Detailed history, numerous references and high quality, objective reporting; it's all there.
See the complete report at Arms Control Today.
To discuss nuclear energy's role within Australia as a part of a diverse and sustainable energy mix that addresses - among other things - energy security as well as the reduction of harmful emissions suspected of contributing to climate change.
These show that not only is the stationary energy sector (e.g. electricity generation, etc.) the greatest contributor, it is also by far the fastest growing in absolute terms.
... and here we see that despite the 'measures', stationary energy related emissions are to continue to - in the best case - remain the same.
Above we see the impact of ongoing efficiency and conservation programmes. The economy remains strong, but it's taking less emissions to achieve the related outputs. Those who promote efficiency and conservation as if it were something new are either misled or misleading.
I admit that significant scope remains to be tapped in this area. But we will be lucky if the results are enough to compensate for projected demand/population growth.
Here above, we see that stationary energy is projected to increase by 56% from 1990 to the Kyoto measuring period of 2008-2012. And worse, below they project emissions will further increase 64% beyond 1990 levels by 2020.
Also during this time period the report projects our per-person emissions will decrease from 33 tonnes per person down to 28 in 2008-2012, but then climb back to 29 tonnes per person by 2020.
Realising that these projections include fairly aggressive renewable targets and the 'Australian clause' regarding land use [a one-off perk for us]. I remain convinced that Australia has no hope of achieving anything near 60% reduction without significant nuclear power deployment in parallel with other measures well beyond those currently planned.
The data supports no other path.
Australia's creativity, strong science base, agile economy and renewable resources, including sunshine, "hot rocks", wind and bio-resources, provide enormous capacity for a shift towards a lower greenhouse footprint.
Clean coal technology could have a profound impact on Australia's emissions and economy. Further development of carbon, capture and storage (CCS) technology will enable us to reduce our carbon footprint and to maintain our significant coal exports in a carbon constrained world.
Many countries are re-thinking the acceptability of nuclear power in light of climate change. Australia has a large share of the world's uranium and a role to play within appropriate safeguards.
"I am not talking about next year or in five years but long-term energy policy. We have got to think about all these sources of energy and that includes coal and that must include nuclear,'' he [recently-appointed chairman of Qantas, Leigh Clifford] said.
OUR two major political parties are in coy agreement over the benefits of nuclear energy. At the same time, however, they both refuse to say it would help Australia.
They recommend that other countries use uranium, preferably the stuff we produce, to fuel power stations which otherwise would be pumping out harmful carbon emissions from incinerated fossils. But, for purely political reasons, they won't say the same for their own country.
This two-faced approach to nuclear energy is one of the starkest instances of policy hypocrisy we have seen.
The logical conflict is increasingly uncomfortable for some senior figures in Labor and the Liberal Party as they contort themselves to avoid saying what they really believe. The strain is starting to tell. Bouts of nuclear frankness may be ahead.
"Around the world nuclear power today reduces global emissions by more than 2 billion tonnes a year.''
Resources Minister Martin Ferguson, an enthusiastic industry advocate, has reconvened the Uranium Industry Framework, a hand-picked advisory group appointed by the previous government.
But Mr Ferguson says the Government will not pursue an idea the previous government flirted with — over-riding state bans in Western Australia and Queensland that prevent new uranium mines or other nuclear activities.
Mr Ferguson says Canberra will not override those states, but says it is only a matter of time before mining developments occur in those states, which have large uranium deposits.
He predicts substantial growth in nuclear power outside Australia.
"Some countries see nuclear as part of their commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Mr Ferguson said.
"Uranium mining has got a bright future and it's going to lead to increased export earnings for Australia and jobs."
John Mackay, the chief executive of Canberra's power supplier ACTEW AGL, says given the current state of the industry, there is little chance of meeting the [60% by 2050 emissions reduction] target.
Mr Mackay says households should expect dramatic price hikes over coming years.
He says green power is expensive to produce and difficult to source, and that's making the market very volatile.
According to Handlesblatt, the closure of all 17 nuclear reactors in Germany and their replacement with other energy sources would result in 150 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually.
[Gee, I wonder if the replacement power will come from coal, cole or kowl? Come on guys, where are the big renewable energy deployments? These transitions are supposed to be no-brainers.]
27 March 2008
The Hon Kevin Rudd, MP
Prime Minister of
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory,
Dear Prime Minister,
Your leadership is needed on a matter concerning coal-fired power plants and carbon dioxide emission rates in your country, a matter with ramifications for life on our planet, including all species. Prospects for today's children, and especially the world's poor, hinge upon our success in stabilizing climate.
For the sake of identification, I am a United States citizen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor at the Columbia University Earth Institute. I am a member of our National Academy of Sciences, have testified before our Senate and House of Representatives on many occasions, have advised our Vice President and Cabinet members on climate change and its relation to energy requirements, and have received numerous awards including the World Wildlife Fund's Duke of Edinburgh Conservation Medal from Prince Philip.
