"If only we could harness stupidity as an energy source."
Anonymous
The problem
There is an enormous appetite for energy by people making it harder for the big players in the energy industry to keep up the demand and/or to transition to more cleaner and sustainable energy sources.
Trends supporting this view
Increasing demands for energy — the consumption of oil
The human population continues to increase, and with it comes the demand for more energy. Consumer choices for products such as energy-hungry plasma televisions, multiple desktop computers, fridges and power tools, and in greater numbers, demand more energy than ever before. Even when the appliances get more efficient, the number of these appliances filling up large houses seem to negate any power savings from just one appliance. As for the countries that use oil for energy, we see the evidence for increasing energy demands through an increase in the consumption of oil. As Chevron, the parent of Caltex, said on its web site in September 2005:
"Energy demand is soaring and driving economic growth. And improved standards of living are requiring increasing amounts of energy. Some say that in 20 years the world will consume 40 per cent more oil than it does today." (Connolly, John. Cane-enabled Brazil driven to drink as petrol price races towards $4 a litre: The Australian (Business Section). 24-25 September 2005, p.41.)
Humans are using 84 million barrels of oil a day and is expected to rise to 118 million barrels a day by 2020.
On the other side of the coin, world oil production is in decline. Of the total 48 countries in the world producing oil, 33 of them are facing a decline in oil production. Politicians and business professionals are taking greater risks and expense to extract oil deeper and further away than ever before.
Demand for oil in China and India has already doubled in 2005.
As world governments claim there is nothing they can do to reduce oil prices (but continue to maintain their portion of the tax earned from the sale of oil) and yet still pretend to the consumers there is an abundance of oil to maintain the economies of the world, a respected senior trader from the New York Mercantile Exchange who wanted to remain anonymous said:
"We have been squandering oil for too long. Most of us believe that over the next 15 years oil will only head one way. We are in a once-in-a-century boom. The last time the economy looked like this was before World War I when the US was the world's economic driver like China is now.
'There's no way supply will meet demand and there won't be an alternative available in time." (Connolly, John. Cane-enabled Brazil driven to drink as petrol price races towards $4 a litre: The Australian (Business Section). 24-25 September 2005, p.41.)
The trader said in no uncertain terms the price of oil will reach US$200 a barrel in the not too distant future. Possibly in the next two years.
UPDATE
27 August 2006
The oil companies are claiming the reason for the increasing oil prices is because consumers were getting it too good and now the companies need the money to search for more oil, believing another oil field the size of Saudi Arabia is waiting in the wings in some unexplored region of the world. And even if there isn't, humans are highly adaptable enough to find alternative technology to maintain our economy.
Other observers don't entirely agree claiming all the regions of the world have been searched and oil companies are relying on much smaller oil fields previously thought to be uneconomical for drilling a few years ago until the recent price hike. But the most concerning thing of all is that society is not prepared for the age when oil will be so expensive that people must find alternative ways of surviving.
The worse case scenario is that people could suddenly find themselves living in a new economic depression greater than 1929 unless we get on with the job of finding alternative technologies and changing our way of living. How? More and more businesses relying heavily on oil such as the trucking industry, and those businesses manufacturing cars can easily collapse and many jobs lost should not enough innovation in the manufacture of cars and trucks be attempted.
Have we reached peak oil throughout the world? If we haven't reached it by now, observers believe we will definitely reach it by 2015. Yet the oil executives publicly claim that there will always be oil. Yes, there will always be oil, but how much will it cost the consumers to have it extracted and sold? It is a bit like convincing politicians there is such a thing as global warming. Perhaps eventually enough people will come to realise the same reality when oil starts to run out.
UPDATE
10 July 2006
Demand for oil is pushing oil prices higher. Soon demand will outstrip supply as China and India import more and more oil for their growing economies. World peak oil is definitely going to be reached by 2013 if not sooner. And the world is not ready to find and implement alternative technologies before the economies of the world grind to a stop because oil will become too expensive for families and small businesses.
Another factor increasing oil price is the cost of the investment to find oil reserves, build oil rigs and drill for the black gold.
The coming of the 1930s recession is almost here because the world is not ready to handle the shortage of oil. Unless the Gulf Arab countries can massively increase oil production and export to last another 20 years (current evidence suggests it is unlikely as many oil fields in the Middle East have past peak oil, including possibly the more secretive Saudi Arabia), then the end of the oil age is close at hand.
Interestingly Saudi Arabia is not permitting international observers to audit their oilfields. Saudi Arabia is claiming the number of barrels of oils remain high and will increase production in the future. But independent observers believe the cost of the oil will increase as a sign that peak oil has reached in this Arab country.
The evidence of increasing demands for energy - Consumption of electricity
According to The Sydney Morning Herald, a draft of the white paper from the NSW Government was leaked revealing the new plan to handle consumer demands for electricity. As the paper states:
"Electricity consumption is forecast to grow at 2.2 per cent a year, with peak demand growing by 2.9 per cent a year. By 2014, 20 per cent of generating capacity will be needed for just 1 per cent of the time (less than 100 hours per year).
'Growing electricity demand is being driven by peak load growth, with air-conditioning responsible for more than half of peak load growth." (Davies, Anne. More coal will burn to feed air-con frenzy: The Sydney Morning Herald. 21-22 May 2005, p.1 (1 & 4).)
Despite the draft status of the report, environmental groups weren't please. Suggestions of supplying consumers with truck-loads of condoms and rewards for putting in insulation into existing homes has been made. In the former suggestion, a lower human population size will help to reduce electricity demands.
And why not give businesses a major incentive to produce the most energy-efficient electrical and electronic appliances in the industrialised world? Come to think of it, get all small electrical appliances to be fully self-powered using solar energy or radio wave to electricity converters to help minimise burden on the electricity grid?
Actually, Vodafone is trying to be sensible by introducing a solar-powered recharger for mobile phones called the Vodafone Soldius1. Approximately one hour of charging gives 30 minutes talk time. A fully recharged phone is achievable in 6 hours. All this in a modest PDA-sized (135mm long x 80mm wide x 10mm deep) device.
How do we meet the demands?
Energy can be categorised into two main types: renewable, and non-renewable types. Non-renewables simply mean once the energy is used up, there is no easy mechanism to recycle the waste and return it to its original form. Classic examples are coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy.
Renewable types are recyclable and include solar power, wind power, and geothermal power.
Non-renewable energy sources favoured by governments and businesses because the infra-structure is there and it is cheaper to establish and generate energy
As of 21 May 2005, the greatest guzzler of electricity for consumer electrical appliances appears to be the air conditioner. As more consumers have an intimate love affair with this cold air blowing tool in the face of higher temperatures in Australia, the NSW Government will approve a massive expansion of coal-fired electricity plants and allow more coal power stations to be built and positioned along populated coastal regions. In return for this, new greenhouse targets for 2020 (not likely to meet Kyoto standards) and 2050 (will meet the same targets as proposed by UK Prime Minister Mr Tony Blair) must be met and a tougher regime will be in place to force the power industry to look for cleaner technology such as renewable sources and natural gas.
The upgrading of existing power plants such as the Mt Piper plant in Portland would allow an extra couple of years at most to meet consumer demands for electricity. Afterwards, new power plants are already on the drawing board and are likely to be approved next month.
All this because the human population levels are believed to be too high for the industry to cope, there are too many businesses supplying power hungry appliances, not enough houses are being built to be solar-passive/natural cooling in design, too many new houses in the newer estates are being built to look like mansions, the power industry is too lazy and profit-motivated to look for alternative energy sources, and the cost of any other form of power generation is considered "emission impossible" according to Environment Reporter Wendy Frew of the Sydney Morning Herald due to the enormous costs (to build in quantity within reasonable time to meet current demands, although work should have began decades ago) or too dangerous (e.g. nuclear power stations) and not likely to satisfy immediate consumer demands. Thus the only solution is to continue the way the Australian people are going at the moment.
It is the classic old Australian saying, "She'll be right mate!"
And we can be sure the world appreciates this attitude as the current climate change continues unabated. So as the R-wing authorities continue to argue the climate today is normal and we should accept it without doing anything to fix up the environment, consumers continue to purchase anything to make life comfortable with the money they can earn. Just as the R-wing doctor has ordered.
In June 2004, the Australian Federal (Howard) Government released its own environmental policies in the White Paper. Unfortunately the White Paper is not quite as green as it should to at least appease the environmentalists (not to mention the rest of the public). In it, the Government has effectively admitted that the non-renewable fossil fuel sources such as diesel are here to stay and will be used for the coming years because the existing renewable energy sources are not substantial enough and sufficiently reliable to power the business economy. As Mr Howard puts it:
"For the foreseeable future, coal, oil and gas will meet the bulk of Australia's energy needs." (1)
Despite this admission, the government is fortunately aware of an increase in carbon emissions in the atmosphere (even if these "R-wing" politicians still believe the emissions are due to natural causes) and is trying to do something about it.
Consequently, the only viable solution to the greenhouse gas problem is to focus heavily on a thing called geo-sequestration — the capturing, liquefying and hiding underground for thousands of years of carbon dioxide gases emitted by coal-fired power stations. An idea affectionately known among environmentalists as the sweeping of an environmental problem under the Earth's carpet. To reduce the blow this admission would have on the public and so improve the government's chances of re-election, the Government has made a big deal about the incentives to be provided to existing polluting industries to acquire more environmentally-friendly technologies into their operations in return for lower costs for diesel and other non-renewable energy sources. The only problem with this approach is that once new technologies are introduced (if businesses choose to do so) is that there would be no upper limit to how much more non-renewable energy sources can be used as a reward mechanism. Once the businesses have the new technologies, they will simply expand their operations knowing the cost of, say, diesel is lower and this will eventually counteract any reduction in greenhouse gases through the new technologies. It is either that or the Government will have to spend more money hiding the greenhouse gas problem underground. At the end of the day, the environmental policies released by the Federal Government is more about maintaining or increasing the production output of current polluting industries in return for a healthy Australian economy (so the Government can maintain power at the next election if enough people are happy while having a job and willing to keep the government in power) rather than a concerted effort to force industries to change their practices, seek a transition to cleaner energy sources, and train people to do new jobs.
On the positive side, the Government has been extremely careful not to ignore the more sustainable and renewable energy sources such as solar (-thermal) energy and wind power generators. The Low-Emission Technology Fund (LETF) of around A$500 million over 15 years will be provided to companies wanting to research ways of reducing carbon emissions and perhaps introduce more renewable energy sources (much of this money would go towards clean coal technology). Basically peanuts every year compared to the generous money being spent in Defence to fight the war on terrorism, while oil companies spend billions to find new underground deposits to maintain the system. However forcing industries to reach a Mandatory Renewable Energy Target of around 5 per cent has been shelved by the Government in favour of maintaining existing levels of 1 to 2 per cent.
To add to the insult on renewable energy solutions, there is evidence the Prime Minister wants to see the end of all renewable energy sources in favour of non-renewable types so he can help his friends make more money in the non-renewable gas company at Manildra, Australia. As Ms Kirsten Sharman of Ainslie in Canberra couldn't help noticing:
"Pardon the cynicism regarding the PM's energy statement. But is this the same John Howard who had the Energy Research and Development Corporation (ERDC) on a "hit-list" when he came to government, axing it within days of assuming office I seem to recall?
ERDC had a large portfolio of research into virtually all of the renewable energy and energy efficient options the PM has just "discovered".
Unfortunately, that research (and the underlying capacity) withered on the vine or went offshore to nations with more enlightened or farseeing governments.
A shame about the eight years of valuable lead time lost in getting ahead of the game in renewable energy technologies.
And is this the same PM who oversaw the failure of the Solar Energy CRC in its bid a few weeks ago — because its research did not meet the criteria of commercial and national interest? And is this the same PM who has persistently ignored sensible calls to have the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target increased by a measly 2 per cent, to provide impetus to research and capital expenditure on renewable energy?
And dare I mention the bucket-loads of taxpayers' money the PM shunted to his "mates" at Manildra instead of to an organisation like ERDC who would have made good use of it. Where is the return on that public expenditure?
And if geo-sequestration of carbon dioxide is a make-or-break issue for coal-based industries, shouldn't they be footing the bill if the same user-pays principle is applied that the PM espouses for others such as university students?
This cynical, mean and tricky vote-buying attempt will be remembered for what it is in the election the PM is now sweating on." (2)
UPDATE
19 June 2004
Possibly as a sign that the Federal (Howard) Government hasn't done enough to convince the Australian people that the authorities are doing everything in their powers to help the environment, expensive television advertisements were shown at this time at taxpayer's expense (imagine how the money could have been spent on protecting the environment, recycling wastes and investing in new renewable energy sources) suggesting the Government is putting more money into the environment than since the start of Federation in 1900. Maybe this is true. However, world temperatures continue to rise as the Government (and the Labor opposition) intends to build another 15 or so new coal-fired power stations in the next 15 years. As West Australian Treasurer Eric Ripper explained the rationale behind this move:
"Our goal is to guarantee long-term security and reliability of electricity supply with a balance of gas- and coal-fired generation." (3)
Shouldn't the balance be with renewable sources as well until such time as the renewable sources can replace the non-renewable ones? Apparently not according to the chief executive of the Energy Supply Association of Australia, Brad Page. As Mr Page explained it:
"There is no proven renewable technology available today that would be cost-competitive with fossil-fuel sources and you simply couldn't build enough renewable power sources to meet that sort of demand growth.
Short of shutting down our economy, we are going to continue to have reliance on fossil-fuel-based generation for electricity, and the growth will be very substantial." (4)
To put it simply, it is unlikely enough energy companies will research and introduce some form of renewable energy technology into the energy generation mix. Unless the Government decides to make the cost of non-renewable energy more expensive than renewable types through taxes, it is unlikely businesses will choose to move to renewable sources based on this bottom-line approach.
It is either that, or those other companies putting in so many extra features in electrical and electronic appliances such as laptops resulting in a greater demand for power for the sake of selling more products to consumers will have to be curtailed somewhat.
Or, perhaps there should be a reduction in human population levels to lower energy demands. Now would this be a better solution to the energy problem? Get companies to provide consumers with solar-powered vibrators (with a battery to store the energy for night-time use) and people won't need to procreate. Or if the government can't or won't solve the population issue, could the government give incentives for companies to introduce a range of more environmentally-friendly low-powered and durable devices capable of being run under the power of their own solar cells or have a built-in renewable energy technology. If the government needs a little inspiration, how about the patented radio wave-(from free-to-air radio and television stations)-to-electricity converter circuit by Sir Raymond Phillips?
Oil supplies are running out in various parts of the world
The average price of petrol continues to rise. Not so much because of inflation, but because of another factor. In fact, not since 1973 when OPEC's (Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) placed a temporary oil embargo and in 1979-80 when the Shah of Iran was toppled and the Iraq-Iran war began have oil prices increased dramatically as they did in 2005. In Australia, prices climbed from A$0.98 to as high as A$1.44 per litre. Other world countries have experienced the same situation.
The US Government claims this has to do with the war in Iraq as insurgents destroy oil pipelines as well as the recent natural disaster of Hurricane Katrina damaging oil rigs and refineries. Anything to suggest the economic is going great.
However some experts believe we are entering the moment when world oil supplies will drop. If this happens, humans must brace themselves for sudden and regular price hikes such as the one that had occurred in 2005 until all oil is exhausted or, more likely, the price of extracting oil gets to be too expensive.
According to industry talk, there is a critical point in the oil supplies known as "peak oil" where all the oil emerging from underground reaches maximum or peak quantity. Afterwards oil supplies must drop to the point where extracting it becomes hideously too expensive to make the operation commercially feasible for the oil companies. When this occurs, the end of the oil age will have arrived.
Oil companies will publicly state the point of "peak oil" won't arrive until around 2030, plenty of time to look for alternative energy supplies. Whistleblowers by way of scientists who were formerly employees of the oil companies are convinced the point has already been reached or will be reached in 2 to 3 years time (i.e. 2008, maximum 2010). Already well-respected financiers, geologists, energy bureaucrats and oil company officials have written books such as Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy by Matthew R. Simmons, Richard Heinberg's The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management by Hirsch, Bezdek and Wendling, and the latest from Jeremy Leggett titled Half Gone: Oil, Gas, Hot Air and the Global Energy Crisis supporting this latter view.
For other experts feeling a little unsure what to make of it all or who are working for the government, there is a preference to take the balanced approach by saying we may have 10 to 15 years left before prices really start to skyrocket and only the richest people on Earth will be able to afford their own petrol-driven cars. During which time there is still plenty of oil underground to extract.
Whatever the truth, the US Government is already convinced "peak oil" has arrived or is just around the corner for the nation despite saying officially to the people otherwise. Already analysts claim oil reserves in the US has reached peak levels since 1970 forcing the Government to rely on overseas sources to keep a steady stream of oil entering the nation. Add to this the global demand for oil increasing by roughly 2 per cent per year (the world uses 29 billion barrels of crude oil per year as of 2005 compared to the maximum estimated world natural reserve supply of 2 trillion barrels) driven mostly by the economic boom in China and the desire for large pickup trucks and four-wheel drives by American consumers, and the Government is already looking for a solution to the oil crisis.
