Join the conversation

1. Permalink

   

   David Arthur

   n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)

   Thanks for this, Prof Brooks. Indeed, Australian metallurgical R&D is first class (how much of it is utilised overseas?).

   Would Australia be better off if ores and concentrates weren't exported for processing overseas, but rather were processed in Australia with export of the finished metal?

   The world as a whole would certainly be better off, because the decrease in shipping volume would significantly decrease fossil fuel use and hence greenhouse emissions.

   So how do we encourage and facilitate…

   show full comment

   Thanks for this, Prof Brooks. Indeed, Australian metallurgical R&D is first class (how much of it is utilised overseas?).

   Would Australia be better off if ores and concentrates weren't exported for processing overseas, but rather were processed in Australia with export of the finished metal?

   The world as a whole would certainly be better off, because the decrease in shipping volume would significantly decrease fossil fuel use and hence greenhouse emissions.

   So how do we encourage and facilitate the expansion of Australian mineral processing? I think great big across-the-board tax cuts would be a good start, provided they were replaced with a great big Raw Material Export Tax.

   The idea is, if you export a raw material, you pay a tax on the difference between world prices for the commodity extracted from the raw material, and price you get for the raw material. If, however, the commodity material is extracted in Australia from the raw material and the commodity exported, the tax is not paid.

   Export iron ore, pay the tax; export iron or steel, don't pay the tax.

   Export bauxite, pay the tax; export alumina, pay the tax (a lower amount of tax than for exporting bauxite); export bulk aluminium, don't pay the tax.

   The concept could be extended to outside the mining industry.
   
   Export bales of cotton, pay the tax; export bolts of woven cotton cloth, don't pay the tax.

   Export wood chips, pay the tax; export wood pulp, pay an intermediate amount of tax as for alumina; export fibre products, don't pay the tax.

   I suggest this scheme would work, provided the offsetting tax cuts are fully implemented so as to not starve the productive economy.

2. Permalink

   

   Gavin Moodie

   Principal Policy Adviser (logged in via email @telstra.com)

   Brooks ignores Point Henry's highly subsidised electricity supply, which is up for renewal in 2014.

3. Permalink

   

   Joseph Bernard

   Director (logged in via email @parasoft.com.au)

   Yet another causality of the high australian dollar and what then? we switch to products from countries that have no environmental programs?

   Maybe the government should carbon tax imports from countries that have no such environmental constraints or program.. What we are then bypassing our climate change efforts by buying goods that have no carbon tax.. Otherwise we are just punishing Australian industry to death.

   1. Permalink

      

      David Arthur

      n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)

      The 2011 update of Geoff Carmody's "Consumption-based emissions policy: A vaccine for the CPRS ‘trade-flu’?" is published by CEDA, freely downloadable as part of "A Taxing Debate - the forgotten issues of climate policy" sets out a carbon tax that is applied across the Australian economy, including import.

      Crtucially, Carmody's consumption-based tax does NOT adversely affect Australia's exports and trade-exposed industries. This makes it vastly superior to the CPRS, which was the context of his…

      show full comment

      The 2011 update of Geoff Carmody's "Consumption-based emissions policy: A vaccine for the CPRS ‘trade-flu’?" is published by CEDA, freely downloadable as part of "A Taxing Debate - the forgotten issues of climate policy" sets out a carbon tax that is applied across the Australian economy, including import.

      Crtucially, Carmody's consumption-based tax does NOT adversely affect Australia's exports and trade-exposed industries. This makes it vastly superior to the CPRS, which was the context of his original work, and to the misshapen offspring of the CPRS, the Clean Energy Futures package.

      The only flaws in Carmody's updated work are that he proposes taxing CO2 emissions. As recent reports of the failure of greenhouse emissions auditing shows (Ref Prof John Barker's 2 December 2011 Conversation article, "You can’t manage emissions until you can measure them, and it’s harder than you think"), emissions accounting is problematic, whereas quantifying the carbon content of fossil fuels is trivially easy (and already done anyway).

      Furthermore, taxing CO2 emission per se makes no distinction between CO2 emitted through use of fossil fuels (the crux of the climate problem) and use of biofuels which are essentially benign. A consumption tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels would capture any fossil fuels consumed in the process of making a biofuel anyway.

