congratulations!

Christine - I heard you on radio national this morning and you were great. A very positive wake up call!

what is the likelihood of

what is the likelihood of the gov actually adopting this bill?

the train system you talked

the train system you talked about - do you envisage a fast track network like europe or an extension of our existing network?

at least the Greens are serious about this

Good on the Greens for thinking past the present idiocy of the LibLab Party.

Safe Climate

I heard Christine on Radio National today and this sounds like it will be a great thing to try and introduce. I think It wont pass the senate though the major parties will combine to kill it off so i don't see much point in it ?

Political Dynamic

Hi Folks,
Thanks for your efforts.
I don’t have any pro­fes­sional or polit­i­cal agenda. I’m not a scientist…I’m just ‘Joe Citizen’….but I have chil­dren, as do most of the peo­ple I care about (i.e. EVERYONE).
I have lis­tened to Christine’s audio brief, but I have not read the entire bill…yet.
I want to make a com­ment on the one thing that has repeat­edly attempted to take my atten­tion away from the issue at hand (if I can see it, it’s a pretty fair bet that it is also affect­ing oth­ers). For want of a bet­ter term I’ll call it ‘Polit­i­cal Dynamic’.
The premise for my com­ment is pretty basic — How can we pos­si­bly hope to cre­ate a sus­tain­able any­thing in an unsus­tain­able context?
What is that con­text? HOW we do busi­ness (and this is largely under­pinned by our Polit­i­cal Dynamic). In other words — It’s not what busi­ness we do, it is HOW we are doing it that needs to be addressed.
There is so much talk about chang­ing infra­struc­ture & leg­is­la­tion, & smart/​intelligent net­works etc, etc, etc. But how is any of that going to stick if we con­tinue with our now painfully bor­ing and insult­ing antag­o­nis­tic short-​term focused polit­i­cal systems/​practices/​attitudes?
We can talk about long-​term focused poli­cies, strate­gies and leg­is­la­tion until we’re all bluer in the face than we already are…but even a pre-​school level explo­ration of his­tory will con­firm that there truly is “noth­ing new under the sun”…that in ‘real­ity’ the atten­tion spans of polit­i­cal enti­ties and the results of their actions (usu­ally amount­ing to label chang­ing at our expense), are nearly as short as that of the media and con­se­quently, the public.
So, what repeat­edly attempts to take my atten­tion away from the issue at hand?
POL­I­TICS of course…
Christine’s audio brief BEGINS, not ends, BEGINS with the following:
“When Kevin Rudd’s Gov­ern­ment was elected, Kevin Rudd promised to be a leader on Cli­mate Change.…however the Labour Party has been a com­plete fail­ure in address­ing Cli­mate Change in the way that the sci­ence demands…”
Clearly, this is a spu­ri­ous argu­ment and only serves to under­mine your own posi­tion. He promised to be a LEADER ON CLI­MATE CHANGE! He didn’t promise to “address Cli­mate Change in the way that sci­ence demands”. There is a difference…a fairly bluddy BIG difference!…especially at the level of National Leadership…you of all peo­ple should know that? Had he not done what he ‘ACTU­ALLY PROMISED’, would we be hav­ing this con­ver­sa­tion? I think not! At the very least he cre­ated a start­ing point. He placed address­ing Cli­mate Change smack-​bang at the top of our country’s To-​Do list. He has also done more than any other leader I know of, to place Aus­tralia in a pos­i­tive lead­er­ship posi­tion on the Inter­na­tional Stage…the Lib­er­als et al have done all they can to sab­o­tage this pos­i­tive ‘Lead­er­ship’ activity…and for what? Address­ing Cli­mate Change?…Yeh right!
I can under­stand that it may seem that I’m defend­ing Mr Rudd, and that there­fore I do in fact have a polit­i­cal agenda…but if you are think­ing that, then it only rein­forces my argu­ment and the need for YOU also, to change your atti­tude. I don’t care who fixes the problem…I JUST WANT IT FIXED! And I’m sick to death of pay­ing taxes to fuel child­ish finger-​pointing and non-​constructive behav­iour in the high­est offices of our land.
So please, please, please, don’t con­tinue behav­ing like the pathetic and embar­rass­ing Lib­eral party, by inap­pro­pri­ately attack­ing oth­ers because you don’t know what else to do…or for any other reason…like get­ting elected…try hav­ing an elec­tion WITH­OUT A PLANET!…WITHOUT A POPULATION…WITHOUT A CONSTITUENCY!!!
Antag­o­nis­tic Pol­i­tics is far more dam­ag­ing and costly than an army of Coal Fired Power Stations.
There has to be a shift in our polit­i­cal dynamic such that our time, money, con­sid­er­a­tions and efforts com­ple­ment, rather than under­mine our coun­try and it’s objectives.
If this cli­mate change stuff is teach­ing us any­thing, it has to be that all things in our world are ‘Inter­con­nected’; that every­thing affects every­thing else and we all endure the con­se­quences of our actions or in-​actions. Where and when should (MUST), we start apply­ing what we are learn­ing? NOW! In the foun­da­tions of our civilization…otherwise we’re just build­ing yet more facades.
Even allo­pathic med­i­cine is real­is­ing that alter­na­tive med­i­cine wasn’t all mung-​beans and fairy dust; that only treat­ing symp­toms and deflect­ing respon­si­bil­ity is NOT con­ducive to healing!
Again, I haven’t analysed your new bill/​s, but your heart seems to be in the right place. If you have come up with a work­able and suit­able solu­tion (or even a start­ing point as the Labour Party HAS in fact done), don’t shoot your­selves and us in the foot by falling vic­tim to ‘tra­di­tions’ (e.g. Tra­di­tional Polit­i­cal Dynam­ics). It’s those ‘tra­di­tions’ (polit­i­cal, indus­trial, com­mer­cial etc), that got us into this mess isn’t it? And even I wasn’t around when all of that Monop­o­list and ‘Franken­stein­ian’ ground­work was laid. I, like you, have inher­ited it.
If we really are going to ensure the future of our chil­dren, then we should be set­ting an achiev­able, viable and respectable exam­ple shouldn’t we?…not behav­ing how we always have (i.e. like children!).
We should be demon­strat­ing that it is both pos­si­ble and enjoy­able to change; that liv­ing sus­tain­ably doesn’t have to be less fun than ‘nor­mal’ life…that it doesn’t have to mean moan­ing about what’s wrong, rid­ing a push-​bike and going with­out air conditioning…
So lets stop point­ing fin­gers (Con­flict Res­o­lu­tion Train­ing is read­ily avail­able), and try­ing to win brownie-​points through antag­o­nis­tic behav­iour. Let’s get focused on the under­ly­ing CAUSES and STAY FOCUSED ON SOLUTIONS…In the mean­time, indus­try and com­merce (even in it’s cur­rent form), can get on with buy­ing us some of the time we need by doing things like this:
http://www.ted.com/talks/bjarke_ingels_3_warp_speed_architecture_tales.html
This is ACTU­ALLY HAP­PEN­ING NOW!
Cheers
Stephen Glanville

