Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

consequences of climate change reforms.

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by ibast, Feb 9, 2009.

  1. THIS IS NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL DEBATE.

    Now that I've got that off my chest, I ask you this question; If the experts are right, and we need reduce carbon dioxide emission, then what impact is it going to have economically (or otherwise) to the world?



    If can't can't get past the original assumption, then please refrain from comment.
     
     Top
  2. Nothing. There will some issues as we change over our infrastructure to greener systems but life will go on.
     
     Top
  3. Good topic. I have a belief that, whatever they believe or don't believe about climate change, many Western governments are keen to support change for other reasons. Not least of those is that it will wrest some economic power back from their competitors. Russia, in particular, but also China and the oil states.
     
     Top
  4. Not sure how the global economy works but one thing I can be certain of is that if CO2 emissions are reduced or heavily taxed this will have a direct impact on the cost of raw materials such as metals and concrete - both of which have CO2 as a necessary by-product.
    Some improvements could be made in reducing power consumption (which people are working on) - but strict reductions could only be met by reducing production. This in turn would result in a significant increase in the cost of construction, particularly for large buildings and civil projects like bridges - at least until a suitable alternative could be found (ie geopolymer).
    Other manufactured goods will also increase in cost due to rising metal prices, in particular cars and other vehicles. Costs that would more than likely be passed on to a lot of other goods. Basically the standard of living everyone in the Western world has become accustomed to is unsustainable - we either keep pumping out CO2, or you live in a world where a Plasma TV or 4wd is out of reach to all but the very rich.
     
     Top
  5. The stark relality of their proposed limits can only mean one thing. Population reduction or sending us back to the dark ages.

    I am still a keen believer in this

    http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

    I think we are all being taken for chumps in an international agreement to have a one world government (albiet very slowly) using global carbon tax as the conduit. Its going to start (and has already with the EU).

    I cringe as I read this stuff as a young kid thinking that this stuff was all conspiracy theory, but looking at all the stuff going on in last decade, I wish it was :cry:
     
     Top
  6. What rubbish.
     
     Top
  7. How is it rubbish?

    I sure you hope you aren't about to try and tell me how much cheaper and easier it is to move completely away from established business practices and industrial processing, invest heavily in R&D and then amend plant and production to lower output... are you?
     
     Top
  8. The free market economy is reliant on growth. For growth to occur ultimately we need to keep digging stuff out of the ground.

    Something has got to change.
     
     Top
  9. What naiveity. :roll:

    Some groups are proposing a tax of up to $100US per ton of CO2 produced. If this was introduced then like it or not the price of iron and aluminium would at least double - you'd then also have the increased cost of transport/production of raw materials needed on top of this.

    You really think this won't affect the price of a new 4wd?
     
     Top
  10. We already see the cost of changing to more greener solutions. Has anyone noticed how much more they charge if you switch to green energy? That's only the beginning. :cry:
     
     Top
  11. In context it sounds more apt.
     
     Top
  12. Please read the following statement, that I believe perfectly sums up the feasability of allowing environmentalists to set emissions targets:

    Kyoto Treaty emissions targets: even the Japanese couldn't reach them! :shock:

    What hope do we have? really??
     
     Top
  13. Not within our lifetimes but probably could be achievable for generations to follow. We're only starting the trend. :)
     
     Top
  14. Seems to me that the bulk of our CO2 emissions is due to emissions to provide the energy consumed to drive our industry.

    What hope do we have? About 4M sq.km of arid unusable land bathed in cloud-free sunlight for >300 days of the year, of which around 10 sq.km. is enough to drive a city the size of Melbourne.

    If Australia got off its arse and invested heavily in solar energy, we could be cabling it up to Indonesia and through SE Asia and pretty much be one of the global driving forces behind emissions free power production.

    Japan doesn't have the land resources and the sunshine resources that Australia has. Australia would have to be about THE single nation best positioned to develop a low carbon emissions industry, and we pretty much do jack shit but talk about taxes, thereby hampering the revenue stream from companies that could otherwise use that money to go greener.

    IF the Aussie govt. implemented a carbon tax, and then said outright that this carbon tax money would exclusively go towards the development of solar energy plants to convert the nation to a greener low emissions example for the rest of the world, then that'd be fine. Instead, carbon tax money will just go into consolidated revenue and never be used to change the scenario.
     
     Top
  15. I too think it is a great shame that we don't have more solar in Australia, but would it really solve the problem?

    Emissions are directly related to population and most of the worlds population is not in Australia. Not only that the major population growth areas are not in Australia. There is only so far you can transport electricity.

    btw, do you know Nickola Tesla's believed that electricity could be transmitted through the air and the only reason it isn't is that no one would be able to be billed for it?
     
     Top
  16. Where are you getting your figures from?

    Under optimum conditions there's roughly 1kw of solar energy per square metre - solar cells can recover about 12% of this (so let's say 100w/square metre).

    The Port Henry smelter is running at 360MW - so that's 3.6 square kilometres of solar cells needed assuming zero transmission losses and perfect conditions for just 1 smelter. In reality you'd probably need at least twice as many cells and you'd still need an alternate power source for nighttime or when it does rain/cloud over.

    It also doesn't take into account the 20 odd tons of CO2 produced for every ton of metal as a by-product of reduction. And then there's the question of what is the CO2 cost in producing several square kilometres of solar cells.
     
     Top
  17. photovoltaic cells are not the only method of harnessing solar energy. flux is correct, theres is an enormous amount of solar energy falling on this country.

    fusion technology is another energy source which i hope to see implemented in my lifetime
     
     Top
  18. True but if they invest heavily in research and development, then the figures that Flux originally quoted could be a reality. :)

    There's no reason to believe that they can't find alternative materials to make it more efficient and less damaging on the environment. Can you imagine if they pour the same sort of money into solar technology like what they do with cars/bike engines...wow...
     
     Top
  19. Still limited in the amount of energy you can extract from sunlight.
    If using mirrors the maximum efficiency that's been achieved is still only about 250w/square meter, so you're still looking at more than 1km2 of area for a smelter.
    And it still doesn't solve the problem of what to do at nighttime, unless you put in a massive over-capacity and use the surplus to pump water to use for hydro-power later. In which case the area required is even greater.
     
     Top
  20. Bah. I was out by a factor of 10, true. Still, not like we're short for land.

    As for night-time storage, I believe that nowadays they're using sodium, and superheating that during the day, then using it as a huge heat "battery" to steam up water for power generation during the night.
     
     Top