a meteorite or terrorist gate crashing the joint and blowing up the core nuclear engine over a wide area, the big advantage of this new system is that it seems virtually impossible to create a meltdown should the coolant (in this case helium instead of the traditional pressurised water) stop flowing, accidentally or otherwise. The nuclear fuel is held inside specially-coated spherical particles sitting at the centre of perfectly spherical graphite metal balls (approximately 8,000 particles per ball) such that should the uranium atoms split and ever get too hot inside because no coolant is present, the spheres would actually get cooler (possibly by reflecting the excess radiation emitted by the nuclear reaction within itself and cancelling itself out through destructive interference known as a Faraday cage).
Could this be the answer to Mr Howard's Australian dream for a nuclear future?
The new system — being developed under the guidance of Professor Zhang Zuoyi and Professor Wu Zongxin — does have two disadvantages: it is expensive to build taking more time and money to develop one pebble bed reactor than to build several traditional pressurised water reactors (PWRs), and it still generates nuclear waste.
Perhaps Mr Howard would love to have the waste in his own backyard? And anyway, no one in their right economic management mind would consider this type of reactor in Australia if the infrastructure and expertise are not available. As Professor Zhang Zuoyi said:
'It's better not to use nuclear energy for Australia. Because for nuclear you need a lot of infrastructure, you need a lot of experienced people....' (Catalyst (ABC's premier Australian science program), 22 February 2007.)
Possibly Professor Zuoyi could be protecting his country's economic benefits in selling the technology overseas? But given the endless economic management mantra of the Howard Government, the Prime Minister would be better off spending money in developing world-class renewable energy technologies and making Australia an expert in this field.
For example, the cost of the infrastructure to manufacturer the new sliver solar cells from the ANU is around $100 million. Far cheaper to spend this sort of money than tens of billions of dollars in building the infrastructure and nuclear reactors for Australia.
- The price of petrol continues to rise. Not so much because of inflation, but because of another factor. In fact, not since 1973 when OPEC's (Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) placed a temporary oil embargo and in 1979-80 when the Shah of Iran was toppled and the Iraq-Iran war began have oil prices increased dramatically as they did in 2005. In Australia, prices climbed from A$0.98 to as high as A$1.44 per litre. Other world countries have experienced the same situation.
The US Government claims this has to do with the war in Iraq as insurgents destroy oil pipelines as well as the recent natural disaster of Hurricane Katrina damaging oil rigs and refineries. Anything to suggest the economic is going great.
However some experts believe we are entering the moment when world oil supplies will drop. If this happens, humans must brace themselves for sudden and regular price hikes such as the one that had occurred in 2005 until all oil is exhausted or, more likely, the price of extracting oil gets to be too expensive.
According to industry talk, there is a critical point in the oil supplies known as "peak oil" where all the oil emerging from underground reaches maximum or peak quantity. Afterwards oil supplies must drop to the point where extracting it becomes hideously too expensive to make the operation commercially feasible for the oil companies. When this occurs, the end of the oil age will have arrived.
Oil companies will publicly state the point of "peak oil" won't arrive until around 2030, plenty of time to look for alternative energy supplies. Whistleblowers by way of scientists who were formerly employees of the oil companies are convinced the point has already been reached or will be reached in 2 to 3 years time (ie. 2008, maximum 2010). Already well-respected financiers, geologists, energy bureaucrats and oil company officials have written books such as Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy by Matthew R. Simmons, Richard Heinberg's The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management by Hirsch, Bezdek and Wendling, and the latest from Jeremy Leggett titled Half Gone: Oil, Gas, Hot Air and the Global Energy Crisis supporting this latter view.
For other experts feeling a little unsure what to make of it all or who are working for the government, there is a preference to take the balanced approach by saying we may have 10 to 15 years left before prices really start to skyrocket and only the richest people on Earth will be able to afford their own petrol-driven cars. During which time there is still plenty of oil underground to extract.
Whatever the truth, the US Government is already convinced "peak oil" has arrived or is just around the corner for the nation despite saying officially to the people otherwise. Already analysts claim oil reserves in the US has reached peak levels since 1970 forcing the Government to rely on overseas sources to keep a steady stream of oil entering the nation. Add to this the global demand for oil increasing by roughly 2 per cent per year (the world uses 29 billion barrels of crude oil per year as of 2005 compared to the maximum estimated world natural reserve supply of 2 trillion barrels) driven mostly by the economic boom in China and the desire for large pickup trucks and four-wheel drives by American consumers, and the Government is already looking for a solution to the oil crisis.
So what's the solution from the Bush Administration? Worried by the prospect of the US economy, being so heavily reliant on oil, collapsing unless more oil is found or a new energy source is uncovered, the US Government under US President George W. Bush is convinced only a war in Iraq will give the US more stable and larger supplies of oil to keep the US economy going for quite some time.
Despite this effort, Arab oil companies forming the OPEC group (eg. Saudi Arabia) are not saying very much other than pumping as much oil as they can to satisfy demand (eg. after Hurricane Katrina destroyed a few oil rigs across the US Gulf Coast). There is talk of recent statistics from the Middle East not telling the full picture. The figures are suggesting the oil companies in Saudi Arabia and other neighbouring countries could be quietly using extra oil reserves to maintain current production possibly to avoid saying "peak oil" has been reached. But no one knows for sure what is happening.
Has "peak oil" been finally reached in Iraq and other Middle East countries and the US doesn't know it? Certainly some experts are claiming there are no more oil-bearing deposits to be found anywhere in the world. If the Middle East has reached "peak oil", there is no more oil left to satisfy growing demand.
Whatever the truth, one fact is not in dispute: world oil supplies are in terminal decline. Even as OPEC countries give the impression there is plenty of oil in the Middle East, other countries in the world are admitting they have reached peak levels or are about to reach it. Whether it is happening now or will occur in 2008 or in 2030, humans must face the inescapable fact oil will not keep the economy going for eternity.
The search for a new energy source has already begun.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
December 2005
Petrol prices drop temporarily to around A$1.06 per litre but rises to A$1.12 or more by January 2006. Prices will increase again and more regularly as the oil supplies diminish and the demand for oil increases. This see-sawing effect will help to hide the fact that average oil prices must increase.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
August 2006
As we learn of the oil companies' reasons for increasing petrol prices (ie. presumably to extract the little remaining oil available from smaller deposits), the companies have decided to reduce the price to convince consumers there is nothing to worry about: plenty of oil for everyone!
But oil prices will increase. It is inevitable. It is likely prices will increase after Christmas 2006.
- Not surprisingly renewable energy is making yet another comeback with talk of some companies building more wind-powered electric generators throughout Tasmania and parts of Australia. Such talk is said to be dividing the environmentalists.
