One of the worst accidents ever in the country's energy sector

At least 61 people were killed earlier today - no, not as a result of the explosion at the French waste processing facility being splashed all over everywhere - but in Kenya, after a gasoline pipeline exploded.

My thoughts and sympathy go out - equally to both the Kenyans and the French - to the injured, their families, and of course to the friends and families of those who were killed.

Just thought you'd like to know.

A climate change skeptic for a Nuclear Australia

Terry Krieg, retired secondary school teacher of geography and geology from Port Lincoln, South Australia was recently interviewed for the ABC's Ockham's Razor. Terry describes himself as a climate skeptic but begrudgingly accepts the worldwide decisions and trends toward emissions reduction.

The teacher's done some homework and concluded the right path, the logical path, the only path, for Australia must include nuclear energy.

A few excerpts:

Currently around the world sun and wind contribute just .6% of world energy total. And that's expected to reach 2.8% by 2030. US energy experts wrote solar off in the 1980s suggesting it would never deliver more than a fraction of their energy needs. They've been proved right despite some continuing research. Germany today presents a very disturbing and confusing picture. Solar subsidies in 2007/8 totaled $4.3 billion US and for just .7% of its electricity.

...Now with wind power the Danish experience is instructive. They have the most expensive power in the EU, have stopped building wind farms, have been unable to reduce their emissions and have now closed five turbine manufacturing plants with a loss of 3000 jobs.

How can these technologies ever enable the necessary reduction in emissions from electricity production - in Australia or anywhere else for that matter? As I've said before, if anyone believes it can be done without nuclear, please point to an example - just one, anywhere on the planet. [Not fair to include large-scale hydro countries... not an option for Australia.]

For the rest of the report, follow this link.

A September 2010 article in The Adelaide Review may also be of interest.

What are we trying to achieve?

In this piece, the UK's George Monbiot, with input from Chris Goodall, continues a discussion with Jonathon Porritt. The article covers climate change, nuclear energy, renewables, Japan and Germany (as well as the UK of course).

Monbiot poses a key question, "...we should ask ourselves what our aim is. Is it to stop climate breakdown, or is it to engineer the maximum roll-out of renewable power?" The examples and references cited in the post kept me coming back to this question - what is the objective?

Monbiot has crafted a thought provoking and highty recommended read.

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/08/08/the-moral-case-for-nuclear-power/

Nuclear Information from Japan

Best to keep your expectations low for now.

Think about it. These guys have just been hit by a double-whammy. First an earthquake that has to be close to what the plant was designed to withstand, if not beyond. And then a tsunami that takes their station to blackout conditions. I'm confident they have emergency procedures to deal with this situation - not this specific chain of events, but their symptoms. Symptom based emergency procedures have been around for many years. The approach was developed by the industry as a lesson learned from the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.

In a symptom based approach, a limited number of key parameters are monitored and controlled, without the need to determine the exact details of the event. For example, reactor level and containment pressure are two key parameters. Falling reactor level could result in inadequate reactor fuel cooling, so a prioritized list of means to add cooling water to the reactor are developed and incorporated into emergency procedures. Typically, the last item on the list is to change the plant piping alignment such that the fire suppression system can be used (via connections outside the reactor) to pump 'raw' water (in this case sea water) directly into the reactor. Given the station blackout conditions, this action would be expected if cooling water inventory were required to maintain reactor water level.

Similarly, containment pressure can not be permitted to get too high. So periodic, planned and controlled pressure releases are implemented to manager that parameter. This could involve some radiation release, so part of the planning involves the precautionary evacuation of local residents.

But my main point is that the Emergency Response team is obviously VERY busy dealing with the immediate situation. And while the general public is desperate for information - which they rightly deserve. There are others who have a greater need for the information and communication channels to manage their responsibilities. These include the first-line decision makers at the reactor site, regulatory authorities, local and national emergency management agencies, local and national government agencies, the plant designer, and international support agencies. Information must be verified and any conflicts resolved quickly to permit decision makers to take timely action to protect the public to the best of their ability. These communicators are among the most busy people trying to manage the situation and the importance of them getting it right can not be overstated.

