This is an archive. The forum is not taking new registrations or allowing new discussion, despite what the buttons might suggest.
Hazelwood power station, the earth
Here's a quote from the Environment Victoria site:
The State Government of Victoria recently extended the life of this 1950s brown coal-fired power station to 2031. When it was under the control of the SEC (State Electricity Commission) production was to stop in 2005.
97% of Victorian electrical energy comes from brown coal burning. This makes the state the worst in Australia for CO2 emissions per capita. Australia is worse than the U.S. per capita, which presumeably makes us the dirtiest energy squanderers on the planet.
Energy efficiency measures have no hope of making a dent in emissions as long as this state relies on brown coal. If you like, you can automatically fax Premier Steve Bracks your concern from this web page at Environment Victoria: http://www.envict.org.au/inform.php?menu=5&submenu=722&item=819
Recently, the concept of Global Dimming has been receiving airplay. The amount of fossil fuel particle pollution wafting up into the atmosphere has lessened the amount of sunlight reaching earth. The surface of the earth is receiving up to 16% less radiation from the sun than it was just 30 years ago. As ABC's Four Corners reported recently, this has lessened the impact of global warming. But what this really means is that the extent of global warming is much worse than previously thought. This is bad news, meaning temperatures will increase faster than thought (10 degrees by 2100). The effects of this will include an amazonian desert and higher sea levels as well as other shockers.
So some could say that having Hazelwood belching particles out as well as CO2 is a good thing, or a not-so-bad thing at least. European countries that are cleaning up their act in terms of energy production are also getting a lot hotter. But this would conveniently ignore that late 20th century energy usage has put the whole climate system off balance. Not to mention the premature deaths from particle pollution. The way to attempt to fix the damage is not to spew more greenhouse gases into the air in the hope of a cooler, if darker, future. Isn't it better to start unpicking the mistakes of the past, reducing both forms of pollution in equal measure.
Turn off Hazelwood for sure, but maybe turn off the airconditioning too.
[If you're pissed off by this gloom and doom post, you may prefer to read Andrew Bolt's contrarian view on the subject in the Herald Sun: http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,12649369%5E25717,00.html ]
Victorias 5-star energy efficient homes standard is expected to save 200,000 tonnes of greenhouse gasses per annum just a week of Hazelwoods operations would cancel that benefit.
The State Government of Victoria recently extended the life of this 1950s brown coal-fired power station to 2031. When it was under the control of the SEC (State Electricity Commission) production was to stop in 2005.
97% of Victorian electrical energy comes from brown coal burning. This makes the state the worst in Australia for CO2 emissions per capita. Australia is worse than the U.S. per capita, which presumeably makes us the dirtiest energy squanderers on the planet.
Energy efficiency measures have no hope of making a dent in emissions as long as this state relies on brown coal. If you like, you can automatically fax Premier Steve Bracks your concern from this web page at Environment Victoria: http://www.envict.org.au/inform.php?menu=5&submenu=722&item=819
Recently, the concept of Global Dimming has been receiving airplay. The amount of fossil fuel particle pollution wafting up into the atmosphere has lessened the amount of sunlight reaching earth. The surface of the earth is receiving up to 16% less radiation from the sun than it was just 30 years ago. As ABC's Four Corners reported recently, this has lessened the impact of global warming. But what this really means is that the extent of global warming is much worse than previously thought. This is bad news, meaning temperatures will increase faster than thought (10 degrees by 2100). The effects of this will include an amazonian desert and higher sea levels as well as other shockers.
So some could say that having Hazelwood belching particles out as well as CO2 is a good thing, or a not-so-bad thing at least. European countries that are cleaning up their act in terms of energy production are also getting a lot hotter. But this would conveniently ignore that late 20th century energy usage has put the whole climate system off balance. Not to mention the premature deaths from particle pollution. The way to attempt to fix the damage is not to spew more greenhouse gases into the air in the hope of a cooler, if darker, future. Isn't it better to start unpicking the mistakes of the past, reducing both forms of pollution in equal measure.
Turn off Hazelwood for sure, but maybe turn off the airconditioning too.
[If you're pissed off by this gloom and doom post, you may prefer to read Andrew Bolt's contrarian view on the subject in the Herald Sun: http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,12649369%5E25717,00.html ]
Comments
-
Canberra has banned incandescent bulbs from 2009. It estimates that this will reduce CO2 gas emissions by 800,000 tonnes per year by 2012, growing to 4 million tonnes by 2015. Great news, except for architects that like specifying dimmers on light switches (dimmers don't work on fluoros). But, what difference will it really make?THE AGE 21.02.07: At best, [it] would be far less than a 1 per cent cut in Australia's greenhouse emissions, which were 564.7 million tonnes at last count in 2004 and are forecast to keep growing rapidly.
According to the Australian Greenhouse Office, using Kyoto accounting methods, Australia's CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions for 2004 were 564,727,760 tonnes. In 1990 the figure was 551,925,830 tonnes.
Kyoto wants Annex 1 countries below at least 5% under 1990 levels by 2008-12. Australia was granted an 8% increase on 1990 levels before this cooutry decided not to participate. Kyoto is optimistic, more recent analysis takes a gloomier view. George Monbiot's 2006 book, "Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning", advocates cuts of 90% by 2030. In 2005 he said, "We need not a 20% cut by 2020; not a 60% cut by 2050, but a 90% cut by 2030. Only then do we stand a good chance of keeping carbon concentrations in the atmosphere below 430 parts per million, which means that only then do we stand a good chance of preventing some of the threatened positive feedbacks. If we let it get beyond that point there is nothing we can do. The biosphere takes over as the primary source of carbon. It is out of our hands."
This is going to take a lot more than changing our light bulbs. Australia's National Generators Forum, representing the country's power stations, released several statements yesterday, including this:"Deep cuts, or halving present emissions by 2050, can only be achieved by closing or rebuilding most existing coal-fired power stations... For deep cuts, down to a half of present levels, a CO2 permit price of around $40 per tonne is required. This would increase the electricity wholesale price nearly 100%, and the retail price around 40% by 2020... Halving CO2 emissions from power stations by 2050 will require $128 billion of capital expenditure, compared to $78 billion business as usual.
Australian Greenhouse Office
http://www.ageis.greenhouse.gov.au
Kyoto Protocol - summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Monbiot.com December 2005
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/05/the-struggle-against-ourselves/
National Generators Forum
http://www.ngf.com.au/
Howdy, Stranger!