I usually wait a day or two before reposting my Fin column. But the Liberal Party is such a rapidly moving target that this column, drafted on Tuesday, looks prescient in retrospect, but may well be obsolete by tomorrow.
Apologies in advance if this gets posted multiple times. The server is flaky, so I’m using Posterous which works, but sometimes too well. Please comment on the first (lowest on page) version.
Attentive readers of the Letters page may have noticed a letter from The Hon Wilson Tuckey MP (Quiggin sticks to problem not solution Letters 24/11). Mr Tuckey gave his account of a discussion of climate change policy held at Parliament House, organised by the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies Great Barrier Reef Climate Change Alliance, in which he and I took part. As is usual in such cases, I had a rather different recollection of events. But, since Tuckey appeared to be, in Malcolm Turnbull’s words a fringe figure of the far right, I saw little value in responding.
Now, however, the situation has changed. As one of Turnbull’s earliest and most vociferous critics, Tuckey can consider himself vindicated by the decision of the Liberal Party to replace Turnbull with Tony Abbott, someone whose views on climate change are much closer to his own.
More significantly, as Tuckey himself has pointed out, the proposals presented on his website http://www.wilsontuckey.com.au now represent the closest thing the Liberal Party has to a climate change policy. It may therefore be useful to examine these proposals, and, in the process, to recapitulate some of the points I made during our meeting in November.
As was noted in Tuckey’s letter, I did not discuss the specifics of the government’s ETS policy, canvass alternatives such as a carbon tax, or speculate on the amendments being negotiated between the government and the then leadership of the opposition. The position presented by the Great Barrier Reef Climate Change Alliance was that a 25 per cent reduction in emissions was needed by 2020, and that a market-based emissions reduction policy should be the central approach. We did not seek to promote one market-based policy over another, and my answers to Tuckey’s questions reflected that.
I was however, quite happy to explain the merits of a primarily market-based approach as against a centralised command-and-control solution, in which governments seek to determine and impose by fiat, particular technological fixes for climate change. Within a market based framework, there be room for some policies, such as feed-in tariffs for solar energy, aimed at nudging decisionmakers to adopt new technologies. But the central element must be to ensure that there is a price attached to carbon emissions, whether through taxes or through tradeable permits.
A visit to Tuckey’s website reveals a different approach. Tuckey is an enthusiast for the tidal power potential of the Kimberley region, as indeed am I. Given the incentives associated with a high enough price for carbon, and reforms to the National Electricity Market to encourage more investment in long-distance transmission lines, there is huge potential in tidal energy.
But such an incentive-based approach is of no interest to Tuckey. Rather, he suggests ‘To respond to these problems the Government should take an up front role investing in and developing Australia’s only significant and predictable renewable energy resource which is to be found in the tides of the Kimberley.’
Tuckey also proposes extensive public investment in High Voltage Direct Current transmission lines, noting that ‘China will not have an ETS. It will invest in Hydro, Nuclear and other renewable energy. Its Government is already building an extensive HVDC network.’
There are strong arguments for a return to greater reliance on public investment in energy infrastructure. But, in the context of a policy response to climate change, it is important to avoid ‘picking winners’. There are many candidate technologies for reducing our CO2 emissions, ranging from nuclear power and ‘clean coal’ to extensive investment in energy efficiency.
The most cost-efficient way to choose options for emissions reductions is to ensure that investors in energy infrastructure, public or private, face a price for each tonne of carbon they emit, and earn a return for each tonne they prevent. If that is done, standard commercial criteria will select the most cost-efficient path.
Tony Abbott has effectively ruled out such an option. Having denounced the government’s emissions trading scheme as a massive new tax, he can scarcely embrace the main alternative, a carbon tax. On the other hand, he has committed himself to achieving the emissions reductions promised by Labor.
In these circumstances, the Chinese approach endorsed by Wilson Tuckey is probably the only feasible option. It is, perhaps, surprising that, having elected its most conservative leader ever, the Liberal Party may have to turn to the Communist Party of China for policy guidance. But politics makes strange bedfellows.
John Quiggin is an ARC Federation Fellow in Economics and Political Science at the University of Queensland.
John Quiggin 
@Ken Miles
is “direct action” using taxpayers money?
“Greg Hunt is on lateline right now arguing that “direct action” (ie. picking winners) is better than a carbon tax/trading.”
