• Global Warming

David, Do yoou have a view on this? http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php/site/article/35/

It strikes me as a far better fusion process than the Tokamak, that requires the injection of radioactive tritium (sourced from a fission reactor) and that produces radioactive waste. This has the advantage that it only produces Xrays, and no radiation. The other advantage is that you can hook it up to a MHD type generator and lift the energy conversion efficiency well above the ancient steam cycle that must be used in the Tokamac. If you are so determined to play future music, this is a better tune.

Dalek

Coal Seam Methane  (CSM) and Global warming. News here is that Queensland will soon have 2GW of generation from CSM. Methane is CH₄ and  produces water vapour and some CO₂ when burnt. It can be used in combined cycle plant with a thermal efficiency of > 78%. Energy production costs are way below nuclear, the CO₂ emissions are less than those involved in construction, mining etc due to Uranium. There is a vast global resource of CSM. You cannot make bombs with it. The interesting thing is that the impetus for the development of this reaource has been hugely accelerated by the acceptance of the global warming hypothesis. Taken with Geothermal it leaves the only argument for nuclear the fact that you can use reactors for bomb making.

Dalek

Coal Seam Methane  (CSM) and Global warming. News here is that Queensland will soon have 2GW of generation from CSM. Methane is CH₄ and  produces water vapour and some CO₂ when burnt. It can be used in combined cycle plant with a thermal efficiency of > 78%. Energy production costs are way below nuclear, the CO₂ emissions are less than those involved in construction, mining etc due to Uranium. There is a vast global resource of CSM. You cannot make bombs with it. The interesting thing is that the impetus for the development of this reaource has been hugely accelerated by the acceptance of the global warming hypothesis. Taken with Geothermal it leaves the only argument for nuclear the fact that you can use reactors for bomb making.

On the basis of fairly limited data the USGS estimates that the world resource in place could be up to 210 tcm (7800 EJ).[318] For the conterminous United States, they estimate that the resource could be more than 20 tcm, with about 2.8 tcm recoverable with current technology. If we assume a similar ratio applies to the world as a whole, the recoverable resource would be 30 tcm or 1,110 EJ.

Coal contains about 80 percent more carbon per unit of energy than gas does, and oil contains about 40 percent more. Congressional Budget Office 2003: 11.

(Congressional Budget Office. 2003. The Economics of Climate Change: A Primer. Congress of the United States.)

David, Yep, the CO2 emissions from a CSM plant can be near enough to zero with CO2 sequestration back into the coal itself, assisted by the fact that the thermal efficiency of gas is nearly twice that of Coal and Nuclear.  Neat.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2006/06142perth_abs/abstracts/saghafi02.pdf

Perhaps you might like to bring "Bright Future" up to date?

Dalek.

David, Because CSM is higher in hydrogen you need to sequester a lot less CO₂ than you do for a pure carbon source, also because it is a gas you can operate your heat engine at a far higher temperature than you would use for the steam cycle that you must use for conventional nuclear or conventional coal. Work is being done on the use of pure oxygen to avoid the thermal loss due to nitrogen (and to avoid Co₂ emissions altogether). Again this benefits CSM more than coal.   The resource of CSM is not yet properly evaluated because people have not really been looking for it until recently. CSM also has the advantage that the sequestration medium is basically the same as the source. There are so many solutions out there, I find it difficult to understand why you and the conservatives want to build nukes.

BTW, remember me mentioning 3He ? It now appears that the US and Russia are about to start fighting over it:

Russia suspects US plans to monopolise fuel from moon

I would like to get this back on topic. There is litle point arguing about the minutae. It seems to me that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the climate is warming. There is room for argument about the rate and if there are "natural" cycles in play. 

There is also no doubt that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere has a warming effect, both theoretically and empirically. If the rate was slow and linear (100's of years) it would matter less from the human perspective. My concern is that there are very large positive feedback systems that could accellerate the process beyond our capacity to cope.

It seems to me that people who call themselves revolutionaries should be siezing the opportunity to change things not doing the opposite - lining up with every right wing nutter,pseudo scientist, scientists with agenda's who work for conservative think tanks, incumbent power generators and crazed old Prime ministers who want to nuke Indonesia, to make it safe for the white picket fence, before they die.

