The Answer To Oil Dependency?

[Dakota435]

This seems pretty exciting:

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/RTGAM/20070516/wreynolds16/

Breaking News from The Globe and Mail
Canada should seize challenge of clean coal

By Neil Reynolds

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail


OTTAWA — In basic ways, Alex Fassbender's breakthrough in clean-coal technology retains James Watt's methodology from the 18th century. You pulverize coal into particles as fine as talcum powder, then burn it in a furnace surrounded by pipes filled with water. You direct the steam into turbines that spin to produce electricity. In other basic ways, though, it is very different. For one thing, there's no smokestack.

Mr. Fassbender is the American engineer whose invention - as tested last year in the federal government's energy labs in Ottawa - delivered clean electricity at a lower cost than the inventor himself had expected. Code-named TIPS (Thermo-energy Integrated Power System), the technology strips coal of its pollutants and captures its carbon emissions in power plants a 10th the size of conventional plants.

In his assessment of the technology, federal research scientist Bruce Clements described it as potentially the most competitive source of electricity - in cents per kilowatt-hour - in the world. A TIPS-based demo plant, he calculated, could produce zero-pollution, carbon-captured electricity for 8 cents a kilowatt-hour. In regular commercial operation, the cost would fall significantly. (The 2006 retail cost of electricity in Ontario ranged from a subsidized 5.8 cents per kilowatt-hour to 9.7 cents; the 2006 national average retail cost in the United States was 9.8 cents U.S.). By these calculations, the world's most abundant fossil fuel could supply clean, green electricity at the world's most economical prices.

Mr. Fassbender says the downsizing of power plants would enable them to fit comfortably into large cities, close to consumers - any place served by a railway line for the delivery of coal. "A conventional 500-megawatt plant has to be built in the hinterland," he says. "You lose 4 per cent of your electricity from the transmission lines." With an urban coal-fired plant, the captured greenhouse gases would be moved to storage sites either as a compressed liquid or as a compressed gas.

Indeed, everything in the TIPS process is compressed. You begin with a separate tank that fits alongside the furnace. You fill this tank with atmospheric air and put it under pressure -- 1,250 pounds per square inch. You separate the oxygen in the air from the nitrogen, and direct pure oxygen to the furnace to drive the combustion. Then you burn the coal under pressure -- again, 1,250 psi. You subject the steam itself to higher pressures -- from 2,500 psi to 3,700 psi. At the end of the combustion cycle, you have nothing left in the furnace except ash, used commercially in the making of concrete.

You capture the pollutants (sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, mercury, particulate matter) from the hot exhaust fumes that exit the furnace. When you pass these fumes through a condensing heat exchanger, you get very hot water. At 400 degrees Fahrenheit, this water becomes a significant energy source all on its own. "This is what the [high] pressure buys you," Mr. Fassbender says. "It means that the pressure pays for itself."

When the exhaust fumes release the water, they release the pollutants, which are easily separated and packaged for commercial use. You direct some of the carbon dioxide back to the furnace to exploit the residual energy in it. You cool the rest - still under high pressure -- to 87 degrees Fahrenheit, at which point it turns into a compressed liquid, ready for underground storage.

Clean-coal furnaces have existed in various forms for a decade or more, some more effective than others. In primitive form, chemical "scrubbers" captured pollutants as they vented from smokestacks. In advanced form, the furnace converts the coal into a synthetic gas from which pollutants are extracted before they reach the chimney. IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) plants, though, do not capture CO{-2} emissions. "They can be made to capture CO{-2} emissions," Mr. Fassbender says, "only by turning them into chemical factories." And they are expensive to build, costly to operate.

Canada and the United States have coal reserves that will last for hundreds of years.

Coal is thus an inherently sustainable, relatively inexpensive source of primary energy. The TIPS technology remains theoretical. It needs a real-life test. As a research partner, Canada is well placed to fund the demo TIPS plant - and help to rescue for future generations the most democratic of the fossil fuels.

