They have chosen to label the Tar sands as “ethical oil” on the basis that it is not “conflict oil” as well Canadians, aren’t they all friendly and green and everything? Well actually no! Much of the fossil fuels consumed in America (oil, gas and coal) comes from North of the border, as Canada compete with Venezuela for the title of America’s leading source of energy imports (and thus the primary source of America’s carbon addiction). In addition much of the Uranium that powers America (and Canada’s) nuclear reactors comes from Canadian mines. Northern Canada is also home to many large open cast mines for various minerals. I would also note that energy consumption of the average Canadian is actually higher than that of the average American  (7.4 toe for Canada against 7 for the US). Finally I would note that like any country Canada is made up of different provinces with very different regimes in each state. Alberta province, where the Tar sands are based, happens to be the most right wing state in the Union with the worst environmental record. Indeed they are often described as the “Canadian Texas”.

Should anyone reading this be unfamiliar with the whole tar sands controversy, tar sands are basically a mixture of moisture, soil, sand, clay and heavy oil. They are usually the consequence of oil escaping at some point in the past from its underground source rock and migrated up to the surface. Here it became mixed with the soil and also came under attack from the biosphere. Given a few more hundreds of thousands of years it would all get broken down into an unusable form (this is the same mechanism that has over the last 250 million years destroyed much of the oil that ever formed on this world, only a tiny fraction survived to the present day). Extracting oil from Tar sands, the world largest and most accessible deposits are in the Athabasca region of Northern Canada, is more of an open cast mining operation. This would involve tearing down large quantities of pristine old growth boreal forests, possibly an area the size of the England and Wales may ultimately be destroyed.

The major problem with the Tar sands is thus, the enormous environmental pollution caused by this mining and processing, see here for a summary of the problems it creates and see pictures of the destruction here. Or actually just go to Google Earth and pop in “Fort McMurray”. I don’t need to be any more specific than that, as they are literally creating a mess big enough to see from space! Also this processing consumes large quantities of energy, meaning you’re energy payback from oil sands (EROEI) isn’t nearly as good than you get with conventional oil (indeed it may prove to be an order of magnitude less). This also means you need a substantial source of energy to power you’re oil sands extraction process, and the carbon emissions resulting from this process are increased (some figures say Tars sands produces 20%  to four times the greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional oil, depending on who you ask). It also requires substantial quantities of water, both to aid in oil processing, but also to “flush” away the many chemicals contained within the associated tailings (which can include a toxic mix of known or suspected carcinogens, heavy metals, POP’s, arsenic, etc.)….this “flush” often seeing large amounts of sediment laden with toxins finding its way into mountain rivers and streams. In short if you think the conventional oil production is bad, Tar sands are much worse. An order of magnitude increase in Tar sands production will produce a significant spike in pollution (again in the middle of an boreal wilderness) and carbon dioxide levels (Guardian article on the Canadian governments to hide these facts here). It is no wonder that environmentalist recoil in horror.

So I think we can safely say that from an environmental prospective this “ethical oil” claim is completely unjustified, unless you consider destroying one of the world’s last great wildernesses while clubbing baby seals to death (another Canadian “pastime”) as “ethical”! But what about this claim that Canadian Tar Sands isn’t “conflict” oil? They put a picture of Hugo Chavez on one poster under the term “conflict oil” then imply that Canadian oil is conflict free. Let’s pick that one apart. Who exactly is Venezuela at war with? While they are having a few border disputes with Colombia, as far as I’m aware the country is not engaged in any formal conflict, nor significant informal conflict with any of his neighbours. Ironically of course Canada has troops serving in Afghanistan, whose presence there is ultimately funded in part by revenue raised by the Tar sands. So actually if you want to buy “non-conflict oil” my advice would be to give Hugo a call and the Canadians a miss.

The also accuse Hugo Chavez, in the poster, of promoting “forced labour”. While I’m not necessarily a fan of old Hugo, I think that is a gross misrepresentation of his regime, which has sought to redistribute the country’s oil wealth to the poor. By contrast a bunch of labour union supporters showed up at the Occupy Calgary camp  recently to highlight the problems they face with Alberta’s lax protections of employee rights. I also recall meeting during my travels a year or so ago in Canada, a local farmer who was ultimately in danger of loosing his land to the tar sands through a compulsory purchase order they we’re likely to hit him with. Pushing farmers and locals off their land so multinationals can exploit oil reserves (under the farmer’s feet mind!) doesn’t quite fit in with the “ethical oil” image I think. In short you could easily reverse many of these posters and accuse Canada of being the warmongering nation with a dreadful environmental record who tramples on human rights and pushes people off their land.

Indeed reading through this “ethical oil” propaganda there seems to me to be a dangerous and bigoted undercurrent. They tar (oh! the irony!) all the OPEC countries with the same Saudi brush (awful of course tho the Saudi’s human rights record is), ignoring the diverse nature of the many Middle East nations (and their attiudes to Islam or womens rights). And of course not all OPEC states are in the Middle East nor are they Muslim! And the world’s largest oil producer? Russia!

So what these “Ethical oil” lot seem to be saying is that oil pumped by white anglo-saxons is ethically and morally superior to that pumped by those nasty evil foreigners with their dark skin, strange religions and funny languages. I’ve not come across such fascist crap and misinformed bigotry since I last saw a Mel Gibson film. And again ironically, if this is the intended point our “ethical oil” spinster’s are making, then even this is factually inaccurate. The bulk of the finance behind the Tar sands is coming not from Canada, but from abroad (economist article mentions that here). Chinese, Russian, Indian and American firms are indeed all major investors in the tar sands (see wiki page here for info and links on this). Indeed I would argue that the problem for the Canadians here is they are loosing control of the situation. Ultimately decisions on the Tar sands (how much will be produced and how bad the environmental mess which the Canadians will have to clean up afterwards) will be made in foreign countries by foreign multinationals.

In fact can I play this game too? I could for example come up with a poster labelling Canada brutal treatment of native Americans in past centuries, or indeed the present day (one tribe down river from the Tar sands (Fort Mckay) have had their water source polluted by Tar sands runoff with a growing cancer cell springing up) with Saudi Arabia who are so multicultural they actually prefer to hire workers from India or Pakistan  Or how about their positive attitude towards women, while Canadian women are forced to drive their own cars, the Saudi’s provide their women with chauffeurs and male chaperons instead Yes buy Saudi oil, the “ethical” oil!

Jokes aside, the fact is there is no such thing as “ethical oil”. The stuff that comes out of a hole in the ground in Canada is as dirty as the stuff that comes out of a hole in the ground in the Middle East, possibly dirtier in fact.

