LAST night the Australian Government handed down its budget for the coming financial year. The centre piece of planned spending on the environment is $4.5 billion for “clean energy”. This is defined as energy that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and boost employment.
Most of the money, $2.4 billion, will be used for the development of low-emissions coal technologies. This announcement could be interpreted as an attempt to appease the coal industry and unions – it is certainly unlikely to benefit the environment.
There is $1.6 billion for solar energy technology, ostensibly to position Australia as a world leader in solar energy technology. This may produce some benefit particularly if the investment is in new solar thermal technology and it eventually becomes a commercial reality.
According to an article by David Biello entitled ‘A Potentail Breakthrough in Harnessing the Sun’s Energy’ published today at e-journal On Line Opinion, the latest cutting edge technology of using molten salts to store solar-generated heat means energy can be released after the sun downs to drive turbines and thus generate electricity at night.
***********
A potential breakthrough in harnessing the Sun’s energy, by David Biello
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8887&page=0
The image of the solar panel is from http://www.germes-online.com/catalog/3/127/page2/209248/solar_panel.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
That’s the first time I’ve heard about the hot salts solution – Ausra have always claimed that potential but have never described how they intend to do it. So far it appears that it’s only an extension of time – i.e. the solar systems runs few a few hours after the sun goes down using the stored heat. Running 24/7 is still probably out of the question.
But I suppose you have to crawl before you can walk.
Either way, it is not feasible to convert over to renewables tomorrow as the dreamers keep insisting we do.
It is sobering to understand how much energy is delivered by the sun per square metre. It is very small and presents a fundamental limit. If you cover large areas (very large) you then have an intermitent supply unless you can find some way to store large amounts of power. When say large I mean batteries that are capable of storing Terra Watt Hours.
“But I suppose you have to crawl before you can walk.”
True janama, but somehow, boiling salt to store energy does not sound too impressive.
What about pumping water uphill for hydro, or pushing dry sand uphill with a sharp stick?
The thought of having multiple, huge mirrors out in the hot, dry, dusty country where they get dirty every day and there is no clean water to wash them every morning and where those plants cost at least 100 times existing ones, seems to be coming from a long way behind.
Carbon capture in its various forms seems much more doable and if we are really smart, Gen IV nuclear. Here’s a DIY special.
dhmo,
I figure the solar in the Spain case was about 500W/m2, which is considerably better than the coal fired power station at Loy Yang at about 250W/m2. You also have no need to dig up 30 million tons of coal each year.
The David Biello article linked is full of the usual half truths and lies. Coal generated electricity might sell for about 11c/Kw-h on average in the US but I think that’s retail delivered to the consumer by the grid. I’ll bet the solar thermal number of 13c/Kw-h is at the solar plant cost to the generator.
Miniscule amounts of energy for lots of land use and nobody is talking about the water requirement. Most of the water used for cleaning the mirrors will have to be fairly clean and I imagine will mostly evaporate.
Here is the solar thermal at Windorah that cost around $200,000 per household yet the old diesel rattler still has to be cranked up every evening.
IOW, it doesn’t save in diesel but costs 4.5 mil for the window dressing.
Hope this is just the foetal stage!
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/15002781
spangled drongo – is that a Stirling Heat Engine on the first unit?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ed/EuroDishSBP_front.jpg/800px-
This is an interesting motor in that it doesn’t require liquid fuel, spark plugs etc. It runs on heat differential and when solar heat is directed at the right part it works and drives a generator – NO water involved.
At the end of the day short term power storage will not do the job. Any non solar day will mean that a base load power station will be run to supply the load and there will have to be spinning reserve for any solar installation. Implementing solar stations will not reduce the number and capacity of base load coal or nuclear stations one MW. For every new Gigawatt solar station built a parallel new gigawatt base load station has to be built. The cost of the second station is not included in the “funny money” figures for solar power put forward by the dreamers.
Don’t worry about storing the solar energy for night utilization. There is alot of work going on developing PEM (proton exchange membrane) technology where this device can produce hydrogen from water (by electrolysis) and a similar setup can produce electricity from hydrogen generated during the day time.
http://www.schatzlab.org/projects/real_world/schatz_solar.html
Any money spent on solar and wind is well woth it. Especially for future generations.
