Essential Research: 60-40

This week’s Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead at 60-40, up from 59-41 last week. Also featured are interesting findings on development of nuclear power plants for electricity generation (43 per cent support, 35 per cent oppose) and whether Australia has an obligation to dispose of nuclear waste from countries it exports uranium to (26 per cent agree, 53 per cent disagree), along with perceptions of the Australian-US relationship and a quiz question on Australia Day (which makes me wonder how many answered without recourse to Google). Other news:

• The South Australian Liberals have suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of independent Geoff Brock in the Frome by-election following Saturday’s distribution of preferences. Crikey subscribers can read my post-mortem here, and a still lively discussion is raging on my live coverage post. The Advertiser reports that Brock’s success might give other potential independent candidates ideas, including “ALP stalwarts such as Rod Sawford and Murray Delaine”, who were respectively Labor members for the federal seat of Port Adelaide and the state seat of Cheltenham. Liberal leader Martin Hamilton-Smith says he is “ready to make deals with any independent candidate who ran next year in safe Labor seats such as Port Adelaide, Croydon, Lee and Colton”.

• Speculation about an early Queensland election continues to stop and start. Mark Bahnisch of Larvatus Prodeo says the Courier-Mail has damaged its credibility with its repeated wolf-crying on the subject, while The Australian’s D. D. McNicoll contends that “the whisper in Queensland political circles is Premier Anna Bligh will call the state election on February 28, a date that ensures bumper superannuation payouts for all the surviving members of the ALP’s ‘Class of 2001’ who were never expected to serve more than one term in parliament.” “Former Howard government senior adviser” David Moore surveys the landscape in The Australian.

• The NSW Nationals’ plans to select a candidate in a winnable seat for the 2011 state election by holding an open primary has caught the attention of blogger Tim Andrews, who is “unsure why this proposal hasn’t received more attention, as it has the potential to revolutionise Australian politics”. Ben Raue at The Tally Room reckons the idea is “at least a good gimmick”. The Nationals’ briefing paper on the subject can be read here.

• Western Australia’s daylight saving referendum will be held on May 16. Daylight saving was previously voted down in 1975 (53.66 per cent against), 1984 (54.35 per cent) and 1992 (53.14 per cent).

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

519 comments on “Essential Research: 60-40”

Comments Page 2 of 11
1 2 3 11
  1. [i take it your for nuclear power ShowsOn?]
    I prefer it to coal, oil and gas. Maybe “clean coal” will be better in the future, but currently it is only an experimental technology, whereas we know that nuclear works, and doesn’t emit CO2 at the point of electricity generation.

    Also, if you take into account the energy required in the manufacture of current technology photovoltaic cells, nuclear power emits less carbon over the entire fuel cycle (mining, refinement, enrichment, production)

  2. [I already said there’s no point framing the debate as coal vs. nuclear, so why are we doing it?]
    Why isn’t there a point?
    [Nuclear waste is dumped in the ocean.]
    Incorrect.

  3. I have no objection to nuclear power – but a nuclear power station will NEVER be built in Australia.

    1. A Labor Federal or State Govt will never approve one, so the political cycle needs to co-incide, with Conservative Govts at both levels. That has only happened rarely in the past 20 years and is also unlike in the next decade.

    2. Even if number 1 does occur it will become like the second airport for Sydney, local action groups will revolt and either the Federal or State Govt will cave in on any suggested site. No Govt will lose seats for private industry.

    3. What would we do with all the coal. 😉

  4. [ Nuclear waste is dumped in the ocean.

    Incorrect.]
    Just to be clear, some low level nuclear waste, like from medical isotopes is dumped at sea. But the medium and high level waste from nuclear reactors can not be dumped at sea.

  5. i guess when it all comes down to the nitty gritty i’m NIMBY, by the time we’d have it up and running here it’ll be obsolete, they’ll have found other better means of CC.

  6. High-level waste has been dumped in the ocean, the London Agreement bans it for another 20 years, but not all nuclear nations are signatories to the Agreement, such as India.

  7. i look at how far computors have come in a very short time, from a huge contraption to a pc, mobile phones from a big unwieldy two hand machine to one you can barely see, gosh i remember the ice carts pre fridges and no telly, with all of the scientific minds now concentrating on CC in twent years if not before nuclear reactors will belong with the ice carts.