Green Product dishonesty

Apart from the fact that "AGW, 350ppm, and the terrible terrible things that will happen" is the biggest scientific fraud in recorded history, if you really wanted to get rid of CO2, then you would be lobbying the government to adopt nuclear power as the largest contributer to Australia's energy mix. To do otherwise is the sheerest hypocrisy. In the Green 'brand' product, why do you continually lie about the current state of nuclear power? 3+GEN LWRs are safe and clean. EVERY country apart from Australia is considering nuclear power as part of the energy mix to reduce GHGs. And I know the Greens have been told about 4GEN nuclear power such as the IFR and LFTRs. They have the ability to RID the world of long term nuclear waste. If fast reactors and a Thorium fuel cycle are adopted, we have a clean and safe energy source for the next 100,000 years at least. Not the scant 50 years you lot keep lying about.

"Professor Barry Brook holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide.

He has published two books and over 150 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and regularly writes opinion pieces and popular articles for the media. He has received a number of distinguished awards in recognition of his research excellence, which addresses the topics of climate change, computational and statistical modelling and the synergies between human impacts on Earth systems."

http://bravenewclimate.com/about/

Professor Brook says:
"Steve Kirsch, after discussions with a large number of the principal researchers on Argonne National Laboratory’s IFR project, has prepared his ‘one stop shop’ summary of the Integral Fast Reactor technology (sometimes referred to as the ‘Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor’ [LMFBR] or the ‘Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor’ [ALMR], although in reality, the IFR is the systems design that includes an ALMR and on-site pyroprocessing) and the urgent need for deployment.