So what's the solution from the Bush Administration? Worried by the prospect of the US economy, being so heavily reliant on oil, collapsing unless more oil is found or a new energy source is uncovered, the US Government under US President George W. Bush is convinced only a war in Iraq will give the US more stable and larger supplies of oil to keep the US economy going for quite some time.
Despite this effort, Arab oil companies forming the OPEC group (e.g. Saudi Arabia) are not saying very much other than pumping as much oil as they can to satisfy demand (e.g. after Hurricane Katrina destroyed a few oil rigs across the US Gulf Coast). There is talk of recent statistics from the Middle East not telling the full picture. The figures are suggesting the oil companies in Saudi Arabia and other neighbouring countries could be quietly using extra oil reserves to maintain current production possibly to avoid saying "peak oil" has been reached. But no one knows for sure what is happening.
Has "peak oil" been finally reached in Iraq and other Middle East countries and the US doesn't know it? Certainly some experts are claiming there are no more oil-bearing deposits to be found anywhere in the world. If the Middle East has reached "peak oil", there is no more oil left to satisfy growing demand.
Whatever the truth, one fact is not in dispute: world oil supplies are in terminal decline. Even as OPEC countries give the impression there is plenty of oil in the Middle East, other countries in the world are admitting they have reached peak levels or are about to reach it. Whether it is happening now or will occur in 2008 or in 2030, humans must face the inescapable fact oil will not keep the economy going for eternity.
Yet it hasn't stopped some oil companies searching the world for more supplies. So much for trying to make the transition to alternative energy sources.
Renewable energy sources need to be built to massive scales to power business and consumer needs
Even if certain renewable energy sources such as wind turbines are employed to meet energy demands, the shear size and number of these sources must be tremendous. The incredible numbers of people and also the power-hungry nature of those feature-full appliances are forcing some businesses and governments to approve and supply very ugly, oversized and sometimes noisy wind turbines or other energy sources (known as visual and auditory pollution to those living near the wind turbines).
NOTE: Because businesses running wind turbines have to make a profit, the basic power station and lines to distribute the electricity from many turbines is often built in a cheap and messy "above-ground" manner and the location is sometimes too close to residential areas.
As rural resident Anne MacKenzie said after regreting to allow a company to install 15 of the 35 turbines on her property at Arafat's Challicum Hills wind farm:
"I got into it for green reasons, but I was naive. Our farm is now an industrial site, with a substantial road running through it, as well as power lines, less trees, workpads pressed into the hills, an ugly substation and a passing parade of workers.
'The business imperatives overrule the environmental ones. If we just put wind towers everywhere so we can use energy with impunity, then we haven't made any progress at all. The problem with the focus on renewable energy is that it has lessened the impetus to conserve and clean up the energy we already do use." (van Tiggelen, John. An ill wind blowing: The Sydney Morning Herald (Weekender supplement). pp.23-24.)
This is despite the financial incentive of A$5,000 to A$15,000 paid to her every year for each wind turbine built on her property.
Money is not the issue. It is clearly in the amount of energy human beings use which is the issue. There must be ways to reduce the energy requirements.
UPDATE
30 January 2005
Apart from suggestions made by an American energy expert that perhaps the wind turbines can be built next to major power lines in areas not populated by people, it seems the latest solution from the private wind companies supplying wind turbines is to keep quiet and force people who own the land where turbines are built to sign a confidentiality agreement. As former secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia John Coombs said after hearing plans to build a wind farm in his small bush community not from from Goulburn:
"I've never encountered so much secrecy. There are confidentiality agreements in place, and people are suspicious of one another.
'And there has been nothing to guide us, as councillors, on how we should approach this issue; how we should be making big decisions on such developments...and whether they are good for the community and the environment." (5)
Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources Mr Craig Knowles says he will intervene on the future of any proposed wind farm in Australia. While supporting the need for more energy, Mr Knowles officially promises he will "seek to site them [wind farms] sensitively in landscapes that are appropriate."
In the meantime the increase in community anger over the placement of commercial wind farms has forced the Australian Wind Energy Association to bring in the Australian Council of National Trusts to conduct a "landscape assessment" and write guidelines on how to better locate the wind turbines. The move has been well received by local communities.
Despite this, there is not doubt about one thing: even though private wind companies are trying to do the right thing and learning to be careful what to say about where wind farms should be situated, the pressure is on for the companies to make a profit by building them. To further exacerbate the problem, the International Climate Change Taskforce for G8 countries has called for the rich countries to provide 25 per cent of its energy needs through renewable sources.
With so many concerns about visual and auditory pollution of certain renewable energy sources such as wind turbines, wouldn't it make a whole lot of sense to build circuits to convert radio waves to electricity? For a start, we don't need power generators of any sort. The radio and television stations are already providing the energy in the radio waves. All we need is the incentive from technology companies to build the circuits to plug into any electrical and electronic device to tap onto this radio wave energy.
There is no limit to how many devices can tap onto this energy (how many radio receivers are there today that can pick up energy from a radio station and convert it into audible sounds? Well then, convert the energy in the radiation into electricity to power the devices).
Only one problem: how would electricity companies measure how much electricity a person extracts from radio waves? Until this problem is solved, the technology is expected to be renegaded to the Patent Office hidden under millions of other patents?
UPDATE
June 2004
The Arts are increasingly funding research into sustainable energy with claims the visual artist John Reid has established The National Environment Bank in 2002 to finance sustainable energy solutions. This is no accident. The Arts has a particularly long history of coming to the forefront of people's minds in times when people are not struggling to survive, working long hours for L-brain bosses, or fighting wars for L-brain people. When people have what they need and can relax, the creativity side of people start to come out to create artworks and to show an interest in other people's artworks. For this to happen once more, some artists are starting to see the benefit of true recycling in the area of sustainable energy.
UPDATE
29 April 2006
As some governments contemplate approving large-scale oversized wind generators in places slightly away from the residential areas of cities and towns, the technology is quickly becoming obsolete. The problem is the eyesore this technology represents. As governments think big means better, some countries such as Finland are using much smaller, noiseless, attractive-looking, and less "in your face" wind turbines for generating electricity. The design of these new turbines are so cleverly incorporated into, say, a street light pole or the roof of a house that hardly anyone notices they exist or, if they do, many people may not realise they are generating electricity.
As the Finnish company Windside said on its official web site:
"Due to the Windside unique spiral vane shape and the fact that the rotation does not exceed wind speed, they are totally soundless.
'There is no low resolution hum. Even when rotating, they appear as solid objects, so birds do not fly into them. The device is safe to people, animals and nature." (Beeby, Rosslyn. Future of wind farms lies in smart technology: The Canberra Times. 29 April 2006, p.B3.)
It is good to see that as other nations start to consider wind energy as a solution to the global greenhouse problems, Finland has actually finished the job of what every should have done years ago by introducing smaller turbines.
It is time to take notice of Finland's excellent technological solution. Australia can learn a few lessons here.
UPDATE
27 May 2006
Supporters of wind power are having a go at the detracters claiming the people who don't want large wind turbines even in rural areas are those with the "not-in-my-back-yard" mentality. If so, one should ask the supporters whether they would be happy to have one in their own back yard. They must sleep like a log.
Also supporters have not explained the true running and maintenance costs of a large-scale wind turbine. Admittedly it might be less than coal-fired power stations, but wouldn't it be better to have small-scale wind turbines to power the items requiring the electricity (e.g. light poles, domestic homes etc)?
People still persist with building large-scale wind turbines
Not surprisingly renewable energy is making yet another comeback with talk of some companies building more wind-powered electric generators throughout Tasmania and parts of Australia. Such talk is said to be dividing the environmentalists.
On the one hand, we have some environmentalists claiming it is good to have wind turbines of any sort because of the apparent benefits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to natural gas, coal and oil. On the other hand, the shear size and numbers of wind turbines needed to meet current global energy demands would be impracticable. Add to this the undesirable aesthetics and noisy nature of wind turbines and some other environmentalists are arguing wind turbines are not the solution.
Take, for instance, the view of the influential and highly-respected environmentalist Dr James Lovelock. In his latest book, The Revenge of Gaia, he writes:
"Wind energy, through crude [oversized] and unsustainable industrial development, is already devastating some unusually beautiful countryside." (Beeby, Rosslyn. Future of wind farms lies in smart technology: The Canberra Times. 29 April 2006, p.B3.)
Another critic of big wind turbines is the eminent and great thinker and historian Professor Niall Ferguson. In no uncertain terms, Professor Ferguson said:
"[Wind turbines are] hideous, grey metallic monsters...emitting a deafening hum as their huge heads revolve." (Beeby, Rosslyn. Future of wind farms lies in smart technology: The Canberra Times. 29 April 2006, p.B3.)
Why are large-scale wind turbines unsustainable? It is because the horizontally rotating axis of traditional industrial wind turbines wear down quicker and suffer structural fatigue because of the shear size and weight of rotor blades. Now there is talk such technology on a large-scale is actually unprofitable in the long-term.
Let's face it. The real problem we have with energy is our desire to make a profit by controlling and measuring the energy supplied to consumers as well as the shear number of people (and their technology) in the world requiring oil, gas and coal to achieve their goal(s). Add to this the number of businesses whose sole purpose is to sell as many products as possible and in adding more power-hungry features to electrical appliances and electronic devices such as laptops, fridges, television sets, video recorders and washing machines just to keep ahead of the competition, and we have a serious energy problem on our hands.
The most authorities want to do in tackling the energy problem as we speak is by suggesting consumers should read up on being more energy efficient and making everyone value energy more. All this while the population continues to rise and businesses continue to make more energy-hungry products.
There has to be a better way. So what's the solution?
Well, we will definitely need wind turbines. However not of the size energy companies and the government are thinking about. It must be smaller and therefore less noisy and not so much of an eye-sore on the environment. And they must be attached directly to the houses of consumers and roofs of businesses where everyone can see exactly how much electricity is available to run all their electrical and electronic appliances (choice of energy-efficient products will be important for the consumers at this point). The technology for this is available now. Specially-designed blades to make efficient use of very little wind exists to keep these small-scaled wind turbines constantly turning and generating electricity (with much less noise). This should be the solution to the wind turbine problems of large scale operations as seen on commercial wind farms.
Next, we must put a serious investment into researching more efficient solar panels and ways of manufacturing them cheaply and in bulk.
Ethanol energy source
Brazil is taking charge and building a brighter future for itself and the planet by making ethanol from sugar cane, modifying cars to accept ethanol, and mixing ethanol and gasoline to the right percentage. As a result, the nation's demand for oil imports has dropped from 80 per cent in the 1970s to 10 per cent in 2005.
So what's keeping Australia, US and the UK from doing the same? Is it because there is a risk of losing money for the politicians heavily investing in oil companies?
NOTE: Some Australian politicians are investing in ethanol-producing companies. But in order to keep the economy going with regular purchases of new cars and car repairs (and lower the cost of producing petrol while selling at the same high price to consumers), some politicians and companies are choosing not to tell consumers ethanol has been blended with gasoline at high concentrations.
UPDATE
10 June 2006
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government is preparing all it can to receive its fair share of tax revenue from the ethanol industry by making the industry pay some excise. Perhaps all this in preparation for introducing Australia's first pure-ethanol cars? On hearing about the tax, people in the ethanol industry are kicking up a stink claiming the excise tax will kill off the industry. Other people aren't too sure saying that even if the excise is added, it will still be 25.5 cents a litre cheaper than petrol.
As this debate rages on, motoring magazines promote the latest 3-tonne 4WD vehicles while 4WD manufacturers claim on television adverts their big diesel 4WD vehicles can travel over 1,200 kilometers on a single tank of diesel fuel. What is not revealed in the advert is exactly how how big the fuel tanks are to achieve this mileage. So yes, you could travel 1,200 kilometres on a single tank of fuel, but you probably have to spend A$120 or more to fill it up. Is diesel in a 3-tonne 4WD any better for the environment than say a small Honda car using standard petrol?
Biofuel energy source
As of early 2006, the Australian Federal (Howard) Government was claiming the biofuel technology revolution capable of replacing existing fossil fuels with a cleaner and environmentally safer product will not be viable as a business proposition by 2015. The people who claim this refuse to be interviewed by reporters to explain the reasons. There is a feeling the Federal Government could be protecting the oil companies because some politicians and family members may have a vested interest in those companies and not just the fact that the Government needs oil companies to raise sufficient money by way of excise tax and GST.
UPDATE
March 2007
This Australian government view towards biofuels may be changing following the US President George W. Bush's visit to Brazil where he announced a greater push towards energy diversification including biofuels from sugar plants and corn.
Governments have to consider nuclear power as the solution to the energy demands
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government agreed 12 months ago to let the Northern Territory government enact new legislation preventing the dumping of nuclear waste anywhere in the state. Then in November 2005, it changed thanks to the Federal Government's decision to overturn the legislation. Why? The Government believes the only common sense solution to the global warming problem is to go down the yellow-cake road by building nuclear reactors. Only two problems: Where to put all the nuclear waste? And how can the reactors made safe from natural and man-made disasters?
Apparently the Northern Territory have the necessary strong anti-terrorist military property strongholds and the most isolated locations for safeguarding the material.
Combined this with a realisation the Government can make potentially considerable amounts of money by accepting nuclear waste from other countries and the economic benefits together with the attractiveness of Northern Territory as a dumping ground have become far too great for the Government to ignore.
Expect nuclear energy as the only viable solution to the energy demands of the current Western system in the eyes of a R-wing government.
R-wing governments must resort to expanding non-renewable energy solutions to meet the energy demands (or satisfy voters at election time)
For the sake of maintaining the current economic system, allowing the human population to increase, and finding a quick and practical solution to the energy crisis, governments have to consider nuclear energy as the only environmentally-friendly way to generating huge amounts of power.
For example, the NSW government has just realised extra coal-power generators will add enormously to the greenhouse problem making Australia one of the dirtiest and most polluting nations on Earth (coming at a time when in 2005 the NSW Premier Bob Carr is considering a desalination plant for Sydney in the near future to help solve the fresh water problem, yet another crisis to deal with). Hence the reason for considering nuclear power stations as a cleaner alternative.
The same is true of a select number of trusted nations able to support bilateral safeguard agreements with Australia in the use of uranium for peaceful purposes with news that Australian uranium prices are predicted to increase by 43 per cent over the next 12 months starting June 2005 because of the higher international demands for the product.
According to a submission from the Melbourne-based Uranium Information Centre:
"The significance and true value of uranium as a strategic and clean resource is only just beginning to be realised globally. The potential for Australia — with one-third of the world's uranium — is therefore enormous, particularly considering that the world is already reliant on nuclear power to supply 16 per cent of its electricity [from 440 fully-operational reactors as of June 2005], and the world's energy needs will likely double in the next 30 years." (Streak, Diana. Exploding the uranium debate myths: The Canberra Times. 18 June 2005, p.B7.)
Naturally this statement assumes the current economic and social developments continue on their present course of continuous and never-ending growth.
Among the claims supporting nuclear energy include:
(i) Virtually no greenhouse gas emissions by way of carbon dioxide.
(ii) Australia can meet carbon reduction targets as set by the Kyoto Protocol if it decided to ratify it and not just sign it in principle.
(iii) Massive economic gains for Australia because of the international demand for uranium with business professionals talking in terms of 50 new nuclear power stations to be built by China, India and Japan alone.
(iv) The money earned from the sale of uranium will balance Mr Costello's budget books for Australia.
(v) Employing more people in the uranium industry, keeping the unemployment levels low.
In summary, nuclear energy is great for business and the government if it means making more money and to stay in political power while at the same time calm the fears of the public about global warming.
The case against nuclear energy include:
(i) Despite Professor George Dracoulis, head of the Department of Nuclear Physics at the ANU, stating:
"The normal operation of nuclear power station does not make material useful for bombs." (Stephens, Andree. Our most power-ful debate yet: The Canberra Times. 27 May 2006, p.B2.)
it doesn't take much know-how or extra technology to figure out how to convert the low-level radioactive waste of nuclear energy in power stations into an enriched form for use in nuclear weapons. Thus the risk of nations deciding to develop nuclear weapons in secret or otherwise from the radioactive materials of a nuclear power station is great. In fact, selling uranium does not guarantee nations will not produce nuclear weapons and neither will it reduce the security concerns for humanity because of it.
(ii) After more than 60 years of research, no one has been able to find a solution to the nuclear waste problem. How do we neutralise the radioactive by-products? Or, if this is not possible, how do we store the waste safely (i.e. away from fresh water supplies, beyond the reach of individuals or groups wanting to get their hands on it for negative purposes, and deep enough underground where in the event of a rare and big earthquake will not allow the material to escape into the air)?
