Some interesting graphs from a paper on
Australia's energy future
[pdf]. The paper focuses on energy usage in the stationary energy and transportation areas. Coal is cheap in Australia and forms most of our electricity energy production. It is also a heavy carbon emission emitter when burned. Nuclear power is an option, but it is another centralised technology. If government is going to pick winners, it should favour a decentralised power production system. This will be the best long term solution, the most innovative, and by its structure, more resilient to failure and disruption.
Greenhouse Emissions
The stationary energy production sector is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases according to the report. Non-energy emission sources are the second largest with transportation third. This does not show concentration however, and transportation is highly concentrated. I can recall Sydney having brown haze sunsets where smog hung about ten kilometres off the coast. Then again, folks out in Muswellbrook might complain of pollution from time to time. I can recall being surprised when driving out there, just how quickly the big coal stations appeared.
Why is stationary energy production such an issue? It is probably because we burn a lot of brown and black coal.
Brown coal is the least purest form of coal and contains a lot of moisture. A by-product of burning coal is sulphur, which inevitably reacts in the atmosphere to create sulphuric acid. Apparently coal has been going through a boom period, with India and China burning more and more of it. Like other energy sources, it is in demand. Coal allows Australia to be a net energy exporter.
Absent from Australian stationary energy production is nuclear power. The last time this was raised with any vigour was in the 1970s, and was partly because of foreign policy and military reasons. This
Nuclear issues Briefing page argues that nuclear energy is cost competitive with coal
for stationary energy production in Australia. The page notes;
Why is stationary energy production such an issue? It is probably because we burn a lot of brown and black coal.
Brown coal is the least purest form of coal and contains a lot of moisture. A by-product of burning coal is sulphur, which inevitably reacts in the atmosphere to create sulphuric acid. Apparently coal has been going through a boom period, with India and China burning more and more of it. Like other energy sources, it is in demand. Coal allows Australia to be a net energy exporter.
Absent from Australian stationary energy production is nuclear power. The last time this was raised with any vigour was in the 1970s, and was partly because of foreign policy and military reasons. This
Nuclear issues Briefing page argues that nuclear energy is cost competitive with coal
for stationary energy production in Australia. The page notes;
A factor which may put nuclear energy back on the local agenda is the possibility of emissions trading or a carbon tax to assist the achievement of emission reduction targets for carbon dioxide. A modest carbon tax or equivalent emission trading value of $37 per tonne ($10/t CO2) translates into 1.0 cents/kWh for electricity generated by black coal. (European Emission Trading Scheme prices were around EUR 15/t CO2 early in April 2005.)The page also compares some other statistics;
- Coal now provides 78% of Australian electricity
- Gas now provides 13% of Australia's electricity
- Uranium at present provides no energy in Australia but 16% of the world's electricity
