The LNP have stumbled on a couple of truthoids. Big reactors need 100 tonnes of uranium not a coke can and the oldest reactor is 55 and probably won't make it to 80. Also for a nuclear newbie like Australia power will probably be more expensive. However the question should be...can renewables meet our current and future needs? Given that windpower is producing less this year despite more turbines and Tas Hydro has restarted their gas plant the answer would seem to be no.

Therefore we should ask about the cost of not going nuclear. Australia could have 30m people by 2030 and the roads will be full of EVs. Cities will routinely hit 45C and some will rely on desal for water. The all renewables scenario should be charging ahead yet it's marking time. Let's hope there are several proven models of SMR by 2030 and for quicker build gigawatt plants we can put SMRs side by side.

There will be lots of lying and subterfuge right up to the next election. The problem for us is that we won't know which side is telling the truth, all politicians being professional liars. We really cannot trust politicians.

Then there are the lying public commentators who assert that the Commonwealth can't override the states who object to nuclear plants, when sec. 109 of the Constitution says it can.

It's hard to find an honest person in Australia these days.

If it were not for the climate/CO2 liars, we would still be enjoying cheap and reliable coal-generated power.

Yes, lots of lying, but it is pretty hard to cover up the positive nuclear experience in countries like Canada, France, Sweden, Finland, or the UAE. Nor is it easy to hide the high power prices and economic decline of Germany from abandoning nuclear power in favour of wind and solar. Here in Australia, you don't need to look hard to see the massive environmental damage from wind farms and pumped hydro.

Lift the ban and end the renewable con job.

https://www.menziesrc.org/news-feed/finnish-greens-pro-nuclear-shift-a-lesson-for-australia

Too true Fester. The latest offshore wind farm announced by Bowen off the Illawarra coast will be about the size of New York, with a large number of interconnecting cables. But they don't worry about the whales or other marine life, just like they don't worry about koalas or other wildlife displaced on the mainland. Instructions were issued for killing koalas during land clearing by hitting them on the back of the head! Nuclear will avoid all of that and it's reliable baseload power 24/7 unlike wind and solar.

AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC IGNORES ALBANESE IS BACKING 8 BOMB GRADE MOBILE POWER REACTORS

Australia’s Prime Minister Albanese is planning 8 nuclear power reactors.

This includes 2 or 3 in the 2030s and 5 or 6 in the 2040s. The 8 reactors will mainly be mobile but land based when in port just south of Perth. Each of these reactors will use 95+% bomb grade HEU. This is vastly more than 4% LEU in the normal land electricity reactors being proposed by Australia's Coalition Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

The Labor supported mobile nuclear reactors may be more prone to nuclear disasters (if they collide with large ships and experience other accidents) than fully land based reactors.

All this relates to the Labor supported AUKUS nuclear powered submarine program.

Well said Mav. Let's keep killing koalas and birds as well as destroying big chunks of the environment in support of your nuclear delusions.

Tell me, how is it that electricity prices keep rising here with the rollout of cheap wind and solar, yet the Fins last year commissioned a nuclear reactor after long delays and cost blowouts and saw a substantial fall in electricity prices shortly afterwards?

Labor is lying and Dutton is backing the wrong horse. We should be looking at what Copenhagen Atomics is doing with their cautious development of a 40 MW Thorium fueled reactor which basically is designed to produce heat. They should have this producing power by some time in 2017. This reactor will fit inside a 40 foot container and can be set up in multiples to either generate electricity or drive some other industrial process such as producing hydrogen, ammonia or steel.

David

"They should have this producing power by some time in 2017. "

I don't think we can wait that long!! :)

Adding new modern technology coal fired plants to the energy mix and cutting back on unreliable renewables would also be a great idea. But with the huge propaganda campaign demonising CO2 emissions (even though they are very low at about 420 parts per million and have been more than 10 times higher in the world's long history) means the populace have been conned and probably wouldn't accept them. Adopting nuclear in the mix would be a good start.

Agree Mikko2. I've said for a long time that we have such vast amounts of coal that we should be burning it like its going out of style (which it is) and then sell all the yellow cake the world will take. But the jihad against the dreaded CO2 and coal is such that its no longer possible. There's no longer any discussion about whether we should be trying to control CO2 emissions just the assertion that its axiomatic. (There's witches in Salem so we don't need to discuss it - just get on with the hangings).

We once had the lowest electricity prices in the advanced world because we relied on coal. Now we among the highest? And the future looks even worse than that.

The article contains several inaccuracies and misleading statements that warrant correction.

Firstly, it claims nuclear energy is cost-effective on a levelized basis, but this overlooks that nuclear power has some of the highest upfront capital costs. According to the IEA, the initial investment for nuclear power is significantly higher than for renewable energy sources. Although operational costs may be lower, the high initial investment is a substantial barrier.

The article uses the UAE's nuclear program to suggest nuclear plants can be built quickly. In reality, the global average construction time for nuclear reactors is around 10 years, with many projects facing delays and cost overruns. The UAE's success is not easily replicable due to differences in regulatory environments, financing, and expertise.

The view that renewable energy is unreliable and impractical due to land requirements fails to consider significant advancements in energy storage and grid management, which have increased reliability. Moreover, strategic planning can mitigate the impact on land use, balancing energy needs with environmental preservation.

The article downplays environmental risks associated with nuclear energy, such as radioactive waste and potential catastrophic accidents. While nuclear power emits low levels of carbon, the long-term storage of radioactive waste is a significant challenge, and past accidents have shown the devastating potential of failures.

It asserts that the transition to renewable energy is prohibitively costly, underestimating the long-term economic benefits. The cost of solar and wind energy has been falling rapidly, making these sources increasingly competitive. Over time, renewables offer lower operational and maintenance costs compared to fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Contrary to the claim that Australia is isolated in not embracing nuclear energy, many countries prioritise renewable energy due to its economic and environmental advantages. Nations like Germany and Japan are actively phasing out nuclear power in favour of renewables, reflecting a broader global trend.

The article does not accurately represent the benefits and advancements in renewable energy technologies. A holistic approach to energy policy should weigh all factors, including economic feasibility, safety, environmental impact, and technological potential.

John Daysh seems to have taken a big dose of the Labor lies and misinformation, especially : "It asserts that the transition to renewable energy is prohibitively costly, underestimating the long-term economic benefits. The cost of solar and wind energy has been falling rapidly, making these sources increasingly competitive. Over time, renewables offer lower operational and maintenance costs compared to fossil fuels and nuclear power..."
Yeah right, apart from the $1.3 to $1.5 trillion estimate from expert independent research group Net Zero Australia, after 15 to 20 years you have to start replacing it all, with a huge disposal problem that no one pushing unreliable renewables wants to talk about. And how many accidents have there been at Lucas Heights since 1957? How many in France with its 70% nuclear power which it exports to other green leaning nations such as Germany? None. How come nuclear subs based in Australian ports will be safe but land based nuclear reactors which have made huge advances in recent years, are "too dangerous". All BS! The examples quoted are all from legitimate sites and illustrate Labor's lack of credibility.

Mikko2,

I have no idea what Labor have said on the issue. Nor do I care. All I have done is correct the inaccuracies in the article

The $1.3 to $1.5 trillion estimate for transitioning to renewable energy from Net Zero Australia reflects significant upfront costs. However, this must be seen in the context of long-term savings and benefits. The IRENA reports that the cost of electricity from utility-scale solar photovoltaics has decreased by around 82% since 2010, making it highly competitive. These cost reductions continue to outpace traditional and nuclear energy.

Solar panels and wind turbines have lifespans of 20-25 years, but advancements in recycling technology are addressing disposal issues. New methods are being developed to handle the end-of-life of these components. The modular nature of renewable installations allows for phased replacements, minimising disruptions and costs over time.

The safety record of nuclear power in places like Lucas Heights and France is commendable, but potential risks, although low, are high-impact, as shown by the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. Long-term storage of radioactive waste remains a significant challenge. Renewables do not carry these high-impact risks. The absence of major accidents at certain nuclear sites does not negate the inherent risks and the significant precautions necessary to ensure safety.

Comparing nuclear submarines to land-based reactors is not valid. Submarine reactors are small, designed for mobility, and heavily regulated for military use. Civilian reactors are larger and more complex, requiring different safety measures and infrastructure. Public concern and regulatory hurdles for civilian reactors remain significant.

Germany’s phase-out of nuclear power and heavy investment in renewables reflects a global trend prioritising sustainable and less risky energy sources. Countries are recognising the economic and environmental benefits of renewables, driving policy changes worldwide.

While nuclear energy can be part of a diversified energy strategy, it’s crucial to consider its significant costs, risks, and long-term challenges. Renewable energy technologies have advanced significantly, offering cost-effective, sustainable, and low-risk options. A holistic approach to energy policy should weigh all factors, including economic feasibility, safety, environmental impact, and technological potential, to make informed decisions for a sustainable future.

John,

What sort of footprint reduction is possible? This article discusses the issue:

https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants

My understanding is that the land area planned for wind and solar is about the area of Tasmania, which is a guaranteed catastrophe for Australia's endangered flora and fauna. In contrast, the contaminated land around Chernobyl is one of the best nature reserves in Eastern Europe. Also, with the passive safety in current reactors, meltdowns cannot happen.

That nuclear takes too long and costs too much are common criticisms, but with lifespans several times that of wind and solar, the economics of nuclear reactors are ultimately better.

Perhaps the greatest advantage of nuclear over wind and solar is energy security. A sizeable storm could easily wipe out half a gigawatt of solar, whereas a nuclear reactor could survive being hit by a commercial airliner. And how crazy is it to be totally reliant on China for our generating infrastructure? Should Australia choose nuclear, we would be spoiled for choice.

Out of interest, what do you think of Robert Idel's analysis "Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity"?

And a small nuclear reactor in a submarine is comparable with a small modular reactor on land such as already operating in China and under construction in Ontario. And nobody will be locked up in closed quarters for weeks at a time right alongside a military grade reactor on land. The article also points out what is happening in Germany and why they have to import a significant amount of energy from France, generated by nuclear. Their manufacturing industry is in decline and companies such as BMW are already looking at moving elsewhere with a reliable affordable power supply. Gott in Himmel, we might even see a French or Finnish Beemer or Merc down the track. Or Chinese (perish the thought).

