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).
Ah, except that ShowsOn daylight saving would mean you milk them at 6am instead of 5am.
99 – So our first nuclear power plant should be in – where do you live again ShowsOn, oh anyway right next to you. You ok with that?
Showson @ 100
Are you making this up?
GB,
That post exemplifies why we will never have nuclear power unless things get pretty desperate.
Whether we ought to have it is a different question entirely.
[What are they? Do they supply base load power at night time?]
Solar thermal and hydro are currently providing baseload power, at night time, around the world. Geothermal has the potential.
[LOL! I bet you we won’t have clean coal working in 20 or 30 years.]
I’m with you there.
ShowsOn
Here it is. It’s called “pumped-storage hydroelectricity” and it’s 70-85% efficient. Evidently we already have four in Australia. The Snowy Mountains Scheme has a big one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
101 dyno, that would be better for the farmers. So what’s their beef, so to speak?
“So what’s their beef, so to speak?”
Gary, my point exactly.
104 dyno – I agree.
[It’s somewhere in here. I forget where. The article it links to is interesting to download.
The Base-load Electricity Fallacy]
Thank you, that was an interesting article. I think this is the key line:
[By 2040, renewable energy could supply over half of Australia’s electricity, reducing greenhouse emissions from electricity generation by nearly 80 per cent.]
My question is simple. Where do we get the somewhat less than half of our electricity from? I hope that it isn’t coal. If it is nuclear, then we would be a world leader in 2040 of cutting greenhouse gases.
Glen you really have blinkers on, i never before realised how badly, as far as your concerned if it was Howard’s idiology then it’s your holy grail, i’m not even going to bother any more, you wont even attempt to look at all sides of the problem, like Howard it’s your way or the highway, no offence meant but this is a dead end street.
You see the NIMBY attitude all of the time. Just propose a pipeline or a desal plant anywhere you like in Victoria and see what happens. Even a dam. Any infrastructure. Not one project goes unopposed and the main complaint is “it shouldn’t go here”.
[You see the NIMBY attitude all of the time. Just propose a pipeline or a desal plant anywhere you like in Victoria and see what happens. Even a dam. Any infrastructure. Not one project goes unopposed and the main complaint is “it shouldn’t go here”.]
In some particularly windy areas south of Adelaide people have been protesting the installation of wind farms! The reason – it spoils their view of the land.
[Here it is. It’s called “pumped-storage hydroelectricity” and it’s 70-85% efficient. ]
Yes I understand the concept. You pump water up a hill store it, then let it flow down to produce electricity when you need it. I was simply pointing out that this means your efficiency can’t be anymore than 50% assuming 100% efficient pumps (which is impossible). This is basic physics, you can’t create or destroy energy, you can only convert it to different forms. Electrical to gravitational, then gravitational back to electrical.
[You see the NIMBY attitude all of the time]
yep – maybe there should be a choice eg – nuclear reactor or wind farm?
because when it is nuclear reactor or nothing; or wind farm or nothing, people always go for nothing.
[In some particularly windy areas south of Adelaide people have been protesting the installation of wind farms! ]
exactly what I was thinking about ShowsOn
Ahh Glen, foot in mouth again, thanks for your pearls of wisdom.
“Kick em when they’re down on the ground” – spoken like a true Howard fan.
No guts, no backbone.
ShowsOn
It’s either coal, gas or nuclear. There isn’t anything else. The Ruddster is betting heavily on “clean coal” for the obvious reason that it doesn’t upset anyone. I’m not as pessimistic about it as you. They already pump/store gases underground when they mine oil to get as much out as possible.
well GB a NIMBY i might be but i certainly dont want one near me, i dont really care about myself, my day is done but i’ve family and grandies all in the area, i’m a CC believer and i do everything i can to cut down water and energy use, i’ve been using green shopping bags since they first come out and if anyone can think of anything else i’ll give it a go –all except nuclear reactors.
