Guest Post by Peter Lang. Peter is a retired geologist and engineer with 40 years experience on a wide range of energy projects throughout the world, including managing energy R&D and providing policy advice for government and opposition. His experience includes: coal, oil, gas, hydro, geothermal, nuclear power plants, nuclear waste disposal, and a wide range of energy end use management projects.
Below are suggestions for an alternative policy to the CPRS (the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme — an emission cap-and-trade system proposed by the Australian Labor government). This is not a complete energy policy, but simply some fragments for possible inclusion in a complete policy.
1.To reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions consistent with international efforts;
2.To increase, not decrease, Australia’s international competitiveness; this will result in:
a.more jobs and better remuneration for workers
b.more wealth and better standard of living for all; and
c.more revenue to support all the things we want; such as: better Health, Education, infrastructure and fixing our most pressing environmental problems such as the Murray Darling Basin.
Increasing the cost of energy has serious negative consequences for humanity, especially the poorest peoples on the planet. A policy such as the CPRS that sets out to increase electricity costs for little or no overall reduction in world GHG emissions is negligent.
The proposed alternative would help the world by supplying products and services with less embodied emissions than now. For example, the policy proposed here would maintain Australia’s aluminium industry and its jobs and provide the aluminium with less embodied emissions than other countries can. This is just one example to illustrate the benefits of this policy, but an important one.
We do not rule out an ETS or some alternative instrument in the future, but we will not impose an ETS on Australia before the USA and we will not impose an ETS that does not protect Australia’s industry and jobs to a similar extent as the USA’s legislation. (It is not clear that the USA will implement an ETS. There are signs the USA may not take this approach to cutting its GHG emissions).
What is the policy and how will it be implemented in practice?
Electricity generation will have to do the “heavy lifting” in cutting our GHG emissions. Electricity generation causes 34% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, but is capable of displacing around 50% of our emissions by 2050. It is easier to make large cuts in emissions from electricity generation than anywhere else. Furthermore, if clean electricity is low cost (as proposed here), electricity will more rapidly displace gas for heating and oil for land transport over the coming decades. Electricity will replace, to some extent, oil for land transport both directly as in electric vehicles and indirectly through synthetic fuels produced using electricity. But it is essential that clean electricity be low cost for this transition to take place as quickly as possible and to avoid the need for massive, high-cost policy interventions by future governments.
Specific policies for reducing emissions from Electricity, Heat and Land Transport are outlined below.
To cut our GHG emissions from electricity generation we will change the “Renewable Energy Targets” to “Clean Energy Targets”.
Instead of ‘20% of energy generated by renewable energy by 2020’, the target will be: ‘20% clean energy by 2020’.
‘Clean Energy’ means a mix of electricity generators that emits less than 200 kg CO2-e/MWh (kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per megawatt hour) by 2020 decreasing to 10 kg CO2-e/MWh by 2050 (that is about 1% of Australia’s current emissions from electricity generation).
A ‘mix of electricity generators’ means a combination of generators that can supply power on demand. Examples of generation systems that can deliver power on demand are:
5.wind with fossil fuel back-up, energy storage and enhanced grid
6.Wind and solar with fossil fuel back-up, energy storage and enhanced grid
Some examples of generator mixes that would meet the 2020 criteria of 200 kg CO2-e/MWh are:
1.50% hydro and 50% high efficiency Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
2.50% biomass and 50% high efficiency Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
3.50% geothermal and 50% high efficiency Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
4.50% nuclear and 50% high efficiency Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
Wind and solar cannot meet the criteria because of the emissions from fossil fuel back-up generators (Lang, 2010). Australia has little more hydro capacity available. Biomass can make a contribution but at relatively high cost. Geothermal is not yet a proven technology in the Hot Fractured Rock configuration being proposed for and tested in Australia. Only nuclear can make a large contribution to meeting our energy needs and reducing emissions substantially and sustainably.
The electricity generator companies would compete to build the new generation capacity required knowing with certainly what will be the emissions requirements for the electricity generation system for the life of their investments. They can factor this into their financial projections for the economic life of the plant. This would not be the case with the CPRS. The CPRS rules would be changed with every change of government, with spendthrift governments always needing to collect more revenue to pay for their economic mismanagement.
Land Transport and Heat
After electricity generation, the next two major sources of GHG emissions are from burning fossil fuel for heat and for land transport.
If we establish policies that keep the cost of electricity low, then low-cost, low-emissions electricity will progressively displace fossil fuels for heat and for land transport. Land transport will be powered by electricity either directly (e.g. electric vehicles) and/or by synthetic fuels produced by electricity.
