Post by Michael Wilbur-Ham on May 3, 2013 9:35:20 GMT 10
If you accept the big picture of climate change then an important next step is to determine the feasibility or otherwise of moving to zero emissions for Australia's stationary energy. (If you don't accept the big picture presented in the IPCC, Stern and Garnaut reports you can discuss this here.)
As the opening of Roger Dargaville's article on The Conversation says:
His article - Zero emissions power is possible, and we know what it will cost - argues that we know that this can be done and we even have a reasonable idea of the costs.
This thread is for discussing the technical feasibility of moving to zero emissions and the economic costs. This thread is NOT for deciding what to do - it merely informs the policy makers to assist them to set policy.
If you accept that it is technically possible for Australia to reduce its emissions from stationary energy supplies by close to 80% by 2050, and that the likely costs of 100% renewable systems is between $100 and $170/MWh then you can move straight on to the policy discussion here.
Roger Dargaville's article is a good summary of what is known now. Is this right? Or is he unduly optimistic or pessimistic?
PS - Any discussion of nuclear is off-topic for this thread (I'll create some threads just for discussing nuclear one day soon).
As the opening of Roger Dargaville's article on The Conversation says:
To avoid 2 degrees of climate change, global carbon emissions will need to be reduced by at least 50% by 2050. For developed countries such as Australia with higher carbon emissions this will mean cuts closer to 80%: it essentially implies decarbonising the stationary energy sector in Australia.
This thread is for discussing the technical feasibility of moving to zero emissions and the economic costs. This thread is NOT for deciding what to do - it merely informs the policy makers to assist them to set policy.
If you accept that it is technically possible for Australia to reduce its emissions from stationary energy supplies by close to 80% by 2050, and that the likely costs of 100% renewable systems is between $100 and $170/MWh then you can move straight on to the policy discussion here.
Roger Dargaville's article is a good summary of what is known now. Is this right? Or is he unduly optimistic or pessimistic?
PS - Any discussion of nuclear is off-topic for this thread (I'll create some threads just for discussing nuclear one day soon).