Posted on 15 August 2008 by Barry Brook
Not only Australia's but the entire world's energy demand could be met by solar fields in Australia's interior
Imagine a world in which Australia becomes a ‘clean energy superpower’ exporting huge volumes of clean, green, zero-greenhouse gas electricity to Asia, powering homes, industry and electric vehicles.
It requires vision. It requires will and leadership. But it’s not that farfetched. If we’re willing to dream a little…
TREC/DESERTEC-Australia outlines how Australia can be become a clean energy superpower in: “For a Solar/Geothermal Australian Economy By 2050.”
Australia HAS the resources and the technology meet Asia’s energy needs. The resources (sun, wind and heat) are ‘free.’ The technologies are solar photovoltaics, solar thermal, geothermal and wind among others. Each day enough sunshine falls on interior Australia to power not just Australia, but the entire world. And that’s just the solar resource.
Given rising energy needs, mankind needs to build out more electricity generating capacity in the next 40 years than has ever been built before. How well this challenge is met will determine what civilization is like after 2050. To meet it, Australia should build up an energy export industry based upon its comparative advantages: sun, geothermal and wind.
These exist in huge quantities in Australia’s Outback. To take advantage of these natural gifts, the nation’s electricity generating industry needs to be reoriented away from dirty coastal coal-fired power plants and toward these new energy sources.
Filed under: Renewables | 16 Comments »
Posted on 15 August 2008 by Barry Brook
UPDATE: Detailed response from Dr Andrew Glikson (PDF) can be downloaded here: gliksondetailedresponsewjcollins
Each week, seemingly without fail, a new Opinion piece appears in some Australian media outlet which is sceptical about aspects of mainstream climate science. Sometimes they are in the form of Editorials or Viewpoints, sometimes as Letters to the Editor. Some are written by staff journalists, some by academics or business people. But they all follow a fairly predictable pattern and share a remarkable number of commonalities.
For people without the time to study the science of climate change in detail, or to keep up with the latest peer reviewed literature, these arguments against the mainstream science position can seem credible. So what to make of them? I have the solution – teach yourself to spot the recycled denialism!
So, in what I imagine will be a long running series which may eventually stretch my ability to make use of Roman numerals, I’ll refute these pieces. But I won’t do it by constructing a new argument each time which, point-by-point, shows why their claims are not supported by the evidence. That would just become tiresome, given the habit most non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) have of ignoring any refuations and simply repeating themselves, again and again. No, I’ll do it by making full use of the power of what defines the Internet – hyperlinks… I’ll focus primarily on the science content of the articles, except where non-science arguments are clearly false and demand correction.
First up then, is a Letter to the Editor published in The Australian on 13 August 2008, by Prof W.J. Collins. It was lavished with praise by Andrew Bolt and his devoted posters, so you can read the alternative view over there.
[The global warming debate is] not about mainstream (read official) scientists versus sceptics, enthusiasts or bloggers. Many of these people are good scientists. The debate is about how and why climate change is happening…
Ice ages are the most obvious evidence for climate change, and we are coming out of the medieval Little Ice Age now. As global temperatures progressively warm, many consider that this relates to carbon emissions dating from the 1850s, but the increase began approximately 300 years ago…
Filed under: Sceptics | 58 Comments »