The conservatives can cry and rant and commit electoral suicide with their internal civil war over the NEG but the reality is the market will move on and as I have already stated the progressive states will lead the charge because they are not ideological bound to coal fired power stations.
Some will still be bound to the self interest of the Minerals Council and its influence.
A few years ago it was all Nikki Williams and clean coal. I wonder what happened to that? Tell me it wasn’t just misdirection. And she seemed so nice.
Now it’s just Stephen Galilee and how coal burning will keep the lights on when all else is dark and jobs of course, jobs, jobs and more jobs.
It is also interesting to see what the rest of the world is doing in relation to building/planning or retiring different electricity generation types, as Australia is not alone on the planet and any contribution it makes in relation to changing its generation types will not be significant when compared to larger economies/consumptions. These maps/diagrams show who is doing what on the world scene.
Mapped World’s Coal Power Plants (slide the bar to the future to see what coal fired power station are planned)
Carbon Brief also has a number of interesting maps such as these:
The above is on the Carbon Brief website, Carbon Brief is a UK-based website covering the latest developments in climate science, climate policy and energy policy. We specialise in clear, data-driven articles and graphics to help improve the understanding of climate change, both in terms of the science and the policy response. We publish a wide range of content, including science explainers, interviews, analysis and factchecks, as well as daily and weekly email summaries of newspaper and online coverage.
In 2018, Carbon Brief was “highly commended” for its investigative journalism by the Royal Statistical Society. In 2017, Carbon Brief won the “Best Specialist Site for Journalism” category at the prestigious Online Media Awards.
Forecasts are limited by what’s known at the time they’re made. I’m only familiar with India. There, the forecast seems to include coal projects that have been cancelled or have not been approved.
As for nuclear, a surprising proportion have been “under construction” for a remarkably long time. As the economic case degrades, who knows how many will actually be commissioned? We might end up with a glut of nuclear-themed tourist attractions, like Bataan (yes, I know that’s a unique case).
It suspect it would be difficult to ever get accurate and timely information considering the project times, sometimes secrecy, and politics involved that obscure what is happening or not happening on the ground, all filtered by the 24 x 7 news cycle.
Except they’re cancelling plans for those as well. Guess where the growth is.
Countries have banned the use of glyphosate and genetic engineering in agriculture, too. Just becasue a country does something, it doesn’t mean that something is backed by evidence or the right thing to do.
It is worth reading the overview report from the Indian government about mix of generation. One will see what the real picture is in India.
It is little like saying that the 2017 nuclear, coal fired energy and hydo in Australia growth was zero compared to near exponential growth of renewables. This is correct and sounds like nuclear, coal and hydro are dead in the water, but when one realises there wasn’t any nuclear, coal or hydro generation commissioning in 2017, the statement really means nothing, and is manipuoation of data for ideological/political reasons.
I saw the same information months ago in a media release from those how are hostile towards Adani, but the use of such is spin and falls into possibly not understanding the Indian government information. It was used to try and support an argument that Adani coal is not needed by the Indians.
Some renewables, such as PV solar, from planning to commissioning is very short duration, while coal, nuclear, hydro can take many years for planning to commissioning. These sort of generation also don’t run at full capacity when commissioned, and the excess capacity is taken up when demand increases. So capacity may remain stagnant for a period, but total generarions can increase.
If one wants to see trends, one needs to at least look over a 5-10 year period as well as look at the total changes in generation types compared to current generation totals and capacities.
If the evidence is there, then you’ll be able to present a case. Go ahead, make your case.
The report is a snapshot in time and does not reflect long term trends in India’s generation types.
Unfortunately the popular media is very good at taking these snapshots and using them to argue various points in relation to what is believed to be occurring in India (or other developing countries such as China). Most of the arguments are bias towards a preconceived agenda.
There are also numerous independent referenced assessments of India’s long term energy strategy, like this one:
I assume these have also been read especially if one is familiar on electricity generation in India.
As I have indicated previously, it is best to try and establish facts using independent sources for information, including that of government or international agencies, when making ones own mind up about (mis)information often presented on websites and forums which have clear/obvious agendas.
I have provided enough links, including those from reputable sources which when read/analysed, allows one to make up their own mind in relation to some other opinion pieces presented by others.
Thank you for your intelligent and evidence-based posts on this forum, @phb! It is important for every one of us to formulate our worldviews from evidence, rather than ideology, and you’re helping us all do that one step at a time. I appreciate your efforts!
I assume that you’re referring to the Fukushima Daiichi complex ?
The vast majority of the waste from that facility is still on land. There have been releases of contaminated water into the ocean, but the total radioactives pale in comparison to the fuel that is still in the damaged reactors and spent fuel pools. Most of that fuel is almost certainly going to stay where it is for at least another generation or two.
Unless they get another Tidal Wave, Earthquake, Volcano, Typhoon or combination of some or all of the natural disasters or of a similar huge destructive force that mankind has no control over.
Precisely. The technology does not exist for it to be possible for the Japanese ( or anyone else ) to have dumped all the waste into the sea. An even greater natural disaster could relocate the meltdown waste. That is a terrifying prospect. Wikipedia suggests that there is around 300 tons of fuel which is now intermingled with tons of debris from the meltdown-affected reactors themselves. In clean-up terms, it makes Chernobyl look like a piece of cake.
This topic was automatically opened after 13 days.
“Another generation or two”? Try 100 or 1000 generations!
Hi @jepc, this is a forum to share our thoughts and opinions on consumer topics. You will need to provide evidence for any claims you make, not infactual, fear-mongering claims that do not contribute to the discussion. I recommend reading these articles
If you have any questions about the reliable evidence in these questions, ask away. That’s what this forum is for
Oh dear! You forgot to put in the cost of the Fukushima nuclear problem, i.e. the massive costs to date since the melt-downs and the eye-watering costs for who knows how long. No one, not even nuclear experts, can give any estimate of how much it will cost or how long it will take. There is no science yet developed for them to determine it. I think your greatest contribution might be to give us figures on the costs of all nuclear accidents so far and how long and at what cost these problems will require to be fixed.
These are some of the major ones that are not resolved:-
Fukushima (3 core melt-downs)
Chernobyl (1 core melt-down)
Three Mile Island (1 core)
Sellafield (7 accidents)
Add to this that no insurance company will insure you against any nuclear issue. Any and all “compensation” (if given) will always be at the cost of the government.
After reading through this topic (before it was reopened) I had hoped that it would die. No such luck.
From my perspective, nuclear reactors are good for:
- isotopes and;
Note that power generation is not on the list.