Comments on Vlado Vivoda "After Fukushima: the future of nuclear power in Asia", 16/03/2013, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/03/16/after-fukushima-the-future-of-nuclear-power-in-asia/
While it is a very sad accident with very serious environmental impact, the Japanese nuclear disaster should not be seen as a typical indication of nuclear power station safety.
Geographically, Japan is an earthquake prone country, with possible tsunami as a result.
From that point of view, many other countries should not be too unduly worried by the Japanese nuclear disaster, even though short term adverse reactions are inevitable.
Just imagine if the world had banned airplanes from flying following the 9/11 terrorist attack of the world trade centre. Would that be a rational response to such an event?
Secondly, reports indicate that newer generation of nuclear power technology are much safer than the earlier ones.
Thirdly, human beings learn from mistakes and history, and advance further in dealing with technologies.
Fourthly, climate change and emissions reduction represent a huge challenge to many countries, developed and developing alike. Limiting the use of nuclear power generation would make that task even harder.
Showing posts with label electricity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electricity. Show all posts
2011-04-29
Carbon tax and compensation issues
Comments on Robert Gottliebsen “Alinta's fiery carbon resolve”, 29/04/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/carbon-tax-Dimery-Alinta-energy-prices-pd20110429-GCS8F?OpenDocument&src=sph&src=rot
That just points to why all compensations on a revenue neutral basis should go to residents and not businesses, because most residents have no where or no means to pass on the higher energy costs (they don't sell things) to while many businesses can because they sell more than they buy.
Businesses can pass on, at least some of the carbon tax to consumers, because the average industry costs, as opposed to just some firms in an industry, will be higher under a carbon tax, so all business members will pass on that higher average costs. A caveat is the shape of the demand curve - if vertical, then all the tax will be passed on to consumers; but if horizontal, none of the tax can be passed on. But in the short term, it is likely to be more vertical than horizontal, especially as energy products are concerned.
The second point is that brown coal power will be less profitable than gas fired power if the electricity has the same market price irrespective how it is generated.
That is the main point of a carbon tax to reduce emissions - a market mechanism as liked by many economists or the likes.
That just points to why all compensations on a revenue neutral basis should go to residents and not businesses, because most residents have no where or no means to pass on the higher energy costs (they don't sell things) to while many businesses can because they sell more than they buy.
Businesses can pass on, at least some of the carbon tax to consumers, because the average industry costs, as opposed to just some firms in an industry, will be higher under a carbon tax, so all business members will pass on that higher average costs. A caveat is the shape of the demand curve - if vertical, then all the tax will be passed on to consumers; but if horizontal, none of the tax can be passed on. But in the short term, it is likely to be more vertical than horizontal, especially as energy products are concerned.
The second point is that brown coal power will be less profitable than gas fired power if the electricity has the same market price irrespective how it is generated.
That is the main point of a carbon tax to reduce emissions - a market mechanism as liked by many economists or the likes.
2011-03-30
Garnaut understands business realities
Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Garnaut ignores business realities”, 30/03/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/garnaut-ignores-business-realities/story-e6frgd0x-1226030335593
On this issue of compensation or no compensation to power companies, Garnaut is correct and right.
He should be applauded and supported whole heartedly on this point. Any suggestion that he does not understand businesses is a self serving spin from power companies and just ignores the fact he was the chairman of the former Lihir Gold as recently as a few months ago before it was taken over by Newcrest Mining.
Any argument in terms of effects of carbon tax on asset value is purely serving the interests of those companies that were aware of climate change and the likelihood of actions to reduce or limit emissions, including potentially a carbon tax.
If they were to be compensated, how should the consumers be compensated for higher energy prices due to actions on emissions?
No matter how a compensation scheme including for consumers is designed even when all the revenue from the carbon tax is returned to consumers exclusively that would leave each and every consumer's norminal income unchanged, it cannot change the fact that their purchasing power will be reduced when they have to consume energy at a higher price.
On this issue of compensation or no compensation to power companies, Garnaut is correct and right.
He should be applauded and supported whole heartedly on this point. Any suggestion that he does not understand businesses is a self serving spin from power companies and just ignores the fact he was the chairman of the former Lihir Gold as recently as a few months ago before it was taken over by Newcrest Mining.
Any argument in terms of effects of carbon tax on asset value is purely serving the interests of those companies that were aware of climate change and the likelihood of actions to reduce or limit emissions, including potentially a carbon tax.
If they were to be compensated, how should the consumers be compensated for higher energy prices due to actions on emissions?
No matter how a compensation scheme including for consumers is designed even when all the revenue from the carbon tax is returned to consumers exclusively that would leave each and every consumer's norminal income unchanged, it cannot change the fact that their purchasing power will be reduced when they have to consume energy at a higher price.
2009-09-01
Couldn't coal be used more efficiently for power generation?
Comments on Alan Kohler “Time for a gas explosion”, 1/09/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Time-for-a-gas-explosion-pd20090901-VFSU7?OpenDocument&src=sph
Talking about coal fired power stations, I suddenly recall many years (perhaps more than two decades) ago that people were talking about to convert coal into gas of semi gas, or possibly semi liquefied products. At that time, it was not for reasons of emissions, it was for fuel efficiency. I got the impression then that the technologies were commercially available.
What about their impact on emissions if fuel efficiency can be improved through those means? Effectively, the same output of electricity would consume only a fraction of what when hard coal is used. That is a reduction in emissions.
We have heard of people trying for emissions storage underground, why don't people take an interim step?
Talking about coal fired power stations, I suddenly recall many years (perhaps more than two decades) ago that people were talking about to convert coal into gas of semi gas, or possibly semi liquefied products. At that time, it was not for reasons of emissions, it was for fuel efficiency. I got the impression then that the technologies were commercially available.
What about their impact on emissions if fuel efficiency can be improved through those means? Effectively, the same output of electricity would consume only a fraction of what when hard coal is used. That is a reduction in emissions.
We have heard of people trying for emissions storage underground, why don't people take an interim step?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