[Kitsune]

"CleanCoal" is exactly what they are betting on here in Germany as well. Of course there are a few issues. Like for example that, if one views the complete process it isn't so clean anymore. To generate 1 megawatt of electricity, atleast 3 million tons of matter have to be moved, compared to only 80.000 tons which is needed to feed a nuclear plant of the same generating capacity. And that moving is done by machines, which have engines, which produce CO2...Now of course there is a more complex process involved to generate the nuclear elements that are used in a reactor, but in the end it still does not make up for the difference.
And while coal will last for one or two hundred years, uranium reserves will do so for 30.000 to 50.000 years. Here in Germany everyone is of course constantly repeating the myth that uranium would be running out in 60 to 70 years but that doesn't make it any truer.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Yeah you may be able to get "clean" coal. But open cut mining for coal is an environmental cluster ****.

[Dakota435]

"CleanCoal" is exactly what they are betting on here in Germany as well. Of course there are a few issues. Like for example that, if one views the complete process it isn't so clean anymore. To generate 1 megawatt of electricity, atleast 3 million tons of matter have to be moved, compared to only 80.000 tons which is needed to feed a nuclear plant of the same generating capacity. And that moving is done by machines, which have engines, which produce CO2...Now of course there is a more complex process involved to generate the nuclear elements that are used in a reactor, but in the end it still does not make up for the difference.
And while coal will last for one or two hundred years, uranium reserves will do so for 30.000 to 50.000 years. Here in Germany everyone is of course constantly repeating the myth that uranium would be running out in 60 to 70 years but that doesn't make it any truer.

I guess the biggest advantage to the clean coal process is political.

It's interesting to speculate if the coal technology described could be miniaturized to fit in a car or truck, where you would refuel with something like a toner cartridge. In any case, it's not too much of a stretch to see the West using petroleum almost solely for lubricants and chemicals in 30-50 years.

[Laworkerbee]

I guess the biggest advantage to the clean coal process is political.

It's interesting to speculate if the coal technology described could be miniaturized to fit in a car or truck, where you would refuel with something like a toner cartridge. In any case, it's not too much of a stretch to see the West using petroleum almost solely for lubricants and chemicals in 30-50 years.

Insh'allah buddy

[MichaelF]

Considering that Canada is one of the world leaders in commercial nuclear power technology, I'm surprised that they are even looking at fossil fuels.

[Hollis]

Considering that Canada is one of the world leaders in commercial nuclear power technology, I'm surprised that they are even looking at fossil fuels.


It maybe something as simple as economics, "It sells".

[Mastermind]

There is truly only one source of clean energy here on Earth that is economically and enviornmentally viable if you are concerned about the de-sequestration of carbon. That source of energy is nuclear.

However, the problem with nuclear is purely an economic problem that quickly reverts into a political problem. The low cost of nuclear energy is a terrible threat to the massive economic engine sustained by the fossile fuels industry. The public has been quick to grow suspicious of nuclear energy...especially in the shadow of Chrenoble and 3Mile Island....much to the delight of the coal and oil companies.

It is quite telling how the current debate over "saving the planet" from us dirty old humans has been practically devoid of any discussion of stepping up our nuclear power plant potential. It is also notable, the middle eastern nations, flush with fossile fuels, are all charging forward with nuclear power...go figure.

My prediction is that the western nations will soon realise their position is no longer tenable with continued reliance on fossile energy. This will come about when the public finally wakes up to the con-job the oil companies have been putting on them. Politically, the tide will shift almost overnight. Anti-nuclear, pro-oil politicians like Harry Reid will find themselves on the wrong end of the "save the planet" stick.

But, a lot is at stake for the gvt, too. How will they replace the trillions of dollars oil and coal flood into the treasuries? New technology will not be denied.

[Dakota435]

There is truly only one source of clean energy here on Earth that is economically and enviornmentally viable if you are concerned about the de-sequestration of carbon. That source of energy is nuclear.

