Prev
Next

The route to make Australia a world leader in clean energy

Patrick Hearps

by Patrick Hearps

14 Jul 05:30am

Must Reads

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it - this is a caption

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

180

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment - this is a caption

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

27

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest - this is a caption

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

3

Filed under: Carbon Emissions, Climate Change, Economics, Economy, Environment, Innovation, Renewable Energy

85 comments

The Labor government is clearing the decks to position itself for the forthcoming federal election. After resolving the mining tax dispute, and adopting a position on asylum seekers, climate change is the last issue Gillard must address before the campaign. Whatever policy the Gillard government adopts must account for the scale of the climate crisis.

Time to end the hot air and act on renewable energy. Photo: AFP

Current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are already so high that if unchecked will push the climate system past significant tipping points. This worst-case scenario poses an unacceptable risk of dangerous and irreversible changes to the climate, to biodiversity, and human civilisation. These adverse climate changes will affect Australia’s food and water security, and increase the risk of regional instability.

The worst of these impacts can be avoided, but only if Australia, together with other major polluters acts now and at a scale the challenge demands.

The only way to escape the worst forecasts of climate change is to implement measures to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade.  To meet the challenge Australia must start building large-scale renewable energy power plants now, as opposed to policy approaches that defer immediate action and tolerates half-measures and delay.

The central goal of climate policy for the years ahead should be to retire Australia’s fossil fuel generating liabilities and invest in new renewable energy assets, brought online and integrated into the electricity supply system.

Beyond Zero Emissions’ Zero Carbon Australia 2020 Stationary Energy Plan (ZCA plan) launched today, represents such an approach. It is a detailed and practical roadmap to decarbonise the Australian stationary energy sector within a decade. It is the type of analysis that the government, the academy, and the well-funded environment groups should have conducted, but it was left to a small band of dedicated engineers, scientists and technology experts to do in a voluntary capacity.

Australia’s renewable energy resources are amongst the world’s best and the most profitable to develop. They offer a strategic advantage for all Australians as we prepare to compete in the carbon-constrained global economy. The ZCA plan shows that with an investment equivalent to just 3% of GDP over ten years, Australia can build a zero-emissions energy system that will last for at least 30-40 years. The investment would deliver baseload renewable energy that can power our homes and factories, hospitals and schools all year round.

The ZCA plan recommends the proven energy technologies of wind turbines and concentrating solar thermal (CST) ‘power towers’ to reliably meet our nation’s energy demands. A 40/60 combination of these sources respectively with a small annual contribution from crop waste biomass and hydroelectricity will power Australia 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

The ZCA research team found that implementing 100% renewable energy by 2020 is well within the industrial capability of Australia. The raw materials, as well as manufacturing and construction labour needed to implement the transition are small when compared with those employed everyday within Australian industry. For example, 80,000 construction jobs will be required at the peak of the ZCA plan installation, which is equivalent to only 8% of Australia’s present construction workforce. This is an easily achievable task given that new construction jobs were increasing at a rate of around 50,000 per year immediately prior to the Global Financial Crisis. What’s more, these new jobs would more than compensate for the anticipated job losses in the fossil fuel industries as they are replaced.

In economic terms, the Stationary Energy Plan does not impose a long-term cost on the economy above business-as-usual. The net costs for carbon intensive business as usual and 100% renewable energy scenarios for the period 2010-2040 are approximately equal, at around $500 billion. If anything our conservative analysis understates the economic benefits for Australia. A renewable energy powered national economy would provide additional benefit from savings gained through avoiding the increased costs of transport fuel and the increased costs of fossil fuel energy generation when a carbon price is implemented.

The adoption of the ZCA plan provides significant economic benefits and positions Australia to lead in the 21st century renewable energy economy.

It’s time for the government, business sector, and the wider community to take decisive leadership for the clean, renewable energy transition to begin. We need a commitment from all Australians to work together to overcome the existential challenge of climate change. This week, Australia’s new Prime Minister has the opportunity to lead the way.

The Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan was researched and written by Beyond Zero Emissions and the University of Melbourne Energy Institute. It will be released publicly on 14 July in Melbourne.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
223The world puzzles over Australia's Prime Minister

85 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Paul H says:

      06:02am | 14/07/10

      Patrick, have you been hiding under a rock? It is now widely known that we are not responsible for any global warming as it’s just a naturally occuring phenomenon. It’s caused by that big yellow thing in the sky! It has also been widely published that wind power would not come anywhere near being able to fulfill Australia’s energy needs. Beyond Zero Emmisions was responsible for the submission to the Rudd government on climate change and seeks to make Australia carbon neutral in ten years. Wake up you idiots! Carbon is NOT a polutant. I am fed up with radical organisations like this one, who seek to put civilisation back to the stone age, whilst forcing up our energy costs so that pensioners and low income households cannot afford to even switch on a heater in the middle of winter. Crawl back under you rock and take your outdated ideas with you. Australia doesn’t need you.

      Reply

    • Craig Lambie says:

      08:26am | 14/07/10

      @Paul H, I think you have been hiding under a rock.
      2200 scientists on the IPCC have just provided plenty of evidence to support a 90% likelyhood that Global warming is man made.
      Yes Solar Flares do change the temperature, but so does the level of Carbon Dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere.
      You obviously have no understanding of the world you live in, so please crawl back under your rock and don’t comment on reports you haven’t bothered to read.
      The BCA report is far from Outdated, it is being released today, unlike the reports from scientists paid by the Oil and coal companies that you haven’t even cited in your little rant!

    • Carter says:

      08:42am | 14/07/10

      Paul H, perhaps you have been living under teh rock?

      It has NOT been proven that humans are free from blame in the global warming phenomenon - or perhaps you could cite a source? Who isn’t Lord Monkton…

      Further, if it’s the result of ‘the big yellow thing’ then how exectly have global average temperatures rissen? Unless it’s getting closer, surely the temperatures would remain constant…

      Further, wind power is PART of the solution - along with solar, geothermal, hydrodynamic and traditional - albeit modified - energy production.

      Also, no, carbon itself - in natural amounts - isn’t a pollutant, it’s in the excessive amounts from, say, a coal fired power station that creates pollutants? Or perhaps you’ve looked at the discharge from coal stacks and thought ‘no, that’s absolutely normal for that to happen’.

      Further, even if global warming IS a natural process, historical data (temperature averages over RECORDED HISTORY) has shown a dramatic increase since the indistrial revolution (when we started pumping ‘pollution’ into the atmosphere, that is significantly more than the natural increase.

      Further, you’re an arsehat.

    • Doh says:

      09:24am | 14/07/10

      @Craig Lambie

      I would sure like to see where you got the 2200 scientists figure from, it is not where near that many.  This sort of truth by so called consensus sounds strangely Ruddish.

      “90% likelyhood that Global warming is man made”

      This is one of the biggest lies in the entire IPCC report.  A split second decision around a table that was not based on evidence or data.  Just a nice sounding high but not to high figure that leaves plenty of room to back down if necessary, just ask any statistician.

      @Carter

      “arsehat”? Way to demonstrate your intellectual superiority [yawn]

      “Further, wind power is PART of the solution - along with solar, geothermal, hydrodynamic and traditional - albeit modified - energy production.”

      I work as an engineer in the power supply industry and it is farcical to believe that these alternatives are actually feasible.  Ten years ago they said we would be in a position to seriously look at wind and solar as a base load option in ten years.  We are here now and neither is even near to being an option.  If you seriously want to reduce the global CO2 emissions over time nuclear energy is the only feasible long term option, it is hypocrisy not to consider it.

