The parliamentary year has ended with a striking result from Newspoll: Labor leads 59-41, up from 55-45 last fortnight, with Kevin Rudd leading Malcolm Turnbull as preferred prime minister 66 per cent (up three) to 19 per cent (down two). Kevin Rudd’s approval rating of 70 per cent is one point shy of his previous best from April, while Malcolm Turnbull’s approval and disapproval have both gone five points in the wrong direction, to 47 per cent and 32 per cent (The Australian offers a graphic and a nifty preferred prime minister tracker showing figures back to early 2006). Nonetheless, the leadership ratings suggest voting intention would have been even worse for the Coalition if Brendan Nelson was still leader. Turnbull’s approval rating is still seven points higher than Nelson’s best result, and the 47 per cent gap on preferred prime minister is roughly equal to what Nelson managed when Rudd’s approval was in the mid-50s. Elsewhere:
• Essential Research also has Labor leading 59-41, up from 58-42 last week. Also featured are questions on the performance of Julie Bishop as Shadow Treasurer, the relative popularity of Julia Gillard and Julie Bishop and “global terrorism and international unrest”.
• The Australian Parliamentary Library has published a paper providing statistical details from every election since federation, along with a precis detailing the circumstances of each election.
• Sky News, Foxtel and Austar have announced that a public and political affairs television network called A-APAN, along the lines of the American C-SPAN, will be launched on January 20 next year. It will feature coverage of parliament and committee proceedings, industry meetings, and congressional and parliamentary coverage from the United States and the United Kingdom. It will be available on pay TV and digital free-to-air, the latter initially only in Sydney.
• Colin Barnett says the proposal for fixed terms in Western Australia will feature “a mechanism if there is some catastrophic behaviour of a government that you might be able to bring on a poll”. It will also provide for flexibility in the announcement of a date in either February or March, rather than fixing a precise date.
• Antony Green has weighed in on the recent criticism of New South Wales’ system of fixed four-year terms.
shows
nuclear ‘residue’ can cause per gram more harmful and lingering effects (half-life,etc) than any other power source.
its unique nature causes untold engineering problems.
the train thingy was a reference also to whether nuclear had developed any viable land transport options-none that I’m aware of.
Inner westie….
1) Yes nuclear power is not economical, but with an ETS it is and would be for Australia.
2) We could build a nuclear power station in a couple of years…and phase out our coal fired power stations.
3) Your argument that nuclear power is dangerous is spurious, with new reactor designs you couldnt cause a meltdown if you tried. Might i remind you we are already signatories to the NPT which gives nations who give up weapons access to peaceful nuclear energy which we havent taken up yet.
4) Neither then by your standards is wind, solar or geothermal they all need to be built and hence all have a carbon footprint.
5) That is a stupid argument because the newer GenIV reactors use less uranium than the older ones, hence nuclear power would last for thousands of years.
6) Renewables first need to come up with a way to store energy, until that can be done they cannot produce baseload and you will always need coal or nuclear to provide energy non-stop.
From an engineering POV I’m not aware of any viable nuclear land or air transport optiosn even on the drawings boards anywhere (I have read of). Nuclear could (and does in Europe) provide a source of power for electric powered cars and trains though.
“Ziggy Switkowski, the chairman of ANSTO and a passionate advocate for domestic nuclear power in Australia, mentioned at a talk I attended recently that nuclear fusion is only 50-100 years away”
Ziggy better go to France where one is being built at cost of 15 billion , and part of ITERP
[Your argument that nuclear power is dangerous is spurious, with new reactor designs you couldnt cause a meltdown if you tried]
So, Glen, you’d be happy to live next to one?
[2) We could build a nuclear power station in a couple of years…and phase out our coal fired power stations.]
we would need 25 + stations (optimistic forecast btw)
plus techos etc
not going to happen
I drove past one when i was in the UK and i did feel scared…of course if i lived in the vacinity of one i wouldnt have a problem, modern nuclear power stations are safe.
did not
[5) That is a stupid argument because the newer GenIV reactors use less uranium than the older ones, hence nuclear power would last for thousands of years.]