Dalek

The link below is New Scientist debunking the climate chage myths that LS so assiduously propagates. I beg Kezza'a indulgence in posting this link but it presents a host of other links that put the arguments very well. Far beyond the abilities of a lowly Dalek. I will understand (very well) if you Junk it.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn11462

He displays no genuine interest in debating in this thread. Rather, he just uses his time between coffee breaks to dash off another link with a prefatory one-line throwaway remark that invariably misrepresents my views and the views of others. There is no point giving any kind of 'benefit of the doubt' to someone like him - as there is no doubt that he isn't interested in debate. It's a waste of time.

And: Now, wait for the speedy reply from dalek to ensure that his is the first post seen on this thread. It will misrepresent me. It will contain a throwaway line plus a link, which we're all supposed to dutifully read - even though it's sent in by someone with no genuine interest in debating and someone who can barely conceal their hatred for those who support the overthrow of tyranny.

Barry

The documentary is available on You Tube in six parts:

Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSo2VSsDqsk

Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Venw45DNX5g

Part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRcIVBwrTVk

Part 4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWaKP2Dj7Xc

Part 5 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwQxCq59_g4

Part 6 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcRc_UuK5To

Oh come on David you must be able to do better than promote a Fox TV program.

 I can understand some of your complaints about the left, which you would term Pseudo left of course , but turning to such a right wing souce a FOX TV ?????

I don't always agree with the Bristish SWP but they have it just about right in this link.

http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-1/447/447_02_MediaLies.shtml

cyberman's attitude to evdience-based arguments that counter his own reminds me of the seventh-century Pope, Urban V111, who just wouldn't look through Galileo's telescope lest his world view be upset.

If you think FOX and Channel 4 are bad, just try Tariq Ali and John Pilger - "left-wingers" who openly suport the anti-democratic insurgency in Iraq.

It must be cosy only reading stuff that you have already decided is left-wing, rather than seeking out the widest possible sources as part of the concrete analysis of concrete things, and very reinforcing to have your prejudices confirmed over and over again. It saves you from the necessity to respond to the evidence.

Telescopes were dangerous (to reactionaries),

Barry

Oh come on David  Cyberman you must be able to do better than promote an article from a Fox TV program the Socialist Worker.   I can understand some of your complaints about the left bourgeois liberalism, which you would term Pseudo left right wing of course, but turning to such a right wing social fascist source as Fox TV  the SWP ?????

The post  from Dalek which originally occupied this space has been moved to our junk forum because it was no more than an abusive misrepresentation of what others in this thread have been arguing.   His removed post can be veiwed here:  http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/junk/702637367176/517456312651/

Comrade David,

I've always been curious about the term 'social fascists' as applied to the Trotskyite groups. I know they can be a bit of a pain at union meetings etc but that seems a bit strong.
I expect that you'll use Iraq to justify the term but it's been around since the days of the Spanish Civil War, and maybe even earlier. Do you really believe that the Trotskyite groups were in league with Franco as the Stalinists alleged at the time? And that there is a continuing right wing plot to promote fascism by publishing the Socialist Worker? I don't think the genuine UK fascists of the BNP would be too impressed by your argument, they'd have them up against the wall and shot at the first available opportunity! 

.....

I can understand the crossings out and changes if I were debating with someone like , say, John Howard; but, you are supposed to be a man of the left. I can't see any differences except that John Howard would have been a bit less hostile to the SWP. I don't agree with everything that the SWP are about, but there's no doubt that they are on the left, at least as the term is generally defined in the English language. If you asked anyone in the UK, where they are much better known that any similar leftist group in Australia, having established quite a bit of credibility during the Poll tax fights of the 90s, that's what anyone who has the slightest knowledge of politics will tell you.

