More from Bali and the feasibility of 25 cores in Australia

Kevin Rudd has arrived in Bali. See the below ABC reports:

Rudd arrives in Bali amid obstruction accusations

Emissions must be halved, say scientists (video)

Rudd stands firm on emissions target announcement

Australia/Rudd is still accepting raps on the back for signing Kyoto, but it looks as if our 15 minutes of enviro-fame have nearly expired. I hope I am wrong - but it doesn't appear Australia will be doing much about emissions for the next half year - at least not from a policy perspective. Without policy direction, the big changes such as where utilities invest to address increasing demand, how they mitigate the resulting business risks, etc. are essentially stalled.

What are the scientists, IPCC, UN, etc. saying about inaction???

But some action is still possible. Along with the continued support of renewables, efficiency and conservation; we can continue the expansion of domestic uranium mining, aggressively support innovative nuclear technology developments and even accelerate work on our own list of relevant nuclear infrastructure prerequisites. New nuclear capacity doesn't have to be built specifically in Australia to have a positive impact on the global energy to emissions ratio. Australia must support the efforts of other, well positioned countries to reignite/accelerate their nuclear programs. After the first few dozen have been constructed and commissioned, we will be ready for a few of our own.

Is it inconceivable that Australia could have 25 commercial nuclear power reactors in 43 years?

Ponder this: prior to 1954, just 53 years ago, humanity hadn't generated a single electron from nuclear generated heat. Today the world has 439 operable reactors with another 34 being constructed. 1984, seeing the most connections to the grid [that are still operating today] at 33 worldwide.

But while technically feasible, is it likely? Yes, but not anytime soon, unless Australia ceases to be a democracy. Public opinion may have shown recent signs of warming, but there are some loud anti-nuclear voices here that seem to spawn in an environment of colossal public misinformation and ignorance. But there is hope in Bali [and by that I mean the ongoing process that has begun in Bali]. Kevin Rudd has just been elected, but is coming off as somewhat right of the current enviro-political centre. Already Rudd's been leapfrogged by the very environmental groups that were lambasting Howard just a few weeks ago.

Ongoing change is a certainty. We haven't even begun to solve the problem yet [emission levels not only continue to rise, but at an increasing rate!!]. Dramatic action is only a matter of time. Eventually the laws of physics will have asserted themselves to an adequate degree and the more flexible 'laws' of economics and politics, not to mention the omnipresent public opinion, will have to abide. It never works the other way-round. Australia may have to waste a bit more time and resources to develop an understanding of the concept, but we will get there.

Last week's video - Tim Flannery interview

From an interview Tim Flannery did with the WWF-Australia in February 2007.

Considering the WWF is conducting the interview, Tim does a good job promoting the role of nuclear power to reduce Australia's embarrassingly high per-capita emissions. He's advocating it be done properly, but it's obvious that - at least for him - nuclear remains on the table.

Last week's video - Moral and Ethical aspects of climate change

From a meeting at the United Nations on 30-April, 2007.

This is a more articulate way of explaining why I believe - and frequently proclaim - our emissions are so embarrassingly high.

Find the referenced paper at this link.

Listen to Tim Flannery's 2-cents on this topic here.

No one is saying it has to be done tomorrow...

Energy security issues aside for a moment, it has been said if nuclear power is to be a serious contributor to the mitigation of severe and abrupt climate change, some 600 or so plants would have to be constructed globally in less than 43 years? Is this possible?

Looking at history, I’d say yes – certainly.

During the mid 1980’s [between 1981 and 1988] there was a sustained global deployment of 20 plants per year. Two years saw operations commence at over 30 plants. If the construction projects get up and running by say 2015, we have 35 years remaining and could very feasibly construct and commission 700 facilities – and that’s with technology that existed in the 1980’s. 30 years of improved construction techniques and technology as well as more mature regulatory processes, would surely improve the likelihood of achieving that goal.

In the short term [1 to 5 years], the ‘low hanging fruit’ can be addressed to take a bite out of emissions. Such work as efficiency improvement initiatives, and the deployment of cost effective renewables are some examples.

In the interim [say 5 to 20 years], nuclear facility deployment can – and by the looks of it will – be carried out in current nuclear powered countries, mainly at existing nuclear sites.

