First Dog socks now in stock at the Crikey Emporium!
A cautionary tale…
What will Wong’s CPRS actually do?
|
The CPRS is increasingly looking like the answer to a question that nobody asked, namely, what would be the best way to introduce a complex and expensive national scheme that sounds like a solution to climate change without really changing anything? But as the Senate vote gets closer, the first question that Climate Change Minister Penny Wong must answer is: if the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) doesn’t increase the cost of transport fuels, doesn’t apply to agriculture and, as Treasury modelling shows, doesn’t lead to a reduction in our reliance on coal-fired electricity until at least until 2033, what does it actually do? Of course, asking the minister simple questions is different to getting answers, but we can only hope that before the Parliament votes on this important issue it has a full understanding of what it is actually voting to do and what it is voting not to do. The first thing that the CPRS isn’t going to do is reduce our emissions from coal-fired power stations. According to a recent analysis of the Treasury’s modelling, the CPRS will not be responsible for the closure of a single coal-fired power station. While that may seem absurd, it is in fact quite easy to explain. The carbon price is determined by the interplay of supply and demand. Because the government plans to issue so many pollution permits, the price of the permits will be low. And without a significant carbon price, renewables have no chance of competing with their highly polluting coal-fired competitors. The next thing the CPRS isn’t going to do is drive down emissions in the transport industry. Why not? Because in a moment of panic when the world oil price was rising, the government decided to reduce the rate of fuel excise by an amount equivalent to the carbon price. This is the policy equivalent of a bank announcing that it has lowered its fees but increased its user charges. This farcical arrangement allows the minister to maintain her claim that the scheme has “broad coverage” while at the same time assuring voters that her scheme will have no impact on the petrol price. And when it comes to transport, there is a little sting in the tail that the CPRS’ fans in the environment movement seem to have missed — while it will do nothing to increase the cost of petrol, the CPRS will actually increase the cost of running electric commuter trains. While the polluters have their hands out for excessive compensation, the state governments aren’t demanding a cent. And the final thing the CPRS won’t do is reduce emissions from agriculture for the simple reason that agriculture is not covered by the CPRS in the short run. In the longer run, the enormous difficulties associated with accurately measuring emissions across more than 100,000 farms means that agriculture is unlikely to ever be included in the scheme. Now let’s put these three omissions into perspective. The biggest sources of emissions in Australia are electricity generation, transport and agriculture. And the CPRS does nothing to reduce the number of coal-fired power stations, insulates the petrol price from the carbon price, and does not cover agriculture. Again, the question for the minister is, what will her CPRS actually do? The government likes to suggest that the CPRS is the result of a long and careful analysis of policy options. While the Coalition is accused of simply playing politics, the government, we are told, is guided by the policy imperative to reduce Australia’s emissions substantially, quickly, and at least cost. Unfortunately, in this era of so-called “evidence-based policy” there is abundant evidence that the CPRS fails on all three counts. In theory, an emissions trading scheme can deliver “least cost abatement”. But the latest iteration of the CPRS is virtually unrecognisable as an emissions trading scheme. The targets ignore the science. The free permits for the electricity generators ignore the economists. And the decision to cap the price defeats the whole point of letting the market solve the problem. |
|
|
64 Comments
An absolutely devastating critique. Your response, Penny Wong?
“…Again, the question for the minister is, what will her CPRS actually do?…”
For her, nothing.
After agreeing to amendments (LOL) on a supposedly flawless plan, she has absolutely no credibility.
For supermarionette Kevin, he’ll of course get bragging rights when he’s ensconced as Alan Tracy’s replacement as head of International Rescue.
But he’s never been about substance or the follow-through anyway.
Meanwhile, the nation will be broke; unemployment will be “officially” 15-20% and our token economy-wrecking “abatement” attempts will have been superceded by a growing Chinese economy in less than six months.
Good job Penny.
Dr Denniss, you have said succinctly that which I have thought to be the case for some time now.
The next step, of course, is to actually propose alternate plan(s). The Opposition appears unable and unwilling to attack the task.
