Still can't find enough time to scan the internet or blog properly. What little news I have seen or heard seems remarkably uninteresting. (ABC Radio National had on the news this morning a report that a Queensland man is to face charges for having unrestrained kids in his car! Hardly earth-shatteringly newsworthy. I think someone in the ABC newsroom must have taken to closing his or her eyes, spinning around three times and using a pin to pick out a story from the Courier Mail.)
Maybe tonight I can troll the internet for something interesting.
Meanwhile, vast international audience, any leads on sites that contain good information on the main "clean coal" technologies under development or research around the world? Pumping it into the ground or ocean seems intuitively to me to be fraught with complications, such as whether it will work particularly well, and finding the locations in which to do it. I would have thought that any process that involved chemical conversion of CO2 might be more reliable and better in the long run, if more expensive.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
The talking PM
Fresh from not solving one problem, our PM rushes to not solve another:
Rudd to face indigenous leaders | NEWS.com.au
This is good. Seems to me that PM Rudd is shaping up early as someone who likes to build up hope, and to be seen absolutely everywhere talking to everyone, and then can't deliver.
Rudd to face indigenous leaders | NEWS.com.au
This is good. Seems to me that PM Rudd is shaping up early as someone who likes to build up hope, and to be seen absolutely everywhere talking to everyone, and then can't deliver.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Greenhouse gas - reduce how exactly?
Over at Slate, there's an interesting article talking about just how "green" are fully electric cars in reality. (Answer: pretty damn green, especially if you live where nuclear power makes your electricity.)
The article made the point that in the US, 49.7% of all electricity is coal generated.
This got me thinking about the Australian situation, and what it means for the range of CO2 reduction which the post-Kyoto Bali conference is talking about.
According to a paper by the WWF (downloadable here,) coal accounts for about 85% of Australian electricity, hydro power is about 8 % (more than I thought) and natural gas is 7%. This Parliamentary Paper from 2000 indicates that the figures are about right: there might be one or two percent of wind, solar and other renewables as this pie chart from the paper (showing the renewable energy components in Australia) indicates:
but really, hydro power is the only truly significant "green" electricity we have at the moment.
As everyone has probably heard, the Bali conference is talking about total emissions reductions of 25 to 40 per cent by 2020. Kevin Rudd is (so far) insisting that he won't be nominating Australia's target just yet. But, even assuming a 30% target is what Rudd settles on, what does this mean for our electricity industry?
According to this recent government paper, close enough to 50% of Australian greenhouse gases come from electricity generation. Transport accounts for 12.5%, about 23 % comes from agriculture and land use, and industrial and waste seems to account for much of the rest.
The paper confirms too that Australia has kept pretty close to the Kyoto target (which still allowed an increase on 1990 emissions) by reducing land clearing. I would guess that further progress that could be made in reducing land clearing is probably getting limited.
As for transport; it's hard to see how a 30% reduction in that sector is likely to be achieved without massive changes over the next 13 years. Maybe a 10 to15% reduction, but remember that whole sector only accounts for 12.5% of total gases now anyway.
So, it would seem, if Australia is to have any hope at all of meeting a 30% reduction within 13 years, the electricity sector is going to have to bear the greatest burden of this change.
Even if renewables made a massive increase from its current 8-9% (nearly all hydro, remember) to 20% (the target Rudd has already set for 2020), and you give natural gas another percent or two, it would still leave about 70% or so of electricity from coal.
Roughly speaking, (and I won't put my back of the envelope figures up in case I have stuffed this up completely), it seems to me that even if you allow for renewables at 20% of all electricity, you would still have to have about half of your coal as "clean" coal for the energy sector to be able to come close to accounting for the bulk of the total target of a 30% reduction in CO2.
My suspicion, based on European experience (see some of my earlier posts) is that even with massive investment, renewables at 20% is very, very improbable by 2030. I also suspect that having about one half of all coal power stations operating at zero emissions by 2030 is very, very improbable. Quite frankly, no one knows how well CO2 sequestration will work. People do know that nuclear does not make CO2.
My points:
1. Australia's extremely high reliance on coal makes it exceptionally difficult for it to meet a target even towards the lower end of the range that the UN says Australia should have in 13 years from now.
2. Those countries that have or will develop large proportions of nuclear power in their electricity generating mix have a task that is very significantly easier.
3. People in Australia don't understand this yet.
The article made the point that in the US, 49.7% of all electricity is coal generated.
This got me thinking about the Australian situation, and what it means for the range of CO2 reduction which the post-Kyoto Bali conference is talking about.