I agree with Greg Hunt. I wonder if that is even contestable in 2009. It would be different if we became the best and lowest cost producer of nuclear power, solarised roads and heliostats, and were already using non-carbon sources with a big fat head of steam. But right now we are not in that position so lets just pay the money, green some desert or something.
What about cutting off coal to the world until we get back that hostage the communists grabbed? You want quick results for CO2, thats the way to do it! If people are serious that would be a quick way of getting our hostage back, cutting CO2 emissions, and slapping a few nameless bully-boys around. I’m up for that. I’d want to bring the slipper down while we still can. I don’t want to excite the attention of any search engine if you think I’m being too cryptic here. Some people need to be put in their place and subject to a new round of “self-criticism” if they want to go about taking our lads hostage like that.
Carbon tax might be the best way for the French to reduce CO2 output in 2009. But no way for us. And it would mean missing out on a lot of greening potential. The most important thing is to keep these banking sharks out of it. Let us reverse this nonsense going on with that new telecom infrastructure outfit. We should have more pride. And it ought to be a personal source of pride not having these banking sharks picking up all these commissions. The three worst words in the English language are “public private partnership.” Makes me feel sick just thinking about it. PPP spells cronytown. The way we did things in the 50’s was far more sound. We were socialist in theory but free and equal in practice.
Fran – I offered a link to a definition merely to point out my intent, not to refute your definition. I’m not really that interested in dictionaries at 10 paces. I’m happy enough with your suggested substitutions.
Probably.
Australia’s debt to GDP ratio remains amongst the lowest in the world.
I’d put money on the Federal budget returning to surplus within the next Parliamentary term.
I would suggest that anyone interested in Australia’s national debt position read this article:
Click to access 01_Debt.pdf
“Chart 2 reinforces Australia’s relatively strong position with significantly lower levels of net debt projected in 2010 than the G-7 countries, even after introducing stimulus measures. Australia’s projected net debt position, across all Government’s is estimated to be 1 per cent of GDP compared with 48 per cent of GDP for the OECD.”
“is “direct action” using taxpayers money?’
Only if Labor is in power.
If the Liberals are in power it’s “nation-building”.
How much money?
$50.
The next Parliamentary term being definre as starting from the return of the electoral roll after the next Federal poll and running until the Governor General formally announces the next general election.
So we’re talking approximately 2010-2012.
The nuclear “debate” is a furphy.
You could double world nuclear electricity production over the next 15-20 years (which is highly unlikely) and yet you will only reduce total emissions by 5%. This is a ridiculously small amount. We need cuts of 25-40% over this time frame. Nuclear isn’t a solution.
Click to access FS03%20Nucl%20Power%20Clmt%20Chng.pdf
People who think there is a silver technology bullet to carbon pollution are basing this on hope rather than fact.
The time for nuclear really is in the past.
If the government was to go for nuclear, it would probably take 15years before the first one became operational.
Looking at recent UK analysis it produces electricity at a similar price to combined cycle gas. While large scale solar, hot roak and tidal is still a bit more expensive, with 10 more years to develop the technology and 5 years to implement you would have to expect that the cost will come down. Nuclear has had huge R&D budgets spent on it for 50 years. By comparison real green energy R&D is still really only gearing up. there will be huge advances in green energy production technology over the next few years. As more countries go green this will see market development drive down prices for renewables.
While there is an interesting view that suggests that having nuclear power suggests that a country has reached a certain international position of maturity, I suspect that being one of the “in” crowd probably isn;t a good enough reason.
JQ: “There are strong arguments for a return to greater reliance on public investment in energy infrastructure. But, in the context of a policy response to climate change, it is important to avoid ‘picking winners’.”
Why? BC and Quebec did it with hydro, Victoria almost 100 years ago with brown coal. Look, energy and transport infrastructure are about the two things that government has consistently got right in places like Canada, the UK and Australia in the era preceding 1980. ‘Picking winners’ is ideological cant that binds us into servicing corporations with our patience, time and money until they deem to get it right in – for such monopoly oriented areas as energy – anything but a market environment.
It seems to me that instead of pandering to this neo-liberal claptrap we simply need to move on the solutions we have. This will almost certainly not affect our competitiveness. It will, on the other hand, destroy the lie that government can’t do anything right. Tidal fences and solar and dc current distribution are really sensible and achievable things to undertake in Australia right now. Why piss round by putting carbon trading systems at the heart of any forward movement? Just tax carbon polluters while we move to the reasonably achievable goal of moving to green energy.
