Kevin Rudd Becomes Primeminister Of Australia

[Maxt]

They did some pretty cool playing with numbers in that report...

Greenhouse emissions can only be measured by looking at how many fossil fuels you've burnt.

Such as emissions from fossil fuels such as coal?
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245110190.html
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stori...006/1658637.htm

It's worthwhile thinking where the numbers have come from before regurgitating this kind of crap.

Are you saying all these scientists :

*Dr Mark Diesendorf
Senior Lecturer Institute of Environmental Studies University of New South Wales Sydney Australia
http://www.ies.unsw.edu.au/about/staff/mark.htm

*OECD's International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

*Carbon Monitoring for Action (Carma)

...are full of crap?

I certainly am no expert in this area, but you must be very knowledgable in this field.

 

[chovain]

Hey - I was just referring to the way that particular report was being misrepresented and misused. If people are quoting total greenhouse emissions, then that's great. If people are throwing around CO2 emissions from the energy sector in relation to Kyoto, then they need some education.

When did I ever say anything about Diesendorf? My attack was clearly levelled at the Center for Global Development's "Confronting Climate Change Initiative", and the numbers they're throwing around to suggest the US doesn't need to do anything. Are you suggesting there is a link between Diesendorf and that report?

Edit: I'm saying Carbon Monitoring for Action has an agenda, and has released a crap report to push that agenda. Don't get confused between their message, and how they're saying it. People are far too quick to get dogmatic about this stuff. Just because I think their methods are incorrect does not mean I'm saying anything about Australia's greenhouse emissions.

 

[Zizzle]

Now that we are way off topic...

Has anyone heard of any accounting of the methane gas given off due to coal mining?

We export a lot of coal, but in theory the country that burns the coal accounts for the CO2 emission.

Methane is something like 25 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

 

[Maxt]

Mark I suppose I am a bit tired of 11+ years of hearing that just because we have coal, then that's all we should worry about. Our emissions from coal are the reason we are number 1.
2 Years ago the CSIRO had 14 alternative energy research program running, (after political pressure ), 9 of them ended up being coal based . So wind, solar, geothermal, wave etc, accounted for just 5 of the projects. This is out best and brightest, all told to focus on coal. The scientists I heard interviewed (the ones at the end of their career who didn't care about the axe) thought it was appalling.
Yes we have massive amounts of coal. Yes it's very cheap and helps our economy, but at what real cost?
Anyway, perhaps now we have a chance to rectify this, but as ever, Rudd is a politician, so Iam not getting too hopeful.

 

[chovain]

Mark I suppose I am a bit tired of 11+ years of hearing that just because we have coal, then that's all we should worry about. Our emissions from coal are the reason we are number 1.
2 Years ago the CSIRO had 14 alternative energy research program running, (after political pressure ), 9 of them ended up being coal based . So wind, solar, geothermal, wave etc, accounted for just 5 of the projects. This is out best and brightest, all told to focus on coal. The scientists I heard interviewed (the ones at the end of their career who didn't care about the axe) thought it was appalling.
Yes we have massive amounts of coal. Yes it's very cheap and helps our economy, but at what real cost?
Anyway, perhaps now we have a chance to rectify this, but as ever, Rudd is a politician, so Iam not getting too hopeful.

I never said anything about coal, or funding for alternative energy. I already know we need to cut down on emissions. I already know we need to return funding to renewable energy research (If you think what happened to the CSIRO is bad, you should look into what the ARC's funding policy changes did to the renewable research going on at universities). I only said that the one report was misleading and/or being misrepresented. Our emissions from coal-fired power-plants are one of the reasons we are number one. It is one of many reasons, and is probably the most significant.

However, the energy industry is not our only coal consumer, hence my problem with that particular report being used (I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'm pretty sure the energy industry accounts for about 25-30% of our emissions). That report was only about that coal that is used for generating electricity - not the coal burnt to smelt steal, or the oil we burn in our cars. If we could convert all of our fossil-fuel power plants over to renewable sources tomorrow, we would move from top on that report, to bottom, but we'd still be one of the worst poluters, because our industry would still be burning coal. That's why the report is misleading. Now before you read too much into what I'm saying here: I'm saying the report used invalid measures, not that coal should keep consuming coal, or that the government should cut funding to renewable projects.

