Categories
Emissions Nuclear Renewables

Take real action on climate change – Part 1

A recent BNC guest post, Public advocacy on nuclear power and climate change, stirred up some really useful ideas. In that post’s comments thread, it was discussed how we, as a concerned and engaged internet community (the BNC crowd, and similar groups like Energy from Thorium), could engage more effectively with the broader public domain on the issue of realistic and affordable solutions for solving climate change and providing long-term energy security. Right now, the public in most developed countries are either totally ‘switched off’ on energy issues (i.e., don’t care), or have idealistic and impractical visions of what is feasible (i.e., don’t understand). This needs to change, urgently… but how?

In response to this discussion, the following guest post has been compiled by my sister, Marion Brook, with help from another BNC commenter, ‘Ms Perps’. Marion, is — like many traditional ‘greens’ — an intelligent and well-educated person, and is completing a linguistics and archaeology degree at the University of New England (Armidale). However, she is not a scientist, and this really is the point of this proposed campaign. She is coming at this problem as an informed member of the public, and as a ‘rational green’ environmental advocate (Stewart Brand calls such people ‘ecopragmatists‘). She represents a key demographic that must be reached — and persuaded to ‘come on board’ — if the Western environmental movement is to develop a really serious and scientifically responsible position on carbon emissions reduction and sustainable development.

Part I of this post covers various underlying goals, and a range of possible advocacy positions. Your input and ideas here are really needed to improve (and possibly expand) upon this material — this is just a draft! In part II, which I will post up on BNC in a few days time, a first pass attempt at the FAQ sheet answers will be supplied. For now, however, we give only the questions. If you can think of other obvious ones at this stage, let us know. In the comments of Part II we hope to add to, and improve upon, the FAQ list.

The ultimate goal of Part I and II will be to create a static page on the top banner of BNC, as well as developing a resource that you can all use to get the message out there to the wider public.

—————————————————-

Our Primary Goal

Avert catastrophic climate change.

Our Secondary Goal: in pursuit of our primary goal

Remove the ban on nuclear power in Australia and include it as an assessable option in our climate change mitigation strategy.

Take Action

● Print out our posters (or make your own) and put it up in a high traffic area, i.e. not just on your fridge.

Poster #1If You’re Serious About Climate Change, You’re Serious About Nuclear Power

Poster #2Nuclear Power or Climate Change — You Choose

Poster #3Nuclear Waste — It’s Not the Problem, It’s the Solution (also this one [less graphical])

Poster #4Wind and Solar — Not Replacing Coal

Poster #5Renewables or Nuclear — Which Means Action on Climate Change?

● Print out and sign our petition (see below).

● With a permanent marker write your favorite pro-nuclear power slogan across your T-shirt. Wear it everywhere.

● Get rebellious, attend a climate rally carrying a pro-nuclear power placard.

● Speak up. Discuss nuclear power as a response to climate change with your friends, family and the annoyingly chatty passenger who keeps sitting next to you the train.

● Write letters to the newspaper, to your local MP or to Martin Ferguson, Minister for resources and energy

—————————————————-

FAQ*

Q1. How urgent is it to address climate change?

Q2.Why do we need nuclear power? Won’t renewables provide our needs?

Q3. We need to act fast, aren’t renewables the fastest response?

Q4. Aren’t renewables the most affordable option?

Q5. Isn’t it more important for us to scale down our energy requirements through energy efficiency and conservation?

Q6. Aren’t renewables our safest option?

Q7. Is nuclear energy fast enough?

Q8. Is nuclear energy safe?

Q9. What about radiation?

Q10. Is nuclear energy expensive?

Q11. What about the waste?

Q12. What about nuclear weapons proliferation?

Q13. Is there enough uranium?

Q14. Does nuclear emit more CO2 than renewables?

*For now, these are the questions we’ve tackled in Part II — details shortly. Can you add any obvious questions at this stage?

—————————————————-

Did you know?

Renewables are failing to replacing coal and gas. Despite valiant attempts in some countries, non-hydro renewables have failed to replace a single fossil fuel power station worldwide.

Renewables are failing to prevent new FF plants being built. Without nuclear power to turn to, renewables are reinforcing the building of new fossil fuel plants, especially gas, to “back-up” their intermittency and variability. Unnatural Gas (by Tom Blees)

Renewables are failing to reduce emissions. France’s emissions = 90 g CO2/kWh. Compare this to the three countries in the EU with the highest non-hydro renewable penetration: Denmark @ 650g, Spain @ 443 g and Germany @ 539 g.

