Party leadership developments:
• Barnaby Joyce has announced he will contest the Nationals leadership when the party room holds its first meeting on the resumption of parliament this morning, with a view to deposing Michael McCormack, who replaced Joyce him after his resignation in February 2018. This follows the opening of the deputy leadership position after Bridget McKenzie resigned from cabinet on Sunday over her handling of grants to sports clubs while serving as Sports Minister before the election. Joyce has two confirmed supporters out of a party room of 21, most notably Matt Canavan, who also quit cabinet yesterday (while also taking the opportunity to concede a loan under the North Australia Infrastructure Facility Act, over which he has ministerial oversight, had been given to an NRL club of which he was a registered supporter). The other is Wide Bay MP Llew O’Brien, who will move the spill motion that will vacate the leadership position if it gets the required 11 votes. Sharri Markson of News Corp reports claims Joyce has precisely that many votes, but this does not seem to be the majority view: a Seven News reporter related a view that Joyce had about seven, while an unnamed Liberal MP told The Australian ($) Joyce would not get “anywhere near” winning. David Littleproud, Keith Pitt and David Gillespie will all nominate for the deputy position, with Littleproud rated the favourite.
• Richard Di Natale announced yesterday that he was quitting both the Greens leadership and would shortly leave the Senate, saying he wished to spend more time with his family. Every indication is that he will be succeeded this morning by the party’s sole member of the House of Representatives, Melbourne MP Adam Bandt. The Australian ($) reports there are “discussions under way” for Queensland Senator Larissa Waters to take on a new role as party leader in the Senate”. Di Natale will remain in parliament pending the party’s process for choosing his replacement, which is likely to take several months. There is only the vaguest of speculation at this point as to who the successor might be.
By-election news:
• It has been confirmed the Queensland state by-election for the Gold Coast state seat of Currumbin, to be vacated with the resignation of Liberal National Party member Jann Stuckey, will be held on March 28, the same day as the state’s council elections. The selection of lawyer Laura Gerber as LNP candidate has fuelled Stuckey’s attacks on the party, on the basis that she was chosen by the party’s state executive rather than a vote of local members, and that this reflected a determination for the seat to be contested by “a skirt”. Among the reasons for Stuckey’s alienation from the party is that her own favoured successor, Chris Crawford, was blocked by the party’s vetting committee last year. The LNP has held the seat since 2004, currently on a margin of 3.3%.
• The date for the Northern Territory by-election in the Darwin seat of Johnston has been set for February 29. The seat is being vacated with the retirement of Labor member Ken Vowles after a period of estrangement from the party and its leader, Chief Minister Michael Gunner. The seat will be contested by Joel Bowden for Labor; Josh Thomas for the Country Liberals; Steven Klose for the Territory Alliance, the new party associated with former CLP Chief Minister Terry Mills; and Aiya Goodrich Carttling for the Greens. Labor has held the seat since its creation in 2001, currently on a margin of 14.7%.
Preselection news:
• South Australia’s Liberals have chosen a factional moderate, Andrew McLachlan, to fill the Senate vacancy created by the retirement of Cory Bernardi. McLachlan has served in the state’s Legislative Council since 2014, and been the chamber’s President since the 2018 election. Tom Richardson of InDaily reports McLachlan won 131 out of 206 votes in the ballot of state council members to 51 for former Law Council of Australia president Morry Bailes and 24 for former state party treasurer Michael Van Dissel, both of whom are associated with the Right. Bailes’ weak showing in particular amounted to an “epic defeat” for hard right forces including Boothby MP Nicolle Flint and Barker MP Tony Pasin.
• Another looming federal redistribution in Victoria, whose population boom will again entitle it to an extra seat, has set off a round of turf wars within the ALP, highlighted by a scuffle that broke out at a branch meeting last week. This reportedly followed the arrival of 100 supporters of Labor Right powerbroker Adem Somyurek at a branch meeting held at the Hoppers Crossing home of Jasvinder Sidhu, a Socialist Left preselection aspirant, who was allegedly assaulted after telling the group to leave. Somyurek is said have designs for his faction on the seat of Lalor, held formerly by Julia Gillard and currently by Joanne Ryan, which the party’s once stable factional arrangements reserved for the Left. According to a Labor source quoted in The Age, the Right has secured control of branches in the Calwell electorate and is likely to take the seat when the Left-aligned Maria Vamvakinou retires, while the Left is seeking to gain leverage by putting pressure on Right-aligned Tim Watts in Gellibrand.
