Resisting Climate Hysteria

[tothemax6]

Derty, since you seem to be the most 'green' in this thread, could I have your opinion on Nuclear power? That is, the only realistic way in which Australia can meet its energy requirements, and secondarily, reduce its CO2 emissions.
Cheers

 

[Julia]

Derty, since you seem to be the most 'green' in this thread, could I have your opinion on Nuclear power? That is, the only realistic way in which Australia can meet its energy requirements, and secondarily, reduce its CO2 emissions.
Cheers

Derty will provide an objective and rational response to this, as always.

But it's not just about the objective and rational. It's way more about the political.
The government has locked itself in to an anti-nuclear stance and is reinforced in this by the Greens who are against everything other than wind and solar as far as I can tell.

Of course we should be seriously considering nuclear but I'm betting it won't be happening in the term of this government at least.

 

[tothemax6]

Derty will provide an objective and rational response to this, as always.

But it's not just about the objective and rational. It's way more about the political.
The government has locked itself in to an anti-nuclear stance and is reinforced in this by the Greens who are against everything other than wind and solar as far as I can tell.

Of course we should be seriously considering nuclear but I'm betting it won't be happening in the term of this government at least.

Yes it's definitely not for a few years yet. And as for the Greens, I would love someone to explain to me why they have any popularity whatsoever. As far as I can tell, the general policy of the greens is 'whatever is worst for people in Australia is good'. If we had an epidemic whilst a Green government was in power, I'm sure their official response would be 'Good, it will reduce global warming and environmental damage, the government hopes we have a famine too'.

 

[Smurf1976]

Derty, since you seem to be the most 'green' in this thread, could I have your opinion on Nuclear power? That is, the only realistic way in which Australia can meet its energy requirements, and secondarily, reduce its CO2 emissions.
Cheers

The main problem with nuclear is cost. Estimates vary widely, but in general it seem that nuclear will still be more expensive than coal even with a $40 per tonne of CO2 carbon tax.

If we're going to go nuclear then either we're going to also (1) nationalise the electricity industry or (2) hand fist fulls of Dollars to subsidise a private nuclear operator.

Option 1 worked in the past (state ownership, not "national" as such), indeed electricity prices have soared since that model was dismantled. Option 2 removes any incentive to minimise costs since the taxpayer will be footing the bill in a manner akin to the insulation fiasco or any other scheme which hands taxpayers money directly to business.

We're already effectively re-nationalising telecommunications via the NBN. And Tasmania has bought back the railways after they literally fell apart under private ownership. So there is a bit of a willingness to put things in government hands now, far moreso than there was 5 or 10 years ago. But privatisation is still carrying on in some states. Overall, there's a bit of both at the moment...

All that said, if we're going to throw masses of money at nuclear then I must ask the question why not do the same for geothermal? Both are, in a technical sense, actual alternatives to coal for baseload generation.

 

[Smurf1976]

And as for the Greens, I would love someone to explain to me why they have any popularity whatsoever.

In short, socialism and the apparent failure of both Labor and Liberal to offer a viable future direction.

Promise a future that seems better than the present path and you can be pretty sure that at least someone will vote for you.

I was in Burnie (Tas) today and thought about all this as I was driving past the now-silent mills which once employed a quarter of the town's population. 70 years ago they lead the world in that industry, but now it's nothing more than empty buildings being stripped of anything having value prior to the inevitable demolition. Meanwhile Australia runs a massive trade deficit in paper-related products.

There is no major party, not Labor, not Liberal, not Green, that actually supports Australian industry these days. The Burnie mill was progressively destroyed by the policies of Liberal, Labor, environmentalists and greedy corporations over almost a 40 year period, 30 of which saw the mills in real visible decline before finally falling silent earlier this year.

Through their various ideals of globalisation and environmentalism the major parties are all pushing us toward being nothing more than a quarry for economies now far more advanced than our own. We'll end up with a few high wage jobs in mining, whilst the rest struggle to survive on "bringing each others washing in" type work.

To be fair, I'll give some credit to the Greens and their precedessors. They made no secret that this was the future 30 years ago. They correctly saw what was happening, even though I doubt they understood the real reasons why. Meanwhile Liberal and Labor have done nothing more than deny that they have brought about the virtual destruction of Australian industry.

 

[derty]

Derty, since you seem to be the most 'green' in this thread, could I have your opinion on Nuclear power? That is, the only realistic way in which Australia can meet its energy requirements, and secondarily, reduce its CO2 emissions.
Cheers

totheamx, you are assuming that because I think that the science behind AGW is largely sound that I am therefore green. I am environmentally aware and concerned on many issues, though politically i would not describe myself as green. I am a geologist working in the mining industry and have worked at the Olympic Dam operations when it was WMC owned in the late 90's.

I am a big supporter of nuclear power and also think that Australia should seriously consider providing global nuclear waste storage facilities as we have very old, stable and isolated rock packages that would be ideal for storage. Plus doing so would make Australia a lot of money.