      “Or perhaps you’ve looked at the discharge from coal stacks and thought ‘no, that’s absolutely normal for that to happen’.”

      I got news for you, that is actually water vapour from the cooling process.

      “Further, even if global warming IS a natural process, historical data (temperature averages over RECORDED HISTORY) has shown a dramatic increase since the indistrial revolution (when we started pumping ‘pollution’ into the atmosphere, that is significantly more than the natural increase.”

      It was good enough for the hockey stick…..

      Seriously though, you cannot ignore this source of data provided ALL the data is used in an objective fashion.

    • Tony H says:

      09:53am | 14/07/10

      Seems Earth isn’t the only planet thats been warming
      http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html

      Those damned Martians need to reduce their carbon emissions too! I hope their government has introduced a great big lefty socialist income redistribution scheme to handle it.
      Those fools at NASA think its got something to do with increased solar activity “the slight increase in surface air temperature is similar to climate variations seen on Earth”  But as all of us arts and humanities students know its martian-made global warming from their carbon emissions, MARTIAN MADE!

    • Carter says:

      09:58am | 14/07/10

      @Doh

      I used the term ‘arsehat’ because @Paul H’s argument was so one sided and lacking in any real evidence yet so full of indignation.

      Without fueling your need to demonstrate how many pieces of paper you have, I recognise, as I said in my post, that wind power is PART of the solution. All the other examples are PART of the soultion. I don’t recall, and reading my post again can’t see where, I said that they were the complete solution. I think it’s a given that ALL PARTS of the solution need further development, but sitting on our hands and saying “oh, I’m an engineer and it’s hopeless’ isn’t going to get us anywhere either…

      I’m aware that the ‘white stuff’ coming out of coal fired power stations is water vapor (steam). I’m also aware that water vapour isn’t the only form of discharge from power stations, or other coal burning infrastructure… Or perhaps the smoke from burnt coal to fire the power station magically disappears?

      I’m not even sure what the hockey stick reference means.

      ALL the evidence (for and against human influenced climate change) needs to be considered. In the meantime, there is absolutely no harm in also considering alternate means of power generation.

    • Ryan says:

      10:23am | 14/07/10

      @Craig Lambie: and over 31 000 scientists who have provided plenty of evidence to support a 90% likelyhood that Global warming is a scam and a farce.
      We also KNOW that one of the primary climate institutes making a case for global warming was caught “fudging figures” and “hiding the decline”. Here is the US Senate report findings into that matter.. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63
      From the evidence with regards to the climategate scandal and the US Senate report into the findings, what we can be sure of is that there is some sort of vested interest in this scam.

    • G. David says:

      10:34am | 14/07/10

      @Craig Lambie,  In the IPCC study, there was only a single chapter (Chapter 9 — Understanding and Attributing Climate Change) that specifically dealt with the hypothesis that human CO2 was the cause of global warming. The authors of that chapter concluded that human CO2 was the cause.This key, critical IPCC chapter had only 53 climate scientist authors. This chapter was reviewed by 55 climate scientist reviewers. Only 7 of the reviewers approved of the chapter, either completely or partially. So, throughout the entire climate scientist world, only a total of 60 climate scientists approved of the IPCC’s conclusion that human CO2 was the cause. At the same time 650 scientists criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC. The 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN lackeys who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) undertakes no research for itself and while it relies on peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals, there is strong evidence that the IPCC is very selective of the papers it wishes to cite and pays scant regard to papers that do not adhere to it’s preconceived notion that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide have caused warming.

      Furthermore, the Warmists and their media cheer squad appear to have missed an astonishing line in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2001 Assessment Report:

      “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

      This statement appeared in the Executive Summary of Chapter 14 of the report produced by Working Group 1.

      Yes, the IPCC admitted, a decade ago, that future long-term climate cannot be predicted because the system is chaotic. It is non-linear. It does not, and will not, behave the way we mere mortals expect it to.

      While their 2007 Report asserts a better-than-90% certainty that the average temperature increase over the last 50 years is human-caused, they have produced no credible evidence to back this up. None!

      So tell us again why we have to spend Billions of Dollars fighting a non-existent problem and why we’re scaring little kids by telling them there won’t be a habitable world left by the time they grow up?

    • Nafe says:

      11:04am | 14/07/10

      Carter, You can not be serious. “Further, even if global warming IS a natural process, historical data (temperature averages over RECORDED HISTORY) has shown a dramatic increase since the indistrial revolution (when we started pumping ‘pollution’ into the atmosphere, that is significantly more than the natural increase.”

      I would relook at your figures. I’m not sure if you recall but in the mid to late 70"s, well after the industrial revolution was in full swing, we were headding into global cooling. There was similar hysteria that we were headding to another ice age.

      All throughout history tempratures have both risen and fallen, almost in a cyclical fassion. There is more than enough evidence, if you investigte the issues that there is a high probabilty that human activity is not causing global warming (or climate change it is now called)

      BUT in saying the above, there is a hell of alot of confusion, fudging of figures and miscommunication in the whole climate change debate, on both sides.

      There is no proof, either way that makes it 100% certain that human activity is or isn’t CONTRIBUTING to climate change.

      The word “contributing” is the word missed by both sides in the argument. We all know and are 100% certain that human activity does NOT CAUSE climate change. The argument should be about and focussing on human activity contributing, in any way to the rate of the change.

      My personal view, without any science or crap to back me up, I think that all the crap pumped into the atmosphere must be doing something. but i doubt there is enough there to contribute significantly to the rate fo climate change.

    • Gregg says:

      11:31am | 14/07/10

      Err!, Doh ray me too,
      I too have worked in the power industry and whilst some of what you say has some truth, all those emissions from coal stacks are usually the results of combustion of coal and will include copious quautities of CO2 amongst whatever else.
      What you may have meant to say is those huge white clouds often pictured coming from concrete towers alongside power stations is the water vapour coming from cooling towers.

    • Florence says:

      02:11pm | 14/07/10

      Yes it has been caused by that big yellow thing in the sky.  We have by our actions changed the protective layer around our earth, allowing that big yellow thing in the sky to make our earth hotter.  Coal power belongs in the stone age.  There are many better ways of providing energy and fuel.

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      07:53pm | 14/07/10

      What ways are they Florence? Ones that work of course… not wind, not solar, not geothermal…

    • Nigel Catchlove says:

      09:22pm | 14/07/10

      Ton H, we’re on the same side of the debate (I think) but it doesn’t help to selectively quote NASA.  The full quote reads: “In particular, the slight increase in surface air temperature is similar to climate variations seen on Earth, even though the processes involved are significantly different,” Lori Fenton - NASA.

      That last bit of the quote, which relates to dust blowing on the surface of Mars, when combined with the bit that says that scientists don’t yet understand the relationship between the way that dust settles and the brightness of the planet’s surface, makes your contribution to the climate change debate irrelevant and unhelpful.

      Natural variation in the sun’s affect on planet Earth may go some way towards expaining the variance in our climate - probably more than the rising concentration of a trace gas in our atmosphere but the simple inverse square rule means that the sun’s variation when measured on mars would be miniscule.

    • Eric says:

      06:17am | 14/07/10

      Any low-carbon plan that doesn’t include nuclear energy is not particularly serious.

      The wind doesn’t blow all the time, and the sun sets every day. Efficient usage of solar and wind power requires storage technologies that do not yet exist.

