Global Climate Change Action

about Geothermal Power?
http://www.energycore.com.au/?gclid=CKvu9a-K05ICFQzOiQod-VXceA
In Australia: http://earthtoair.com.au/
"Geothermal energy is one of the most exciting natural renewable energy sources available to man and is in commercial use in over 70 countries world wide. It is used across the globe to heat and cool buildings, for industrial processes, aquaculture and for electricity generation and is a leading source of renewable energy."

via Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power#Advantages
(advantages/disadvantages)

"A 2006 report by MIT, that took into account the use of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS), concluded that it would be affordable to generate 100 GWe (gigawatts of electricity) or more by 2050 in the United States alone, for a maximum investment of 1 billion US dollars in research and development over 15 years.[11]

The MIT report calculated the world's total EGS resources to be over 13,000 ZJ. Of these, over 200 ZJ would be extractable, with the potential to increase this to over 2,000 ZJ with technology improvements - sufficient to provide all the world's energy needs for several millennia.[11]

The key characteristic of an EGS (also called a Hot Dry Rock system), is that it reaches at least 10 km down into hard rock. At a typical site two holes would be bored and the deep rock between them fractured. Water would be pumped down one and steam would come up the other. The MIT report estimated that there was enough energy in hard rocks 10 km below the United States to supply all the world's current needs for 30,000 years. [11]

Drilling at this depth is now routine for the oil industry (Exxon announced an 11 km hole at the Chayvo field, Sakhalin. Lloyds List 1/5/07 p 6). The technological challenges are to drill wider bores and to break rock over larger volumes. Apart from the energy used to make the bores, the process releases no greenhouse gases."

also see Development around the world:
"...In addition, geothermal heating is used to heat 87% of homes in Iceland. Icelanders plan to be 100% non-fossil fuel in the near future.[15]"

During the Federal election campaign in Australia, the ALP (who now hold power) were talking about Geothermal Development for the first time. Why the silence on this technology now?

Additionally, when it comes to the nuclear industry, CFCs and water issues have so far gone largely ignored:

- Uranium enrichment by centrifuge is highly energy (read emissions) intensive.
- Enrichment via the SILEX laser process (research in progress at Lucas Heights and also with General Electric): is a new weapons proliferation concern, hence classified restricted Data by the US & Aust governments.
- Whilst gas diffusion uranium enrichment remains a major source of ozone-depleting CFCs.
(Source: US EPA and Institute for Energy and Environmental Research for the Nuclear Policy Research Institute)
http://www.ieer.org/reports/uranium/enrichment.pdf
Page 10 & 11.

"In 2002, the Paducah enrichment plant emitted more than 197.3 metric tons of Freon into the air through leaking pipes and other equipment. This single facility accounted for more than 55% of all airborne releases of this ozone depleting CFC from all large users in the entire United States in 2002".
(US Enrichment Corporation 2003 p. 8 and EPA 2004).

On a hotter topic for Australia, has our PM ever understood that nuclear reactors boil water? A recognised water crisis (PM sets up water ministry to fix crisis, The Australian 26/9/06) should seal the deal on any federal nuclear "plans":

- Salem nuclear plant, USA: 300 billion gallons per day (excluding uranium mining and high level waste cooling pools)

- BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine expansion in South Australia: 152 million litres per day (ignore for now that it's the state's largest electricity consumer plus an additional required 400MW CO2-emitting power station)

- Even the smaller (by size, not by radioactivity) HIFAR research reactor at Lucas Heights: 10 tonnes of water for core cooling alone.

Take these facts into your discussions over the dinner table!

i voted YES by mistake!!!!
arg!
:-(
anne

1. We should be using every possible strategy for cutting down our tremendously wasteful use of power and making sure that the power industry is no longer based on constant growth and power production. Much of this can be done immediately by using present technologies and restructuring the power indutry so that it promotes the use of less and less power, and more locally generated power instead of constantly increasing power production and distribution networks

2. We should be imediately installing more and more small scale local alternative power schemes and diverting subsidies and capital costs that have been planned for the big power companies to these goals instead.

3. We should be cutting back on nuclear power, exporting uranium and the use of radioactive materials as a matter of great urgency and then promoting Australia as an alternative and an example for others to follow in world forums. John Hill

The nuclear issue needn't be part of a climate change solution debate, for we know all the reasons why n-power is not viable, let alone safe or sustainable.

More to the point, according to the International Energy Agency 64% of global greenhouse gas emissions do NOT come from generating electricity.