Election 2007 - Year of the Backflip

Whether you're talking about the Liberals' reluctance to discuss nuclear technology or Labor admitting to a Kyoto-2 boycott without developing nations, it's obvious the election is upon us. That said, there's little value in trying to objectively discuss Australia's nuclear options any time soon.

Regardless of who 'wins', it appears that concerned Australians [the vast majority of us at the moment] will continue to keep a close eye on our contribution to [as well as impacts from] the related energy issues. These may include Australia's contribution to emissions linked to climate change, newly proposed fossil fueled generation plants, the price of petrol, our ever increasing coal exports, new mines, port expansions, the cost of electricity, lingering drought, severe weather, etc.

Can we wave our meager 1.4% of global emissions banner and honestly expect to get away with it? Is there a shred of moral or ethical justification to support the average Australian's HUGE contribution to global emissions vs. say the average Indian or China-man?

Eventually, Australia will become serious about implementing changes that amount to more than a 'drop in the ocean'. It won't happen soon, but - considering all technologies currently available - Australia can not and will not get there without considerable nuclear power capacity.

Kevin Rudd & Ziggy Switkowski on climate change and nuclear energy

In a speech on the climate and nuclear power's relevance within his party's political agenda, Kevin Rudd commented on what is becoming an often heard theme about emissions reductions via some sort of cap and trade scheme.

Mr Rudd said once the target was set, the emissions trading scheme and the market could establish the most cost-effective means of achieving that target.

I agree with this, but more importantly so does John Howard and the Liberals as was outlined in their recent report from the Task Group on Emissions Trading. It's great to see some consistency and agreement between the two parties - being an optimist, I'll interpret this as a high probability that some tangible action is on the horizon.

Not much further down in the article however there is another quote from Rudd [emphasis is mine]:

"On the question of nuclear ... our position on that is for Australia, with this rich array of other alternative energy options available, we can achieve our overall carbon target without taking on the extra safety and environmental risks which the nuclear option for Australia would represent.''

There's nothing new here. But it does not appear to be consistent with the first quote above. If nuclear is ruled out in advance, wouldn't Labor be open to the accusations regarding 'picking winners'?

Additionally, I'm not certain what Mr. Rudd means by 'available' but I doubt it has much to do with the demonstrated, technical capabilities of those 'other options'.

Most nuclear advocates believe all no/low carbon energy options, including nuclear must be subjected to life-cycle comparisons. Such comparisons include all cost, risk, capability, reliability, waste, etc. associated with each technology. This data has been derived and well publicised for nuclear, but sadly not so much for other technologies. Furthermore, the comparisons must be based - to the extent possible - on real world experiences [from prototype, demonstration or actual full scale commercial facilities]. A thorough consideration for them all is indeed justified. Anything else would be irresponsible, inefficient, ineffective or some depressingly perverse combination thereof.

My optimism gets strained, however, when I hear Ziggy Switkowski continuing to move away from Australian emissions reductions. Take for example this recent speech. He - like others so aligned - continues to beat the tired drum of Australia's minuscule contribution to global emissions - pointing instead to the USA and China.

As I've said here, I do not - in the slightest - understand the rational for this argument. If 1000 MWe of carbon based energy capacity is displaced by a no/low carbon technology, please tell me why the global climate is better off if that reduction takes place in the USA, China, India, Brazil or Australia? Obviously, locations and technologies must be selected based an a multitude of other factors including some that are fairly objective; cost, energy security, physical security, capacity and reliability as well as those that tend to be a bit more subjective; impact on economy, public acceptance and impact on the environment.

I claim economic impact is subjective because some [typically the 'haves'] tend to interpret this as maintaining their standard of living, or even maintaining consistent GDP growth; while others [typically the 'have nots'] interpret it as their right to achieve a standard of living equal to that of the 'haves'. [NNadir, a left leaning pro-nuclear advocate has a fair amount to say with regard to nuclear power's ability to address the latter.]

Public acceptance is often linked to environmental impact - but not always. Some people loath wind-farms for example because of the simple fact that they don't like the look of them [not me though, I can't stop looking when I am lucky enough to be within sight].

Typically the environmental impact is almost totally subjective. Nuclear is criticised for its lack of an operational waste strategy [despite the recycling/reprocessing taking place in many countries around the world] and the 'risk' this poses to the perhaps millions of people that live within a few hundred kilometers of a power station. However, since the dawn of the industrial revolution fossil plants - mostly coal stations - have been indiscriminately dumping their waste which has lead to the premature deaths of countless people and continues to poison the atmosphere and change our planet. Current predictions are that 30% of all species will face extinction by the turn of the next century and billions of people will be adversely impacted by climate change. To many this reality dwarfs the 'risks' associated with nuclear - whose safety record is second to no other energy technology. So in calling it subjective, I think I'm being fairly generous. See this NEI post for more.

