Cap & Trade - inadequate & inneffective

In the video below, two officials from the US EPA explain why the perversion of legal loopholes, the hypocritical application of offsets and special interests' manipulation of a cap & trade system result in windfall profits for utilities, higher energy prices for consumers and - worst - increases to carbon emissions. This idea, in the context of greenhouse gas emission reduction, is a proven failure.

A fee & dividend approach is much more fair and actually is the best policy option to solve the problem. [Much like the deployment of currently available nuclear generation technology, is among the best no/low CO2 emitting technical options to phase out dirty coal.]

in reference to: Gillard unveils carbon price details - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (view on Google Sidewiki)

Meet the Climate Sceptics

UPDATE A second video has been added based on a comment. Normally I don't do 'updates' but this is too good to pass by.

Filmmaker Rupert Murry follows British climate sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton to Australia and America where he makes his case against the link between global emissions and threats from climate change.

The episode has been broken into 4 parts.

Is this credible science or the hijacking of public opinion and policy debates???





And now a video claiming to debunk Lord CM. Please watch and decide.

The nuclear Brand

Longtime environmentalist and former anti-nuclear activist Stewart Brand explains his change of heart and discusses the potential impact of solar, wind, gas, as well as the electrification of transport.

SOURCE: Inhabitat

Check out the About link for Inhabitat. The organisation appears to be a group of young environmentally conscious journalists and environmentalists. It is heartening to see the next generation addressing energy related challenges with such integrity, open mindedness and balance.

We need them.

Spain changes course on nuclear

Most of Spain's main political parties, including the governing Socialist Party, have agreed the country's operating nuclear plants can run longer than 40 years.

The move could have major implications for Spain, which has a long- standing official opposition to continuing with nuclear power in the country.

The agreement came Tuesday in the form of an amendment to the law of economic sustainability currently being debated in the Congress.

Source: Platts

Another data point on an increasingly positive trend...

Switzerland - Bern says yes to nuclear power plant

Phase-out and moratorium laws are falling in Europe (Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy) and US States (Minnesota and Kentucky) to name a few.

And now Switzerland

In a public referendum, the Swiss Canton of Bern has voted in favour of building a new nuclear power plant in Mühleberg to replace the old one there. This trend is evidence of the growing recognition of nuclear energy's role among currently available, demonstrated no/low emission energy generating technologies and Switzerland's commitment (with their Alpine-based hydro generating capacity) to a sustainable, green energy future consistent with the theme of the video linked below.

Only one hurdle remains...

Many authors, scientists and engineers have been saying - for some time now - that

• the scientific research is complete - adequate confidence has been demonstrated that human generated greenhouse gasses at current levels and rates of release pose a sever threat to humanity / life as we know it.
• the engineering is complete - demonstrated technologies exist today that, if aggressively deployed, are capable of managing emissions while supplying energy adequate to sustain economic activity, including the rate of growth in developing economies such as Brazil, India and China. Hence the slowing of my rate of posts. If you're not convinced of the technical readiness of nuclear technology and you are still coming here for such info, please dig into the post archive... it's all there.

So, what's left?

Political will. In his online posts, Dr. James Hansen (chief of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies) does an excellent job explaining what concerned members of the general public are up against.

Yes, it may be said, but young people are free to also influence public opinion. However, consider this Heartland chart as an example of what young people are up against. People carrying out these tasks are professional warriors for special interests, well-funded to make the case that global warming and climate disruption are a hoax. Their message is repeated relentlessly. Note that the "free market ideas" phrase in the Heartland bottom line is Orwellian double-speak. They mean the opposite, they want business-as-usual, with fossil fuels subsidized and not required to pay their costs to society.

Dear grandchild, this is a monster that you must face. You will need to figure it out. I am sorry. But it is the shape of our democracy today, which we bequeath to you.

With this in mind, I politely ask readers to consider becoming involved. Have a look at the embedded video and if so motivated, draft a letter. You may even wish to send a copy to your local representative here in Australia.

Garnaut - "you ain't seen nothing yet"

Cue the claims that Australia is a small contributor to global emissions or, more pitiful, outright denial.

In the article, Garnaut goes on to clarify that Australia is stuck with the political reality that we are the "world champions" of greenhouse pollution per capita... "not by a little bit, but by a wide margin".

The whole article suggests a depressing, karmic justice for events from Black Saturday through cyclone Yasi.

As a nation, are we prepared to address climate change; to objectively consider all options; to justly weigh all risks; and consistently apply demonstrated solutions to a schedule necessary to achieve the required objectives?

Or is there more talk in our future, more study and further delay???

in reference to:

"What is more, Garnaut said that since his 2008 review the science has only become more alarming. ''The general trend is to confirm that the [UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its fourth assessment report of 2007] underestimated the impacts of climate change. All the measurable impacts … are tracking right at the top of the range of possibilities identified by the [panel], or in some cases above them.""
- Garnaut updates gloomy review (view on Google Sidewiki)

China's near-term energy future

When I read this... 'Wow' came quickly to mind. 38 GWe NEW nuclear, 140 GWe NEW hydro, and 90 GWe NEW wind (divide this by 3 to compare to the others in terms of likely generation).

... anyway, all of this by 2015! Nearly doubling their current non-fossil fuel energy supply from 8% of total energy demand today to 15%... in less than 5 years!

They also mention that energy intensity per unit GDP is dropping, currently down 20% from 2005 - an indication of increased efficiency. This is to drop by an additional 17% or so by 2015.

Seems like they're doing it all right; an example for the world...

Then I see China's thermal generation capacity (coal, oil and gas) will rise by 260 to 270 GWe over the same period. A single metric, looming over all others.

The clear bottom line; with all that they are doing, pursuing every option and investing a LOT of money to decarbonise, it is still far from enough.

in reference to: China power sector to boom as oil sector goes slower Reuters (view on Google Sidewiki)

Some annual stats

This time of year, many blogs are summing up 2010 and providing their version of current nuclear statistics. Who am I to resist?

But rather than look just at 2010, why now page back to 2004 - the first year of annual data on the main page of the IAEA Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) database.

2010 saw construction officially start (first concrete pour) on 15 nuclear units in 5 countries, including a 2-unit site in India. These amount to nearly 14.9 GWe of capacity [over a 1000% increase from construction starts in 2004].

The chart of the information from the database is below - I'll let the readers draw their own conclusions. [maroon - construction initiated (MWe), blue - construction initiated (No. Units), yellow - capacity brought online (MWe)]

Nuclear needed in Spain

Despite efforts of anti-nuclear campaigners to herald Spain as a solar energy example to the world; a closer examination will demonstrate that Spain must increase its reliance on nuclear energy to supplement the transition toward sustainable energy security and responsible environmental stewardship.

They've certainly made a respectable effort to move toward renewables, but their actions as reported by Bloomberg point to a compromise in that drive - between higher energy prices and a greater reliance on nuclear energy.

An example that renewables alone are inadequate to achieve real goals out in the real world.

in reference to: Spain Approves Increase in Nuclear Power Output, Expansion Says - Bloomberg (view on Google Sidewiki)