(iii) The risk of terrorism, of poor or aging technology in nuclear power stations, or human error could see another Chernobyl disaster in the making with potentially hundreds of thousands of more people affected by the radioactive fallout for generations to come and not just a few dozen workers who might get killed, costing society more by way of health care and cancer research.
(iv) A greater burden on indigenous aboriginal Australians owning the uranium-rich land and the greater destruction of the environment to extract the uranium.
(v) Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is unlikely because humans still have to explore and mine for uranium and transport it to a nuclear power station. Then what happens when an old nuclear power station is decommissioned? What energy will be used to dismantle the station (or build it for that matter)? In most circumstances, it will have to involve greenhouse gases at some point in the process.
In summary, all the safeguards in the world can neither guarantee nuclear power will be used for peaceful purposes nor will it be one-hundred per cent safe in the event of an accident or a natural disaster. Nuclear power is an immediate government solution to a growing environmental problem of global warming. However it fails to address the long-term solution for the environment and terrorist problem and does not show a serious and concerted effort to research renewable energy sources or to search for a better socio-economic system that does not require continuous human and economic growth.
UPDATE
27 May 2006
Leslie Kemeny, Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy, claims some generation-four nuclear power station prototypes already in development are much safer and smaller than traditional nuclear power stations. Kemeny said:
"They [latest generation nuclear power stations] have great safety advantages. They cannot melt down, they cannot do a Chernobyl under any condition and they are built in a terrorist-proof fashion." (Stephens, Andree. Our most power-ful debate yet: The Canberra Times. 27 May 2006, p.B2.)
Because of these features, Kemeny will argue the case for nuclear power with a group of national miners in Canberra at the end of May 2006.
However, we should realise these fourth-generation nuclear power stations have yet to be built. And with all technological systems, everything has an "Achilles heal" so to speak. Can we be sure these new nuclear power stations will stop, say, a terrorist from destroying them? Or can we be sure an earthquake, tidal wave or meteorite will not cause a radioactive leak or fallout of the size seen at Chernobyl in 1986?
Kemeny claims the new reactor is perfect. Now really? Somehow we feel Kemeny is living in fairyland.
More questions need to be asked about these latest generation of nuclear power stations. Especially in the light of a confidential report by the Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development claiming in mid-May 2006 solar-thermal power stations would be cost-competitive with coal by 2013 and only 1.5 per cent of the world's desert area for collecting solar energy for this type of technology would be needed to satisfy the world's electricity demands. As the report stated:
"[Solar thermal technology was] poised to play a significant role in baseload generation for Australia.
'Solar radiation is the largest renewable resource on earth and, if harnessed by existing technology, approximately 1.5 per cent of the world's desert area could generate the world's entire electricity demand." (Stephens, Andree. Our most power-ful debate yet: The Canberra Times. 27 May 2006, p.B2.)
Compared to the questions raised by nuclear technology, the report effectively answers all questions critics have made about the cost, inefficiencies and what happens when the sun doesn't shine. All is required is a government to show the intestinal fortitude to fund the development of a powerful, low-cost and environmentally-friendly solar-thermal industry to replace nuclear, coal, natural gas and wind.
NOTE: Solar-thermal technology will not solve the problem of what happens if the technology is put out of action by a natural disaster (e.g. the supervolcano at Yosemite National Park, USA, explodes). We still need an alternative renewable technology such as industry-level wind power and geothermal energy sources, and radio wave-to-direct current converters for consumer-level appliances.
As Greg Quinn of Evatt in Canberra said:
"The Prime Minister [John Howard] has suddenly realised, or at last admitted, that burning too much coal might be a bit of a problem. At the same time, state and federal governments are intent on selling the great national project of the 20th century, the Snowy Mountains Scheme.
'Whatever the merits of this sale, why don't we use the proceeds to kickstart a great national project for the 21st century? Australia is famously a sunburnt country.
'We have the expertise, technology and open spaces to exploit this natural advantage. I have a vision of inland Australia dotted with arrays of solar cells (perhaps the "sliver cells" invented at the ANU) and solar thermal installations (like the one at CSIRO Newcastle). And I don't mean small arrays — I mean big ones, up to 1km square. Put one of these near each of 50 country towns, feed the electricity into the national grid, or convert it into hydrogen.
'Yes, it will be expensive. It will cost tens of billions of dollars, a couple of years' worth of budget surpluses.
'But in 10 or 15 years we could be clean energy self-sufficient, the envy [of] the world. And it would all have happened before our first nuclear power plant is ready to be fired up.
'The economy of rural Australia will get a boost with the thousands of jobs in the construction and maintenance of solar farms.
'And, evoking the spirit of the Man from Snowy River, let's give it a catchy name — The Sunlit Plains Scheme?" (The Canberra Times: Snowy profit should fund solar power generation (Letters to the Editor). 27 May 2006, p.B6.)
So why is Mr Howard pursuing the nuclear power debate at the end of May 2006 if scientists have already known the advantages and disadvantages of the technology for over 20 years? Simple. Mr Howard is protecting his Government from embarressing situations in Defence (e.g. bad treatment of personnel and closing ranks when outsiders ask questions, leaving behind at an airport lounge a CD-R containing a confidential military report etc), rising petrol prices and interest rates, new IR laws hitting employees hard, the AWB wheat scandal in Iraq and much more by introducing the divisive debate to keep the public talking and thinking and to split the opposition ALP party on the subject.
The people of Australia has to remember one thing. One can debate and talk about all sorts of things. But at the end of the day, there is no debate or division when we realise the only solution to the global warming issue and safety of humanity is to focus on renewable energy. As John Newton of Glebe, NSW, said:
"There's a very simple answer to the Prime Minister's devious and divisive call for a debate on nuclear energy. At every turn we must tell him: it's not about nuclear energy, Mr Howard, it's about renewable energy." (The Sydney Morning Herald: No surprise in diversionary tactics (Opinion & Letters). 27-28 May 2006, p.36.)
UPDATE
3 June 2006
An effort to avoid showing the potentially higher risk of death from cancer for workers at the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, NSW, seems evident from a study sponsored by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) responsible for overseeing the reactor and providing the data for the study.
The study was conducted by Rima Habib and Samer Abdallah from the American University of Beirut under the supervision of epidemiologist John Kaldor of the University of NSW. It claims nuclear workers at Lucas Heights had a one-third less risk of dying from cancer compared to other NSW residents.
However a prominent occupational health specialist named Dr Bruce Hocking is confident the results are flawed. Hocking claims the study tried to ignore cases of leukemia as if implying they are not caused by radiation, and it had averaged the radiation exposure across the entire 7,000 workers instead of grouping workers under low and high radiation exposures. And the study did not take a long enough time frame to give a detailed picture of how those cancers that took longer to develop such as brain tumours and mesothelioma have appeared in workers who worked at the reactor between 1972 and 1996.
In a letter to the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, which published the study last year, Dr Hocking wrote:
"[The results] should not be taken as reassurance regarding risks of cancer in nuclear workers at Lucas Heights or elsewhere." (Robotham, Julie. Safety of nuclear jobs called into question: The Sydney Morning Herald. 3-4 June 2006, p.10.)
Dr Hockings acknowledged Lucas Heights was not a dangerous place to work. Radiation exposure is currently well below the maximum allowable limit set by the International Atomic Energy Agency. His main concern, however, is the way the study claimed the results were demonstrating how safe it is to work at a nuclear reactor when clearly the data has not been analysed properly to ensure this was the case.
UPDATE
5 June 2006
Ian Smith, chief executive of ANSTO, believes it is economically feasible to have a nuclear industry in Australia (if heavily subsidised by taxpayers) and is recommending up to 5 nuclear reactors along the Eastern Australian seaboard. Exactly as Mr Howard wants to hear. The nuclear reactors, to be built by Westinghouse, are said to be safer than any nuclear reactor in existence today. Not everyone is welcoming the idea. Mr Howard is determined to have his nuclear debate by slowly presenting to the public favourable information indirectly through ANSTO and university academics.
Why? Because Mr Howard thinks it is the solution to the greenhouse gas problem. However, a US lawyer has humourously described the move from coal-fired power stations to nuclear stations as like going from smoking cigarettes to smoking crack. He believes the cost to produce electricity from a nuclear reactor in his town is more expensive than any other traditional form of electricity production.
Australia would be far better off getting every industry, household and business to reduce energy use by between 0.5 and 1.5 per cent as this would be equivalent to operating 5 nuclear power stations.
UPDATE
7 June 2006
Mr Howard gets his debate by setting up a 6-month enquiry into nuclear energy. He has assigned a nuclear physicist and former Telstra chief to head the Nuclear Taskforce Inquiry named Dr Ziggy Switkowski. Clearly not an expert in solar power and other renewable energy. But neither is he an indelible sign of independence when heading an inquiry into nuclear power. Dr Switkowski argues his nuclear knowledge will help him to understand complex scientific terms during the inquiry. Maybe so. But during an interview on ABC television this week, he did try to suggest nuclear power is a natural thing to have since the stars in the Universe are powered by nuclear energy and our bodies are made from this stuff.
Somehow we get the impression the conclusion is already written in the stars, exactly as Mr Howard wants.
Mr Howard and his sidekick Dr Switkowski haven't realised why stars are powered by nuclear energy and not on the surface of the Earth: not only can stars generate tremendous energy, but also (i) the distances in the Universe are great; and (ii) the gravitational field of stars are strong enough to contain more than 99.99 per cent of the radioactive elements. If those nuclear reactors, even on a small scale, are placed on Earth, we can't enjoy the tyranny of distance and a strong gravitational field to control them in the event of an accident. You only need to look at Chernobyl in Russia for a clear example of what we mean by this.
And even if a fourth-generation nuclear reactor could contain an accident, who is going to clean it up? And at what cost? And how will it solve the nuclear waste problem and stop nations stockpiling nuclear weapons from the nuclear by-products?
Furthermore, nuclear energy is not an unlimited and inexhaustible supply in the sense that the uranium yellow cake component can be supplied forever. Nuclear experts claim humanity has not more than a few decades of high-grade yellow cake for use throughout the world. After that, it will take more energy and carbon emissions to refine the low-grade uranium to a useable form in nuclear reactors.
It is starting to look like the inquiry is not really a debate. It is really a bunch of old male farts deciding how to introduce nuclear power by convincing consumers to pay for it in their electricity bills above all other alternative and safer energy solutions. And if it turns out some businesses may have to contribute as well for nuclear power to become a reality, perhaps a carbon trading scheme could be the answer.
As for renewable energy technology, the answer is evidently clear to Mr Howard and his supporters. It is too expensive. They give as an example wind power technology. The large wind turbines in operation on wind farms costs around A$75 per megawatt hour. And current solar photovoltaic cells can be as much as double this figure. Compared to coal-fired power stations at A$35, this is expensive.
When compared to coal, so is nuclear power at an estimated cost of A$60 per megawatt hour! But what we don't know is what happens when we use solar energy to heat air or a liquid to turn turbines? How much does this cost?
Apparently solar thermal power generation, when in operation costs virtually nothing, is much safer, there is no waste product (well, certainly not the dangerous kind), and lifespan is much longer than a nuclear power station. So why does Mr Howard think it might be economically-feasible to build nuclear power plants when solar thermal power generators cost nothing to run, lasts longer and is unquestionably safer compared to nuclear reactors? What is this preponderance towards nuclear power?
Or does Mr Howard have to accept anything that Mr Bush says when he talks of his so-called wisdom about nuclear power? Just recently we hear Mr Bush supporting nuclear power as a viable means of solving global warming. Or can Mr Howard show leadership skills by looking at all energy sources in an impartial manner?
UPDATE
9 June 2006
After being accused of a conflict of interest, Dr Switkowski resigned from the board of ANSTO. Sounds like a much wiser man than Mr Bush.
UPDATE
22 February 2007
What could amount to a considerable improvement in the design of nuclear reactors thanks to the ingenuity of Chinese scientists, a new nuclear test facility is being built outside Beijing, China. Known as the pebble bed reactor, it would be the first of its kind in the world. Short of a meteorite or terrorist gate crashing the joint and blowing up the core nuclear engine over a wide area, the big advantage of this new system is that it seems virtually impossible to create a meltdown should the coolant (in this case helium instead of the traditional pressurised water) stop flowing, accidentally or otherwise. The nuclear fuel is held inside specially-coated spherical particles sitting at the centre of perfectly spherical graphite metal balls (approximately 8,000 particles per ball) such that should the uranium atoms split and ever get too hot inside because no coolant is present, the spheres would actually get cooler (possibly by reflecting the excess radiation emitted by the nuclear reaction within itself and cancelling itself out through destructive interference known as a Faraday cage).
Could this be the answer to Mr Howard's Australian dream for a nuclear future?
The new system — being developed under the guidance of Professor Zhang Zuoyi and Professor Wu Zongxin — does have two disadvantages: it is expensive to build taking more time and money to develop one pebble bed reactor than to build several traditional pressurised water reactors (PWRs), and it still generates nuclear waste.
Perhaps Mr Howard would love to have the waste in his own backyard? And anyway, no one in their right economic management mind would consider this type of reactor in Australia if the infrastructure and expertise are not available. As Professor Zhang Zuoyi said:
"It's better not to use nuclear energy for Australia. Because for nuclear you need a lot of infrastructure, you need a lot of experienced people...." (Catalyst (ABC's premier Australian science program), 22 February 2007.)
Possibly Professor Zuoyi could be protecting his country's economic benefits in selling the technology overseas? But given the endless economic management mantra of the Howard Government, the Prime Minister would be better off spending money in developing world-class renewable energy technologies and making Australia an expert in this field.
For example, the cost of the infrastructure to manufacturer the new sliver solar cells from the ANU is around $100 million. Far cheaper to spend this sort of money than tens of billions of dollars in building the infrastructure and nuclear reactors for Australia.
What about nuclear fusion?
As the seriousness of the energy crisis and the problems of non-renewable oil, coal and gas on the environment becomes an ever increasing burden on the authorities, one nation has decided to make a bold decision to look towards an alternative energy source never commercially considered before until now.
While keeping true to the idea of being able to sell energy to people for a profit, Russia has big plans to reenter the space race and make a permanent base on the Moon within a decade. Why? So it can mine for helium 3 isotope considered in plentiful supply on the Moon for the amount of energy bang for your buck.
Why Helium 3?
Well, Russia is quietly confident it will soon have the technology to build a nuclear fusion reactor (as opposed to the more dirty and dangerous nuclear fission idea). Because helium 3 has the natural potential to achieve nuclear fusion with ease within the right and controlled environment, it seems sensible to consider this new energy source. More importantly, the waste product is non-radioactive and will not pollute the environment.
Furthermore, according to some estimates made by US scientists, a shuttle-load of the isotope brought back from the Moon would be sufficient to meet the entire US electrical requirements at present-day population levels for a year. With over a million tonnes (possibly closer to 500 million tonnes) of natural Helium 3 on the Moon, there would be enough energy to meet world demands for more than a thousand years.
Head of the state-controlled Russian giant known as Energia Space Corporation, Nikolai Sevastyanov, has unveiled plans at an academic conference on how his organisation will achieve the ambitious dream:
"We are planning to build a permanent base on the Moon by 2015 and by 2020 we can begin the industrial-scale delivery...of the rare isotope Helium 3.
'The Earth's known hydrocarbon reserves will last mankind 50 to 100 years at the present-day rate of consumption. There are practically no reserves of Helium [3] on the Earth. On the Moon, there are between 1 million and 500 million tonnes, according to various estimates.
'Ten tonnes of Helium 3 would be enough to meet the yearly energy needs of Russia." (Osborn, Andrew. High hopes over the moon: The Canberra Times (Times2 supplement). 30 January 2006, p.3.)
Already the Russian Government has set aside A$14.5 billion last year to help the space agency begin the work. If the mining on the Moon does go ahead as planned, it will purportedly take place in the Sea of Tranquility where the concentrations of Helium 3 are said to be at their highest according to Russian scientists.
The incredibly ambitious and creative Russian plan to mine Helium 3 on the Moon (must be applauded for such radical thinking) as an alternative energy source for humankind will be coupled by the remarkably limited creativity of R-wing leaders in the US and Australia in doing the same on Earth. Restricted heavily by the idea of "economic viability" in introducing new ideas and technologies, both Mr Bush and almost soon after Mr Howard prefer to pursue traditional nuclear power as the best alternative to coal-fired power stations as far as reducing greenhouse gases are concerned.
Mr Howard has invited top scientists to descend on Parliament House at the end of February 2006 to discuss and debate the issues behind traditional nuclear power.
Mr Bush has been talking up the sale of US nuclear reactor technology to India to help reduce greenhouse gases from this developing nation. He can do this mainly because he knows India already has nuclear weapons and is sufficiently democratic in its ways to be accepted by the US government. However if it was North Korea, it would have been a totally different situation altogether.