However, the problem with nuclear is purely an economic problem that quickly reverts into a political problem. The low cost of nuclear energy is a terrible threat to the massive economic engine sustained by the fossile fuels industry. The public has been quick to grow suspicious of nuclear energy...especially in the shadow of Chrenoble and 3Mile Island....much to the delight of the coal and oil companies.

It is quite telling how the current debate over "saving the planet" from us dirty old humans has been practically devoid of any discussion of stepping up our nuclear power plant potential. It is also notable, the middle eastern nations, flush with fossile fuels, are all charging forward with nuclear power...go figure.

My prediction is that the western nations will soon realise their position is no longer tenable with continued reliance on fossile energy. This will come about when the public finally wakes up to the con-job the oil companies have been putting on them. Politically, the tide will shift almost overnight. Anti-nuclear, pro-oil politicians like Harry Reid will find themselves on the wrong end of the "save the planet" stick.

But, a lot is at stake for the gvt, too. How will they replace the trillions of dollars oil and coal flood into the treasuries? New technology will not be denied.

Well the US is about to approve a number of new nuclear plant permits, the first since the 70s.

[M_S]

Besides nuclear power, there is another very promising technology, artificial photosynthesis.

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

The power of sunlight have extremely more potential than primitive solar cells can extract.

There is however some relatively effective solar cells being developed, like:

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



The A.P. technology is about extracting hydrogen from water with the energy of sunlight. You can produce enough hydrogen to heat up your house an entire year, with the amount of sunlight that hits the roof of your house. Or you can produce enough fuel (hydrogen) to propel your car the entire year, with the sunlight hitting your garage roof.

This is an optimistic estimate, for NORTH European countries. However it reveals a huge potential.

[Kitsune]

@M S:


The problem is that even the most efficient solar cells produce electrical power at a price that is a couple of times higher than that of other, more conventional methods. And the degree of efficiency of the 'electrical power -> hydrogen - > electrical power' cycle is 25%! In other words, this would increase the already very high price of solar electrical power once again by factor four. Imagine the power bill at the end of a month!

[M_S]

The nuclear reactors that are being developed are much safer.

Im a fan of ADS reactors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcritical_reactor#Motivation

This kind of reactor will considerably shorten the time for disposal of radioactive waste and will improve safety, by making the reactor unable to sustain a nuclear reaction without an external power feed.


Still, nuclear reactors would have to be built in massive numbers if they are to replace other energy sources like fossile fuels. The nuclear waste handling would then be problematic.

[M_S]

@M S:


The problem is that even the most efficient solar cells produce electrical power at a price that is a couple of times higher than that of other, more conventional methods. And the degree of efficiency of the 'electrical power -> hydrogen - > electrical power' cycle is 25%! In other words, this would increase the already very high price of solar electrical power once again by factor four. Imagine the power bill at the end of a month!


I guess you are talking about existing solar cells, even near future cells. I don't claim them to be cheap. Solar cells is not the answer, they can be used by small, often privately owned systems. The CIGS cells (check the link in my earlier post) have more potential but are still industrially ineffective.

What I am saying is that artificial photosynthesis IF it becomes a reality (its being developed like fusion) will be something solar cells will never be able to match. The price for fuel and electricity will offcourse increase with new technology.....but then again prices are already increasing, so future investment isn't economically unrealistic. Biofuels got introduced due to higher prices..


"'electrical power -> hydrogen - > electrical power' cycle is 25%!"

You will have to explain what method you mean, would love a source. You might be talking about this cycle being driven by conventional solar cells? That is something entirely else than what im talking about.

[Dakota435]

The nuclear reactors that are being developed are much safer.

Im a fan of ADS reactors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcritical_reactor#Motivation

This kind of reactor will considerably shorten the time for disposal of radioactive waste and will improve safety, by making the reactor unable to sustain a nuclear reaction without an external power feed.