If Australia, with our peerless natural advantages and our strong engineering base, can’t just implement these systems, instead of tiptoing around the corporate world, filtering everything through it for permission to move, no one can.
We’ve got to break away from this mind-numbing pseudo-market ideology.
@iain
If you are going to make extraordinary claims like that, you will need something better than the wave of the hand that Jim Green’s paper linked above amounts to.
For those interested in a more comprehensive account which has actual figures and analysis attached to it, undertaken by someone who is a physicist and an environmentalist and now an adviser to the UK government …
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_161.shtml
This page here addresses carbon intensity:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_169.shtml
For IFR of course, or thorium, the figures would be better still.
If we are going to do BOTE then self evidently, if the fossil fuel benchmark is ten times that of nuclear then replacing a further 16% of stationary energy with nuclear would lower that 16% by 90% — and even more if some of the facilities in the new plants could be reused.
Simple BOTE maths suggests that that cuts carbon emissions by 55% for a doubling of nuclear capacity. Of course, if the half that is replaced are all mostly old lignite plants and otherwise coal, then the cut is even more impressive
One may also ask — how long would it take to roll out all of the associated infrastructure needed to harness renewables in ways that would provide a good fit for the fossil capacity to be retired? — In practice, a lot longer than it would for nuclear.
One might use gas plants of course, but here the cut is not 90% but possibly 30% (maybe even less as the extraction process is more energy intensive than with uranium or thorium — and gas is going to be in much shorter supply than it is now if we go that way. Gas is also a lot more dangerous.
I’d urge people to look at the links above and simply work matters out for themselves.
So the French are building a nuclear plant (supposedly a very good one) in Finland – cost about $5000/kW.
The South Koreans are building a number of tidal power facilities – cost about $2500/kW.
Both have fairly low operating costs. The nuclear has a slightly larger clean up bill though.
North west Australia has great tidal range and even with HVDC transmission costs is still likely to result in a cheaper solution than nuclear.
@Tim Tempest
Well said Tim. Exactly.
Ian Gould is being very tricky.
You cannot say:
And then produce data for “public” debt. This ignores private debt.
So Ian why don’t you produce the figures for private debt?
You should also look at trends in Income deficit component in National Accounts.
Anyone who just focuses on public debt, does not understand reality.
The credibility of the direct action / picking winners line depends on whether you think the Coalition is now capable of addressing climate change in good faith.
It seems very doubtful to me. People like Hunt and Pyne speak with a gun at their head. Anyone who saw the whip chasing Senator Troeth around the Senate chamber knows how the Coalition works under the new regime.
The Abbott-Minchin-Tuckey-Joyce clique are incapable of uttering anything authentic or viable on climate change. As they have openly said, they launched their coup in order to placate the irrational fear and anger of the extremist elements of their base. Any climate change policy they put forward will be a deliberate travesty.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/rudd-signals-start-of-the-abbott-attack/story-e6frgczf-1225806791810
The comments came as Mr Turnbull stoked Liberal Party tensions by releasing a newsletter on his website defending market-based methods to address climate change. “Many people have asked me whether it is possible to cut emissions without an ETS, a carbon tax or raising electricity prices,” Mr Turnbull said. “The short answer is no. By putting a price on those CO2 emissions, the cleaner, less emissions-intensive forms of generation become more competitive because they have a lower carbon price to pay.
“The reason an ETS is the preferred approach around the world (and indeed was the policy of the Howard government) is because it is more efficient and offers the lowest cost abatement. While I look forward to what emerges from the new policy development efforts, I note in passing that many of us would find it incongruous if a free enterprise party, the Liberal Party, abandoned a market-based means of pricing carbon and reducing emissions and replaced it with heavy government regulation and the increased bureaucracy to administer it.”
That know nothing populist Andrew Bolt has already condemned Turnbull for this i.e. stating what is microeconomics 101. It’s time for Turnbull to listen to his friend Chris Joye and form a new liberal party and let the know nothing trogs go their own way.
@Mike
The Abbott-Minchin-Tuckey-Joyce clique is as farcical as the Obeid-Tripodi-Keneally- clique at state level. Its lunatics running both parties.