But we need those jobs here in Canada, the Tar sands supporters will say, if the tar sands aren’t promoted all those jobs will go abroad along with North America’s energy security. And how many jobs could be created if Canada exploited instead its vast renewable energy potential? North America has some of the best and most varied renewable resources on the planet, if only our American cousins would only get over their whole “real men don’t use solar panels” attitude. And if the point of tar sands oil is to improve north American energy security then why are they building pipelines to Texas and West Coast ports from the tar sands? That sort of implies that the bulk of the oil will ulitmately be exported, or at the very least if America wants the oil it will have to pay the market price (which could be high in the future).

But we need the Tar sands to rescue the world from peak oil, is the other argument. Again, as will all tar sands propaganda this one too falls flat. I’ve seen estimates for the maximum tar sands ranging from 1 million bbl/day to 8 million bbl/day with 5m bbl/day often been quoted as a “best guess”. However this is but 6% of the current global demand of around 80million bbl/day and even that 8m bbl/day figure (wildly optimistic thought it is) is but 8% of the projected 2030 demand figure for oil of 100million bbl/day. Were does the other 94-96% of the world’s oil come from?

Furthermore, again we have to consider the issue of EROEI. I’ve seen EROEI estimates for the tar sands ranging from 9 to 0.7 (with a ratio in the range of 3-7 being probably a more credible range of values), substantially worse than any existing oil fields (EROEI ranging from 10 – 100). Remember that because an IC engine is typically just 20-30% efficient (and the primary consumption path of oil is ultimately transport fuels) we need to achieve an EROEI of at least 5-3.3 just to break even energy wise (else our tar sands count as a net energy sink rather than a source).

Inevitably the above means we’ll need to divert huge quantities of natural gas to power the whole operation. Indeed its questionably if there is sufficient quantities of gas (or coal) to spare within the whole of North America – a fear that seems justified given recent talk about bringing in nuclear reactors to meet demand. When I first heard about this plan to use nukes to extract tar sands I assumed it was a hoax perpetrated by Republicans trying to yank Greenpeace’s chain, but unfortunately no its for real. Of course even a number of pro-nuclear campaigners aren’t entirely happy about this one, describing it to me as “perverse” and “an abuse of nuclear technology”. After all, it involves (as they see it) taking high grade zero-carbon nuclear energy and using it to produce a load of low grade carbon intensive energy! Would you not be better just building reactors closer to cities and generating electricity and heat they argue? When the nuclear lobby calls you environmental terrorists you know you’re goose is cooked! And of course I would point out, ridiculous as this idea is, it can only be sustained as long as we can keep feeding Uranium into the nuclear reactors. And who is going to pay the decommissioning costs of those reactors and what happens if one of them pops its cork in the middle of the Canadian Boreal forests?

While nuclear power would reduce the net carbon output from the Tar sands we are still looking at a situation where the tar sands will still produce much more greenhouse gases, both from disturbance to the eco system as well as from the oil itself and the refining and processing of it, compared to existing oilfields. A global policy of climate change mitigation and tar sands (or shale gas) extraction are simply not compatible.

The Tar sands are thus in summary not ethical, not eco friendly, not a solution to peak oil and arguably not even Canadian anymore! The only people who will ultimately gain from tar sands extraction are the shareholders of a small number of foreign multinational oil companies…or certainty greedy PR types happy to sell their souls and they’re nation’s credibility for a few (tar splattered) bucks.

The Keystone Pipeline System is a pipeline system that will transport oil from Canada to refineries in the United States and then expand to the U.S Gulf Coast. The U.S Department of State has extended the deadline for federal agencies to decide if the pipeline is in the national interest. The Obama administration has the final say in approving the pipeline. A final environmental review of the prospective project is expected from the State Department in August.

The Partnership to Fuel America campaign is the first time the U.S Chamber has overtly aligned with the Canadian company’s project. According to the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, it will be “comprised of American businesses and industries that understand the need for more energy in the United States and believe that Canada’s significant resources can help achieve that goal.” When visiting The Partnership to Fuel America’s website, the only source of energy listed at Canada’s tar sands, and most listed are directly related to the Keystone XL project.

This particular pipeline is controversial because it is a tar sands pipeline, it’s different than those that carry conventional crude oil. These lines are much more prone to leaks and spills, and spills are bad for the environment. Because this is a tar sands pipeline, the oil that is extracted is different. Tar sands can be mined and processed to extract the oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. The bitumen in tar sands cannot be pumped from the ground in its natural state; instead tar sand deposits are mined, usually using strip mining or open pit techniques, or the oil is extracted by underground heating with additional upgrading.

This type of oil is more acidic, thick and sulfuric than conventional crude oil. It is up to sevety times more viscous than conventional crude oil. It also contains fifteen to twenty times higher acid concentration, and five to ten times as much sulfur as conventional crude oil. The additional sulfur can lead to the weakening of pipelines. Imagine having to transport a glass of water in a paper cup by driving out of your garage door to the other side of the country without even a spill. The chemical composition also makes it much more difficult for monitors to detect a crack in the pipeline.

The Keystone I pipeline has infamously spilled twelve times in under a year of operation. The company had initially claimed that the pipeline would leak only once every seven years. Finally, after the tar sands oil does spill, cleanup is harder than normal crude spills. A year after a spill in Western Michigan, one reporter stated that surface skimmers and vacuums were no help, and a full year later, EPA officials and scientists were still working on a plan to remove submerged oil from about 200 acres of river and lake bottom. They now believe a full clean up could take years.

But, and this is the largest ‘but’ I will ever type, the technology still has some immense hurdles to cross yet.

Nuclear fusion, in layman’s terms, has all the benefits of nuclear fission, our current nuclear energy source, but with none of the radioactive material which will have an environmental impact lasting far past the life time of our children’s children.

Nuclear fusion is the chemical process where two lighter nuclei are essentially slammed together with such force that they fuse into one heavier nucleus. As they fuse they emit large quantities of energy.

Nuclear fusion is occurring in the Sun, a process called nucleosynthesis, the heat and light released in the reaction allowing life on Earth to flourish.

Having a stable reaction here on Earth is incredibly difficult as there are no materials able to withstand temperatures in excess of 100 million Kelvin which nuclear fusion reactions can reach.

This means that these plasmas need to be contained in an electric field with no part of the reactor in contact with the fusion reaction.

The two nuclei that come together can be no heavier than iron, with hydrogen atoms, the lightest element the usual candidate making the potential source of fuel for a fusion reactor the most abundant element in the Universe. Nuclear energy sources will no longer be shackled to scarce uranium deposits and suddenly we can look to the oceans for our energy.

The president of the Institute of Physics, Sir Peter Knight, claimed that a demonstration plant would be operational within the next 18 months, showing that in principle fusion can generate more energy than is required to start and maintain the fusion reaction.

He hopes that by demonstrating that this is possible, the first step to scaling the process up will begin and then the enormous benefits of fusion can be realised.