      And even if the storage problem is solved, vast amounts of land would be required for the collection of sufficient wind and solar power - much more than for the biggest, most intrusive coal mines and power plants of today.

      With one third of the world’s known uranium reserves, and the most advanced isotope separation technology, Australia would be insane to ignore the nuclear solution.

      Reply

    • gregory says:

      07:52am | 14/07/10

      Nuclear is too slow and too expensive - if you actually read the report (which you clearly haven’t), which is available now from the Melbourne Energy Institute, you’ll see that the baseload issue with renewable energy has been solved.

      Wake up and come into reality.

    • Doh says:

      09:28am | 14/07/10

      @gregory

      http://www.world-nuclear.org/

      It IS an option and has been for the last 2 decades.

      It is you that should wake up to reality.

      The “alternatives” are more expensive to build AND operate and pose greater risks in terms of continuity of supply, safety, environmental, social and community impacts.

    • Adam Diver says:

      10:05am | 14/07/10

      @ Gregory, without reading the report, surely some information should be provided in the above piece anyway. How exactly has the storage and base load issues been slved with wind and solar? Please enlighten me

    • Ryan says:

      10:26am | 14/07/10

      @Doh : clearly Gregory knows better than just about every country in Europe, half of America and not forgetting South Africa for that matter. Obviously we all need to wake up to his reality, or lack thereof.

    • TTT says:

      10:32am | 14/07/10

      Actually, Germany is planning to reach 100% renewable energy - the Government is planning this.

      Again, as Gregory says, the report clearly shows how a realiable grid can be built with wind and baseload solar thermal, with biomass and hydro back-up (2% of supply from the back-up).

      You guys just don’t want to take the blinkers off.

    • Richard says:

      12:21pm | 14/07/10

      Some of my very earliest memories about world affairs are about reading Nat Geo articles about the Chernobyl disaster and its terrible cost. I was only 5 years or so at the time and it scared me silly. I will never support nuclear fission electricity generation, even if you say the risks are small, because given enough time, eventually something will go wrong, and the costs are too great to bear when it does go wrong.

      Other countries with populations running into the hundreds of millions or billions may decide that the risks of nuclear are worthwhile, but meanwhile in Australia, with our population of about 20 million (1/3 of 1% of world population), I’m pretty sure we could continue to burn cheap, risk-free coal to our hearts content without making one lick of difference to the emissions in the overall world scheme of things. Lets be pragmatic here. That said, we should still strive to achieve greater efficiency and economy in running our electricity utilities, and new technology, whether it be fossil fuel, nuclear or renewable, will invariably aid us in doing so.

    • Gregg says:

      12:58pm | 14/07/10

      Richard, it is OK to have a fear of somrthing like Chernobyl but you also need to put it into perspective.
      . It was a nuclear dinosaur as far as nuclear power station designs go and a lot of things run under the Soviet regime style of management/motivation could be questionable.
      There have been numerous coal mine disastors in eastern Europe and China too.
      . If you’ve been watching Le Tour France of late, late on SBS, one feature each year is all that beautiful countryside and yes France gets about not only 75% or so og its own power from Nuclear but also exports to other European countries and they too have many Nuclear fired power stations, the designs of them being continually upgraded for fuel use and recycling of spent fuel to greatly minimise extent to be stored and the dangers of storage.
      . In our own landscape, if not so lush at times, if you’ve never take a drive to the so called pristine Hunter Valley wines region, do not stray too far afield like up through the upper Hunter for the coal open cuts mine developments is a horrendous scar for mile after mile.
      And it is not without its health risks for there are many cases of respiratory disease being far in excess of the norm, children being affected and also higher occurrences of Cancer, not a healthy place at all to be living in.
      Renewable energy, be it wind or solar can provide some power at a cost though and it will have its limitations, the long term operational needs of commercial solar plants are relatively unknown for keeping solar panels effective in a dusty continent could be a huge problem and then pumping/storing liquid salt I could imagine will have corrosion/erosion issues.
      So like it or not, mankinds technology now, it is either coal, gas or nuclear for meeting base load needs.

    • ibast says:

      01:35pm | 14/07/10

      Gregg says, “So like it or not, mankinds technology now, it is either coal, gas or nuclear for meeting base load needs. “

      Zackly.  I’m personally on the fence when it comes to Nuclear power, but anyone who thinks we can get rid of coal without using nuclear power is kidding themselves.

      Even gas, with the help of renewables, cannot compensate for the energy that coal firing provides us.  As it stands nuclear is the only means that can provide the energy we currently demand and the increased demand of the future.  Other may become viable, but the development cycle tells me they will be 20 years before they make any significant impact.

    • Gregg says:

      01:51pm | 15/07/10

      TTT, it is one thing to take the blinkers off and another to be wearing rose coloured glasses.
      The trouble with reports such as these is they promise so much based on various other non descript reports, modelling and the like with some resultant outlandish claims.
      For instance, apart from solar plants that were operating in the US desert [ just 10MW - and if so good then why for just three years ], the main one they are hanging their hat on has been under construction in Spain since 2008.
      You can read about it @ http://www.torresolenergy.com/en/proyectos-en-construccion.html
      That is a whopping big 17MW capacity! and limited hours of operation.
      Now just consider that with the total capacity of the Australian eastern seaboard grid.
      But before you even bother, do you really consider a three year run of a 10MW capacity plant as being sufficient proof of a system to be relied upon for base-load?
      If you do, you know nothing of engineering I suspect.
      Their bio-mass claim for extra heating!!! and do you have any idea how big a furnace and ammount of fuel would be required for even a single 217 MW unit.
      If not I suggest you go and have a close up look at a coal fired power station as an example.
      If there is to be massive reliance on any new power generation process it needs to have a proving period unless of course you want to be pushed back into the dark ages with no power.
      You need to do some good reading on technological information before you rush into the mantra of its OK because the report says it is.

    • gregory says:

      07:44am | 14/07/10

      Some endorsements of the plan from the Beyond Zero Emissions website:

      Rio Tinto employee and former chief scientist:

      “With our natural advantage Australia can and should be positioning itself as a global renewable super power for future prosperity. This report will help shift the climate debate to focus on energy; security; affordability; export and of course opportunity. Beyond Zero Emissions offers a new and invigorating message that is much needed”

      Professor Robin Batterham,
      President, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering,
      formerly Chief Scientist of Australia

      International Energy Agency:

      “As the IEA has shown in its research, solar energy is now a serious global player for providing the world’s energy.  Australia has one of the world’s best solar energy resource, especially suited for concentrating solar thermal power plants, which can dispatch electricity when it is needed. The Zero Carbon Australia Plan is based on up-to-date and sound information and provides quality insights on how a country well-endowed in renewable resources can transition to a solar and wind economy.
      Cédric Philibert
      Renewable Energy Division
      International Energy Agency

      A solar thermal expert:

      ”The ZCA report analyses one particular scenario of renewable energy technology choice based on available solutions, in considerable depth. It successfully shows in detail that 100% renewable energy is both technically possible and economically affordable. Clearly other renewable energy technology scenarios are also possible, that only serves to strengthen the overall conclusion about viability. The group is to be congratulated for their efforts.”
      Associate Professor Keith Lovegrove
      Leader High Temperature Solar Thermal Group
      Australian National University

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      11:43am | 14/07/10

      Are you going to answer the previous question on your claim that the report says base load requirements can be easily met for I’ll take a bit longer to read the report too.
      Just quoting people doesn’t do too much towards showing how the claim is valid.