Renewables are failing to address climate change.

—————————————————-

The 100 club

The 100 club‘ is a list we’ve compiled of all the countries in the world whose CO2 emissions from electricity generation fall below 100 g per kilowatt hour (kWh)

Iceland – 1 g

Democratic Republic of Congo – 4 g

Norway – 5 g

Zambia – 7 g

Ethiopia – 11 g

Nepal – 13 g

Costa Rica – 15 g

Cameroon – 16 g

Switzerland – 22 g

Tajikistan – 38 g

Sweden – 48 g

Albania – 51 g

Uruguay – 55 g

France – 90 g

Brazil – 93 g

There are only five developed countries in this list (in red). How did they manage to get there?

Iceland is largely hydro power and conventional geothermal (not hot dry rock).

Norway is nearly 100% hydro power.

Both Switzerland and Sweden are about half hydro and half nuclear power.

France is 77% nuclear power with some hydro, coal and gas.

So, if we want to get into ‘the 100 club’ it looks like we have four choices: conventional geothermal, hydro power, nuclear power or third world living conditions.

—————————————————-

A changing tide in nuclear power support

Today, the world has two really pressing problems — overcoming poverty, which demands industrial development, and the challenges of climate change and ecological sustainability — which demand low carbon and low polluting solutions. Increasingly, those who favour both social justice and ecological sustainability are coming to recognise that nuclear power is indispensable if we wish to avoid trading one for the other.

By way of example, here is a list, including environmentalists, climate scientists, union leaders, and politicians, who have come to support nuclear power as our surest response to climate change.

Barry Brook – Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide. AUS

Tim Flannery – zoologist, conservationist and author of “The Weather Makers”. AUS

Paul Howes – Australian Workers Union. AUS

Bob Carr – Former NSW Labor Premier. AUS

Stephen Tindale – Former Director of UK Greenpeace. UK

Chris Goodall – UK Green Party member. UK

Mark Lynas – Environment editor “New Statesman” (and former UK Green Party member). UK

George Monbiot – Journalist for “The Guardian”. UK (he supports nuclear as a potential part of the low-carbon energy mix)

Stewart Brand – Editor of the Whole Earth Catalog. USA

James Hansen – Head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (popularly known as the grandfather of climate science). USA

James Lovelock – Scientist, conservationist and originator of the Gaia hypothesis. UK

Warren Mundine – Chairman of the Australian Indigenous Chamber of Commerce. AUS

—————————————————-

Petition in support of:

Including zero emissions nuclear power as a clean energy option

The people of Australia demand adequate action on climate change. Renewable energy is too slow and too expensive. Worldwide renewables are proving to be ineffective tools in emissions reduction. Pursuing renewables alone will lead to dangerous climate change.

Your petitioners request that the Federal Parliament:

1. Remove the ban on nuclear power in Australia.

2. Include nuclear power as an assessable option in our climate change mitigation strategy.

3. Ensure Australia’s energy security without compromising our future.

Name Address Signature
test test test
test test test
test test test
test test test

Send to:

Martin Ferguson

Minister for Resources and Energy

Suite MF 23

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

—————————————————-

Petition in support of:

A zero emissions nuclear power replacement for Hazelwood

Continuing to operate Hazelwood, one of the most CO2 emissions intensive power stations in the world , ignores the climate concerns of both Victorians and the broader Australian community. We demand the Victorian government take climate change seriously and replace Hazelwood with clean energy. We acknowledge this cannot be achieved with our current renewable technologies. It can be achieved with zero emissions nuclear power.

Your petitioners request that the Victorian Parliament:

1. Lobby the federal and state governments to repeal legislated bans on zero emissions nuclear power.

2. Replace Hazlewood coal-fired power station with nuclear power.

3. Ensure Victorian’s energy security without compromising our future.

Name Address Signature
test test test
test test test
test test test
test test test

Send to:

Peter Batchelor,

Minister for Energy and Resources and the Arts

Level 20, 1 Spring Street

Melbourne VIC 3003

—————————————————-

Because nuclear power offers us abundant affordable energy it can:

● Help the developing world free itself from poverty, disease, and hardship without endangering the planet.

● Desalinate sea water to provide fresh drinking water for increasingly drought effected regions.

● Recycle our waste through plasma converters and reduce our materials consumption.

● Manufacture synfuels for heavy vehicles.

● Provide emission free electricity for electric cars, and eventually replace oil.

● Power our manufacturing industries, giving Australia the cleanest steel, aluminium and (electric) cars in the world.

