SAY NO TO A NUCLEAR AUSTRALIA
How To Be A World Power... Conservatively.
So, where do you want to be in our green economy? Do you have a yearning to start a tourist business? Would your preference be to work in the power generation industry? Environmental protection? Research? In most cases, whatever you can do now, you should be able to adapt in a green society. I have come across a nice little paper from the Australian Conservation Council that lists some great ideas for any budding green entrepreneurs out there. Take a look... it just might give you some ideas for that sea change you've been dreaming of. Or if you're still studying, perhaps you might get some ideas on the subject matter you should be studying. It's a pdf file, but well worth the read...GREEN GOLD RUSH
“For environmental technologies to penetrate and succeed in global markets, it is important that they succeed domestically. Thus, well-designed environmental policies that spur innovation, and government measures that contribute to creating and consolidating domestic markets for environmental technologies constitute a basis for success in global markets.”
- OECD, Environmental Innovation and Global
Markets, 2008
If Australia really wants to step into the world spotlight, now is the time to do it. In my opinion, we should be spending as much money and research time as we possibly can on our method of generating domestic power. Let's face it, we know that renewable technologies will be the best and cheapest power alternative in the long run. That alone would put us ahead by leaps and bounds. If we can simply save the money that we spend on our electricity bill, we can all afford to buy ourselves some little luxuries... you beauty! Gotta love that idea!
And in each of us spending a little extra on things we like, we'll start a 'waterfall effect' in our economy. Let's compare our economy with the river... As the river cascades over the waterfall it splashes on a myriad of little rocks and boulders on the way down. If the river is weak, less rocks get wet... but when the river is full and strong it splashes further from the centre. Eventually moss will grow on the moist rocks... water leaches into the surrounding earth and promotes growth... which attracts wildlife.
If we do lead the world now in adopting a green source of power, I believe that a myriad of different businesses will benefit. Small businesses and shops will be the ones receiving the money that people used to spend on the electricity. And then those businesses will be able to spend more... expand maybe... new premeses... some new employees... more stock. Eventually as you work your way back the produce line you get to the farmer on the land. He'll have more demand for his crops/stock and may be able to get a higher return for his hard work in the end... perhaps he'll be able to afford to send his child to uni... perhaps that child will go on to become a doctor rather than just another ringer, or truckie, or ... and the list goes on. Let your mind run...
One thing I'm pretty sure of is that we Australians will all benefit on a personal level, and in turn the government itself will benefit both from extra tax revenues and the other bonuses of a healthy economy... not the least being a higher economic and political presence in the eyes of overseas nations. And then the rest of the world will come to us to buy our technologies... to learn our expertise. What other benefits would our country receive from that?
All of this AND our environment would benefit as well. You see, our environment would quickly revert to one of the most pristine places on the planet with very little change. If all coal burning were to cease... well, that there on its' own is a hell of a change. And if you still need to think in dollar terms, we could quite honestly make a motza from it in the future. Imagine the rest of the world degrading because of the polution that they continue to pump into their own environments. Now imagine our country having the chance to regenerate and function as mother nature intended it to... Imagine twenty years into the future, our country as being one of only a handful in the whole world that still posesses pristine natural environments. What would that alone do to our tourism, I wonder? Once again, you could let your mind run away with you here... the possibilities for making money are almost endless. More citizens benefit because there are more jobs... more money for the government... more influence on the overseas market...
The only losers are the coal companies... and they can quite easily cut their losses too if they were to spend some money on research now. With the monies that they currently possess they could quite easily diversify and change tack. I don't believe that we need to continue raping our mother, the planet for her natural resources when our fathers, sun water and wind can easily provide what we need. I do believe that renewable power is our only alternative. It makes the greatest sense economically... but let's also be honest. We HAVE to change our means of power generation because we are essentially killing our mother at this point. See yourself as a flea and the earth is your dog... if you bleed the dog to death you will have nothing left to survive on...
Get paid to produce power.
