07092011

CSIRO government funded and government policy directed??

By Eco Guy 11:23pm 7th September 2011
We look at whether the CSIRO is a 'free' research organization or one whose research is driven by government policy.

According to The Australian Peter Campbell has ordered Anna Bligh's husband to dismantle all the green energy programs he created since 2007. To quote Peter Campbell:

"We want him to unravel those programs ‘cause he’s the bloke who set them up"

Now on the face of it this sounds like a horror story for green development; but I think its exactly what is needed, not only in Queensland but nationally - why?



Well, to start with, too many of the 'Green Programs' that have been set up have been fundamentally flawed when looked at from a total return on investment perspective:
  • Solar Power Rebates & associated 'take up' initiatives. Basically many many millions have gone into installing a power source that provides power totally out of sync with when the peek usage occurs (5pm to 7pm). Add to that the fact that technology in this space is constantly evolving and being refined, improving efficiencies whilst lowering cost of entry through scales of production and it ends up with all the current solar installations quickly becoming worthless white elephants.. Then if you add in the inherent difficulties of feeding the power back into the grid (more higher capacity cabling required) whilst maintaining supply regulation (frequency sync issues) and it comes as no surprise that decentralized power generation is much more expensive than centralized..
  • Wind turbines. This whole business is basically dishonest. Anybody who quotes and cost analysis's a wind farm's generation ability as its maximum 100% utilization when everybody in the business knows that they are lucky to get 15% does not deserve being told the time of day yet be responsible for many many millions of grants and public monies.
  • Geothermal. This sounds like a good idea, but the trouble is you can only set up geothermal energy extraction where there is geothermal activity strong enough - unfortunately that does not correlate well with where the energy consumption would be. ideally you also want the waste heat reused in a secondary process (say heating homes) - this is why it makes so much sense in Greenland..

Basically a lot of the Green schemes for which this money (roughly one billion per annum!) were being directed to are not that green in the cold light of day. They do not stand up to the financial practicality test which all green schemes should pass prior to funding.

As for green schemes worth considering:

  • Dams for electricity generation. This has a triple benefit of providing electricity, water and flood relief. Also the water could be used for fish farming, helping reduce demands on wild fish stocks.
  • A true white goods energy consumption rating scheme. Target all those phantom load devices and make it clear at the point of sale.
  • Improved public transport. If public transport can be make a viable alternative to the car, then it will help reduce congestion as well.

Now this need not be hard, in fact I think the hardest thing has been done and thats shutting down the schemes which are contributing to the problem rather than being part of the solution for the people and the environment.

Well done Mr Newman!

Related Content Tags: research, climate change, australia


Follow us on Facebook, click here!
Comment

Comments left

  • The Lorax said:

    Nice unbiased article! What a load - get some balance or don't report - have a look at who funded Raiche - do some research you are not qualified to comments and what gives you the right to slander the hard working scientists at the CSIRO- what if the type of research is determined by management , that does not mean the results are.

    So scientists have to justify the business case for their research well welcome to the real world so they cant go and research the underside of 2 c coins in rubbish tips to understand the bacterias component just in case it might help them in the future but their research has to e actually focused on something - hey why don't you go and do some research instead of repeating this mindless drivel - have a look a the history of Alan Jones and his pastrecord and see if he is trustworthy - Art is a bitter old man who is screaming for relevance who was in the pay of the mining company ( as sponsors ) for years.

    ON Sat, 10 Sep 11, 4:41am probably from Australia  Reply to this comment

    • Eco Guy said:

      Lorax, commenting on a possible situation as to how the focus on research is determined is not slander; it's called fair comment. If it was the likes of Raiche and Evans would have been sued and their videos would not still be on the Internet...

      Yes justifying research is the usual case, but when you have what looks like a management which looks to government constantly for direction - thats a problem. Research should not be so restricted in its outlook.

      As regarding Art Raiches funding - any references I can have a look at? A search like 'art raiche funding mining' and variations on that theme find nothing of interest so far. Thanks.

      ON Sat, 10 Sep 11, 8:26am probably from Australia  Reply to this comment

Add Coment

Got a question or comment about this?

Find what you were looking for?.. Not quite what you expected?.. Got a question to ask people?
Share your thoughts and use the form below to post a public comment right on this page.


Simple HTML is supported i.e <b> <i> etc. Excessive inline URL's, spam, ANY ads or swearing is blocked/removed quickly. youtube URL's get embedded.

Posting Terms & Conditions