I did not read anything about China's cap and trade pilot in that link.
A pilot scheme maybe and that is infinitesimal really...just a trial and nothing more.
I did not read anything about China's cap and trade pilot in that link.Obviously they didn't hear about China's cap and trade pilot
http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/03...ngs-chinas-pilot-emissions-cap-trade-systems/
I did not read anything about China's cap and trade pilot in that link.
A pilot scheme maybe and that is infinitesimal really...just a trial and nothing more.
Sun Cuihua, a climate change official with China’s National Development and Reform Commission, the country’s main economic planning body, has confirmed that Beijing plans to enforce cap-and-trade in 2016.
China is already experimenting with seven regional carbon market pilots, which were announced in 2011 and operative over the last two years. Each pilot covers a large city - Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai and Shenzhen - or a province - Chongqing, Guangdong, and Hubei.
Together the projects have accounted for almost 4 million tons of carbon emission quotas so far, according to the National Development and Reform Commission, making China the world's second largest carbon trading market following the European Union's EU-ETS.
So you missed the nation wide rollout in 2016
http://www.planetexperts.com/china-plans-nationwide-cap-trade-program-2016/
http://www.theclimategroup.org/what...-launch-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-in-2016/
Damn good information in those links syd............But I must ask can a commo socialist fabian marxist collective that only gets up from eating there own young to join in the chorus of the 'international' really teach us anything.
But I must ask can a commo socialist fabian marxist collective that only gets up from eating there own young to join in the chorus of the 'international' really teach us anything.
The demand for fossil fuel I'd suggest is quiet secure for some time.
THE Queensland government, as host of last weekend’s G20 *summit, is incensed over what it sees as an ill-informed, insulting speech from Barack Obama about climate change, the Great Barrier Reef and coal.
Federal Coalition members are also angry at the US President’s public intervention in the Australian climate change debate at the G20 last Saturday…
Senior Queensland government MPs are so angry at Mr Obama’s remarks about the Great Barrier Reef and his attack on coal production in a resources state that they are considering a formal complaint.
…What most angered Newman government MPs was that the state had “bent over backwards” to find a venue and audience in keeping with Mr Obama’s late request to speak to a large number of young people.
After Fukushima the Chinese Govt slowed down construction of their reactors to ensure they were being built safely. While it's not improbably corners have been cut, the same could be said for a lot of the reactors in rich countries. Lets just hope they decide to deal with their nuclear waste a bit better than the current solution of leaving in in ponds of water for decades. Dealing with nuclear waste never seems to be factored into the cost of nuclear power.
In a country like Australia with near limitless potential for solar and wind power, do we really want to be spending $10B+ per nuclear reactor? That's a while lot of renewable energy production, along with the benefits of distributed power generation. The fact we don't have the skill sets to build or run the power plants would also be an added factor in the risks of nuclear here.
I'm not sure if there's many rivers suitable to be dammed left in Australia. Certainly none particularly close to where lots of energy is consumed. You might be able to provide some info on that?
I agree, macca. But NZ does have such a huge natural geographical advantage in this respect, with snow melt coming off the mountains into those huge high country lakes, so beautiful in themselves.The South Island of NZ has lakes all over the place, tourists rave over them, every large lake is part of a Hydro scheme and it is all so sensible, practical and efficient.
Hi SB,
I did find this on Brisbane power supply, says that mostly coal fired power stations with some gas as well.
http://www.energyskillsqld.com.au/industry-sectors/electricity-generation-industry/
I agree with Smurf that burning gas to make electricity is a complete waste of a transportable fuel and future generations will not thanks us for it.
Every night on the weather it seems to be raining around the border of NSW and QLD then we have the very wet area of Proserpine and Tully etc where it buckets down, surely they can find somewhere suitable for dams and hydro plants. As Smurf has shown the incredibly long life of these units with minimal maintenance and no nuclear waste is surely a win win for us all.
I agree, macca. But NZ does have such a huge natural geographical advantage in this respect, with snow melt coming off the mountains into those huge high country lakes, so beautiful in themselves.
The Ord River Scheme in Western Australia provides a good (if somewhat extreme) example. According to an official analysis, between 1958 and 1991 the government invested A$613 million in the scheme, but the benefits were just A$102 million. Yet the expansion of the project has continued (and is mentioned in the new green paper), with mounting net losses.
In terms of economics, it is unlikely that future schemes will do any better than the poor return on investment garnered from Australia’s existing dams. A century of development has exhausted most of the best dam sites, and new projects will face constraints that were less acute (or disregarded) during the expansionary period of the 20th century.
Moreover, while the real price of agricultural commodities has fluctuated about a stable or declining trend, the cost of large-scale construction of all kinds has increased – one of the few certainties in this entire issue.
If the money spent on nuclear went to large scale deep thermal we could in my view get the power grunt needed.
.
I agree with Smurf that burning gas to make electricity is a complete waste of a transportable fuel and future generations will not thanks us for it.
Every night on the weather it seems to be raining around the border of NSW and QLD then we have the very wet area of Proserpine and Tully etc where it buckets down, surely they can find somewhere suitable for dams and hydro plants. As Smurf has shown the incredibly long life of these units with minimal maintenance and no nuclear waste is surely a win win for us all.
In a country like Australia with near limitless potential for solar and wind power, do we really want to be spending $10B+ per nuclear reactor? That's a while lot of renewable energy production, along with the benefits of distributed power generation. The fact we don't have the skill sets to build or run the power plants would also be an added factor in the risks of nuclear here.
?
From what I've read, large scale deep thermal, other than geothermal, is pie in the sky stuff.
If we are going to to use mass geothermal, no ones knows the ramifications.
very much worth a read on the limited prospects for new dams in Australia. We've pretty much used up the best resources already.
I did find this on Brisbane power supply, says that mostly coal fired power stations with some gas as well.
The "economics of dams" argument isn't a new one, indeed it was one of the two key pillars (the other being environmental) of the "No Dams" campaign of the 1970's and especially into the early 1980's.
There's only one problem I see with that. If you strictly apply the economic criteria then we end up with coal....
Looking ahead, nobody is really pushing large scale hydro development these days. AGL built a significant new hydro station in Victoria not too long ago and in Tas we've done a lot of tinkering to try and squeeze more production out of the existing system without building any new major dams or power stations as such. That's about it apart from some very small scale schemes in various places.
But if we did want to build more, well then there's some potentially worthwhile projects in Qld, NSW and Tas. That plus the large scale option of developing hydro (baseload) in PNG and transmitting the electricity into the grid in Qld.
There are some undeveloped resources elsewhere, including the NT and WA, but they're pretty unlikely to be developed in practice due to location and scale factors (which would make the economics pretty terrible).
Victorian State Election: Greens to shut down dirty coal plants if it wins balance of power
Coal-fired power stations at Hazelwood and Anglesea would be phased out from as soon as next year under a Greens plan the party is vowing to pursue if it wins the balance of power in Victoria.
Under the scheme, decommissioned power plants and mines would be replaced by solar farms and other renewable energy projects, which would create hundreds of jobs.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/v...e-of-power-20141119-11px1r.html#ixzz3JZX0Ac1C
I'd hate to imagine the cost of doing this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?