Comrade Barry,

I think we've been through all this before. Science does look at the evidence. Scientists look both ways through all sorts of telescopes. In the last 20 years or more the scientific communty has been assessing and testing the evidence continually. I don't pretend to be able to come to any meaningful conclusion myself. I gave up smoking years ago on their say-so without understanding all the aguments. There is a consensus emerging, and I just trust them, the thousands of the world's climatic specialists, to get it right. Science always does in the end. But, lets just suppose that they've got it wrong. Cutting down emissions will do no harm at all. But on the other hand, if we think they've got it wrong, when they really haven't, then ignoring their advice will be catastrophic.

Hot rock power set to take off in SA. David, since you once asserted that this technology would be "infinitely expensive" could you please explain the following item. Dalek.

Hot rock power set to take off in SA

The pair's Paralana Energy Joint Venture has appointed Californian-based Global Power Solutions to advise on the flagship project, as well as other projects in Australia and Spain.

The joint venture has also approved the start of deep well design and the rig selection process.

"Based on our assessment of current specialist rig availability and project lead times, Paralana remains on track for Australia's first commercial geothermal electricity production - an initial electricity output of 7.5 megawatts - to the Beverley uranium mine," Petratherm managing director Terry Kallis said.

Hot rocks energy is a renewable energy source that extracts heat from subterranean granite by circulating water through them and flowing it into a geothermal power station.

Under a farm-in deal, Beach will earn an interest of 21 per cent of the joint venture via expenditure of $10 million, with an option to earn an additional 15 per cent through the expenditure of a further $20 million.

Global Power Solutions is a geothermal energy consultancy, which had a hand in more than half of the world's installed geothermal plants, representing over 5000 megawatts, of which the majority are in the US.

It will give technical oversight to the Paralana well design and drilling process, plus planning and engineering design work for the requisite power generation plant and the integration of the above and below ground works.

David your exact words were: "Geothermal energy is not free. You have to drill very deep and expensive holes to get to it. The deeper the resource, the more expensive. In fact most of the resource will only be accessible with the development of new technologies. In other words it is for the moment infinitely expensive." Nothing here about "Global Resource".

Drilling holes is one thing we do well. Even in the 1960's the US was drilling 6 ft diameter holes down in 30 days to 1000 ft for underground nuclear tesing. Deep hole drilling (300mm+ diam) for gas >15,000 ft - say 5000m is completely routine and is not "infinitely expensive".

Arthur your comparison from the sale of  Hazelwood to the Capex for a small gethermal plant is absurd, for a start the Industry rule of thumb for Capex for a new coal fired plant is $750:00/MW not $1.5M/MW so the ratio is even worse than you think.  (Hazelwood was privitised and sold in 1996 by the Kennet government) It is widely understood within the industry that the buyers paid about a 100% premium for the asset, what exactly is your point?

I do not wish to speculate on the finacial machinations behind "7.5MW of geothermal might be $100 million" but that number you have arrived at is totally absurd. ($13M/MW).  

As for OPEX for geothermal well the best I can come up with is about  $0:07/kWh this from http://hotrock.anu.edu.au/economics.htm

The modelling by ANU shows that geothermal is competitive from all aspects without any carbon tax. Now I know they are a bunch of effete academics (probably linked to the Gloabal Warming Wankers down the corridor) but they do good work just the same.

Dalek  

Dalek said:

Nothing here about "Global Resource".

Nothing about Australia either.

Dalek said:

Deep hole drilling (300mm+ diam) for gas >15,000 ft - say 5000m is completely routine and is not "infinitely expensive".

My understanding is that there are large regions of the world where you would need to go to much greater depths than that.

If I have underestimated our present drilling prowess and overestimated the depths required, I'm pleased to hear it.  I don't own shares in nuclear power and there is nothing at stake politically.  It  augurs well for the extensive exploitation of the resource in  the near future. You might like to check on what regions of the world now have accessible resources and the contribution it could make to meeting our energy needs. (Check Bright Future for estimates of these needs.)

I don't have the time or the interest myself, however, you might like to check out The Future of Geothermal Energyand gives us a report back. I notice they say "With a reasonable investment in R&D, EGScould provide 100 GWe or more of cost-competitive generating capacityin the next 50 years." (p17 0f 372). If true that would only meet about 10 per cent of current generating capacity in that country. If that is typical for the world as a whole we shouldn't get too excited just for the moment.