1.With these regulations we could reduce GHG emissions from electricity generation by 80% by 2050
2.Low-emissions electricity would be provided at least cost
3.Australia could continue to be competitive in world markets
4.We would avoid a large portion of our national wealth being diverted to financial fraud and to government churn and waste
5.The rate of reducing GHG emissions from heat and land transport will depend largely on how low is the cost of low-emission electricity.
How can we get low-cost, clean electricity?
One currently available technology that can provide this is nuclear energy. Other technologies, such as geothermal and solar energy may be able to in the future but are not economic now and are a high risk to base rational policy decisions on.
Nuclear energy provides low-cost electricity in many other countries. Russia is building new nuclear plants to provide electricity for aluminium smelting for the world market. This is a clear indication that nuclear generated electricity can be amongst the lowest cost electricity in the word. If it were not, they could not produce aluminium at a price they can sell it competitively on the world market. Another example is the United Arab Emirates which has just let contracts for 5,400 MW of nuclear power stations that they claim will provide electricity at ¼ the cost of electricity generated by gas. And this is in the centre of the world’s oil regions.
To achieve low cost nuclear energy in Australia our focus must be on providing low-cost, appropriately safe and environmentally benign electricity. Nuclear generation is already some 10 to 100 times safer than coal fired electricity generation, and far more environmentally benign, so achieving this requirement is not an issue.
The Australian Government cannot be taken seriously on climate change without adopting nuclear as part of its policy. But they are unlikely to implement good policy. If they implement policies that make it a high cost option, this will defeat the purpose.
1.will cut Australia’s GHG emissions from electricity generation by 8% of current levels by 2020 and by 80% by 2050;
2.is by far the least cost option to cut emissions; and
3.will give the least cost electricity of options to cut emissions.
How will this be achieved?
1.Coal power stations will be decommissioned at the rate of 1.4 GW per year.
a.They will be decommissioned as they reach their retirement age,
b.together with a small component of government buy back in a “Cash for Clunkers” scheme
2.They will be replaced with (mostly):
a.Natural gas generation until 2020, then with
b.Nuclear and efficient Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT) until 2025, then
c.Nuclear (mostly) to 2050.
3.Coal with Carbon Capture and Storage and geothermal may play a role if they become commercially viable.
4.Wind and solar power will have only a minor role unless major technological advances are achieved
5.Some Pumped-hydro will be built using existing dams – for example by connecting existing dams in the Snowy Mountains.
1.A project like a modern version of the Snowy Mountains Scheme initially (to about 2025) to get it through about the first 15 years;
2.A Sir William Hudson type person in charge;
3.“Early Wins” – Establish research facilities in at least one major university in every state; and
4.Research – A significant component of the research will focus on how to implement nuclear energy at least cost in Australia. [For example, how will we avoid the political, NIMBY, regulatory and bureaucratic problems that have raised the cost of nuclear in USA and EU.]
Level playing field for electricity generators
What would be a genuine level playing field for electricity generators”?
1.Remove all mandatory requirements (e.g. the Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets)
2.Remove all subsidies for electricity generation
3.Remove all tax incentives and other hidden incentives that favour one generator technology over another
4.Ensure that regulations apply equally for all types of generators. Set up a system to allow electricity generator companies to challenge anything that is impeding a level playing field
5.Emissions and pollution regulations must be the same for all industries and should be based on safety and health effects on an equal basis.
Policy implications of “Emission Cuts Realities – Electricity Generation”
Some policy implications of the paper: “Emission Cuts Realities – Electricity Generation” (Lang, 2010)
1.Mandating renewable energy is bad policy
2.If we are serious about cutting GHG emissions, we’d better get serious about implementing nuclear energy as soon as possible
3.If we want to implement nuclear power we’ll need to focus on how to do so at least cost, not with the sorts of high cost regimes imposed in USA and EU
4.We should not raise the cost of electricity. We must do all we can to bring clean electricity to our industries and residents at a cost no higher than the least cost option
5.Therefore, ETS/CPRS is exactly the wrong policy
Following is a proposed schedule for Australia’s federal Government, noting that our next Federal budget is in May 2010.
May 2010 – Federal Budget contains funding for the following to be implemented during 2010-2011:
1.Establishment of a modern version of the Snowy Mountains Authority. Terms of Reference: to implement low emissions electricity generation in Australia such that electricity costs less than from fossil fuel generation.
