Here are a few links to video presentations about the promise of thorium-fuelled nuclear reactors. There's a bit of duplication but each has some unique aspects and they differ in style.
Joe Bonometti and Kirk Sorensen (Google Tech Talk via YouTube)
David LeBlanc (Google Tech Talk via YouTube)
Robert Hargraves (WMV video)
Oh, and look! Jim Hansen (a leading climate scientist from NASA) advocates the development of thorium reactor technologies in an open letter to his new President, Mr Obama.
Showing posts with label hopes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hopes. Show all posts
Sunday, 1 March 2009
What if the energy/climate crisis was solved?
The reality of Peak Oil is pretty much indisputable as far as I'm concerned. If we can't find an equivalent alternative energy source in a big hurry, there's no escaping that the world is going to change dramatically. That's the underlying premise of the Transition movement.
But what if we do come up with an alternative energy source? One which doesn't change the climate, which won't be as destructive to the landscape as coal mining, which doesn't require practically eternal waste management to avoid poisoning the biosphere, which is affordable and practical, and which can scale up fast enough to address the twin crises of Peak Oil and Global Warming?
It's an incredibly tall order. But I'm becoming increasingly hopeful about the possibility of one particular technology, which I've written about before: the thorium-fuelled molten salt fission reactor.
Environmentally-conscious people have an almost instinctive reaction against anything "nuclear", and I understand that. On the basis of long-lived radioactive waste alone I also agree with it, in respect to the current fleet of uranium-fuelled reactors. But the fact is that thorium-based reactors have been designed and even tested which don't suffer from any of the major drawbacks of uranium-based systems.
Features include:
- Abundant, stable, safe raw fuel (100% usable ore vs 0.7% usable from uranium)
- Passive reactor safety (cannot overheat, not pressurised, no complicated mechanical control system)
- Proliferation-resistant (in particular it produces no plutonium)
- Produces very small amounts of relatively short-lived waste (~300 years, certainly manageable)
- Can burn high-level waste from other reactors
- Simple enough to mass-produce in a factory and deliver on a truck
- Electricity probably cheaper than today's coal-based prices
It sounds so good, why wouldn't it have been done before? Well it actually was done before in the 60's and 70's, but the US at the time was more interested in creating plutonium for their weapons program. Hence the molten-salt reactor research program was shut down. Research has now restarted in eight or so countries, including the US, India, France and Japan. Incidentally, Australia has the world's largest reserves of thorium, followed by India.
There is a fairly real prospect of this kind of mass-produced, cheap, safe (enough) reactor technology being available within 15 or 20 years, with known fuel reserves sufficient to power humanity for several millennia.
So what if that came to pass?
Well... it would help. But it wouldn't be sufficient to solve the problems of over-population, destruction of ecosystems, resource depletion and so on. In some ways it could actually make them worse, by providing humanity with the means to continue on with its awful business as usual.
So even if we did solve the energy problem there'd still be plenty of reason to keep working on sustainability in general. That's probably the way I'll be approaching the Transition work - it's absolutely vital if we don't find a new energy source, and it's still hugely worthwhile even if we do.
But what if we do come up with an alternative energy source? One which doesn't change the climate, which won't be as destructive to the landscape as coal mining, which doesn't require practically eternal waste management to avoid poisoning the biosphere, which is affordable and practical, and which can scale up fast enough to address the twin crises of Peak Oil and Global Warming?
It's an incredibly tall order. But I'm becoming increasingly hopeful about the possibility of one particular technology, which I've written about before: the thorium-fuelled molten salt fission reactor.
Environmentally-conscious people have an almost instinctive reaction against anything "nuclear", and I understand that. On the basis of long-lived radioactive waste alone I also agree with it, in respect to the current fleet of uranium-fuelled reactors. But the fact is that thorium-based reactors have been designed and even tested which don't suffer from any of the major drawbacks of uranium-based systems.
Features include:
- Abundant, stable, safe raw fuel (100% usable ore vs 0.7% usable from uranium)
- Passive reactor safety (cannot overheat, not pressurised, no complicated mechanical control system)
- Proliferation-resistant (in particular it produces no plutonium)
- Produces very small amounts of relatively short-lived waste (~300 years, certainly manageable)
- Can burn high-level waste from other reactors
- Simple enough to mass-produce in a factory and deliver on a truck
- Electricity probably cheaper than today's coal-based prices
It sounds so good, why wouldn't it have been done before? Well it actually was done before in the 60's and 70's, but the US at the time was more interested in creating plutonium for their weapons program. Hence the molten-salt reactor research program was shut down. Research has now restarted in eight or so countries, including the US, India, France and Japan. Incidentally, Australia has the world's largest reserves of thorium, followed by India.
There is a fairly real prospect of this kind of mass-produced, cheap, safe (enough) reactor technology being available within 15 or 20 years, with known fuel reserves sufficient to power humanity for several millennia.
So what if that came to pass?
Well... it would help. But it wouldn't be sufficient to solve the problems of over-population, destruction of ecosystems, resource depletion and so on. In some ways it could actually make them worse, by providing humanity with the means to continue on with its awful business as usual.
So even if we did solve the energy problem there'd still be plenty of reason to keep working on sustainability in general. That's probably the way I'll be approaching the Transition work - it's absolutely vital if we don't find a new energy source, and it's still hugely worthwhile even if we do.
Transition
I've had a link for the Transition Culture website in the sidebar over there for ages, and for the Sunshine Coast Energy Action Centre, too. In case you've never clicked on them, I ought to mention that the Transition movement is all about preparing communities for a decreasing availability of oil. It originated in the UK but has started to spread around the globe. SEAC is at its heart a Transition initiative for the Sunshine Coast... but being about an hour's drive away from me it seemed rather contrary to the point for me to try and get involved in the wonderful work I hear they're doing up there.
It's beyond me to start something like that in my own area. And it's especially challenging here because Brisbane is nothing like the kind of conglomerate town and village structure of the UK and even the Sunshine Coast. It's one enormous sprawl, with a big central city council. Not on the scale of somewhere like Los Angeles, but still big enough.
So I've been watching and waiting to see how a Transition initiative might get off the ground in Brisbane, and finally it has started to happen. I had the pleasure this morning of meeting with some of those involved in the early stages of a Brisbane transition "hub", which will play a role in fostering, supporting and connecting transition groups all around the city. (That's my paraphrase, not actually endorsed by anybody.)
Not surprisingly, this group has been brought into existence through the work of people who are already recognised for their efforts along parallel lines - people from FoodConnect (a local CSA cooperative) and the actively green communities based in some of Brisbane's inner suburbs. Links have been established with SEAC and, it seems, with a similar group based in Sydney.