Very good post and news Jennifer.
janama,
They all seem to have some sort of heat engine in that central collection point that is driven by heated hydrogen.
The water I was referring to is the stuff required to keep the mirrors clean and functional in those parts of the country where solar works best. Maybe some sort of reverse static charge would work.
The principle is fine and small, modular units coupled to A/C, batteries etc for individual houses would be very useful at the right price but based on our own recent experiences the cost/benefits for a small town are rather frightening.
Some in the US seem to be running out at about 10% of the price we paid for Windorah and they even seems about 1,000% above FF generation cost.
Jennifer writes “This announcement could be interpreted as an attempt to appease the coal industry and unions – it is certainly unlikely to benefit the environment”. “certainly unlikely” begorra, bebuggered. I do love a bit of reverse tautology in the name of hyperbole. But as I read the odds on this dark horse “certainly unlikely” there seems to be some new hint of lingering uncertainty in the mind of Jennifer about whether the announcement is likely to benefit the environment. Now ,this is a breakthrough. The first seeds of doubt in the camp where the sceptics dwell. What next.? Are the sceptics still really certainly unlikely to embrace evidence-based risk management.?
either way they are not in the ballpark to contribute to our current power generation.
NSW runs on 11 GIGAWATTS of power – these guys are still talking low MegaWatts.
What p***es me off is that all this is a waste of time.
There is no evidence that burning good old coal – which we have 300 years worth, is not an appropriate way to run our technology. Technology we’ve spent 100 years to develop.
sheesh!
They don’t tell you what the cost per Kw/h is when the storage system [molten salt] is incorporated but that is only good for an extra 7.5 hours and the annual average efficiency is supposed to be 15%. They classify this as “predictable” power.
I assume that means 15% of the 50,000 mws which is not much for certainly littering that beautiful landscape with 7,500 parabolic mirrors plus all the rest which is only stage one of three.
In Spain, ‘green jobs’ – supported by massive tax subsidies- cost two real jobs per.
http://www.icis.com/blogs/green-chemicals/2009/04/the-price-of-green-jobs-learn.html
AGW is scam.
It’s not cap and trade, it’s a Tax Charade.
So Haldun Abdullah, any mention of cost per Kw-h for the Schatz project? Cute little demonstration.
Another green scam.
A 4.5 Billion dollar “investment” which will be totally wasted. Nice little money earner for consultants and clean energy researchers though. Nothing good will come of it. That amount would buy a nice nuclear power station though.
interesting thought (for those still able to think):
imagine an empty table. we are starting our energy production from ZERO today. do you think that anyone would build mainly coal or oil plants again?
requiring a massive grid loosing massive energy, producing energy during night when it isn t needed and funding the middle east terrorists/”rogue states”?
sod, the answer is obviously yes. What are third world countries building now? Windmills?
producing energy during night when it isn t needed
Sod – when we all have electric cars we’ll plug them in at night so the power won’t be wasted.
car to give us an idea of what kind of power station you would build?
sod May 14th, 2009 at 8:01 am
“interesting thought (for those still able to think):”
Take it, you are not one of them, then?
We’d build nukes , Sod. Still need the grid.
If you and your lot get their way we will be starting energy production from ZERO in a few years time.
Don’t count on surviving the anger of the electorate though.
The only circumstance in which household solar energy supply becomes viable is for single rural residential developments that are more than 200 metres from an existing power line. The standard quotes for an extension of a grid to that distance is between $50,000 and $80,000, which is more than triple the cost of a full solar system with back up.
It follows that a rural cluster of three closely spaced houses or more would make a 300 metre grid extension viable but Solar would retain the competitive advantage if the extension distance was more than 400m.
However, in what must be regarded as one of the grossest perversions of the desire for ecological sustsainability, State and Local Governments have implemented policies that ensure that solar power remains off the radar, as it were.