Still, nuclear reactors would have to be built in massive numbers if they are to replace other energy sources like fossile fuels. The nuclear waste handling would then be problematic.

Are those the ones called "Pebble Bed" reactors that are a size that is too small to be self sustaining and therefore fail safe? The Chinese were supposedly developing them.

[M_S]

Are those the ones called "Pebble Bed" reactors that are a size that is too small to be self sustaining and therefore fail safe? The Chinese were supposedly developing them.

Accelerator-driven systems (ADS) are different from "Pebble Bed" . They are seen as safer than a normal fission reactor because they are subcritical and stop when the input current is switched off. This is because they burn material which does not have a high enough fission-to-capture ratio for neutrons to enable criticality and maintain a fission chain reaction.

Pebble Bed eliminates the water-steam part of a reactor, making it simpler and eliminates the various problem that water introduces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor Pebble Bed
http://www.uic.com.au/nip47.htm ADS

[Kitsune]

@M S


Sry for my using the the term "power" if that should have confused you. No, I was talking about the process to change electrical energy into hydrogen, and later revert the hydrogen back into electricity. Or in other words, to use hydrogen to store energy.

Every time you make the change, from electrical energy to hydrogen and back again, you have some losses. The overall degree of efficiency of this process, however refined it is, will not be much higher than 25%, or in other words, if you change one kilowatthour of electrical energy to hydrogen and then burn the hydrogen again in some kind of engine and use it to generate electricity, you end up with about a quarter of an kilowatthour - even if you use the very best technology. (Source for this is a German physics book, nothing I could give a link to - but since the degree of efficency of a car engine is also not much better than 50% this sounds quite credible).

How the electrical energy has been created in the first place has basically nothing to do with it. However, the problem does arise especially with solar energy since it is so depending on certain circumstances, namely, wether the sun shines or not. The rate how a nuclear or coal energy plant produces electricity might be controlled according to the needs, with solar cells this is not so easy, that is the problem. In other words, you either produce too much energy that isn't needed but not enough when you need it or you have you solar generator at a place where the sun shines all the time, like in a desert or in space - a place where usually no one lives. In any case, the solution is to store away the energy, that is what brings this thing with the hydrogen up. As said, this costs you a lot.





@Dakota:

The principle of the Pebble Bed reactors was invented in Germany, decades ago. (In German this thing is usually called HTR for "Hochtemperaturreaktor" or Hight Temperature Reactor). This type of reactor has two main advantages and an added third advantage:

Firstly, even if all cooling systems fail, the nuclear reaction cannot spiral out of control, a "Chernobyl" catastrophe cannot happen. (To be certain that this happens, the reactor should not be too large, not over 300 MW, so a classic nuclear reactor of 1000 to 1300 MW would have to be replaced by a cluster of smaller ones).
Secondly, they have a higher degree of efficiency, in other words, they produce more electricity out of a give amount of uranium and also produce less nuclear waste per electricity generated.
Thirdly, the icing on the cake is that they can be used for district heating, which is more effient than just providing electricity which then is turned into heat by the user.



I want to point out that a research reactor was build in the eighties in Jülich near Cologne, this thing ran for years and was thoroughly tested. (Another reactor on thorium basis, called THTR-300, was even online from 1983 to 1989 in Hamm-Uentrop, this one was plagued by the difficulties of using the unusual thorium instead of uranium as fuel. This is another possible fuel for reactors, it exists worldwide in roughly the same amounts as uranium, however, no one has so far tapped into it since the nuclear industry all over the world is concentrating in uranium and plutionium).

In other words, the effects decribed above are not some fantasy, something that is somehow doubtful, something that "theoretically ought to happen" or anything. I am saying this, since here in Germany this reactor type, if it is mentioned at all, is decribed as if it would be a theoretical construct which the "nuclear industry" has now on their drawing boards to save their asses (a recently published "Spiegel Special" about energy decribed it in this fashion).