At this stage there's a lot of "networking" going on, literally finding out who's doing what around the city and joining the dots. Apparently there's a very handy permaculture gardener who lives in Bald Hills but tills the soil down in Morningside. I'm hoping to make their acquaintance in the near future.
This is all very welcome as far as I'm concerned. The quiet on this blog has reflected the lull in my life with regards this kind of community engagement. Hopefully the opportunity I've been waiting for has arrived.
It's beyond me to start something like that in my own area. And it's especially challenging here because Brisbane is nothing like the kind of conglomerate town and village structure of the UK and even the Sunshine Coast. It's one enormous sprawl, with a big central city council. Not on the scale of somewhere like Los Angeles, but still big enough.
So I've been watching and waiting to see how a Transition initiative might get off the ground in Brisbane, and finally it has started to happen. I had the pleasure this morning of meeting with some of those involved in the early stages of a Brisbane transition "hub", which will play a role in fostering, supporting and connecting transition groups all around the city. (That's my paraphrase, not actually endorsed by anybody.)
Not surprisingly, this group has been brought into existence through the work of people who are already recognised for their efforts along parallel lines - people from FoodConnect (a local CSA cooperative) and the actively green communities based in some of Brisbane's inner suburbs. Links have been established with SEAC and, it seems, with a similar group based in Sydney.
At this stage there's a lot of "networking" going on, literally finding out who's doing what around the city and joining the dots. Apparently there's a very handy permaculture gardener who lives in Bald Hills but tills the soil down in Morningside. I'm hoping to make their acquaintance in the near future.
This is all very welcome as far as I'm concerned. The quiet on this blog has reflected the lull in my life with regards this kind of community engagement. Hopefully the opportunity I've been waiting for has arrived.
Sunday, 4 January 2009
Too much to say
Ironically, it's been quiet here because there's too much to talk about. Or maybe it's because there's been too much talk about.
Since I started doing this the world's attention has been brought quite sharply to bear on most of the issues that concern me. There's so much high profile discussion and activity going on that my little blog seems rather superfluous. Which is great!
I just want to highlight a couple of local bits of good news.
1. Brisbane folk are now habitually conservative with their water. We managed to meet the 140L/person/day target under extreme restrictions and even now that the dams are heading towards 50% capacity we're still sitting well under the 170L revised target. I just read my water meter for the first time in 201 days, and our total household usage over that period averaged only 194L per day - actually less than the previous six months when we were watching like a hawk.
2. Politics is (generally) swinging in the right direction for sustainable civilisation. The election of Obama is of course globally significant, but even here at home we've seen the Traveston Dam project put on hold, willingness to regulate agriculture in order to protect the Great Barrier Reef, plans for floating desalination plants shelved, proactive measures from government to promote energy efficiency and GHG reductions, community gardens... heaps of stuff.
3. The combination of environmental/sustainability concerns and the economic crisis is driving a swing away from "consumerism". I so hate being thought of as a "consumer". I want to be a "contributor". But anyway, it seems that I'm far from alone in my back yard garden tinkering, chook raising, material recycling and "waste not, want not" attitude. Newspaper articles are even using words like "frugality" in a positive lifestyle sense!
So here's hoping that 2009 continues in this trend. There will certainly be bad news this year (I predict a sudden resurgence in the price of oil at some stage, going even higher than the peaks of last year) but there is also an atmosphere of hope. As I heard it said on a BBC radio interview yesterday, a crisis is an opportunity for change.
Since I started doing this the world's attention has been brought quite sharply to bear on most of the issues that concern me. There's so much high profile discussion and activity going on that my little blog seems rather superfluous. Which is great!
I just want to highlight a couple of local bits of good news.
1. Brisbane folk are now habitually conservative with their water. We managed to meet the 140L/person/day target under extreme restrictions and even now that the dams are heading towards 50% capacity we're still sitting well under the 170L revised target. I just read my water meter for the first time in 201 days, and our total household usage over that period averaged only 194L per day - actually less than the previous six months when we were watching like a hawk.
2. Politics is (generally) swinging in the right direction for sustainable civilisation. The election of Obama is of course globally significant, but even here at home we've seen the Traveston Dam project put on hold, willingness to regulate agriculture in order to protect the Great Barrier Reef, plans for floating desalination plants shelved, proactive measures from government to promote energy efficiency and GHG reductions, community gardens... heaps of stuff.
3. The combination of environmental/sustainability concerns and the economic crisis is driving a swing away from "consumerism". I so hate being thought of as a "consumer". I want to be a "contributor". But anyway, it seems that I'm far from alone in my back yard garden tinkering, chook raising, material recycling and "waste not, want not" attitude. Newspaper articles are even using words like "frugality" in a positive lifestyle sense!
So here's hoping that 2009 continues in this trend. There will certainly be bad news this year (I predict a sudden resurgence in the price of oil at some stage, going even higher than the peaks of last year) but there is also an atmosphere of hope. As I heard it said on a BBC radio interview yesterday, a crisis is an opportunity for change.
Saturday, 15 November 2008
Welcome to my backyard
Some pics for a change.
First up, my mostly-recycled chook pen... with a little addition on the near side which I'll get back to in a minute. The far end is the existing fence. Rear-left is a piece of lattice which some previous owner left lying around this place. Rear-right and the lower half of the front and front-left are rigid mesh fence pieces Mr S had in surplus. The gateway on the right used to be parts of Mr S's neighbour's verandah, while the gate frame itself is cut down from a wardrobe door which I hated. Underneath most of it are old hardwood sleepers which were somebody else's idea of garden borders. The only significant new material was the chicken wire to fill in the gaps above the fence panels and in the gate section.
The hutch doesn't look like much in this pic but by damn it was the hardest part of the job, and is also made from recycled materials. I'll post on it another day.
Right down there in front of the home for chooks is the home for my Jericho beans. Six little sprouts now have a chook-proof, well-nourished, sunny spot with lots of opportunity to climb. You can see in the previous pic the passionfruit vine which has its roots in the neighbour's yard. I'm enjoying that for now but will probably cut it back later on to make a bit more room for the beans. More recycled fence panel, a bit of the wood panel from that hated wardrobe door and even some old White Pages went into the construction of this bit. I confess to buying the compost from the hardware megastore today, but at least it's organic.
And finally, some proof that my back yard is actually capable of supporting some kind of useful plant life: our herb garden. Featured are basil, parsley, chives, chillis, rosemary, sage, marjoram, chickory, spring onions and - if you zoom in and look really carefully - a solitary coriander leaf. Yeah, the garden hasn't yet proved it can support coriander. We have some oregano on stand-by to take its place.
