Only fossils want to rely on old-school fuel

iansand says:

07:03am | 28/11/11

Erick - You might have noticed that nuclear power plants exist.  You might also have noticed that there is continuing development of nuclear power.  That part of the equation is ticking along quite nicely.

So, unless you are a lobbyist for the nuclear power industry, why should that mean that we should not also look at different sources of energy?

gobsmack says:

07:50am | 28/11/11

How would you apply nuclear power to automobiles?

Gus says:

07:51am | 28/11/11

If all the world switched to nuclear power we would run out of the worlds known uranium reserves in about ten years.

Nuclear is dangerous and expensive.

Macca says:

08:10am | 28/11/11

Gus, that is simply a lie.

Gobsmack, how would you apply wind or solar?

Mark G says:

08:40am | 28/11/11

Gobsmack,

‘How would you apply nuclear power to automobiles? ‘

Have you ever heard of electric cars? Thats one of the great advantages of that technology.

iansand says:

08:42am | 28/11/11

Gosh.  School is almost out and TimmyB is working on his conspiracy theories.  Lots of Summer fun.

mick says:

09:10am | 28/11/11

My prediction is that Australia will move from coal and oil to gas which this nation has in abundance.  Whilst this is occurring new technologies like solar will continue to be rolled out.  The challenge for this government is to continue the move towards renewables.

The hope is that the ability to live in our environment is not killed off by a Liberal Party which is intent on protecting the interests of its dirty technology business bosses.

Nuclear power is not an alternative.  It is one of the dirtiest forms of power as the spent rods have a half life of around 25 000 years.  In case you are unaware of what this means Erick it means that the radioactivity decays to half its level in 25000 years.  In other words you would have to store the stuff maybe around a million years to make it even a bit safe.  Nobody has come up with any sort of storage system to do this.  And I for one do not want to see any future generation have this stuff leach into the water system and/or aquifers.  It is a nightmare material and it is very wrong that it is being mined and exported.

Labor is Toxic says:

09:12am | 28/11/11

Gobsmack ..... Nuclear produces electricity that run electric cars!!!

gobsmack says:

09:26am | 28/11/11

@Mark G
Yes, I have heard of electric cars and I hear there’s a few about.
That’s another energy technology requiring development.

GB says:

02:53pm | 28/11/11

@Iansand. TimB posed a legitimate and easy to answer question which you’re clearly dancing around for some reason. He is obviously 100% correct or you would have debunked his “conspiracy theory” immediately. Thanks for outing yourself though. We can all now file your contributions into the “conflict of interest” waste basket.

andye says:

04:39pm | 28/11/11

@TimB - I don’t care if you are right, that is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself for digging up personal information like that and posting the real name of a user.

Why don’t you tell us your real name? I bet you don’t want to do that.

Brizben says:

04:46pm | 28/11/11

Does TimB(lair) make a living at climate change denial?

AdamC says:

05:16pm | 28/11/11

It is an interesting point, though. Is there a blog/online posting convention when it comes to disclosures of interests? And, if so, would it extend to someone who counts, among their clients, organisations which have some interest in the topic at hand, as against persons who work directly for such organisations?

Incidentally, on the grammar point, the ‘you’ in Ian Sand’s original comment could be read either as referring to a generic person or to Erick specifically. It is quite ambiguous. It is also an argument for the use of ‘one’ in some circumstances, twee as it may be.

Gus says:

07:57pm | 28/11/11

@Macca

Current usage is about 68,000 tU/yr.  Thus the world’s present measured resources of uranium (5.4 Mt) are enough to last for about 80 years. Nuclear power currently meets about 14% of the worlds power generation. So if all the world switched to nuclear power….........

I’ll let you do the math.

Brizben says:

08:37pm | 28/11/11

“The only time it gets my goat is when it’s one person posting under multiple names to shore up their own position”

hear hear

acotrel says:

07:42am | 28/11/11

@macca
Again with the silly baseload argument ?  Any schoolboy knows that the way our current grid works, is that it uses the Snowy Hydro Scheme to regulate the load requirements.  When there is a lot of power on the grid, and it’s cheap they pump water to higher levels.  When it’s dearer they run the turbines ! - ROOLY MAJICK ! ! !

