OVERSEAS trips may become a once-in-lifetime experience and car travel needed to be cut by 80 per cent if we have any hope of avoiding "dangerous" climate change, experts say.
Energy experts from Monash University said the carbon emission standards recommended by the government-hired Professor Ross Garnaut would not be possible if Australia’s love affair with cars and planes continued.
Continue reading Car travel 'cut by 80 per cent'
"I am bit worried that you want to build them away form population centers if they are so safe and clean."
I'll volunteer to have them built in my corner of the world. But that reminds me of a Kennedy story. Apparently Senator Kennedy is a huge proponent of windmill energy. But when the state of Massachusetts proposed building them not far from his home he fought it, claiming that they were an eye-sore. Socialists like Kennedy always have wonderful ideas that they would like to have applied to other people, but not to themselves. Does that remind you of Algore?
"So your plan is to burn coal until it gets to 600ppm and then stop?"
No, my plan is to not worry about it until we get close to 600ppm.
"What is the basis for you determining that 600ppm is OK for the climate?"
I believe that the people who propose that climate sensitity is between .5C and 1.5C are correct. And I don't see any problem with another 1.5C. On the other hand, I believe that the biomass will be increased by both the extra temperature and the extra CO2. With a world population that is still, at least currently, growing, that is a good thing.
"your model suggests that there is nothing wrong with emissions growth, results in Peak Coal about 2046"
I've seen enough "peak oil" alarms missed that I'm very very skeptical about "peak coal". The problem with ringing the alarm bell all the time is that people start ignoring you after a while.
"I agree Tilo, Iran thinks nuclear is the best option too."
And Iran would be correct if their only motive was to generate electricity.
"There is not enough energy in the remains to heat the kerogen."
I'm afraid that your knowledge about shale oil is woefully out of date. A company named Oil Tech from Utah has built a successful pilot plant and they are able to produce shale oil at a price between 13 and 30 dollar per barrel. And they can use spent shale to heat new shale rock.
From their site:
"The resulting spent shale has a large heat value that will be used as a source for heating new shale rock entering the retort. The spent shale also has residual carbon content that may be combusted to further produce energy. Finally, after all hydrocarbons are condensed, propane, which is non-condensable at atmospheric pressure, may be scrubbed, compressed, chilled and bottled as clean energy, ready for market."
and
"The retort is a sealed unit, vacuum purged and environmentally friendly, with no toxic output. Propane/methane gas, the cleanest burning gas known to the energy industry, is a byproduct of the process that may either be flared off or used to support the cogeneration efforts. "
http://www.oil-techinc.com/profile.html
Apparently everyone is trying to get into the act. My friend works for the US Environmental Protection Agency and he has issued 9 licenses to other groups to also build pilot shale oil plants. And shale oil produces a better grade of product than Canadian sand oil.
"why not build it close to population centers and simply use the electricity with 80% overall efficiency in electric cars?"
It may not be for 60 to 100 years yet, but I think we will eventually be stuck with battery powered cars or fuel cell cars. In any case, I see no down side to starting a steady and unhurried process of building nuclear reactors today. That way when the time comes that we have to rely on their electricity, it will be there.
Eyrie - "You have lots of waste heat to get rid of. Cooling towers anyone? Use the waste heat to heat the brown coal for liquid fuel and have smaller cooling towers."
The only problem is that the waste heat from a steam generator is not hot enough to process brown coal. It needs to be the high temp high pressure steam straight from the heat exchangers and then a small amount of electricity can be generated from the waste heat from the chemical process. You have it the wrong way round.
"So locate the nukes there and send the liquids to the population center by pipeline"
Who is going to pay for the pipline? Why would you do this. Nuclear is safe and clean therefore there should be no problem locating then in and around population centers and avoid the transmission losses.
"Then we'll have to build lots of nukes to charge them using *waste* heat (what part of *waste* don't you understand)from the nukes to generate liquid fuels for aviation and heavy transport from coal, oil sands and shale."
What part of high temperature and pressure do you not understand? You cannot process tar sands or coal with waste heat. Aviation is probably the only form of transport that need liquid fuels as heavy transport can be electrified as well.
"Oh, and I'm really glad you are so convinced of the safety of nuclear plants that you are prepared to build them close to population centers."
I am bit worried that you want to build them away form population centers if they are so safe and clean. Whats the problem with a nuke at every corner?
Ender,
Because of the waste heat. You just run a conventional nuke to make electricity in the usual way. No reduction in electricity output at all. The problem with nukes as with any steam generator is the limited thermodynamic efficiency of the cycle. You have lots of waste heat to get rid of. Cooling towers anyone? Use the waste heat to heat the brown coal for liquid fuel and have smaller cooling towers.