The new reactors are 40 TIMES more efficient!!!
I think not glen
Gusface in truth before then we’d hopefully have nuclear fusion
Glen I know it’s not wise to let facts get in the way of opinion, but you really should follow the link and read the article.
http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/opinion-greenhouse-solution-myth-fallacy-spin/
I have in no way distorted the facts fredn, and let me be clear about this im not saying we shouldnt invest in solar (wind power is a joke and an eye sore) but we’re either going to continue to emit carbon with coal fired powerstations or we’re going to need nuclear.
from freds linked article:
“Fallacy 6: We have to choose between coal with CCS and nuclear power.
Neither coal with CCS nor nuclear power could make a significant contribution before the 2020s. Both are dirty and dangerous technologies. Therefore, this is a false choice”
ps great link fredn
Nuclear Power is neither dirty (no carbon emissions) or dangerous.
Glen
(1) Listen to your own mob. Ian Macfarlane in 2005: “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work out that it is very, very hard for domestic nuclear power to stack up economically.” Nick Minchin in 2006: “nuclear power will not be viable in Australia for at least a hundred years.”
(2) The Switkowski report put the time-scale for building one nuclear reactor in Australia at 10-15 years. Remember Switkowski is the chairman of ANTSO. Where is your evidence for “a couple of years”?
(3) You have much more faith in the technology than the nuclear scientists who developed it: “In a famous paper about ‘trans-science’, the US nuclear scientist Alvin Weinberg argued that there is a category of questions which cannot be couched in the language of science and are clearly scientific in their thrust, but which cannot be answered in terms that are acceptable to scientists. He gave as two examples the operating saftey of nuclear power stations and the health effects of small doses of radiation.”
(4) For wind and solar thermal, for example, the conventional energy costs are embedded mostly in the set up.
(5) “Thousands of years” … where’s your evidence for this! Even if the efficiency gain is 100%, 10 years before the exhaustion of high-grade uranium ore will become 20.
(6) Diessendorf again:
With or without renewable energy, there is no such thing as a perfectly reliable power station or electricity generating system.
Electricity grids are already designed to handle variability in both demand and supply. To do this, they have different types of power station (base-load, intermediate-load and peak-load) and reserve power stations.
Some renewable electricity sources (e.g. bioenergy, solar thermal electricity and geothermal) have identical variability to coal-fired power stations and so they are base-load. They can be integrated without any additional back-up, as can efficient energy use.
Other renewable electricity sources (e.g. wind, solar without storage, and run-of-river hydro ) have different kinds of variability from coal-fired power stations and so have to be considered separately.
Wind power provides a third source of variability to be integrated into a system that already has to balance a variable conventional supply against a variable demand.
The variability of small amounts of wind power in a grid is indistinguishable from variations in demand. Therefore, existing peak-load plant and reserve plant can handle small amounts of wind power at negligible extra cost.
For large amounts of wind power connected to the grid from several geographically dispersed wind farms, total wind power generally varies smoothly and therefore cannot be described accurately as ‘intermittent’. Thus, the variability of large-scale dispersed wind power is unlike that of a single wind turbine. Nevertheless, it may require some additional back-up.
As the penetration of wind power increases substantially, so do the additional costs of reserve plant and fuel used for balancing wind power variations. However, when wind power supplies up to 20% of electricity generation, these additional costs are still relatively small.
Inner you didnt read what i said!
Nuclear Power isnt economical in Australia unless we have an ETS which we will have soon.
In reports like that they generally exagerate how long things will take esp when considering nuclear power.
Aren’t you forgetting we have 40% of known reserves…and we arent even looking in QLD and we’ve only just started looking in WA, we’ll have more than enough for our needs.
[Nuclear Power is neither dirty (no carbon emissions) or dangerous]
Carbon emissions into the atmosphere is not the only kind of dirty. Nuclear power is not carbon neutral. Nuclear power uses large amounts of water. Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas.
Dangerous? OK, I’ll reconsider it when they agree to store the waste in the basement of parliament house.
[What about the radiation put into the atmosphere by coal fired power stations?]
Why are you comparing it to coal when the future option is renewable or nuclear?
