Krishna Rajaratnam
Abstract: An Appeal to Compromise
& Justification for more Effective Action to Counter the Anthropogenic
Contribution of Carbon Dioxide & other Green House Gases (GHG) to Climate
Change
I am a retired Electrical Engineer and TAFE teacher. I write
on behalf of our grand children and future generations that follow. I am
confident that my wife, Irven, endorses my views on this subject.
I have agonised over the lack of unanimity in our Parliament
in respect of effective measures to tackle climate change, for which humans are
largely responsible. Even if we have doubts about the weight of scientific
evidence for this and the voluminous IPCC reports, is it not wiser to err on
the side of caution as an insurance policy for the well being of future
generations on this planet?
Suggestions.
In this regard, may I suggest that we
adopt a multifaceted approach?
A fixed Carbon price which reverts to
an emissions trading scheme is already in place. The disadvantage with this
scheme is that the price is set too high compared with prevailing prices in
other countries. Consequently, too
many parties need to be compensated and many of our local companies are
disadvantaged. It is up to
Parliament to arrive at a compromise carbon price.
Further, if the aim is to dissuade the expansion of fossil -
fuel power stations - perhaps even retiring some older plants - in favour of renewable energy, the
funds collected can directly be invested in renewable generators, renewable storage facilities, necessary
infrastructure and continued research and development. Then the income from
these renewable generators may be returned to the companies that have been
penalised by a carbon price in proportion to the amount they have contributed.
In this way, companies who do not have the ability to increase their energy
efficiency can also benefit. The return of revenue may be for a fixed period -
perhaps 10 years - after which the Commonwealth Government can sell off its
share of these assets to private enterprise.
When there is agreement on a common strategy, there is
hopefully no reason for any political party to gain a perceived advantage to be
different. There are so many other areas of disagreement for which the various
political parties can differentiate themselves.
Comparison with Other Countries
UK and New Zealand
In the UK and
New Zealand, climate change is considered important enough for the parties to
put their differences aside and adopt a common carbon policy which does not
change with a change of government. This provides long term certainty for all
companies and institutions to plan accordingly a course of action.
Unfortunately, we do not have that certainty in our country, presently, to our
disadvantage.
European Union
The whole of the European Union has an emissions trading
scheme. I have heard it said, on public media, that Spain is in such a parlous economic
state because of this Cap and Trade scheme. I beg to differ; Denmark and
Germany are also in the scheme. Both these countries (besides Iceland which has
100% renewable electricity obtained from Geothermal and Hydro power stations.1) lead the world in Renewable
Energy (RE) generated as a percentage of the total energy used in spite of
being at such northerly latitudes and having limited land area. In fact,
Germany for a brief period in the middle of last summer obtained half its
electrical power from Renewable Generators. These two countries are by no means
in recession. Denmark already
generates 30% of its electricity with wind energy1. Germany
is a power house of excellent and much esteemed manufactured goods. It does not
have the natural and fossil fuel resources - except for some small remaining
deposits of coal - that our country possesses. But Germany has complete
agreement amongst its political parties with regard to climate change. So much
so, even though Germany has spent an excessive amount of money (certainly
compared with Australia) investing in Renewable Energy, Chancellor Angela
Merkel was voted in with an increased majority in the last election. However,
Germany acknowledges that it would not be able to meet all its energy needs using
only Renewable Energy since it is not pursuing the nuclear energy option. We,
on the other hand, are blessed with abundant sunlight (high solar insolation
levels) and great expanses of marginally productive land area that can be used
for harnessing the sun in Photo Voltaic (PV) generation and Solar Thermal
Power. Further, we have Wind Energy, Ocean Energy, Geothermal Energy, Hydro Energy and Bioenergy which are all of significant potential.
2 Indeed, Australia is a lucky country and, managed
responsibly and wisely, will ensure our energy security future (perhaps as well as continue
to bring in foreign revenue exporting energy in a different form) without
compromising our environment.
