|
Quote- A very important benefit of undertaking the transition to a clean energy future is that it will stimulate job growth and increased economic activity. For each unit of electricity generated, wind power creates two to three times the number of local jobs as coal, while bio-electricity generates 3.5 times, and most of its jobs are in rural areas where they’re needed. Mark Diesendorf Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of New South Wales -End quote
That was 3.5 times the jobs created by the alternative inferstructure then a coal station. Still need more reasons to get rid of coal?
American, Australian and new Zealand residents living near coal-fired power stations are exposed to higher radiation does then those living near power plants that meet government regulations.-Source
Ever knew that burning coal releases radiation? check this out, its been largely suppressed and UN known.Panacea's wishes to proposes a plan for a Hemp Bio fuel stations in both western and third world countries.
The following is information extracted from a study done by Dr Mark Diesendorf, who teaches sustainable development at the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of New South Wales.
"A sustainable energy future for Australia" first featured at the ABC Radio. Summary points from the study:
Quote-Mark Diesendorf: Australia has the biggest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases in the world. Australia’s biggest single source of emissions is burning coal to generate electricity. Coal-burning also emits dangerous air pollutants, including oxides of sulphur and nitrogen, sulphuric and hydrochloric acid, boron, fluoride, particulate matter, mercury and even low-level radioactivity. In addition, coal is responsible for much water pollution, water consumption, land degradation, and occupational health and safety hazards.
It is claimed by some that existing renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar or biomass, are not capable of substituting for coal-fired power stations. Well this notion has been refuted by a set of scenario studies for a clean energy future for Australia and its States. The results of these studies indicate that combinations of efficient energy use, renewable energy, and as a transitional fuel, natural gas, are technologically feasible now. Furthermore, the clean energy mix may also be cheaper than continuing with coal, even without taking into account the huge environmental and health costs of coal.
Nuclear energy is at present being marketed as a solution to the greenhouse problem.
The further reduction in emissions, to 50% below the 2001 level, is achieved from cleaner energy supply. The main contributors to our supply mix are: Gas, the least polluting of the fossil fuels, used in both cogeneration (that’s combined heat and power) and in highly efficient combined-cycle power stations; In addition, bioelectricity contributes 28% of electricity, and since it is generated almost entirely from burning crop residues, it does not require additional land; Wind power contributes 20% of electricity, which happens to be the same as its current percentage contribution in Denmark; Coal contributes 9%, as opposed to 85% today; and Hydro-electricity 7%, much the same as today.
The wind energy contribution and some of the bio-electricity are already less expensive than the estimated costs of coal-fired electricity with capture and burial of CO2 emissions.
Transport is addressed together with stationary energy in a Canadian study with similar assumptions to our own, carried out for the David Suzuki Foundation. Once again, based on small improvements to existing technologies, a 50% reduction in emissions could be achieved within a few decades.
The Canadian study utilizes improvements in urban public transport and further dissemination of fuel-efficient vehicles, such as hybrids and clean diesels. So for both stationary energy and transport, 50% reductions in CO2 emissions can be achieved from existing technologies, buying us time for the development of new technologies. In the long term, it is vital for Australia to stop continually increasing its demand for materials and energy. This means changing Australia’s economic structure and also achieving low population growth.
There are currently proposals for new coal-fired power stations in Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland. There is also a proposal, which unfortunately has been given the go-ahead, to extend the operating life of Victoria’s most greenhouse-polluting old power station, Hazelwood, for another 22 years. Despite the rhetoric from the Federal government and the coal industry about CO2 capture and burial, all these proposals are for conventional ‘dirty’ coal-fired power stations. Our State reports show that a proposal for a 1000 megawatt base-load coal-fired power station could be replaced by 2010 by a mix of efficient energy use, natural gas, wind power and bio-electricity from organic residues.
An adopted, the cleaner system would be cost-effective, with the economic savings from efficient energy use paying for the additional costs of renewable energy and gas-fired electricity. Although the cleaner energy supply mix will increase the average price of a unit of electricity, the improvements in efficiency of energy use will reduce the number of units of electricity purchased. The net result is that, for the vast majority of consumers, energy bills will either decrease or remain approximately the same.