First up, my mostly-recycled chook pen... with a little addition on the near side which I'll get back to in a minute. The far end is the existing fence. Rear-left is a piece of lattice which some previous owner left lying around this place. Rear-right and the lower half of the front and front-left are rigid mesh fence pieces Mr S had in surplus. The gateway on the right used to be parts of Mr S's neighbour's verandah, while the gate frame itself is cut down from a wardrobe door which I hated. Underneath most of it are old hardwood sleepers which were somebody else's idea of garden borders. The only significant new material was the chicken wire to fill in the gaps above the fence panels and in the gate section.
The hutch doesn't look like much in this pic but by damn it was the hardest part of the job, and is also made from recycled materials. I'll post on it another day.
Right down there in front of the home for chooks is the home for my Jericho beans. Six little sprouts now have a chook-proof, well-nourished, sunny spot with lots of opportunity to climb. You can see in the previous pic the passionfruit vine which has its roots in the neighbour's yard. I'm enjoying that for now but will probably cut it back later on to make a bit more room for the beans. More recycled fence panel, a bit of the wood panel from that hated wardrobe door and even some old White Pages went into the construction of this bit. I confess to buying the compost from the hardware megastore today, but at least it's organic.
And finally, some proof that my back yard is actually capable of supporting some kind of useful plant life: our herb garden. Featured are basil, parsley, chives, chillis, rosemary, sage, marjoram, chickory, spring onions and - if you zoom in and look really carefully - a solitary coriander leaf. Yeah, the garden hasn't yet proved it can support coriander. We have some oregano on stand-by to take its place.
Saturday, 31 May 2008
More good news about slime
I am frequently critical of "biofuels" technology because of issues like poor (or negative) payback in energy terms and the competition for food production and so on. Once or twice I have mentioned algae as a possible alternative "crop" which may be able to capture solar energy in a chemical form that's suitable for production of liquid fuels. Well, the prospects for a bright slimy green future just got better.
A mob in the US has announced that they have developed a process for producing gasoline from algae, using wastewater to support the algal growth. The key breakthrough is that the fuel they're making is chemically identical to the stuff that we put in our cars today rather than "biodiesel": this makes it a potential direct substitute fuel requiring no change to existing fuel processing and handling systems and no change to our engines.
Of course I'm still going to advocate radical efficiency improvements a la Amory Lovins, but if this technology turns out to be viable and scalable without significant drawbacks then it's going to make a huge difference.
Read more via this link.
About time I could tag a post with "hopes".
A mob in the US has announced that they have developed a process for producing gasoline from algae, using wastewater to support the algal growth. The key breakthrough is that the fuel they're making is chemically identical to the stuff that we put in our cars today rather than "biodiesel": this makes it a potential direct substitute fuel requiring no change to existing fuel processing and handling systems and no change to our engines.
Of course I'm still going to advocate radical efficiency improvements a la Amory Lovins, but if this technology turns out to be viable and scalable without significant drawbacks then it's going to make a huge difference.
Read more via this link.
About time I could tag a post with "hopes".
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
Fad or Fundament?
Have you noticed that the world is changing fast? For once I'm not talking about the biosphere - it's human society and politics I mean. Words based on "environment" and "sustainable" are starting to pervade the mass media, turning up in just about every political message at all levels of government and peppered through corporate communications. Advertising budgets are increasingly being spent on pointing out the "green" attributes of some product or service.
It seems that environmental groups have succeeded in using the greenhouse effect as a kind of lever to shift the massive inertia of social consciousness and direct it towards the long-term liveability of this planet. And the result has not just been all talk.
There are some great local examples, starting with the response to the water shortage of recent years. Not only have the residents of south-east Queensland succeeded in reducing their average per-capita consumption to one of the lowest rates in the developed world, we've maintained that discipline even with the rain of the past two months more than doubling the amount of water in our dams. Moreover, the sentiment of the majority of people I've spoken to is in line with official policy which says that conservative water use has become a permanent feature of life in this region!
Continuing with the theme of sustainable water use, one of the two main candidates standing for election to the office of Lord Mayor of Brisbane in a few weeks time is making a very big deal of his policies for minimising water wastage from leaking pipes and increasing the rebates for people who connect rainwater tanks for internal use in the home.
On the other side of politics, the incumbent mayor is earning a rare cheer from me for the spirit behind his latest announcement of funding to assist residents equip their homes with instantaneous energy meters of the type I've written about here in the past. I'm not totally thrilled with that particular approach (I'd rather see a loan/rent scheme) but I am thrilled with the stated objective of reducing the city's electricity consumption.
Both candidates are straining to one-up each other when it comes to public transport. Brisbane isn't large enough to have any direct control over railways but the next few years appear certain to see a very large number of new natural-gas powered buses on the city's roads and an expansion of the CityCat ferry fleet. Mr Incumbent is also touting a spending spree on bicycle paths and facilities.
I offer these examples as evidence of a major and accelerating shift in the public awareness of and concern for sustainability. I've written in the past about my belief that changing values is what brings about changes in behaviour, and I'm starting to become hopeful that values are indeed shifting in the right direction. Heck, I've even listened to speeches from federal parliament this week exhorting the nation to embrace the aboriginal peoples' attitude towards "the land", seeing oneself as literally a part of the environment and being always mindful of the need to care for it.
The question is whether this "trend" will continue. Are we really witnessing the early stages of the transformation of our wasteful, destructive, economically and ecologically irrational society into a responsible, efficient, ecologically-integrated civilisation with advanced culture and traditional wisdom as well as high technology? Well I hope so... because that's what it's probably going to take to avoid catastrophe.
So here's a litmus test for us to monitor our progress as a nation. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) published a report in December 2007 which predicts that, on the basis of the policies and trends in effect at that time, Australia's energy use will grow by 1.6% per year through to 2030 (that's up about 44% compared to today) with around 92% of that energy being sourced from fossil fuels. Let me suggest that if these projections match our future reality, then we're in very big trouble. But...
If society is in fact changing, embracing values of sustainability, we will necessarily see our energy use grow by a smaller amount than predicted and possibly even declining by 2030. We must also see an major decrease in the proportion of our energy derived from fossil fuels. I'll be keep an eye out for future releases like this one from ABARE to see where we're headed.
In the meantime, we all need to support those politicians who are promoting reduced energy consumption, increased efficiency and a transition to renewable energy sources.
It seems that environmental groups have succeeded in using the greenhouse effect as a kind of lever to shift the massive inertia of social consciousness and direct it towards the long-term liveability of this planet. And the result has not just been all talk.
There are some great local examples, starting with the response to the water shortage of recent years. Not only have the residents of south-east Queensland succeeded in reducing their average per-capita consumption to one of the lowest rates in the developed world, we've maintained that discipline even with the rain of the past two months more than doubling the amount of water in our dams. Moreover, the sentiment of the majority of people I've spoken to is in line with official policy which says that conservative water use has become a permanent feature of life in this region!