Its not often I have good things to say about the Daily Telgraph but at least they have an online petition today to ask Marie Bashir to sack NSW Labor and call an early election. Here it is..
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/
Its time we had a serious nuclear discussion in Aus. The nuclear scare campaign in this country had its roots in the pre Glasnost era yet we are well beyond that now. We need to reevealuate our situation. A nuclear power plant for each capital and renewable power for all the rural areas would go a long way to reducing our carbon footprint. By stopping all new coal mines and coal loading developments we would at least restrict any further expansion of the coal industry as well. While nuclear power stations do have a lead time of 10 years what is the lead to for carbon sequestration or geothermal energy? Perhaps 20-30 years, perhaps 50years. Nuclear power works efficiently all around the world right now. To write it off as an option is absurd. In fact dozens of new nuclear plants have been ordered all around the world by other countries who seem to be less bogged down in the past than we are. Which is important an ocean that turns acid and leads to the destruction of 70% of all creatures in the sea or an irrational fear that nuclear everything is bad. With reasonable controls we can have safe efficient nuclear power and reduce our carbon footprint.
Nuclear gets criticised on several counts. A few quick examples and counter points.
1. There are carbon emissions associated with construction. The counter point is that just about any alternative of comparable power output uses a lot more concrete, steel etc and entails even more emissions and cost. Especially so if the necessary transmission augmentation is included. Nuclear can be built almost anywhere and so can be situated near existing transmission corridors.
2. Nuclear is expensive. Historically a lot of this is due to poor regulatory structure and regime risk. Many countries are now implementing better regulatory structures.
3. Ramping up nuclear will take too long. This is a silly complaint because mass deployment of any technology will take time. Nuclear is proven technology and will take a lot less material input to construct on mass than solar, wind, tidal, geothermal. Did I mention that it is proven technology. Did I mention we don’t need large scale transmission augmentation.
4. Nuclear waste is a long term management problem. True but the volumes are not that large. And we know that safe fast breeder reactors can be fueled using existing stockpiles of waste for hundreds of years with no mining. So the term waste is a misnomer.
5. Dangereous. So is flying hundreds of airplanes over cities on a daily basis but what counts is the track record. Nuclear has a great track record. Nuclear is proven safe. That does not mean it will never kill anyone but put in perspective it isn’t a reason to avoid nuclear.
6. Enables nuclear weapons. Most nuclear weapons programs rely on purpose built reactors. The nuclear weapons genie is out of the bottle whether we use nuclear power or not.
Nuclear power is reliable, affordable, safe, proven and managable. Nuclear waste such as depleted uranium and plutonium is an asset not a liability.
3
NEWS FLASH! Clive Spash, the CSIRO economist allegedly blocked from publishing an article critical of the Australian Government’s CPRS, has resigned from the organisation. Oops. Someone’s made a booboo.
Onto other matters: WTF?? Have the Liberals gone barkin’ ?? I heard Bob Brown giving an economics lecture on an ETS, how it differs from a carbon tax, and how taxpayers will bear costs from a large scale nuclear plan. Meanwhile we have the Liberals rejecting a market based solution outright?? Now they are picking winners? And looking at regulatory options?
And good ol’ Wilson “Ironbar” Tuckey has a fascinating Commie solution to offer the coalition?
Wow.
Clearly I’ve woken up in some alien world 😛
PS: Pity Rees got rolled by the Corruptors. Any bets on the rewarded loyalists and who’ll be deposed? Tripodi back in front no doubt. So assuming not too much has changed since I left Sydney three years ago now – trains still suck no doubt – we now have two far right major NSW parties. Great. Just Great.
@Donald Oats
Sign the petition above Don – to get rid of the profiteering sleazy corrupt NSW labor powerbrokers. Really, the people have suffered their incompetence, personal profiteering and factional brawling long enough. Enough! Its a pigsty.
TerjeP
We have heard all this before. Subjective comments based on nuclear dogma and misrepresentation.
Nuclear (and cigarettes) get criticised on several counts. A few quick examples and counter points.
1. There are different carbon emissions associated with different constructions. The point is that just about any alternative of comparable power output uses a lot less concrete, steel etc and entails even less emissions, risk and cost. Especially so if the necessary transmission augmentation is included. Nuclear can not be built almost anywhere and so must be situated near existing population centres.
2. Nuclear is expensive. Historically a lot of this is due to necessary regulatory structure and waste repository risk. Many countries claim to be implementing better regulatory structures.