I should note that Steve’s piece is not written for a science, technology and engineering audience. The aim is to alert policy makers, politicians, and everyday folk with a concern for cleaning up our energy supply, to the great potential of the IFR as a major alternative route to slashing carbon emissions.

You can get the Word version of this ’summary for policy makers’ here. Print this, read it. Send the link to others who you think are currently ignorant of this prospect (either through not appreciating what Gen IV nuclear means, or because they’ve never heard of it!). Print out copies and hand it to them. This sort of information must be more widely known, appreciated, discussed and debated. It’s critical, and we’re all running out of time. The public dialogue on this matter must begin in earnest"

Steve Kirsch:
"Executive summary
Congress should add a provision to the climate bills to authorize $3B to have DOE work with industry to build a demonstration Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) plant in order to jump-start this critical clean energy technology.

A successful IFR demonstration can lead to the following important benefits:

1.The only technology we have with a realistic potential to save the planet. The IFR is the first viable solution to how to eliminate CO2 emissions from coal plants because it can do that without increasing costs. Eliminating emissions from coal plants is required to prevent a climate catastrophe. But using carbon capture adds cost and may not be practical or viable. The IFR, on the other hand, can replace the burner in an existing coal plant while reducing operating costs. This is why the IFR is one of Jim Hansen’s top five priorities for saving the planet.

2.Solves the nuclear waste problem and opens the door for the expansion of nuclear power in the US. The IFR uses today’s nuclear waste as fuel. The waste product from the IFR is minimal and short-lived. Solving the waste problem is required if we are to expand nuclear power in the US. The IFR does this.

3.Opportunity to become the world leader in clean energy. The IFR is the state-of-the-art nuclear technology that everyone wants. It is better in every dimension than any of today’s nuclear reactors. If we make a strategic bet on this technology and heavily invest in it, the US has the opportunity to become the undisputed world leader in clean electric power generation. Nuclear is the elephant of clean power technologies and the IFR was determined to be the best nuclear power technology by an extensive comparative study DOE. It is arguably the most powerful clean power technology on the planet.

4.Creates enormous economic value. It turns our existing nuclear waste into an asset worth over $30 trillion dollars. That is a fantastic return on investment for a one-time $3B investment to jump-start the technology. Nothing else comes close.

5.Unlimited clean power. The IFR allows us to power the entire US electricity needs for the next 1,500 years without doing any additional mining of uranium; just using the “waste” we have on-hand that nobody wants. The power is carbon free. If we mine, we can power the power needs of the entire planet forever.

[...]

IFRs are better than conventional nuclear in every dimension. Here are a few:

1.Efficiency: IFRs are over 100 times more efficient than conventional nuclear. It extracts nearly 100% of the energy from nuclear material. Today’s nuclear reactors extract less than 1%. So you need only 1 ton of actinides each year to feed an IFR (we can use existing nuclear waste for this), whereas you need 100 tons of freshly mined uranium each year to extract enough material to feed a conventional nuclear plant.

2.Unlimited power forever: IFRs can use virtually any actinide for fuel. Fast reactors with reprocessing are so efficient that even if we restrict ourselves to just our existing uranium resources, we can power the entire planet forever (the Sun will consume the Earth before we run out of material to fuel fast reactors). If we limited ourselves to using just our DU “waste” currently in storage, then using the IFR we can power the US for over 1,500 years without doing any new mining of uranium.[3]

3.Exploits our largest energy resource: In the US, there is 10 times as much energy in the depleted uranium (DU) that is just sitting there as there is coal in the ground. This DU waste is our largest natural energy resource…but only if we have fast reactors. Otherwise, it is just waste. With fast reactors, virtually all our nuclear waste (from nuclear power plants, leftover from enrichment, and from decommissioned nuclear weapons)[4] becomes an energy asset worth about $30 trillion dollars…that’s not a typo…$30 trillion, not billion.[5] An 11 year old child was able to determine this from publicly available information in 2004.