That said, I also don't go around bandying irrelevant research because I like the conclusion they come to (although people who are doing that with this report have missed the real conclusion). As a scientist, I have a serious problem with people accepting or rejecting, then promoting or dismissing research based entirely on the outcomes of that research, regardless of the methods used. That's dogma, not science.

 

[peas_and_corn]

One of the big problems with using coal is the fact that Australia uses and tries to export brown coal, which is pretty nasty stuff. I remember in one of my tutes, we were talking about how Australia is viewed internationally, and we pretty much agreed on "a hole in the ground, a farm, and a place for Japanese to spend their holidays". While there are many other industries, it is these (tourism being ignored yet still important) that are driving growth, which is somewhat disappointing. To quote the CIA world fact book "Robust business and consumer confidence and high export prices for raw materials and agricultural products are fueling the economy. Australia's emphasis on reforms, low inflation, and growing ties with China are other key factors behind the economy's strength."

As someone who focuses on international relations rather than politics, I am personally hoping for a more coherent foreign policy doctrine than the one we had under Downer. My biggest critique of Downer is that Australia's foreign policy seemed to be influenced by Howard, Downer, Vaile, and Ruddock, who didn't agree on Australia's place within the region, creating a very confused overall outlook. Early on there was a push for Australia to act like the perennial 'middle state'; being a good member of APEC and other regional bodies and through collaborative action. However, there's also some 'regional leadership' aspiration within foreign policy, which makes little sense considering the amount of soft power Australia really has.

 

[AngelTearsOnMyTongue]

I wouldnt say I am a KR supporter, but he is there and I am now just interested to see how he goes. I think that experience will show us that it is VERY easy to be critical and propose fix-it-all solutions from the opposition seat. Now lets see what he does and doesnt get put into action.

eg. IRAQ. Everybody prettymuch agrees we shouldnt have gone in there, but it is not as easy as just "pulling out".

I would have to say though, that one area of Labour policy that I agree strongly with and where I am in support and I have been dealing with Labour Govt. Ministers is Alternative fuels. Most of the Liberal policies were very short sighted on this particularly in light of the rest of the world current Alternative fuel direction. Howards only consideration was to push Ethanol because the Nationals had a strong agenda on that one.

I was gobsmacked to hear that JH was still offering incentives on ethanol right up to the election. I will come back to this.

Now i hope I dont stray too far off topic here but.......

Ironically, a hypothetical country that had all-electric grid-charging cars (much more energy efficient than internal combustion) would look absolutely terrible on this metric, even though they'd probably knock a good 15-20% off their total emissions. Greenhouse emissions can only be measured by looking at how many fossil fuels you've burnt.

This may be so, but electric cars are far from environmentally friendly. Particularly in Australia where most of our electricity is produced by coal. In addition to that, the batteries are expensive to produce (For now), heavy and must be changed over and disposed of periodically (which is also very costly and environmentally detrimental).

I'm not knocking the idea as wind and solar powered charging would obviously be very clean, but for now it is still a filthy vehicle.

My area of expertise and my job is CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) and LNG as an alternative fuel. All the world are looking for alternative fuels and there are a number of options out there, however, the one that is really moving ahead everywhere but Australia is CNG. The number of vehicles has increased from about 1 to over 6 million in the last decade and the current increase is pegged at 33.5% PER ANNUM.

There are three main gains to be achieved with alternative fuels and moving away from Petroeum based fuels.

1. Reduced Price
2. Cleaner Fuel (Both environmentally and community health wise)
3. More stable supply if it is locally produce. (By not having to rely on unstable regions to supply)

Australia has sh1tloads of Natural gas.
That is why we are selling so much of it to China. Personally I strongly feel we should be keeping it for Australia for the future as we will inevitably use more and more Natural gas.

Woodside have just signed the biggest deal yet.

To quote SMH.com.au from 7th September.

