I’m getting tired of comments threads being derailed by disputes over nuclear power. So I’m going to give everyone a final chance to state their views on the question, then declare this topic off-limits. Here are my views:
* If there is no better option, I’d prefer an expansion of nuclear power to continued reliance on fossil fuels (particularly coal) to generate electricity
* We don’t have enough information to determine whether nuclear power is more cost-effective than the alternatives (conservation, renewables, CCS) and we have debated this question at excessive length (a fact which itself reflects our lack of info)
* In practical terms, there is no chance of any movement towards nuclear in Australia for at least the next five years.
So, I’m going to ask everyone to have their final say, and come back in five years when we might have something new and relevant to say.
Update I’ve been asked by Fran Barlow in comments to reconsider my policy, and here is my response. If I see anything new and interesting (to me, that is) on the topic, I’ll post on it, and open up discussion. Readers who see something suitable are welcome to email me and tell me. Otherwise, nothing more on this until further notice, please, including in open threads.
Update, Update Update, the latest report indicate Tony Abbott’s credibility is at stake for it involves Treasury secretary Ken Henry saying a drop off in mining as a result of the new tax “is not all bad.” Given Abbott’s habitual false claims the Australian public needs to be reassured that Ken Henry did not make such a statement.
This might be of interest:
Click to access 090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
@jquiggin
As you wish PrQ …
You say they are different people? Curious, but good enough. I won’t be responding to either of these characters again.
Without mentioning that topic, I do hope that BilB can respond to Peter’s challenge on solar thermal costing.
A quick point on why it is so important to resolve our energy future right now. Yesterday a visitor to my stand at NMW10 told me that just 2 weeks ago an organisation that he is involved with was paid $30,000 to run their organisation on their standby electricity generators or “the entire grid would go down”. Perhaps a little dramatic conclusion, but it is an indicator that the indecision over that last 6 years has paralysed energy industry investment and left our electricity infrastructure at the point of failure.
A key rule in gambling is to not include your house in the stakes. But that is just precisely what Kevin Rudd has done on energy and environment. He has gambled with our primary well being in order to obtain a traditional Labour “health/education/work environment” electoral term. This gamble could very well have cost him his job and could leave our future well being in the hands of the “mad monk”.
Ah, much has happened since last I ventured here:
Anyway – this is interesting: looks like Whyalla will get it’s Solar Baseload trial plant thanks to the feds –
Good news, surely? (‘Wizard Power’? – that’s a bit of a worry!…)
Why don’t we take a look at what someone with real world experience in renewables says about the prospects for “renewable baseload” (and specifically) “solar thermal> Bear in mind this someone who is keen on renewables and doesn’t mention this site’s equivalent of the Scottish play.
Reliable base-load sustainable energy sources still long way off
Cahen goes on to say the the country that is doing best on renewables is … China … a country that one pro-renewables poster would surely be forced to describe as having a “dictatorial resource allocation system”. That gives the lie to the linkage between democracy and renewables.
Of course, the Chinese dictatorial resource allocation system is also supporting that other energy production technology, which we shall not name.
Hmmm, one also notes:
So, this from a guy who wants us to massively subisidise the development of synthetic fuels? Who’s inspired by the unreal financing of the bail-out to figure that perhaps we can have a go at it after all?
(I note Bucky Fuller gets a guernsey, too!)
Surely the Chinese are ahead on renewable because they’re rolling in cash and can see where we’re heading? And a centralised high-investment technology whose name we are apparently not speaking is a very comfortable fit with a ‘dictatorial resource allocation system’, so that argument appears to be a nil-all draw.
Anyway, I figured the reason we’d all be glad to see this news is if we build the facility we can actually see if it does work, rather than endlessly speculating…
@Peter Lang
I will read that.
I have finished reading Colin Keys (which you cited earlier).
But I won’t comment further here, as this thread is dead.
Definitely nothing more on this thread please.
Oh. Sorry. JQ posted while I was writing my previous post. I’m stopping now. Nobody post after me.
I’ve deleted a bunch of comments and will now close them.