● Power energy-intensive geoengineering projects which may become necessary to draw down CO2.

—————————————————-

Slogans

Nuclear Power – Yes Please

Nuclear Power = Climate action

Nuclear Power – The Power of Equality

Renewables + Fossil Fuels = Climate Change

Renewables + Nuclear Power = Climate Action

Put all energy cards on the table to fix climate change fully

Renewable energy cannot sustain an energy intensive society

(or, for dose of pragmatic realism…)

Nuclear Power or Climate Change

Take Your Pick

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

By Barry Brook

Barry Brook is an ARC Laureate Fellow and Chair of Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania. He researches global change, ecology and energy.

176 replies on “Take real action on climate change – Part 1”

Marion – I think your characterisation of middle Australia is pretty spot on. In terms of what to do with coal I suggest we use it to make electricity and steel for the next 40 or so years. Unless you think we can build a nuclear future with the lights off.

Like

Ewen, your right of course, the far left come in many colours. Perhaps I should have said the green left. As a general rule I find the most strident anti-nuclear types come from the green left. They’re the wrong people to target. I say this as someone who’s spent most of her life voting Greens. It kills me that the Greens would rather go brown than give up on anti-nuclear ideology.

Like

Marion, I’ll take a stab at it.

In the meantime, here’s another frequently asked question:

Isn’t small scale, decentralized, local power generation a better choice than a large, expensive, industrial power station?

Like

“Finally, no matter how many environmentalists may support your cause it would not hurt to have a few sceptics lined up with you. You can count on me for one.”

This is yet another reason nuclear power has great potential for climate change mitigation – many climate change deniers/skeptics support it too.

The main emphasis should remain on climate change though. A large majority of the population wants to see action on it, even though most don’t really take it that seriously. This is where gallopingcamel is quite correct – the science is fairly useless unless you get the economics right. Until you get the economics on climate change mitigation right (i.e. what is achievable in the real world), mitigation won’t happen.

Like

Hi Tom,
what about peak oil activists such as myself? A few years ago I thought peak oil was so dire society would collapse before we could burn the remaining fossil fuels! (Admittedly this was a hasty conclusion in the middle of a family crisis that coloured my perceptions somewhat: but the real shock was that there were so many people with the same conclusion without the same family crisis colouring their perceptions).

Hmm, on the other hand I don’t think the peak oil doomers I know would embrace abundant cheap energy because it conflicts with their ‘energy descent’ Powerdown ideology.

Anyway, you never know who those posters are going to recruit, so put em up and see what happens!

Like

I take your point about the Green Left Marion, but I do think we must at least try to get them to become agnostic.

My sense is that there are growing numbers who are at least willing to have a discussion that doesn’t descend into catcalling. When I was out campaigning alongside The Greens in Bradfield a little while back, I did get a fair hearing and some sympathy for the case.

If we could swing them to being neutral, the ALP would not fear being wedged on the left.

Like

Fran
I think Marion’s post came out of her conviction that, all you needed to achieve, would be a majority of people (including Green Lefties) who would not oppose nuclear power, if it were proposed to the electorate. The beauty of this approach being, that the vast majority of apathetic voters don’t have to actually DO anything.

Like

I actually think the number of people who would change their vote, either for or against a party, on the basis of the nuclear power issue is quite small. Except perhaps in the locality where you actually build the nuclear power plant.

Like

Thanks Terje for drumming up support for us at Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy http://www.efn.org.au – much appreciated !

And fear-not Ewen about the wedge thing. I do not even know anybody in the Liberal heirarchy. Even the one guy I spoke to in 2007 is gone ! I have met the people from almost all the minor parties, and so has Terje. They are almost without exception people who are serious about a cause, and prepared to do the hard yards.

Put some real thought into helping guys. Blogging is great but there is a real world out there to convert. secretary@efn.org.au

Like

Richard, thanks for your feedback. Can you suggest what would be most useful for EFN-Australia? What does your priority list look like at present? Is it to get re-registered with the AEC? And then…?

Like

Richard McNeall, could you detail the formation process of the party to begin with? I understand that EFN Australia was originally the Australian branch of an international pro-nuclear advocacy group, which later formed itself into a political party. What sort of consultative process was used to obtain consent from the membership for this change? How did it go? Was it a smooth process?

Like

@J Morgan re: https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/06/21/take-real-cc-action-p1/#comment-75848

There was a recent attempt on another thread by the BNC Canadian whisky connoisseur to play down the coronal mass ejection scenario’s impact on power grids (he seems to say that as NPPs are more local than long-distance power lines bringing RE power eg Quebec hydro – or solar North African desert-generated power – to CAN or EU cities from far away, this removes/alleviates the induced voltage problem.)