Now this is a good idea. The Clean Energy Council wants people who produce renewable power to be paid for the privellege. Fair's fair, I reckon. Why shouldn't they? If they care for the environment enough to invest in a clean source of power production, and can share their excess power with their community, why shouldn't they be able to recoup some of that investment? If a scheme such as this is approved, I'll predict a jump in the amount of solar cells sold in Australia. A lot more people will jump on the solar bandwagon as they see the possibility of getting a return for their trouble. I'll also predict a drop in the amount of power that we'll need to produce by means of coal burning. The increase in the production and supply of renewable power could easily account for a good deal of our home use, at the very least.While we're on this subject, I just want to have another word or two. It kind of annoys me that energy suppliers are currently charging an extra fee to supply renewable power to some consumers, simply by tagging it as a green choice. Then they try guilt-tripping the community into paying that extra fee without complaining. Hello power companies... renewable power costs a hell of a lot LESS to produce. Charging people more for a cheaper product usually ends up breeding a contempt in the community for that particular product. Is it no wonder that some people just don't want to consider this option?
Way to encourage a clean change, guys.
Shame, Peter, Shame.
What is this? Why now, when you have the power to, won't you protect our livestock? Because that's what our whales are, right? Any animal that resides in our territory is our livestock. We wouldn't stand for a bunch of Japanese businessmen coming over here to take off a shipload of our best merinos for 'studying'. Nor do we stand for illegal fishermen coming into our waters to take our fish stock. And there is always an outrage when we hear of someone trying to export a bunch of snake eggs, or baby cockatoos. Would you allow a foreigner to go into a national park and club a heap of koalas to death?So why should we allow one of our greatest tourism drawcards to be killed off willy nilly, with only the promise of scientific study? Seriously, what kind of useful study can be done on a dead whale that can't be done with a small sample of DNA from a live specimen? Errr..... does whale meat taste more like fish or chicken?
Come on Peter, we all know that the Japanese are treating us like the idiots that we (apparently) are. We should be sending a NAVY ship down to keep an eye on them, with the clear message that our whales are valuable stock, and that the theft and/or death of said stock will not be tollerated.
Have some balls.
Alas, I fear that one of my idols has sold out.
To Mr Peter Garrett, Environment Minister.On stage in the 80's you won my heart by singing about things that were really important in a time of affluence and ignorance. In the news and the media you reaffirmed those sentiments by speaking out loudly and strongly. My heart swelled with pride and respect as I heard you speak out for those around you... those who were being mistreated... those who couldn't speak so loudly for themselves.
In the time since, I have drawn courage and strength from the wisdom and environmental concern I heard both in your lyrics and your own private words. When you spoke out against those who benefit whilst others are suffering, I felt that I was standing next to you. When you protested war and the use of uranium I felt like I was storming the lines with you. When you drew attention to the stupidity of using coal or trying to harness nuclear power when there are so many other viable avenues to follow, I was cheering from the sidelines. Without even knowing me, you have helped to forge the person that I have ultimately become. You passed on that same wisdom... the quest for fairness... the urge to question... the desire to speak loudly... a love for our environment... and a deep loathing for anything nuclear.
When I heard that you were becoming a politician, I rejoiced. I even remember saying something along the lines of 'This is a man that I will be happy to vote into the office of PM'. When I heard that you had joined the labour party I was a little confused. On considering our political history, and the fact that we Aussies can't seem to get it through our heads that ours is not just a two horse race, I decided that you had simply chosen the lesser evil. I chose to believe that you had not sold out as so many others around me were suggesting you had. When your government was voted in (on the back of the anti-nuclear vote, I might point out) and you were confirmed as Environment Minister I breathed a sigh of relief, believing that our part of the Earth was in good hands.
In the meantime I have quietly watched and waited, hoping to hear that your values were finally going to resurface and become something that Australia could be proud of. When time went by and I heard very little of your thoughts, my smile slipped a little. With more time, the doubts crept slowly into my mind.
Today you broke my heart.
I can't believe that you are allowing an expansion of the Beverley Uranium mine in South Australia. I cannot believe that I would ever hear these words come from your mouth...
"Advice is clear to me that in terms of storing this material, whether you store it above ground, whether you store it in drums, or whether you do re-inject it into a saline aquifer, the last option of re-injecting it into the saline aquifer is considered by all the scientific advice that came to me to be the best, most effective, most environmentally safe way of dealing with the waste,"
Bullshit, Peter! And the worst thing is that as an anti-nuclear protester since the late 70's, you know it. There is NO environmentally safe way to deal with the waste, and suggesting that it is 'more environmentally safe' way is, in essence, political bullshit... ie, lying. You must have excelled in your political mumbo-jumbo classes.