    • factoid says:

      02:36pm | 16/07/10

      Here’s some more quotes - I like this quoting business:

      “No doubt improved technologies for tapping usable energy from the sun, the winds, the tides, and the hot core of our planet will emerge as time goes by. But this report shows clearly that the solutions available now are, with our small population and enormous landmass, sufficient for Australia to move forward very quickly to tap renewable energy sources and minimize greenhouse gas emissions. We have the resources. We need the will.
      Dr. Peter Doherty, Nobel Laureate, School of Medicine, University of Melbourne

      “To achieve a safe climate future we need an urgent, large-scale transition. The work of Beyond Zero Emissions shows that the technical transition is affordable and achievable. Now we need a social and political transition to get behind it.”
      Professor Carmen Lawrence,
      School of Psychology,
      University of Western Australia
      Former Premier of Western Australia.

      “The Zero Carbon Australia 2020 plan shows that it is technically feasible and affordable to replace all fossil fuel electricity with 100% renewable energy given the willpower and commitment to do so. This is a cutting-edge science-based plan that should be read by every energy decision maker and politician in Australia.”
      Mark Z. Jacobson
      Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
      Professor by Courtesy of Energy Resources Engineering
      Director, Atmosphere/Energy Program
      Stanford University, USA

    • John L says:

      08:43am | 14/07/10

      NIMBY-ism - Australia’s barrier to ZCA!

      Reply

    • Shifter says:

      01:05pm | 14/07/10

      I think it’s Australia’s barrier to pretty much anything new in the energy industry. Renewable, nuclear, all rubbish as long as the coal fires are burning.

    • James says:

      11:38am | 15/07/10

      Unless your back yard happens to be a marginal electorate that you can locate a renewable energy power station in, creating jobs for locals.  Or you back yard happens to be degraded farmland that is not suitable for farming anymore and you can make a nice little earner leasing it to a renewable energy company.

    • Daryl says:

      08:49am | 14/07/10

      Clearing the decks? Resolved the profits tax?? What, they created the mess in the first place and have now opened up a $4.5b hole in their budget! A position on asylum seekers?? What, they anounced something that wasn’t agreed with anyone and which has since fallen apart. As for climate change, didn’t they try that one already and put it in the too hard basket? “The greatest moral challenge of our time” apparently isn’t any more?? All Labor appears to be capable of is turning Australia into a world leader in Bullsh!t. Look at the green loans failure, the ETS backdown, the rorting of the school schemes, the insulation fiasco, the profits tax backdown. The spin on more affordable housing, childcare facilities not delivered, a root and branch overhaul of the tax system, grocery choice not delivered, fuel watch failure, laptops not delivered blah blah blah. No one believes the spin or the lies any more. Except maybe you Patrick?

      Reply

    • Anthony of WA says:

      09:03am | 14/07/10

      Good one Daryl, I would lump Patrick in with most of the jornos in this country, This whole global warming thing is about one thing, Money.
      Al Gore and Co have just come up with a good scheme to make a buck, we will all be paying extra for no benefit, just look at all the other green schemes Labour have come up with in the last 3 years, name one that has been a success

    • James says:

      11:36am | 15/07/10

      @ Daryl, show me exactly where Patrick says the Labor party are doing a good job.  He is saying they need to lift their game.  Please read the article before launching into your rant.

    • David C says:

      09:18am | 14/07/10

      The key is not to make fossil fuels more expensive but to make renewables cheaper. Forget the cutting emmisions as a stand alone policy it is not polictically practical. That is why Kyoto is a failure and why Copenhagen failed.
      And another key is to drop these silly we are all doomed statements. There still a large amount of uncertainties with all this, to say otherwise is to play politics through science.

      Reply

    • James says:

      02:18pm | 15/07/10

      The key to making renewables (and most other things) cheaper is to produce them in volume, economies of scale.  Nothing would get produced if you assumed your intial run production costs would equal the cost of production 5, 10, 15 years down the track.  See computers for a classic example.

    • Charles says:

      09:25am | 14/07/10

      This article represnets what is known as the ‘aspirational’ sciences, where the emotions of wishing and hoping are heavily drawn upon to find conclusions.

      Wind energy is carbon neutral at best and at low penetration (1-3%) into the energy supply uses the Spinning Reserve that conventional generators hold to support their presence.  Once it gets higher, the back-up or support generators tend to use more fossil fuel, emit more CO2 and increase wear and tear and maintenance costs on the plant.

      The reason this is so is due to the fact that ramping up and down a fossil fuel generator to reach its requitred operating level is a process that takes several hours.  Wind can rise and fall in a matter of a few minutes, and it is impossible to seamlessly integrate the two supplies, hence the inefficiencies that start to arise.

      With solar, using molten salt towers as an energy capture mechanism, nobody has done a cost benefit analysis on them, and so far while they might work as a concept, the costs would almost certainly outweight the advantages.

      In other solar news, those who take up the current government subsidies and using the feed-in tarriff system are merely passing their electricity costs onto those who do not have the advantage of the feed-in tarriff.  What this simply means is that those who can afford to take advantage of the government subsisudes to install this plant, then pass their electricity costs onto those who can’t, who are usually the poorest group in our society. This would have to be one of the greatest own goals in history.

      Reply

    • TTT says:

      10:28am | 14/07/10

      read the report! You clearly haven’t.

    • DD Ball says:

      09:34am | 14/07/10

      The Conservatives have had the best environmental policy to date. They have on their books practical steps to reducing Carbon through the use of high tech energy production facilities and the Greens and the ALP are not interested as it apparently conflicts with their scare campaigns of the past. No need to tax and limit Australian industry, and the results are better than the ALP or Greens can deliver with their big sticks. Which is probably why the Greens and ALP oppose it. I don’t think the Greens and ALP care about the environment. I think they (Greens) want to damage the economy and ALP want to steal money.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      12:32pm | 14/07/10

      Throwing money at the problem and letting the taxpayer subsidise what is a private sector cost (the cost of pollution) is not the solution. For one thing it seems socialist, which is supposedly against Conservative principles…..

    • DD Ball says:

      04:33pm | 14/07/10

      Shane, if that were the conservative solution the accusation would stand. But you are wrong, and did not provide any detail so I cannot point to why you think wrong things.

    • Richard says:

      09:37am | 14/07/10

      “To meet the challenge Australia must start building large-scale renewable energy power plants now” No I disagree. To meet the challenge we need small-scale, decentralised renewable energy generation on a micro-local level. Yes I’m talking about small solar panels which are becoming popular on roofs these days: if every house, apartment block, shopping centre, commercial building, industrial warehouse etc had these puppies installed, how much lower would our surplus requirements need to be? And then to provide baseload, simple coal-fired power stations with some form of carbon capture technology being used (there are already rudimentry forms of these that have been developed) would be sufficient for all our electricity generation needs.

      The only large-scale projects the government should be undertaking is a massive forestation program to start removing all the carbon that is already in the atmosphere, combined with a planet-wide ban on clear felling and deforestation practices. This is the real elephant in the room, because humans and trees are symbiotic, and a long as we keep destroying our source of oxygen and carbon sinks, we are destined to die out as a species alot sooner than is strictly necessary.

      Reply

    • factoid says:

      02:33pm | 16/07/10

      uum - OK well I look forward to the report - such as the Zero Carbon Australia discussed above, that shows how small scale can get us to 100% renewable energy in ten years.

      do you figures to back you up? Small scale is a nice idea, but I’m not sure that it can run an economy like solar thermal and wind can.