TimB says:

08:03am | 28/11/11

Well done Acotrel. That works for hydro. Now explain that for solar and wind.

PS- I consider hydro to be a proven renewable power source. Too bad the Greens oppose that too. Dams are bad and all that.

Macca says:

08:08am | 28/11/11

@acotrel, I can’t see the SMHS being terribly effective in managing base load power in Brisbane or Perth during the middle of the summer. The loss in power simply by attempting to distribute it that widely would be astronomically inefficient.

PTom says:

08:29am | 28/11/11

How about wave, tidal or even good older water wheels. If the restriction on solar and wind were removed you might find the size of the base load would go down.

When do you think nuclear will start generating clean base load? My guess is not before 2020 either if we could find the trillions to build the plants.

Dan Cass says:

09:49am | 28/11/11

OK @Macca, lets not worry about Stephen Chu and his Nobel Prize in physics, lets invest the next $40 billion of energy infrastructure on the basis of your opinion.

At least go to the trouble of Googling some spurious factoids to back up your opinion so it looks like you treat the readers of this thread as if we are intelligent.

Macca says:

10:07am | 28/11/11

Dan Cass, hypocritically goes straight for the man.

My proposal is we have a serious conversation about the viability of Nuclear Power

Chris L says:

12:45pm | 28/11/11

“the left oppose it ... because they have no appetite for ambitious projects” - Like the Snowy Hydro Scheme and the NBN? I think you’re getting you’re wings mixed up there.

Brizben says:

01:07pm | 28/11/11

@Macca There is a small holding dam at Wivenhoe near Brisbane called split yard creek that does the job acotrel proposes. No transmission line losses.

Labor is Toxic says:

02:38pm | 28/11/11

@ Brizben

There is always transmission line losses.

Too bad the planners don’t put in a hydro system for dam releases.

Gomez12 says:

05:15pm | 28/11/11

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t that renowned greenie John Howard commission a report into the viablity of Nuclear power in Aus and get the result from his hand-picked researchers that it would take something like 15 years to setup in meaningful amounts and that only with massive governmental subsidies?

Yet Germany runs over 30% of their power needs on Solar energy - developed by Australians.

By all means lets discuss Nuclear power, but it’s not an all or nothing proposition - Diversity is the best bet for securing an energy future.

For example the highest energy use in Aus is on hot days - when air-cons are runing at max across the country, and what’s in abundance on hot days - Sunlight.

Solar/Nuclear/Wind/Geo-thermal/hydro are in no way mutually exclusive. We could (just as a suggestion) run small-scale nuclear plants as base-load and solar/geothermal/hydro for peak supply needs.

Instead of picking a camp and shoving our fingers in our ears, why don’t we look at some of the possibilities that all the various technologies offer and could offer together as part of a comprehensive energy strategy?

PTom says:

08:21am | 28/11/11

You don’t want to switch to renewables because you say it will take decades and cost trillions. How long and how much do you think switching to nuclear would take? Or even switching cars from oil to gas.

Either we spend trillions on half a dozen plants to be built in decades time if we can find the workers or we can start switching to renewables everywhere now.

Chris_D says:

08:37am | 28/11/11

@Mark G, This seems like a logical suggestion. 

Maybe someone can give an informed insight as to how long it takes a nuclear power plant to be cost effective and it’s build time and operational longevity, and compare this to the expected time lag between weaning us off fossil fuels and onto cost-effective, reliable, renewable energy.

iansand says:

08:44am | 28/11/11

Then it would be a good plan to start.

Dan Cass says:

09:51am | 28/11/11

@Mark G: You are speaking in assertions without facts. That’s lazy. Glad you’re not powering anything.

Acme construction company says:

10:10am | 28/11/11

Chris D
15 to 20 years to get a nuclear plant up and running.
Where would you like me to put it?

Chris_D says:

11:34am | 28/11/11

@ACME, what are the repayment plans? 

“Where would you like me to put it? “

Same place as everyone wants them, in someone else’s backyard. 