[It’s either coal, gas or nuclear. There isn’t anything else. ]
I agree. And I think nuclear is best out of those three, with gas a close second. The easiest way to stop CO2 emissions from coal is to leave it in the ground. Other methods are technically complex, and will be very expensive.
Metro Adelaide already gets its electricity from gas. But in summer we often run out and have to buy it from inter-state. The previous government built the lowest tech coal power station possible to supply mines with power. They obviously couldn’t care less about the environmental problems associate with coal.
Shows on and Diogenes labor supporters who have told to soften the electorate about nuclear power…
What of the waste?
Obviously did not read David Suzuki’s article about cost.
So what we do is we go from the respirtory diseases of coal to the problems of nuclear power hence Chernobynel.
How about reducing the amount of energy we use.
Finally how long will it take before a nuclear plant is built, and who will pay for it?
Nuclear power plant may take years to build and yes so do solar plants…
And this argument about night time use, we could still keep some coal plants to ensure power at night… Hence usage at night is far less than during the day. Or use wind power to store power for night use.
Additionally companies are beginning to discover ways to store and capture energy during the day for night use, this involves solar energy.
Judith, I’m with you on the nuclear issue. I’m very happy though for ShowsOn to have one just outside his back door, even in his state, just not mine.
Like most of my state (Vic) I class myself a NIMBY, especially when it comes to nuclear power plants.
ShowsOn
I don’t understand your logic on that.
Say there is 100J of electrical energy. It drives a pump which sends 90L of water up a hill one metre and loses 10% as heat, leaving 90J stored as potential (gravitational energy). The gates then open and the water falls down on a turbine which slows the water to a standstill at groundlevel. The turbine loses 5% in heat. 85J should be converted back into electrical energy. So it’s 85% efficient.
Judith- Shows on and Diogenes have already put their hands up but of course it will go in areas where people do have the money to fight such plans or who are rusted on labor supporters.
Dio I am with you on the maths.
The desalination plant and the pipeline are again the wrong options.
Yep lets take water away from a river which needs it.. That is the Murray River and the Lower Lakes which are dying. Again the environment suffers.
And also a desal plant, yep how much energy is this going to use. The same with the pipeline.
Oh i forgot we are using renewables which instead could be going to householders.
Meanwhile better options such as recycling and stormwater harvesting go to waste.
marky marky
I actually normally vote Green. And I believe I mentioned above that I don’t think Oz needs nuclear as we’ve got better options. Other countries are not so lucky and I’m more than happy for them to have nuclear. The risks of nuclear are grossly overstated and hysterical commentary about Chernobyl is like mentioning Nazi Germany. The new range of reactors can’t meltdown like Chernobyl. And in terms of lives lost per joule of energy created, nuclear is much more safe than coal. Every year, many more coal miners die as people died from every nuclear disaster.
Maybe i missed that sometimes do… I agree this country has many more options than other countries and should not be used. Coal plants i agree do have problems and cause massive probs due to pollution and mining. Would not have caught the green bit though.
Oh why, why wont somebody think of the curtains!
marky marky
As ShowsOn said, the best case scenario (barring some unforeseen breakthrough) is that renewables provide 60% of our energy by 2040. I think Rudd has pledged 20% by 2020. We still have to get that last 40% from somewhere (and other countries won’t be able to get to 60% renewable by 2040). Given that energy is very poorly transportable (at the moment), we can’t import the last 40% which leaves coal, gas or nuclear to make up the difference.
Our two big hopes for the world are a breakthrough in a cheap, easy renewable energy resource and a way to store energy to transport it. If we get them, we’ll be OK.
125 – That wasn’t my point further back but since you bring it up. If we are not getting sufficient water naturally, and we’re definitely not, then fresh water has to be created. I would argue (and could be proven wrong on this) that the weather pattern for Victoria, rather than being a drought, is now the norm and could get worse. Sure recycling and stormwater harvesting should be done but these alone will not sustain us forever, if we accept this weather is now the norm and worsening. Those measures will help while we “wait for the drought to break”. If it doesn’t we are history without taking ‘freshwater creation’ action.