    • Doh says:

      09:42am | 14/07/10

      I am sorry Patrick but your article has several glaring errors.

      “After resolving the mining tax dispute” - I find it surprising that, being an employee of RIO TINTO, that you would not have heard BHP’s statement to the stock exchange that it does not expect to pay any MRRT (in it’s current form) for 25 years.  Notwithstanding the fact that the whole idea is a farce it does not sound like a resolved issue.

      “adopting a position on asylum seekers”

      I also find it difficult to understand how you could not have heard that the ET government has rejected Gillard’s proposal.  She may have a position, but it is a weak one.

      “scale of the climate crisis” - What climate crisis??  It is alarmists like you who created the problem and, surprise surprise, you also have the solution.  Oh and it is going to cost $Xbillion to implement, oh and we are the only ones that can do it…...

      “To meet the challenge Australia must start building large-scale renewable energy power plants now, as opposed to policy approaches that defer immediate action and tolerates half-measures and delay.”

      If it was feasible to do so it would have already been done….without the need for government intervention (just look at Spain).

      If you really are concerned about reducing CO2 emissions build nuclear.

      Reply

    • James says:

      11:29am | 15/07/10

      How long will it take to build nuclear to power the world?

      How long will the current reserves of Uranium last if there is a large scale move to nuclear?

      What is the total cost of moving to nuclear, including waste disposal and decomissioning costs?

      You will have to come up with answers to these questions if you want to be taken seriously.

    • Aussie Renee says:

      09:51am | 14/07/10

      It is true.  A multitude of scientists have insisted that Climate Change is unscientific and also others in the know state it is the scheme of the very ultra rich to make their trillions for one thing.  We do not want to be the leader in Cap and Trade.  To start off with, most of the rest of the world may not even follow on.  Secondly, it will produce a great loss of jobs in Australia.  We need to prevent that.  There is no employment here for those who are fifty and over.  None at all.  So they are required to follow the Government rules - 15 hours a week Community service or a course at Tafe (that will still not get them work as they wil still be old and inexperienced).  They must attend fortnightly, a Government paid private Employment Agency that does not have jobs to provide for them.  Instead, a two minute interview.  “How were you this past fortnight?  We have nothing for you.  See you next time”.  These “poor” oldies, living on a pittance, has to pay petrol they cannot afford to attend the wishes of a Government that is out of touch with the reality of the employment situation in this country.  While there are cries for higher wages and the handing out of funds unnecessarily to further this New Start programme now implemented, there remains no hope of employment for these fifty or even forty years and over..

      Reply

    • Aussie Renee says:

      09:51am | 14/07/10

      It is true.  A multitude of scientists have insisted that Climate Change is unscientific and also others in the know state it is the scheme of the very ultra rich to make their trillions for one thing.  We do not want to be the leader in Cap and Trade.  To start off with, most of the rest of the world may not even follow on.  Secondly, it will produce a great loss of jobs in Australia.  We need to prevent that.  There is no employment here for those who are fifty and over.  None at all.  So they are required to follow the Government rules - 15 hours a week Community service or a course at Tafe (that will still not get them work as they wil still be old and inexperienced).  They must attend fortnightly, a Government paid private Employment Agency that does not have jobs to provide for them.  Instead, a two minute interview.  “How were you this past fortnight?  We have nothing for you.  See you next time”.  These “poor” oldies, living on a pittance, has to pay petrol they cannot afford to attend the wishes of a Government that is out of touch with the reality of the employment situation in this country.  While there are cries for higher wages and the handing out of funds unnecessarily to further this New Start programme now implemented, there remains no hope of employment for these fifty or even forty years and over..

      Reply

    • ibast says:

      09:53am | 14/07/10

      I work in the industry and I can tell you the industry still sees the limit for renewable energy as about 20%.  Don’t brand me as a naysayer either.  I believe in global warming and I believe we should have been on top of renewable resources 20 years earlier.  It’s just to me a number thing bugger everyone’s argument.  Firstly energy demand will continue to increase so long as the worlds population does.  Sure we will find efficiencies, but it will always increase.  Also, no matter how much you want it, renewable energy will only make up a lesser percentage of the energy profile.  In addition, Australia will need to accommodate higher energy demands very shortly.  Energy demands follow economic growth.  Lastly Australia current energy supply is at it’s limits.

      Most people in power know this and they are trying to plug the gap with Gas turbines.  Gas is easy to approve, because it is relatively cheap, apparently efficient and doesn’t have the coal stigma.  The problem is once these gas turbines get loaded up, gas supply will be a problem and gas will no longer be cheap.

      There are are number of conclusion I can come to from all this.  We need to go nuclear.  If we don’t, we need to build modern coal fired plants (particularly in NSW), but in the long to term the only solution is to begin controlling global population.  I would think that stance will never win out over religion.

      Reply

    • Sherlock says:

      10:12am | 14/07/10

      The fatal flaw in the plan is that it’s based on a specious assumption

      “Replacing inefficient fossil fuels and introducing energy efficiency measures decreases total energy consumption in Australia by more than 50%, from 3,915 PJ/yr in 2008 to 1,660 PJ/yr in 2020”


      Energy consumption down by 50% in 10 years? That’s the laugh of the century. Come on people fess up. How are you going to cut your own energy consumption by 50%? What are you prepared to give up and how much are you prepared to spend?

      I’m sorry but the whole idea is laughable 40% of our power coming form wind?  Really? How are the current wind farms doing? Who’s prepared to shut down the existing power stations and rely on wind power? Some basic reading on the countries using wind power make you realise how hopeless that idea is.

      Then the remaining 60%is solar thermal energy? I’m sorry but this is the typical “Fairies ate the bottom of the garden” stuff you expect from the Greens. Less than a year ago the total worldwide capacity of solar thermal power was estimated to be around 600 megawatts. A lot must have happened since then for it to be suggested as the producer of 60% of our electricity needs.

      People have been trying for decades to get renewable energy to become reliable and economical. They have yet to come anywhere near successful. If they had we’d all be using it now, instead the world still relies on fossil fuels or nuclear.

      I’m all for sinking serious money in research. I think Australia should become the leader in renewable technology. However let’s focus on making it a serious alternative to fossil fuels rather than this pie in the sky stuff of pretending it can supply all our electricity needs.

