This weeks issue of The Economist has a 20 page special report on the future of energy. It looks at wind, solar, Nuclear, CCS, electrical networks and all the usual suspects. The editorial leader also has energy as a focus.
“As these alternatives start to roll out in earnest, their rise, optimists hope, will become inexorable. Economies of scale will develop and armies of engineers will tweak them to make them better and cheaper still. Some, indeed, think alternative energy will be the basis of a boom bigger than information technology.”
A large part of the special report is available online but its well worth buying a copy to peruse it all.
There is some very interesting research at the moment looking into replacing batteries with Fuel Cells. Being able to replace Lithium-Ion batteries in consumer electronics with a Fuel Cell powered by a Hydrogen or Methanol canister has many advantages including longer power reserves and much faster recharging times. But one of the main sticking points in further developing this technology has been the reluctance of commercial airlines and aviators to allow Fuel Cell canisters onto their flights. The fears being that the flammable gas contained inside the canister poses a risk to the aircraft if it somehow catches fire.
Well this week we have seen the first steps towards approving the carriage on aeroplanes of these (so far unavailable) power sources. The US Department of Transportation has just made a ruling that will let passengers carry approved methanol fuel cells and up to two spare fuel cartridges in their carry-on bags.
FTA:
“Fuel cells also can’t spontaneously burst into flames. A person would have to apply a flame to a fuel cell to ignite methanol, which is an alcohol. Presumably, security will take lighters and matches away from someone at the gate. Lithium-ion batteries in rare instances have blown up, but those instances have been alarming.
Fuel cell technology, though, isn’t easy and fuel cells have faced several delays. Lim says fuel cells will likely begin to come out in 2009. MTI is working with Samsung on fuel cells for phones.
Canada, China, Japan, and the UK already let passengers carry their nonexistent fuel cells onboard.”
http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9933408-54.html?tag=nefd.blgs
Government says new ‘carbon price’ will favour eco-friendly policy choices” goes the title of a front page article in todays Guardian, (Sat, 22/12/07).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/22/climatechange.carbonemissions
The second sentence of the article, by Patrick Wintour the Guardian’s political editor, goes onto say, “Ministers have been instructed to factor into their calculations a notional “carbon price” when making all policy and investment decisions covering transport, construction, housing, planning and energy”.
The article says that the carbon price will start at 25.50 pounds for 2007 and then rise. The implications for decisions are described by the UK’s climate change minister, Phil Woolas (they have had one for years), as, “If for instance a new power station is due to cost £1bn, but it will add £200m worth of carbon emissions, we will decide that the cost of the power station is £1.2bn, even though its cash price is £1bn. We are creating a new currency”.
As to whether there is much wiggle room or its just rhetoric this was the way it was going to be implemented according to the article, “It has also been agreed that every major Whitehall policy and investment decision will be monitored over the next year to check that policymakers are actually incorporating the shadow price of carbon”. However given the slippery skills of Canberra’s madarin cousins over in Whitehall it will be interesting as to whether they will embrace it or defeat it with, “that’s a brave decision minister…….”.
In relation to Christian’s note on banks looking for higher payback on their loans to account for the present value of money, here is a novel idea from Ireland.
http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/carrie2.pdf
Pretty strong opinion from the man. He calls ‘Australian strategy’ - rubbish !!! interesting…well, infact the truth!!!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/04/2051342.htm
For those that missed tonights 7:30 report on the ABC (including me) here is a link to the latest update on David Mills’ relocation to the US…including a couple of well timed quotes from the usual Australian suspects. Seems the US utilities aren’t afraid of parting with a few billion in the name of progress…
“While Australia gears up for new coal-fired power stations, the US has taken a dramatic turn - setting its sights on the sun. Two of America’s biggest power companies have unveiled plans for a multi-billion dollar expansion of solar power supply. And the man behind it all is an Australian scientist who tried and failed to be heard here.”
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2047734.htm
I have heard a number of views and I personally believe that a carbon tax would disturb the cheap economy balance boasted by the fossil fuel industry. I thought this balance shift would help the renwable industry.
But, looking at the proposed fuel tax in US, am afraid it may just have the opposite effect. It is mentioned that the tax money is going to be used in the development of road/mass transit and airport facilities. Atleast the development of mass transit is a worthy idea!!!!
When we are looking forward to social changes in travel pattern/mode, I get a feeling that the development of more facilities would encourage people to take up more and more of lengthy/extravagant travel than necesssary…..
What do you guys think about such a legislation??!!!
Reuters Article
The UK Conservative Party have just released a detailed report that amongst other things calls for emission reductions of at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, a zero waste society, feed-in tariffs and a ban on coal-fired power by 2020. And this is from the equivalent of the Liberal Party! It really highlights how far behind Australia is in the AGW debate.
The link to the full report is: http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=138484
Recent Comments