Also, the Nine/Fairfax papers are reporting on an Ipsos poll of 1014 respondents concerning climate change, which is apparently part of an annual series conducted by the pollster, with no information provided as to who if anyone might commission it. While the poll records a high pitch of concern about climate change, it does not find this to be at a greater height than last year (somewhat at odds with the recent finding of Ipsos’s Issue Monitor series, which recorded a post-bushfire surge in concern about the environment), and actually records an increase in the number of respondents who had “serious doubts about whether climate change is occurring”: from 19% two years ago to 22% last year to 24% this year.
Incomparable:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pN3NdAkZSM
C@t
My post there was simply to point out that Thorium per-se does not address the primary problem with nuclear reactors – ie cost.
imacca
Teh ‘Chermans’ ,as CTar1 called them ,are getting very very good at their U-boat’s hydrogen fuel cell tech. Batteries may not need to be included eventually.
C@tmomma @ #2597 Saturday, February 8th, 2020 – 6:33 pm
Ah, that brings back memories. Good to see they’re still going.
(PS Don’t tell poroti but FTPieces is a much better song than Epic. Ssshhh)
Cud Chewer @ #2598 Saturday, February 8th, 2020 – 9:36 pm
Yes, and I still think you’re barking up the wrong tree. Molten Salt Reactors are safe-ish but they are still in need of expensive redundancies. What happens to the Molten Salt if it goes hypercritical?
With a Pebble Bed Reactor, the answer is nothing. They don’t even need water to cool them.
They can also be quite small, in comparison to other types of Nuclear Reactors that is.
However, as my original post was trying to point out, I was merely aiming for Labor to have a policy which, as Katie Allan posited, could be brought online if demand for Energy massively increases in Australia, as she seems to think it will, to the extent that what we put in place via Renewables, Wind and Solar plus Big Battery storage and backup and Pumped and ordinary Hydro, are not producing enough energy to cope with demand.
I find it interesting that you mention Molten Salt can synchronise well with Renewables, I’ll investigate that more.
And I disagree that ‘Thorium is just another fuel source’. I don’t think it is for the reasons of its Half Life, and hence innate safety cf other Nuclear fuels, and the way it can be used in these Pebble Bed Reactors.
Also, I think Labor needs to have an alternative policy for a safer nuclear reactor to counter the push from the Coalition for a less safe, dirtier alternative, which is all their tiny minds seem to be able to come up with. 🙂
C@t
Pebble bed reactors have been around at least in concept for several decades. Even I was enthusiastic about them at one point. However they don’t address the prime problem with nuclear – cost. And they are far from being “off the shelf”. Again, if you look into the 2030s what you find is that renewables with storage which are already competitive with coal, will be even cheaper. That’s a moving target that nuclear probably won’t be able to chase.
Renewable energy with storage is already available. There’s no real engineering risk. We just need to build. I also posted an article earlier pointing out the work by AEMO and CSIRO who also share my opinion that these technologies are ready right here, right now.
Now, why are pebble bed reactors not such a great idea economically? Primarily because they are relatively low power density. Yes, that’s a great thing in terms of safety. But it means you have to spend a lot more money scaling all your plant and equipment. That hurts.
As for the safety of pebble bed reactors. Well, there’s a lot of doubt about that. See..
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/nuclear-safety-pebble-bed-reactors/
All of which pushes up the cost.
nath
Bestest ever concert was this. Being a bit depressive at the time I heard loud and clear Kurt’s comments to the media beforehand that he was set on topping himself. It was all I heard listening to this performance. Vote 1 Nirvana MTV Unplugged. A song from it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fregObNcHC8&list=PLBMP3f9W5bGupeoFZNAePskPJ9TsQPBgL&index=3
DP,
FNM have lots of good songs. 🙂
‘Easy’. Best version ever!
FNM have also said that they are going to donate $1 from every ticket sold to Bushfire Relief Charities.
Danama Papers
says:
Ah, that brings back memories. Good to see they’re still going.
(PS Don’t tell poroti but FTPieces is a much better song than Epic. Ssshhh)
____________________
Epic is well…..epic. But I always loved Evidence too. Very chill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lvMNLhJrb0
C@t
Molten salt, at least not in those two designs I showed you, cannot go prompt-critical. In fact these designs (like any good modern design) feature a negative coefficient of reactivity with temperature. In fact the MCSFR features a reactor that is just a big dumb tank. No control rods, no moderator. Its self regulating. That allows them to regulate the power level purely by controlling the amount of heat extracted.
Pebble beds also have the same feature. But they require a lot more complicated structure to get them to go critical and actually work, hence all the graphite hanging around.