Of course however, it is not that straight forward. It never is.

Even if it possible to utilise nuclear fusion to its full potential and generate massive quantities of accessible, clean, cheap electricity we do not have the ability to effectively utilise this electricity.

Our cars and lorries currently require petrol or diesel, we have gas boilers to heat our water and warm our homes, our planes need aviation fuel to fly etc.

One solution to this, as David MacKay writes in his beguiling and sometimes scary book, Sustainable Energy – without the hot air, is to electrify as many devices as possible.

This means electric: cars; trams; boilers; machinery; ships; all lighting; heaters; you name it, everything. If fusion can provide clean, cheap, accessible electricity then everything that can use batteries, should.

Job done you might think. But then there is the very obvious question:

Is it possible to produce all the batteries needed?

And the simple answer is, no. Not in the form that batteries are currently produced. There are just not enough of the rare earth metals, such as lithium, needed to produce the batteries to substitute all our energy sources. Some people highlight the fact that we will just shift our economy and lifestyle from one dependent on oil to one dependent on rare earth metals.

So, to sum up this rather dispirited article, there have been some bold claims made recently that critical advances are occurring in our fifty year exploration for nuclear fusion. If the incredible is achieved however, there are enormous obstacles to overcome both technically and in our natural resources.

It is my opinion that it is our lifestyle, which is currently so tightly bound to high energy consumption, which is our true Achilles Heel. By reducing our energy consumption we liberate ourselves from the need for complex, technical, and possibly impossible solutions to our energy problems. Fusion may solve some of our energy problems, but it won’t solve them all.

Calculation of the greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of leaked natural gas

Natural gas is about 85% methane (CH4) and burning 1 tonne CH4 yields 2.75 tonnes carbon dioxide (CO2). Thus gas is not “clean” as asserted by pro-gas lobbyists and politicians and is in fact a dirty source of energy. However if there is industrial leakage of CH4 (estimated to be 3.3% in the US from US EPA data) [1], then one must also consider the greenhouse gas (GHG) effect of the leaked methane which is 105 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas on a 20 year time scale with aerosol impacts included [2-5]. These considerations render false the position of pro-gas lobbyists who plead for a coal to gas transition, falsely arguing that gas burning is “cleaner” than coal burning.

Thus in Victoria, Australia, gas-fired power stations (0.60 – 0.90 tonnes CO2-e/MWh, average 0.75 tonnes CO2-e/MWh) are roughly twice as efficient in producing energy as brown coal-burning power stations (1.21-1.53 tonnes CO2-e/MWh) according to a report by Green Energy Markets commissioned by Environment Victoria (EV) [6]. However, at a systemic leakage of 0.94% the GHG pollution due to gas-fired power would roughly double to about 1.5 tonnes CO2-e/MWh, equivalent to that of Hazelwood, the dirtiest coal-fired power station in Victoria.

If the systemic gas leakage rate is 3.3% (US average) then the combustion of gas for power would 2.3 times as dirty GHG-wise as coal-fired Hazelwood. If the systemic gas leakage rate is 7.9% (the upper estimate with shale formation-derived gas) [7]) then a coal to gas transition would yield power sector GHG pollution roughly 4.7 times as dirty as from coal-fired Hazelwood.

Because methane leaks and is so much worse than carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas (GHG), Professor Robert Howarth, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York has concluded that “The large GHG footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming. We do not intend that our study be used to justify the continued use of either oil or coal, but rather to demonstrate that substituting shale gas for these other fossil fuels may not have the desired effect of mitigating climate warming”. [7].

Gas GHG impact ignored by Mainstream media (MSM) in Western Lobbyocracies

US President Barack Obama has outrageously and falsely lumped planet-threatening natural gas under “clean energy”; permitted a massive expansion of offshore gas and oil drilling; and supported the Alaska Gas Pipeline, massive expansion of on-shore gas drilling and an oil-to-gas shift for transportation. One would have hoped that the 2010 Gulf oil and gas disaster tragically devastating the coastal environments of the US Gulf States would have prompted sensible, informed public discussion about the immense threat that natural gas (mostly methane) poses to Humanity and the Biosphere.

At least one news report in 2010 sounded the alarm about methane from the Gulf oil spill disaster (variously known as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the BP oil spill, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the BP oil disaster, or the Macondo blowout): “According to John Kessler, a Texas A&M University oceanographer who is studying the impact of methane from the BP oil spill, the crude oil emanating from the seafloor [up to 100,000 barrels oil equivalent per day = 0.013 million tonnes oil equivalent] contains about 40% methane compared to about 5% found in typical crude oil deposits. The risk is great, as marine life will be suffocated as a result of the increased methane levels. The Gulf of Mexico will eventually have “dead zones” to deal with where oxygen is so depleted that nothing lives. This is significant and can forever alter the water/life composition. “This is the most vigorous methane eruption in modern human history,” Kessler said.” [8].

The amount of methane released over the 86 days between the initial blow-out and capping the well-head (20 April – 15 July 2010) can be estimated at 0.4 x (0.013 million tonnes methane /day) x 86 days = 0.447 million tonnes CH4 = 0.447 Mt CH4 x 105 x (44/16) (Mt CO2-e / Mt CH4) = 129 Mt CO2-e. Fortunately, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): “John Kessler of Texas A&M University and colleagues surveyed the Gulf waters during the leak as well as after the wellhead was sealed, and their results indicate that a vigorous bloom of bacteria degraded virtually all of the methane released form the well within 120 days of the initial blowout.” [9].

Australian novelist Peter Carey recently observed that the really important news is the news that is not reported. Ditto, “The holes in history are what makes sense of the thing” (Aarons and Loftus, “The Secret War Against the Jews”, p12). This is well exampled by President Barack Obama avoiding mention of natural gas in his recent speech on the Gulf oil disaster from the Oval Office – completely missing from Obama’s Gulf oil-and-gas disaster speech was one key word: gas. Read through his speech and you will find that he used the following words in descending order of occurrence: oil (24 times), energy (14), drilling/drill (8), clean energy (6), environmental (4), God/He (4), Al Qaeda (1), recession (1), gas (0). [10].

Similarly, a search of the entire ABC site for “Robert Howarth” yielded one (1) result relating to the Cornell professor (and that due to me in a reader comment thread), noting that the ABC is the Australian equivalent of the BBC). Searches of The Australian newspaper (Australian national flagship of the Murdoch media empire) and of The Age ( the Melbourne quality newspaper of the Fairfax media empire and arguably Australia’s most progressive Mainstream medium) reveal zero (0) and one (1) report, respectively of the findings of Professor Robert Howarth (The Age report being a letter from me that it kindly published).

