I agree that there might be sensible exceptions. What I'm getting at is that the announcement smacks of election-year propaganda, rather than any sort of well thought out strategy.
There has been some discussion recently of making power sources more environmentally friendly. Our main one is coal (brown in Victoria, black in NSW and Qld). Victoria has the dubious distinction of having the most polluting (CO2 per MWh) power station in the industrialised world. We have hundreds of years coal supply and the output from coal burning could be made much cleaner by trapping the CO2 and not letting it into the atmosphere. However, this would push up the cost of electicity by about 25%. While it mightn't be as immediately popular, building or retrofitting power stations would be far more useful than forcing everyone to do what most people are doing already.
It's a very sensible idea. Trapping CO2 at the power station allows it to be stored somewhere safe (maybe in old underground rocks that used to have natural gas).
If it only adds 25% to the cost of power generation, then it could be a viable option, especially as there would be major reluctance not to use the coal.
If we can use fossil fuels without the associated CO2, then I'm all for it.
Some doubt has been expressed about geosequestration of coal-derived CO2 of late, though, on the grounds that it can exacerbate local fault lines. Coming from Newcastle, as I do, I know I never want to experience an earthquake greater than 5.5. That was scary enough. Not that this means it is impossible, but just that some areas cannot embrace the idea as whole-heartedly as others.
It would certainly have to be areas with apropriate geology. Natural gas (as far as I'm aware) tends to occur in pretty much fault-free areas (otherwise it would have escaped long ago).
I have switched the majority of our bulbs to compact tubes, but I still wonder why I can't find any figures for "cradle to grave" expenditure. There is so much more in a compact tube all sealed in that white block at the base that I wonder how much pollution was caused manufacturing it.
The absence of figures makes me think they must be bad because if they weren't we would have been told.
Biofuel accounting is also dependent on the methods used to create the fuel. During the era of sanctions South Africa proved it was possible for a farm to be energy self sufficient if 10% of the area was turned over to biofuel, BUT and it's a big but they used the 'straw' to fuel the processing of the biofuel, and waste heat wasn't wasted.
The current biofuels accounting differs because they factor in transport of the seed crop to central processing locations and ignoring the 'waste' which was used by the South African farmer to run the processing, heat water and do the cooking.
Been there for soemthing like fifteen years and at least four of my bulbs are still the "originals"! It's not about environment particularly - it's because they are far better value over time!
Substantially cheaper to run, much longer life - there's no real excuse for not changing over - even the old high capital outlay has disappeared with many supermarkets now charging under £1 per light.
Comments 26
There has been some discussion recently of making power sources more environmentally friendly. Our main one is coal (brown in Victoria, black in NSW and Qld). Victoria has the dubious distinction of having the most polluting (CO2 per MWh) power station in the industrialised world. We have hundreds of years coal supply and the output from coal burning could be made much cleaner by trapping the CO2 and not letting it into the atmosphere. However, this would push up the cost of electicity by about 25%. While it mightn't be as immediately popular, building or retrofitting power stations would be far more useful than forcing everyone to do what most people are doing already.
Reply
If it only adds 25% to the cost of power generation, then it could be a viable option, especially as there would be major reluctance not to use the coal.
If we can use fossil fuels without the associated CO2, then I'm all for it.
Reply
Reply
Reply
The absence of figures makes me think they must be bad because if they weren't we would have been told.
Reply
Biofuels look good until you try that - then they turn out to use as much energy in fertiliser as they save elsewhere.
Reply
The current biofuels accounting differs because they factor in transport of the seed crop to central processing locations and ignoring the 'waste' which was used by the South African farmer to run the processing, heat water and do the cooking.
Reply
Substantially cheaper to run, much longer life - there's no real excuse for not changing over - even the old high capital outlay has disappeared with many supermarkets now charging under £1 per light.
Alastair
Reply
Leave a comment