For anyone interested, here is a link to the full paper by Idel presented at an IAEE conference:

https://iaee2021online.org/download/contribution/fullpaper/1145/1145%5C_fullpaper%5C_20210326%5C_222336.pdf

Table 4: Comparison of LCOE and LFSCOE

Technology________LCOE ____________________LFSCOE
_____________________________________Germany ____Texas
_______________[USD/MWh] ___________[USD/MWh] _[USD/MWh]
Biomass ____________95 __________________104 _______117
Coal (USC) __________76 ___________________78 ________90
Natural Gas CC ______38 ___________________35 ________40
Natural Gas CT ______67 ___________________39 ________42
Nuclear ____________82 __________________106 _______122
Solar PV ___________36 _________________1548 _______413
Wind ______________40 __________________504 _______291

Idel's analysis explains Germany's poor economic performance in comparison to countries using nuclear.

Fester,

Robert Idel's "Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity" offers a thorough analysis of electricity costs, incorporating both generation and system costs. However, as Idel even acknowledges there are significant weaknesses, as exemplified by Table 4.

Table 4 highlights discrepancies between LCOE and LFSCOE but is flawed due to several issues:

A major weakness of Table 4 is the absence of context or detailed breakdowns of the cost assumptions used for calculating LCOE and LFSCOE. This omission makes it difficult to understand the cost differences and validate the numbers. Additionally, while the table compares costs in Germany and Texas, it lacks insights into other regions, limiting the generalizability of the findings.

The table simplifies complex cost dynamics into single values for each technology and region, failing to capture the range of variability and uncertainty inherent in these estimates, especially for future projections. Furthermore, it excludes other relevant technologies, such as offshore wind, geothermal, or advanced nuclear, which restricts the comprehensiveness of the comparison.

LCOE and LFSCOE calculations likely depend on specific time frames and discount rates, but these are not detailed in the table. Variations in these parameters can significantly affect cost estimates, and their omission reduces transparency and robustness. Additionally, the table does not account for policy incentives, market conditions, or regulatory frameworks that can greatly impact the costs of different energy technologies, crucial for a realistic comparison.

To improve Table 4, it should include cost assumptions, expand the geographic and technological scope, present cost ranges or confidence intervals, and integrate policy and market impacts. Specifying time frames and discount rates would enhance the detail, transparency, and comprehensiveness of cost comparisons for different electricity generation technologies.

Thank you John. Yes, shortcomings is the norm with modelling, else we'd be living in Utopia. Nonetheless, Idel's analysis does give an indication that there are significant cost issues in integrating intermittent energy sources into an on demand grid, and those issues become very significant when you try to power the grid solely with intermittent sources.

One way of testing such analysis is by observing how things work in the real world, and I don't observe wind and solar working as well as nuclear. I wish it were otherwise as I like things to work. California is another example of a bad outcome from abandoning nuclear and rushing headlong into renewables.

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/skyrocketing-electricity-prices-test-california-s-energy-transition-80305308

Fester,

I don't think the situation in California makes the case against renewables that you think it does.

While it's true that electricity rates have gone up, this isn't just because of the move to renewable energy. Other factors like wildfire prevention, infrastructure upgrades, and integrating new renewable sources all contribute to the costs. In the long run, renewable energy can help lower costs by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and avoiding the higher expenses associated with climate change.

The idea that non-solar customers are subsidising those with solar panels can be a bit misleading. Programs like net metering encourage more people to adopt renewable energy, which ultimately benefits everyone by reducing peak demand and lowering grid costs. Additionally, having more distributed solar power increases grid resilience and decreases transmission losses.

Income-adjusted electric fees are designed to make energy costs fairer, ensuring that lower-income households aren't hit the hardest. When designed correctly, these fees can balance affordability while still encouraging energy conservation.

Investing in wildfire mitigation and grid upgrades is indeed expensive, but these investments are necessary to prevent catastrophic wildfires and ensure a reliable power grid. Modernising the grid to handle more renewable energy is essential for meeting clean energy goals and cutting emissions over time.

There are definitely short-term challenges for the solar industry due to new tariff structures and high interest rates. However, the long-term outlook is promising as solar technology costs keep dropping, and the economic benefits of pairing solar with battery storage become more apparent.

The discussions among lawmakers show how complex it is to balance affordability, equity, and sustainability. Ongoing debates and oversight are crucial to making sure that energy policies are effective and fair for everyone involved.

While there are some challenges, California's energy policies are focused on creating a sustainable, fair, and resilient energy future. It's important to look at both the immediate impacts and the long-term benefits of moving towards renewable energy.

Regardless of John D's interpretations it does show why we really need a sensible debate on at least lifting the nuclear ban, rather than childish memes of three-eyed fish and koalas, which impresses no one with half a brain. I think we could all agree on that. And there is no denying that major solar, wind farms and 28,000 km of new transmission lines are very destructive to the natural environment and wildlife as well as arable farms that our expanding population needs. Then there is the aspect of harmful penetrating low decibel sound waves from the turbines, as highlighted by German Dr Bellut-Staeck, linked in the article.

John,

Along with Hawaii, California has the most expensive electricity in the United States. That is a recurring theme with wind and solar unfortunately. Comparatively, residents in nuclear powered Ontario in Canada pay half as much for their electricity.

https://www.oeb.ca/consumer-information-and-protection/electricity-rates/historical-electricity-rates

Why set yourself all these these expensive challenges and destroy the environment when there are numerous examples around the world where people have chosen nuclear and pay half as much for their energy? It just sounds bonkers not to consider nuclear as part of the mix.

Yes, California is a basket case in more ways than one. Here's a segment from the 2019 nuclear feature mentioned at the foot of the main article:
Time Magazine environmental hero Michael Shellenberger, says he was once a firm believer in wind and solar, but experience in California had changed his mind.

Writing on the Quillette website, he also cites major environmental problems with both solar and wind farms but adds:

"Without large-scale ways to back-up solar energy, California has had to block electricity coming from solar farms when it’s extremely sunny, or pay neighboring states to take it from us so we can avoid blowing-out our grid.
"Despite what you’ve heard, there is no ‘battery revolution’ on the way, for well-understood technical and economic reasons."
Shellenberger advocates nuclear energy as a cheaper, more reliable alternative:

"It’s reasonable to ask whether nuclear power is safe, and what happens with its waste.
It turns out that scientists have studied the health and safety of different energy sources since the 1960s. Every major study, including a recent one by the British medical journal Lancet, finds the same thing: nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity."

Fester,

I understand your point about the cost differences and the benefits of nuclear energy, but there are several important factors to consider when evaluating California's energy strategy and the broader push for renewable energy.

Again, California's high electricity rates reflect not just the cost of renewable energy but also significant investments in wildfire prevention, grid modernisation, and other infrastructure upgrades. These investments are essential for ensuring a reliable and resilient energy system, particularly given the increasing frequency and severity of wildfires.

Comparing electricity rates directly between regions like California and Ontario can be misleading without considering these contextual differences. Ontario benefits from legacy nuclear plants that were built decades ago, whereas new nuclear projects are notoriously expensive and time-consuming to build. For example, recent nuclear projects in other parts of the world have faced significant cost overruns and delays.

Secondly, the environmental benefits of renewable energy cannot be overstated. Wind and solar power generate electricity without emitting greenhouse gases, reducing air pollution, and mitigating climate change. This has long-term health and environmental benefits that translate into economic savings and improved quality of life.

Moreover, renewable energy sources like wind and solar are becoming increasingly cost-competitive. The initial costs of these technologies have been decreasing, and they continue to improve in efficiency. As we scale up renewable energy infrastructure, economies of scale and technological advancements will further drive down costs.

Additionally, renewable energy sources offer the advantage of decentralisation. This enhances grid resilience and reduces the risk of large-scale outages, which is particularly important in a state like California that faces natural disasters such as wildfires and earthquakes.

While nuclear energy can indeed be part of a low-carbon energy mix, it comes with its own set of challenges, which I need not mention yet again. California's strategy isn't about rejecting nuclear energy outright but about creating a balanced and diversified energy portfolio that includes a significant share of renewables to ensure sustainability and resilience.

California's push towards renewable energy is driven by a holistic view of economic, environmental, and social benefits.

Mikko2,

Michael Shellenberger's dismissal of an imminent "battery revolution" likely overlooks significant advancements in battery technology and sets up a bit of a strawman argument. The term "battery revolution" implies a sudden, radical transformation, whereas technological advancements often occur gradually through incremental improvements.

Recent years have seen considerable strides in battery development. Lithium-ion battery costs have decreased dramatically, making them more viable for large-scale energy storage. Innovations in solid-state batteries and flow batteries also show promise, potentially offering greater efficiency and capacity.

Large-scale battery storage projects are already proving their worth. For instance, the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia has demonstrated the economic benefits and viability of battery storage, improving grid stability and reducing costs. Such projects indicate that a battery revolution is indeed underway, driven by continuous R&D investments and technological advancements.

Additionally, the growing integration of renewable energy sources into the grid is accelerating the demand for more efficient and affordable storage solutions. This demand drives further innovation and investment, potentially overcoming the challenges Shellenberger cites.

By framing the discussion around a "battery revolution," Shellenberger might be setting up an unrealistic expectation that overlooks the cumulative impact of ongoing, incremental advancements. These steady improvements are crucial in enhancing the viability and efficiency of renewable energy systems. Therefore, while it's true that technical and economic hurdles exist, the ongoing progress in battery technology suggests a more optimistic outlook.

While Shellenberger raises valid points about renewable energy's current limitations, it is essential to consider the broader context and ongoing advancements. Renewables, complemented by storage solutions and other technologies, have significant potential for sustainable and reliable energy. Meanwhile, nuclear power remains important but is not without challenges.

A balanced approach, leveraging various technologies' strengths, is crucial for a sustainable energy future.

This is depressing, and it's just Queensland, but happening in other states too. How can anyone condone this massive solar and wind farm environmental destruction?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HJYuZVzZK4
(It's factual too, unlike the lies promoting intermittent "renewables" that will never achieve net zero,)

Mikko2,

Thanks for the link to the video. There are a number of claims made in it that require correcting, however.

