Posts Tagged Energy

Date: October 14th, 2011
Cate: Energy, Politics
2 msgs

Coal or Nuclear: something has to fuel our march towards a renewable energy future

I was lounging by a friend’s pool in the South of France a couple of weekends ago, enjoying a last minute surge of summer.

The issue of our energy future was raised and our gracious host stated in a matter-of-fact manner that nuclear energy was clearly the only option left available to service out energy needs. What struck me more than anything else about the statement was that there was an assumption that I had naturally adopted this position – it was the only logical conclusion.

My gut reaction to nuclear is a steadfast ‘no’. You just don’t mess with something that has the potential for destruction on the level that nuclear does. But the problem with nuclear goes beyond that.

To be able to produce as much energy as we are currently producing then our choice is basically either coal or nuclear. But we in the west need to reduce our carbon emissions my something in the order of 90% to 95% of 1990 levels by yesterday at the latest which would naturally lead us to the conclusion that nuclear is the only answer. After all, Global Warming is probably the most serious issue humanity has ever faced so we must stop emitting greenhouse gases immediately.

I’m not sure that I entirely agree with the assertion that nuclear could meet all our energy needs, or that coal and nuclear are our only two choices, but it is certainly fair to say that we cannot produce the amount of energy we are currently using use of renewables. There’s just no way.

The issue for has always been, not how the energy is produced, but how much we use. In a sense I don’t care if we’re using coal or nuclear providing we reduce our energy consumption by 90% to 95% (possibly even more). However if we only need to produce 5% of what we are currently producing then sourcing our energy from renewables is suddenly feasible and should be done for a wide range of health and environmental reasons.

Needless to say, such a drastic change in energy consumption means massive changes in the way the world operates going far beyond major infrastructural changes.

To create a low-carbon world we need to continue to produce enough energy to do the work necessary to reduce the amount of energy we use, keep as many people as possible from starvation and start building the required renewable energy generators. Activities such as the construction of a wind farm requires time and energy which is why we’ve left all this far too late. For now, the only way we can generate that energy is through existing sources of energy, ie coal (or nuclear if you’re in the USA, Japan or France).

Which is why all this nuclear business bothers me. Even if we could, hypothetically, mine uranium in a manner that doesn’t destroy the environment and had a genuine solution to the storage of nuclear waste, the lead time for a nuclear power plant is at least a good 15 to 20 years, probably more. And the lead-time only gets longer when you start talking about wide spread rollout. In 15 or 20 years, it’s all too late.

Where are you going to put all these plants? I don’t want them in my backyard and I’m pretty sure you don’t, but they need to be close to urban centers where most of the energy is consumed. They also need to be near fresh water supplies. Similar problems exists for the storage of nuclear waste. Sorting all this out takes time – lots of time – and then you have to actually build a nuclear power plant which is a time consuming task unto itself.

The pro-nuclear argument also seems to assume significant technological advancements in the breakdown and storage of nuclear waste – technologies which may be available but remain largely untested because very few nuclear power plants have been built of late.

But ultimately what bothers me about nuclear is that it is very 19th Century, industrialist thinking. It’s a ‘science will save us’ or ‘we command nature’ sort of position. It’s a technological fix to a problem caused by an over reliance on technological solutions.

Our energy future has to be low tech. Windmills are reasonably low tech. Mirrors focusing the sun’s rays to heat something up is low tech. We need to use the technologies that are available to us now and nuclear just isn’t one of those.

This leaves me in the awkward position of supporting a coal fired renewable energy future.

Date: September 1st, 2011
Cate: Energy, Politics

Solutions to energy consumption

Reading The Guardian today (from my new abode in London) I came across an article about a group of British academics that were starting trials on a hot air balloon ‘the size of Wembley stadium’ that would float 20km above Earth and pump ‘hundreds of tonnes of minute chemical particles [sulphates and other aerosol particles] a day into the thin stratospheric air to reflect sunlight and cool the planet.’

That sounds pretty hi-tech to me. And just think, we’d be able to keep burning up fossil fuels and pumping as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as we want!

Am I the only one that can see this going wrong? Since when has pumping chemicals into the stratosphere been a good idea? Not to mention the fact that I’m sure it requires a huge amount of energy (hence more carbon pollution) to get the balloon up there as well as producing the chemicals and then pumping them up 20km of hose.

When will we stop trying to come up with these high-tech fixes to the problem of global warming? Technology will not save us, we just need to use less energy.

Meanwhile, back in Australia, the newly elected Victorian Baillieu Government has introduced new planning laws that will destroy the feasibility of Wind Farms in Victoria.

Wind farms are a low tech solution to our energy needs which, if coupled with a huge increase in energy efficiency across the state of Victoria, could provide enough energy to ensure we all lead comfortable, carbon free, lifestyles.

There are many concerns about the new planning laws: they will retard the growth of wind power in Victoria; thousands of vital rural and regional jobs won’t be generated; and so on. But perhaps the most concerning thing is that it would seem that the government is adopting the policies of the Australian Environment Foundation and the Victorian Landscape Guardians – both essentially front groups (AEF is funded by the right-wing corporate funded think tank the Institute of Public Affairs).

It’s also concerning the journalists aren’t picking up on these well established links.

It all reminds me of an Arch Druid Report article from 2009. The article compare’s the viability of two potential renewable energy sources: Fusion reactors which have had billions of dollar spent trying to development and are yet to produce one kilowatt of usable energy; and micro-hydro systems built from recycled washing machines which required very little research and development and are currently producing small amounts of energy with a high level of efficiency.

So let’s get behind Beyond Zero Emissions, Friends of the Earth and others like them and develop an low-energy future that doesn’t need balloons spraying chemicals into the stratosphere.