It gives a whole new meaning to the billboard slogan for Hummers, ‘now seriously get lost’

NOTE: If it was 50 km ^2 then you would generate far more power as that’s 2,500 sq km. Thus 2,500 x 1 km ^2 blocks being 247.105 x 2500 = 617,762.5 acres and at 2 acres per mw that’s 308,881 MW or 308.881 GW which is 6 times the size of the entire Australian power grid of about 50 Gigawatts. Even at 2.5 acres per MW that would still be 247,105 MW being about 5 times the capacity of the Australian power grid. Thus from that its clear than mean 50 sq km and not 50 km ^2 and thus they mean about 7.07 km x 7.07 km grid being the 50 sq km in area, being the 12,355.25 acres.

Thus; If 1 km2 = 247.105 acres then 15,000 / 247.105 = 60.7 x 1 km2 blocks which is 60.7 sq km being 7.79 km 2

If its based on 2 acres per Megawatt instead, you get 6000 x 2 = 12,000 acres. Thus; 12,000 / 247.105 = 48.56 x 1 km2 blocks which is 48.56 sq km being 6.96 km 2

That’s fairly consistent with the 177 MW per mile squared. The terminology is a bit messed up though as square mile and mile squared mean different things. The articles heading mentions 50 sq km and they have said 50 km2 initially which is 50 km x 50 km but that’s not consistent with 177 MW per 2 or even 2.5 acres. I think they meant as mile squared but specified square mile. Its also not consistent with the 2 or 2.5 acre per MW, so they would have to have meant 1 mile ^2 and not 1 sqm, to get close to the 2 acre per MW figure.

In thiswhole debate about the generating industry and garnaut’s suggestions for an ETS no one is commentating about energy efficiency. Could this be introduced using the water industry as an analogue i.e. everyone in Australia accepts that we need to be more efficient with water (well, except perhaps the IPA, Gerard henderson and Patrick Duffy) so why not with electricity. It will improve Australia’s competitiveness anyway.

Does anyone know what the efficiency of energy via sunlight via photosynthesis via cracking into ethanol from one square metre of sowing of various bio fuels compared with one square meter of PV? or is that not a realistic approach for comparison?

If it is you would then subtract the amount of embodied energy in the PV and the amount of energy needed to grow and process the crops to arrive at a final comparison, plus of course run the respective infrastructures.

It would be an interesting project.

saying that, I do agree that solar PV is possibly our best option for long term transport solutions

And her claim that there are only 3 forms of baseload energy ignores geothermal and energy storage systems such as pumped hydro, compressed air etc.

I agree that Nuclear is a good source of Baseload but IMHO Nuclear power can be supplied safely, it can be supplied cheaply but you cant do both.

There are two things Ms Craven is either deliberately or ignorantly missing out on:

1)If nuclear power maintains its current contribution — roughly 2.5% of the world’s energy — it can continue for about 75 years, under ideal conditions. If we ramp it up to supply 100% of the world’s electricity, it could last only about 6 years, under ideal conditions. It simply cannot bridge the energy gap.

2)What nobody in the Nuke industry will tell you is how much it will cost to store the waste. Thats the real cost of nuclear power. Not the cost of mining it and fissioning it but the cost of storing and guarding it forever. Not to mention that no electorate in the country will accept a plant. How on earth do you let a contract for 100,000 years of guarding waste? Imagine still guarding Sumerian nuclear waste dumps or Roman ones. How much would that have costed so far?

All in all a pretty shoddy interview. I’ve seen better nuclear advocacy in chat forums on the internet than what she presents in her interview. The fact she is a “a novelist, journalist and former nuke protester” should trigger the alarm bells. Obviously she has no technical comprehension whatsoever.