On the one hand, we have some environmentalists claiming it is good to have wind turbines of any sort because of the apparent benefits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to natural gas, coal and oil. On the other hand, the shear size and numbers of wind turbines needed to meet current global energy demands would be impracticable. Add to this the undesirable aesthetics and noisy nature of wind turbines and some other environmentalists are arguing wind turbines are not the solution.
Take, for instance, the view of the influential and highly-respected environmentalist Dr James Lovelock. In his latest book, The Revenge of Gaia, he writes:
'Wind energy, through crude [oversized] and unsustainable industrial development, is already devastating some unusually beautiful countryside.' (Beeby, Rosslyn. Future of wind farms lies in smart technology: The Canberra Times. 29 April 2006, p.B3.)
Another critic of big wind turbines is the eminent and great thinker and historian Professor Niall Ferguson. In no uncertain terms, Professor Ferguson said:
'[Wind turbines are] hideous, grey metallic monsters...emitting a deafening hum as their huge heads revolve.' (Beeby, Rosslyn. Future of wind farms lies in smart technology: The Canberra Times. 29 April 2006, p.B3.)
Why are large-scale wind turbines unsustainable? It is because the horizontally rotating axis of traditional industrial wind turbines wear down quicker and suffer structural fatigue because of the shear size and weight of rotor blades. Now there is talk such technology on a large-scale is actually unprofitable in the long-term.
Let's face it. The real problem we have with energy is our desire to make a profit by controlling and measuring the energy supplied to consumers as well as the shear number of people (and their technology) in the world requiring oil, gas and coal to achieve their goal(s). Add to this the number of businesses whose sole purpose is to sell as many products as possible and in adding more power-hungry features to electrical appliances and electronic devices such as laptops, fridges, television sets, video recorders and washing machines just to keep ahead of the competition, and we have a serious energy problem on our hands.
The most authorities want to do in tackling the energy problem as we speak is by suggesting consumers should read up on being more energy efficient and making everyone value energy more. All this while the population continues to rise and businesses continue to make more energy-hungry products.
There has to be a better way. So what's the solution?
Well, we will definitely need wind turbines. However not of the size energy companies and the government are thinking about. It must be smaller and therefore less noisy and not so much of an eye-sore on the environment. And they must be attached directly to the houses of consumers and roofs of businesses where everyone can see exactly how much electricity is available to run all their electrical and electronic appliances (choice of energy-efficient products will be important for the consumers at this point). The technology for this is available now. Specially-designed blades to make efficient use of very little wind exists to keep these small-scaled wind turbines constantly turning and generating electricity (with much less noise). This should be the solution to the wind turbine problems of large scale operations as seen on commercial wind farms.
Next, we must put a serious investment into researching more efficient solar panels and ways of manufacturing them cheaply and in bulk.
As for petrol-driven cars, alternative engine technologies do exist (eg. compressed air, electric, water-power etc). And by using lightweight materials to build smaller cars (ignore the rev heads for a moment), the energy required to move them around would be considerable less than conventional vehicles. But the most significant and immediate solution to the car problem is simply to let people work from home. Seriously, why else do people need cars? Clearly it is because people need to get to and from work. The question is, can the work be done at home?
This is incredibly inefficient and a waste of petrol when potentially many office jobs could literally be done from home. We have the internet, VoIP and cameras on computers to see each other. If people need others to be around, people can walk to agreed home locations and work under the same roof and through the same internet system talking to everyone else in the company in any part of the world.
The only vehicles that need to be on the roads are trucks for delivering items in bulk to the community and various businesses after unloading them from more efficient train systems, and buses to transport people to various community-designated drop-off points where people can walk to other people's homes to work (and possibly live on a temporary basis) or to the actual business locations if necessary.
We must also make massive behaviour changes in the world of business in how products are produced. No more energy-hungry appliances. The primary aim should be to look at the renewable energy source and build a product based around this source using materials we can easily recycle (or can last for centuries until new materials and technology arrives to solve the recycling problem).
Sources of renewable energy should include solar panels and specially-designed radio wave to direct current converters (a type of solar panel designed to capture radio wave energy instead of visible light). The patent for the latter type of energy system is available today. The former type exists now.
Notwithstanding the massive changes needed by businesses to operate in the 21st century, we must also convince consumers that by having everything they want including a large family is not good for the environment or the economy based on current energy production technologies. Because not only are we creating problems for the environment because of our demand for energy, but the available material for creating non-renewable energy is running out and this will affect the economy.
Only renewable energy is the solution. Until then, we must all help to minimise our impact on available energy until enough renewable solutions exists on a wide enough scale.
And for this transition to renewable energy to work, governments must impose laws and incentives to get businesses and consumers to do the right thing. There is no choice in the matter. At some point for humanity we have to move along this road of energy efficiency and relying more on renewable sources. Might as well do it now rather than leave it to the last minute where more businesses, consumers and the government will be hurt by the changes, and the changes will have to be much bigger and more expensive instead of a piecewise and steady move towards a more energy-friendly society.
We really have to start biting the bullet right now.
- As of early 2006, the Australian Federal (Howard) Government was claiming the biofuel technology revolution capable of replacing existing fossil fuels with a cleaner and environmentally safer product will not be viable as a business proposition by 2015. The people who claim this refuse to be interviewed by reporters to explain the reasons. There is a feeling the Federal Government could be protecting the oil companies because some politicians and family members may have a vested interest in those companies and not just the fact that the Government needs oil companies to raise sufficient money by way of excise tax and GST.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
March 2007
This Australian government view towards biofuels may be changing following the US President George W. Bush's visit to Brazil where he announced a greater push towards energy diversification including biofuels from sugar plants and corn.
- As the seriousness of the energy crisis and the problems of non-renewable oil, coal and gas on the environment becomes an ever increasing burden on the authorities, one nation has decided to make a bold decision to look towards an alternative energy source never commercially considered before until now.
While keeping true to the idea of being able to sell energy to people for a profit, Russia has big plans to reenter the space race and make a permanent base on the Moon within a decade. Why? So it can mine for helium 3 isotope considered in plentiful supply on the Moon for the amount of energy bang for your buck.
Why Helium 3?
Well, Russia is quietly confident it will soon have the technology to build a nuclear fusion reactor (as opposed to the more dirty and dangerous nuclear fission idea). Because helium 3 has the natural potential to achieve nuclear fusion with ease within the right and controlled environment, it seems sensible to consider this new energy source. More importantly, the waste product is non-radioactive and will not pollute the environment.
Furthermore, according to some estimates made by US scientists, a shuttle-load of the isotope brought back from the Moon would be sufficient to meet the entire US electrical requirements at present-day population levels for a year. With over a million tonnes (possibly closer to 500 million tonnes) of natural Helium 3 on the Moon, there would be enough energy to meet world demands for more than a thousand years.