The reason why the technology was abandoned in Germany seems to be largely that this thing is the worst nightmare of the opponents of nuclear energy (which are, out of some reason, extremely powerful in Germany), namely a safe and sound nuclear reactor, something, that, according to the Green doctrine, cannot exist. Other countries, like Russia, China and Japan, among others, are very interested in this technology, however.

[M_S]

@M S


Sry for my using the the term "power" if that should have confused you. No, I was talking about the process to change electrical energy into hydrogen, and later revert the hydrogen back into electricity. Or in other words, to use hydrogen to store energy.

Every time you make the change, from electrical energy to hydrogen and back again, you have some losses. The overall degree of efficiency of this process, however refined it is, will not be much higher than 25%, or in other words, if you change one kilowatthour of electrical energy to hydrogen and then burn the hydrogen again in some kind of engine and use it to generate electricity, you end up with about a quarter of an kilowatthour - even if you use the very best technology. (Source for this is a German physics book, nothing I could give a link to - but since the degree of efficency of a car engine is also not much better than 50% this sounds quite credible).

How the electrical energy has been created in the first place has basically nothing to do with it. However, the problem does arise especially with solar energy since it is so depending on certain circumstances, namely, wether the sun shines or not. The rate how a nuclear or coal energy plant produces electricity might be controlled according to the needs, with solar cells this is not so easy, that is the problem. In other words, you either produce too much energy that isn't needed but not enough when you need it or you have you solar generator at a place where the sun shines all the time, like in a desert or in space - a place where usually no one lives. In any case, the solution is to store away the energy, that is what brings this thing with the hydrogen up. As said, this costs you a lot.


Ok, I agree with you, but we are talking about different things. The artificial photosynthesis process doesn't use "external" electricity from other energy sources.

The sunlight hits an artificially constructed "Chloroplast" utilizing a modified "Photosystem II". The energy that is absorbed will produce hydrogen from water.

Its true that sunlight isn't available all the time, but the overall sunlight that falls on Northern Europe per year is enough (optimistically, depending on sunlight/hydrogen ratio that can be achieved) to provide the energy needed for the entire transportation sector and the house heating sector (Sweden in mind).


electricity and sunlight are the most "refined" energy forms. Transforming that energy to any other form will result in large losses, so the 25% is understandable.

Its quite sick that so many do use electricity to heat their house, that's a real waste, but then again some areas don't have other alternatives.


PS: about thorium

"For many years there has been interest in utilising thorium (Th-232) as a nuclear fuel since it is three times as abundant in the earth's crust as uranium. Also, all of the mined thorium is potentially useable in a reactor, compared with the 0.7% of natural uranium, so some 40 times the amount of energy per unit mass might theoreticlly be available. A thorium reactor would work by having Th-232 capture a neutron to become Th-233 which decays to uranium-233, which fissions. The problem is that insufficient neutrons are generated to keep the reaction going."

http://www.uic.com.au/nip47.htm

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Nuclear energy is not a viable solution.

It still needs massive open cut mines to get the fuel needed!

Idiots.

[M_S]

Nuclear energy is not a viable solution.

It still needs massive open cut mines to get the fuel needed!

Idiots.

Until you find a better solution, stop calling people idiots. It's not like coal mining and oil extraction are better.


At least A.P. might satisfy your enviromental needs. :)

[Flagg]

Nuclear energy is not a viable solution.

It still needs massive open cut mines to get the fuel needed!

Idiots.

The relative efficiency/$$ cost/environmental cost of various power sources should really be debated without the unnecessary insults.

You're entitled to your opinion, as are others.

Debate on merit and fact, not on accusation and innuendo.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

How about this then.

I don't particularly enjoy driving in the country side and seeing massive open cut mines.

As for cost effectiveness if a government wanted to go 100% green any job losses, economic impacts would largely be offset by the amount of jobs that would be created in the manufacturing sector in making the solar panels, constructing the new power stations and provide a very lucrative export.