      That is, whereas Carmody accepts taxing CO2 emissions, I'd propose that his tax be imposed on the carbon content of fossil fuels.

      I also take issue with Carmody's border adjustment tax, the tax that he proposes be set on imports to Australia to account for the fossil fuel used in their manufacture; the first thing that I'd do would be to include the fuel used to transport the goods to Australia in the border adjustment tax, and the second thing I'd do would be to use carbon accounting data from the country of origin of the import (where it's available) to determine Carmody's border adjustment tax.

      With those modifications, I think you'll find Geoff Carmody's proposed carbon tax to be pretty much exactly what we want.

      Essays by William Nordhaus and Michael Porter, published along with Carmody's work mentioned above, help make plain how and why emissions trading (ie Clean Energy Futures package) is a woefully sub-optimal piece of policy.

4. Permalink

   

   Peter Davies

   Bio-refinery technology developer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

   Very sad that the bulk of comments for this important issue have degenerated into a debate on Nuclear energy. Even if it could be done, there are other consumer marketing perceptions that only the very brave, and indifferent to the outcome, would take on (glow in the dark soft drinks…).

   A more realistic look in Alcoa's backyard reveals the "Green Triangle". Potentially, clean hardwood chips, (especially from acacias, but bluegum will do) can provide a petcoke alternative for the carbon arc furnace…

   show full comment

   Very sad that the bulk of comments for this important issue have degenerated into a debate on Nuclear energy. Even if it could be done, there are other consumer marketing perceptions that only the very brave, and indifferent to the outcome, would take on (glow in the dark soft drinks…).

   A more realistic look in Alcoa's backyard reveals the "Green Triangle". Potentially, clean hardwood chips, (especially from acacias, but bluegum will do) can provide a petcoke alternative for the carbon arc furnace and generate low carbon electricity at the same time. This would require some research that Prof Brooks and others in metallurgical fields might be interested in.

   By a happy coincidence we have been doing some relevant work in this area with Greening Australia.

   Please see: http://www.iie.org/Programs/Alcoa-Foundation-Advancing-Sustainability-Research/Biochar-and-Energy-from-Trees

   Now before someone shouts “scale!” I would point out that the system in the video is modular and 1000 such modules each of 500kg/hr rating scattered across the plantation region, either in clusters configured as relocatable plants following the harvest or as individual farm units, would collectively generate 500MW, about what Portland Aluminium uses…and deliver 140,000 tonnes of high carbon char (>85% C) as a co-product. Capital cost is the about the same as a new coal fired power station of the same capacity. Sustainable supply of wood requires around 200,000ha of plantation.

   All within the achievable, whilst creating a couple of hundred permanent new jobs as well, now wouldn't that be a nice change.

5. Permalink

   

   Gavin Moodie

   Principal Policy Adviser (logged in via email @telstra.com)

   In your costing of nuclear power how long did you calculate its waste needed to be stored securely - the several thousands of years until the waste returned to its natural level of radioactivity, or just a few hundred years?

   1. Permalink

      

      Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer (logged in via email @netspeed.com.au)

      Gavin,

      If you want to find out answers to these anti-nuclear talking points, I'd suggest you visit this site:
      http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/

      The short answer to your question is that the cost of nuclear waste management is included in the cost of electricity from nuclear plants.

      But don't ask to have it all explained to you here. Go to the link above, do some background reading than ask genuine questions on that site. If you don't want to do that, well ...

      1. Permalink

         

         Derek Bolton

         Retired s/w engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

         Peter,

         The elephant in the nuclear costings room is insurance. Every nuclear-powered country on the planet caps the liability, and it's hard to find a decent estimate of what that amounts to as a subsidy. France keeps the details secret. Germany's cap is much larger than most, and the only European one that doesn't equate to exoneration.

         I went to the BraveNewClimate site and found an essay on the topic. A lovely application of whitewash.
         First, it points out that plenty of other industries…

         show full comment

         Peter,

         The elephant in the nuclear costings room is insurance. Every nuclear-powered country on the planet caps the liability, and it's hard to find a decent estimate of what that amounts to as a subsidy. France keeps the details secret. Germany's cap is much larger than most, and the only European one that doesn't equate to exoneration.