Continuing with the theme of sustainable water use, one of the two main candidates standing for election to the office of Lord Mayor of Brisbane in a few weeks time is making a very big deal of his policies for minimising water wastage from leaking pipes and increasing the rebates for people who connect rainwater tanks for internal use in the home.
On the other side of politics, the incumbent mayor is earning a rare cheer from me for the spirit behind his latest announcement of funding to assist residents equip their homes with instantaneous energy meters of the type I've written about here in the past. I'm not totally thrilled with that particular approach (I'd rather see a loan/rent scheme) but I am thrilled with the stated objective of reducing the city's electricity consumption.
Both candidates are straining to one-up each other when it comes to public transport. Brisbane isn't large enough to have any direct control over railways but the next few years appear certain to see a very large number of new natural-gas powered buses on the city's roads and an expansion of the CityCat ferry fleet. Mr Incumbent is also touting a spending spree on bicycle paths and facilities.
I offer these examples as evidence of a major and accelerating shift in the public awareness of and concern for sustainability. I've written in the past about my belief that changing values is what brings about changes in behaviour, and I'm starting to become hopeful that values are indeed shifting in the right direction. Heck, I've even listened to speeches from federal parliament this week exhorting the nation to embrace the aboriginal peoples' attitude towards "the land", seeing oneself as literally a part of the environment and being always mindful of the need to care for it.
The question is whether this "trend" will continue. Are we really witnessing the early stages of the transformation of our wasteful, destructive, economically and ecologically irrational society into a responsible, efficient, ecologically-integrated civilisation with advanced culture and traditional wisdom as well as high technology? Well I hope so... because that's what it's probably going to take to avoid catastrophe.
So here's a litmus test for us to monitor our progress as a nation. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) published a report in December 2007 which predicts that, on the basis of the policies and trends in effect at that time, Australia's energy use will grow by 1.6% per year through to 2030 (that's up about 44% compared to today) with around 92% of that energy being sourced from fossil fuels. Let me suggest that if these projections match our future reality, then we're in very big trouble. But...
If society is in fact changing, embracing values of sustainability, we will necessarily see our energy use grow by a smaller amount than predicted and possibly even declining by 2030. We must also see an major decrease in the proportion of our energy derived from fossil fuels. I'll be keep an eye out for future releases like this one from ABARE to see where we're headed.
In the meantime, we all need to support those politicians who are promoting reduced energy consumption, increased efficiency and a transition to renewable energy sources.
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Hope for Hydrogen as a Fuel?
Ages ago I posted something about hydrogen, with the basic point being made that hydrogen is not an energy source but an energy carrier and that the fundamental problem with the idea of using hydrogen to power cars etc is that you have to put more energy into making it than you can get out of burning it.
Today though, there is some positive news. Researchers have been able to harness natural microbial action (ie bacteria which munch on organic matter and fart hydrogen instead of methane) and give the process a major efficiency boost with the addition of a small amount of electricity. The result was that the hydrogen released carried between two and six times as much energy as the electricity they had to put in to the system. (The rest of the energy was originally in the organic matter, captured from the Sun.)
At first glance this is potentially a great result, especially compared with biofuels as we know them today which apparently consume more fuel in their production than they provide as the end product. Microbes could munch on all kinds of organic waste and release energy-carrying hydrogen for us to utilise. The process has a much higher efficiency, potentially transforming what was originally solar energy into something we can use in cars.
Next steps: make the process a lot faster. At the moment it's too slow to be useful on any practical scale. But at least it's some positive news.
Today though, there is some positive news. Researchers have been able to harness natural microbial action (ie bacteria which munch on organic matter and fart hydrogen instead of methane) and give the process a major efficiency boost with the addition of a small amount of electricity. The result was that the hydrogen released carried between two and six times as much energy as the electricity they had to put in to the system. (The rest of the energy was originally in the organic matter, captured from the Sun.)
At first glance this is potentially a great result, especially compared with biofuels as we know them today which apparently consume more fuel in their production than they provide as the end product. Microbes could munch on all kinds of organic waste and release energy-carrying hydrogen for us to utilise. The process has a much higher efficiency, potentially transforming what was originally solar energy into something we can use in cars.
Next steps: make the process a lot faster. At the moment it's too slow to be useful on any practical scale. But at least it's some positive news.
Wednesday, 26 September 2007
Reflections on the Climate Change Forum
Many thanks to all who attended last night's forum at the Chermside library, hosted by BNCWAG. There were around seventy people including the group members and the politicians which means fifty or more responded to our invitation.
We had five politicians participating:
- Wayne Swan, ALP (current member for Lilley)
- Simon Kean-Hammerson, Greens (candidate for Lilley)
- Andrew Bartlett, Democrats (senate representative for Qld)
- Larissa Waters, Greens (senate candidate for Qld)
- Phil Johnson, Climate Change Coalition (senate candidate for Qld)
In some ways I felt it was a little unbalanced to have two Greens candidates on the panel, but I guess it's representative of their concern for the issue of climate change that they would consider it worthwhile to spend their time with us.
We opened with Dr Trevor Berrill's presentation which appeared to be well accepted by everyone present, including the politicians. Trevor did a brilliant job of setting the context for the night, with an emphasis on climate change as part of a broader concern for sustainability. He brought the issue home with a look at the local impacts and a call for local responses.
Mr Swan's political experience and professionalism is immediately obvious and he has an engaging speaking style - a combination which gives him an edge in keeping people's attention while he talks. I interpreted his position (and by extension the position of the ALP) to be that although climate change is the single most urgent issue facing humanity, it's not important enough to take any action which might harm the Australian economy. Unlike the Liberal party they've announced a target for GHG reductions by 2050 - I think it's 60% below year 2000 levels, based on the recommendations of the Stern report from the UK. But they are refusing to say anything about shorter-term targets until their own economic advice comes through from an analysis which is currently underway.
Mr Bartlett is somewhat more softly-spoken, with the air of somebody who weighs his words carefully before he permits them to become speech. A serious but not sombre man who earned a warm reaction from the audience for his assessment of "clean coal" as a marketing term chosen more for its emotive effect than its accuracy. As he pointed out, "less-dirty coal" is more truthful but doesn't have the same ring to it. And although I can't recall many specific policy details I gained the firm impression that this thoughtful bloke represents a party that's genuinely interested in the advancement of humanity in an ethical, prosperous and sustainable fashion.
