Gillard needs a body with teeth to tackle climate change

WayneT says:

11:48am | 05/08/10

How did we get to Climate Change (a natural event) from Anthropogenic Global Warming (a man made event)?  You never hear that term used anymore, not in the press, government or even the IPCC.  Is it because politicians can no longer point to humans being the driving force behind global warming?  It’s much easier to use Climate Change because you would sound stupid denying that the climate changes.  Instead of arguing about a carbon price, shouldn’t we be debating the science behind this first?  Don’t you find it surprising that there has not been one single public debate on the subject, and that the chief promoters of this view refuse to sit down and debate the science from both sides of the argument, especially when the world is looking at trillions of dollars in tackling the problem?  Is that why Labor don’t want to make a decision on a carbon price is because they now realise that the science isn’t in?  And now that they have committed to it they find themselves unable to find a way out without doing another back flip.  So now they delay, delay, delay.  The chief argument that carbon dioxide drives temperature fails the test.  The IPCC’s own reporting shows that even if we reduced CO2 emissions by half it would only result in a drop of 0.02C by the end of the century.  Natural carbon dioxide makes up 0.0387% of all trace gases.  And of that figure, human produced CO2 makes up about 0.0012%.  We contribute the equivalent of about 3% of all the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.  So who do you think has the greatest influence, Nature or Man?

Jack Thomas says:

02:30pm | 05/08/10

Since when did the climate alarmists need proof?

The alarmists are already forcing their “theory” into our lives.

Theory and fear alone is enough for the Council and VCAT to ruin the lives of this Aussie family:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/fear-of-coastal-swamping-leads-to-unprecedented-ruling-on-property-dream/story-e6frf7kx-1225901323695

To get a planning permit, this guy now has to ‘disprove’ the theory of climate change. Otherwise he has done enough to get a permit. 

If Julia Gillard is claiming this Assembly is to “provide evidence and information about climate change to all Australians”, then what the hell are a local Council and VCAT doing this sort of stuff already?

Pity this doesn’t affect the inner city latte leftie enclaves like Northcote, we’d see a different response then.

TimB says:

08:07am | 05/08/10

Consensus isn’t science anyway. If it was, we’d all be falling off the edge of the world every time we took a cruise too far in any direction. It only takes one scientist to successfully disprove a hypothesis.

As far as I’m concerned the jury is still out. There’s far too many unknown variables for scientists to be able to predict an accurate picture of the future climate. And it doesn’t help that the only way they can get the data to match the theory is to fudge around with the figures, ignoring results they don’t like.

Regardeless, for the sake of argument lets pretend AGW is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. What can Australia possibly do about it? We emit less than 2% of the world’s emissions total. Even if we dropped to *zero* emissions tomorrow, it wouldn’t make a lick of difference. So why commit economic suicide for what would amount to nothing more than a token gesture?

“But!” I hear the AGW believers cry, “We have to set an example!”. That’s crap. America, China, and India et al, aren’t going to be shamed into acting by us. They will laugh and take advantage of our actions.
Even if they do adopt similar measures further down the track, we will still have had an extended period of economic decline. If we are intent on going down this road, there’s no way we should do so before the big emitters do. They should be the ones to go first.

Finally, lets say we do decide to do something regardless of the rest of the world’s actions. We need power. It’s as simple as that. Renewable energy simply isn’t going to cut it on it’s own.
And our best option (at this time)  for meeting power requirements and reducing emissions is nuclear. We sit on something like 40% of the world’s uranium reserves and a crapload of empty desert for waste storage. We’re idiots for not considering the nuclear option.

And that more than anything is why I cannot take the Greens seriously. You cant go around bleating about reducing emissions whlist simultaneously decrying nuclear power in a fit of bloody-minded NIMBY-ism.

I say this. I currently vote Liberal because of my deep contempt for Labor’s continuing incompetence. They’re not perfect by any means, but they tend to get the job done better than Labor. But ANY political party that has the guts to put the nuclear option on the table will get my vote.