Given the above you have a point in regard to the pipeline.
marky marky, we have the best wetlands in Australia in my area, the stormwater filtered clean is then sold at a profit, the mayor responsible for this, Tony Zappia was elected for labor at the last election, the greens are not the only ones who are aware, a few more like Tony in parliament and a lot more could be done.
as for NIMBY, i’m quite capable of doing something outrageous to get a point across and i’d get the publicity for it, i’d have to be pushed to the limit to do it but do it i would, mind i dont think it’ll ever come to that because i dont think they’ll ever go for reactors here.
[Shows on and Diogenes labor supporters who have told to soften the electorate about nuclear power…]
Oh of course, we got the fax this morning.
[So what we do is we go from the respirtory diseases of coal to the problems of nuclear power hence Chernobynel.]
Chernobyl was caused by people doing unauthorised tests on the reactor with all the safety systems turned off.
[How about reducing the amount of energy we use.]
Excellent idea that I completely support. However, I don’t think the average Australian is willing to give up their lifestyle of energy hungry consumer electronics.
I do think the government could do a lot of things. Like remove the GST on compact fluros, insulation, and other things that save energy. They could do that next week.
[Finally how long will it take before a nuclear plant is built, and who will pay for it?]
Half a dozen years if they hurry. Climate change is a pressing issue, we need to act fast. Who would pay for it? The same people that pay for the construction of coal fired power stations banks.
[Say there is 100J of electrical energy. It drives a pump which sends 90L of water up a]
You need almost 900J to do this Mass X Height X Gravity. All you are doing is investing energy at one point to get it back – minus inefficiency later. So the entire energy producing system is less efficient whenever you revert to storage.
[Our two big hopes for the world are a breakthrough in a cheap, easy renewable energy resource and a way to store energy to transport it. If we get them, we’ll be OK.]
I think there is one major radical option.
The federal government uses its A credit rating to spend say $10 billion on a solar thermal plant for each state.
But is that likely to happen in the current financial climate?
[I personally voted in favour in 1992, but will vote against this time.]
I voted no in the last two referendums (was only 10 in 75), and I believe that the hootest part of the day is now between 4 til 5pm and it takes ages to cool down. plus it buggers me up physically as I have Spina Bifida and it’s buggering up my body clock big time, as well as the heat causing back and shoulder pain to boot. For those who want daylight savings – get up an hour earlier 🙂
Self, self, self, Frank….
For what it’s worth, I’ll be voting against daylight saving. I’ve experienced a Melbourne summer with it, and it’s nice; Perth summers are too reliably hot, though. We need that trading hours referendum again, instead… currently in summer, we have the very odd sight of most shops closing at 6pm, while the sun sets after 8pm. (Hell, at solstice, even the local IGA closes only half an hour after sunset!) And naturally it’s more unpopular in inland parts of WA, which don’t get a sea breeze and so have hotter evenings.
Brendon Grylls had a bit of an interesting opinion on the ABC news tonight; he reckoned the ‘No’ vote won’t need much of a campaign, because it’s such a sure thing. He’s gonna need to be careful with that – losing by apathy’s not a pleasant thing to do. Meanwhile, Colin Barnett (who apparently likes getting up very early) will be voting against it. Bit different from that guy from Kalgoorlie who got it going in the first place.
OK,purely anecdotal.
My wife’s family, many of whom still live in the Friuli region of north east Italy, have had four incidents of throat and neck cancers since Chernobyl in 1986, all living in that region, which was affected by a fallout cloud from Chernobyl, over a thousand kilometres away.
Instances in the 100 years prior to Chernobyl, by which time over half the family had emmigrated, nil.
It hints at something to me ….
Frank : “I voted no in the last two referendums (was only 10 in 75)”
how’d you get away with that , an X
The two he voted in were 1984 and 1992.