China
I have heard the catch phrase “China produces more Green
House Gas ( GHG) emissions in a week than Australia in a year”, or words to
that effect, with the implication that whatever we do makes no difference. I agree that the catch phrase may be
true but I disagree with the implication. First, there is international
agreement that all nations should play their part in a non binding treaty reducing
GHG emissions. Both main political parties in Australia have pledged a 5%
reduction in carbon dioxide emissions compared to 2000 levels by 2020.We are
far from being among the leaders in setting an example in spite of being in
such a fortuitous circumstance with respect to almost every form of energy.
Second, China dominated in 2013 with clean energy investment with more than
US$54 billion – a 29% share of G-20 clean energy investment. Australia is
in 10th place behind South Africa according to Bloomberg New Energy
Finance, 2014 Pew Charitable Trusts.
Energy Storage, Implications- The
California Mandate
Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan3- a research collaboration between
Beyond Zero Emissions and Energy Research Institute, University of Melbourne-
explains why Australia needs to reduce its CO2 emissions starting from 2010 to zero in 2020. The
graph on page 3 shows that in 2005 Australia, as well as USA, per capita
emitted 20 tonnes of CO2 per annum whereas China per capita emitted
just over 4 tonnes of CO2 per annum. According to the experts, each
person on the planet has a carbon budget of 110 tonnes remaining, if we want to
have a 2 in 3 chance of keeping global rise in temperature below 2 degrees
above pre-industrial levels. If we continue with business as usual, we would
use up our budget in 110/20 years. This equates to 5 ½ years from 2010
which corresponds to the middle of 2015. China has 110/4.2 = 26 years before it
exceeds its budget. (This is only
if it does not increase its emission levels to any higher intensity.)
However, there is no reason for China to be complacent. In
fact, it has opened the second largest Carbon market in the world.4 There are seven pilot carbon trading exchanges in
total – the largest, Guangdong which is home to 100 million has an
economy larger than Indonesia. The government has stated that it is working
towards a national trading scheme.
Sixteen of the world’s 20 most polluted cities are in China according to
World Bank.5 So much so,”
last year shares in BYD, the battery and electric car maker and Guodian Technology
& Environment, which makes
scrubbers for heavy-polluting coal-powered plants, rose more than 20% as
China’s homeland stock markets fell by 7%.”5
Warren Buffet’s investment company -Berkshire Hathaway- invested a substantial
amount in BYD in the middle of the GFC. Unlike a majority of the board of
directors and executives in our local companies who have a principle of
rewarding themselves with long
term incentives (LTI) after three years, Warren Buffet takes a much longer term
view.
The health problems associated with coal fired power
stations and fossil fuel industries are so bad in the larger cities of China
that the Government had to act. In future, no coal fired power stations can be
built close to big cities. It is ironic that companies are now making money for
air filtration systems for the home and apartment. These systems are no longer
a luxury only for the rich. In addition the government has invested heavily in
two coal fired power plants with Carbon Capture and Storage - (or
Sequestration) (CCS).
USA
It has been stated publicly by a Government spokesperson that
the USA has a form of “direct action” in order to justify our present
Government position. I believe, it takes only a small stretch of the
imagination to interpret “direct action” as “doing nothing” rather than going
the whole hog and implementing every form of Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency measure. In the USA, legislation for an emissions trading scheme was
drawn up early in President Obama’s first term of office. It had passed the
House of Representatives6
but with Tea Party members in the Republican majority Senate who are not
answerable to the nation as a whole, the Bill had no way of passing. In order
to overcome this impasse, the US Government used an alternative to achieve its
aim of reducing GHG emissions via the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
One of the measures ruled by the EPA was that new coal fired power plants cannot
emit more than 500kg of carbon dioxide per MWh of electricity generated and
gas-fired power plants can only emit 450kg. Coal fired plants (usually the
older ones) normally emit approximately 1000kg (1 tonne) of CO2. So unless some form of
CCS is used, no new coal fired plants can be built, as the newest coal fired
stations can achieve at best about 800kg of CO2 emissions per
MWh(Megawatt hour) of electricity produced.