T.Chong says:

08:10am | 05/08/10

Brad , agree. if as you say we should only deal with the science, then you also need to remove the lunatic Right who are in complete denial- the Lord Moncktons and Abbotts - “climate change is crap”,the world was hotter when Adam was a boy"type of extremist denier, then , common sense and science may well prevail.

iain says:

09:26am | 05/08/10

mr chong what monkton says is that draconian and futile attempts to stop global warming of which mankind is partially responsible could well do more dame to people than preparing to adapt to a changed enviroment. its you lot that use climate change

Steely Dan says:

09:33am | 05/08/10

@ Tim B and Brad

“your entire opinion presupposes that the science is 100% accurate, even the scientists do not say that.”
If they did, they wouldn’t be scientists.  Claims of 100% accuracy are not scientific, because we understand that there could always be unknown variables - hence claims of 100% accuracy are off limits.

The best evidence we have suggests that climate change is happening, and that its human-induced.  The last IPCC from memory claimed 90 or 95% certainty.  That’s high enough for me to be concerned.

TimB says:

09:50am | 05/08/10

@ Steely Dan

Except the IPCC report was found to be riddled with errors and badly sourced inaccuracies. I cannot take it seriously.

Steely Dan says:

10:30am | 05/08/10

@ TimB

‘Riddled’ is a ridiculous over-exaggeration.  How many errors have been found in the IPCC4?

WayneT says:

12:17pm | 05/08/10

Not long ago it was the consensus view that the Earth was the centre of the Universe and that the world was flat.  And if you disagreed you were tortured to death, not just ridiculed on a website forum.  I’m just a lay person here along with so many millions of others who can’t understand how we went from AGW to CC, and watched carbon classified as a pollutant, a pollutant that almost all life on earth couldn’t exist without.  If the science is settled it should be easy to end the argument by having an open debate on the subject and putting all the sceptics in their place.  Is it because there is no conclusive proof, no smoking gun, just a lot of supposedly solid evidence from the IPCC.  A UN panel who’s conclusions our politicians hold up as scientific fact, and on which they should base their policy making.  Out of curiosity I recently checked out the IPCC website and was shocked to find how their peer review process works (or doesn’t), whereby IPCC members choose like minded scientist & non scientists to review the documentation. Or how their charter (role) showed that they are not an independent UN body after all.  It reads – ‘The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation’.  The term Human Induced Climate Change is the real kicker for me.  This hardly represents an organisation that is looking into all possible causes.  If it were found that humans are in fact not causing or contributing to Global Warming then this panel would no longer have a reason or a case for existence.  Under their Procedures section it reads – ‘In taking decisions, and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working Groups and any Task Forces shall use all best endeavours to reach consensus’.  Here now we come full circle.  Since when is consensus scientific fact.  Is it when you don’t have actual facts?  So I have to ask myself, if I have a group whose role it is to look at how Humans are affecting climate changes, and they only have to come to a consensus view.  How reliable are their conclusions and should I be spending trillions of dollars combating something that I may well have little or no affect upon?

Macca says:

12:31pm | 05/08/10

@TimB, shorter paragraphs please. The internet has a wonderful conglomerate of things to enjoy and my attention span is simply no….......

TimB says:

01:07pm | 05/08/10

@ Macca

Me? My paragraphs look fine to me.  Perhaps you were looking at WayneT’s post?

Steely Dan says:

01:17pm | 05/08/10

@ WayneT

“Not long ago it was the consensus view that the Earth was the centre of the Universe and that the world was flat.”
It’s true that science progresses.  Self-correction is its strength.  If new evidence comes to light, the old theory goes out the window.  So nothing is set in stone in science, everything is open for revision.  But that’s no reason to reject gravity.  Or germ theory.  Or global warming/climate change.  The time to reject a theory is when there is evidence that its bunk.

“I’m just a lay person here along with so many millions of others who can’t understand how we went from AGW to CC”
It was actually Bush II’s people who pushed for it - to make it sound softer.  It’s not technically incorrect - global warming is a change in climate - but I agree that the first name worked fine.

“...and watched carbon classified as a pollutant, a pollutant that almost all life on earth couldn’t exist without.”
Too much of something will kill you, as will too little.  Too much oxygen would make the atmosphere prone to combustion, too little would kill us.  CO2, other GGs and the greenhouse effect itself aren’t inherently ‘evil’ things.  Without it earth would be freezing.  But we’ve upped the greenhouse gas levels too far - hence the need to pull it back to sustainable (not nil) levels.