Unfortunately, we Australians appear to believe, as also our politicians, that we live in a bubble in which basic laws of physics and economics can be suspended if they are found to be inconvenient.
Equally unfortunately, the solution to the real problems stemming from energy production will again be deferred to another day, much closer to the disaster zone which awaits us all.
The CPRS - it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Thanks to William Shakespeare.
Dr Denniss, you’ve, in part, answered your own question.
The CPRS will give ‘least cost abatement’ and will reduce Australia’s reliance on coal in 2033.
What it is not designed to do:
is make renewables viable in the short-term (that’s the RET’s job); or
destroy current electricity and coal mining businesses at risk of demolishing both the political will and the social licence to cut emissions.
Bring on a double dissolution. I have a bet with someone that if it happens more greens will get senate seats. Not that I really want them to but I think it is inevitable. So bring it on.
Great critique! Thank you.
At last some of the realities are coming out to enlighten us confused masses. Sure we all worry about climate change, and we have demanded of Kev07, the “bad Penny” AND Malcolm that they do something to solve the crisis.
Well they have not come up with any meaningful answers, but like lemmings, they hurtle towards a pseudo-answer, demanding that voting happens straightaway.
What a joke they all are. Talk about Nero fiddling - this lot take the cake.
Again thanks Richard Dennis.
I wonder where Dr Clive has gone. He used to have lots to say on this matter.
John Bennetts: “The next step, of course, is to actually propose alternate plan(s). The Opposition appears unable and unwilling to attack the task.”
The opposition’s amendment to reward farmers for sequestering carbon in their land may have more potential to reduce greenhouse CO2 than ETS ever did. Rudd/Wong were were ignoring the mounting evidence for this. (More detail from me in today’s Comments.) A CO2 molecule is a CO2 molecule, it doesn’t matter whether that particular molecule is captured on its way out of a smokestack or gets photosynthesized from somewhere else.
Turnbull has done a poor job of selling these amendments to the electorate, maybe because he’s flat out trying to sell it to his own party.
Dr Denniss calls the ETS “complex and expensive” and he’s right, and it would still be complex and expensive even without rebates or free permits. When financial commentators say “never invest in something you don’t understand” I think of the ETS.
As anyone could have told you, and some politically savvy people did, from at least three years ago, a Labor government was never going to do anything serious about CO2 emissions other than use the issue for political advantage. If proof was needed that most of the public discussion of climate change is by politically naive enthusiasts (who may be right or wrong about what AGW is leading to) it is that no one has mentioned the obvious reason why the ETS legislation is unlikely to lead to a double dissolution.
Does anyone seriously think that all Liberal and independent senators are going to line up to actually defeat the ETS legislation? Since party discipline in the conservative parties isn’t as ruthlessly tough as it has, traditionally, been in the ALP, it may be that a couple of senators will either cross the floor or simply abstain anyway. More than likely a little leader’s group is organising for that to happen so the double dissolution can be avoided with no more than a minor supposed embarrassment from party disunity. (Of course the carefully prepared speeches of the supposed dissidents would be designed to counter even that minor embarrassment and a bit of behind the scenes PR could do quite a job of giving the media more interesting stuff than “party revolt”.)
Against this the conservatives are going to have to be careful they are not beaten by the ALP’s ruthless operators who can arrange for Senator A to be taken ill suddenly and Senator B to be caught where he/she couldn’t hear the division bells (do they have bells these days?). So the legislation might be defeated despite the Opposition’s best efforts not to do so.
The line to be taken by Liberal Senators who act to let the legislation through would include the perfectly sensible argument that the Coalition will put things right when it wins the next election (even though it won’t win) and that is good enough because the government has now picked a 2011 start date. There are minor quibbling arguments to be had about all that but it is a sufficiently coherent line which only the Nats, as a party, might get cross about.
The Australia Institute appears to be full of sado-masochists. They actually want more pain, and are keen to dish it out to the rest of us too. And Graeme Lewis, check the Lowy Institute poll — we don’t all worry about climate change at all, only half of us do. If climate change converts want to be flagellants, they should only do it to themselves, and not the rest of us who don’t believe in their religion.