They have implemented regional plans that set minimum rural lot sizes from 20 to 50 hectares which means that distances between dwellings remain greater than 500 metres. This would at first appear to favour solar but the reality is that once this minimum lot size is achieved then all future subdivision potential is denied. The only form of new housing development that can take place is large scale urban residential, in such numbers that the grid remains by far the cheapest supply option.
Minimum lot sizes were intended to preserve the essential rural character of urban hinterlands but the resulting absence of new development produces a decline in funds available for maintaining rural roads and infrastructure. It is a policy that ignores the fact that most demand for rural housing is for small lots that overlook rural land. And provided any small residential block is located a good distance from road frontages, then the essential rural character can be easily preserved.
So instead of allowing each of 300 farm holdings to sub-divide a single small residential block each, every 30 years or so, we have situations like the one at Main Arm, in Byron Shire, where a 300 block urban development is approved for one property in a single, abominational event that totally alters the character and culture of the district. The supposedly “green” council delivers a huge financial windfall to one land owner while the other 299 get nothing, in the name of intergenerational equity no less. And solar supply will not be viable for any of the approved dwellings.
Hmm… DT Loy Yang generates at about 3 GW so with your 250 W figure the area must be 12 square kilometres do you think that is so? I doubt it but let’s look at your other figure, 500 watts per square metre for solar. If this is so then solar is twice as efficient in area terms as the least costly method we have of generating power. I think Loy Yang is brown coal which costs about 3 cents per kWh. Quite remarkable who would have guessed?
The sun produces 1.37 kW per square metre at the top of the atmosphere http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation. This is attenuated by 60% at the earth’s surface by the atmosphere. That means on a sparkling clear day with sun directly overhead you get 548 Watts. But the days typically are not sparkling clear and the measurements made at the earth’s surface are about 370 Watts at best. This explains why solar cells produce are about 100 Watts. But let us suppose we can be very clever and achieve 60% efficiency. So we have 222 Watts per square metre. You must be relieved there you go it is near the Loy Yang figure!
It is a bugger but unfortunately the earth rotates, you may not have noticed this but I assure you it does. Not only that it is tilted and this produces winter and summer. This all means you are only going to get about 5 hours a day. This means to compare it coal you have 46.25 watts per square metre on average. So you need about 65 square kM of collector and power storage for 57 gW hours when you are not actually generating any power. A simple task hunhh.
If you are serious about CO2 emissions go nuclear the rest is a waste of time.
Ian – a solar system that replaces the grid and has backup from diesel is going to cost $60,000+
dhmo – the most efficient solar panel so far is the SunCube,
http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/images/IndiaSEF1.jpg
http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au
It uses lenses to beam onto a small but ultraefficient solar cell – the type used in space.
Joel and sod so the Chinese aren’t commissioning coal fired power stations every 4 days? About 100 gW capacity per year. I must have imagined it and then there is the Indians perhaps it doesn’t count?
The Krudd clearly believes in throwing good money after bad.
Uhhh Sod,
since when did anyone buy coal from the Middle East??????
Yes Eyrie, indeed, the Schatz project is cute. The PEM device and its reversable functionality is really fascinating. I looked into the feasibility of such systems (more than a decade ago!) for northern Cyprus where you would produce hydrogen from PV + PEM (by hydrolysis of water) in one suitable location, transport and distribute the hydrogen with hydride devices, at ordinary temperatures, and use the hydrogen + PEM to generate electricity within the cities. The so called “five finger” mountains have a suitable incline towards the south (in the northern hemisphere) with minimal cost for understructure to support the PV. The cost of PEM devices was comming down while their efficiency and capacity was going up. The catch was at the hydride storage devices where more work was needed (at the time) to develope such suitable units. I haven’t looked at the latest developments(especially with the fastly developing nano-technology) in these systems but I am sure, their cost will come down in the near future especially with the ongoing global support for “clean” energy.
As far as I know the only remaining problem with nuclear, presently, is the contamination of the cooling water. What kind of work, if any, is going on this issue?
Since this post is within the “energy” topic I would like to repeat some previous statements on an ecology-biology-energy postulate:
That, “every human(naturally, being a consumer) is born with an energy budget which would last a life time.”