“If the science is settled it should be easy to end the argument by having an open debate on the subject and putting all the sceptics in their place.”
We have! 

“A UN panel who’s conclusions our politicians hold up as scientific fact, and on which they should base their policy making.”
They hold that its a 90% certainty that we’re responsible. 

“Out of curiosity I recently checked out the IPCC website and was shocked to find how their peer review process works (or doesn’t), whereby IPCC members choose like minded scientist & non scientists to review the documentation.”
The report is actually a compilation of (mainly) peer-reviewed papers, all of which are referenced.  There’s only been one notable error in the report (the Himalayan glacier melt date).  The IPCC has admitted that the date was wrong and corrected it.

“The term Human Induced Climate Change is the real kicker for me.  This hardly represents an organisation that is looking into all possible causes.”
That’s right.  They’re looking to see if it’s us, not concluding that it’s us as a starting point.  That includes examining alternative theories.  If it’s us, we can stop it.  If it’s not, we probably can’t.  And it turns out it’s probalby us. 

“Here now we come full circle.  Since when is consensus scientific fact.’
Are the IPCC claiming it’s fact?  Or are they claiming that consensus opinion supports the claim that we are 95% likely to be responsible?

“So I have to ask myself, if I have a group whose role it is to look at how Humans are affecting climate changes”
That’s not what they’re doing.  Re-read the charter.

Tom says:

08:24am | 05/08/10

Agree. Labor’s “jack-boot consensus among the mates” is a scam.

Teeth???? What about.brains .... and honesty.

Gregg says:

10:32am | 05/08/10

I’d wager odds on that there’re not to many politicians full stop who understand too much of anything involving technology.
Tony and the Kevin on his side at least know about deraileur gears and no doubt how to rechain and keep pedalling forward with good power and stamina at minimal cost whilst warming himself and all with minimal impact on global warming.

Steely Dan says:

10:07am | 05/08/10

@ Sherlock

“So this “Climate Change Commission” isn’t really going to be representative of the community.”
Should it be?  Sometimes we need scientific advisory bodies to help us with decision-making.  What proportion of Australians actually have a science degree of any type, let alone a relevant one?  That might sound elitist to some, but we don’t give the responsibility of deciding which drugs can come into the country to a ‘representative group’, thats given to people with some basic knowledge of pharmacy.

iansand says:

11:31am | 05/08/10

I think putting a few sceptics on the panel would be a great idea.  Then they would actually have to listen to the scientists for a while, instead of spouting denialist nonsense they get from ignorant bloggers.  What would happen if Andrew Bolt actually understood what he is spouting?

Northern Steve says:

09:53pm | 05/08/10

Iansand,
Fine, put some sceptics on there, as long as they are qualified scientists who can follow the science.  So many of the sceptics that I read about (or whose articles I read), don’t actually understand the science, or misunderstand the science.

Sherlock says:

09:36am | 05/08/10

Too late it’s already there. Europe is an economic basket case and California, the worlds eighth largest economy is basically bankrupt.

Does anybody think it’s just pure coincidence that those two places are the only ones with a working carbon trading scheme?

Steely Dan says:

10:14am | 05/08/10

@ Sherlock

California was already in a very bad way before the Governator came along.  And Europe is a basket case because of its failing economies like Greece - tying that to carbon trading is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?

Adam Diver says:

12:35pm | 05/08/10

To nject a little bit of optimism I thiunk we as a race have the collective knowledge to find a solution to our energy needs that have minimal environmental impacts as well. So a lot more funding into these technologies with some of the wealth you suggest may even have a positive outcome.

But you are right, I just wanted a little more hope

Steely Dan says:

10:26am | 05/08/10

@ DocBud

Public opinion isn’t science.  You can’t vote the earth flat.

DocBud says:

03:33pm | 05/08/10

Steely Dan,

I agree, I never said it was.

The public opinion reference was in response to Alex Kazaglis’s claim that the Committee on Climate Change “has begun to create the deep and lasting consensus that Julia Gillard so strongly desires”, thus implying that the overwhelming majority of the UK public are marching happily into their low carbon future when the evidence suggests otherwise.

