How can a person be Australia's Chief-Scientist and fail to consider nuclear energy?

How can anyone who calls themselves a scientist lead us to 100% gas (and not even consider ultra-super-critical coal), which will have little impact on AGW even if the whole world adopted the approach, then simply hold (as an article of pure faith), that viable storage solutions will arise to avoid the ultimate need for much gas-generated power?

A sceptical scientist should not be bound in his recommendations to what he may believe to be politically acceptable, nor by his own leanings. Finkel has completely abrogated his responsibility in this regard and, if his blueprint is followed, he will go down in history as a part of the problem rather than of the solution.

The nuclear power industry spent more than $650
million on lobbying, campaign contributions and
advertising from 2000-2010 in its persistent effort
to achieve a nuclear “renaissance.”1
Now that the nuclear “renaissance” has sputtered,
with only 5 of some 35 reactor proposals currently
being pursued, the industry is turning its attention—
and money--toward preventing the shutdown of
many aging reactors unable to compete economically
with wind and solar power.
One of the industry’s primary goals has been to
convince federal and state legislators, regulatory
officials, and the media that nuclear power is somehow
“clean” energy, because nuclear reactors emit
little carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But this
disregards the alphabet soup of other cancer-causing
pollutants spewed into our air and water by
nuclear facilities. Unfortunately, lobbying campaigns
backed by so much money often attain some
success.
Thus, there are increasing calls from nuclear industry
backers, inside and outside of government, to
include nuclear power in Renewable Energy Standards
(or new “Clean Energy Standards”) intended to
boost use of clean renewables, or to permit nuclear
to trade emissions credits in regional cap-and-trade
1 Investigative Reporting Workshop, January 2010.
http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/
nuclear-energy-lobbying-push/story/nuclear-energyworking-hard-win-support/
emissions programs. This is occurring at both the
federal and state levels to encourage use of nuclear
power (and for some proponents, coal and natural
gas as well) to the detriment of genuinely clean and
affordable technologies like wind, solar, energy
efficiency and others.2

Yes. Finkel is a flop. But did anyone really expect anything else from a Turbull government appointee? Governments appoint only those who will tell them what they want to hear.

Dr Finkel's report proposes a clean energy target
to drive investment and lower emissions. It's a
step in the right direction.

Josh Frydenberg explained to Mr Abbott that the
problem that they're trying to solve is to get a
regulatory environment which encourages investment
in order that we don't have any more blackouts in
the future and that we get prices lower.

The Review should be read in full to get the bigger
picture that's being proposed.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/finkel-review-households-could-save-up-to-1000-over-a-decade-under-clean-energy-target-20170609-gwnz0g.html

evolution was the start of consensus junk science. The natural progression is the man made gw fantasy.

Finkle's findings are spot on and it will be a brave politician that does not take notice.
Runner there is two races of the same people on earth. there is RH + and RH-.
So are you saying god only made RH-people. maybe that is why religion is so divided these days. People know too much.

The only to bring down energy costs is to create a surplus of energy and the only way to
create a surplus of energy is through nuclear power generation.
Its common sense.
But the our leader have got little of that.

Yeah, well, I don't know it looks like another version of the same old song.
One thing though Finkle does not understand company law or he would
never had advocated a three year notice of closing a coal fired power station.
A power station under this proposed regime is having its market being
cut away from under it, bit by bit.
It will reach a stage where the accountant will say,
"err we will be trading while insolvent from tomorrow/next week/nextmonth we must close the station immediately.

Foxy, watching Q&A tonight I do not think there will be a lot of change
but by the time it gets through the parliament it may be workable.
It is of course a solution looking for a problem.
There seems to be an enormous amount of trust put into batteries.
There is hope that everyone will connect batteries up to their solar.
I do not think that the people there had any idea what they were suggesting.

The cost of batteries will make our present bills look like petty cash.
It would be fine for someone like myself to get involved but with the
sort of voltages that float around these systems even when switched off
it would mean a few hundred thousand electricians doing the maintenance.
That is an overhead that no one is taking into account.
Also no one seems to understand that if you are to take into account
a series of overcast low wind days you need to install equipment
to generate and store the number of days plus 1 of the equipment for one day.
Another complication is that we are building high energy high rise
unit blocks as fast as we can none of which can be fitted with solar
panels for the units.
I would not put panels even on balconies, the risk of something
breaking and killing someone 20 floors below is too high.