As a consequence of the above measures, two “Clean” Coal
plants will be put to the test this year.7
One is a refit at Unit 3 Boundary Dam Power Station in Saskatchewan, Canada, at
a cost of Can$1.3 billion. The second is a newly built advanced coal plant in
Kemper County, Mississippi, run by Mississippi Power which is costing US$5.2
billion. Mississippi Power expects to increase local electricity prices by 24%
to recover about half its cost, in addition to getting government subsidies.
Instead of waiting for the US Government to pass an act to
bring in an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) ten US states have a Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)1.
In addition, California has an ETS which may be linked to the Quebec ETS1.
The State of California in 2012 with a GDP of 2 Trillion USD
compared with Australia’s GDP of 1.52 Trillion USD has an ETS which is supported
in unison by both Republicans and Democrats. Its economy is set to grow. So our
Government should take note that an ETS does not impede growth. If anything, I
believe that California is more innovative than any other state or country
(perhaps on par with Germany). Silicon Valley in California has given rise to
the semiconductor industry which has spawned an explosive gain in almost every
sphere of human knowledge via the exponential growth of computing power,
telecommunications and information technology.
Number 1 on the inaugural (2014) list of the “The World’s
Top 25 Eco-Innovators”8
according to Fortune is Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors who has “made electric
cars cool”. His company is based in Palo Alto, California. Over the past year
the profitable company’s stock rocketed 275% and it is planning to build a 5
billion USD lithium-ion battery plant in California hoping to bring the price
of batteries down. Elon is also chairman of the fast-growing residential solar
power installer, SolarCity. This company also sells energy storage systems for
businesses, using battery technology from Tesla.
I enumerate the reason why the electric car may be a car for
the future. The following data is taken from an article in Scientific American9. The distance travelled
(in miles) on one Gigajoule of Energy invested in fuel production is 3600 for
Gasoline from conventional oil, 2000 for Ethanol from sugarcane, 1400 for
Biodiesel from soy, 1100 for Gasoline from tar sands, 900 for Gasoline from
heavy oil, 300 for Ethanol from corn, 6500 for electric car running on U.S.
grid electricity. The results for Australia would not differ by much from U.S.
data. Putting it in another way, 1 unit of energy can get you in a car almost
twice as far with electricity than with the most efficient petrol driven car.
In addition, there is no pollution with an electric car. There is even less
pollution if the energy is derived from renewable electricity.
Around October 2013, California passed the United States’
first energy storage mandate issued by the California Public Utilities
Commission10. It requires
all investor-utilities in the state to buy “1325 megawatts of energy storage”
by 2020. Energy is normally quoted as power in kW(x) time in hours. In this
case, it is in power units (MW) only for flexibility reasons as explained in
the article.
Energy storage is required if renewable generators become a
larger percentage of total power generated, maybe around 30% of total, because
of the intermittency of Renewable Power generators.(California has about 29%
renewable generation at time of writing.) Otherwise, fossil-fuelled power
generators such as gas or diesel need to be kept as “spinning reserve” so that
generation can meet load demand at every point in time. Instability will occur
if generation is not equal to the load demand after a second or so and can even
lead to a black-out. When fossil-fuelled generators are used for balancing
purposes, unnecessary GHG are emitted. Energy storage in various forms is a
superior method of balancing generation to the load than the old conventional
method of “spinning reserves”, which results in GHG emissions even when they
are not actually generating power. In addition, when these “peaking generators”
such as diesel or gas are started up to meet the peak power demand, capital is
not put to optimal use because they may only be used for an hour or two in a
day. Probably, the most economical form of storage is pumped hydro storage. In
this case, when there is excess power – provided water is available in
sufficient quantity - it is used
to pump water at a lower level to a higher level. When there is insufficient
power to meet the load, water is released from the higher storage to drive
turbines at the lower level to generate electricity. However, most of these
resources, if available, have already been exploited. Part of the Snowy
Mountain Scheme makes use of pumped hydro storage.
