Emissions - An indicator of interest

Tom Tarpey in Canada forwarded a report from Globeandmail.com providing examples of the conservation paradox. Basically what it details [through numerous US examples] is the tendency of consumers to reap the benefits of efficiency improvement by buying bigger automobiles, larger homes, more AC units, etc. so that the net effect on energy consumption is nil [actually energy consumption, and emissions along with it, have continually risen].

Closer to home in Mosman - 'Australia's wealthiest suburb', Monsters and Critics reports a reluctance to give up the posh life in the name of emissions reductions.

The Wilderness Society and Greenpeace are already Rudd-bashing about Labor's [in]ability to tackle Australia's emissions dilemma [3 days into his term, whoa]. I do not give much technical credit to these organisations. Their quantification of the nuclear pro-con balance sheet for example is, to be polite, VERY misleading as well as technically wrong. However, I'll include their comments to provide a general 'feel' for domestic climate change opinions.

'Both major parties have credibility problems on climate change because of their failure to commit to the sort of deep cuts to greenhouse emissions in the next decade that are necessary to help prevent dangerous climate change,' Wilderness Society national campaign director Alex Marr said.

Greenpeace Australia climate change campaigner Steven Campbell notes that even with a target of 20 per cent, there will be no overall reduction in the amount of electricity generated by burning coal.

'If we have a renewables sector growing alongside an ever- expanding coal sector, we won't stop climate change,' Campbell said.

Interested parties should monitor total Australian emissions. Currently, just due to power production, Australia cranks out 226,000,000 US tons [204,982,000 metric tons] of CO2 per year. Per their website, CARMA plans to update the data quarterly.

Emissions Trading

As I said before in this post, emissions trading appears to be a prerequisite for any serious deployment of non-carbon based energy production of any sort (nuclear or not), particularly within Australia.

This point has been reiterated in a study completed by the Climate Institute as reported by news.com.au.

"This research highlights that it would be reckless to delay action or only take half measures because of the risk it would pose to the Australian economy," institute chief executive John Connor said.

They go on to say that the introduction of nuclear power in Australia would make a modest contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gasses due to the time required to 'build' a credible, domestic nuclear industry [Hey, I never said nuclear could do it alone, in fact quite the contrary]. However there is one other quote worth repeating, namely the impact of nuclear on other forms of generation;

The institute's policy and research director, Erwin Jackson, said nuclear power generation would reduce the production share of coal rather than cut into renewable energy contributions.

He goes on to say that changes in domestsic coal consumption will not impact Australian coal mining jobs as the bulk of that economy is dependent on coal exports.

At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Darwin; global warming, emissions and clean energy [including nuclear power] are taking centre stage. Australia's nuclear opportunities are spelled out in this report from The Age by Professor George Dracoulis.

Also at the end of the article readers will find some of the same old anti-nuclear rhetoric by our friends from the Wilderness Society, and Friends of the Earth. While these words are fairly 'catchy', they don't offer much in terms of solutions to the relevant challenges.

To consider some facts, you don't have to look very far at all - Europe is a good example, to see that countries who have embraced the nuclear fuel cycle with renewables as part of a responsible, overarching energy strategy are easily satisfying their Kyoto limits (the Netherlands, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Sweeden). Those who have rejected nuclear in lieu of an accelerated deployment of renewables (Austria, Portugal, Italy, Denmark) are among the worst emissions performers, Australia of course being the worst.

Another Report from Parliament

Another report was released in November 2006 called Australia’s uranium — Greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world

The release didn't receive much media fanfare. I actually stumbled on it at the Wilderness Society's anti-nuclear blog.

The report includes some interesting findings on Nuclear Power's potential role in both the world as well as Australia.

The committee of 10, responsible for the report, includes three Labour MPs and an Independent.

Could this be a sign of bi-partisan support?

Anti-Nuclear Blog - Australia and the Nuclear Industry

See the full Blog here.

A rare find with the following attributes:

1. An anti-nuclear website that actually permits/encourages discussion and comments.

2. An anti-nuclear Blog that appears to be active (as of this writing, the last post was over a week ago – but I remain optimistic).

3. Australian based.

It’s a product of The Wilderness Society – who hosted the Australian tour of US anti-nuclear activist, Kevin Kamps.

The page is heavily one-sided, offering only anti-nuclear links and references. But we are allowed to comment and I encourage all interested in an Australian nuclear discussion to do so. But as the folks at the NEI Blog say… please be polite.

Engaging each other may help all move forward.