  8. if you’d described DNA and stem cell a few years ago you would have been treated as an idiot, with the need we somehow find the cure.

  9. [Because when talking about future ways of generating power, we aren’t faced with “coal or nuclear”. That’s why.]
    No, it is obvious we will reduce our reliance on coal at some point if so called clean technologies don’t work, and it is highly likely that we will be using nuclear fusion in 30 or 40 years. We need something in the short and medium term.
    [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6058302.stm ]
    1) I don’t suggest we develop a fleet of nuclear submarines 2) I don’t suggest that we dump waste at sea.
    [i guess when it all comes down to the nitty gritty i’m NIMBY, by the time we’d have it up and running here it’ll be obsolete, they’ll have found other better means of CC.]
    Nuclear power isn’t obsolete. The U.S. is about to invest in another 30 or so reactors over the next decade. There are new reactors designs being produced every year.

  10. [We need something in the short and medium term.]

    And for the fourth time, there are other options besides nuclear.

    And I bet you $1 million fusion won’t exist in “30-40 years”.

  11. Given the ANSTO’s old HiFAR reactor at Lucas Heights will cost $53 million to decommission (Senate Estimates) and the new OPAL reactor has lost $22 million due to faulty fuel rod design (no warranty by the manufacturers – Julie Bishop approved the contract).

    I guess out history with Nuclear Reactors is a bit sad.

  12. theres too many good scientific minds working on the problem for them not to find a solution, it’s no good closing ones mind to it being only coal v nuclear power, thats only putting a fence around oneself, i’ve seen far too many changes in my lifetime —-it will happen!

  13. [And for the fourth time, there are other options besides nuclear.]
    What are they? Do they supply base load power at night time?
    [And I bet you $1 million fusion won’t exist in “30-40 years”.]
    LOL! I bet you we won’t have clean coal working in 20 or 30 years.

  14. [theres too many good scientific minds working on the problem for them not to find a solution, it’s no good closing ones mind to it being only coal v nuclear power,]
    Well base load power in Australia is produced by either coal or gas. We need a technology that can replace that.

  15. well ShowsOn, i believe we’ll find a technology to do just that, some of the world’s best minds are working on it, i tried to point out in my previous blogs that stuff we take for granted now would have been considered miracles a few years ago, if those few years ago someone had told me i’d be sitting in front of a screen chatting with you now, or i could speak to pals overseas face to face via webcam, well to be honest i’d have called for a doctor, technology is going at a gallup, you’ll see whats new now will be outdated in two years time.

  16. ShowsOn

    There are a few ways of converting solar and wind power into baseload power, although they lose about 15% through inefficiency.

    There is hydroelectric power from power stored through pumping water uphill. There is also a way of storing energy thermochemically using a reversible ammonia reaction.

  17. Townsville would be an excellent place for a nuclear power station. It has existing infrastructure and an almost limitless water supply (Burdekin dam). They could drill down into Castle Hill, which is very stable, and store the waste there. If it starts to glow, it would just be another tourist attraction. And the army base may have some use for any ‘extra’ enriched material. I am sure the local member Peter Lindsay would be in favour, he has spoken for nuclear power before.

  18. Gaffhook how many of those reactors are IV generation???
    IV generation reactors are as safe as houses.

    Our demand for energy is increasing and either we continue with dirty coal or we look to Nuclear for our base load energy requirements…

  19. Gee Glen, have I really rocked your faith in Howard that much that after two attempts, you have nothing to reply with?

    I’ve finally defeated Howard in Glen’s psyche. I thought this day would never come.

  20. a few short years ago i’d never heard of DNA, today it’s very important to me, i remember reading about the first time it was used in a village in England, never thinking one day it could be refined to use with the tiniest trace of human fluid years old.

  21. Bob i dont understand your point.

    First you say Howard was a coward for not introducing Nuclear Power.

    Let’s look at the facts…

    Howard brought about a far reaching report on Nuclear Power comissioned in 2005 to be written by Ziggy, he supported it’s findings and pushed for Nuclear Power to be brought to public debate. He suffered politically by standing by it up to the Election and even through it. Bob you’ll note that Labor were still banging on about Howard and Nuclear Power plants during the campaign.

    I hardly think you can say Howard did nothing. He was the first PM since Gorton who supported Nuclear Energy for Australia and presumably still does so even though he is out of office.