Those in the best position to communicate with the public (government offices for example) are also furthest from the detailed information flowing within the plant and have to manage many other, non-nuclear relief and recovery operations in the aftermath of the earthquake. Therefore, their statements tend to be quite brief, never speculative, and typically lack details of 'what happened'. The 'what happened' will be determined later - the plant operators are not concerned about determining this as a priority now. They are busy managing the symptoms and critical safety parameters, not being driven to describe events of the past.

Greenfield to head ANSTO board

Professor Paul Greenfield AO has been appointed to head the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) board. Announcing the appointment, Innovation Minister Senator Kim Carr said Greenfield's experience on the board since 2007 and his skills in science and senior management made him an outstanding candidate for the position.The ANSTO chair was vacated on December 31 when Dr Ziggy Switkowski's term finished. Switkowski elected not to seek a further term. Greenfield, is vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland and chairman of the Group of Eight.

Source: Campus Review

Biography

Professor Greenfield was appointed Vice-Chancellor from 1 January 2008 and was Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor from 2002 to 31 December 2007. Previously he was Deputy Vice-Chancellor (2001), Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) (1997-2000), Executive Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, Physical Sciences and Architecture and Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Physical Sciences and Engineering).

After graduating Bachelor of Engineering, first-class honours in chemical engineering, from the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Professor Greenfield worked in the private sector before completing a PhD at UNSW. He worked at CSIRO before winning a three-year fellowship to the U.S. In 1975, he joined UQ as a lecturer in chemical engineering and a decade later became Head of Department.

In January 2006 Professor Greenfield was made an Officer in the General Division of the Order of Australia for service to science and engineering, particularly through research in the areas of chemical engineering, biotechnology, wastewater and environmental management, and to the tertiary education sector.

Professor Greenfield has extensive experience as a Board Director and is currently a Director on a number of company boards. He has also consulted and worked widely with industry on a range of projects spanning biochemical engineering, wastewater treatment and waste and environmental management, as well as economic evaluation of projects (particularly in the biotechnology and environmental fields). His interests lie in biotechnology, environmental management and R & D management and commercialisation.

Professor Greenfield chairs the Group of Eight, a network of research-intensive Australian universities, and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.

He is also Chair of the Scientific Advisory Group of the South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, which involves the Queensland Government, local councils, community groups, research institutions and industry.

As well, he serves as chair of the following groups: the Expert Panel on Purified Recycled Water, which independently advises the Queensland Government; the Riversymposium Strategic Planning Committee; the Thiess International Riverprize Committee; and the International Water Centre. He is a member of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation Advisory Board, representing the academic and research community.

Source: University of Queensland

Carbon tax receives economist’s endorsement

Dr Eric Knight, a research associate at the ANU's centre for climate economics and policy and at the University of Oxford, believes Julia Gillard’s current proposal needs a bit of tweaking though. Specifically he’s calling for some detail on how to distribute the collected revenue as well as Australia’s consideration of Nuclear Energy.

Specifically Knight’s proposing a form of ‘dividend’ known as a tax shift. Instead of a check returned to each Australian as proposed by Hansen, Knight proposes to reduce income taxes. The idea of a tax shift is to tax the thing you want less of (such as cigarettes or carbon in this case) and reward what you want more of (i.e. work contributing to Australia’s GDP).

Knight did not provide any detail as to how the income tax cuts would be distributed – but it seems complex to my non-economist brain. Per Hansen’s scheme the difference in your pocket is purely a function of your contribution to carbon emissions. A tax shift has to consider varying tax rates as well as how to deal with the unemployed, disabled and/or pensioners.

The critical point being the return of tax revenue to the people—not the polluters. The effect on their profits can be best managed by phasing in the price on carbon.

Other scientist who support a carbon tax may be found at the Carbon Tax Center. Their list of supporters—just in the USA alone—includes Public Officials, Scientists and Economists, Opinion Leaders, Corporate (Editorials), and other Authors, Writers and Pundits.

Just some of the Scientists and Economists include (in addition to Hansen of course):

Follow the link above to read brief statements, references and other specific background material regarding each individual's support of a revenue neutral carbon tax (i.e. tax and dividend) approach to atmospheric CO₂ reduction.