3. Ramping up nuclear will take too long. This is a obvious complaint because mass deployment of any technology will take time. Nuclear is proven but dangerous technology and will take a lot more material and social input to construct on mass than solar, wind, tidal, geothermal. Did I mention that it is proven but dangerous technology. Did I mention we don’t need large scale transmission augmentation.
4. Nuclear waste is a long term management problem. True but the volumes, which I never cite, are not that large. And we know that safe fast breeder reactors can be fueled using existing stockpiles of waste for hundreds of years with no mining, but are more dangerous. So the term waste is a misnomer unless we grow the number of plants exponentially.
5. Dangereous. So is flying hundreds of airplanes over cities on a daily basis but what counts is the track record. Nuclear has a great track record. Nuclear is proven unsafe as currently risky or faulty reactors are closed. That does not mean it will never kill anyone, feed terrorists, detroy environments, jeopardise future generations, monopolise industry, but put in economic perspective it isn’t a reason to avoid nuclear.
6. Enables nuclear weapons. Most nuclear weapons programs rely on purpose built reactors. The nuclear weapons genie is out of the bottle whether we use nuclear power or not – according to Al Kyder.
Nuclear power is unreliable, unaffordable, unsafe, unproven and unmanagable.
According to Wilson Tuckey nuclear waste such as depleted uranium and plutonium is an asset not a liability.
3
On the nuclear issue: a few facts from a recent piece by Bernard Keane at Crikey:
First, some bald numbers taken from the German Government-commissioned World Nuclear Industry Status Report from August this year.
There are currently 435 reactors operating worldwide, nine less than in 2002. There are 52 reactors listed as “under construction” (more on that later), down from a peak in 1979 of 233 and 120 in 1987. No new plants were connected anywhere in 2008. The last plant to come online was the Romanian plant Cernavoda-2, which took 24 years to build. Reactors now provide slightly less power worldwide than they did two years ago.
By way of context, the 2 GW of nuclear power connected in 2006-07 was equal to one tenth of the wind power installed globally in 2007. More than double the amount of wind power was installed in the U.S. alone in 2007.
Clearly the nuclear industry is yet to begin recovering from the slump in reactor building worldwide after its peak in the mid-1980s.
That poses two problems for any “nuclear renaissance” and its capacity to provide a legitimate, timely response to climate change.
Firstly, the global “fleet” of reactors is ageing. The average age of plants worldwide is 25 years. The industry maintains that reactors have a lifetime of 40 years (and that of new generations of reactors 60 years), but the average age of the 123 reactors that have been closed across the world has been 22 years. Even assuming a lifetime of 40 years, and assuming all 52 reactors “under construction” proceed, 42 reactors need to be planned and built between now and 2015, and a further 192 built out to 2025, to replace the current nuclear power capacity.
It is highly unlikely that nuclear power will therefore play anything other than a declining role in the provision of the world’s power supply in coming decades.
Then there’s the second, and more problematic issue: nuclear power plants take an extraordinarily long time to build. The 24-year gestation of the Romanian plant was unusual – plants have been built in five years in China, Russia and South Korea. The global average construction period for recent connections in 9 years. This means that even if Australia adopted a crash course of nuclear reactor building, there wouldn’t be a single watt of power available until late next decade at the earliest.
JQ: You lefties and your market-based solutions! You’ll never convince those free-market libertarian Tories types to abandon their preference for public sector investment.
Ian, I’d assume that you are talking about public debt (and a quick glance at the PDF you referenced confirms this). I’m all for spending in the public sector to get us out of the twin problems of CC and the GFC, but I suspect (as does Steve Keen) that the level of private debt may hamper the governments ability to service any large public debt.
This really is a problem caused by a decade of conservative rule both here and around the world. When we had the opportunity to fix both problems last decade the conservatives dug their heels in. I’m quite pessimistic of our ability to solve both problems at the same time. The term “lost decade” may be applied to both the one just gone and the one to come, thanks to the wingnuts.
@Gaz
Lol Gaz…the world is indeed upside down….as soon as the loony tories decide to use some plain old fashioned public investment again and stop fraternising with besuited bigwigs on hair brained schemes where the govt puts in the effort, the running around and the numbers which the bigwigs then set themselves to blowing out and wanting every legal protection from risk under the sun, the sooner Ill be voting for the tories.