Now all India needs is more uranium. Sounds like Mr Howard will be itching for an opportunity to sell Australian uranium to India after the US has made a killing in selling nuclear technology components. Only one catch: India has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It would be illegal to sell uranium to India. Then again you can be sure if there is a buck to be made in selling uranium to India (and China), Mr Howard will find a way, especially with the help of BHP Billiton.
Hot-rocks technology
Hot rocks technology is emerging as a possible solution to the problem of generating massive amounts of electricity without damaging the environment. The idea works on the principle of drilling a hole approximately 4 kilometres deep into the crust of the Earth to find a natural source of non-volcanic hot rocks. The aim is to inject water through the hole where it becomes superheated to 250°C. A second hole is drilled a certain distance away from the first, allowing the superheated water to pass through the cracks in the rocks and shoot out through the second hole. The water can be endlessly recycled. The heat is what's used to heat another piping circuit of ammonia and other chemicals where it can more efficiently spin turbines to generate high amounts of electricity.
In one of the most geological stable regions in the world, the Cooper basin located in the vast outback of northern South Australia contains hot rock beds of granite nearly 3.5 kilometres underground. Mildly heated by radioactive elements deep in the earth (not volcanic or from the magma), these rocks heat natural fresh water locked in fissures within the granite rocks to 250ºC. When the superheated water emerges under tremendous pressure from a hole drilled into it, the water can heat a gas in another adjacent pipeline to the point where turbines can rotate efficiently, quietly and inside a small, single-storey building. Such a power station has the potential to provide up to 15 new Snowy Mountain hydroelectric power schemes or about 10 new coal-fired power stations for Australia.
And best of all, there are zero carbon dioxide emissions when in operation. Even the water underground is free and plentiful and can be reused again and again by drilling a couple of more holes at a distance away from the centre of the hot granite rocks for the water to be injected where it will reenter the rocks.
The Australian company involved in this geothermal project is Geodynamics Limited. It has to date received a $6 million research grant to investigate the idea and drill a test hole near Innamincka. A further $4 million has been provided to build and deliver a new drilling rig from Houston in Texas as all the other drilling rigs are being used elsewhere for the oil and gas industry. But now the company is seeking a $75 million grant from the Federal Government's Low Emission Technology demonstration fund to build a 40 megawatt test power plant.
Only one problem: the Federal Government has spent much of the $500 million allocated for new energy research towards clean coal technology. Very little is left for alternative renewable energy schemes.
Dr Adrian Williams, CEO of Geodynamics Limited, said:
"We're looking at hundreds of megawatts into the grid by 2015, and that's just this company. Other companies are looking to do the same. By 2020 there will be several thousand megawatts going into the grid. By 2030 there's no reason why hot rocks, I think, can be producing ten per cent of Australia's power. We're not limited by resource, we've got a huge resource just to keep going." (Quote televised on the ABC current affairs program Four Corners: Earth, Wind and Fire by reporter Jonathan Holmes, 16 April 2007.)
Can geothermal compete with nuclear power? It depends on what the Australian public want from their taxes and whether the Federal Government is prepared to invest in the power lines to connect geothermal power stations in this potentially biggest geothermal region in the world to the grid, which is 500 kilometres to BHP's uranium mine at Roxby Downs. It is a cost that coal-fired power stations in Australia never had to face thanks to the generous help from the Government.
Otherwise the alternative would be to build solar-thermal power stations to replace the hot rocks with the Sun as an alternative source of energy and focus the energy onto a tube containing a liquid or gas. When the gas is heated, turbines turn and electricity is generated. Australia is unusual in that a technology of this sort could be built almost anywhere on the continent and certainly within range of the electricity grid.
And there are cheap solar-thermal power stations the Government can build if it put its mind to it.
Governments think it is cleaner and greener to go back to nuclear energy
The 18-month-old Australian energy policy is looking decidely inadequate and out-of-touch with today's oil price rise reality after its heavy focus on fossil fuels for power generation. This became evident for Mr Howard after learning of the changes taking place in Washington on his recent visit to the US.
"The whole atmosphere in Washington, the atmosphere...created by the high level of oil prices is transforming the debate on energy, alternative energy sources." (Metherell, Mark and Frew, Wendy. We must move to nuclear fuel: PM: The Sydney Morning Herald. 20-21 May 2006, p.1.)
Mr Howard's view on his energy policy was quite adamant when he said:
"That white paper was a very comprehensive statement about policy but it was based on certain assumptions regarding the price of oil and those assumptions are certainly very different now." (Naylor, Catherine. N-power inevitable: Howard: The Canberra Times. 20 May 2006, p.1.)
Is there a solution? Well, Mr Howard has thought long and hard and believes he has the answer. In one incredible moment of enlightenment on foreign soil, he thinks it is time to start focussing on nuclear power as the solution to the energy and global warming crisis. As Mr Howard said:
"Clearly the environmental advantages of nuclear power are there for all to see: it's cleaner and greener and therefore some of the people in the past who've opposed it should support it." (Naylor, Catherine. N-power inevitable: Howard: The Canberra Times. 20 May 2006, p.1.)
Has anyone told Mr Howard this next assumption only works if the nuclear power stations are already built, operated safely for their full lifespan, dismantled without emitting greenhouse gases, and the nuclear waste is properly disposed of? Not exactly a green and clean energy source for the 21st century. And it assumes Australia will never experience a natural disaster that could affect the nuclear stations.
And what happens if one nuclear power station suddenly experiences a Chernobyl-like disaster? Just one accident is all it takes to leave the entire nuclear industry in tatters as people band together to stop all other nuclear power stations. Add to this the huge health and environmental bill to clean up the mess should a disaster occur and would Mr Howard continue to think nuclear power is the best solution?
As Steve Shallhorn, head of Greenpeace Australia, remarked:
"Nuclear power is a failed technology. It is neither safe, economic nor clean — and it's certainly not the solution to climate change." (Naylor, Catherine. N-power inevitable: Howard: The Canberra Times. 20 May 2006, p.1.)
In addition, Steve Shallhorn, Australia Pacific's chief executive said a doubling of global nuclear energy output would only reduce greenhouse emissions by a mere 5 per cent (Metherell, Mark and Frew, Wendy. We must move to nuclear fuel: PM: The Sydney Morning Herald. 20-21 May 2006, p.1.). Not exactly a substantial cut in greenhouse gas emissions as the scientists were hoping to avoid further climate changes.
Any better solutions? Unfortunately Mr Howard hasn't enlightened society with his apparent creative genius. Either that or he is once again relying on the so-called creative R-wing policies of the US under the Bush Administration.
That's right. No improvements to solar power, no small-scale wind generators to power individual homes, no forcing of businesses to provide low-powered products with inbuilt environmentally-friendly power generations systems (e.g. solar or radio-to-DC converters etc), and no policies to encourage people to stop populating the Australian mainland with more babies to ease the energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In the meantime, ANSTO has unveiled the new "terrorist-proof" and presumably "nature-proof" scientific nuclear reactor worth A$330 million in preparation for decommissioning the old reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney's south, possibly as a show of the level of responsibility people can have in running a nuclear power plant and how safe it is this time. As John Loy, chief of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, said:
"The physical security arrangements have been examined very closely. They are at the leading edge in the world of protection of such a facility." (The Canberra Times: Nuclear watchdog plays down reactor safety fears. 15 July 2006, p.5.)
The Agency has granted ANSTO an operating license for the new facility. Soon the new reactor will be activated.
The Federal (Howard) Government is clearly doing all it can to convince the public of the importance to have nuclear energy. Local residents and Green groups are not convinced any technology is 100 per cent safe.
On the positive side, the Federal (Howard) Government is doing the right thing as far as subsidising up to $500 worth of water, electricity and gas efficiency devices such as water savers, compact fluorescent tubes etc for a total payment of $100 per Australian household. This will go some way towards reducing power and natural resources usage.
Now if only we can figure out a way to reduce population levels and have fewer power hungry appliances. And what about more focus on renewable energy solutions?
UPDATE
October 2006
The head of the Federal Government's inquiry into nuclear energy, Dr Ziggy Switkowski, will unveil the long-awaited report at the end of November 2006. In interviews, Dr Switkowski has hinted nuclear energy is not economically viable. He extends this to every other alternative energy sources including the renewable types.
The problem for Australia is that it has so much cheap coal, why would the nation pay more for other energy sources?
However Prime Minister John Howard wants to keep the nuclear debate open by lending weight to a carbon trading scheme, a system of taxing greenhouse gas emissions. Because eventually the next in line for providing energy to the economy is nuclear. Nuclear energy remains cheaper than renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.
UPDATE
21 November 2006
The report on nuclear energy headed by Dr Ziggy Switkowski was officially unveiled today. It states Australia can have nuclear energy in the next ten years with production of large numbers of nuclear reactors achieveable by 2020. By 2050, Australia could have 25 nuclear reactors supplying one-third of Australia's energy needs.
It takes into account the potential for the Australian population to increase at current rates resulting in twice as much energy being used by 2050.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to let people working in the office to work from home, saving bundles on the use of coal, fossil fuel and extra electricity to run the air conditioners and cars? And for the cost of 25 nuclear reactors, would it be better to spend the money on solar panels for every Australian home just to be self-sufficient?
While doing an admirable task of trying to look balanced in presenting its results, the report does a few mistakes.
The main mistake is in the executive summary written by Dr Switkowski where he selected the lowest cost figures to build nuclear power to help make it look economically feasible. But a closer look at the main report shows there is a wide cost variation and that the average cost would, in fact, be uneconomical for Australia to consider nuclear power. As Dr Mark Diesendorf, director of the Sustainability Centre, said:
"...the executive summary of Ziggy's report suggested ridiculously small extra costs from nuclear power. But if you go to the main body of that report to Figure 4.6 you find in fact there are huge, a huge range of prices for nuclear power and that the executive summary has actually selected out the lowest ones; and has made unrealistic assumptions about, for example, the interest rates that would be charged when people borrow money to build nuclear power stations." (ABC's public forum and debate program, Difference of Opinion, televised on 19 March 2007.)
Dr Switkowski counterects this argument on the basis of experience from other countries using nuclear power and how old the nuclear industry is and therefore, irrespective of costs, will always be safe and affordable for the Australian economy. In his words:
"...we're going to continue today and beyond to argue about the cost of nuclear power. But let me point to what I understand to be the international experience. Thirty-one countries are nuclear powered. Eight are in the cue to add their first reactor. If you look at only those economies that are like ours — the OECD countries — it's half as much electricity generated by nuclear reactors as is produced by coal. So we don't have to argue about whether we got particular numbers right. The fact is the experience around the world is that nuclear power is a reality, the industry is 50 years old, and if we look into the future for Australia and demand that it be progressively supplied by clean energy, the only alternative longer-term I believe will be the progressive introduction of clean, affordable, safe nuclear power." (ABC's public forum and debate program, Difference of Opinion, televised on 19 March 2007.)
Is it true to say nuclear power is clean, affordable and safe?
Dr Nikki Williams, CEO of NSW Minerals Council, was able to look beyond the statement stating:
"Well clearly...nuclear power has a number of issues associated with it: waste and proliferation [of nuclear weapons]. And these issues are of major concern. But I think something that perhaps Ziggy didn't talk about was, it's certainly the case that nuclear power exists in 31 countries around the world. But usually governments have decided to have that [nuclear option] as part of their energy mix because they didn't have something else. So they didn't have fossil fuels, or adequate fossil fuels for example. So they needed to diversify their economy and nuclear was one option which has been adopted. And in all of those cases, the electricity prices for both industry and for consumers are greatly higher than we enjoy in Australia. So if I give you an example, 13 cents a kilowatt hour in Australia for residential electricity. In Denmark, in Germany, 32 cents, 43 cents [respectively]. These are enormous differences in costs and is something that as Australians we need to bear in mind when we are evaluating." (ABC's public forum and debate program, Difference of Opinion, televised on 19 March 2007.)
Dr Switkowski agrees it is more expensive but says consumers are paying higher and higher electricity costs over time. If consumers are going to have to pay more for electricity, consumers will be able to afford to pay for nuclear power in Australia. As Dr Switkowski said:
"I agree with Nikki, they [nuclear reactors] are more costly. But I think as we plan over the next 10 or 20 years, as Australians, we are going to get used to paying more and more for our electricity however it is delivered." (ABC's public forum and debate program, Difference of Opinion, televised on 19 March 2007.)
Well, not if the power is generated on site such as a solar panel on people's roofs. Why would people have to pay more for electricity over time when the aim is to provide cheaper and cheaper electricity costs. Why should Dr Switkowski assume things will get more expensive? Perhaps initially as we move to a new energy source. But the long-term aim should be to reduce costs to the lowest level possible, not more.
The problem with nuclear power is that it is a labour intensive activity requiring regular monitoring, removal of nuclear wastes, and adding new nuclear fuel. And nuclear power needs to deliver the electricity along expensive and inefficient power lines to be of use to everyone. The Australian Federal Government wants nuclear power because it wants consumers to continue consuming, and paying for their consumption of electricity which, in turn, requires people to have jobs and maintain the economy. This is how governments maintain power and control in the community.
Dr Switkowski also adds to his argument that the younger generation are open-minded to nuclear power because they don't have past reference points to consider such as the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and the availability of traditional and more risky nuclear reactors such as the old graphite-type as used at Chernobyl and the pressurised water versions. There are now more safer nuclear power options:
"...The very young generation seem to be quite open-minded in part because they don't have a frame of reference that goes back to the 70s and 80s, which were the difficulties of nuclear power." (ABC's public forum and debate program, Difference of Opinion, televised on 19 March 2007.)
Does that mean that the younger generation are wise enough to choose nuclear power and do they fully understand the costs? Why not other, more safer alternatives? If people are going to spend huge amounts of money on another energy solution, what's wrong with investing in renewable energy? Unless the Australian Federal Government really wants people to pay for everything they use.
Dr Switkowski also puts forward some perspective on the amount of contribution Australia has to the world total carbon dioxide emission — roughly 1.5 per cent.
Other people argue it doesn't matter what the percentage might be. Australia is the biggest per capita greenhouse gas emitter in the industralised world and the US is the greatest emitter of all until China takes over the unenviable position. The world is looking towards the US, Australia and China to do the right thing. When all industralised nations are working together on curbing carbon dioxide and sharing our technologies with everyone, the world will follow.
A classic example is how the Europeans and people in California are following Australia's lead to phase out the incandescent light bulb in favour of more efficient ones.
Or is Australia worried about countries like China undermining the cost of products entering the country and the Prime Minister wants to avoid signing the Kyoto Protocol so the nation can compete on the world stage.
But what if all world nations sign the Kyoto protocol? Everyone would be on an equal playing field. Well, just about considering the low labour costs in China.
At any rate, on seeing the lowest cost figures from Dr Switkowski's report, the Prime Minister is seeing the report as a possible green light for nuclear energy. So as the coal industry learns to clean up its act as a form of counteracting any possible public backlash which could cause loss of jobs, the Prime Minister is taking advantage of the carbon trading scheme and report to not just improve his election hopes next year, but also to make nuclear energy look good.
What a fickle person the Prime Minister is?
UPDATE
26 November 2006
Someone is doing something positive. WA Premier was present today to show to the media how fresh water can be generated from the Indian Ocean using the power of wind farms.
UPDATE
2 December 2006
Geosequestration, the great hope for the Australian Federal (Howard) Government's key strategy in solving global warming by hiding carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power stations underground, will take until 2020 to operate on a few sites around Australia. But as the report on the technology stated, a few sites is not likely to have significant impact on reducing global warming.
An international coal lobby group said there are 10 experiments currently in progress to capture and store carbon dioxide in Australia (39 in total worldwide). But even if these experiments could amount to anything of a commercial scale by 2020, it will only be able to dispose of carbon dioxide generated from four coal-fired power stations. Opponents to the scheme claim this is not enough to halt the levels of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere from all coal-fired power stations in Australia and elsewhere. Geosequestration is certainly not the solution.
China is of particular concern as none of the experiments are being conducted there to reduce the demand for coal, which is expected to rise sharply in the coming decades.
While the Federal Government concentrates on geosequestration and nuclear energy, Jan Carroll of Avalon Parade in NSW said:
"In Sweden, where the sun don't shine (much), researchers are investigating solar power for light, and in Britain, where the sun hardly bothers to put in an appearance either, research is being focused on solar-heated roof tiles. What are we doing in the clueless country?" (The Sydney Morning Herald: Sun-addled brains. 2-3 December 2006, p.32.)
R-wing governments tries to avoid solar energy if it means consumers don't have to continually pay for their energy to energy companies
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government is somehow indirectly trying to convince consumers that solar power, whether it is the traditional photovoltaic or the solar thermal power generators, is not able to compete with standard coal-powered and hydroelectric mains systems for shear quantity of electricity used by the population. In particular, we see in the 8-9 July 2006 edition of the The Sydney Morning Herald an article titled Blue-sky mine takes tourists back to the future. The article discusses an experiment into solar power where 14 circular dishes of the White Cliffs solar power station, looking like radio telescopes, was built in 1981 for an isolated town containing a dozen homes. As Bruce Robjohns said:
"I worked here as a volunteer tradesman's assistant when it first opened. It worked beyond expectation.