The whole system should be removed from political control and passed
over to the engineers.

Dear Bazz,

I watched Q&A last night and listened very closely
to all the comments. What impressed me was the
civility of the debate between the panel members
and the fact that it seemed to be a very well
balanced panel representing a good mix of people.
It gave me some hope that if they can truly leave
politics out of solving our energy problems and
come together on finding the solutions things
just may work out in the long term for the country.

I didn't quite understand how a company could give
3 years notice of intent to close. If it did that and staff
began to leave looking for jobs elsewhere how would
the company function in the interim?

Also the problem of the jobless La Trobe Valley workers
was not answered. Where are they supposed to go?

could not believe how dumbed down we have become watching Q&A last night. Poor Josh selling his sane mind for the sake of Turnbull. Hopefully the rational ones in the Liberal party will have the integrity to expose this anti coal garbage. To think that the Chinese and Indians pay to be educated at our unis. They are laughing all the way to the bank as they watch the gullible and foolish think they can manipulate the temperature around the world.

On Q & A Alan Finkel referred in the vaguest way, as did Amanda McKenzie from the Climate Council, to energy storage.

Finkel believes future renewable generators should be required to package storage into their offerings, as if that will ever make them fully reliable, but doesn't go on with how they would then compete without enormous taxpayer subsidy. The cost of renewable power to the community goes way beyond the meters of consumers.

McKenzie harped on about renewable generation being cheaper than coal (especially with taxpayer subsidies/RET), but neglected to mention that was only when the sun shines or the wind blows. With a wafty wave she claimed the storage solutions are here, but she hasn't thought much about the scale of these.

There was reference to biomass, pumped hydro and overblown expectations over home batteries, energy mixes, and incentivizing folk to use power off peak, carbon capture, etc., but absolutely no recognition of the massive scale, expense, or practicalities.

Finkel is leading us towards gas replacing coal in "The Transition" (the sexy term so beloved of the renewablistas) which is where the whole thing gets stuck. Thereafter, everything rides on the wing and a prayer of viable storage, with a "she'll be right" and a wink of the eye.

For Finkel to say he left out the nuclear option because of community concern when he could have, at the very least, encouraged a sensible debate over it indicates he is not up to being Australia's chief-scientist.

You really have to be a masochist to watch Q&A, especially if you complain about the bias afterwards, as many people do.

Some people complain because that's all that
they're capable of doing.

Foxy, of course there was plenty of bon ami on the Q&A panel.
They were all in the quire and singing from the same song sheet.

The lady from the Climate Council just did not have a clue about electricity.
Yes Foxy the panel was balanced, it was composed of people without a clue.
Why didn't they have some generation electrical engineers on the panel ?
To require backup for every new solar or wind installation is a
positive step, even if impractical.
Again, I draw you attention to the 100Megawatt battery for South Aus.
It would keep SA going for between 9 & 15 seconds.
They lied by ommission and let people think it is for backup.
I suspect it is there to enable a black start.
For that it is sensible. It would be better not to need it.

Yes, Foxy, and some people enjoy complaining about complainers. We went on a coach tour recently, where you spend time with all sorts of people you wouldn't normally meet. There was one couple who kept complaining to us that other people were complaining about stuff. We never heard the original complaints, just the complaints about the complaints that the complainers heard. We didn't give a stuff about any of it.

Dear ttbn,

I was brought up to be a solver not a pointer.
As my father believed - it's easy to point
out what's wrong with things. Anybody can do that.
It's much harder to come up with solutions.

Foxy,

Good sentiment. What do you think that you have solved during your time oh OLO?

Dear ttbn,

I stand by my posting record.

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a
skill not easily acquired. I have always tried
to argue in a logical manner because I believe that
sound reasoning will conquer unreasonable generalisations
every time. Nobody likes or supports an abusive,
illogical or weak debater.

I like to think that I have been a positive
influence on this forum. That's all one can try to do.

Having read the Finkel report I can see why conservatives are so annoyed with it.

