Some points to consider: In terms of a “pollutant emissions …

Comment on NT should be the sun, wind powerhouse by James Barlow.

Some points to consider: In terms of a “pollutant emissions output / energy cost input” over the life of an energy generating system, so-called renewables remain hideously expensive and inefficient, and create more waste than traditional generators.
Two points about wind turbines, over and above the terrible impact they have on local communities, and wildlife: A wind turbine has in effect to be linked to a gas turbine for when the wind doesn’t blow, and the manufacturing process for building turbines creates around a cubic tonne of highly toxic waste.
Beyond Zero Emissions are in many ways just another organised, taxpayer-soaking cult seeking to direct how we live our lives contrary to science, and the basic tenets of modern standards of living.
Carbon is a building block of life. CO2 content in the earth’s atmosphere is around .04%. Australia’s CO2 output is about 3% of the .04% total – that is so small as to be unmeasurable. All sides of this “debate” have at least previously noted. Nothing Australia does in this space will have a global impact.
A research area within CDU has previously flagged an idea to pump water from the Ord uphill during the day using solar-powered pumps.
At night the water would then run downhill driving power generators.
The power would be cabled undersea to Indonesia.
There are a few issues with this “plan”: No mention was made of where the water would be stored once pumped uphill, and when questioned the CDU team could not provide an answer.
And the cost of cabling power to Indonesia would be very, very high.
The idea to export the power was an assumption and not done on the basis of actually consulting with the Indonesians. Why our neighbours would choose to buy more expensive “renewable” power might be worth asking.
And in the week this idea was flagged the Indonesian Government announced plans to build three additional nuclear power generators. As is always the case, the researchers felt “if we could just get some more funding” they would be able to finish their work.
The nation-level investment in renewables in countries like Germany and Spain has had a range of negative impacts.
Economic costs: Building Spain’s solar and wind infrastructure came close to bankrupting the country.
There are much higher energy costs for consumers, and the resultant energy poverty for those to whom the cost is largely shifted.
In the UK there have been policy announcements over the past year about a shift to 100% renewables.
The engineering consequence of this would be a required increase in battery storage capacity of close to 1000%.
The energy production costs of this would make worthless any reduction in pollutant emissions. There have been some substantial renewable project failures in Australia, involving large multi-nationals. Worth looking into.
As always the end point is, why not nuclear?
I don’t have anything against renewables apart from that they are inefficient, expensive and have a far more negative environmental impact than is willingly discussed.
Nuclear on the other hand is about as clean as you can get.
And before I hear the words Three Mile or Chernobyl let’s remember modern nuclear reactors are safe and stable, and technically in a different era.
BZE are just grabbing for more government cash.
And like the sheep we are we’re once again looking to the cargo cult of Government to deliver us some goodies.

Recent Comments by James Barlow

Debt-ridden govt wrests control of debt-free Transport Hall
Erwin: The ALP’s media arm (also known as the ABC) has run a very bland piece on this issue.
The tone is gently supportive of the NT Government, noting “financial irregularities” of the historical society being to blame.
Rather than the obstinance and amateurism of our political betters – as the bulk of the electorate are seeing it as.

‘Catastrophic’ drop in construction work
Governments are addicted to outsourcing this kind of basic policy advice.
It gives the Government a veneer of competence, while avoiding the possibility of being held accountable for something.
However, once upon a time NT Treasury was more than capable of producing advice in this area – and likely still is.
Perhaps the line of questioning on this could be expanded at the next committee sitting. As in: “Why is Mr Gunner wasting money on something his own Treasury is able to do?”

Government accused of unfair competition
It does appear Minister Lawler was happy to use her authority to make a decision, but now alerted to the negative consequences private operators are facing as a result, wants to handball responsibility to the Development Consent Authority.
Not really what we elect our local members for.

Be Sociable, Share!

A new way to support our journalism

We do not have a paywall. If you support our independent journalism you can make a financial contribution by clicking the red button below. This will help us cover expenses and sustain the news service we’ve been providing since 1994, in a locally owned and operated medium.

Erwin Chlanda, Editor