It is recommended, at present, that we consume daily food, on the average, which has about 2000kcal worth in energy equivalent, in edible state, for healthy survival. If we could satisfy this need with say 10% overall efficiency then each human needs to spend about 7million kcal(about 8.5 MWH in electrical energy equivalent) yearly, for healthy survival.
Here is what some countries spent in energy/capita, based on statistics of the year 2005, in rounded figures and in MWHs:
USA 100, Australia 85, France 54, Germany 51, UK 48, Turkey 13, China 10, India 4.
These figures would give a link between what we really need and how much we consume and how much we would leave for future generations etc. At least it is a good starting point.
Haldun Abdullah
some countries spent in energy/capita
USA 100, Australia 85, France 54, Germany 51, UK 48, Turkey 13, China 10, India 4.
‘—————————-
Yes, did you look into the reason why, these countries use this much energy if indeed it’s true,?
And do you think the low energy consuming countries will stay at the level they are?
What is your solution? Bring the higher ones down or lift the lower ones up?
For your info. it all has to do with the standard of living!
‘————————-
“especially with the fastly developing nano-technology”
What has nano-technology to do with energy?
To do a certain amount of work, you need the same amount of energy whether you are using nano or macro technology.
Marcus, are in any way related to Brutus?
You can check energy figures at:
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/AU-encc.html
I have set it on Australia but you can chose any country from that page.
I wonder where you have been hiding all this time. Have you heard of the world financial crisis, world unemployment, the savage rages that “people” with “high standards of living” are carrying on other people to suck there non-renewable energy.
Have you heard about “Diachromatic competition”(stealing resources from future generations)?
Once you review the above, please let me know and I will tell you how to get help on nano-technology.
Don’t worry, you’ll catch up.
Haldun Abdullah
Sorry mate them big words you is using are making me dizzy.
Take your advice and study up on them “diametronomic confusion”
Catch up with you? Thank you but no thank you, I’d rather fall as far behind your ideas as I can, no offence.
It was calculated in the 1950s that the natural order of large scale electricity production was hydro, nuclear, coal, gas, …………..(big jump) ……………. solar, wind, …………….. geothermal.
The fundamental physics remain unchanged. The sun is not getting hotter, the days are not getting longer, the wind is not getting stronger, the half lives of isotopes have not changed.
There are certain locations where geography changes the order a little. There will be a niche market for the expensive ones. We have run out of hydro locations unless we do Tasmania over properly.
BUT. There has been a change. The change is the APPARENT cost of production by each source, because the externalities have changed. Green-induced costs such as hugely expensive site surveys, engineering against Jumbo impacts, insurance arrangements, lodgement of guarantees – factors like this have artificially raised the apparent costs of the “bad” technologies. OTOH, enforced subsidies have seemed to lower the costs of the “good” methods. These effects are really artificial; they are in the mind and not in the bank.
Commonly, the feasibility and economic studies are not conducted from cradle to grave. Apples are compared to part-eaten oranges.
In the longer term, those major producers who set up without subsidies will show their attitudes towards those producers who were subsidised into existence. When power swapping happens, the former are going to supply power at rather higher costs to their competitors who were subsidised. This factor is not modelled into the economics, but it is happening already. Here is an extract:
“Denmark trades power in the same Nord Pool, which has announced that from October the
spot floor price for surplus power will drop from zero to minus EUR 20 cents/kWh. In other
words, wind generators producing power in periods of low demand will have to pay the
network to take it. Nord Pool said that “A negative price floor has been in demand for some
time – especially from participants trading Elspot in the Danish bidding areas. … Curtailment
of sales may give an imbalance cost for the affected seller and thus creates a willingness to
pay in order to deliver power in the market.” This is likely to have a negative effect on the
economics of wind power in the region, since a significant amount of Denmark’s wind power
production is affected. WNN 1/4/09, Nord Pool 4/2/09.”
Economists are often guilty of assuming rational conduct among the populace. So they have neglected to include “little” factors like this. Likely to happen is Australia? Bet your sweet bippy.