The 3 major priorities in this report are:
1 - Meeting the Paris accord emission targets
2 - System reliability
3 - Price of power to the consumers.

The reality is that meeting priorities No 1 & 2 cost a bomb, power prices will rocket. While Finkel's management plan will supposedly do this at near the lowest cost, the savings are relative to some other method and not compared to today's prices unless of course the government stumps up for the full $900bn and does not simply stick it to the consumers. One thing it does do is highlight the real cost of renewable power once one adds in the energy storage and new reticulation costs which put the cost of new high efficiency coal generation in the shade.

It also ignores the obvious solution of nuclear power, which with $300bn could build sufficient reactors and reprocessing facilities to supply nearly all of Australia's power until 2100.

The Conservatives do not like the Finkel report because Abbott can not play the game. Nuclear is a no brainer.
Who is our PM is it Turnbull or Abbott, He should never have been assisted in winning his seat at the DD election.
Finkel has come up with a master plan, which labor would follow.
Turnbull should act in Australias best interests and call an election.
The degree of disruption is killing this country and all because of a mob of radicals that are in the wrong political party. lets sort this out now.

'lets sort this out now.'

easy Doog. We should follow Trump's example and withdraw from the Paris farce. A few sackings (drain the swamp) would be great. Slash abc funding by 75%, get rid of the hopelessly political and deceitful human rights commission, stop sexualising kids in the name of ' safe' schools and run proper science programs to re educate all those totally dumbed down to believe that humans are able to manipulate the weather. Australia's economy, environment and propserity would increase very quickly. I would even suggest you get free education to teach you to think.

SM, I read up on Finkle he has electrical engineering qualifications
and has been an advocate for nuclear power for a long time.
His commission probably stated no nuclear.
I have seen two costs given $90 bln and $900 bln.
Such a difference is remarkable. Which is right ?

It appears from everything I have read/heard the whole project is
to be backed up in the long term by batteries.
If that is true I can understand the $900 billion.
Where will that money come from ?
More borrowings ?

Runner you have been led down the garden path. Trump is not a diplomatic man he is more like a bull at a gate type of person. The sooner he goes the better for the world and all of its residence.
Climate change is a very real problem, and CO 2 is the perpetrator.
There is no argument the science was settled years ago.

Bazz Finkel has a real solution and Morrison has a solution for cash you don't count it.
Any figures at the moment would be a guess. I wonder if they calculated the EOFY component.
The Conservatives started fighting before Finkel handed it over. We are in dire need of policy direction, and so does business. The NBN is a flop, that little bit of copper wire at the end is stupid. We have a mishmash of systems that are going to cause big alterations to be made. Abbott and Turnbull are wiskids at nothing

There seems to be some unrealistic proposals in the Finkle report.
The one that has attracted my attention is the requirement that each
new solar and wind farm provide backup systems and batteries get a
mention as being that backup.

A solar or wind farm only produces 25% to 35% of its nameplate output
over a 12 month period.
Think about that for a moment.
To produce a backed up supply it has to have a battery with 3 to 4
times the capacity of the solar cells/ wind turbines.
Catch 22; you have to charge this battery !
When are you going to do that ?
The solar/wind cannot do that it is too small. The charging rate has
to be at least four times the rate the solar/wind can supply !

Isn't this understood ?
The battery with a capacity that size will be ginormous.
Modern turbines are around 8Mwatt and if a farm had say 20 turbines
that would be 160 Mwatt, so the battery would be 640 MwattHrs !
And that is not taking into account losses in the battery.

But how do you get it charged ?
It won't matter no one will be able to pay for the battery.

Bazz,

My issue is not with Finkel, only the report, which is based on the terms of reference. A previous chief scientist Ziggy Switkowski made it clear that there were reliability problems around renewable power, and that achieving near zero emissions would not be possible without nuclear power.

This has not escaped the notice of China and India who are amongst those now building 60 new nuclear reactors and upgrading existing reactors, adding more nuclear power to the world than at any other time in history.

However, due the greens and other ignoramuses it looks as though Australia will have the learn the hard way, with a report coming out today showing that Victoria and SA are now at serious risk of blackouts. And the more the lights go out the louder the claims from left whingers that it has nothing to do with renewables.