4.Safety: The IFR is safer than conventional nuclear because the reactors safely shut down based on the laws of physics if something goes wrong. Today’s third generation nuclear designs are very safe: 1 accident predicted every 29 million reactor years. The IFR should be even safer due to the passive safety inherent in the design. Also, IFRs are much safer than the coal plants they replace. Coal power plants are estimated to kill 24,000 Americans per year, due to lung disease as well as causing 40,000 heart attacks per year. Outside of the Soviet Union,[6] commercial nuclear has never killed even a single member of the public in its entire 50 year operating history.

5.Proliferation resistant: The IFR is proliferation resistant on two counts. First, the pyroprocess used to recycle the fuel does not and cannot produce plutonium with the chemical purity needed for nuclear weapon. One of the world’s top nuclear proliferation experts is strongly in favor of the IFR for this reason. Second, if all reactors were IFRs, there would never again be need for enriched uranium. Because possession of a pyroprocessing facility could give a nation a leg up in a quest for a nuclear weapons capability, facilities for both reprocessing and uranium enrichment should be operated under strict international supervision. The need for international control is arguably the most compelling reason for the U.S. to proceed rapidly with the IFR.

6.Consumes existing nuclear waste from nuclear reactors and weapons: Fast reactors consume our existing nuclear waste (from reactors and decommissioned weapons) and transforms it into elements that are safe after 300 years.

7.Minimal waste: A 1 GWe IFR plant generates 1 ton of fission products each year that needs to be sequestered for 300 years until it is safe. A conventional nuclear plant of the same capacity creates about 100 tons of “waste” each year, containing isotopes that need to be sequestered for 1 million years according to the current US depository requirements. If you powered your entire life from IFRs, the amount of waste you’d generate would be smaller than 1 soda can and it would need to be stored for only 300 years.

8.Nuclear material security: The nuclear material in the reactor or reprocessing facility would be too hot for a terrorist to handle. The nuclear material that leaves the site are the fission products which are completely useless for making a nuclear bomb.

9.The IFR creates a huge economic opportunity for the US to be the leading clean energy supplier to the world. Nuclear is the lowest cost scalable energy technology we have and the IFR is our best nuclear technology. If we focus on the IFR and invest in ramping up the volumes and reducing the cost, the IFR will be cheapest power source that every country will want everywhere instead of coal. Our economy will benefit and our planet will too."

Brooks, Hansen, all pretty Green, all pushing for nuclear power. Why aren't you? Could it be you don't really care and just want your five minutes on the telly?

"Dr James E. Hansen

Implications. All of the slack in the schedule for averting climate disasters has been used up. The time has past for ‘goals’, half-measures, greenwashing, and compromises with special interests. We have already overshot the safe level of greenhouse gases. Things are just beginning to crumble – Arctic ice is melting, methane is bubbling from permafrost, mountain glaciers are disappearing. We must move onto a different course within the next year or two to avoid committing the planet to accelerating climate changes out of our control. Geophysical boundary constraints are crystal clear: coal emissions must be phased out and emissions from unconventional fossil fuels (tar shale, tar sands, e.g.) must be prohibited.

Priorities for solving the climate and energy problems, while stimulating the economy are steps to: (1) improve energy efficiency, (2) develop and deploy renewable energies, (3) modernize and expand a ‘smart’ electric grid, (4) develop 4th generation nuclear power, (5) develop carbon capture and sequestration capability.

Prompt development of safe 4th generation nuclear power is needed to allow energy options for countries such as China and India, and for countries in the West in the likely event that energy efficiency and renewable energies cannot satisfy all energy requirements.

Deployment of 4th generation nuclear power can be hastened via cooperation with China, India and other countries. It is essential that hardened ‘environmentalists’ not be allowed to delay the R&D on 4th generation nuclear power. Thus it is desirable to avoid appointing to key energy positions persons with a history of opposition to nuclear power development. Of course, deployment of nuclear power is a local option, and some countries or regions may prefer to rely entirely on other energy sources, but opponents of nuclear power should not be allowed to deny that option to everyone.

