 | |||||
|
| |||||
|
| DownUnder | August 2005 |
|
Burying Our Energy Problems by Ian McPherson
George Bush and John Howard are no longer denying that climate change exists. In fact, they've been secretly doing something about it. A pact has just been announced, between the US, Australia, China, India and South Korea, to develop commercial technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, considered by the majority of climate scientists to be the cause of our climate change problems. So what does this mean? Will this make a difference? Here's the two sides of the argument. Firstly, from the Howard government's Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell: "We need to engage the big emitters, we need to engage the countries that have no commitments inside Kyoto, we need to ensure that we develop technologies that will see energy expand, because we need more energy." And the other side, from Greens leader Bob Brown: "The secret pact's five member countries include four of the world's biggest coal producers - China, USA, India and Australia. This is all about taxpayers' money being diverted from developing clean, renewable technologies to try to make burning coal less dirty." Geosequestration One of the key technologies expected to support this pact is carbon geosequestration, literally the act of burying our carbon emissions under the ground. How does this work? Here's a brief explanation from Peter Cooke, Chief Executive of the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies: "That what you have to do, you’re now pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere, I hasten to point out, you’ve got to take it from major sources of CO2: power stations, gas processing plants, cement factories, that sort of thing, and you have to capture that CO2, you have to separate it out from any other gases, you then compress it, and then you inject it into the sub-surface, in what’s called a super-critical state. In other words it’s essentially liquid CO2 when you inject it, and as long as you inject it down to 800 metres or so, it stays in that super-critical state and as long as you’ve chosen your geology wisely and carefully, it’ll stay there essentially indefinitely."
The irony of this should not escape you. All the scientists are really telling us is that unless we want to ruin the world for our descendents, we have to put the CO2 back where we got it from, under the ground. Questions remain over the cost of doing this, and whether the CO2 will stay there, but that's the idea in a nutshell. Renewables But doesn't this make renewable technologies, including solar and wind power much more cost-competitive? Well, yes and no. Due to the fact that we have enormous electricity grids designed to provide continuous energy 24 hours a day, we are quite literally hooked on coal and gas power plants, which operate all day and all night. Solar and wind power, by comparison, are intermittent. When the wind isn't blowing or the sun's not shining, the lights tend to dim. This is not to say that renewables should not be supported. They should, as the only emissions they produce is in their manufacture and maintenance. Wherever possible, and wherever the sun and wind resources are optimal, these technologies should be employed. Governments, particularly those in the US and Australia, could do far more to promote the adoption of renewables by removing some of the perverse subsidies that go to Big Coal, Gas and Oil. Living "off the grid" So is it possible to live "off the grid"? And still have energy 24 hours a day without carbon emissions? Yes it is, but it is not likely to provide the sort of conveniences we are currently used to in the short term. Professor Tony Marmont, a British engineer has developed a highly innovative energy farm in the middle of England that is entirely independent from "the grid". But it's not for the faint-hearted :)
Tony uses a number of energy technologies; solar, wind, hydroelectrical and hydrogen. Each technology complements and supports the others, so that even in times where the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining, energy production is sufficient to power his property. His vision is a glimpse of a possible future, where we are less dependent upon the massive fossil fuel power stations that have led to our emission problems. From the Global Public Media website: "Over the last thirty years, driven by increasing alarm over climate change and pollution, British engineer Tony Marmont has developed a highly unusual and innovative energy farm in the middle of England. In this interview with Global Public Media's Julian Darley, Marmont explains why and how it all works giving the viewer a sneak preview into the way a sustainable future might actually look." | |||||||||
See you all in the next issue! Ian McPherson |