Yes SM agreed. There is such a high threshold to the acceptance of
nuclear that it will need a collapse of the whole economic system
before a change can be implememnted.
The greens and labour should be forced to read a book by J Tainter
called "The Collapse of Complex Systems".

I am reading a paper on the the subject now and widespread collapse
is a real risk if we get significant power failures.
The author shows how financial collapse could be caused by what would
appear to be disconnected events. He shows how power failure can cause
a financial problem as ATMs would not be working and that would
simulate a run on the banks. It would also cause fuel shortages.
He postulates that the collapse is not linear and would cascade.

Trade-Off
Financial System Supply-Chain Cross-Contagion:
a study in global systemic collapse.
By David Korowic
http://tinyurl.com/bmh4bmn

It amounts to a warning: Don't stuff around with complex systems !

Finkel Review: "Large, traditional nuclear power plants are limited to large-scale applications, which the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation notes makes it “difficult to envisage [traditional nuclear power plants] being established on the NEM given current grid structure.....”."

The cited reference given for this statement is http://www.environment.gov.au/submissions/nem-review/australian-nuclear-science-and-technology-organisation.docx

The sentence finishes with "...unless it were to substitute for a coal-fired plant of similar capacity; however anticipated developments in small modular reactors and Generation IV nuclear technologies will become commercially available within this 30-year timeframe."

Where is justification for Finkel to just blow off the nuclear option as if it doesn't exist? He has guzzled the renewablista Kool-Aid, down to blind faith in viable storage solutions, yet avoids what already works in the world. Is ANSTO infiltrated by Greens? More on smaller reactors here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

We are not even on the cusp of viable mass storage while reactors to replace coal-fired power exist already.

We also find from ANSTO:

"In Australia, the establishment of nuclear power would require significant community consultation and the development of a social licence; however this should not lead the Independent Review Expert Panel to avoid consideration of the technical advantages and disadvantages of what is a proven mature, reliable, dispatchable and synchronous low emissions technology, widely used in countries with significantly lower emissions intensity and electricity prices than Australia."

Further to my comment on battery backup there was an article in today's
Australian that said that wind costs $92 per Megawatt/hr.
It added that the addition of battery backup makes the cost of wind
$300 to $700 per Megawatt/hr.
Those costs are what I would have expected given my scant knowledge of
the costs of batteries.

Unless questions such as the all up cost of wind/solar can be answered,
as well questions about when & how charging will be done then the
Finkle plan should not go ahead.

These are fundamental problems and no one has addressed them.
Trying to read pollie comments I do not think they have ever been told about these problems.

Good to hear the word "nuclear" emanating from Liberal back-benchers.

Finkel's plan of going first to gas with the promise that energy storage will miraculously become a non-issue after that is hopefully unravelling.

The idea that new renewable generation should be made reliable by backup is where attention must immediately be concentrated, which is what Bazz is doing but the vast majority of pollies are not.

Hello Liciferase, I am still reading that document to which I referred.
Areas like energy, food, banking, health etc are referred to as HUBs.
The author shows how cross contamination between HUBs occurs and that
is the risk our politicians are taking on the way they are going.

They run the real risk of collapsing the whole economic system of
the country if they get it wrong. Just in Time Supply is the trigger.
We need a guarantee that they will have 100% backup in place before
making any decisions on power systems.
If it was up to me I would restart Hazlewood except for one unit and
refurbish that unit completely then do another one and so on.

The risk is 100% unemployment and starvation if it comes to the worse.

Coal has had its day Bazz. Hayzelwood is stuffed.
We would have starved to death months ago if Abbott had his way.

doog, when the lights go out you will hear a different refrain.
Coal here has a while to go yet, but eventually it will leave us.
We have to be ready for that time but we are obviously not yet ready.
Peak coal has already occurred in the US and some other countries.
A premature closing of coal mines and coal fired stations will prevent
us making a controlled conversion.
Finkle's battery backup plan appears to be unaffordable.

Bazz so was the NBN apparently now we have to settle for a lesser NBN.

Eh, NBN ?
What makes you think you were going to get the speed that was promoted for it ?