@Robert: ” they should only do it to themselves, and not the rest of us who don’t believe in their religion.” I don’t think I believe in income tax, can I opt out of that?
Robert Barwick,
Why do you feel certain that the science of climate change is wrong?
What more evidence would it take to convince you that we do have a problem that we need to act upon?
Will you feel any personal responsibility if, in say 15 years, the effects of climate change are so great that even you will have had to admit that the scientist were right?
I’m still sceptical, but feel that assuming that it is a problem will be the lesser of 2 evils. However, I think that environmentalists need to admit that building nuclear (fission) power stations is also the lesser of 2 evils…
Meski,
To seriously tackle climate change we need to make HUGE reductions before 2020.
Even if nuclear was economically and politically viable, it will play no part until well after 202o.
Lets sort out what we need to do now before we get distracted by nuclear.
The things the ETS will do is
1) convince people who are not paying very close attention, which is almost everyone, that we have and ETS.
2) convince people who are paying attention but don’t want an ETS for whatever reason, which is those in the emisssions business and climate change denialists of various stripes, that we have an ETS and that they are gamely suffering government pandering to the treehuggers.
Which is a whole lot of political abatement. The only people who are unhappy are those who are paying attention and do want reductions in CO2 and we, apparantly, are still not enough of a political block to be taken seriously. I am beginning to think the pace of political change simply cannot keep ahead of this crisis.
Good article.
I would point out that Treasury’s modelling of the impact on coal station’s shutting is wrong. There are numerous errors in it. This is because Treasury is full of economists and not engineers who know what a coal powerstation can and cannot do.
Energypedant,
In which direction is the Treasury modeling wrong? Is it wrong good, or wrong bad?
And, very briefly, what are some of the wrong assumptions?
Sigh, here we go again.
Michael Wilbur-Ham, I look forward to your exposition of how any non-nuclear alternatives are in fact going to result in HUGE reductions before 2020.
Meski, you don’t believe in an income tax? What does that make you? A “government-denier”? ATO-denier? If you don’t believe in an income tax, campaign to scrap it.
And Michael Wilbur-Ham, I’m certain because I know the science of what does determine climate, and I know the political origins of AGW. In 1997 I was one of no more than a dozen people who attended an open briefing by federal government reps at Spring St, on the Kyoto Protocol (i.e. before the mass-conversions) and they refused to discuss the science, peddling the “consensus” lie back then. The good news is that although they whipped up public opinion for awhile, they are now losing it, and so we have a chance to save humanity from a green suicide.
By the way, nuclear power is the future, irrespective of carbon-dioxide. First fission, then fusion — the key to economic development, high living standards, and longevity for the third world!
Mark Duffett,
If you think that it is realistic to imagine that Australia could have several nuclear power stations in operation before 2020 then we must agree to disagree. In this case I even have my ex boss, Ziggy, on my side.
For actions to reduce emissions soon, see for example, the recent proposal by the Greens.
The 12 linked bills of the package - based on the pillars of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean transport and forest protection, supported by a real carbon pricing scheme - are all available for download at http://www.safeclimatebill.org.au
Robert Barwick, you may be right, but you seem to have completely missed the point of Meski’s irony which was hardly obtuse, so I wonder how carefully you listened in 1997.
Dr Denniss: Thank you for delineating the proverbial elephant in the room. Excellent article indeed.
I would be interested to know how the Climate Change Minister got the job? Within two minutes of opening her mouth Ms Wong’s flat and featureless voice reveals a total lack of interest in her subject matter. Personally, I think this is exactly why she did get the job.
¡¡¡ D O N O T H I N G!!! = The mantra of all Australian governments! By the time everyone, including Blind Freddie and including his dog, realizes the size of the disaster which has hit them: The unfortunate people who have taken their own measures to help the environment will be faced suddenly with an order that it is obligatory to use geothermal power. Or whatever the flavour of the month it will be.
ADAM DUNSFORD: Which is precisely why Kevin Rudd will not go for a DD.
