The max snow depths in the 1960s are huge – 300cm + in October (!) – I highly doubt we’ll have a natural snow snow season in 20-30 years.

-tm

It seems some class actions are already proceeding and at least one has been decided in favour

http://www.climatelaw.org/cases/country/us/eca/settlement

Please keep bringing your information that shows how we can get there with renewables; but I think Barry is fed up with some of the same old pronouncements that he’s dealt with in this site. In other words, bring data and developed logic. People can be very good at gleaning the implications from that.

I think we should be able make it to 100% renewables, but it may not be the least cost way for the environment. Perhaps we are prepared to pay the extra cost, perhaps not?

But remember if humans with power start to suffer from the pain of limits to growth, I don’t think any anti-nuclear arguments we have today will stop them using any means possible to fend off or delay a collapse.

Seems from your website that you also an Amory Lovins fan — so I’m not surprised by your anti-nuclear stance. Anyway, I have absolutely no interest in trying to convince you to open your mind — I know a lost cause when I see one.

No sensible person is certain of this, and many clever people think this is extreme hyperbole. You’re a real risk taker, Matt.

In Spain there will be 233MW of capacity online by the end of this year and more than 750MW by the end of next year.

There are now 14,000MW of Solar Thermal with Storage projects in various stages of planning or being built in Spain.

For a look at some recent 50% capacity factor ones that have just been built

http://solar.nau.edu/csp/docs/presentations/Rainer%20Aringhoff.pdf

http://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/paginas/Contenidosecciones.asp?ID=3496&Tipo=&Nombre=Renewable%20energy%20news

Also the later plant is actually 10% Spanish Goverment owned

All sorts of arguments about what is cheaper miss the point that we need every thing that can be built ASAP to replace coal, including NG, nuclear wind and solar( and geothermal). The limitations of manufacturing capacity are different for all of these, so we should start on everything, and when 95% of coal is replaced, start on replacing NG firstly by using only for peak power and then retiring older less efficient power stations( those converted from oil).
Once we get 10-20% of each;nuclear, wind and solar we can work out costs to optimize the final mix.

Solar Thermal with Storage + Wind = Energy Supply Security delivering power when and where we need it.

Nuclear is costly and expensive and it is ridiculous (apart from the big $$$ mining operation in SA) that in one of the world’s sunniest states with an awesome wind resource you are running this ridiculous nuclear line.

Here is what the US Federal Energy Regulation Chairman Says about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/04/22/22greenwire-no-need-to-build-new-us-coal-or-nuclear-plants-10630.html

The difference between solar thermal with storage + wind = secure electricity supply and fantasy land nuclear.. Is that the Wind + Solar Thermal with storage is simple technology — Concrete Steel and Glass — it’s only people with an ideological bent that would go down the path of ridiculous complication that is IFR / Nuclear power.

(From the son of a Nuclear physicist)

Matthew

Whilst I have some serious reservations about massive commitment to currently uncertified nuclear technology I’m not ideologically opposed – and I would count myself as small ‘g’ green – I don’t see that Greens own this debate. If mainstream Australia says yes to nuclear, Green policies are largely irrelevant, and if IFR can be promoted as a means of nuclear waste disposal a lot of greens could change their minds. The automatic opposition built into fundamental Green policy might change too, but waiting on that in order to get public support for new generation nuclear seems futile.

So far the LibNats and Labour are not leading the way, not in any sense, not on funding clean energy R&D, not on clean energy projects whether nuclear or renewable. They still don’t count Australia’s coal exports as Australian contributions to the problem, they don’t have any real plan let alone intention to phase out coal. Quite the contrary – coal export capacity is being massively increased as we bicker. Green policies might have serious problems but to date they are the only political voices that propose more than greenwash.

“His type” would be those who say this type of thing: “They [greens] May Well Consider The Population Crash Which Will Come Wih The Abandonment Of Practical Industrial Technology A Desirable Thing.”

Which would go down a treat with the Lavoisier group, or the IPA or Andrew Bolt’s fans, or in a dozen other Murdoch columns. Its also a fine thing to say if you want people with a green streak to think you are fruity.

But I think John may have been interested in serious dialogue. If you paid attention to what people like MattB, Geoff and the like were saying(and where they come from) you might see the value in that approach.

Of course your approach is up to you, and what ever your goals are.

If it works out the energy could be used to temporarily overcome a bunch of impending limits to growth. (Should I say impending forces to reverse growth).

Based on more recent estimates of the CO2 cuts needed, I’d suggest that we raise the carbon price either faster or higher than $50 by 2050.