Only the Moltex concept has the feature of thermal energy storage. But I urge you to consider the following. None of these concepts, however good, are going to match renewables with storage dollar for dollar. They simply involve too much sophisticated engineering. There’s a reason why sending people into space is expensive. Its all the quality assurance and the fancy materials. Nuclear is exactly like this. Seems simple until you actually start doing the engineering.
poroti
says:
Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 9:52 pm
nath
Bestest ever concert was this.
_________________
The version of ‘About a girl’ is a masterpiece, many of them are tbh. Imagine being there.
1934pc @ #2310 Saturday, February 8th, 2020 – 8:41 am
Yep, others and myself have made this comment before.
I’m not sure it’s the only policy they need, but certainly would make a nice main platform.
Cud,
I know about the problem with the dust, and afaik, that problem can be solved by diligent cleaning methods. Something which wasn’t done previously…mainly because they didn’t know it was a problem with the reactors! That’s the function of Test Reactors, to iron out the problems they identify.
And, yes, in strict $$ terms, they are more costly than Renewable solutions. However, my aim is simply to enable Labor to have a policy to counter the push from the Coalition which is better than theirs, IF the public are conned into/convinced that we need to go Nuclear as part of our Zero Emissions suite of responses.
C@t
I’ll repeat. Thorium really is just another fuel. In fact Thorium itself is not fissile. It will not split up and release energy if hit with a neutron. Thorium is actually fertile. It will accept a neutron and then transmute via several steps to U233, which is fissile. You also need a fissile material such as U235 to start a Thorium reactor. (You can use Plutonium but its not cheap).
There are no real advantages with Thorium over plain old Uranium as a fuel. Its just more complex to work with and requires online chemical processing. Its certainly not something that will solve nuclear’s fundamental problem and that’s cost.
Cud,
I’ll do more research and maybe include Molten Salt as well in my proposal. 🙂
The DFES spokesman for Cyclone Damien is what Jim Chalmers could look like in about 10 years time. 🙂
Let the Liberals make this mistake. What Labor should be doing is emphasising that the problem of 24/7 power has already been solved and that what we need is a government that will encourage more investment into batteries and pumped hydro. Talking about nuclear is just going to muddy the waters and make it harder for Labor to sell a sensible policy.
Btw I actually agree that nuclear can be safe. But the public isn’t going to change its view on this for quite some time. The Liberals know its a hot topic. Labor (sensibly) does too.
nath @ #2563 Saturday, February 8th, 2020 – 7:42 pm
he went to Geelong because his father was the headmaster.
Cud,
I know Th needs a push from U235 to start the process, but that is completely different from the whole box and dice that a Uranium or Plutonium Reactor requires.
However, we are in the lucky position in NSW, as well as other states of having abundant supplies of Thorium we could use (and we could figure out the Chemical Engineering).
However, I will repeat again, my proposal is to give Labor a better alternative policy to the Coalition IF the Coalition convince the nation they want to go Nuclear. Nothing more, as, of course, Renewables are cheaper and safer.
I went to some fucking awful schools because my parents were teachers and the Education Department hated married couples as teachers.
I went to some fucking awful schools because my parents were teachers and the Education Department hated married couples as teachers.
poroti @ #2607 Saturday, February 8th, 2020 – 6:52 pm
Could’ve seen Nirvana when they played in Sydney. At the time I thought, nah, they’ll be back another day ….. 🙁
Cud,
Selling sensible policies, when the Coalition can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on ads convincing the public of not-so-sensible policies which benefit their benefactors, is the reason why Labor needs to be part of the conversation with their own policy which is superior.
C@t there’s shitloads of Thorium out there. There’s also shitloads of Uranium out there, especially in Australia. Besides most advanced reactors are far more efficient so fuel availability/cost is irrelevant.
In very simple terms its the size of the reactor. This is why Pebble beds will never pass muster. The Moltex concept is a high power density system that has a tiny footprint. And even then by the time its ready, its just not going to compete with the then state of the art in batteries.
Nuclear has a future in remote locations and in space.
Labor needs credible policy. It also needs to (in marketing terms) differentiate itself. If the Liberals make the mistake of going gung-ho on nuclear they are going to be attacked from all sides, including on the issue of cost. I hope they do.
Cud Chewer @ #2618 Saturday, February 8th, 2020 – 7:03 pm
Which will be when the entire case for nuclear is irrelevant due to renewables providing all the necessary electrical power.
C@t
Hundreds of millions of ads only works when its reflecting/amplifying pre-existing beliefs. Its not going to change the general perception that nuclear is unsafe. Again, let the Liberals make that mistake.
