Mining and the Greens

[Ruggo]

Hydro disrupts natural flows so whether it is "green" requires heavy assesment. Hornet, the wave stuff is interesting. We have a company up here that is looking to set up turbines on the sea bed. We get up to 8m tides in Darwin Harbour and they are confident of being able to harvest energy from them.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yep, we also have the king tides in the North, which would be ideal conditions for wave power. I personally think it's pretty exciting from a tech perspective, especially as the process for generating the electricity also desalinates water.

 

[Scotty]

The tidal and wave stuff is two different things though, isn't it?

Broome is prime for the tidal version! Something like the second biggest tidal variation in the world I believe!

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Technically yes, but they are related.

 

[Gnostic]

I agree Gnostic that there needs to be more investigation done, which is why I'm calling for an adult debate about Nukes in this country. We just treat this issue like it's radioactive itself and run away from it.

As far as base load power goes, coal, nukes and natural gas are the three most cost effective options at present. Wave power is also promising and would be good for base load, as the tides are perpetual. There is a company over here called Carnegie Wave Energy who does this (disclosure: I am a shareholder). Hydro is fine if you have enough water, which we don't in the South but perhaps do in the North.

I agree Hornet that we need some real debate which present all the information. That was my whole point the current debates conveniently forget a few truths such as the Carbon/Energy inputs for Nuclear, the ineffciency in any carbon capture/sequestering system for clean coal (as much as 50% though more likely closer to 30% of power could be generated just to sequester the carbon). Add to that the general inefficiency of the current transmission network which adding more and more generation capacity does nothing to address. Significant investment is required to update and upgrade the transmission network.

Something no Australian government has done in many many years is take the wholistic view. Too many issues like this are honed down to individual subjects/projects considered in isolation. For example politically popular projects such as the Melbourne and Sydney Desalination plants had viable alternatives that did not require huge Electricity inputs which Desal. does.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Totally agree. Get all the options out on the table and work out which ones make sense in the different regions. There is no single right answer.

 

[Moses]

For example politically popular projects such as the Melbourne and Sydney Desalination plants had viable alternatives that did not require huge Electricity inputs which Desal. does.

Desalination was politically popular?

 

[Ruggo]

The tidal and wave stuff is two different things though, isn't it?

Broome is prime for the tidal version! Something like the second biggest tidal variation in the world I believe!

I think it is the first Scotty. That whole Kimberly Coast gets up to 12 meter tides. What they also have up that way is Lake Argyle which is very under used. It is friggin' huge and is reliably replenished each wet season. I am no engineer but if only there was a way of piping that water south to the food growing regions. It would have to cross the desert and maybe there is potential to generate the energy to pump the water by harvesting the desert wind. Maybe I am just pie dreaming.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Ruggo, a bloke by the name of Ernie Bridge wanted to do this, as did our current premier when opposition leader years ago. I reckon it'll happen eventually and it's crazy that we don't use the water resources up North when the South is getting drier. There are huge technical challenges, but I reckon at some point we're going to have to look at it seriously.

 

[Moses]

I read about a proposal to build a water pipeline from Cradle mountain in Tasmania to the reservoir in Melbourne, they have vast amounts of excess water, and since it's downhill no energy would be used to pump it.

 

[Scotty]

Ruggo, a bloke by the name of Ernie Bridge wanted to do this, as did our current premier when opposition leader years ago. I reckon it'll happen eventually and it's crazy that we don't use the water resources up North when the South is getting drier. There are huge technical challenges, but I reckon at some point we're going to have to look at it seriously.

The idea has been floated in Qld as well.

 

[Moses]

Didn't they want to pump water from Cairns to Brisbane despite an abundance in the Byron area, as the QLD and NSW governments couldn't get along?