Head of the state-controlled Russian giant known as Energia Space Corporation, Nikolai Sevastyanov, has unveiled plans at an academic conference on how his organisation will achieve the ambitious dream:
'We are planning to build a permanent base on the Moon by 2015 and by 2020 we can begin the industrial-scale delivery...of the rare isotope Helium 3.
'The Earth's known hydrocarbon reserves will last mankind 50 to 100 years at the present-day rate of consumption. There are practically no reserves of Helium [3] on the Earth. On the Moon, there are between 1 million and 500 million tonnes, according to various estimates.
'Ten tonnes of Helium 3 would be enough to meet the yearly energy needs of Russia.' (Osborn, Andrew. High hopes over the moon: The Canberra Times (Times2 supplement). 30 January 2006, p.3.)
Already the Russian Government has set aside A$14.5 billion last year to help the space agency begin the work. If the mining on the Moon does go ahead as planned, it will purportedly take place in the Sea of Tranquility where the concentrations of Helium 3 are said to be at their highest according to Russian scientists.
- The incredibly ambitious and creative Russian plan to mine Helium 3 on the Moon (must be applauded for such radical thinking) as an alternative energy source for humankind will be coupled by the remarkably limited creativity of R-wing leaders in the US and Australia in doing the same on Earth. Restricted heavily by the idea of "economic viability" in introducing new ideas and technologies, both Mr Bush and almost soon after Mr Howard will pursue traditional nuclear power as the best alternative to coal-fired power stations as far as reducing greenhouse gases are concerned.
Mr Howard has invited top scientists to descend on Parliament House at the end of February 2006 to discuss and debate the issues behind traditional nuclear power.
Mr Bush has been talking up the sale of US nuclear reactor technology to India to help reduce greenhouse gases from this developing nation. He can do this mainly because he knows India already has nuclear weapons and is sufficiently democratic in its ways to be accepted by the US government. However if it was North Korea, it would have been a totally different situation altogether.
Now all India needs is more uranium. Sounds like Mr Howard will be itching for an opportunity to sell Australian uranium to India after the US has made a killing in selling nuclear technology components.
Only one catch: India has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It would be illegal to sell uranium to India.
Then again you can be sure if there is a buck to be made in selling uranium to India (and China), Mr Howard will find a way, especially with the help of BHP Billiton.
NOTE: This economic viability idea only comes about because people say it will cost x amount of dollars to fix the problem without expecting people to do anything different from what they are doing today. What is not taken into account is what happens when people are put into a position where they must change and let their creativity and innovation find ways to minimise the cost of change. Sometimes it might be better for governments to create the environment needed to make those changes now by consumers and businesses so the solutions to climate change can be achieved quickly and cost effectively.
- Hot rocks technology is emerging as a possible solution to the problem of generating massive amounts of electricity without damaging the environment. The idea works on the principle of drilling a hole approximately 4 kilometres deep into the crust of the Earth to find a natural source of non-volcanic hot rocks. The aim is to inject water through the hole where it becomes superheated to 250ºC. A second hole is drilled a certain distance away from the first, allowing the superheated water to pass through the cracks in the rocks and shoot out through the second hole. The water can be endlessly recycled. The heat is what's used to heat another piping circuit of ammonia and other chemicals where it can more efficiently spin turbines to generate high amounts of electricity.
- The 18-month-old Australian energy policy is looking decidely inadequate and out-of-touch with today's oil price rise reality after its heavy focus on fossil fuels for power generation. This became evident for Mr Howard after learning of the changes taking place in Washington on his recent visit to the US.
'The whole atmosphere in Washington, the atmosphere...created by the high level of oil prices is transforming the debate on energy, alternative energy sources.' (Metherell, Mark and Frew, Wendy. We must move to nuclear fuel: PM: The Sydney Morning Herald. 20-21 May 2006, p.1.)
Mr Howard's view on his energy policy was quite adamant when he said:
'That white paper was a very comprehensive statement about policy but it was based on certain assumptions regarding the price of oil and those assumptions are certainly very different now.' (Naylor, Catherine. N-power inevitable: Howard: The Canberra Times. 20 May 2006, p.1.)
Is there a solution? Well, Mr Howard has thought long and hard and believes he has the answer. In one incredible moment of enlightenment on foreign soil, he thinks it is time to start focussing on nuclear power as the solution to the energy and global warming crisis. As Mr Howard said:
'Clearly the environmental advantages of nuclear power are there for all to see: it's cleaner and greener and therefore some of the people in the past who've opposed it should support it.' (Naylor, Catherine. N-power inevitable: Howard: The Canberra Times. 20 May 2006, p.1.)
Has anyone told Mr Howard this next assumption only works if the nuclear power stations are already built, operated safely for their full lifespan, dismantled without emitting greenhouse gases, and the nuclear waste is properly disposed of? Not exactly a green and clean energy source for the 21st century.
And what happens if one nuclear power station suddenly experiences a Chernobyl-like disaster? Just one accident is all it takes to leave the entire nuclear industry in tatters as people band together to stop all other nuclear power stations. Add to this the huge health and environmental bill to clean up the mess should a disaster occur and would Mr Howard continue to think nuclear power is the best solution?
As Steve Shallhorn, head of Greenpeace Australia, remarked:
'Nuclear power is a failed technology. It is neither safe, economic nor clean — and it's certainly not the solution to climate change.' (Naylor, Catherine. N-power inevitable: Howard: The Canberra Times. 20 May 2006, p.1.)
In addition, Steve Shallhorn, Australia Pacific's chief executive said a doubling of global nuclear energy output would only reduce greenhouse emissions by a mere 5 per cent (Metherell, Mark and Frew, Wendy. We must move to nuclear fuel: PM: The Sydney Morning Herald. 20-21 May 2006, p.1.). Not exactly a substantial cut in greenhouse gas emissions as the scientists were hoping to avoid further climate changes.
Any better solutions? Unfortunately Mr Howard hasn't enlightened society with his apparent creative genius. Either that or he is once again relying on the so-called creative R-wing policies of the US under the Bush Administration.
That's right. No improvements to solar power, no small-scale wind generators to power individual homes, no forcing of businesses to provide low-powered products with inbuilt environmentally-friendly power generations systems (eg. solar or radio-to-DC converters etc), and no policies to encourage people to stop populating the Australian mainland with more babies to ease the energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It's basically full steam ahead for nuclear power according to Mr Howard in his dream for maintaining his profit-driven over-populated and currently unsustainable economy.
Maybe the people of Australia should ask Mr Howard if he is also happy to retire and live next to a nuclear power station? Sounds like a sensible question to ask. Just so long as the people can beam into his satellite television documentaries about the Chernobyl nuclear disaster so he can think about how comfortable he is with nuclear energy.