Nuclear is currently the only real alternative for non-fossil fuel base-load power generation. When you compare the straight out cost per unit of electricity generated it is much cheaper than coal or gas. Though when you include the significantly higher capital costs and lead time for nuclear plants the total cost for electricity generation is in the ballpark with coal and gas.

Given that building a nuclear power station is a multi billion dollar exercise (seems to be $10+ billion for a pair of reactors) and the payback time is very long, it is unlikely that private enterprise will be championing this and it will fall back to the govt to build these. Unless the case is made for CO2 action then I don't think nuclear plants will be built in Australia purely due to our abundant and cheap coal and gas. Plus it will be politically very difficult.

There also seems to be the opinion that nuclear power is the great answer but it is also a finite resource. Some put peak uranium as early as 2035, though with rising prices many, of the large low-grade roll front and calcrete deposits will become economic and peak uranium will likely be quite a bit later. However, if there is a dramatic shift to nuclear to reduce CO2 then of course peak uranium will be brought forward.

There are also other alternatives to uranium such as thorium which is has a higher crustal abundance, produces more energy per unit of mass and would be cheaper again. Also geothermal is a real alternative too, though it is still in its infancy, and improvements in drilling technology will make this more accessible in the future.

I can't really see nuclear being a significant feature in power generation in Australia as coal is as economically competitive, it's a political hot potato, it's very expensive to set up and long lead times won't make it a priority for short term focussed governments. However, if a global carbon tax or cap and trade system is implemented nuclear will have political desirability.

As for a realistic way to reduce CO2 emissions I don't think there is one. Not one that will avoid a fundamental change to the way of life on Earth. I have linked to this before. Global energy use is about 15 terrawatts (TW) of this only about 1.5TW are from renewable, non-fossil fuel sources. To cap atmospheric CO2 to 450ppm we need to cut fossil fuel use back to 3TW and find an additional 10.5TW from non-fossil fuel sources. It's a very large problem.

edit: I composed most of this this morning and then spent the rest of the day socialising before submitting this. I see I have restated some of what Smurf has said. I also agree with the rest of what Smurf has presented. Well said.

 

[nioka]

And as for the Greens, I would love someone to explain to me why they have any popularity whatsoever..

Apart from appealing to a few radical greens they appeal to the NIMBYS. Most of their vote however comes from protests against both Labor and the LIBS, particularly in the last election where neither Gillard or Abbott appealed to a lot of voters ant the Democrats were a lost cause.

 

[Knobby22]

Just like to add that I am an electrical engineer who voted Liberal in the last State Election, Victoria. I have a keen interest in science and technology.

I agree with everything derty and Smurf said re: Fission power.


In Victoria we could achieve a lot by reducing brown coal use, which is very wasteful and installing new gas plants while waiting for the inevitable forces worldwide to react to climate change. Though this will only correct the problem for 20 years it would allow Thorium to emerge.

We should be insisting that all the Uranium we sell gets sent back and stored in a waste dump in the middle of Australia.

PS - nice announcement today from CFU regarding using their gas fired fuel cell to power a charge station for electric cars in Adelaide. I don't think people realise how soon it will be when 70% of us will be driving electric cars (not hybrids). I have a friend who drives one and it saves him a fortune. The battery technology has improved so much over the last 3 years.
When the petrol price goes up a bit more and the $A drops, the penny will drop also.

 

[tothemax6]

Cheers derty, really 2035 peak uranium? That would suck if its true.
My understanding is that, in addition to fission reactors becoming more efficient (I have seen designs which burn through the fuel thoroughly as if it were a candle, rather than requiring fuel reprocessing) and also are capable of being made smaller, I think it could eventually be commercially viable. Again, there is no way to know if the government has a ban on it.

The main problem with nuclear is cost. Estimates vary widely, but in general it seem that nuclear will still be more expensive than coal even with a $40 per tonne of CO2 carbon tax.
If we're going to go nuclear then either we're going to also (1) nationalise the electricity industry or (2) hand fist fulls of Dollars to subsidise a private nuclear operator.

If we are going to subsidize and nationalize any aspect of the electricity industry, then our policy is of course "less electricity for a higher price, please". My point is, that given that the government is banning nuclear and preventing any possible entry into the market, we do not know if some entrepreneur can work out a way of undercutting coal with nuclear. I'm guessing they could work it out. It would probably involve starting small someplace where there was high electricity prices and high coal transport costs.

 

[Smurf1976]

Cheers derty, really 2035 peak uranium? That would suck if its true.we do not know if some entrepreneur can work out a way of undercutting coal with nuclear. I'm guessing they could work it out. It would probably involve starting small someplace where there was high electricity prices and high coal transport costs.

Agreed in principle - but there is no such location anywhere in Australia. The entire country either has cheap coal, cheap gas, hydro, or far too little demand for electricity to worry about.

Japan, on the other hand, has high demand for electricity and high fuel transport costs.

Logically, some countries should have a lot of nuclear power and low CO2 emissions (eg Japan) whilst others should be the last to stick with coal (eg Australia and much of the US). Trouble is, that approach doesn't really work politically.