Firstly, the claim that we need to triple our electrical capacity due to the intermittent nature of renewables is exaggerated. Modern battery storage systems and improved grid management are increasingly effective at handling renewable energy variability. Advances in wind and solar technology have made them more efficient and reliable, reducing the need for excessive overcapacity.

Concerns that wind farms will industrialise untouched areas are overstated. Wind farm projects undergo strict environmental impact assessments to minimise disruption and select the least harmful locations. Compared to the widespread environmental damage from fossil fuel extraction and combustion, the footprint of wind farms is much smaller.

Claims of large-scale deforestation and habitat destruction from wind and solar farms miss key points. Many renewable projects include habitat restoration, conservation offsets, and careful planning to avoid critical areas. The long-term benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from these projects protect global biodiversity and ecosystems from the greater threat of climate change.

The idea that state governments are fast-tracking approvals for renewable energy projects, leading to insufficient scrutiny and public input, is not entirely correct. Even with expedited processes, these projects must meet stringent regulatory standards and undergo thorough environmental reviews. Transparency and public engagement can still be maintained, even when timelines are accelerated to meet urgent climate goals.

Lastly, the claim that conservation groups are not opposing wind and solar farms and are on the wrong side of history overlooks their balanced approach. Many conservation groups support renewable energy as a crucial strategy to combat climate change, which is a major threat to biodiversity. They advocate for responsible development that minimises environmental impacts while transitioning to clean energy.

Concerns about the negative impacts of wind and solar farms are often overstated and lack context. The environmental benefits of renewable energy, particularly in reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change, far outweigh the localised impacts.

Given your obvious concerns for the environment, I trust the above will come as somewhat of a relief to you.

I'll leave you to your delusions John D as you seem to be the only one here who thinks the huge wind and solar farms aren't destroying our natural environment. Good luck with green dreams, some (most) here believe in reality.

Mikko2,

If you have any arguments or data to counter anything I've said, then please share them. Assertions and insults alone don't give me much to respond to, I'm afraid. Nor do they reflect well on your position.

Well John D you just state things supporting unreliable renewables as fact usually without any back-up. Pretty much like Albo and Bowen telling porkies. There is no evidence to show that clearing an area the size of Tasmania for short-life, intermittent, unreliable solar and wind farms are somehow good for the environment (tell that to the whales and koalas), or the climate, when Australia contributes a tiny fraction (1.3%) of world emissions, which even NASA admits are greening the planet and producing greater food supplies. Believe what you like but it will never achieve "net zero," here or anywhere and no other nation is trying to achieve it solely with renewables. A reminder of what former chief scientist Alan Finkel told a Senate hearing several years ago - if Australia cut its emissions to zero tomorrow, its effects on world climate would be "virtually nothing". Oh, and we all know he later tried to back-track but those were his words regardless of how he later tried to deflect the flak.

John,

Nuclear reactors will use existing coal fired power station sites. They will have no environmental effect other than the positive of protecting life (nuclear power is credited with preventing millions of deaths). Wind and solar will affect an area the size of Tasmania, so nuclear will cause 100% less environmental damage than wind and solar regardless of public opinion.

As for cost and time delays with nuclear, I'd point out that the commissioning of Olkiluoto 3 after nearly 17 years and well over budget has left Finland with an energy glut and a 75% reduction in wholesale power prices.

The major problem with wind and solar, aside from the substantial environmental impact, is that it requires a very substantial amount of infrastructure to make it dispatchable. This includes a transmission and generating infrastructure capable of carrying and generating several times the average power demand. The discussion in the Idel paper I linked suggested that the storage cost of intermittent power sources would need to reduce by over 90% to make them competitive with grids running on dispatchable power sources like nuclear.

As an aside John, although I disagree with you, I think your attention to the subject and respect of others is testament to your good character. I come here not to engage in tribalism but to try and understand why people have their opinions.

Well done!

Mikko2,

I will be happy to address your points while including citations to back up my arguments.

While renewable energy projects need significant land, careful site selection and environmental impact assessments help minimise harm. The overall environmental footprint of renewables is smaller than fossil fuels when considering the entire lifecycle (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56487.pdf). The NREL found that shifting to renewables significantly reduces air and water pollution, leading to better public health outcomes and lower healthcare costs (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56487.pdf).

Advances in energy storage and grid management are making renewable energy more reliable. For example, the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia has proven effective at stabilising the grid and providing backup power during peak demand (http://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au).

Regarding Australia’s emissions, while our contribution is relatively small (about 1.3%), the cumulative impact of all countries taking action is significant. Climate change is a global issue that needs collective action, and even small contributors play a role in setting examples and driving global policy (http://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/national-greenhouse-gas-inventory-quarterly-update-december-2021). The idea that increased CO2 levels are beneficial due to the "greening" effect is incorrect. While some plants may benefit short-term, the overall impact of climate change, including extreme weather events, sea-level rise, and biodiversity loss, far outweighs these temporary benefits (http://climate.nasa.gov/effects).

The cost of renewable energy technologies has been dropping quickly. The IREA reports that the cost of electricity from utility-scale solar photovoltaics fell by around 82% between 2010 and 2020, and onshore wind costs dropped by about 40% (http://www.irena.org/publications/2021/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2020). Over their lifetimes, renewables tend to be more cost-effective due to lower operational and maintenance costs compared to fossil fuels and nuclear energy (http://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020).

As for Alan Finkel’s comments, he did say that Australia’s emissions reductions alone would have minimal impact, but his point was about the need for global action (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22committees/commsen/9fedeaff-9ab2-4a80-a14d-29cdb8f23b2b/0000%22). By adopting strong renewable energy policies, Australia can lead in clean energy, drive technological innovation, and influence global standards (http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au).

Transitioning to renewable energy is complex and comes with challenges, but the long-term benefits for the environment, public health, and the economy are significant. I’m happy to continue this discussion with any further data or questions you have.

Better tell China and India to play ball. Renewables ain't going to cut the mustard, let alone temps and climate.

Hi John Daysh

Your knowledge of nuclear and broader energy issues is impressive.

What's your educational background?

Cheers Mavs

Tell us how safe unreliable renewables are what with an unprecedented number of house fires caused by electric bikes, scooters or cars, a recall on a major brand of storage batteries "that may cause fires" ships sunk or disabled with EV car fires and now 22 people killed in a lithium battery factory fire explosion. Safer than modern nuclear? yeah right ...
https://www.westernjournal.com/22-workers-killed-single-malfunctioning-lithium-battery-sets-off-disastrous-chain-reaction/?

Fester,

Thanks for your kind words. Your means of engagement (such as asking questions of others) demonstrates that this is not about tribalism to you, and is indicative of sincerity and intellectual honesty.

Maverick,

I'm not qualified in this area. I consider myself a lifelong learner, and the areas in which I do have formal qualifications (law and the social sciences) have equipped me with the tools to nurture this (i.e. information literacy, media literacy, and an awareness of cognitive biases).

Mikko2,

It’s important to address safety concerns, but the points about renewable energy and lithium batteries need context. While incidents involving lithium batteries are serious, they are relatively rare compared to the widespread health and environmental impacts of fossil fuels and nuclear accidents.

Renewable energy technology, including battery safety, continues to improve rapidly. Safety standards and innovations are being developed to mitigate risks. Although modern nuclear energy has strong safety measures, the potential for catastrophic failures and the challenges of managing radioactive waste should not be ignored.

Overall, the environmental and health benefits of renewables, such as reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, far outweigh the risks when managed properly. Spreading misinformation undermines informed discourse. Let’s focus on facts and a balanced discussion about energy solutions.

John D re " Spreading misinformation undermines informed discourse. Let’s focus on facts and a balanced discussion about energy" ... Yes! That's exactly what is happening in the anti-nuclear campaign.
Oh and BTW the US has just reached bipartisan approval to encourage more nuclear energy which highlights again how out of step Australia is with other major world economies.
Can anyone relate any recent direct nuclear energy fatalities to rival what is happening with EVs and batteries... No? https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/19/climate/nuclear-energy-bill/index.html

CNN
—
Democrats and Republicans in a bitterly divided Congress can agree on one thing: the US needs more nuclear to power America’s rapidly growing energy appetite — and fast.

The Senate overwhelmingly approved a major bill Tuesday night to make it easier, cheaper and faster to permit and build new nuclear reactors. The ADVANCE Act, which passed with just two senators voting no, now heads to Biden’s desk for signing, which he is expected to do.

The bill represents one of the most significant actions Congress has taken to advance clean energy since Democrats narrowly passed the Inflation Reduction Act almost two years ago. And it comes as the US tries to revive an aging nuclear energy industry at home and bolster cutting-edge technologies abroad...

Mikko2,

Thanks for your reply. It's true that the U.S. has bipartisan support for nuclear energy, reflecting its role in a balanced energy mix. However, it's important to consider the broader context.

While nuclear energy has a strong safety record today, past incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima highlight the potential risks. The management of radioactive waste also remains a challenge.

Regarding fatalities, it’s crucial to compare overall impacts. Fossil fuels still cause far more deaths annually due to air pollution than renewable technologies or nuclear power combined. While incidents with lithium batteries are serious, they are relatively rare and ongoing improvements in safety standards are addressing these issues.

Renewables, nuclear, and improved safety measures all play a role in a sustainable energy future. Misinformation from any side undermines informed discourse. Let's focus on a balanced discussion based on facts.