Michael says:

11:56am | 28/11/11

MarkG, remember your wise words my friend, wise words.

Adam Diver says:

12:30pm | 28/11/11

@ Dan Cass,

I was re-reading the article when I notices you were the author of the actual article we are commenting on. Why do your comments sound like a 10 year old whining (apologies if someone is using your name).

As for your “You are speaking in assertions without facts. That’s lazy.”

I refer you to your spectatcularly poor article above and provide

“We are blessed with world-leading solar scientists, but they are undermined by the lack of support from politicians and capital markets and dogged by ideological attacks from ill-informed sections of the media.”

And

“Vested interests and the quarry mentality have kept Labor from switching its loyalty from fossil fuels to renewables. “

and

“Powerful forces have prevented the Australian government from adopting Obama’s typically American pragmatism.”

Plenty of facts behind those wild claims I see, and you provide so many sources as well. That was only 3 paragraphs BTW.

FYI, the american government is overspending by a trillion dollars next year on top of 15 trillion worth of debt. Its easy to be forward looking, when spending someone elses money, particularly if you never plan on paying it back.

I am embarrassed for you, I am embarrassed for your replies in the comments and I am embarrassed that the punch publishes such tripe.

Chris L says:

12:56pm | 28/11/11

Chris_D - you can put it in my backyard on condition that I develop super powers from the radiation.

Chris_D says:

01:07pm | 28/11/11

@Chris L, you might get a power rebate as well, no need to turn the lights on when you can bask in the soft green glow.  It’s win-win.

Mark G says:

03:53pm | 28/11/11

guys,

I didn’t say we shouldn’t switch to renewables I just said that it is not going to happen overnight.

The best reply to my comment was from iansand

“Then it would be a good plan to start.”

Absolutely. But it will still take a long time for the technology and industry to grow. Nuclear is quicker because it is a tried and tested method of producing large volumes of energy. It has lower operational risk because you know what you are going to get with a higher safety risk. The shift to renewables should be pushed as quickly as possible for all our sakes but we may have to face some stark realities along the way. If renewables take up quicker than I am suggesting then fine. That’s awesome. But we also need to prepare ourselves for the fact that the oil and coal may run out quicker than we can develop renewables. Then and only then should we consider nuclear. All I am saying is that we need to be open to the fact the we may need nuclear as a stop loss backup. Its either that or we may have to accept a temporary loss of capability in our power system.

Chris_D says:

04:38pm | 28/11/11

@Mark G, “The best reply to my comment was from iansand”.

Geez, I thought I might have got an honourable mention with “This seems like a logical suggestion.”

Anyway, what I like about your idea is that it is a positive contribution to the debate, a possible solution to a foreseeable problem rather than the usual negativity about what can’t be done or why it shouldn’t without providing any better alternatives.

If it takes Acme 15-20 years to get a nuclear reactor up to speed, then it sounds like someone needs to get cracking on where and when, if it is a cost effective alternative in the mid-term.

Surely we have enough space in the outback to put it somewhere that won’t upset too many people.

Coop says:

05:01pm | 28/11/11

Dont worry about Dan.

He wouldnt know a fact if it came up, introduced itself.

The only fact relative to anything of Dan’s that Ive read is that he doesnt know what a “fact” is and like to reference himself.

marley says:

07:09pm | 28/11/11

Please see my comment at the bottom of the thread - a pre-fab nuclear power plant can be up and running in three years.  In theory. 

But even regular plants apparently can be constructed in five years - it’s getting the environmental approvals that takes up the rest of the 20 to 30 years.

Macca says:

08:59am | 28/11/11

Fair enough, Gobsmack. Do you have any suggestions?

gobsmack says:

11:31am | 28/11/11

@Macca
No, not within my field of expertise.
I guess when oil starts to run out or becomes hideously expensive we’ll see more determined efforts to develop alternatives to the internal combustion engine.  My point is that these efforts could have been made much earlier except there is too much money to made selling oil.