Please note that the GRID bill, aimed at securing US grid security and specifically mentioning and defining “geomagnetic storm” and precautionary measures to be taken, has however just passed the US House of Reps.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:1:./temp/~c111u0pcop::

This implies that any pro-nuke campaign in AU aiming at increasing societal dependence on the grid ought to highlight the danger to, ie fear for, the AU grid, and to propose solutions, nowithstanding that ice cores seem to reveal Carrington Events as in 1859 recurring only every 500 years. But that period is within the forecast consumption of current spent fuel by IFRs, is it not.

In 1859, there was no grid, merely telegraph lines.
Fear has historically always been a useful political tool in manipulation.

The smaller and more local the NPP, the lower the induced voltage risk, I would have thought, whereby the feasibility and cost of putting Faraday Cages around everything is not clear.

Closing, the current state of knowledge/uncertainty about what the Sun is up to as of 2010 can be googled in seconds.

Like

Peter Lalor, nuclear power stations built close to population centres make continental-scale power grids less necessary than they are in the fantasies of ‘renewables’ advocates.

Like

There are other sources of nuclear power! and LESS waste to get rid of by far!!!!

I have recently been introduced to Thorium….. Thanks to similar radioactive properties to the uranium used to power the world’s nuclear reactors – and its by product, plutonium, used in nuclear weapons – thorium can also be used to power a controlled nuclear reaction that heats water, producing steam to power turbines that produce large quantities of electricity.

PLUS POINT: From an environmental perspective, the good news about thorium is that it’s far less radioactively damaging than uranium: its naturally occurring form, monazite, is said to be reasonably safe for human exposure, while the waste products from its use in a nuclear reactor decay remain dangerous for only a fraction as long – decades instead of thousands of years, by some accounts.

So Uranium and Plutonium can take thousands of years to decay safely, but Thorium does it in just a few decades?

Read on…………. http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/06/nuclear-terror-nightmares-are-made-of.html

Like

Peter Lalor

“But that period is within the forecast consumption of current spent fuel by IFRs, is it not. ”

What does that have to do with solar storms exactly? Where did you draw the connection between transmission lines and nuclear fuel in your post?

Did I miss something?

Like

Bravo Marion! This is exactly the kind of outreach I’ve been hoping for from BNC. I’ll be putting up posters soon.

Like

Poster idea: ram one idea home at a time, and simply circulate the posters over time. One week has a poster advertising the waste aspect is solved, another emphasises cost comparisons compared to renewables, and around we go. I think any poster that tries to say everything at once will probably end up incoherent, and on the other hand any poster that is *too* thin on the detail will get rejected out of hand as pro-nuke big corporation evil.

So on the ‘waste’ front I thought something like this.

Newsflash: Nuclear ‘waste’ now worth $70 trillion dollars!
Generation IV reactors now eat nuclear ‘waste’. Rather than trying to store it for 100 thousand years, nuclear ‘waste’ is now an incredible resource equivalent in value to the entire $70 trillion dollar global economy! How can it be worth so much? According to Climatologist Dr Barry Brook, we could close all uranium mines because just using the ‘waste’ we already have will take 500 years! Nuclear waste: it’s not the problem, it’s the answer!

For more, please see bravenewclimate.com

Like

Peter Lalor – Canadians drink rye, not whiskey.

As I recall, I wrote that long transmission line were more vulnerable to solar electromagnetic storms, that does not imply that the rest of the grid is not impacted. However simple physics dictates that when a longer conductor is excited by a large magnetic flux, the induced currents are correspondingly higher, and thus the potential for damage rises.

While with good forecasting, and the proper apparatus installed the damage to generators and large inductors on the grid can be minimized, these events can cause transmission lines to fail more often in long-distance networks.

Like

In terms of EFN and the looming election I just want to say that given the current leadership crisis within the ALP and the low public appeal of the opposition leader I expect a lot of voters to look at parking their primary vote with some form of alternative. It is a good time to be a micro party. Assuming you’re on the ballot.

Like

Ewen – if EFN didn’t exist and the Liberal Party decided to bankroll it’s creation then I’d be heaping praise on the Liberal Party not criticism. However given the electoral laws they introduced I don’t see them as wanting more micro parties on the ballot. I don’t think EFN is a Liberal front, the idea simply isn’t that credible.