With Indonesia acting as a policy adviser for Australia on refugees in West Papua and the US acting as a policy adviser on alternative energy, it is starting to look like Mr Howard is running out of policies himself. Even the media mogul Rupert Murdoch suggested at a speech in the US that it may be a good time for Mr Howard to retire before things go downhill rapidly for him from this moment on. Knowing how the interest rates are rising, petrol prices are increasing, and the ugly side of Mr Howard's new IR laws is beginning to bite Australian employees, things can only get worse for Mr Howard.
No wonder Mr Howard wants the Australian community to focus on nuclear power and discuss the advantages and disadvantages. There is no need to focus on other problems facing the Prime Minister.
Yet Mr Howard continues to believe he would remain Prime Minister as revealed by this quote on 19 May 2006 in The Sydney Morning Herald:
'I'll remain the leader of the Liberal Party as long as my party wants me to and it's in the best interests of the Liberal Party that I do so.' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Murdoch's comments yield standard response. 19 May 2006.)
Fortunately John Corcoran of Scarborough, NSW, can see through this when he realised what Mr Howard was really trying to say:
'Alternatively, "Janette and I are staying put until the next interest rate rise and my mean industrial relations laws begin to bite. By the time the revolting peasants storm Kirribilli House, we'll be gone and all they'll find in the pantry will be cake, which they're welcome to."' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Some curly problems for our nation's leaders (Opinion & Letters). 20-21 May 2006, p.32.)
- The Australian Federal (Howard) Government is somehow indirectly trying to convince consumers that solar power, whether it is the traditional photovoltaic or the solar thermal power generators, is not able to compete with standard coal-powered and hydroelectric mains systems for shear quantity of electricity used by the population. In particular, we see in the 8-9 July 2006 edition of the The Sydney Morning Herald an article titled Blue-sky mine takes tourists back to the future. The article discusses an experiment into solar power where 14 circular dishes of the White Cliffs solar power station, looking like radio telescopes, was built in 1981 for an isolated town containing a dozen homes. As Bruce Robjohns said:
'I worked here as a volunteer tradesman's assistant when it first opened. It worked beyond expectation.
'Everybody who comes here says "it should be working". But it can't compete with mains power.' (Macey, Richard. Blue-sky mine takes tourists back to the future: The Sydney Morning Herald. 8-9 July 2006, p.5.)
It was officially declared a museum attraction on Friday 7 July 2006 to help tourists understand the reasons why the project cannot be used to replace existing power generation systems.
'This is a great opportunity for tourists to visit what is arguably the first commercial solar power station in the world, " said Chris Dalitz, manager of Country Energy, the company who bought the museum.
Developed by the Australian National University before the Howard Government came to office (and as early as 1971), the solar power station used the circular dishes to act as a magnifying glass to heat water at a point into steam for generating electricity. In the 1990s, greater efficiency and all night use for the residents was attained by adding photovoltaic solar cells and batteries. But recently the Australian National University has shelved the project in favour of following the nuclear power mantra of the Federal Government.
The move ignores the findings of a confidential report by the Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development claiming in mid-May 2006 solar-thermal power stations would be cost-competitive with coal by 2013 and only 1.5 per cent of the world's desert area for collecting solar energy for this type of technology would be needed to satisfy the entire world's electricity demands.
So where is the interest into more efficient solar power projects that use very long, elongated parabolic front-ends with a metal pipe running along the point where all solar energy is concentrated. And what about the greenhouse idea of heating up vast amounts of air using the sun's energy inside a large tent-like structure that funnels the rising hot air into a tunnel to move turbines. The latter system can double up as a place for growing trees and plants for food and other uses.
Yet the Australian people are being made to believe nuclear energy is the only way to go for Australia.
- ANSTO has unveiled the new "terrorist-proof" and presumably "nature-proof" scientific nuclear reactor worth A$330 million in preparation for decommissioning the old reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney's south, possibly as a show of the level of responsibility people can have in running a nuclear power plant and how safe it is this time. As John Loy, chief of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, said:
'The physical security arrangements have been examined very closely. They are at the leading edge in the world of protection of such a facility.' (The Canberra Times: Nuclear watchdog plays down reactor safety fears. 15 July 2006, p.5.)
The Agency has granted ANSTO an operating license for the new facility. Soon the new reactor will be activated.
The Federal (Howard) Government is clearly doing all it can to convince the public of the importance to have nuclear energy. Local residents and Green groups are not convinced any technology is 100 per cent safe.
On the positive side, the Federal (Howard) Government is doing the right thing as far as subsidising up to $500 worth of water, electricity and gas efficiency devices such as water savers, compact fluorescent tubes etc for a total payment of $100 per Australian household. This will go some way towards reducing power and natural resources usage.
Now if only we can figure out a way to reduce population levels and have fewer power hungry appliances.
- The Sun, a giant nuclear reactor in its own right, provides more solar energy than the human race can ever use. Problem is, how do we reduce the costs to harness this free energy?
Industrial scale solar thermal power generators — a technology would heat water in a long metal pipe on a large scale to help turn turbines and generate electricity — is ready to take off.
Even at nighttime, the technology for storing heat has also reached a state of maturity. For example, CSIRO is confident the solution can be solved by using methane to store heat energy after being heated by reflecting mirrors concentrating the solar energy. At night, the molecules re-emit the heat thereby maintaining the production of electricity. Another gas being tested is ammonia. Heating up ammonia produces hydrogen and nitrogen molecules. As the gas cools, the molecules combine and give off heat.
Clearly humanity is on the verge of a new era. However the cost to roll out solar technology is 2 to 3 times the cost of pulling out and burning coal.
Governments must set renewable energy targets and create a carbon tax system to encourage businesses to produce renewable energy power generators. And until businesses produce these solar energy and other renewable technologies cheaply, consumers will have to pay a little more for electricity.
Are we prepared to pay extra to protect the Earth?
- Oil prices continue to rise (with occasional "end of the weekend" drops to look like everything is okay) and some world leaders are claiming it isn't their fault. A classic example of this "passing the buck" to someone else is Australian Prime Minister John Howard. After being told of the petrol price rises (in case he didn't notice), he is quick to follow the advice of CEOs in the oil companies by saying the price rise is not their fault. Perhaps Mr Howard and others might need a little reminder of why it is happening:
'The [Australian] Prime Minister [John Howard] is reported to have told government MPs that higher oil prices are not his fault.
'I beg to differ, as our support for the invasion of Iraq coincided with the start of an escalation in world oil prices.
'Iraq is one of the world's major oil-producing nations and the instability caused by the Government's decision to support an invasion of that country has been a factor in higher oil prices.
'On the domestic front the Government has been reluctant to alleviate increases in petrol prices by reducing taxes, despite the threat to inflation and interest rates posed by higher prices.' (Goodwin, Denis (Gosford, NSW). A nation takes a rise out of bananas: The Sydney Morning Herald (Opinion & Letters). 29-30 July 2006, p.32.)