According to a paper by the WWF (downloadable here,) coal accounts for about 85% of Australian electricity, hydro power is about 8 % (more than I thought) and natural gas is 7%. This Parliamentary Paper from 2000 indicates that the figures are about right: there might be one or two percent of wind, solar and other renewables as this pie chart from the paper (showing the renewable energy components in Australia) indicates:
but really, hydro power is the only truly significant "green" electricity we have at the moment.As everyone has probably heard, the Bali conference is talking about total emissions reductions of 25 to 40 per cent by 2020. Kevin Rudd is (so far) insisting that he won't be nominating Australia's target just yet. But, even assuming a 30% target is what Rudd settles on, what does this mean for our electricity industry?
According to this recent government paper, close enough to 50% of Australian greenhouse gases come from electricity generation. Transport accounts for 12.5%, about 23 % comes from agriculture and land use, and industrial and waste seems to account for much of the rest.
The paper confirms too that Australia has kept pretty close to the Kyoto target (which still allowed an increase on 1990 emissions) by reducing land clearing. I would guess that further progress that could be made in reducing land clearing is probably getting limited.
As for transport; it's hard to see how a 30% reduction in that sector is likely to be achieved without massive changes over the next 13 years. Maybe a 10 to15% reduction, but remember that whole sector only accounts for 12.5% of total gases now anyway.
So, it would seem, if Australia is to have any hope at all of meeting a 30% reduction within 13 years, the electricity sector is going to have to bear the greatest burden of this change.
Even if renewables made a massive increase from its current 8-9% (nearly all hydro, remember) to 20% (the target Rudd has already set for 2020), and you give natural gas another percent or two, it would still leave about 70% or so of electricity from coal.
Roughly speaking, (and I won't put my back of the envelope figures up in case I have stuffed this up completely), it seems to me that even if you allow for renewables at 20% of all electricity, you would still have to have about half of your coal as "clean" coal for the energy sector to be able to come close to accounting for the bulk of the total target of a 30% reduction in CO2.
My suspicion, based on European experience (see some of my earlier posts) is that even with massive investment, renewables at 20% is very, very improbable by 2030. I also suspect that having about one half of all coal power stations operating at zero emissions by 2030 is very, very improbable. Quite frankly, no one knows how well CO2 sequestration will work. People do know that nuclear does not make CO2.
My points:
1. Australia's extremely high reliance on coal makes it exceptionally difficult for it to meet a target even towards the lower end of the range that the UN says Australia should have in 13 years from now.
2. Those countries that have or will develop large proportions of nuclear power in their electricity generating mix have a task that is very significantly easier.
3. People in Australia don't understand this yet.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Two days
OK, you all want me to have money to spend over Christmas don't you?
Then I have to spend a couple of days doing bills. A self imposed internet browsing ban is needed, or a donation of $10,000 or so. No? Thought so.
Back in a couple of days....
Then I have to spend a couple of days doing bills. A self imposed internet browsing ban is needed, or a donation of $10,000 or so. No? Thought so.
Back in a couple of days....
Here's a treat for you
This is the Pixar UFO short "Lifted" which was shown this year with Ratatouille. Enjoy!
England's rubbery figures
UK's official CO2 figures an illusion
Britain is responsible for hundreds of millions more tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions than official figures admit, according to a new report that undermines UK claims to lead the world on action against global warming.
The analysis says pollution from aviation, shipping, overseas trade and tourism, which are not measured in the official figures, means that UK carbon consumption has risen significantly over the past decade, and that the government's claims to have tackled global warming are an "illusion".
Under Kyoto, Britain must reduce its greenhouse gas output to 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2012. According to official figures filed with the UN, Britain's emissions are currently down 15% compared with 1990.But the new report says UK carbon output has actually risen by 19% over that period, once the missing emissions are included in the figures.
A peculiar case from Aurukun
Girl, 10, 'probably agreed' to sex | NEWS.com.au
I suspect this story will have some legs.
A female judge in Cairns gives what appears to be very, very lenient treatment to a bunch of aboriginal men who had sex with a 10 year old girl. The fact that it was apparently consensual is cited by the judge, as is the fact that the prosecutor apparently did not ask for any more severe penalty than suspended jail.
As the report notes:
I suspect this story will have some legs.
A female judge in Cairns gives what appears to be very, very lenient treatment to a bunch of aboriginal men who had sex with a 10 year old girl. The fact that it was apparently consensual is cited by the judge, as is the fact that the prosecutor apparently did not ask for any more severe penalty than suspended jail.
As the report notes:
News of the non-custodial sentences has added to the violent hatreds that exist in Aurukun between families and tribes and which have played a part in recent brawls involving dozens of assailants, many armed with sticks and spears.Further evidence that lack of facilities at Aurukun is very far from the whole story as to why the place is in social disarray.