"The agreement with PetroChina is for the potential sale of 2 million to 3 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas a year from the Browse project, off Western Australia, of which Woodside is the operator.

The agreement will facilitate the sale of LNG to PetroChina over 15 to 20 years and bring revenues of $35 billion to $45 billion into Australia."​

AND we are selling it to them for Peanuts.

Natural gas as an alternative fuel is;

• The cleanest most abundant fuel for vehicles and power production. Its emissions are almost entirey water and CO2 (Even CO2 emissions are less than any other fuel). It is one step away from Hydrogen ( Which, by the way is a long way off despite what you may hear).
• The cheapest fuel available (Until we start using Sails on our cars)
• Australia has a "ready to go" infrastructure for its distribution.
• It is Far Far Safer than Petrol, Diesel or LPG for use in vehicles.
• Higher Octane rating than Petrol, Diesel or LPG.
• Can be sustainable as Bio methane.

To come back to my original point however which is that the Howard Government (against the better judgment and personal opinions of many Liberal Ministers I have met) continued to push the Ethanol line to support the Nationals agenda.

1. Ethanol is a "grown" Fuel. It can and does displace food crops for fuel around the world. There have been riots in Mexico because the price of Tortilla's has risen so dramatically because they are using the Corn to produce ethanol. Prices of Pork and any other corn related products have risen in the US as a result of corn being used for ethanol. This includes the price of foods cooked in corn oil, margarines etc etc. The implications of replacing food crops with fuel crops is very wide and very real.
2. The energy consumed producing Ethanol has been shown to be almost equal to and in some crops more than the energy produced by using the fuel. This includes the farming, pesticides, processing and transportation.
3. Some by products of Ethanol as a fuel are very hazardous to community health. Studies at Standford University have estimated the effects of Ethanol by 2020. "'We found that E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others-formaldehyde and acetaldehyde,'' Jacobson said. ''As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline."... by 2020.

These things aside I just CANNOT understand how the Howard Government continued to push for Ethanol when our country is suffering from drought and forcasted future water shortages. If we are going to rely on ethanol or Biodeisel or any crop based fuel for vehicles, what are we going to water those crops with?

At least the Labour government is showing great interest in Natural gas as a fuel source.

So that for the time being is my little rant.

:angry: ATOMT

 

[chovain]

Now that we're even further off topic:

It is one step away from Hydrogen ( Which, by the way is a long way off despite what you may hear).

It depends on what kind of hydrogen we're talking about. Hydrogen internal combustion is already available, and is used by a number of fleets around the world (buses, posties, etc). The biggest outstanding problems for mass adoption of H2 ICE are H2 mass-production and distribution. Pollution from H2 production is not quite on par with burning petrol, but has two major advantages: It allows you to control where the pollution is generated (good for people on the street, but not so useful for saving the planet); but it also means that as our energy production gets cleaner, the cars get cleaner for free - that gives more incentives for moving from coal to the alternatives. Twenty odd years ago, solar cells took more energy to build than they would ever produce in their lifetime. They would never be where they are now if people didn't use them regardless.

H2 fuel cell technology still has a long way to go. The materials just aren't there yet for cost-effective, low temperature cells. Once they're making them though, and the H2 ICE guys have solved the distribution problems, these will crap all over any kind of ICE - they're just so insanely efficient. With current technology, even burning fossil fuels to produce the H2, you're getting 60-70% of the potential energy out of whatever you're burning (compare to 20% in your current car, if you're lucky). Renewable techs make it even more appealing - an advantage your current car can't give you. You're not going to be buying one next year, but they will come eventually - certainly within 25 years.

Edit: Just noticed that UK announced 10 more HFC buses a couple of weeks ago: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/6416.aspx. That's great news if it actually happens.

 

[AngelTearsOnMyTongue]

Methane is something like 25 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

All the more reason we should use it as a fuel. The result H2O and CO2.

