Govt's Coal-To-Liquids game plan? was Re: [Peakoil] Uranium power push

[Alex P]

There has been some discussion on the ROEOZ email list and it was pointed 
out that with nuclear power the coal not otherwise used to make electricity 
could be used for Coal-To-Liquids, ie make petrol out of coal. This is very 
bad in terms of greenhouse emissions but maybe the Howard Govt thinks this 
is a great idea - maybe eventually turning the trade deficit in petrol into 
a surplus?

The coal producers will love it since they make more money selling to a 
higher bidder. And the uranium producers get in on the deal by taking the 
place of coal. ie in the game of musical chairs the big interests organise 
to take each other's seats so solar, wind, geothermal etc never get a 
chance to take their places.

Would Coal to Liquids produce any less greenhouse emissions than burning 
coal for electricity does today? ie if the above scenario is real then is 
the Howard Govt recklessly indifferent to the greenhouse effect?

Alex
O4O4873828

ACT Peak Oil
http://act-peakoil.org

On 4 Jun 2006 23:51:22 -0000, "Alex P" <alex-po at trevbus.org> wrote :

> Hi folks,
> 
> The current "nuclear debate" is likely going to shape up like this:
> 
> First, the Howard Govt pushes uranium. Then when people ask why, Howard 
> finally comes clean on Peak Oil.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/energy-debate-must-include-nuclear-
> option/2006/06/04/1149359604546.html
> 
> I expect they are going to be "open and honest" about Peak Oil, but only 
> after they have done the ground work portraying uranium as the only 
option.
> 
> As to why the push for uranium, I can only guess that the big producers 
> want to
> 
> a) guarantee an expansion of mining in Australia - is the push for 
uranium 
> power an ambit claim?
> 
> b) prevent Australia from going down the renewables path as this would be 
a 
> good example to the world and make nuclear less attractive 
internationally.
> 
> c) related to b), hot rocks geothermal in South Australia should be as 
> cheap as coal and produce no emissions. After Geodynamics start producing 
> power, the nuclear debate will be over (at least for 70 years which is 
how 
> long they could power the whole of Australia for)
> 
> Basically, uranium power is only relevant to Peak Oil if it could power 
our 
> transport system. So electrified rail is essential. But the Howard Govt 
has 
> done absolutely nothing for electrified rail and has yet to mention it. 
ie 
> they're only leading public debate for the benefit of uranium producers, 
> not for ordinary people whose transport costs are going to explode.
> 
> What do we do to shape and alter the debate?
> 
> Alex
> O4O4873828
> 
> ACT Peak Oil
> http://act-peakoil.org
>