When the majority are not convinced you have three options: abandon your ideas, try and persuade people or impose your views and remedies on people. Given that scientists don’t agree on the science and economists don’t agree on the cost benefit analyses of the various options, why is it governments and misanthropes always choose to listen to those who afford the greatest justification for controlling the behaviour of others?

Steely Dan says:

09:40am | 06/08/10

@ DocBud

“Given that scientists don’t agree on the science and economists don’t agree on the cost benefit analyses of the various options”
I can show you scientists that think evolution is made up by Satan to trick us.  We’re not going to get every scientist to agree on everything. 

What we do have is a very comfortable majority of respected scientists in the field saying that AGW is real.  Like yourself and everybody else, I’m not an expert in most fields.  This is why we listen to the opinions of people who we accept know more than we do.  My doctor may not be right 100% of the time, but I take his opinion on health issues very seriously.  The opinions of all my family, friends and co-workers regarding my immune system are not as highly valued as my one GP.

Though I do agree with you that how we reduce our emissions in an economically efficiently way is nowhere near as settled.  But the only economists who don’t agree that the cost of inaction will be too high are those who reject the science itself.

Northern Steve says:

10:08pm | 05/08/10

MarK,
If you had any understanding of mathematical modelling and weather systems, you would understand that modelling the climate in 100yrs time is much easier than modelling the weather next week.  If you do’t understand the difference between weather and climate, you need to go and get educated before you aprticipate in the debate,
The science is not a joke. It is real.  The adjustments you talk about are made to data to take into account facts like missing data, data collection from stations that aren’t in ideal places and so on.

And to correct some other errors there, China has mandated for 15% of energy to be created from renewable resources.  China is also the world leading manufacturer of solar cells and wind turbines.  India creates 25% of its energy from hydroelectric schemes, and is about to introduce a European-style ETS.

Sherlock says:

11:34am | 05/08/10

Are you seriously suggesting that we shift our energy production to renewables?

Can you name any that actually work? Ones that supply a reliable stream of power when needed. Ones in actual use not some test plant?

Renewable energy sources have been around for decades and as yet nobody has been able to get them to provide a economically viable and reliable power source.

The day an unreliable energy supply results in Australians being unable to make their morning coffee and toast is the day governments fall

Steely Dan says:

12:35pm | 05/08/10

@ Sherlock

“Are you seriously suggesting that we shift our energy production to renewables?”
Limitless clean energy for the cost of construction and maintenance?  Even the Monckton fans wouldn’t say no!

“Can you name any that actually work? Ones that supply a reliable stream of power when needed.”
Let’s start with solar.  There’s quite a lot of big solar plants Europe, particularly in Spain and Germany.  There’s a lot more currently in production than operational now.  The US are building a 600MW facility (somewhere in the south, from memory).  And before you say ‘what happens at night’ - remember that battery technology has moved on a lot in the past few decades.  Solar plants can feed energy into the grid 24 hrs a day.  I advocate phasing the non-renewables out until they’re not even needed as a back-up.

“Renewable energy sources have been around for decades and as yet nobody has been able to get them to provide a economically viable and reliable power source.”
That’s because there’s never been any money in it (short-term) versus established industries like coal.  That and very little money going into the R&D to make the renewables like solar as efficient as they’ve become.

Adam Diver says:

12:42pm | 05/08/10

Wake up Sherlock. You want the earth to be flooded like in the time of Noah.

Everyone knows that renewables work its the energy companies buying them off so they don’t have mainstream appeal. For example my friend had a couple of large solar panels on a small house in the bush. He could turn his lights on most nights and watch almost a full episode of the simpsons on the solar panels alone. The he would turn the generator on for almost everything else. It was only a slight step up from living in a tent but obviously properly scaled and solar will answer our power needs.  I know spains heavily subsidised industry is doing particularly well.

Sherlock says:

01:45pm | 05/08/10

That fact that you would hold up Spain as an example of a successful implementation of renewable energy only shows that you have absolutely no idea what your talking about.