Don says:

02:08pm | 28/11/11

“We are driving around in vehicles powered by engines that haven’t changed in any fundamental way since their invention in the 19th century. “

This is because the laws of thermodynamics have also not changed much in that time - funny that. I think you should take some time to learn them a bit and then you will understand what is happening just a little better.

gobsmack says:

07:00pm | 28/11/11

@Don
Tell me Professor what has an observation about the endurance of the internal combustion engine as a means of propelling a vehicle got to do with an understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.
Are you suggesting that those laws dictate that humans are forever doomed to be transported by vehicle powered by the up and down movement of a piston?
Please elaborate, I’m fascinated.

I hate pies says:

06:48pm | 28/11/11

...and the unions. I agree Mahhrat, we should get all vested interests out of government. The government should only be there to allocate revenue. They should not restrict business at all - then watch the dirt come out of the ground!
Who cares what we’re going to use next - that’s decades away. Let’s worry about it when we have a viable alternative. In the meantime we should focus on clean coal…and cheap energy whilst we still have it.

PTom says:

08:35am | 28/11/11

Using the past performance of the bigwigs in the corporate world. No change would every happen if the could prevent it.

It is either government or the small wig that force thebig wigs to change.

Trevor says:

10:01am | 28/11/11

You need to put your Marxist hat on for a sec thatmosis, and yes, I know that it doesn’t fit you.

What will the value of electricity be when everone else is priced out or worse, there is no grid due to the onset of something like Peak Oil?

What I mean is I think that the ‘use value’ of electricity is a hell of a lot more than current ‘market value’.

Fiona says:

10:05am | 28/11/11

We actually drove past the wind farms on the way to San Francisco this ear and they didn’t look like rusted hulks and what’s more they seemed actually to be moving. I’m sure there are some like that, but not all.
My olds paid nowhere near what you quote for their home system of 1.5kw, and they have a pool and a couple of split system a/ c’s and still don’t pay for their power anymore. I know there’s been a rebate, but they also dont have diesel backup. I’m guessing that’s much more a regional thing. It seems to be economical for them.

stevem says:

01:08pm | 28/11/11

Fiona, your friends don’t cover their power with a 1.5 kW panel. Every time they turn on a the A/C, kettle, iron or any of a dozen appliances they take the power for it off the grid (even at noon on a sunny day). The only way they come close to a zero bill is because they get paid 10 times what they get charged (all by the generosity of the tax payer).

In order to sustain the load of kettle, iron and A/C all at once on a hot summer’s night requires more panels to recharge the large battery bank, multiple inverters, diesel generator (for those wet weeks in winter). Yes, it does indeed cost $45,000 to $150,000 it you don’t rely on that nasty coal fired electricity grid.

Mirage says:

03:14pm | 28/11/11

Fear Fear Fear!!! The sky is falling!!!

What a crock, you have at least another hundred years plus of oil reserves. The peak oil theory is based around proven reserves, what about the now viable smaller reserves that are harder to get too, improved technology which allows us to extract those more difficult reserves such as shale oil.

Just think about your doomsday scenario here, what good is that last billion dollars profit from the extraction of the last oil reserve for the sake of end of days scenario where that billion dollars would be worth zero?
These companies are not stupid, they will lead the way with alternatives once they are economically viable, which at this point in time, they are not.

BTW oil can be synthetically produced and nuclear energy can provide the energy in order to do this.

The doomsday scaremongering is so typical of the environmentalists to get exposure on something that is non existent, just like climate change…

Mirage says:

03:14pm | 28/11/11

Fear Fear Fear!!! The sky is falling!!!

What a crock, you have at least another hundred years plus of oil reserves. The peak oil theory is based around proven reserves, what about the now viable smaller reserves that are harder to get too, improved technology which allows us to extract those more difficult reserves such as shale oil.

Just think about your doomsday scenario here, what good is that last billion dollars profit from the extraction of the last oil reserve for the sake of end of days scenario where that billion dollars would be worth zero?
These companies are not stupid, they will lead the way with alternatives once they are economically viable, which at this point in time, they are not.

BTW oil can be synthetically produced and nuclear energy can provide the energy in order to do this.

The doomsday scaremongering is so typical of the environmentalists to get exposure on something that is non existent, just like climate change…

Trevor says:

05:29pm | 28/11/11

Mirage

“...what about the now viable smaller reserves that are harder to get too”.