Nuclear energys and ShowsOn & diog
diog , last nite you said you were open to voting Labour Greens or Liberal …sort of independent observr to site , objectiv progressive
but tonite , confessions
Diogenes
Posted Tuesday, January 27, 2009 at 11:29 pm | Permalink
“126 I actually normally vote Green.”
Outing yourself finaly , after a year of making green comments & blaming mrs diog
ShowsOn and nuclear
Whatever a “Nimby is” , I’m not it tonite you hav pushed a pro nuke power case , but not quite fronted up ands said you want nuclea power stations here……….and secondley not mentiond if yu’re hapy with them over your back fense…then you give scant relevanse to Study Lukemia that Gaffhooks says ……then you attack diog on maths & physics which confused him you talking 50% eficiency loss but your last post suggesd a minus nergy net result so gravatational output is net less than enegy to push up hill lets see link on that minus maths…then who shoot oz down as he says waste dumped in sea and you scientificaly prove it does not BUT BUT where th hell does th waste go then as you avoided that part it just doesn’t disappear so if not in oceans its damn stored ‘somewhere’ and thats point ooo,s , years actives you avoid issues…next you dismiss Chernobol cause some guy testd with all safetey switchs turrned and so subject closed , no no irelevants I don’t care how it happend it happened thts point causing output to air by human error……then you talk nuke power as if nothing else can provide base load , well photo cells will without waste and sun always here millions years and uranium will run out …then there’s solar thermol ….there’spre solar heated water to assist coal…then there’s under R & D solar and hydogen with new catylist instrad of platinum ….then as starters is those simple solar panels they exist you can puts up on a roof and they can work ……..then you mention nite problam but don’t mention you can zap exces day enegy & store as compressed air in undergroond caverns trapped during nighttime hours …spo no alternatives think plenty , will and funds may be issue ……then you talk about nukle stations like if govts treat them like an icecream factory for aproval , well Govts look at them as how people will think re safety , unknown stuffs so reel fear about nuclear enegy & about whose suburb its gona go in Well name th surburbs cause I don’t reckon there ar any so no Labo govt wuld do it politcaly ….of course you forgets its Labor idealology principal of no nuke plants anyway so its not going to happen on philosophy ……now i’ve pointed out befoutr 15% of world power is from nuke enegy but problam is ShowsOn is I may not be a ‘Nimby’ whatever but i don’t ned to be as if above isn’t convincing i just don’t like nuke energy because I don’t tink this generation has right to leave 000’s of years waste active to 000’s years of future generatons , numerous options listed above , ands anyway when solar is frees , you dismiss Carbon Capture as theory but pilot plant operational and more planned , fusion is maybe 20 years only per Themonuclear team , and future may hav enegy from space panels picking up sun , and as for your quote “‘This is basic physics” well yes , spoken like a true intelectual …then I’d say my “non nymbist” comments reprsent ‘This is basic comonsense”
There is no conclusive evidence of any increase in Childhood Leukeamia near Nuclear Powers Stations or after Chernobyl.
People like to quote one study into the Krümmel plant in Germany – but its methodology has been questioned and other researchers cannot duplicate their results.
“Studies around UK nuclear installations suggest that it is possible that the incidence of leukaemia in young persons may be increased in the vicinity of such installations. However, the results of these studies are inconsistent and the cause or causes of the apparent increases are unknown; they may be at least in part attributable to chance variations in incidence, to selection factors, or to variations in completeness of recording. ”
Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, UK.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. 🙂
If people want to make a case for increased cancer incidence they should use thyroid cancer. But of course the emotive issue of young bald kids is much more powerful. 🙁
Judith Barnes
This will do me for an alternative.
My car feeding the Grid and getting paid for it!