Oops, sorry Chris, I didn’t see you had already made that point…
Great comedy Gaz
Des maddalena
Just using the words “Its time” and “serious nuclear discussion” is a waste of time if you then have the gall to launch into nuke-mania dogma such as:
– the nuclear scare campaign
– To write it off as an option is absurd
– bogged down in the past
– irrational fear
Not only this, but you have not indicated how you plan to deal with nuclear waste. You have not identified the isotopes, their half-lives, the cost, nor have you balanced any non-economic, non-short-term factor.
You are just playing with nuke-industry dogma and and opportunistic symbols with no effort at using facts or data.
Perhaps its time you started to become “bogged down” in the future.
@Doug
Some suggest that the wind build of recent years represents a niche that may now have diminishing returns. Alternatively the Germans could show us how to make more use of windpower. They seem to have a hangup with coal however.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2761501.htm
All Abbot will do is just shovel public money to the farmers as usual, for doing nothing. I’d love to see a rigorous analysis of just how much money the farming community extorts out of the taxpayer, it would be sobering reading. Rural socialists who paint themselves as ‘conservatives’.
Realistically
@Hermit
if you are going to use wind at industrial scale and not cover slews directly with fossil energy you are going to have to build in enough storage capacity to supply the full output for at least long enough to bring some other combination of energy sources online. That means for every GW of installed wind capacity at a CF of about 35% (pretty good in the scheme of things) you will need 2.8 GW of storage for about 2 hours — the black start time of for example, a baseload gas plant.
Thus, if Australia’s 27GW peak was all wind you’d need about 75GW of storage — probably pumped storage would be the best option per dollar. 2 hours@ 75GW is a hell of a lot of water, and therefore a hell of of a lot of concrete and steel, and we haven’t even spoken of the HVDC line cost for connecting up these geographically disparate sources to the relevant sections of the grid or the cost of the switches or the cost of holding gas plants in a state of black start readiness to step in, should there be a need to bring them online.
Probably you’d go for a mix of less efficient OC peaking plants along with the nheavy duty ones, so that you could cut down the need to store 2 hours worth, but this would push the CO2 intensity up of course.
If you’re going to wear a sunk and recurrent cost like that of course, you might as well use them so maybe you end up scaling back and using more solar thermal with less storage and running your most efficient CC gas plants during the off peak and melding them so as to have them at white start readiness and keep storage to a minimum, given how expensive it is.
In the end though while it is technically feasible to have an industrial economy derive power in this way, it will always have a higher CO2 intensity than nuclear and the full levelized costs will always be greater, probably by an order of magnitude.
It’s been noted that geoethermal is available here to underpin baseload, and that’s obviously an attractive option but it’s not something that is available everywhere or even in most places. And that wouldn’t be cheap either.
One game changer might be that green cement somebody posted a link to recently. However I couldn’t find a lot of details on it. Patent pending perhaps.
Terje, our socialised TV broadcaster has the story here. Just part of the solution to the puzzle.
Actually if you look at the E-crete web site it looks like a small scale commercial operation that manufactures precast panels and other stuff. Like all good ideas it needs the right market conditions.
I’m not really into the chemistry or the engineering of concrete but I was under the impression that fly ash and bottom ash substitutes for cement made the concrete slightly weaker. So this sort of concrete may not be suitable for building things like bridges.
David – your link seems to be a different sort of green cement. The one I saw earlier was using a process that locks up CO2 rather than just reducing the release of it. The chemistry seems a bit obscure and perhaps it is all a con job to flease investors. I don’t know. However if it is real it would be a game changer. The company pushing it is called Calera.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/eco-friendly/calera-green-cement-460908
More on nuclear:-
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/clean-future-in-nuclear-power/story-e6frg6zo-1225806766579
The Canadian climate scientists have been subject to recent breakins and attempted computer hacks, including people posing as technicians!
Coincidence?
@Donald Oats
Of course its not a co-incidence Donald. I find it pretty sad that organised groups can attack the very people working to advance our knowledge as a species. By that I mean real scientists not paid for hacks.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Terje – I wish you would stop trying to shove nuclear solutions down everyone’s throats. My kids and their kids are going to be pretty angry about it. No-one has costed the mess, spills, accidents and degradability over time of nuclear reactors. So busy looking for someone to make a dollar out of digging it up. Its a good thing you will be gone by the time my descendents are living and I would like them to be living in an uncontaminated environment. There are better solutions to nuclear so that you can live your life happily now and keep turning your bedside light on wach night (and the remote control garage door and the dryer in a sunny land and whatever else whiz bang electronic gadget you think you need).