Regards,
Tina Cee.
This is a link to the ABC story for the 29th of August 2008, where we first read the news. Gryphonn made several comments and replies but I was too slow to have my own say... but then, I publish a blog for that very thing. Unfortunately, his last reply was pretty lengthy and didn't make it into the discussion. However, he has made some excellent points and I wanted to give you his view as well. Please feel free to trawl through the 86 comments on the ABC page as it contains some good indicators (both pro and con) of what Australians think on the subject. But for those who don't feel like reading that much I've copied and pasted Gryph's participation in the debate, as well as the replies to his comments below in red. The final blue paragraph is the comment that didn't make it onto the page.
Gryphonn: 29 Aug 2008 12:26:22pm
"You rode the backs of the environmentalists to get a seat in parliament, then you stabbed the same people in the back and jumped on the coat-tails of big business.
Shame on you Peter Garrett. Personally, if I had compromised my beliefs the way you have yours, I wouldn't be able to live with myself. I think I'll recycle all my Midnight Oil albums now.
You really make me sick Peter. Words cannot describe the shame I feel for supporting you."
MO: 29 Aug 2008 12:59:51pm
"I respect Peter Garrett. Here is a man who decided that to really make a difference he needed to be inside, not outside throwing rocks like most bloggers.Obviously it is not easy when the narrow agenda gets broadened and decisions need to be taken when all the facts and agendas are taken into account.
Tough Gig Peter, but at least you are having a go at creating the changes you want, even if I don't necessarily agree with the narrow agenda. Maybe your time will come as the environment and the parties adjust.
This is the reality. Narrow agendas cannot be followed as the good of all must be considered."
Gryphonn: 29 Aug 2008 1:10:41pm
'The good of all'.
"Does that mean that long term environmental damage caused by storage of waste from uranium mining is for 'the good of all'?
So many people are claiming that uranium mining is a safe practice, when we know that it is a dangerous practice and the end product (nuclear waste from reactors) cannot be stored safely for future generations.
Why do people look at today instead of the future of this planet? I'm yet to hear anything from the environment minister promoting wind/solar/hotrock/solarthermal, or other energy sources.
'The good of all' should encompass present and future don't you think?"
MO: 29 Aug 2008 1:35:11pm
"G, I suppose you also oppose the radio active waste storage facility mooted for NT or SA. ?
Much better to have it stored in our warehouses and basements in the cities!
Garret is practicing pragmatism - look it up."
Gryphonn: 29 Aug 2008 2:17:50pm
"Well MO, I oppose uranium mining and enrichment. Strange that. But I guess I'm just another damned greenie. One of those damned greenies that was spouting some rot about 'global warming' and 'greenhouse effects' in the eighties.I would have thought that it would be obvious to everyone that we cannot afford to continue promoting uranium mining and uranium based energy production as economically viable practices. In the long term, we will all pay the environmental price.
I guess you consider it OK to dump radioactive waste so long as it isn't anywhere near where you live MO?
It was OK to bury chemical waste in the bush 50 odd years ago. Then cities expanded and houses were built on long forgotten dumps, and suddenly toxic waste began to surface, forcing the abandonment of entire suburbs.
Will it be OK in a hundred years when radioactive waste leaches into the Great Artesian Basin?
Have you thought that if Rudd, Garrett et al started spending money on serious research projects for renewable energy resources instead of putting money in large corporate pockets with uranium interests, we wouldn't have to have this discussion?"
ravensclaw: 29 Aug 2008 1:19:43pm
"It continues to amaze me that some people still cannot apply some critical thinking to be able to tell the difference between -Nuclear weapons, nuclear medicine, nuclear power and other uses of radioactive materials eg aviation.
We have a nuclear power station, we use radioactive material for cancer treatments and the aviation industry every day. We even transport radioactive materials around the country every day.
Do we have a Nuclear Bomb? No
Are there any 2 headed babies born near our Nuclear Power Station? NO!
Has any radioactive waste escaped from storage, transformed into a Godzilla and radiated the nation? No.