2.Funding for nuclear engineering faculties in at least one university in every mainland State
3.Funding of research will be largely for the social engineering aspects of implementing nuclear energy in Australia at least cost.
2010 – Government announces policies:
1.to allow nuclear energy to be one of the options for electricity generation;
2.to remove all the impediments that favour or discriminate one generator system or technology over another;
3.that 20% of emissions will be from low emissions generator mix by 2020 and 80% by 2050. A ‘low emission generator mix’ is a mix of generators that can provide power on demand and meet the emissions limits that will be phased in and become more stringent over time. For example, the limit might be 200 kg CO2-e/MWh in 2020 and 10 kg CO2-e/MWh in 2050. The rate would decrease progressively over time – but not necessarily linearly. The rate does not apply to a single generator. It applies to a company’s mix of generators. The 2020 limit could be achieved by a mix of 50% high efficiency CCGT combined with 50% of one of the following: nuclear, hydro, biomass, geothermal, solar thermal with its own energy storage. Wind cannot meet the 200 kg CO2-e/MWh for the reasons explained here: https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/09/emission-cuts-realities/
4.to buy back some old coal generators at a fair price in a “cash for clunkers” scheme
5.to conduct first public awareness forums throughout Australia.
2012 – Government announces policies to:
1.allow nuclear power plants to be established in Australia and under what conditions;
2.allow States to bid to host the first nuclear power station and the conditions for selection of the state – this will include a time frame for site selection to be complete by 2013 (I know its fast, but if its urgent we need to get on with it!). In the absence of states bidding and agreeing to meet the schedule the first NPP will be build on Commonwealth owned and controlled land.
3.Establish arrangements with IAEA to act as our Nuclear Regulatory Authority until we are ready to take over.
2013 –Source selection starts for our first four or five NPPs
2014 – Contract awarded for first four or five NPPs
2015 – Construction begins
2019 – First NPP commissioned.
2020 – Second NPP commissioned, and so on,
Regarding the rates assumed here for implementing nuclear power, remember that Hanford B was built in 21 months from first breaking of ground until the plant went critical (ASME (1976). That was in 1944. Admittedly this was not an electricity generating plant, but it was the first ever large nuclear plant. If we could do that 65 years ago with the first ever, why can’t we build nuclear power plants quickly now??
Lang, 2010. Emission Cuts Realities – Electricity Generation
(please click on the link to the pdf version because it contains the footnotes, references and appendices; these are not included in the abridged version on the web)
ASME (1976). Hanford B-Reactor
536 replies on “Alternative to Carbon Pricing”
@ Peter: on a serious note, I thoroughly agree with your point here.
////None of these groups are arguing for a level playing field for electricity generation. They are all arguing for renewable energy targets and subsidies. The federal and state government are subsidising Underground Coal Gassification. The NSW government is subsidising coal for NSW electricity generators – the NSW government is opening up a new, government owned and government operated coal mine and has guaranteed to supply coal at about half commercial price for 20 years to NSW power stations.////
I wish energy supply was on the basis of a level market, I really do. But it isn’t. So given that the likes of Tim Flannery have produced a green political culture that values pricing carbon SO THAT the marketplace can finally receive a loud and clear signal and adapt, let us run with that and argue for a pro-nuclear policy. No amount of anti-carbon tax blogging is going to actually change what happens in Canberra, even if you were to ‘convert’ everyone here to your POV.
You also ask some important questions.
////1. Carbon pricing needs to be very high to achieve the 2020 targets – high enough to cause a very deep, very long recession.
2. Such a retrenchment of the economy will have devastating consequences for real people – much worse effects than Paul Keating’s “The recession we had to have”.
3. Taking this pain will make absolutely no difference to the climate. So a lot of pain for no gain.////
I think your conclusion is too narrowly B&W here. You assume there are no other ways to mitigate carbon other than substituting exactly the same amount of electricity that we use today with nuclear. Now while I am a fan of substituting megatons of carbon with nuclear power, we also know there are ‘nega-tons’ of carbon to be discovered in building more functional people centered city designs. New Urbanism and eco-city designs WILL become more popular as the carbon price begins to bite. Indeed, they already are! As I shared above, Prof Peter Newman explains how young people are opting for no-car inner city lifestyles on this episode of The Science Show. These are measurable demographics, so don’t be lazy in your attempt to write it off as ‘hippy crap’.