    Bob you arent capable of deating Howard in my psyche…sorry to put it bluntly but there you go.

  22. A hypothetical question to the Greenies (which sort of includes me)

    Would it have been better to have;

    1. Rudd’s 5% CO2 ETS reduction by 2020
    2. A 15% CO2 reduction by 2020 with a Gen 4 nuclear power station outside each capital city

    I don’t believe Oz needs nuclear (we’re perfectly placed for every type of renewable energy) but it’s better than doing next to nothing.

  23. Clean Coal is a pipe dream, we’d be better off with Nuclear Power and we’d be able to cut our emissions by alot without risking jobs or the economy.

  24. Glen:

    I thought the myth was that Howard had a backbone and stood up for what he believed in, no matter what?

    Guess nuclear power blows that myth away then.

    And 2005/6? That’s a decade after he came to power. Nuclear power was around for a long time before Howard came to power.

    Bit late.

  25. Yes William, will you please give us a tip for the daylight wasteing referendum?

    I hope it gets defeated again, because if it gets up over there it will only encourage the Daylight Saving Party here in QLD, and the Courier Mail, which never misses an opportunity to give the idiotic idea a free plug. (Idiotic because while it is probably quite good in a temporate climate, it is no good for a tropical one).

    The Daylight Saving Party is another uncertain factor in the QLD state election which Anna Bligh is sure to call last week… this week… next week, at the latest, according to the very persistent rumours repeatedly reported in the same Courier Mail. The pertinent point is how many votes will they actually get, where are they likely to come from, and how many of them will exhaust?

    Provided that they come fairly evenly from LNP and Labor voters, they should make it harder for the LNP to win government. It will be interesting to see if SEQ LNP candidates break rank from the LNP position and state that they are in favour of daylight saving, in the hope of stitching up a preferece reccomendation.

  26. Glen
    What does it matter what year they were born. Google “leukemia in children near nuclear reactors”
    Read heaps of them and tell me it’s a good thing.
    One site says Germany will be shutting all their sites down by 2020’s.
    That would be on par for us. When everyone stops using things we start using them.
    Dieldrin,245T, etc etc.

    The study was conducted at the request of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BFS) in regions near 21 reactors or former reactors.

    In those areas, 77 cases of cancer were found among children under five and 37 children living within a 5-kilometer (3-mile) radius of nuclear power plants had developed leukemia between 1980 and 2003; a 60-percent increase over the national average of 17.

    The risk was apparently 117 percent higher when only leukemia was considered.

    The report suggests other radiation experts believe the study understates the issue and say there is an increased cancer risk for children living within 50 kilometers of a reactor.

    The German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel is said to be looking closely at the study but Germany already has plans to prematurely shut down all of its nuclear power plants by the early 2020s.

    http://www.news-medical.net/?id=33273

  27. I was talking to a farmer from Crookwell (NSW) the other day. There are several wind farms in that general area, and many more approved or in the approval process for construction. He stated that the opposition to them from NIMBYs, mostly johnny come lately NIMBYs, is ferocious, personal and vindictive. Many farmers who are in favour of them have become anti purely on the basis of the personal clashes that they engender.
    If a technology as envoironmentally friendly as wind power can cause such disruption in a basically conservative, make no fuss community like Crookwell, please nominate a community that will accept a nuclear facility with equanamity. It is easy to be pro nuclear when the idea is a distant cloud on the horizon, its when the hulking building looms closer that the problems will commence.
    There will be no nuclear reactor in Australia for the same reasonSydney has no second airport, the politics of NIMBYism!

  28. Diogenes where do store the waste and what about the cost?
    You are believing obviously that human beings never make mistakes? What if a massive mistake occurred? What if a wild storm suddenly hit a plant? Or if a plane crashed into one? Yes they have not happened but what if… the consequences would be absoultely horrific?
    Put simply we should look at Geo Thermal, Wind and Solar and the reason we are not is because of political will. We should look at cutting back on using energy. Greed is out of control in this country and it is time we all cut. One only has to look at amount of waste each of us chucks out and the amount of stupid gadgets we buy and never use.