If we were starting from a blank table, and the greens permitted a rational discussion, we would build nukes. Lots and lots of nukes. We would build a smart grid to minimize line loss and grid waste. Solar would be a niche product, as well as wind. Birds would be thrilled. Air would be clean. etc.
hunter,
Of course we would and we still could. Instead we’ll lead increasingly impoverished lives as we spiral in to third world poverty surrounded by plenty of energy which we will be prohibited from using (except for the elites of course). Eventually we may wake up before it is too late and I wouldn’t want to be identified as a greenie then.
Geoff,
Ummmm, the thingy you pasted about Nord Pool. You do realise that applies to all generators in Nord Pool don’t you? Coal, nuclear, wind, etc.
It also seems you are assuming that there are generators out there who don’t received any form of subsidy. U have evidence? Start with Nord Pool generators.
Hunter,
I guess you have missed the debates and discussions greenies have been having about nuclear wrt to things like IFR, etc. You can always ask Jennifer for a copy of the list she asked me to provide her of the greenies advocating nuc. I guess this means denialists will just have to give up on nuc then.
Jeremy,
Do you think mischaracterizing me as a ‘denialist’ is any more effective than thinking that I would reflexively turn against a position because a few greens have the wits to recognize its value?
The few greens – including Hansen- who promote a rational use of nuke power, are vastly out weighed by the green money machine that exists to oppose nukes.
In general, AGW believers spend little more than token efforts to promote nuclear power. Fantasies about CO2 go hand in hand with fantasies about wind and solar power.
Haldon, do us all a favour and stop flogging this moronic survival budget drivel. Your basic energy budget only covers base metabolisation. The rest of the budget covers the cost of educating the kids, keeping them safe, tending the sick and enforcing the law. If you think all that and more is mere indulgence then I suggest you spend some time raising kids in Mogadisu where they live a lot closer to your tightarse energy ideal.
Janama, that $60,000 is for a completely electric household. I have a family of 4 in one of my rental houses that has about $6,000 worth of solar (3 x 80W panels) and a $1,000 genset that they only use for running the washing machine and the odd power tool. The hot water, stove and fridge run on gas and a $1000 wood heater keeps them toasty all winter with a big pot of stew, or a full kettle, at the ready.
For an extra $1000 they can have a larger 1000w inverter so they can run a microwave but, for the moment, they see no need for it. One more 80W panel would run the fridge on a stand alone basis but the specialty fridge would cost $2500. When the existing gas fridge dies we will make the switch but gas would remain the best option for hot water and stove even if the house was connected to the grid.
The solar industry has seriously oversold the requirements because the subsidies are in direct proportion to the outlay. The more they spend, the more freebie they get.
DHMO, all the new Chinese coal fired plants are to replace older, smaller and much less efficient plants that were originally designed to supply much smaller local areas. That old policy of numerous small generation plants was driven, in part, by lack of investment capacity in grid infrastructure and, in part, by national security motives. Numerous, dispersed, stand alone, essential services produced numerous small targets rather than a few big ones. This also produced serious inefficiencies and capacity constraints which now outweigh the strategic considerations.
It is also important to note that each new plant incorporates significant excess capacity to allow for future growth in demand for each region. The greens have always wrongly implied that all this capacity was being fully utilised from day one.
Ian,
It seems that the last two lines of my comment that you refer to did NOT appear on your screen. I repeat them here for your convenience:
“These figures would give a link between what we really need and how much we consume and how much we would leave for future generations etc. At least it is a good starting point”
You have a nasty way of going at this but its ok. It is a starting point, the rest will follow. Don’t forget, this blog is international in attitude and has a global coverage. Try to contribute with a more positive attitude next time.
By the way, you forgot to put down the cost of waging war or hiding under the arms of those who wage war.
Ian looks like a fridge takes about 1 kW hour per day do reckon you can do that with one extra cell? You don’t go solar unless the is no choice or you have taken up the eco religion. You have a mix of everything so I doubt your example is of any worth. If you want to kill your carbon footprint it must be solar or wind. As an Australian citizen your household of 4 is responsible fo over a 100 kW hours a day. Do a bit of math what area of cell do you need?
