Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread
Reply #179 –
I've become more and more disillusioned with Australia's lack of focus on global issues, in particular the complete absence of foresight by our politicians.
We are perfectly situated to build an economy that can be globally dominant in future energy generation methods, in particular nuclear, solar, batteries and hydrogen. But we are so beholding to lobbyists on both sides of the debate we have lost our way. Our politicians have become nothing more than gutless poll driven bureaucrats, often as an adjunct they are driven by minority religious or political ideologies over real world economics, facts and figures.
Australia talent is leaving it's shores faster and faster, some of the world's next generation of clean and green energy are developed and administered by Australian talent, but not here in Australia.
The public read nuclear as dirty fission, and the polls reflect the opposition to nuclear, and politicians fold. But nuclear by a modern standard isn't the 1960's plants that have failed to withstand the rigours of time. Modern nuclear is both Fusion and Fission, it's cleaner and safer, and in the case of Fusion not only delivers energy but also a swath of critical by-products most prominently helium that is needed for the operation of all sorts of medical devices, and fusion doesn't produce even a skerrick of nuclear waste!
We should be up to pussy's bow in the development of green hydrogen, ingredients required sunlight to drive solar farms and sea water. Hydrogen can be distributed using our existing pipeline infrastructure, mixed in with existing domestic natural gas supplies to also reduce carbon emissions from cooking and heating as well as to distribute the hydrogen. The hydrogen can be re-separated at the end point using very little energy probably from solar to provide pure clean hydrogen as required. (Imagine you go a fill up your car with hydrogen from the hydrogen station, a station that got it's hydrogen via a pipeline not a truck!) PS; You can fill up a hydrogen car, drive 700km and then stop to fill it up against in about 4 minutes to drive another 700km, not 1hr for 80% charge, total vehicle emissions water vapour, zero rare earths required! 4 minutes for 1400km of range, how much EV charging time does that equate too?
Batteries, Australia is a global R&D leader, in particular in the replacement of rare earth materials in mass produced batteries. At least two companies I know have pioneered massively abundant materials like silicon or sulfur as a replacements for rare-earth materials like lithium, nickel, cobalt and gallium. Both were forced off-shore into foreign ownership to secure funding for the commercial development of the technology.
Solar, the manufacturing of the solar cells we know of on the roof is neither clean or green, but Solar thermal can be uber green, and printable solar equally green. To produce solar thermal you need lots of sun and open space, know anywhere? For green printable solar cells you have to develop a way to recycle old plastics into printed solar cells, guess who, and guess where that technology went auctioned off to a foreign investor for short term gain!
What's the odds we end up buying all that technology back off China in a decade or two, either as a product or under a license for something we invented. In the meantime our politicians chuck chunks of coal at each other!
Rant over!
This conversation will never be a real one, until a nuclear policy isnt automatically an election loser.
No one wants one on their door step, and no one will vote in a government that will go that policy.
Here is the reality.
We are going to go "clean" and "green" with renewables.
Then, when the coal plants are all retired, and we are suffering consistent and frequent loss of power endangering, lives, infrastructure, and the ability for humans to live properly, then and only then will a nuclear plant be palatable to the masses.
I have read recently about an initiative, where nuclear waste, can be combined with man made Diamonds, to create battery storage technology that is almost perpetual.
This will never make it to market, because being the cynic that I am, it equates to a loss of future revenue for too many companies.
Make of that what you will.
IF we actually reviewed things properly, we should see a graph which shows how many GJ of power, all the energy sources can contribute, for how long, with how much waste and CO2 emissions produced including the mining, and also what happens at the end of the life of each generation of power.
Blind Freddy would quickly understand that Nuclear is the biggest bang for buck in that equation in terms of more power, from the smallest waste. Even a hydro dam needs to divert water from eco systems elsewhere threatening habitats for marine life. Thats an entire ecosystem effected both up and down stream from it. Meanwhile solar farms are still land hungry, and wind generation is inconsistent at best, AND land hungry. There isnt a renewable that can compete with nuclear on a power vs waste equation and the discussion NEVER happens.