Mr Kean-Hammerson was the third speaker, and I mean no disrespect when I say that he did not appear to be very practised in the art of public presentation. The Greens policies have been online since March so there's not much to say in that regard other than to suggest you go and look them up if you aren't familiar with them. With regard to climate change specifically and sustainability in general, I suspect that my own vision and values are more closely aligned with the Greens than with the other "major" parties. I'm not entirely sure I'd be comfortable with a Green majority in parliament but their influence, especially in the Senate, is welcome. To get back to Mr Kean-Hammerson individually, I was fascinated by the insight gained through his childhood in Kenya (I think it was Kenya, please correct me if needed) with regards to social and industrial development. If you're a voter in the Lilley electorate, try and find an opportunity to speak with this man and get to know him a little better.
The introduction of our fourth speaker marked a small milestone in history. The Climate Change Coalition was only registered as a political party three weeks ago and last night was the first public address by Mr Johnson, who is standing for election to the Senate. As you can infer from their name they have a fairly focused agenda. Mr Johnson has a background as a professional in the health sciences and acquits himself well in front of an audience. The sceptic in me rates the party's election prospects as poor, but I'm a bit inclined to give Mr Johnson my primary vote as a statement of support for his policy objectives.
Ms Waters had the closing statement and an opportunity to repeat the Greens key messages. A 30-year-old environmental lawyer with a somewhat vivacious style, she pressed the case for Greens seats in the Senate as the only way to break the Liberal/National coalition's influence in government even if Kevin Rudd is successful in his bid for the Prime Minister's office. It's an argument that bears some serious consideration.
Now to try and summarise some of the audience's questions and the responses as best my recollection allows.
A challenge was made regarding the accuracy of the term "clean coal". Unsurprisingly four out of five candidates agreed that it was an oxymoron while Mr Swan stuck to the party line in stressing the belief that coal-sourced power is essential for Australia's economy in the foreseeable future.
The candidates were asked whether any of them were brave enough to face the public and urge us to change our consumptive behaviour in the interests of efficiency and sustainability. The most memorable response came from Ms Waters who declared that she tells people not to buy things they don't need because it won't make them happy and it harms the environment.
Mr Swan was challenged regarding the relative importance of climate change versus the economy. His response was the standard ALP cake-and-eat-it line with reference to the Stern report and the need to wait for the results of their own analysis before committing to any "rash" actions. I understand the need for a large party like the ALP to be cautious with their policy development and disclosure but I can't avoid the impression that they consider the possibility of recession to be worse than the predicted effects of climate change. If that's not true, the ALP needs to do a better job of communicating it.
An insightful question came from none other than Doone Wyborne of Geodynamics fame - the company which is attempting to develop the hot rock geothermal resource in South Australia. He asked about the parties' stance on population management. Unfortunately I wasn't able to listen to all of the responses but I did catch Mr Bartlett's comment that he wasn't a fan of "steady-state economics" but saw economic growth within a stable population as being necessary to alleviate poverty. Mr Swan expressed concern about the social consequences of a reducing population, advocating instead a long-term policy of "replacement", ie zero population growth. Mr Kean-Hammerson described a conversation with an African villager in which numerous children were seen as a necessary component of family life at least partly for their capacity to do work such as water carrying: the provision of electricity to perform such practical tasks would, it was claimed, reduce the incentive to bear more children.
I also took the opportunity to ask a question myself. It was prompted by Malcolm Turnbull's comment about the prospect of achieving a global zero-emissions electricity sector sometime this century and based on my belief that values drive behaviour. The first part of the question was directed towards Dr Berrill: is it feasible? His answer, essentially, was yes - provided we're all bloody serious about achieving it. The second part was for the politicians and all I needed was a yes/no answer. "Do you dare to envision a society like that?"
I was pretty sure that the Greens and the Climate Change Coalition would answer in the affirmative. The Democrats I had hope in. But I was concerned that the ALP - in reality the only party with a chance of wresting control from the nuclear-bent Liberals - would prevaricate or maybe even deny the possibility that an advanced technical society could achieve balance with nature. If the ALP wasn't even considering a zero-emissions future then the fight for climate action in the next few years would be a difficult one indeed.
To my delight, every one of the candidates including Mr Swan delivered an unqualified "yes" in response. I am yet hopeful for the future of human civilisation.
We had five politicians participating:
- Wayne Swan, ALP (current member for Lilley)
- Simon Kean-Hammerson, Greens (candidate for Lilley)
- Andrew Bartlett, Democrats (senate representative for Qld)
- Larissa Waters, Greens (senate candidate for Qld)
- Phil Johnson, Climate Change Coalition (senate candidate for Qld)
In some ways I felt it was a little unbalanced to have two Greens candidates on the panel, but I guess it's representative of their concern for the issue of climate change that they would consider it worthwhile to spend their time with us.
We opened with Dr Trevor Berrill's presentation which appeared to be well accepted by everyone present, including the politicians. Trevor did a brilliant job of setting the context for the night, with an emphasis on climate change as part of a broader concern for sustainability. He brought the issue home with a look at the local impacts and a call for local responses.
Mr Swan's political experience and professionalism is immediately obvious and he has an engaging speaking style - a combination which gives him an edge in keeping people's attention while he talks. I interpreted his position (and by extension the position of the ALP) to be that although climate change is the single most urgent issue facing humanity, it's not important enough to take any action which might harm the Australian economy. Unlike the Liberal party they've announced a target for GHG reductions by 2050 - I think it's 60% below year 2000 levels, based on the recommendations of the Stern report from the UK. But they are refusing to say anything about shorter-term targets until their own economic advice comes through from an analysis which is currently underway.
Mr Bartlett is somewhat more softly-spoken, with the air of somebody who weighs his words carefully before he permits them to become speech. A serious but not sombre man who earned a warm reaction from the audience for his assessment of "clean coal" as a marketing term chosen more for its emotive effect than its accuracy. As he pointed out, "less-dirty coal" is more truthful but doesn't have the same ring to it. And although I can't recall many specific policy details I gained the firm impression that this thoughtful bloke represents a party that's genuinely interested in the advancement of humanity in an ethical, prosperous and sustainable fashion.
Mr Kean-Hammerson was the third speaker, and I mean no disrespect when I say that he did not appear to be very practised in the art of public presentation. The Greens policies have been online since March so there's not much to say in that regard other than to suggest you go and look them up if you aren't familiar with them. With regard to climate change specifically and sustainability in general, I suspect that my own vision and values are more closely aligned with the Greens than with the other "major" parties. I'm not entirely sure I'd be comfortable with a Green majority in parliament but their influence, especially in the Senate, is welcome. To get back to Mr Kean-Hammerson individually, I was fascinated by the insight gained through his childhood in Kenya (I think it was Kenya, please correct me if needed) with regards to social and industrial development. If you're a voter in the Lilley electorate, try and find an opportunity to speak with this man and get to know him a little better.