The point the Chinese is that they are expanding at the rate of 100 giga watt hours per year. I have read this many times and must be true if the Chinese economy is expanding at the rate it is. Many leading lights are realising “alternative” energy is a myth. England is tearing down it’s most efficient power station to build a nuclear power station the size of Loy Yang. I also note that neither DT or sod have challenged what I commented above.
Says it all really:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/14/now-thats-a-commencement-speech/
No, Haldon, that was your vague escape clause. Your subsequent posts didn’t add any additional energy use as being ‘essential’. You left the difference between 8.5 MWH/capita and 100MWH as an implied excess, supposedly at the expense of future generations. This is nothing more than standard green ‘footprint’ bollocks.
The difference between 85MWH in Australia and 54MWH in France is nuclear power and significantly higher housing density. Below this, the gap between these levels and that of Turkey on 13MWH is a whole host of really valuable social goods. The maintenance of which have a really major influence on what kind of inheritance is left for these ‘future generations’. Take them out of the equation, for even a decade, let alone a half century or more, and your much hackneyed future generations will inherit a life that is nasty brutish and short.
DHMO, my example is of greatest relevance because it is what is actually taking place in the real world right now. To convert the sum of human energy use to an average in KWH is a barely relevant abstract. This particular household is not responsible for 100KWH because it gets by quite well with much less. They have choices as to how they get their energy and they will continue to have those choices, unless the eco-tightarses get full control.
Most of China’s expansion in capacity is in nuclear power while most of the replacement capacity is in coal. And your numbers are seriously out of date since the global recession took hold. Even when the new capacity comes on stream there will be a greater portion of it under used.
Ian,
Are you trying to say that Americans and Australians have (on the average) a higher standard of living than the average French, English and Germans? Don’t confuse the issue because you (apparently)have some bias about Greens, whom I sympathise with but am not one of.
I agree with you about how low energy production and consumption are in Turkey. I do write about it (whenever the opportunity arises) eversince I realized it in the Fall of 1994.
On the other hand you must not forget that there are limits to “growth”, and that environmental resistance is a force of nature that should not be overlooked.
Discussion on national averages is rather pointless, Haldon, given that almost every person with a below average standard of living will gladly adopt a higher standard whenever they are given the means to do so. And no, I made it clear that the major difference between Aus/US energy use and European energy use is housing density, which contributes to transport distances, public transit viability, vehicle use, congestion and individual footprints. One can have the same “standard” of living whilst adopting quite different modus vivendi.
Another contributor to Aus/US energy use are the amount of greenspace that is incorporated into urban settlements. The more green space between workplaces and dwelling spaces the greater the average distance each person must commute. Those who enjoy that greenspace will not allow it to be taken away without a fight so they must accept the additional energy used when commuting past it as an essential element of use rather than an optional one.
Another major feature of Aus/US/Canadian settlement patterns is the much greater distances between cities which drives up transport costs and is also built into the average energy budget. If the USA had a population of 600 million then settlement patterns and per capita energy budgets would converge to the European level. Ditto for Aus/Canada but very few citizens of either country are in a screaming hurry to make the life style adjustments that such a structural change would involve. Yet, the folks in all three countries have been provided with the option of adopting European higher density settlement patterns but they have consistently regarded such circumstances as a less than desirable option that one should pass through as quickly as possible on their way to a more desired lower density outcome.
I do not accept that there are limits to growth, either economic, social or ecological growth. The only limits are in the limited imagination of the people involved. Your concept of “environmental resistance” to growth is one based on manifest ignorance of ecological processes and properly functioning markets.
If, for example, a proper market existed that properly valued products from a farm that combined ecological and economic goals then I should get a premium for the timber/lumber from my woodlot if I can demonstrate that my woodlot continues to support three times the natural population of possums, gliders and Koalas. By modest additions of fertiliser and small but well timed applications of captured runoff water I can quadruple the population of arboreal mammals at minimal cost. If I mix Lucerne/Alfalfa with the eucalyptus leaves consumed by Koalas to boost the protein level above a mere 2% then I can be quite certain twin babies will become the norm. If I provide my possums with quality, man made nest sites that incorporate all their desired attributes I can also boost their birth rate and survival rate far beyond that provided by the random supply of nest services provided by trees that take 150 years to produce a hole that barely meets their minimum specification.