 

[AngelTearsOnMyTongue]

Now that we're even further off topic:
It depends on what kind of hydrogen we're talking about. Hydrogen internal combustion is already available, and is used by a number of fleets around the world (buses, posties, etc). The biggest outstanding problems for mass adoption of H2 ICE are H2 mass-production and distribution. Pollution from H2 production is not quite on par with burning petrol, but has two major advantages: It allows you to control where the pollution is generated (good for people on the street, but not so useful for saving the planet); but it also means that as our energy production gets cleaner, the cars get cleaner for free - that gives more incentives for moving from coal to the alternatives. Twenty odd years ago, solar cells took more energy to build than they would ever produce in their lifetime. They would never be where they are now if people didn't use them regardless.

H2 fuel cell technology still has a long way to go. The materials just aren't there yet for cost-effective, low temperature cells. Once they're making them though, and the H2 ICE guys have solved the distribution problems, these will crap all over any kind of ICE - they're just so insanely efficient. With current technology, even burning fossil fuels to produce the H2, you're getting 60-70% of the potential energy out of whatever you're burning (compare to 20% in your current car, if you're lucky). Renewable techs make it even more appealing - an advantage your current car can't give you. You're not going to be buying one next year, but they will come eventually - certainly within 25 years.

Edit: Just noticed that UK announced 10 more HFC buses a couple of weeks ago: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/6416.aspx. That's great news if it actually happens.

There are fleets but they are all still experimental. The Hydrogen has to be produced and for example BMW in Munich are running 30 Hdrogen fuelled 750HI's and the hdrogen cost about AUD$100 / litre equivelant to produce.

Personally, I feel 25 years is a long way off......particularly environmentally speaking. So I stand by what I said.

In any case, the most likely future use of Hydrogen vehicles will still end up being 50 / 50 mix with methane (Natural gas is ~85% Methane) as the hydrogen increases the power of the methane by 50% and the Methane increases the safety of the Hydrogen by about %50.

Anyway.....back to Ruddy Kevin.

 

[sathid]

1. Some by products of Ethanol as a fuel are very hazardous to community health. Studies at Standford University have estimated the effects of Ethanol by 2020. "'We found that E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others-formaldehyde and acetaldehyde,'' Jacobson said. ''As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline."... by 2020.

These things aside I just CANNOT understand how the Howard Government continued to push for Ethanol when our country is suffering from drought and forcasted future water shortages. If we are going to rely on ethanol or Biodeisel or any crop based fuel for vehicles, what are we going to water those crops with?

At least the Labour government is showing great interest in Natural gas as a fuel source.

So that for the time being is my little rant.

:angry: ATOMT

As someone trying to forge a career in sustainable processing and products like biofuels, I find this attitude somewhat limiting (and common). There is NO single solution to our energy needs. No silver bullet. However the more people try to shoot down alternatives that are being explored, the harder it is going to be to find ones that work. We need to develop multiple industries if we are going to begin to fill the void left by crude oil. By all means point out the problems with current tech, but do so in a constructive way, don't tar all technologies with the same brush.

I have read Jacobson's research and there are some big assumptions. There biggest concerns were ozone and acetaldehyde pollution. Using ethanol fuel emits unburned ethanol in the exhaust (and at other points in production/transport), which is a precursor to those chemicals, and CAN react to form them in the atmosphere. It is a pretty big assumption to declare that this WILL increase ozone and acetaldehyde emissions to levels that make them more hazardous that petrol emissions currently are. It would be interesting to see what other climate models predict.
The other main concerns were benzene and 1,3-butadiene, which are a product of combustion of the petrol component of E85, not the ethanol.

Of more importance IMHO, is remembering that early petrol vehicles produced far more unburned hydrocarbons than they do today, thanks to catalytic converters (which are optimised for petrol exhaust fumes, not ethanol).

So perhaps instead of denouncing ethanol entirely (as if it will stop anything!) it would be better to make suggestions for ways in which the industry could clean it up, such as researching new catalyst materials (this kind of research is cleaning up NOx in diesels running petrodiesel).

If you want to see some technologies other than methane, that hold promise, take a look at algae and cellulosic ethanol.

I would love to see a methane power plant, with the CO2 emissions used to grow algae for both cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel, and with the waste heat used to assist distillation.