One final quote from Ziggy:

"And, frankly, if we're going to have a nuclear industry in this country you really need to have alignment between the federal government, the state governments and the broader community and we're a fair way away from achieving that."

We sure are, but I remain optimistic.

Sometimes it’s like drinking from a fire hose…

Whether Peter Beattie in Queensland, Alan Carpenter in Western Australia or Peter Garrett in Canberra… they all seem to be sending the same message…

The Task Group on Emissions Trading report is flawed…

Howard’s continued support for nuclear is stuffed…

And ‘modern’ [mystical] technologies will allow Australia to achieve a 60% reduction in greenhouse gasses with Labor at the helm.

Nothing specific though. Yes there are the common warm-fuzzy words we all know and love – renewables, wind, solar, geothermal etc., but nothing specific; no plans, no siting of examples of stations or capacity in other locations anywhere on the planet; no demonstration of such technologies on an industrial level. Are they serious? Who’s supposed to believe this?

Without nuclear on the table, any substantial goal for emissions reductions are no more than pipedreams.

Sure there’s gas – better than coal, but still not an emissions darling, and the long term price projections, I believe, are anything but stable. Reading the bottom of this We Support Lee post, along with this quote from the International Energy Outlook pg. 46:

Although Australia has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, several of the government’s environmental policies have been put in place to help stimulate increases in natural gas use for electric power generation and to moderate growth in the use of coal, of which Australia has large reserves.

And we can see why Mr. Carpenter is so down on nuclear. The sale of all his State’s gas, will earn them big-bucks – I imagine he is reminded of this frequently.

Also Dr. Ziggy Switkowski’s recent remarks (reported in no less than 402 linked news articles!) are being trumpeted as something significant… an admission of sorts(??). I guess those who are against nuclear are much more willing to defer to his expertise when he is saying something they can use to support their arguments (pathetic). Basically he is saying that the path to nuclear power in Australia will be a fairly long one. On that I agree, at least as I’ve said here and here, there is a hell of a lot of work to do in order to even think about constructing a plant. But the three mines policy is finally dead and Australia is seriously considering a long term used fuel store and becoming more involved in the nuclear Fuel Cycle. So from a 'consider what they do as opposed to what they say' point of view – there is reason to be optimistic.

Not being one to feel the need (or, for that matter, justification) to force anything on anyone, I advocate a patient but steady approach for those in support of nuclear power in Australia. Despite all the headline-grabbing, election year crap being tossed out at the moment – in particular by the same old group of anti-nuclear activists we always see muddying the technical waters – I see shortcomings on both sides.

To me, the Liberals are overly sensitive to the economy, but in general I like the idea of looking forward and progressing via a well thought, measured process. However, I think their targets need to be a bit more in line with Labor. Speaking of which, Labor’s unjustified, fear-driven dismissal of nuclear with no credible alternative technology (other than the fantasies that exist only on report pages from the deep dark world of academic theory) is a type of wishful thinking that will draw out and ultimately kill any hopes of achieving anything close to their stated targets.

We have the resources and capability to do so much better than this, but for nothing more than fear and ignorance – we remain, for the moment, a humiliating stain on the world.

'tis the season...

Energy policy progress or political spin???

As reported in The Australian, the Daily Telegraph and in The West; John Howard is promoting an energy strategy that involves support for nuclear power deployment as well as enrichment technologies in Australia.

But is this real intent, genuine political will - or just another crack of the hammer down on the wedge? Obviously, the timing has been 'optimised'.

The plans are reported to also include regulatory streamlining as well as participation in Generation IV R&D.

At the same time, this report from the Sydney Morning Herald claims that Australia will exceed our Kyoto limits. Yes, the Howard led government has not signed up to Kyoto - but as reported in the article, Prime Minister Howard has claimed that Australia meets the targets in any case. This new data - combined with the next IPCC report to come out next week will apply further pressure on Australia to act.

Am I missing something?

Politics!... The 'Inconvenient Reality' of life in the developed world.

In this article John Howard is saying Climate Change is not the moral challenge of our time, and joins others in his party, calling advocates of climate driven policy changes - zealots.

He is accused of working hard to defend the coal industry, but, as reported here, Prime Minister Howard is throwing up his hands and resorting to prayer over the plight of farmers [many of whom are tragically resorting to suicide] facing dire environmental conditions - linked by many to Climate Change. A poetic justice of sorts may see Australia, the worst per-capita emitter, as the first developed country to be severely impacted by Climate Change.

And finally, this report finds Australian of the Year Tim Flanery getting cornered by the issues and his own knowledge and conscience. What would it mean to give back the award?

The articles speak of politicians’ probable reluctance to discuss firm issues, policies or plans until after the election. But physics does not respond to emotive rhetoric or dire economic forecasts. If the climate forecasters are even partially correct [their numbers, evidence and certainty continues to mount] delays will only worsen the impact, make mitigation actions hurt that much more or both.

I'd say Mother Nature is becoming rather upset; and hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.