Has there ever been a sensible argument against the responsible use of uranium for energy and medicinal use? NO, and there probably will never be! Nix to Chernobyl - If the reactor had a containment facility the event never would have happened. That was a fault of socialism, not responsible use of uranium."
Gryphonn's response (had the discussion not been closed):
"The discussion here is about a Uranium mine. Last I checked, Uranium has no use in modern medicine. That's the job of other radioactive isotopes. Well, actually, the discussion is more about Peter Garrett compromising his beliefs for party politics and a healthy salary, but I'll digress again.
Uranium (-235) in itself is not much of a problem. After all, most rocks contain between 2 and 4 parts per million of uranium. The problems start when it is mined and concentrated, making it harmful to humans and difficult to store safely.
Yes, you are correct. We do not have (as far as we've been informed) a 'nuclear bomb'. However, our troops and our allies are using depleted uranium in ammunition, and our allies have nuclear bombs. Is it morally or ethically Ok for us to mine and sell uranium to our allies so they can produce nuclear weapons?
We do not have a nuclear power station, we have a nuclear reactor used to produce neutrons and products such as doped silicon for creating computer chips. Big difference, far less risk than the nuclear energy a nuclear power station produces.
Our reactor is more in line with being a mini reactor...for want of a better explanation.
We can supply that reactor quite easily without having to expand a mine that uses very risky extraction processes.
I am unaware of any radioactive waste leaks, other than what occurred on the seabed south west of England in 2002. But I guess that waste was dumped between 1960 something and 1980, and no Godzilla 'radiated' England, so I guess that doesn't count.
I really feel you should do some study to find out what caused the Chernobyl melt-down and subsequent explosion. Containment facility? Please explain how a containment facility could prevent the top blowing off a nuclear power generator and cause a radioactive cloud to spread across half of Europe. Socialism caused Chernobyl? Socialism didn't cause Chernobyl. Human error caused Chernobyl. Also remember that it's been 22 years or so since that disaster and it is still unsafe to go near the place. There are also hundreds of thousands of hectares of once viable cropland that cannot be used due to contamination. Not to mention thousands of people physically affected by radiation poisoning.
If I have a catastrophic failure of my solar panel or wind turbine, I can replace it on the same patch of land. I don't have to abandon the farm for a thousand years."
Hear, hear.
Transportation Has Come a Long Way.
I recently found a story on hybrid sports cars and immediately thought 'Eh?? But aren't hybrids supposed to be somewhat lacking in power? How can this claim of a hybrid sports car be taken seriously?' So I went and had a bit of a look around to see what I could find. And it didn't take long for me to find some very interesting stories on the state of the hybrid industry at the moment. I concentrated on the models that showcase the sports performance side of the vehicle, and surprisingly, I found quite a bit on these flashy cars.Now, I like cars. I like watching motor sports, I like the fact that we've got something that will take us to distant places safely and quickly... and I just like driving a good, responsive vehicle. This is one area of conservation about which I sometimes feel torn. Do you have to compromise on the fun of driving in order to save a few greenhouse gas emissions? Well not any more, it seems.
From what I've seen, there have been some great breakthroughs when it comes to power, fuel economy is at an unbelievable level, and new NiZn batteries promise 30% more power while being cheaper to produce and safer to store. It seems that we don't have a whole heap of excuses left for not considering this option when buying your next car. So let's have a look at a few.
Ok, to start with, the one that took my eye originally, The Fisker Karma.
Ok, so this one is flashy! I could actually see myself driving in this... except it's probably a little expensive for my budget. $80 000 USD will get you one of these luxurious monsters. This one combines a small gasoline engine with lithium battery packs. Apparently, if it's charged properly, it would use only 1 tank of fuel per year. As for the performance, 0-60 mph within 6 seconds and a top speed of 125 mph... I might have expected a little better from a sports car, but hey, that's not too bad. Most of us wouldn't use all of that allowance anyway. But still... this is a car-lover talking...
Then I stumbled across this little beauty, the Tesla Electric Roadster.
Now, this one might be the one for me, I think. Jay Leno even has one! The lines of this vehicle are part Corvette, part Ferrari, part Porsche, and it looks great in black. An electric car that gives you 0 - 60mph in 4 seconds... that's more like it. It can travel up to 250 miles per charge and will set you back a mere $92 000 USD. No worries, I'll have two please, one for daytime use and one for night.