Admittedly export earnings would be lower. But I'm not to fussed if BHP and Rio-Tinto earn a few billion less.

[foxtrot023]

Nuclear energy is not a viable solution.

It still needs massive open cut mines to get the fuel needed!




au contraire, as mentioned before, Class 4 and 5 nuclear fission reactors offer great promise. And down the line we can get the holy grail of energy productio- nuclear fusion



Generation IV reactors
Generation IV reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactors) are a set of theoretical nuclear reactor designs currently being researched. These designs are generally not expected to be available for commercial construction before 2030. Current reactors in operation around the world are generally considered second- or third-generation systems, with the first-generation systems having been retired some time ago. Research into these reactor types was officially started by the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) based on eight technology goals. The primary goals being to improve nuclear safety, improve proliferation resistance, minimize waste and natural resource utilization, and to decrease the cost to build and run such plants.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactors#_note-UIC1)

Gas cooled fast reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_cooled_fast_reactor)
Lead cooled fast reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_cooled_fast_reactor)
Molten salt reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor)
Sodium-cooled fast reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor)
Supercritical water reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_water_reactor) (SCWR)The Supercritical Water-cooled Reactor combines higher efficiency than a GCR with the safety of a PWR, though it is perhaps more technically challenging than either. The water is pressurized and heated past its critical point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_point_%28chemistry%29), until there is no difference between the liquid and gas states. An SCWR is similar to a BWR, except there is no boiling (as the water is critical), and the thermal efficiency is higher as the water behaves more like a classical gas. This is an epithermal neutron reactor design.
Very high temperature reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_temperature_reactor)
Generation V+ reactors

Designs which are theoretically possible, but which are not being actively considered or researched at present. Though such reactors could be built with current or near term technology, they trigger little interest for reasons of economics, practicality, or safety.

Liquid Core reactor. A closed loop liquid core nuclear rocket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Thermal_Rocket#Liquid_Core), where the fissile material is molten uranium cooled by a working gas pumped in through holes in the base of the containment vessel.
Gas core reactor. A closed loop version of the nuclear lightbulb rocket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb), where the fissile material is gassious uranium-hexafluoride contained in a fused silica vessel. A working gas (such as hydrogen) would flow around this vessel and absorb the UV light produced by the reaction. In theory, using UH6 as a working fuel directly (rather than as a stage to one, as is done now) would mean lower processing costs, and very small reactors. In practice, running a reactor at such high power densities would probably produce unmanageable neutron flux.
Gas core EM reactor. As in the Gas Core reactor, but with photovoltaic arrays converting the UV light directly to electricity.
Fission fragment reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_fragment_reactor)
Fusion reactors

Controlled nuclear fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion) could in principle be used in fusion power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power) plants to produce power without the complexities of handling actinides, but significant scientific and technical obstacles remain. Several fusion reactors have been built, but as yet none has 'produced' more thermal energy than electrical energy consumed. Despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050. The ITER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER) project is currently leading the effort to commercialize fusion power.

[Flagg]

How about this then.

I don't particularly enjoy driving in the country side and seeing massive open cut mines.

Fair comment.......but should NIMBY(Not In My Back Yard) "eye pollution" be given the same weight of consideration? Some people do not like their view destroyed by windfarms......

As for cost effectiveness if a government wanted to go 100% green any job losses, economic impacts would largely be offset by the amount of jobs that would be created in the manufacturing sector in making the solar panels, constructing the new power stations and provide a very lucrative export.

It's a bit oversimplistic, in my opinion, to so casually think an economy could be so easily transformed from a largely natural resource based economy to one manufacturing cutting edge sustainable power generation equipment.
Especially since China, a low cost producer is flooding the international marketplace with inexpensive solar water heating and solar electricity generating equipment. If you equate it to a marathon, Australia would be starting an hour late, carrying an extra 50 kilograms due to it being a high cost producer.