         I went to the BraveNewClimate site and found an essay on the topic. A lovely application of whitewash.
         First, it points out that plenty of other industries, big oil and the like, enjoy similar benefits. No argument there, but also no relevance to the comparison with renewables.
         The bulk of the essay is based on the US position, which is certainly more complex than most. But despite all its provisions to assist claimants, the fact remains that the Price-Anderson Act (revised) still serves to bring down the industry's costs by an unquantified amount. For details, the essay points one to http://www.eoearth.org/article/Price-Anderson_Act_of_1957,_United_States, where I find this quote:

         "The U.S. DoE, Federal Energy Subsidies: Direct and Indirect Interventions in Energy Markets, describes Price- Anderson as, “A Federal regulation that continues to have a cost-reducing effect on the nuclear power industry.” According to the DOE analysis, conducted by the Energy Information Administration (EIA):

         "These [liability] limits provide a subsidy to the nuclear industry to the degree private insurance premiums paid by operators of individual plants are reduced. In a 1983 study, the NRC concluded that the liability limits were sufficiently significant to constitute a subsidy. However, a quantification of the amount of the subsidy was not attempted. At issue are the probability distributions for various kinds of accidents and valuations of the consequences of accidents, all done on a plant-by-plant basis. The amount of the subsidy would then be found by calculating the differential effect on the insurance premium of imposing the liability limits.

         "EIA determined that the subsidy to the nuclear power industry as a whole was valued at US$3.05 billion annually (US$1991)."

         It would be interesting to get an actual premium quote from the insurance market.

         1. Permalink

            

            Peter Lang

            Retired geologist and engineer (logged in via email @netspeed.com.au)

            Sorry Derek Bolton, I don't know what picked to read but you certainly didn't go to that site with the intention to learn anything about the subject. There is a list of resources there. Did you do any study at all?

            The stuff you are quoting is simply tripe spun by Greenpeace et al. It makes me guess you, as a policy adviser, must be one of the young kids in Julia Gillard's office or caught up in the anti-nuclear, ideological thinking of the Greens and Labor. The same groups who believe the…

            show full comment

            Sorry Derek Bolton, I don't know what picked to read but you certainly didn't go to that site with the intention to learn anything about the subject. There is a list of resources there. Did you do any study at all?

            The stuff you are quoting is simply tripe spun by Greenpeace et al. It makes me guess you, as a policy adviser, must be one of the young kids in Julia Gillard's office or caught up in the anti-nuclear, ideological thinking of the Greens and Labor. The same groups who believe the nonsense about thousands or millions of fatalities attributable to radiation releases from Chernobyl.

            All costs included, including everything you can dream up, nuclear is by far the least cost way to generate low emissions electricity. Instead of plucking a few made up figures from the anti-nuke talking points, can I suggest you provide me properly comparable figures, on a $/MWh basis for solar thermal, solar PV, wind and nuclear for the following criteria:

            - fatalities (immediate and latent)
            - cost of electricity
            - CO2-eq emissions
            - CO2 abatement cost
            - externalities
            - quantities of materials (e.g. steel and concrete)
            - land area required

            Here are a few sources (go to the references cited within for background):

            http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/04/what-is-risk/ (see figures 1 and 2)
            http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/04/what-is-risk/#comment-103504
            http://www.externe.info/externpr.pdf (see table at bottom of page 13)
            http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/ (see the list of references, e.g.
            http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/09/emission-cuts-realities/
            http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/10/11/cutting-oz-carbon-abatement-costs-np/
            http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

            1. Permalink

               

               Derek Bolton

               Retired s/w engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

               Peter,

               I take it from your response that you weren't actually able to find any flaw in my key points, namely:
               1. the essay's discussion of insurance caps as subsidies for other fuel sources does not have relevance to the nuclear v. renewables debate.
               2. the quote from the US DoE (hardly a hotbed of greenies, certainly not in 1992) which evaluated Price-Anderson as an effective subsidy of $3bn/y.