So not only are you a bit simplistic in equating “Carbon Tax = economic depression”, but can I also suggest you put these questions to Julia Gillard and your local MP, not KEEP banging BNC members over the head with it? That’s all we object to here. You repeatedly nag BNC members in your personal crusade to install your very particular economic worldview on everyone. We’re sick of it. Ultimately this blog is about the benefits of nuclear power, NOT endlessly debating exactly which nano-point you defend on the political wing.
Peter you keep reciting the mantra there are no benefits to carbon pricing only costs. Then I and others point out there are are major benefits and costs avoided. Undaunted you repeat the mantra and it’s getting tedious. I will concede that cutting 160 Mt CO2 by 2020 is a very tough ask. I propose carbon taxing coal and LNG exports and I’m not the first to make that suggestion.
Indeed much of what I’m saying is not very original but it turns out many people have independently come to similar conclusions, Even the dead trees Sunday paper carries an article evidently sourced from here http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/myth-busters
The Nuclear Australia website lists some eminent scientists and Nobel laureates who support carbon pricing. Can plebs and scientists alike all be wrong? That would seem to require some cult like brainwashing process. If anything sounds like a cult it is the drone of of the no-benefit-to-carbon-pricing mantra.
////Undaunted you repeat the mantra and it’s getting tedious.////
But don’t expect any other behaviour John. He’s had this pointed out to him a quadrillion times already, but he’s broken, autistic even. He’ll just skip your post — because it doesn’t agree with the presuppositions that so dominate his worldview — and copy and paste his big 3 questions again. Oh goody, let’s watch!
You say I am being tedious. But that is what I find of you are being by continually posting the same comments, without addressing to mine. I refute yours, you do not address what I’ve said, but then post the same comment again later.
For example, I’ve pointed out, repeatedly, why we can’t and shouldn’t impose taxes on exports. You have not addressed those arguments. So please stop positing that silly argument.
You say I haven’t addressed your arguments. I refute that. I have continually replied to your comments, often sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph. But you have continually avoided responding to my comments or answering my questions. For example, you have not responded to this:
If this point is not clear, why don’t you ask for clarification. The key point is that the carbon price necessary to achieve the targets will not make the slightest difference to the climate, will have a seriously damaging effect on the economy – that means on real people’s lives. So significant pain for no gain Also, importantly, you have steadfastly avoided even considering the rational alternative. The fact that you, Barry and others are avoiding considering the alternative is what makes me seriously question what is the real agenda.
Another example, neither you, not Barry, nor anyone else has responded (seriously) to this set of genuine, serious questions:
The fact that no one has responded (seriously) I find telling.
I’ve never disagreed we need to cut GHG emissions. What I’ve been arguing is we should do it in an economically rational way. And I’ve asked you to show that the proposed Australian carbon tax will in fact cut emissions as is being implied (i.e. to achieve the 2020 target which amounts to cutting emissions by 160 Mt/a).
Regarding your moral argument, as I’ve said before, moral arguments carry no weight with me at all. What is a moral argument to some, is an immoral argument to others. For example, the same sorts of groups who argue for cutting emissions no matter what the cost on moral grounds, previously argued that DDT should be banned for moral reasons, nuclear should be blocked for moral reasons and renewable energy should be mandated and subsidised for moral reasons. They are silent on whether the damage their irrational policies cause to the economy, and therefore to real people, can be justified on moral grounds.
///. I refute yours, you do not address what I’ve said, but then post the same comment again later.///
Where did you do that exactly? What crap! No wonder people can’t take you seriously.
Low and behold, there’s the copy and paste of the 3 questions again! I can read you like a book Peter.
///The fact that no one has responded (seriously) I find telling.///
Nice ignore on the increasing demographics on the New Urbanism front. If all new constructions from 2011 are more energy efficient passive solar thermally insulated homes, with latent thermal mass and clever air-flow reducing the need for air-conditioning significantly, then we’ll see some amazing energy use changes over time.
If we limited population growth in this country then they’d really start to affect Co2 curves.
But I notice you just ducked away from ‘The Science Show’ demographics? I predicted you’d just ignore it as hippie crap, but it’s measurable statistics from the ABS! Grow up Peter.
As I said above…
////He’ll just skip your post — because it doesn’t agree with the presuppositions that so dominate his worldview — and copy and paste his big 3 questions again. Oh goody, let’s watch! ////
////I’ve never disagreed we need to cut GHG emissions. ////
That’s an outright lie! Your whole demeanour to Barry about climate science is one of sneering sarcasm; on a par with your attitude that these precious fossil fuels of yours could be about to peak and decline. If this is the state of the right-wing in Australia then our electorate is as politically blind and delusional as America. It makes me ashamed to have ever linked to anything Peter Lang has written. I just don’t trust him to be objective — on anything.