Then the challenge in moving onto the sustainable energy pathway becomes neither technical nor economic, but rather organizational and institutional: namely, how to deliver cost-neutral packages of energy efficiency, renewable energy and natural gas to consumers. Since State governments would have to play the leading role in making organizational and institutional changes, the key issue becomes one of political will at the State level.
Since the Federal government’s modest existing Mandatory Renewable Energy Target is expected to be fully utilized by the end of this year, another essential policy measure is to introduce State-based schemes to foster the development of the new renewable energy industries. The Victorian government has taken the lead, at least rhetorically, by announcing that it will provide a support system for its goal of 1000 megawatts of wind power by the end of 2006.
In the longer term, we need a carbon tax or levy, or tradeable emissions permits of the cap and trade type, implemented by a group of co-operating States if the Federal government maintains its refusal to implement this market mechanism.
State governments should also extend energy performance standards, such as the BASIX scheme in New South Wales, from new buildings to several categories of existing buildings.To conclude, a sustainable energy future is technically feasible, economically viable and environmentally essential. We don’t have to wait several decades until CO2 capture and burial may become a large-scale commercial reality. We already have technologies to halve our emissions. But most of the clean energy industries are small and cannot afford large political donations.
A very important benefit of undertaking the transition to a clean energy future is that it will stimulate job growth and increased economic activity. For each unit of electricity generated, wind power creates two to three times the number of local jobs as coal, while bio-electricity generates 3.5 times, and most of its jobs are in rural areas where they’re needed. -End quote
Electricity costs are predicted to double in next 25 years A report to be released today says the cost of electricity could double by 2030. The Electricity Supply Association (ESA) commissioned the research that found a 30 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions in the next 25 years would mean power would become twice as expensive.
ESA chief executive Brad Page says it would cost between $35 billion and $75 billion. "What you need to do is have the widest ranges of technologies available if you want to do it in a least cost manner," he said.
"For example, the least cost will actually come about by having nuclear and advanced carbon capture and storage available." Each time you remove one of these options you actually find that the cost of meeting these deep emission cuts goes up and in some cases very significantly.Source.
Video - Biodiesel from Hemp
Video -On Biomass (and Hemp)
Coastal sites for nuclear reactors named
SEVENTEEN nuclear reactors are likely to be spaced out along the Australian coast from Townsville in Queensland to Port Augusta in South Australia under a nuclear-powered future, a new study has revealed.
Left-wing think tank the Australia Institute said Queensland could have six reactors located in Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island.
Port Stephens, the Central Coast, Port Kembla and Jervis Bay/Sussex Inlet were named as NSW/ACT locations. In Victoria, South Gippsland, Westernport, Port Phillip and Portland were named as reactor sites, while in South Australia, Mt Gambier/Millicent, Port Adelaide and Port Augusta/Port Pirie were identified.
The reactor sites were chosen based on criteria such as proximity to seawater for cooling and access to the national electricity grid.
The institute also surveyed 1200 Australians on their attitude towards having a reactor in their local area and found that 66 per cent were opposed.
A quarter of those surveyed, 25 per cent, were supportive and nine per cent undecided. Fifty-five per cent were strongly opposed and just 10 per cent strongly in favour.
The study follows a determined push by the Federal Government towards the nuclear generation of electricity. A government commissioned inquiry headed by Dr Ziggy Switkowski last year reported reactors would have to be positioned within tens of kilometres of the east coast national power grid.
It found that nuclear generation was attractive in the battle against greenhouse gas emissions and could be viable if there were to be a price on carbon.
That inquiry posed the scenario of 25 reactors producing a third of Australia's electricity needs by the year 2050.
"With Australia's existing energy resources, there is no reason for us to go down the nuclear path." Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett said the report was further evidence Australia should not go nuclear.
"Australia needs to go on a low carbon diet, not a nuclear binge, and these figures show John Howard is increasingly out of step with Australians who are desperate for real action on climate change," he said.
Greens senator Kerry Nettle said the report unsurprisingly showed that populations close to the suggested sites did not want nuclear power plants.
"Instead of talking about 25 possible nuclear power plants, the prime minister should be looking for another 25 sites for major wind power stations and another 25 solar power stations," she said.
Source
This is an out right hypocrisy that needs public intervention via a grass roots activism level.