               You might have done better by following through on that last figure. What does it turn into as c/kWh? I've not been able to find a figure for US nuclear energy production that far back. I found 840TWh for 2007, which would mean a mere 0.35c/kWh. But that's 1992 dollars, and production may have been rather less in 1992.

               1. Permalink

                  

                  Peter Lang

                  Retired geologist and engineer (logged in via email @netspeed.com.au)

                  No, Derek Bolton, you have completely misunderstood, or misconstrued, what I said.

                  It is a concern that Policy Advisers act in such a way. These are the people who are supposed to be giving sound advice to governments, yet in the case of Labor, Greens and environmental NGO’s they are more interested in pushing their ideological beliefs. For some of them deception is no obstacle. For them, the end justifies the means.

                  I am not interested in playing silly games with anti-nuclear debating…

                  show full comment

                  No, Derek Bolton, you have completely misunderstood, or misconstrued, what I said.

                  It is a concern that Policy Advisers act in such a way. These are the people who are supposed to be giving sound advice to governments, yet in the case of Labor, Greens and environmental NGO’s they are more interested in pushing their ideological beliefs. For some of them deception is no obstacle. For them, the end justifies the means.

                  I am not interested in playing silly games with anti-nuclear debating points. If you want to find out the facts, you’ll do genuine, objective, unbiased researched.

                  This is what I suggested you do (but you apparently did not understand or misconstrued):

                  “No, Derek Bolton, you have completely misunderstood, or misconstrued, what I said.
                  All costs included, including everything you can dream up, nuclear is by far the least cost way to generate low emissions electricity. Instead of plucking a few made up figures from the anti-nuke talking points, can I suggest you provide me properly comparable figures, on a $/MWh basis for solar thermal, solar PV, wind and nuclear for the following criteria:

                  - fatalities (immediate and latent)
                  - cost of electricity
                  - CO2-eq emissions
                  - CO2 abatement cost
                  - externalities
                  - quantities of materials (e.g. steel and concrete)
                  - land area required

                  Here are a few sources (go to the references cited within for background):
                  http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/04/what-is-risk/ (see figures 1 and 2)
                  http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/04/what-is-risk/#comment-103504
                  http://www.externe.info/externpr.pdf (see table at bottom of page 13)
                  http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/ (see the list of references, e.g.
                  http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/09/emission-cuts-realities/
                  http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/10/11/cutting-oz-carbon-abatement-costs-np/
                  http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/
                  “

                  1. Permalink

                     

                     Derek Bolton

                     Retired s/w engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

                     I have previously attempted to do the research as you suggest, and the point I came to was that a major unknown was the true cost of insurance (open market, no caps). This does not appear to have been reliably assessed anywhere. There are pro-nuclear sites suggesting it is quite low, anti-nuclear ones showing it as very high. I'm not inclined to put much faith in either. Governments with political reasons for wanting a nuclear industry don't seem to want to find out, or if they have found out…

                     show full comment

                     I have previously attempted to do the research as you suggest, and the point I came to was that a major unknown was the true cost of insurance (open market, no caps). This does not appear to have been reliably assessed anywhere. There are pro-nuclear sites suggesting it is quite low, anti-nuclear ones showing it as very high. I'm not inclined to put much faith in either. Governments with political reasons for wanting a nuclear industry don't seem to want to find out, or if they have found out are not saying.
                     I don't see that the question of the cost of nuclear can be approached without some sensible datapoint for this.

                     You suggest estimating fatalities, etc., but that immediately runs into a very difficult area of risk analysis: tiny risks of devastating events. It is well established that humans tend to underplay these. This is why I want to see what professional actuaries have to say, and the market, you'll probably agree, is the best way to assess it.

                     I have never ruled out nuclear power as an option, so I really resent your characterisation of my position as playing silly games. Keep your vitriol for those who earn it.

                     1. Permalink

                        

                        Peter Lang

                        Retired geologist and engineer (logged in via email @netspeed.com.au)

                        Derek Bolton,

                        “Keep your vitriol for those who earn it.”

                        This is the culture of the Left wing web sites, including the Conversation. The Lefties continually complain getting it back but dish it out all the time - Like Andrew Glikson continually screeching about “Deniers”, and most others giving advice to me about what I should day, but don’t attack those of their Ilk for the example they set. So I suggest you reserve your comments for those of like mind. Get them to clean up their act, and…

                        show full comment

                        Derek Bolton,

                        “Keep your vitriol for those who earn it.”