Coal is the dirtiest fuel. Coal burning has released and spread around the world more than 100 times more radioactive material than all the nuclear power plants in the world. Mercury released in coal burning contaminates the world ocean as well as our rivers, lakes and soil. Air pollution from coal burning kills more than 100,000 people per year. If such consequences were occurring from nuclear power, nuclear plants would all be closed. Mining of coal, especially mountaintop removal, causes additional environmental damage and human suffering. It is time for all the coal plants to be closed, indeed, averting climate disasters demands that all coal plants be phased out. Coal is best left in the ground.

Nevertheless, R&D for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) deserves strong support. It is needed to provide the full range of options in energy choices, for countries that insist on exploiting their coal resources. Moreover, CCS has another potentially more important role to play: it could be used at power plants that burn biofuels, such as agricultural wastes. This sort of ‘geoengineering’, which draws excess CO2 out of the air and puts it back in the ground where it came from, may be needed to get atmospheric CO2 back to a safe level.

Transition to the post-fossil-fuel era with clean atmosphere and ocean, requires a carbon tax. That tax will cause unconventional fossil fuels to be left in the ground, as well as much coal and some oil and gas that resides in remote regions. The public will accept such a tax if the funds are returned entirely to the public, no funds going to Washington and other capitols for politicians and lobbyists to determine its fate. Tax and 100 percent dividend is not sufficient by itself – many other actions are needed – but it is necessary. No time remains for a transition via ineffectual half measures.

Frank communication with the public is essential. At present, all around the world, governments are guilty of greenwash, an implausible approach of goals and half-measures that will barely slow the growth of CO2. The world, not just the United States, needs an open honest discussion of what is needed. It is a tremendous burden to place on the President Elect, who seems to be the only potential candidate. The only chance seems to be if he understands the truth – the whole truth.

Young people realize that they, their children, and the unborn will bear the consequences of our actions or inactions. They do not blame their parents, who legitimately ‘did not know’ what they were starting. Young people have recently worked hard to influence the democratic process. Now they expect the system to take appropriate actions. If that does not happen, surely they will begin to raise their voices louder"

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/12/02/hansen-to-obama-pt-iv-where-to-fro...

Are you going to argue that Hansen isn't really in the 'Green' shadow?

Dr. James Hansen:
"Both IFR and LFTR are 100-300 times more fuel efficient than LWRs. In addition to solving the nuclear waste problem, they can operate for several centuries using only uranium and thorium that has already been mined. Thus they eliminate the criticism that mining for nuclear fuel will use fossil fuels and add to the greenhouse effect.

The Obama campaign, properly in my opinion, opposed the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository. Indeed, there is a far more effective way to use the $25 billion collected from utilities over the past 40 years to deal with waste disposal. This fund should be used to develop fast reactors that eat nuclear waste and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste. By law the federal government must take responsibility for existing spent nuclear fuel, so inaction is not an option. Accelerated development of fast and thorium reactors will allow the US to fulfill its obligations to dispose of the nuclear waste, and open up a source of carbon-free energy that can last centuries, even millennia."

[...]

"Bottom line: I can’t seem to agree fully with either the anti-nukes or Blees. Some of the anti-nukes are friends, concerned about climate change, and clearly good people. Yet I suspect that their ‘success’ (in blocking nuclear R&D) is actually making things more dangerous for all of us and for the planet. It seems that, instead of knee-jerk reaction against anything nuclear, we need hard-headed evaluation of how to get rid of long-lived nuclear waste and minimize dangers of proliferation and nuclear accidents. Fourth generation nuclear power seems to have the potential to solve the waste problem and minimize the others. In any case, we should not have bailed out of research on fast reactors."

i agree. There are plenty of better uses for oil and coal other than boiling water. So on that note, I will not be sad to see the end of that use. However, we are going to require baseload power. The only option is nuclear. Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal...All just feel good dreaming. Expensive failures, and habitat destructive. Not to mention HUGE CO2 footprints. So, the Greens had better catch up with the new Green science, or just be classified as irrellevant Watermelons.

significant work

Greens had done a significant amount of work and the Government would be prepared to negotiate further with them.

I have heard that this whole

I have heard that this whole climate change thing is nothing more than I complete scam, organized by the likes of Al Gore to control carbon emmissions and henceforth economy,
and also to bring in this BS carbon trading crap.

I just want to emphasize the

I just want to emphasize the good work on this , has excellent views and a clear vision of what you are looking for