I have just come across this article and feel the need to counteract some of what John Daysh is claiming. It is only showing his love for renewables and dislike for Nuclear – not really correcting facts.
If PM Albanese and Chris Bowen etc. were so sure that NUCLEAR is not acceptable, why won’t they move to UNLOCK THE BAN ON NUCLEAR SO A PROPER DISCUSSION CAN BE HELD?
Australia is THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE G20 GROUP with a BAN ON NUCLEAR. I am annoyed that John Howard was the PM when that ban was put in place. These politicians are long gone when the rest of us are still here to contend with their decisions.
If wind and solar are so good, John Dasch, why have all power charges risen exponentially?
After initial setup of a small Nuclear Reactor, that lasts for 80 to 100 years – a one-time setup cost. Wind and Solar have initial costs then every 15 to 20 years have to be replaced PLUS dumping grounds found for the waste.
Why do you only worry about “nuclear waste” when it has been proven to be working in the other 51 countries who are investing in SMRs?
Australia is going to become a wasteland full of turbine blades and DANGEROUS SOLAR panels.
Radioactive waste is MINISCULE in comparison with wind and solar.
ENERGY FOOTPRINTS: The land use of biomass, hydro, wind and solar are between one and three orders of magnitude GREATER than Nuclear.
https://onewomanjourney.com.au/tag/energy-footprints/

Past Accidents: Yes – half a century ago – fifty years – do you think changes haven’t been made over those decades? The anti-nuclear group always bring up Chernobyl and Fukushima. There are 7,000 workers in CHERNOBYL. 4,000 live in the inner exclusion zone at least half of the time. About 70,000 tourists visit the inner zone each year. FUKUSHIMA – most died from the earthquake and tsunami – NONE died from the NUCLEAR accident. https://onewomanjourney.com.au/2022/03/21/f-nuclear-accidents/

OK - Lets stick to facts - like historically the current tiny level of atmospheric CO2 at about 420 parts per million is very low and has been more than 10 times higher in the past, when plants and animals and coral reefs thrived; that it is an essential plant food and if it drops to around 200 ppm life would be unsustainable; that ancient ice cores prove increases in temperature have always preceded rises in CO2 by up to thousands of years; that water vapour is a much more potent and prevalent greenhouse gas than CO2 could ever be (tax the clouds?); that the theory anthropogenic CO2 drives climate change is a hypothesis based on faulty computer modelling which has never and can never be proven; in an era of so called "global boiling" extreme cold weather is responsible for more deaths than any hot weather; that a bad hail storm can wipe out a big solar farm in minutes (as has happened recently in Texas https://www.youtube.com/watch?) - imagine what a cyclone will do to huge wind turbines on mountain ranges and out to sea; that the energy used in producing solar panels, wind turbines, concrete for their bases, mining and refining of rare earths using child and slave labour mean they will never achieve a positive effect on emissions in their relatively short lifetimes; that old buried wind panel blades break down and leach PBAs into the soil and waterways https://docs.wind-watch.org/Bisphenol-A-Pollution-Wind-Turbines.pdf; they also regularly catch on fire as one did in Victoria yesterday when they are not slicing raptors and bats https://www.windpowerengineering.com/the-true-cost-of-wind-turbine-fires-and-protection/. That's just for starters ...

Farnortherner,

I have already addressed many of your comments here, but will again do so in reply to you.

While nuclear reactors can last 80 years or more, the upfront costs are high, often leading to budget overruns and lengthy construction times. In contrast, renewable energy, especially solar and wind, has seen significant cost reductions over the past decade, making it more economically viable. Additionally, the operational and maintenance costs of renewables are lower than those of nuclear plants.

Nuclear waste, although small in volume, remains hazardous for thousands of years and requires secure long-term storage. In comparison, renewable energy technologies are advancing in recycling capabilities. For instance, solar panels and wind turbine blades are increasingly being recycled, with new technologies improving efficiency. Companies are developing methods to recover valuable materials from old panels, and turbine blades are being repurposed for construction.

While renewable projects require land, careful site selection and environmental impact assessments help minimise ecological damage. When considering their entire lifecycle, renewables have a smaller environmental footprint compared to fossil fuels and nuclear energy. They significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, contributing to better overall environmental health. Moreover, advancements in energy storage and grid management are addressing concerns about intermittency, making renewables more reliable.

The safety of nuclear energy has improved over the decades with modern reactors featuring passive safety designs. However, the potential risks of nuclear accidents, although low in probability, can be catastrophic. Incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima remind us of the severe consequences of failures. Public concerns about radioactive waste and potential accidents continue to shape perceptions of nuclear energy.

So, while nuclear energy can be part of a balanced energy strategy, it's crucial to consider economic, environmental, and safety factors. Renewables offer a sustainable path forward, with ongoing advancements in technology and recycling enhancing their viability.

Did you even check out the links to Chernobyl and Fukushima? Give me a break with your prepared anti-nuclear comments. I have to go out this morning so I will check back later to see what else is happening.
You didn’t answer why the leftists are not supportive of unblocking discussion on Nuclear so that the truth can be told in parliament as well.
Chris Bowen makes a fool of himself every time he opens his mouth regarding Nuclear and it seems you may be believing him. He has been sent the links to the facts about Nuclear – from a SCIENTIST – but he is totally ignorant of facts.

Mikko2,

CO2 levels have been higher in the past, but today's rapid increase is driven by human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation, occurring over decades rather than millions of years. Historically, high CO2 levels often led to mass extinctions, indicating significant risks.

While CO2 is essential for plants, excessive levels contribute to severe weather, ocean acidification, and rising sea levels, which harm biodiversity and agriculture, outweighing short-term benefits to plant growth.

Previously, temperature increases preceded CO2 rises, but now human activities are the primary cause of warming, with CO2 as a major factor, supported by extensive research, including ice core data and atmospheric studies.

Water vapor, a powerful greenhouse gas, acts as a feedback mechanism. As CO2 levels rise, they cause warming, which increases water vapor, amplifying the effect. Thus, controlling CO2 emissions is crucial for managing climate change.

The concept that human-produced CO2 drives climate change is backed by decades of research and observational data, such as rising global temperatures and melting ice caps. Most climate scientists agree that human activities influence climate change.

Although cold weather can be deadly, heat-related illnesses and deaths are rising due to increasing global temperatures, with climate change making heatwaves more frequent and intense, posing serious health risks.

Renewable energy systems can be designed to withstand extreme weather. Solar panels can be reinforced, and wind turbines can be equipped with technologies to reduce storm damage. Using a mix of energy sources and battery storage helps minimize severe weather impacts on renewables.

Overall emissions from renewables are much lower than fossil fuels. Manufacturing processes are improving, focusing on ethical material sourcing. While building renewables requires energy, their environmental impact is much smaller compared to fossil fuels.

Recycling technologies for wind turbine blades are improving, facilitating repurposing. Ongoing research aims to develop more sustainable materials, with wind energy's environmental benefits, such as reducing carbon emissions, outweighing waste-related challenges.

Mikko2 (cont'd),

Thanks for the articles you linked to. However, they are biased and misleading in many ways.

The article "Bisphenol A Pollution from Wind Turbines" exaggerates the toxicity of Bisphenol A (BPA), labelling it as the "most toxic substance we know," which is misleading. While BPA is a concern as an endocrine disruptor, regulatory bodies focus on safe exposure levels rather than outright bans. The claim that 15% of the EU's BPA production is used in wind turbine blades, resulting in over 12 tons of emissions annually, lacks solid backing and seems dubious. Properly maintained turbines show significantly lower emissions.

The article also claims that 1 kilogram of BPA can contaminate 10 billion litres of water, an alarmist statement that ignores environmental factors like dilution and degradation. The methodology relies on outdated data and speculative methods, inflating BPA emission statistics without considering recent advances in turbine materials and maintenance. Additionally, it oversimplifies the science by inaccurately linking microplastics to BPA leaching, failing to account for environmental conditions affecting leaching rates.

The article misinterprets the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) reduction in the tolerable daily intake (TDI) of BPA, which is a precautionary measure based on new research, not a sign of immediate health risks at previously accepted levels. Furthermore, it generalises the hormonal effects of BPA without considering the complexity of biological systems.

The second on wind turbine fires exaggerates the frequency and impact of such incidents without solid data. Most research indicates that fires are much less common than suggested. There is also a potential conflict of interest, as the author works for a fire protection company, raising questions about bias. The piece heavily promotes fire suppression systems without independent analysis of their cost-effectiveness.

The article overlooks numerous safety measures and technological advancements that prevent fires in modern turbines. A more balanced view, including independent research and current safety practices, would provide a more accurate picture of wind turbine operations.

I suggest you look to scholarly, peer-reviewed papers if it is reliable information that you seek.

And again, John D that's a bunch of opinions not facts which you claim to endorse. There are many prominent scientists including a Nobel Prize winner John Clauser who don't endorse the anthropogenic CO2 theory and who aren't dependent on government funding and who agree it is a lie based on faulty computer modelling which never has been proven in the real world and never will be. The claim that there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists was debunked years ago. https://www.desmog.com/john-f-clauser/

Mr Daysh should read the article by Chris Uhlmann in the current Weekend Australian. It is fact based.
Here is the link for those who are subscribers to the Australian—
The Australian - Real cost of renewables is in your power bills
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=9f6d0ed7-342d-4fac-8a8a-e72087121143

Uhlmann quotes the latest data from the Statistical Review of World Energy, an authoritative source. He notes that notwithstanding some growth of renewables in the production and consumption mix, coal and oil consumption were at the highest levels on record in the latest year. Replacement of fossil fuels is just not happening.
The only thing changing is where the coal and oil are being consumed. Some countries may have reduced their usage, but various others have increased their usage, more than offsetting any reductions. It’s the same with emissions—still going up. China and India are clearly the biggest players in this regard.
Uhlmann goes on to refer to a current paper by Prof Stephen Wilson (UQ) titled ‘The Ruinous Cost of Free Energy’, noting that debates about power costs often focus on the wholesale level whereas the community generally is concerned with retail costs.
The NEM is critically important in this context. It may not be generally appreciated but at any given time slot (of 5 mins), it is the highest price which applies to all supplies, not the lowest. This is the ‘clearing price’ mechanism. All those theoretical low-cost prices from renewables can just disappear into the ether if the final component of demand can only be met by higher priced supplies.
It is also generally accepted as a rule of thumb that retail prices are 3-4 times the average wholesale price over a given period. This is overseen by regulators as an accepted system.
All of this means that claims of much lower prices from renewables and batteries are very doubtful. We need stable, reliable baseload supplies, and efforts to duck that conclusion are going to leave us with an economic mess.
By all means, let the debate run on but let’s be realistic in our arguments.

Mikko2,

Enough with the sock puppets, please. They do your position no favours.

While a few scientists, including Nobel laureate John Clauser, have expressed scepticism about human-caused climate change, the vast majority of climate experts agree that human activities, especially CO2 emissions, are major contributors to global warming. It’s important to note that Clauser is not a climate scientist; he is a physicist, and expertise in one field doesn’t automatically apply to another.

Studies confirming the 97% consensus specifically survey climate scientists or experts actively publishing in relevant fields, ensuring that the consensus reflects views from those with expertise in climate science (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002). Therefore, Clauser is rightfully excluded from this well-established statistic. I suspect this is the root of your confusion.

The idea that scientists support climate change theories just for government funding is misleading. Scientific consensus is built on rigorous, peer-reviewed research, not financial incentives. Scientists work in various settings, including universities and private research institutions, where transparency and peer review ensure the integrity of their work (http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2872).

As for the claim about faulty climate models, while these models are complex, they have successfully predicted many climate trends. They are based on solid physics and extensive data. Despite their complexity, they are crucial tools in understanding climate change, and their predictions have been validated against real-world observations (http://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0664-0).

The assertion that the 97% consensus among climate scientists has been debunked is also incorrect. Multiple studies have reinforced this consensus. For example, another review in Environmental Research Letters affirms that the vast majority of climate scientists support the view of human-caused global warming (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002). This consensus is endorsed by major scientific organisations worldwide, including the American Geophysical Union and the IPCC.

Basically, the claim dismisses the overwhelming scientific agreement on climate change by focusing on a small minority of dissenting scientists. While scepticism and debate are essential to scientific progress, the substantial evidence supporting human-caused climate change is robust and peer-reviewed, contradicting the notion that it’s based on faulty models or misinformation.

There is a list of highly qualified scientists longer than your arm who don't believe the anthropogenic CO2 climate change lies and YES the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists are in agreement was thoroughly debunked years ago. If you still believe that very obvious lie it really shoots any of your other dubious claims down in flames, Jon D. Dream on.

Mikko2,

I certainly hope you're not referring to the long-debunked and intentionally deceptive "Oregon Petition," which serves more as a propaganda tool than a legitimate scientific document.

The Oregon Petition includes names of people with no relevant expertise, such as engineers and veterinarians, and even fictional characters. The verification process was virtually non-existent, allowing anyone to sign. Moreover, it presents itself as a scientific consensus but fails to provide any credible scientific backing.

In contrast, the 97% consensus on anthropogenic global warming is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed research. Multiple studies have confirmed this consensus by analysing thousands of scientific papers, underscoring that nearly all climate scientists agree on human-caused climate change.

Cook et al. (2013): http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Farnsworth and Lichter (2011): http://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/eint/15/1/2011ei386_1.xml
Anderegg et al. (2010): http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107
Doran and Zimmerman (2009): http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467609332708
Oreskes (2004): http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

Still solid as a rock.

Even if you were right, though, that would not bring into question anything else I've said, and your attempt to make it seem as if it would us known as the fallacy of composition.

So anyone who disagrees with your assertions are now "sock puppets". Really? Here's a few parting thoughts - if a Nobel Prize winning scientist is ineligible to express an opinion on anthropogenic climate change, how about the Climate Council's Prof Tim Flannery (a mammalogist and palaeontologist) who told us we were in for perpetual droughts and "even the rain that falls will never fill our rivers and dams" just a couple of years before the disastrous floods in 2011, let alone the numerous floods since then and regular overflows from Sydney's Warragamba Dam https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/warragamba_dam_wall_raise_on_hold_thanks_to_green_bureaucrats_and_activists
Climate change? Yeah right Tim flip a coin, floods or droughts you can't lose.
As for computer modelling, many os us are still aware of "Climategate" - the flurry of "Hide the decline" emails emanating from East Anglia University when they realised actual temperatures weren't playing the game the computers predicted, as exposed by James Delingpole
https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/The-IPA-on-Climategate-from-CCTF2010-Davidson-and-Moran.pdf
You have also used the term "ocean acidification" which displays a lack of scientific knowledge as it is a misnomer used to help scare the gullible:
"A good way to excite people is to tell them that something is becoming more ‘acid,’ as ‘the oceans are undergoing acidification and this is a potential environmental catastrophe.’
https://news-oceanacidification-icc.org/2010/08/24/ocean-acidification-is-a-misnomer/
"The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading proponent of the doom of global warming, states that the mean pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open oceans, so the oceans remain alkaline. It is dishonest to present to a lay audience that any perceived reduction in alkalinity means the oceans are turning to acid. (1) Since the pH of the oceans is higher than neutral (pH = 7), this means the oceans are alkaline..."
And the Great Barrier Reef records record coral cover for the third year in a row" .. From Australian scientist Joanne Nova
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/06/after-a-trillion-tons-of-co2-the-great-barrier-reef-hits-record-coral-cover-third-year-in-a-row/
You also continually refer to the authenticity of "peer reviewed" articles but if you search for faulty or fake peer reviews you will find numerous examples including this one: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18202

Mikko2,

No, a sock puppet is not identified by whether they agree with me. Commenters can be identified as likely sock puppets when they are new and make a sudden appearance with exactly the same tone, position and writing style of someone who is struggling in a debate.

To answer your latest points:

While Nobel Prize winners are respected, their expertise isn’t always in climate science. Climate change requires specific knowledge in atmospheric science and oceanography. Tim Flannery’s background in palaeontology provides insights based on historical data. His comments on droughts and floods are based on climate models, which account for various scenarios. Climate change can lead to both droughts and floods, depending on the region and timing; these predictions are informed estimates.

Regarding “Climategate,” multiple investigations cleared the scientists involved, showing that the phrase “hide the decline” referred to specific data handling, not global temperature manipulation. The overall consensus in climate science remains that human activity significantly impacts recent climate changes.

Ocean acidification describes the drop in ocean pH levels due to CO2 absorption. While the oceans are still alkaline, this change negatively affects marine life, especially organisms like corals and shellfish. The term “acidification” accurately highlights the shifts in ocean chemistry and potential ecological impacts.

As for the Great Barrier Reef, reports of increased coral cover are encouraging but don’t negate ongoing threats like mass bleaching and warming waters. These issues cause long-term damage, and short-term recoveries shouldn’t be seen as a complete reversal. The reef's health is influenced by local conservation efforts and broader climate trends.

Finally, regarding peer review: it’s crucial for maintaining scientific quality, though it’s not perfect. Faulty reviews are rare and usually identified over time. Peer review allows scientists to scrutinise and validate findings, which is essential for science's self-correcting nature. Looking at the consensus in peer-reviewed research rather than isolated studies provides a more comprehensive understanding.

In discussions about climate change, it’s important to consider the scientific consensus, supported by extensive research and data analysis. Scepticism should be informed by evidence and expert opinion, no junk conspiracy sites. It's just denialism, otherwise.

John Daysh – I am no sock Puppet and I don’t spend all my time on facebook or other sites – once you start losing the argument, your side always attacks with name calling. I “may” have been more involved with following FACTUAL information on Nuclear than Mikko2 – who knows – I don’t?
It would be interesting to know why you are so hung up on renewables and against nuclear. Do you even know that France has been coping with Nuclear for energy for 75 years? I would say nuclear will cause much less destruction to our beautiful countryside than your horrible wind turbines and solar which are going to cause much more of a problem with their disposal.
Have you seen how the modern day Nuclear systems work? It would be MOST DIFFICULT for any waste to escape if you knew anything about the way they operate these days. Check out the links I have sent to you - it is all there. You have no excuse to poo hoo Nuclear. I am probably a lot more aged than you but even I can see the great benefits of Nuclear for Energy (we are not talking about Nuclear Bombs in case you are on the wrong train).
“Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening.”
”McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”4

Farnortherner,

Referring to an online identity as a "sock puppet" isn't name-calling. Look it up. Now that you mention it, though, the insults have only been coming from those responding to me.

I am not hung up on renewables, nor am I against nuclear power. Had you read my comments without getting emotional, you would have realised that all I've been doing is providing nuance to the debate where it's missing. This forum is a right-wing echo chamber; had it been a left-wing echo chamber, I would be accused of being pro-nuclear.

As for the rest of your comments, I have answered them all numerous times on this forum already, but will do so again now.

France has successfully used nuclear energy for decades, significantly reducing carbon emissions and ensuring a stable energy supply. Modern nuclear systems have advanced safety measures, making waste escape unlikely, crucial for combating climate change.

While nuclear plants have a smaller physical footprint compared to wind farms and solar panels, each energy source's environmental impact must be assessed holistically:

-Land use: Wind and solar installations require more land but can coexist with agriculture and other uses.

-Disposal: Disposal of wind turbine blades and solar panels is an emerging issue, with recycling advancements underway. However, nuclear waste disposal remains a significant challenge due to its long-lived radioactivity, necessitating secure storage for thousands of years.

-Accidents/disasters: Modern nuclear plants are safe, but potential nuclear accidents (e.g., Fukushima, Chernobyl) can cause severe, long-term environmental contamination.

Advancements in nuclear technology, such as Generation IV reactors and small modular reactors, promise higher safety and better waste management. However, public concerns about nuclear safety and waste disposal persist.

The claim that many climate scientists do not agree on global warming is false. The overwhelming consensus is that climate change is real and primarily driven by humans.

Renewable energy sources like wind and solar are vital for diversifying our energy mix and reducing fossil fuel reliance. They have lower operational risks, can be deployed more quickly than nuclear plants, and ongoing technological advancements continue to improve their efficiency and reduce environmental impact.

By the way, Farnortherner, I read the document you linked to and it was appallingly inaccurate and biased.

Firstly, it suggested that all health effects from nuclear accidents are caused by fear. While psychological impacts are real, extensive studies show that radiation from events like Chernobyl has resulted in increased rates of thyroid cancer and other health issues. It also mentions that Ukraine relied heavily on nuclear power and planned more plants post-Chernobyl, but this doesn't dismiss the significant long-term health and environmental consequences of the disaster, despite improvements in safety.

Another claim involves a NOAA graph used by antinuclear activists, allegedly to misrepresent radiation levels. While misinformation does occur, concerns about Fukushima’s radiation were valid, with independent research confirming ocean contamination affecting marine life and human health. Additionally, the mention of thyroid tissue samples from Chernobyl survivors, which show distinct genetic damage, actually supports the argument about long-term effects of radiation exposure, countering the document’s minimisation.