Like

There is the normal minor intermittency of refueling and repairs which are brief and predictable affecting NPPs, and there is the chronic, never-to-be-resolved unpredictable and massive intermittency of ‘renewable’ sources. These are hardly comparable.

Like

Finrod, on 24 June 2010 at 7.52 — There are also unscheduled SCRAMs, averaging about 1 per year per NPP world-wide, if I remember what Wikipedia page stated. So it is perfectly possible to compare the intermittency; NPPs win hands-down.

I’m suggesting that as part of your advert campaign.

Like

eclipsenow,

I’m with you on the counterintuitive message.
I have a t-shirt I made when I first found out about IFR, it reads:

Stop Uranium Mining.
Go IFR Nuclear Power.

It’s started a few good conversations.

Like

Barry, Marion,
Its fine to compare nuclear energy with renewable energy, but the comparisons have to be fair.
If Denmark produced 20% energy from nuclear rather than from renewable wind it would still have high CO2 emissions because of the 80% from coal.
The two highest poluting nations China and US both have considerable renewable and nuclear, you could equally claim neither nuclear nor renwewables have been able to stop increases in CO2 emissions!

As for Australia, we only generate 5% of stationary power from hydro but we do have considerabe hydro capacity and storage. Renewable advocates are not going to allow hydro to be excluded from the renewqable mix any more than wind or solar would be excluded.

Like

Neil, the point here is that Denmark, with 19% of its energy coming from wind, represents the world’s best result. No one has done better. France, with 78% nuclear, represents world’s best result. So, comparing best with best, which solution has done more to reduce emissions?

Like

Hydro power has nothing to do with wind/solar. It is an established and highly reliable form of power generation, recognised as such for over a century. Wind/solar (technosolar) is a worthless distraction, and its supporters are standing in the way of genuine solutions. They should be treated with the contempt and disgust they so richly deserve.

Like

“If Denmark produced 20% energy from nuclear rather than from renewable wind it would still have high CO2 emissions because of the 80% from coal.”

If Denmark produced 20% of it’s power from nuclear power stations, it might have actually succeeded in shutting down some coal stations, rather than needing to keep them all running at full blast to deal with wind intermittancy. Big time fail there, Neil.

Like

Now that Julia Gillard is the new PM, I’ll be writing to her urging her to drag her party into the 21st century on the need for a more realistic approach to reaching appropriate emissions reductions by putting the renewables, efficiencies, half-baked technologies etc at the bottom of the pile of energy alternatives. I’ll also let her know that the best way for Australia and the rest of the world for that matter, to address the emissions problem, will be for there to be a gradual phase out of coal and other fossil fuels for power generation and a world wide rapid uptake of nuclear power, including within developing countries. Energy experts around the world, including in Australia have been advocating this for some years. Could I suggest that all of you bloggers also write to Gillard , other ministers and your local members suggesting the above. Perhaps we should put together a submission calling for nuclear power to be included in our future energy agenda. Anybody want to join me?? How about it Marion now that you’ve actually got us thinking about positive action that should be taken to promote nuclear power. I have had a sticker on my car for a few years now which states “be cool with NUCLEAR” It’s been around for that time courtesy of my fellow members of the Australian Nuclear Forum, mostly retired scientists and researchers form ANSTO at Lucas Heights.

Like

I doubt that Labor is about to try it’s luck with a policy shift on Nuclear Power. Certainly not so long as the anti nuclear Greens loom large in the polls and sap votes from Labor. The only heartening thing from today’s political events for nuclear advocates is the fact that in politics circumstances can change quickly. What looks solid is often paper thin.

Like

@ Finrod

“If Denmark produced 20% energy from nuclear rather than from renewable wind it would still have high CO2 emissions because of the 80% from coal.”

If Denmark produced 20% of it’s power from nuclear power stations, it might have actually succeeded in shutting down some coal stations, rather than needing to keep them all running at full blast to deal with wind intermittancy. Big time fail there, Neil.

I wonder what the baseload / baseline capacity requirements will be of future grids? The nukies probably would like to see a 100% nuclear grid, but the windies seem to be too big an industry to kill off, and why should we, especially in the face of climate change and having to kill off the truly bad industry, coal and gas and oil.

So for a while I was upset that my “Better Place” sticker said “My next car will run on the wind” and not “My next car will run on a nuke!” but it seems we can’t have everything. I want electric cars, but I also want a huge roll out of 4th Gen nukes ASAP.