Shale deposit and coal seam fracking, coal seam gas (GSG) and gas-based GHG pollution in Australia

Australia is a world leader in annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution, coal exports and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. Australia is also part of the global gas rush, gas boom and fracking-based GasLand scenario (see the movie GasLand about the impact of fracking in the US). However the Liberal National Party-National Party Coalition opposition and the Labor Governments (collectively known as the Lib-Labs) have identical overall climate policies of “5% off 2000 Domestic GHG pollution” coupled with expanding coal and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. The Libs gave a “direct Action “policy (too ;little too late) whereas Labor has a disastrously counterproductive Carbon Tax-ETS plan that yields massive increases in Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in 2020 and 2050 over that in 2000. Thus the following estimates of Domestic and Exported GHG pollution in Mt CO2-e and based on Treasury, ABARE and US EIA data (noting that coal and gas exports are predicted to increase annually by 2.6% and 9%, respectively):

2000: 496 (Domestic) + 504.9 (coal exports) + 16.8 (LNG exports) = 1017.8.

2050: 527 (Domestic) + 2902 (coal exports) + 1,061 (LNG exports) = 4,409.

However these estimates do not take into account an approximate doubling of electricity sector GHG pollution due to a Labor Government-adumbrated coal to gas transition (and indeed an approximately 5 fold increase if fracked shale gas is used). Hydraulic fracking of shale seams is becoming controversial throughout the world, including Australia (see the movie “GasLand”). Thus the hydraulic fracturing (“fracking) of shale deposits with water containing numerous chemical additives has been banned in France and England and New York has imposed a moratorium on the practice. In Australia there are bipartisan concerns about fracking procedures violating prime agricultural land and contaminating and depleting aquifers e.g. the Great Artesian Basin, a huge source of water in this dry continent.

The main arguments against “fracking” of shale deposits and shallower coal seams for gas are destruction of prime agricultural land in a hungry world; pollution and depletion of underground aquifers; and that gas is dirty, generates CO2 on combustion and due to leakage can be much dirtier GHG-wise than coal or oil (if there is a coal to “fracked gas” conversion. there will a circa 5-fold increase in electricity sector GHG pollution in Australia).

However a fundamental objection to “fracking” and a coal to gas conversion is that the World is rapidly running out of time to deal with the worsening climate emergency. Thus in 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU, Wissenshaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen) issued a report entitled “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach” in which it estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise the World must emit no more than 600 billion tones of CO2 between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050. In mid-2011 Australia has already exceeded its “fair share” of this terminal global GHG pollution budget and any Australian GHG pollution now is at the expense of the entitlement of all other countries. [11].

Summary

Natural gas represents a huge threat to the World if, as adumbrated by corporations and governments, there is a coal to gas transition. Ignored by MPs, mainstream media and MPs in the Western Lobbyocracies is the reality that because methane (85% of natural gas) leaks (3.3% US average, up to 7.9% from fracking) and is 105 times worse as a greenhouse gas (GHG) on a 20 year time frame with aerosol impacts included, a coal to gas transition represents a huge threat to a World that must get to zero greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by about 2050 if it is to avoid a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise. Hydraulic fracturing for shale deposit gas destroys agricultural land in a hungry world, pollutes and depletes aquifers and increases the systemic GHG pollution associated with heat and power generation. All countries and intranational jurisdictions must follow the examples of France, England and New York State and ban shale deposit and coal seam fracking. The World is running out of time to seriously tackle the worsening climate emergency. The atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration is now 394 parts per million (ppm) but top climate scientists and biologists say that it must be urgently reduced to about 300 ppm for a safe and sustainable planet for all peoples and all species (see 300.org:) [12] but the World is remorselessly heading in the opposite direction . Stop the coal to gas transition and stop fracking the Planet.

For references, see page two:

Background

Before proceeding to systematically demolish the lies of this document, it is important to get the basic facts straight.

Australia is among the world leaders in annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution, coal exports and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. Thus “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included).

Top UK climate scientists Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that only about 0.5 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming . Noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, these estimates translate to a climate genocide involving deaths of about 10 billion people this century, this including 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. Australia is disproportionately complicit in a worsening climate genocide (“Climate Genocide”).

Australia is world number 1 in coal exports and according to the Australian Government “Australia is a major exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), with considerable potential for further development based on its abundant resources of natural gas. Australia is the third largest LNG exporter in the Asia-Pacific region and the fourth largest LNG exporter in the world, exporting 17.9 million tonnes in 2009-10 with a value of around $7.8 billion” (see Australian Government, Department of Energy , Resources and Tourism, “Australian liquefied natural gas”, 2010).

Politically Australia is dominated (18 July 2011 primary vote in parenthesis) by the Liberal-National Party Coalition Opposition (51%), the Australian Labor Party Government (26%) and the Greens (11%) (see “Latest Nielsen Poll”, Nielson, 18 July 2011). The Gillard Labor Government (elected in November 20101) is a Minority Government that rules with the support of 1 Greens MPs and 3 Independents and the next elections are due in 2013.

The Coalition greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution policy is essentially the SAME as that of the Labor Government, specifically “5% off 2000 Domestic GHG pollution by 2020” coupled with unconstrained, unlimited, burgeoning, world-leading coal and liquid natural gas (LNG) Exports. The Coalition has a Direct Action Plan (energy efficiency, incentives for cleaner energy, re-afforestation, and biochar) but must be criticized for doing too little. However it can potentially do a lot more.

In contrast, .the Labor Government has proposed a Carbon Tax-ETS-Ignore Agriculture (CTETSIA) plan involving an indirect, selectively market-based plan to achieve a decrease in GHG pollution. Labor ‘s CTETSIA plan entrenches climate change inaction while dishonestly pretending to do otherwise. Thus Labor’s CTETSIA plan will: promote a disastrous coal to gas transition (that will double power sector-derived GHG pollution because methane leaks at about 3.3% and is 105 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year timeframe with aerosol impacts included; see “Planned coal to gas transition will DOUBLE Australian electric power greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution”, Bellaciao, 15 May 2011); scupper science-demanded 100% renewable energy by 2020; institute an empirically ineffective, disastrously counterproductive and utterly fraudulent Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) (Source); and ignore agriculture (yet World Bank experts have recently determined that GHG pollution is 50% bigger than hitherto thought and that livestock alone contribute over 51% 9f the bigger figure; see Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang. “Livestock and climate change. What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs and chickens?”, World Watch, November/December 2009).

The big functional difference between the Libs and the Labs is that while the Libs can potentially ramp up their Direct Action plan for “5% off 2000 by 2020” , Treasury analysis released by Treasurer Wayne Swan and Climate Minister Greg Combet several weeks ago (“Strong Growth, Low Pollution. Modelling a Carbon Price”) reveals that Labor will certainly NOT achieve “5% off 2000 by 2020” – in 2020 Australia’s annual Domestic GHG pollution will be 679 Mt CO2-e (Business As Usual) or 621 Mt CO2-e (with a Carbon Price) and can only attain the promised “5% off 2000 level by 2020” value of 466 Mt CO2-e by the artifice of purchasing 155 Mt CO2-e of Internationally-sourced abatement credits.