In addition, we could have fly wheels, compressed air and
chemical storage (in the form of batteries.) The former two involve rotating
machinery to generate power. Chemical storage is a static process in the sense
that energy is stored in the chemicals within the tank(s) and chemical energy
is converted directly to electricity. The process is reversible in secondary
batteries.
Batteries may be of many different types. One of the oldest – lead acid battery – used
mostly in cars for starting the motor vehicle was improved by the CSIRO by
incorporating supercapacitors in its operation. This made the battery last
longer as well as perform better. It can and is used in some hybrid cars. It is
now being promoted as a storage device for electricity energy systems. However,
the patents have been bought by a US company which did get some government
subsidy and are now being manufactured in the US. Another, newer battery is the Lithium ion battery. It
has a very high energy density which makes it eminently suitable for electric
vehicles because of the high energy to weight ratio. The supercapacitors (a
CSIRO invention ) also incorporated in this battery is again being promoted for
electric energy storage. As mentioned earlier, these batteries are being
manufactured in California as well as in China.
A further battery type – the flow battery – was first developed
by NASA and used in space vehicles. It has since been further developed at UNSW
under Prof Maria Skyllas-Kazacos,
using Vanadium and sulphuric acid (main components of the electrolyte)
known as the Vanadium Redox Flow Battery. A patent was taken out by UNSW in
1986. Presently, the countries manufacturing this battery include US, Ireland,
Germany(by Gildermeister ), Thailand , Japan (by Sumitomo) and in China by
Prudent Energy.11,12,13 But,
unfortunately, due to the absence of funding to back fitting out a manufacturing facility in a disused
factory, Australia does not manufacture these batteries. We have lost so many
manufacturing jobs while Prime Minister Abbot speaks about new technologies for manufacturing. This is an area
where we have an eminent expert who is
so keen to start manufacture. The references give the desirable qualities
of this battery. It has been a solution waiting for an application and the application has recently arrived. I
do hope that our government and parliament can take up this challenge. If this endorsement is insufficient, I
refer you to a blog in Scientific American by David Wogan, October 21, 2013
titled “Vanadium Flow Batteries Could Become a Cost Effective Solution for Balancing
Texas’ Power Grid”. In the article, the author uses modelling to come to his
conclusion that it would be economic if a flow battery costs less than $1500
(USD )per kWh.
I am honoured and
grateful that Prof Kazacos at the UNSW together with Prof E. Ambikairajah, Head
of School, Electrical Engineering
& Telecommunications could make some time, in their busy schedule,
for me, in order that I could gain further insight into flow batteries.
Another way of funding a manufacturing facility for the flow
battery is to use a price on Carbon for the purpose. Alternatively, profitable
energy and resource companies could invest 1% of their net profit into a
renewable venture like this. They are then ensuring their long term viability
twenty or more years from now when our fossil fuels start to deplete.
A further indication of the importance of batteries in
energy system is a proposed standard “Guide for Design, Operation and
Maintenance of Battery Energy Storage System, both Stationary and Mobile and
Applications Integrated with Electric Power System”. This will be a new
standard by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) –
a transnational society headquartered at NJ, USA.
A start up
company in California, EnerVault, aims to use Iron-Chromium flow battery in
conjunction with photovoltaic generators to replace gas plants. (http://enervault.com/). There are so many
different types of storage batteries coming up. I believe they all have a place
because the materials that are used to make them are very much finite in
quantity. Lithium- very desirable for the electric car- is not such an abundant
element. When supply cannot meet demand prices inevitably go up.
A Comparison of the Net Energy Return
for various Energy Sources
I use reference 9, Mason Inman’s definition of a term called
EROI – Energy Return on
Investment. Basically it is defined as the energy recovered (return) divided by
the energy expended to obtain the return. If the EROI is less than 1, it is pointless
proceeding further with the enterprise because we are getting less energy than
we have expended. Preferably, the value of EROI should be greater than 5. On
this basis I quote figures arrived at from the article:
EROI for liquid fuels: Crude oil 16, Ethanol from sugar cane
9, Biodiesel from soy 5.5, Tar sands 5, Heavy oil from California 4, Ethanol
from corn 1.4
EROI for Electric Power: Hydroelectric 40+, Wind 20, Coal
18, natural gas 7, Solar (photovoltaic) 6, Nuclear 5.