In 2008, Spain’s solar PV market was reportedly more than 15 billion Euros.In the same year, Spain produced 2.367 billion kilowatt-hours of solar electricity, less than 1% of its electricity. The new La Florida solar plant takes Spain’s solar output to 432MW as at July 2010.

Bayswater power station in the Hunter Valley generates 2,720 megawatts on its own. So Spain has spent tens of billions of dollars for a solar network that produces less than one sixth the output of a cola fired station.

Now you’re suggest we do the same. Just how insane are you.

Then look at what the massive government subsidies have done to the Spanish economy. Once the subsidies were withdrawn the industry collapsed.

Like most greenies you’re living in some fantasy world.

Sherlock says:

02:53pm | 05/08/10

a cola fired station????

They must be the ones that use coking coal

Steely Dan says:

03:13pm | 05/08/10

@ Sherlock

“That fact that you would hold up Spain as an example of a successful implementation of renewable energy only shows that you have absolutely no idea what your talking about.”
Sherlock, you asked me to give you examples of power stations that work.  And I did.  I made no claim that Spain was implementing it well (they’re clearly not), nor did I claim that Germany was implementing it well (they seem to be doing well).

“In 2008, Spain’s solar PV market was reportedly more than 15 billion Euros.”
That’s the value of the PV industry (in the boom of 2008) - not the cost of production.  And that’s just the PV market - there’s more to solar than photovoltaic.  Solar thermal is cheaper per mwh.  Also remember that the cost of solar plants is in the construction - against coal they pay for themselves over the long term (sometimes just under a decade).

“Then look at what the massive government subsidies have done to the Spanish economy. Once the subsidies were withdrawn the industry collapsed.”
Spanish subsidies were high to start with, and the market over-inflated before the financial crisis forced Spain to cut the subsidies back early.  That’s called bad economic management, not bad technology.  Bad management can cause any market to crash, Sherlock.

Adam Diver says:

03:36pm | 05/08/10

If you are talking to me sherlock I was unsuccessfully being sarcastic. Spain is a perfect example of why solar does not work. But somehow these real life examples just ruin the green’s fantasys of a pollution free utopia. We will just ignore all the facts and keep hoping.

Gregg says:

04:30pm | 05/08/10

Before you start dumping on Sherlock Adam why do you not research some info and get a basic understanding of base load electrical systems for there’s a whole heap more requirements than jusy watching the Simpsons.
Wiki will have some good data for you and Steely Dan, are you sure that 600 MW plant isn’t a 64 mw one in the Mojave Desert and though there are both tower systems and parabolic collectors that use molten salts as a heat storage medium, they do not yet have the kind of massive power generation capacity to run industry and services 24/7.
Nost of the solar plants are just gigantic PV installations with no storage capacity and so only good for very limited supply.

Furthermore, the plants constructed have only been operating for relatively few years and so longer term maintenance issues are unknown but I imagine salts being corrosive, having molten salts heat exchangers is not going to be a Sunday picnic.
It’s a very simple answer and that is with current technology, base load can come from coal/gas fired or Nuclear PSs and a little from Hydro schemes if you have the water to release but then that’s another story.

Next generation Nuclear PSs still in earlier stages of development could be the reaction type [ forget proper name ] rather than just fuel rods etc. but for now France and most of Europe are reliant on Nuclear power.
Solar, wind and tidal etc. will always have limitations in availability, capacity and transmission.
If you cannot rely on them 24/7 they become more nuisance value for your baseload coal stations here cannot just produce more at a flick of the switch and ramping turbine/generator power up and down is just a good way to increase their maintenance needs and general problems with all associated plant.

The idea of storing CO2 underground is a real furphy and have a read of http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageplanet/01volcano/01/indexmid.html to see what leaking gases can do.

So here we have goverbments crowing about not building anymore dirty coal fired power stations and so welcome back to the age of blackouts from power shortages for it’s been nearly 20 years since the last new base load power station was brought on line and older ones are getting well past the close down age.
Hazelwood PS in Victoria has had no end of refurbishments and is about 50 years old.

You might want to say, there you go, we haven’t needed any new ones and that is true but the other things that have been happening are the east coast grid connections which means power generation capacity optimisation, quite a few gas fired generators [ more expensive ] and with an increasing population and high energy requirements from desalination plants the end of capacity line is rapidly being reached.