Its the expectations on what energy we need to actually live our lives that need adjusting – thats half the energy battle. The current “consume more use more” mentality that most of us have.
As I’ve said a few times now, I’ll accept nuclear on three terms:
i) No hidden cost to consumer through subsidy, tax breaks to companies building and/or running the facility, etc. Nada, zilch, nil.
ii) Consumers can choose to buy nuclear generated power, or other options like wind/solar/coal.
iii) For every nuclear station approved with output of g MW, a coal fired power station with output of f*g MW is permanently shut down and the site repatriated as national parks. The factor f could be a fraction like f = 0.33, ie for every 3 Megawatts of output from the approved nuclear station 1 Megawatts of output from coal station must be permanently removed.
The point is that nuclear station must not be complementary to coal (at least not 100%), rather it must substitute by replacement. Since the deal I’m offering is to actually take some competitor’s generation permanently out of the supply, it actually assists nuclear takeup – if they are fast enough at building the station and bringing it online. Of course, there are other technological solutions competing, some like wind and solar with excellent efficiency of capital when it comes to incremental increase of generation (eg add one more turbine rather than build 2GW of NPC in one monolithic project of 4–8Billion AUD per nuclear station, IIRC).
The three items are to ensure that nuclear is not just additional capacity with coal living a long happy life – coal fired stations must be shut down. It is as simple as that.
And no Liberal is allowed to write the legalese for the above – someone trustworthy must do it.
@Donald Oats
Don – you are npot thinking straight. Coal has problems. Uranium has even bigger ones. Do we seriously want the risk. Time to get more advanced than either and if that means people have to get used to lower energy usage Im all for it. We did it for thousands of years and managed OK. Talking more coal or more nuclear is just insanity. There has to be something better than either but it may involve reducing the consumption worldwide of the greedy consumer.
I sure wouldnt swap coal for nuclear. Not in a heartbeat.
well Alice, nuclear plants may produce toxic waste but at least they don’t pump this waste directly into the atmosphere.
Nope. Keep uranium in the ground. No nukes. We all remember Three Mile Island. This is part of the collective consciousness of generations including younger generations today who’ve not reached maturity but have been educated to be anti-nuclear.
Alice is right. We’re consuming too much in the West, that’s the hardest problem to face and figure out what to do about it.
Man up, fellas, stop searching for market solutions. Wrong place. We need to look at consumption expectations and standards themselves. No avoiding this now.
@Donald Oats
Don, what you ask for is approximately what the Liberal Democrats offer. We oppose any subsidies whatsoever, for nuclear, coal or renewables. We’re debating (but haven’t made official policy) a carbon tax that makes coal unsustainable and nuclear/renewables possible. Thus you get your wish for coal to be phased out and replaced. All without heavy-handed regulation. A win-win, don’t you think?
@Alice
“we managed OK” – are you serious? Human progress is tightly correlated with greater energy use. Yes, we can stop the waste and move to more efficient usage, that’s fine. But I certainly don’t have a problem with using a megawatt each before getting out of bed, as long as there aren’t any externalities. Because that’s what matters, not our “greedy consumption”.
@Jarrah
I am serious Jarrah – until the greedy “me” generation changes our ways we are just setting ourselves up for monumental environmental disasters by costing our rampant energy consumption according to our rampant desire for creature comforts now. Spoilt rotten you might say. You complain about my statement that “we managed Ok for thousands of years”. We are now threatening to derail everything in a mere couple of hundred years environmentally.
You live and breathe dont you? The very testament to mans ability to survive OK for thousands of years. You have nothing to complain about.
@Alicia
Three Mile Island? You mean the 30-year-old nuclear accident that killed maybe two people? If you’re going for emotive effect, best to cite Chernobyl, a far worse occurrence.
Nuclear accidents kill. But as Gerard points out, they kill far fewer than standard fossil fuels do. This is without taking into account the better design of modern nuclear power plants.
I opposed nuclear power for most of my life. However, climate change is a bigger problem, IMO, so I’m willing to have it around (mixed with renewables) if it means avoiding the far worse effects of continuing on our coal-, oil- and gas-centric path.