John Howard misleads Australians about base-load solar power : Melbourne Indymedia

Public concern over global warming has made a great leap forward in recent months.

On a per capita basis, Australia is the world's biggest generator of greenhouse gases.

This week the Prime Minister annouced $420 million solar power project, which is expected to pump electricity into the national grid - equivalent to the annual needs of 45,000 homes, with zero greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite this, he said "the base load power is only going to be generated using fossil fuel or, in the long run, nuclear. While I see solar as being part of the solution, it's a solution at the periphery rather than at the centre."

Greens energy spokesperson Senator Christine Milne says Prime Minister Howard was wrong to claim that solar power will not be able to provide base-load power in the way that coal and nuclear can.

"Solar power can provide base-load power. It already does in California, where a base-load solar station has been operating for 20 years," Senator Milne said.

"If the government would get behind solar in the way it is backing geosequestration for coal-fired power then solar power's potential in Australia would be realised sooner, rather than later."

The government have been accused of propping up the Coal industry with substantial subsidies and incentives. In November 2000, a Senate inquiry report estimated direct fossil fuel subsidies at $2 billion per year, but found an additional $4 billion in indirect subsidies such as ‘tax incentives, startup grants, preferential purchasing agreements for oil, and biased market structures’ (ECITA References Committee, 2000, p.xxxvi).

Senator Milne suggested Prime Minister Howard read the recent report commissioned by the Cooperative Research Centre for Coal - which suggests that solar technoloy is capable of meeting the requirements of major base-load power and rapidly expanding off-grid markets.

The report also concludes that an area of 35 x 35 kilometres could produce Australia's entire current power demand, and the cost of this electricity equal to coal-fired electricity by 2013.

"Concentrating solar thermal technologies are just one of several renewable electricity technologies that are ready for commercialisation in Australia," said Senator Milne.

"Wind, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, geothermal, biofuels - these are not technologies of the future, they are ready today and underpin the booming renewables industry in Europe, the USA, Japan and China."

"There is no technical reason why Australia could not produce a very high proportion of its electricity from renewable sources, backed up by natural gas as a transitional fuel. All that is lacking is political will."

=A Drop In The Ocean==
ACF Executive Director Don Henry says the Federal Government’s solar funding, while welcome, is a drop in the ocean compared with its funding of activities that increase greenhouse pollution and exacerbate global warming.

"We desperately need strong laws and targets that require big polluters to cut emissions. An effective climate change policy makes polluters pay and gives long term incentives to invest in clean energy," Mr Henry said.

"An effective policy sets mandatory standards to reduce energy waste and increase efficiency. An effective policy leads by example in regional and global forums and starts with ratifying the Kyoto Protocol."

==NUCLEAR NOT THE SOLUTION==
Whilst the Uranium industry appears to drive John Howard's push for Nuclear Power in Australia, Professor Ian Lowe AO, President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, has said the economics don't stack up.

"The real cost of nuclear electricity is certainly more than for wind power, energy from bio-wastes and some forms of solar energy," he said in 2005. "The only clean energy is renewable energy. It is safe, plentiful and lasts forever. It is better environmentally, economically and socially.

He says renewable energy will take us toward a sustainable future, whereas nuclear energy would be a decisive step in the wrong direction, producing serious environmental and social problems for little benefit.

Professor Lowe says to avoid dangerous further changes to our climate, we need to act now. "We should make a commitment to the sensible alternatives that produce sustainable cost-effective reductions in greenhouse pollution: wind power, solar water heating, energy efficiency, gas and energy from organic matter."

"As people said back in the 1970s, if nuclear is the answer it must have been a pretty silly question!"

---

COAL - Coal consumption in Australia and New Zealand increases by an average of 1.4 percent per year. With substantial coal reserves, Coal-fired power plants supply over 70 percent of Australia's total electricity generation.I

SOURCES:
International Energy Outlook 2006: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html

[PDF] Subsidies that Encourage Fossil Fuel Use in Australia:
http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/CR_2003_paper.pdf

Is nuclear power part of Australia’s global warming solutions? - ACF: http://www.acfonline.org.au/news.asp?news_id=582&c=26135

Coal is the future, Howard tells Australians:
http://www.energybulletin.net/696.html

Subsidy Analysis on Geographic Regions:
http://earthtrack.net/earthtrack/index.asp?page_id=188&catid=66

Cooperative Research for Coal in Sustainable Development:
http://www.ccsd.biz/

Solar power limited, Howard says:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20642498-1702,00.htm

Doorstop interview with John Howard Tuesday November 07:
JOURNALIST:

What do you make of the Nielsen poll results today on climate change?