Stephen Chu, US Secretary of Energy and former director, Univ. of California Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

William Moomaw, Professor of International Environmental Policy and Director of the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy, Tufts University

Steven Running, University of Montana Professor of Ecology

Paul Volcker, former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve

Gilbert Metcalf, Professor of Economics at Tuft University

Lawrence Summers, Charles W. Eliot university professor (and former president), Harvard University (and Former Treasury Secretary)

Joseph Stiglitz, Columbia University Economics Professor, Nobel laureate (and former chair of The President’s Council of Economic Advisers and Chief Economist of the World Bank)

Robert Reich, Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, former Secretary of Labor and co-founder of The American Prospect

Jeffrey Sachs, Economist and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University

Edwin L. Glaeser, Professor of Economics at Harvard University and director of the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston

Paul Portney, Dean, Eller College of Management, Univ. of Arizona (and president, Resources for the Future, 1995-2005)

Herman E. Daly, professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, foremost U.S. ecological economist, author of Ecological Economics, Steady-State Economics, Valuing The Earth, among other works

Gregory Mankiw, economist at Harvard University

Edward Snyder, dean of the University of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business

Tyler Cowen, economics professor at George Mason University

in reference to: Row Over Carbon Tax (view on Google Sidewiki)

Hansen's Eerie Forecast: one year on

Nearly one full year ago, Professor James Hansen tried to explain the risks facing Australia. Check out just the first two paragraphs:

AUSTRALIA will suffer if fossil fuel use continues unabated. Climate extremes will increase. Poleward expansion of the subtropics will make Australia often hotter and drier, with stronger droughts and hotter fires, as the jet stream retreats southward.

But when ocean temperature patterns bring rain, the warmer air will dump much more water, causing damaging floods. Storms will become more devastating as the ice sheets on Antarctica and Greenland begin to disintegrate and cool the neighbouring ocean, as I describe in [my book] Storms of My Grandchildren. Ice discharge from Antarctica has already doubled in the past five years.

Those who focus on short term profit, the retention of material wealth and work to kill a carbon tax approach to atmospheric CO₂ reduction will likely be proven to be penny-wise, pound foolish - assuming you don't believe they are already.

Those who seek to capitalize on a carbon tax for the sake of special government programs, pose a similar risk to our collective future and that of our children and grandchildren.

Carbon fee with full dividend: effective and fair.

in reference to: Only a carbon tax and nuclear power can save us The Australian (view on Google Sidewiki)

SMH – Gives a voice to Special Interests

Hell-bent on maintaining the status quo. Shame!

Note the contributor is affiliated with the Institute of Public Affairs. Per their website, they are: an independent, non-profit public policy think tank, dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom. Our author, Alan Moran is Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, is an economist who has made a specialty of regulatory matters, in particular covering energy, global warming, housing, transport, and competition issues. I don’t know about you, but in my universe, global warming and deregulation are unacceptable bedfellows.

Just to pick a bit of the low hanging fruit…

If the tax were to be applied to all the 550 million tonnes a year of carbon dioxide emitted by Australia, at $25 it would raise a cool $13.8 billion, equivalent to a quarter of the sum raised by the GST.

Divided into equal shares for all Australian adults (with half shares for up to 2 kids per household) as recommended by Prof. James Hansen—means that single Australians receive about $675 per year, couples $1,350 and families with two or more children would receive $2,025. This would more than cover the costs to households as forecast by the author. With cash in their pockets (and a cash incentive in their minds) people just might alter their habits for the sake of extra cash even the future.

Now imagine how much would flow into our pockets if all the fossil fuels mined in Australia for export were also taxed at this level…. Solar hot water and rainwater retention systems for all???

Sure, some of that export business may go elsewhere, but not all. Australia is not unique in its need to cut atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. If we dare to lead, others will follow. And I predict it will happen a LOT faster than the naysayers at The Institute of Public Affairs would have us believe.

Immense storms have been known to change the course of mighty rivers in a day. If fossil fuel's profit potential is moved to other energy technologies, the money—very similar to water—will quickly change course to flow in the path of least resistance.

Big changes can happen fast. A carbon tax can make that happen. A carbon tax with dividend makes it fair.

in reference to: Consumers and business will feel the pain of emissions tax (view on Google Sidewiki)

Chill, baby, Chill!!

In a recent post, I declared victory on behalf of science and engineering—noting the requirement for immediate action to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentration has been adequately proven and that worldwide experience has demonstrated the availability of deployable technologies—including nuclear energy—capable of achieving the necessary goals. But the lack of political Will, baby, Will!! stands in the way of progress.