 

[Elfster]

Transferring water is all well and good, but in some ways it is like "reversing the rivers"...which is what the ex-Soviet Union did with dire results. I am not intrinsically against it, but one has to consider the impact of transferring large amounts of water around the country. One immediate thing that could be done is the covering and lining of the irrigation systems we currently have. There is also another elephant in the room, not entirely unrelated to the need to transfer water to feed our increasingly "thirsty" cities is the way we are allowing these cities to encroach some of premium arable and well watered land. Though all these things are hard and the answers will be tough...I hope whatever is done is done appropriately and with considered thoughts on what happens to the environment. And btw I am no way a tree hugging greenie...

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Believe it or not, I am something of an environmentalist myself. I want to see sensible stewardship of our natural resources and clean air, rivers etc. The difference between me and some other environmentalists is that I acknowledge that there are practical realities to be considered and that we don't want to sabotage our economy in the name of green purity.

 

[Ruggo]

Interesting that this thread has ended up here given it is about the greens. One of their policies is the protection of fertile farm land over the mining industry. In depth it is a facinating subject full of pros and cons.

In terms of water, you have the farm land down south and we have the water up north. Some of the major rivers and catchments are gods country up this way and are worth preserving and are vital to our tourism sector which is our biggest employer. A major consideration to consider in the north is that our rain is for about five months a year and the remaining seven are bone dry. Given our hot climate, evaporation rates are very high in those dry months. We are fortunate to be able to be proactive up here but we suffer from the misconception that the water is an endless supply.

Environmental science is my field of study, I am green but my focus is on sustainability and not tree hugging shit.

 

[Scotty]

Didn't they want to pump water from Cairns to Brisbane despite an abundance in the Byron area, as the QLD and NSW governments couldn't get along?

Yep. Surprise surprise.

 

[Scotty]

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ing-tax-pd20101019-ACRMM?OpenDocument&src=kgb

Greens and Coalition are siding to make the government release the MRRT modelling. Not sure what the government is really afraid about, unless they have been fraudulent.

I also think that the government should push the states to remove their royalties as part of any reworked MRRT. Otherwise we just end up with another level of bureaucrats to collect extra taxes, which then get refunded. We have an opportunity now to simplify the tax system, and most of that simplification needs to come from remove many inefficient state taxes. The former Labor government had a great idea in order the Henry tax review, now they need to find the balls to start implementing its recommendations where appropriate (and not ignore others, such as the one that recommended against increasing the compulsory super %).

 

[Scotty]

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...-budget-pd20101020-AE2VJ?OpenDocument&src=pmm

Where’s Solomon when you need him? Martin Ferguson and the big miners are going to need that kind of wisdom to resolve the developing threat to the agreement they struck in July that cleared the way for the introduction of the proposed mineral resource rent tax.

The emerging tensions relate to an apparent misunderstanding between the government and the companies about what was agreed in the hurried and intense negotiations that occurred in the wake of Julia Gillard’s displacement of Kevin Rudd and the lead up to the federal election. Or perhaps, given the haste with which the deal was struck, the government didn’t appreciate the implications of a key aspect of the agreement.

The miners – BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata – thought they had a deal under which any future increase in state royalty rates would be offset against the MRRT. It has emerged over the past week that Ferguson believes that the agreement is limited to existing royalties and increases that had been announced before the original Resource Super Profits Tax was announced in May.

The impasse is almost insoluble.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Heard that on the radio this morning. You'd have to think that the mining tax is looking shaky now.

 

[liquor box]

I have never seen a thorough analysis on the energy inputs required to mine Uranium, process it to fuel grade, treat the waste and then store it with the associated contruction and then maintenance on the storage facility and containment vessels essentially for ever. The energy inputs are huge just from a cursory look, these must be taken into account when calling Uranium a "clean" fuel just because its direct use has no carbon output.

I am getting sick of "but what about the carbon to build a nuclear plant" argument, has anyone ever announced how much carbon goes into a wind turbine made from steel or to make the glass for a solar panel?

For those opposed to Nuclear power I have one question, if it is such a worry, do you visit or would like to visit a country that uses nuclear power? Most of the world does it and so should we