Now exactly whose fault is it this time?
- As climate change reaches fever pitch following the release of the Stern Report on 30 October 2006, it would appear Prime Minister John Howard is scrambling to convince Australian voters nuclear energy and making the coal industry cleaner is the only way to go. But to look like he is doing something about climate change months before next year's elections after 92 per cent of Australians were showing their concerns about climate change to the Prime Minister, he has agreed to spend $500 million to build the world's largest solar energy plant.
Yet he continually argues solar energy will never provide the "base power" needed by Australians to run the economy. So why spend the money if he thinks it won't work?
Clearly the government is in election mode.
Then at 11.45am Friday 3 November 2006, the new $400 million nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights known as Opal (the Open Pool Australian Lightwater reactor) went to full power generating the targeted 20 megawatts of power as part of a test run. The reactor will be fully operational in 2007. Is there a message in this for Australians?
- A recent public poll revealed 80 per cent of Australians believe the Federal Government should invest more in renewable energy. As Australians wait, Kate Greenwood of Jindabyne in NSW said:
'Just heard that about 80 per cent of people think that the Government should invest more in renewable energy. Why wait for the Government?
'If all of those 80 per cent signed up for green power, or better still, whacked a solar panel on their roof, the Government's hand would be forced. It is not a case of whether we can afford to do it. We cannot afford not to.
'Time to put our money where our mouths are.' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Forget politicians, there is no time to waste (Opinion & Letters). 4-5 November 2006, p.36.)
- The head of the Federal Government's inquiry into nuclear energy, Dr Ziggy Switkowski, will unveil the long-awaited report at the end of November 2006. In interviews, Dr Switkowski has hinted nuclear energy is not economically viable. He extends this to every other alternative energy sources including the renewable types.
The problem for Australia is that it has so much cheap coal, why would the nation pay more for other energy sources?
However Prime Minister John Howard wants to keep the nuclear debate open by lending weight to a carbon trading scheme, a system of taxing greenhouse gas emissions. Because eventually the next in line for providing energy to the economy is nuclear. Nuclear energy remains cheaper than renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
21 November 2006
The report on nuclear energy headed by Dr Ziggy Switkowski was officially unveiled today. It states Australia can have nuclear energy in the next ten years with production of large numbers of nuclear reactors achieveable by 2020. By 2050, Australia could have 25 nuclear reactors supplying one-third of Australia's energy needs.
It takes into account the potential for the Australian population to increase at current rates resulting in twice as much energy being used by 2050.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to let people working in the office to work from home, saving bundles on the use of coal, fossil fuel and extra electricity to run the air conditioners and cars? And for the cost of 25 nuclear reactors, would it be better to spend the money on solar panels for every Australian home just to be self-sufficient?
While doing an admirable task of trying to look balanced in presenting its results, the report does a few mistakes.
The main mistake is in the executive summary written by Dr Switkowski where he selected the lowest cost figures to build nuclear power to help make it look economically feasible. But a closer look at the main report shows there is a wide cost variation and that the average cost would, in fact, be uneconomical for Australia to consider nuclear power. As Dr Mark Diesendorf, director of the Sustainability Centre, said:
'...the executive summary of Ziggy's report suggested ridiculously small extra costs from nuclear power. But if you go to the main body of that report to Figure 4.6 you find in fact there are huge, a huge range of prices for nuclear power and that the executive summary has actually selected out the lowest ones; and has made unrealistic assumptions about, for example, the interest rates that would be charged when people borrow money to build nuclear power stations.' (ABC's public forum and debate program, Difference of Opinion, televised on 19 March 2007.)
Dr Mark Diesendorf
Dr Switkowski counterects this argument on the basis of experience from other countries using nuclear power and how old the nuclear industry is and therefore, irrespective of costs, will always be safe and affordable for the Australian economy. In his words:
'...we're going to continue today and beyond to argue about the cost of nuclear power. But let me point to what I understand to be the international experience. Thirty-one countries are nuclear powered. Eight are in the cue to add their first reactor. If you look at only those economies that are like ours — the OECD countries — it's half as much electricity generated by nuclear reactors as is produced by coal. So we don't have to argue about whether we got particular numbers right. The fact is the experience around the world is that nuclear power is a reality, the industry is 50 years old, and if we look into the future for Australia and demand that it be progressively supplied by clean energy, the only alternative longer-term I believe will be the progressive introduction of clean, affordable, safe nuclear power.' (ABC's public forum and debate program, Difference of Opinion, televised on 19 March 2007.)
Is it true to say nuclear power is clean, affordable and safe?
Dr Nikki Williams, CEO of NSW Minerals Council, was able to look beyond the statement stating:
'Well clearly...nuclear power has a number of issues associated with it: waste and proliferation [of nuclear weapons]. And these issues are of major concern. But I think something that perhaps Ziggy didn't talk about was, it's certainly the case that nuclear power exists in 31 countries around the world. But usually governments have decided to have that [nuclear option] as part of their energy mix because they didn't have something else. So they didn't have fossil fuels, or adequate fossil fuels for example. So they needed to diversify their economy and nuclear was one option which has been adopted. And in all of those cases, the electricity prices for both industry and for consumers are greatly higher than we enjoy in Australia. So if I give you an example, 13 cents a kilowatt hour in Australia for residential electricity. In Denmark, in Germany, 32 cents, 43 cents [respectively]. These are enormous differences in costs and is something that as Australians we need to bear in mind when we are evaluating.' (ABC's public forum and debate program, Difference of Opinion, televised on 19 March 2007.)
Dr Nikki Williams
Dr Switkowski agrees it is more expensive but says consumers are paying higher and higher electricity costs over time. If consumers are going to have to pay more for electricity, consumers will be able to afford to pay for nuclear power in Australia. As Dr Switkowski said:
'I agree with Nikki, they [nuclear reactors] are more costly. But I think as we plan over the next 10 or 20 years, as Australians, we are going to get used to paying more and more for our electricity however it is delivered.' (ABC's public forum and debate program, Difference of Opinion, televised on 19 March 2007.)
Well, not if the power is generated on site such as a solar panel on people's roofs. Why would people have to pay more for electricity over time when the aim is to provide cheaper and cheaper electricity costs. Why should Dr Switkowski assume things will get more expensive? Perhaps initially as we move to a new energy source. But the long-term aim should be to reduce costs to the lowest level possible, not more.
The problem with nuclear power is that it is a labour intensive activity requiring regular monitoring, removal of nuclear wastes, and adding new nuclear fuel. And nuclear power needs to deliver the electricity along expensive and inefficient power lines to be of use to everyone. The Australian Federal Government wants nuclear power because it wants consumers to continue consuming, and paying for their consumption of electricity which, in turn, requires people to have jobs and maintain the economy. This is how governments maintain power and control in the community.