Symbiotic processes are an area that interests me greatly.

The problem with mining natural gas, is that unless you are sequesting the emissions again afterwards, you are still releasing carbon into the carbon cycle, that hasn't been there for millions of years. And THAT is what is started CO2 levels in the atmosphere rising in the first place.


Further off-topic, I have just heard that there is a cellulosic ethanol plant being built in NSW. Exciting news

My 2c

 

[AngelTearsOnMyTongue]

As someone trying to forge a career in sustainable processing and products like biofuels, I find this attitude somewhat limiting (and common). ................................................................................
................................................................................
................................................................Further off-topic, I have just heard that there is a cellulosic ethanol plant being built in NSW. Exciting news

My 2c

I'm sorry if I have offended you with my limited and common attitude, but my point was and is that whereas the Howard Government was only willing to invest heavily in Ethanol and almost no other alternatives (and the COMMON public perception is that Ethanol is a feasible alternative at this stage), the Labour Government is and will probably continue to consider a broader point of view.

MHO is that we should not use crops for fuel and we should make much more use of a cheap clean natural resource that is there already and being sold in huge quantities OS. Sure Algal production of biodiesel is a great option, but I dont have biodeisel piped into my house and there are not production plants already up and producing it. Right now, the important thing to do is to move away from Petroleum. Natural Gas IS the cleanest burning, READILY available fuel which can be used by the Public.

I also would like to see a power plant run on methane, producing Algae from the CO2, but I would then like to see the algae used to feed fish in ponds to produce food. This would really remove the CO2 from the cycle....for a while anyway.
In any case, at least we can expect (and have already seen prior to the election) a move towards broader investment in Alternative fuels with KR. This will in fact promote a range of Alternatives which is what is required as you have pointed out.

It is natural gas which has been overlooked in favour of biodiesel, ethanol and "Cleaner petroleum alternatives".

Finally, I think thou judge me harshley to suggest I am "Shooting down" alternatives. You are quick to anger! As the topic was KR's Election, I did not go into every aspect of which fuels offer what but did a bit of a summary of Natural gas vs Ethanol. I am merely pointing out that Hydrogen is not yet feasible and is a quite a way off, and that Ethanol has a few side issues that should be considered, which the Howard government was pointedly ignoring. The howard governments push for Ethanol was not based on Algal production but crops such as Sugar cane, Corn etc.

So dont assume that I am ignorant of this field. I too am immersed in the daily arriving and expanding facts and figures. I dont discredit every article I read but do try to read things objectively and I just dont think that Ethanol is the answer........IMHO.

ATOMT

 

[Duff]

Bring on nuclear power.

 

[Zizzle]

Where to put the nuclear waste though?

What's the half-life, 50,000 years or something?

 

[Dave86]

This may sound ridiculous but I know a bloke who has developed a superheating machine that can melt ceramics, create rubies in 20 mins, melt asbestos into harmless blocks and according to him lock up nuclear waste :huh: Tall claim but the bloke is no fool and the CSIRO and ANSTO are very interested in his machine so maybe the answer is on the way...

Edit: Go the cellulosic ethanol!

 

[sathid]

I'm sorry if I have offended you with my limited and common attitude,

...

Hi mate,

Sorry if I came across angry or insulting. It was not my intention.

I wasn't specifically referring to your attitude about ethanol, rather more broadly about the type of attitude that leads to the research article you mentioned. Ethanol is getting a particularly bad rap at the moment, which is basically because of the focus in the US on corn ethanol, which is IMHO quite frankly a bad idea. As a result, the rest of the ethanol industry, and by extension the whole biofuels industry, is associated with being "unsustainable".

The fact of the matter is that although some practices are presently not sustainable, they can be made to be, and are a step in the right direction. Unfortunately politics and economics get involved and we go from having a potentially sustainable alternative, so something that loses many of it's benefits for the sake of an ulterior motive.