Some assumptions are made. Values are from industry averages
or from typical installations. Renewables do not include energy storage.
The conclusions from these results show that renewables are
competitive with fossil fuels.
Wind is more competitive than coal without causing pollution (except
that in some people’s minds wind generators are a ‘blight on the horizon’).
Electricity Prices and Emissions
Electricity
prices have increased in most of the country by different amounts. So I shall
relate to NSW. Using Ausgrid (the network serving the largest number of
customers in NSW) the figure I can obtain is that network charges increased by
an average of 16.3% per annum from 2009 to 2014 for most of Ausgrid customers.
Network charges make up approximately 50% of the total cost for retail
customers. (Electricity retailers and network operators in NSW may be the same
entity. Reference 14 explains the differences. E.g. Ausgrid/Energy Australia,
Endeavour/Integral Energy, Essential Energy/Country Energy)
The
Independent Pricing And Regulatory Tribunal (IPART)14 for NSW
determined that the average regulated prices will increase by 18.1% across NSW
from July 1 2012. The carbon price contributed about 9% and in 2012/13 an
average household was paying an extra $170 because of the carbon price. A draft
proposal by IPART (Final Report will be end of June 2014), indicated that it
would not consider a carbon price in its deliberation because it estimates that
the carbon price will only add 0.3c/kWh in 2014/15. Compared with about 24c/kWh
for retail electricity, the contribution
of the carbon price is negligible.
Ausgrid has
spent many billions of dollars upgrading the network including a smart grid to
enable distributed generation and load demand management. However, it was also
reported on ABC Radio National that one of the investments was a substation in
Newcastle which is not connected to the grid and plans exist to build a
distribution line to service non existent customers. This is less than ethical
behaviour if substantiated. Investment in a smart grid is very desirable. It
has been estimated (in the US) that US$1 spent on the smart grid brings in a
return on investment (ROI) of $2.80 to $6 to the broader economy15. The preface to a report
by the head of Ausgrid mentioned that air conditioning loads increased their
costs greatly by increasing their peak load on hot days in summer. This is
surprising as a smart grid can anticipate such events and make provision by
measures including temporary load shedding without the customer being aware of
the interruption.
The
preceding paragraph illustrates that where a network and retailer is not owned
by one entity, it can lead to detrimental effects. The retailer would like an
increasing demand for electricity to increase profit, whereas the network owner
would like to ensure that the distribution lines and feeder substations are not
overloaded. Unless there is some kind of regulation for coordination between
the two, problems are likely to ensue.
The
government Emissions Reduction Fund White paper, April 2014 indicates that emissions
from electricity generation has continued to decrease steadily from 2009 to
2012. In my opinion, this is due to the RET scheme, the prospect of an
impending introduction of a price on carbon, and the large increases in
electricity prices. Further, according to SMH February 14, 2014 gas emissions
from the electricity sector are down by 7.6% since the carbon tax was
introduced in July 2012.The RET started by former PM John Howard; continued and
enhanced by the following two Labour governments is also making a positive
contribution. I believe, where there is bipartisan support for a good scheme
like this, our country is reaping the benefits of it. Even though emissions
from the electricity sector have reduced, the overall emissions have increased
due to no, or only a partial tax on other sectors especially in mining and
expansion of coal seam gas exploration. If a study by the Environment Defence
Fund (EDF) in the US estimates that the well-to-city leakage of 2.4 percent is
right, then there is a net benefit of switching from coal to gas for
electricity generation. Any leakage of Methane below 3.2% will yield a net
benefit.16 In our case
Fugitive emissions from all sources (White Paper) is 7% of total. It is some
what worrying that the present government is paying through reverse auction, to
reduce some of this emission when enforceable, strict environmental regulations
may prevent some of this from happening in the first place.