One only needs to look at Australia's fast eroding auto manufacturing industry to see problems with your theory.


Admittedly export earnings would be lower. But I'm not to fussed if BHP and Rio-Tinto earn a few billion less.

If Australia exports less, it will ultimately have to import less as you can only delay paying your bar tab for so long.......and I doubt Australians are as willing as you to make the MASSIVE sacrifices required to implement what you suggest that would tear at the basic fabric of Australian society.

What you suggest, in my opinion, would probably result in a near civil war.

Any change must be gradual.

Australia is one of the few nations in the world that could probably afford to make the necessary gradual changes to result in only limited negative impact amongst it's citizens in a worst case future scenario as it possesses the natural resources, the homogenous population, and the relative geographic isolation to provide for a slow and painless, rather than fast and extremley painful and disruptive change.


I'm a big fan of nuclear power......others have produced some compelling information to show the nuclear power option as a strong contender for future power generation....you haven't effectively disputed it.

[MichaelF]

the manufacturing sector in making the solar panels,


Fabrication of Photovoltaic panels is very, very pollution-intensive.


No free lunch.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

The company I currently work for is a business and IT consultancy company. Some of the projects they do include outsourcing jobs to China and India.

But what our company is witnessing is that it although still profitable, the margins between labor costs between Australia and China whilst it may seem a lot to an outsider is actually in effect not that great. Especially when you consider the skills base, how productive workers are and so forth.

An extremely high tech manufacturing industry that solar, wind, tidal, hydro power systems can provide would not have a noticeable impact on profits if the components were manufactured in China or Australia.

You mention the Australian automobile is taking a hammering. Toyota, Holden, Ford, Mitsibishi still have sizable manufacturing operations here. I agree there is problems. But nothing they can not resolve and governments and companies alike are taking steps that should ensure the long term viability of the sector.

I want to see a green Australia that is a world leader in high tech manufacturing. Instead of a resource based society. The two should be complementing each other.

I want to see investment for our future which we should be doing now. Unless the investment happens now we wont have a future. Resources can only last so long.

[Flagg]

The company I currently work for is a business and IT consultancy company. Some of the projects they do include outsourcing jobs to China and India.

But what our company is witnessing is that it although still profitable, the margins between labor costs between Australia and China whilst it may seem a lot to an outsider is actually in effect not that great. Especially when you consider the skills base, how productive workers are and so forth.

An extremely high tech manufacturing industry that solar, wind, tidal, hydro power systems can provide would not have a noticeable impact on profits if the components were manufactured in China or Australia.

You mention the Australian automobile is taking a hammering. Toyota, Holden, Ford, Mitsibishi still have sizable manufacturing operations here. I agree there is problems. But nothing they can not resolve and governments and companies alike are taking steps that should ensure the long term viability of the sector.

I want to see a green Australia that is a world leader in high tech manufacturing. Instead of a resource based society. The two should be complementing each other.

I want to see investment for our future which we should be doing now. Unless the investment happens now we wont have a future. Resources can only last so long.

I don't mean to sound condescending or patronizing but that's the kind of post I usually expect to see from you...rather than the one a page or two back ;)

I agree completely with the part of your post I've put in bold above.

[Mastermind]

I think the problem is not the "resource" problem, but a problem of economics and politics. Resources will always be with us....if we run low on one, then that one become less economically practical and we simply switch to another. Politically, the fossil fuels are king of the world right now. There are too many governments at the oil/coal/nat gas trough for them to support a weaning process to other sources of energy.

Nuclear is real (here now!), viable, powerful and carbon clean. Now, if you begin increasing the nuclear potential, then by cause and effect, you must decrease the fossil fuel impact. The fossil fuel infrastructure is not going to just go away. There are far too many people (and politicians) dependant on the automotive and fuel distribution and manufactuing process. Besides, people really enjoy having the freedom, safety and privacy automobiles offer. I do not expect any significant changes in the status quo of energy usage for another 50 years or so.