Give it thirty years.
An interesting example of how it all becomes complicated:
âBiodiversity is the buffer at the end of the tracks that stops the runaway train of climate change from bursting through,â
âDestroying biodiversity in order to have greater amounts of wind energy is a complete oxymoron. Itâs ridiculous. So we shouldnât be doing it.â The wind farms angering renewable energy fans - ABC News
In the context of climate change, the reputation of Australia is not good. It is positive that there are attempts to turn the direction away from coal but the story seems to show how things should not be done. There is a price to pay if we want wind energy. Sacrificing some area and scenery is one part of it. Yet, destruction of sites with conservation value and threatened species would not be possible where I live.
I was once involved in the planning of a wind farm in a forested area - just a research project studying the potential impacts on bats. The sites and roads to the sites could be constructed with much less disturbance than in the cases described in the linked story. Permissions were not given to all planned sites, only to those where the wind farm could be constructed and operated without serious harm to protected species or the environment.
1 Like
The size of Sahara is about 9â000â000 km2. 20% of that is 1â800â000 km2. That would be a HUGE power plant.
I assume that one reason why the area should be large is that the system should counteract the global wind systems. Warm air rises at equator, loses humidity as rain and then flows north or south. At around 30 degrees latitude the dry air flows down. As long as this pattern dominates, Sahara will stay dry.
Erm, excuse my ignorance.
Isnât this a form of energy storage?
Ok, the methanol could be buried. But, I rather suspect economic forces will dictate itâs used as a fuel, which will result in waste CO2 to atmosphere. Please tell me a better story?
1 Like
Yes Australia has not adopted a climate change policy that would be distinguished by vision and clear goals.
One needs to quantify the reductions in CO2 that would be achieved by adopting the coherent approach I mentioned previously. I am not advocating dumping methanol into a hole. We need to close down inefficient high emitting plants and replace these with a well designed mixture of renewables and zero-emitting large power stations that are economically viable.
Production of methanol (and numerous other products) is achieved by using the (lower amounts of) CO2 from these power stations as a raw material.
Itâs not huge enough. It will only provide 4 x the electricity we currently consume. Which is nowhere near enough.
But itâs not really a raw material in this instance. Itâs a waste product that is only temporarily diverted, for no net energy benefit and no net emissions reduction.
1 Like
Many (if not all) of the products that can be made using CO2 in this manner, are currently made using coal or gas - so this would replace these. But the long term benefits would be derived from advanced systems that would operate with increasing efficiencies, ensuring a viable and secure zero-emissions electricity generation for households, business, industry and transport. Just to illustrate this point, it should be possible to develop a power generating system that would have a CO2 profile of <300kg CO2/MWh (down from 600-1400 kg/MWh from the various ones currently used). This CO2 would be readily converted to useful products, and the world would have a reliable energy source that consists of a well designed system using solar, wind, hydrogen and coal (and perhaps nuclear if this is rendered safe).
Sorry, I donât mean to be obtuse, but this CO2 is made using coal or gas. It seems like a magical rebranding exercise to me. Almost as misleading as the âhydrogen fuel - we make it out of water and the waste product is water!â marketing fairy dust.
1 Like
We may have a useful conversation if you initially consider electricity generation using current plants, and then compare these with what I am proposing. The goal is to reduce CO2 added to the atmosphere and ultimately achieving zero emissions. This is not a magical exercise, far from it.
As prompted by the computer message, I encourage others to also comment on ways to reduce and eliminate CO2 added to the globe by man made activities.
1 Like
Is General Electric?
Is General Electric what?
I almost did a post on ways we can all do just that, but I knew it would go over like a lead balloon over a black hole!
Why donât you? How we all can? Just?
Thatâs really cool. Without hydrogen!
This is an awful response - I have added the chemical equation and also how H2 would be produced. Why do you suggest otherwise?
I agree, your response is awful, I admire your self deprecation. You donât mention hydrogen in that quote or the whole post it came from. Why not?
good grief.