Treasury, ABARE and US EIA data show that Australia will almost DOUBLE its annual Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in 2020 relative to that in 2000 (1,012 Mt CO2-e pa) to 1,803 Mt CO2-e pa (with a Carbon Price) or 1,861 Mt CO2-e pa (without a Carbon Price) (see “Analysis: Australian Labor Government Carbon Price-ETS scheme fails & entrenches climate change inaction”, Bellaciao).

It gets worse. In 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU) determined that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature rise, the World must pollute less than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and essentially zero emissions in 2050. Unfortunately Australia (through disproportionately huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports) and Belize (through disproportionately huge annual deforestation) have already used up their “share” of this terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) budget – and are now stealing the entitlement of other countries (see “World has 600 Gt CO2 left to pollute before 2050: Australia & Belize have ALREADY used their “fair share””, Bellaciao).

According to the Climate Commission’s report “The Critical Decade”, launched by PM Julia Gillard a month or so ago (Source), for a 75% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2 degree C temperature rise (EU and Australian policy) the World must emit no more than 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 (1,000 Gt CO2) between 2010 and zero emissions in about 2050. One can readily calculate that Australia’s “fair share” of this terminal carbon pollution budget is 2,750 Mt CO2.

In 2009 Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG in Mt CO2-e totaled 600 (Domestic) + 31 (LNG) + 784 (coal) = 1,415 Mt CO2-e per year. Accordingly , at thjs rate of GHG pollution Australia will have 2,750 t CO2 / 1,425 t CO2-e per year = 1.9 years left before ti uses up its “share” of the terminal global GHG pollution “budget” i.e. Australia must get to zero GHG pollution by mid-2012 or roughly when pro-coal, pro-gas Labor introduces its fraudulent dishonest and ineffective Carbon Tax-ETS scheme (Source).

However in 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU) determined that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature rise, the World must pollute less than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and essentially zero emissions in 2050. Unfortunately Australia (through disproportionately huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports) and Belize (through disproportionately huge annual deforestation) have by August 2011 ALREADY used up their “share” of this terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) budget (see “World has 600 Gt CO2 left to pollute before 2050: Australia & Belize have ALREADY used their “fair share”“, Bellaciao).

For a detailed analysis of the worsening Climate Emergency sent to the Australian Government, its advisers and to Australian mainstream media see “Look-the-other-way, climate criminal Australia ignores 25 Elephant in the Room climate change realities“, Bellaciao, 6 July 2011). Yet look-the-other-way, climate criminal Australia simply does not want to know – it wants to exploit and indeed expand exploitation of its huge coal and natural gas reserves until the World makes it stop.

Notably the fact that most of the economic figures in support of nuclear power (a couple of typical delusions you’ll find here and here) come straight out of Hogwarts school of magic, wizardry….and economics (more realistic appraisals of nuclear economics can be found here and here). There is the question about the world’s limited stockpiles of fissile material, not helped by the fact that the LWR reactors that make up the bulk of our present capacity are ridiculously fuel inefficient, as in they only actually burn 2-3% of the fissile material present.

And what are we planning to do with all this waste? Various proposals have been made, but no nation on earth has yet to comprehensively solve this problem. Then there’s the glacially slow build rate of reactors, and of course, the nagging issue of nuclear safety.

But is there a better way?

Of course some supporters of nuclear energy would say that all of the problems I’ve just listed off relate to our choice of large light water reactors (as Richard Black at the BBC recently discussed). They claim that alternative designs would result in much safer reactors that are cheaper to build, easier to build and ultimately produce less nuclear waste. Various alternatives to the LWR have been proposed, these include:

High temperature gas Reactors , “modular” Pebble bed Reactors , the advanced CANDU reactor, so-called “fast” reactors and the Molten Salt reactor (MSR).

But could these reactors actually supply us with something better? In the following series of article below, I explored this question by subjecting these designs to a critical review.

The Mega LWR “death spiral”

But first of all what’s wrong with these large LWR’s? I explore some of these issues in part 4 of my little appraisal. Basically it all boils down to a fateful decision taken back in the 1950’s. The US government was in a race to get nuclear reactors up and running for military use, notably for the submarine fleet. A light water reactor was an obvious choice for a compact power source and one that could be developed reasonably quickly. When the civil nuclear industry in the US got going the corporations took these naval reactors, which in many cases they had themselves designed for the military, and simply scaled them up. There are a multitude of reasons why this decision to use mega-LWR’s in preference to anything else was taken (again I review them in part 4), but cost and ease of development were certainly key. But regardless of the “why’s?” the fact is that the nuclear industry did embarked on this plan and in the process of doing this the nuclear industry essentially laid a trap for themselves.

While the submarine reactors had outputs of between 15-60 MW_e the civil nuclear industry began building 500-1,600 MW_e behemoths. These large “megatron” LWR’s were scaled up to the point where they became inherently unsafe – if the cooling system for any reason failed, the reactor would go into meltdown. This meant the cooling systems and all backups related to it (including its backup power generators) HAD to work perfectly i.e. critical system components.

Unfortunately several accidents since then, notably TMI and Chernobyl, revealed flaws in the original design. The only way to correct these flaws was to include further safety systems, as well as by building a large concrete containment dome over the reactors to contain any radiation releases. The end result has been the size and scale of nuclear projects has ballooned in size, as has the costs of new nuclear build (the following video offers a humorous if foul mouthed appraisal of the situation regarding the Olkiluoto reactor in Finland, first of the new (don’t laugh) nuclear renaissance). All these safety critical components also need careful testing prior to commercial operation, meaning the pace of new nuclear construction has slowed to a crawl. Fukushima will now likely lead to another round of recriminations, further expensive upgrades, redesigns and a further round of reactor shutdowns.

Inevitably I therefore see the civil nuclear industry, so long as LWR are favoured as being caught in a never ending death spiral of further mishaps leading to redesigns and costs rises, which leads to reduced orders, which spreads the fixed cost of nuclear over a smaller number of reactors, which raises the cost yet further. All the while these design changes are slowing the pace of build down (leading to yet more cancelled plants), undermining the entire case for nuclear. Indeed its inevitable now that both the US and Britain will now see a major reduction in nuclear energy use in the next few decades (a recent Bulletin of Atomic Scientist’s article http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/4/30.full discusses this), simply because there is no way they could now build reactors fast enough to cope with the rate they are about to go offline, nor indeed train the staff to run them (many in the nuke industry are getting old and will be looking for their bus passes pretty soon!) Inevitably, as has already happened in Germany, Italy and Canada recently, beyond a certain point cash strapped governments will just run out of patience, pull the plug and turn off the life support.