So what is your choice for new power supplies?
Meanwhile, keep that candle stock up to date.

Northern Steve says:

10:13pm | 05/08/10

Might be worth throwing into this little conversation than the world’s biggest solar cell and wind tubine maker is now…wait for it… China!
Obviously they think there is something in this that is worthwhile.  The are also legislating for 15% energy from renewables within 10 years
India is introducing an ETS.
If we don’t get cracking, we’ll lose what’s left of our once world-leading solar cell industry and instead be bying from China, and covering ourselves in the meantime by buying pollution permits to India!

Steely Dan says:

10:01am | 06/08/10

@ Gregg

“Steely Dan, are you sure that 600 MW plant isn’t a 64 mw one in the Mojave Desert”
The one I was talking about is Rancho Cielo in New Mexico, it hasn’t been completed. 

@ Northern Steve
“If we don’t get cracking, we’ll lose what’s left of our once world-leading solar cell industry and instead be bying from China”
Excellent point, and its one people seem to forget about.  We used to be a true world leader in solar (and other renewables), but we’re slipping.  Australia could be one of the hardest hit if the world backs away from coal (and no clean coal option comes along).  We can’t afford to come to the renewable party late in the game.

Gregg says:

01:50pm | 06/08/10

Yes Steely Dan and it will be a PV array and the motto for PV is
” When the Sun is up, so are we ”
That kind of set up may be fine for nearby communities re general housing day time supply and even small businesses of 9-5 operation but there’ll always be the problem of managing demand loads.
For instance, how well off will you be if your 500 MW and greater turbo/generator units are going to be needed to take over after the sun goes down if they have been sitting idle!
If you have little idea in what it takes to fire up a huge generating unit, I’d suggest you get yourself a trip to a PS that has tours available and take note first of the size of a coal fired boiler, say about 20 stories or so high and the massive ammount of machinery involved in first dredging the coal, the conveying, the multiple stage crushing and finally the firing process.
Coal dust does some interesting things to switch gear that is turned off as do conveying systems to themselves and so plant reliability aside the start/stop approach to massive turbines, the heating and cooling cycles etc. will just lead to shorter life spans if not catastrophic fatique induced failures.
So all of a sudden you do not have your base power generating capacity available.
Politicians will have no idea of those operating factors and most people without an engineering background likewise.
Are the current bunch of pollies going to be answerable for future power shortages!
With the extent of interstate grid connections and privatisation it is doubtful anyone will be able to be found to be accountable.

The only solar pwer stations with storage are the ones that are using the molten salt principle and not only is long term performance unknown but their capacity is limited in the case of tower units, just how many solar reflectors can be arrayed close enough to the tower to be effecrive, the largest that only operated for about three years being 10MW and a 17MW one under construction in Spain and so you’re playing tiddly winks.

As for China having a lead on manufacturing, nothing new on that for an Australian manufacturer went there a good few years ago and another just recently has taken a domestic power cell development/manufacture to germany I believe.
Reasons for both being:
Market proximity, mass production costs, no doubt cheaper labour costs for China and probably no work choices restrictions for both.

An interesting concept often overlooked by our green faternity is that for every carbon associated restriction we place on ourselves here in Australia, there’ll be an accumulative impact of eventually cost driving manufacturing offshore and if you think the carbon/unit of production in China, India or wherever is going to be lower than here, think again.

Our distance from market places and shipping costs involved has always been a hurdle our manufacturing industries have had to overcome and with work choices trestrictions and carbon taxing we’re not only shooting our feet off a bit more but just having production somewhere else with an even greater carbon output.

Sure, the whole planet is going to have to develop lifestyles around whatever powering options may be available, be it your 4wd with six draught horses or a bicycle for transport and Nuclear will need to be part of considerations but if you believe solar/wind are our salvation around the corner, sorry you’re off with the fairies.

Steely Dan says:

02:36pm | 06/08/10

@ Gregg

Well, I’ve got to hand it to you.  You put that straw man to shame!
You seem to think that I’m suggesting that the one plant will produce all the power for some massive area 24 hours a day.  I’m not.  What plants like this will achieve is reducing the workload, emissions and resource usage of the non-renewable base stations.