                        This is the culture of the Left wing web sites, including the Conversation. The Lefties continually complain getting it back but dish it out all the time - Like Andrew Glikson continually screeching about “Deniers”, and most others giving advice to me about what I should day, but don’t attack those of their Ilk for the example they set. So I suggest you reserve your comments for those of like mind. Get them to clean up their act, and then they will not receive the sort of comment you have made.

                        You are interested in the insurance cost of nuclear. OI see this as purely a distraction. It is a down in the weed’s cost.

                        From my perspective nuclear is far lower risk than fossil fuels and about similar to wind, lower than hydro and solar (on a full life cycle basis). So the insurance costs should reflect that. If they don’t it is because of the phobia that anti nukes have generated by 50 years of irrational activism.\

                        If you cannot deal with looking at the fatalities per MWh of electricity supplied over plant life times – including all the fatalities in all components of the fuel chain from mining to decommissioning and waste disposal, how can we have a discussion about insurance premiums. It is just a nonsense subject based on fear-mongering.

                  2. Permalink

                     

                     Peter Lang

                     Retired geologist and engineer (logged in via email @netspeed.com.au)

                     Sorry Derekd Bolton, I made a mistake assuming you were a Senior Policy Adviser. I got you confused with Gavin Moodie. However everyting else I said stands.

         2. Permalink

            

            Derek Bolton

            Retired s/w engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

            ... and I found this recent link:
            German report: full insurance would add from 20c/kWh to $3.40/kWh to cost of nuclear: http://www.bee-ev.de/_downloads/publikationen/studien/2011/110511_BEE-Studie_Versicherungsforen_KKW.pdf

6. Permalink

   

   Gavin Moodie

   Principal Policy Adviser (logged in via email @telstra.com)

   There is no such thing as low cost nuclear power, along with all its other problems.

   1. Permalink

      

      Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer (logged in via email @netspeed.com.au)

      Gavin,

      That is a simplistic statement. The fact is nuclerar is by far the least cost way to supply low emissions electricity. If we want low emissions, we'll have to go nuclear. If we are not concerned about emissions, then we shold stick with coal until thosr suffering nuclear phobia get over it, or are bred out.

      1. Permalink

         

         Shirley Birney

         retiree (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)

         I imagine those also suffering from "nuclear phobia," would be the 86,000 US victims who, since 2001, have received more than $7.4 billion from the US Department of Labour to cover expenses for the medical treatment they have endured (are enduring) for their radiation illnesses?

         And how does one compensate Mother Nature for Padcucah's Uranium Enrichment plant in the US which is the largest single emitter of ozone depleting CFCs in the nation?

         The carnage being perpetrated on the environment by this industry is significant, the details having been published on this forum previously. What excuse does BNC use for obscuring the officially documented details or is the nuclear debate on BNC all to do with the filthy lucre?

7. Permalink

   

   Peter Lang

   Retired geologist and engineer (logged in via email @netspeed.com.au)

   Thank you for this interesting article.

   I understand that even with state of the art plants, they still use a great deal of electricity. If my understanding is correct, then I wonder if you could please comment on this suggestion:

   Aluminium needs cheap electricity. With governments intent on shutting down brown coal power stations in Victoria, replacing them with more expensive gas generation and imposing a carbon tax on top of electricity prices, there is no way aluminium smelting can remain…

   show full comment

   Thank you for this interesting article.

   I understand that even with state of the art plants, they still use a great deal of electricity. If my understanding is correct, then I wonder if you could please comment on this suggestion:

   Aluminium needs cheap electricity. With governments intent on shutting down brown coal power stations in Victoria, replacing them with more expensive gas generation and imposing a carbon tax on top of electricity prices, there is no way aluminium smelting can remain viable in Australia. It will have to move to countries where electricity is cheap.

   If we want to keep industries like aluminium smelters – or many other industries for which energy is a significant cost driver – AND we want low emissions electricity, the only way it can be done is to allow Australia to have low cost nuclear power.

   Victoria should take the lead and say: “OK, we’ll ensure you, Alcoa, can get long term, low cost electricity contracts but only if we can get agreement from all levels of government to allow Victoria to build a nuclear power station near Geelong, and only if we can remove all the impediments to low cost nuclear electricity generation so that the contracted prices will be competitive with coal fired generation. "

   1. Permalink

      

      Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer (logged in via email @netspeed.com.au)

      "Here I review the paper “Simulations of Scenarios with 100% Renewable Electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market” by Elliston et al. (2011a) (henceforth EDM-2011). That paper does not analyse costs, so I have also made a crude estimate of the cost of the scenario simulated and three variants of it.

      For the EDM-2011 baseline simulation, and using costs derived for the Federal Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (DRET, 2011b), the costs are estimated to be: $568 billion…

      show full comment

      "Here I review the paper “Simulations of Scenarios with 100% Renewable Electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market” by Elliston et al. (2011a) (henceforth EDM-2011). That paper does not analyse costs, so I have also made a crude estimate of the cost of the scenario simulated and three variants of it.

      For the EDM-2011 baseline simulation, and using costs derived for the Federal Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (DRET, 2011b), the costs are estimated to be: $568 billion capital cost, $336/MWh cost of electricity and $290/tonne CO2 abatement cost.

      That is, the wholesale cost of electricity for the simulated system would be seven times more than now, with an abatement cost that is 13 times the starting price of the Australian carbon tax and 30 times the European carbon price. (This cost of electricity does not include costs for the existing electricity network).

      Although it ignores costings, the EDM-2011 study is a useful contribution. It demonstrates that, even with highly optimistic assumptions, renewable energy cannot realistically provide 100% of Australia’s electricity generation. Their scenario does not have sufficient capacity to meet peak winter demand, has no capacity reserve and is dependent on a technology – ‘gas turbines running on biofuels’ - that exist only at small scale and at high cost."

      http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

8. Permalink

   

   Derek Bolton

   Retired s/w engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

   I'd like to see the numbers on the relative efficiencies. Aluminium metal is inherently a high energy product (which is why recycling is sensible). The main reason the industry exists in Australia, despite our high dollar, high wages and old industry, is the extremely cheap electricity.
   It doesn't matter how efficient you make the process, the product is underpriced today. It needs to be made with low-emissions energy or pay a substantial carbon price.
   So the root problem is that other countries making it will do so without such an impost.

   One possibility is to make the process more flexible. Wind energy is cheap, storage expensive, so ramp up when the wind blows.

   1. Permalink

      

      Joseph Bernard

      Director (logged in via email @parasoft.com.au)

      Other countries have industries because they have under priced labour costs and currency which will also change as time progresses.

      The cost of setting up an industry and infrastruture in an invrestment in our future which should not be just abandoned. surely

9. Permalink

   

   Gavin Moodie

   Principal Policy Adviser (logged in via email @telstra.com)

   Insurance companies refuse to insure against the risk of nuclear power without legislated indemnity or capping of their liability. They therefore judge the risks of liability to be too high or too uncertain to set a premium. To suggest that they are somehow suborned by greenies is absurd.

   I suggest that those who feel the need to bolster their position with personal invective review the Conversation's community standards. You might also reflect on the point of your post. If it is to vent some personal anger or frustration go kick a footy in the park. If it is to persuade people to your view reflect on how effective insulting your interlocutor may be.

   Surely the ultimate point of contributing to sites such as the Conversation is to promote a better world, and surely the Conversation above all others seeks to do this by evidence and rational argument rather than by flinging irrational insults.

   1. Permalink

      

      Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer (logged in via email @netspeed.com.au)

      By the way Gavin, can you explain why the Government has underaken to carry all the risk of escape of CO2 from CCS, but if you had your way would not cover any risks from a nuelcar plant despite a much lower level of risk.

      Aslo why do you argue that the propbabilty of nuclear accidents is low but the consequence is high? What is the basis for you arguing that the consequence is high? Given that there have been three accidents in 50 years in commecial nuclear power stations involving radiation…

      show full comment

      By the way Gavin, can you explain why the Government has underaken to carry all the risk of escape of CO2 from CCS, but if you had your way would not cover any risks from a nuelcar plant despite a much lower level of risk.