But also in the near term and interim, the prerequisites for nuclear energy must be addressed in non-nuclear countries considering nuclear power. Many such prerequisites may be found in the International Atomic Energy Agency document, “Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power”. Most, if not all, of the recommended actions and milestones do not require significant financial resources, but do require a fair amount of time to fully achieve. Once this infrastructure is developed, the longer term [15 to 45 years] options for nuclear power will be available in relevant non-nuclear countries.

To fail to address the development of a nuclear infrastructure [which in itself is certainly no commitment to nuclear power] displays a combination of short-sightedness and unjustified overconfidence in efficiency, renewables and research that would be unethical if it were not so immoral – particularly considering Australia’s per-capita contribution to global emissions.

Listen to what Professor Tim Flannery says about nuclear (21-Aug-2006). He repeatedly denies being a ‘face for the nuclear industry’. He is however emphasizing the need to consider and adequately address the relevant issues so nuclear power can play a part in the solution if – after considerable effort and investment – we discover we can not get there without it.

It is time for a serious start.

Tim Flannery - Climate change worse than feared

2007 Australian of the Year - Professor Tim Flannery

While Garrett and Labor shamelessly arrange for large sums of money to go to Al Gore to stoke the fears of voters, Professor Flannery remains focused on the problem - and its steadily increasing magnitude.

A man of mature technical aptitude and conscience, Flannery sticks to the facts, supported by the data and draws on the relevant solutions.

See the full report filed by the AFP

Flannery said predictions in a 2001 UN report, warning the atmosphere was likely to warm by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius (2.5-10.4 Fahrenheit) from 1990 to 2100 now appeared conservative.

"In the six years since then, we've collected enough data to (check) whether those projections are valid or not," he said.

"It turns out they're not valid, but in the most horrible way -- because for the key performance indicators about climate, change is occurring far in advance of the worst-case scenario," he said.

"Carbon dioxide's increasing more rapidly, sea levels are rising more rapidly (and) the Arctic ice cap is melting away more quickly than were projected in 2001."

Flannery said nations needed to "de-carbonise" their economies by 2050, increasing reliance on geo-thermal, nuclear and renewable energy.

Australian of the Year; Tim Flannery (still) backs Nuclear

As requested in my post here; I was wondering why Tim Flannery was opposed to nuclear power. "Could he possibly think it's worse than climate change or fossil fuels?" I wondered. I was wishing for further information and now I've got it.

Turns out I was correct. He still supports nuclear as reported here at New Consumer and - I might add - to precisely the same extent that I have from the start.

To quote:

You talk about nuclear power in your book, saying one problem is it's slow to build. Do you think Gordon Brown's wrong to back it?

Do you know what I'd say to Gordon Brown if I could speak to him? I'd say if we look at this as a holistic problem, let's do the easy things first. Let's concentrate on energy efficiency, how much efficiency can you gain in the use of electricity in this country? I think there's enormous gains to be had. You might be able to halve your electricity use by focusing very strongly on efficiency, particularly it comes to retrofitting buildings, insulation and all that. So that's number one.

Number two, use local energy sources - the renewables. Wind, wave power, photovoltaics, combined heating and power, and then, if, after doing your utmost in those areas, you've still got a deficit in the amount of electricity you use, I'd then say if your choice is only between conventional coal-burning and nuclear power, I'd reluctantly support nuclear power.

My point here is when one takes the time to objectively consider the capabilities of other no/low carbon energy alternatives, realistic forecasts for increases in demand, etc.; Australia will find itself facing the very decision Tim poses above. I further believe that any reasonable consideration of that question and supporting facts will arrive at the same conclusion. It won't happen tomorrow, or in 5 years nor probably even 10; but Australia will adopt nuclear power if we are serious about achieving significant emissions reductions by 2050 (i.e. 42+ years on).

Ziggy Switkowski agrees,

[He]told Sky Business Sunday that a nuclear reactor on the eastern seaboard of Australia was inevitable.

"The first reactors are probably going to be found serving the major markets of the eastern seaboard," he said.

Good on newconsumer.com for straight up reporting - or as they call it on their web-page... ethical.

Nuclear Conversions

All in all the score card remains about even.

First, as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald: Australian of the year Tim Flannery is now opposing nuclear power, citing Australia's abundant renewable potential - but there's no technology references or studies, examples, case studies or demonstration projects. I would love to know more.

However, as reported by ABC News: The federal Member for Gilmore, Joanna Gash, says she now supports the idea of nuclear power, but still strongly opposes a nuclear plant in her electorate on the NSW south coast.

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.