Criterion of Success…or failure!

In my analysis I established the following criteria with which to judge the relevant “fit for purpose” strengths of these reactor designs.

• Cost, Any alternative to the LWR must be cheaper. Nuclear energy is already more expensive than renewables at current prices, nevermind future prices. So if nuclear has a future its overall costs must be lower.
• Safety, As I said before, the LWR has numerous inherent safety flaws. The number one barrier to public acceptance of nuclear energy is safety. Argue all you want about it, but the LWR design amounts to an elaborate attempt at trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Our preference would therefore be for a reactor that is not just safer, but inherently safer.
• Fuel efficiency, the global stockpiles of fissile material are limited. We could probably maintain the existing stock of reactors going for 50-80 years or so, but given that they only represent 5% of global energy output, that leaves us with the question of where does the other 95% of our energy come from and the obvious question as to whether nuclear energy is just more trouble than its worth. Better fuel economy would mean more reactors and greater market penetration.
• Reduced nuclear waste, the elephant in the room for nuclear energy is the ever growing waste mountain. We’ve yet to come up with a comprehensive solution to nuclear waste and until we do the argument of environmentalists is “if you’re in a hole, stop digging!”. So needless to say if the reactors we now review can generate a lot less waste that would make them a much more attractive proposition to the LWR. Obviously, if the opposite proves to be true, that’s a potential black mark against them.

In addition I also looked at the ability to use the Thorium cycle (given the limits of Uranium supplies), scalability of reactors (these “mega” LWR’s are just too big and unwieldy and can play havoc with the gird of many smaller nations) as smaller reactors might be more flexible, as well as the idea of modular design and mass production of reactors. This latter 2 points being discussed in part 10 of my little series.

If we can prove that any of the reactors we examine can tick all (or most) of these boxes then maybe the nuclear industry has some future, beyond its current Zombie walk to the grave routine with LWR’s.

The Verdicts

All in all my conclusion is that the case for future Generation IV nuclear reactors is much narrower than the supporters of nuclear energy would have you believe. While they do offer some advantages over LWR’s, notably in the area of safety, his comes with strings attached, notably higher capital costs. This is largely a result of the fact that many of these would need to be built from much more exotic materials, such as high temperature stainless steel alloys, Nickel alloys or Refractory materials, while the predominant material of choice in current reactors is steel (stainless and forged ferritic) and concrete. This materials requirement is itself an issue related to the high temperatures these alternative reactors would be required to operate at, not to mention the more aggressive and corrosive environment in some of them, notably the MSR proposals. Of course one to question whether these higher construction costs (and in some cases higher decommissioning costs) are justified.

But overall it is my conclusions that:

The CANDU does close off some of the safety loop holes associated with LWR’s, but it opens up a whole slew of new ones too and generally means higher rates of fuel consumption, lower thermal efficiency and increased amounts of nuclear waste being generated. Indeed, the Canadian government may well have exhausted its patience on this one, as they recently sold the CANDU reactor business for the bargain basement price of $15 million, as well as writing off several billion in outstanding debts. Not exactly a vote of confidence! To me it seems to be a case of the Fed’s picking up the CANDU and throwing it in at the deep end of the pool to see if it will sink or swim. I’ll leave you to guess what’s most likely to happen!

The High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) offers an order of magnitude improvement in safety as well as potentially better fuel economy and high thermal efficiency. However, it will likely come at the expense of much higher construction costs (and probably a slower construction rate depending on material choices, which again depends on operating temperature), higher decommissioning costs and possibly higher volumes of nuclear waste (that last point I’ll admit is debatable, see the my post for more on that one). While the HTGR is fairly safe from meltdown scenarios, one would have likely weathered the Fukushima tsunami with minor damage, it also opens up a host of other safety issues, notably the potential fire risk associated with that graphite core (again a debateable point, see my full article here on this for more info).

The Gas cooled Fast Reactor (GcFR) offers the intriguing possibility of being able to transmute stockpiles of nuclear waste into less dangerous forms. However, it comes with a rather hefty price tag with a lot of R&D work still outstanding as the design is only in the early concept stage of development (read we don’t know if it even works yet!). In any event it will not eliminate the need for some geological storage facilities given the length of time it would take to develop and then build a sizeable number of said reactors, not to mention store the waste after its passed through the reactor. This, plus the hefty price tag associated with GcFR’s, could well make the whole idea uneconomic. Also the GcFR comes with some safety issues (it is not nearly as safe as the HTGR) and a severe proliferation risk.

The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR or LFTR) does offer a number of unique options in terms of safety improvements and improved fuel economy, plus reduced waste streams. However, its ability to achieve these goals is often heavily overstated by its supporters. Much like the GcFR above the design is at a very early stage in development, with much research into it abandoned back in the 1970’s. Any MSR reactor and its associated Chemical Processing Plant (CPP) would likely be expensive to build and slow to construct (again given the narrow and exotic nature of the materials choice the design enforces on us). Getting a decent thermal efficiency out of the plant might be problematic, which worsens the economic case for them. Also while certainly safer than a LWR in terms LOCA scenarios, the MSR comes with its own particular safety problems, notably that graphite core (fire!), the risks of a leak of radioactive material out of the CPP, or arguably worse a release of potential toxic and highly lethal fluorine gas. So all in all there may be a case for MSR’s, but its unproven at the moment and likely a much narrower case that its supporters would have you believe.

Indeed probably the biggest enemy of the MSR design is its own nutty cheerleaders who badly need to stay off the Kool-Aid. Casing point, without hours of my analysis article going online they were already running up vast blog strings of flaming trolls galore (see comments section of my page) or starting e-mailing me anonymously with various badly typed swear-word filled comments. I even picked up one or two stalkers trying to find out who I was and where I lived (yes really)! You also see the odd comment involving half baked megloamanic schemes (such as burning off the biosphere for uranium). While the best I can tell, the advocates of the other reactor designs I reviewed seem to have taken their punishment “like men”, the MSR fans reached for the tinfoil hat and the two-litre bottle of kool-aid. I shall leave it to the reader to decide who should be taken seriously!

Small to medium sized modular reactors do offer a good deal more flexibility in terms of how nuclear power could be used and yet a further improvement in safety. However, they also comes with lower economies of scale and thus higher construction costs and worse a slower rate of reactor roll out (at least in the early days). We could claw back on these two issues by mass producing said reactors in large volumes but as I point out (again see the full article), it is far from proven whether that would be economically viable and whether there is in fact a market for large numbers of small reactors.