ROBERT,
With the numerous voluminous reports on climate change, plus the fact that all of the scientific research is published, I cannot think of any other “contentious” issues which is better documented.
Is there any peer reviewed scientific papers that support your view that the consensus science is wrong?
As for a political conspiracy, not only would all the scientist have to be in on the act, they would have had to been presenting false data in numerous scientific papers. And some of this would have been funded by Bush. And we are expected to believe this on the basis of what evidence that their is a conspiracy?
And you didn’t answer my question about feeling personal responsibility in 15 years IF climate change is shown to be true.
@Robert: … What James said.
@Michael Wilbur-Ham: Fine, nuclear is going to take a long time to develop, but the time to start is *now*, not 2020 - this oh-that’s-too-hard / unpopular / will take too long attitude isn’t helping.
Of course the climate will have changed in 15 years time, that’s what the climate does! It’s what it has always done, and what it will always do. I’m not vain/foolish/ignorant enough to claim credit or responsibility.
On nuclear, go with MHTGRs (Modular High Temperature Gass-Cooled Reactors). They are compact, modular, super-safe (actually, meltdown-proof!) so can be brought on-line quickly. And the more we do it, the faster we’ll get.
Meski,
I’m not suggesting deferring the debate on nuclear until 2020. I saying that we should defer the debate on nuclear (and clean coal) until we have sorted out what we are going to do to reduce emissions before 2020.
If everyone agreed that, for example, the Greens legislation mentioned in my post above (at 4:19pm) was the way to go, then we could discuss the next step.
Michael: then we’re going to have to move soil and vegetation sequestration to the first order of measures. There is no way we can close down enough coal stations in time, no matter how expensive the output becomes.
Robert,
You still failed to answer my two questions.
What more evidence would it take to convince you that we do have a problem that we need to act upon? Your previous posting suggests that you are so certain that you right that you don’t need to look at evidence.
Will you feel any personal responsibility IF, in say 15 years, the effects of climate change are so great that even you will have had to admit that the scientist were right? This is not if the climate changes, but if the changes are such that even you will by then have had to admit that climate change is man-made, and the effects are bad.
JAMES MCDONALD - I have given a link to the Greens solution in a post I made at 4:19. Once the moderator approves the post, it will be published. Jump back to 4:19 to see it.
And yes, I not only think we can, but I think we should, shut down some coal stations before 2020.
And I think that oil and vegetation sequestration may well be a part of the solution.
Great article. At least the Liberals are overt in their scepticism. Labor’s position is insidious.
The ALP are very adept at p*mping the environment from as far back as Graham Richardson as federal environment minister late 80ies. John Howard was no slouch at the pimping game either re Natural Heritage Trust 1996.
I read an overt capitalist in The Times via The Australian at p25 20th Oct 09 - Mr Wulf Bernotat, CEO of E.ON, “the world’s largest utility company”.
To quote: “The carbon price is too low to support any accelerated investment in carbon abatement. Every investment must have an acceptable return.”
He appears to be referring specifically to Germany and UK, both as I understand it far more committed than Australia would be to a higher carbon price. Notice Berontat doesn’t rule out the capacity for accelerated carbon abatement rather inadequate policy/political settings.
DD or not people will keep voting ALP and Coalition. Who will cut the Gordian knot? How long will it take for people to make the break?
Obviously Wong’s CPRS will do nothing constructive alone.
Moreover the 20+ stories on the homepages of Slate, Politico and the Drudge Report have not a single Cap n’ Trade or Copenhagen story. The Dems and Obama are in trouble with the polls with plunges steeper than Turnbull’s after being greched, so the US is not likely to be doing anything radical.
Rudd and the Australian economy may well be shags on a coastal rock preparing for a tsunami after Copenhagen. The good news for Rudd is that the silliness only takes effect from 2011 and then is only introduced gradually.
I’m not sure Rudd would look so brilliant calling a DD early 2010 in the event of no agreement or one in which Australian jobs are clearly threatened to a far greater extent than American.
LOLOLOLOL.