      Reply

    • James says:

      11:27am | 15/07/10

      My suggestion is to read the report for the answers to your questions, given you are asking them this is clearly you haven’t done

    • Gregg says:

      11:46pm | 15/07/10

      Well James I’ve read the report and being an engineer I too do not believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden nor Green Pixies.
      There are some glaring assumptions in the technology and I’ll try and explain what they would not dare put in the report:
      .First a 10 MW plant that ran for three years before being shutdown and a 17MW plant under construction do not a base load system make and to say build all this even if it was possible in ten years [ and it ain’t ] and to close down reliable power stations is just not feasible.
      Now for some technological aspects.
      One of the reasons the 17MW plant being built in Spain is so low is that that there is a limit to size in regard to transmitting the heat from reflective solar mirrors - for 217MW you’re going to need in round figures at least 12 times the ammount of heat plus what ever else the greater losses would be.
      Where does the heat come from? - the sun rays being being reflected and so for 12+ times the heat, you’re going to need 12+ times [ + ] the number of reflectors.
      Now that is in theory but in reality, with those 12+ times reflectors it means the area of them is going to be expanded and thus the reflectors will be even further away from the tower!
      So what happens then?
      Ever stood near a corrugated shed wall that has the sun on it?
      Yep it can be warm but move a bit away and it’s not so warm ain’t it?
      Exactly the same thing is going to happen when the reflectors are outside their useful limit for transmitting the heat.
      So maybe if they have multiple 17 MW units, they may go close to achieving something and there are advantages in doing that for all those reflectors and the associated systems are going to need maintenance.
      Second technological hitch is though they may claim 24/7 operation, nope sorry, far from it and read 15 Hours
      http://www.torresolenergy.com/en/proyectos-en-construccion.html
      So we use biomass fuel - Oh yeah and just what sort of quantities do they reckon they’ll be needing to grow where there’s not too much water?
      Have a look at boiler size on a typical coal fired power station and you may get an idea - it ain’t going to be anything like chuck another log on the fire but that’s what more and more people will be doing to keep warm.
      And then the Grid!
      And these solar units are going to be placed inland some hundreds of kilometres and that’s fine, away from coastal cloud but then there’s what called transmission losses and they are quite significant and why you’ll have power stations ideally located as close as possible to main load centres.
      And finally, reliability and Major Base Load PSs are generally built around a 30 year life though that has been extended in many situations with refurbishments and actual capacity upgrades, so even 50+ is feasible and actually coming up for Hazelwood PS in Victoria.
      So sure, its a greenies toy to be played with and when they actually have one running for a long time longer than three years and the full operational and maintenance issues are known, then will be the time to decide just what size is possible.
      Their report just glosses over issues like the above.

    • James says:

      10:55am | 16/07/10

      Gregg you do not understand even basic physics if you think that distance of mirror to reciever makes a huge amount of difference in this case.  The reason a corrugated shed becomes rapidly cooler as you move away from it is becasue the radient heat is scattered in all directions, as corrugated iron is a poor reflector.  The reason you use mirrors is because they produce a coherent beam of light that directs energy to a narrow target area and does not lose energy to scattering.

      If you don’t understand this basic principle you will not understand this technology, I suggest you look up the principle of coherent light beams (lasers etc), have a think and then re read this plan, arned with this knowledge it will make alot more sense.

    • TTT says:

      10:26am | 14/07/10

      Incredible how the fossil fools come out to deny the potential of renewable energy - and not one of them has read the report in question!

      The debate has shifted guys - 100% renewable energy is a possibility, now let’s discuss what policy mechanisms we put in place to get there.

      We need this for our energy security and our future survival. Well done to Beyond Zero Emissions.

      Reply

    • ibast says:

      11:22am | 14/07/10

      I’ve skimmed through the report and the basic premise is erroneous.  To do this by 2020 would take a WWII type industrialisation.  To do this and halve our energy output is just ridiculous.  You would have to throw 50 years worth of energy at a project like this.

      The report also deals with vehicles.  You may be able to force people to drive electric car and I’m 1000% for getting freight on trains, but you still need to get it to the trains.  Electric vehicles that are capable of hauling significant loads are yet to be invented (and my personal opinion as an Engineer, is that batteries have now hit there limit.  Gains from this point on will be in fractions of a percent).  Then there is the environmental consequences of battery powered vehicles, the energy it takes to gear up for their production and the chemical disposal and processing.

      the reality is, that whilst you may be able to get a temporary downturn in energy demands (5-10%) in the long term it will continue to grow in alignment with GDP and population.  The report is sticking its head in the sand in this regards.

      I see that the report is deliberately setting the bar high and is proposing a new world order.  I also get that we should be aiming for it, but from my initial processing of the report I can see some massive holes that simply may it not credible.

    • Freeman says:

      11:29am | 14/07/10

      TTT,
      it’s not policies holding back renewable enery, it’s the science. it’s limitations can not be ignored.
      100% renewable energy may happen in the future but it is a LONG way off. perhaps a century away. the biggest problem with solar and wind energy is its non-constant or unreliable nature. a steam generator can be regulated to supply the demand 24/7. solar delivers most of it enery between 9.00 and 3.00pm, little in the evening and none at night. produces much more in summer than winter and little on cloudy days.
      so what would be required to produce constant power would be a MASSIVE battery bank for the wind and solar genrators to feed into. these batteries (and solar panels) have a limited life just as your car battery does. so every decade or so we’d have to replace that massive battery bank (and dispose of millions of litres/tonnes of battery material). wind enery is no more reliable. renewables can only assist coal or nuclear power plants. geothermal has possibilities though.

    • iansand says:

      02:56pm | 14/07/10

      Best we start then.

    • James says:

      11:24am | 15/07/10

      @ ibast well skim a bit deeper and you will see that physics dictates that if you electrify gas and oil based systems you dramatically increase energy efficiency (my opinion as a physics grad).

      RE batteries we ain’t seen nothing yet look up nanowire batteries

      http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4237756

    • Justin says:

      11:53am | 14/07/10

      Does anyone actually think any of this will actually happen in anything more than token form?

      If any of our political masters were vaguely keeping their options open, they wouldn’t be approving new coal export terminals, new gas export deals (yes, it’s actually a fossil fuel), brown coal exports(!) & any other fossil fuel commitments with 30+ years lead time. While any of that is occurring, you cannot take any green policies seriously as it’s the equivalent of brushing the brake pedal while the accelerator is jammed to the floor.

      Reply

    • hugh says:

      12:04pm | 14/07/10

      One line in the article:
      “The only way to escape the worst forecasts of climate change is to implement measures to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade”

      The ONLY way? Really thinking outside the box, aren’t we?

      There will be cheaper options available to prevent global warming - it might just be counterintuitive to your green conscience (ie (per the book Superfreakonomics) actually pump smog into the upper levels of the atmosphere to blanket the Earth, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight getting through - cooling the Earth in the process. Kinda like when large a volcano erupts, and this phenomenon takes place)

      Reply

    • James says:

      11:18am | 15/07/10

      Would you take an untested drug to ‘cure’ highblood pressure, rather than eating less fatty food and exercising more, becuase that is what you are proposing for the whole planet.

    • factoid says:

      05:02pm | 16/07/10

      That’s not even proven - solar thermal with molten salt storage and wind power is.

    • Gregg says:

