Monday, July 25, 2011
Base Load Renewable Energy and Nuclear Submarines
12:37 AM | 
Posted by
John Tennock
Greg Sheridan makes a good argument to support his assertion that "Australia should buy or lease a fleet of nuclear power submarines to replace the calamitous Collins-class boats nearing the end of their working lives." (Weekend Australian July 23-24).
There is no doubt that Australia's defence situation is unique and it may be that a clear headed, long term analysis would lead to the conclusion that nuclear is the only fuel that can satisfy the requirements for Australia's submarine fleet.
Instead Sheridan jumps to "It is the only non-greenhouse as emitting alternative base load energy supply available". Alternative base load energy supply has nothing to do with the special case that might be argued for nuclear submarines.
It has long been the case that mining lobby groups have trotted out the 'base-load' argument 'the sun doesn't shine at night' to oppose development of energy supplies based on renewable sources. This argument seems so obviously true that most people simply accept it without question. But it is not true!
The truth is that, in Australia, we are uniquely positioned to satisfy our base load energy requirements from renewable sources using currently available technology. The base load argument for nuclear power is no longer supportable.
What prompts Sheridan to declare that: "Unless you are a Greens/Taliban fundamentalist trying to de-indistrialise the west, you are not serious about climate change if you oppose nuclear energy"? The proposals that are currently on offer to power Australia entirely from renewables using concentrated solar with storage (CSS) are a huge industrial undertaking requiring sophisticated manufacturing.
It is more likely that our ability to undertake such a project might be hampered by the the abandonment of our manufacturing industries in favour of simply digging stuff out of the ground.
Check these out for starters:
Beyond Zero Emissions
Redflow Advanced Energy Storage
There is no doubt that Australia's defence situation is unique and it may be that a clear headed, long term analysis would lead to the conclusion that nuclear is the only fuel that can satisfy the requirements for Australia's submarine fleet.
Instead Sheridan jumps to "It is the only non-greenhouse as emitting alternative base load energy supply available". Alternative base load energy supply has nothing to do with the special case that might be argued for nuclear submarines.
It has long been the case that mining lobby groups have trotted out the 'base-load' argument 'the sun doesn't shine at night' to oppose development of energy supplies based on renewable sources. This argument seems so obviously true that most people simply accept it without question. But it is not true!
The truth is that, in Australia, we are uniquely positioned to satisfy our base load energy requirements from renewable sources using currently available technology. The base load argument for nuclear power is no longer supportable.
What prompts Sheridan to declare that: "Unless you are a Greens/Taliban fundamentalist trying to de-indistrialise the west, you are not serious about climate change if you oppose nuclear energy"? The proposals that are currently on offer to power Australia entirely from renewables using concentrated solar with storage (CSS) are a huge industrial undertaking requiring sophisticated manufacturing.
It is more likely that our ability to undertake such a project might be hampered by the the abandonment of our manufacturing industries in favour of simply digging stuff out of the ground.
Check these out for starters:
Beyond Zero Emissions
Redflow Advanced Energy Storage
Labels:
Friday, July 22, 2011
That's Potent!
When I talk to people about climate change it sometimes becomes obvious that they find it incomprehensible that human activity could make any significant difference to our climate. They are simply unaware of the potency of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Here are some simple scientific facts that made the light come on for me.
If it wasn't for the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere the average surface temperature of planet earth would be a permanent, very cold, MINUS 17 degrees instead of the comfortable PLUS 15 degrees we currently enjoy.
Greenhouse gases, mostly water vapour, comprise only about 1% of our atmosphere. That means that just 1% of our atmosphere makes a difference of 32 degrees. The other 99% makes no contribution at all.
Carbon Dioxide comprises only 0.038% of our atmosphere, (that's the '380 parts per million' we keep hearing about). But CO2 contributes between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse effect that keeps us comfortable. That's potent!
Methane is even more potent with an almost unmeasurably small trace contributing between 4% and 9% of the greenhouse effect.
Quick Summary
Proportions Atmospeheric Gases
Contribution to Greenhouse Effect
If it wasn't for the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere the average surface temperature of planet earth would be a permanent, very cold, MINUS 17 degrees instead of the comfortable PLUS 15 degrees we currently enjoy.
Greenhouse gases, mostly water vapour, comprise only about 1% of our atmosphere. That means that just 1% of our atmosphere makes a difference of 32 degrees. The other 99% makes no contribution at all.
Carbon Dioxide comprises only 0.038% of our atmosphere, (that's the '380 parts per million' we keep hearing about). But CO2 contributes between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse effect that keeps us comfortable. That's potent!
Methane is even more potent with an almost unmeasurably small trace contributing between 4% and 9% of the greenhouse effect.
Quick Summary
Proportions Atmospeheric Gases
Nitrogen 78.08%
Oxygen 20.95%
Argon 0.93%
Carbon Dioxide 0.038%
Water vapour approx 1% (variable)
methane trace
nitrous oxide trace
ozone trace
CFCs trace
Contribution to Greenhouse Effect
Water Vapor 36–70%
Carbon Dioxide 9–26%
Methane 4–9%
Ozone 3–7%
Nitrogen 0%
Oxygen 0%
Argon 0%
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