This is a formidable challenge. As Jim Hansen and others have repeatedly highlighted, special interests and the money they bring into the political processes in the USA, Australia and elsewhere poison the system by promoting bogus science as equivalent arguments against the need for action. This Swill, baby, Swill!! tends to confuse / intentionally(?) misinform the public and thereby maintains a business as usual scenario.

To a somewhat lesser degree, close-minded, self proclaimed environmentalists (some with advanced degrees, but far from the subject matter at hand and/or with very little relevant/practical experience beyond their academic world) spread nuclear scepticism by significantly exaggerating risks, promoting fear (Spill, baby, Spill!! Kill!!, baby, Kill!!) and thereby limit a credible option within Australia and elsewhere by campaigning against nuclear energy and/or uranium mining—Mill, baby, Mill!!

Hence, the effort to inform and ignite a spirit of change has fallen upon what is mostly a small band of volunteers—an informal group loosely bound by some common concerns or goals such as the salvation of life on the planet, recognition of nuclear energy’s role in global energy production, or general support of fossil free energy sources for the sake of energy security. How can this group hope to effectively battle well financed, professional (Skill, baby, Skill!!) communication/marketing/PR companies?

And then there’s the global financial crisis, topped by an increasing trend of severe (i.e. costly) weather events in recent years. Adding misery to disaster, we are told that the longer action is delayed, the more difficult it will become to pull ourselves out of the hole. Our plant is Ill, baby, Ill!!, with serious threats that could take life here to Nil, baby, Nil!! as the Earth turns into a giant Grill, baby, Grill!!

The most reasonable approach is to adopt a carbon fee and dividend scheme as promoted by Hansen and others. In such a scheme, a steadily increasing fee is applied to all fossil fuels at the wellhead, mine or port of entry. Then all money is returned to citizens as a dividend in equal shares for adults with ½ shares given to children—up to a maximum of 2 children per household.

The fee and dividend approach would immediately reward those who consume less energy (equal money, for less use/expense), reward businesses that improve energy efficiency, encourage innovative business practices such as teleconferencing in lieu of travel, encourage the use of no/low emission transport, and stabilise the energy market; thereby facilitating the significant investments necessary to transition energy production away from carbon emitting technologies. (Thrill, baby, Thrill!!)

Cap & trade on the other hand is a demonstrated failure in Europe, pumps money to financial institutions (Fill, baby, Fill!! their pockets) who serve as middlemen in the emissions credit trading game, awards free credits to the worst polluters, and provides no direct rewards to those who put in the effort to minimize their emissions as costs increase for all, regardless of personal choices.

Significant involvement from the public is required to make this happen. Get moving, write, take the action you want to see from others. Lead by example. Let your representatives know that an ongoing Drill, baby, Drill!! mentality is going to Kill, baby, Kill!! our planet.

Fossil fuels must be left in the ground, in particular dirty, dangerous coal. We’ve got to get our CO₂ concentration to below 350 so the Earth can Chill, baby, Chill!!

And this is in addition to the other risks posed by the ongoing quest for fuel. No special interest influence there, eh...

Welcome Christina

[I received a comment to a recent post from Christina Macpherson. To be fair to Ms Macpherson, she is an anti-nuclear campaigner who, among other efforts, published a blog linked here. To extend me the same courtesy, some time ago, I submited detailed comments to several of her posts... not one of which was published, to my knowledge.

This post is my reply to her comment. It's size exceeded Blogger's 4k character limit, but I thought a semi-comprehensive reply was appropriate.]

I would gladly accept a world free of risks from nuclear waste, weapons proliferation, or exposure to man-made, ionizing radiation. But the fact is, the benefits from nuclear technologies—both energy and non-energy related—far, far outweigh these often perversely exaggerated risks.

