Karl anti-coal
It's not that I'm pro-nuclear power, I'm just anti-coal power for our base power needs. If such a thing as "clean coal" was feasible, I'd be all for it. However, Dr Karl thinks "clean coal" is a furphy:
Scientific commentator and broadcaster Karl Kruszelnicki, who is running for the Senate on the Climate Change Coalition ticket, today said clean coal technology was physically impossible.
Dr Kruszelnicki said the major parties were lying to the Australian people when they claimed carbon dioxide could be removed from the burning of coal and then compressed and stored underground or underwater.
He said this would require one cubic kilometre of compressed carbon dioxide to be stored every day.
"That is the volume of compressed carbon dioxide that we have to get rid of - not every 10 years, not every year, but every single day," Dr Kruszelnicki said.
"It's just not technologically possible.
"It is simply a furphy, it's a porky pie to cover up the fact that there is no such thing as clean coal."
Underground thermal energy accessed in South Australia could provide 100 per cent of Australia's baseload electricity for the next 75 years and then be supplemented by other renewables, he told reporters.
"If we tried really hard we could have all of the electricity in Australia made without carbon by 2020 using a mixture of renewable energies including hot rocks and the wind and the waves and the sun."
There you have it. According to Dr Karl "clean coal" is a fool's dream. But hot rocks? Intriguing, but feasible? All the electricity in Australia originating from one source? That's a lot of energy wasted (as heat radiating from powerlines). Time will tell.
Scientific commentator and broadcaster Karl Kruszelnicki, who is running for the Senate on the Climate Change Coalition ticket, today said clean coal technology was physically impossible.
Dr Kruszelnicki said the major parties were lying to the Australian people when they claimed carbon dioxide could be removed from the burning of coal and then compressed and stored underground or underwater.
He said this would require one cubic kilometre of compressed carbon dioxide to be stored every day.
"That is the volume of compressed carbon dioxide that we have to get rid of - not every 10 years, not every year, but every single day," Dr Kruszelnicki said.
"It's just not technologically possible.
"It is simply a furphy, it's a porky pie to cover up the fact that there is no such thing as clean coal."
Underground thermal energy accessed in South Australia could provide 100 per cent of Australia's baseload electricity for the next 75 years and then be supplemented by other renewables, he told reporters.
"If we tried really hard we could have all of the electricity in Australia made without carbon by 2020 using a mixture of renewable energies including hot rocks and the wind and the waves and the sun."
There you have it. According to Dr Karl "clean coal" is a fool's dream. But hot rocks? Intriguing, but feasible? All the electricity in Australia originating from one source? That's a lot of energy wasted (as heat radiating from powerlines). Time will tell.
posted by Engels at 11:18 am
7 Comments:
Dr Karl now admits he was wrong (a usual byproduct of scientists stepping outside their area of expertise) and chiefly led astray by that clown Tim Flannery. (who is highly qualified to talk about climate science due to his...um...paleontology qualifications).
Why is the environmentalist movement so staffed with fuckwits? (Failed divinity student Albert Gore Jnr being the top example).
Well, there you go. I thought old Dr Karl was reaching to far from his area of expertise.
Works the other way to, Aidan. The US senate asked Michael Crichton (the FICTION writer) to share his views that climate change is a conspiracy theory. Bjorn Lomborg isn't a climatologist either.
I'd rather trust a scientist talking about another scientific area, than a politician. But climatologists voicing their views is ideal.
"I'd rather trust a scientist talking about another scientific area"
Why? Tim Flannery knows no more about climate science than the average joe on the street. Simply being a "scientist" (an absurdly broad category) doesn't automatically make you an authority on everything. Scientists can fall prey to wishful thinking, political bias and sloppy logic as much as anyone else.
PS: Michael Crichton has a doctorate in medicine, which is a "science" as close to climatology as Tim Flannery or Dr Karl, and much more so than Al Gore.
I wouldn't consider medicine as scientific as paleontology - but Crichton does have an impressive background. Still, how many Nobel prize winners are/were nutters? Anyway, I wasn't saying you could trust Flannery more than Crichton. I was saying I would trust a scientist before a politician.
And I think that Flannery would definitely know more than the average Joe about climate science. Just like you know, say, more about history than the average Joe. How much he knows is another question.
His book, "The Weathermakers", I noticed is recommended reading for a first year climate subject here. I don't know if that's telling of university education, or Flannery's ability to write.
woodworking projects , http://woodworkingplans1.com/#Wervekappeams ted woodworking
4, Eszopiclone Online - discount lunesta http://www.lunestasleepaid.net/, [url=http://www.lunestasleepaid.net/] Lunesta Price [/url]
4, Order Lamisil - buy terbinafine http://www.lamisilfast24.net/, [url=http://www.lamisilfast24.net/] Lamisil Sale [/url]
Post a Comment
<< Home