Also as I outline, the case for small reactors would also require a major shift in public opinion, which post-Fukushima is unlikely to be forthcoming. Most of the reactor designs I’ve mentioned above would be wholly unsuitable for “mass” production, only a handful of PWR, BWR and HTGR designs would be feasible options. Worse still, by and large mass production means “dumbing down” our design, and that means accepting a reactor that’s much cheaper and easier to build but has a lower thermal efficiency, a higher rate of fuel consumption and ultimately produces larger volumes of nuclear waste compared to our “mega” reactors. With the exception of a small number of narrow cases, it’s difficult to envisage how this would offer an improvement on the current status quo.

Decommissioning costs, the Elephant’s still in the room!

Not only are the construction costs of many of these proposed reactors higher, but for some (but not all) the decommissioning costs would actually be higher and worse they will generate more nuclear waste from this process. This being a particular problem for graphite cored reactors such as the HTGR and the MSR. Other Graphite cored reactors are proving to be something of a nightmare to decommission, as I discuss in the section on HTGR’s.

As far as the spent fuel waste is concerned, some of these proposed reactors will indeed produce less, but others will actually produce more of it, thought it’s probably important to clarify what we mean by “more” or “less”. For example, CANDU as I point out, produces about 7 times (by mass) the amount of nuclear waste than a LWR. However, I’m quite sure the CANDU supporters will point out that because the waste from a CANDU is less radioactive it can be packed up much more tightly, reducing the size of any waste storage pen (but can it be packed sufficiently tightly to overcome that 7 times greater output?).

At the other end of the scale the HTGR’s have a very high rate of fuel burn up, and so would produce a lot less nuclear waste (pound for pound) than a LWR. However, the waste from a HTGR is contained within a graphite matrix which increases its volume to a much larger size than LWR waste. Hence one has to question which reactor we can claim “produces less waste”.

In a similar vein some of the waste output from a MSR will be mixed up with fluoride salts, from which it will have to be separated before going into long term storage. Disposal of said wastes have been described as “technically challenging”  although certainly doable. It’s estimated that it’s going to cost some $130 million to process the waste from one tiny 8 MW_th test reactor which ran for just over 5 years. Again it begs the question which reactor can truly claim to have the “smaller” waste footprint and the “cheaper” clean up bill.

Thorium….only for comic book heroes?

The Thorium cycle, as covered throughout my little study, does offer the option of solving some of the long term fuel supply issues surrounding nuclear energy. But the level to which it will do this is fairly narrow, as Thorium fuelled reactors still need fissile isotopes, drawn ultimately from Uranium, for startup purposes. Failing this they require the use of expensive (and generally uneconomic) fast reactors and reprocessing of spent fuel. So yes, while Thorium could help stretch things out, it can only help a little bit, but not nearly as much as the supporters of Thorium reactors would have you believe. Thorium fuelled reactors would still generate substantial quantities of nuclear waste and come with a number of potential proliferation risks attached. Even the UK National Nuclear Laboratories (NNL) pours cold water over the idea.

Brayton Cycle and Hydrogen Production….rumours of Rankine’s death have been greatly exaggerated

A proposal common to all Generation IV reactors, and some renewable power plant proposals (notably geothermal), is to use Brayton cycle instead of the Rankine cycle for power generation. This would offer a substantial improvement in terms of energy efficiency, and furthermore could bring down the costs of installation. However, there is still some work to do on this issue, so I won’t write off the Rankine cycle just yet! Similarly, the higher material limits required to raise reactor operating temperatures up to the level necessary to utilize the Sulfur-iodine process and make hydrogen directly (using the reactors heat) could well render the whole idea uneconomic. If we want hydrogen (from nuclear) that badly, build a reactor with a lower operating temperature out of cheaper materials, generate electricity and hook it up to an electrolyser! Less efficient yes, but likely cheaper. And if we really want hydrogen on the cheap, ditch the reactor and use CSP or wind energy!

Fusion?

Finally, I also had a look at Fusion power . This is the great white hope of nuclear energy and it has to be said we are making progress, but it’s a case of slow and steady progress. Indeed I would question whether we are in a position yet to even estimate how long it will take for fusion power to become commercial available…if indeed ever! Recent news from ITER is not positive, its now not due to go online till 2026, which would imply a completion of experiments in 2046. And it will take sometime beyond that before we wind up with a viable working commercial fusion reactor. As I speculate (here), it would likely be the latter half of this century (or the beginning of the next one) before we start to see Fusion play any sort of major role in mass global power generation. Also the first generation of Fusion reactors will be dependant on supplies of Lithium for fuel, of which there is only a limited global supply available, something that limits the amount of energy which can ultimately be generated from Fusion reactors, probably to between 8-20% of global energy use depending on whose figures you believe. Where does the other 92-80% come from?

And of course we have to contemplate the possibility that commercial Fusion energy never arrives. While speaking personally, I still have confidence that the necessary breakthroughs will be achieved according to a reasonable timetable, it would be foolish to blindly assume that they will. To build any nations energy strategy on the forlorn hope that fusion power will arrive on the scene by a certain date, makes about as much sense as selling your house and all your worldly goods because some preacher told you the world was going to end on a particular date.

Curb your enthusiasm!

All in all, my conclusions are that the case for future Generation IV nuclear reactors is much narrower than the supporters of nuclear energy would have you believe – even the case for Fusion doesn’t look that clear cut! And again I would note that this last point about Fusion is important, the way the nuclear energy supporters (and indeed many politicians and members of the public) go on you’d swear Fusion was already a slam dunk. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Nuclear energy supporters need to curb they’re enthusiasm for nuclear energy and accept that due to the high capital costs of reactor construction and the limited fuel supplies it will always only ever be a small bit player in a big energy market, at least as far as the current century is concerned. It currently generates about 1.9 – 5.1% of global energy (depending on how you do your maths) and I don’t see how it can be expanded beyond that level, indeed if they manage to maintain this level I suspect they’ll be doing well.

Even the most optimistic nuclear energy program we can draw up still has a substantial energy gap and something else will have to fill it. This of course means we’ll need to rely on renewables for substantially more energy than we currently get from it. Which means many nuclear energy supporters need to overcome their pathological hatred of renewables and if they are truly serious about combating climate change (as many claim to be) then they need to quit trying to throw the baby out with the bath water.