Let’s take an example—as you predicted, I’ll ‘dig someone up’ and tag him as an “environmentalist”. Actually I’ll go one better, I’ll call him a globally respected “Scientist”. Here’s what Prof. James Hansen [from the USA’s Colombia University and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies] has to say on nuclear energy’s role in the battle against climate change. From his book Storms of My Grandchildren:

“Germany provides useful empirical evidence about progress in quitting the fossil fuel addiction. Germany is making a major effort to improve energy efficiency. It is also trying hard to promote renewable energy, with large subsidies for wind and solar energies. Wind provides up to 20% of the country’s electric energy in winter, but on annual mean [yearly average] the wind and sun produced only 7.3 precent of Germany’s electricity in 2008. That renewable fraction is still growing, but at a cost—some industries have cited increased electric rates as a reason for relocating outside Germany.

But what is disturbing about the empirical evidence from Germany is that, despite technical prowess and strong efforts in energy efficiency and renewable energies, there are no plans to phase out coal. On the contrary, there are plans to build new coal-fired power plants, which the German government claims will be necessary once the country closes its nuclear power plants. The bottom line seems to be that it is not feasible in the foreseeable future to phase out coal unless nuclear power is included in the energy mix.”

Apparently Germany realised this and made the difficult [and most likely politically costly] decision to recently reverse its nuclear phase-out policy. Meanwhile Australia continues to build coal powered stations despite our politicians and “environmentalists” claiming how ‘blessed’ we are with non-nuclear options.

With respect to your claims [too late, too dirty, too expensive]; the vast majority of climate scientists—held in high regard within the scientific community—project mid-century as the critical date to achieve dramatic decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and the subsequent decreasing trend in atmospheric CO₂ concentration. Considering the rate of deployment of nuclear power plants worldwide in the 1970’s, technology advancements since that time and the proven ability to steadily deploy nuclear energy stations in Asia [most notably in Korea and Japan] over the past few decades; there is little reason to doubt that nuclear energy—even in Australia—is well positioned to help phase out fossil fuel use.

Also, lifecycle emissions from nuclear energy—including mining and fuel production—have been independently and repeatedly shown to be among the lowest of available energy generation technologies. [See the Reports linked in the lower right margin of the Blog]

Regarding cost—I can’t speak for anyone else, but all I ask is that Australia make it legal to pursue nuclear energy here and to also put a realistic price on carbon to properly account for its threat to the planet. Utilities can then decide to continue to produce power using expensive and dangerous fossil fuels, transition to renewables, encourage efficiency and conservation, or opt for nuclear energy. [I would also expect the enacting of laws that require utilities to pay into a decommissioning and nuclear waste fund to coincide with other laws permitting utilities to use the technology.]

Considering the extreme weather events of just the past few years, I am surprised by campaigners who continue to see nuclear energy as the great threat of our time. Baseless nuclear scepticism does not add value to efforts to rid the world of dangerous fossil fuels. If you believe the risks from the introduction of nuclear energy are comparable to those from our continued addiction to fossil fuels, please explain your rationale. If you claim nuclear-free options that will permit the phase-out of fossil fuels have been demonstrated, please cite some real world examples.

I’ll give the final word to Hansen:

“Coal is exceedingly dirty stuff. Its mercury, arsenic, sulfates, and other constituents are a major source of global air and water pollution, leading to increased birth defects, impaired intelligence, asthma, and other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Coal’s effect on air and water pollution is global—nobody escapes its reach. Mercury and other pollutants are deposited on land and in the ocean, infiltrating the food chain and building up in the bodies of long-lived animals and fish.”

…

“Leading world air-pollution experts at our workshops at the East-West Center in Honolulu agreed that there are at least one million deaths per year from air pollution globally. It is difficult to apportion the deaths among different pollution sources—such as vehicles and power plants—because people are affected simultaneously by all sources. But to get an idea of the numbers, let’s first assign 1 percent to coal-fired power plants. That’s ten thousand deaths per year—every year.

Actually, all experts agree that coal is responsible for far more than 1 percent of the air pollution. In fact, recent data show that more than 1 percent of some air pollutants in the United States comes from Chinese power plants! I point this out to emphasize that pollution and climate change are global problems—we must work together with other countries to solve them. Assigning 10 percent of global air pollution deaths to coal is probably still conservative—that’s a hundred thousand deaths per year, every year.

Yet there are no two-hundred-thousand-person rallies against coal, no nightly “No Coal” concerts. Death by coal is probably not as sexy as death by nuclear accident. Perhaps we have greater fear of nuclear power because it is more mysterious than that familiar black lump of coal—even though we know coal contains remarkably bad stuff.”