* it wont be ready in time (15 years to commission a reactor)

* it is too expensive

* linkage with the nuclear weapons cycle

* transmission losess transporting power to consumers.

* the waste problem has not been solved

* extremely high potential impact of accidents or terrorist attack as per recent casing of Lucas Heights. If a reactor problem emits radiation near a large population centre such as one of our capital cities (or even larger rural towns/cities)

* locating them - in whose backyard? Kiribilli apparently, since Howard said he wouldn’t mind living next to a reactor, and he hasn’t yet lost the election.

* lack of water - France last year halved its eletricity output from nuclear due to cooling water shortages - the same problem we are experiencing in Victoria with our coal fired power stations.

Nuclear is an irrelevant fiction put out there by the Government to confuse and distract us from the real problem - getting off the coal fired power that 90% of our electricity currently comes from and transitioning to zero emission energy. Yes, its a paradigm shift (like stopping whaling and logging old growth forests) but it is one we need to make.

Some people think the Federal Government’s use of the term “New Kyoto” is a bit of a joke stemming from incompetence and desperation. But on further reflection I think it is actually far more devious and clever than that.

The Federal Government, is clearly very consciously and repeatedly using the term “New Kyoto” when they refer to their approach to future international arrangements/agreements on reducing emissions. (Eg Ministerial statements by Campbell, Turnbull, Downer). I think this is because they have acknowledged internally that their argument that the Kyoto Protocol was bad has not been successful with the public. So now, by using this phrase “New Kyoto”, in terms of public perception, they are trying to capture the legitimacy of the Kyoto Protocol without ratifying it. In fact they are trying to borrow the legitimacy of the Kyoto Protocol for their radical anti-Kyoto policy approach to international agreements on climate change.
In addition, I suspect that by referring to their new proposed approach as ‘New Kyoto’ there is a conscious effort to confuse the public into thinking that what they are proposing could be part of the agreement for the Second Commitment Period for the Kyoto Protocol, when that is not actually the case.

The Government has very clearly rejected the principles and approach of the Kyoto Protocol and refused to ratify it. None of this has changed, and has been discussed above, the Gov’t is now actually trying to undermine that international agreement, by seeking agreement by the US & China and others for an alternative international approach - which is not consistent with the Kyoto Protocol.

So I would like to strongly recommend that everyone avoid using the phrase “New Kyoto” Because as George Lakoff, the American Linguist and author of ‘Don’t Think Like an Elephant” says: “to negate a frame is to reinforce that frame”.

If there is a ‘New Kyoto’ it will be the International Agreement on the Second Commitment Period for the Kyoto Protocol - not something Howard will sign up to. Nothing else deserves that title.

Just lipstick on a pig.

I like it!

BTW Peterc, a small point, but that 2040 scenario is 4% short.

Thanks for the ref to Peter Garrett on Lateline, Kim. It’s mostly Tony Jones banging on about what will the carbon price be and Garrett saying we need to apply the principles and the tests they’ve identified in Rudd’s speech and they need to wait for Garnaut’s review.

So far I haven’t been able to find Rudd’s speech.

On AM this morning we learnt that there would be “$50-million to develop a solar institute in Newcastle and a similar amount on geothermal drilling.”

The World Today had a look at the European scheme which they say is now working and will help them achieve their Kyoto targets.

It also had an interview with ANU resource economist Dr Frank Jotzo who said that carbon trading should extend to transport and domestic users.

swio was right in saying that some people would have to work their butts off to achieve a regional carbon trading scheme by September. There was an APEC energy ministers meeting in Darwin today. The theme from the Australian/US song sheet is that we need research and more technology before we set targets. As our fearless servant, Ian Macfarlane, said:

“The challenge at the moment is not to set targets, it is to actually have the technology to achieve targets,” he said.

“Once we know how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions the challenge will then be to have those technologies employed and to set targets.”

The US representative Clay Sell said:

“Each country brings its own unique circumstances, its own assets, its limitations and the important thing to remember is that a strong economy is the key enabler to addressing the challenge of greenhouse gas emissions … If you don’t have a strong economy you won’t be able to afford the technologies that will allow you to reduce greenhouse gases.”

But regional agreements are out, for now at least. That doesn’t mean there won’t be ‘Sydney declaration’, however.

His projected 2040 mix is:

* Biomass 30%
* Gas 30%
* Hydro 8%
* Wind 20%
* Coal 8%

He claims there is not much high grade uranium left - about 10 to 20 years. Extracting uranium from low grade ore will require crushing 10 tonnes of rock to get 1kg of it. So the energy gains from fission will be largely mitigated by inputs across the entire nuclear fuel cycle.

Read his book, he has done his homework, which is more than I can say for the likes of Howard and Turbull. I am not impressed by Garrett’s load banging on the carbon capture and storage investment either. This won’t actually reduce emissions on current levels, and won’t be ready in time - if it can be made to work - it hasn’t yet for any coal fired power station on the planet.

They seem to assume that natural gas will remain readily available and cheap.

If we’re shutting down coal-fired power stations left, right and centre, and peak gas is due not that long after peak oil, I don’t see how that assumption can possibly hold.

That, and Diesendorf consistently claims that there’s bugger-all uranium left. He’s flat wrong on that one - which makes me suspicious of his other claims.

a) Nobody really talked seriously about the problem during the “golden era”
b) When talk was undertaken, there was an apparent trade off between jobs and inflation, and nobody wanted to sacrifice jobs!
c) Things built up to a state where economic problems were unavoidable.
d) When governments realised what they needed to do something, they only took minimal action which effectively did nothing.
e) A change of government ensued after each stagflation event.

Now we had 3 or 4 goes to get inflation under control with demand management. I get the feeling that the environment isn’t really going to give us so many chances.

NB Point b) has since been proven wrong and the same reasons for why it is wrong hold for why there isn’t the same relationship between environmental protection and unemployment. Point c) is arguably happening now, but there is enough denialist noise that it is being ignored. Point d) may happen in a few days, given the information in this article. Point e) is a bit sad, because afterwards is going to be too late for this issue.

Will he give away emission rights to existing polluters? Probably. If he does, then business as usual coal fired power continues.

Will his overall emissions trading scheme reduce emissions by setting a tight cap? Most likely not, so it will be a giant waste of time and money. Just lipstick on a pig.

Will he set any targets for emission reductions - short or long term? Most likely not.

Will Labor? Well, they have not committed to any 2020 targets, only the never-never of 2050, by which time it will be too late, and they will all have passed away anyway . . .

Mark Diesendorf has just launched his new book “greenhouse solutions with sustainable energy” which provides details on the true solutions for climate change - which are being studiously avoided by both Howard and Rudd.

I think political inaction on climate change now will become regarded as a criminal in the not too distant future - especially when the real solutions are staring as right in the face.

Remember, he doesn’t have to get everyone to buy it, just introduce enough uncertainty to the issue so that wavering voters don’t “sleepwalk” into the evil greenie hands of Peter Garrett.

It’s for this reason that international carbon trading will, most likely, be a total failure. Consensus will never be reached as various recalcitrant governments around the world introduce shifty special reasons why they couldn’t possibly participate, or include dodgy statistics (say, land clearing) to ensure we look like we’re meeting our targets.

I think it’s time to forget the whole thing. It’s now time for an Apollo scale mission to find technology that produces cheap, carbon neutral electricity. I don’t think an X-prize will do it - private enterprise by itself will not do it, even with incentives like carbon taxes, due to the cheating and/or recalcitrance.

Yes, a major initiative like that will cost us all a lot of money, but we’re betting the farm (and your backyard) in this, I don’t see we’ve got much of a choice. If the US can spend enough money so that Alan Shepard can hit golf balls on the moon, they ought to be finding out whether we can actually use geothermal energy for everything. And quickly.

http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=-27.8390,138.1640&z=13&m=7

Nothing that Brian or myself haven’t said or linked to before, but he agrees that a dodgy trading scheme designed to look after the big polluters will just be handing Labor and the Greens another weapon to belt the Liberals over the head with.

They don’t seem to have figured out yet that window-dressing on climate change isn’t going to work this time around.

In developments overnight, the BCA have said there is a need for three-tiered targets. I gather this means long-term (what’s required to fix the problem, medium term (rolling 5-10 year targets), and annual, which will determine how the emissions trading scheme is capped.

The problem with Howard’s apparent preference for undemanding targets is that business will know that they won’t stick and hence won’t provide sufficient certainty for them to make long-range investment decisions.

Rudd last night said he is giving away his Ford Territory in favour of a hybrid.

More importantly he reiterated the economic merit of early action, said that there would be government spending schemes to ensure a sharing of the costs and benefits, announced specific additional help to the geothermal sector, and laid out a timetable for introducing emissions trading. The scheme would be outlined by the end of next year, (please note Mr Howard, after the economic modelling has been done by Garnaut), and become operational by 2010. Howard, it is thought is aiming for 2012 (Sydney is the new Kyoto).

Rudd’s approach so far is much more attuned to what big business says it needs, leaving aside Big Coal and the nuclear industry. But even Big Coal is unlikely to get the certainty it needs out of Howard. We’ll see what Howard comes up with.

I’ve only had brief reports on the above from the ABC and the AFR and have to go out for the day so any links giving more details would be appreciated.