If you're looking for a larger vehicle, something like the Citroen C-Metisse might be the car for you.
How about something a little more affordable? The ZAP Alias is set to be released at a cost of roughly $30 000.
An all-electric three-wheeler vehicle, this one will be able to travel about 150 miles on one charge and go from 0-60 mph in about 7 seconds. For a small vehicle around town, that's not a bad deal... and it wins in the style department too. As yet, it's just another concept car, but with a 2009 release date you can place your order for one now.
Shell Withdraws from the London Array Wind Farm.
While researching an article on wind power today, I was appalled to read of the decision by Shell to sell off their one third interest in the London Array wind farm project. So I had to add this one in here too. A bit of background...On the 18th of December 2006, British government approved the plans to build the world's largest offshore wind farm off the south-east coast of England. This wind farm, London Array, a partnership project between Shell, E.On and Dong Energy, was to incorporate 341 turbines, would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of £1.5 - 2 billion, and would generate 1000 mW of power, or enough to feed 1% of the UK's energy needs... that's enough to power a quarter of London.
But today's news reports that Shell has decided to sell it's share of the project, leaving E.On and Dong to ponder the future of the project. Shell has defended its' action, saying that ity has decided to sell its stake as part of its "ongoing review of projects and investment choices," and noting that the company has 11 other wind projects across Europe and the U.S.
The Chronicle Herald, on the 2nd of May 2006 reported...
"Friends of the Earth spokesman Nic Rau said Shell’s decision was especially hard to take since it came just two days after Shell posted a 25 per cent rise in first-quarter profit to a record $9.1 billion on the back of soaring crude oil prices."We’re very disappointed that Shell, which touts itself as a progressive green company, is . . . leaving a key clean energy project high and dry," said Rau."
An extract from an article in The Star dated the 3rd of May 2006 states...
"It came just before the consortium signed a contract with a turbine manufacturer - the point at which the companies had to put their money on the table. Shell's move is an economic one, with funds redirected towards potentially more profitable wind schemes in the US.
But the company came under fire from green groups who accused them of leaving the clean energy project "high and dry" while investing in fossil fuel extraction which was wrecking the climate. And on Thursday night the row widened, with opposition parties claiming the UK was in danger of missing green energy targets because of the Government's failure to encourage investment in renewables.
Shadow business secretary Alan Duncan said: "This really is a disaster and it potentially blows a huge hole in Government's already shambolic attempts to hit targets for renewable energy."
I'm sorry, but the numbers just aren't stacking up. Shell recorded a profit of $27.5 billion (£13.9 billion) in 2007. That makes their share of the £2 billion that the London Array would have cost seem like a piddling little trifle, doesn't it? So why have they justified pulling out of this project over a concern about money when they made such a whopping amount last year?
Probably because it's more profitable to sell their oil to the poor ignorant slobs at home. Shell is now making a $75 million (£38 million) per day profit... that's PER DAY... on the price of oil. That means that they could pay for their share of the project after a single day's trading. Uh???
But once the wind farm has been accounted for, how much could they reasonably ask the British public to pay for a resource that's obtained almost free of charge? Not as much as for oil, obviously.
Wind Power is Big Business
Think about it... how many times have you walked down the street, particularly in large cities, lamenting the wind tunnel effect created by the buildings lining the street? It's a pain in the behind, isn't it? Especially if you've just spent good money having your hair styled, or if you have to physically hold down the skirt of your favourite dress out of modesty. Trust me fellas, your wife or girlfriend will know exactly what I'm talking about.But what if we could use that wind tunnel effect in our favour? What if each building could be fitted with wind turbines to catch all of that annoying wind? How much energy would some of our cities be able to produce then? Well, in a little while we'll be able to ask the owners of Bahrain's new World Trade Centre.
This new highrise is an extension to the existing Sheraton Hotel complex and comprises two 50-storey sail-shaped commercial office towers, which taper to a height of 240m and support three 29m diameter horizontal-axis wind turbines. The towers are integrated on top of a three-storey podium which accommodates a new boutique shopping centre, fine dining, business centre and car parking.