But instead, I must deal with a dysfunctional market that starts from the assumption that all arboreal mammals are under threat and any purchase of wood from a natural woodlot is automatically diminishing the welfare of the animals within it. I have yet to find the upper limit to how many additional animals I can support in a properly managed woodlot. But my main problem is that you, and much of the illinformed marketplace, have an entrenched belief that mankind is incapable of working with nature to improve on her random inefficiencies whilst continuing with economic growth.
Not one of my small fluffy guests has ever resisted the improved nutrition, or superior housing, or enhanced survival rates that I have provided for them in the course of meeting my economic goals. They have no concept of your notion of “environmental resistance”, they do not regard it as a “force of nature” and they ignore it continually. And I trust their judgement over yours any day.
Ian,
I hope no Chinese or Indians believe all that crap you write. You seem to have an amazing ability of taking the alphabet and generating words that show no respect to intelect. I wonder where or if you have had any formal education. Perhaps you were busy burning gas and did not have time to travel or read about world affairs.
I have never read so much wishfull thinking in so few lines.
The only words which reflect some thought (surprizingly!) are “population density” of which Australia’s is 2.7 people/sq.km., China’s is 130 and India’s is 300. Suppose they want the same goodys as you do? where are they going to get the resources? are they going to come to you? Wake up from your dream!
Get some help on the SCİENCE of ecology and think wisely when you put words on paper. At least think for the good of your own young, if you have any.
Really, Haldon. I am tertiary educated, of independent means and am working on my third $million after semi-retiring from my own “corporate to corporate” business at the ripe old age of 45. I have lived and worked in London, Athens, Hong Kong, Vancouver, Sydney and Brisbane. I also speak Chinese and skeletal Greek, French and Indonesian and have travelled by bicycle through Malaysia, Thailand, Burma, India and Nepal. I have also served on the National Executive of Australian Forest Growers, on numerous federal and state policy committees, including chairman of two and have been on the expert consultative panel for the Australian Greenhouse Office’s Greenhouse Inventory for Land Use Change and Forestry and remain on the committee overseeing the satellite scanning of vegetation change in Queensland.
I provided you with a detailed example of how your so called “limits to growth” reflect nothing more than your own ignorance and impoverished imagination. It included sufficient technical detail to make it clear to an informed person that I knew exactly what I was talking about. BUT IT ALL WENT RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD. Now who the f@#$% are you?
Ian,
You have done (or tried to) so much in such a short time that you seem to be very confused. Why don’t you leave science and engineering to those who are educated and trained in those fields and finish working on your third million?
Once you have earned your third million and just before starting to work on the forth pls contact me and I’ll help you out to new info. Otherwise you will be more confused!
By the way, Do you drink? you have left out that bit of info about your life.
In case you are writing with a sober head do get some course on writing manners. It wouldnt cost you more than $200.
I have one wine or beer each day, rarely both. And as I don’t suffer fools gladly, I’ll be content to hang on to the $200, thanks. I also note that you have declined to comment on just one of many examples where the generally held “limit” to growth was nothing more than a lack of knowledge and an impoverished intellectual inquiry. Now you may well regard an accusation of impoverished intellect as an insult but my use of the term was as a simple statement of observed fact.
Those who accept the concept of limits to growth usually reveal themselves to have never moved from the generalised abstract to specific instances where the claimed limits have been met. That is certainly the case with yourself here on this blog. But we should not be surprised at this because actual reality has consistently been shown to dangerous ground for those who choose to dwell in the abstract. The more detailed and complete the knowledge becomes the more remote the supposed limits to growth seem to move.
The whole concept of “stealing resources from future generations” betrays the narrow plodding mind of a costing clerk which has very little to contribute around a boadroom table. It is like asking the music industry in 1956 to reduce sales of Elvis or Doris Day records so there will be enough vinyl to ensure that teenagers in 2056 don’t miss out.