There is enormous potential in renewable energy that can meet our current and future needs. Here are a few facts worth knowing about wind power’s renewable energy:

• A single wind turbine can power over 300 homes if it is well designed. To start a turbine, the winds only need to reach fourteen miles per hour, so places with light wind such as the UK are able to use it with ease.
• Wind power was used as far back as 5000 BCE for ships, wind mills, and power pumps.
• Contrary to popular thought, wind power is not harmful to birds. A study by NASA has shown that windmills have no significant impact on birds.
• In 2008, enough wind power was generated in the U.S. to power the entire state of Colorado

While these facts are impressive, even more information is being discovered about wind power all the time. It seems only fitting that Google, a company that is based on information and technology, can start funding a project that will lead to more wind power findings. In the Atlantic Ocean, Google is investing $5 billion on a 350 mile stretch of land from New Jersey to Virginia to create a large scale wind farm. The strong winds that blow over the sea are ideal for a wind farm because of all the energy they can produce. It will be a pioneer effort to become the first U.S. offshore wind farm in full operation. Google is hoping to attract other companies to the project by investing a substantial 37.5 percent of the initial funds.

Google representatives are as excited about the project as the “green geeks.” The Director of Green Business Operations and Strategy at Google, Rick Needham, describes the project as a “superhighway” of energy. He stated that not being afraid to take risks has gotten the company to where it is today and that they hope that this will be a good example to other companies on what can be possible. The project is called the Atlantic Wind Connection. Once completed, the project will bring wind energy to an estimated 2 million homes.

Last year, Google invested in 20 years of wind energy and created a branch in the company called Google Energy. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Google is taking over everyone’s power bills. Rather, it means that the company is actively seeking alternative, greener, sources of energy to power its infrastructure in the future. Any excess energy the company might generate it plans to sell to back to the grid, so that everything from our home computers to our garage doors can be powered by clean energy.

The technology giant not only wants to be at the front line of efforts to go green, but also believes that this will be a good business practice for others to imitate. The company is liaised with Good Energies, a European and American investment company, as well as Marubeni, out of Japan.

We can hope that more efforts such as these can help bring the nation to energy independence and spark new hope for the people to know that they will have a safe place to work and live in the future.

The KWP officials said that the main purpose of their visit was to learn from China’s experience in the geothermal sector. CPC officials said that “China would like to enhance its exchanges with the DPRK in the field in order to jointly improve their capability to develop and utilize renewable energy.”

Share of combustible renewables and waste steadily increased between 1989 and 1996 after which its share has become stagnant. The country is also rich in hydro power resources which, according to available data constitutes about 50% of the total generation capacity.

Renewable energy would prove extremely helpful for North Korea’s economic growth as the country is heavily dependent on imported fuels. North Korea depends on oil imports from Russia, China and Iran.

On average, electric bills have increased over 7% each year during the last 20 years. Solar Panels have also come a long way during those twenty years as people search for alternative energy sources.

There are several factors that now play a part in determining the value a solar system has for a home or business. First, you must consider the size solar system that you would need. Just like you need a bigger garage door in your home to handle more cars, the larger your electric bill, the larger the solar system you will need. But, it doesn’t stop there. While that determines the size in kilowatt hours that would you need, it’s not the only factor that determines what the cost will be.

Solar prices have dropped recently for several reasons. First, the prices for the components have come down, and that’s a good thing. Second, there are tax credits and local incentives available that will help you pay for the cost of a system. There is currently a 30% federal tax credit good through the year 2016 that you can claim when you purchase a system. Of course, you need to have a tax liability in that amount or greater to claim it, but most people don’t have a problem meeting that. Other incentives are usually found with the local utility companies. Last year, in Nevada, NV Energy offered unusually large rebates for non-profit organizations and when combined with the federal tax credit – it didn’t cost the organization a penny – it was FREE. For homeowners the utility rebate for solar was quite a bit less. The rebate would cover about 25% of the cost for a solar installation. But, again, when combined with the federal tax credit, about 55% the cost of a system was paid for.

Now, as much as I would love to say that all these rebates are still available, most aren’t. Throughout California and Nevada the rebates were exhausted, quite literally, within hours of opening the application process online. But, don’t worry, there’s good news. Most utilities are gearing up for another round of rebates. When you factor that 55% the cost of solar can be paid for through these incentives, and you factor in the $1500-$2000 a year in electric savings you have, you can see very clearly how solar quickly pays for itself.

If I was alive in the 1960’s I probably would have looked to the Chinese Cultural Revolution with their stoic faces and red flags. If I was alive during the revolutions in the 1970’s I might have imagined a revolution to look like the Iranian Ayatollah’s eyes staring me down. And until this past year, revolutions for me have been characterized by a man with plastic bags facing down armoured tanks in Tiananmen Square. But the revolution I want to talk about has been a silent, bloodless revolution, happening right on our doorstep and influencing all aspects of our everyday life.
I am referring to the Green Revolution.

So pervasive is our dependency on energy that a week without hot showers/laptops/cars/mobiles etc would feel like a week in the Middle Ages. This dependency combined with the triple threat of anthropogenic Climate Change, a massively expanding population and dwindling reserves of fossil fuels has meant that the Green Revolution has moved up our priority list.

Businesses have been quick to capitalise on this fact and it seems that every third advert is lined with Green bells and whistles, designed to tempt us away from
fossil fuel guilt and towards a more sustainable lifestyle. Products from Starbucks coffee all the way to EasyJet flights are vying for our attention and consumer pounds by proudly proclaiming their ‘Green’ credentials (can flights really be Green?). But have we not learnt that capitalist forces can subtly nudge us away from social benefits and instead have us chasing products and profits we simply don’t need?
With the global nature of
Climate Change and our global dependency on energy should we not be looking for global solutions?

The Green Revolution has slowly been gathering pace and is almost at a critical mass point where being environmental is so prevalent in our everyday lives, that it’s considered the norm.

But we are not there yet.

I’m worried that many people will be turned-off energy efficient technologies by advertising campaigns that saturate our attention with ‘eco’ friendly products that are anything but (I don’t think we’re convinced that flying with EasyJet or drinking ‘eco’-friendly coffee will change the world). I’m also concerned that we will use our products more often as we believe that having saved some energy over here, we can use more energy over there, thus diminishing the original benefits (rebound effects).

These rebound effects can be profound and government policy makers need to be aware of them, but I would argue governments also need to be aware that companies could stifle the Green Revolution before it reaches critical mass. We should want to encourage companies with an environmental record, not because it will make us feel better, but because it is the right thing to do.

We are so close to damaging our world irrevocably (and thereby threatening our own existence) that we all need to change, and quickly. We have to start taking responsibility, individually and collectively for the way we live our lives. The longer we stare into the sustainable abyss without jumping in with both feet, the more difficult it will become to make the leap. I’m not saying that it will be a quick transition and it will mean making some tough decisions. But to continue the way we are is not sustainable and is now not an option.

So this is a call to arms comrades. If we accept our responsibility for sustainable energy usage future generations will look to us as the revolutionary paradigm. The change needed is so great and pervasive that we all need to be committed and all pushing in the same direction. We cannot allow ourselves to ignore the problem any longer. Mother Nature will not allow us.

But I believe we can do it. We have the knowhow, the resources and the manpower.

All we need is the will. And that’s where you come in.