I’ve just looked back at your last comment @ 6 March 2011 at 10:59 AM. I didn’t answer this comment in detail because it was so way out I couldn’t see the point, especially since I seem to be forever answering your points directly, but you won’t answer mine. You never seem to give a straight, direct response.
Despite this, I’ll respond to your first three sentences, and then hopefully, finally, you will respond directly to my specific questions and points (detailed in my previous comments).
The escape clauses is irrelevant in the context of the point I am making. It won’t matter if there are no escape clauses a carbon price cannot deliver the committed emissions cuts (160 Mt/a by 2020) without a deep recession. The reasons is population growth will occur, and we cannot cut energy intensity or emissions intensity fast enough in 8 years given that there are no realistically viable fuel switching options that will allow us to reduce emissions by 160 Mt/a. So the comment about escape clauses is a furphy.
The blame game is always on. The point is that the carbon tax is the wrong option. It cannot cut emissions as is being implied by the government without deep recession. The carbon tax is much more about politics than policy. It is bad policy. The correct decisive policy would be to implement economically rational policy. But the Government and Garnaut and BNCers are not even prepared to consider it. So if the blame game is going to be on, it should be pointed directly at 40 years of blocking nuclear, and 20 years since Bob Hawke re-blocked nuclear and 5 years since Rudd blocked nuclear again. That is where the blame game needs to be pointed.
It is not me advocating inaction. I am advocating action – correct, economically rational action. It is clearly you and Barry and the BNCers who do not want to even discuss or consider economically rational polices; by rejecting rational policy you are, in effect, advocating inaction. By advocating bad policy you are advocating in action because enough of the electorate are aware it is bad policy to be very concerned about it. They will be more concerned if it gets close to being passed by the Parliament.
You go on to making up some thought bubbles about “marginal effect of voting” and “compulsory superannuation”. However, these are just thought bubbles without any substantiation. I’ve dismissed many of previous thought bubbles like this up thread, so I’d ask you, if you are genuine to take your turn at answering my questions, specifically and directly without any dodging or weaving. I would be looking for quantitative answers, supported by calculations, listing of assumptions and references.
I agree it is getting tedious. You are frustrated with me because I keep asking the same questions. I am frustrated with you because you don’t answer my questions nor respond to my points. If you don’t start off by acknowledging my points, then I don’t know if you have read them, understood then, or considered them. When you don’t start off by acknowledging that you have considered the point, I get the impression that you are playing a sort of political game where you avoid the point I make and open up a new point so you don’t have to address the point I’ve made. This is a common political debating tactic, but not what I would expect from an engineer who is genuinely looking for solutions.
I have never said there are no costs of warming. This is a complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what I’ve been saying. What I’ve been saying is that economically rational is the best way to maximise the benefits and minimise the costs. It will reduce emissions the fastest. I’ll repeat that point. Economically rational policy will reduce emissions the fastest. Please acknowledge that you understand that that is what I am saying. (as an aside, I don’t know how you could have misunderstood. This is why have to repeat myself because you continually misunderstand or misrepresent what I’ve been saying).
Carbon Tax = Recession – deeper than “The Recession we had to have”
Carbon pricing cannot achieve the 2020 emissions targets without causing a deep, sustained recession – much deeper than Paul Keating’s “Recession we had to have”.
Emissions are the product of population, per capita GDP, energy intensity and carbon intensity. ( http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2010.36.pdf )
Population is growing and energy intensity and carbon intensity cannot be cut sufficiently by 2020. Therefore, to achieve the 2020 emissions targets we’d have to cut GDP.
Australia’s targets mean we must cut emissions by 160 Mt/a by 2020. Replacing Hazelwood coal power station with combined cycle gas turbines would save about 12 Mt/a and may be complete by perhaps 2017. But where would the remaining 148 Mt/a come from? Efficiency improvements cannot achieve much and, with higher electricity prices, electricity will not replace fossil fuels for transport or direct combustion (e.g. gas for heating).
So what is left? The only way we could achieve the targets is with a deep, long depression. GDP would have to be cut back to well below 2000 levels. That is, GDP would have to be cut back far worse than in the depths of Paul Keating’s recession.