'Everybody who comes here says "it should be working". But it can't compete with mains power." (Macey, Richard. Blue-sky mine takes tourists back to the future: The Sydney Morning Herald. 8-9 July 2006, p.5.)
It was officially declared a museum attraction on Friday 7 July 2006 to help tourists understand the reasons why the project cannot be used to replace existing power generation systems.
'This is a great opportunity for tourists to visit what is arguably the first commercial solar power station in the world, " said Chris Dalitz, manager of Country Energy, the company who bought the museum.
Developed by the Australian National University before the Howard Government came to office (and as early as 1971), the solar power station used the circular dishes to act as a magnifying glass to heat water at a point into steam for generating electricity. In the 1990s, greater efficiency and all night use for the residents was attained by adding photovoltaic solar cells and batteries. But recently the Australian National University has shelved the project in favour of following the nuclear power mantra of the Federal Government.
The move ignores the findings of a confidential report by the Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development claiming in mid-May 2006 solar-thermal power stations would be cost-competitive with coal by 2013 and only 1.5 per cent of the world's desert area for collecting solar energy for this type of technology would be needed to satisfy the entire world's electricity demands.
So where is the interest into more efficient solar power projects that use very long, elongated parabolic front-ends with a metal pipe running along the point where all solar energy is concentrated. And what about the greenhouse idea of heating up vast amounts of air using the sun's energy inside a large tent-like structure that funnels the rising hot air into a tunnel to move turbines. The latter system can double up as a place for growing trees and plants for food and other uses.
Yet the Australian people are being made to believe nuclear energy is the only way to go for Australia. Yet the government fails to explain the Sun, a giant nuclear reactor in its own right, provides more solar energy than the human race can ever use. Problem is, how do we reduce the costs to harness this free energy?
Industrial scale solar thermal power generators — a technology would heat water in a long metal pipe on a large scale to help turn turbines and generate electricity — is ready to take off.
Even at nighttime, the technology for storing heat has also reached a state of maturity. For example, CSIRO is confident the solution can be solved by using methane to store heat energy after being heated by reflecting mirrors concentrating the solar energy. At night, the molecules re-emit the heat thereby maintaining the production of electricity. Another gas being tested is ammonia. Heating up ammonia produces hydrogen and nitrogen molecules. As the gas cools, the molecules combine and give off heat.
Clearly humanity is on the verge of a new era. Al we need is a little more time and the cost to roll out solar technology of 2 to 3 times that of burning coal will reduced dramatically to be competitive.
Governments must set renewable energy targets and create a carbon tax system to encourage businesses to produce renewable energy power generators. And until businesses produce these solar energy and other renewable technologies cheaply, consumers will have to pay a little more for electricity.
Are we prepared to pay extra to protect the Earth?
R-wing governments will change their mind and consider renewable energy at around election time
A recent public poll revealed 80 per cent of Australians believe the Federal Government should invest more in renewable energy. As Australians wait, Kate Greenwood of Jindabyne in NSW said:
"Just heard that about 80 per cent of people think that the Government should invest more in renewable energy. Why wait for the Government?
If all of those 80 per cent signed up for green power, or better still, whacked a solar panel on their roof, the Government's hand would be forced. It is not a case of whether we can afford to do it. We cannot afford not to.
Time to put our money where our mouths are." (The Sydney Morning Herald: Forget politicians, there is no time to waste (Opinion & Letters). 4-5 November 2006, p.36.)
When combined with public concerns for climate change following the release of the Stern Report on 30 October 2006, it would appear Prime Minister John Howard is scrambling to convince Australian voters nuclear energy and making the coal industry cleaner is the only way to go. But to look like he is doing something about climate change months before the start of the 2007 election year after 92 per cent of Australians were showing their concerns about climate change to the Prime Minister, he has agreed to spend $500 million to build the world's largest solar energy plant.
Yet he continually argues solar energy will never provide the "base power" needed by Australians to run the economy. So why spend the money if he thinks it won't work? Clearly the government is in election mode.
Then at 11.45am Friday 3 November 2006, the new $400 million nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights known as Opal (the Open Pool Australian Lightwater reactor) went to full power generating the targeted 20 megawatts of power as part of a test run. The reactor will be fully operational in 2007. Is there a message in this for Australians?
Perhaps the government needs to be reminded of the bright future renewable energy can provide to the economy. As the Stern report stated, by 2020 25 million people will be working in the global renewable energy market compared to 1.7 million currently. Also the market for solar cells is expected to reached US$30 billion by 2010 compared to US$7 billion a year at the present time. How could the critics argue a loss in jobs and export dollars?
Need an example where this is happening? You only need to look at California for a world leading example of how it can be achieved.
Sliver solar cell technology
The biggest problem in reducing the costs of traditional solar panels has to be the amount of silicon needed to make them: there isn't a whole lot of it around. A typical solar cell is composed of more than 99.9 per cent pure silicon. Now it has been learnt that the Australian National University (ANU) has already developed a new type of high-efficiency solar cell called a sliver cell using far less silicon and capable of being commercially produced in vast quantities to the world market at lower costs. Think of a traditional solar panel as like a loaf of bread. The ANU solution involves slicing the bread into very thin wafers. This is the key to reducing the amount of silicon needed. Together with a laser etching device, the right chemical reactions and a highly clean environment, these new sliver solar cells have the potential to revolutionise the solar industry.
And does this mean the new solar cells will be more brittle? Quite the contrary. The sliver solar cell has the flexibility to be wrapped around objects or have them inserted into a piece of fabric.
Scientific work on proving the feasibility of the sliver solar cell technology was completed over 12 months ago. All the ANU needs is funding to turn the technology into a commercial reality to benefit the Australian people and the rest of the world. Yet we heard nothing from the Australian Federal (Howard) Government in the election year of 2007 about funding the project and getting the technology into mass production immediately.
UPDATE
8 March 2007
A couple of Australian businesses will invest up to $100 million to build the infrastructure needed to manufacture sliver solar cells. By 2008, the new solar cells should be in commercial production and available in the marketplace. Compared to the billions of dollars the Federal (Howard) Government is prepared to spend on up to 25 nuclear reactors according to Dr Switkowski's Report (supplying no more than 30 percent of Australia's energy needs), $100 million is a tiny fraction.
For all the ho-hum about nuclear power, Mr Howard would have had a better chance of staying in power by announcing an investment into sliver solar panels than to stay with the more contentious nuclear energy alternative.
Further details about the sliver solar cell can be obtained from physicist Dr Vernie Everett at the ANU.
There is no alternative if we want to be seen as seriously looking after the environment and the survival of the human race over the long-term. Because at some point, we will run out of uranium, coal and oil — the current energy diet of industralised nations. Something will have to take their place. Only renewable energy solutions are the way to go. As Greenpeace Australia chief executive Steve Shallhorn said:
"The real solution to climate change is clean and safe alternative of renewable energy which is available in abundance in Australia.
'This includes solar, geothermal, biomass and wind power." (Borenstein, Seth. Warming will last centuries: top scientists: The Canberra Times. 3 February 2007, p.1.)
UPDATE
February 2007
In the week ending February 2007, Australian Prime Minister John Howard expressed some anger on radio towards his critics saying it is stupid not to be open-minded to the nuclear power idea. He goes about setting himself apart from other people by saying he is more open-minded than anyone else when it comes to considering nuclear power.
To be quite truthful, the more he tries to make himself more open-minded compared to everyone else, the more he is like everyone. As Mr Howard chooses not to give a serious investment towards renewable energy sources, especially those that can be put on people's houses to reduce the energy demands on coal-powered stations, the public can also claim they are more open-minded to renewable energy solutions.
So, on the one hand, we find the Prime Minister being open-minded to nuclear power, and the public being more open-minded about renewable energy solutions. What makes Mr Howard any different from other people?
Let's put this into some perspective. The concern people have with nuclear power is the possibility of a nuclear accident (we won't consider acts of terrorism into the equation even though it is a possibility we cannot ignore in today's world). Mr Howard claims nuclear power stations can be built to be safe. Yet people are not trusting of the technology. And we all know no system can be 100 per cent safe.
In China, the world's first pebble bed nuclear power plant is being built. This is the first nuclear power plant to be virtually "nuclear accident" proof as humans can get it. Even if the system has an accident, the nuclear fuel will not overheat, explode and send nuclear material across a wide area. This has to be a much better idea. Unfortunately the cost and time to build a single pebble bed nuclear reactor in Australia is equivalent to constructing several of the traditional water-cooled nuclear reactors. If Mr Howard is serious about economic management principles, he would not consider building such a reactor in Australia.
This leaves us with either sticking to coal-powered stations (not good for the environment), or we consider renewable energy sources.
This argument becomes even more clearer when we realise up to 21 traditional nuclear reactors in Australia will not provide a third of all the current energy demands of business and consumers in Australia by 2050. For the price of one pebble bed nuclear reactor or several traditional nuclear reactors, wouldn't it be sensible to spend the money on building renewable energy sources to put on people's homes?
Or is Mr Howard concerned about losing jobs in the coal industy? Okay. Why not spend some of the money to retrain people to work in the renewable energy industry?
Still can't decide the future for Australia? Let the people decide! It is their money. Or has the Federal Government forgotten whose money it is?
Use taxpayer's money to do the thing people want to see become a reality in Australia.
Will more efficient appliances be the answer?
There is an argument that by using energy efficient appliances, light bulbs and the works, this change alone will play a significant role in reducing demands on the energy industry and with it our carbon dioxide emissions. Yes it will. But it isn't the ultimate solution. It is just a part of a range of solutions to be implemented.
Now even if every human being could use the world's most efficient devices known to man and governments could convince consumers and businesses nuclear power and more efficient capture of carbon dioxide from coal-fire power plants is the way to go, what happens to human population and when the fuel to run the power stations run out?
Each new person who comes into the world will demand energy. No matter how efficient the devices people use, every additional person in the world will add a tiny fraction more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and add more waste to the environment.
Should humanity continue to rely on non-renewable energy solutions forever based on this situation?
This is really a non-debate. The answer is clear. Eventually humans must introduce on a large-scale renewable energy types. So long as the population is controlled so that we don't run out of rare materials such as silicon to build solar cells, for instance, then there should be enough energy for everyone to have for as long as renewable types continue functioning, which is potentially forever.
Why stick to non-renewable types when the answer is literally blowing in the wind and shining from the Sun?
Should businesses need to have energy 24/7?
Finally, if the concern some people have with renewable types relate to not being able to provide 24/7 baseloads to run industry, the question we should ask is why does the entire industry consuming 70 per cent of the energy (consumers use approximately 12 per cent) require this amount of energy 24/7? Does every business need 24/7 energy?
As Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Malcolm Turnbull stated to the Australian media:
"You cannot run a modern economy on wind farms and solar panels. It's a pity that you can't. But you can't." (Quote televised on the ABC current affairs program Four Corners: Earth, Wind and Fire by reporter Jonathan Holmes, 16 April 2007.)
Well, really? Given how hard Australians are already working under the current IR laws thanks to the Australian Federal (Howard) Government, wouldn't it be more family friendly to close down most businesses and switch off power at normal times and let people return home to their families? How much power would industry need then?
However if baseloads are considered so critical to industry, is it not a well-known fact that renewable types such as geothermal can provide 24/7 baseloads? Solar cells coupled with batteries or heated substances (e.g. solar thermal technologies) can supply 24/7 baseloads. Wind farms separated by hundreds of kilometres can potentially provide 24/7 baseloads. So what's this "baseload" excuse?
When we apply energy-efficiency in business and at the consumer level and a range of renewable energy solutions, renewable types should be able to provide the 24/7 baseloads for industry and consumers if need be. Again the answer should be clear.
So what is Australia waiting for?
Other countries cturning to renewable energy solutions
California is currently leading the way in the United States and perhaps the rest of the world in the use of a range of renewable energy for powering homes and businesses. Currently the American state utilises renewable types such as biomass, wind, solar, hydroelectric and geothermal to generate electricity as well as the traditional types of oil, gas and nuclear power. The sole company supplying this energy for Californian residents and businesses is Southern California Edison.
Southern California Edison supplies approximately 30,000 megawatts (more than half of Australia's capacity) to American businesses and consumers. By law, one-fifth of this energy (or 20 per cent) must come from renewable types by 2010. And that doesn't include the 28 per cent that already comes from hydroelectric schemes and nuclear power. As Pedro Pizarro of Southern California Edison said:
"We've just signed this very large contract for 1,500 megawatt wind development project. We have a large contract for at least 500 megawatts of a very innovative solar technology. We have contracts for geothermal and biomass and small hydro. And importantly those long term contracts then allow players to go to the banks to get financing to get these new projects built." (Quote televised on the ABC current affairs program Four Corners: Earth, Wind and Fire by reporter Jonathan Holmes, 16 April 2007.)
The demand for renewable energy is there, helped along by a well-educated and environmentally-concerned population in the state of California.
What makes Australia any different?
Perhaps a more forward-thinking and open-minded politician running for Australian office might help. As Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, said on 9 January 2007:
"We are not waiting for politics. We are not waiting for problems to get worse. We are not waiting for the Federal Government. We are not waiting, period. Because the future does not wait." (Quote televised on the ABC current affairs program Four Corners: Earth, Wind and Fire by reporter Jonathan Holmes, 16 April 2007.)
To be fair, the Australian Federal (Howard) Government does have a renewable energy target although admittedly a paltry one. And most of it in the wind power industry (the cheapest renewable energy technology the Government knows of at the present moment). Set in 1997 to be seen as a good global citizen at the Kyoto conference, the Australian Government's target is an additional 2 per cent from the then existing renewable energy level of roughly 1 to 2 per cent. In other words, Australia would be lucky to reach 5 per cent as the official target to use renewables by 2010.
As Australian Prime Minister John Howard announced on 20 November 1997:
"The Government will work with the States and Territories to set a mandatory target for electricity retailers to source an additional 2 per cent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by the year 2010." (Quote televised on the ABC current affairs program Four Corners: Earth, Wind and Fire by reporter Jonathan Holmes, 16 April 2007.)
As a result of the target, the Government has used the wind industry as a classic example of its great policy in promoting renewable energy sources. As Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources Ian McFarlane said:
"We have seen a massive expansion in the wind industry as a result of that. We've seen $3 billion invested in the industry, and we've seen a 80-fold increase in the amount of energy produced from wind as a result of that scheme so far...and they're still putting up wind farms. In fact, the only complaint I get about the MRET [Mandatory Renewable Energy Target] is that it's too successful, that in fact, will reach its target ahead of schedule." (Quote televised on the ABC current affairs program Four Corners: Earth, Wind and Fire by reporter Jonathan Holmes, 16 April 2007.)
Unfortunately it isn't quite as rosy as the picture Mr McFarlane wants to paint. When the renewable industry in Australia is looked at in totality today, there is a reduction of two per cent of the total energy from renewables despite the expansion of the wind power industry. Why? Australians are demanding, and the traditional energy industry of coal, oil and gas are generating, more energy, shrinking the total percentage of renewables. On top of that, the Howard Government refuses to invest in new types of renewable technology such as the Australian National University's slither solar cells in favour of keeping jobs in the coal industry rather than train people to work in a new renewable energy industry.
In essence, it is the traditional fossil fuel industry which is expanding faster than the renewable industry. And as it expands, more greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere.
It explains why State Premiers have to go at it independently by creating their own renewable energy targets. For example, in Victoria, the target for the state is 10 per cent by 2016. NSW and Western Australia have announced a similar scheme (Mr McFarlane would describe them as "Mickey Mouse schemes" designed to make the State premiers look publicly popular according to the Four Corner's program).
Australia slow in the take up of renewable energy sources
While a number of countries are taking the lead in making renewable energy sources a central player in the energy industry, Australia lags behind.
One would think this great big brown continent and world's biggest island of the south would be blessed with the opportunity to tap onto all this free solar energy from the Sun. Unfortunately it seems not. Coal, oil, natural gas and mining minerals out of the Western Australian ground remains more valuable.
In the meantime Australia tries hard to stop asylum seekers from entering the country and wonders how to create new jobs.
Or how about trying something original? Has anyone thought of using the asylum seekers as free or very low-cost labour to help assemble the parts towards making the world's biggest solar power generation plant? Get the Australian Government to invest in solar firms and the latest solar cell technology, build the components, and transport them to the middle of the desert. And give Australians jobs to manage the project. Finally, give education and basic on-the-job skills to asylum seekers. Not happy? No problems. Help them return to their own country and let them use their new-found knowledge and skills. Or they can try running or walking 500 kilometres to the nearest civilisation if they don't want to return home. Which is harder? The walk, going back to their country, or the job? We can be fairly certain which one will be easiest.
