Interview with Mark Diesendorf transcript
The Environment Site Interview with Dr Mark Diesendorf, Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales – Monday 14th 2008-01-14
Energy
1. Solar power seems to be making the largest technological leaps of all renewable technologies. Do you think that solar will be a major source of energy in the next decade?
Dr Mark Diesendorf Not in the next decade. Solar power is still very expensive and it will take time for technological improvements and the growing market to bring the price down to a level where it can become a major source. If incentives are increased, solar power could provide possibly 10 per cent of Australia’s electricity by 2025 and much more after 2030.
2. Is thermal storage soon to be a reality, and cheap enough, making solar thermal power the best choice for the bulk of Australian’s energy/electricity concerns?
Dr Mark Diesendorf Thermal storage of solar thermal is already a reality on a small scale and is much less expensive than electrical storage. Promising storage media are water, rocks, salt, graphite and thermo-chemical processes such as ammonia production.
There is no single ‘best choice’ for renewable electricity. We must simultaneously develop the least-cost renewable sources (wind and bioelectricity from crop residues) and the more expensive sources with high potential contributions (solar and hot rock geothermal).
3. Do you think solar could supply significant base-load power if the storage was de-centralised?
Dr Mark Diesendorf Distributed solar thermal power stations with on-site thermal or thermo-chemical storage could make small contributions to base-load before 2020 and significant contributions afterwards.
4. Australia seems to be under a certain pressure to bury high level nuclear waste from other countries. Is it true that Australia is the safest place to bury this high level nuclear waste for long term storage?
Dr Mark Diesendorf My geological knowledge is too limited to answer this scientifically. However, my political view is that countries that produce nuclear wastes should take responsibility for storing them. If they cannot store the wastes safely and securely, then they should stop producing them.
5. If no, then where else in the world is it possible to safely bury this nuclear waste for long term storage?
Dr Mark Diesendorf No comment.
6. Are there any viable alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear in the short to medium term?
Dr Mark Diesendorf In the short to medium term, the best alternatives, in order of cost, commencing with the least-cost option, are:
• efficient energy use;
• solar hot water;
• on-site cogeneration of electricity and heat by some industries and commercial buildings;
• combined-cycle power stations fuelled by natural gas and coal-seam methane;
• wind power;
• bioelectricity from the combustion of landfill gas, residues of existing crops and plantation forests.
If hot rock geothermal proves to be successful in the medium term, then it may turn out to be cheaper than most sources of bioelectricity.
7. In 'fact sheet 16, the base load fallacy' you discuss using 'wind power as base-load'. A concept which is frequently used, and essentially assumes that wind sites should be developed with the aim smoothing out production from wind generation to appear more like the output of a base load generator.
Have you considered that this may not be the least cost approach?
Dr Mark Diesendorf At appropriate sites, wind power is clearly is the least-cost of the new renewable electricity technologies. But I don’t claim that it is cheaper than energy efficiency, solar hot water or combined-cycle gas power.
An approach in Lamont (2007) argues that wind should be installed to maximize its value in the system, not to smooth out production. In this way, the inclusion of intermittent technologies into the system reduces the optimal amount base-load capacity and replaces it with a mix of intermittent and intermediate capacity.
Dr Mark Diesendorf I haven’t read Lamont (2007), which you have not referenced, and am not entirely sure what you mean by ‘smoothing out production’. I am recommending wind power from geographically distributed sites (with a little peak-load back-up) as a means of substituting for coal-fired power stations. In this way it replaces both the capital cost and fuel/operating costs of coal-fired power stations. I cannot think of any higher value use of large amounts of wind power, both in economic and environmental terms. Of course, there are some potential small uses of wind power where its fluctuations are unimportant (e.g. pumping water), but these are tiny compared with Australia’s wind power potential.
8. What does Dr Diesendorf think of the feasibility of the following: Option #1 an industry created out of engineering businesses converting our existing internal combustion engine vehicles to run on hydrogen (just like they do on LPG/CNG/LNG); #2 while the motor vehicle and aircraft industries convert to hydrogen fueled porcelain rotary engines; and #3 the hydrogen motor fuel be extracted from hot brine via sustainably generated electrolysis [eg solar thermal - for argument's sake or simplicity] and distributed where practical via a decentralised onsite network of hydrogen plants adjacent to drive through fuel depots (why waste fuel delivering fuel?).
Note: Gas cylinders must be sealed. Hydrogen leaks through steel. Latex or silicone to the rescue. Possibly allowing lighter and even more porous aluminium cylinders for power to weight advantage. Alternately cylinders could potentially be made from industrial nylon, polypropylene, bio-mimicry created ceramics, Kevlar, or some as yet unnamed nanomaterial.
Dr Mark Diesendorf Unfortunately the large-scale use of hydrogen produced from renewable sources of energy is at least 25–30 years away (except possibly in Iceland). This is the result of the high cost of renewable energy, of electrolysis (small-scale is likely to be even dearer than large-scale centralised), of fuel cells, and of hydrogen storage at the production sites and on vehicles. The sum of all these high costs is very high. Much R&D is still needed.
Sustainability
1. Utilitarianism is the belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility. Is our utilitarianism the only leitmotiv for us to preserve ecosystems and other species?
Dr Mark DiesendorfWe humans are totally dependent upon the natural world for our survival. Nature provides the elements that make up our DNA, the food that we eat including essential nutrients, the bacteria which help us to digest that food, the air that we breathe, a fairly stable climate, soils, etc. So, utilitarianism (in terms of protecting human well-being) is one motive for working towards a sustainable society. We must protect ecosystems and biodiversity because, without them, we cannot survive.