I write, however, as a private citizen, a resident of Kintnersville, Pennsylvania, USA. I was assisted in composing this letter by colleagues, including Australians, Americans, and Europeans, who commented upon a draft letter. Because of the urgency of the matter, I have not collected signatures, but your advisors will verify the authenticity of the science discussion.
I recognize that for years you have been a strong supporter of aggressive forward-looking actions to mitigate dangerous climate change. Also, since your election as Prime Minister of Australia, your government has been active in pressing the international community to take appropriate actions. We are now at a point that bold leadership is needed, leadership that could change the course of human history.
I have read and commend the Interim Report of Professor Ross Garnaut, submitted to your government. The conclusion that net carbon emissions must be cut to a fraction of current emissions must be stunning and sobering to policy-makers. Yet the science is unambiguous: if we burn most of the fossil fuels, releasing the CO2 to the air, we will assuredly destroy much of the fabric of life on the planet. Achievement of required near-zero net emissions by mid-century implies a track with substantial cuts of emissions by 2020. Aggressive near-term fostering of energy efficiency and climate friendly technologies is an imperative for mitigation of the looming climate crisis and optimization of the economic pathway to the eventual clean-energy world.
Global climate is near critical tipping points that could lead to loss of all summer sea ice in the Arctic with detrimental effects on wildlife, initiation of ice sheet disintegration in West Antarctica and Greenland with progressive, unstoppable global sea level rise, shifting of climatic zones with extermination of many animal and plant species, reduction of freshwater supplies for hundreds of millions of people, and a more intense hydrologic cycle with stronger droughts and forest fires, but also heavier rains and floods, and stronger storms driven by latent heat, including tropical storms, tornados and thunderstorms.
Feasible actions now could still point the world onto a course that minimizes climate change. Coal clearly emerges as central to the climate problem from the facts summarized in the attached Fossil Fuel Facts. Coal caused fully half of the fossil fuel increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air today, and on the long run coal has the potential to be an even greater source of CO2. Due to the dominant role of coal, solution to global warming must include phase-out of coal except for uses where the CO2 is captured and sequestered. Failing that, we cannot avoid large climate change, because a substantial fraction of the emitted CO2 will stay in the air more than 1000 years.
Yet there are plans for continuing mining of coal, export of coal, and construction of new coal-fired power plants around the world, including in Australia, plants that would have a lifetime of half a century or more. Your leadership in halting these plans could seed a transition that is needed to solve the global warming problem.
Choices among alternative energy sources - renewable energies, energy efficiency, nuclear power, fossil fuels with carbon capture - these are local matters. But decision to phase out coal use unless the CO2 is captured is a global imperative, if we are to preserve the wonders of nature, our coastlines, and our social and economic well being.
Although coal is the dominant issue, there are many important subsidiary ramifications, including the need for rapid transition from oil-fired energy utilities, industrial facilities and transport systems, to clean (solar, hydrogen, gas, wind, geothermal, hot rocks, tide) energy sources, as well as removal of barriers to increased energy efficiency.
If the West makes a firm commitment to this course, discussion with developing countries can be prompt. Given the potential of technology assistance, realization of adverse impacts of climate change, and leverage and increasing interdependence from global trade, success in cooperation of developed and developing worlds is feasible.
The western world has contributed most to fossil fuel CO2 in the air today, on a per capita basis. This is not an attempt to cast blame. It only recognizes the reality of the early industrial development in these countries, and points to a responsibility to lead in finding a solution to global warming.
A firm choice to halt building of coal-fired power plants that do not capture CO2 would be a major step toward solution of the global warming problem. Australia has strong interest in solving the climate problem. Citizens in the United States are stepping up to block one coal plant after another, and major changes can be anticipated after the upcoming national election.
If Australia halted construction of coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester the CO2, it could be a tipping point for the world. There is still time to find that tipping point, but just barely. I hope that you will give these considerations your attention in setting your national policies. You have the potential to influence the future of the planet.
Prime Minister Rudd, we cannot avert our eyes from the basic fossil fuel facts, or the consequences for life on our planet of ignoring these fossil fuel facts. If we continue to build coal-fired power plants without carbon capture, we will lock in future climate disasters associated with passing climate tipping points. We must solve the coal problem now.
For your information, I plan to send a similar letter to the Australian States Premiers.
I commend to you the following Australian climate, paleoclimate and Earth scientists to provide further elaboration of the science reported in my attached paper (Hansen et al., 2008):
Professor Barry Brook, Professor of climate change, University of Adelaide
Dr Andrew Glikson, Australian National University
Professor Janette Lindesay, Australian National University
Dr Graeme Pearman, Monash University
Dr Barrie Pittock, CSIRO
Dr Michael Raupach, CSIRO
Professor Will Steffen, Australian National University
James E. Hansen
United States of America