The introduction of our fourth speaker marked a small milestone in history. The Climate Change Coalition was only registered as a political party three weeks ago and last night was the first public address by Mr Johnson, who is standing for election to the Senate. As you can infer from their name they have a fairly focused agenda. Mr Johnson has a background as a professional in the health sciences and acquits himself well in front of an audience. The sceptic in me rates the party's election prospects as poor, but I'm a bit inclined to give Mr Johnson my primary vote as a statement of support for his policy objectives.
Ms Waters had the closing statement and an opportunity to repeat the Greens key messages. A 30-year-old environmental lawyer with a somewhat vivacious style, she pressed the case for Greens seats in the Senate as the only way to break the Liberal/National coalition's influence in government even if Kevin Rudd is successful in his bid for the Prime Minister's office. It's an argument that bears some serious consideration.
Now to try and summarise some of the audience's questions and the responses as best my recollection allows.
A challenge was made regarding the accuracy of the term "clean coal". Unsurprisingly four out of five candidates agreed that it was an oxymoron while Mr Swan stuck to the party line in stressing the belief that coal-sourced power is essential for Australia's economy in the foreseeable future.
The candidates were asked whether any of them were brave enough to face the public and urge us to change our consumptive behaviour in the interests of efficiency and sustainability. The most memorable response came from Ms Waters who declared that she tells people not to buy things they don't need because it won't make them happy and it harms the environment.
Mr Swan was challenged regarding the relative importance of climate change versus the economy. His response was the standard ALP cake-and-eat-it line with reference to the Stern report and the need to wait for the results of their own analysis before committing to any "rash" actions. I understand the need for a large party like the ALP to be cautious with their policy development and disclosure but I can't avoid the impression that they consider the possibility of recession to be worse than the predicted effects of climate change. If that's not true, the ALP needs to do a better job of communicating it.
An insightful question came from none other than Doone Wyborne of Geodynamics fame - the company which is attempting to develop the hot rock geothermal resource in South Australia. He asked about the parties' stance on population management. Unfortunately I wasn't able to listen to all of the responses but I did catch Mr Bartlett's comment that he wasn't a fan of "steady-state economics" but saw economic growth within a stable population as being necessary to alleviate poverty. Mr Swan expressed concern about the social consequences of a reducing population, advocating instead a long-term policy of "replacement", ie zero population growth. Mr Kean-Hammerson described a conversation with an African villager in which numerous children were seen as a necessary component of family life at least partly for their capacity to do work such as water carrying: the provision of electricity to perform such practical tasks would, it was claimed, reduce the incentive to bear more children.
I also took the opportunity to ask a question myself. It was prompted by Malcolm Turnbull's comment about the prospect of achieving a global zero-emissions electricity sector sometime this century and based on my belief that values drive behaviour. The first part of the question was directed towards Dr Berrill: is it feasible? His answer, essentially, was yes - provided we're all bloody serious about achieving it. The second part was for the politicians and all I needed was a yes/no answer. "Do you dare to envision a society like that?"
I was pretty sure that the Greens and the Climate Change Coalition would answer in the affirmative. The Democrats I had hope in. But I was concerned that the ALP - in reality the only party with a chance of wresting control from the nuclear-bent Liberals - would prevaricate or maybe even deny the possibility that an advanced technical society could achieve balance with nature. If the ALP wasn't even considering a zero-emissions future then the fight for climate action in the next few years would be a difficult one indeed.
To my delight, every one of the candidates including Mr Swan delivered an unqualified "yes" in response. I am yet hopeful for the future of human civilisation.
Thursday, 28 June 2007
And now for something completely different
Chris Rhodes has come across some alternative theories about the origin of oil and natural gas, which if correct would somewhat defuse the peak oil time bomb.
Check it out here.
Check it out here.
Wednesday, 27 June 2007
Is it just me, or did the world change?
It's only been about three months since I committed myself to the cause of "sustainability". It was largely a response to the despair I found myself sinking into as I was bombarded with bad news about climate change, energy depletion and ecological disaster. Immediately I was stepping outside of my comfort zone and feeling somewhat exposed, a "tall poppy" as we say. In comparison to my regular circle of family, friends and colleagues I suspect I quickly became the most extreme greenie among them.
Such was the initial shock that my own dear wife soon started referring to me as an "eco nazi". It was at least partly deserved - hopefully I'm a little more gracious now about the occasional light left on or a plastic bottle accidentally placed in the landfill bin instead of the recycling - but it helped reinforce my feeling that I was forging new territory.
There months later it feels like nothing of the sort. I've discovered so many people, both online and in real life, who share similar concerns and values but who are doing a far better job of applying those values in their lives and promoting them throughout the community. SBS did their "Eco House Challenge" program, and the ABC has just started "Carbon Cops". Four Corners this week focused on how a very significant chunk of Australia's GHG emissions could be cut through improved energy-efficiency in homes, except that the government appears to be refusing and even blocking action in that direction. Brisbane City Council is set to at least acknowledge the majority of the points raised by a task force report into climate change and peak oil, even if they're watering down their commitment to action on the more politically-sensitive recommendations. There are independent groups and programs springing up all over the place all aimed at reducing GHG emissions, improving energy efficiency, decreasing energy dependence, and so on.
But it was a kind comment by Crazy Mumma this week in response to one of my earlier posts that finally led me to realise that I only thought I was going it alone because I was looking in the wrong direction. Instead of comparing myself to where I've come from I should be looking at where I'm headed, and it turns out there are a whole lot of people there already. Just check out the list of other Aussie bloggers on her site!
In the end I find myself reassured and remotivated. Yes, we're facing a crisis (or three), but it appears that people the world over are getting involved with their communities and actually being effective in bringing about positive change in individuals and entire societies.
That's gotta be a good sign for our prospects in 2050.
Such was the initial shock that my own dear wife soon started referring to me as an "eco nazi". It was at least partly deserved - hopefully I'm a little more gracious now about the occasional light left on or a plastic bottle accidentally placed in the landfill bin instead of the recycling - but it helped reinforce my feeling that I was forging new territory.
There months later it feels like nothing of the sort. I've discovered so many people, both online and in real life, who share similar concerns and values but who are doing a far better job of applying those values in their lives and promoting them throughout the community. SBS did their "Eco House Challenge" program, and the ABC has just started "Carbon Cops". Four Corners this week focused on how a very significant chunk of Australia's GHG emissions could be cut through improved energy-efficiency in homes, except that the government appears to be refusing and even blocking action in that direction. Brisbane City Council is set to at least acknowledge the majority of the points raised by a task force report into climate change and peak oil, even if they're watering down their commitment to action on the more politically-sensitive recommendations. There are independent groups and programs springing up all over the place all aimed at reducing GHG emissions, improving energy efficiency, decreasing energy dependence, and so on.