The three wind turbines are expected to provide around 10-15% of the power for both towers, representing about 3.5% of the total cost of the project. The blades, each 29 metres in diameter, the first to be integrated into a commercial structure were turned on and tested last month.
An MSNBC report dated the 9th of April 2008, states...
"We truly have pushed the boundaries of environmental architecture with this project," Ole Sangill, a partner in turbine specialists Norwin, said of the project. "It is a testament to Bahrain that private developers are investing in sustainability and pioneering design, which is certainly the future of architecture as it shapes the planet in years to come."Could this be the start of a new trend towards big businesses using wind power to sustain their own energy needs for the future? Why not? This is a viable way to achieve that goal, an opinion that Trammell Crow seems to share with me. This Houston based developer plans to build a newly proposed highrise, Discovery Tower. The 871 000 sq foot project is expected to open in 2010, will cost around $300 million and will sport 10 wind turbines on the roof.
And what about recycling off-shore oil rigs for wind turbines? Wind Energy Systems Technologies are presently engaging in wind monitoring activities on recycled oil platforms off the coast of Texas with an aim to using them to support wind turbines. What a brilliant idea.
It seems that wind energy could become a boon to businesses in the future. Many countries use wind as a significant (and reliable) portion of their electricity power. (Denmark 20%, Germany 7%, Spain/Portugal 20%). In addition, over 4.5 million U.S. homes get their power from wind energy. Texas alone generated 4,446 megawatts of energy in 2007 — enough to power nearly 1.2 million homes. Add Colorado, which generated roughly half of that again, and that's a significant amount of alternative power.
And what about Australia? What are we doing in regards to producing alternative power? Well currently, we're only producing about 1% of our total power usage by means of wind. When you think that the average output of each wind turbine is enough to power around 1000 homes, and then think of all the available vacant land that we have, I think we could do a hell of a lot better, don't you? Have a look at the Australian Greenhouse Office's list of renewable energy generators all over the country. You can click on the map to zoom in and see what's in your area.
So, what about our homes? Could we start by looking up onto our own roofs? But wind generators are huge and ugly structures that we don't really want to look at every morning... aren't they? Well, Engadget had an article about home-sized wind generators, dated 3rd July 2007. It states...
"Generally speaking, wind generators have been reserved for more macro-scale operations, but a West Australian inventor "believes he has developed a way to generate electricity for homes using wind power." This residential approach utilizes a modular turbine that is minuscule enough to perch atop nearly any roof without causing too much unsightliness, and can create power for the house to consume as the wind pushes its blades."Well, that makes one think, doesn't it?
Solar Thermal Energy
Solar Thermal towers collect the heat from the sun in a completely different way than by using photovoltaics (solar panels). A solar panel converts the sun directly into electricity, whereas this method concentrates the sun's rays onto an area that collects the heat. That heat boils a liquid (such as water) and produces steam, which is then converted into electricity. This may seem like an added step in the process, but in actuality it is more efficient in large-scale production. Heat can be stored more easily than the electricity produced by panels, hence solar thermal towers can provide a more even energy source for a longer time.Higher operating temperatures allow for different technologies to be used. One proposed method utilizes liquid fluoride salts, using multi-stage turbine systems that allows the plant to use higher-temperature dry heat exchangers for its thermal exhaust. This reduces the plant's water use, which comes in handy if it's situated in the desert... where large solar plants are the most practical. With the use of a back-up system for the rare emergencies, this method of obtaining power becomes very attainable.
This is a very promising way to produce power to the masses, in my view. Have a look at Wikipedia's list of Solar Thermal Power Stations from around the world.
Now, there are several different designs when it comes to solar thermal power stations. Most people have, at one stage or another, seen or heard about the solar farms that use masses of mirrors surrounding a central tower structure. These Power Tower designs use mirrors (called heliostats) to focus the sun's rays on a collector at the top of the tower. But to do this each mirror needs to be fitted with a motor to track the path of the sun, maximising the heat collected. This increases the cost, and decreases the attraction of this type of solar tower.