If asylum seekers do exceptionally well over a long period of time in learning many skills, the native language of the country, and other knowledge, and they prove themselves to be excellent workers, let them stay in Australia.
In essence, Australia should be there with open arms to accept as many asylum seekers as possible. Heck. There is a big overseas workforce waiting out there to transform Australia into a leader in solar energy production. So why not?
Are Australians smart enough to see an opportunity when it comes knocking on their door?
Coal industry forced to do something to improve its environmental image
The Australian coal industry is slowly bending to political pressure. As of 12 May 2007, the industry has agreed to raise A$1 billion in funds to help make clean-coal technology a reality. Before this day, A$300 million would have been the best the industry could muster. Now the funds have increased by $700 million.
According to the Australian Coal Association, the money would be raised over a 10-year period through a voluntary levy. The association's executive director Mark O'Neill said:
"This should leave no doubt about the coal industry's intention to partner with state and federal governments on nationally significant clean coal projects." (Williams, Peter. Coal miners commit $1b to green fund: The Canberra Times. 12 May 2007, p.5.)
Partnering with governments is one thing (to reduce the political pressure). But will it be enough to see the association partner with the environment in solving climate change? Or, to put it another way, will clean-coal technologies be enough to save the industry from almost certain demise in the next 50 to 100 years?
Or could it be better off using the funds to help the coal industry transform itself into a renewable energy industry?
Like the case for uranium exports, Labor spokespersons Chris Evans and Peter Garrett are both supporting the announcement. In a joint statement, both men said:
"Australia has an abundance of coal and it is in our nation's interest to find ways of using this resource in an environmentally sustainable way." (Williams, Peter. Coal miners commit $1b to green fund: The Canberra Times. 12 May 2007, p.5.)
The Greens have supported the announcement insomuch as they would like to see government money spent in developing renewable energy technologies. As climate change spokesperson Christine Milne said:
"While it remains to be seen whether burying coal's pollution can be demonstrated to be safe, sustainable and economically viable, we welcome the move by coal corporations to invest a proportion of their own profits into this research." (Williams, Peter. Coal miners commit $1b to green fund: The Canberra Times. 12 May 2007, p.5.)
While Mr Howard remains in office, it might be wishful thinking on behalf of the Greens to see the Federal Government spend money in renewable energy solutions.
It should be realised that the industry has been claiming to be doing research into clean-coal technologies for the past 10 years with little to show for its efforts. This time the impetus may be finally there for the coal industry to make good its claims.
Even if nothing comes out of the research, at least the announcement has served one useful purpose: it would make the Howard Government look good in this election year.
Solar power can provide 24/7 baseloads and be cost effective as non-renewable types
It's official. Solar thermal power generation is a baseload energy generation system. So much so that two of America's biggest power companies have unveiled as of 1 October 2007 a multi-billion dollar plan to build the latest, simplest and cheapest Australian solar thermal technology developed by Australian scientist Dr David Mills — the man who was unsuccessful in doing the same thing in his own country under the Howard Government. For the first time, the world's largest economy of the United States will use solar power in a big way while Australia lags behind in solar power technology.
And most importantly, the simplest and cheapest solar thermal design using near flat mirrors to direct sunlight to a metal pipe containing water and hot water storage units lasting 16 hours can be built cheaply on a commercial-scale to satisfy major cities and towns.
Furthermore, solar thermal power generation can be built and ready to supply all the energy for a nation at prices comparable to coal well before clean-coal technology and nuclear power can reach a satisfactory baseload target.
Persistent arguments from R-wing politicians about nuclear power stations and clean coal technology being the only practical solution is now blown out-of-the-water.
Do not privatise energy
In 2000 and 2001, residents in California learnt the hard way of how hopelessly inadequate a deregulated power industry was in keeping up with power demands. Because private electricity providers don't like to spend money on new technology and increasing capacity as this reduces profit, many very unhappy and hot American residents had to endure a series of blackouts across the state. As Dr Mike Dennis, a senior research fellow in the Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems in the ANU College of Engineering and Computer Science, said:
"The problem is multifaceted.
The first problem is to do with investment. Companies don't want to invest large amounts of money fixing up transmission grids — which would be very expensive, five that they're going to be utilised for only a small part of the year.
In Sydney the peak 10-15 per cent of transmission capacity is only used for 24 hours a year, so that's a very poor return on investment.
What's happening is the peak demand is soaring, the ability of the transmission grid to support that is flat-lining, and we get blackouts because the grids can't support the demand for extra power. The grid goes into self-protection mode by limiting the amount of power that it can transmit, resulting in entire geographical regions being shut down." (Cox, Penny. Cool runnings: ANU Reporter. Autumn 2009, p.16 (pp.16-17).)
In January 2009, the residents of Melbourne and Adelaide, Australia, experienced temperatures exceeding 47ºC. As the air conditioners got turned on, the power demands forced a collapse of the electricity grid in various parts of the city causing disruption to events in the city and deaths to old people forced to live in their hot homes.
The trend of regular blackouts during the hot summers is expected to worsens as the full brunt of global warming kicks in and the increasingly aging population relies more on air conditioning units to keep them cool. Clearly a solution has to be found to reduce the burden of air conditioners on the power industry that won't or can't keep up with demand.
UPDATE
2012
Another problem with privatising energy is the way some energy companies will use their position of power in supplying energy and controlling power lines to hike up prices in selling energy to consumers and later claim in a government enquiry that the prices are justified to fix up the transmission grid. This may be true in the initial stages of a recently de-regulated market. As Dr Mike Dennis, a senior research fellow in the Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems in the ANU College of Engineering and Computer Science, said:
"According to the National Electricity Market Management Company, Queensland was to be the first cab off the rank in terms of maximising transmission capacity and that was forecast to hit the wall sometime last year.
'Queensland power companies have had to do an emergency investment in their transmission grids. Transformers and lines have had to be upgraded and that has occurred at a huge expense. They pretty much jumped in at the last minute and did an emergency band-aid fix which may not be a wise long-term strategy." (Cox, Penny. Cool runnings: ANU Reporter. Autumn 2009, pp.16-17 (pp.16-17).)
But over time, and on closer inspection, there is no need to fix up the transmission grid. The higher prices are mainly there to boost profits for the companies.
Businesses and governments seem to be afraid of renewable energy sources if they cannot control the supply of energy to consumers
Let's face it. For a long time, government and business professionals alike have twiddled their thumbs and pretended not to see the benefits of renewable energy sources while they remain blinded by the attraction of profits from existing non-renewable types. And for governments, this makes sense. It is the only way it can minimise chaos in the current economy while keeping people in jobs and staying in political power. Forget the idea of providing humans with virtually free or very low-cost energy supplies on a large scale, and one which improves the chances of survival in times of disaster and at the same time look after the environment (do we need global temperatures to rise markedly, make droughts more severe and long-lasting, and for oceans to flood coastal cities for us to finally act?).
But if businesses and government were to look at renewable energy sources, the problem is one of cost in building the new infrastructure needed to transform the energy industry from the non-renewable to the renewable sector. And even if the transformation is made, there is a risk that profits for the energy-generating businesses will be significantly less over the long-term (and probably get lower and lower if people decide they will purchase their own small-scale renewable energy solution).
It is not a question of not having the technology to solve the energy crisis which is fundamental in this debate.
For example, we have the technology to deliver free electricity wirelessly (i.e. no power lines) to virtually every home in the world? The US Patent to support this has been around since 1987 by Sir Raymond Philips. And the idea was known to Dr Nikola Tesla at the beginning of the 20th century when he conducted an experiment using his own 57-metre high tower experiment at Long Island, USA, known as the Wardenclyffe tower, proving the idea was feasible.
Furthermore, you don't need radio and television stations to supply the energy. Radio waves are available throughout the universe from the overabundance of stars (including our Sun) and galaxies everywhere we look. We only need to build energy-efficient electrical and electronic appliances and enough "electronic cells" from this patented idea to capture the energy and convert it into electricity to eventually have a massive impact on solving the energy crisis given the number of appliances sold worldwide.
Or are we too profit-motivated to provide an essential commodity such as energy to the people?
If this seems too far-fetched, what's wrong with solar energy and geothermal power generation? It is cleaner, better for the environment, and will last forever. Well, they will last as long as the Sun is around and the Earth can generate the heat. Or is it the fact that such renewable technologies are not going to provide a big enough profit to the chief executives of the current non-renewable energy industry and all shareholders of their companies? Because while it seems the business community have realised huge profits require high numbers of customers and there must be a means of measuring how much energy is being used by customers in order to charge them (hopefully) the correct amount for the privilege, and government authorities have not found, or have chosen not to find, an alternative solution to the problem of how to measure exactly how much energy would be extracted out of the air using a renewable source such as the Sir Raymond Philips technology or where solar panels are supplied to households, it is not surprising that such technologies as wireless transmission of electricity has been left largely forgotten and gathering dust in the Patent Office, whereas the cost to build solar cells remains too high because not enough investment is being made to improve the technology and manufacture this type of renewable energy source on a mass scale.
Profit and power plays a significant role in how the energy industry is run.
Solar thermal power generation has reached the supercritical point of competing against fossil fuel-based power generators
On 5 June 2014, the CSIRO Energy Centre in Newcastle announced an important breakthrough. Although the technology has already been used in Spain for some time now. CSIRO scientists have achieved a level of energy production that will compete directly with fossil fuels in terms of costs and quantity of power needed. The technology involves directing the sun energy from more than 600 mirrors at two towers housing the solar receivers and turbines. What makes this latest technology special is the supercritical temperature reached with water, allowing solar thermal energy to be truly competitive with fossil fuel generated power (i.e., coal or gas).
As the CSIRO energy director Dr Alex Wonhas said:
"If these plants were able to move to supercritical steam, it would increase the efficiency and help to lower the cost of solar electricity.
Supercritical steam is a breakthrough for solar energy and means that one day the sun could be used to drive the most advanced power stations in the world, currently only driven by coal or gas.
The supercritical solar steam would allow power stations of the future to use free, zero emission energy."
The highest supercritical temperature ever was reached in May 2014 after water was heated to 570°C, generating a pressure of 23.5 megapascals. Dr Wonhas sees this latest discovery as a game-changer for the renewable energy industry:
"It's like breaking the sound barrier; this step change proves solar has the potential to compete with the peak performance capabilities of fossil fuel sources. Instead of relying on burning fossil fuels to produce supercritical steam, this breakthrough demonstrates that the power plants of the future could instead be using the free, zero emission energy of the sun to achieve the same result."
The CSIRO announcement comes hot on the heel of major funding cutbacks to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) that helped fund the $5.68 million breakthrough research into solar thermal power generation.
So what's this rubbish from the Abbott Government that providing government funds to the renewable energy industry will not provide worthwhile solutions? This is what happens when Mr Abbott does not get out there in the real world and learn from the experts what people are trying to do.
The only thing missing from all of this is finding a real leader with the balls to approve funding for education to retrain workers in the car manufacturing sector to work in this area of the renewable energy industry, and help a number of young and fully trained engineers to build the new solar thermal power generators for Australia. The only problem is, will the Prime Minister have the hindsight to back this new technology and help Australian workers to make the transition into a new Australian industry?
The only thing remaining to solve is a way to store the energy for night time use. CSIRO and Abengoa Solar, with support from ARENA, are working on this aspect. Storage ideas from the solar thermal power plant in Spain may provide a clue.
UPDATE
23 March 2016
Malcolm Turnbull, the Australian Prime Minister for 2015/16, has done the right thing in maintaining a reasonable amount of funding for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA). The aim to make renewable energy the way of the future continues to be on track (at least for now).
Consumers flocking in droves to solar power generation and the latest lithium batteries to solve the skyrocketing prices from electricity suppliers
As of July 2014, demand for electricity from commercial electricity suppliers is actually dropping. People have been flocking to purchase and have installed rooftop solar panels in the last 4 years due to the fear of electricity prices doubling every 5 to 10 years. And now the electricity suppliers are spending far too much on upgrading the electricity grid (e.g., power poles and lines) resulting in the remaining shrinking numbers of consumers still reliant on these suppliers to pay for it all at exorbitant prices.
Solar power is one solution consumers are strongly looking at. Another solution being considered seriously at the moment is the idea of using new rechargeable lithium batteries (the ones used in hybrid cars and inside laptops) to store electricity from the grid at night or during off-peak periods. The advantage is obvious: consumers use the free electricity they can generate (after paying a lot for the solar panels in the first place), perhaps send the excess to the electricity grid, and the electricity stored in the batteries can handle those short-term high peak times when consumers cannot generate electricity but need the power, thereby reducing the overall electricity costs dramatically (so long as the cost to set it all up can be met initially). This approach would certainly solve the problems for electricity suppliers in supplying enough electricity during high peak times.
However, electricity suppliers are not exactly moving with the times and understanding consumer behaviours, as well as wholeheartedly accepting of the idea of consumers generating their own electricity and storing it onsite (or let alone become their own independent electricity suppliers). You could say they are fast becoming the proverbial dinosaurs of the energy industry. Firstly, those consumers who have not moved over to personal solar energy generation and/or battery storage will be slugged the full cost of electricity by electricity suppliers (and probably far more than if everyone stayed on the existing electricity network). However, the biggest problem is that the existing electricity suppliers are not getting paid for supplying electricity. The likely reality of having too many consumers choosing to generate their own electricity and storing it onsite using batteries or sending it elsewhere are not exactly helping the existing large-scale electricity suppliers in receiving a profit (and thus keep jobs and maintain the economy). Anything that eventually gives enough consumers free electricity is not a good thing for the existing electricity suppliers.
The new Tesla battery - the game changer for the consumer electricity market
CEO of Tesla Motors, Elon Musk, has unveiled a low-cost high-capacity and rapid rechargeable lithium ion battery with liquid thermal control to power your home. It is powerful enough to not only store electricity in a compact design, but it will have enough power to run your home and can be charged up quickly and many times more than the current breed of lithium batteries. All it needs is a renewable energy source, such as solar or wind power, to charge up the battery. And, more importantly, the cost of the battery is far less than previously thought.
The technology combines oxygen with lithium to produce a far superior battery storage solution.
Known as the Powerwall, several Tesla batteries are used to produce a 7kWh unit costing US$3,000 (without installation costs), or for an extra $500 you can purchase the 10kWh unit. Most homes will benefit from the 10kWh unit. Still, even at the higher price, battery storage is now within the comfortable means of most consumers earning a modest salary. Furthermore, the battery will power the home for a period of time (generally through short term black outs and peak electricity usage that put pressure on power stations to produce the electricity) and can be recharged indefinitely thanks to this new technology. So, consumers only need to purchase one battery and it should last a lifetime.
The Tesla battery units, weighing about 100kg each, have begun shipping in mid-2015 and will mount on a wall making it less conspicuous than most people would imagine.
Tesla Motors offers a 10-year warranty for the units.
If more people find out about this new, low-cost and compact battery, it will be interesting to see how long Australia will continue to mine and sell non-renewable sources of energy such as coal, especially while other countries are seeking new renewable solutions to the energy problems.
UPDATE
February 2017
Tesla offers a 13.5kWh Powerwall 2 battery. In Australia, this costs AUD$8,000 and installation is a further $1,200. Not cheap unless you buy directly from the United States and install it yourself (not recommended unless you are a qualified and licensed electrician).
Regarding power usage and duration per charge, 13.5kWh means that it you had to use 13.5kW of power to run your appliances, you will have an hour of continuous power. Afterwards, the battery has to be recharged. Of course, not all households will use the maximum power output of the battery. Usually a few kilowatts of power is enough to power a TV, a few lights, charge up a laptop and run it at the same time, run a toaster, and a small efficient fridge and that is about it. With this in mind, the original Powerwall 1 model is designed to give a maximum continuous power of 2.0kWh or a maximum of 3.3kWh during peak usage. Assuming the peak usage rate, that means for the 7kWh hour battery, you will get 7kWh / 3.3kWh = 2.12 hours of continuous power. For the 10kWh battery, it is 3.03 hours.
With the more useful Powerwall 2 model of 13.5kWh, peak usage can see you last a little over 4 hours of continuous power before the battery has to be recharged. Adequate for small homes requiring limited appliances to be kept running, and would certainly get you through most black outs should they occur (as most electricity suppliers can get power back up and running within 2 hours unless there is a major breakdown of power due to a severe storm).
Electricity companies are feeling nervous
There is a bit of a love-hate relationship going on between the traditional electricity companies relying on non-renewable energy sources, and the companies selling new lithium battery storage devices and solar power manufacturers. Even the consumer battery manufacturers for domestic electronic products are being extremely careful not to replace all the old "cadmium-based" technology batteries with lithium ion varieties.
