That said, I believe one could devise public transport options using existing energy sources for low shoulder periods that would still improve in per person terms on single passenger vehicles except where these were near zero emissions. At 2 in the morning however, it’s obviously going to be impossible this side of a near zero-emissions back end generating the output to be as good as a fuel efficient car. In cost terms too it is obviously going to be a lot more expensive to the public to provide public transport during such times, and you have to wonder whether spending the money in some other way to reduce emissions might not be better.

While your assessment may be correct under some circumstances, there are reasons to believe that it’s not the case in Perth.

First, the figures in the PTUA spreadsheet I linked to (which show that emissions per person/km for electric trains or diesel buses will be lower than fuel-efficient cars, even with multiple occupancy) are for Victoria, which has a significantly dirtier grid than WA’s (which is predominantly gas-fired), so the emissions figures for WA electric trains are likely to be even better than those in Victoria.

Second, the public transport system runs on a fixed schedule, so if you choose to drive instead, you won’t reduce the emissions of the public transport system by the amount you emit in driving, so your driving emissions will be largely additional, even if you use an efficient car.

Third, public transport system emissions are averaged between peak periods (fully utilised) and off-peak periods (under-utilised). The off-peak periods drive down the average efficiency – at peak times, public transport is much more efficient than the average figures suggest. If you work ordinary business hours, you’ll be using the system at peak times. I also understand that the WA Government has directed the Public Transport Authority to reduce the frequency of its off-peak services as part of a budgetary cutback process. This will further reduce the emissions intensity of the public transport system.

So, while using a fuel efficient diesel or hybrid car is certainly laudable, I rather doubt that it will result in a better emissions performance than using Perth’s public transport system.

Of course, a bicycle beats both.

Meanwhile they Have managed to get an “independent” expert (GeothermEx) to say that the Habanero 3 “incident” does not invalidate the proof of concept. Well it may not invalidate the concept of this type of geothermal energy, but it puts a hell of a dent in the concept of doing it at the Cooper basin, at 4.2 km, at high temperatures and pressures, and whether it can be done at a competitive price. Even accepting the feasiblity and economics, it puts a question mark on Geodynamics ability to assess and manage the technological requirements. Who knows what new disaster awaits that they will fail to anticipate?

No amount of spin is going to change this catastrophe into an “incident”. It has set them back years, and probably would have sent them to oblivion had it not been for the $90m of our money the government has now given them. I sold my shares the the day the well blew up, before the price crashed. Now they have the audacity to write to remind me (in bold type) that my options to buy shares at $1.50 (current price $0.88) are about to lapse. They may think I am stupid, with some justification since I bought shares in the first place, without taking a hard look at what they were trying to do. But now having done so, I think I am one up on them – at least I recognise my stupidity and have taken the corrective action. My advice to you is to do the same – Geodynamics will not pay a dividend in the next five years, and probably never.

In that case, I will hand in my green halo when that fine day comes, and trains are hooked up to renewable energy. Meanwhile a low emissions car is a less polluting method of travel than public transport.

Of course, the data does not suit the purist ideology of the deep green set. However, it seems rather pointless for us all to be waiting for the government, or the rest of Aussie society, or a Copenhagen agreement, to move first on lower emissions.

Perhaps it has something to do with “locus of control”? As in: “Ay orta do somink…the gomint orta fixit”

We could all independently do things to make a difference, at home and at work, couldn’t we? If we all pitch in individually, eventually the Queen Mary could be turned around, couldn’t it? But not if we all wait for “someone else” to change the scenery.

If we all boycotted coal-fired power, by installing solar HW, solar PV, BlueGen, etc (households and businesses), then those coal-fired mongrels might go out of business. If we wait for the government to do it for us, we will be rotting in our graves before any discernable action is taken.

N’

With nuclear reactors, it depends. If you use conventional cooling towers or once-through cooling, you need a lot of water, but seawater will work perfectly well.

If you want to put them inland and avoid a lot of water usage, you need to use a dry cooling tower, which is a fairly standard piece of technology but adds further to the capital cost.

Thought provoking discussion BTW.

N’

He wants us to begin immediately on R&D for unproven nuclear technology. Yet he would have us accept: “Again only a fool would go with the unproven technology.”

“If you don’t like the war analogy then try a fire analogy. If you were in a burning house would you call the fire brigade or would you call the guy that is working on a new invention that will fight fires using force field containment. Again only a fool would go with the unproven technology.”

Does this principle (above) have a marvellous exception whenever it suits your own preferences?

That is, the only technology you want to use is past technology. I guess you would have been still arguing for ice chests, horse and buggy, wooden sailing boats, etc?

Luckily, enough other people have enough faith in ingenuity to work on “unproven” concepts, or we would never have progressed from the stone age.