      12:36pm | 14/07/10

      Patrick,
      I do not know whether you have read that report fully or have the technical capacity to review any of the claims made but from the extent of it I have read so far there are some outstandingly ambitious claims, ambitious to the point of credibility and you really need to get a handle on the reality of such claims before you’re tar brushed and feathered for a senatorially Wrong look.
      First of all the ten year timeframe!
      As one who has worked in the power industry and anyone else will tell you, it is just off the planet.
      It takes a good ten years and more to get coal fired power stations up and running and to say we will have wind and solar etc. to replace base load coal fired power stations and all the sundry gas turbine units about in ten years is just ludricous.
      Now we know the wind doesn’t always blow and you need to research some of the issues about in regard to getting wind turbine generation connected into grids and even new power transmission lines being run for them - not so simple.
      So the report hangs its hat to some extent on the Concentrating Solar Thermal with Storage concept
      ” Solar thermal power towers with storage have been
      commercially proven during three years of commercial
      operation of the Solar Two tower in the USA, from 1996
      to 1999. “
      Three years operation of a 10MW plant we are to believe is commercial proof for a whole countries way of life reliance!!!
      Come on now, not even you can be that gullible Patrick?
      Study up some facts on Solar Power and yes it is a great concept but it does have limitations.
      Read of the US installations and you’ll see that the commercially proven only relates to limited hours operation.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert
      The report also gives two lines to on site generation!
      Is that to mean every factory will have a 1000 hectare solar paddock at their back door?
      They also talk of the thousands of Australian construction and power station workers who could be assigned to this system building and lets get serious.
      All those workers are supposedly doing something commercially and so are we to believe that just gets wound down?
      There’ll be new towns needed to house them all out where the solar plants are to be and new transmission lines to be constructed.
      How will the industries that currently contribute to Australia’s wealth fare when these workers move forward with the great march forward?
      Where will the power come from when there is no power because the maintenance workers have become Gillards onward Christian soldiers?
      And no power means no steel mills running for all the construction.
      Seriously Patrick, reports such as these whizz over various snip bits to present something glossy that is supposed to be believable.
      I imagine this could become Gillard’s ETS strategy.
      What was it that Gough said about God saving Australia!
      On that note, we also need saving from the IPCC and it is very fitting to quote again the post from G.David
      ” In the IPCC study, there was only a single chapter (Chapter 9 — Understanding and Attributing Climate Change) that specifically dealt with the hypothesis that human CO2 was the cause of global warming. The authors of that chapter concluded that human CO2 was the cause.This key, critical IPCC chapter had only 53 climate scientist authors. This chapter was reviewed by 55 climate scientist reviewers. Only 7 of the reviewers approved of the chapter, either completely or partially. So, throughout the entire climate scientist world, only a total of 60 climate scientists approved of the IPCC’s conclusion that human CO2 was the cause. At the same time 650 scientists criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC. The 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN lackeys who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) undertakes no research for itself and while it relies on peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals, there is strong evidence that the IPCC is very selective of the papers it wishes to cite and pays scant regard to papers that do not adhere to it’s preconceived notion that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide have caused warming.

      Furthermore, the Warmists and their media cheer squad appear to have missed an astonishing line in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2001 Assessment Report:

      “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

      This statement appeared in the Executive Summary of Chapter 14 of the report produced by Working Group 1.

      Yes, the IPCC admitted, a decade ago, that future long-term climate cannot be predicted because the system is chaotic. It is non-linear. It does not, and will not, behave the way we mere mortals expect it to.”

      Reply

    • James says:

      11:09am | 15/07/10

      Gregg was there a point somewhere in your rant?

    • Gregg says:

      11:54pm | 15/07/10

      A lot more than your sole point of reading the report which you may well have done but whether you have understood it or not is another matter.
      I do not see you responding to any technocal knowledge, so the dog chomped off the fingers did they?

    • James says:

      11:00am | 16/07/10

      See your previous post.  Given you do not understand the principle of coherent and non coherent light I am dubious about your ability to comment on technical matters.

      I would be happy to answer you points, but please make them one at a time.  It is very difficult to see actual points in the above text.

    • JA says:

      01:26pm | 14/07/10

      The green dream of renewable energy is a cruel hoax, supported by a small group of idealougues and academics who are happy to make a good living forecasting doom, but doing nothing practical about it.

      However, the cruel hoax is now having real impact, with energy and water prices increasing to unsustainable levels the will lead to green leaning governments being turfed out of power for decades to come.

      So cut out all your nonsense and tell me how you alternative energy dreamers are going to survive in a world where your ideas are politically rejected.

      Reply

    • James says:

      11:06am | 15/07/10

      Tell me how you are going to survive in a world where people are fighting over food?

    • Dominic says:

      03:05pm | 16/07/10

      JA, Anyone would have to be stupid to think that renewable energy is not practical—the delivery of energy in the form of sun or wind to the generators is free. Can’t say that for fossil fuels or nuclear.

      Even if we turn a blind eye (like many of you) to the pollution generated by fossil fuel and nuclear plants—renewables are obviously much more practical.

    • Kordez says:

      02:08pm | 14/07/10

      What I learnt about Nuclear power was it isn’t really a green alternative unless your American or Mr Burns. Approximately 30 tons of radioactive waste per year is what each power plant can produce. Now in the big scheme of things this doesn’t seem like a lot. Where we find ourselves in trouble is the length of time it takes for this waste to decompose to be safe enough for kids to play with, and we’re not talking 1-100 years, try 10000 years.
      But who cares right? We’re not going to be here… We are still left with the issue of an increasing stockpile of radioactive waste and where to store it safely. Some have suggested the moon, the middle of the Australian desert, Antarctica, deep under the ocean sea bed.. I guess if we are happy to continue destroying parts of nature that we know very little about, we could. If you really think about it though, there’s no safe place to store nuclear waste, at least until someone comes up with a way to reuse 100% of the waste over 10000 years.
      Personally I’d rather see 10000 tons of solar panels recycled each year then 30 ton of unsafe waste stored for 10000 years.

      Reply

    • Macca-d says:

      03:17pm | 14/07/10

      @ Paul H,

      Firstly, the sun is not yellow.

      Secondly, whether you call CO2 a pollutant or not, it is a greenhouse gas, and is responsible for the 400C surface temperature of Venus.

      Thirdly, the Earth’s resources are not limitless.  Sooner or later we need to rely on renewable energy.  The sooner we start adopting the new technology, the cheaper/easier it will be.

      Fourthly, a modest carbon tax will cost bugger all.  The funding used for research of renewables will potentially create a large export market for Australia.  Applied at the point of sale (like a tiny GST) will mean that exports are exempt, but imports wouldn’t be.

      Lastly, you’re entitled to your opinion, but there are a lot of scientists who disagree with your position and they’re not part of a global conspiracy or anything like that.

      Reply

    • Bigos says:

      03:19pm | 14/07/10

      I don’t get it? If this is meant to actually be so profitable I don’t understand why companies wouldn’t just jump on this opportunity. I mean generating power from the wind only for the cost of the wind turbine! This is indeed too good to be true, that’s probably why the auther of this article needs the government to subsidies all this green technology, which can only mean increasing prices. I’m sorry but I don’t believe anyone should formulate any policy to change the weather, if people really believe in climate change, they will change their habits, electricity consumption, etc. If they don’t they live out their lives regardless, I don’t see why we need the government to twist our hands and force people into “action on climate change”. It’s this approach that killed Rudd.

      Reply

    • Factoid says:

      02:31pm | 16/07/10

      Just like when coal-fired power stations were built at the beginning of the 20th century, new technology needs price support from government.

      Renewable energy is on a downward cost trajectory, while fossil fuels are on the way up - it makes sense to invest in technology that will save us money and help avoid catastrophe in the long term.

      And Rudd got kicked out because he DIDN’t do anything on climate change.

    • factoid says:

      02:37pm | 16/07/10

      If only the climate change deniers were right! But they clearly have no facts on their side so unfortunately, we have to face up to reality and get our emissions down to zero.

    • factoid says:

      03:13pm | 16/07/10

      This report is a fantastic addition to the debate and shows that all the naysayers, delayers, deniers and vested interests are wrong when they try to prevent reasonable policies on the climate crisis.

      We should be aiming for 100% renewable energy in ten years - this is achievable if enough people want it. We are facing a climate emergency and have to act now.

      Reply

    • Bill says:

      03:51pm | 16/07/10

      I find it amazing that people still deny the scientifically proven phenomenon of climate change. Humankind is changing our climate and we should act to limit adverse changes. Changes that will impact food production and water availability. But enough about the deniers.