After several years in the marketplace, you would think the economies of scale and latest manufacturing equipment would be able to mass produce these clearly longer lasting and "better for the environment" lithium batteries (given the fact that fewer of these lithium batteries will end up in landfill). Furthermore, mass production of these lithium batteries should see the price come done to an equivalent level with the the "old technology" batteries. But no. The traditional battery manufacturers have already caught on to the fact that if they did replace all the batteries with lithium variety (and especially the ones now available in the Tesla battery), consumers will not need to purchase batteries as regularly as they would in the past (well, some consumers who may lose the batteries may need to purchase new ones). Combine this with any lower costs to manufacture lithium batteries over time and it becomes obvious how profit can be affected for these traditional battery manufacturers. However, at the same time, consumers are aware of the existence of lithium batteries. Someone in the industry will eventually have to supply these batteries in direct competition with the companies offering the older batteries. So a compromise has to be made. The solution is to stock up on a greater number of the traditional "old technology" batteries and place them at eye level and lower positions on the shelf of supermarkets. However, if you want lithium batteries, you have to look very carefully at the top level and in one small area to find them. And guess what? They are priced far more than the traditional batteries despite many years of having the manufacturing technology to mass produce these batteries at a much lower price. This is the best the battery manufacturers of standard domestic types can do for now. It is all about maintaining jobs and keeping the current economy going.
Now a similar situation is facing the big players in the electricity market. The Tesla battery is set to change the face of the consumer marketplace, and many electricity companies are not happy. Either they must get onboard and re-focus their business on battery storage and renewable energy generation, or eventually face demise for the existing non-renewable technologies.
The need for these companies to regularly receive payments from consumers for electricity is self-evident. And the for governments of the day, this is understandable. Jobs are on the line, and with it the ability of these people to vote with their feet the government they wish to have in power. If the jobs are there, people will vote for the same government. If the people can't get what they want, a different government will be voted in. So, at the end of the day, businesses need to make a profit. Without the regular payments from consumers for using electricity, profit will be affected.
What will happen to those companies that can't make a high enough profit? Either they will have to diversify and offer a complete solution that consumers are looking for, or find devious ways to convince enough consumers they must pay for their electricity. For example, those consumers with enough solar panels on their roofs sending electricity back to the network in the hope of earning a tidy sum from the electricity suppliers are now receiving a pittance. Electricity suppliers have to rebalance the finance equation in their favour and so maximise profit by increasing the costs other consumers have to pay while those generating extra power must be given the least amount of income as possible.
Can electricity companies survive the changing landscape of the consumer marketplace in the 21st century as new technologies arrive?
As of March 2017, a number of electricity suppliers are placing their bets that enough people will stick to the suppliers and continue to pay for electricity, so long as consumers can see an effort by companies to convert some of their power generation sources into more renewable types. However, after the last major power outage in South Australia on 8 February 2017 from a severe thunderstorm had knocked out some key power poles and an alternative power station held in private hands and put out-of-action by the renewable solutions was not turned on to meet the shortfall and a number of R-wing politicians in the Australian Federal Government were happy to jump to the conclusion that South Australia's emphasis on shutting down coal-fired and gas turbine power stations in favour of the renewable types was the cause of the power failure, the reality is that people must eventually generate their own power from the home. Or else, the electricity suppliers must build solid power poles to supply the electricity and either try to rely on electricity suppliers in Victoria and NSW to supply the power, as well as some means of storing the electricity if no other generator can be started up. The "storage of power" approach would probably not have solved the South Australian problem with the storms it had. However, some form of battery storage would certainly help where the demands for electricity outstrips what South Australia can produce or obtain from interstate at certain times of the year.
Now CEO of Tesla Motors, Elon Musk, has weighed in on the energy debate yet again with an ambitious plan to overhaul the South Australian electricity market and provide a solution to power outages in times of high demand. The Californian billionaire has waged a million-dollar bet on South Australia's electricity network that he can supply a large-scale Tesla battery farm (but compact enough not to take up too much space) to store the state's electricity and be used as needed during high peak times, thereby solving the power failures that have been getting all too common to the people living in the state. He claims it can be built and be in full operation within 100 days, or else he will supply the battery farm for free to the people of South Australia as a gift. This extraordinary plan has got the backing of another billionaire from the Australian entrepreneur and co-founder of Atlassian, Mike Cannon-Brookes.
The battery farm solution will provide 100 megawatt (MW) / 400 megawatt hour (MWh) of power. It is not designed to fully replace existing power generation solutions, just supplement it. It will prop-up the electricity supplies by storing power and releasing the energy as needed when the demands from consumers suddenly exceed supply from power generators, thereby reducing the likelihood of power outage so long as the power distribution system for delivering the power can resist mother nature's attempts to bring down the power poles. Or else it becomes imperative for consumers to generate and store the power from their homes. The latter is ideal. The Tesla plan is perhaps the second best solution while still maintaining the existing electricity suppliers in earning a profit.
Musk first proposed the plan in a tweet to Mr Cannon-Brookes when the Australian businessman asked him, "How serious are you about this bet?"
Musk responded on Friday 10 March 2017 in a remarkable statement:
"Telsa will get the system installed and working 100 days from contract signature or it is free. That serious enough for you?"
The seriousness of the proposal has been substantiated with word that Mr Musk has had discussions with the South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill and later Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over the weekend on the matter. The politicians are considering the proposal very seriously too, but with a bigger picture in mind for the current economy in Australia. They want to determine how it will affect the existing electricity suppliers as well as the cost to implement the solution assuming the politicians are willing to go ahead with the plan and can afford it. In terms of costs, Mr Cannon-Brookes has noted that Mr Musk could supply the solution at "mates rates" for a quote to supply the 100 MW battery storage solution of around A$33 million. This is based on a quoted price from Mr Musk of US$250 per kWh for the 100MW system. Compared to a quoted commercial rate of US$400 to $600 from Lyndon Rive (costing US$50 million, or $A66 million), this is literally half the price.
Tesla's boss has certainly made a star-studded entry into the Australian electricity market, starting in South Australia. But he isn't the only company that can supply storage battery solutions (in Australia, the company Carnegie Clean Energy Limited can produce commercial-sized battery storage solutions). The current Tesla plan is for a more compact 100 MW solution and have it up and running in 100 days compared to the other companies that have yet to make an offer. Now, with news of the Tesla CEO willing to make the bold move and get the company's name on the lips and minds of many consumers around the world, other companies have suddenly come out of the woodwork with proposals of providing an additional 150 MW battery farm of their own. Where were they when South Australia was experiencing regular power outages over the past few years?
Expect more discussions to take place in a matter of days as the SA Premier and business leaders decide on how this solution from Tesla can best be implemented (and how quickly Australia can capitalise on the solution), or whether to go more local by supporting local businesses to provide the solutions.
UPDATE
14 March 2017
The SA Premier Jay Weatherill has given the thumbs up to Mr Musk's proposal, but has invited him to participate in the state’s tender process for a 100 MW battery-storage facility (to give local energy companies a chance to compete). He will also further protect the state's energy supplies by building a $360 million single gas-fired power plant providing an additional 250 MW of emergency power at peak times, thereby making the state virtually independent of all electricity supplies from Victoria and NSW. A gas-fired power station is not ideal for the environment, but it is reliable and effective and lasts up to 5 days of continuous peak power until better renewable solutions come online, such as geothermal or solar thermal power stations. The cost of both the Tesla battery storage and gas-fired power station, together with other improvements to the distribution network, will cost $550 million.
UPDATE
16 March 2017
The Turnbull Government does not want to be seen as sitting on its loins by not having clear policy on tackling global warming and making suitable choices for energy generation for Australia (at least to help Australian businesses to make the decision on where to invest their money) while the South Australian Premier has gone on his own and grabbed the bull by the horns with a gutsy decision to benefit the state's citizens and with some environmental backbone (but certainly not perfect). Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has announced a AUD$2 billion revitalisation and expansion of the Snowy Hydroelectric scheme. The improvements, when completed in 4-years time (or about the length of time a government can stay in office these days assuming the project is approved in parliament and subject to a glowing recommendation (6) from a feasibility study to be completed in late 2017), will increase the scheme's 4,100 MW capacity to around 6,000 MW (or up to 50 per cent more) to help power up to 500,000 homes. And so long as snow continues to fall on the Snowy Mountains in the winter time in the coming years, the water formed from the snow when melted and runs down the Snowy river to fill up the dam where the hydroelectric power generation takes place is certainly a more effective environmental solution to global warming.
Or should the government spend the money on geothermal generation? Increasing world temperatures might see no more snow hit the Snowy Mountains, but at least the heat from below the ground will be around for much longer.
CORRECTION
Malcolm Turnbull has taken into account the possibility of insufficient snow melting in these increasingly warmer times (7). The suggested solution is to build a series of fresh new tunnels and power stations to pump water uphill. For this idea to be vaguely feasible, really cheap electricity has to be available to pump up enough water quickly enough. However, the cost should be offset not only by the amount of power generated when the water falls downhill through the main turbines, creating electricity in times of high demand, but also by asking consumers to pay more than it costs the government to pump up the water in the first place. At least this approach should not affect the country's deficit budget once the money for this project is recovered from Australian consumers.
It will be interesting to see just how feasible this project really is. Will the cheap electricity have to come from renewable sources such as wind turbines?
On the environmental front, it sounds like the fish further down stream will not be terribly pleased with the even less water going into the Murray-Darling river catchment system. Must be the price Australians have to pay for supporting the economy.
UPDATE
20 March 2017
The Tesla battery storage solution for South Australia is limited by how long it can supply 100MW. The gas-fired power station proposed by the SA Premier will provide up to 5 days of continuous peak 300MW power. The current renewable energy sources set up by the SA state government is 400MW. The battery storage solution is still a helpful energy solution to meet the shortfall, but it depends on how long the power can be maintained at peak usage. In other words, if the collective population of SA demands the full 100MW of power from the Tesla battery farm on a continuous basis, the series of 250kWh batteries strung together to form this massive power output is expected to last a maximum of four hours. However, the purpose of the battery storage system is to iron-out the peaks by kicking in and providing extra power throughout the day when needed and quickly reduce power when the demand drops. Through this approach, the batteries can last 24 hours before needing a recharge. For continuous peak power lasting a longer period of time, an alternative power source is needed. Hence the decision by the SA Premier to build a gas-fired power generator.
One other thing worth mentioning is the fact that building the Tesla batteries is not exactly the most environmentally friendly (and child labour is still employed in some parts of the world to mine for cobalt — one of the components to make the Tesla battery) unless they are designed to be the most durable. Given the need to keep the costs down by Tesla when selling the batteries, there is enough plastic in this battery to require some form of protection from UV light for the plastics to last a reasonable lifespan. And afterwards recycling of the plastic is still a problem. If that is not enough, you must be efficient in your use of power within the home. The idea that consumers can use any amount of power may have to be a thing of the past unless you are prepared to spend a lot of money on solar panels to power the home during the day, and enough batteries to store the power and use it during the night.
In the case of the Tesla battery, the Powerwall 1 model at 7KWh permits a maximum of 9 batteries to be linked together to give a total power supply of 63kWh. At peak usage of 3.3kWh, you will get a little over 19 hours of continuous peak power. For the 10kWh battery, the same number of batteries can be combined to give a total of 90kWh. At peak usage, you effectively have over 27 hours of continuous peak power. Not bad if you can afford the number of batteries required.
The Tesla battery is still a great idea at a price that is showing just how quickly the technology is developing and how fast the price is coming down. However, more time is needed to raise the power output of these batteries and to reduce price even further to make it truly practical and economical in most people's homes. The aim is to get a battery with the highest KWh possible at a reasonable price. If you are in any way limited in the power output because of price, you will have to buy the most efficient electrical appliances on the planet and be prepared to time the usage of selected appliances throughout the night to maximise length of time before the next recharge. Or else purchase plenty of solar panels or another renewable power generator during the day to get the power you need.
UPDATE
21 March 2017
The most power-hungry electrical appliances you will find in the home are refrigerators, ovens, and hot-water systems. Everything else, if purchased in the last 10 years, tend to be relatively efficient. However, if you have plenty of small appliances running at the same time, you are better off looking for the most energy efficient appliances money can buy. And those tend to be the latest models unless they are packed with too many power consuming features. Should this be the case, simplify the features to only the things you really need or use the most.
For example, a quality and highly efficient refrigerator today should be well-insulated from the outside and properly sealed around the doors. This ensures power for turning on the compressor is intermittent (usually lasting at most a 6 hour period per day). The most efficient refrigerators available today should use no more than 0.6kWh spread out over a 24 hour period (or roughly 220 kWh per year). If yours is not quite as efficient as this (use a power meter plugged in to where the refrigerator is connected for power and measure the total amount of power used over a 24 hour period), it may be worth considering purchasing a new refrigerator from a reputable manufacturer.
UPDATE
7 July 2017
South Australian Premier Mr Jay Weatherill has proudly announced to the media the construction of Elon Musk's 100MW Telsla battery farm in a historic deal for the people of South Australia. As soon as the contract is signed, the Tesla CEO will put his reputation on the line to build the world's largest lithium ion battery farm in 100 days or it is free. If successful, the farm will be on the grid by the start of the upcoming 2017-2018 summer.
The battery farm will be built next to a wind-powered farm in the mid-north region of the state with assistance from French wind farm developer Neoen.
Well done!
Gallium arsenide solar cells
The most energy-efficient solar panels available today are those made with gallium arsenide. The panels have an efficiency of 27.6 per cent conversion of the Sun's energy to electricity compared to the traditional crystalline silicon solar panels of between 10.7 and 15 per cent efficiency. With refinements and special case circumstances, it is possible to get silicon solar cells to reach as high as 25 per cent efficiency. However, they are expensive to manufacture, and the silicon wafers are fragile and need solid protection inside a thick casing.
Now scientists are making one micron thickness wafers of the gallium arsenide solar panels to keep costs down and still achieve a remarkable and consistent energy output even under low lighting conditions.
Other scientists are also looking at ways to concentrate the sunlight while keeping the solar cells cool as a means of increasing the efficiency. Whereas some scientists at the CSIRO and some Melbourne universities are taking on a different tact by creating the world's first printable solar cell on flexible plastic materials.
What is the solution?
The world is facing an energy crisis, exacerbated by high human population and the threat of climate change. Fortunately, there is a solution, but it does require people to pay, at least in the initial stages to set things up right. And as time goes by, the cost of new technology required to solve the energy crisis is going down as the economies of scale kick in and more manufacturers help with manufacturing the technology in greater quantities. Already we are entering a new phase as new technology gets increasingly affordable to more and more consumers. People can have all the energy they need and generated for themselves on their own property without energy companies being there checking to see how much power you use and how much you have to pay. It can all be done in a sustainable manner, delivered in a safe way that helps the survival of the human species over the long term. And more importantly, it can be generated and/or stored directly from the home. It is all a question of whether people are willing to invest in the latest technologies. And certainly they do if it is cheap enough. Even if some big players in the energy industry are not willing to invest and make the transition to new technologies (or are taking their time to get there), the choice of energy and how it is to be generated is increasingly being made at the grassroots level by individuals and households in the consumer sector.
Firstly, we know there are a number of factors affecting the demand for energy:
- Population affects energy demand. Basically, the more people there are in the world, the more energy that needs to be generated to support the standard of living people seem to want (especially a modern one where running the latest electrical appliances can help people to stay warm or cool as well as to save time in completing common domestic chores around the home, especially washing clothes) and need (such as making an income if running a business, or solving a needy problem, such as keeping cool in extreme summer events due to climate change). One of the questions we do not ask enough is, Why do we have a high population? Is it necessary to have so many people in the world to achieve certain goals? And what's encouraging us to create a high population?
- The choice of energy (e.g., gas, oil, coal, solar, geo-thermal etc) and its cost to produce the energy can affect demand. Choose an energy source that is particularly cheap to build and generates vast amounts of energy and the demand tends to be higher for this energy source. On the other hand, if the type of energy source is expensive to prepare and build and/or expensive to generate and distribute energy to people, the demand is low.
- Profit is a major driving force for electricity suppliers in determining which energy source to use, how it should be generated, and whether it can be charged to the consumers. Businesses involved in energy acquisition, generation and distribution often prefer to choose energy sources with a low cost to build and generate, but can give the business owners some control and means of measuring the amount of energy people can receive in order to send them a bill (i.e., the means by which the supplier can make a profit). Should these costs be kept relatively low while keeping their mark-up prices for supplying the electricity to consumers reasonable (and consumers are not aware of how the energy is acquired, generated and distributed, or whether they can do it themselves), the demand for the energy sources can be potentially very high.
- If people show a greater concern for the protection of the environment, the demand for cleaner and environmentally-friendly (i.e., renewable) energy sources will increase.
- If people have a fear about using certain energy sources (e.g., nuclear power), the demand for them is affected (i.e., people will tend to avoid them). Unless businesses and governments can provide significant education and/or show clear evidence of how the energy sources can be made foolproof while ensuring the cost of generating the energy is very low, the demand for the energy is unlikely to reach high levels.