Like in the Gulf of Mexico? Or under the polar ice cap? One had the most dire environmental consequences and the other with the potential to start WWIII? Good one.

“...shale oil”

Pfffft. Now THAT is a crock. When it comes to energy, it’s all about EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested). When you have to use almost as much energy to produce oil as you get out of it, well, it’s a zero-sum game. What’s the point? Let alone the water requirements of this process and the devastating environmental impacts. EROEI also addresses your point above, the smalled and harder to get fields are to hard to get and require to much energy to be profitable or useful.

“...what good is that last billion dollars profit from the extraction of the last oil reserve for the sake of end of days scenario where that billion dollars would be worth zero?”

You have described Hubberd’s peak here, which is what is referred to as Peak Oil. I never claimed that we would run out. But that it will be too expensive to run civilisation as we know it. On the up slope oil is cheap and apparently plentiful, but for ‘that last billion’ the show is on the other foot. Increasing scarcity will cause the oil price to skyrocket. It is a commonly accepted economic law that oil prices over $80 bbl will suffocate the economy. Exactly like we are seeing now.

Oil companies aren’t stupid, I’ll agree. But they are onl interested in themselves, like all companies.

Dan Cass says:

01:32pm | 28/11/11

@AdamC: The premise is that we have to do something, now, to slash emissions and switch from fossil fuels.

The rest of the article is based not on premise, but on fact.

Renewables are working now and will become cheaper than fossil fuels and nukes over the next few years, all over the world. These are facts. I’m sorry if you can’t accept them.

AdamC says:

01:56pm | 28/11/11

“Renewables are working now and will become cheaper than fossil fuels and nukes over the next few years, all over the world. These are facts. ”

No, they are not. The above sentence comprises a statement of dogmatic opinion and a prediction of the future, neither of which are especially credible.

The difficulty with your argument, as I see it, is that you are extrapolating a few big-ticket projects, which don’t actually provide a great deal of energy in the scheme of things, and assuming these can be both replicated and scaled-up to meet a large proportion of humankind’s growing energy needs in the years to come.

Quite frankly, I will believe it when I see it.

luke09 says:

03:13pm | 28/11/11

Dan Cass, as long as we keep using cheap dirty fuel energy there is no way that renewable energy can ever compete costs wise. The ONLY time renewable energy will become cheaper than fossil fuel is when the fossil fuel deposits are less abundance and prices skyrocket.

or

It would be interesting to see if the government could set up a similar 110 MW Tonopah solar thermal plant in Australia to show how it could be done. Maybe people will be convinced by seeing is believing.

The government has damaged the renewable energy debate by its election promise of no carbon tax which it broke.

Those in the renewable energy business should be trying to get both sides of politics to listen to them, writing inflammatory statements such as

‘Given that Tony Abbott and the Coalition are following the US Tea Party model and reject clean renewable energy on ideological grounds, it’s up to Prime Minister Gillard to follow Obama’s lead.’ is childish and does nothing to gain support of people who can make it happen.

The divisive comments emanating from this article is proof that your words (labor are good, coalition bad) have not helped your argument.

Be politically unbiased if you want to be taken seriously.

Yvette S says:

10:34am | 28/11/11

Labelling people that do not agree with your radical and IMO “far fetched” theories as readers of “extremist websites” is a pretty low blow.

Why do some people fear debate?  Is it simply because they have money riding on their pet outcome?  Given that we the taxpayers fund much of “Climate Consultants” income, you may want to pay people more respect.

The demonising of skeptics as ‘deniers’, and refusing to debate is the main reason the vast majority now have discovered that AGW is a scam.

Discussion about renewables is sadly going the same way.

Labor is Toxic says:

10:55am | 28/11/11

Dan ...... renewable energies are not that effective!!!! Those thousands of scientists and engineers researching renewable technologies publish reports stating how effective they are so that they can get more research grants!!!! A bit of that $13.2B pie you are crowing about, that is not paid for by the Carbon Tax!!!! Ignorance is bliss!!

Nano Solar is looking very positive, as are Parabolic Trough and Heliostat Solar Thermal Projects, but they are a little way off perfection.