I love this debate, this CRPS was supposed to be Labors Wet dream, a leftys ultimate orgasm….people are realising Kev’s big promises at election time are subject to the economics of the time i suppose…who knows…it seems he does not have the political capital to get this legislation through, even if people hate turnbull more…lololol..
…I dont know what it is but pissing of lefties always makes me feel good inside. knowing the liberals will tear this legislation to shreds makes me smile..:)
the struggle for the government has been realising they dont have the political capital or mandate they thought they did, plus the ethos of the liberals being economics first, everything second. That includes the CRPS. funny enough i wanted this legislation to get through..so in ten years time when everyone realises this AGW is BS, i could go back to my lefty friends and say “look u fucked up the country”..and for what..lololol.
If they pass this with the Liberal amendments I hope the Australian people realise they have just introduced a new tax with no…trickle down effect
a new tax with no enviro benefits…pissing of the left…is their anything that provides so much glee to so many?including me:)
I think not.
not that i care, I think global warming is horse shit anyways. But as a proud Australian this wastful spending makes me sick.
It only makes sense to press people to burn less carbon, if we have access to alternative energy?
It is foolish to believe that small “reductions” can get us to zero carbon emissions by 2100.
Yet we are assured that a CPRS will not impact on any of us as long as “reductions” are made.
No one actually tells us where these “reductions” are going to occur, but we are led to expect that an accountant somewhere will wave his/her pen to make it happen. Then, with a cleared conscience, the rest of us can continue with business as usual.
Crikey guys, fossil carbon must be replaced, not reduced, so let’s share answers to …
What is going to make electricity at the power station?
What are we going to fuel our cars on?
How are we going to smelt steel?
Ask any engineer and you will get a variety of answers to each question.
Making them happen requires initiatives by our elected leaders.
What do you know, farmers might feel more cooperative if they were offered an alternative fuel to diesel.
The key thing that the CPRS will not do is impact on climate
Perhaps while everyone is coming up with so many different opinions, these pages merely reflect the rampant confusion which runs at government level.
No one here has a united view on a subject which has been around for quite a while now.
The Government wants to make the big polluters happy, so does the Opposition. And all you lot are doing is trying to impress each other with your academic smarts.
Keep lobbing in these views folks but I’d hate you all to be on my side in a revolution. You know, unity is strength and all that jazz.
At least The Greens know what they want. ¡Hasta la vista mis amigos! Y buena suerte, because you are bloody sure you’re going to need it.
Think of the joy you bring to what’s her name? Mad Peculiar Mama?
All,
there are certain key phrases in news Blogs pertaining to climate change, which indicate that the poster is an “astro turfer” in the pay of the big polluters, manufacturing dissent about action on climate change.
When you see any of the following phrases, or arguments along these lines, beware - you are conversing with a PR stooge in the pay of the Oil and Coal vested interests:-
“The Science is not settled”
“Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Religion”
“Climate always changes, it’s arrogant to suggest humans are causing it”
“Unreliable Computer models can’t predict temperature changes”
“Solar activity is responsible for temperature variation, not CO2”
Robert Barwick (not his real name), tell your masters we are on to their game. You are following the timeless rules of propoganda as perfected by Joseph Goebbels:-
1. Keep the message simple (AGW is not happening! It’s not!)
2. Ignore the protestations of the intelligentsia (It’s a religion of the latte sipping left!!)
3. Repeat the message over and over and over (hence the repetition of the phrases and arguments listed above, over and over and over with no evidence to back them up, on blog after blog after blog).
You may as well stop it. It’s not working. The vast bulk of the populace has done the sensible thing - and accepted the considered professional opinion of the vast bulk of the professionals in the field.
Over 99 % of scientific professionals with knowledge of relevant disciplines have come to the conclusion that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, and it’s a really big problem. That’s good enough for me, and it’s clearly good enough for the overwhelming majority of the population. If it’s not good enough for you, then either,
1. You know more that some hundreds of thousands of the world’s foremost experts, or
2. You are an idiot, or
3. You are in the pay of those with most to lose from attempting to implement a solution to this problem. Ahhhh, now that sounds most likely.