[But it’s a different type of dirty that doesn’t cause global warming.]
Bzzt, wrong.
[We will be using fusion in 50 years time.]
Because a bunch of nuclear physicists clamouring for grant money say so doesn’t make it true.
Anyway, 50 years is way to late.
You can use sea water Poly…the one i drove past in Scotland was on the coast.
But nuclear is meant to take Coals place Oz.
[Nuclear Power is neither dirty (no carbon emissions)]
No Glen, it doesn’t take any carbon emissions to mine, refine and transport nuclear fuel nor any to build and maintain nuclear power stations.
It’s a magical process.
[But nuclear is meant to take Coals place Oz.]
In doing so it is going to be competing with renewables.
There is absolutely no relevance to the argument that “Nuclear is slightly less clean than coal so we should go with it”.
It’s far from our only option.
I really tire of these debates. I don’t wish to sound arrogant but I don’t care either. People who are not scientists or engineers and thus no nothing about the subject more than what they’ve read on blogs should concede to those who know exactly what they’re talking about.
Considering how much energy it produces, it is no less emissions than renewables would create…
Glen, with respect, you won’t convince anyone with vague and unsubstantiated comments like that. What are your sources? Where are your numbers?
They are available if you look for them Westie…but i can be bothered looking for you.
Fact…
Nuclear Energy creates base load power by % over renewables
Fact
Nuclear Energy fuel cycle does have emissions involved (not in powerproduction)
But by percentage it is still a better deal than renewables that cannot produce the kind of power Nuclear can
Fair enough Oz @ 1122. The only problem with such a concession, however, is that it pits (for example) nuclear physicist Zwitkowski’s YES against environmental scientist Mark Diesendorf’s NO on the question of whether nuclear power is neccesary and / or viable in Australia.
(It’s also disempowering to allow debate about these important questions to be restricted to the lines set by technical experts, many of whom have hidden agendas or vested interests.)
Glen, where are you getting these “facts” from? Andrew Bolt’s blog?
http://nzsses.auckland.ac.nz/conference/2007/papers/MUDD-Uranium-Mining.pdf
10,000 tonnes of CO2 per year for an average nuclear plant and that’s just from mining the uranium.
Other studies put the CO2 emission of building solar thermal plants at 1/3 of those for building nuclear plants and solar plants actually pay it off whereas nuclear plants require more and more from mining, refining and transporting.
“but i can be bothered looking for you”
Glen, you couldn’t have given me a better reason for ignoring all of your subsequent contributions to this debate. Question: why bother trying to argue a case if you’re too lazy to engage those with whom you’re arguing. You might as well have said “trust me or work it out for yourself”. Are you a barrister Glen? If so, god help any poor idiot you defend with that attitude! LOL
[People who are not scientists or engineers and thus no nothing about the subject more than what they’ve read on blogs should concede to those who know exactly what they’re talking about.]
Does that mean I have to refrain from the debates on politics because I’m not a politician and don’t have and qualifications in political science?
Yeah Inner Westie, you’re right. I just get bored because I’ve had them so many times.
Mark Diesendorf was one my lecturers btw. Good friend.
[Does that mean I have to refrain from the debates on politics because I’m not a politician and don’t have and qualifications in political science?]
Politics is a completely subjective art.
There is only one correct answer regarding how many tonnes of CO2 are emitted from nuclear power plants.
I hope they raise the price of carbon to the point where nuclear power becomes economical…
The US experience with Nuke Power stations is, the closer you live to one:
The longer your life expectancy.
The higher your educational level.
The higher your income.
The less chance of being on welfare.
But of course nobody wants to live next door to one. 😛
ruawake, have you got a ref. for that?
Glen
I started off fairly positive about nuclear energy but my enthusiasm has waned. Even with an ETS, it’ll never compete with coal in Oz. Rudd (and the Libs) are wedded to the idea of “clean coal” in one form or another such as carbon sequestration or whatever, due to the lobbying power of the mining industry.
I’ve heard fusion might be only 20 years off but we can’t rely on it. I don’t know why it’s so hard to get fusion going. It took less than 5 years to make the atomic bomb after Sziller had the idea of a chain reaction. Seems to me they aren’t trying very hard.