Go Nuclear
Greenpeace is wrong — we must consider nuclear power - Opinion
Controversial ex-Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore sets out his view that Greenpeace must change its anti-nuclear stance if it wants to be serious about reducing CO2.
Controversial ex-Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore sets out his view that Greenpeace must change its anti-nuclear stance if it wants to be serious about reducing CO2.
Way to encourage Australian culture
Miller attacks Howard in acceptance speech
From the first part of this report, Australian director George Miller says:
From the first part of this report, Australian director George Miller says:
"We've seen over many years the utter emasculation of the ABC, the vitality sucked out of our universities as places of true learning and it just doesn't make any sense,"I'll quickly brush over the fact that ABC TV, and Australian produced TV drama and comedy generally, just had a great ratings year, and move onto the question of what George is doing to help prevent the destruction of Australian culture:"We're a very small country and we have very little culture distinct enough to call it our own, so why should we have a war about it?
"It's as ridiculous as bald men fighting over a comb, when we should be out there trying to grow hair."
His next project will be directing Justice League of America.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Cool car
Cars - Reviews - Honda FCX Clarity
The New York Times reviews a production ready (sort of) Honda fuel cell car. It sounds and looks very cool, even if precise cost is never really discussed. (They're not going to sell it, just lease it.)
The New York Times reviews a production ready (sort of) Honda fuel cell car. It sounds and looks very cool, even if precise cost is never really discussed. (They're not going to sell it, just lease it.)
Orchestra to follow
Well, Astroboy had a robot circus. A robot orchestra would be something I would pay to see. I think.
Maybe she's nuts
'I was terrified that the guards would come in and teach me a lesson' | UK News | The Observer
This report gives more details on how Gillian Gibbons (the English teacher jailed in Sudan for letting a teddy bear be named Mohammed) was treated.
Some highlights:
This report gives more details on how Gillian Gibbons (the English teacher jailed in Sudan for letting a teddy bear be named Mohammed) was treated.
Some highlights:
The open-air cell had three grey-tiled walls, a basic squat toilet in a corner and steel bars running across the facade and ceiling. 'I just stood there for three hours, thinking I was going home. It was filthy, there were ants all over the floor and in the corner there were rat droppings. There was a light shining into my yard that attracted all the mosquitoes, so I stood there and got bitten to death....Her reaction sounds rather normal and understandable for the most part, until we get to the end of the article:
In a moment of almost farcical surreality, the teddy bear itself made a courtroom appearance. 'This clerk of the court got this carrier bag and produced this bear with a flourish, like a rabbit out of the hat,' Gibbons recalls. 'He put it down on the table in front of us and it flopped over, and the prosecution [lawyer] sat him up. And then he pointed at this bear in a dead aggressive manner and he said "Is this the bear?" It was Exhibit A, you see.
She sounds either like a particularly easy target for Stockholm Syndrome, or just a chronically self-blaming liberal.She retains a remarkable lack of rancour about her ordeal and hopes to take up another foreign teaching post, possibly in China. 'I don't regret a second of it. I had a wonderful time. It was fabulous.'
Does she blame anyone for what she went through? She pauses. 'I blame myself because I shouldn't have done it,' she says finally. 'Ignorance of the law is no defence.'
And in this corner...(the battle of the fantasies)
There's a lot of attention being given in the to the new movie "The Golden Compass" and its source material: Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy.
Pullman has famously been quoted as saying of CS Lewis' Narnia series:
Readers may recall that I liked the movie version of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe very much. I recently watched it again, and my fondness has not diminished. If you dip into the lengthy set of user comments at IMDB, you will see that many folk agree. The public reaction seems to have been even better than a pretty good critical reaction, perhaps because it had a largely self-selecting Christian audience. (Of course, an emotional appreciation of Christianity no doubts helps one to be moved by the story. But hey, I am not stopping your conversion for better movie appreciation!)
Teenage (and older) LOTR tragics complained it was a poor imitation of Tolkien; I say that unlike that interminable writer, Lewis at least had real characters and a point.
So, of course, it gives me some pleasure to see the first movie of anti-Lewis Pullman's series get a lukewarm critical and box office reception.
All the critics say that the movie has largely been stripped of the anti-religion element; most people seem to also say that this will be virtually impossible to maintain if movies are attempted from the subsequent books.
As this article (in The Atlantic, so it must be true) notes, Pullman's stories ultimately have teen sex (or at least sexual awakening) saving the universe. (This reminds of the first Star Trek movie, which Pauline Kael - I think - said was notable as science fiction that ended not with a bang, but with a bang.) For a conservative's rebuttal of such an implausible take on sexuality, see here.
In the meantime, Prince Caspian, the next Narnia movie, is due out in 6 months or so, and its trailer has been released with some fanfare. It sounds as if the movie is not as close to the novel this time, and perhaps has been more Tolkien-ified than I would like, but here's hoping.
