Energy & Nuclear

I can’t image anyone complaining about having carbon dioxide stored under their house, but in an article entitled ‘Carbon storage won’t be optional’ Matthew Warren, writing for The Australian, begins with the emotive statement that:

“Australian may be stripped of their right to block the storage of greenhouse gases beneath their land under laws being considered by the state and federal governments.

“The capture of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from power stations and their storage in giant underground reservoirs, a process known as geosequestration, have been backed by the Howard Government and Labor as major steps in helping Australia and other nations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
Experts claim the technology could be commercially viable in Australia by 2015.

“A geosequestration law expert has warned that if proven viable, the new technology will need new laws based on oil and gas exploration and extraction that override landowners’ rights to veto storage underneath their properties.”

Read the complete article here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21530480-2702,00.html

I’d be happy to have the carbon dioxide stored under my place and I’ld be happy if they build a nuclear power plant in the neighbourhood and I’m hanging-out to drink recycled water.

In a new report by The Australian Strategic Policy Institute it is claimed that the validity of Australia’s territorial claim over 42 percent of Antarctica will face more challenges.

“There is going to be a lot more pressure on Antarctica – climate change, illegal fishing, more tourists, bio-prospectors,” he said.

“If peak oil hits stratospheric levels, there could be an Antarctic cold rush, prospects for an iceberg harvesting industry – there is going to be more interest.”

Ian Mott has emailed me that the the legitimacy of the southern ocean whale sanctuary, which has been a point of significant discussion at this blog, is contingent on international recognition of Australia’s claim to Antarctic territory. He also mentioned that many nations have not recognised our claim but have also not contested it, yet.

I am also told Australia maintains a policy of nil exploration and nil access to resources at Antarctica.

Download the report here: http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=120&pubtype=6

Hi Jennifer,

I suppose you’ve heard about Sydney’s “Earth Hour”.

I’m not sure whether to be amused, or saddened, by TV footage showing people turning off their lights, and using candles instead. It seems to indicate a total lack of understanding.

Leaving aside whether CO2 emissions are really a problem, if these people thought they were reducing CO2 emissions by their actions, then I rather think they were deluding themselves. Earth Hour was held during a time of peak electrical load, so any electricity generation displaced would be peak load, probably running on natural gas. Such generation produces about 500 grams of CO2 for every kilowatt-hour.

So turning a 100 watt light bulb off for an hour saves 50 grams of CO2, or 13 grams of carbon. A candle is mostly carbon by weight, and candle wax is only moderately less dense than water at room temperature. This means that burning just 5 cm of a typical 2 cm diameter candle will produce more CO2 than running the 100 watt light bulb for an hour. If the light that was turned off is fluorescent, then even less candle can be burned if there’s to be a net reduction in CO2.

By the way, the Sydney Morning Herald published these pictures to show the effect of Earth Hour

In the ‘after’ picture, the lights that are still on are dimmer than they were in the ‘before’ picture, which rather implies that the ‘after’ picture is artificially darkened. That really is dishonest reporting.

Sylvia.

Europe and the UK have committed to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by 60 percent by 2050 and the Australian Labor party has now followed suit.

Labor spokesperson for the environment, Peter Garrett, writing for Ninemsn.com.au, claims:

“There is a national consensus developing. Mums and Dads, farmers, business people, scientists, religious leaders and working people are coming to agreement on some broad principles we can adopt to address and deal with dangerous climate change.

These include: setting targets to reduce our greenhouse gas pollution — just like the UK, European Union and many US States have done; creating a carbon emissions trading scheme so business and farmers can take the opportunities such an agreement would give them; ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and joining the 166 other counties who are signatories; and finally, increasing our Mandatory Renewable Energy Target, so we can produce more energy from renewable sources.

That’s why Federal Labor has committed to ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, substantially increasing our Mandatory Renewable Energy Target, cutting our carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050 and establishing a carbon emissions trading scheme.” [end of quote]

All of this at a time when the British government is admitting it will fail to meet its target, set before the 1997 general election, of cutting CO2 emissions by 20% between 1990 and 2010. The UK’s carbon emissions rose by 1.25% last year, but overall the general trend is still down with total greenhouse emissions equivalent to 658.10 million tonnes of CO2 last year down about 15% from 775.20 million tonnes in 1990.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6506223.stm#backup

So how has the UK managed to get its emissions down? And should Labor win the federal election in Australia later this year, what is Peter Garrett really planning?

The price of tortillas in Mexico has tripled in recent months and Ruth Gidley in a piece entitled ‘As biofuels boom, will more go hungry’ is blaming ethanol.

With US government greenhouse policy and the price of oil favoring a shift to ethanol, the price of corn is climbing. The US produced 24percent more ethanol in 2006 than in 2005.

Corn is a main ingredient of tortillas as well as ethanol.

The Mexican government responded to rioting in January by capping the price of corn.

Is concern over global warming or the price of oil, or both, driving the demand for ethanol which is making food more expensive in places like Mexico?

“European homes, offices and streets will have to use energy-efficient lighting by the end of the decade, EU leaders decided on Friday.

“The decision to order a massive switchover that will affect the lives of all the European Union’s 490 million citizens came at a summit of the 27-nation bloc as part of an ambitious green energy policy to fight climate change.

“We are very impressed by the Australian [decision to ban incandescent light bulbs]* and before we came to the summit, we had already been in touch with them and looking at the issue. We support this scheme and hope to take it on, Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said. (From Reuters via Woody)

In response to the decision, the question was asked across Europe: How many EU leaders does it take to change a lightbulb? Answer: 27.

—————–
* Read comment on the Australian decision to ban incandescent light bulbs here: https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001899.html