So here’s the question: Given electricity demand will no doubt rise as electric cars come to market, but also given there is some flexibility around that EV market because they can be, on average, plugged in 22 hours a day and so it doesn’t matter what time the wind blows… there will always be a market for it….

What percentage of the grid do you imagine could be wind in a mostly nuclear grid? 20% only like Denmark? Or with V2G EV’s coming, could it be higher? Or with solar thermal mixed in, higher still… for most of the time?

(Then, hypothetically, we have that fateful overcast week that also happens to be ‘quiet’ on the wind front, and finally we see blackouts because the pro-renewable ideologues won the day, and the grid crashed for a week, and society vows never again and goes to nukes the way it could have all along.)

Like

Why doesn’t the nuclear industry get feed-in tariffs? Or generalised RECs I’ll call NCECs (pronounced nakecks) for noncarbon energy credits.

I see Senator Xenophon has picked up on the silliness of heat pump water heaters getting solar rebates. Sen. Wong says they are renewable since the air is a heat source or sink or something. Back in the Triassic coal was sort of connected with air and sunlight so it should get a solar rebate.

Like

I have joined EFN and offered assistance – come on BNC crowd – get on board. Terry Krieg -a submission is a great idea – I will help all I can with that too if you decide to go ahead.
I am now resideing in the PM’s electorate :) – I may even offer to stand for ENP against her (even though I am a great admirer!)

Like

TerjeP, there are a few serious nuclear supporters in and around the ALP , Bob Carr, Bob Hawke, Paul Howes [AWU Secretary], Tom Kenyon and Chloe Fox, MHA’s in the SA Lower House. We need to get on their backs and urge them to speak up continuously for nuclear. I know that Julia is from the Left but would like to think that she might bring an open mind to the issue especially if she can actually understand that nuclear power is the world’s best hope to ameliorate greenhouse emissions. I’ll be writing to her along those lines and will contuinue to do so for as long as it takes. The penny [not Wong] will drop one day and they’ll all wonder why the hell it took so long to wake up and join the world as it goes increasingly nuclear.

Like

FYI, My email sent to all parliamentarians today:

Dear Julia

Everything I want from you is dependent on good economic management. Therefore:

1. I support an appropriate Resource Rent Tax. BUT, I do NOT support ANY attempt to apply taxes retrospectively
2. Do not damage our industries’ international competitiveness
3. No ETS until the world agrees
4. No ETS until the government has removed all the market distortions that make nuclear power more expensive than coal power.
5. Remove all government regulations that distort the electricity market (e.g. bans on nuclear power, excessive safety requirements, Renewable Energy Targets, Feed in Tariffs, subsides for renewable energy, tax breaks or any other distortion that favours one type of electricity generator over any other type).
6. No more waste on BER or ‘pink bats’ type federal government programs
7. NBN should not be government funded
8. Get the Commonwealth take over of the Health system right. It is not as it is now. It is a massive give-away of Commonwealth funds with no proper control or accountability for improved outcomes.

At the moment, my impression is the Federal Labor Government is incompetent at managing the finances of the country. My impression is that the Federal Labor Government is little better than the NSW Labor Government.

Like

John Newlands. 24th June 16.25

I think you are being unduly dismissive of heat pumps. which can make very significant energy savings.

To the extent that subsidies are used at all, I would prefer to see them applied to heat pumps and insulation in preference to non hydro renewables.

I am unconvinced by the economics of ground source heat pumps, but we are installing air source pumps in our business even without subsidy. For validation, I would refer you to David Mackay’s “Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air.”

Sorry if this is OT.

Like

DW I’m not against heat pumps just the Orwellian doublespeak of deeming them honorary solar devices in order to hand out a subsidy. I think the reverse approach is preferable, namely to make fossil fuel based energy reflect its wider costs. That way efficient devices will be pursued to reduce costs, ie a lower power bill, not to attract subsidies.

In fact I’m quite impressed with the earth as a coolness reservoir. In January it was 40C here but the air temp was just 16C in a deep cellar. Now I plan to run a LAN cable down that cellar so I can read BNC three metres underground. I note the residents of Baghdad experienced 54C last week with no air conditioning due to power cuts. That could be Adelaide in a few years, maybe even London will routinely hit 40 in summer.

Like

JN, I accept your response in part. The fact remains that , given a government policy of subsidy for renewables and efficient use of energy, it makes more sense to subsidise heat pumps than solar devices. Therefore, in my view, it is not unreasonable to consider heat pumps as honarary solar devices. I have similarly argued that, given a regime of subsidy, nuclear should be classed as an honarary renewable. I know Peter Lang would prefer regulation to subsidy but I am insufficiently skilled in economics to know which is to be preferred. However, I am certain that most here would agree that the current unlevel playing field is the worst of all approaches.