Cud,
Labor need to make the right noises if the conversation is to be had. They can’t just vacate the field. The electorate might then decide to place their trust in the Coalition, as a result of no alternative plan and a good snow job from the Coalition, which you have to admit the Coalition are experts at.
Anyhoo, I’m off to bed. See ya!
C@tmomma @ #2988 Saturday, February 8th, 2020 – 6:04 pm
Yes. 25. No deaths yet. The Thais are quite good at containment, but will probably go epidemic within a couple of months.
Danama
One simple fact. We need to build energy storage and we need to start building it now. Even given the neanderthals in the Federal government, we’re likely to start seeing more sensible governments (like in NSW) start doing something on this front. Once it becomes clear to the public that this is the future, it will be all over red rover for nuclear.
Cud Chewer @ #2627 Saturday, February 8th, 2020 – 10:15 pm
Sorry, last post. The electorate, as last election showed, are susceptible to expert marketing. The Coalition will not give up. Labor need to be in the game. If only to string the conversation along by providing a counter to the Coalition’s pitch.
C@t
Making the right noises does sometimes listening to experts and simply stating the fact. Nuclear is and will be too expensive. We can get 24/7 power if we start investing now in grid scale storage. Believe it or not there are some people who will vote for a Party that says sensible things like that.
Thanks again, rhw. 🙂
poroti::
In the early ’80s fashion was as bad as ABBA’s. That said, Te Kanawa could not match Sutherland’s vocals – listen, if you will, to her final note hereinbefore posted, a further example of which is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY0ME9ZF8_A
“Teh ‘Chermans’ ,as CTar1 called them ,are getting very very good at their U-boat’s hydrogen fuel cell tech. Batteries may not need to be included eventually.”
Yup, but high density, fast charge / discharge battery tech will always have a place in sub design, and big spinoff value into the domestic economy. 🙂
Cud Chewer @ #2632 Saturday, February 8th, 2020 – 10:21 pm
Yeah, and so far they have been in the minority. 🙁
C@t
Expert marketing simply preys on pre-established ideas, beliefs, fears. Reminds me of those Gruen ads trying to sell the unsellable. Good fun, but in the real world, they won’t work.
C@t every minority counts if you want votes.
Sweet dreams.
Gimme gimme gimme a man after midnight…
“Renewable energy with storage is already available. There’s no real engineering risk. We just need to build. ”
Well agree with that and think its probably the clincher argument for determining near term direction of research and development.
imacca its already where the experts and where the state governments are heading.
Wow just how polarised in US politics atm? Jeff Sessions is running for the Alabama Senate, and apparently Republican voters there are very dissatisfied with him even turned right off him. You’d think it was because of those compelling accusations of child abuse, but no. It’s because he didn’t show appropriate fealty to Trump!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/08/us/politics/jeff-sessions-senate-alabama.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Cud Chewer:
[‘Gimme gimme gimme a man after midnight…’]
Why after midnight?
Good question.. but it has to be answered in Swedish.
c@t your motion suggest that renewables cannot produce a solution, they can. Nuclear is something to delay nothing more.
If I was in your branch I would oppose it with vigor.
Cud Chewer:
[‘Good question.. but it has to be answered in Swedish.’]
Fair enough. I won’t cavil with you about that. Anyway, I’m off too.
Chewer:
That’s mostly it – renewables will be 90% plus (of power and heat) due to cost.
In addition to remote locations (inc undersea) there are terrestrial needs for:
– things like aircraft carriers (consider them mobile cities?) where it’s just really really convenient to have nuclear (they might up the power by quite a bit over the next few decades, since it’s proven rather convenient to have a mobile power station, and there are some weapons that require very large amounts of electrical power)
– acheiving a very high level of dependability requires multiple modes (so called “design diversity”), ideally at least three, and a mix of renewables may not be diverse enough. So maybe leave some gas lines in place (to be used only in failover) or some kind of nuclear (or both)
As for space, solar sails all the way (to the nearest star, though not with people). More seriously mining the asteroid belt might be viable sooner than one might think, and perhaps nuclear has a role there.
EGT
This is NASA’s current baby..
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/kilopower
Cud Chewer @ #2632 Saturday, February 8th, 2020 – 9:21 pm
Hello. 🙂
Nuclear is really good, where you need a single big power source.
But like coal and other big power stations they are vulnerable.
Lots of smaller power stations, interconnected, gives us a power grid less affected by local weather, technical failures or attacks.
Currently a couple of submarines could take out enough of our power stations to destroy our national energy capacity. Perhaps with enough missiles left to for our oil refineries and fuel ports