Made In Aus, I don’t think this has anything to do with mandates and a lack of political capital on Rudd’s part. It’s the Senate. That’s all. Rudd could have designed the most comprehensive CPRS in the history of the Universe and it still wouldn’t get through. It’s blocked by Fielding who believes in God, yet not in this AGW nonsense; and the LibNats who don’t believe in their leader. The quality of the scheme is not so much a product of Rudd (who I’m liking less and less anyway) as the officials in the Senate, who we so richly deserve.
WRT some good cuts by 2020, all the reports I’ve read suggest there is no way nuclear can contribute. Before you start huffing and puffing Mark and others, this is not opinion but the reality of nuclear. Even if we built 18 tomorrow, the embedded energy is such that we wouldn’t start gaining CO2 abatement for 10 years or so. So maybe they’ll make a difference in October 2019.
So, we’ve got to hit hard and early. I think the lowest hanging fruit are the brown coal generators in Victoria, and that horrible plant in SA (Hazelwood?) that was supposed to close 5 years ago; solar thermal domestic hot water; and agriculture. I’ll come back to ag.
Replacing the BCgenerators with gas will add 20 to the cost of electricity (which means domestic bills go up 10%) and add awesome flexibility to the grid. Not sure of the capacity of the gas lines though, so unsure of where to put it. But they’re so easy to build. You can purchase a 900MW unit literally off the shelf from Siemens. It’s a big shelf.
There might not be as many hot water heater replacements left as I think, since Rudd’s been throwing some cash at households, but there was a report a few years ago that stated something like replacing 80% of remaining electric hot water heaters with solar would close a coal fired power plant. It’s money for jam really.
The reason I’m so in favour of ag reductions (and coal seam methane) is that it’s mostly methane. All the gases are compared to their relative CO2 warming potential over 100 years. Methane doesn’t last that long in the atmosphere, more like 10, so hitting it hard and early makes a huge difference. I’ve got few ideas on what to do though. How do you stop cows burping? NFI. But there’s easy points to be scored there. Read an interesting Letter to the Editor from a farmer who felt totally betrayed by the Nats on this. Not because he necessarily believed in AGW or anything else, but because the Nats and their obstructionism were excluding farmers from lucrative side business in soil carbon and other sequestration. I wonder how the really BIG operators, like Cubbie, who aren’t going to get rain any more, feel about how their party is representing their interests and limiting their ability to diversify?
Post Edit: Should read “will add 20% to the cost of electricity”. This only adds 10% to final energy users because electricity bills (depending a little on one’s tariff structure) are made up roughly 50/50 cost of electricity and network charges.
First line in the Catechism of Economists (a species that should not be fed) is -
if’n ye want more o’ summat, subsidize it,
if’n ye want less, tax eet.
So we, via (y)our glorious/sainted/sleek MPs, are going to pay BigBuk$ to the BigBoy$ to increase pollution - generate more electricity, sell more infernal combustion vehicles and imported gee-gaws.
Then, having cushioned the villians tax the bejasus out of competing tek.
For their next trick, the SUn will hold stationary in the sky as the walls of Bablylon are rebuilt.
T’rrifik, and there i was dreaming of Jerusalem or some other shining light on the Hill that wasn’t a burning bush or firestorm.
“…Over 99 % of scientific professionals with knowledge of relevant disciplines have come to the conclusion that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real…”
LOL
Then you won’t have any problem listing them all then.
You saying it doesn’t make it so.
“…I wonder how the really BIG operators, like Cubbie, who aren’t going to get rain any more…”
Another baseless and stupid statement.
“…How do you stop cows burping? NFI…”
Try eating them.
You are really on point today Evan.
“…How are we going to smelt steel?…”
Great question and one the renewables junkies have no answer for.
Maybe we should just build a big magnifying glass.
Yes indeed, how are we going to smelt steel?
There are options. It’s not the heat that’s important but the carbon. It’s just convenient that when you burn coke it renders both heat and carbon. Biochar? Who knows.