      What Beyond Zero Emissions has done is create the first plan to repower the Australian economy with renewable energy. It is absurd that this task has fallen to a group of volunteers. Where are the plans from the well-funded environment groups. The AYCC, ACF, and Climate Institute should develop their own plans. So should the government and Universities.

      Reply

    • Vivien says:

      03:58pm | 16/07/10

      I was at the launch and I have read the report. It is not revolutionary as far as technology goes. However, thinking our way to the policy that will enable 100% renewables, when the Canberra lobbyists are mostly from the fossil fuel industry is the real challenge. As John Hanly the lawyer from the Grattan Institute says we need to look at the comparative costs of transitioning via gas to renewable energy over many years versus leapfrogging gas and going straight to clean, job creating wind plus concentrated solar thermal. A government and business lobby who can see the advantages to us all of renewables will see their way clear to invest the estimated $370 billion in a plan such as the one mapped out by BZE.

      Bravo to these clear headed thinkers with their can do attitude.If you are reading this and would like to read a synopsis of the report why not go to the beyondzero emissions website. You will find it enlivening.

      Reply

    • captnbli says:

      04:14pm | 16/07/10

      Let’s have a detailed and informed debate about this detailed plan. There’s a lot of shooting from the hip going on here and a lot of unfounded claims. There were experienced engineers involved in writing this report, so let’s see where the facts lie.

      And don’t forget, that this technology is young, and will improve over time, even the 10 years the plan is based on.

      Reply

    • Dominic says:

      04:47pm | 16/07/10

      I agree, let’s give it a go. Any technology will forever be young until we really use it, and using it we develop and improve it.

    • Eva Migdal says:

      04:20pm | 16/07/10

      Working out a Plan B when Plan A is so critically flawed is a pretty simple idea. We are after all not only challenged in terms of climate change - but in terms of health, long term jobs, food security & energy security.
      I am amused & frustrated by the arrogance & irresponsibility of people who think they can unequivocally state climate change is not humans fault.
      One thing we are certain if about human is their capacity to make errors in their judgment.
      It is economically, socially & environmentally wise to strive for and construct a Plan B.
      Congratulations to the amazing team of people at Beyond Zero for actually having the foresight & power to throw this real challenge into the ring of some brave but generally confused politicians.

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      07:24pm | 18/07/10

      For those of us who believe that the world is more than our trash can, this report gives us some glimmer of hope as a good starting point to cleaning up after ourselves, this goes beyond political parties and allegiances. This is about being responsible for the mess we make in the production of our energy.

      I agree thats important to be skeptical of any energy report, but I would hope that we’re all on the same side and can work together.
      Don’t we all want a better, cleaner world for the future generations?  Iif you have those criticisms, why not work with the BZE people and provide your input?

      It makes sense to me and I’m not ‘lefty socialist arts /humanities student.’ I work for my living, I care about my family and their futures, to rob them of that is selfish and unfair, and some of the knee jerk reactions I’ve seen here today remind me of people showing aggression to hide their own guilt.

      Read the report. Read about the technologies that exist and are currently being used successfully in other countries, make your judgements - leave your preconceptions at the door. Help the BZE people make it into something better if you think you can, otherwise you’re just blowing hot air into an arguement that always seems to be going in circles.

      Reply

    • amanda delaforce says:

      10:23am | 20/07/10

      The refrigerant used in older fridges, the banned R-12, in addition to being highly damaging to the ozone-layer is also a potent greenhouse gas 8500 times more damaging than CO2.

      It is estimated that every molecule of R-12 released into the atmosphere destroys some 250,000 molecules of protective ozone if not properly collected. 
      Old fridges are one of the biggest energy users in the home, costing residents an average of $210 a year to operate. 

      Their use also results in hundreds of kilograms of greenhouse gases being released every year.

      The popular Fridge Buyback program has collected more than 17,500 second fridges from NSW homes.  Fridge Buyback collaborates with 45 councils in Metropolitan Sydney, Central Coast, Blue Mountains, Illawarra and the Shoalhaven

      The program, the only one of its kind in Australia, provides a rebate for residents to get rid of their old energy-guzzling second fridges.  It is currently operating in 45 NSW Councils and there are plans to expand further.

      Fridges collected under the Fridge Buyback program are professionally degassed and the metals recycled.

      The program is expected to prevent more than 120,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.  It is already saving residents over $3.7 million per year off their power bills.  If all NSW residents got rid of their second fridges it is estimated that they would save over $130 million a year!

      Fridge Buyback is targeting the big old fridges in people’s garages, laundries and workshops.  To participate in the program, they must be working second fridges that have been in regular use, are 250 litres or more in size and at least 10 years old.

      Fridge Buyback provides residents with free collection by professional removalists and a $35 rebate if the removal of the fridge involves 6 steps or less.  The fridge is collected for free if there are between 7 and 20 steps but no rebate is available.  A fee will apply only if the property has more than 20 steps.

      Households that have been using two fridges can have their old working second fridges collected by calling 1800 708 401 or visit the Fridge Buyback website at http://www.fridgebuyback.com.au. 
       
      Fridge Buyback is supported by the NSW Government’s Climate Change Fund and is part of the NSW Climate Change Fund rebates

      Reply

    • realworld says:

      08:37am | 22/07/10

      There is an ongoing critical analysis at Uni of Adelaide’s Brave New Climate by people who are critical thinkers who cannot be greenwashed, the analysis is completely open too.

      http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/14/zca2020
      I strongly advise people to have a look at the Brave New Climate analysis, before raising their hands in the air and voting for this money pit and the environmental disaster it will result in, just look at the mess industrial wind energy has made! 

      The costing study they point to is ancient and was written in 2003! When will BZE come up with an honest plan instead of this blatant greenwash. The short answer is they can’t.
      Brave New Climate have done a lot of analysis already, and the plan is already sinking fast because it has so many holes and omissions. A report is being prepared based on their open discussion, that will detail the problems, as well as an overview of the findings for the less technically savvy.
      Finally, Patrick & Matthew seem to like ranting against nuclear. This is puzzling, particularly as Torresol Energy, one the two main player’s for the solar thermal part of BZE’s plan are 60% owned by nuclear industry player SENER :
      http://www.sener.es/area-energia.html
      “SENER has extensive experience in the development of thermosolar plants, in the latest combined cycle electric plants, those used for the regasification of liquid gas, in nuclear energy, biofueling, oil refining, chemical, petrochemical and plastics.”
      In addition, the people behind BrightSource solar have an interesting collection of investors :
      http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/about_us/investors
      Investors include Chevron, BP, and Alstom :
      “Alstom is a world leader in hydroelectric power generation; in conventional islands for nuclear power plants; and in environmental control systems.”
      Chevron & BP are pretty well known for the environmental damage they have and continue to cause, how do we know this plan will be any different?

      Reply

    • James says:

      11:52am | 23/07/10

      Let me guess, you work in the Nuclear and/or fossil fuel industry.

    • realworld says:

      12:47am | 27/07/10

      james,

      i dont work in any energy industry. why? would it matter if i did? that alone wouldn’t make the zca 2020 plan work.

      nothing can make the zca plan work.  it isn’t a plan thats why.

      this chap patrick is clearly living in a dream world.

      the bze researchers won’t even debate. just look at some of james hutchison’s comments on this page :

      http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/2020-vision

 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 28 May 12 12:01AM

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 27 May 12 10:49PM

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:12PM

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:03PM

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

180

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

27

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

3

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed