Death Blow for the Nuclear Industry

Solar Energy Cheaper than Nuclear for the First Time

In a “historic crossover,” the costs of solar photovoltaic systems have declined to the point where they are lower than the rising projected costs of new nuclear plants...

This crossover occurred at 16 cents per kilowatt hour, they said.

The Green movement, environmentalists, antiwar and anti-nuclear campaigners have been right all along, for the past 30 or 40 years.

Nuclear power is costly, toxic, weaponable, non-renewable and not the answer. Solar not nuclear.

Actually its a stroke of luck that the sheer cost of nuclear power is going to kill it. Otherwise we would have to rely on environmental arguments about pollution or moral arguments about war and militarism. Unfortunately those arguments don't carry as much weight.

The luck is the other way around with coal however. It's cheap to burn to produce electricity, and there is lots of it. We are having to rely on environmental, pollution, and intergenerational moral arguments to defeat it: a tough sell. This is why it is of fundamental importance that a carbon tax (combined with a carbon dividend) on CO2 be introduced as soon as possible. The price incentive is the one thing that can get the system moving.

Solar Energy Cheaper than Nuclear for the First Time

In a “historic crossover,” the costs of solar photovoltaic systems have declined to the point where they are lower than the rising projected costs of new nuclear plants...

This crossover occurred at 16 cents per kilowatt hour, they said.

The Green movement, environmentalists, antiwar and anti-nuclear campaigners have been right all along, for the past 30 or 40 years.

Nuclear power is costly, toxic, weaponable, non-renewable and not the answer. Solar not nuclear.

Actually its a stroke of luck that the sheer cost of nuclear power is going to kill it. Otherwise we would have to rely on environmental arguments about pollution or moral arguments about war and militarism. Unfortunately those arguments don't carry as much weight.

The luck is the other way around with coal however. It's cheap to burn to produce electricity, and there is lots of it. We are having to rely on environmental, pollution, and intergenerational moral arguments to defeat it: a tough sell. This is why it is of fundamental importance that a carbon tax (combined with a carbon dividend) on CO2 be introduced as soon as possible. The price incentive is the one thing that can get the system moving.

Death Blow for the Nuclear Industry

Paul Kelly on Renewable Energy Targets

RET is the only part of the Government's package worth supporting. Not according to Paul Kelly, spruiking the business line.

We need to build a whole new energy infrastructure, fast, and phase out completely the killer polluting fossil fuel industry.

RET is the one policy proposed or passed by the Government so far which moves towards this end.

In theory, a well designed ETS could be a successful policy but the proposed CPRS is a failure which would achieve little or nothing - this is why it was rejected by the Greens. Looking at the failure of ETS in Europe, one might suspect this was planned from the outset.

If we were seriously interested in 'best policy' we would do as most economists recommend and introduce a carbon tax - with no exemptions for major polluters. It could be at a low rate at first, and raised later.

Geosequestration does not exist nor is likely to exist in time. The only genuine 'geosequestration' is if the coal is left in the ground in the first place. The introduction of a carbon tax would effectively kill talk of geosequestration - King Koal would be on notice that it had to research and deploy the technology or (more likely) shutdown.

Nuclear energy is not just 'at present' financially unviable - it has never been and never will be without massive government subsidy. Solar and windpower are already cheaper with the gap to only increase over time.

Nuclear energy is costly, toxic, weaponable, non renewable and not the answer.

The true problem is not mentioned in this article, but is mentioned at a discussion held by Professor Ross Garnaut in Melbourne, where he added another memorable phrase to what he has already produced:

The trouble with the case for action [on climate change] is this - there is a vast lobbying industry in all developed nations determined to block action, and it’s one-sixth of lobbyists in Washington, according to one estimate.

Garnaut likened this to the vast lobbying efforts to prevent effective rcause great problems to the global financial system while enriching the big US investment housesegulation of the financial derivatives, which were widely expected to and their managers, before ultimately almost causing the meltdown of that same system.

Garnaut's point was that such people could secure a comfortable future for their grandchildren even in a sadly worsened environment.

The bankers of Wall Street were quite willing to enrich themselves while risking catastrophe.

It seems the beneficiaries of current unsustainable environmental practices are taking a similar stance.

RET is the only part of the Government's package worth supporting. Not according to Paul Kelly, spruiking the business line.

We need to build a whole new energy infrastructure, fast, and phase out completely the killer polluting fossil fuel industry.

RET is the one policy proposed or passed by the Government so far which moves towards this end.

In theory, a well designed ETS could be a successful policy but the proposed CPRS is a failure which would achieve little or nothing - this is why it was rejected by the Greens. Looking at the failure of ETS in Europe, one might suspect this was planned from the outset.

If we were seriously interested in 'best policy' we would do as most economists recommend and introduce a carbon tax - with no exemptions for major polluters. It could be at a low rate at first, and raised later.

Geosequestration does not exist nor is likely to exist in time. The only genuine 'geosequestration' is if the coal is left in the ground in the first place. The introduction of a carbon tax would effectively kill talk of geosequestration - King Koal would be on notice that it had to research and deploy the technology or (more likely) shutdown.

Nuclear energy is not just 'at present' financially unviable - it has never been and never will be without massive government subsidy. Solar and windpower are already cheaper with the gap to only increase over time.

Nuclear energy is costly, toxic, weaponable, non renewable and not the answer.

The true problem is not mentioned in this article, but is mentioned at a discussion held by Professor Ross Garnaut in Melbourne, where he added another memorable phrase to what he has already produced:

The trouble with the case for action [on climate change] is this - there is a vast lobbying industry in all developed nations determined to block action, and it’s one-sixth of lobbyists in Washington, according to one estimate.

Garnaut likened this to the vast lobbying efforts to prevent effective rcause great problems to the global financial system while enriching the big US investment housesegulation of the financial derivatives, which were widely expected to and their managers, before ultimately almost causing the meltdown of that same system.

Garnaut's point was that such people could secure a comfortable future for their grandchildren even in a sadly worsened environment.

The bankers of Wall Street were quite willing to enrich themselves while risking catastrophe.

It seems the beneficiaries of current unsustainable environmental practices are taking a similar stance.

Paul Kelly on Renewable Energy Targets

'Clean Coal' and 'Safe Nuclear' both non-existent and no use even if they did exist

The countdown to climate change: "Nicholas Stern, former World Bank chief economist, in his report to the British Government last year, which warned that the world has only 10 to 15 years to avoid catastrophic climate change. As Greens senator Christine Milne points out, the fact of the matter is that neither the nuclear nor geosequestration options will deliver any cuts to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions in the next 15 years.

"According to Stern, it is likely that within 15 years, with "business as usual", global warming will reach a "tipping point" where global warming will be positively reinforced by a series of related events such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap, so that global warming will spiral out of control irrespective of what measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases."

"Geosequestration is further away and arguably more unsafe than the nuclear option. Its problems include: there is no evidence to show it can be done on a commercial scale; nobody knows what it will cost; and it can't be retrofitted, so all existing coal-fired power stations would be redundant."

"While the chances of accidents are low, and nuclear power plants have a better safety record than coalmines, there is the possibility of a catastrophic accident. Which means plants are uninsurable.

"Last week the Greens published a research paper on nuclear risk, which showed that Australian insurers have nuclear exclusion clauses. Nuclear power reactors are so risky that companies won't build them without government indemnities. In other countries, where indemnities are granted, the government accepts financial responsibility by removing the requirement to prove negligence in common law cases involving nuclear damages. In Australia the Government has failed to do this (Lucas Heights), in effect pushing the risk onto home owners.

"The paper reached the tart conclusion that "the coal industry has prospered by not paying for its pollution; now it seems the nuclear industry will not pay for its risk"."

"Taking real steps to deal with climate warming before 2020 doesn't require multibillion-dollar investments in nuclear power or geosequestration. It requires relatively conservative tax and subsidy changes to modify household and business behaviour to flatten the demand for electricity... savings could be expedited by a carbon tax or "cap and trade" to boost the price of electricity, backed up, if necessary, by regulation."

This is a real crisis and the policy response of both Government and Opposition is pathetically inadequate. They are playing 'politics as usual' in the face of disaster. They are serving their corporate masters in the coal, uranium and mining industries, and not the public. Neither party is prepared to confront the coal industry and tell the public the truth: coal is killing the planet and has to be phased out in a specific timeframe. Neither party is willing to immediately introduce a carbon tax to start sending price signals; neither is prepared to commit to the steps necessary to achieve major reductions in energy consumption, and rapid uptake in renewable energy production.

The countdown to climate change: "Nicholas Stern, former World Bank chief economist, in his report to the British Government last year, which warned that the world has only 10 to 15 years to avoid catastrophic climate change. As Greens senator Christine Milne points out, the fact of the matter is that neither the nuclear nor geosequestration options will deliver any cuts to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions in the next 15 years.

"According to Stern, it is likely that within 15 years, with "business as usual", global warming will reach a "tipping point" where global warming will be positively reinforced by a series of related events such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap, so that global warming will spiral out of control irrespective of what measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases."

"Geosequestration is further away and arguably more unsafe than the nuclear option. Its problems include: there is no evidence to show it can be done on a commercial scale; nobody knows what it will cost; and it can't be retrofitted, so all existing coal-fired power stations would be redundant."

"While the chances of accidents are low, and nuclear power plants have a better safety record than coalmines, there is the possibility of a catastrophic accident. Which means plants are uninsurable.

"Last week the Greens published a research paper on nuclear risk, which showed that Australian insurers have nuclear exclusion clauses. Nuclear power reactors are so risky that companies won't build them without government indemnities. In other countries, where indemnities are granted, the government accepts financial responsibility by removing the requirement to prove negligence in common law cases involving nuclear damages. In Australia the Government has failed to do this (Lucas Heights), in effect pushing the risk onto home owners.

"The paper reached the tart conclusion that "the coal industry has prospered by not paying for its pollution; now it seems the nuclear industry will not pay for its risk"."

"Taking real steps to deal with climate warming before 2020 doesn't require multibillion-dollar investments in nuclear power or geosequestration. It requires relatively conservative tax and subsidy changes to modify household and business behaviour to flatten the demand for electricity... savings could be expedited by a carbon tax or "cap and trade" to boost the price of electricity, backed up, if necessary, by regulation."

This is a real crisis and the policy response of both Government and Opposition is pathetically inadequate. They are playing 'politics as usual' in the face of disaster. They are serving their corporate masters in the coal, uranium and mining industries, and not the public. Neither party is prepared to confront the coal industry and tell the public the truth: coal is killing the planet and has to be phased out in a specific timeframe. Neither party is willing to immediately introduce a carbon tax to start sending price signals; neither is prepared to commit to the steps necessary to achieve major reductions in energy consumption, and rapid uptake in renewable energy production.

'Clean Coal' and 'Safe Nuclear' both non-existent and no use even if they did exist

Labor’s climate change plan meaningless without a coal moratorium

"Premier Morris Iemma has wedged himself with his statement that climate change is a key issue in this campaign, while at the same time overseeing the biggest expansion of the coal industry ever witnessed in NSW," Ms Rhiannon said.

"The 22 new coal projects proposed for NSW would have a combined capacity of 56.9 million tonnes of coal a year. This would result in the emission of 136.56 million tones of carbon dioxide every year.

"The Stern Review put a social cost on every tonne of carbon of $85. Applying this formula, the new proposals alone would have a social cost of over $11.5 billion.

"The Greens would prefer to work with Labor to tackle climate change. But if Premier Iemma and Planning Minister Sartor are not going to stop the Anvil Hill coal mine and the other new coal projects we will make coal an election issue.

"Coal is the elephant in the room. The NSW government is busy ignoring the major contribution that coal combustion makes to climate change.

"Talking about climate change without mentioning coal is like talking about obesity without mentioning junk food.

"The Greens Climate Futures Bill will place a moratorium on new coal projects. It will direct the NSW government to provide a transition package of retraining and jobs for coal communities, and to fast track the development of a renewable energy industry in NSW."

The Iemma Government's response indicates what could unfortunately be the reality of Government response to global warming: namely to admit the problem but fail to address it effectively because it is contrary to corporate interests to which the Government is beholden.

The debate has reached the point at which the scientific consensus on global warming, can no longer be denied, but not yet the point where Governments are obliged to take truly effective action. Yet time is running out, we have about a decade in which to take action lest the problem runaway from us.

The Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997, and therefore it has taken a decade for Governments such as John Howard's to even recognise the reality of the crisis. Will it take the only remaining decade before such Governments realise that action must be taken as well?

Governments and leaders have to speak honestly to industry and the public in relation to this crisis. The coal industry is killing the planet, and emissions have to be cut by 80% by the year 2050. The sooner some frank talking and serious policy initiatives are embraced the easier it will be to face the real problem.

"Premier Morris Iemma has wedged himself with his statement that climate change is a key issue in this campaign, while at the same time overseeing the biggest expansion of the coal industry ever witnessed in NSW," Ms Rhiannon said.

"The 22 new coal projects proposed for NSW would have a combined capacity of 56.9 million tonnes of coal a year. This would result in the emission of 136.56 million tones of carbon dioxide every year.

"The Stern Review put a social cost on every tonne of carbon of $85. Applying this formula, the new proposals alone would have a social cost of over $11.5 billion.

"The Greens would prefer to work with Labor to tackle climate change. But if Premier Iemma and Planning Minister Sartor are not going to stop the Anvil Hill coal mine and the other new coal projects we will make coal an election issue.

"Coal is the elephant in the room. The NSW government is busy ignoring the major contribution that coal combustion makes to climate change.

"Talking about climate change without mentioning coal is like talking about obesity without mentioning junk food.

"The Greens Climate Futures Bill will place a moratorium on new coal projects. It will direct the NSW government to provide a transition package of retraining and jobs for coal communities, and to fast track the development of a renewable energy industry in NSW."

The Iemma Government's response indicates what could unfortunately be the reality of Government response to global warming: namely to admit the problem but fail to address it effectively because it is contrary to corporate interests to which the Government is beholden.

The debate has reached the point at which the scientific consensus on global warming, can no longer be denied, but not yet the point where Governments are obliged to take truly effective action. Yet time is running out, we have about a decade in which to take action lest the problem runaway from us.

The Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997, and therefore it has taken a decade for Governments such as John Howard's to even recognise the reality of the crisis. Will it take the only remaining decade before such Governments realise that action must be taken as well?

Governments and leaders have to speak honestly to industry and the public in relation to this crisis. The coal industry is killing the planet, and emissions have to be cut by 80% by the year 2050. The sooner some frank talking and serious policy initiatives are embraced the easier it will be to face the real problem.

Labor’s climate change plan meaningless without a coal moratorium