The proposal
in the White Paper for the improvement of agricultural soils, reforesting and
revegetating marginal land is very desirable. However, the government is
getting rid of ARENA and CEFC that has helped and could continue to be of
assistance for research and development of renewable energy. From the $10
billion available, only $2.55 billion is left for emissions reduction. The
rest, I presume will disappear into consolidated revenue. There is already a
long term shortfall between income and expenditure. Climate change is not
suddenly going to reverse direction because this government cannot look beyond
its own life-time horizon. Much as I and others are not in favour of increased
taxes, I believe a broad based tax like the GST needs to increase, so the
states can fund needed and desirable infrastructure projects, like an efficient
electric rail service (where that does not already exist) in densely populated
areas.
Possible Pathways for Emissions Reduction
It stands to
reason that if we want greatest impact and maximum benefit from measures to
reduce emissions, we should address Electricity Generation, Transport, and
Stationary Energy which together make up 67% of our total emissions. I present
my views based on various sources with respect to tackling these areas.
A volunteer, not for profit research and education
organisation called Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE)in partnership with University
of Melbourne Energy Research Institute “shows how solar thermal, wind and a
small biomass backup can provide 100% of Australia’s energy needs”. (Ref.https://bze.org.au/) I use this as an example to
show how rapidly the renewable energy area is developing. The BZE Stationary
Energy report was completed in 2010. At that time, the authors did not even
consider Photo Voltaic (PV) power generation as important enough to be
included. Today PV power has progressed in many ways more rapidly than
Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST) power. So much so, PV generation has achieved
grid parity in many areas.1,17 In most instances, funding
for PV installation in residential properties has been removed. Ref.17 (
detailed analysis) shows that installing PV can reduce peak power demand due to
Air Conditioning (AC) loads – a desirable outcome.
Zero Carbon Australia
has now completed a comprehensive published study for a high speed rail connecting Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney, Brisbane
and regional towns between. I believe this is a highly desirable, visionary
plan that can have major economic benefits for our nation. It will also greatly
reduce road traffic resulting in reduced pollution and fuel consumption. At the
launch in Sydney, amongst the expert panel was a representative from the German
Aerospace Centre who said the experience in Germany showed that the regional
centres attract new business. The total cost estimate is about $84.3 Billion. I
see this as an opportunity to have solar photovoltaic farms close to the
regional centres, with storage probably by Vanadium Redox Batteries. If water
is available, solar thermal with thermal storage may also be considered to
supply the rail network. In the long term, HV DC transmission should be
considered running close to the rail corridor using the synergy of the rail
construction phase with a view to extending, at a later time the HV DC north
for interchange of power to Asia.18
While the rail network is being completed over a period of 10 years, many
photovoltaic and solar thermal generators in the regional areas will already be
installed and earning revenue from electricity generation to supply the grid.
This is a good opportunity for our profitable energy and resource companies to
invest a small amount of their profits in this venture. The road network will
carry electric cars and possibly hydrogen internal combustion engines as
well as hydrogen fuel cell cars.
Experimental wireless charging laid on roadways are helping electric vehicles
go further.19
Dual fuel strategy:
An energy transition plan20: The dual fuel strategy stipulates
that all our energy needs can be met by electricity and two other fuels-
possibly ammonia, nitrogen based - a nitrofuel and methanol, carbon based - a
carbofuel. In the liquid fuels, ammonia makes up 80%, methanol 15% and dodecane
5%(jet fuel) derived from methanol.
Ammonia is obtained from nitrogen (air) and water with energy input. Methanol
is obtained from carbon dioxide and water with energy input. The carbon dioxide
is initially obtained from fossil fuels in combustion for electricity
generation or for ‘stationary energy’ (as quoted in the Govt White Paper). So,
we are using carbon dioxide from CCS plants as stockfeed and it becomes a
commodity that can be traded. The carbon dioxide can also be used in the
recovery of the remains of conventional oil wells. The two fuels can make use
of the existing infrastructure with a little modification.