The claim that sickness near the Ranger Uranium Mine was due solely to bacterial contamination is true for that case, but not universally. Other areas near uranium mines have shown elevated radiation levels with related health problems. While the point about improved safety in modern nuclear plants is valid, it overlooks ongoing risks like waste disposal and decommissioning challenges.

The comparison between Chernobyl and Fukushima aims to show differences in response and design, but both incidents have caused severe, lasting health and environmental impacts, contrary to the document’s downplaying of these events.

Overall, while acknowledging safety improvements in nuclear technology, the document significantly underestimates the health risks and environmental consequences of nuclear accidents. It’s important to evaluate both the progress in nuclear energy and the associated risks critically.

You'll have to do a lot better than that, I'm afraid. Try demonstrating some information literacy and link me to some scholarly, peer-revied literature instead of the half-baked, cherry-picked musings of paranoid quacks. In fact, given that most of the data is heavily weighted against your position, I should ask YOU why you are so hung up on nuclear and are against renewables.

Thanks for my morning laugh, John D. For your information I've never met Farnortherner but anyone living in the far north can see why they would be against renewables causing huge environmental destruction in pristine forests and mountain ranges that will never be restored after their short life renders them dangerous landfill. Even the huge concrete bases will be there long after the nation finally catches up with the rest of the world and realises renewables can't supply reliable baseload power.
And Re your:"Try demonstrating some information literacy and link me to some scholarly, peer-revied literature instead of the half-baked, cherry-picked musings of paranoid quacks."
Three words for you JD - Pot, Kettle, Black.
Sites like your quoted Skeptical Science? Another good laugh, it's a pathetic joke.
As for sock puppets, I've posted links to the original article on several social media and online news sites, so if some people come in late after wading through your lengthy repetitive pro- renewables claims, it's more evidence that there are open-minded people who recognise the truth.

Mikko2,

All of my references are peer-reviewed and scholarly, so your “Pot, Kettle, Black” remark is absurd and childish.

Your claims about renewable energy in far north Queensland are inaccurate and overlook the severe environmental damage caused by fossil fuel extraction, such as deforestation, habitat loss, and pollution from mining, drilling, and fracking. Renewable projects like solar and wind farms often use less land than the sprawling infrastructure required for coal mines and gas fields. These projects also include environmental mitigation measures and plans for land restoration, unlike fossil fuel operations. Renewable energy sites can often be repurposed or restored once they’re no longer in use.

The claim that renewables have a short lifespan and create dangerous landfill is outdated. The renewable energy industry is making significant strides in recycling technologies. For instance, over 95% of wind turbine materials and up to 90% of solar panel materials can be recycled. Modern renewable systems are also lasting longer, with solar panels often exceeding 30 years and wind turbines becoming more durable and efficient. In contrast, fossil fuel operations produce vast amounts of hazardous waste, including toxic sludge, mine tailings, and greenhouse gas emissions, which renewables do not.

Concerns about the concrete bases of renewable installations are exaggerated. These bases can be repurposed or recycled, unlike the permanent environmental scars left by open-pit mines and oil spills. The overall environmental impact of renewable infrastructure is minimal compared to the widespread devastation caused by coal mining and gas extraction, which leave behind irreparable damage. In far north Queensland, proper site selection and planning can minimise the impact on pristine areas.

The idea that renewables can’t provide reliable baseload power is becoming increasingly outdated. Advances in energy storage, like batteries, and smart grid technology are making renewables more reliable for baseload power. A well-planned energy grid in far north Queensland can incorporate a mix of renewable sources, supplemented by hydroelectric and geothermal power, ensuring a stable and reliable energy supply. Renewables are also becoming more economically competitive, often cheaper than fossil fuels, making them a viable and preferable option.

Would you like source references?

John Daysh, PEER REVIEWS mean nothing. Just ask anyone who has the inside info on what Peer reviewing means. Nothing!! They check for spelling and other mistakes and do not check all matters of consequence. Science is an ongoing and a moving feast.
I am not bothering with you much more as I have been through all this Global Warming crap for years and don’t intend to waste more time on people who have their minds blocked to learning anything more.
You remind me of another who wasted so much of my time years ago and I don’t intend to get caught up again.

However, before I finish here, I should refer you to the following and let you mull over that one.
https://www.freedom-research.org/p/trench-wars-of-climate-science - Scroll down to the Sub heading "Remarkable actors on the international stage" which mentions various scientists such as William Harper, John Christy and Roy Spencer and what they have said about climate change. https://www.freedom-research.org/p/trench-wars-of-climate-science?

NUCLEAR MUST be in the mix together with GAS and renewables (if they insist on renewables which are just a damned waste of money and destruction to our beautiful country) if Australia wants to reach net zero by 2050.

Fancy all that with which we have to contend when COAL HAS served our generations for our power so easily and efficiently. Not having to worry about the wind blowing or the sun shining.

Here’s another link to really get you going, John Daysh.
Margaret Mead at her Eungenics conference in 1974 began the scare campaigns on Climate change also:
https://larouchepub.com/other/2007/sci_techs/3423init_warming_hoax.html
Cheers.

I only answered your comment to me, JD.
However, just reading through your nonsense about renewables not making as much mess as coal on the landscape!! You obviously know nothing about what is occurring Queensland all along our beautiful Great Dividing Range. How on God’s earth can yo say renewables are not making a mess of our land up this way. I wish I could post photos on here and you mayactually learn something. The countryside is being deforested for fire catching, bird killing monstrocities and when hail hits our solar panels, I wonder how that will work out?
Did you see where the wasted wind turbines just outside Ravenshoe are stored – like dead bodies in the bushes – not even buried!! This is responsible isn’t it? It was on main stream TV for all to see.
You really are reaching the bottom of the waste paper basket with your comments.
“Concerns about the concrete bases of renewable installations are exaggerated.” (your words) YOU have to be joking. Do you have any idea. how much cement goes into the bases of these turbines? Geez! “Current wind-turbine tower installation involves pouring a large concrete footing at the base of each 300-foot tower. The footings are 9 feet thick and 60 feet in diameter and require 30 to 40 truckloads of concrete – about 300 cubic yards.”
And 20,000 TONNES OF COAL is requires to build ONE TURBINE.
Fair dinkum where are you getting your information, John Daysh

I agree Far northerner - he just serves up the same old BS (Bad Science if you must) about peer review and dodgy sites he deems reputable but which are mostly far left supporters of the non- proven/ non provable hypothesis of CO2 emissions driving climate change and more BS about how "renewables" are becoming more effective and less destructive, when people who live in the affected areas and can see what's happening know that yes it IS very effective - at destroying the environment. And now CFA firefighters in Victoria have actually placed a ban on attending the fires they and the multiplication of transmission lines cause, which they term "Reckless renewables expansion:
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/firefighters-strike-over-reckless-renewable-expansion/video/661fa8e348ecb23c49738315cfe49a60
Welcome to the real world. Wait for summer, what could go wrong?

Tonight, for those who want some facts, not activist theory—

AEMO data tonight tells us that electricity supplies are dominated by power from black and brown coal, and natural gas. Wind is minor and solar and batteries irrelevant.
At the same time, wholesale prices in the NEM are high, well over $200 per MwH, even in Tasmania with its reliance on hydro. Tassie is importing power because its hydro can’t meet full demand. These prices in the NEM translate to over 20c per KwH at the wholesale level, implying retail prices at 60-80c per KwH.
Something to look forward to…more of this, with intermittent renewables?
Let’s dial it back, please.

Farnortherner,

It is clear you have no idea what the peer-review process is, nor could you list any of the safeguards in place for upholding the integrity, reliability, and credibility of scientific research. Perhaps I could tell you, and then you could tell me how exactly the safeguards just happen to fail only when the findings of the research being vetted by them clash with your political views.

To prove your bizarre claim that the peer-review process involves the checking of spelling and grammar only, you link me to an non-scholarly article that relies heavily on cherry-picked data, logical fallacies, and the misrepresentation of scientific viewpoints. Let’s take a look:

The article claims older scientists are more credible on climate issues due to their age and experience, but this is an "appeal to authority" fallacy. Most climate scientists, regardless of age, agree that human activities significantly contribute to global warming. Scientific consensus is based on evidence, not age.

The suggestion that retired scientists are more truthful ignores the rigorous peer-review process that all scientific research undergoes. Climate science is validated through repeated studies and data analysis, not funding sources.

Claiming that consensus is political rather than scientific is misleading. The overwhelming agreement among climate scientists (97%) is that climate change is real and largely driven by human activity. Highlighting a few dissenting scientists doesn’t invalidate the extensive research supporting this.

Mentions of supposed errors and data manipulation in climate science, like satellite data issues, overlook the continuous review and correction process in the scientific community. Improvements in satellite measurements are well-documented.

Citing older theories or selective interpretations doesn’t reflect the current consensus. Contemporary climate science is based on the latest data. Arguments relying on outdated theories don't hold up against modern evidence.

Claims that CO2 is beneficial because it promotes plant growth ignore broader impacts like extreme weather, sea-level rise, and ecosystem disruption. The net effect of increased CO2 is overwhelmingly negative.

The article misrepresents some scientists' views, implying a larger consensus among skeptics than actually exists. Many quoted scientists have been widely criticised and are not representative.

This is to correct a mistake in my last post above. I made one typing error which I missed when previewing.
Here is basically the same but with the tonnage required to build one wind turbine corrected!! I'm surprised JD did not reprimand me for that mistake.
I only answered your comment to me, JD.
However, just reading through your nonsense about renewables not making as much mess as coal on the landscape!! You obviously know nothing about what is occurring Queensland all along our beautiful Great Dividing Range. How on God’s earth can yo say renewables are not making a mess of our land up this way. I wish I could post photos on here and you may actually learn something. The countryside is being deforested for fire catching, bird killing monstrosities and when hail hits our solar panels, I wonder how that will work out?
Did you see where the wasted wind turbines just outside Ravenshoe are stored – like dead bodies in the bushes – not even buried!! This is responsible isn’t it? It was on main stream TV for all to see.
You really are reaching the bottom of the waste paper basket with your comments.
“Concerns about the concrete bases of renewable installations are exaggerated.” (your words) YOU have to be joking. Do you have any idea. how much cement goes into the bases of these turbines? Geez! “Current wind-turbine tower installation involves pouring a large concrete footing at the base of each 300-foot tower. The footings are 9 feet thick and 60 feet in diameter and require 30 to 40 truckloads of concrete – about 300 cubic yards.”
And 220 TONNES OF COAL is required to build ONE TURBINE.
Fair dinkum where are you getting your information, John Daysh

I said I wasn't engaging with John Daysh anymore but I cannot let him get away with nonsense when (who knows where he lives? - possibly overseas) he keeps on with his blinkered comments.

