Comments cscoxk has made

  • Reducing emissions is not an impost on the economy

    Emissions reduction is not an impost on the economy. The reason it is thought to be an impost is that economists believe that increasing prices is the only way to get investment in renewables and in energy savings. There is another way and that is to Reward people for reducing emissions and require the Rewards money to further reduce emissions. The same principle applies to Water and you can see how reducing the amount of water makes it cheaper for my local area.

    http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/07/27/making-better-use- ...

    If you do the same calculations for energy reduction you will find the same outcome. That is instead of increasing the price of polluting energy pay people not to use it but require them to spend the Rewards they receive on ways to produce an equivalent product that has no emissions.

    If the equivalent product is cheaper to produce then this will in the long term result in lower costs for the product. The running costs of renewable energy sources are ALL cheaper than burning fossil fuel because the fuel is "free".

    Economists with their concentration miss the main point that it is investment that gives us wealth. If we concentrate on distributing investment money to amplify the effect of the investment dollar we can have a net zero emissions economy within any time frame we wish. I think ten years is probably good enough - but we could make it five or twenty. At the end of the time we will be wealthier but it will be the people who conserved who will be the owners of the new renewable energy assets.On Busted: Majority of emissions cuts can come from public spending posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

  • Rebound effect

    There is a way to direct the money saved to more emissions reductions. It is called Energy Rewards and creates a positive feedback system where the more you reduce the more you get to spend on emissions reductions. The approach applies to any community resource where there are limits such as water. The idea is very simple. Everyone pays a little more for energy (or water). Everyone gets some money back but the money is distributed in inverse proportion to the amount of money spent on the resource BUT the money you receive must be spent on infrastructure to conserve the resource or in the case of emissions to reduce emissions. We are half way through writing a book explaining in detail the approach that is a general solution to the "Tragedy of the Commons"

    Here is a condensed version of chapter 4. My comments under Fickle Pickle in the discusssion is a better explanation.

    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7662

    You can also view the first chapter at http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/a-solution-to-the- ...On Energy efficiency is the core climate solution, part 2 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 11 Responses

  • We can have zero net emissions in 5, 10 or 20years

    In Australia there is a considerable debate on the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. This may or may not work but there is a method that will work.

    First the question of whether there is enough renewable power available. There is plenty of renewables available in Australia for the whole world as there is in the USA. One hot rock geothermal field currently being developed has enough energy for all Australia's energy needs for at least 200 years. See http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/emission-neutralit ... for some calculations.

    It is not a question of is there enough. It is a question of the amount of investment to develop the renewables. The time frame is dependent on the amount of money to spend.

    The issue is how to persuade the coal industry how to invest in renewables without sending us broke. The way to do that is to pay them. Australia exports more coal than any other country and we should be in the forefront of this approach. We can pay the countries to whom we export by giving them the money we now collect in royalties and other taxes on coal exports but require them to invest in renewable projects in Australia that they partly own. Read the following to see the idea expanded and why Australia will do very well out paying countries to buy our coal:)

    http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/zero-net-greenhous ...

    Before anyone asks I have used different number of years in the two examples to illustrate it is a number we can set and know it will be met.

    Before any says that paying people to buy our coal will send us broke think it through. The suggestion is that they finance our renewable energy infrastructure that they will have access to. Australia is awash in too much money because we are currently a big net exporter of energy resources and we do not need the royalties for other purposes so what better idea to build energy sources that go on forever before someone else does. You do not go broke by investing - rather the opposite - and it does not matter who "owns" the investment if it is sitting on your land.On Can the coal industry and an environmental blog find common ground? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 24 Responses

  • A few points about your spreadsheet

    The cost of running solar thermal and geothermal plants I believe is of the order of 1 cent per kwh.

    The cost of large scale hot rock geothermal is currently of the order of $4500 for a kw continuous capacity and likely to drop to $3000 with large scale development. See http://www.geodynamics.com.au

    The cost of large scale solar thermal including heat storage is also of the order of $3000 per continuous kw with large scale development. See http://www.ausra.com/

    A different way of looking at the economics is to look at the whole of life economics for the system. That is how much do we invest today and how much return do we get on the investment. Now do the same thing with fossil fuel ignoring the costs of emissions. The problem is that the time value of money distorts the economic calculations because the time value of money includes returns on consumption goods and services which have higher monetary returns more quickly than investment returns. That is the way the calculations are done distorts the economic argument towards quick returns immediately rather than more returns over a longer period.

    We can overcome this problem by getting investment directed to these sorts of technologies in competition with each other and not in competition with returns from consumables. One way of doing this is to put up the price of polluting energy but give it back to low consumers as energy rewards but require them to invest the money in renewable energy. See

    http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/a-market-approach- ... for a practical inexpensive way to do this.On Renewables and efficiency would provide more GDP than fossil fuels posted 1 year, 4 months ago 48 Responses

  • Geothermal to supplement Solar

    The calculations are already conservative as solar thermal and geothermal are about the same capital cost and both are simple technologies. Solar thermal are a bunch mirrors heating water, Geothermal is drilling a few holes and pumping cold water down one pipe and getting it back another. My calculations using existing technologies in Australia make it feasible to have zero emissions in 10 years. To see what we are doing with geothermal go to http://www.geodynamics.com.au

    These people will be producing electricity from hot rocks for an investment of $3000 to produce 1kw continuously for the next fifty years - and there is no storage problem as hot rocks stay hot all day and night and as the heat is extracted more comes from the natural radioactive decay and from the centre of the earth.

    Incidently you do not have to take money from defense but simply divert a fraction of the money that has been going into the house price bubble into renewables. This will stop the USA going into recession, solve your housing affordability problem and save the planet. On A third of our military budget could cure our carbon addiction posted 1 year, 9 months ago 44 Responses