See also: Once we legislate a carbon tax we’re stuffed
////I’ve just looked back at your last comment @ 6 March 2011 at 10:59 AM. I didn’t answer this comment in detail because it was so way out I couldn’t see the point, especially since I seem to be forever answering your points directly, but you won’t answer mine. You never seem to give a straight, direct response.////
You mean you’re *actually* going to try and answer John? Even though John is *obviously* being so — how did you put it — ‘way out’?
See what an arrogant, patronising, dishonest little troll you are? You are now admitting you DIDN’T answer John, when your previous whine was exactly the opposite. You then dismiss the superannuating argument as a ‘thought bubble’ but that doesn’t ACTUALLY dismiss it does it now Peter darling? Time to be honest now, you’re not very good at:
* Actually addressing the point
* Engaging people in a way that doesn’t totally patronise and piss them off.
////I agree it is getting tedious. You are frustrated with me because I keep asking the same questions. I am frustrated with you because you don’t answer my questions nor respond to my points. If you don’t start off by acknowledging my points////
You’re only going to get this patronising accusation out of Peter. He’s an internet troll. I recommend we simply stop feeding him. The more we respond here, the more ‘reward’ Peter gets and it reinforces his delusion that he’s actually making a difference here. If we just stop rewarding him with excuses to keep nagging on this thread, and unsubscribe it and ignore it, maybe he’ll just end up using this as thread has his own personal blog to an audience of 1, himself?
I mean, just revisit the definition of an internet troll and check off the components that apply to Peter Lang.
////In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in “that was an excellent troll you posted”. While the term troll and its associated action trolling are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with trolling being used to describe intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, recent media accounts have used the term troll to describe “a person who defaces internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families.”////
Great News on Carbon Pricing
Record Labor Low on Carbon Fury
More here …
ALP loses its licence to campaign on global warming
Read more here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/alp-loses-its-licence-to-campaign-on-global-warming/story-e6frg6zo-1226017351083
What this should mean for BNCers approach from now on
Carbon pricing is clearly not acceptable to the electorate. The majority are too smart. The majority still want to cut emissions – (as do I). But they do not want to take the pain when they realise it would be for no gain. That is the point that John Newlands, Barry, and others have not recognised, or if they have, they have not been prepared to acknowledge it.
So what should BNCers do now? I’d urge BNCers to now engage in what this thread has been urging for over a year. We should work out what are the alternatives to carbon pricing. We should investigate the economically rational alternative to carbon pricing. Then we should explain the economically rational alternative to the public and the politicians. Barry would be fantastic at this if he could accept that carbon pricing is not the right approach for Australia to take – at least until (i) the impediments that would prevent nuclear being higher cost than coal in Australia have been identified and removed, and (ii) the main CO2 emitting countries have agreed an international mechanism for internalising the cost of emissions.
Peter again avoids the fact that oil is trading above $100 a barrel.
Peter again avoids the peer-reviewed geological papers that indicate we are facing peak oil and gas sooner rather than later, and could even be facing peak coal in the next few decades.
Peter again avoids the facts. Run Peter, run from the data. Divert us with personal insults. Whine and bitch about a Carbon Tax when you of all people should be aware of how the marketplace will react when we hit geological limits of these commodities.
I’m glad that your Denialism of both the peer reviewed geological papers and the peer reviewed climate science is now out in the open. People will judge accordingly.
Just for fun, maybe you can try and explain to us all why the candle becomes invisible to the thermal camera? That would be great.
Candle demonstration starts at 1 minute 30 seconds.
The raw physics wins over the sceptics.
Typo, this sentence should have read…
1. You then wrote a totally irrelevant article about how ABARE’s had a few good pricing projections for *domestic* resources.
But I kept emphasising that they were caught with their pants down before the Senate Committee by not factoring in GLOBAL peak oil with their prices!
So the simple reality Peter is that anyone who bothers to click below can see that you started becoming defensive of ABARE *after* I showed the Senate scolding ABARE for not considering global peak oil, and that your whole article was eventually written to prove my criticisms of ABARE wrong. Which you of course failed to do because you projected domestic resources only, and did not look at how the WORLD price for oil is set by WORLD resource constraints and markets for oil.
So sulk away and try and cast me as an irrelevant troll, but the link below shows that you wrote that article AFTER I started criticising ABARE, in RESPONSE to my criticising ABARE, and that I was totally ON TOPIC to then come in and highlight the main fault with your article — it focussed on the tiny dribble of oil here in Australia and ignored the Tsunami of dying oil fields at the global level.