In any case, it’s not a big problem. Coking coal in Australia makes up about 3% of all coal emissions in Australia (ABARE 2007 numbers) and we’re a big steel producer.
MOST PECULIAR MAMA
Almost 100% of Australian’s think that Kevin Rudd is the Prime Minister. And, no, I can’t name them all.
More interesting would be to name the few who don’t think that Kevin Rudd is Prime Minister, and see what they have to say.
Will Most Peculiar then become a skeptic about Rudd’s position?
Hi Evan Beaver, from 6:46am “Read an interesting Letter to the Editor from a farmer who felt totally betrayed by the Nats on this. Not because he necessarily believed in AGW or anything else, but because the Nats and their obstructionism were excluding farmers from lucrative side business in soil carbon and other sequestration.”
It’s not just one farmer, the National Farmers Federation is now trying to pressure the Nats to stop dissembling on carbon abatement. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26233953-2702,00.html
OMG MW-H, you’re reaching now. (If you know anybody who doesn’t think Kevin Rudd is PM, you must be in a pretty weird place).
I did not say I knew someone. But I do claim that if I went out in public and asked, I would find someone.
OK, go ahead. When you do your poll, parrots don’t count as people.
Otherwise, you guys have stirred my compassion, so I seriously want to help you out. My 3 y.o. is afraid to go to sleep in the dark. I’ve reassured her there’s nothing to be afraid of, but to make her feel secure, she has a night-light (a little carbon emitting, evil thing). The night-light for you lot, is nuclear power. It won’t make a difference to the climate, but it won’t emit carbon, and it will transform the world.
RB you’re being a bit disingenuous on the analogies like income tax or knowing who the PM is, but you may be right about nuclear and I second Meski’s earlier point:
“I’m still sceptical, but feel that assuming that it is a problem will be the lesser of 2 evils. However, I think that environmentalists need to admit that building nuclear (fission) power stations is also the lesser of 2 evils…”
Reminds me of an article a few years ago about astronomers warning of meteor hazard; when asked about shooting down an incoming meteor with missiles the astronomer said it would not be an option. Why not? “We’re opposed to that kind of macho act.”
My point? Sometimes scientists need to be reminded to quarantine their expert advice from their ideological wishes. Tempting as it may be to take advantage of the spotlight to preach, the ideology sometimes encumbers and complicates the main message. Captain Planet’s good analysis of propaganda can also serve as advice for the good guys: KISS.
Some postings have been misquoting Ziggy Switkowski to imply that nuclear reactors take too long, cost too much and do nothing for the greenhouse. Here is what he said in The Age , 10 Sept:
“Dr Switkowski said the cost of nuclear power stations was coming down and the time to construct them in some countries was as short as four years. He said Australia should aim to have 50 operating by 2050, which would supply 90 per cent of energy needs and meet greenhouse targets.”
Which surely implies that reactors are timely to build and just what the greenhouse needs.
Cost wise, the earlier UMPNER Report said that they would be competitive with coal, given a modest tax on carbon.
Four years from,” yep, lets start planning this” to “yippee, it’s built and feeding full power to the grid” has happened where?
And this could happen in Australia even though there are no plans to do any significant cuts in emissions via other means before 2020.
Even if there was political agreement, it would take years to decide where to build what type of planet. Only then can you start to build.
Also note that a nuclear plant creates so many emissions to build that it actually needs to operate for many years (I can’t remember if this was 5 or 10 years) until it can be said to be carbon neutral.
MWH: is that the absolute energy required to build one, or the energy in excess of building an equivalent non-nuclear plant when a refresh becomes necessary anyway?
You are right that every new source of energy will take some emissions to build, and this needs to be taken into consideration when determining the best mix of new energy sources.
But it is easy to see how nuclear is in a different league from anything else (including a coal or gas plant). One nuclear needs to be built to be (almost) safe if something goes bang inside, or if someone flies a plane into it, etc.
JAMES MCDONALD
It would be a very different world if the discussion was restricted to only rational, evidence based discussion.