But it was a kind comment by Crazy Mumma this week in response to one of my earlier posts that finally led me to realise that I only thought I was going it alone because I was looking in the wrong direction. Instead of comparing myself to where I've come from I should be looking at where I'm headed, and it turns out there are a whole lot of people there already. Just check out the list of other Aussie bloggers on her site!
In the end I find myself reassured and remotivated. Yes, we're facing a crisis (or three), but it appears that people the world over are getting involved with their communities and actually being effective in bringing about positive change in individuals and entire societies.
That's gotta be a good sign for our prospects in 2050.
Recovering oil from plastics... in the microwave
Just a quick post before I get started with work for the day.
New Scientist has an article online about a new technique for extracting hydrocarbons (ie, oil) from waste plastics and rubber and the like. Essentially, it just gets cooked in a special microwave which is tuned to the specific frequencies of the hydrocarbon molecules. They heat up, evaporate, and get sucked into a condenser which collects them back into liquid oil.
They don't give any information about how much energy is used in the process compared to how much energy we can extract from the oil (I'm guessing it runs at a loss) but in the long term this approach might have two benefits that I can see.
The first is related to energy. Oil is still an incredibly convenient fuel for transport and we have plenty of plastic and rubber waste which we may be able to "mine" at some stage in the future when naturally-occurring oil becomes too hard (expensive) to get at.
But much more interesting is the ability to cleanly strip plastic and rubber compounds away from other substances: such as removing the insulation from electrical wire and leaving the copper metal exposed. This solves a major problem that existing recycling industries are facing.
New Scientist has an article online about a new technique for extracting hydrocarbons (ie, oil) from waste plastics and rubber and the like. Essentially, it just gets cooked in a special microwave which is tuned to the specific frequencies of the hydrocarbon molecules. They heat up, evaporate, and get sucked into a condenser which collects them back into liquid oil.
They don't give any information about how much energy is used in the process compared to how much energy we can extract from the oil (I'm guessing it runs at a loss) but in the long term this approach might have two benefits that I can see.
The first is related to energy. Oil is still an incredibly convenient fuel for transport and we have plenty of plastic and rubber waste which we may be able to "mine" at some stage in the future when naturally-occurring oil becomes too hard (expensive) to get at.
But much more interesting is the ability to cleanly strip plastic and rubber compounds away from other substances: such as removing the insulation from electrical wire and leaving the copper metal exposed. This solves a major problem that existing recycling industries are facing.
Thursday, 21 June 2007
Urban multistorey greenhouses: the future of farming?
Here's a neat bit of visionary thinking for you. The BBC reports on a concept for large-scale food production right in the middle of densely urban areas. Like Manhattan. Or Sydney. Or even Brisbane.
For those not inclined to follow the link, the essential idea is to build a high-rise greenhouse and make it as efficient as possible: capturing solar energy on the roof, reclaiming more energy by burning "waste" material, recycling water throughout the complex and so on.
I'm puzzled about how they're going to provide sufficient light to all those plants to help them thrive. Maybe I'll find out on the project website... will let you know if I come across the answer there.
For those not inclined to follow the link, the essential idea is to build a high-rise greenhouse and make it as efficient as possible: capturing solar energy on the roof, reclaiming more energy by burning "waste" material, recycling water throughout the complex and so on.
I'm puzzled about how they're going to provide sufficient light to all those plants to help them thrive. Maybe I'll find out on the project website... will let you know if I come across the answer there.
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
Save the world by burning trees
With everybody going nuts about greenhouse gas "offsets" through the planting of trees which will suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, this might sound a little weird. There's a growing interest in how much good we might be able to do by setting trees (and other plant material) on fire.
In the Global Warming context, the problem with using trees to soak up CO2 is that when the trees die they decompose and most of their captured carbon goes back into the atmosphere again, sometimes as methane (CH4) which is a far worse greenhouse gas than is CO2.
Researchers in South America studying the composition of some unnaturally fertile soils have discovered what appears to be large amounts of charcoal deliberately added by indigenous farmers over hundreds or perhaps thousands of years. While initially most excited by the prospect of being able to improve soil productivity by adopting similar approaches elsewhere, people began to realise that this was also a surprisingly simple and effective form of carbon sequestration.
Instead of burning trees and other vegetation in big bonfires which leave just ash, if you reduce the amount of oxygen available to the fire you will convert much of the carbon into solid charcoal - as much as 50% of it. Then you can bury this charcoal in the soil where it appears to remain quite happily for many hundreds of years. Do that in the right kind of soil conditions and you can improve crop yields by up to 800%, or so it's said.
As an added bonus, burning things gives of energy which can be harnessed for other purposes, and even the gases from the fire contain useful compounds which can be captured and processed.
That's about as much detail as I want to go into here but I'll post some links from time to time with new info. If you want to Google, the South American soils are known as "Terra Preta" and the modern process of producing charcoal, energy and chemical compounds all in one hit is being called "BioChar". A local bloke I met on the weekend is doing research on that front and is setting up a website at www.biochar.net. (At the time of writing, that page only displays correctly in Internet Explorer - Safari and FireFox users will need to try again later.)
In the Global Warming context, the problem with using trees to soak up CO2 is that when the trees die they decompose and most of their captured carbon goes back into the atmosphere again, sometimes as methane (CH4) which is a far worse greenhouse gas than is CO2.
Researchers in South America studying the composition of some unnaturally fertile soils have discovered what appears to be large amounts of charcoal deliberately added by indigenous farmers over hundreds or perhaps thousands of years. While initially most excited by the prospect of being able to improve soil productivity by adopting similar approaches elsewhere, people began to realise that this was also a surprisingly simple and effective form of carbon sequestration.
Instead of burning trees and other vegetation in big bonfires which leave just ash, if you reduce the amount of oxygen available to the fire you will convert much of the carbon into solid charcoal - as much as 50% of it. Then you can bury this charcoal in the soil where it appears to remain quite happily for many hundreds of years. Do that in the right kind of soil conditions and you can improve crop yields by up to 800%, or so it's said.
As an added bonus, burning things gives of energy which can be harnessed for other purposes, and even the gases from the fire contain useful compounds which can be captured and processed.
That's about as much detail as I want to go into here but I'll post some links from time to time with new info. If you want to Google, the South American soils are known as "Terra Preta" and the modern process of producing charcoal, energy and chemical compounds all in one hit is being called "BioChar". A local bloke I met on the weekend is doing research on that front and is setting up a website at www.biochar.net. (At the time of writing, that page only displays correctly in Internet Explorer - Safari and FireFox users will need to try again later.)
Friday, 25 May 2007
Down days
I had been wondering what would happen when my initial burst of enthusiasm for sustainability inevitably lost a little of the excitement that comes from starting a new project. Well now I know.