Like

“Finrod – I don’t think be is much into blogging. Ring him up. His number is on the website.”

What’s wrong, TerjeP? He was happy enough to post here to stir up support for his party. Why won’t he answer a few simple and pertinent questions in a public forum? Politicians are supposed to do that, aren’t they? Unless, of course, they don’t want those particular questions given public attention.

I’m seeking assurance that when EFN originally applied for registration as a federal political party they had the consent and support of of all those members on their membership list they claimed as supporters of the political party registration move. I’d like to be assured that the leadership didn’t just take the organisation’s membership list and claim the lot as supporters without going through the formality of actually asking them. I would very much like to be reassured on this point, and now that I’ve raised the issue, I reckon a few other people here would also appreciate such an assurance. This question goes to the heart of the ethics of an organisation, and I reckon it well worth pursuing.

Like

Finrod – Richard commented here because I rang him up and politely asked him to. If he wishes to participate in ongoing dialogue at this site it is up to him. I notice Bob Brown, Tony Abbott and Julie Gillard haven’t turned up to explain their position at all. Your questions are reasonable but I think you are being a little precious.

What I know of EFN is that in 2007 they ran as “Conservatives for Climate and Environment”. I believe that they contested in 2004 as “Liberals for Forests”. In 2009 they changed their name to “Environmentalists for a Nuclear Future”. I have little idea about how they decided to change their name but the website indicates it was unanimously decided at their AGM. I don’t know how many people were at their AGM but assuming 600 members and knowing how politics works in small parties I image that maybe 1% of the party (eg 6 people perhaps) gave enough of a toss to turn up to the meeting. A lot of the members probably only vaguely care.

Your concern seems to be in the creation of some pure democratically ideal political party that consults deeply with a mostly apathetic populous that likes to talk about stuff but never does anything. Fine. Waste your time on that if you wish. I thought it would be cool to have Nuclear Power in Australia but maybe we need perfect politcal parties instead. From my experience petty minded individuals such as yourself are in general a waste of time, more interested in choosing the right font and the correct logo than actually doing anything useful. If you can’t use a telephone you’re probably no good to the cause anyway. Happy blogging.

Like

https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/06/21/take-real-cc-action-p1/#comment-76247

@John Newlands, your figure of 16 C at 3 metres (floor or ceiling level?) below ground when it is 40 C above squares only roughly with a recent statement I read claiming 10 C difference per vertical metre anywhere in the world. That would have given you (40 – (3×10)) = 10C.

At Coober Pedy, constant underground house temp. is said to be 22, when it is 40 above. But what is the depth?

Is your cellar ceiling insolated ie is it north or south side of the house? Could you in theory store root veg. at 0-10 C if you dug down another metre? This seems implausible.

What are the local parameters affecting all this in Tasmania?

Like

@ TerjeP,

Your concern seems to be in the creation of some pure democratically ideal political party that consults deeply with a mostly apathetic populous that likes to talk about stuff but never does anything. Fine. Waste your time on that if you wish. I thought it would be cool to have Nuclear Power in Australia but maybe we need perfect politcal parties instead. From my experience petty minded individuals such as yourself are in general a waste of time, more interested in choosing the right font and the correct logo than actually doing anything useful. If you can’t use a telephone you’re probably no good to the cause anyway. Happy blogging.

There’s a lot in what you say TerjeP. Politics is a messy game and never perfect — as if we all needed reminding of that today! But can we tone it down a bit? We’re all on the same side here, right?

Blogging gets paranoid and weird: I’ve lost my temper in cyberspace more times than I care to remember, so my advice to all is to take some deep breaths.

Like

No need to concern yourself, EN. I anticipated that TerjeP would probably exhibit some such response. It doesn’t matter. I’m confident that most who comment here will recognise the reasons for my concern, and my sincerity and dedication to the pro-nuke cause. I shall continue to develop my organisation in an open and accessible manner. Should we ever reach the stage of forming a party, it will be one where all registered members are committed and active and ready to put their efforts where their mouths lead them… and when that time comes, we will be able to demonstrate our history and development openly. I believe that this will be a very important survival/resillience trait for a small party taking a controversial position.