The new reactors are a lot more efficient with their extraction of uranium and so have a lot less depleted radioactive products for terrorists to use. But they take too long to build.
I should point out that nuclear reactors are MUCH SAFER than coal plants. The loss of life, including Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, per GW of energy is much higher for coal than nuclear. Those coal mines are death traps, esp in China. 8,000 miners die a year in coal acciednts (6,000 of those in China).
Oz
[People who are not scientists or engineers and thus no nothing about the subject more than what they’ve read on blogs should concede to those who know exactly what they’re talking about.]
What if you used to be a scientist and have read lots and lots of books? 😀
[There is only one correct answer regarding how many tonnes of CO2 are emitted from nuclear power plants.]
I’m a mathematical pygmy really, stats and modelling were relatively minor components of my undergrad degree, and the modelling I did in my PhD was on wastewater. I’ve only taught atmospheric pollution and modelling at 1st and 2nd year undergrad level. But even I wouldn’t suggest there is one correct answer, even if it was +/- a factor of 2.
Westie
Have a look at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
There are many papers on it.
polyquats
[I’m a mathematical pygmy really, stats and modelling were relatively minor components of my undergrad degree, and the modelling I did in my PhD was on wastewater. I’ve only taught atmospheric pollution and modelling at 1st and 2nd year undergrad level.]
is that all 😉
[is that all ;)]
Stuff all, really. I work with people who can do this stuff in their sleep. Makes me feel very inadequate! Still, most of them couldn’t do a titration if their life depended on it.
[But even I wouldn’t suggest there is one correct answer, even if it was +/- a factor of 2.]
But it can be quantified.
You can’t pretend that writing blog posts and articles are going to “persuade” it to change.
Thanks ruawake, but I couldn’t find anything related to your post @ 1133 within the NCBI site. Was there a paper your read that included these survey results?
[Other studies put the CO2 emission of building solar thermal plants at 1/3 of those for building nuclear plants and solar plants actually pay it off whereas nuclear plants require more and more from mining, refining and transporting.]
Solar plants can’t provide base load power, because they don’t work during night.
It is unfair to compare these to nuclear or coal power plants in terms of the power they can provide.
[But it can be quantified.]
Well estimated, stochastically. What really gets me about this whole debate is that people jump up and down and get silly if they think something in the water might increase the incidence of cancer by 1:1,000,000. Witness the antics of CADS, for example.
Yet people are quite happy to gamble with 1:2 chance of severe climate change, and a 1:10 chance of catastrophic climate change. I just don’t get it.
ShowsOn
Yes We Can! Actually, it should be Yes they can. I had an Obama flashback there.
The excess solar power is used to pump water up a gradient to a reservoir where it is stored. When needed, the water is released and produces hydroelectric power. It does lose about 20% through inefficiency. Clean beautiful baseline power. 😀
[Solar plants can’t provide base load power, because they don’t work during night.]
Wrong.
[The ability to utilize solar thermal technology after the sun sets is made possible by a storage system that is up to 93% efficient,]
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/27/solar-thermal-electricity-can-it-replace-coal-gas-and-oil/
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/28/122640/513
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/02/2048420.htm
Here is a list of existing concentrated solar thermal plants providing base load power:
http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update73_data.htm#table1
Diogenes has given an example of one storage technique. That’s how the Snowy Hydro Scheme works.
No ‘problem’ is an island unto itself.
Nuclear power isn’t just a discussion about netrons and CO2.
Over the years I have heard numerous debates, controversies and arguments between specialists, practioners, clients and lay people.
It is nearly always the case that something sorted out by discussion between the four categories of people is nearly always a better solution than something sorted out by just one of the categories. These solutions are almost never ‘perfect’ in any one sense. They just work better.
[When needed, the water is released and produces hydroelectric power. It does lose about 20% through inefficiency. ]
And here you’ve just doubled the cost of the plant, which means the power produced would be extremely expensive.
Also, where do we get all the water from? And where is it stored when it isn’t being pumped?