Here is a link regarding the far north Queensland wind industry structures etc.

https://onewomanjourney.com.au/2023/09/25/what-will-the-fate-of-the-proposed-chalumbin-wind-development-be-notes-from-far-north-queensland/

Farnortherner,

Typo or not, I can assure you that your error was a pretty negligible oversight in comparison to the ideas expressed in your claims, whereby virtually nothing you said was even remotely correct.

As for your correction, it’s about right (give or take around 50 tonnes, depending on the situation).

But, so what?

Modern wind turbines typically have an energy payback time of less than a year, which means that in less than 12 months, a turbine generates as much energy as was used to manufacture it. For the rest of its 20-25 year lifespan, it continues to produce clean, renewable energy without additional emissions.

Thanks for the link to the blog post. The author raises some legitimate concerns about the environmental impact of the Chalumbin Wind Development. However, these concerns do not fundamentally counter my broader arguments earlier about the environmental, economic, and reliability benefits of renewable energy. They still stand.

I think we all would agree that proper site selection, rigorous environmental assessments, and technological advancements in energy storage and grid management are crucial to maximising the benefits of renewables, and minimising their impacts.

Lordy, the JD tripe cycle never ends does it, Farnortherner, and Lytton? We know the peer review process is a joke where mates back mates and give the thumbs down to anything that doesn't fit their own perspective. I've seen peer review published articles where the author has purposefully set out to appeal to a certain lobby with ridiculous claims and they give it the nod.
But remember what George Constanza said about lies ... "They're not lies if you believe them, Gerry."
Obviously JD falls into this category and he doesn't bear up well to contrary evidence, does he? As you say Farnortherner, the evidence is all around you.

Mikko2,

Scientific peer-review is done anonymously to help maintain honesty and integrity.

I can't imagine "mates helping mates" would be very satisfying or fun when no one in a pool of tens-of-thousands will ever know who the other one was. Especially not in a community of professionals who thrive off disproving each other in order to make a name for themselves.

How you can write so much about a topic you know nothing about is beyond me. Dunning-Kruger perhaps?

Ah the old pot, kettle, black again. Peer review is about as reliable as your dangerously damaging intermittent unreliable green energy sources.
Re the validity of peer review, here's what marine scientist Dr Peter Rudd had to say a few years ago which led to his sacking by James Cook University for being "non collegiate":

"The conflicting realities of the Great Barrier Reef point to a deeper problem. In science, consensus is not the same thing as truth. But consensus has come to play a controlling role in many areas of modern science. And if you go against the consensus you can suffer unpleasant consequences.

"The main system of science quality control is called peer review. Nowadays, it usually takes the form of a couple of anonymous reviewing scientists having a quick check over the work of a colleague in the field.

"Peer review is commonly understood as painstaking re-examination by highly qualified experts in academia that acts as a real check on mistaken work. It isn’t. In the real world, peer review is often cursory and not always even knowledgeable. It might take reviewers only a morning to do.

"Scientific results are rarely reanalyzed and experiments are not replicated. The types of checks that would be routine in private industry are just not done.

"I have asked the question: Is this good enough quality control to make environmental decisions worth billions of dollars that are now adversely affecting every major industry in northeast Australia?...

“The basic problem is that we can no longer trust the scientific organizations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science, even things like the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies … the science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated and this is a great shame because we really need to be able to trust our scientific institutions and the fact is I do not think we can any more,”...

Mikko2,

Dr Ridd raises areas of the peer-review process that can sometimes be improved, but his portrayal often exaggerates the issues, while failing to acknowledge the improvements with ongoing reforms.

Firstly, scientific consensus is not synonymous with absolute truth; it is the best understanding we have based on current evidence. Science progresses through challenging existing ideas and evolving with new evidence. This system is designed to improve over time, incorporating new findings as they arise.

While Ridd suggests that peer review can be cursory, many top journals employ rigorous processes where reviewers spend considerable time evaluating research. The scientific community is actively working to improve replication and reanalysis, promoting open data and reproducibility initiatives.

Comparing academic research to private industry is inaccurate. Private industry research often remains behind closed doors, whereas academic research is open to public scrutiny, allowing broader peer evaluation. Despite occasional issues, most major scientific organisations maintain high standards of integrity. Claims of widespread failure need to be supported by solid evidence.

Efforts to improve the system are ongoing. Initiatives like the Open Science Framework and journals that publish replication studies are enhancing reproducibility. Some journals are adopting open peer review, increasing accountability and transparency.

When it comes to environmental decisions, the stakes are high, and the review process is typically extensive. Such decisions involve multiple layers of review, including input from independent experts, regulatory bodies, and international organisations.

While there are areas for improvement, the peer review process is not fundamentally flawed or unreliable. The scientific method is self-correcting, and peer review remains essential for maintaining scientific integrity and advancement. The ongoing push for transparency and rigorous review shows the community’s commitment to high standards. Understanding these nuances highlights the strengths of the scientific process and the importance of evidence-based decision-making.

So, there you have it.

Anyway, you’re not the first climate change denier I’ve seen use Ridd’s criticisms out of context. To clarify, his legal battle with JCU was over breaches of conduct, not his scientific views. His concerns about the peer review process highlight areas needing improvement but do not invalidate the entire system.

John Daysh, You do not give any indication of where you reside.
You also do not say what qualifications you have to keep up this ratbaggery.
I would believe Prof. Peter Ridd and sensible scientists (such as Pamela Jones whose blog link I sent you) before anything that you have said as you just seem to have your objection to anyone who has an idea to actually benefit Australia.
Why don’t you speak with Dick Smith for instance? Or Adi Patterson?
I hate to think what our next generations will think of this generation in fifty years’ time when all those ugly turbines and solar panels are clogging up the environment.
I am beginning to think you must be involved in the “renewables” industry to be so nauseatingly blind and thrusting your views onto unsuspecting newbies.
Those of us who have been researching and following this garbage for years understand the scam very well.
Those with vested interests would do anything to avoid Australia actually being served by something such as NUCLEAR that will KEEP THE POWER ON 24 HOURS A DAY.

Well said Farnortherner, and Lytton your realistic comments about AEMO and power supply levels seem to have been conveniently ignored. The stats for renewable generation would now be much worse in SE Qld and NSW, given the wet, cloudy weather this week and forecast to extend into next week (if BOM can get it right occasionally). Meanwhile, Farnortherner, you rightly mentioned Dr Aldi Paterson, the former head of ANSTO and a very knowledgeable advocate for nuclear energy. Here he is last night talking with Peta Credlin on Sky News and calling out the lies: https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/peta-credlin/csiro-is-genuinely-misleading-for-energy-information/video/e542e5994a0aa3ec7c18a09ec0260391

Farnortherner, you also mentioned Dick Smith as well as Adi Paterson. Dick is not against renewables but realises that we need nuclear for a reliable 24/7 power supply. Here he is on Sky News last night with Chris Kenny: https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/chris-kenny/renewables-versus-nuclear-chris-kenny-sits-down-with-entrepreneur-dick-smith/video/241aa2f57dd513311e5729a3e90e6078
(Every time I type Adi some dumb AI bot tries to change it - Aldi, Ali, Add ... )

Mikko 2, I noticed some gremlin must have taken over your keyboard. Probably is that AI bot - it gets into my keyboard at times as well :-).
I did see Adi P and Dick S on TV the past couple of days.

I think I have nearly had enough of that JD fellow as he has his mind made up. I just want to see the BAN LIFTED on Nuclear in this country so that the Nuclear experienced ministers can discuss the subject properly.

Farnortherner,

Failing to provide information that has not been requested is hardly “rat-baggery”. Especially when the desired information has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Embarrassingly for you, however, I did actually reveal my educational background earlier in this very thread.

It’s not hard to guess why you want this information, though, and I have dealt with enough climate change deniers enough over the years to know exactly where you want to go with it:

In the absence of any data supporting your position, I suspect you are now hoping to divert attention away from my arguments, and the evidence I link to, and instead direct it towards me personally. Having been unable to successfully rebut anything I’ve said, you’re probably hoping to use an “appeal to authority” fallacy to make my credentials the issue and bring everything I have said into question because you don’t yet understand why doing so is fallacious.

In my reply to this, I will then explain to you why my credentials are irrelevant, why an appeal to authority is fallacious, and why only the data matters.

Moving on, I have already addressed Ridd’s claims and would be happy to go further detail there if you wish. As for Dick Smith and Adi Patterson, I am happy to listen to them, but will still point out their errors when they make them.

As for the rest of your comments to me, I have already dealt with them ad nauseum, but will happily go into any of it again if you have a specific question. Word and posting limits prevent me answering every comment and claim you make.

Speaking of Dick Smith, Farnortherner:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TchHz0_hmY

Now, I like Smith as much as the next Aussie, but he can still be wrong and this interview is an example of that.

First, he argues that wind farms cause significant environmental damage due to land requirements and clearing. While wind farms do have environmental impacts, studies show that wind energy has a lower lifecycle environmental footprint than fossil fuels (http://www.proquest.com/openview/8a0cf63845f8ea7dc6cd7f34f1a8a73a).

Smith claims that adding battery storage to wind farms makes power prohibitively expensive. Although battery storage can be costly, these costs are decreasing with technological advancements. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) reports substantial reductions in battery storage costs, making renewable energy more competitive (http://arena.gov.au/assets/2015/07/AECOM-Energy-Storage-Study.pdf).

Regarding the intermittency of wind and solar, Smith suggests they are unreliable without extensive storage. While intermittency is a challenge, it can be managed through a diverse energy mix, improved grid infrastructure, demand response strategies, and advancements in energy storage. Countries like Germany and Denmark have successfully integrated high levels of renewables into their grids (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213138824001899).