Vehicle to grid (V2G) power was demonstrated by Google and PG&E during 2007 and is now the subject of experiments by several utilities. A University of Delaware statement estimated that selling power to the grid from future production hybrid electric cars might earn the vehicles’ owner $4,000 each year. This assumes that power will be drawn by utilities from the car’s batteries, by means of a two-way, plug.
In the future, cars powered by new energy conversion systems are expected to earn much more, as these generators are anticipated to replace both batteries and car engines. Therefore, they are expected to produce far greater amounts of electricity. No plug will be required.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Revolutionary-Cost-Compet-by-Mark-Goldes-090124-536.html
Gaff, different things will turn up along the way, each one better than the last, i have a great deal of faith in the human mind, especially as different scientists in different countries will be trying different systems, if we can put a man on the moon and build space stations we can and will do it.
Ron, NIMBY means not in my back yard.
Ronster
1. If we needed nuclear, I’d be happy to have a nuclear power plant in Adelaide near me. Mr Burns could operate it with Homer Simpson as safety officer.
2. The newer reactors leave much lower level waste as the uranium is more depleted.
3. ruawake is better informed than me on this but my understanding is that there is no convincing evidence of any increase in any disease due to proximity to a nuclear power station. One type of thyroid cancer is the most contentious.
4. On the maths,the 70-85% efficiency was still correct but ShowsOn was working out his joules based on gravity of 9.8. My calculations were based on moon gravity of 1 but the principle was the same. 😉
I’m not completely opposed to nuclear. I’d need someone to convince me strongly of the case to oppose it.
Diog,
A mistake you make is a beilef that technology and self appointed moral righteousness triumphs all.
Might I remind you that Cane Toads were a scientific solution to a problem and most economists can predict nine of the last three recessions. Wordy technological savants love to “shows off” their technical expertise (I suppose it keeps them off the street and protects our small furry animals from molestation).
However, nuclear technology is unproven in an Australian environment, is expensive and the benefits are not guaranteed. Furthermore, the safety issues surrounding waste and weapons proliferation are not resolved. Finally, the introduction of nuclear power is unlikely to be achieved on just the say so of a few zealots. It will require the mass support of the general population (which is unlikely).
In short, protagonists have yet to provide a convincing case. It would be moronic to think otherwise.
Here’s an example of whizz bang technology not delivering.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iL-5qI1IqMzmWJyE8DREG3fK_iMAD95U85900
this puts paid to Christian Kerr’s attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, unless of course Mr Kerr would like to boast that Obama reads his scribblings inbetween meetings with whitehouse chiefs.
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/obama-rings-rudd-for-first-time-as-chief-20090128-7r8f.html
[And that brings us to a vexed question. Paul Keating used to be always urging us to save, save, save, but now Kevin Rudd is pressing us to spend, spend, spend. So, which is right? The conflict is easily resolved — it’s a matter of time perspective. Over the longer term, saving more than we do at present will leave us better off, particularly in retirement. But spending preserves or creates jobs, so in the short term, at this point in the business cycle, it’s better for the economy if we spend. I’m reluctant, however, to cast this as a moral issue. In tough times people are motivated primarily by self-preservation and all their instincts tell them to pull in their belts and save, which for many people means paying down their debts — by itself, no bad thing.
This may not be ideal, but there’s not a lot we can do about it. And remember, the more people save and get on top of their debts, the sooner they’ll reach a point where they’re ready to start spending again. No matter how bad this recession proves to be, we’re not out for the count.]
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/recessions-dont-have-to-be-feared-20090127-7qwu.html?page=-1
Ross Gittins has to be the most sane and logical economist around the trap at the moment. No matter how bad it will get here, Australia will never suffer the hardships other countries have gone and are going through.
Hardships iin every sense – socially, economically, financially, environmentally and naturally. We are still in paradise. So stop whinging.
Another thing is that human beings also do the opposite to what is good for them.
Diogenes went:
[Possum should be doing this, not me]
Dio, just for you 😀
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/01/28/is-opinion-on-nuclear-power-changing/