As of June 10, 2008-Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett says the government will fulfil a Howard-government era policy to build a nuclear waste dump.The proposal, believed to include several locations in the Northern Territory, was opposed by Mr Garrett before the election.-Source.
By evaluation of these facts, it should now be clear from any view point why there is no justification for the government to choose to ignore the avenues which Bio fuels and geo thermal stations can benefit.Is there a deeper conspiracy involving nuclear and oil companies?
Either way we the public do not need to concern our self’s with this at the moment, the clear justified solution for our health are presented and ready to be grant implemented and adopted by the government should the public reform the decisions.
Hemp Bio fuel stations create renewable environmental energy and more jobs than a coal station.
Panacea intends on creating a Bio fuel Hemp station in Australia. This bio fuel station will further be used to power a portion of the research and development centre. If you are an organisation which can aid in the growth, and manufacture of hemp towards this task please contact Panacea.
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION FOR CLEAN HEMP BIO FUEL ENEGRY! SIGN THE PETITIONS HERE!
Facts about Bio fuel
Of the envelope calculation of bio mass and land area needed to supply the world with BIO fuel power.
It came out that if the entire US landmass were devoted to producing canola it would replace 75% of the world's annual oil demands.
Of course petroleum oils are used for far more than fuel, but pretty much anything can be synthesized from plant oils now.
Hemp can be harvested more frequently than canola, and if grown alternately with other crops increases their yields; quite the opposite to cotton, which wrecks the soil unless particular attention is paid to it's maintenance. The facts verify that the notion of agriculture being able to replace fossil fuels is not absurd, especially to run diesel engines. World Primary Energy Production Trends.
Between 1992 and 2001, the world's total output of primary energy, petroleum, natural gas, coal, and electric power (hydro, nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind, and wood and waste)-- increased at an average annual rate of 1.6 percent - see : Table
Source -World production increased from 351 quadrillion Btu in 1992 to 403 quadrillion Btu in 2001.
Working with: 403 quadrillion Btu in 2001.
[1Btu = 1054.35 J] ~=424.90305 quadrillion kJ (424.905305 X10^12 kJ) bodies contains about 130,000 BTU/gal, or 137065.5 kJ/ 3.785L = 36212.81 kJ/L
To supply the entire world's energy requirements as bodies, made, for example from canola one needs:
425 x10^12 kJ / 36213 kJ/L = 1.17361 x10^11L AT 1190 L canola oil per hectare, the area required to produce 1.17361 x10^11 L is 1.17361 x10^11L / 1190L per hectare =was 98,622,89... added missing "6" 98,622,689.0756 hectares required to furnish the world's energy requirements. Almost 100 million hectares. How much land is that? Total Area of the world 510,072,000 sq km of that, 148,940,000 sq km - 29.2% is land.
United States-Land area: 9,158,960 sq. km 3,536,357 sq. miles 1 square kilometer = 100 hectares, so the US landmass has 9,158,960 sq. km X 100 hectares per square kilometer = 915,896,000 hectares, or 9 times the area required to produce the world's entire energy requirements.
This might have got it slightly off but if out by a factor of 10 it is still favourable to an agricultural solution. If it's out by a factor of 50 then with the help of Russia, Canada, China, Brazil and Australia's hard working dirt we add another 52-odd million square kilometers and it's still covered.
But I don't think its out, but I actively encourage anyone to check this themselves. Rapeseed is commonly grown in Europe as a non-food crop on set-aside land. -Source
In 1992 under the Common Agriculture Policy, an obligation was introduced to take 15% of the arable land out of food production. It was this legislation that grew the bio-fuel industry in Europe as farmers under the scheme were allowed to produce "non-food" crops and receive income. Between 4 and 7.5 million hectares are set-aside annually for the production of non food crops and the majority of this is rapeseed and Sunflower for bio-diesel and oleo-chemicals, and a smaller portion for the production of bio-ethanol from cereals and sugar-beet.
If these guys had their head screwed on a bit better they'd be extracting the linoleic acid and value-adding their process economy. Room for improvement. -end
Panacea is a not for profit organisation and needs support. Any aid agency who can help, or any member of the public please contact Panacea.
Further Research on hemp
| 