But utilitarianism is not the only philosophical framework that justifies the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity. There are ethical and religious frameworks as well. For the conservation thread in Christianity, see Charles Birch’s writings. Taoism too has a strong conservation thread.
2. Transportation infrastructures in urban sprawls have led to unsustainable levels of traffic and resource use. What would a city integrating a sustainable transportation system look like in your very humble opinion?
Dr Mark Diesendorf I would need several pages to answer this. See the writings of Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy (e.g. Sustainability and Cities) and chapter 10 of my book, Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy.
3. Do you think the term ‘carrying capacity’ still has value? If so, what do you think of the population policies of governments around the world, most of which promote more births?
Dr Mark Diesendorf The term ‘carrying capacity’ has limited usefulness when applied to humans, because as Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren showed, environmental impact depends on three factors: population, affluence (e.g. measured by GDP per person) and technology choice. The sustainable development process must address all three factors. Since Australia has the world’s highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita (apart from a few oil sheikdoms), each birth in and each immigrant to Australia adds disproportionately to global warming. So, I’m opposed to government policies that encourage births and excessive number of immigrants. Incidentally, these policies are driven by a few vested interests, such as the housing industry and the Roman Catholic Church.
I do think that Australia has a responsibility to accept refugees. Currently refugees are only a small percentage of immigrants. We could increase refugee immigration while severely cutting professional and business immigration, which is a large proportion of immigrants. By moving to Australia, professional and business immigrants inadvertently help to impoverish their own countries. Australia could be more helpful to developing countries by cutting business and professional immigration and increasing foreign aid.
4. Obviously countries such as Brazil, Mexico, India and China are becoming richer at quite a rapid rate, and as their middle class grows in size, so it seems likely that their carbon footprint will increase. That's the obvious downside, but on the upside they will bring millions more educated minds to the problem. Do you see the development of developing countries as an opportunity or threat?
Dr Mark Diesendorf They are a threat to the extent that they are following the dominant US model of development and they are an opportunity to the extent that they can leapfrog over the mistakes of western development and move to sustainable development. There is a significant sustainable development movement in China. This would be greatly strengthened if western countries, like the US and Australia, set a better example in sustainable development.
5. A 10-cent levy for plastic bags will be introduced in Victoria in 3 years. Will this be sufficient to prevent the damage to wildlife that occurs from the 69 odd million plastic bags that are littered each year in Australia, or should they be banned as Planet Ark founder John Deere appears to suggest?
Dr Mark Diesendorf They should be banned. Even China is banning thin plastic bags.
6. What are your views on traditional light bulbs being banned and the mercury concerns of more eco friendly bulbs?
Dr Mark Diesendorf I support the ban on incandescent light-bulbs and the further development of more eco-friendly bulbs. It appears that most of the tiny quantities of mercury in fluorescent lights is bound tightly and will not be released into the atmosphere when the bulbs are dumped.
7. Wandering round the internet I have seen mention of bans on azo dyes and pentachlorophenol in textiles, particle board type products with reduced or no formaldehyde, bans on aesthetic use of garden pesticides, non-pesticide methods of weed control by councils in public areas and compulsory labelling of products containing toxic ingredients. I get the feeling that monitoring progress on these sorts of issues is not a priority in Australia. When will we catch up?
Dr Mark Diesendorf That looks like a rhetorical question!
8. There are people in the UK that are trying to block the human made gulleys in peat bogs in an attempt to prevent further erosion of the peat, raise the level of the water table and hopefully stimulate the bogs into starting to work again. Do you think that this approach will work?
Dr Mark Diesendorf I don’t know much about peat bogs.
9. How quickly and easily do you think that peat bogs that were damaged by humans using unsustainable peat cutting practices can be returned to their former working order?
Dr Mark Diesendorf I pass.
10. How much of an impact do you think this would have on climate change?
Dr Mark Diesendorf It’s difficult to quantify. We must stop the emission of greenhouse gases from all sources.
11. Reports in the media suggest that the tipping point for the melting of the Siberian permafrost has been exceeded. Do you agree with this?
Dr Mark Diesendorf The phrase ‘tipping point for the melting of the Siberian permafrost’ is ill-defined. Let’s just say that scientists observe that some permafrost is melting in Siberia and elsewhere, thus releasing more greenhouse gases and hence amplifying global warming. Such positive feedback processes are dangerous and must be stopped ASAP.
12. Are you aware of any techniques that could be employed to counteract the initial methane release from these peat bogs?
Dr Mark Diesendorf No, neither from peat bogs nor permafrost, but I’m not a specialist on these systems.
13. What is it that, if anything, really proves to the average man or woman that Climate Change demands immediate attention?
Dr Mark Diesendorf I can only offer my own view. I cannot speak for the ‘average man or woman’. In public addresses, my main argument for URGENT action is based on stopping the positive feedback processes that are amplifying and accelerating global warming:
· melting of north polar cap;
· melting of permafrost, which releases greenhouse gases;
· warming of soils which emit greenhouse gases;
· warming of the lower atmosphere which takes up more water vapour, a greenhouse gas;
· warming of sea-water which then absorbs less CO2.
· increased prevalence and severity of bushfires, which release more CO2.
Most audiences understand very well the dangers of these positive feedback processes.
|
Three Cheers for Adi!!!
Linear Mode