Have had a couple of down days. Haven't read my meters (though I'm still watching the Centameter and aggressively turning things off), have slacked off with the composting, have been using the car a little more than is really necessary, have been indulging in slightly longer showers... and haven't posted anything here.
There are a few things which I can think of which might have contributed to the slump. The biggest one is probably just the feeling of being overwhelmed: the challenges are so huge and I feel so impotent when literally everywhere I turn and in just about everything I do I see our utter dependence on crude oil.
I also come across analysis and predictions from various sources which make it sound like another dark age for humanity is all but inevitable. It's hard to maintain focus and discipline when somebody's telling you it's probably all for nothing.
What I want to hear from people - backed up by reasonable logic and solid data - is that there is a chance to maintain some of what I consider the best and most noble parts of our modern world. Coal and oil have provided the fuel for advances in so many areas: obvious ones like science and technology as well as indirect ones like allowing more time in billions of lives for education, art and social development.
As I look towards 2050 I want to be assured that the vast wealth of knowledge that is a defining characteristic of the current era will be available to all the way it is today - through the continued evolution of the Internet. I want to believe that we can apply our knowledge of natural sciences (with a healthy dose of wisdom from our forebears) to turn our backyards into thriving food gardens without sacrificing the opportunity for education, art and social development of each person. I want to know that my children will have access to at least the same level of health care that has literally saved my life several times over in the past 30 years.
So, after a couple of days of doing nothing terribly worthwhile, I'm going to try and pull myself together tomorrow. Meter readings, composting, disciplined consumption and working for the future... with a good bit of time set aside for fun with the kids, talking with Michelle, reading a book, listening to some music or chatting with the neighbours.
After all, there's not much point worrying about 2050 if I can't enjoy any of the days between now and then.
Have had a couple of down days. Haven't read my meters (though I'm still watching the Centameter and aggressively turning things off), have slacked off with the composting, have been using the car a little more than is really necessary, have been indulging in slightly longer showers... and haven't posted anything here.
There are a few things which I can think of which might have contributed to the slump. The biggest one is probably just the feeling of being overwhelmed: the challenges are so huge and I feel so impotent when literally everywhere I turn and in just about everything I do I see our utter dependence on crude oil.
I also come across analysis and predictions from various sources which make it sound like another dark age for humanity is all but inevitable. It's hard to maintain focus and discipline when somebody's telling you it's probably all for nothing.
What I want to hear from people - backed up by reasonable logic and solid data - is that there is a chance to maintain some of what I consider the best and most noble parts of our modern world. Coal and oil have provided the fuel for advances in so many areas: obvious ones like science and technology as well as indirect ones like allowing more time in billions of lives for education, art and social development.
As I look towards 2050 I want to be assured that the vast wealth of knowledge that is a defining characteristic of the current era will be available to all the way it is today - through the continued evolution of the Internet. I want to believe that we can apply our knowledge of natural sciences (with a healthy dose of wisdom from our forebears) to turn our backyards into thriving food gardens without sacrificing the opportunity for education, art and social development of each person. I want to know that my children will have access to at least the same level of health care that has literally saved my life several times over in the past 30 years.
So, after a couple of days of doing nothing terribly worthwhile, I'm going to try and pull myself together tomorrow. Meter readings, composting, disciplined consumption and working for the future... with a good bit of time set aside for fun with the kids, talking with Michelle, reading a book, listening to some music or chatting with the neighbours.
After all, there's not much point worrying about 2050 if I can't enjoy any of the days between now and then.
Monday, 21 May 2007
Aluminium might be the transport fuel of the future
Just quickly, and with as little techno-speak as possible...
We need to find a fuel to replace the oil which is running out.
Growing crops to produce oils or ethanol doesn't scale well enough.
Hydrogen works well in engines or in fuel cells but is a pain to store and transport.
Purely electric cars are great except for the batteries.
Well some smart people at Purdue University have stumbled across a chemical reaction which might allow a transport fuel cycle that goes like this:
But it's at least a possibility, and the more possibilities we have the better.
We need to find a fuel to replace the oil which is running out.
Growing crops to produce oils or ethanol doesn't scale well enough.
Hydrogen works well in engines or in fuel cells but is a pain to store and transport.
Purely electric cars are great except for the batteries.
Well some smart people at Purdue University have stumbled across a chemical reaction which might allow a transport fuel cycle that goes like this:
- Generate electricity (from wind, solar, nuclear, whatever)
- Capture and concentrate most of this energy by using it to convert aluminium oxide into aluminium metal in an alloy with gallium
- Put pellets of the energy-containing alloy into a car's fuel tank
- Add water, which reacts with the alloy to produce hydrogen gas (with most of the energy in it) and aluminium oxide
- Use a fuel cell to convert the hydrogen back to water, with the energy extracted as electricity to power a motor
- Send the spent alloy back to the factory for "recharging"
But it's at least a possibility, and the more possibilities we have the better.
Monday, 7 May 2007
Visionary thoughts from the UK
I know I only just introduced Transition Culture last night, but the latest entry on that site is such a good, easy-reading summary of the ideas there that I can't resist plugging it again.
It's the transcript of an interview conducted with Rob Hopkins earlier this year and if you're at all interested in what I'm on about in this blog I urge you to check it out.
It's the transcript of an interview conducted with Rob Hopkins earlier this year and if you're at all interested in what I'm on about in this blog I urge you to check it out.
Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Caitlin sees the light
I swear this is true.
My son, not quite 3, is an "early to rise" kind of boy. It's almost becoming tolerable as we head towards winter but over summer we were seeing far too much of 4am. This morning it was 6 or so, still quite dark inside with the curtains shut, and I'd already sent Joshua away to play in his room until my preferred rising time of 6:30.
And since everything that goes through his mind comes out his mouth at top volume, he managed to wake his sister fairly soon after that. They were getting on well enough. That's when it happened.
Josh decides it's too dark in his room so he runs and grabs the footstool and turns on the light. Caitlin, only five years old herself, gently says, "No Josh, you don't need to turn the light on. Just open the curtains like I did... see?"
*click*
My son, not quite 3, is an "early to rise" kind of boy. It's almost becoming tolerable as we head towards winter but over summer we were seeing far too much of 4am. This morning it was 6 or so, still quite dark inside with the curtains shut, and I'd already sent Joshua away to play in his room until my preferred rising time of 6:30.
And since everything that goes through his mind comes out his mouth at top volume, he managed to wake his sister fairly soon after that. They were getting on well enough. That's when it happened.
Josh decides it's too dark in his room so he runs and grabs the footstool and turns on the light. Caitlin, only five years old herself, gently says, "No Josh, you don't need to turn the light on. Just open the curtains like I did... see?"
*click*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)