Dr Switkowski also adds to his argument that the younger generation are open-minded to nuclear power because they don't have past reference points to consider such as the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and the availability of traditional and more risky nuclear reactors such as the old graphite-type as used at Chernobyl and the pressurised water versions. There are now more safer nuclear power options:
'...The very young generation seem to be quite open-minded in part because they don't have a frame of reference that goes back to the 70s and 80s, which were the difficulties of nuclear power.' (ABC's public forum and debate program, Difference of Opinion, televised on 19 March 2007.)
Does that mean that the younger generation are wise enough to choose nuclear power and do they fully understand the costs? Why not other, more safer alternatives? If people are going to spend huge amounts of money on another energy solution, what's wrong with investing in renewable energy? Unless the Australian Federal Government really wants people to pay for everything they use.
Dr Switkowski also puts forward some perspective on the amount of contribution Australia has to the world total carbon dioxide emission — roughly 1.5 per cent.
Other people argue it doesn't matter what the percentage might be. Australia is the biggest per capita greenhouse gas emitter in the industralised world and the US is the greatest emitter of all until China takes over the unenviable position. The world is looking towards the US, Australia and China to do the right thing. When all industralised nations are working together on curbing carbon dioxide and sharing our technologies with everyone, the world will follow.
A classic example is how the Europeans and people in California are following Australia's lead to phase out the incandescent light bulb in favour of more efficient ones.
Or is Australia worried about countries like China undermining the cost of products entering the country and the Prime Minister wants to avoid signing the Kyoto Protocol so the nation can compete on the world stage.
But what if all world nations sign the Kyoto protocol? Everyone would be on an equal playing field. Well, just about considering the low labour costs in China.
At any rate, on seeing the lowest cost figures from Dr Switkowski's report, the Prime Minister is seeing the report as a possible green light for nuclear energy. So as the coal industry learns to clean up its act as a form of counteracting any possible public backlash which could cause loss of jobs, the Prime Minister is taking advantage of the carbon trading scheme and report to not just improve his election hopes next year, but also to make nuclear energy look good.
What a fickle person the Prime Minister is?
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
26 November 2006
Someone is doing something positive. WA Premier was present today to show to the media how fresh water can be generated from the Indian Ocean using the power of wind farms.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
2 December 2006
Geosequestration, the great hope for the Australian Federal (Howard) Government's key strategy in solving global warming by hiding carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power stations underground, will take until 2020 to operate on a few sites around Australia. But as the report on the technology stated, a few sites is not likely to have significant impact on reducing global warming.
An international coal lobby group said there are 10 experiments currently in progress to capture and store carbon dioxide in Australia (39 in total worldwide). But even if these experiments could amount to anything of a commercial scale by 2020, it will only be able to dispose of carbon dioxide generated from four coal-fired power stations. Opponents to the scheme claim this is not enough to halt the levels of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere from all coal-fired power stations in Australia and elsewhere. Geosequestration is certainly not the solution.
China is of particular concern as none of the experiments are being conducted there to reduce the demand for coal, which is expected to rise sharply in the coming decades.
While the Federal Government concentrates on geosequestration and nuclear energy, Jan Carroll of Avalon Parade in NSW said:
'In Sweden, where the sun don't shine (much), researchers are investigating solar power for light, and in Britain, where the sun hardly bothers to put in an appearance either, research is being focused on solar-heated roof tiles. What are we doing in the clueless country?' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Sun-addled brains. 2-3 December 2006, p.32.)
- The biggest problem in reducing the costs of traditional solar panels has to be the amount of silicon needed to make them: there isn't a whole lot of it around. A typical solar cell is composed of more than 99.9 per cent pure silicon. Now it has been learnt that the Australian National University (ANU) has already developed a new type of high-efficiency solar cell called a sliver cell using far less silicon and capable of being commercially produced in vast quantities to the world market at lower costs. Think of a traditional solar panel as like a loaf of bread. The ANU solution involves slicing the bread into very thin wafers. This is the key to reducing the amount of silicon needed. Together with a laser etching device, the right chemical reactions and a highly clean environment, these new sliver solar cells have the potential to revolutionise the solar industry.
And does this mean the new solar cells will be more brittle? Quite the contrary. The sliver solar cell has the flexibility to be wrapped around objects or have them inserted into a piece of fabric.
Scientific work on proving the feasibility of the sliver solar cell technology was completed over 12 months ago. All the ANU needs is funding to turn the technology into a commercial reality to benefit the Australian people and the rest of the world. Yet we heard nothing from the Australian Federal (Howard) Government in the election year of 2007 about funding the project and getting the technology into mass production immediately.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
8 March 2007
A couple of Australian businesses will invest up to $100 million to build the infrastructure needed to manufacture sliver solar cells. By 2008, the new solar cells should be in commercial production and available in the marketplace. Compared to the billions of dollars the Federal (Howard) Government is prepared to spend on up to 25 nuclear reactors according to Dr Switkowski's Report (supplying no more than 30 percent of Australia's energy needs), $100 million is a tiny fraction.
Dr Vernie Everett
For all the ho-hum about nuclear power, Mr Howard would have had a better chance of staying in power by announcing an investment into sliver solar panels than to stay with the more contentious nuclear energy alternative.
Further details about the sliver solar cell can be obtained from physicist Dr Vernie Everett at the ANU.
- In the US, The Speaker for the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, will establish a panel to devise ways of helping the American people wean off foreign petrol and achieve energy independence by 4 July 2007. Date is significant as this is Independence Day, possibly designed to strike the chord of American patriotism to do the right thing. The move caps off a hectic two week session to increase minimum wages and other more socially helpful policies for the American people.
- As news on the climate change front hits home to the people of all nations pretty hard, R-wing governments such as the Australian Federal (Howard) Government are still pursing the idea of building nuclear reactors, clean coal technologies, geosequestration and others described as "practical solutions" in the eyes of the government.
However, apart from reestablishing the natural systems to mop up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (has anyone thought of planting trees in areas where we can?), the only other real solution is to resort to totally renewable energy technologies.
There is no alternative if we want to be seen as seriously looking after the environment and the survival of the human race over the long-term. Because at some point, we will run out of uranium, coal and oil — the current energy diet of industralised nations. Something will have to take their place. Only renewable energy solutions are the way to go. As Greenpeace Australia chief executive Steve Shallhorn said:
'The real solution to climate change is clean and safe alternative of renewable energy which is available in abundance in Australia.
'This includes solar, geothermal, biomass and wind power.' (Borenstein, Seth. Warming will last centuries: top scientists: The Canberra Times. 3 February 2007, p.1.)
