7 ms·

3 immediate flaws: He ignores completely hydro and geothermal power. They help Iceland (100%) and New Zealand (77%) amongst others to near complete sustainabil

3 immediate flaws: He ignores completely hydro and geothermal power. They help Iceland (100%) and New Zealand (77%) amongst others to near complete sustainability for electricity generation. While mentioned, the cost of co2e emissions from gas is glossed over. Charge the true economic value for emissions and hydrocarbon sources are going to be wildly more expensive. He criticizes China for unfairly subsidizing wind on the one hand (their solar story is amazing btw) then complains China is building too many coal plants shortly thereafter.

mc32 14y ago
He doesn't ignore them, but the capacity for hydro and geothermal is finite and very geographically specific (there is only so many cubic km of riverflow and only so many geothermal sites). The TWatt output of NZ and IS is negligible, on a global scale, therefore they have little impact. It's great for those countries, but they're not a solution to CN's or IN's energy questions, for example.
ars 14y ago
Iceland has so much extra hydro and geothermal power that they built an aluminium plant just to use the excess. But that's hardly something that applies to the rest of the world. On a global level hydro and geothermal energy is maxed out, every usage that practical is already being done.
brc 14y ago
NZ and Iceland are tiny. Iceland has a total population of 319,000. NZ has a total population of 4.4m. Both are situated on active volcanic areas. Iceland is a geologically new island formed by the spreading of the mid-atlantic ridge. NZ is basically a giant mountain range sticking out from the bottom of the ocean, in a climate where it rains and snows, a lot. They are interesting cases in using technology to generate power both at low cost and minimal environmental impact, but in no way at all are they models for the rest of the world. An externality can't be costed because there is no way to know the cost. You can only model it. As there is no way to validate the model, you end up with many competing models with no way of knowing which one is correct. As such, you can't give an accurate price.
- anthonyb 14y ago
  Borehole geothermal is possible too. Basically, find a large, hot mass of rock close to the surface, drill down a couple of kilometres, pump water down and get steam out (typical temp is ~200-300C). That's in Australia, known for its geological stability, lack of active volcanoes, etc.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    In theory. In practice nobody has managed to produce a commercial-scale plant that actually does that. For example: the deeper the borehole, the more noticeable the effect of tectonic drift.
    - anthonyb 14y ago
      Drift? Not in Australia. Even in other parts of the world, most of the boreholes are proposed in large granite masses (they're hot because of radioactive decay as well as conduction) which are relatively static. Mostly it's just an issue of getting enough investment to get a plant off the ground - there's no major technical impediment involved.
      - jacques_chester 14y ago
        Yes, even in Australia. We're very stable by geological standards, yet we still have minor fault lines and the whole plate is still moving north. When your borehole is kilometres deep it only takes a tiny amount of drift to start breaking stuff all up and down the system. And superhot steam is not exactly a friendly substance to begin with. The main company who've been working on the Australian deep-drilling geothermal problem is Geodynamics. And they have been at it for years and years. They've consumed tens of millions of dollars and have, so far, not successfully produced a deep-geothermal plant. It's just not as easy as people make out.
        LockeWatts 14y ago
        >And superhot steam is not exactly a friendly substance to begin with. Don't pretty much all power sources use "superhot" steam to turn turbines? What's special about this steam?
anthonyb 14y ago
Fourth flaw is that he immediately starts on subsidies while ignoring that coal, oil and gas are heavily subsidised too: http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/01/nsws-great-big-coal-subsidy-scandal/ http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/01/nsws-great-big-coal-subs... http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3901892.html http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3901892.html That's not even including the subsidies for cars/road use, which are similarly huge.

mc32 14y ago

He doesn't ignore them, but the capacity for hydro and geothermal is finite and very geographically specific (there is only so many cubic km of riverflow and only so many geothermal sites). The TWatt output of NZ and IS is negligible, on a global scale, therefore they have little impact. It's great for those countries, but they're not a solution to CN's or IN's energy questions, for example.

ars 14y ago

Iceland has so much extra hydro and geothermal power that they built an aluminium plant just to use the excess. But that's hardly something that applies to the rest of the world. On a global level hydro and geothermal energy is maxed out, every usage that practical is already being done.

brc 14y ago

NZ and Iceland are tiny. Iceland has a total population of 319,000. NZ has a total population of 4.4m. Both are situated on active volcanic areas. Iceland is a geologically new island formed by the spreading of the mid-atlantic ridge. NZ is basically a giant mountain range sticking out from the bottom of the ocean, in a climate where it rains and snows, a lot. They are interesting cases in using technology to generate power both at low cost and minimal environmental impact, but in no way at all are they models for the rest of the world. An externality can't be costed because there is no way to know the cost. You can only model it. As there is no way to validate the model, you end up with many competing models with no way of knowing which one is correct. As such, you can't give an accurate price.

anthonyb 14y ago
Borehole geothermal is possible too. Basically, find a large, hot mass of rock close to the surface, drill down a couple of kilometres, pump water down and get steam out (typical temp is ~200-300C). That's in Australia, known for its geological stability, lack of active volcanoes, etc.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  In theory. In practice nobody has managed to produce a commercial-scale plant that actually does that. For example: the deeper the borehole, the more noticeable the effect of tectonic drift.
  - anthonyb 14y ago
    Drift? Not in Australia. Even in other parts of the world, most of the boreholes are proposed in large granite masses (they're hot because of radioactive decay as well as conduction) which are relatively static. Mostly it's just an issue of getting enough investment to get a plant off the ground - there's no major technical impediment involved.
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      Yes, even in Australia. We're very stable by geological standards, yet we still have minor fault lines and the whole plate is still moving north. When your borehole is kilometres deep it only takes a tiny amount of drift to start breaking stuff all up and down the system. And superhot steam is not exactly a friendly substance to begin with. The main company who've been working on the Australian deep-drilling geothermal problem is Geodynamics. And they have been at it for years and years. They've consumed tens of millions of dollars and have, so far, not successfully produced a deep-geothermal plant. It's just not as easy as people make out.
      - LockeWatts 14y ago
        >And superhot steam is not exactly a friendly substance to begin with. Don't pretty much all power sources use "superhot" steam to turn turbines? What's special about this steam?

anthonyb 14y ago

Fourth flaw is that he immediately starts on subsidies while ignoring that coal, oil and gas are heavily subsidised too: http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/01/nsws-great-big-coal-subsidy-scandal/ http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/01/nsws-great-big-coal-subs... http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3901892.html http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3901892.html That's not even including the subsidies for cars/road use, which are similarly huge.