Comments on: We need a real global plan for carbon mitigation

By: Decarbonise SA – regional action for greenhouse gas mitigation « Climate change

Tue, 10 May 2011 03:49:08 +0000

[...] Global warming can only be tackled seriously by a massive reduction in anthropogenic greenhouse gas production. It’s that simple. But just hoping for this to gradually happen — locally, regionally or globally — by tinkering at the edge of the problem (carbon prices, alternative energy subsidies, mandated targets and loan guarantees, “100 ways to be more green” lists, etc.), is just not going to get us anywhere near where we need to be, when we need to be. For that, we need to develop and implement a well-thought-out, practical and cost-effective action p… [...]

By: Decarbonise SA – regional action for greenhouse gas mitigation « BraveNewClimate

Thu, 05 May 2011 05:45:02 +0000

[...] Global warming can only be tackled seriously by a massively reduction in anthropogenic greenhouse gas production. It’s that simple. But just hoping for this to gradually happen — locally, regionally or globally — by tinkering at the edge of the problem (carbon prices, alternative energy subsidies, mandated targets and loan guarantees, “100 ways to be more green” lists, etc.), is just not going to get us anywhere near where we need to be, when we need to be. For that, we need to develop and implement a well-thought-out, practical and cost-effective action p… [...]

By: TCASE 12: A checklist for renewable energy plans « BraveNewClimate

TCASE 12: A checklist for renewable energy plans « BraveNewClimate — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:02:58 +0000

[...] We need a real global plan for carbon mitigation [...]

By: Science Council for Global Initiatives « BraveNewClimate.com

Science Council for Global Initiatives « BraveNewClimate.com — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:57:51 +0000

[...] policy — from virtually any nation — almost leads one to despair. Steve Kirsch has written about this failure recently with reference to the US, but the lack of vision is near universal. Is this simply the product of [...]

By: Charles Barton

Charles Barton — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:43:00 +0000

I have written a review of The Greenpeace plan, which actually relies on non-renewable natural gas. Other “green” energy planners seem to like natural gas just as much. I see some uses for a few IFR, for example as neptunium burners, but LFTR advocates have paid much more attention to cost and flexibility issues, and it will probably be the case that there will be some real LFTR cost advantages as well as significant flexibility advantages.

By: Barry Brook

Barry Brook — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:12:55 +0000

Charles, I agree that the LFTR plan is a potential coal eliminator. But it is still a 4th Gen nuclear solution to the apparently unsolvable problem. As I understand it, SK was talking about plans proposed by political parties and major advocacy organisations (e.g. Greenpeace), none of which include a serious role for nuclear.

Regarding your other points, whereas you seem to see it as a LFTR vs IFR debate, I see it as an IFR+LFTR solution. I put IFR first in this summation because it is closer to commercialisation — no other serious reason. I fully support accelerated deployment of LFTRs too and my money is on them playing an astoundingly important role in the future of energy.

By: Charles Barton

Charles Barton — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:01:59 +0000

Unfortunately, nobody has proposed a realistic and practical plan to eliminate coal use worldwide or anywhere close to that. – Kirsch

This is of course absurd. LFTR supporters have developed advanced cost lowering approaches as part of the comperhensive LFTR plan. It appears quite likely that LFTR manufacturing costs will be lower than IFR costs. It has not been demonstrated that the IFR can operate on a part time basis while the LFTR can. The LFTR can load follow, and perform in a low cost peak reserve roie. The LFTR can serve as a sea going reactor, while who would want to be on a ship with all that liquid sodium sloshing around in the storm? The LFTR is capable of operating at a higher temperature, and is able to provide industrial process heat. Thus it would appear likely that the LFTR will be able to perform almost any energy generation role. The one exception would be providing direct power for flight.

By: John D Morgan

John D Morgan — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:26:03 +0000

A remarkably sensible statement from MacFarlane. "I'm confident, shown the real facts, having a debate over four or five years, where the truth is put on the table, there will be communities more than happy to have a power station in their backyard which will be amazingly much more clean than perhaps the coal fired power station they've got in their backyard now." The timescale seems about right, and fits nicely with that part of Barry's sketch plan: "Clearly and accurately (no spin!) educate the public and decision-makers about the advantages of next-generation nuclear energy, including fostering healthy debate to ‘clear the air’ about the differences between old-style and ‘newclear’ (and the problems Gen IV nuclear solves). Then, after about 2015, certify and construct one or more advanced (Gen III+) light water nuclear reactors .. "

By: perps

perps — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:27:31 +0000

Oops, wrong Mundine! Further to my remark regarding the Oppositions position

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/23/2634155.htm

By: John D Morgan

John D Morgan — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:13:40 +0000

Warren Mundine, in fact. Although I’m sure Anthony could be very persuasive if enlisted to the cause ..

By: perps

perps — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:12:32 +0000

When, if ever, is Rudd going to see the light!?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/23/2634719.htm?site=news

Please don’t tell me I will have to change the habit of a lifetime and vote Liberal/National! EEK!