- In the week ending February 2007, Australian Prime Minister John Howard expressed some anger on radio towards his critics saying it is stupid not to be open-minded to the nuclear power idea. He goes about setting himself apart from other people by saying he is more open-minded than anyone else when it comes to considering nuclear power.
To be quite truthful, the more he tries to make himself more open-minded compared to everyone else, the more he is like everyone. As Mr Howard chooses not to give a serious investment towards renewable energy sources, especially those that can be put on people's houses to reduce the energy demands on coal-powered stations, the public can also claim they are more open-minded to renewable energy solutions.
On the one hand, we find the Prime Minister being open-minded to nuclear power, and the public being more open-minded about renewable energy solutions. What makes Mr Howard any different from other people?
Let's put this into some perspective. The concern people have with nuclear power is the possibility of a nuclear accident (we won't consider acts of terrorism into the equation even though it is a possibility we cannot ignore in today's world). Mr Howard claims nuclear power stations can be built to be safe. Yet people are not trusting of the technology. And we all know no system can be 100 per cent safe.
In China, the world's first pebble bed nuclear power plant is being built. This is the first nuclear power plant to be virtually "nuclear accident" proof as humans can get it. Even if the system has an accident, the nuclear fuel will not overheat, explode and send nuclear material across a wide area. This has to be a much better idea. Unfortunately the cost and time to build a single pebble bed nuclear reactor in Australia is equivalent to constructing several of the traditional water-cooled nuclear reactors. If Mr Howard is serious about economic management principles, he would not consider building such a reactor in Australia.
This leaves us with either sticking to coal-powered stations (not good for the environment), or we consider renewable energy sources.
This argument becomes even more clearer when we realise up to 21 traditional nuclear reactors in Australia will not provide a third of all the current energy demands of business and consumers in Australia by 2050. For the price of one pebble bed nuclear reactor or several traditional nuclear reactors, wouldn't it be sensible to spend the money on building renewable energy sources to put on people's homes?
Or is Mr Howard concerned about losing jobs in the coal industy? Okay. Why not spend some of the money to retrain people to work in the renewable energy industry?
Still can't decide the future for Australia? Let the people decide! It is their money. Or has the Federal Government forgotten whose money it is?
Use taxpayer's money to do the thing people want to see become a reality in Australia.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
14 June 2007
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government was looking at the idea of enriching uranium in Australia before exporting the material to nuclear reactors in other nations. The idea was being through a Briefing Paper by Nuclear Fuel Australia Ltd.
- There is an argument that by using energy efficient appliances, light bulbs and the works, this change alone will play a significant role in reducing demands on the energy industry and with it our carbon dioxide emissions. Yes it will. But it isn't the ultimate solution. It is just a part of a range of solutions to be implemented.
Now even if every human being could use the world's most efficient devices known to man and governments could convince consumers and businesses nuclear power and more efficient capture of carbon dioxide from coal-fire power plants is the way to go, what happens to human population and when the fuel to run the power stations run out?
Each new person who comes into the world will demand energy. No matter how efficient the devices people use, every additional person in the world will add a tiny fraction more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and add more waste to the environment.
Should humanity continue to rely on non-renewable energy solutions forever based on this situation?
This is really a non-debate. The answer is clear. Eventually humans must introduce on a large-scale renewable energy types. So long as the population is controlled so that we don't run out of rare materials such as silicon to build solar cells, for instance, then there should be enough energy for everyone to have for as long as renewable types continue functioning, which is potentially forever.
Why stick to non-renewable types when the answer is literally blowing in the wind and shining from the Sun?
- Finally, if the concern some people have with renewable types relate to not being able to provide 24/7 baseloads to run industry, the question we should ask is why does the entire industry consuming 70 per cent of the energy (consumers use approximately 12 per cent) require this amount of energy 24/7? Does every business need 24/7 energy?
Malcolm Turnbull
As Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Malcolm Turnbull stated to the Australian media:
'You cannot run a modern economy on wind farms and solar panels. It's a pity that you can't. But you can't.' (Quote televised on the ABC current affairs program Four Corners: Earth, Wind and Fire by reporter Jonathan Holmes, 16 April 2007.)
Well, really? Given how hard Australians are already working under the current IR laws thanks to the Australian Federal (Howard) Government, wouldn't it be more family friendly to close down most businesses and switch off power at normal times and let people return home to their families? How much power would industry need then?
However if baseloads are considered so critical to industry, is it not a well-known fact that renewable types such as geothermal can provide 24/7 baseloads? Solar cells coupled with batteries or heated substances (eg. solar thermal technologies) can supply 24/7 baseloads. Wind farms separated by hundreds of kilometres can potentially provide 24/7 baseloads. So what's this "baseload" excuse?
When we apply energy-efficiency in business and at the consumer level and a range of renewable energy solutions, renewable types should be able to provide the 24/7 baseloads for industry and consumers if need be. Again the answer should be clear.
So what is Australia waiting for?
- California is currently leading the way in the United States and perhaps the rest of the world in the use of a range of renewable energy for powering homes and businesses. Currently the American state utilises renewable types such as biomass, wind, solar, hydroelectric and geothermal to generate electricity as well as the traditional types of oil, gas and nuclear power. The sole company supplying this energy for Californian residents and businesses is Southern California Edison.
Southern California Edison supplies approximately 30,000 megawatts (more than half of Australia's capacity) to American businesses and consumers. By law, one-fifth of this energy (or 20 per cent) must come from renewable types by 2010. And that doesn't include the 28 per cent that already comes from hydroelectric schemes and nuclear power. As Pedro Pizarro of Southern California Edison said:
'We've just signed this very large contract for 1,500 megawatt wind development project. We have a large contract for at least 500 megawatts of a very innovative solar technology. We have contracts for geothermal and biomass and small hydro. And importantly those long term contracts then allow players to go to the banks to get financing to get these new projects built.' (Quote televised on the ABC current affairs program Four Corners: Earth, Wind and Fire by reporter Jonathan Holmes, 16 April 2007.)
The demand for renewable energy is there, helped along by a well-educated and environmentally-concerned population in the state of California.
What makes Australia any different?
Perhaps a more forward-thinking and open-minded politician running for Australian office might help. As Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, said on 9 January 2007:
'We are not waiting for politics. We are not waiting for problems to get worse. We are not waiting for the Federal Government. We are not waiting, period. Because the future does not wait.' (Quote televised on the ABC current affairs program Four Corners: Earth, Wind and Fire by reporter Jonathan Holmes, 16 April 2007.)
Arnold Schwarzenegger
To be fair, the Australian Federal (Howard) Government does have a renewable energy target although admittedly a paltry one. And most of it in the wind power industry (the cheapest renewable energy technology the Government knows of at the present moment). Set in 1997 to be seen as a good global citizen at the Kyoto conference, the Australian Government's target is an additional 2 per cent from the then existing renewable energy level of roughly 1 to 2 per cent. In other words, Australia would be lucky to reach 5 per cent as the official target to use renewables by 2010.