“So all of a sudden you do not have your base power generating capacity available.”
I’m not advocating knocking down existing stations to build solar farms on the same site.  I advocate phasing them out when we have a proven equivalent - or better - energy source.

“there’ll be an accumulative impact of eventually cost driving manufacturing offshore and if you think the carbon/unit of production in China, India or wherever is going to be lower than here, think again.”
I’m aware of our history with manufacturing.  What I was talking about was developing the technology in the first place.  Steve Jobs’ fruit company might be making a lot of developing-world manufacturers happy, but it’s still pouring a lot of money back into the US.

“Nuclear will need to be part of considerations but if you believe solar/wind are our salvation around the corner, sorry you’re off with the fairies.”
For the last time, nuclear IS part of my considerations.  My issue with it is that the industry needs to be able to deliver plants faster than what they currently are.  I support giving them a lot more $ for R&D than they’re currently getting so they can speed up the process (and continue to limit waste).  I’ve used solar as just one example, don’t pretend that means I’ve placed all my eggs in one basket.

TimB says:

12:07pm | 05/08/10

“We can’t get nuclear in the short term, thats the problem.  We may find by then that ‘full’ renewables (is there a ‘part’ renewable energy source?) will do the job for us anyway.”

We can’t get nuclear in the short term, but we can get full renewables by then? What? Exactly how long do you think it takes to build a nuclear reactor anyway? I bet you anything it’s a far shorter time than it would take to build infrastructure to switch us to 100% renewable enrgy (assuming that could be done of course)

Theres no point in discussing this issue any further with you Dan. The second you dismiss nuclear power as a viable option, your position becomes untenable, just like the Greens.

You can’t argue for significant emission reductions without putting nuclear power on the table. It’s as simple as that.

Adam Diver says:

12:50pm | 05/08/10

TimB you miss the real good quote in Dan’s hopeful ignorance

“We MAY find by then”

WTF? We may, but what if we don’t? We will be 20 years down the track and no changes would of been made. Renewables (wind and solar)have been around for 30 years and the technology has barely progressed. I would prefer that we may find an efficient way of dealing with nuclear waste. I hear another element, less toxic and no chance of explosion (thorium i think) is being tested with positive results. It can even be retrofitted to be used in existing nuclear facilities.

Steely Dan says:

01:26pm | 05/08/10

@ TimB

“Exactly how long do you think it takes to build a nuclear reactor anyway?”
I don’t know, not being involved in the construction or nuclear industries.  I’m going on the estimates of the nuclear lobby.  Nuclear power is considerably more complex (obviously) than solar or wind.

“Theres no point in discussing this issue any further with you Dan. The second you dismiss nuclear power as a viable option”
There’s no point you putting words in my mouth, either.  If we can get it sooner than expected I’m right behind it.  We’ve obviously got a huge amount of uranium that we can use.  But we have a timeline, and we can’t just ask for an extension.

Steely Dan says:

03:36pm | 05/08/10

@ Adam Diver

“We MAY find by then” WTF? We may, but what if we don’t? “
I’m not just ‘hoping’, Adam, we know that renewables could cover the vast majority of our electricity needs, provided our population stays predictable.  If we can’t go 100% renewable, then we still have our coal power stations to back us up.  We need to cut our GHGs, but not entirely.

“We will be 20 years down the track and no changes would of been made.”
Apart from converting to cheap power!

“Renewables (wind and solar)have been around for 30 years and the technology has barely progressed.”
Not even close to true.  Solar cell efficiency has more than doubled since 1985.

DocBud says:

10:18pm | 05/08/10

Alex Kazaglis doesn’t need to be aware that “it is an unproved hypothesis”, for him it’s just a nice little earner at the taxpayer’s teat. For some, things like honour, decency and pride can be set aside when the opportunity arises to mooch off the hard work and enterprise of others.

Steely Dan says:

10:47am | 06/08/10

You tell’em, Bretto!

Its just like NASA.  Why do they need all that money if we all know that the ‘moon landing’ was shot in a Hollywood bunker owned by the Freemasons?

Steely Dan says:

12:53pm | 06/08/10

Somebody should tell the scientists.  The war’s over, and science lost.