This has already been thought of for the oil sands in Canada.
The power stations are already in the Latrobe Valley because it is easier to ship electricity by wire than to ship the coal. So locate the nukes there and send the liquids to the population center by pipeline.
BTW you only get at best about 35% to 40% of the total energy as electricity out of a nuke, much the same as coal plants. You can do a little better with very modern high temperature coal plants.
I'm a fan of electric cars. In a few years battery technology will likely make them quite practical. Then we'll have to build lots of nukes to charge them using *waste* heat (what part of *waste* don't you understand)from the nukes to generate liquid fuels for aviation and heavy transport from coal, oil sands and shale.
Oh, and I'm really glad you are so convinced of the safety of nuclear plants that you are prepared to build them close to population centers.
Tilo - "I would say about 600 PPM. The plants seem to love it there."
So your plan is to burn coal until it gets to 600ppm and then stop? What is the basis for you determining that 600ppm is OK for the climate?
"No, there will still be plenty of coal. Of course nuclear is still the best long term alternative."
No there won't. Replacing depleting oil with coal to liquids and maintaining current growth, because your model suggests that there is nothing wrong with emissions growth, results in Peak Coal about 2046. Do the maths - every resource no matter how large gets really small with exponential growth.
I agree Tilo, Iran thinks nuclear is the best option too. So I guess you fully support the Republic of Iran in its quest for safe and clean nuclear power. I also can't wait for you to tell me that the waste problem is solved as well.
"Don't know the details of coal, but with shale oil you can take the remains"
No you can't. There is not enough energy in the remains to heat the kerogen. Shale Oil has been trying to be economic for decades now. It has been 'economic' for the last 20 or 30 years when oil is $20 more expensive than the current price however now with oil at $102.00 per barrel it still does not cut it.
Eyrie - "Generate electricity and use the waste heat to heat the brown coal to produce liquid fuels. Win, win!"
Even assuming for a minute that I thought nuclear was a good idea why would you want to lose 80% of the energy from your nuclear reactor making liquid fuels? Nuclear power plants already generate the ideal fuel, electricity, that is reticulated to just about every house in the nation. If you have gone to the trouble of building a nuke why not build it close to population centers and simply use the electricity with 80% overall efficiency in electric cars?
"And how much CO2 do you want to put into the atmosphere?"
I would say about 600 PPM. The plants seem to love it there.
"Finally even though the brown coal resource looks large if you are using it to heat the coal and using it as feedstock it will very quickly deplete under ever rising demand."
No, there will still be plenty of coal. Of course nuclear is still the best long term alternative.
Don't know the details of coal, but with shale oil you can take the remains, after you have heated them to get the oil out, and use those remains to heat the next batch of fresh material. They still contain enough energy to do that.
Nukes, Ender.
Lots and lots of nukes to heat the brown coal.
Generate electricity and use the waste heat to heat the brown coal to produce liquid fuels. Win, win!
Doug Lavers - "For what it is worth, Victoria is sitting on what may be the largest oilfield on the planet - called the Latrobe Brown coal Field. The size of this resource has never been delineated, but it amounts to at least several hundred billion tons."
And how much CO2 do you want to put into the atmosphere?
If you heat this in vacuum, high grade light oil boils off. As far as I can see, everything you can do to Albertan Tar Sands you can do to brown coal, except much cheaper."
What do you heat it with? If you are going to use brown coal then you emit CO2 heating the coal and then also emit CO2 burning the liquids in whatever you use it in. You also lower the Energy Return down to next to nothing while increasing the problems of greenhouse emissions.
Why not change? Electric cars, both plug in hybrids and battery electric cars, can provide a vast amount of energy storage to help the electricity grid overcome peaks and troughs in supply. They are also vastly more efficient that any Internal Combustion engine. Even running an electric car from electricity from brown coal emits half the CO2 than an IC car.
Plug in hybrids involve no compromises in range or performance. Battery electric cars today have more than enough range for daily use. Based on studies almost everywhere 90% of car trips are under 100km.
Finally even though the brown coal resource looks large if you are using it to heat the coal and using it as feedstock it will very quickly deplete under ever rising demand.
No problem ,Tilo. They just borrow money.
"As usual, government and flunkies like Garnaut have it wrong. Five year plans in the old Soviet Union weren't exactly a great success, does anyone seriously expect a 42 year plan to work?"
The problem is that left wing governments seem to believe that they can shrink the economy while at the same time continuing to grow government. They don't seem to realize that without a robust economy there are no taxes to collect to fund all of the utopian projects that they have in mind.