Smith advocates for nuclear power as a reliable baseload source with a lower environmental impact. However, nuclear power faces challenges such as high costs, long construction times, radioactive waste management, and the risk of catastrophic accidents. New nuclear projects often face delays and budget overruns (http://www.worldnuclearreport.org).

Smith's comparison of Australia's nuclear potential to countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh is misleading. These countries often receive international support for their nuclear projects, and Australia's context is significantly different (http://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc64-inf2.pdf).

Smith criticises conservation organisations and the Greens for ignoring the environmental damage caused by renewables while opposing nuclear power. However, these organisations generally support renewables to address climate change, and their opposition to nuclear power is based on concerns about safety, waste management, and high costs (http://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ad5a93ce-3a7f-461d-a441-8a05b7601887/Nuclear_Power_in_a_Clean_Energy_System.pdf).

Smith's assertion that no country operates entirely on renewables and storage is technically correct but misleading. While no country relies solely on renewables, many are progressing towards high renewable energy percentages. For example, Iceland generates nearly all its electricity from renewable sources. Innovations in grid management, storage, and international electricity trade are facilitating higher renewable integration (http://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2020.00110/full).

John,

Still peddling your dishonesty I see. Regarding Iceland, it is powered mostly by geothermal and hydro, with very little wind and solar, so no relevance to Australia. In contrast, Barakah generates nearly four times as much power as Iceland's grid. You might also note the NEA report stating:

"However, the costs of reaching net zero with high shares of variable renewables are probably prohibitive. This is, in part, because initially as variable renewables are introduced, they can be backed up with a low cost option, which in the absence of a serious carbon constraint is likely to be natural gas."

https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-10/system_costs_of_electricity_-_cop26_flyer.pdf

Anyone reading your arguments should be aware of your irrational view of the danger of nuclear power. You believe that the radiation from nuclear power stations is a cumulative harm. Yet the amount of radiation is so small that you would need to live next to a nuclear power station for several years to get the equivalent of a day of background radiation. In fact, natural variation in annual background radiation equates to many centuries of living near a nuclear power plant. Further, a recent study shows that people in areas with higher background radiation live 2 1/2 years longer and have a lower incidence of some cancers.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33479810/

The study adds to a growing body of evidence that higher background radiation is protective against cancer. So your scaremongering is at best out of ignorance and at worst a deliberate attempt to mislead. Given that you never quantify any of your wildly optimistic claims about renewable energy I suspect the latter.

And you dispute the area that wind and solar will affect and the environmental harm that will come of it, insisting benefit to Australian wildlife and claiming that technological improvement will reduce the footprint. What benefit, by how much or to what area you don't say.

The reality according to Net Zero Australia is unprecedented environmental destruction of over twice the area of Tasmania at a cost several times that of going nuclear.

https://www.netzeroaustralia.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Downscaling-Land-use-impacts-on-Australian-communities-the-land-sea.pdf

Net zero solely with renewable energy is a huge threat to Australia's wildlife and economy being perpetrated by unscrupulous people with vested economic interests.

Too true Fester. Meanwhile, here's a good article in The Spectator's Flat White about the futility and obvious shortcomings of costly community batteries which don't even provide power during blackouts https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/07/no-mr-bowen-community-batteries-are-not-a-substitute-for-nuclear/?
"...That’s because the battery is only designed to work when the power is on.

Ausgrid’s FAQs on their website provide this answer to the question, can I draw on [the battery] during a blackout?

No. Community batteries will only be capable of grid-connect mode, so if the power goes down the battery will also switch off."

Fester,

Your accusation of dishonesty on my part is unfair and unfounded, and I think you know that. Let’s keep this civil.

Iceland relies on geothermal and hydro power, illustrating high renewable energy integration potential. Australia's renewable strategy will differ due to its unique conditions, but countries like Germany and Denmark show successful integration of wind and solar, more relevant to Australia.

The Barakah nuclear plant generates significant power, highlighting nuclear's capability. However, comparing nuclear to renewables should consider lifecycle costs, safety, waste disposal, and construction time. Nuclear plants, including Barakah, have faced substantial investments and delays.

The NEA report notes that initially, variable renewables can be backed up by natural gas due to cost considerations. However, advancements in storage and grid management technologies are reducing these costs. Integrating renewable sources with enhanced storage solutions (like advanced batteries and pumped hydro) is making renewables more viable for net zero targets.

Arguments minimising radiation risks from nuclear plants overlook severe accident impacts. While some studies suggest low levels of radiation might be harmless or beneficial, the broader consensus emphasises caution due to long-term and unpredictable radiation exposure effects.

Regarding wind and solar's environmental footprint, advances in technology are reducing necessary land use. New designs in wind turbines and solar panels are more efficient, requiring less space. Offshore wind farms and rooftop solar installations can further mitigate land use concerns.

The Net Zero Australia report highlights extensive land use for net zero with renewables. However, ongoing technological improvements and policy adaptations aim to minimise environmental impacts. Strategies like agro-voltaics and using degraded lands for renewable installations can reduce impacts on wildlife and ecosystems.

Accusations of unscrupulous economic interests driving renewables overlook the global consensus on transitioning away from fossil fuels to mitigate climate change. Renewable energy sources offer sustainable development and economic growth opportunities, with global markets favouring low-carbon technologies.

The debate between renewable and nuclear energy is complex, considering environmental impacts, costs, safety, and sustainability. It’s not an “either/or” scenario. Nuclear power has its place, but advancements in renewable energy, along with strategic planning and innovation, remain an important consideration.

Mikko2,

The article you linked it doesn't adequately account for the integrated and evolving nature of renewable energy systems. Community batteries are not a direct substitute for nuclear power but are part of a broader strategy to enhance energy storage and grid resilience.

Firstly, De Percy's claim about community batteries being ineffective during outages is necessarily true, since they operate that way by design. However, their primary purpose is to store excess solar energy and help balance the grid during peak demand periods, not to serve as standalone backup systems.

Regarding his claim that community batteries cannot replace the baseload power provided by nuclear energy, it's true that batteries and nuclear power serve different roles (i.e. energy storage and grid stabilisation vs. continuous baseload power) but his comparison overlooks the broader context of integrated renewable energy systems, which have various sources like solar, wind, and hydro, complemented by storage solutions to ensure reliability and grid stability.

De Percy is right about the expense of implementing enough community batteries to meet national energy needs, he fails to account for the rapid advancing and increasing cost-effectiveness of the technologies. Moreover, a cost analysis analysis also needs to consider the long-term benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased energy independence.

Lastly, he suggests that the government's renewable energy policies, including community batteries, are facing increasing public resistance and causing electricity bills to rise. The picture surveys of public opinion on energy policies paint is mixed, to be sure. Overall, however, surveys and studies generally show a strong majority support for renewable energy initiatives in Australia, driven by concerns about climate change and environmental sustainability.

The claim about rising electricity bills needs to be viewed within the context of the broader market dynamics, including fossil fuel prices and infrastructure investments. which includes various sources like solar, wind, and hydro, complemented by storage solutions to ensure reliability and grid stability.

Anyway, this is why I've been suggesting you get your information from reliable scholarly sources. Of course a right-wing journo is going to tell his right-wing readers what they what they want to hear.

Snore zzzzzzz. Whatever you reckon from a left wing non-scientist JD. Quoting George Costanza again - it's not a lie if you believe it. You can repeat your claims infinitum but it doesn't alter reality or help the environment being destroyed by the mad rush to so-called "renewables" which consume more energy in their creation installation than they will ever generate in their short, intermittent lives.

Mikko2,

I have linked to you to multiple, reliable sources, most of which reference their sources, and so on until you reach the raw data. You therefore have no excuse for repeating claims I have already corrected, and you certainly have no excuse for the projection you engage in by claiming that I am the one doing this.

Try utilising some critical thinking techniques instead of just letting you polics be your guide. They're a lot more reliable.

Thanks Mikko,

The Spectator has done wonderful work exposing the renewable energy con. Here is a link to a presentation by a photographer who has been documenting the environmental destruction by wind, solar, and pumped hydro. It is hard to watch and horrific that a government would preside over the greatest act of environmental destruction in Australia's history in order to build expensive and dysfunctional energy generation. The presentation is part of a series of talks by Nuclear for Australia hosted by UNSW recently. I will also link a talk explaining why wind and solar are quite useless for meeting the demand of the grid even with significant overbuild.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H0GCeS65uc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H0GCeS65uc

John,

You lied about the danger to residents from living near nuclear power stations. You lied about the area of Australia affected by wind and solar. You lied about the environmental destruction from wind and solar. You lie about the potential to solve problems which cannot be solved as they relate to fundamentals of capacity and intermittency. You make out that things in California are wonderful when in truth they face blackouts, brownouts, environmental destruction and spiraling costs with the pursuit of wind and solar. You're a serial liar and you have no credibility.

Fester,

I haven't lied, and the fact that I had provided credible scholarly sources to support all that you accuse me of lying about is a testament to that.

That you felt compelled to launch such a stinging personal attack, with accusations that are obviously untrue, suggests to me that you are very emotionally invested in this issue.

I apologise for any distress caused.

Hi John, I don't think it is very pleasant for you to be accused of lying. Just because you might be wrong doesn't mean you are dishonest. So I think Fester should apologise.

I've read the thread, or parts of it. Using Iceland as an example of successful renewables doesn't really advance the renewables case. It is powered by hydropower and geothermal, both of which are power sources which are despatchable, while wind and solar aren't. When you are a small population living in an area with a lot of water and high mountains then hydropower can be feasible.

Geothermal isn't generally successful anywhere in the world, but again, when you are in a volcanically active area, it's a possibility.

But Australia doesn't have any of these advantages and is trying to harvest power from the low density, widely dispersed, unreliable sources of wind and solar. It's expensive. And promises that battery costs will come down have to be laid down next to promises that things like nuclear will get cheaper.

Check out Ontario. 95% emissions free in generation, and 59% nuclear and another 24% hydro. Germany and Denmark are nowhere near the same emissions free generation, and won't get there at a reasonable price.

Australia has an advantage in nuclear - we mine uranium and have huge reserves. And the technology works. We need to go with our strengths, not legacy technology like wind and solar that have never been more than hobby energy sources.