Parabolic trough power plants use a system of curved troughs, which reflect the sun's rays onto a receiver positioned above the trough. As the position of the sun changes, the whole trough tilts so that the focus remains on the receiver. However, if the troughs are positioned parallel to the sun, it does not require adjustment of the mirrors, as the light is simply concentrated on another part of the receiver. So in this way, the trough design takes out the added cost of a tracking system.
Another design uses a large, reflective, parabolic dish (similar in shape to a satellite dish). It focuses all the sunlight up onto to a single point above the dish, where a receiver captures the heat. Typically the dish is coupled with a Stirling engine in a Dish-Stirling System. These engines require no fuel, creating a rotational kinetic energy that can be converted to electricity using an electric generator. Of all these technologies the solar dish/stirling engine has the highest energy efficiency. A single solar dish installed at Sandia National Laboratories National Solar Thermal Test Facility produces as much as 25 kW of electricity, with a conversion efficiency of 30%, compared to around the 20% of the parabolic systems.A linear Fresnel reflector power plant uses a series of long, narrow mirrors to focus light onto one or more linear receivers above the mirrors, much like the parabolic system. The receiver is stationary and so fluid couplings are not required (as in troughs and dishes). The mirrors also do not need to support the receiver, so they are much simpler structurally. When suitable aiming strategies are used this can allow a denser packing of mirrors, thus producing more and/or saving valuable land space when needed. Another advantage of this design is that lenses are cheaper than mirrors. Furthermore, if a material is chosen that has some flexibility, a less rigid frame is required to deal with wind instability. It does bear mentioning however, that no full-scale thermal systems using Fresnel lenses are known to be in operation, although products incorporating Fresnel lenses in conjunction with photovoltaic cells are already available.
Below are a few more interesting links for you to peruse on this subject...
CSIRO - Solar Thermal Energy Research.
Triple Pundit article - Solar Thermal Electricity: Catching the Eye of Utility Companies.
Clean Technica article - Solar Thermal Electricity: Can it Replace Coal, Gas and Oil?
Can We Rely on Renewable Energy?
"But can we really rely on renewable energy? What happens when the sun stops shining or the wind stops blowing?"This is a question that was asked of me some time ago. I had all intentions of answering at the time, but couldn't because of our absence from the net. So, expanding on the groundwork I initially put in, here is my response.
Well, there are many different renewable energy sources. Some, like wind power and rooftop solar panels, are intermittent at a local level. But when they are spread over a sufficiently large area, with different climatic conditions, they are barely more intermittent than coal. It is unlikely that there will be no sun or wind anywhere across the electricity network of Australia. By deploying wind and solar across the landscape we can reduce any intermittency of wind and solar generators. And using these technologies in the home has the added advantage of producing electricity where it is used, so less energy is lost in transmission. On the subject of lost energy, did you know that about 11 per cent of the electricity produced at a big coal-fired power station is lost while being transported to the end user? So it seems that the problem of transporting power is something that all deliverers of power have to combat.
So yes, both wind and solar power are subject to the weather. However, weather forecasting is very reliable and, in most cases, any lack of sun or wind can be predicted and compensated for (for instance, by cranking up hydro and biomass generation). But in contrast, coal-fired generation suffers unpredictable outages and breakdowns that can and do plunge the electricity grid into crisis.
Solar power is particularly useful for delivering power at times of peak demand. Hot, sunny days when people are using their air conditioner, will generally be days when there is plenty of solar energy generated. And consider this... Solar water heating is hugely underused in sunburnt Australia. Less than five per cent of houses have a solar water heater. Some other countries, Israel, Spain and Ireland, are making solar water heating mandatory, while China has over 60 per cent of the world's installed solar water heating capacity.
Now, some technologies, like hydro power are highly predictable and controllable. They can be deployed when it is most useful, providing either baseload or peak power. Eraring Energy has a number of hydro-electric plants and the Stanwell corporation is also using power derived by means of hydro generation. As for Tasmania... well, we've all heard about the successful use of hydro power in the Derwent River catchment.
Bioenergy is another source of power that is being currently utilised in Australia. Woodlawn, near Sydney is Australia's largest bioreactor landfill. Veolia Environmental Services produces power generated by the methane that our waste produces. They also have plans in the works to incorporate a large scale windfarm on the Woodlawn site.
