Paella wrote on Dec 21^st, 2009 at 5:38pm:


What about non-developing countries? (failed states). These are the countries that make up the bulk of the G77. For some of them, I can actually see the benefit in the approach you describe. That group might include Argentina, Chile, Uzbekistan and perhaps Vietnam. In Africa, perhaps Gabon and Central Guinea should be considered. These are countries that are relatively stable, have some capital of their own, and are genuinely developing rather than "non developing" stagnant, usually corrupt failed states.

For the likes of China, India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and South Africa, they have enough economic clout (and nouse) to get things done by themselves. I really don't have any concerns about China pulling through.

For most of the rest, there would be no tangible benefit for the world in providing assistance. We need to focus on the prime objective, which is to de carbonise the world's economy. Providing new power stations that would never have been built doesn't get us closer to that objective.

The objective is not nation building.

Paella wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 5:55pm:


I don't know how it is intended to work, but any contribution to projects needs to be indexed to net contribution to the problem.  Maybe China  has not contributed much to date, but if they continue down this path, their relative contribution will increase. After all, they have no intention of shutting down coal fired power stations in the near future.

There needs to be a sliding scale so that there is a financial incentive to improve.

It's likely to be a two-way benefit. The cost of renewable energy packages must come down as they become more prevalent, and there are great opportunities for Australian companies to provide expertise for other global projects if they can demonstrate success in China.

With oil, we are likely to see a rapid rise in prices as supplies become scarser, making other renewable options more viable.

With coal, such an effect is unlikely to eventuate in the near future.  

On your highlighted point, maybe we don't need a 100% global agreement. Some countries in reference to the issue are like ants on an elephant (they are insignificant, but quite capable of complicating the issue) and should be ignored unless they miraculously start to improve their act.

Darwin wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 9:39am:



There are whole coalfieds that we have hardly touched yet in Australia. The Surat Basin is one of them, and it's probably as big as the Bowen Basin.

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 11:05am:


What you describe sounds a bit like communism.  How do you allocate the share? By population, by GNP or by giving exactly the same allocation for each sovereign nation?

It sounds like the board game Monopoly in which everybody is given an equal amount of money at the beginning. To give any money to failed states is basically throwing money away, or giving them funds that they have not earned.  Perhaps if the credits were allocated on the basis of GNP, then the States that have the technology to solve this problem would be given the opportunity to do so. Virtually all electrical energy that is generated tends to be local in application. It's very difficult to export electricity from (say) Africa because the transmission losses are too high.

Even if we start off that way, failed states will continue to do what they do best:They will continue to fail - regardless of outside help. Saving such countries will rapidly become a luxury we can't afford as we progress down the track.

It is wasted effort that would be better spent on renewable energy projects in developed countries rather than 'non-developing' countries.

If all that sounds callous, I'm sorry, but it is a crisis. It's not a charity program. It's technology that will solve this problem, not growing bananas in the most inefficient way possible.

It sh1ts me to see people applying what amounts to communism - a failed model to something that cannot be allowed to fail.

We should start taxing and ruining the standard of living for Australians right away based on phoeney science that the senate has already blocked twice? 

Maybe we should have a referendum on this.

With current model it doesn't pay to change from developing country to developed country and this is wrong and open to abuse!

Integral Fast Breeder Reactors - yes, but geothermal is much more competitive if the source is close to the grid.

Also, if you thought it was tough introducing an ETS into Australia, just wait until you see them try to introduce Nuclear Energy. There are just too many barriers. They can build one in my back yard if they want, but my neighbours would probably object.

I've long since argued that it's a much better option to export our Uranium to safe generators rather than use it in Australia. Thorium is less of an issue than Fast Breeder, and Fast Breeder reactors can easily be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.  

The downside of Thorium is lack of developed technology, although there is a successfully operating Thorium Power Station near Surat, India.

http://www.power-technology.com/features/feature1141/

Paella wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 2:35pm:


It's only swimming the wrong way that causes drowning LOL. There is nothing wrong with economic activity as long as it's sustainable.

There is plenty of economic activity in Iceland for example, where 99% of the electricity and energy for direct heating is renewable (hydro and geothermal). Of course, they only have a population of about 300,000. (OK, I realise the irony given their rough ride in the recent stockmarket crash, but they are still living in an advanced economy) 

Economic activity is vital to maintaining prosperity and vital to solving this crisis, as long as it's not based on fossil fuels. (actually that's not strictly true either - we must use fossil fuel based industry in the short term to get us out of the crisis, as long as the resulting capital goes to renewable projects. )

Where else is the new technology going to come from? The solution can only come from economic activity.