I would also love to hear your solution for powering Sydney or Melbourne, then we can talk about Tokyo and London ..... because we tried to build a Solar Generator in Cloncurry and it was a failure

Dan Cass says:

10:28pm | 28/11/11

Science is right, you are wrong.

Anubis says:

02:32pm | 28/11/11

Hey Harquebus, Welcome back

andye says:

05:25pm | 28/11/11

@Warwick - The facts are a bit hard to dispute, aren’t they? So much easier to come up with a fanciful conspiracy theory.

What is the weather like in ladida fairy land?

Dan Cass says:

10:31pm | 28/11/11

Mao LOL

gobsmack says:

01:48pm | 28/11/11

@George
“the world has seen an unprecedented abundance of food for the common people”
Which has lead to a greater abundance of “common people” which in turn has lead to a demand for an even greater abundance of food ...
Population control seems to be the missing factor in this equation.

Labor is Toxic says:

02:44pm | 28/11/11

Cos it is all too expensive!!! But Dan would have you believe that it isn’t while collecting his next consulting cheque

Steve Putnam says:

06:02pm | 28/11/11

Its still warming Richard. 2010 was the hottest year in over 150 years of keeping temperature records.

Dan Cass says:

10:33pm | 28/11/11

Climate science is right, you are wrong.

marley says:

05:10pm | 28/11/11

Where is this wonder delivering baseload power?

neil says:

10:51pm | 28/11/11

DaS Energy, is that Dan Cass?

My point is even if you are right and you have a viable technology, it will still take about 70 years to replace the existing energy sources.

A few examples:

Airplane: Invented 1903 but did nottotally replace shipping as the main international travel medium until the Jumbo jet in 1974.

Motor car: invented 1886 but did not totally replace the horse as transport or farm work until the 1950’s. I remember horse drawn milk cart s in the 70’s.

Electric car: Invented 1842!! still going nowhere.

Steamship: Invented 1784, but never replace sail until WW1 forced it 130 years later.

Guns took 400 year to replace swords.

Even a technology that is completely new and has nothing to displace, like a computer, took from it’s invention in 1946 to the wide spread exceptance of windows in the mid 1990’s, 50 years, to become universally excepted.

Markus says:

08:32pm | 28/11/11

Human civilisation will have been and gone long before increased carbon in the air has a chance to get us.

DocBud says:

09:08am | 29/11/11

“None of it matters because we don’t deserve to survive.”

I do and so does my wife.

Go on, I’ll play, when was the last carbon related warming that killed 90% of species?

Dan Cass says:

03:23pm | 29/11/11

Good luck finding any bank to invest in nuclear power or any reinsurance company to insure it or any Australian community to welcome it in their backyard!

Dan Cass says:

03:27pm | 29/11/11

You’re really not listening are you Col?

You currently subsidize coal, oil and gas industries. Your tax goes to some of the richest companies in the world.

Nuclear power is a junkie for subsidy like no other technology.

If we get it in Australia (which won’t happen) it would need even MOAR of your tax cash than you currently stump up for fossil fools. What a mug!

DocBud says:

04:29pm | 29/11/11

Please provide more information on how the taxpayer makes a net loss at the hands of the fossil fuel industries, Dan.

If you could do it in a grammatically correct manner and without abuse that would be appreciated, but I’ll understand if that is beyond you.

Dan Cass says:

10:48am | 30/11/11

@DocBud: Honestly mate, even the International Energy Agency (which is stacked by fossil fools) is calling to end subsidies.

DocBud says:

12:48pm | 30/11/11

So that would be a no then, Dan.

DocBud says:

09:14am | 29/11/11

You can’t argue it was not ambitious, Hase, but then so was Icarus, and it is certainly a most effective means of relieving taxpayers of their hard earned money:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/national-broadband-network-could-cost-50bn-with-returns-at-risk/story-fn59niix-1226207543617

James says:

02:46pm | 30/11/11

Peak oil production isn’t even a theory it is an observable fact, you can see it in the data put out by the “hippy love children” at the IEA, well known for their drum circles and wild over estimates of oil price.