Comments on: U.S. House of Representatives Passes Climate Change Bill

By: Coffee Addict

Coffee Addict — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:59:26 +0000

Dan D: It was great to see an energy related rare materials pick in D&D! Looks like the stock will get a speeding ticket by c.o.b so I'll wait a week or three before establishing a small position. Maybe I'll apply a tax refund to it at some stage.

Like you I don't know whick emerging vehicle propulsion technology will win out in the long run. My gut feel is that there will be several winners. Over time, all companies in the post oil materials, energy and technology game will move upwards, downwards and sideways with the view to enhancing strategic positions. There will be take overs and mergers and then there is the little problem of a credit depression to get around before 1000% profits have any chance of being realised. Some will go bust while others will grow like Microsoft did in the 80's and 90's.

Anyway, its a facinating investment area for interested punters to do a bit of their own research.

Cheers.

By: Don

Don — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:37:05 +0000

I respectfully disagree with you there Richo. I have worked on a few plants in my field which "should have" worked and for want of a few technical details,oversights or miscalculations never had a chance. No amount of meetings or company politics were going to make any difference to the outcome.

By: Ange

Ange — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:55:08 +0000

Dinakarananda - you took the words right out of my mouth. Anyway, any type of pollution should be discouraged (car exhaust causes more lung damage than smoking in some cities). Innovation to improve energy production and transportation efficiency and resulting in less pollution sounds like a growth industry to me.

By: Richo

Richo — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:06:19 +0000

Don,
I don't think that low quality of two graphs is a compelling reason to discredit the report. (It looks to me as it they were hand drawn, and enlarged too much). I have seen ones like them in textbooks - bread and butter stuff for power system engineers.

The electricity system of a country is influenced by geography, population centres, generator locations, industry locations, interconnections within the country and to neighbours. Denmark is very different to Australia.
I'm sure many findings from Denmark apply to Australia, but the author has wisely chosen to resist the temption of drawing too close a parallel.

IMO the disparity between what could be happening and what is happening is more a factor of politics, and turning around a very big ship, than technical constraints.

By: Don

Don — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:15:25 +0000

Interesting article Richo however why did it have to always refer to computer modelling and fuzzy graphs which it had adobe photoed from other reports? Surely there are countries who have enough installed wind capacity - like Denmark mentioned later in the report - to put flesh on the bones of their assertions? Forgive me but I am an engineer and that is what we deal with- what "should" be happening according to the model/study/brochure/prospectus and what is actually happening can be two completely different things.

By: Dinakarananda

Dinakarananda — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:07:20 +0000

This could and would help innovation. Once western countries implement cap and trade one more legislation would ban all imports from countries not following procedures to combat green house gas emissions. It would force developing world to adopt cap and trade really fast else risk losing all income from exports.
Higher cost of energy would drive innovation faster for more energy efficient life. Automobiles of the 21st century are a case in point and USA and even Australia are just waking up to the 21st century.

By: Biker Pete

Biker Pete — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:39:47 +0000

Interesting item, Richo. Can't imagine the same obstacles in China!! Riding thru' Europe in 2005, we were surprised how visually the energy scene presented in the landscape. Immense wind generators threw a throbbing strobelight right across some parts of Holland; massive nuclear cooling towers spewed condensate visible like twin tornadoes from thirty kilometres in France; whole townships in Germany reflected light from solar panels, as we rode thru' mountain passes. Consideration of the aesthetic alone has already killed some energy projects in WA.

By: Richo

Richo — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:04:04 +0000

To fuel the nuclear discussion:
http://au.biz.yahoo.com/090701/33/276yk.html
A lot of nuclear projects hit these issues.

By: Ned S

Ned S — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:33:44 +0000

We in the West raped and pillaged our environment for centuries (and longer) to get a better standard of living. Now we reckon developing nations shouldn't get their turn. Especially not if it affects our economies by them getting an advantage over us regarding being able to manufacture cheaper than us - That was Mr Bush's line anyway. Yet at the same time the West has been real happy to consume lots - especially if the nasty industries that produce the goodies weren't at home. And we've got the likes of Oz saying that counting emissions from bush fires is not fair - When there seems to be a pretty reasonable argument that if we got our act together regarding controlled burn offs we wouldn't have the really bad ones we do. And Putin in Russia has gone from being anti climate legislation (what Russian would really care if the global temperature went up a few degrees?) to being pro - But Russia has spare credits it can flog for billions elsewhere. It is a tax driven initiative with vested interest groups hanging to it like leaches from all over the globe. So yeh, pardon me, but I'm a bit cynical about it too. Albeit for slightly different reasons to DR maybe. But as DR says, it just could be making for some really interesting investment possibilities - Ta DR.

By: Richo

Richo — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:58:42 +0000

Arguments like base-load power issues are often wheeled out in the green energy debate. Unfortunately sometimes by people like Dan who don't have an in depth understanding of the electicity industry.
Base load represents a minimum amount of power that must be provided.
The more independent generators that are constructed and operational, the more reliable the power they provide. Once enough renewable generation is in place, base load will be met anyway. There is no issue.
And There is no reason that renewable power must provide full base-load from day 1.

Variability in power supply and demand has always been there and it has been solved successfully for many decades.

Some countries generate the majority of their electricity through renewable sources such as hydro which isn't expensive or unreliable. In fact they are more reliable over the long term because they don't have risk of fuel costs rising in future.

After typing this I found an online article that explains this much better. I don't know this guy, but he understands electricity supply.
http://www.cana.net.au/documents/Diesendorf_TheBaseLoadFallacy_FS16.pdf
I am not affiliated with this site.