Finally, I think thou judge me harshley to suggest I am "Shooting down" alternatives. You are quick to anger! As the topic was KR's Election, I did not go into every aspect of which fuels offer what but did a bit of a summary of Natural gas vs Ethanol. I am merely pointing out that Hydrogen is not yet feasible and is a quite a way off, and that Ethanol has a few side issues that should be considered, which the Howard government was pointedly ignoring. The howard governments push for Ethanol was not based on Algal production but crops such as Sugar cane, Corn etc.

It seems we agree on a lot of points


It will be interesting to see what influence this new government has on industry in Australia.

I for one would like to see some more research facilities come to W.A.

 

[chovain]

What's the half-life, 50,000 years or something?

Depends on what kind of nuclear power you're talking about .

If all goes to plan, 2016 should see the first net-gain fusion reactor being switched on (called "ITER"). They're not putting turbines on it though, so it will only produce heat, not electricity. It is expected to produce 500MW for almost 7 minutes - enough evidence to show that the design works. There's little chance of it failing.

The plan is then to begin construction of the first prototype fusion generator in 2024 (called "DEMO") It's expected to produce 2GW of power, and be able to run indefinitely. It is expected to be switched on in 2033.

Construction of the first commercial plants should happen in parallel with those tests, and be switched on around 2050.

There really are very few technical hurdles in the way. The science is sound, and the biggest problems are getting the design work done, and continuity of funding. If the funding continues, the chance of failure is tiny.

Sure, anyone who thought 20 years was a long time for fuel cells should not be holding their breath. Goverments who refuse to invest in research that won't see ROI inside 10 years (ahem) will not take part in the research funding.

Generating electricity from water with the only real downsides being high capital costs and a small amounts of low-level nuclear waste is as close to a silver bullet as we're going to get.

 

[chovain]

[...]the hdrogen cost about AUD$100 / litre equivelant to produce.

It's not actually all that expensive, I don't think. According to this link (I don't know how reliable it is though, but WP puts it as being even cheaper), H2 can be produced for ~US$6.50/kg through steam reformation (yeah, I know, reformation generates CO2, but my earlier point regarding investing in a technology that will improve with investment stands). Steam reformation is pretty cheap from an energy consumption point of view.

From memory, H2 has about 4 times the energy density of petrol (by mass). With the increase in efficiency of fuel cell over ICE, that suggests that the H2 to travel a fixed distance is actually cheaper than petrol. Admittedly, that doesn't take into account profit margins on petrol, but I'd love to know what's wrong with my calculations though, because that doesn't sound right. Perhaps the reformation prices don't include the cost of heating the water...

 

[tcraig20]

Bring on nuclear power.

Why the heck would we want nuclear power? We have a raft of other options, and nuclear material is in relatively short supply. Remember, all uranium deposits of less than 0.02% it takes more energy to get the stuff than you get back (might improve slightly with the new technologies companies like Silex are developing).

We've got sun, we've got wind, we've got geothermal, we've got a heck of a lot of bright cookies out there coming up with other things. I can understand nuclear in countries like Japan and Finland that dont have the same opportunities as us. But why the hell would we want to build nuclear plants when we can make a motza selling uranium overseas?

 

[Duff]

Why the heck would we want nuclear power? We have a raft of other options, and nuclear material is in relatively short supply. Remember, all uranium deposits of less than 0.02% it takes more energy to get the stuff than you get back (might improve slightly with the new technologies companies like Silex are developing).

We've got sun, we've got wind, we've got geothermal, we've got a heck of a lot of bright cookies out there coming up with other things. I can understand nuclear in countries like Japan and Finland that dont have the same opportunities as us. But why the hell would we want to build nuclear plants when we can make a motza selling uranium overseas?

James,

It makes sense. Even support from a former PM from the Left in Hawke. He noted that Australia is the best suited country to deal with waste.

I think people need to get real about 'green' energy. Solar sounds great, but it's majority DC current. What do you do with all the waste batteries?

Wind? That was proposed for the cliffs around Kurnell in Sydney. Unfortunately views get in the way. Ever been to Palm Springs in California? Here's a photo when I drove through 3 years ago, this is a couple hours west of LA. Do you think the green folk would allow something like this along the coast? I don't think so.