      Aslo why do you argue that the propbabilty of nuclear accidents is low but the consequence is high? What is the basis for you arguing that the consequence is high? Given that there have been three accidents in 50 years in commecial nuclear power stations involving radiation releases, only one caused any fatalities, the immediate fatalities were 31 and the latent fatalities somewhere between 27 (for sure) plus a probably 400 odd so far and projected 4000 over 70 years in a population of 200 million. Absolutely down in thew weeds compared with all altenrative ways to generate electricity. And you want to talk about insurance risk. Give us a break. Why would an insurance company want to insure when they recognise that the real risk is nuclear phobia? How can you insure against nuclear phobia in the polulation fanned by the ideological Left and imposed on governments?

   2. Permalink

      

      Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer (logged in via email @netspeed.com.au)

      "rather than by flinging irrational insults."

      If that was the case you and those of like mind would not be continually screching "Denier" and the rest of the investive an innuendo they use much of the time. Of more soignificance, and demonstrating yours and their bias, you would be aiming it those who of your ideological persuasion who dominate the site. But noe of you see fit to try to clean up your own act.

      Spare me your "advice".

      On the issue of insurace, Iv;e addressed it above. If you want to understand the relative costs of the technologies do the homework, don't just pick on one made up thing that suits your case and try to make an issue to support your phobia.

10. Permalink

    

    Gavin Moodie

    Principal Policy Adviser (logged in via email @telstra.com)

    I don't know why the Australian Government is carrying all the risk of escape of CO2 from carbon capture and storage. Perhaps because the technology is unproven.

    I don't argue that the probability of nuclear accidents is low but the consequence is high. I expect you are confusing me with someone else again.

    1. Permalink

       

       Peter Lang

       Retired geologist and engineer (logged in via email @netspeed.com.au)

       What do you mean by "the consequence is high"? Compared with what? What is the basis for your statement? Did you look at Figures 1 and 2 here (and the accompanying text that explains what they mean)?
       http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/04/what-is-risk/

       1. Permalink

          

          Joseph Bernard

          Director (logged in via email @parasoft.com.au)

          Whoops, Fukushima, your soaking in it!

          no problems, should see the the size of the mushrooms growing near the core, almost big enough to be seen from space and it glows in the dark.. No need for lights anymore, bonus. Pity everyone has to move.

          So if the quake does not crack you up? Just watch the evil fast breeder of the west - Monju.. Just when you stop and take a breath, well then quicker than you can say.. Faster Breeder technology, another accident happens.. http://www.theage.com.au/environment/fastbreeder-reactor-faces-closure-20120201-1qtg2.html

          Seems like everytime there is an accident, the stakes go up.

          1. Permalink

             

             Mark Duffett

             (logged in via Facebook)

             Saying 'Monju' as if it's shorthand for 'evil fast breeder reactors are dangerous and evil' etc. only reveals the ignorance and alarmist motivation of the author. The problems with it have been primarily administrative and political, not technical. The truth about Monju is here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/18/ifr-fad-7/

             1. Permalink

                

                Joseph Bernard

                Director (logged in via email @parasoft.com.au)

                Maybe follow the thread and take note that there seems to be an idea that Nuclear is totally safe and there is little to no consequence?

                Obviously we live in a world where accidents do happen and the article provided is a recent article which serves as evidence to that fact.. And the consequences in nuclear industry are extremely high.. another fact..

                1. Permalink

                   

                   Peter Lang

                   Retired geologist and engineer (logged in via email @netspeed.com.au)

                   Joseph Bernard said:

                   "Maybe follow the thread and take note that there seems to be an idea that Nuclear is totally safe and there is little to no consequence?"

                   That is the sort of misleading, distorting, dishonest statement that is typical of the ant--nuclear activists - another example of Alarmists. Alarmist about one thing tend to be alarmists about many things. They are just Alarmists, catastrophists, distorters of the truth by nature.

                   I don’t recall anyone saying "nuclear is totally…

                   show full comment

                   Joseph Bernard said:

                   "Maybe follow the thread and take note that there seems to be an idea that Nuclear is totally safe and there is little to no consequence?"