Instead of dual fuel strategy, methanol as above is used and
with additional renewable energy (in the form of concentrated solar –
CST) converted to other liquid fuels for the transport industry. This is termed
the “Methanol Economy”. In it methanol would replace the functions currently
provided by petroleum. These are all possibilities, but continued research and
development is required to make the processes most cost effective for
commercialisation. An example is photovoltaic cells developed at UNSW. The
researchers have continually improved the efficiency of the cells. Their
efficiency is now around 25%. The cells are silicon based, so there should not
be a shortage of material according to Stuart Wenham, Director ARC Photovoltaics
Centre of Excellence at a recent symposium (http://www.ies.unsw.edu.au?about-us/news-activities/2014/04/renewable-energy-future-australia
)Similarly, researchers at Sydney University, Melbourne University are working
on polymer solar cells – a
plastic laminate- that can be integrated onto most surfaces to produce energy.
The efficiency is less – below 8%, but there is much greater potential energy
collection area in the building
surfaces.
Concentrated Solar can be used in many areas where process
heat is required. In Switzerland, CST is used in daylight hours to pasteurize
milk.(Shown at a recent Engineers meeting. )
I have faith in
the ability and integrity of the majority of our scientists when they advise
that combustion of fossil fuels by
humans is a major contributor to global warming. I have attempted to show a
direction in which we can be heading in a sustainable way, as well as to ensure
we can continue to earn foreign income form the export of energy. Someone more
qualified may do a better job, but since we are all collectively responsible, I
attempt to make my contribution to the solution. Let us hope that our
politicians who hold more responsibility can lead in stemming the rate of
heating of earth (1 to 40C
per 100years) now compared to last heating 56 million years ago(0.0250C
per 100 years) which is moderately fast.22
References
1. Sustainable Energy Solutions for Climate Change. Book,
Mark Diesendorf
2. www.ga.gov.au/energy/basics.html
3. Zero Carbon Australia, Stationary Energy Plan. https://bze.org.au
4. Climateprogress by Ari Phillips December 19, 2013
thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/19/3088811/chinas-biggest-carbon-market-guangdong/#
5. Business Created China’s Pollution Problem. Fortune,
April 28, 2014, Scott Cendrowski
6. Can Coal be Clean? By Michelle Nijhuis, National Geographic, April, 2014
7. Clean Coal to be Put to Test at 2 Plants This Year.
Nature magazine April 30, 2014, By Richard Van Noorden and http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clean-coal-to-be-put-totest-at-2-plants-this-year/
8. The World’s Top 25 Eco-Innovators, by Brian Dumaine, Anne
Vandermey, Fortune May 19, 2014
9. The True Cost of Fossil Fuels, by Mason Inman, Scientific
American April 2013
10. What California’s Energy Storage Requirements Really
Means by Lily Newman, 8 Nov
2013
spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/policy//are-we-talking-about-energy-orpower-in-california/?utm_source=energywise&utm_medium+email&utm_camp..
15. Modernizing the Grid: Part 2 by Massoud Amin, 7 Oct,
2013 http://theinstitute.ieee.org/
16. How significant is Methane Leakage? Bill Sweet, 31 July
2013 http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/fossil-fuels/how-significant-is-methane-leakage
17. ‘Impacts of PV, AC, Other Technologies & Tariffs on
Consumer Costs’ by the Australian PV Institute for the Centre for Policy
Development, Plessey,R, Watt, M and Brazzale R 2013
18. The future of Renewables Linked by a Transnational Grid,
by Staggart, Geoffrey, James et al.
Proceedings of IEEE February 2012
19. Today’s Cars are More Electric Than You Think by Monica
Rozenfeld http://theinstitute.ieee.org/technology-focus/technology-topic/todays-cars-are-more-electric-than
-you -think
20. The Dual-Fuel Strategy: An Energy Transition Plan by
W.L. Ahlgen, Nov 2012, Proceedings of IEEE
22. The last Great Global Warming by Lee R. Kump July 2011
Scientific American
Krishna Rajaratnam, Figtree, NSW. (14/6/2014)
No comments:
Post a Comment