 

[tothemax6]

Agreed in principle - but there is no such location anywhere in Australia. The entire country either has cheap coal, cheap gas, hydro, or far too little demand for electricity to worry about.
Japan, on the other hand, has high demand for electricity and high fuel transport costs.
Logically, some countries should have a lot of nuclear power and low CO2 emissions (eg Japan) whilst others should be the last to stick with coal (eg Australia and much of the US). Trouble is, that approach doesn't really work politically.

Well if that is the case, then there is no problem burning the coal till kingdom come. Politically, someone needs to point out that, whilst the politicians egos make them see their decisions as large and important, any change in Australias CO2 output is actually a drop in the bucket compared to the global output. It seems that Gillard would honestly trade Australia's quality of life in exchange for her getting to enjoy some moral posturing.
Aside, here is an awesome (and far fetched) idea I saw someone come up with; it is a solar-power breeder project which aims to turn the sahara (which is sunny and sandy) into a big solar panel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Solar_Breeder_Project
Trust the Japanese to think up something like this

 

[Logique]

This program came on Prime TV last night 'Journey to the Edge of the Universe'. Fabulous graphics, a craft voyaging through the solar system, obviously well researched.

Without missing a beat it calmly informed us that the Sun is getting hotter, and that eventually the Earth will become too hot for habitation. And that some of the planetary moons, currently too cold, could thaw out enough for mankind to move to them, eg Europa and Triton: http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0211026.htm

What's this, the Sun causing warming, you mean...even if we have solar panels on our roofs...? Even if we have a carbon price...? Even if we shut down coal mining...?

 

[derty]

Without missing a beat it calmly informed us that the Sun is getting hotter, and that eventually the Earth will become too hot for habitation. And that some of the planetary moons, currently too cold, could thaw out enough for mankind to move to them, eg Europa and Triton: http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0211026.htm

What's this, the Sun causing warming, you mean...even if we have solar panels on our roofs...? Even if we have a carbon price...? Even if we shut down coal mining...?

Some think that the Sun has slowly been increasing it's energy output since it began shining following coalescence. They estimated that the suns luminosity will increase by about 10% over the next 1.1 Billion years. Rendering the planet uninhabitable within 500 to 900 million years. (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/death_of_earth_000224.html discussed at end of article)

If that scenario is not correct then the Earth will get surely fried when the Sun leaves the main sequence in around 4 Billion years and begins to swell into a red giant.

What time frame was this show talking about? As a 10% change over 1 Billion years won't be that noticeable to those of us that inhabit the Earth for such a brief flicker.

 

[Smurf1976]

2009 we were sweltering on New Year's Eve with 38 degrees (unusually hot by local standards in Tasmania) and a truly spectacular lightning show that night.

2010 we've got snow two days after Christmas. http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/snow-falls-in-hobart-hills/story-e6frfku0-1225976636000

Of course, this means absolutely nothing in terms of climate change. Just like all other short term weather events.

 

[wayneL]

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

2009 we were sweltering on New Year's Eve with 38 degrees (unusually hot by local standards in Tasmania) and a truly spectacular lightning show that night.

2010 we've got snow two days after Christmas. http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/snow-falls-in-hobart-hills/story-e6frfku0-1225976636000

Of course, this means absolutely nothing in terms of climate change. Just like all other short term weather events.

Agree.

I'm having Weather in Townsville, rain, flood, thunder, lightning, washouts, as we have been having since ole Capn Cook RN sailed past Magnetic Island.

gg

 

[noco]

Agree.

I'm having Weather in Townsville, rain, flood, thunder, lightning, washouts, as we have been having since ole Capn Cook RN sailed past Magnetic Island.

gg

GG you are soooo right and I WILL drink to that after 40 years in this great city myself.
Good health and happiness for 2011.

 

[Julia]

In SE Qld over 15 inches of rain in the last week. I couldn't have believed it could rain so much. Not over yet. Pool has gone from merely green to filthy, muddy brown despite massive amounts of chlorine

Almost enough to drive me back to earthquake ridden Christchurch!

Just waiting for all those comments declaring it's again proof of climate change!

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

In SE Qld over 15 inches of rain in the last week. I couldn't have believed it could rain so much. Not over yet. Pool has gone from merely green to filthy, muddy brown despite massive amounts of chlorine

Almost enough to drive me back to earthquake ridden Christchurch!

Just waiting for all those comments declaring it's again proof of climate change!

They are quiet julia.

Very quiet.

As the godbotherers were when they were advised the earth circled the sun.

This global warming crap will go down in science as a bigger con than the y2000 bug.

gg

 

[Smurf1976]

Just waiting for all those comments declaring it's again proof of climate change!

I think one thing is pretty certain. Regardless of the science, public confidence in the whole "climate change" thing will be taking a pretty hard hit at the moment.

A couple of years ago, doing something to cut CO2 emissions was a political winner since there was clear community support to do so.

But since that time we've had everything from Climategate to the insulation fiasco, the ending of "permanent" droughts and the soaring cost of electricity.

I haven't seen any proper polling on the subject, but I very much doubt that the political motivation for cuts to emissions is anywhere near as strong now as it was circa 2007-08. This sort of weather will only serve to further weaken the support base for emissions cuts.