Emerging technologies, like geothermal could theoretically provide large quantities of baseload power in Australia long before a single nuclear reactor can be built (they take 10-15 years) or a commercially feasible carbon capture and storage coal-fired power station could be developed. Geodynamics is a Brisbane-based company currently researching hot-rock technologies in the Cooper Basin.
Solar thermal is another promising technology being researched by the Stanwell Corporation, one which I want to expand on soon. You can download a PDF file by the Environmental Protection Agency outlining the Stanwell Solar Concentrator here.
So why is it that people still think that renewable energy sources are not viable when all these technologies are available? It seems to be hard for many to accept, but solar and wind are not the only alternative sources available to us. With a combination of several or all of these methods we are completely able to supply power in a safe and renewable way. We just have to get over the idea that it has to be either one technology or another.
Cloncurry to get a Solar Thermal Tower
The western Queensland town of Cloncurry is expected to run entirely on solar thermal power by the year 2010. The Queensland government is set to spend $7 million dollars on the project, a solar thermal tower which will store heat by using 8000 mirrors to concentrate the sun's rays onto graphite blocks. Water is then pumped through these blocks, generating steam which turns turbines and generates electricity. As graphite is such a good conductor of heat, the tower will be able to successfully generate electricity well into the night. The station is set to deliver about 30 million kilowatt hours of electricity a year, enough to power the entire town continuously 24 hours a day.Premier Anna Bligh states, "We're going to build a 10-megawatt solar thermal power station. It's a real breakthrough for electricity generation. The technology we’re going to use in Cloncurry, will ensure the power station keeps generating electricity even when the sun is not shining. The town of Cloncurry has long claimed the title of having recorded Australia's hottest day -- 53 degrees (Celsius) in the shade in 1889, so I reckon we're on a winner. "
Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation, Andrew McNamara said of the project, "While the introduction of alternate energy sources and the reduction of emissions comes at a price, the refusal to do so comes at a potentially much higher cost."
Mines and Energy Minister Geoff Wilson agrees, adding, “This project’s a winner on several fronts. It will cut greenhouse gas emissions with clean energy powered by the sun and it will save money in the long term with less money being spent on upgrades to the local network.”
Find the full Ministerial Media Statement here.
$7 million dollars to power a whole town with a population of over 3000 people? Considering that Australia is still one of the worst greenhouse gas emitters in the world, it's a drop in the ocean, I would say... and a step in the right direction. Now we need to start leaping.
{ Last Page } { Page 1 of 3 } { Next Page }
Do We Want This?
Here is a place where we
can discuss the current
nuclear power debate
in Australia.
A place to voice our
concerns and discuss
alternative sources.
The content of this blog
will periodically be sent
to our leaders in Canberra.
Please feel free to make
comment on the issues
raised for discussion here.
They need to know
just how we feel.
HomeArchives
Interesting Reading
Greenpeace - Aust/PacificGreenpeace International - End the Nuclear Age
The Australian Wilderness Society
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
CSIRO Energy Research
TreeHugger
Real Climate
Change.org
Green Options
Matter Network
AGO- Map of Renewable Energy Generators
Categories
Anti Nuclear SentimentsClean Coal
Conspiracy Theories
Geothermal
Greenpeace Wisdom
Hydro
Natural Gas
Solar
Technology of Today
The Human Side
Thermal
Wind
Recent Entries
How To Be A World Power... Conservatively.Get paid to produce power.
Shame, Peter, Shame.
Alas, I fear that one of my idols has sold out.
Transportation Has Come a Long Way.
Shell Withdraws from the London Array Wind Farm.
Wind Power is Big Business
Solar Thermal Energy
Can We Rely on Renewable Energy?
Cloncurry to get a Solar Thermal Tower
Coal Seam Methane Extraction
Links to Current Research
Controversy as FutureGen Plans are Cancelled.
Sustainable Houses.
PM's Nuclear Plant Denial
Some answers, maybe?
Alternative Energy Sources... Clean Coal
Thanks to Snowy.
Interesting Reading.
Altrnative Energy Sources... Geothermal
Conspiracy Theories... A Nuclear State
A little background music, please.
The Need To Know
Remember Chernobyl... April 26, 1986.
66% of surveyed Australians DO NOT want nuclear power. WHY ARE WE STILL HAVING THIS DEBATE?