                   That is the sort of misleading, distorting, dishonest statement that is typical of the ant--nuclear activists - another example of Alarmists. Alarmist about one thing tend to be alarmists about many things. They are just Alarmists, catastrophists, distorters of the truth by nature.

                   I don’t recall anyone saying "nuclear is totally safe". Nothing is totally safe. Aircraft are not totally safe. Nor is coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, wind or solar energy. But nuclear is near the safest of all these electricity generation technologies, with over 50 years and 15,000 reactor years of history to demonstrate it. I gave you this link and pointed to figures 1 and 2 to demonstrate it. http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/04/what-is-risk/ I presume you are not capable of interpreting a chart, particularly the one that has a log scale.

                   I don’t recall anyone saying there is “No consequence” of a nuclear accident. Gavin Moodie (Principal Policy Adviser) said “nuclear accidents have high consequence”. I asked him what “high consequence” means to hiim. My exact question was:

                   “What do you mean by "the consequence is high"? Compared with what? What is the basis for your statement? Did you look at Figures 1 and 2 here (and the accompanying text that explains what they mean)?
                   http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/04/what-is-risk/

                   That question has not been answered. It has been avoided.

                   Joseph Bernard, you and the other anti-nuclear alarmists, catastrophists, nuclear-phobes, nuclear deniers, etc have no credibility. Because you are basicaslly the same people who are also Catastrophists over climate change, you discredit them and all climate science as well.

                   1. Permalink

                      

                      Shirley Birney

                      retiree (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)

                      Peter Lang, thanks for shedding light on your lack of substance. And thanks for yet another link to the BNC hymn book. When can we expect yet another plug for Tom Blees’ book on a radioactive planet? I daresay it gives me unspeakable pleasure to allude to BNC chief’s shockingly inaccurate (nay embarrassing) account of the Fukushima disaster for which he did at least apologise after the world’s first triple meltdown:

                      http://www.mayomo.com/99917-fukushima-radiation-prof-kodama-angry-about…

                      show full comment

                      Peter Lang, thanks for shedding light on your lack of substance. And thanks for yet another link to the BNC hymn book. When can we expect yet another plug for Tom Blees’ book on a radioactive planet? I daresay it gives me unspeakable pleasure to allude to BNC chief’s shockingly inaccurate (nay embarrassing) account of the Fukushima disaster for which he did at least apologise after the world’s first triple meltdown:

                      http://www.mayomo.com/99917-fukushima-radiation-prof-kodama-angry-about-japanese-govs-gross-negligence-part-1

                      Do you intend acknowledging the issues I raised in my first post or have BNC’s foot soldiers conspired to dodge/obscure the documented and empirical evidence that meddles with the nuclear behemoth?

                      What you don't want us to know about:

                      CFC emissions, morbidity/mortalities, nuclear victims/compensation, marine life - impingement/entrainment/, once through cooling reactors, thermal plumes, nuclear accidents/global pollution: http://www.ib.cnea.gov.ar/~protrad/biblioteca/3Accidentes.pdf

                      US NRC’s daily “nuclear ‘event’ notification reports,” “significant enforcement action,” “regulatory violations,” falsification of data, radioactive livestock, taxpayers’ “remediation” of abandoned uranium mines - “leak first, fix later,” taxpayers’ decommissioning of nuclear reactors.

                      Contaminated sites – “worst/dirtiest” in US: Paducah U enrichment plant: http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Contams&id=0404794

                      State-corporate crime and Paducah Uranium enrichment plant:
                      http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/29.bruce/bruce.pdf

                      Lang’s safety assurances v. reality:

                      http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/allegationsall-2pages.pdf

                      May I suggest that nuclear devotees, endeavouring to get through the door with false premises/promises and blatant lies are hanging onto the cliff by their broken fingernails?

                      1. Permalink

                         

                         Mark Duffett

                         (logged in via Facebook)

                         What a farrago of misinformation, misrepresentation and character assassination.

                         1. Permalink

                            

                            Shirley Birney

                            retiree (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)

                            Unfortunately Mark Duffett your one-liner, in patterns of effective argument is invalid (and fallacious!)