As Australian Prime Minister John Howard announced on 20 November 1997:
'The Government will work with the States and Territories to set a mandatory target for electricity retailers to source an additional 2 per cent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by the year 2010.' (Quote televised on the ABC current affairs program Four Corners: Earth, Wind and Fire by reporter Jonathan Holmes, 16 April 2007.)
As a result of the target, the Government has used the wind industry as a classic example of its great policy in promoting renewable energy sources. As Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources Ian McFarlane said:
'We have seen a massive expansion in the wind industry as a result of that. We've seen $3 billion invested in the industry, and we've seen a 80-fold increase in the amount of energy produced from wind as a result of that scheme so far...and they're still putting up wind farms. In fact, the only complaint I get about the MRET [Mandatory Renewable Energy Target] is that it's too successful, that in fact, will reach its target ahead of schedule.' (Quote televised on the ABC current affairs program Four Corners: Earth, Wind and Fire by reporter Jonathan Holmes, 16 April 2007.)
Ian McFarlane
Unfortunately it isn't quite as rosy as the picture Mr McFarlane wants to paint. When the renewable industry in Australia is looked at in totality today, there is a reduction of two per cent of the total energy from renewables despite the expansion of the wind power industry. Why? Australians are demanding, and the traditional energy industry of coal, oil and gas are generating, more energy, shrinking the total percentage of renewables. On top of that, the Howard Government refuses to invest in new types of renewable technology such as the Australian National University's slither solar cells in favour of keeping jobs in the coal industry rather than train people to work in a new renewable energy industry.
In essence, it is the traditional fossil fuel industry which is expanding faster than the renewable industry. And as it expands, more greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere.
It explains why State Premiers have to go at it independently by creating their own renewable energy targets. For example, in Victoria, the target for the state is 10 per cent by 2016. NSW and Western Australia have announced a similar scheme (Mr McFarlane would describe them as "Mickey Mouse schemes" designed to make the State premiers look publicly popular according to the Four Corner's program).
- In one of the most geological stable regions in the world, the Cooper basin located in the vast outback of northern South Australia contains hot rock beds of granite nearly 3.5 kilometres underground. Mildly heated by radioactive elements deep in the earth (not volcanic or from the magma), these rocks heat natural fresh water locked in fissures within the granite rocks to 250ºC. When the superheated water emerges under tremendous pressure from a hole drilled into it, the water can heat a gas in another adjacent pipeline to the point where turbines can rotate efficiently, quietly and inside a small, single-storey building. Such a power station has the potential to provide up to 15 new Snowy Mountain hydroelectric power schemes or about 10 new coal-fired power stations for Australia.
And best of all, there are zero carbon dioxide emissions when in operation. Even the water underground is free and plentiful and can be reused again and again by drilling a couple of more holes at a distance away from the centre of the hot granite rocks for the water to be injected where it will reenter the rocks.
The Australian company involved in this geothermal project is Geodynamics Limited. It has to date received a $6 million research grant to investigate the idea and drill a test hole near Innamincka. A further $4 million has been provided to build and deliver a new drilling rig from Houston in Texas as all the other drilling rigs are being used elsewhere for the oil and gas industry. But now the company is seeking a $75 million grant from the Federal Government's Low Emission Technology demonstration fund to build a 40 megawatt test power plant.
Only one problem: the Federal Government has spent much of the $500 million allocated for new energy research towards clean coal technology. Very little is left for alternative renewable energy schemes.
Dr Adrian Williams, CEO of Geodynamics Limited, said:
'We're looking at hundreds of megawatts into the grid by 2015, and that's just this company. Other companies are looking to do the same. By 2020 there will be several thousand megawatts going into the grid. By 2030 there's no reason why hot rocks, I think, can be producing ten per cent of Australia's power. We're not limited by resource, we've got a huge resource just to keep going.' (Quote televised on the ABC current affairs program Four Corners: Earth, Wind and Fire by reporter Jonathan Holmes, 16 April 2007.)
Dr Adrian Williams
Can geothermal compete with nuclear power? It depends on what the Australian public want from their taxes and whether the Federal Government is prepared to invest in the power lines to connect geothermal power stations in this potentially biggest geothermal region in the world to the grid, which is 500 kilometres to BHP's uranium mine at Roxby Downs. It is a cost that coal-fired power stations in Australia never had to face thanks to the generous help from the Government.
Otherwise the alternative would be to build solar-thermal power stations to replace the hot rocks with the Sun as an alternative source of energy and focus the energy onto a tube containing a liquid or gas. When the gas is heated, turbines turn and electricity is generated. Australia is unusual in that a technology of this sort could be built almost anywhere on the continent and certainly within range of the electricity grid.
And there are cheap solar-thermal power stations the Government can build if it put its mind to it.
- The Australian Federal (Howard) Government's mind is settled on nuclear power.
Partly as a move to reduce exposure of the launch of new Labor policies on climate change on 27 April 2007 and to improve the re-election hopes of the Government, Mr Howard announced he will fasttrack the building of nuclear reactors in Australia (he avoids mentioning exactly how many to keep voters on side but one would imagine he would support Dr Ziggy Switkowski's suggestion of 25 along the eastern seaboard) if he gets re-elected later this year. He believes this is the only solution to global warming, the most economical and provides baseload power to industry. It's a big political gamble for the Prime Minister despite strong opposition by the public over the idea (people are understandably fearful of the dangers of having nuclear technology in their own backyard irrespective of the safeguards Mr Howard thinks will be in place in the new nuclear reactors).
The other reason for making the announcement is because Labor has changed its long-held belief about uranium exports. The new Australian Government under Kevin Rudd would allow uranium exports as a means of boosting Labor's economic credibility. As Mr Rudd supports the new policy, he qualifies it by saying not in my backyard when it comes to using uranium in Australia for nuclear power plants.
A somewhat controversial move suggesting Mr Rudd wants the popularity vote from the Australian public to get him over the line at election time. Will it be enough to do it?
We can see how Mr Howard is thinking. If Mr Rudd will approve uranium exports to allow other nations to build nuclear reactors, what's wrong with having them in Australia? Mr Howard is probably banking on the public to see the logic in this approach.
However, selling uranium overseas in return for good export dollars is not going to make Australia any safer. Exporting uranium to other nations will increase the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation, making Australia and the rest of the world a more unsafe place to live. On the other hand, if it ain't Australia exporting uranium, you can be sure the US or some other nation with uranium deposits will do the job. Profit has a habit of forcing other nations to do this.
This is the fundamental dilemma Australia has to face. Lose export dollars for the sake of sticking to a long-held moral principle about uranium and still have an unsafe world where the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation is high. Or have an unsafe wo