These factors reveal certain interesting observations:
- Population levels are probably too high (but never high enough for government and businesses who need taxpayers, rate payers, and consumers to buy products and services as often as is practically possible using any effective means). It is reasonable to think population is too high because we can observe the difficulties governments and businesses have in making the transition to alternative and better energy sources. And to further avoid making the transition due to high costs, talk of baseload energy production by businesses and governments is never said to be high enough using alternative renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and thermal. So it is better to stick with traditional non-renewable energy sources, such as coal. This is understandable since governments and many businesses need energy 24/7 (although deep down the real issue is one of costs to make the transition). For households and individuals, the opposite is usually the case. People only need extra power when they are at home, which is usually in the mornings and evenings, and the rest of the time the energy requirements are considered very low to maintain things like hot water systems and run a refrigerator.
- There is an expectation that businesses involved in energy generation and distribution must make huge profits from their activities for all times. And making high profits requires choosing an energy source that is easy to build, generate, distribute, and can be measured to each household so that people will be forced to buy it.
- Certain energy sources do have an impact on the environment, such as global warming. These tend to be the ones that emit waste during the "generation of energy" phase, although sometimes the manufacturing of cleaner energy sources can also have an impact on the environment.
Is there a solution?
It is clear that renewable energy sources is the best solution. Once the energy sources are built and in operation to produce energy, there is little or no carbon emissions to consider. And if the energy source is damaged by some natural event, no serious chemicals or nuclear waste are left behind to affect the environment. All materials can be recycled and new energy devices can be re-built. The only problems associated with renewable energy sources are how long it will take and how much money we need to spend to make the transition to cover all our needs, and where the energy source should be generated.
The location for where the energy is generated is also a problem for existing non-renewable energy sources, such as coal.
If we rely entirely on the current approach of generating energy from non-renewable sources and distributing energy using traditional power lines and transporting fossil fuels and natural gas by trucks and expecting people to pay for it, we can see a major drawback. The classic example is what happens when a natural disaster takes place? In all probability, the energy from these traditional sources will not reach where it is needed most (i.e., the people). For example, what happens when a supervolcano in Yellowstone National Park explodes and affect world climate? In Australia, temperatures will drop by at least 15 degrees. How will the current electricity network and fossil fuels cope in this situation? The answer is, it won't. A mini-Ice Agelasting up to 10 years will see the power lines collapse under the weight of ice build-up in winter. So electricity supplies will be knocked out. There will also be some difficulties transporting fossil fuel and natural gas to enough homes across the country due to the extra snow and ice covering the roads.
Of course, it need not be necessary for a supervolcano to create this energy problem for a population. The recent natural events in South Australia from a severe storm should be a calling card of just how easy the electricity network can fail.
At the end of the day, a natural disaster of any sort tells us people need to be far more independent in generating and storing power. Preferably it should be done at the household level (i.e., from people's homes) to help them find new ways to grow their own foods, as well as keep cool (or warm), purify water, and eventually survive a natural disaster over many years.
None of our current energy sources controlled by businesses and governments can handle and cope with a disaster of the magnitude of, say, a supervolcano erupting somewhere on this planet. In the case of the storms in South Australia knocking out the electricity grid, businesses relying on renewable energy solutions can solve the problem with an effective battery storage solution so long as it can provide enough power to cover the time a black out occurs. If not, the Tesla battery is far better suited to consumers so long as it can be supplemented with another energy source to recharge the batteries. The only concern businesses have for renewable energy is finding a way to maintain power 24/7, and knowing how it will affect their profits if they are in the business of selling electricity. As we all know, the purpose of being in business is to make money and that means enough consumers must buy electricity. However, with more renewable energy sources coming down in price and becoming available for sale directly to consumers, the renewable energy source has the potential to destabilise the existing electricity suppliers and the economy as a whole. Then again, consumers themselves are already destabilising the market with their own efforts to purchase solar panels and wind generators for the homes. And with the existence of Tesla batteries, the final piece in the jigsaw puzzle can now be slotted into position. So long as consumers use efficient electrical appliances and time the use of those appliances to spread the total power load throughout the day, battery storage and renewable power generation is perfect for them. Together with costs of renewable energy generation in the home and batteries dropping every year, it will not be long before everyone can afford as part of a new home building package to include the power source. Then the existing players in the electricity market could become irrelevant. Or the only use for them is to power the businesses of the future.
Even efforts to place extra Australian legislation to stop consumers installing Tesla batteries on a wall outside their homes because of a possible concern of exploding batteries will not stop the consumers from doing what they think is right and cheapest over the long-term. The transition to renewable energy sources is inevitable. It is happening right now and nothing will stop the movement. Enough people have realised that energy is far too important not to have it available when they need it. Energy is seen today as important as food and water. So why do we let profit-motivated businesses dictate how energy is generated and distributed, and at what cost, to the consumer?
The aim is for energy to be sourced and generated cheaply and easily, and distributed at the lowest cost. And in the case of a natural disaster, the energy should be generated where people live and work (i.e., in the home). Anyone involved in the energy industry in supplying power should be fully aware of this and be developing the generators of the future for consumers to purchase and implement on their own. It is the safest and better long-term solution for humankind.
However, if we don't do this, the current choice of energy sources by way of fossil fuels, coal and other non-renewable sources will ultimately increase global temperatures to the tipping point where the Earth is ready to emit vast amounts of methane gas from the oceans and in the permafrosts in Siberia and other parts of the world. Because methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (at least 22 times), the result will be unexpected and dramatic rises in temperature followed by an increase in the demand for existing non-renewable energy sources to keep people cool (if there is no other, more environmentally-friendly solution in place to meet the demand).
Can the current non-renewable energy sources cope with the demand from a high and increasingly ageing population, more appliances being run to keep cool, and with higher than expected world temperatures in the coming years? Not likely. Unless, the battery storage solution is included and with more renewable energy sources established and operating right now, any other solution will make the matter worse on this planet.
Not even the renewable energy solutions available today are sufficient on their own. Much more has to be built. And as the people in South Australia have seen recently, a storm can bring down the distribution network with remarkable ease. Even if the distribution network is in A1 condition and working as it should, at night and without storage, the application of renewable energy solutions will be like whistling in the wind. Even if the storage is there, a big enough disaster can still cause economic and social chaos. In the end, power generation must start in the home.
So what is the best long-term energy source to power human society?
Assuming people desire the use of modern technology and have machines perform work for them while achieving certain worthwhile goals (hopefully more than just making profit), the right choice of an energy source for the people must be one that is affected the least by any natural disasters on the Earth. For example, building energy generators that rely on higher frequency UV rays from the Sun to warm up water and create electricity (as these can penetrate clouds) will have a better chance of surviving a major disaster than those relying on visible and infra-red energy sources.
Gamma rays have significant energy production value and can even survive natural disasters. However, nuclear power stations utilising these rays have the limitation of needing to be contained in one safe area (obviously we can't give every household a mini-nuclear power plant) and kept cool enough using a reliable source of water. Furthermore, the energy must still be distributed along power lines. And any natural disasters such as earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis that succeed in damaging nuclear power stations can potentially create greater havoc in the environment and all living things for up to a hundred kilometres surrounding each major nuclear power station and lasting decades, if not centuries or thousands of years. It would make the cost of the cleanup outweigh the cost of building, running, and eventually decommissioning nuclear power plants and all the profits made by businesses in selling the electricity to consumers.
This is the kind of short-term thinking that oil companies tend to make.
In the oil industry, companies often don't take into account the cost of cleaning up oil spillage thinking it will never happen because the systems in place are thought to be foolproof. But when the unthinkable happens and the systems do fail (and all it takes is one simple human error or natural disaster resulting in a major oil spill), the companies are forced to spend billions of dollars to clean up the mess, and that will only end up costing the consumers more for fuel, let alone the direct impact to people's natural livelihood of living off the land or oceans should the oil spill be great. Imagine if these billions of dollars in cleaning up oil spills could have been invested in new energy sources and making the transition to a cleaner and safer industry? Would the oil industry be where it is now? Probably not.
Need an idea of how much it costs to clean up a major oil spill?
The massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico provides a good example. Despite the oil company BP providing US$22 billion of its own money to commence the massive clean up of the oil spill (apparently obtained from profits which, for some reason, a portion was not used to ensure the original drilling equipment was safe and followed exact protocols instead of trying to cut corners where it could), US President Barrack Obama is looking to get the country out of recession in the coming years by investing a much needed $1.45 billion in loan guarantees to Abengoa Solar to help it build one of the world's largest solar generation plants near Gilla Bend in Arizona and create more than 1,600 jobs. The project is known as Solona.
A further US$400 million in loan guarantees to Colorado-based Abound Solar Manufacturing will see the latest solar panel technology employed for greater energy efficiency. A further 2,000 constructions jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs are expected from this project.
There is a difference between $22 billion and $1.85 billion. Pay $22 billion and we should expect BP to be selling electric cars and converting a fraction of the petrol stations to battery recharging stations.
It is no surprise to see former U.S. President Barrack Obama looking towards green energy technologies as a long-term safer energy solution, not to mention the opportunity to create more secure jobs for the American population.
If BP had shown real leadership in this area by investing all of its $US22 billion into solar technology and working with car manufacturers to build better hybrid or full electric cars, maybe the company would have something to cheer about today. And consumers would be seeing a brighter future for their environment and the long-term survival of humans when thinking long-term in this way.
Unfortunately, many of the 20th and early 21st century energy companies don't think in a long-term manner. The reduced short-term costs to set up the infrastructure needed to sell cheap oil and the benefits of making profits immediately from consumers willing to pay for energy no matter where it comes from is what's pushing governments and businesses to stick with traditional ways of generating energy, and most of it in the non-renewable types.
The same would be true of the nuclear energy industry.
It is clear. A choice of a more safer energy source and one that will protect the natural environment has to be considered paramount for the survival of the human species. And it makes sense to the economy too. Because once the renewable energy sources are built and operating, it will reduce costs for the long term dramatically. No further long-term costs such as dealing with climate change need to be considered. But it requires business experts and politicians to think long-term.
Furthermore, the energy source must be reliable, or predictable as to when the energy will likely be generated (and stored by some means, whether a battery or something else, when we can't get the energy at certain times). Large, commercial-sized wind turbines for generating electricity is fine, but they cannot be relied upon to provide electricity all the time, or throughout a long-enough period of time. Unless they are located in the right areas where wind is regularly available (or else more lightweight designs with efficient blades to pick up slower wind speeds need to be built), not every household will be able to benefit from this energy source. Plus the electricity will still have to be distributed using power lines (unless the wind turbines are small enough to be attached to people's homes).
In conclusion, the ideal and safest energy source for humankind has to be a combination of several clean and renewable types that can generate energy preferably at the location where consumers need the energy the most and can deal with the likely intermittence of power generation by any one renewable type over time. Either being clever and choosing the times to do all things people have to do in the hand when the power is at its maximum, or else battery storage must be an essential part of the solution. Indeed, with the invention of compact and new types of lithium battery storage systems such as the Tesla battery, any intermittence of power generation by renewable sources will be virtually non-existent for consumers if they are efficient in their use of power to run various appliances and be organised in the times the appliances are used. As for baseload powers needed by businesses and governments for running an industry and selling products and services to people, the recent work by the CSIRO on a new type of solar-thermal power generator will reach the necessary baseloads. There is no need to consider coal, gas or other non-renewable energy sources. Or what about geothermal power generation? Combined with the storage solution available in Spain for the same solar-thermal technology and it really should not be rocket science work to make it all happen. If we still are not able to head in this direction quickly enough, each business must take responsibility for the amount of power it needs and try to be more efficient. And that includes paying a carbon-price for any energy that affects the climate. And so too for the consumer. People like to make more babies. Fair enough. Then take responsibility for the power needed to support the extra mouths. Choosing power efficient technologies, building power generators within the business (or home) premises, and/or grouping businesses together in specially set aside areas needing these major power stations can ensure the power is provided virtually 24/7 at the levels required. In the home, people must generate their own renewable power sources and find ways to store the energy to support the decisions people make.
As for the idea that consumers need nuclear power and other non-renewable energy sources is nonsense. The only reason why governments and businesses are pushing for these energy sources and wanting to encourage users to stick to them is because of a fear that many jobs in businesses will be lost, and governments of the day are worried about not being able to stay in power.
Unfortunately for governments and businesses, they have not counted on an increasing number of consumers making their own decisions about where and how the energy is being produced, and with it the cost they are willing to pay. A classic example must be solar panels. These are being built by some long-term thinking businesses, thereby helping to reduce the costs, and these solar panels can be installed on the roof of people's homes. If the amount of power generated is sufficient to keep the consumers happy, it will be difficult for other businesses to monitor and record how much energy is being used in order for businesses to send their infamous bills to the consumer to pay for the energy use. Indeed these forward-thinking people will see little need to support nuclear power and the non-renewable types.
At some point in the near future, we will have no choice but to go for renewable energy sources, and probably in people's homes. This is what people want (leaving aside those working for the energy industry and government departments). It is getting easier to make more efficient renewable power. And most importantly, they are safer to use and better for the environment than any non-renewable energy source available today, especially in this climate of increasing world temperatures. Eventually too many consumers will be generating their own power over the next 25 years. It is already happening as we speak. And there is nothing governments and traditional energy generation businesses can do about it. If the energy industry does not wake up to this reality and continue to rely on old energy technologies and distribution methods, then they will be forced to change (probably by becoming new companies to build and supply the compact renewable energy generations devices to consumers), or else they will head towards a painful financial death.
Or perhaps companies involved in power generation should focus on other businesses, forget the consumers.
Eventually the average person on the street will all go renewable. It is inevitable. Combined this with new energy storage systems such as the Tesla battery and many consumers will soon not have to pay any further energy bills to businesses in the not too distant future.
As for petrol-driven cars, alternative engine technologies do exist. Give it a few more years and Tesla cars will be just as powerful and able to travel great distances as any of the most efficient petrol-driven cars (perhaps there should be a new motor racing sport to show how far a modern electric car can travel? In that way, car manufacturers can innovate and find solutions to make electric cars more efficient and powerful). And by using lightweight materials to build smaller cars (ignore the rev heads with their big and heavy cars needing the most power out of their petrol or diesel powered engines for a moment), the energy required to move these vehicles around would be considerable less than conventional vehicles. Even if we don't do this, the most significant and immediate solution to the car problem (and with it all the oil) is simply to let people work from home. Seriously, why do people need cars? Clearly it is because people need to get to and from work, not to mention the opportunity to experience and enjoy life. Totally understandable. Yet this has to be incredibly inefficient and a waste of energy (i.e. petroleum) when potentially many office jobs could literally be done from home. We have the internet, VoIP, and cameras on computers to see each other (if we need to communicate to one another, but not to spy or to see if people are doing their work). If people need to get together physically, people can walk to agreed home locations and work under the same roof and through the same internet system talking to everyone else in the company or to anyone else in the world. Therefore, the only vehicles that really ought to be on the roads are trucks for delivering needy items in bulk to the community and various businesses after unloading them from more efficient train systems.
Can the work component of what people need to do for others (and themselves to receive the money to pay for food and other products) be done at home or in some centralised place within easy walking distance to all amenities? And can more serious, faster and efficient public transport systems help to handle the rest?
We must also change the way businesses produce products. No more energy-hungry appliances. The primary aim should be to look at the renewable energy source and build a product based around this source, using the least amount of materials and energy requirements, and can easily recycle the materials (or can last for centuries until new materials and technology arrives to solve the recycling problem).
The next major change is packaging for products, especially for our foods. Because so much oil is used to produce certain types of packaging, we will have to consider the solution of having huge 100 per cent recyclable containers holding the essential foods and liquids we need to survive and for us to bring our own portable recyclable containers (probably made of metals and glass) to the supermarket,s have them filled up, pay the difference in weight, and take them home. People should take responsibility to clean the containers before returning to the supermarkets for a refill. If the containers get damaged, they can be replaced at minimal cost and the materials recycled to produce new containers. Then there would be no need to throw away non-recyclable packaging in vast quantities into landfills.
Clothing will also have to be based on natural fibres. Anything artificial will often require lots of oil to produce it. Or we could all walk around naked. It is not as if humans had never been naked before when they walked the lands in search of food and shelter more than 10,000 years ago.
Notwithstanding the massive changes needed by businesses to operate in the 21st century, we must also convince consumers that by having everything they want including having a large family is not always good for the environment, their own wallets, or the economy in the long-term (because of the finite nature of certain energy sources, not to mention the material resources of this planet) based on current and cheapest available energy production technologies. Because not only are we creating more problems for the environment due to our demand for energy, but the available material for creating non-renewable energy is running out and this will affect the economy.
It won't be long before things cost so much that a new economic recession will hit harder an increasingly number of families and individuals. And then people will be forced to change their habits. Then we will all do the right thing. We just hope the change can be done now and more gently and will not cause too much suffering and death for humans in the future.
The only right long-term solution in this whole energy debate is to go for renewable energy. Until then, we must all help to minimise our impact on available energy until enough renewable solutions exists on a large scale to meet all our current and future energy needs.