Like

hould we ever reach the stage of forming a party, it will be one where all registered members are committed and active and ready to put their efforts where their mouths lead them… and when that time comes, we will be able to demonstrate our history and development openly. I believe that this will be a very important survival/resillience trait for a small party taking a controversial position.
Then I won’t be able to join as I’m in a career change. I’m happy to be a registered member that checks in here now and then and maybe does a poster once in a blue moon, but more than that… I’m out.

So would you rather not have me as a member of your idealistic, fanatically hard-working party, or have me as a number on your books helping with the registry process?

I’m a fan, but I don’t have time to be a fanatic.

Like

Should we ever reach the stage of forming a party, it will be one where all registered members are committed and active and ready to put their efforts where their mouths lead them

Finrod – if you exclude all those potential members that are not fully active or committed then you will be doing your proposed party a vast disservice. Most political parties have about 1% of the membership active at any given time. A party of 500 members with 5 who are active and committed can get registered and then appear on the ballot. If you only want active members you’re setting a bar that is 100 times harder. It is equivalent to saying we could register our pro nuclear party with it’s 500 members but we’re going to wait until we have 50,000 members because we think that’s the right thing to do. Given that the Australian Greens have been at politics for 38 years and still only have 10,000 members you’re dreaming. You are unfortunately deluded in your political thinking. As deluded as those people that think windmills can replace coal fired power stations. You need to get real. My concern is that if I’m polite about this it will take you decades to figure it out the hard way.

There’s a lot in what you say TerjeP. Politics is a messy game and never perfect — as if we all needed reminding of that today! But can we tone it down a bit?

Eclipse – My suggesting is that some people need to tone it up. I know my remarks are cutting but sitting around saying OM is not what causes political change. If you want to start a book club then insisting on active engaged members is great but if you want to register a political party you have to get real.

My rough rule of thumb is as follows:-

1 active member = 100 passive members = 10,000 voters.

You want a million votes then do the maths.

Like

TerjeP
Julia Gillard – new PM- is member for Lalor in Melbourne’s western suburbs – which is where I live.
Finrod – I would willingly join your party – if it existed. I am concerned that we are running out of time to get any information across in the next election, when I believe many people would like to send a message about urgent action on CC and the development of nuclear power to whichever party gains government. The ENF party movement is worldwide and credible. I believe one of the founding members in the British party is also a member of SCGI – is that correct Barry?
As such I am willing to accept that the local branch is above board, committed to the cause and non-partisan.
http://www.ecolo.org/ International website.

Like

“ou are unfortunately deluded in your political thinking.”

Says the bloke who, seeing a small, controversial political movement emerging at a seminal stage of its dewvelopment and surely knowing that the discussions on this thread will be scanned by our adversaries, goes on public record advocating electoral fraud as a pragmatic strategy. Kindly cease your conceit of lecturing me concerning political matters. Amusing as it is, it is becoming tiresome.

EclipseNow, you might not want to join a party, but Nucleus 92 isn’t the party, it’s just an advocacy group. Feel free to become a member of that in due course if you wish. I’ll let everyone know when we’re ready to expand interstate.

Like

Julia Gillard – new PM- is member for Lalor in Melbourne’s western suburbs – which is where I live.

Sorry. I’m still getting used to the change of PM.

Like

Ms Perps, I regret that I don’t currently have a party for you to join, and I can understand the motivation to go with EFN for the moment. I don’t think that in its current form the Australian EFN can be said to be just a local branch of an international org, and I have reservations about the local org. I believe that the inmportant election to aim for will be the 2013/2014 election, and I hope to have something prepared for that. We shall see, anyway.

I’m hoping Nucleus 92 (advocacy group) willl be able to go national before too long.

Like

Peter Lalor your formula suggests the cellar is more like 2.5m underground which could be the case. The threat of flooding may impose a depth limit so that 4m may be impractical. The host rock is a white clay. Results so far for storing vegetables haven’t been encouraging so I think it is better for example to leave potatoes in the soil until needed. A cellar can not only be used for cool storage but also as a refuge in a bushfire.

Like

And interestingly Ms Perps, about 5 minutes before I saw your post, wanderingf about the internet for blogs on climate change I had posted at this blog, by Rapier, a peak oil advocate:

It reads in part …

In my view, we need a very rapid transition away from coal, oil and gas fired stationary energy, in favour of nuclear power, and a rapid coextensive conversion of transport fleets to electrical power, with fossil fuels reserved only for those elements of the fleet where electricity would be impracticable (e.g. road-based heavy haulage and refrigerated vehicles). As much weight as possible should be shipped on electrified rail and even bulk carriers could be nuclear powered.

Make of that what you will …

Like

Leave a Reply (Markdown is enabled)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s