.png)
Recent discussion and commentary on this blog has, due largely to the highlighted topics I’ve chosen, focused on the relative feasibility of alternative energy types. This has led to some fascinating back-and-forth debate and counterpointing in the comments section of the last few posts, on the merits, feasibility, desirability and limitations of alternative zero-carbon (post-manufacture) […]
Filed under: Emissions, Nuclear, Renewables | 25 Comments »
Last time in my multi-part review of the book Prescription for the Planet, by Tom Blees, I overviewed chapters 4 and 5, which describe the technology behind Integral Fast Reactor nuclear power and boron combustion for vehicles. But Blees had made a fairly bold claim in the subtitle of his book — “The painless remedy for our energy […]
Filed under: Nuclear, Renewables | 84 Comments »
Guest Post by Tim Kelly. Tim is works as a Principal Climate Change Advisor in the Water Industry. The Exposure draft of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill (Bill) is proposed to fulfill the Rudd Government’s 20% renewable electricity commitment by 2020. The Bill increases Australia’s Mandatory renewable energy target above its pre 1997 baseline […]
Filed under: Emissions, Renewables | 3 Comments »
I recently came upon this interesting mini-review in Nature Geoscience which looked at the cost-effectiveness of different geo-engineering options for mitigating climate change impacts (for an earlier discussion on BNC, see here). The paper is entitled “Ranking geo-engineering schemes“, by New Zealander Philip Boyd. A full-text PDF version of the article is available here for […]
Filed under: Clim Ch Q&A, Hot News | 15 Comments »
I know I’ve been pushing the energy supply bandwagon a lot recently, with relative little attention to climate science issues (and even less to the ‘pseudo-sceptics’!). I guess that in some ways reflects the ebb and flow of my perceived priorities, what I happen to be reading, and what I consider particularly urgent or crucial […]
Filed under: Emissions, Nuclear, Renewables | 53 Comments »
In Part I of this review, I talked through some of the logistical and ideological challenges facing society in trying to solve the climate and energy supply crises. All pretty grim. But with Part II of my review of the book Prescription for the Planet, by Tom Blees, we’re already through the nadir of depression […]
Filed under: Emissions, Nuclear | 28 Comments »
Guest Post by Tim Kelly. Tim is works as a Principal Climate Change Advisor in the Water Industry. On December 15, 2008, the Federal Government released its White Paper on its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia’s Low Pollution Future White Paper and announced that Australia would seek to make a minimum 5% cut in its […]
Filed under: Emissions | 3 Comments »
There is a great overview now available in Nature Reports Climate Change, which discusses how far our scientific understanding of climate change has come in the last 12 months. It is available free online or for PDF download. Written for the non-specialist, it is readily intelligible (much in the New Scientist style), but goes into […]
Filed under: Clim Ch Q&A, Hot News | 6 Comments »
As foreshadowed in my previous post on Integral Fast Reactor nuclear power, I recently ordered Prescription for the Planet, by Tom Blees (subtitle: The Painless Remedy for Our Energy & Environmental Crises). Well, it’s now arrived, and I’ve set about reading through it with a careful eye for detail. After 3 chapters, I can already […]
Filed under: Nuclear, Renewables | 12 Comments »
There are two reasons to chuckle at the current situation with global warming. First, it’s because if you don’t have laugh at how ridiculous the national (Australian) and international ‘responses’ to this crisis are, you’d be forced to cry. Second, the denier are, well… laughable. Enjoy batch II (you can see batch I here).
Filed under: Humour | 14 Comments »
In this series, I aim to teach you to recognise the recycled denialism that is rife in the public arena these days. I don’t refute this nonsense by constructing a new argument each time which, point-by-point, shows why their claims are not supported by the evidence. This is pointless, since the majority of non-greenhouse theorists […]
Filed under: Sceptics | 23 Comments »
 | Brian H on How realistic is The Economist… |
| Brian H on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | Cyril R. on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | David B. Benson on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | Ms.Perps on Environmentalism in the mud: r… |
 | Tom Blees on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | Marion Brook on Environmentalism in the mud: r… |
 | John Newlands on Open Thread 21 |
 | grlcowan on Open Thread 21 |
 | harrywr2 on The Fukushima Question: How cl… |
| John Newlands on Open Thread 21 |
 | Eclipse Now on Open Thread 21 |
| Cyril R on IFR FaD 10 – metal fuel and… |
| Cyril R on Environmentalism in the mud: r… |
 | Roger Clifton on IFR FaD 10 – metal fuel and… |