You are right that some of the scientists would have to stop speaking as concerned citizens and restrict themselves to the facts.
Fortunately pretty much all the “deniers” viewpoints would be silenced in any debate with such restrictions, and so things would be much more simple.
Roger, my source is not the Age, but the Switkowski report. And I don’t think there have been any actually built in 4 years, but planned to be able to be built in 4 years. If my experience of project management is anything to go by, these are 2 very different timeframes.
James, there’s a measure used for energy generating technologies called carbon-payback. Essentially the amount of time the plant must run to offset the amount of carbon that would have been emitted by coal. So, there’s XX amount of energy required to make a solar cell, which means XX amount of carbon. Then it takes about 3 years to generate enough power to offset the energy/carbon used in the manufacture of the device.
There have been many studies done on the topic, with hugely variable results. Like all this stuff, it depends strongly on your assumptions and criteria. Do you include mining and storage for a nuke? What about decommisioning? What about water use for coal plants? I’ve heard from 10 months to 10 years for nuclear; I’ve heard that solar never gets there. Anyway, make up your own mind:
http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/energy-payback-ratios-for-electricity-generation/
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/04/energy-payback-times-for-nuclear.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html
Note that there is a right answer for the carbon-payback for each technology.
When studies give widely variable results it just shows that we don’t yet know this answer, and further research is needed.
As far as the planet is concerned, what matters is cradle to grave calculations, so studies which don’t include mining and disposal costs will not only be wrong, but might be seriously misleading.
Evan, I suppose governments who ask the question would adopt the more pessimistic of the available estimates when forming policies. So it’s up to the scientific community to now divert some energy (of the human kind) from investigating AGW to refining projections of the mitigation options.
I also wonder if embodied energy calculations take account of base-load power having to be generated fairly constantly from some sources like coal, requiring artificial loads when usage ebbs, so that the parts of the fabrication taking place offsite with civic power sources draw to some extent on fuel that was going to be burned anyway. I don’t know if that accounts for a significant proportion, I’m not knowledgable about these things.
Michael, re “scientists would have to stop speaking as concerned citizens and restrict themselves to the facts”, I don’t think that’s necessary, but I think it behoves experts to make the dividing line crystal clear for the rest of us where the expert advice stops and personal ideology begins.
JAMES MCDONALD
If in the meteor example the scientist knew what he was talking about, then he would have know that the idea of shooting an approach meteor would probably create more damage than not doing so.
Firstly, if the meteor was going to just miss the earth, blowing it up would ensure that earth was hit by some of the pieces.
Secondly, if I recall correctly, studies have shown that the multiple impact of all the pieces are likely to cause more damage than just one big hit.
And I would not be surprised if there were several other reasons why blowing it up is not a sensible option.
As you can tell, a glib one-liner is sometimes the easy way out of explain all this, especially if you are talking to a reporter who is going to severely edit your words.
It would have been better if he had said something else, but no-one is perfect.
I just love the denier’s comments on this site!
First, I thought they were just morons, now I realize they are morons with blood on their hands!
Its great how all this weather is natural - Victoria turning into a filthy desert, hundreds dying from heat stress.
In fact I wonder whether most deniers are secretly pleased by these deaths ?
I really think the main focus now should be on giving the deniers lots of good, grateful feedback.
So as things unfold over the next few years we make sure they get the full rich credit they so rightly deserve for stopping us from doing anything!
Reaping what you sow is a core belief of conservatives - so they can’t argue with this!
Nobody’s stopping you: get off your computer, turn off your lights, fridge/freezer, disconnect from the grid, walk/cycle everywhere, and have fun.
Individual action to reduce emissions will make zero difference (except to make carbon permits a fraction cheaper) thanks to Rudd’s CPRS. And even if individual actions were included, the reduction in emissions would be far too small to make much difference.
So real action on climate change, if it ever happens, will be by government legislation, and this will effect you.
Michael @4:28pm, you’re probably right, the astronomer probably also gave a better reason than it being macho. But the point stands: if a scientist speaks out against nuclear, we need to know whether he or she is expressing a scientific view or a political one.