By: perps

perps — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:22:36 +0000

The pot has certainly been stirred. In yesterday’s Age Switkowsky urged the use of nuclear and the Opposition, agreed that nuclear should be in the mix to move from carbon. In today’s Age Anthony Mundine, former ALP national president and indigenous leader, said “no-one should be ruling out any option to lower greenhouse gases”.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/dont-shut-down-nuclear-debate-mundine-20090723-duvd.html

By: John D Morgan

John D Morgan — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:50:13 +0000

Martin Ferguson has elaborated on his views in a piece in today's Australian: Humanity can't power progress with green faith During the next few decades, uranium and LNG are set to play a significant role in the global response to climate change and, put simply, blanket opposition to these industries is a political stance, not a practical one. As an energy-rich nation with a wide range of options, Australia does not need to pursue a domestic nuclear power industry, yet many nations are not so lucky. For them, a nuclear energy capacity is vital to respond to the challenges of climate change and energy security. One might add that the Minister's opposition to a domestic nuclear power industry is also a political stance. Also in today's Australian is some further reporting on reaction to Ferguson's statement: Wind and solar are not enough, says Resources Minister Martin Ferguson RESOURCES Minister Martin Ferguson has savaged environmentalists for demonising nuclear, gas and coal-fired energy despite knowing solar and wind energy are not viable on current technology. Mr Ferguson yesterday challenged the green lobby to embrace a "rational, science-based pathway" to energy generation, saying its blanket rejection of traditional energy sources is politically motivated. The comments drew a sharp response from Greens leader Bob Brown, who labelled Mr Ferguson "a lackey of the mining industry" who was unwilling to embrace the future. And finally, Ziggy Switkowski was on Radio National Breakfast talking about the necessity for nuclear power in dealing with climate change, referring to wind and solar as "cottage industries" that just won't power an industrial society: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2009/07/bst_20090724_0736.mp3 Is this the start of our national debate on nuclear power?

By: Robert Hargraves

Robert Hargraves — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:49:35 +0000

You said “The best way to do that is to give the world a way to generate electric power that is economically more attractive than coal with the same benefits as coal (compact power plants, 24×7 generation, can be sited almost anywhere, etc).”

Energy cheaper than from coal is the subject of a talk about the liquid fluoride thorium reactor. It transforms thorium-232 to uranium-233 just at the rate the uranium is consumed. Long-lived radioactive heavy metals in the waste stream are orders of magnitude below that of conventional nuclear reactors. Aim High is a introduction to the technology and benefits of the LFTR, at http://rethinkingnuclearpower.googlepages.com/aimhigh. There is a Google Tech Talk on the subject at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgKfS74hVvQ.

By: Barry Brook

Barry Brook — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:14:56 +0000

A Strangeglove-esque moment again, eh John? I know what you mean.

By: Barry Brook

Barry Brook — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:14:03 +0000

Sadly, I agree completely with your pessimistic assessment of the power of embedded interests, Ken. The only other hope is that an energy technology be developed that is demonstrably cheaper than burning coal, such that the market for Australia’s 1000 year supply evaporates and it makes us uncompetitive to continue to burn the stuff ourselves. This was indeed the thrust of Steve Kirsch’s article.

By: Barry Brook

Barry Brook — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:12:26 +0000

I agree with almost everything you say here Neil. My point of difference is that we (i) must be quickly eliminating baseload NG, and (ii) must have a viable plan to phase out all NG within the next few decades (and replace with biogas, load following NPPs, thermal storage, pumped storage, etc.). NG is a carbon-intensive fossil fuel. It’s not part of a low carbon energy future and should not be promoted as such. It’s NOT ‘green’ power in any way, shape or form.

By: Barry Brook

Barry Brook — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:08:54 +0000

Ken, I’ve no doubt that Rio Tinto see it in their best interest to spruik nuclear power. Perhaps they see greater Uranium sales in it, and frankly, that’s likely to be true given the current worldwide build out of Gen III Light Water Reactors. But I think he could also be looking at it from the perspective of trying to secure cheap abundant baseload energy for his mining operation in a carbon constrained future. At the very least, his comments are a welcome ladle in further stirring the pot.

By: Ken Fabos

Ken Fabos — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:28:34 +0000

Is Rio Tinto’s chairman merely spruiking his own company’s interests as a uranium miner or would he be as keen to see Oz go nuclear if it’s strictly IFR or similar that won’t need the product of his mines? Will he get up at a meeting of the Minerals Council and vote against the interests of coal miners? I seriously doubt it.

Apologies Barry, but I am extremely dubious that this represents any kind of shift in attitude amongst Australian mining companies.

By: G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996

G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:31:50 +0000

As a public employee, he profits from emissions. So that which best reduces emissions is not his fiscal friend and he's going to say it's not best. (How fire can be domesticated)