I know I know, I shouldn't waste my time. But when I have a shower, I usually turn on the radio, and if question time is on, that's what I listen to. I mean, I can hardly change the station can I? I have wet hands.
Lately they have been talking about renewable energy. I would in all seriousness like to know how many members of parliament have completed high school physics.
One guy (didn't catch the name, or the party) was talking up the prospects of Mackay Sugar's co-generation plant. "It produces 266 000 Megawatts a year" apparently.
Another person (from the Opposition), was warning about the cost of solar and wind energy. "Coal fired electricity costs 3c per kilowatt hour (at least this guy was dimensionally correct), whereas solar and wind cost between 5-8c per kilowatt hour. Therefore, if we switched entirely to wind and solar, electricity costs would go up by 100-200 %. Can the working families of Australia really afford that?" Well that's very interesting, because working families currently pay between 10-12c a kilowatt hour. The difference comes from the fact that there is a lot more to the electricity grid than simply production. Transmission, billing, marketing and general business administration-not to mention profits- all have to take their cut. All these costs are likely to be the same (or possibly less for transmission due to local production) under a renewable energy regime. I don't think the guy was being disingenuous mind you, just ignorant.
Lastly there was July Bishop claiming that solar hot water systems were not "an energy generation system," but merely "an energy efficiency-displacement measure" and hence should not be regarded in the legislation, or included in the renewable energy mix. Does July Bishop actually understand the difference between electricity and energy? If she doesn't, then does she claim that gas fired water heaters are also merely energy efficiency-displacement measures?
Now, I don't usually like to be a pedantic nerd about physics errors, but in cases like these it really matters. The people running our country don't understand how the natural world works and this is a big problem. Solar hot water is the most economically efficient carbon displacement technology we have and its prospects are being endangered by someone who doesn't understand science.
I should really spend less time in the shower.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I can't really comment on the substance of this as I don't understand physics. However, if what you say is correct, you should write to the Minister and to the newspapers. This is an important issue.
I also like the imagery this post provokes - of you in the shower.
*invokes
Before Dave gets a chance to correct me.
*evokes?
Fine.
Dave - help?
Love you Sam!
Better?
Thanks Adriana, for all 4 comments
You can change the radio station using the hand that's holding the book that you're reading.
Evokes.
While your physics may well be correct, your accounting is almost surely wrong. Solar generation is the most efficient method of electricity generation only if we ignore the environmental cost of production. The total lifetime environmental cost of solar power remains higher than that of coal-generated electricity. In terms of total environmental impact, coal-generation is second only to nuclear generation. Until alternative generation technologies are substantially improved, governments are right to resist their implementation.
Rather than 'leaping' onto the latest environmental bandwagon before 'looking' into the facts, your efforts would best be spent on encouraging governments to invest in R&D of alternative energy generation technologies.
Post a Comment