PRIME MINISTER:

"I found the Nielsen poll results quite unsurprising, quite unsurprising. Of course people would say at the present time in the wake of all the publicity given to the Stern Report that more needs to be done – it’s a natural response to that sort of question. I didn’t find that surprising. I didn’t find the 50 per cent who thought solar was the answer surprising either because solar is a nice, easy, soft answer. There’s this vague idea in the community that solar doesn’t cost anything and it can solve the problem, it can’t, it can’t replace base load power generation by power stations. It’s a good idea to make a contribution at the margin, but in the end, if you look years ahead, there are only two ways of generating the electricity that this nation needs – either through the current methods of fossil fuel use or a combination of that in a cleaner form with nuclear power. Solar, wind, all these other things can make a contribution at the margin but unless you want to have a windmill every few hundred feet starting at South Head and going down to Malabar – and I can imagine the residents of Sydney wanting that – you simply won’t be able to generate enough power from something like wind in order to take the load off the power that is generated by the use of coal and gas and in time, I believe, nuclear. Now this is going to be a long debate but I’m going to continue to argue reason. I can’t have a policy on something like this dictated by an opinion poll. I read what people say, I understand it, I’m sympathetic, but in the end I’ve got to call it as it is and calling it as it is means that I have to say that solar and wind will not replace conventional power stations."

The lie by John Howard: "it [solar] can’t replace base load power generation by power stations."

This is a direct lie refuted by the CSIRO. Concentrating Solar Thermal (CST) power stations with thermal energy storage has the capacity to provide both peak and base load power generation.

According to a CSIRO report summary as part of a draft report for the Cooperative Research centre for Coal in Sustainable Develpment (http://www.ccsd.biz/) (the irony!), "CST technologies are capable of meeting the requirements of two major power markets: large scale dispatchable markets comprised of grid-connected peaking and base-load power, and rapidly expanding distributed markets including both on-grid and remote/off grid applications."

Cost of CST (trough) electricity in 2005 was estimated at $120US per Megawatt hour (MWh). Estimated cost in 2015 of CST (trough) is $40US /MWh.

Australia is well placed to quickly develop CST power stations with vast areas of higher insolation relatively close to the existing electricity grid. At the moment only prototype plants are in operation in Australia, but as the scale of plants and manufacture ramps up, costs of plant development will fall. CST is described in the CSIRO report as "the only renewable technology that can make deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions". While presently more expensive than wind turbines and coal power stations, it is predicted that "it is by far the lowest cost option for solar electricity." Detailed studies "predict cost competitiveness with fossil-fuel plants in the future - including storage."

CST is a proven technology, with nine solar thermal power plants of the parabolic trough type generating 9000 GWh/y (1000MWh continuous) into the California electricity grid. The report states "there is considerable scope for obtaining cost reductions by scale-up of the technology."

References:
John Howard misleads Australians about base-load solar power
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/128508.php

Appendix I: Concentrating Solar Thermal - Cooperative Research centre for Coal in Sustainable Develpment (http://www.ccsd.biz/)

I think Geothermal rates a mention, but few seem concerned or even know much about it.

Geothermal seems far more positive than waiting for wind to pick up or the sun to shine. Sure these low yield power generators are better than big bang fossils or nuke first choices but a quick look at production shows they are of no use at all.

Pissy little Alternatives are great for politicians who need to knee jerk a watt or two out of thin air while making their financiers happy.

Windmills and Solar will only supplement supplies as it gets warmer and consumers buy more air-cons, as each new house is built and new appliances are installed more power is consummed.

No one is picketing the Air-con shops, few demand that standby tv's should be off, street lights burn all night, electric heaters are still sold in plain sight...global warming has not quite hit home.

Geothermal really should be the main focus of all the interested parties, It’s happening now, but going on in silence.

100% of required output, no pollution except in construction and all from one location. There must be some reason why the government are not behind this potential solution.

Perhaps because geothermal could be the answer to CO2 frees electricity generation and possibly a way to produce Hydrogen fuel for transport without burning fossil fuels.

If so, the fossil fuel people would not support geothermal and the Uranium mines would hate the idea.

Which leaves people to cause a stir because if the way to save the world is to produce clean energy from a renewable source source then geothermal cannot be overlooked.

The Uranium mine at Roxby, sucking down 10% of SA's electricity think the local geothermal plant is a good project, they have invested in it.

This could mean the Uranium industry wishes to control Geothermal development, they could shut it down if its simple tech threatens to compete with an industry that requires government support.

Government supported industries comes with a cost, and that cost is ongoing global warming. These authorities feed each other. Governments depend upon the money miners get and if permitted to export more the miners will pay the government a lot.

Geothermal would end coal exports and seriously damage the market for uranium.
If geothermal is succesful here it would work elsewhere, worldwide, one solution, drill two holes and just add water....this would cause grave concerns for future exports of coal and uranium.

We would see no new orders as industralized nations took a leaf out of our book.

I wonder if the focus on present day economic conciderations is stronger than the focus on solutions for global warming?

As global warming is'nt waiting but accelerating can we really afford to ignore a solution? can we afford to believe that Howard and his supporting corperations are thinking about our future?

Why would they ignore geothermal?

In the interests of share holders perhaps?