  29. Bob1234 you obviously dont consider the political realities…try introducing Nuclear Power in your first term and see if you get a second God you can be way off the mark Bob…

    His 4th term was the perfect time to push it especially with Labor down and on the ropes…

    Nuclear Power could have been with us since Gorton but the Jervis Bay Reactor never happened so we’ve not had it since the 1970s…but the mere fact that Howard did raise it and push for it and was the first PM to do so since the 1970s was a testament to his support for Nuclear…

    Nuff said!

  30. [There are a few ways of converting solar and wind power into baseload power, although they lose about 15% through inefficiency.]
    This doesn’t make sense. The efficiency would be more like 50% because you’d only get back the same amount of energy spent pumping it up a hill. So for every 1 unit of energy you create, you only get to distribute 1/2.
    [This is what David Suzuki thinks of Nuclear Power.]
    Oh OK, so lets just keep burning coal. Let’s pretend the problem doesn’t exist.
    [It also opens you up to a terrorist attack.]
    And having coal power stations doesn’t? Or tall buildings? Or buildings that house government bureaucracies.

  31. Gaffhook wait till the CDU/CSU and the FDP win the 2009 Election they wont have to rely on the SPD for power…Merkel has delayed the decommissioning of the nuclear power plants and once her party and their centre-right allies win i suspect they’ll like Italy build new Nuclear Power plants…

  32. [His 4th term was the perfect time to push it especially with Labor down and on the ropes…]
    I kind of agree with Bob. If you REALLY know it is the right thing, you should start talking about it ASAP. Then if it takes 2 or 3 terms to actually turn into legislation, so be it.

    I think it would be a great thing for Rudd to do. It would certainly endear him to CFMEU and AWU members, who are scared about a decline in coal mining.

  33. Howard was taking the easy option with nuclear power, and just wanted to help his big business mates.
    Can someone tell me why we would prefer to cause greater problems to the environment we can source alternatives which have no effect.

  34. [This doesn’t make sense. The efficiency would be more like 50% because you’d only get back the same amount of energy spent pumping it up a hill. So for every 1 unit of energy you create, you only get to distribute 1/2.]
    Doh! It would be even worse, because no pump is 100% efficient, and some of the water would disappear due to evaporation.

  35. I really don’t know about daylight saving – I think maybe it just might get up because a smaller proportion of the electorate has children these days and there are more former eastern staters than there used to be. On the other hand, maybe an older population profile works against it, assuming there is one. I personally voted in favour in 1992, but will vote against this time.

  36. I think Michael is right, NIMBYism will not allow nuclear power in this country until we get a LOT more desperate for energy than we are now.

  37. Shows on – A nuclear power plant can kill numerous people over a wide area- perhaps thousands and leave many with a lasting legacy and eventual death, an attack upon a building kills a few people.
    So the cost being very expensive obviously means we pay hugh bills for our power supply.
    Where does the waste go?
    Nuclear is not an option for Australia when we have significant sunlight and wind..
    It is just stupid.
    We could build solar plants and export our power overseas.

  38. [I personally voted in favour in 1992, but will vote against this time.]

    Worried about it causing your curtains to fade? Stuffing up the chooks? 🙂

    To be honest having lived in Cairns for a few years I couldn’t imagine daylight saving there, so God knows how those in Broome etc handle it.

  39. [Shows on – A nuclear power plant can kill numerous people over a wide area-]
    So can a coal power plant. I don’t consider this a legitimate argument, it is based on a misunderstanding of how nuclear power plants work. They aren’t nuclear bombs.
    [and leave many with a lasting legacy and eventual death, an attack upon a building kills a few people.]
    You mean like the respiratory illnesses associated with living near a coal power station? Or a smelter? Or a major airport?
    [So the cost being very expensive obviously means we pay hugh bills for our power supply.]
    If you account for carbon pollution, power from a nuclear reactor is cheaper than power from a coal power station.
    [Nuclear is not an option for Australia when we have significant sunlight and wind..
    It is just stupid.]
    Solar power doesn’t work at night, wind power isn’t base load unless you install massive wind farms. But this is very expensive to do.
    [We could build solar plants and export our power overseas.]
    We already do as aluminum.

  40. [For some reason daylight saving also makes it harder to milk the cows.]
    Because cows want to be milked based on their own sense of time, not based on human clock time. So it means farmers are forced to wake up an hour earlier. Say 4 AM instead of 5 AM.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 2 of 11
1 2 3 11