UPDATE: here's a very lengthy interview with Pullman, and it turns out we agree on one thing - Tolkien:
Pullman has famously been quoted as saying of CS Lewis' Narnia series:
"a peevish blend of racist, misogynistic and reactionary prejudice" and "not a trace" of Christian charity."It's not the presence of Christian doctrine I object to so much as the absence of Christian virtue," he added.
"The highest virtue - we have on the authority of the New Testament itself - is love, and yet you find not a trace of that in the books."
I don't say that the Narnia series is the greatest literature ever written, but that's just really silly commentary.
Readers may recall that I liked the movie version of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe very much. I recently watched it again, and my fondness has not diminished. If you dip into the lengthy set of user comments at IMDB, you will see that many folk agree. The public reaction seems to have been even better than a pretty good critical reaction, perhaps because it had a largely self-selecting Christian audience. (Of course, an emotional appreciation of Christianity no doubts helps one to be moved by the story. But hey, I am not stopping your conversion for better movie appreciation!)
Teenage (and older) LOTR tragics complained it was a poor imitation of Tolkien; I say that unlike that interminable writer, Lewis at least had real characters and a point.
So, of course, it gives me some pleasure to see the first movie of anti-Lewis Pullman's series get a lukewarm critical and box office reception.
All the critics say that the movie has largely been stripped of the anti-religion element; most people seem to also say that this will be virtually impossible to maintain if movies are attempted from the subsequent books.
As this article (in The Atlantic, so it must be true) notes, Pullman's stories ultimately have teen sex (or at least sexual awakening) saving the universe. (This reminds of the first Star Trek movie, which Pauline Kael - I think - said was notable as science fiction that ended not with a bang, but with a bang.) For a conservative's rebuttal of such an implausible take on sexuality, see here.
In the meantime, Prince Caspian, the next Narnia movie, is due out in 6 months or so, and its trailer has been released with some fanfare. It sounds as if the movie is not as close to the novel this time, and perhaps has been more Tolkien-ified than I would like, but here's hoping.
UPDATE: here's a very lengthy interview with Pullman, and it turns out we agree on one thing - Tolkien:
"I dislike his Narnia books because of the solution he offers to the great questions of human life: is there a God, what is the purpose, all that stuff, which he really does engage with pretty deeply, unlike Tolkien who doesn't touch it at all. ‘The Lord of the Rings' is essentially trivial. Narnia is essentially serious, though I don't like the answer Lewis comes up with. If I was doing it at all, I was arguing with Narnia. Tolkien is not worth arguing with."
Hospitals
I've just spent most of the last couple of days with my son at the Mater Childrens' Hospital in Brisbane. (He had a minor procedure that had a bit of a complication. Everything OK now, thanks.)
Some observations about the Mater Hospital, and hospitals in Brisbane generally:
* I don't know whether it is because Brisbane's population continues to grown, but all hospitals here just seem to be in a continual state of construction/re-construction. Is it like this in every other Australian city?
* Of the few Brisbane hospitals I have visited for various reasons over the last few years, The Wesley is perhaps the nicest inside. It is, of course, having major building works at the moment.
* I don't know about nursing. There are complaints about their pay all the time, and the shift work would be a pain, but how come they all seem happy to me?
* From their website, I see that The Mater group of hospitals provides care for "some half million people a year." Even with 7 hospitals and 6,000 staff, that seems a hell of a lot of care.
* The Mater also has a new "high definition" operating theatre which sounds like it would be interesting to look at. If you can have public tours of breweries, movie studios and chocolate factories, why can't hospitals do this too for a bit of extra cash on the side on a Saturday or Sunday when the highest paid surgeons are off too. OK, maybe it's just me who be happy to do that.
Some observations about the Mater Hospital, and hospitals in Brisbane generally:
* I don't know whether it is because Brisbane's population continues to grown, but all hospitals here just seem to be in a continual state of construction/re-construction. Is it like this in every other Australian city?
* Of the few Brisbane hospitals I have visited for various reasons over the last few years, The Wesley is perhaps the nicest inside. It is, of course, having major building works at the moment.
* I don't know about nursing. There are complaints about their pay all the time, and the shift work would be a pain, but how come they all seem happy to me?
* From their website, I see that The Mater group of hospitals provides care for "some half million people a year." Even with 7 hospitals and 6,000 staff, that seems a hell of a lot of care.
* The Mater also has a new "high definition" operating theatre which sounds like it would be interesting to look at. If you can have public tours of breweries, movie studios and chocolate factories, why can't hospitals do this too for a bit of extra cash on the side on a Saturday or Sunday when the highest paid surgeons are off too. OK, maybe it's just me who be happy to do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)